Retopology in Blender #67997

New Issue

In Blender’s overall workflow, which includes modeling, sculpting and animation, a major missing piece is retopology.

{F7639517, size=full}
No Retopology?

As part of the overall focus of sculpting improvements, this is an area we should address.

After talking to @PabloDobarro, we agreed to set up this document to help define how we should approach this from a UI and workflow perspective.

Issues

Display
One of the major issues currently, is that we have no great built-in way to display your retopology mesh on top of a high res sculpt.

By default, your mesh will intersect with the high res sculpt:

You can enable In Front, but that makes the whole retopo mesh display on top of the reference, also the parts that should be occluded:

Not only is it confusing to set it up, but the result is sub-par.

What we really want is something more like this:

The occlusion is correct and the faces aren't intersecting. The retopology mesh is half transparent so you can see the underlying detail.

Snapping

There are a few issues with snapping:

You have to enable some very specific settings that are not obvious
There's no way to only snap to a certain object or Collection - you can easily accidentally snap to an item somewhere in the background
Snapping is only active while you are using any of the transform tools. If you for eg subdivide an edge, those edges aren't snapped to the source. Users then have to select those items and move them a bit to snap
Some users use the Shrink-wrap modifier, but this has issues with the mesh is too far away from the source - the projection becomes unpredictable

Tools
Compared to more dedicated solutions for retopology, Blender is lacking many basics. Things like drawing a 'strip' of quads, or defining a patch of quads. Or tools to automatically handle appendages just by drawing lines along it. Or even just a basic tool for 'drawing' topology onto the source mesh, which is then auto-filled with quads.

Setup
To get started with retopology in Blender, so many settings and display options have to be toggled and set by the user, that there exists entire tutorials on how to do this. The needed steps and settings are not only non-obvious, but also take time and focus away from the task at hand.

Solutions

Display

Add a Retopology overlay display option, replacing the current Hidden Wire Edit mode display

Snapping

Add a Retopology snapping option, which allows snapping to self while also projecting onto source, and snaps the current selection.

Tools

We can start by improving certain tools, such as Poly Build, and also add more edit mode tools. Even though they may be more constrained inside Edit Mode, we can try to use this as a test-case for more advanced gizmos and tools in general

Other examples of the kinds of tools we could add are things like:

A tool that lets users define a patch with handles, which is automatically filled with quads:

A tool that would let users draw a line, which then becomes a strip of evenly sized quads

A tool that would allow users to nudge around points with falloff, like a brush:

Addons

We probably don’t expect to provide a full and comprehensive set of retopology tools, at least initially. For this reason, addon developers could provide extra tools that integrate with the toolbar and tool system.

In Blender’s overall workflow, which includes modeling, sculpting and animation, a major missing piece is retopology. {[F7639517](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7639517/Screenshot_2019-07-31_at_14.09.31.png), size=full} *No Retopology?* As part of the overall focus of sculpting improvements, this is an area we should address. After talking to @PabloDobarro, we agreed to set up this document to help define how we should approach this from a UI and workflow perspective. ## Issues **Display** One of the major issues currently, is that we have no great built-in way to display your retopology mesh on top of a high res sculpt. By default, your mesh will intersect with the high res sculpt: ![Screenshot 2019-08-01 at 12.41.57.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7641455/Screenshot_2019-08-01_at_12.41.57.png) You can enable In Front, but that makes the *whole* retopo mesh display on top of the reference, also the parts that should be occluded: ![Screenshot 2019-08-01 at 12.43.32.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7641458/Screenshot_2019-08-01_at_12.43.32.png) Not only is it confusing to set it up, but the result is sub-par. What we really want is something more like this: ![Screenshot 2019-08-01 at 13.07.37.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7641498/Screenshot_2019-08-01_at_13.07.37.png) The occlusion is correct and the faces aren't intersecting. The retopology mesh is half transparent so you can see the underlying detail. **Snapping** There are a few issues with snapping: - You have to enable some very specific settings that are not obvious - There's no way to only snap to a certain object or Collection - you can easily accidentally snap to an item somewhere in the background - Snapping is only active while you are using any of the transform tools. If you for eg subdivide an edge, those edges aren't snapped to the source. Users then have to select those items and move them a bit to snap - Some users use the Shrink-wrap modifier, but this has issues with the mesh is too far away from the source - the projection becomes unpredictable **Tools** Compared to more dedicated solutions for retopology, Blender is lacking many basics. Things like drawing a 'strip' of quads, or defining a patch of quads. Or tools to automatically handle appendages just by drawing lines along it. Or even just a basic tool for 'drawing' topology onto the source mesh, which is then auto-filled with quads. **Setup** To get started with retopology in Blender, so many settings and display options have to be toggled and set by the user, that there exists [entire tutorials ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hEHtKH55Us&t=41s) on how to do this. The needed steps and settings are not only non-obvious, but also take time and focus away from the task at hand. ---------- ## Solutions **Display** Add a Retopology overlay display option, replacing the current Hidden Wire Edit mode display **Snapping** Add a Retopology snapping option, which allows snapping to self while also projecting onto source, and snaps the current selection. **Tools** We can start by improving certain tools, such as Poly Build, and also add more edit mode tools. Even though they may be more constrained inside Edit Mode, we can try to use this as a test-case for more advanced gizmos and tools in general Other examples of the kinds of tools we could add are things like: A tool that lets users define a patch with handles, which is automatically filled with quads: ![Screenshot 2019-08-01 at 11.08.06.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7641292/Screenshot_2019-08-01_at_11.08.06.png) A tool that would let users draw a line, which then becomes a strip of evenly sized quads ![Screenshot 2019-08-01 at 11.08.29.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7641295/Screenshot_2019-08-01_at_11.08.29.png) A tool that would allow users to nudge around points with falloff, like a brush: ![Screenshot 2019-08-01 at 11.08.16.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7641297/Screenshot_2019-08-01_at_11.08.16.png) ## Addons We probably don’t expect to provide a full and comprehensive set of retopology tools, at least initially. For this reason, addon developers could provide extra tools that integrate with the toolbar and tool system.

Added subscriber: @WilliamReynish

Added subscriber: @PabloDobarro

Added subscriber: @JulienKaspar

Added subscriber: @michaelknubben

Added subscriber: @JulianPerez

Wouldn't a new mode be too much work? Blender already has some of the best modeling tools out there, it would be a shame to not have access to them because of a separate mode for retopology; we only need a better display of the mesh (this could be just a new overlay), and better snapping options, which could benefit other modes too. Also, any new tool added to make retopology easier would be great to have in edit mode.

We could just add some display options to Edit Mode to better support this workflow area and leave it at that.

But, if we really want to provide higher level tools that work in fundamentally different ways to regular mesh editing, then I think it must be a separate mode, much like what most other apps do.

Many of the more advanced retopology tools could probably not be added to Edit Mode.

We do the same thing with Sculpt mode itself: Sculpt mode is alternative paradigm for editing a mesh, with different kinds of display and tools that work differently.

We could just add some display options to Edit Mode to better support this workflow area and leave it at that. But, if we really want to provide higher level tools that work in fundamentally different ways to regular mesh editing, then I think it must be a separate mode, much like what most other apps do. Many of the more advanced retopology tools could probably not be added to Edit Mode. We do the same thing with Sculpt mode itself: Sculpt mode is alternative paradigm for editing a mesh, with different kinds of display and tools that work differently.

Yes, it makes complete sense for sculpting because the process is different and the tools are different, but retopology is still mesh editing and it is much closer to edit mode than sculpting.

Why the retopology tools can't be added to edit mode?

Yes, it makes complete sense for sculpting because the process is different and the tools are different, but retopology is still mesh editing and it is much closer to edit mode than sculpting. Why the retopology tools can't be added to edit mode?

Added subscriber: @sami.vuorenpaa

Added subscriber: @TheRedWaxPolice

@JulianPerez I agree with you. A new retopology mode seems overkill to me. Retopo is just plain mesh editing, so it makes sense for those tools to be available in edit mode. This also means less complexity in the software.

So far I've been using a combination of Edit Mode, Sculpt Mode and lot's of modifiers to make retopology work. For me it sounds logical to make it it's own mode to make a focused interface, display and tools available in the same mode.
The alternative would be constant switching between edit mode and sculpt mode to access specific tools only available to one but then lose the display of geometry of the other. I guess it could be done as separate new features to edit mode and sculpt mode but a new mode is more elegant and comfortable to work with for that task.

So far I've been using a combination of Edit Mode, Sculpt Mode and lot's of modifiers to make retopology work. For me it sounds logical to make it it's own mode to make a focused interface, display and tools available in the same mode. The alternative would be constant switching between edit mode and sculpt mode to access specific tools only available to one but then lose the display of geometry of the other. I guess it could be done as separate new features to edit mode and sculpt mode but a new mode is more elegant and comfortable to work with for that task.

Julien what tools of sculpt mode are you using during retopo tasks? I still think it would be easier to just define the extra tools needed for a smooth retopo process and then add them to edit mode, same with better snapping options, it would benefit other modes as well

@JulianPerez I use the smooth brush quite a lot as a faster way to relax parts of the retopo. I do this while constantly copying & applying a shrinkwrap to make the snapping still work. The Thumb/Snake Hook brushes are useful to move or just kinda drag bigger portions of geometry along the surface (again lots of copy/apply of shrinkwrap).
Other than moving & smoothing I don't use any other brushes. Implementing brushes for edit mode would be kinda odd but I could see it working as simple versions I guess (without curve presets, textures, stroke methods, etc) similar to paint(circle) select.

@JulianPerez I use the smooth brush quite a lot as a faster way to relax parts of the retopo. I do this while constantly copying & applying a shrinkwrap to make the snapping still work. The Thumb/Snake Hook brushes are useful to move or just kinda drag bigger portions of geometry along the surface (again lots of copy/apply of shrinkwrap). Other than moving & smoothing I don't use any other brushes. Implementing brushes for edit mode would be kinda odd but I could see it working as simple versions I guess (without curve presets, textures, stroke methods, etc) similar to paint(circle) select.

Exactly what I was thinking; if there's a way to implement those behaviors for edit mode it would be great, just like the paint select. A tweak tool to push/pull vertices and a relax brush would be enough to stay in edit mode.

Added subscriber: @ThinkingPolygons

A new mode seems totally unnecessary imo. There's nothing special about retopology to have it's very own "limited" mode. This is still mesh modeling after all.
All that is need are the tools to make things easier (cuz even the polybuild tool can act as a retopo tool already), better snapping system and new mesh display modes. And that's it, no need to complicate things.

In #67997#741102, @JulienKaspar wrote:
Implementing brushes for edit mode would be kinda odd

There's nothing odd about it. For example, this is how it works in C4D. I can use the sculpting tools and the regular modeling tools all at the same time. There's no mode distinction there, they are all just tools to manipulate meshes, and that's the best way of doing it.

Blender suffers from too many unnecessary separation already.

A new mode seems totally unnecessary imo. There's nothing special about retopology to have it's very own "limited" mode. This is still mesh modeling after all. All that is need are the tools to make things easier (cuz even the polybuild tool can act as a retopo tool already), better snapping system and new mesh display modes. And that's it, no need to complicate things. ___ > In #67997#741102, @JulienKaspar wrote: >Implementing brushes for edit mode would be kinda odd There's nothing odd about it. For example, this is how it works in C4D. I can use the sculpting tools and the regular modeling tools all at the same time. There's no mode distinction there, they are all just tools to manipulate meshes, and that's the best way of doing it. Blender suffers from too many unnecessary separation already.

I think we need to closely examine why we could need a retopo mode and why we could just stick with edit mode. If it's really just about the display of the mesh, a couple sculpt-like tools and a few new mesh creation tools, then maybe a dedicated mode is not worth it. That way we can keep everything in edit mode.
I think it's just super important that the retopo process ends up as effortless as having it as a seperate mode.
Even if it's off topic I think the concept of the shading presets from the code quest can help out a lot here, to define a dedicated retopo setup for shading & overlays options ... just to throw in an alternative solution ;)

I think we need to closely examine why we could need a retopo mode and why we could just stick with edit mode. If it's really just about the display of the mesh, a couple sculpt-like tools and a few new mesh creation tools, then maybe a dedicated mode is not worth it. That way we can keep everything in edit mode. I think it's just super important that the retopo process ends up as effortless as having it as a seperate mode. Even if it's off topic I think the concept of the shading presets from the code quest can help out a lot here, to define a dedicated retopo setup for shading & overlays options ... just to throw in an alternative solution ;)

Yeah, instead of thinking on a whole new mode, we should be thinking in better tools to manipulate the mesh; after all it is just poly-modeling using another object as reference to "trace" the forms and volume. Some dedicated tools for retopo, better snapping overall and shading/overlays presets as @JulienKaspar mentioned should be enough.

Added subscriber: @0o00o0oo

To support retopology, we need:

A different way to handle snapping
A different way to select what is the source and target
A different way to display overlay meshes
A different set of higher level tools to do things like draw on the mesh to define topology, or other higher level tools

If we were to try and make this work inside Edit Mode, my prediction is that we won’t be able to make it as slick or advanced.

There are some addons and external apps that people use for retopology. Why do they use these apps and not Blender? Exactly for the reason outlined: they provide a different set of tools, which work in a different way, with a different kind of snapping and display, as well as a different way to think of relationships between source and target.

To support retopology, we need: - A different way to handle snapping - A different way to select what is the source and target - A different way to display overlay meshes - A different set of higher level tools to do things like draw on the mesh to define topology, or other higher level tools If we were to try and make this work inside Edit Mode, my prediction is that we won’t be able to make it as slick or advanced. There are some addons and external apps that people use for retopology. Why do they use these apps and not Blender? Exactly for the reason outlined: they provide a different set of tools, which work in a different way, with a different kind of snapping and display, as well as a different way to think of relationships between source and target.

I also think that it is better to have retopology in a separate mode. Adding this kind of tools to edit mode will require them to control the selection mode, overlays and scene snapping configuration. The UI and the code are going to be a mess.

You should be able to switch from retopology to edit mode instantaneously. It is not like switching to sculpt mode or from object to edit mode where you need to build new data structures to start editing the mesh.

I also think that it is better to have retopology in a separate mode. Adding this kind of tools to edit mode will require them to control the selection mode, overlays and scene snapping configuration. The UI and the code are going to be a mess. You should be able to switch from retopology to edit mode instantaneously. It is not like switching to sculpt mode or from object to edit mode where you need to build new data structures to start editing the mesh.

Added subscribers: @JonathanWilliamson, @gfxcoder

Added subscriber: @dark999

Added subscriber: @ebarranco

Added subscriber: @MadMinstrel

I'm not going to put myself in either camp, but if you're going to make a new mode, please give some thought to this important consideration:

While it is true that generally in retopo you want to create a mesh that adheres to the surface of another, this is only true in a very broad, general sense. Besides sticking to the surface, retopo meshes must also not be messy so that they are easy to unwrap, weight, and animate. Particularly for environmental assets, the meshes often must be neat and strictly conform to grids or measurements so they can easily be snapped together, and this is much more important than sticking to the highpoly model. This is where standard edit tools, with their freeform placement of vertices come in.

It's clear that if the new retopo tools are a new mode, the workflow will involve very frequent switching between modes. To facilitate this, such switching must be quick and painless. The display options must be able to be made identical between edit mode and retopo mode so that there's no extra fiddly setting switching or disorientation whenever you change modes - in essence the retopo display options must be independent of the retopo toolset. There must be no warnings or lost data layers while switching.

And most importantly, retopo mode must never, under any circumstance, automatically snap vertices that were deliberately placed not-on-surface by the user.

I'm not going to put myself in either camp, but if you're going to make a new mode, please give some thought to this important consideration: While it is true that generally in retopo you want to create a mesh that adheres to the surface of another, this is only true in a very broad, general sense. Besides sticking to the surface, retopo meshes must also not be messy so that they are easy to unwrap, weight, and animate. Particularly for environmental assets, the meshes often must be neat and strictly conform to grids or measurements so they can easily be snapped together, and this is much more important than sticking to the highpoly model. This is where standard edit tools, with their freeform placement of vertices come in. It's clear that if the new retopo tools are a new mode, the workflow will involve very frequent switching between modes. To facilitate this, such switching must be quick and painless. The display options must be able to be made identical between edit mode and retopo mode so that there's no extra fiddly setting switching or disorientation whenever you change modes - in essence the retopo display options must be independent of the retopo toolset. There must be no warnings or lost data layers while switching. And most importantly, retopo mode must never, under any circumstance, automatically snap vertices that were deliberately placed not-on-surface by the user.

Added subscriber: @RodDavis

Added subscriber: @ErickNyanduKabongo

While reading comments i had the feeling that we are talking about different approach to retopo.
There are different ways to retopo: Autoretopo, Manual retopo and Semi-manual retopo

Auto-retopo: we have in the sculpt branch "OpenVDB remesher". Some sculptors can be happy with this approach. After sculpting they can throw the remesher and they are happy. They don't care much about the face loop flow. And some users want a better quads base autoretopo.

Manual retopo is when the user has full control over where he/she wants to put the vertices, this workflow is needed when you don't have good base mesh and after retopo you will use your model for animation. To make this process much easier Blender has some free addons ( bsurface, mira, retopoMT, F2, ...) Here is a video of me doing manual retopo while Blender was in earlier beta version. https://youtu.be/OdeuxXe9V6A

The Semi-manual retopo is what julien had mentioned above: the user has a kind of base mesh, uses shrinkwrap modifier and from time to time goes to edit mode and sculpt mode to tweak the vertices positions.

Questions to ask is what are we planning to implement here, all the 3 ways to retopo? Code wise what is the best approach? Can we activate a mode like sub-mode of edit mode like carverMT, retopoMT are doing right now? Looking at my old video, i can say that there is so many options to activate before starting the real retopo process, automating all this will speed up the workflow. For me i m open to all the options and i like to test things in practice to understand them better.

While reading comments i had the feeling that we are talking about different approach to retopo. There are different ways to retopo: Autoretopo, Manual retopo and Semi-manual retopo **Auto-retopo**: we have in the sculpt branch "OpenVDB remesher". Some sculptors can be happy with this approach. After sculpting they can throw the remesher and they are happy. They don't care much about the face loop flow. And some users want a better quads base autoretopo. **Manual retopo** is when the user has full control over where he/she wants to put the vertices, this workflow is needed when you don't have good base mesh and after retopo you will use your model for animation. To make this process much easier Blender has some free addons ( bsurface, mira, retopoMT, F2, ...) Here is a video of me doing manual retopo while Blender was in earlier beta version. https://youtu.be/OdeuxXe9V6A **The Semi-manual retopo** is what julien had mentioned above: the user has a kind of base mesh, uses shrinkwrap modifier and from time to time goes to edit mode and sculpt mode to tweak the vertices positions. Questions to ask is what are we planning to implement here, all the 3 ways to retopo? Code wise what is the best approach? Can we activate a mode like sub-mode of edit mode like carverMT, retopoMT are doing right now? Looking at my old video, i can say that there is so many options to activate before starting the real retopo process, automating all this will speed up the workflow. For me i m open to all the options and i like to test things in practice to understand them better.

Added subscriber: @Znio.G

This comment was removed by @Znio.G

*This comment was removed by @Znio.G*

Added subscriber: @brecht

Would this retopo mode have selection and selection tools at all? Or would it be more a paint type mode, where you draw / erase / nudge edges and faces without selection?

This comment was removed by @Znio.G

*This comment was removed by @Znio.G*

The mesh display in the third picture is not very good either as there is no way to judge at a glance whether any given pixel is above or below the surface of the source mesh. I'd suggest at least drawing an outline of where they intersect, or maybe drawing the portions above the source mesh in a slightly different shade.

Also regarding Workflow point 4, source "objects" only rarely consist of only one actual object. So storing the retopo mesh reference per object is not great. Instead maybe store source object collection per retopo mesh?

@brecht I think each tool should manage its selection state according to its functionality instead of using the current selection tools. For example, a grid fill tool can store the edges needed for the operation without modifying the current edit mode selection, and then notify the mesh drawing code with elements need to be highlighted. This kind of tools should be the exception, most of the tools should be designed to be more like brushes, without needing a selection at all.

@MadMinstrel Yep, you should be able to define a Collection, not just an object, as a reference target. As you say, sometimes you may need to retopo something that consists of several objects.

Added subscriber: @zeauro

What annoys me with this idea of new mode is that described tools would be as useful in other fields without use of an automatic snapping.
I can imagine using Patch tool to create clothes or terrains.
Drawing directly a strip of evenly sized quads for same purpose as Draw Curve is currently used instead of drawing a curve, converting it to mesh, extruding it.
Tool that would allow users to nudge around points with falloff, like a brush for shapekey editing of a character using a muscle system.

Fundamentaly, Blender would become more powerful if those new tools were not restricted to one unique use.

Adding this kind of tools to edit mode will require them to control the selection mode, overlays and scene snapping configuration. The UI and the code are going to be a mess.

If the tool implies a preselection highlighting, selection mode should not be more problematic than current Loopcut tool.
I don't think that tool should control overlays and scene snapping. That should be user choice.
@MadMinstrel also talked about the need to let snapping control to user.
We would like more overlays for Edit mode to clean up meshes without automatic snapping.

And having a workspace dedicated to Retopology with appropriate Overlays and snapping configuration should be possible without creating a new mode.

I understand that a more powerful Edit mode is adding more work and complexity to developers than just keeping things at level of a more limited retopo mode.

To me, this idea of a retopo mode looks like a missed occasion to improve Edit mode, a missed occasion to improve customization of Workspace and an enterprise with a limited goal that would delay such kind of achievement.
New retopology mode or not. Users will continue to ask for a better and more powerful Edit mode and UI.

What annoys me with this idea of new mode is that described tools would be as useful in other fields without use of an automatic snapping. I can imagine using Patch tool to create clothes or terrains. Drawing directly a strip of evenly sized quads for same purpose as Draw Curve is currently used instead of drawing a curve, converting it to mesh, extruding it. Tool that would allow users to nudge around points with falloff, like a brush for shapekey editing of a character using a muscle system. Fundamentaly, Blender would become more powerful if those new tools were not restricted to one unique use. >Adding this kind of tools to edit mode will require them to control the selection mode, overlays and scene snapping configuration. The UI and the code are going to be a mess. If the tool implies a preselection highlighting, selection mode should not be more problematic than current Loopcut tool. I don't think that tool should control overlays and scene snapping. That should be user choice. @MadMinstrel also talked about the need to let snapping control to user. We would like more overlays for Edit mode to clean up meshes without automatic snapping. And having a workspace dedicated to Retopology with appropriate Overlays and snapping configuration should be possible without creating a new mode. I understand that a more powerful Edit mode is adding more work and complexity to developers than just keeping things at level of a more limited retopo mode. To me, this idea of a retopo mode looks like a missed occasion to improve Edit mode, a missed occasion to improve customization of Workspace and an enterprise with a limited goal that would delay such kind of achievement. New retopology mode or not. Users will continue to ask for a better and more powerful Edit mode and UI.

Added subscriber: @Jaydead

Added subscriber: @SecuoyaEx

I agree that it should be part of Edit mode. At certain point meeting halfway between what it's easier for the developer and what's best for the user steers too much into the developer side. The same way flat design is popular because it's easier to produce and mantain, not because of the end user.

What could be done is:

Add an option to choose a collection to constantly snap to from all directions like shrinkwrap, not just the view. Some tools could access this as well
Add the drawing mode above, it could work like this addon, or it could access the target collection to determine depth somehow
Implement those same tools from above, which are useful for non retopology.
Maybe make the F2 addon a default
And add a workspace for all of it

I do a lot of retopology in Blender with just F2, shrinkwrap, and the default tools. Not at any point have I thought "Hmm, I wish to not have access to these tools while I retopo" Retopology sounds too specific of a word to dedicate an entire mode to it, particularly when handling the same data. It's like bending backwards to the workflows the industry says there only exist, instead of creating your own workflows, by mixing and matching tools. The old UV Editing mode from 2.4 honestly made more sense than this

Other modes in Blender do suffer from this, but at least they are different data types so they have an excuse. Sometimes I wish to extrude a new key with E in Particle edit mode, or subdivide hair keys, or use many of the selection commands from edit mode in Weight painting mode. It is a problem and making new modes only makes it worse

I agree that it should be part of Edit mode. At certain point meeting halfway between what it's easier for the developer and what's best for the user steers too much into the developer side. The same way flat design is popular because it's easier to produce and mantain, not because of the end user. What could be done is: - Add an option to choose a collection to constantly snap to from all directions like shrinkwrap, not just the view. Some tools could access this as well - Add the drawing mode above, it could work like this addon, or it could access the target collection to determine depth somehow ![DrawXray_2.8.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7642104/DrawXray_2.8.png) - Implement those same tools from above, which are useful for non retopology. - Maybe make the F2 addon a default - And add a workspace for all of it I do a lot of retopology in Blender with just F2, shrinkwrap, and the default tools. Not at any point have I thought "Hmm, I wish to not have access to these tools while I retopo" Retopology sounds too specific of a word to dedicate an entire mode to it, particularly when handling the same data. It's like bending backwards to the workflows the industry says there only exist, instead of creating your own workflows, by mixing and matching tools. The old UV Editing mode from 2.4 honestly made more sense than this Other modes in Blender do suffer from this, but at least they are different data types so they have an excuse. Sometimes I wish to extrude a new key with E in Particle edit mode, or subdivide hair keys, or use many of the selection commands from edit mode in Weight painting mode. It is a problem and making new modes only makes it worse

I mentioned this when chatting with @WilliamReynish and I think it's worth noting here as well:

In sculpt mode you have dyntopo. The idea is that certain tools like "simplify" will only be available in the toolbar when this is activated, since they wouldn't work otherwise. I had a similar idea with activating painting in sculpt mode and then you get color options in the tools.

What if there's an option in edit mode to enable "advanced snapping" (just coming up with temp names).
You enable that option and you get all the important options to target other objects/collections for improved live snapping.
When this is enabled, the tools, like drawing geometry around limbs, would become available, while other new tools like patches, strips and push/relax brushes would automatically snap like the other tools.
Then you have everything in one place without duplicating tools between 2 modes or no need to switch between an edit mode and retopo mode to access different editing tools.
The rest is overlays options for better display of the mesh on top of other objects.
A separate mode or the "advanced snapping" option are ambitious changes either way.

I do get that it would kinda create a "mode within a mode" but it would also make all overlays, tools and workflows available in edit mode at the same time without splitting them completely and possibly making different workflows harder.
I think the benefits of creating a retopo mode are just as big as the potential problems of gating of tools from edit mode and vise versa.

If we want to change the way we tweak the geometry we can improve the already existing Tweak Tool. Same for polybuild, hidden wire overlay, snapping and any new tools.
Now that overlays, tools & workspaces are a part of Blender it would be way easier on a user level to have it all in edit mode.

I mentioned this when chatting with @WilliamReynish and I think it's worth noting here as well: --- In sculpt mode you have dyntopo. The idea is that certain tools like "simplify" will only be available in the toolbar when this is activated, since they wouldn't work otherwise. I had a similar idea with activating painting in sculpt mode and then you get color options in the tools. What if there's an option in edit mode to enable "advanced snapping" (just coming up with temp names). You enable that option and you get all the important options to target other objects/collections for improved live snapping. When this is enabled, the tools, like drawing geometry around limbs, would become available, while other new tools like patches, strips and push/relax brushes would automatically snap like the other tools. Then you have everything in one place without duplicating tools between 2 modes or no need to switch between an edit mode and retopo mode to access different editing tools. The rest is overlays options for better display of the mesh on top of other objects. A separate mode or the "advanced snapping" option are ambitious changes either way. --- I do get that it would kinda create a "mode within a mode" but it would also make all overlays, tools and workflows available in edit mode at the same time without splitting them completely and possibly making different workflows harder. I think the benefits of creating a retopo mode are just as big as the potential problems of gating of tools from edit mode and vise versa. If we want to change the way we tweak the geometry we can improve the already existing Tweak Tool. Same for polybuild, hidden wire overlay, snapping and any new tools. Now that overlays, tools & workspaces are a part of Blender it would be way easier on a user level to have it all in edit mode.

I think @ErickNyanduKabongo brought up a fair point though. The cost/benefit of a separate mode strongly depends on the level of automation we can expect from the new tools. If the target is excellent manual retopo, then going with improvements to Edit mode would be much preferable. If the devs are more ambitious and are going for something semi-automatic, like described in Data Driven Interactive Quadrangulation , then a new mode would definitely be the way to go.

I think @ErickNyanduKabongo brought up a fair point though. The cost/benefit of a separate mode strongly depends on the level of automation we can expect from the new tools. If the target is excellent manual retopo, then going with improvements to Edit mode would be much preferable. If the devs are more ambitious and are going for something semi-automatic, like described in [Data Driven Interactive Quadrangulation ](http://vcg.isti.cnr.it/Publications/2015/MTPPSPC15/), then a new mode would definitely be the way to go.

Added subscriber: @floriantasser

I imagine a new workspace could be enough. But of course, always in on other ideas to rethink. :)
"Retopo" tends to make me only think about re-doing already existing models. While I think a lot of usage could be simple drawing out of a scene or building precise models besides retopo. If a workspace will be it, it should probably just be called "Topology".

Right now, one thing I think is most important:
For this we need the simplest tools, like pen on paper. Maximum control.

Building vertex by vertex, exactly where the user wants them with automatic filling (tris, quads, ngons). Also with the options to snap on surface, snap to grid and a symmetry mode.
How about the PolyBuild tool? Could be a great start for the development of those new topo tools since I think it already does half the needed functions.

The "move" brush is also a good idea, could maybe be combined with relax by holding shift.

PS: And whether the tool can create new objects, or "Add Vertex" from the "Extra Objects" Addon should be included out of the box.

I imagine a new workspace could be enough. But of course, always in on other ideas to rethink. :) "Retopo" tends to make me only think about re-doing already existing models. While I think a lot of usage could be simple drawing out of a scene or building precise models besides retopo. If a workspace will be it, it should probably just be called "Topology". Right now, one thing I think is most important: For this we need the simplest tools, like pen on paper. Maximum control. - Building vertex by vertex, exactly where the user wants them with automatic filling (tris, quads, ngons). Also with the options to snap on surface, snap to grid and a symmetry mode. *How about the PolyBuild tool? Could be a great start for the development of those new topo tools since I think it already does half the needed functions.* The "move" brush is also a good idea, could maybe be combined with relax by holding shift. PS: And whether the tool can create new objects, or "Add Vertex" from the "Extra Objects" Addon should be included out of the box.

I think @ErickNyanduKabongo brought up a fair point though. The cost/benefit of a separate mode strongly depends on the level of automation we can expect from the new tools. If the target is excellent manual retopo, then going with improvements to Edit mode would be much preferable. If the devs are more ambitious and are going for something semi-automatic, like described in Data Driven Interactive Quadrangulation, then a new mode would definitely be the way to go.

I think that's a good point but I can imagine something like this to even be its own object type with own dedicated modes. This is also much more ambitious and definitley outside of a manual retopology workflow.

> I think @ErickNyanduKabongo brought up a fair point though. The cost/benefit of a separate mode strongly depends on the level of automation we can expect from the new tools. If the target is excellent manual retopo, then going with improvements to Edit mode would be much preferable. If the devs are more ambitious and are going for something semi-automatic, like described in Data Driven Interactive Quadrangulation, then a new mode would definitely be the way to go. I think that's a good point but I can imagine something like this to even be its own object type with own dedicated modes. This is also much more ambitious and definitley outside of a manual retopology workflow.

Re. the mode discussion:

Part of the issue, is that some tools may require a snap target to work, meaning that some tools may need to be disabled under certain circumstances, if you don't have snapping enabled. I'm not sure some of the kinds of tools we have in mind would be able to work in regular edit mode, but perhaps @PabloDobarro has some additional perspective on this.

Same for the fact that selection and snapping may be handled differently, although it may be possible to make changes to snapping to support only snapping to certain Collections.

Also, more on a practical level, the fact that currently, in Edit Mode, it requires a lot of setup by the user to get started. An > 6 minute tutorial exists on setting it up.

That said. we could probably also also do a less ambitious solution, without so many specialized tools, and just improve the display, and do some tweaks to snapping and then leave it at that. Separately there's a possibility that we could begin to add some more tools to Edit Mode, like a Quad Paint tool for painting strips of quads, a Tweak Brush tool for nudging vertices around, and so on.

Then, assuming we could do that, the issue remains that setup is still very complicated, which would then have to be solved in some other way. In theory there could be an operator you could run which would go and set the necessary options, although 1, you'll need to know to use that, and 2, then your settings will be all wrong when you are finished the retopology process.

The toolbar UI ideally also would need to perhaps become customizable, or there could be some way to create sets of tools so that retopology tools wouldn't drown below the regular Edit tools.

Re. the mode discussion: Part of the issue, is that some tools may *require* a snap target to work, meaning that some tools may need to be disabled under certain circumstances, if you don't have snapping enabled. I'm not sure some of the kinds of tools we have in mind would be able to work in regular edit mode, but perhaps @PabloDobarro has some additional perspective on this. Same for the fact that selection and snapping may be handled differently, although it may be possible to make changes to snapping to support only snapping to certain Collections. Also, more on a practical level, the fact that currently, in Edit Mode, it requires a lot of setup by the user to get started. An [> 6 minute tutorial ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hEHtKH55Us&t=41s) exists on setting it up. ---- That said. we could probably also also do a less ambitious solution, without so many specialized tools, and just improve the display, and do some tweaks to snapping and then leave it at that. Separately there's a possibility that we could begin to add some more tools to Edit Mode, like a Quad Paint tool for painting strips of quads, a Tweak Brush tool for nudging vertices around, and so on. Then, assuming we could do that, the issue remains that setup is still very complicated, which would then have to be solved in some other way. In theory there could be an operator you could run which would go and set the necessary options, although 1, you'll need to know to use that, and 2, then your settings will be all wrong when you are finished the retopology process. The toolbar UI ideally also would need to perhaps become customizable, or there could be some way to create sets of tools so that retopology tools wouldn't drown below the regular Edit tools.

@MadMinstrel Yes, that is partly it. I imagined that many of the tools would operate on a higher level than on verts, edges and faces. Some retopo solutions do this, so that you focus more on the topology, rather than the density of individual points.

Although there's also a chance that an active tool could do this kind of thing.

@MadMinstrel Yes, that is partly it. I imagined that many of the tools would operate on a *higher level* than on verts, edges and faces. Some retopo solutions do this, so that you focus more on the topology, rather than the density of individual points. Although there's also a chance that an active tool could do this kind of thing.

That's a good case for a separate mode then. Though ideally you would then want to have that higher level remain persistent rather than disappearing as soon as you finish the operator or switch out of retopo mode. For that it'd probably be nicer to have a whole new object type that could store all the bezier handles, segment counts, densities, manually placed poles and so on.

@WilliamReynish

That said. we could probably also also do a less ambitious solution, without so many specialized tools, and just improve the display, and do some tweaks to snapping and then leave it at that. Separately there's a possibility that we could begin to add some more tools to Edit Mode, like a Quad Paint tool for painting strips of quads, a Tweak Brush tool for nudging vertices around, and so on.

Then, assuming we could do that, the issue remains that setup is still very complicated, which would then have to be solved in some other way. In theory there could be an operator you could run which would go and set the necessary options, although 1, you'll need to know to use that, and 2, then your settings will be all wrong when you are finished the retopology process.

I don't think the setup needs to be complicated. So what would the setup within edit mode probably be to have a closer look:

Enabling the targeted snapping and selecting a target object/collection.
This could be as simple as clicking on a toggle and picking an object/collection, probably similar as manually doing in in a retopo mode.
Enabling overlays to make the retopo-mesh better visible
These could be a couple toggles in the overlays but as with other tasks with lots of setup: The Workspaces can save a lot of time there. For sculpting I would also first go into overlays & shading option and disable/enable a bunch of stuff and workspaces save me that time.

Any other setup like adding a build in mirror option or the mirror modifer would be almost the same time investment. Same for a subdiv modifier.
What else is there? IMO this doesn't seem to be complicated. In the current state it's a notable time investment because of the visibility and snapping issues and in the 6 min tutorial, over 2 min are dedicated to explaining the setup, but with some improvements to the overlays and snapping I don't think the "complicated setup" is what justifies the new mode.
The real issue from what I heard so far would be making the new tools work just as good in edit mode as when they would get their own mode.

@PabloDobarro @WilliamReynish named some important issues and I would love to know more:

Adding this kind of tools to edit mode will require them to control the selection mode, overlays and scene snapping configuration. The UI and the code are going to be a mess.

The selection mode switching based on the tool is a good point and it's already happening in edit mode with the polybuild tool. Try to use it and it will enable vertex selection mode. If that's a good thing or a bad thing I'm still on the fence about.
I don't know which tools would need to override the overlays configuration but when they need to display some extra overlays they could likely just be part of the tool gizmo. The snapping configuration is important for a couple tools so that goes back to the "mode within a mode" solution/issue.

@WilliamReynish > That said. we could probably also also do a less ambitious solution, without so many specialized tools, and just improve the display, and do some tweaks to snapping and then leave it at that. Separately there's a possibility that we could begin to add some more tools to Edit Mode, like a Quad Paint tool for painting strips of quads, a Tweak Brush tool for nudging vertices around, and so on. >Then, assuming we could do that, the issue remains that setup is still very complicated, which would then have to be solved in some other way. In theory there could be an operator you could run which would go and set the necessary options, although 1, you'll need to know to use that, and 2, then your settings will be all wrong when you are finished the retopology process. I don't think the setup needs to be complicated. So what would the setup within edit mode probably be to have a closer look: - Enabling the targeted snapping and selecting a target object/collection. This could be as simple as clicking on a toggle and picking an object/collection, probably similar as manually doing in in a retopo mode. - Enabling overlays to make the retopo-mesh better visible These could be a couple toggles in the overlays but as with other tasks with lots of setup: The Workspaces can save a lot of time there. For sculpting I would also first go into overlays & shading option and disable/enable a bunch of stuff and workspaces save me that time. Any other setup like adding a build in mirror option or the mirror modifer would be almost the same time investment. Same for a subdiv modifier. What else is there? IMO this doesn't seem to be complicated. In the current state it's a notable time investment because of the visibility and snapping issues and in the 6 min tutorial, over 2 min are dedicated to explaining the setup, but with some improvements to the overlays and snapping I don't think the "complicated setup" is what justifies the new mode. The real issue from what I heard so far would be making the new tools work just as good in edit mode as when they would get their own mode. @PabloDobarro @WilliamReynish named some important issues and I would love to know more: > Adding this kind of tools to edit mode will require them to control the selection mode, overlays and scene snapping configuration. The UI and the code are going to be a mess. The selection mode switching based on the tool is a good point and it's already happening in edit mode with the polybuild tool. Try to use it and it will enable vertex selection mode. If that's a good thing or a bad thing I'm still on the fence about. I don't know which tools would need to override the overlays configuration but when they need to display some extra overlays they could likely just be part of the tool gizmo. The snapping configuration is important for a couple tools so that goes back to the "mode within a mode" solution/issue.

If we want complex semi automatic retopology tools, brushes and so on, we will want to have a new internal API that makes the development of these tools as easy as possible. Let's say we are designing a patch tool. If we want to add it directly to edit mode, we need to code it in a way that supports all element selection modes, every combination of overlays and shading modes possible, it should share the same keymap as the rest of the tools from edit mode, it should not modify the selection of other elements, it should support all combinations of scene snapping modes and targets... when in the end, 99% of the time, you will want to use this tool for retopology, with the same overlay, snapping mode and without worrying about selections and drawing modes. It is going to be an insane amount of work and bug fixing just for these corner cases.
Some of these tools are hard to code even in a clean environment that should provide a separate retopology mode. Just getting the snapping, symmetry and the viewport visualization right is a huge challenge.
Maybe some of the tools don't cause any problems and can be added to edit mode as well, but more complicated tools like quad strips or contours need an extra layer of abstraction that should not be designed with all the features from edit mode in mind.

If we want complex semi automatic retopology tools, brushes and so on, we will want to have a new internal API that makes the development of these tools as easy as possible. Let's say we are designing a patch tool. If we want to add it directly to edit mode, we need to code it in a way that supports all element selection modes, every combination of overlays and shading modes possible, it should share the same keymap as the rest of the tools from edit mode, it should not modify the selection of other elements, it should support all combinations of scene snapping modes and targets... when in the end, 99% of the time, you will want to use this tool for retopology, with the same overlay, snapping mode and without worrying about selections and drawing modes. It is going to be an insane amount of work and bug fixing just for these corner cases. Some of these tools are hard to code even in a clean environment that should provide a separate retopology mode. Just getting the snapping, symmetry and the viewport visualization right is a huge challenge. Maybe some of the tools don't cause any problems and can be added to edit mode as well, but more complicated tools like quad strips or contours need an extra layer of abstraction that should not be designed with all the features from edit mode in mind.

@PabloDobarro
I get that it would probably be easier to develop but it doesn't sound like the rules are that strict like you say.

we need to code it in a way that supports all element selection modes, every combination of overlays and shading modes possible, it should share the same keymap as the rest of the tools from edit mode, it should not modify the selection of other elements, it should support all combinations of scene snapping modes and targets...

The shading options are still going to be a thing in every mode anyway and most of the overlays are shared between all modes.

The selection modes and "not modifying selections of other elements" doesn't seem to be enforced anyway, since using different edit mode tools already switched selection types and discards/updates selections.

For the scene snapping modes it isn't even that strict either. Try to use some tools with snapping and they just won't do it. Objects/Collections as snapping targets would be an option that would be taken into account anyway and that other edit mode tools could benefit from too.

The keymap is something I totally get but since a lot of shortcuts were removed for 2.80, there should be room. Otherwise there's always a spot in the toolbar and for custom shortcuts and we still need a dedicated "tools keymap"

On another note: If we also add half of the retopo mode tools 1:1 to edit mode and maybe even more options, then the split will seem very arbitrary. Going the other way and making tools exclusives to specific modes can be very frustrating though.

@PabloDobarro I get that it would probably be easier to develop but it doesn't sound like the rules are that strict like you say. >we need to code it in a way that supports all element selection modes, every combination of overlays and shading modes possible, it should share the same keymap as the rest of the tools from edit mode, it should not modify the selection of other elements, it should support all combinations of scene snapping modes and targets... The shading options are still going to be a thing in every mode anyway and most of the overlays are shared between all modes. The selection modes and "not modifying selections of other elements" doesn't seem to be enforced anyway, since using different edit mode tools already switched selection types and discards/updates selections. For the scene snapping modes it isn't even that strict either. Try to use some tools with snapping and they just won't do it. Objects/Collections as snapping targets would be an option that would be taken into account anyway and that other edit mode tools could benefit from too. The keymap is something I totally get but since a lot of shortcuts were removed for 2.80, there should be room. Otherwise there's always a spot in the toolbar and for custom shortcuts and we still need a dedicated "tools keymap" On another note: If we also add half of the retopo mode tools 1:1 to edit mode and maybe even more options, then the split will seem very arbitrary. Going the other way and making tools exclusives to specific modes can be very frustrating though.

Added subscriber: @moisessalvador

Then maybe we don't want those tools at all, or speaking for myself, I don't. They sound so specific that they're more fit to be part of an addon than anything else.

The cornerstones of retopo IMO are the Overlay and the Snapping, just those two things. Not tools that may or may not take advantage of said snapping. It is what I wish for every time I'm doing retopo. But I'm never wishing for patch tools, I can handle polygons, vertices, patches, faceloops, all that and their manipulation just fine.

After trying many retopo solutions, patch based, curve based tools are never faster for me than my experience manipulating vertices directly, the only really useful one is the contour tool, and I rather that be an addon than break Blender into modes and/or bugs. Then there are fully automated ones like zRemesher, that's actually useful. It's that middle ground of semi automatic tools that, while useful, I don't find useful enough to make such drastic decisions over.

Then maybe we don't want those tools at all, or speaking for myself, I don't. They sound so specific that they're more fit to be part of an addon than anything else. The cornerstones of retopo IMO are the Overlay and the Snapping, just those two things. Not tools that may or may not take advantage of said snapping. It is what I wish for every time I'm doing retopo. But I'm never wishing for patch tools, I can handle polygons, vertices, patches, faceloops, all that and their manipulation just fine. After trying many retopo solutions, patch based, curve based tools are never faster for me than my experience manipulating vertices directly, the only really useful one is the contour tool, and I rather that be an addon than break Blender into modes and/or bugs. Then there are fully automated ones like zRemesher, that's actually useful. It's that middle ground of semi automatic tools that, while useful, I don't find useful enough to make such drastic decisions over.

@moisessalvador Even though it kinda sucks to say it: I think you have a point.
Calling these new retopo tools "basic functionality" is not accurate IMO. The most important additions are better overlays to see geometry while retopologizing and better snapping options. And ideally all of that within the new slick interface of 2.8 to get rid of time wasted for setups.
Most new tools would be part of edit mode anyway like the push/relax, updated grid fill & polybuild, and maybe even more. Tools like contours, polystrips and strokes will be super helpful but are these couple tools worth it to split Blender into more modes?

And it's disheartening to say that we probably should go for the "minor improvements to edit mode" instead, but these are the big improvements! The ones that really matter.
And there's likely still a way of implementing the more complicated tools in edit mode, even if it takes more time.

@moisessalvador Even though it kinda sucks to say it: I think you have a point. Calling these new retopo tools "basic functionality" is not accurate IMO. The most important additions are better overlays to see geometry while retopologizing and better snapping options. And ideally all of that within the new slick interface of 2.8 to get rid of time wasted for setups. Most new tools would be part of edit mode anyway like the push/relax, updated grid fill & polybuild, and maybe even more. Tools like contours, polystrips and strokes will be super helpful but are these couple tools worth it to split Blender into more modes? And it's disheartening to say that we probably should go for the "minor improvements to edit mode" instead, but these are the big improvements! The ones that really matter. And there's likely still a way of implementing the more complicated tools in edit mode, even if it takes more time.

Agree with @moisessalvador, currently, the main issues to do retopology in Blender are snapping and mesh display, most of the tools we have in edit mode are great for the task, we just need some extra polishing on some of them (like having new vertices automatically snap to the source mesh after a grid fill for example), but for manual retopology a new mode sounds like an overkill. The semi-automatic tools mentioned by William and Pablo sound good to have but not terribly necessary, and for fully automatic retopo like ZRemesher we could use addons and or an improved version of the remesh modifier.

If the snapping is improved that could benefit other modes too, same with more overlays options, so I still don't see an entirely new mode as something really necessary.

Agree with @moisessalvador, currently, the main issues to do retopology in Blender are snapping and mesh display, most of the tools we have in edit mode are great for the task, we just need some extra polishing on some of them (like having new vertices automatically snap to the source mesh after a grid fill for example), but for manual retopology a new mode sounds like an overkill. The semi-automatic tools mentioned by William and Pablo sound good to have but not terribly necessary, and for fully automatic retopo like ZRemesher we could use addons and or an improved version of the remesh modifier. If the snapping is improved that could benefit other modes too, same with more overlays options, so I still don't see an entirely new mode as something really necessary.

This comment was removed by @ThinkingPolygons

*This comment was removed by @ThinkingPolygons*

Added subscriber: @nokipaike

for those who complain about having two different modes, edit mode and retopology mode ...
there is an intermediate solution, some tools where possible, could be shared in the context menu ...
(I didn't read all the comments, maybe it could already be suggested)

for those who complain about having two different modes, edit mode and retopology mode ... there is an intermediate solution, some tools where possible, could be shared in the context menu ... (I didn't read all the comments, maybe it could already be suggested)

@PabloDobarro If we want complex semi automatic retopology tools, brushes and so on, we will want to have a new internal API that makes the development of these tools as easy as possible.

I am with Pablo on this, we should look up to the future and what might bring, retopo shouldn't be restricted to just mesh modeling tools..etc.

> @PabloDobarro If we want complex semi automatic retopology tools, brushes and so on, we will want to have a new internal API that makes the development of these tools as easy as possible. I am with Pablo on this, we should look up to the future and what might bring, retopo shouldn't be restricted to just mesh modeling tools..etc.

I agree on semi-automatic (also depends on what we mean with semi-automatic) and automatic retopology. That even makes sense as a new object type or whatever else might be the best way of doing it for both users and developers since the way of working with the topology could be so different.
Manual retopology might be best kept in Edit Mode.

I agree on semi-automatic (also depends on what we mean with semi-automatic) and automatic retopology. That even makes sense as a new object type or whatever else might be the best way of doing it for both users and developers since the way of working with the topology could be so different. Manual retopology might be best kept in Edit Mode.

From the developers point of view, I would first focus on the drawing mode and snapping to start with. These are the low hanging fruit but the most important ones, they don't need to be bound to retopology.

Then you can move to tools that can benefit edit mode even without snapping or retopo in mind, like strips and patches. To adress the point that it adds complexity to edit mode, that depends on the ambition you may have for retopology tools. If we get to some weird middleground in which we get both a Retopo mode and some of the same tools across both Edit and Retopo mode, that would be the worst case scenario for the developer. That's why it seems agree we should focus on just one mode, but not which mode.

The new tool system shines best when the tools do complex things with widgets which is what I hoped for, instead of just being slower ways of executing commands we already have. While in the past, during 2.7x, I would look at an addon or a potential feature and think "this would work better as a mode", now I think of the tool system to the solution to most of these. If it's really that hard to maintain the code of new tools, then why do we have the new tool system in edit mode in the first place? We'd have to go through this dilemma every time you have a semi interesting tool in mind, then. Hoping to not get locked out of a tool because it went to another mode.

From the developers point of view, I would first focus on the drawing mode and snapping to start with. These are the low hanging fruit but the most important ones, they don't need to be bound to retopology. Then you can move to tools that can benefit edit mode even without snapping or retopo in mind, like strips and patches. To adress the point that it adds complexity to edit mode, that depends on the ambition you may have for retopology tools. If we get to some weird middleground in which we get both a Retopo mode and some of the same tools across both Edit and Retopo mode, that would be the worst case scenario for the developer. That's why it seems agree we should focus on just one mode, but not which mode. The new tool system shines best when the tools do complex things with widgets which is what I hoped for, instead of just being slower ways of executing commands we already have. While in the past, during 2.7x, I would look at an addon or a potential feature and think "this would work better as a mode", now I think of the tool system to the solution to most of these. If it's really that hard to maintain the code of new tools, then why do we have the new tool system in edit mode in the first place? We'd have to go through this dilemma every time you have a semi interesting tool in mind, then. Hoping to not get locked out of a tool because it went to another mode.

Display
One of the major issues currently, is that we have no great built-in way to display your retopology mesh on top of a high res sculpt.

Technical note: this could be implemented by using z-buffer that contains only the backfacing polygons of the target mesh, so that front facing polygons in the target mesh do not occlude front facing polygons of the retopo mesh. Along with that you'd need to hide the backfacing polygons of the retopo mesh. If you'd want to show those backfacing polygons, they could be occluded by just the front-facing polygons of the target mesh.

> Display > One of the major issues currently, is that we have no great built-in way to display your retopology mesh on top of a high res sculpt. Technical note: this could be implemented by using z-buffer that contains only the backfacing polygons of the target mesh, so that front facing polygons in the target mesh do not occlude front facing polygons of the retopo mesh. Along with that you'd need to hide the backfacing polygons of the retopo mesh. If you'd want to show those backfacing polygons, they could be occluded by just the front-facing polygons of the target mesh.

Added subscriber: @YAFU

Is the recommendation to not to publish screenshots/videos of other softwares in design tasks to avoid legal problems still valid?

Is the recommendation to not to publish screenshots/videos of other softwares in design tasks to avoid legal problems still valid?

Yes. Please don't do this, we have a rule against it. The license of such software often does not allow it, I've removed such comments from this task now. Link to it instead, don't upload it here.

> Is the recommendation to not to publish screenshots/videos of other softwares in design tasks to avoid legal problems still valid? Yes. Please don't do this, we have a rule against it. The license of such software often does not allow it, I've removed such comments from this task now. Link to it instead, don't upload it here.

Added subscriber: @TonatiuhdeSanJulian

I think we need the edit mode to work perfectly for retopo as it is, with a few improvements, and a new mode for all the semi-automatic tools.
I don't see the fit for semi-automatic tools in edit mode, you need better snaping, a relax brush, a move brush, and few other, F2 give us a lot of usefulness.
But semi-automatic tools are a must, you can make a lot in really little time, and you can always go to edit mode to tweak some small imperfection.
If we have a new mode for retoplogy there is room to think new functionalities, and new retopo ideas that probably will never fit in edit mode.
And if we have a tab for retopology the edit mode in that tab can be already setup for retopology, so if you change mode in that tab from retopo mode to edit mode, you will have perfect setup for fixing small things, or if you want do all your retopo in edit mode.

I think we need the edit mode to work perfectly for retopo as it is, with a few improvements, and a new mode for all the semi-automatic tools. I don't see the fit for semi-automatic tools in edit mode, you need better snaping, a relax brush, a move brush, and few other, F2 give us a lot of usefulness. But semi-automatic tools are a must, you can make a lot in really little time, and you can always go to edit mode to tweak some small imperfection. If we have a new mode for retoplogy there is room to think new functionalities, and new retopo ideas that probably will never fit in edit mode. And if we have a tab for retopology the edit mode in that tab can be already setup for retopology, so if you change mode in that tab from retopo mode to edit mode, you will have perfect setup for fixing small things, or if you want do all your retopo in edit mode.

Added subscriber: @ArmandoTello

Added subscriber: @KINjO

Have you guys seen this tool? It does a lot of what I think might be good to see shipping with Blender out of the box. Going to try it out for a few days!

Youtube: Blender 2.8 PolyQuilt addon
PolyQuilt BA.org Thread by the developer

Have you guys seen this tool? It does a lot of what I think might be good to see shipping with Blender out of the box. Going to try it out for a few days! [Youtube: Blender 2.8 PolyQuilt addon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_dGZvlZGm8) [PolyQuilt BA.org Thread by the developer](https://blenderartists.org/t/polyquilt-addon-for-blender-2-8/1168918)

In #67997#743168, @brecht wrote:
we have a rule against it.

Ah, sorry man, I didn't now about that. ?

> In #67997#743168, @brecht wrote: > we have a rule against it. Ah, sorry man, I didn't now about that. ?

In #67997#743667, @floriantasser wrote:
Have you guys seen this tool? It does a lot of what I think might be good to see shipping with Blender out of the box. Going to try it out for a few days!

Youtube: Blender 2.8 PolyQuilt addon
PolyQuilt BA.org Thread by the developer

That's already a nice proof of concept right there.
https://twitter.com/sakanaya/status/1155444678226898945

> In #67997#743667, @floriantasser wrote: > Have you guys seen this tool? It does a lot of what I think might be good to see shipping with Blender out of the box. Going to try it out for a few days! > > [Youtube: Blender 2.8 PolyQuilt addon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_dGZvlZGm8) > [PolyQuilt BA.org Thread by the developer](https://blenderartists.org/t/polyquilt-addon-for-blender-2-8/1168918) That's already a nice proof of concept right there. https://twitter.com/sakanaya/status/1155444678226898945

Added subscriber: @johnsyed

Added subscriber: @FaisselB

Added subscriber: @brismith70-1

Added subscriber: @Frozen_Death_Knight

The most logical solution to me is to create a new mode altogether like was originally suggested. The ideal retopology workflow would need things like specific brushes like a relax and smooth brush to fix tight geometry, which would muddy the waters regarding the differences between Sculpt and Edit Mode if they were added to the latter. The workflow would also need to automate things like snapping to either selected objects or every visible object, creating a new mesh over the original, and more. There are way too many steps needed before you can even start doing retopology right now, and if you start pushing all those tools into Edit Mode, you really can't automate many of these steps since it would mess up the current workflow for Edit Mode.

Retopology requires a specific type of workflow and a clean workspace with specific tools that are a mix of Edit Mode, Sculpt Mode, and even modifiers for maximum efficiency. If at any point during this workflow you have to switch modes and/or fiddle with modifiers to work with retopology, then you have compromised the efficiency of the design.

Also, pushing all the tools into Edit Mode would just bloat that mode even further. It's already hard enough finding new places to put shortcuts for easy access, and by mixing Edit Mode work with retopology work will only make this issue worse over time.

The most logical solution to me is to create a new mode altogether like was originally suggested. The ideal retopology workflow would need things like specific brushes like a relax and smooth brush to fix tight geometry, which would muddy the waters regarding the differences between Sculpt and Edit Mode if they were added to the latter. The workflow would also need to automate things like snapping to either selected objects or every visible object, creating a new mesh over the original, and more. There are way too many steps needed before you can even start doing retopology right now, and if you start pushing all those tools into Edit Mode, you really can't automate many of these steps since it would mess up the current workflow for Edit Mode. Retopology requires a specific type of workflow and a clean workspace with specific tools that are a mix of Edit Mode, Sculpt Mode, and even modifiers for maximum efficiency. If at any point during this workflow you have to switch modes and/or fiddle with modifiers to work with retopology, then you have compromised the efficiency of the design. Also, pushing all the tools into Edit Mode would just bloat that mode even further. It's already hard enough finding new places to put shortcuts for easy access, and by mixing Edit Mode work with retopology work will only make this issue worse over time.

Added subscriber: @A.Lex_3D

I am very much with @moisessalvador and @JulianPerez on the subject. For a manual retopology workflow a new editmode would be overkill. Especially if a new mode would mean that many of the edit tools will become inaccessible while the retopology shading is active. This could, despite all the good intentions, be even counterproductive. Focused tools are good for a workflow that is dedicated to a narrow set of tools. With manual retopology you often still need to switch back to regular modeling tools every now and so often as the lines beween standard modeling and snapping can be blurry at times. Manual retopo for hard surface can sometimes mean using the high-poly only as a referencebut modeling the clean asset on top instead of snapping. Think of a bookshelf, for example. You wouldn't want to snap to the beveled edges here but rather have clean planes at first (and maybe bevel later).

Now all of this is of course from my current point of view:
Currently retopology is roughly 50% of my day to day fulltime work. I retopologize mainly CAD models for use in realtime applications or sometimes for animation. Over the years I have worked with ZBrush, Topogun2.0, Modo and Cinema4D (besides Blender). From these tools I find Topogun and Modo to be the closest with Modo being the winner for two reasons:

I can access all the standard modeling tools in my regular modeling workflow and use them for retopology
I can switch between models and topoview very fast in an already opened scene and that way retopologize a lot of small assets in one go (good for mobile games as well)

Dedicated topology tools are a brilliant idea. I am all for it but they may never compromise the existing tools. The standard modeling tools are just too important to be let go.
What Modo does for example is that retopology shading is just a viewport mode that can be turned on and off. Topology shading sets theactive mesh to be shadedd in semi-transparent with backface culling in front of the other meshed which are (by default) shaded in a workbench-like shading mode. The dedicated topology tools are actually very few and consist of an automatic set of snap- and tool-settings (very much like the poly build brush in Blender). All the tools are tools which can be used in standard modeling as well but the specialized snapping retopology brush works best when used in the retopo shading.

I am actually taking a lot of the shading points already discussed on Blenderartists last year: https://blenderartists.org/t/blender-2-8-viewport-updates/1114082/412

What I would expect from a streamlined topology tool has actually already begun with the Polybuild Brush. For a topology tool it may need a few more additions:

Extrude a whole quad instead of only triangles (and then having to hold ctrl which interferes with snap toggle)
delete vertices, edges and polygons with a modifier key-click
move single vertices quickly with single-click/drag like with a sculpt brush
stitch vertices or edges together quickly (proximity merge)

The other things would already exist pretty conveiniently and fast. They maybe only need bettersnapping to geometry.

insert edge loop Ctrl-R
ring/loop select and dissolve (doubleclick and Ctrl-X)
fast bridging (loop tols - rightclick menue or own hotkey)

That is speaking of manual retopo of course.

In order of importance of the new features I'd say:

What is really missing is the shading mode. That is the most important thing missing right now - with this even just the standard tools would be much easier to use on complex geometry, already.
Next would be improvements in the polybuild brush to access the functions mentioned above in a way without switching between tools too often

The more advanced thing then would be a new snapping mode. Here a normal based snapping would be really cool sort of like this:

Vector-based snapping mode - This works with any modeling tool from any angle: https://i.imgur.com/P0BVibV.gif
The same snapping mode paired with shring-fatten: https:i.imgur.com/g5MmxDS.gifvResnap selection// to closes faces could also be a nice thing for this and could maybe also alleviate if loop-cut snap slide gives too much trouble being edited in realtime.
Those examples are also from modo, again.

Jut from my perspective what could come further down the line then:

the topo mode also displays precisely how many polygons the mesh currently has, how many of which are quads, how many are n-gons Maybe even lets the user input a target polycount and shows a small sort of health-bar indicating how many polys are left until the desired goal.
Resnap selection to closes faces would also be a nice thing and could alleviate if loop-cut snap slide gives too much trouble being edited in realtime. I imagine this something like: select a few faces, execute 'snap to closest' and all the vertices are projected to the closest surface like with the shrinkwrap modifier or when you do a 'proiject to subtools' in ZBrush.

What A dedicated viewport design looks and feels like can be tested right now by checking out ReTopoflow 2.0 . I love what the creators of this tool accomplished as it has alot //of brilliant things going for it but the separate retopology mode makes me still ditch the tool most of the time, actually. When I do manual retopology - especially technical and hard-surface then the tools mostly specialized in sculpted character models sometimes fall flat. So I have to get out of the mode, struggle with the viewport settings just like if I had done the setup traditionally alltogether and go back into the dedicated mode again.
If a dedicated toolset ultimately is what is going to be decided on I would still urge the developers toplease also make the shading mode available in the standard edit mode or pull over all the standard modeling tools into retopo mode as well.* I can't stress this enough. Switching modes can create an immediate editing slowdown or papercut again if the tools aren't selected carefully enough.

Now, for semi-automated and fully automated retopology that's a different thing. Here I can see the user actually needing to use a completely different set of tools because they are guiding the algorithm. That's a dedicated logic like sculpting the way I would see it. Here the regular tools only come in in case you need to manually alter or edit the already finished auto-retopology.
I don't have too much experience with automated topo tools outside of ZBrush, though. So I will refrain from stating my oppinion on that topic.

I am very much with @moisessalvador and @JulianPerez on the subject. For a manual retopology workflow a new editmode would be overkill. Especially if a new mode would mean that many of the edit tools will become inaccessible while the retopology shading is active. This could, despite all the good intentions, be even counterproductive. Focused tools are good for a workflow that is dedicated to a narrow set of tools. With manual retopology you often still need to switch back to regular modeling tools every now and so often as the lines beween standard modeling and snapping can be blurry at times. Manual retopo for hard surface can sometimes mean using the high-poly only as a *reference*but modeling the clean asset on top instead of snapping. Think of a bookshelf, for example. You wouldn't want to snap to the beveled edges here but rather have clean planes at first (and maybe bevel later). Now all of this is of course from my current point of view: Currently retopology is roughly 50% of my day to day fulltime work. I retopologize mainly CAD models for use in realtime applications or sometimes for animation. Over the years I have worked with ZBrush, Topogun2.0, Modo and Cinema4D (besides Blender). From these tools I find Topogun and Modo to be the closest with Modo being the winner for two reasons: - I can access all the standard modeling tools in my regular modeling workflow and use them for retopology - I can switch between models and topoview very fast in an already opened scene and that way retopologize a lot of small assets in one go (good for mobile games as well) Dedicated topology tools are a brilliant idea. I am all for it **but** they may never compromise the existing tools. The standard modeling tools are just too important to be let go. What Modo does for example is that retopology shading is just a viewport mode that can be turned on and off. Topology shading sets the*active mesh* to be shadedd in semi-transparent with backface culling in front of the other meshed which are (by default) shaded in a workbench-like shading mode. The dedicated topology tools are actually very few and consist of an automatic set of snap- and tool-settings (very much like the poly build brush in Blender). All the tools are tools which can be used in standard modeling as well but the specialized snapping retopology brush works best when used in the retopo shading. I am actually taking a lot of the shading points already discussed on Blenderartists last year: https://blenderartists.org/t/blender-2-8-viewport-updates/1114082/412 What I would expect from a streamlined topology tool has actually already begun with the Polybuild Brush. For a topology tool it may need a few more additions: - Extrude a whole quad instead of only triangles (and then having to hold ctrl which interferes with snap toggle) - delete vertices, edges and polygons with a modifier key-click - move single vertices quickly with single-click/drag like with a sculpt brush - stitch vertices or edges together quickly (proximity merge) The other things would already exist pretty conveiniently and fast. They maybe only need bettersnapping to geometry. - insert edge loop Ctrl-R - ring/loop select and dissolve (doubleclick and Ctrl-X) - fast bridging (loop tols - rightclick menue or own hotkey) That is speaking of manual retopo of course. In order of importance of the new features I'd say: - What is really missing is the shading mode. That is the most important thing missing right now - with this even just the standard tools would be much easier to use on complex geometry, already. - Next would be improvements in the polybuild brush to access the functions mentioned above in a way without switching between tools too often # The more advanced thing then would be a new snapping mode. Here a normal based snapping would be really cool sort of like this: Vector-based snapping mode - This works with any modeling tool from any angle: https://i.imgur.com/P0BVibV.gif The same snapping mode paired with shring-fatten: https:*i.imgur.com/g5MmxDS.gifv*Resnap selection// to closes faces could also be a nice thing for this and could maybe also alleviate if loop-cut snap slide gives too much trouble being edited in realtime. Those examples are also from modo, again. Jut from my perspective what could come further down the line then: - the topo mode also displays precisely how many polygons the mesh currently has, how many of which are quads, how many are n-gons Maybe even lets the user input a target polycount and shows a small sort of health-bar indicating how many polys are left until the desired goal. - Resnap selection to closes faces would also be a nice thing and could alleviate if loop-cut snap slide gives too much trouble being edited in realtime. I imagine this something like: select a few faces, execute 'snap to closest' and all the vertices are projected to the closest surface like with the shrinkwrap modifier or when you do a 'proiject to subtools' in ZBrush. What A dedicated viewport design looks and feels like can be tested right now by checking out [ReTopoflow 2.0 ](https:*blendermarket.com/products/retopoflow). I love what the creators of this tool accomplished as it has a*lot //of brilliant things going for it but the separate retopology mode makes me still ditch the tool most of the time, actually. When I do manual retopology - especially technical and hard-surface then the tools mostly specialized in sculpted character models sometimes fall flat. So I have to get out of the mode, struggle with the viewport settings just like if I had done the setup traditionally alltogether and go back into the dedicated mode again. If a dedicated toolset ultimately is what is going to be decided on I would still urge the developers to*please also make the shading mode available in the standard edit mode or pull over all the standard modeling tools into retopo mode as well.* I can't stress this enough. Switching modes can create an immediate editing slowdown or papercut again if the tools aren't selected carefully enough. Now, for semi-automated and fully automated retopology that's a different thing. Here I can see the user actually needing to use a completely different set of tools because they are guiding the algorithm. That's a dedicated logic like sculpting the way I would see it. Here the regular tools only come in in case you need to manually alter or edit the already finished auto-retopology. I don't have too much experience with automated topo tools outside of ZBrush, though. So I will refrain from stating my oppinion on that topic.

The YouTube channel FlippedNormals just released a video tutorial on Blender 2.8 retopology. The video showed what they think is the most efficient way to do retopology right now without add-ons, where they discussed the pros and cons of the current tools that can be used for retopology. Since they are professionals and teachers of other 3D software like Maya and ZBrush, their input could be of some value in this discussion.

Link to video: Retopology for Beginners in Blender 2.8 - Retopo the Correct Way

The YouTube channel FlippedNormals just released a video tutorial on Blender 2.8 retopology. The video showed what they think is the most efficient way to do retopology right now without add-ons, where they discussed the pros and cons of the current tools that can be used for retopology. Since they are professionals and teachers of other 3D software like Maya and ZBrush, their input could be of some value in this discussion. Link to video: [Retopology for Beginners in Blender 2.8 - Retopo the Correct Way ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQzPDs99yM)

Seeing this video and being reminded of all the necessary steps again I am starting to wonder if a dedicated topology mode could actually work. Now maybe this was the intention all along and I misread or misunderstood it but:
What if a dedicated topo editmode could be like an editing and snapping workbench, where the snap and view settings are turned on and are easily adjustable to do all kinds of topology work. It can also have additionaltools if they really are tools which won't work in any other context than topology. Tools like guides for auto topology, guides for bridging rings, painted topology like ZBrush's TopoBrush which builds polygons where lines intersect. The regular modeling tools should still be accessible, though.

Also for what it's worth I can attest that these guys really know what they are talking about.
Thanks for the Link!

Seeing this video and being reminded of all the necessary steps again I am starting to wonder if a dedicated topology mode could actually work. Now maybe this was the intention all along and I misread or misunderstood it but: What if a dedicated topo editmode could be like an editing and snapping workbench, where the snap and view settings are turned on and are easily adjustable to do all kinds of topology work. It can also have *additional*tools if they really are tools which won't work in any other context than topology. Tools like guides for auto topology, guides for bridging rings, painted topology like ZBrush's TopoBrush which builds polygons where lines intersect. The regular modeling tools should still be accessible, though. Also for what it's worth I can attest that these guys really know what they are talking about. Thanks for the Link!

Added subscribers: @fclem, @jeacom

I have objections on making a completely new mode for retopology, there are simpler ways of enabling better retopology without bloating blender with highly specialized features that are not really useful for other tasks.

I would suggest:

X-ray/ display problem:
solution: Add a new display setting (Viewport Z-Offset) allowing the user to choose an artificial offset for the object. I think its simple for @fclem.
Snapping :
solution: new snapping mode. "Nearest object's face", not being screen space is not a problem, I think it's actually better to have it as global space, also add a collection filter to it.
Tools:
Tweak brush:
Proportional edit does just fine.
Quad strips:
- Improve Ctrl+Click Extrusion to support drag events, and have it extrude multiple times while the user drags the mouse.
Quad Patches:
- Make grid fill work in open loops and automatically correct the number of verts to produce a regular grid.
  *example.mp4

I have objections on making a completely new mode for retopology, there are simpler ways of enabling better retopology without bloating blender with highly specialized features that are not really useful for other tasks. I would suggest: * **X-ray/ display problem:** * solution: Add a new display setting (Viewport Z-Offset) allowing the user to choose an artificial offset for the object. I think its simple for @fclem. * **Snapping :** * solution: new snapping mode. "Nearest object's face", not being screen space is not a problem, I think it's actually better to have it as global space, also add a collection filter to it. * **Tools:** * Tweak brush: * Proportional edit does just fine. * Quad strips: * Improve Ctrl+Click Extrusion to support drag events, and have it extrude multiple times while the user drags the mouse. * Quad Patches: * Make grid fill work in open loops and automatically correct the number of verts to produce a regular grid. *[example.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7661023/example.mp4)

Removed subscriber: @moisessalvador

May I also add: moving vertices without double click or pressing a key. Yes this can be achieved with the sculpt brush but this means switching an editing mode again.
Single vertices need to be moved often and fast to space them out evenly across the surface - especially in the beginning.

May I also add: moving vertices without double click or pressing a key. Yes this can be achieved with the sculpt brush but this means switching an editing mode again. Single vertices need to be moved often and fast to space them out evenly across the surface - especially in the beginning.

Ok, after discussing this more with @PabloDobarro, we agree to change the approach and try and incorporate better retopology support inside Edit mode.

This is how we think it can be done:

Display
Add a Retopology overlay display option, replacing the current Hidden Wire Edit mode display

Snapping
Add a Retopology snapping option, which allows snapping to self while also projecting onto source, and snaps the current selection.

Tools
We can improve certain tools, such as Poly Build, and also add more edit mode tools. Even though they may be more constrained inside Edit Mode, we can try to use this as a test-case for more advanced gizmos and tools in general

Ok, after discussing this more with @PabloDobarro, we agree to change the approach and try and incorporate better retopology support inside Edit mode. This is how we think it can be done: **Display** Add a Retopology overlay display option, replacing the current *Hidden Wire* Edit mode display **Snapping** Add a Retopology snapping option, which allows snapping to self while also projecting onto source, and snaps the current selection. **Tools** We can improve certain tools, such as Poly Build, and also add more edit mode tools. Even though they may be more constrained inside Edit Mode, we can try to use this as a test-case for more advanced gizmos and tools in general

Added subscriber: @Rawalanche

The original idea to have separate retopology mode is ultimately a consequence of how messy and overcomplicated current display and snapping settings are. What should be done is mainly a cleanup and redesign of snapping tools so that it's easier and more convenient to switch between them as well as using multiple modes at once. Rather than avoiding excessive complexity by separating whole retopo workflow into new, separate mode, the excessive complexity should be avoided by cleaning up existing tools to make them more universal

@Rawalanche it's partly that, and also that we wanted to add more advanced tools which wouldn't be easy to add to Edit Mode as it exists today.

In #67997#751909, @WilliamReynish wrote:
Add a Retopology snapping option, which allows snapping to self while also projecting onto source, and snaps the current selection.

The key is, how are you gona define the "source" should it be the active collection, visible objects, selected objects or what?
Also, should the snapping be based on euclidian global space or projected screen space?

In #67997#751909, @WilliamReynish wrote:
We can improve certain tools, such as Poly Build, and also add more edit mode tools. Even though they may be more constrained inside Edit Mode, we can try to use this as a test-case for more advanced gizmos and tools in general

I still think we should focus on improving current tools like grid fill and Ctrl+click extrude to support better retopo workflows rather than adding more and more specific tools that the user has to remember. Also bezier handles are pretty but unnecessary, proportional edit is way better imho.

I think the key is making those settings more clear reachable before tinkering about whether to add more tools or not.

> In #67997#751909, @WilliamReynish wrote: > Add a Retopology snapping option, which allows snapping to self while also projecting onto source, and snaps the current selection. The key is, how are you gona define the "source" should it be the active collection, visible objects, selected objects or what? Also, should the snapping be based on euclidian global space or projected screen space? > In #67997#751909, @WilliamReynish wrote: > We can improve certain tools, such as Poly Build, and also add more edit mode tools. Even though they may be more constrained inside Edit Mode, we can try to use this as a test-case for more advanced gizmos and tools in general I still think we should focus on improving current tools like grid fill and Ctrl+click extrude to support better retopo workflows rather than adding more and more specific tools that the user has to remember. Also bezier handles are pretty but unnecessary, proportional edit is way better imho. I think the key is making those settings more clear reachable before tinkering about whether to add more tools or not.

In #67997#752043, @WilliamReynish wrote:
@Rawalanche it's partly that, and also that we wanted to add more advanced tools which wouldn't be easy to add to Edit Mode as it exists today.

It seems actually easy to make polybuild a powerful tool for retopo, its already there and just needs a few teaks.

> In #67997#752043, @WilliamReynish wrote: > @Rawalanche it's partly that, and also that we wanted to add more advanced tools which wouldn't be easy to add to Edit Mode as it exists today. It seems actually easy to make polybuild a powerful tool for retopo, its already there and just needs a few teaks.

Yep. The general idea here is that it would be very sad if there was a "retopo mode" which would have some great tools useful also for regular poly modeling/creation, but users would have to constantly juggle between two different modes to access the good tools from both retopo and edit mode. Retopo modeling tools, if done right, are equally as useful in regular modeling of organic stuff, such as humans, animals, creatures or plants.

[[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8K5CyQB_kc| Data-Driven Interactive Quadrangulation (SIGGRAPH 2015)
]]

[[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8K5CyQB_kc| Data-Driven Interactive Quadrangulation (SIGGRAPH 2015) ]]

Something I'd like to add to the shading style:

If possible the backface opacity of lines should be adjustable.
If Faces are occluded by geometry they should probably also be rendered with slightly less opacity:

For as often as I quote Modo - the Topo display violates both those principles and makes editing the final stages of a complex model very painful.
In the picture you can see that while the wireframe can be distinguished clearly the opacity of the lines still makes editing very straining.
Also - much more important - the polygons in the center of the image are behind the high-poly mesh but are still rendered in front.

They also snap to the editing tools just as if there wasn't any geometry inbetween. Sometimes that's wanted - more often it is unwanted though.
(edit) Just realizing that the snapping behaviour needs to be there for modeling around ~90°+ angles. So that's probably a little more complex in practice.

Something I'd like to add to the shading style: 1. If possible the backface opacity of lines should be adjustable. 2. If Faces are occluded by geometry they should probably also be rendered with slightly less opacity: ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7679138/image.png) For as often as I quote Modo - the Topo display violates both those principles and makes editing the final stages of a complex model very painful. In the picture you can see that while the wireframe can be distinguished clearly the opacity of the lines still makes editing very straining. Also - much more important - the polygons in the center of the image are behind the high-poly mesh but are still rendered in front. They also snap to the editing tools just as if there wasn't any geometry inbetween. Sometimes that's wanted - more often it is unwanted though. (edit) Just realizing that the snapping behaviour needs to be there for modeling around ~90°+ angles. So that's probably a little more complex in practice.

Added subscriber: @VertexPainter

Added subscriber: @nosaka

Added subscriber: @wevon-2

I wanted to share a trick that I use to perform retopology. Subdivide the mesh but with the simple option. In this way, the contours do not round up so much, and the edition vertices remain in the same place as the originals. With the extra faces and the Shrinkwrap the new mesh is always seen above the reference mesh.

Edited:
I'm late.
Checking the thread, I see now that in the video of Jean Da Costa (jeacom256), he does exactly the same.

I wanted to share a trick that I use to perform retopology. Subdivide the mesh but with the simple option. In this way, the contours do not round up so much, and the edition vertices remain in the same place as the originals. With the extra faces and the Shrinkwrap the new mesh is always seen above the reference mesh. ![Retopo.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7694805/Retopo.png) Edited: I'm late. Checking the thread, I see now that in the video of Jean Da Costa (jeacom256), he does exactly the same.

Added subscriber: @Jeroen-Bakker

Added subscriber: @hjsrabi

Added subscriber: @sineostudio

Added subscriber: @MD.FahadHassan

Hi folks, I was researching on good retopo method for a while now. And these are some of my settings. Hope it helps

https://youtu.be/47LF4o0hkXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb53GpN9YXg

Hi folks, I was researching on good retopo method for a while now. And these are some of my settings. Hope it helps https://youtu.be/47LF4o0hkXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb53GpN9YXg

Added subscriber: @MauricioMarinho

Added subscriber: @RosarioRosato

Hi,

Blender has a bunch of tools integrated for retopology and some stuff is hidden, this is a problem for a good approach.

I think that Blender 2.81/2.82 have to merges all of this in an only one best tool for Retopology process.

My idea is:

Similar to Retopology Flow by CGCookies
Teaser

Poly-Build has had great improvements from Pablo Dobarro

Look at this Poly-Build 2.81

BSurfaces instead is an awesome tool for the lovers of the GPencil
Setup Blender 2.8 for Retopology

Other stuff is GStretch in LoopTools
GStretch + LoopTools or
MiraTools for Retopology

The Problem is that all of these tools and pieces of information are divided among panels and settings, that make this "Retopology Process" most difficult and time-consuming.

Now, if all of the stuff was merged together in Poly-Build (Called Retopology Master) would be very intuitive and would give a new process for Blender.

this Tool can be work in this manner

Button for add a "Retopology Mesh in other colours" and set in front 001
Switch to another Workspace called Retopology 002
Work Similar to Quad Draw in Maya

Maya Quad Draw Link on Youtube

Topology Brush in Zbrush Link on Youtube

Kind Regards,

Ros

Hi, Blender has a bunch of tools integrated for retopology and some stuff is hidden, this is a problem for a good approach. I think that Blender 2.81/2.82 have to merges all of this in an only one best tool for Retopology process. *** **My idea is:** Similar to Retopology Flow by CGCookies [Teaser](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966dwHnO7xo) Poly-Build has had great improvements from Pablo Dobarro Look at this [Poly-Build 2.81](https://devtalk.blender.org/t/2-september-2019/9174) BSurfaces instead is an awesome tool for the lovers of the GPencil [Setup Blender 2.8 for Retopology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb53GpN9YXg) Other stuff is GStretch in LoopTools [GStretch + LoopTools](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2MjvKy1yCo) or [MiraTools for Retopology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaltxJJIXgo) **The Problem is** that all of these tools and pieces of information are divided among panels and settings, that make this "Retopology Process" most difficult and time-consuming. --- Now, if all of the stuff was merged together in Poly-Build (Called Retopology Master) would be very intuitive and would give a new process for Blender. this Tool can be work in this manner 1. Button for add a "Retopology Mesh in other colours" and set in front [001](https://imgur.com/a/LjBrsFO) 2. Switch to another Workspace called Retopology [002](https://imgur.com/a/azu2QNf) 3. Work Similar to Quad Draw in Maya --- Maya Quad Draw [Link on Youtube](https://youtu.be/xpDWta5O3n8?t=96) Topology Brush in Zbrush [Link on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfXa-YnA-eo) --- *** Kind Regards, Ros

Added subscriber: @ChrisWillC

Added subscriber: @yebyte

Added subscriber: @1D_Inc

In #67997#742321, @SecuoyaEx wrote:
I do a lot of retopology in Blender with just F2, shrinkwrap, and the default tools.

Thank you. F2 was designed for both retopology and complex organic modeling.
In fact, Stripe Modeling Workflow is unified workflow both for complex organic modeling and retopology.

All that models are made with power of stripe modeling technique. All this years F2 stripe workflow have been tested for any kind of model complexity production.

Here is free sample to check it out, it have a 500 000 downloads already.

My entire YouTube channel is dedicated to F2 Stripe Modeling workflow.

I agree that it should be part of Edit mode.

Well, it already is)

-Maybe make the F2 addon a default

Well, here are problems we faced during proper testing, like automerge incompatibility, so we have to left it as an addon.
But it's experience can be used for creating proper tools, as far as it was indeed hard tested for all possible cases.

Test process video sample:
https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA?t=380
Finished model (free):
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/free-max-mode-jumbo-regency-tables-reg-14/947889

Some specials:
https://www.blendswap.com/blend/14139

This is possible because Blender is a superior tool for retopology)
Enjoy!

> In #67997#742321, @SecuoyaEx wrote: > I do a lot of retopology in Blender with just F2, shrinkwrap, and the default tools. Thank you. F2 was designed for both retopology and complex organic modeling. In fact, **Stripe Modeling Workflow** is unified workflow both for complex organic modeling and retopology. [All that models ](https://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/1d_inc?display_size=small&page_size=200&sort_column=a7&sort_order=desc) are made with power of stripe modeling technique. All this years F2 stripe workflow have been tested for any kind of model complexity production. Here is [free sample ](https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/free-baroque-mirror-table-3d-model/735933) to check it out, it have a 500 000 downloads already. ![F2_test.jpg](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7780136/F2_test.jpg) My entire [YouTube channel ](https://youtu.be/CQPshxa_K9Y) is dedicated to F2 Stripe Modeling workflow. > I agree that it should be part of Edit mode. Well, it already is) > -Maybe make the F2 addon a default Well, here are problems we faced during proper testing, like automerge incompatibility, so we have to left it as an addon. But it's experience can be used for creating proper tools, as far as it was indeed hard tested for all possible cases. Test process video sample: https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA?t=380 Finished model (free): https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/free-max-mode-jumbo-regency-tables-reg-14/947889 Some specials: https://www.blendswap.com/blend/14139 This is possible because Blender is a **superior tool** for retopology) Enjoy!

Added subscriber: @DanPool

I made an addon that lets you store presets for some of the view and snap settings in the 3d viewport. I also have a script that I use that switches all of the Viewport Display settings needed for object that is going to be used for retopology (In Front and Wireframe enabled). I think this would be a good approach for the problem of the long setup times when switching tasks in the 3d view. Blender could still allow the power of modifying all of the snap and display settings individually (instead of having separate retopo settings), but also have a preset system built in with a few predefined setups - retopo being one of them. This would make switching to retopology workflow as simple as changing the preset in the display settings and the snapping settings.

Beyond this, it would be nice to have an object selector in the overlays dropdown that lets you pick the retopology object, which overrides the viewport display properties of that object with the needed settings. This would keep the user from having to change settings in multiple places in the interface.

https://blenderartists.org/t/presetterprofessional/1164735

I made an addon that lets you store presets for some of the view and snap settings in the 3d viewport. I also have a script that I use that switches all of the Viewport Display settings needed for object that is going to be used for retopology (In Front and Wireframe enabled). I think this would be a good approach for the problem of the long setup times when switching tasks in the 3d view. Blender could still allow the power of modifying all of the snap and display settings individually (instead of having separate retopo settings), but also have a preset system built in with a few predefined setups - retopo being one of them. This would make switching to retopology workflow as simple as changing the preset in the display settings and the snapping settings. Beyond this, it would be nice to have an object selector in the overlays dropdown that lets you pick the retopology object, which overrides the viewport display properties of that object with the needed settings. This would keep the user from having to change settings in multiple places in the interface. https://blenderartists.org/t/presetterprofessional/1164735

Since we are working with pretty much complex models that requires variable density retopology, so we made prototype of [QuadBridge] tool, that can bridge two variable density loops with quads using several topological schemes.
This tool is based on years of experience of quad modeling and retopology workflow.
However, it is still under development. It looks like that.

Can be interesting.
It is mathematically proven that any kind of organic surface can be made with quads, so, I guess, even quad-based dyntopo is possible to achieve at some point.

Since we are working with pretty much complex models that requires variable density retopology, so we made prototype of [QuadBridge] tool, that can bridge two variable density loops with quads using several topological schemes. This tool is based on [years of experience ](https://www.youtube.com/user/1DInciner/videos) of quad modeling and retopology workflow. However, it is still under development. It looks like that. ![Quad Bridge.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7858095/Quad_Bridge.png) Can be interesting. It is mathematically proven that any kind of organic surface can be made with quads, so, I guess, even quad-based dyntopo is possible to achieve at some point.

About "a tool that would let users draw a line, which then becomes a strip of evenly sized quads".
We made such prototype with distance support, but, unfortunately, it turned out to be not very useful on our models.
Anyway, it was nice experience. Here is GIF

About "a tool that would let users draw a line, which then becomes a strip of evenly sized quads". We made such prototype with distance support, but, unfortunately, it turned out to be not very useful on our models. Anyway, it was nice experience. Here is GIF ![UB_EXTRUDE_PLUS.gif](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7858119/UB_EXTRUDE_PLUS.gif)

Added subscriber: @jfmatheu

@1D_Inc Here's a more automatic way with notes but better interpretation of quads to follow the flow of the models, made time ago for sculpt (with some modifiers on it), as it is now it's not really useful for retopo but could be kinda useful with some adaptations and implementations like a new note tool that works (create quads) in real time + radius setting, or quick post-edit tools and some other options and widgets. But doesn't Retopoflow have something similar?
2019-10-26 11-32-51.mp4

By the way, also made this 1-2 months ago, needs so much improvements but can be a start for something pretty nice, what do you think? https://twitter.com/jfranmatheu/status/1188037853055475712

@1D_Inc Here's a more automatic way with notes but better interpretation of quads to follow the flow of the models, made time ago for sculpt (with some modifiers on it), as it is now it's not really useful for retopo but could be kinda useful with some adaptations and implementations like a new note tool that works (create quads) in real time + radius setting, or quick post-edit tools and some other options and widgets. But doesn't Retopoflow have something similar? [2019-10-26 11-32-51.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7858162/2019-10-26_11-32-51.mp4) By the way, also made this 1-2 months ago, needs so much improvements but can be a start for something pretty nice, what do you think? https://twitter.com/jfranmatheu/status/1188037853055475712

In #67997#801345, @jfmatheu wrote:
@1D_Inc Here's a more automatic way with notes but better interpretation of quads to follow the flow of the models, made time ago for sculpt (with some modifiers on it), as it is now it's not really useful for retopo but could be kinda useful with some adaptations and implementations like a new note tool that works (create quads) in real time + radius setting, or quick post-edit tools and some other options and widgets. But doesn't Retopoflow have something similar?

Is it an addon? Looking cool)
Retopoflow consists from a nice concepts, but it is pretty much hardware consuming, and it is not applicable to heavyweight models.
That's why we made a simple unassuming to hardware solution that directly supports edit mode and have some visual brush setup to perform adaptive stripe density, so it was the closest solution.

We rarely encounter regular density models, therefore, as a rule, we are forced to process everything manually, so making stripes is the least problem we have got to solve)
For sure, such tool will have its scope, for example, topology sketching, but not in our cases.

UPD

By the way, also made this 1-2 months ago, needs so much improvements but can be a start for something pretty nice, what do you think? https://twitter.com/jfranmatheu/status/1188037853055475712

Looking interesting, but it relies on line drawing that requires a lot of motorics actions, so such workflow will have stamina/endurance limits on massive objects retopology.
We've got the same issue during making Gstretch tool from LoopTools that operates with Gpencil strokes.

For example, we solved that issue by making F2 addon, so we operate with vertices, like in regular modeling.
F2-based Stripe modeling/retopology workflow bypasses this limit .

But it is nice that you are able to make such kind of tools, you've got an impressive programming skills!

> In #67997#801345, @jfmatheu wrote: > @1D_Inc Here's a more automatic way with notes but better interpretation of quads to follow the flow of the models, made time ago for sculpt (with some modifiers on it), as it is now it's not really useful for retopo but could be kinda useful with some adaptations and implementations like a new note tool that works (create quads) in real time + radius setting, or quick post-edit tools and some other options and widgets. But doesn't Retopoflow have something similar? Is it an addon? Looking cool) Retopoflow consists from a nice concepts, but it is pretty much hardware consuming, and it is not applicable to heavyweight models. That's why we made a simple unassuming to hardware solution that directly supports edit mode and have some visual brush setup to perform adaptive stripe density, so it was the closest solution. We rarely encounter regular density models, therefore, as a rule, we are forced to process everything manually, so making stripes is the least problem we have got to solve) For sure, such tool will have its scope, for example, topology sketching, but not in our cases. UPD > By the way, also made this 1-2 months ago, needs so much improvements but can be a start for something pretty nice, what do you think? https://twitter.com/jfranmatheu/status/1188037853055475712 Looking interesting, but it relies on line drawing that requires a lot of motorics actions, so such workflow will have stamina/endurance limits on massive objects retopology. We've got the same issue during making [Gstretch ](https://youtu.be/8Myfa8jH5nA) tool from LoopTools that operates with Gpencil strokes. For example, we solved that issue by making F2 addon, so we operate with vertices, like in regular modeling. F2-based Stripe modeling/retopology workflow [bypasses this limit ](https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA?t=2831). But it is nice that you are able to make such kind of tools, you've got an impressive programming skills!

Added subscriber: @cwolf3d

When developing the tool, take note of the principles from the Retopo MT addon:
https://gumroad.com/products/cNGNb

When developing the tool, take note of the principles from the Retopo MT addon: https://gumroad.com/products/cNGNb

In #67997#801358, @cwolf3d wrote:
When developing the tool, take note of the principles from the Retopo MT addon:
https://gumroad.com/products/cNGNb

Retopo MT follows Retopoflow way. It provides some parametric way of stripe editing, but it's workflow is a bit clunky , since it has not been tested on complex models.
Seems, author also has gone to F2-based workflow type later due to its flexibility.

> In #67997#801358, @cwolf3d wrote: > When developing the tool, take note of the principles from the Retopo MT addon: > https://gumroad.com/products/cNGNb Retopo MT follows Retopoflow way. It provides some parametric way of stripe editing, but it's workflow is a bit [clunky ](https://youtu.be/op2rMKDEUzQ?t=1066), since it has not been tested on complex models. Seems, author also [has gone ](https://youtu.be/m5YT9XiUzLU?t=2977) to F2-based workflow type later due to its flexibility.

In #67997#801361, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#801358, @cwolf3d wrote:
When developing the tool, take note of the principles from the Retopo MT addon:
https://gumroad.com/products/cNGNb

Retopo MT follows Retopoflow way. It provides some parametric way of stripe editing, but it's workflow is a bit clunky , since it has not been tested on complex models.
Seems, author also has gone to F2-based workflow type later due to its flexibility.

@1D_Inc Just in case you didn't notice @cwolf3d had already updated to 2.8, you can support him there.

> In #67997#801361, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#801358, @cwolf3d wrote: >> When developing the tool, take note of the principles from the Retopo MT addon: >> https://gumroad.com/products/cNGNb > > Retopo MT follows Retopoflow way. It provides some parametric way of stripe editing, but it's workflow is a bit [clunky ](https://youtu.be/op2rMKDEUzQ?t=1066), since it has not been tested on complex models. > Seems, author also [has gone ](https://youtu.be/m5YT9XiUzLU?t=2977) to F2-based workflow type later due to its flexibility. @1D_Inc Just in case you didn't notice @cwolf3d had already updated to 2.8, you can support him there.

Removed subscriber: @SecuoyaEx

In #67997#802997, @ErickNyanduKabongo wrote:
@1D_Inc Just in case you didn't notice @cwolf3d had already updated to 2.8, you can support him there.

For sure, a lot of addons are updated to 2.8. But update doesnot mean fixing workflow issues.

> In #67997#802997, @ErickNyanduKabongo wrote: > @1D_Inc Just in case you didn't notice @cwolf3d had already updated to 2.8, you can support him there. For sure, a lot of addons are updated to 2.8. But update doesnot mean fixing workflow issues.

About diplay issues.

There are also special needs regarding historical restoration retopology - to see a texture of object (so it is needed to be supported) and surface coverage (so overlay display should be optional)
This allows the final surface to be reliable.

About diplay issues. ![изображение.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7913276/изображение.png) There are also special needs regarding historical restoration retopology - to see a texture of object (so it is needed to be supported) and surface coverage (so overlay display should be optional) This allows the final surface to be reliable. ![изображение.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7913332/изображение.png)

Actual mockup

R1 = shading + Texture + Xray
Allows to see final shading

R2 = shading + Texture + Xray + transparency
Allows to see details

R3 = shading + Texture
Allows to see the accuracy of the coverage area

R4 = shading + Texture + transparency
Allows to see the accuracy of the coverage area and details for the allocation

Actual mockup R1 = shading + Texture + Xray Allows to see final shading ![R1.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7951720/R1.png) R2 = shading + Texture + Xray + transparency Allows to see details ![R2.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7951726/R2.png) R3 = shading + Texture Allows to see the accuracy of the coverage area ![R3.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7951729/R3.png) R4 = shading + Texture + transparency Allows to see the accuracy of the coverage area and details for the allocation ![R4.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7951732/R4.png)

The archaeological reconstruction retopology process is one of the most complex in terms of both shading requirements and attitude to the original and the resulting geometry.
As far as all details are stored in resulting geometry for reconstruction needs, such kind of retopology refers to variable density retopology type.
This type of retopology cannot be automated (yet, with a generic algorithms) due to the high level of semantic significance of the details.
Thus, such retopology process requires the ability to see the original model and overlay in several modes:

Textured
Xray
Shaded
Transparency

with ability to quickly switch between their combinations for different purposes.

The archaeological reconstruction retopology process is one of the most complex in terms of both shading requirements and attitude to the original and the resulting geometry. As far as all details are stored in resulting geometry for reconstruction needs, such kind of retopology refers to variable density retopology type. This type of retopology cannot be automated (yet, with a generic algorithms) due to the high level of semantic significance of the details. Thus, such retopology process requires the ability to see the original model and overlay in several modes: - Textured - Xray - Shaded - Transparency with ability to quickly switch between their combinations for different purposes.

Added subscriber: @Gwobbler

Added subscriber: @crazyWikka

Added subscriber: @Enoch11223

@WilliamReynish
Some more notes:

Display
I tried out the retopology overlay (#70267) and it's already a great improvement but I feel like there's something missing for the workflow.
While in Edit Mode with this new overlay it's effortless to see and work on the topology but a common thing I to do in the retopo workflow is to compare the topology with a subdivided, smooth shaded result, possibly with additional modifiers to test the behaviour while retopologizing.
This is commonly done by switching in & out of Edit Mode and having all modifiers visible only in Object Mode.
But since the objects would intersect in object mode it's currently necessary to set the retopo object to be "In Front", which we don't want anymore.

I suggest to add another overlay or shading toggle for Object Mode that will show the retopology object in front of other objects, with the same depth rendering that #70267 does (just without the face color & wireframes to see the final result properly).
This could be context based on selected objects? @WilliamReynish What do you think?

Tools
The brush-like Tool is one of the most important additions IMO since it removes Sculpt Mode from the Retopo workflow.
Another addition to the design could be a second brush-like tool that functions like the new "Topology Tool" in Sculpt Mode (D6059).
This Tool has quickly become an essential part in my modeling/retopo workflows.

@WilliamReynish Some more notes: **Display** I tried out the retopology overlay (#70267) and it's already a great improvement but I feel like there's something missing for the workflow. While in Edit Mode with this new overlay it's effortless to see and work on the topology but a common thing I to do in the retopo workflow is to compare the topology with a subdivided, smooth shaded result, possibly with additional modifiers to test the behaviour while retopologizing. This is commonly done by switching in & out of Edit Mode and having all modifiers visible only in Object Mode. But since the objects would intersect in object mode it's currently necessary to set the retopo object to be "In Front", which we don't want anymore. I suggest to add another overlay or shading toggle for Object Mode that will show the retopology object in front of other objects, with the same depth rendering that #70267 does (just without the face color & wireframes to see the final result properly). This could be context based on selected objects? @WilliamReynish What do you think? **Tools** The brush-like Tool is one of the most important additions IMO since it removes Sculpt Mode from the Retopo workflow. Another addition to the design could be a second brush-like tool that functions like the new "Topology Tool" in Sculpt Mode ([D6059](https://archive.blender.org/developer/D6059)). This Tool has quickly become an essential part in my modeling/retopo workflows.

Added subscriber: @CobraA

Plz don't make it too complicated with too many Tools, just a few that work well with the combination of modifier keys, so the workflow is easy and streamlined.
if you add too many options it will break the flow when doing retopolog and slows the process alot.

Plz don't make it too complicated with too many Tools, just a few that work well with the combination of modifier keys, so the workflow is easy and streamlined. if you add too many options it will break the flow when doing retopolog and slows the process alot.

In #67997#851032, @CobraA wrote:
Plz don't make it too complicated with too many Tools, just a few that work well with the combination of modifier keys, so the workflow is easy and streamlined.
if you add too many options it will break the flow when doing retopolog and slows the process alot.

Seems, you are asking for proper workflow design.
Not sure if it is possible.

Proper workflow design means, that there should be a hard test example to evaluate performance of a process (its simplicity, speed, reliability, endurance) with final result.
Well, speaking of manual retopology and organic modeling, conditions are basically known.

Modeling - 100% quads based surface, variable mesh density, single reference, simplest toolset - less than 3 hours for such kind of a model (raw footage).
Image reference - Pearwlorks CE-137a
Workflow test result:
https://youtu.be/Tsaa_D6CcSo

Retopology - 100% quads based surface, variable mesh density, single reference, simplest toolset, maximum details preservation - less than 8 hours.
Free base mesh for test purposes can be downloaded [here ]] or [ https:*ru.3dexport.com/free-3dmodel-jumbo-collection-regency-tables-reg-14-reg-14-2b-122730.htm | here .
Workflow test result:
https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA

The problem is that to make retopology fast, user need to know topology rules.
That means, he should know how to apply basic topology schemes, so it is more about skills than tools.

In addition, there are many influential factors. Even clunky LMB selection can sufficiently reduce retopology speed more, than any kind of tool.
Most tools have never been tested under extreme conditions, that's why it is impossible to find hard tests of concepts like retopoflow, polyquilt, poly buld, maya quad draw related tools , and other handy looking concepts.
Maya quad draw and Topogun tests also shows poor perfomance results (like 4 hours for uniform density croc mesh )

It is too hard to make such tests, it takes just years to figure out the best way, and the bar is too high, so I am not sure that someone can poissibly handle that kind of workflow design task.
So I believe that the common steps, like edit mode topology relaxing brush/methods, reprojection of the retopo surface onto the base mesh methods and enhancing shading modes will bring the most effective predictable result.

> In #67997#851032, @CobraA wrote: > Plz don't make it too complicated with too many Tools, just a few that work well with the combination of modifier keys, so the workflow is easy and streamlined. > if you add too many options it will break the flow when doing retopolog and slows the process alot. Seems, you are asking for proper workflow design. Not sure if it is possible. Proper workflow design means, that there should be a hard test example to evaluate performance of a process (its simplicity, speed, reliability, endurance) with final result. Well, speaking of manual retopology and organic modeling, conditions are basically known. **Modeling** - 100% quads based surface, variable mesh density, single reference, simplest toolset - less than 3 hours for such kind of a model (raw footage). Image reference - Pearwlorks CE-137a Workflow test result: https://youtu.be/Tsaa_D6CcSo **Retopology** - 100% quads based surface, variable mesh density, single reference, simplest toolset, maximum details preservation - less than 8 hours. Free base mesh for test purposes can be downloaded [here ]] or [[ https:*ru.3dexport.com/free-3dmodel-jumbo-collection-regency-tables-reg-14-reg-14-2b-122730.htm | here ](https:*www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/free-max-mode-jumbo-regency-tables-reg-14/947889). Workflow test result: https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA The problem is that to make retopology fast, user need to know topology rules. That means, he should know how to apply basic topology schemes, so it is more about skills than tools. ![retopo11d.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8282528/retopo11d.png) ![retopo21d.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8282529/retopo21d.png) In addition, there are many influential factors. Even clunky LMB selection can sufficiently reduce retopology speed more, than any kind of tool. Most tools have never been tested under extreme conditions, that's why it is impossible to find hard tests of concepts like retopoflow, polyquilt, poly buld, maya quad draw [related tools ](https://mobile.twitter.com/sakanaya/status/1191849627005284352), and other handy looking concepts. Maya quad draw and Topogun tests also shows poor perfomance results (like [4 hours for uniform density croc mesh ](https://youtu.be/X3aPkgv57z0?t=414)) It is too hard to make such tests, it takes just years to figure out the best way, and the bar is too high, so I am not sure that someone can poissibly handle that kind of workflow design task. So I believe that the common steps, like edit mode topology relaxing brush/methods, reprojection of the retopo surface onto the base mesh methods and enhancing shading modes will bring the most effective predictable result.

Added subscriber: @Jayanam

Added subscriber: @sqeee

Added subscriber: @thromshall

Added subscriber: @Draxley

Added subscriber: @xan2622

Added subscriber: @dlc17

On one hand, it would have made sense to add a workspace dedicated to Retopology, because since version 2.80, Blender has been having many workspace tabs (at the top), one for each step of the 3D creation (Modeling, Sculpting, UV editing, Texture Painting, Shading..) and Retopology is part of it. That being said, consistently switching between a "Retopology" tab to the "Modeling" tab would be time consuming and counter-productive (I am glad that it has been decided to integrate the retopology tools into the Edit mode).

I have tested RetopoFlow 3 beta 2. ([Github ]], https:*twitter.com/RetopoFlow_Dev , [ https://pastebin.com/71P6MQxp | Installation instructions )
It has many great features (and devs are working hard to make it better) but the way its UI is obfuscating the rest of the Blender UI is very annoying.
You can read my other "grievances" about its interface and why I think it restricts the "freedom of edition": https://github.com/CGCookie/retopoflow/issues/810

There's another great add-on that worths it being tried: Poly Quilt. ([Github ]], https:*twitter.com/sakanaya , [ https://blenderartists.org/t/polyquilt-addon-for-blender-2-8/1168918/ | BlenderArtists forum )
Once it is installed, go to the Add-on Preferences, Extra Settings, Select the "Future" branch, Check for updates, Update, Save Blender preferences and Restart Blender)
It's a very interesting add-on because it allows to perform many actions with just one tool. I like the feature that allows to create a sequence of quads by dragging an edge.

Here are some interesting retopology features (taken from different tools or softwares) that could be an inspiration for Blender's future retopology tools:

A tool that extrudes edges by selecting an edge and dragging it over the mesh:
- see https://twitter.com/AFX_LAB/status/1245219158729486339
- or https://twitter.com/sakanaya/status/1231105571459194882
But it would also be convenient if the vertices of the dragged quads could snap to other vertices:
- see https://twitter.com/AFX_LAB/status/1245258526047363072
- or "AutoMerge" at the bottom of this page: https://gumroad.com/l/cNGNb
Some addons (RetopoMT, RetopoFlow, Bsurfaces, ...) have different approaches, they allow to draw lines to create a sequence of quads:
- see the GIF below "B-surface style" at https://gumroad.com/l/cngnb)
- or RetopoFlow's PolyStrips (https://youtu.be/Zy_8bLnCsy4?t=509)
- or JFMatheu's implementation: https://developer.blender.org/T67997#801345
JF Matheu's "freehand draw lines" tool is also very interesting (very fast):
- see https://twitter.com/jfranmatheu/status/1188037853055475712
The "Contour" tool:
- see GIF at the bottom of this RetopoMT page: https://gumroad.com/l/cngnb
- or RetopoFlow's Contours: https://youtu.be/Zy_8bLnCsy4?t=230
AFX managed to create a "Smart raycast" tool for tails, fingers...
- see https://twitter.com/AFX_LAB/status/1255094826187423746
The Slide/Relax/Smooth brush:
- see https://developer.blender.org/D6059 (Blender)
- or https://youtu.be/MHkb43fQGME?t=256 (TopoGun 3)
A tool that automatically fills with a grid of quads (Patch tool):
- see https://youtu.be/MHkb43fQGME?t=105 (TopoGun 3's Patch tool is really impressive)
- or https://youtu.be/Zy_8bLnCsy4?t=3914 (RetopoFlow 3)
An auto-retopology tool:
- Exoside Quad Remesher: [BlenderArtists forum ]], [ https:*exoside.com/quadremesher/ | Official website
- TopoGun 3: https://youtu.be/MHkb43fQGME?t=78

On one hand, it would have made sense to add a workspace dedicated to Retopology, because since version 2.80, Blender has been having many workspace tabs (at the top), one for each step of the 3D creation (Modeling, Sculpting, UV editing, Texture Painting, Shading..) and Retopology is part of it. That being said, consistently switching between a "Retopology" tab to the "Modeling" tab would be time consuming and counter-productive (I am glad that it has been decided to integrate the retopology tools into the Edit mode). --- I have tested **RetopoFlow 3 beta 2**. ([Github ]], [[ https:*twitter.com/RetopoFlow_Dev | Twitter ]], [[ https://pastebin.com/71P6MQxp | Installation instructions ](https:*github.com/CGCookie/retopoflow/tree/b280)) It has many great features (and devs are working hard to make it better) but the way its UI is obfuscating the rest of the Blender UI is very annoying. You can read my other "grievances" about its interface and why I think it restricts the "freedom of edition": https://github.com/CGCookie/retopoflow/issues/810 --- There's another great add-on that worths it being tried: **Poly Quilt**. ([Github ]], [[ https:*twitter.com/sakanaya | Twitter ]], [[ https://blenderartists.org/t/polyquilt-addon-for-blender-2-8/1168918/ | BlenderArtists forum ](https:*github.com/sakana3/PolyQuilt/tree/Future)) Once it is installed, go to the Add-on Preferences, Extra Settings, Select the "Future" branch, Check for updates, Update, Save Blender preferences and Restart Blender) It's a very interesting add-on because it allows to perform many actions with just one tool. I like the feature that allows to create a sequence of quads by dragging an edge. --- Here are some interesting retopology features (taken from different tools or softwares) that could be an inspiration for Blender's future retopology tools: - A tool that extrudes edges by selecting an edge and dragging it over the mesh: - see https://twitter.com/AFX_LAB/status/1245219158729486339 - or https://twitter.com/sakanaya/status/1231105571459194882 - But it would also be convenient if the vertices of the *dragged quads* could snap to other vertices: - see https://twitter.com/AFX_LAB/status/1245258526047363072 - or "AutoMerge" at the bottom of this page: https://gumroad.com/l/cNGNb - Some addons (RetopoMT, RetopoFlow, Bsurfaces, ...) have different approaches, they allow to draw lines to create a sequence of quads: - see the GIF below "B-surface style" at https://gumroad.com/l/cngnb) - or RetopoFlow's PolyStrips (https://youtu.be/Zy_8bLnCsy4?t=509) - or JFMatheu's implementation: https://developer.blender.org/T67997#801345 - JF Matheu's "*freehand draw lines*" tool is also very interesting (very fast): - see https://twitter.com/jfranmatheu/status/1188037853055475712 - The "Contour" tool: - see GIF at the bottom of this RetopoMT page: https://gumroad.com/l/cngnb - or RetopoFlow's Contours: https://youtu.be/Zy_8bLnCsy4?t=230 - AFX managed to create a "Smart raycast" tool for tails, fingers... - see https://twitter.com/AFX_LAB/status/1255094826187423746 - The Slide/Relax/Smooth brush: - see https://developer.blender.org/D6059 (Blender) - or https://youtu.be/MHkb43fQGME?t=256 (TopoGun 3) - A tool that automatically fills with a grid of quads (Patch tool): - see https://youtu.be/MHkb43fQGME?t=105 (TopoGun 3's Patch tool is really impressive) - or https://youtu.be/Zy_8bLnCsy4?t=3914 (RetopoFlow 3) - An auto-retopology tool: - Exoside Quad Remesher: [BlenderArtists forum ]], [[ https:*exoside.com/quadremesher/ | Official website ](https:*blenderartists.org/t/quad-remesher-auto-retopologizer/1170913) - TopoGun 3: https://youtu.be/MHkb43fQGME?t=78

In #67997#927406, @xan2622 wrote:
That being said, consistently switching between a "Retopology" tab to the "Modeling" tab would be time consuming and counter-productive (I am glad that it has been decided to integrate the retopology tools into the Edit mode).

Well, yes. Retopology is just dedicated type of creating surface process - of modeling,
Expanding modeling to retopology tools expands retopology to modeling tools as well, that allow to perform complex type of modeling like partial retopology , when when details are modeled on top of the basemesh.

AFX, RetopoFlow, Bsurfaces, Polyquilt.

All those tools provide solutions for regular density meshes topology (like head retopology), but retopology is not limited to that type.
The hardest part of retopology is topology with variable density meshes.
Also, those tools have a lot of issues.

Autoretopology.

Proper Autoretopology engine is pretty much tough and separate task, it will be hard to develop something above [Instant meshes ]] or [https:*youtu.be/vTB814K9TBc?t=349 | Quad Remesher

> In #67997#927406, @xan2622 wrote: > That being said, consistently switching between a "Retopology" tab to the "Modeling" tab would be time consuming and counter-productive (I am glad that it has been decided to integrate the retopology tools into the Edit mode). Well, yes. Retopology is just dedicated type of creating surface process - of modeling, Expanding modeling to retopology tools expands retopology to modeling tools as well, that allow to perform complex type of modeling like [partial retopology ](https://youtu.be/pBOutY0PAzc?t=42), when when details are modeled on top of the basemesh. > AFX, RetopoFlow, Bsurfaces, Polyquilt. All those tools provide solutions for regular density meshes topology (like head retopology), but retopology is not limited to that type. The hardest part of retopology is topology with variable density meshes. Also, those tools have a lot of issues. > Autoretopology. Proper Autoretopology engine is pretty much tough and separate task, it will be hard to develop something above [Instant meshes ]] or [[https:*youtu.be/vTB814K9TBc?t=349 | Quad Remesher ](https:*youtu.be/HBiR262Wdfc?t=256)

These two videos show how easily it's possible to extrude edges to create faces. Notice how convenient the snapping makes it easy to stick the face to the other quads:
Twitch video clip 1

The second video also shows the creation of faces after extruding edges but also shows how to create faces after adding a vertex:
Twitch video clip 2

The ziRail Maya plugin is a bit similar to TopoGun 3 (it allows to create patch polygons along strokes, strokes that are drawn directly on the mesh):
https://youtu.be/_ehmPPQRtm0 (watch at 0.25 speed 😉 )
https://youtu.be/toCyGQ8wZK8

These two videos show how easily it's possible to extrude edges to create faces. Notice how convenient the snapping makes it easy to stick the face to the other quads: [Twitch video clip 1 ](https://clips.twitch.tv/HappyConsiderateSoybeanSwiftRage) The second video also shows the creation of faces after extruding edges but also shows how to create faces after adding a vertex: [Twitch video clip 2 ](https://clips.twitch.tv/AggressiveFunShrewSuperVinlin) The ziRail Maya plugin is a bit similar to TopoGun 3 (it allows to create patch polygons along strokes, strokes that are drawn directly on the mesh): https://youtu.be/_ehmPPQRtm0 (watch at 0.25 speed 😉 ) https://youtu.be/toCyGQ8wZK8

In #67997#945214, @xan2622 wrote:
These two videos show how easily it's possible to extrude edges to create faces.

The problem with this approach is that it is as awkward as shown in the video.

The ziRail Maya plugin

It was done in bsurfaces as creating functionality, then we enhanced it to editing functionality in Looptools Gstretch, then it was broken since 2.8, and it was reinvented by Oscurart
https://twitter.com/Oscurart/status/1264903106581725184
But the problem with this approach is that it does not give a strong advantage over regular extrude and scale.

> In #67997#945214, @xan2622 wrote: > These two videos show how easily it's possible to extrude edges to create faces. The problem with this approach is that it is as awkward as shown in the video. >The ziRail Maya plugin It was done in bsurfaces as creating functionality, then we enhanced it to [editing ](https://youtu.be/8Myfa8jH5nA) functionality in Looptools Gstretch, then it was broken since 2.8, and it was reinvented by Oscurart https://twitter.com/Oscurart/status/1264903106581725184 But the problem with this approach is that it does not give a strong advantage over regular extrude and scale.

In #67997#927619, @1D_Inc wrote:

The problem with this approach is that it is as awkward as shown in the video.

I don't think it's awkward. At all.
IMO, to create faces one-by-one, extruding edges to create faces this way (by snapping the closest vertex to the other geometry) is efficient and simple.

In #67997#927619, @1D_Inc wrote:

Proper Autoretopology engine is pretty much tough and separate task, it will be hard to develop something above [Instant meshes ]] or [https:*youtu.be/vTB814K9TBc?t=349 | Quad Remesher

It's going to be a real challenge to beat Exoside Quad Remesher algorithm, but there are some open-source GPL projects that go to the right direction:

https://github.com/huxingyi/autoremesher
https://blogs.dust3d.org/2020/06/19/auto-remesher/
https://blenderartists.org/t/pablo-dobarros-master-plan-for-sculpting-and-painting-development-news/1150731/5829

> In #67997#927619, @1D_Inc wrote: >> The problem with this approach is that it is as awkward as shown in the video. I don't think it's awkward. At all. IMO, to create faces one-by-one, extruding edges to create faces this way (by snapping the closest vertex to the other geometry) is efficient and simple. > In #67997#927619, @1D_Inc wrote: >> Proper Autoretopology engine is pretty much tough and separate task, it will be hard to develop something above [Instant meshes ]] or [[https:*youtu.be/vTB814K9TBc?t=349 | Quad Remesher ](https:*youtu.be/HBiR262Wdfc?t=256) It's going to be a real challenge to beat Exoside Quad Remesher algorithm, but there are some open-source GPL projects that go to the right direction: ![cdf11d79302cfca80fd368b666d4b4122c68c5c0.jpeg](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8634892/cdf11d79302cfca80fd368b666d4b4122c68c5c0.jpeg) https://github.com/huxingyi/autoremesher https://blogs.dust3d.org/2020/06/19/auto-remesher/ https://blenderartists.org/t/pablo-dobarros-master-plan-for-sculpting-and-painting-development-news/1150731/5829

In #67997#961548, @xan2622 wrote:

I don't think it's awkward. At all.

Yes, I know. A lot of people think that such approaches are not awkward, because it is unobvious until you start making retopology at massive scale.
Same issue with, for example, Polybuild and Polyquit tools.

That's the common problem of retopology workflows and approaches.
You have to test it hard before to say that approach is good.

The problem of the edge-oriented workflow is that edge consists from two vertices, and you have to tweak them both to get result, that leads to more tweaking.
Also, edge-oriented workflow relies on extruding, and extruding was never a problem.
So this approach solves unexisting problem.

> In #67997#961548, @xan2622 wrote: > I don't think it's awkward. At all. Yes, I know. A lot of people think that such approaches are not awkward, because it is unobvious until you start making retopology at massive scale. Same issue with, for example, Polybuild and Polyquit tools. That's the common problem of retopology workflows and approaches. You have to test it [hard ](https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA) before to say that approach is good. The problem of the edge-oriented workflow is that edge consists from two vertices, and you have to tweak them both to get result, that leads to more tweaking. Also, edge-oriented workflow relies on extruding, and extruding was never a problem. So this approach solves unexisting problem.

Added subscriber: @MeshVoid

Probably the best free addon as of now for retopology is PolyQuilt mentioned above: https://github.com/sakana3/PolyQuilt. Its functionalities are simple and effective. The only issue with it is that it does not render properly with the shrinkwrap modifier applied, but you can always use auto snapping as a workaround but still, it would have been great if it did respect shrinkwrap. But its relax-tool is the thing of beauty and something that is very useful during the retopology process and other Polyquilt tool functionalities are basically essential. I'd be glad to see something like the Polyquilt tool implemented in Blender's edit mode out of the box. It would have been perfect, to be honest.

QuadWrap looks interesting too:

Click to preview GIF image:
https://blenderartists.org/t/add-on-quadwrap-retopology-tool/1241087/

**QuadWrap** looks interesting too: Click to preview GIF image: ![6628dc4f6ca5a47212d17a194f49c8d88cfc013f.gif](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8794536/6628dc4f6ca5a47212d17a194f49c8d88cfc013f.gif) https://blenderartists.org/t/add-on-quadwrap-retopology-tool/1241087/

In #67997#998960, @xan2622 wrote:
QuadWrap looks interesting too:

I bought it, it is pretty much early beta.

Anyway, core development is way more about making API that allow to write such functionality, rather than making such functionality, because of wide range of possible realizations of such functionality.

> In #67997#998960, @xan2622 wrote: > **QuadWrap** looks interesting too: I bought it, it is pretty much early beta. Anyway, core development is way more about making API that allow to write such functionality, rather than making such functionality, because of wide range of possible realizations of such functionality.

Added subscriber: @SirPigeonz

Added subscriber: @iamriles

Added subscriber: @Brando77

I almost think this design task should be split into two different pieces manual retopology and semi-auto retopology because it's similar to asking what tools should we work on sculpting tools or modeling tools, you're just going to get a lot of noise in the chat and have no clear answer to the question.

Added subscriber: @tiagoffcruz

Added subscriber: @biteworks

In my daily work I do a lot of retopo. One thing that I am currently missing with the PolyBuild tool is the ability to extrude multiple edges at the same time.
In 3Ds Max there is this possibility for all edges, which point in one direction as shown on the picture here:

In my daily work I do a lot of retopo. One thing that I am currently missing with the PolyBuild tool is the ability to extrude multiple edges at the same time. In 3Ds Max there is this possibility for all edges, which point in one direction as shown on the picture here: ![Extrude-Edges.gif](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F9259021/Extrude-Edges.gif)

In #67997#1052352, @biteworks wrote:
In my daily work I do a lot of retopo. One thing that I am currently missing with the PolyBuild tool is the ability to extrude multiple edges at the same time.
In 3Ds Max there is this possibility for all edges, which point in one direction as shown on the picture here:

This is basic Blender modeling functionality, available by default.

> In #67997#1052352, @biteworks wrote: > In my daily work I do a lot of retopo. One thing that I am currently missing with the PolyBuild tool is the ability to extrude multiple edges at the same time. > In 3Ds Max there is this possibility for all edges, which point in one direction as shown on the picture here: This is basic Blender modeling functionality, available by default.

In #67997#1052368, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1052352, @biteworks wrote:
In my daily work I do a lot of retopo. One thing that I am currently missing with the PolyBuild tool is the ability to extrude multiple edges at the same time.
In 3Ds Max there is this possibility for all edges, which point in one direction as shown on the picture here:

This is basic Blender modeling functionality, available by default.

Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment.

> In #67997#1052368, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1052352, @biteworks wrote: >> In my daily work I do a lot of retopo. One thing that I am currently missing with the PolyBuild tool is the ability to extrude multiple edges at the same time. >> In 3Ds Max there is this possibility for all edges, which point in one direction as shown on the picture here: > > > This is basic Blender modeling functionality, available by default. Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment.

In #67997#1052390, @biteworks wrote:

Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment.

That's one of the reasons we don't use PolyBuild . actually. Because, as a concept, it provides less convenient and slower retopo workflow than regular modeling.

> In #67997#1052390, @biteworks wrote: > Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment. That's one of the reasons we [don't use PolyBuild ](https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA). actually. Because, as a concept, it provides less convenient and slower retopo workflow than regular modeling.

In #67997#1052538, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1052390, @biteworks wrote:

Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment.

That's one of the reasons we don't use PolyBuild . actually. Because, as a concept, it provides less convenient and slower retopo workflow than regular modeling.

it's true, I use the mesh:F2 add-on and basic modeling skills and it's pretty fast, way better than the clunky tool that polybuild is.

> In #67997#1052538, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1052390, @biteworks wrote: > >> Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment. > > That's one of the reasons we [don't use PolyBuild ](https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA). actually. Because, as a concept, it provides less convenient and slower retopo workflow than regular modeling. it's true, I use the mesh:F2 add-on and basic modeling skills and it's pretty fast, way better than the clunky tool that polybuild is.

In #67997#1052538, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1052390, @biteworks wrote:

Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment.

That's one of the reasons we don't use PolyBuild . actually. Because, as a concept, it provides less convenient and slower retopo workflow than regular modeling.

Why would you do manual retopo in this day and age on something like ornaments? I mean the video is sped up and despite that the workflow looks incredibly slow. The video is sped up at least twice, possibly more, so it's at least two hours of work. Two hours for something that should take 3-5 minutes with up to date workflow. If you do it as a hobby, then it's fine probably, but if you do it for living, then it must be increasingly harder to maintain reasonably paid jobs.

> In #67997#1052538, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1052390, @biteworks wrote: > >> Yeah, but not inside the PolyBuild Tool. It would be usefull to have a shortcut that highligts more than one edge and extrudes it like it does with one edge at the moment. > > That's one of the reasons we [don't use PolyBuild ](https://youtu.be/Y74HmBnydSA). actually. Because, as a concept, it provides less convenient and slower retopo workflow than regular modeling. Why would you do manual retopo in this day and age on something like ornaments? I mean the video is sped up and despite that the workflow looks incredibly slow. The video is sped up at least twice, possibly more, so it's at least two hours of work. Two hours for something that should take 3-5 minutes with up to date workflow. If you do it as a hobby, then it's fine probably, but if you do it for living, then it must be increasingly harder to maintain reasonably paid jobs.

In #67997#1053726, @jeacom wrote:
it's true, I use the mesh:F2 add-on and basic modeling skills and it's pretty fast, way better than the clunky tool that polybuild is.

The point of the polybuild approach is that it supposed to be used with a single hand, which is easier to learn, but slower to perform.
It is a part of a "consistency vs relevancy and their balance" issue.

In #67997#1053796, @Rawalanche wrote:
Why would you do manual retopo in this day and age on something like ornaments? I mean the video is sped up and despite that the workflow looks incredibly slow. The video is sped up at least twice, possibly more, so it's at least two hours of work. Two hours for something that should take 3-5 minutes with up to date workflow. If you do it as a hobby, then it's fine probably, but if you do it for living, then it must be increasingly harder to maintain reasonably paid jobs.

Sorry, I am not sure what exactly do you mean.
Do you want to say that you will make it faster than me with the polybuild tool?

> In #67997#1053726, @jeacom wrote: > it's true, I use the mesh:F2 add-on and basic modeling skills and it's pretty fast, way better than the clunky tool that polybuild is. The point of the polybuild approach is that it supposed to be used with a single hand, which is easier to learn, but slower to perform. It is a part of a "consistency vs relevancy and their balance" issue. > In #67997#1053796, @Rawalanche wrote: > Why would you do manual retopo in this day and age on something like ornaments? I mean the video is sped up and despite that the workflow looks incredibly slow. The video is sped up at least twice, possibly more, so it's at least two hours of work. Two hours for something that should take 3-5 minutes with up to date workflow. If you do it as a hobby, then it's fine probably, but if you do it for living, then it must be increasingly harder to maintain reasonably paid jobs. Sorry, I am not sure what exactly do you mean. Do you want to say that you will make it faster than me with the polybuild tool?

The point of the polybuild approach is that it supposed to be used with a single hand, which is easier to learn, but slower to perform.
It is a part of a "consistency vs relevancy and their balance" issue.

In #67997#1053796, @Rawalanche wrote:
Why would you do manual retopo in this day and age on something like ornaments? I mean the video is sped up and despite that the workflow looks incredibly slow. The video is sped up at least twice, possibly more, so it's at least two hours of work. Two hours for something that should take 3-5 minutes with up to date workflow. If you do it as a hobby, then it's fine probably, but if you do it for living, then it must be increasingly harder to maintain reasonably paid jobs.

Sorry, I am not sure what exactly do you mean.
Do you want to say that you will make it faster than me with the polybuild tool?

Yes. I meant just that video, not retopo in general. Retopo tools should improve, if possible, of course. But what you shown in that video seems like the exact kind of work that should be done with automatic, human assisted remeshers. Those where you just suggest a few topology lines to follow and it'll do the rest. If you do that kind of work manually these days, then you just can't be competitive on the market.

> The point of the polybuild approach is that it supposed to be used with a single hand, which is easier to learn, but slower to perform. > It is a part of a "consistency vs relevancy and their balance" issue. > >> In #67997#1053796, @Rawalanche wrote: >> Why would you do manual retopo in this day and age on something like ornaments? I mean the video is sped up and despite that the workflow looks incredibly slow. The video is sped up at least twice, possibly more, so it's at least two hours of work. Two hours for something that should take 3-5 minutes with up to date workflow. If you do it as a hobby, then it's fine probably, but if you do it for living, then it must be increasingly harder to maintain reasonably paid jobs. > > Sorry, I am not sure what exactly do you mean. > Do you want to say that you will make it faster than me with the polybuild tool? Yes. I meant just that video, not retopo in general. Retopo tools should improve, if possible, of course. But what you shown in that video seems like the exact kind of work that should be done with automatic, human assisted remeshers. Those where you just suggest a few topology lines to follow and it'll do the rest. If you do that kind of work manually these days, then you just can't be competitive on the market.

In #67997#1054343, @Rawalanche wrote:

Yes. I meant just that video, not retopo in general. Retopo tools should improve, if possible, of course. But what you shown in that video seems like the exact kind of work that should be done with automatic, human assisted remeshers. Those where you just suggest a few topology lines to follow and it'll do the rest. If you do that kind of work manually these days, then you just can't be competitive on the market.

The purpose of this video was not to get a table, but workflow endurance test.
The problem is that linear workflow is not scalable - running 100 and 10,000 meters has different endurance requirements, and it is easy to be tricked here.
We are interested in workflow parameters such as loss of speed over time and errors made during exhaustion, that's why we are performing such kind of a tests, that includes videorecordings to increase the load, to find out if the approach is sustainable enough.

Of course, we do not use manual retopology for such tables, we use it for historical / architectural restoration that includes such goals like retopo textured photoscans for subd cnc, 3dprinting and visualization.
At the moment it must be done manually as it contains a common problem that has not yet been resolved - the variable density mesh retopology.
We are constantly looking for the nice approach and making different tools as well, but we haven't got anything much better since we made F2.

The result of a test is available for free, though. The link is in the description.

> In #67997#1054343, @Rawalanche wrote: > Yes. I meant just that video, not retopo in general. Retopo tools should improve, if possible, of course. But what you shown in that video seems like the exact kind of work that should be done with automatic, human assisted remeshers. Those where you just suggest a few topology lines to follow and it'll do the rest. If you do that kind of work manually these days, then you just can't be competitive on the market. The purpose of this video was not to get a table, but workflow endurance test. The problem is that linear workflow is not scalable - running 100 and 10,000 meters has different endurance requirements, and it is easy to be tricked here. We are interested in workflow parameters such as loss of speed over time and errors made during exhaustion, that's why we are performing such kind of a tests, that includes videorecordings to increase the load, to find out if the approach is sustainable enough. Of course, we do not use manual retopology for such tables, we use it for historical / architectural restoration that includes such goals like retopo textured photoscans for subd cnc, 3dprinting and visualization. At the moment it must be done manually as it contains a common problem that has not yet been resolved - the variable density mesh retopology. We are constantly looking for the nice approach and making different tools as well, but we haven't got anything much better since we made F2. The result of a test is available for free, though. The link is in the description.

I just would like to see more people stop thinking of retopology as making stripes and more of making patches.
Seeing people just do a stripe with 50 quads makes me cringe, because that way you'll have a lot of trouble making sure different parts of the mesh connect cleanly due to mismatch of the number of quads.

thats the way I do, never making a stripe with more than 5 quads of length generally and thinking about patches and not squares.

2020-11-13 16-13-51.mp4

I just would like to see more people stop thinking of retopology as making stripes and more of making patches. Seeing people just do a stripe with 50 quads makes me cringe, because that way you'll have a lot of trouble making sure different parts of the mesh connect cleanly due to mismatch of the number of quads. thats the way I do, never making a stripe with more than 5 quads of length generally and thinking about patches and not squares. [2020-11-13 16-13-51.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F9277884/2020-11-13_16-13-51.mp4)

In #67997#1054389, @jeacom wrote:
I just would like to see more people stop thinking of retopology as making stripes and more of making patches.

Well, yes, until ear.
Patches workflow is suitable only for regular topology density as well.
(That's, actually, fascinating how many retopology concept demos show face retopology and stops at ears)

> In #67997#1054389, @jeacom wrote: > I just would like to see more people stop thinking of retopology as making stripes and more of making patches. Well, yes, until ear. Patches workflow is suitable only for regular topology density as well. (That's, actually, fascinating how many retopology concept demos show face retopology and stops at ears)

In #67997#1054399, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1054389, @jeacom wrote:
I just would like to see more people stop thinking of retopology as making stripes and more of making patches.

Well, yes, until ear.
Patches workflow is suitable only for regular topology density as well.
(That's, actually, fascinating how many retopology concept demos show face retopology and stops at ears)

if you know how to bend those patches and place strategically singularities, you can make some pretty dramatic density changes.

Yeah, ears are hard, but not only to retopo, they are hard in general. It took me about 2 years, to be able to sculpt halfway decent ears.

> In #67997#1054399, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1054389, @jeacom wrote: >> I just would like to see more people stop thinking of retopology as making stripes and more of making patches. > > Well, yes, until ear. > Patches workflow is suitable only for regular topology density as well. > (That's, actually, fascinating how many retopology concept demos show face retopology and stops at ears) if you know how to bend those patches and place strategically singularities, you can make some pretty dramatic density changes. ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F9278899/image.png) Yeah, ears are hard, but not only to retopo, they are hard in general. It took me about 2 years, to be able to sculpt halfway decent ears.

In #67997#1054452, @jeacom wrote:
Yeah, ears are hard, but not only to retopo, they are hard in general. It took me about 2 years, to be able to sculpt halfway decent ears.

Yes, ears are hard. In short I can describe the problem of designing an irregular density retopology process as "design a modeling process that can be suitable for retopologizing a character whose surface is made up of ears".

Architectural/historical restoration tries to handle this kind of task.

> In #67997#1054452, @jeacom wrote: > Yeah, ears are hard, but not only to retopo, they are hard in general. It took me about 2 years, to be able to sculpt halfway decent ears. Yes, ears are hard. In short I can describe the problem of designing an irregular density retopology process as "design a modeling process that can be suitable for retopologizing a character whose surface is made up of ears". ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F9294525/image.png) Architectural/historical restoration tries to handle this kind of task.

Removed subscriber: @Brando77

Added subscriber: @fengxc

In #67997#964921, @MeshVoid wrote:
Probably the best free addon as of now for retopology is PolyQuilt mentioned above: https://github.com/sakana3/PolyQuilt. Its functionalities are simple and effective. The only issue with it is that it does not render properly with the shrinkwrap modifier applied, but you can always use auto snapping as a workaround but still, it would have been great if it did respect shrinkwrap. But its relax-tool is the thing of beauty and something that is very useful during the retopology process and other Polyquilt tool functionalities are basically essential. I'd be glad to see something like the Polyquilt tool implemented in Blender's edit mode out of the box. It would have been perfect, to be honest.

yes polyquit is best blender retopo tool

> In #67997#964921, @MeshVoid wrote: > Probably the best free addon as of now for retopology is PolyQuilt mentioned above: https://github.com/sakana3/PolyQuilt. Its functionalities are simple and effective. The only issue with it is that it does not render properly with the shrinkwrap modifier applied, but you can always use auto snapping as a workaround but still, it would have been great if it did respect shrinkwrap. But its relax-tool is the thing of beauty and something that is very useful during the retopology process and other Polyquilt tool functionalities are basically essential. I'd be glad to see something like the Polyquilt tool implemented in Blender's edit mode out of the box. It would have been perfect, to be honest. yes polyquit is best blender retopo tool

In #67997#1077016, @fengxc wrote:

yes polyquit is best blender retopo tool

Not even close. It is yet another singlehand reresentation, so it is slow.

> In #67997#1077016, @fengxc wrote: > yes polyquit is best blender retopo tool Not even close. It is yet another singlehand reresentation, so it is slow.

In #67997#1077387, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1077016, @fengxc wrote:

yes polyquit is best blender retopo tool

Not even close. It is yet another singlehand reresentation, so it is slow.

Yes, I've tried many plug-ins, such as retopflow and speedretop...., but in terms of interaction and logic of operation, they are far from polyquit，Yes, I mean, this is the best manual topology tool, because In my game project, I need to use the manual topology function to make special models,Precise control of topological points

> In #67997#1077387, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1077016, @fengxc wrote: > >> yes polyquit is best blender retopo tool > > Not even close. It is yet another singlehand reresentation, so it is slow. Yes, I've tried many plug-ins, such as retopflow and speedretop...., but in terms of interaction and logic of operation, they are far from polyquit，Yes, I mean, this is the best manual topology tool, because In my game project, I need to use the manual topology function to make special models,Precise control of topological points

In #67997#1077395, @fengxc wrote:

Yes, I've tried many plug-ins, such as retopflow and speedretop...., but in terms of interaction and logic of operation, they are far from polyquit.

Correct, Poluquilt is a retoplogy tool with a valid singlehand workflow design.
It is better than most of other singlehand representations.

> In #67997#1077395, @fengxc wrote: > Yes, I've tried many plug-ins, such as retopflow and speedretop...., but in terms of interaction and logic of operation, they are far from polyquit. Correct, Poluquilt is a retoplogy tool with a valid singlehand workflow design. It is better than most of other singlehand representations.

Added subscriber: @13AUDDIN

Anyone considered a tool like this for retopology? The user has to sketch the quad layouts and the software will figure out how to fill them using a database of quad patches.
Here is the link to the software and paper if anyone wants to try it out:
https://igl.ethz.ch/projects/sketch-retopo/sketch-retopo-license.html
https://igl.ethz.ch/projects/ddq/

Anyone considered a tool like this for retopology? The user has to sketch the quad layouts and the software will figure out how to fill them using a database of quad patches. Here is the link to the software and paper if anyone wants to try it out: https://igl.ethz.ch/projects/sketch-retopo/sketch-retopo-license.html https://igl.ethz.ch/projects/ddq/ ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F9559634/image.png)

In #67997#1090884, @13AUDDIN wrote:
Anyone considered a tool like this for retopology?

Do you mean something like this?
https://youtu.be/oXLWhifSwAc

> In #67997#1090884, @13AUDDIN wrote: > Anyone considered a tool like this for retopology? Do you mean something like this? https://youtu.be/oXLWhifSwAc

Added subscriber: @Harshk7

Added subscriber: @bao007fei

Added subscriber: @ckohl_art

Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology and made a little guide where I explain how I use it for retopology of organic characters. I really don't like RetopoFlow 3, and it would be sad if Blender will create a separate mode or decides to go the route RetopoFlow 3 did. And it would be so cool if at least the default PolyBuild tool had the same functionality as PolyQuilt in Blender. I think PolyBuild tool should have worked akin to the QuadDraw tool in Maya initially? But didn't get enough development attention due to time limitations? Here's the video on retopology if anyone is interested: https://youtu.be/QuYAa8AFRAs

In #67997#1106800, @MeshVoid wrote:
Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology.

Why do you use so slow method to build a geometry?
This is not the way you do retopology in Blender.
Did you ever heard about F2 addon? Everybody use it for about a decade.

> In #67997#1106800, @MeshVoid wrote: > Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology. Why do you use so slow method to build a geometry? This is not the way you do retopology in Blender. Did you ever heard about F2 addon? Everybody use it for about a decade.

In #67997#1107096, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1106800, @MeshVoid wrote:
Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology.

Why do you use so slow method to build a geometry?
This is not the way you do retopology in Blender.
Did you ever heard about F2 addon? Everybody use it for about a decade.

I actually use f2 addon in the video, Paul...

> In #67997#1107096, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1106800, @MeshVoid wrote: >> Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology. > > Why do you use so slow method to build a geometry? > This is not the way you do retopology in Blender. > Did you ever heard about F2 addon? Everybody use it for about a decade. I actually use f2 addon in the video, Paul...

In #67997#1107096, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1106800, @MeshVoid wrote:
Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology.

Why do you use so slow method to build a geometry?
This is not the way you do retopology in Blender.
Did you ever heard about F2 addon? Everybody use it for about a decade.

Why are you so triggered, you clearly didn't watch the video, Paul. I'm acquainted with your work and your workflow, in the video I wanted to bring the attention of beginners to PolyQuilt addon functionality, as I found it to be very helpful last year while using it in production, what's with this lashing out?

> In #67997#1107096, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1106800, @MeshVoid wrote: >> Hi! I have been using Poly Quilt a lot for retopology. > > Why do you use so slow method to build a geometry? > This is not the way you do retopology in Blender. > Did you ever heard about F2 addon? Everybody use it for about a decade. Why are you so triggered, you clearly didn't watch the video, Paul. I'm acquainted with your work and your workflow, in the video I wanted to bring the attention of beginners to PolyQuilt addon functionality, as I found it to be very helpful last year while using it in production, what's with this lashing out?

In #67997#1107155, @MeshVoid wrote:
Why are you so triggered, you clearly didn't watch the video, Paul.

I am triggered because I develop the most effective manual retopology workflow in Blender for a very long time. If we will make retopology like you shown in your video, it will take an eternity to finish our projects.
Just look at 6:26 sample.
You don't have to select all 4 vertices since 2015 or earlier.
Just look at 18:07 sample.
You extrude an edge, and the tweak its both vertices every time?
Just look at 18:30 sample.
Create a vertex - point to the vertex - tweak a vertex - point to another vertex.
Can you explain what are possible reasons behind so many garbage actions?

Please stop promoting PolyQuilt, it was an interesting concept to play around, with lots of WOW highlightings and stuff, but in practice it is less effective in retopology even than regular modeling.

> In #67997#1107155, @MeshVoid wrote: > Why are you so triggered, you clearly didn't watch the video, Paul. I am triggered because I develop the most effective manual retopology workflow in Blender for a very long time. If we will make retopology like you shown in your video, it will take an eternity to finish our projects. Just look at 6:26 sample. You don't have to select all 4 vertices since 2015 or earlier. Just look at 18:07 sample. You extrude an **edge**, and the tweak its both **vertices** every time? Just look at 18:30 sample. Create a vertex - point to the vertex - tweak a vertex - point to another vertex. Can you explain what are possible reasons behind so many garbage actions? Please stop promoting PolyQuilt, it was an interesting concept to play around, with lots of WOW highlightings and stuff, but in practice it is less effective in retopology even than regular modeling.

In #67997#1107168, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1107155, @MeshVoid wrote:
Why are you so triggered, you clearly didn't watch the video, Paul.

I am triggered because I develop the most effective manual retopology workflow in Blender for a very long time. If we will make retopology like you shown in your video, it will take an eternity to finish our projects.
Just look at 6:26 sample.
You don't have to select all 4 vertices since 2015 or earlier.
Just look at 18:07 sample.
You extrude an edge, and the tweak its both vertices every time?
Just look at 18:30 sample.
Create a vertex - point to the vertex - tweak a vertex - point to another vertex.
Can you explain what are possible reasons behind so many garbage actions?

Please stop promoting PolyQuilt, it was an interesting concept to play around with, with lots of WOW highlightings and stuff, but in practice, it is less effective in retopology even than regular modeling.

Great, thanks for pointing it out, now it's something to discuss.

- At 6:26, and on other occasions, yes I have selected all four vertices, and pressed F, so what, to this day everyone knows how to use F2 addon, that's why I even forgot to mention it, it's a standard. (18:07, 18:30) You really going to nitpick things like that and tell me that the whole workflow is wrong, because of that? And, yes, I do a lot of garbage movements in that video, this happens when your record stuff as a demo, I'm sorry for not being a robot. Moreover, it was recorded this summer, and I state that video that I didn't even fully got acquainted with PolyQuilts functionality at that time.

For some reason, It doesn't take an eternity to finish my characters. Never in the video I say that tweaking each vertex is the way to go, on the contrary, but I sometimes do tweak stuff, that is the way I work, I really want to see a person working as an algorithm, if you know one show me non-cut video. Moreover, you fidget with vertices in your videos, all humans do that, as far as I know.

Here, my friend is where you ARE Wrong. And, I'm sorry to tell you that. Having only F2 and the basic modeling tools is not enough, I hope we can agree on that. That's why this whole thread has been created, probably? And yes, PolyQuilt is an awesome addon and it doesn't bring just WOW-highlights, it brings basic functionality that is lacking for faster and comfortable character retopology in Blender as of now.

I'm no developer, but I try all retopology options out there and outside of Blender too, but it seems like you have some sort of a personal beef with PolyQuilt, despite it having awesome functions, that are actually present by default in other software packages. I think that tool requires acknowledgment, that's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Hell, if there's a better option available that could be natively integrated into Blender, why not? I'm all in, I have just made suggestions.

> In #67997#1107168, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1107155, @MeshVoid wrote: >> Why are you so triggered, you clearly didn't watch the video, Paul. > > I am triggered because I develop the most effective manual retopology workflow in Blender for a very long time. If we will make retopology like you shown in your video, it will take an eternity to finish our projects. > Just look at 6:26 sample. > You don't have to select all 4 vertices since 2015 or earlier. > Just look at 18:07 sample. > You extrude an **edge**, and the tweak its both **vertices** every time? > Just look at 18:30 sample. > Create a vertex - point to the vertex - tweak a vertex - point to another vertex. > Can you explain what are possible reasons behind so many garbage actions? > > Please stop promoting PolyQuilt, it was an interesting concept to play around with, with lots of WOW highlightings and stuff, but in practice, it is less effective in retopology even than regular modeling. Great, thanks for pointing it out, now it's something to discuss. 1) - At 6:26, and on other occasions, yes I have selected all four vertices, and pressed F, so what, to this day everyone knows how to use F2 addon, that's why I even forgot to mention it, it's a standard. (18:07, 18:30) You really going to nitpick things like that and tell me that the whole workflow is wrong, because of that? And, yes, I do a lot of garbage movements in that video, this happens when your record stuff as a demo, I'm sorry for not being a robot. Moreover, it was recorded this summer, and I state that video that I didn't even fully got acquainted with PolyQuilts functionality at that time. For some reason, It doesn't take an eternity to finish my characters. Never in the video I say that tweaking each vertex is the way to go, on the contrary, but I sometimes do tweak stuff, that is the way I work, I really want to see a person working as an algorithm, if you know one show me non-cut video. Moreover, you fidget with vertices in your videos, all humans do that, as far as I know. Here, my friend is where you **ARE Wrong**. And, I'm sorry to tell you that. Having only F2 and the basic modeling tools is not enough, I hope we can agree on that. That's why this whole thread has been created, probably? And yes, PolyQuilt is an awesome addon and it doesn't bring just WOW-highlights, it brings basic functionality that is lacking for faster and comfortable character retopology in Blender as of now. I'm no developer, but I try all retopology options out there and outside of Blender too, but it seems like you have some sort of a personal beef with PolyQuilt, despite it having awesome functions, that are actually present by default in other software packages. I think that tool requires acknowledgment, that's all, nothing more, nothing less. Hell, if there's a better option available that could be natively integrated into Blender, why not? I'm all in, I have just made suggestions.

In #67997#1107199, @MeshVoid wrote:

For some reason, It doesn't take an eternity to finish my characters.

It is not a problem to retopo a character.
Variable density retopology is a problem.

Having only F2 and the basic modeling tools is not enough.

Any evidence? Timelapses with time stamps? Comparisons?
I guess you didn't even tried to find the most effective way, you just trying to use what is looking cool)
This is the problem with Blender retopology - many people try to put a lot of garbage in Blender, which looks cool at first glance, without any kind of proper testing.

> In #67997#1107199, @MeshVoid wrote: > For some reason, It doesn't take an eternity to finish my characters. It is not a problem to retopo a character. Variable density retopology is a problem. > Having only F2 and the basic modeling tools is not enough. Any evidence? Timelapses with time stamps? Comparisons? I guess you didn't even tried to find the most effective way, you just trying to use what is looking cool) This is the problem with Blender retopology - many people try to put a lot of garbage in Blender, which looks cool at first glance, without any kind of proper testing.

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

@1D_Inc and @MeshVoid thanks for your input on this, but please leave the discussion at where it is.

There is no one in the core team that can work on this at the moment. Thus unfortunately no one that can handle this kind of user feedback.

When that moment comes be aware that this will be organized in devtalk, not in this platform.

@1D_Inc and @MeshVoid thanks for your input on this, but please leave the discussion at where it is. There is no one in the core team that can work on this at the moment. Thus unfortunately no one that can handle this kind of user feedback. When that moment comes be aware that this will be organized in devtalk, not in this platform.

In #67997#1107232, @1D_Inc wrote:

In #67997#1107199, @MeshVoid wrote:

For some reason, It doesn't take an eternity to finish my characters.

It is not a problem to retopo a character.
Variable density retopology is a problem.

Having only F2 and the basic modeling tools is not enough.

Any evidence? Timelapses with time stamps? Comparisons?
I guess you didn't even tried to find the most effective way, you just trying to use what is looking cool)
This is the problem with Blender retopology - many people try to put a lot of garbage in Blender, which looks cool at first glance)

I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm saying it's not comfortable in Blender, and it has a way more backwarded workflow than currently present in other software packages, IMO. I used just f2 and basic modeling tools for other characters previously. And the notion that creating only variable density retopo is the main problem is not fully correct, it's like trying to shed light on part of the problem.

You don't have to make a thorough comparative study to notice that proper mesh smoothing tools to create equalized mesh density are sorely missing in default Blender during the retopo process with default addons. Especially after trying something like Topogun or Maya for character retopo with default Blender workflow feels a bit dated and a lot of my fellow character artists noticed that instantly. If devs want to have a robust and diverse toolset they should pay attention to that.

Also, your last statement kinda speaks volumes, It's more like you're confined in your workflow for the purposes of your industry and also perceive yourself as a king of retopology, you can keep the crown, nobody needs it anyway. Perception is that everybody else's feedback in this thread is inferior to yours that I have noticed during your communication with other users and assumption that everyone is a noob and haven't tried different tools and doesn't come from different backgrounds and have different needs and only tries "what looks cool" is kinda destructive, but hey, do your thing.

Also it's clear that you don't like new things in Blender, then why bother anyways, maybe keep using 2.79 then with f2, it's a perfect version, am I right?

> In #67997#1107232, @1D_Inc wrote: >> In #67997#1107199, @MeshVoid wrote: > >> For some reason, It doesn't take an eternity to finish my characters. > It is not a problem to retopo a character. > Variable density retopology is a problem. > >> Having only F2 and the basic modeling tools is not enough. > Any evidence? Timelapses with time stamps? Comparisons? > I guess you didn't even tried to find the most effective way, you just trying to use what is looking cool) > This is the problem with Blender retopology - many people try to put a lot of garbage in Blender, which looks cool at first glance) I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm saying it's not comfortable in Blender, and it has a way more backwarded workflow than currently present in other software packages, IMO. I used just f2 and basic modeling tools for other characters previously. And the notion that creating only variable density retopo is the main problem is not fully correct, it's like trying to shed light on part of the problem. You don't have to make a thorough comparative study to notice that proper mesh smoothing tools to create equalized mesh density are sorely missing in default Blender during the retopo process with default addons. Especially after trying something like Topogun or Maya for character retopo with default Blender workflow feels a bit dated and a lot of my fellow character artists noticed that instantly. If devs want to have a robust and diverse toolset they should pay attention to that. Also, your last statement kinda speaks volumes, It's more like you're confined in your workflow for the purposes of your industry and also perceive yourself as a king of retopology, you can keep the crown, nobody needs it anyway. Perception is that everybody else's feedback in this thread is inferior to yours that I have noticed during your communication with other users and assumption that everyone is a noob and haven't tried different tools and doesn't come from different backgrounds and have different needs and only tries "what looks cool" is kinda destructive, but hey, do your thing. Also it's clear that you don't like new things in Blender, then why bother anyways, maybe keep using 2.79 then with f2, it's a perfect version, am I right?

In #67997#1107242, @dfelinto wrote:
@1D_Inc and @MeshVoid thanks for your input on this, but please leave the discussion at where it is.

There is no one in the core team that can work on this at the moment.

No problem.

> In #67997#1107242, @dfelinto wrote: > @1D_Inc and @MeshVoid thanks for your input on this, but please leave the discussion at where it is. > > There is no one in the core team that can work on this at the moment. No problem.

In #67997#1107242, @dfelinto wrote:
@1D_Inc and @MeshVoid thanks for your input on this, but please leave the discussion at where it is.

There is no one in the core team that can work on this at the moment. Thus unfortunately no one that can handle this kind of user feedback.

When that moment comes be aware that this will be organized in devtalk, not in this platform.

Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I will refrain from commenting further.

> In #67997#1107242, @dfelinto wrote: > @1D_Inc and @MeshVoid thanks for your input on this, but please leave the discussion at where it is. > > There is no one in the core team that can work on this at the moment. Thus unfortunately no one that can handle this kind of user feedback. > > When that moment comes be aware that this will be organized in devtalk, not in this platform. Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I will refrain from commenting further.

Added subscriber: @Hologram

PolyQuilt is a great tool with the latest features.

Added subscriber: @lictex_1

Added subscriber: @CGIRENDER

Why not use the face sets or something to speed up retopology, basically the poly-group retopology in Zbrush? Is this even possible?

This comment was removed by @RosarioRosato

*This comment was removed by @RosarioRosato*

Added subscriber: @sleepyhead

@gfxcoder starts to work on Retopo Tools in January. More details and information where to follow the progress will be shared later.

Sources:
https://devtalk.blender.org/t/10-january-2022/22217
https://twitter.com/RetopoFlow/status/1480693022996111366

> @gfxcoder starts to work on Retopo Tools in January. More details and information where to follow the progress will be shared later. Sources: https://devtalk.blender.org/t/10-january-2022/22217 https://twitter.com/RetopoFlow/status/1480693022996111366

Added subscriber: @RedMser

Added subscriber: @Cigitia

Added subscriber: @thomasmouilleron

Added subscriber: @Nika-Kutsniashvili

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Retopology in Blender #67997

Issues

Solutions

Addons

The more advanced thing then would be a new snapping mode. Here a normal based snapping would be really cool sort of like this: