Hey Kent,
I was wondering one thing. Is there a specific reason you used remesh for the fins and didn't switch to dyntopo right from the start? Or was it more to have both tools used in the actual tutorial part?
kouya Mostly I wanted to feature both methods in the process. I feel like there's a "this or that" mentality in the broader community. You either pick dyntopo to sculpt or remesh and stick with it the whole time. I think that's silly. They can easily work together.
Personally I use dyntopo most of the time with occasional remeshing at the very beginning stages of a sculpture.
Oh, alright, thanks for the explanation. Was just curious if there was a further advantage to start without dyntopo for the basic shape. But I agree that limiting yourself to either of them is a bit silly as they kinda both have their own use.
This course was really great btw! I think this was the most significant new thing I tried out in modeling. :)
kouya you might wanna watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLa1F2ddGya_8Wzpajwu1EtiS8E1Exm82S&time_continue=3&v=lxkyA4Xslzs&feature=emb_logo
where Pablo Dobarro himself explains the difference and why Remesh is faster than Dynamic Topology.
spikeyxxx I'm going to confess...I have concern about Pablo's development. While I'm thrilled to see Blender's sculpt mode getting significant development, and I like his hype tweets as much as the next guy, I'm not convinced his direction is 100% the best for blender sculpting in general.
He and Julien have proven beyond a doubt that remesh is a great format for *stylized* sculpts. Everything they post to showcase new tools is stylized sculpts; nothing is realistic. The key difference being that realistic sculpts require really high poly counts which multires is the only practical method to achieve. I'm afraid he's tunnel-visioned within his preferred genre. As a result, imo he's neglected (and even removed) a foundational part of the sculpting meta (multires) and implies dyntopo as an inferior format to remesh.
I don't doubt that multires code has depreciated but it worked fine enough for me up until removal. In fact I'm currently doing a freelance gig with 2.80 multires and have experienced zero show-stopping glitches. However Pablo saw the code as "broken" and decides to remove it and rebuild. That's worrisome to me because he's clearly more focused on *cool* tools with specialized functions over fundamental tools like multires. The cloth brush looks incredible! But Blender is used to sculpt infinitely more things than clothing...and it could accomplish a broader spectrum when multires was involved.
As for dynotopo vs remesh, I've used the latter several times but simply don't find it as conducive to my workflow as dyntopo. I understand Pablo's perspective but it's just that: His perspective, not objective truth. The cons of dyntopo he outlines are valid but big-picture the comparison is apples and oranges.
I fear Pablo as a bit close minded in regards to sculpting workflow. My fingers are crossed that his development doesn't sacrifice as much as will be gained.
Thanks @theluthier it's always great to hear more than one vision!
Let's hope your concerns are unnecessary.