Any good guides for weight painting in blender? My mesh shows a lot of stretch marks when i move my bones.
And here's the weight paint.
your weight map looks like isle in ocean of course it would deform improperlysmooth it where stretching occurs
>>783486>your weight map looks like isle in ocean of course it would deform improperlyWhen you put it that way, his rigging looks like art.
>>783480first block the weights of all your model with 1/0 values, then smooth inbetweennever have a vertex weight distributed on more than 2-3 bones, except for specific needsalways add weight, never remove, or it will distribute to random bones
>>783480lets see the topology
>>783480>Shit topology>Way too high polyYou should learn the basics of 3D
>>783973You sound braindead write it again.
>>783486>>783973still working on the weight paint, will show if i get an acceptable result.>>784108here's the topology i know it doesn't look great, i decimated it too reduce polygons, i should have probably done that after i was done rigging.>>784195i am doing it right now.
>>784435boi she thicc
>this is the power of blendorb
>>784435>>784435No seriously, scrap whatever the fuck you are doing now and go back to the basics. How do you expect to weight paint something that has no proper topology? If you can't answer this question with a simple "yeah that was pretty retarded of me", you clearly aren't ready for weight painting/rigging.
>>784457i still saved a copy of the model before i decimated it. It contains too many polys so is there a way i can reduce them without getting a screwed up topology?
>>784459Yes, it's called retopology. Learn to do it.
>>784459this will still be easier to skin than >>784435
>>784465Yes but i need lower polys too export it into a game engine.>>784463gonna focus on that for now.
>blender is competitive
>>784435that's a big ass
>>784459Can you show the full model? curious
>>784546Very realistic depiction of the average american woman.
>>784435what the fuck is that topology
>>784546Please an hero
>>784546why on earth would you even be trying to do anything with this model? what fault in your brain made you look at this and go "looks good, time to rig"? i'm not even trying to be mean i just legitimately don't know how to explain shit like this without speculating about neurological disorders. it's not about people's early attempts sucking, which of course they will, it's about how they can't even judge their own results and proceed to spend 500 hours adding intricate pore detail or rigging or cloth sims to something that can never look anything but revolting because of mistakes made right at the start. do you not see that it's revolting or do you not care?
>>784564>....that can never look anything but revolting because of mistakes made right at the start. do you not see that it's revolting or do you not care?No."People with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias. He can't know what he doesn't know.
>>784435>>784459You need to learn how topology effects models, and you need to learn how to do retopology. Don't use decimate on anything you want to be rigged, neither before or after rigging. It will just fuck up how your model deforms.If you're lazy and you want fast results, though, you could reduce the number of subdivisions in your original (the one that's all quads instead of triangles) and while it won't be perfect, it will be light years better than that total fucking unworkable mess you've currently got....Honestly, though...>>784546I really wouldn't bother. You're going to need to learn how to model something other than tits and ass, because the majority of this model is absolutely awful.It's like you haven't looked at any kind of reference at all.
>>784435now this is /3/posting