>>518289>You'd rather not even try?
No, you. I tried and I failed. (I succeeded partially.) You didn’t even try – you just dismissed me as a fool.
Together, we could have made it. But you chose to make the opposite effort.>Clearly, you're not a 3D artist because the topology allows that, completely.
Clearly, no one who is a 3D artist can pull it off.>The topology allows that, completely. Why the fuck not?
I don’t know it and you don’t know it. The difference between you and me is that I’m not satisfied with our ignorance.>If you want to topologize it differently to box model cheekbones better, go ahead.
You forget what an Internet forum is for. I’m unable to do it myself. Complexity of human face in 3D overwhelms me. The stylistic schemes used to draw human faces in classic 2D don’t translate to 3D easily. We need to translate them though, because those schemes are the visual language of human face. Not only there’s no art without language – there’s no truth without it.>Chances are though, you're going to into deformation problems
That’s nothing compared to difficulties traditional sculptors face in animating marble sculpture. It’s so hard that, in fact, I have never seen a marble animation. They remain unemployed by Pixar. Yet they seem undeterred by it. Why?
If big wigs of 3D are so determined to make things animated... they could always implement morphing of two entirely different topologies for key frames. Or they could use two separate topologies on the same object: one for morphing and another for shape. The morphing topology doesn’t even need to be a polygon mesh, just influence control points or diffusion splines. What’s stopping them? Their lack of creativity? Blind obedience to received algorithms? Treating established software like truth?>Stop being suck a cuck and do it instead of shitposting.
Don’t call it “shitposting” – it’s the future you chose. Enjoy it.
Print OP pic and hang it above your desk.