pildanovak, this is exactely how i have my settings for sculpting 
i did notice however that the creasebrush does not work like before, it is now harder to get a clean creaseline. also the brushes behave smoother than i like. … so, i would prefer if there were a checkbox so that we can turn off this “avoid skinny face”-feature, or turn it on when needed/wished.
Similar test results here. +1 Doris.
Now, I have to exit dyntopo use crease or shrink (similar brushes) to add some crisper look and try not to stroke on this area, not even come close to this area.
I usually come with a ~300k faces dyntopo for a bust. Using the patch, I came with a ~600 k for similar look.
However I think it may be worth keeping since I think its normally not so desirable to have very high poly geometry connected directly next to low poly areas.
Doris, me, a lot of other blender sculpt lovers, we always avoid it by using rather large brushes (subd collapse). If sculpt becomes messy (artistically speaking), we decimate this area and start adding geometry again. This is one power feature of dyntopo. For example, in zbrush (multires) this isn’t possible, you have to discard one or two levels of subs, losing a lot of work. On the other hand, dynamesh adds more issues.
What happens in deferent apps and approaches may be out of this topic. However, I tried to explain why blender dyntopo is so powerful despite its simplicity.
The no-skinny-patch should be used optionally IMO.
Of course it worths keeping it. A very good addition.
I’ve tested the patch too. I even made a comparison of the crease brush between master and this patch with a curve stroke so the stroke is identical and I can do the comparison better.
While I didn’t see any significant difference in the crease brush strokes, the overall result is different. “Smooth” is not a good description though. Basically, the previous algorithm creates more organic shapes, exactly -because- it doesn’t try to keep the tessellation even, and this helps making the form more interesting to the eye. It sort of makes a sphere look more like a sphere instead of a grid-tessellated cube, if you see what I mean.
So while I thought initially that Michalis and Doris were seeing things, and even though I have an aversion to options, I guess I can sort of see their point too. Good thing is that even if this is optional, the condition will be at quite a high level in the code and there will be no performance cost. So +1 from me to have this optional.
yes, psy-fi, since it does not need make tesselation even, it cean follow the stroke better, giving more the feel it does what i intend, than smooth it, or change it if smooth is not good word. …michalis, my busts stay below 300k too, often much less, and yes this way we sculpt. good description.
+1 PsyFi
BTW, me or Doris are not seeing things. LOL
In fact, it came to my mind when I first read this thread.
The crease brush ! Before testing it.
It is this nature of topology, you see.
The no-skinny is a good addition.
However I could go further and propose.
- no-skinny
- detail size , dyntopo modes (subd collapse etc etc )
These should be per brush properties.
It becomes handy to have a crease brush a little larger and more detailed sometimes.
BTW, a tip
Shrink vs crease brush:
Crease shrinks inwards or outwards (ctrl). Just use a strength of 0.1 or similar.
This is exactly the equivalent or the ZBrush shrink brush.
On the other hand our shrink brush does the opposite of shrinking when ctrl+brush. Quite useless in most cases.
All these with dyntopo OFF.
Out of topic, however the crease brush is a very important one and no-skinny is not its best friend, not always.
I will do a lot of testing and post some examples.
It will take a few days though.
Fine tuning of dyntopo is not an easy thing. Right?
While talking about optional workflow settings ; could we make line stroke “angle snapping” optional ? The old behavior of “negative” stroke is very important for working fast . Changing the stroke to “Additive/Subtractive” from the panel hinders the speed a lot.
I wouldn’t mind changing a shortcut too, but it seems Ctrl (cmd) is hard coded. 
Alrighty, will change it to Alt for constraint.
Thanks so much Psy-fi. 
Umm, Alt + left mouse = navigate viewport (with Emulate 3-button mouse, great for tablets, etc.). Could you perhaps make it exposed in Input editor instead?
On topic: I’ve been playing with this new behavior since yesterday, and indeed the overall behavior of brushes is smoother, but more predictable, at least to me. Strokes create a lot less “stray” triangles along surface direction changes. I haven’t noticed any significant difference with the crease brush though, but I rarely use it for carving.
No worries, Alt is not used for navigation in modal operators such as line strokes.
Committed to master https://developer.blender.org/rBd2da8aa27aad3e97365e6cae80d3c516073529c9
As it says in the log, old behavior is still there, just run this in the Py console
bpy.app.debug_value = 1234
… set it back to zero for new behavior.
I’ll investigate issues reported here to try resolve, though I tried using the crease tool and couldn’t make it behave differently with/without the patch.
If there is some test file where it gives obviously worse results, Id be interested to see.
Campbell, is the non-hack version for allowing this to be turned off included? Psy-Fi confirmed seeing the issue that the forum’s two foremost sculpting testers mentioned as being there (creasing issues).
@BTolputt, Just talked with @psy-fi and he didn’t manage to redo the problem.
So I’ll wait on some test-file, since I already spend quite some time attempting it myself.
Nope, I didn’t see the crease issue. I see that previous overall behaviour is more “organic” and I think this is what gives the impression that crease works better.
[EDIT - fixed original post to be clearer]
[EDIT 2: alt constrain and ctrl negation in master https://developer.blender.org/rBf27e0b7c5e9d9ac1d80fc6b86d29ea96e971708d]
On another (slightly related) note. I remember Campbell making a patch doing something similar for the decimate modifier (making the edge distribution a little bit more even)
What happened to that patch? I don’t see that behavior in the official Blender releases. It would be super-useful for cloth simulations and a lot of other stuff.
Reading this, perhaps if we had a hotkey that disabled Dyntopo for the duration of the stroke (and re-enabled it when the stroke is done), it wouldn’t be so big of an issue?
I already notice in 2.75 that turning off Dyntopo to use the crease tool is already the most optimal way of doing things in cases (especially for displacement details).
I guess the tricky thing is that the custom data layers come back when Dyntopo is disabled, perhaps you keep them blank if you go the hotkey switch route and have Blender not recognize it as the end of a Dyntopo session.
Another thing would be to reduce the effect of the patch a bit when using certain brush types (just enough so that you don’t get “super” skinny faces when sculpting).
what abouts stroke negation in curve strokes? really miss that, have to push everytime :(.
what i do to have a good crease/pinch specially for hard surface is to have subdv/collapse on with moderate/high dynto value. same goes for wrinkles. this would make the topology meld more naturally instead of forcing it as with the effects of only subdv option on.
assuming the skinny faces happens more in relative mode? i never encountered these as i block with constant and refine with relative.
but anyways, can’t wait for new possibilities this patch has to offer.
Have you tried enabling/disabling dyntopo on at least a 100k mesh? That won’t be a very interactive stroke.
Apologies to both Psy-Fi & Campbell. Didn’t mean to verbal you on the matter, it was an honest misunderstanding on my part.
With that said, being able to create more organic shapes IS something I think is worthwhile, especially given that the patch appears to remove that from the sculpting. I can kind of see where the comment is coming from myself, even though it doesn’t bother me personally.
Given the vast difference in skill/talent between myself and michalis/doris though, I’d be inclined to give them a little credit on what is viable as an option and what isn’t, especially given Psy-Fi doesn’t seem adverse to it (I double checked his post this time and he DOES say that 
).
The thing to be said though, when it comes to organic vs. even topology is that the latter may actually be a bit better at helping one prevent the appearance of terminator artifacts in areas that are supposed to be smooth (when rendering with an engine like Cycles).
It can also be of a major assistance if you’re doing creature sculpting while it may get in the way when making marble sculptures (which is a common subject from Michalis and Doris). The even method could also lead to better animation and posing results when using modifiers like Delta Mush
There’s advantages and disadvantages to both methods no doubt, there needs to be a way to incorporate both subdivision methods.