3dCoatWannabe

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About 3dCoatWannabe

  • Rank
    Novice
  1. I'm no expert on linear, in fact it's a bit fuzzy as it's been a while since I really focused on it (but I do use it and prefer to work with exr's), but I think that if we could do all of our color texturing work in linear, while viewing it with a gamma applied (so it will look 'correct'), that this would be a good thing, for almost any purpose. Otherwise you get all sorts of crazy banding when blending layers - as all the math should definitely be done in linear. I haven't tested 3D Coat, so Andrew could already be doing all the math in linear. That podcast outlined some simple tests to show the effects. I really need to listen to it again myself - as I've forgotten exactly how to do them!!! Whether people use it or not is their choice, but ... it could be a selling point to get more interest in 3D Coat (if the other competing solutions don't offer it), just like ptex was a big feather in Andrew's cap when he had that working before almost anyone else. I can clearly see the groundswell though, and everything will be linear at some point for professional graphic tools.
  2. Ok. Creating textures with layers and blending, etc. works better in linear space just as outlined in the podcast. It outlines simple tests you can perform to demonstrate this. 3D Coat was originally about 'coating' objects with textures, so ... this would be better.
  3. Did you listen to the entire podcast?
  4. Because everything works better in linear. If you're not using linear, you should be. Listen to this podcast, it explains in detail. http://www.fxguide.com/fxpodcasts/Compositing_in_Linear/ There's a video that shows a bit about linear workflow advantages (but it has a number of errors) here: http://www.pixsim.co.uk/video_tutorials/The_Beginners_Explanation_of_Gamma_Correction_and_Linear_Workflow.zip and a pdf to go with it: http://www.pixsim.co.uk/downloads/The_Beginners_Explanation_of_Gamma_Correction_and_Linear_Workflow.pdf But the podcast actually does a much better job of explaining why you want to do any texturing (or anything that uses colors or light - which means .... um ... everything) in linear, as I think the video just shows how much easier it is to do lighting. BTW - the fxGuide podcasts are really useful to listen to each week.
  5. We all have our priorities, and Andrew can only work on so many, but I would like to see the ability to sculpt morphs on a low-poly mesh while viewing it sub-divided - as well as have all of the normal tools available in the sculpt room. I believe that 3ds Max allows you to set up an editable poly with a turbosmooth on top to see the end result while you sculpt - so Mudbox can't be far behind in implementing this (famous last words). As a lot of morph creation is done, I think?, using low poly meshes, that would have to be a useful feature? One goal, besides providing new cool features, might be to provide features that the completing products don't have, to pull users from those products, generate more revenue, hire more great programmers. This might be one of those features? A linear colorspace workflow might be another even more important feature - as the compositing apps that will use 3D Coat generated art are definitely working in linear color space.
  6. Being able to sculpt a low-poly model while viewing the sub-d version would be very useful. I asked on the Mudbox forum about this a few weeks ago, and they don't have it either. Several others jumped in and said that they wanted it. This could be a feature (among all the other cool 3D Coat features), that would help it stand out from Mudbox and give users a reason to switch. Of course, 3D Coat should also add Mudbox's additional tools to sculpt morphs (blendshapes) at the same time.
  7. I have no idea how to do that in 3D-Coat or whether 3D-Coat has this capability. Hopefully, someone else will chime in. It certainly would be great to pull in an entire model and the painting that has already been done. I paint in 3DCoat and the images are created for me for use in Lightwave. I just copy them to my images folder, and when lightwave prompts me, I tell it where to look for the image it wants for the LWO.
  8. I'm not seeing that happen. I just imported an LWO with 10 layers, 3 UVs and 14 surfaces. That's what I ended up with in 3dCoat and what I ended up with when I exported to LWO. It was exactly the same. Same names, everything all the same. I believe I had 12 images due to the 3 UVs. However, it didn't import the actual image maps (which would be cool). I think the Lightwave appLink is supposed to do that, but ... it wasn't doing it for me.
  9. Here's how I think it works. Import the LWO for per pixel painting (unless you want to paint morphs). It will pull in UVs, layers and surfaces. You can paint (using the texture editor is very handy for precise painting along polys). Then, you 'export model' from the Paint Room - and it outputs and LWO along with 4 images for each UV (color, bump, etc.) along with the surfaces. What comes out is just what was imported, but now you have surfaces. As for editing the polys, I'm not sure about that. That would be useful, and I'm sure there is a way. If there's not an elegant way (I'm sure there is), you might be able to import the mesh into the retopo room and export the modified mesh back out - and combine the UVs and surfaces in Lightwave. Hopefully someone will jump in, if not, maybe email Andrew directly (put post the answer here, as I'm also interested).
  10. I'd certainly like a two way street!!!
  11. If you've downloaded the beta from http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6634, I think there's a recent issue with Open GL so the DX is recommended. I expect this will change in the future, if it hasn't already (I may have missed a post saying it had changed). I believe the version of CUDA is important also, maybe this is outlined in the FAQ? I don't believe 3D Coat runs with the latest CUDA (as they keep making massive changes to CUDA) and I haven't updated CUDA in well over a year or so, so I've lost track of which version I have installed. But, I've been running the 'With CUDA 64 bit' in DX mode (from the 3D COAT 3.5 updates thread) as of late.
  12. Thanks! This info should go into an FAQ, as I've been trying to re-size objects to 'life-size' (assuming the 1 meter per grid size I saw in another recent post) immediately after merging.
  13. Wouldn't you have to take into account the zoom factor the viewport is set to? If each grid corresponds to about 1 meter, what size should the merged object be in reference to those 1 meter grids?
  14. Making much more progress now. However, when I create the 'shirt' on the model, my shirt is a solid object (made from the body), whereas yours is the outer layer of the body (extruded a bit) with a hollow inside. I've seem a few tutorials on making shirts in UV, but I'm unclear on how you made your 'thin' shirt in the Voxel room? BTW - I sent you a private msg on NewTek's forum (as I don't seem to be able to in this one). Thanks!
  15. The download links have all expired. Could you re-upload? BTW - Andrew, for files like this that would have universal appeal, there should be some way to upload them to a file repository within 3d-coat.com, as I've tried to download a number of very cool files lately that have all expired, some posted within the last month.