• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dirtrobot

  • Rank
  1. Yeah ram's the key, I can't make the jump past 4mil to 16. But as far as my own workflow, that's fine - I can rough out to my heart's desire with no issues.
  2. I have nothing to prove. I'm not attacking 3dcoat, I'm just telling you from the perspective of a somewhat-intermediate level 3dcoat user who has done a decent amount of reading/research on using 3dcoat - this is what I perceive. It just seems that 3dcoat requires 4x the resolution to look as crisp and smooth as mudbox and zbrush. Which literally puts it out of my machine's reach with my 4gigs of ram. So I can't really test 32x detailing. One super kick in the pants is that 3dcoat's smooth brush doesn't preserve volume at all. So every time I try to fix those chunky peanut butter lumps that come up, it's so hard not to destroy what I've just spent time pinching/flattening/whatever. Finally, maybe this all comes down to a lack of a zbrush central/classroom type of resource for 3dcoat. I think new users have a tough ride getting into 3dcoat. I think more so if the new user has experience with other sculpting apps. 3dcoat and zbrush share the prize for the amount of web research required to understand true workflow functionality.
  3. Seriously, no attempt to flame, just want to point out that his model has what I call the inherent voxel 'lumpiness' and he uses surface mode, which I understand is a polygonal proxy for his detail. I was hoping he'd show the conversion back to voxels to see how the detail holds up. I'd guess that based on his index finger, it doesn't hold up quite to the level he's using as a demonstration (but is still good). I'd have to agree with Phil's workflow suggestion of painting that detail in as a normal map. I don't really think voxels need to be proven as a high frequency detail solution - I think the advantages (and drawbacks) vs. polygons are clear and the toolset should reflect this to enhance things like non-destructive posing, being able to use HUGE brushes to quickly rough things out, the awesome boolean capabilities etc. A quick mask option is sorely needed, hiding voxels is so unpredictable. Once the rough form is done, time to sculpt the polys and UV and paint. This should be how 3dcoat is laid out, to guide the user through this process. If 3dcoat could adapt sculptris' poly-voxel hybrid system (if that's how the computer magic works) into the sculpt room, like OMG. (Which actually makes me wonder if there isn't a way to export the surface mode mesh to use as the highres projection mesh in xnormal for normal mapping?) I guess personally I feel that when I spend 10 minutes in surface mode tightening things up only to lose 30% when I convert, makes me want to fire up zbrush.
  4. Haha, I think you've got some good points! Might just be a case of old dog/new tricks. Maybe part of it is to develop a mindset that the normal painting is strictly for finer detail. How do you find combining a baked normal map (for the more broad shape differences) and a painted map (for details)? Assuming this is how you approach it...
  5. This thread is a bit old, but I wanted to echo the sentiments that voxels are simply not meant for fine detail, at least not in 3d coat's current implementation. The surface stuff helps, and the sculpting room is definitely oddly equipped (or under equipped). I would also echo that I find it odd to paint normal maps, I would prefer to have a real geo base so I have the flexibility to do what I wish with it, and not get locked into my UVs once I decide to paint normal map detail. Interestingly, mudbox 2011 handles twice the polys that zbrush does on my machine, but that may have to do with the fact that zbrush seems almost independent of the graphics card. Once I hit 4mil+ on zbrush, I get constant crashes. But I can go 8mil+ in mudbox and after a few hiccups it smooths itself out and paints like a dream. Also the vector displacement stuff is super cool, esp. with the new plugin to render it in mental ray. My wish for 3dcoat is that it gets stress beta tested before version 4. After being in games for 10 years, I've come to realize one of the more valuable (And unfortunately underpaid) team members are QA testers. 3DCoat behaves like it has one key beta tester (Andrew), I keep finding random and frustrating bugs that clearly derive from lack of iterative testing on various workflows. Even things like how I find the brushes either too responsive, not responsive enough or too slow. Odd things like painting along curves is insanely slow compared to using the same brush/size/etc and doing it manually. Zbrush and mudbox kill 3dcoat for sculpting mainly because you can tell they've polished the workflow and brush behaviour. I admit I get frustrated when I see the new features coming in, and the backlog of bugs grows. I don't show 3dcoat to other artists anymore because it doesn't sell itself, no matter how well I understand and can demonstrate the workflow - I get funny looks and mutters of 'Guess I'll stick to zbrush' or 'Let me know when they iron out that weirdness'. Voxels to me is still the dream medium, but oddly similar to the case of when voxels were implemented in games a decade ago, it seems hardware still hasn't caught up.
  6. No, although I think I figured out part of it. If I don't 'close' the reference image popup, after pressing sketch, I can't go back to painting normally. However, I cannot reproduce the bizarre 'invisible object' that seems to be displacing the brush in Surface mode. Perhaps I created something while the reference image popup was still there before going to surface mode in that instance.
  7. Thanks to both of you! I pm'd Andrew with the topic url as well.
  8. I was sculpting away and then I accidentally hit Sketch (I think), I went back to Muscle brush and no voxels respond to my input. I switch to surface mode and the brushes behave like there's some crazy invisible object they're trying to align to. See this quick vid: Bizarro brush behaviour Any insight would be awesome...thanks!
  9. What's actually kind of funny and kind of embarassing is that after I read this, I went back into zb4 and started fooling around with masks and hiding selection... well turns out I must have screwed something up by copying my config from zb3.5. I had just dl'd someone's setup for zb4 and overwrote some things in the startup folder and ta-da: masking and hide selection work fine. The only reason I thought this was a common issue was that people were posting about dealing with the same problems I was having. I'm guessing they made the same mistake I did... thanks for keeping the dream alive
  10. I find it faster to use the Cut/Clone and Split tool in Voxels than trying to make a precise mask in shadow box. The geometry generated by shadow box is generally shoddy if not downright buggy in some cases. I really hate what ZB4 has done to the quick masking shortcuts and geometry hide. They've literally 'made room' for timeline and shadow box by making the workflow for key sculpting features (mask and geo hide) really cumbersome. I'm shocked there hasn't been a backlash from the guys who use zbrush mainly for normal map generation.
  11. Thanks, that's sort of what I was looking for!
  12. I've noticed there's SF Freeze in Surface mode, which soooort of serves the purpose. What about in Voxel mode? Can I quickly paint mask areas out? Thanks!
  13. No worries, if it wasn't for your help, I wouldn't have bee prompted to try
  14. Ah, well it appears with symmetry on, I can only work on what looks to me as the right side of the mesh or +Z (assuming Z sym axis).
  15. Big thanks! I'll try all of this out!