RabenWulf

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

2 Followers

About RabenWulf

  • Rank
    Novice

Recent Profile Visitors

1,045 profile views
  1. Anyone else actually manage to get this to work for import? Export is fine after going through all the recommended methods but import is a no go. Using Modo 10.2v2. I really wish these were maintained.
  2. Regarding the substances, or lack there of... If procedural noise/patterns can get added, as well as the method in which to modify the values/behavior of those noise/patterns... then they could be used in a similar fashion to substances. At least within 3DC itself, since outside applications (maya, modo..ect) have direct ".sbar" support these days. The output maps can be used however. --> https://trello.com/c/BgbsyDSK With regards to nodes, that's a tough one. Layers are basically nodes, only they are stacked and layered in a fairly linear fashion. What nodes bring to the table is a mixture visual UI elements and user options in regards to input/behavior. While I am not entirely sure it would be a perfect match for 3DCoat (as it stands now), I do think it could benefit from a more basic form of nodal workflow... at the very least as far as noise/pattern set ups go. They could be extremely powerful when used with voxels and mesh generation as well.
  3. I feel like you didn't read my post objectively. On 1) I said that its both a matter of saturation and "realistic" competition. Maya, Modo and Blender are not the "realistic" competition for sculpting at this point. They do not add to the "saturation" of the said market. Mudbox could claim to be part of that, but its facing its EoL (end of life) while Autodesk slowly ports some of that functionality into Maya. Realistically this means Zbrush has the monopoly with 3D Coat being the closest thing to the only competition it has. It is an area that has high demand, but low supply. You mention these applications, but I wonder do you have the license for them or have used them extensively? I have a license for zbrush, mari, modo, substance designer/painter*, NDO (quixel)... so when you say "lets be honest, I love 3DC, but Substance, quixel and mari are better for pure texturing." It tells me that you probably haven't actually used these applications. What is "pure texturing" even mean? You don't realize how good 3D Coat is compared to them, especially on a workflow level. For actual painting, 3D Coat does not have much in the way of competition. The market is not over saturated. *(Regarding Substance Painter acting like a coloring book, this is due to painting vector like masks which in turn show the substance associated with the them. This allows for dynamic scaling, but the actual painting quality is low. They just recently added basic brush opacity layering (link). Hard to suggest its a better "pure texturing" solution when something like that had to be added so long after its release. Its quick for pumping out substance based content, which was the purpose for painter in the first place.) I already explained quite a bit in the first post, but that seems to have been glossed over for whatever reason. 3D Coat has 3 major features that are not part of an over saturated market: Texture Painting, Retopology (with autoretopo) and Sculpting. One (or all of) these were the main reasons 3D Coat was picked up both in the past and in the present. They are important parts of the pipeline that do not have much in the way of competition. Again, its about saturation relating to realistic competition. 2) Zbrush "BPR" render is widely used. Many zbrush artist rely on it to render out their sculpts, often times with fibermesh being a part of the asset. In fact its probably the most used rendering solution for dedicated zbrush artist at this point. Spend some time at zbrush central. If you know what to look for, it is easy to spot. Not every sculptor is going to be dropping $350-500+ on keyshot + the bridge, which is a still a recent addition to zbrush. As for whether it is nice to have a good renderer for sculpting applications. Obviously yes. However for sculpting applications, the sculpting quality/capability is far more important than the final render options. What is in 3D Coat now is satisfactory, otherwise 3rd party solutions work just as well, but the core features need to be matching the to tier competition first. Sculpting and painting especially, as well as over all workflow. 3) Where are you getting this "3DC dev team are lying, this take dev time await from the sculpt and paint room" from? Read my post again because more the half of it appears lost on you. I offered two perspectives as to why people would be against the move to add a 3rd party rendering solution at this particular point. You said you didn't understand, so I explained it to you precisely so you can understand. When you say, "Once again, I don't think "you can do that by exporting to an external software" is a good argument." It is a good argument depending on the conditions at play, including but not limited to what is perceived as a priority. This was already explained in point 3 and point 4. Its a bit redundant to mention it again but since you skipped over it, I ended the post with "More info is probably needed, and if Pilgway tackles some of those prereqs to work well within a new renderer, that wouldnt be a bad thing for users as whole ". Cheers.
  4. 1) -Its a matter of saturation. How many, realistically speaking, competitors are there to Pixologic's Zbrush? How about multi-channel/pbr Texture Painting? Retopo? The answer is not much. 3D Coat grew in usage because those markets were not over saturated, the choices were very few if any at all. Thus 3DC was picked up often just to be a dedicated retopology tool for example. So what 3D Coat offers now, Sculpting, Painting, Retopology (those 3) are high demand, low supply features. Zbrush needs serious competition, Substance Painter is tied to substances and is more of a coloring book for those said substances. Mari is $2k for the professional version and it doesnt do symmetry. In fact you need a beefy rig just to use it, and the workflow has you painting on a 2d canvas before projecting it onto the said mesh. So what other options? There are practically none at the level 3D Coat is at. - How many rendering solutions are there, that are actually good and highly accessible? Too many. Its an over saturated market. It is not a "high in demand" feature since there are way too many of them and in many forms, whether external or part of an existing application. So its not nearly as important. 2) Zbrush already has a widely used renderer built into it, as it exist as a dedicated sculpting application and external render going in doesnt make much sense at this point. What is inside of Zbrush now can render out multiple types of render passes as well as fur. It covers the bases needed for what ZBrush offers. 3) Can't understand why people would be against it in 3D Coat? Simple: - It takes development time and resources that could be spent on areas that are far more important to the 3D Coat user as well as the appeal 3DC has as well as its place in the market. A great render option usually follows great assets worth rendering, if the quality of asset creation or the pipeline associated with it needs work, then it makes sense to have that as a priority before rendering out beauty shots in the native application. Since 3D Coat can export assets, the NEED for rendering within the native application is tiny. Again in part due to over saturated market for renderers. - Lets assume the above isn't valid since one can claim its a different developer working on it. Ok, then are there any repercussions? Why would some one be opposed to this development? Simple. COST! Are you willing to pay more to cover the license cost that goes into adding such a renderer? If you think Keyshot for zbrush at $350 (starting) is expensive, how will you feel about 3D Coat costing more? Depending on the rendering option they go with, the cost will inevitably go up. I certainly don't want to pay more for a feature 1) I don't need and 2) already have access too elsewhere. Toss on the fact some are quite fine with the results 3D Coat gives natively, the priority for such a development is low. - Both perspectives are valid. 4) - There is less to gain from the rendering solution, at least for the user at this point in time. Sculpting needs to be better, a better UI, workflow, material system, lights/scene layout/control...ect are lots of prerequisites that go into taking advantage of a good rendering solution while also getting good results. - More info is probably needed, and if Pilgway tackles some of those prereqs to work well within a new renderer, that wouldnt be a bad thing for users as whole... well outside of the potential for licensing cost to go up (assuming they go with a licensed rendering solution that cost $).
  5. He is talking about Unreal Engine 4, which aside from game development is being used as a stand alone rendering tool.
  6. The rendering in 3D Coat could definitely be better, whether real time like Marmoset Toolbag or a progressive renderer like iray. Rendering however is something that should be low on the list, as there are so many more important areas that need improvement in 3DC, things people actually buy 3DC for. You touched on the on of the most important ones, sculpting. Zbrush needs strong competition, and a lot of people are looking at 3DC for that.
  7. Awesome! Thanks for info Javis. Looking forward to more details when its ready, especially in regards to workflow.
  8. Do we know whats going on development wise for the next version and or big update? Any future progress on sculpting (brush) improvements?
  9. There is a noise tool/brush but its extremely limited compared to the Noise Maker in zbrush. You could probably use the paintbucket tool in paint to fill a pattern with a freeze (mask) then use that for some kind of displacement... but nothing as simple as noisemaker.
  10. Gotta admit, those seats look awfully comfortable.
  11. Hello Modo!
  12. Yeah its a tough one, such a good deal for an "indy" version of zbrush. My biggest concern however is the effect it will have in regards to 3D Coat. One of the perks of 3DC was that it was targeting that lower end (price range). Pixologic has now appropriately identified that market and created a product for it. Smart move on their part. Hoping 3DC can stay competitive and up the sculpting quality to match this new product. I might even grab a copy myself, as a streamlined version might be more enjoyable to work in than the zbrush (pro) version I am used to.
  13. So they showed off Zbrush Core last night, also launched the Zbrush Core website. I don't see anything yet to suggest no commercial usage. Price tag: $150 (or included with the $200 Wacom 3D tablet). Here is the website: http://zbrushcore.com/features Really does look like a slimmed down version of Zbrush with a lot of features removed, and a limit placed on brushes/polycount.
  14. This is going to be a disaster. Who exactly is their target audience? Kids that run windows XP? Its sad too because Nvil was going the right direction, but it needed some serious marketing and a new name. In a way they are getting that, but in the worst way possible.
  15. Not really a good deal when you consider the fact that OBS and FFsplit are both free. A lot people assume they are just for streaming, but in fact they are full fledged screen recording software packages which can save locally. FFSplit: http://www.ffsplit.com/ OBS: https://obsproject.com/