RabenWulf

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

2 Followers

About RabenWulf

  • Rank
    Novice

Recent Profile Visitors

1,431 profile views
  1. Hmm you may be right, I was thinking of the grid/snap options under "draw", a feature I never had to use so I was going off of memory with that one. After playing with it, it appears that it is limited to setting up the grip, snapping the grid, but tools seem to at the same time ignore the grid you set up. For clip curve, if you hold shift it will snap but it completely ignores the grid. If so that's a pretty big oversight on Pixologics part. Also during that process, I came across a numerical input for "position" and "size" inside the geometry panel. So that is there apparently. Some of the stuff they add usually flies under the radar due to obscure implementation.
  2. Hmm to be fair, while I am not aware of any direct numerical input for transform operations in zbrush at the moment (3DC does have this, agreed), the new gizmo 3D does offer more precise control than previously with the transpose widget. A numerical value is displayed when using the gizmo 3D, and you can work with increments. Snap to grid and similar snapping features should have been added back in 4r5 if I remember correctly, so its definitely there. I'd argue what drives concepting is not just the feature set but the speed in which the artist can work. Zbrush atm requires a lot less actions to get a lot more done. For example, the gizmo3D can automatically move all or selected sub-tools with a quick click of the button. Parametric primitives, live booleans, shadow box, polygroups with quick hotkey selection, mask and deform modifiers,posing...ect a lot of these relate to concepting quickly. I really wouldn't put 3D Coat ahead of it based on that for concepting. I definitely prefer 3D Coat's navigation approach and brush control (right mouse button drag) over Zbrush's weird navigation controls, and its reliance on spacebar or S key to resize. In being more conventional, UI wise, 3D Coat has more potential at being accessible. This is something even Mudbox has over zbrush. Also out of curiosity, what was the purpose of the picture? I looked up the webinar, and Kingslien is talking about how Maya, Max, XSI are all battling it out for hard surface modeling, which is the lower left. There was no one battling it out for the "soft" and "loose" organic modeling field, which he has in the upper right. This is where zbrush came in, and why it was placed up in the upper right of his graph. With polymodeling, zbrush starts to hit on the lower left which is that hard surface stuff he references. Basically he created a graph showing where software packages are falling into based on approach and target audience. He explains how zbrush targeted the loose and soft "organic" modeling market with little to no competition, and then began to smartly intrude on the territory that max, maya, xsi..ect were battling it out for. This is actually a great message for 3D Coat as well, since it was doing the same thing but on a texture painting/retopology level. =) That would be interesting. Modo mostly is using it for visualization purposes and some basic operations. I don't think sculpting is on the table yet, or if it ever will be. We need these applications to master quick modeling in VR space first, as sculpting requires a kind of control that's hard to achieve with current VR input. If Mudbox does target VR, it would be mostly a marketing stunt they could turn heads with, but the only way they an really compete is by upping the quality/workflow as it relates to sculpting. They have some serious catching up to do.
  3. Naturally I agree with the sentiment regarding Autodesk "throwing in the towel" in part due to 3D Coat. To call 3D Coat sub-par to zbrush, love it or hate it, is a tad accurate. It doesn't need to be of course, but at this point in time, zbrush is just too far ahead. I also agree that 3D coat is better, sculpting wise, than mudbox though if Autodesk prioritizes mudbox again to be the zbrush competitor, 3D Coat could get knocked back a peg. With regards to being a multipurpose piece of software, that is both a pro and a con. It means that you may not be used for all tasks, but rather one specialized task, you may be part of the pipeline but not THE PIPELINE itself. Zbrush can UV, model, paint and render. Some of the best digital sculptors, even for game art, work in zbrush for the most part, even with retopo. Now they could send it to 3D coat for retopo, UV and painting (though when that happens its usually stylized, like with Blizzard), in fact 3D Coat is the go to application for hand painted textures. A lot of the baking will be done in a substance or marmoset based application as well. In short it means 3D coat is not usually going to be used for the sculpting, but perhaps the retopo and painting (depending on art style). This means 3D Coat, even if its decent at sculpting wont be used. This can be changed with further development, the so called catching up with zbrush. I'd argue that since 3D coat is not necessarily pulling away sculptors in a significant quantity, autodesk may instead try to re-target that market. They also have access to studios directly, many which work with autodesk suits already, which love it or hate it can lead to more seats and users. The demand is there, its just a question on whether or not 3D Coat chooses to match the bar that zbrush has raised. Either way 3D coat will be fine with the texture painting (hand painted especially) and retopo, its just a matter of competing in the other high demand parts of the pipeline. Less is more (application usage) if you don't lose out on quality.
  4. I think they also realized there is still no serious competition to Zbrush. The market is open to competition, but no one has stepped up to the plate to really match Pixologic. There is a lot of money to be had there. I hoped 3D coat would be the serious contender but so far its not showing signs of serious competition. If Autodesk gets back into the 3D Sculpting game (even with texture painting thrown in), it will change the current dynamic we have now. The biggest one at risk would not be zbrush so much as 3D coat.
  5. Time to bring this back. Live sculpt off going on right now, Summit 2017 will happen over the next few days. https://www.twitch.tv/pixologic
  6. Not so much SPainter, but a general combining of input fields into one or two context driven panel. The management side of things needs to be updated, especially as more gets added over time (brushes, alphas, matcaps, shaders, categories for each..ect). SP makes it easier for sure, but they also have the problem of displaying too much any one given time. In that sense I would look at Zbrush (and to a minor extent ddo/photosho) with its input areas, which then pop up the resource window for alphas, matcaps..ect Apparently the new version of Mari is getting a UI upgrade that focuses on pop out panels as well (thank god).
  7. Beyond what was mentioned below? I could refine the mockups/concept if I felt it actually had some impact. I wont lie, most of the time it feels fruitless. The UI could be streamlined though, a lot can be combined and built to work a cleaner interactive panel.
  8. I hope the current folder/drop list is just a temporary measure, as it really does need to be revamped.
  9. Feels like 3DC will never catch up at this rate. Zbrush really needs a competitor.
  10. I like the kind of workflow this opens up. I am noticing a weird discrepancy between attached and unattached. Left: Smart Material attached to layer Right: Smart Material not attached to layer When its attached to a layer, there also seems to be some banding issues. This is especially noticeable with that particular smart material.
  11. The timing would be good, as it lines up with Substance Painter's launch of 2.6.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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 $).