RabenWulf

@gbball It's the Dam Standard 2 brush. Basically a free upgraded version of the regular Dam Standard brush that comes with Zbrush as a default, one of the most used brushes in digital sculpting. The Dam_Standard_02 is simply the best brush I have ever used in any digital sculpting software. You can find it at either of the links below: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/mbrnE https://maddam.gumroad.com/l/QEmnC @Carlosan Its almost acting like there is a liquid underneath, which causes it to shift and expand up around the carved areas, as though the surface beyond just the center of the brush is affected. Its very hard to explain with words. The smudge aspect in 3DC might be a basic version of whats going on, or perhaps one of the components. If you can get access to Zbrush, even if just a demo, I'd certainly the tool a try just to see exactly what its doing.

Picture: Less than 20 seconds of squiggling it around, broad strokes and close proximity ones. I'd say in comparison to the way the mesh displaces the surface, it is horrendous, at least to me. There is definitely something Zbrush is doing behind the scenes that is giving the user a finer amount of control on their brush strokes, with a more natural surface displacement going on with the same kind of ease. This is one brush that is able to offer so much variety in result without making any adjustments to its properties. I really struggle to get the same kind of results with 3D Coat. The tool's behavior is definitely important, but I think there is something else driving this difference, namely how it interprets input and displaces the mesh, especially when it comes to overlapping/sharp cornered areas. The 3DC brush engine definitely needs whatever zbrush is doing that makes it work so well in this regard, unfortunately it does not appear to be present in 3DC's new one (at this point in time).

I tried just about every combo, once more just now including that one with a similar alpha and could not even get close to the same results or behavior. Zbrush seems to displace the surface in such a way where its shifting and expanding out the areas around the cut, and when the cuts intersect they merge smoothly with one another. Depending on the direction you move the brush it creates a specialized pattern that mixes well with intersecting crevices. 3DC just gives me horrendous results trying to emulate the same thing, leaving me to think its just not possible in 3D Coat as it exist now. Keep in mind this is the Dam Standard 2 brush, not the more simplistic version that comes with Zbrush by default. I hate to say this, but the developers might have to take time to use zbrush for awhile to kind of '"reverse engineer" what is going on with their brush engine, assuming they have not done it already. There is just something different going on with the brush behavior that is keeping it heads above the competition, and its not just performance.

Unfortunately it did not drastically improve on the feel and brush behavior. Maybe its just me, but it feels more or less the same as the old, just with the GUI cleaned up, better performance and the brush options updated. I hope Andrew can continue to work on bringing it closer to Zbrush in terms of brush behavior and displacement. A lot of the stuff I can do quickly in Zbrush can only turn out kind of muddy looking and with surface "artifacts" in 3D Coat. Would be interested to see if anyone can recreate the Damian Standard 2 brush behavior as well in 3DC -(found here: https://maddam.gumroad.com/l/QEmnC.) With that said, the changes so far make it a far more enjoyable user experience, just they are not significant or rather, drastic enough, to warrant an immediate upgrade on my end. Still on the fence with that one. I like the direction things are going though.

Good to know. Look forward to seeing some updates on that in the future. As for the sbar files, many can be found free floating around the internet as anyone can produce them with Substance Designer. Plenty of material libraries to pull from at this point.

There is another angle to consider now. Adobe just released a free substance addon for Blender, which lets you use sbar files in Blender. Mix that with Blender's painting features/addons and you can have an alternative version of Substance Painter in Blender, for free. What 3D Coat really needs is a take on the dynamic texturing and masking that can be found in mixer/painter (in contrast, they lack the good painting tools 3DC offers). If Andrew could create a dynamic substance file (sbar) alternative ("coats"?) for 3D Coat, which can be used in DCC apps and game engines, that would make it the most well rounded texturing application.

... why would it be included? All the features of Textura are in the Pro version. Textura is basically a slimmed down, limited feature, version of regular 3D Coat. You are upgrading regular 3D Coat aka "Pro", so you get the full package as opposed to Textura being one part of the full package.

Minor: Brush tool incorrectly named "Pen".

Which is frustrating as any time you have a new "big" feature, it is the most important thing to not only market but have documentation and tutorials on. This turned out to be a kind of "soft launch" where few probably even know it came out much less what the biggest changes and additions were. I'd like to see 3D Coat succeed but it is dropping the ball on a marketing level. I suppose this is fine if the developers like going at this pace and don't need a boom in sales or interest. Anyways, I may be wrong, but it looks like the most useful workflow for the nodes so far is to craft "shaders" with depth information, which results in the ability to paint "sculpt" data alongside textures (optional) onto a mesh. With fill layers this can result in a quick surface sculpting/texturing approach. If I were Pilgway, I would focus on showing that kind of workflow and even continue to refine it in relation to the GUI so that its as easy to use as possible. This would also provide a unique "difference" that it could have over Allego..er Adobe's offerings.

Minor observation, but was the Brush tool (original name) supposed to be replaced with "Pen" for 2021? Pens are generally defined as writing instruments for applying ink to paper (can include other surfaces), so it looks a bit out of place when acting as the former "brush" tool (brushes are associated with paint, thus 3D Coat's paint imagery).

Does not seem to show in $, only Euros. That might throw some people off coming from the states.

Hope they add it back, or at least put Textura/EDU up there. It's a good place for software discovery and its something that can show up when people look for Substance as well. Gotta compete in the same arena.

Steam also acts as a kind of floating license, which to some people is a more convenient way to access the software. Wherever your steam account goes, so does your software library. The other added benefit is the hundreds of million active steam accounts, which provide visibility for games and software on the platform.

Agree 100%. Not just that, masking quality in sculpting mode is of extremely poor quality, yet its fine in paint mode. So what you had to do in the past is flip to paint mode, mask, flip back to sculpt mode, rinse and repeat. Now with this version, it appears if you mask in paint room once, the quality in sculpt room matches the paint room, however if you flip to the fracture mode while something is masked it becomes a color coded mask, which then carries over in visual appearance in the Paint room. Very odd behavior. Masking in 3DC really needs to become unified in behavior and quality. Tbh I wish they would also get rid of the "freeze" naming, and just go with the standard naming convention.

I would find that decision wrong, as it does not appear to take into consideration why Designer and Painter are separate in the first place. Designer started off as a much older piece of software known as "MaPZone". In one meeting, some of the Designer users asked why they could not have texture painting (Painter) in Designer, and the developers essentially said that it was not built to really be a direct texture painting application. There were some technical hurdles they would have to over come, and it would better to start from scratch in order to get the ideal substance Painting workflow. This is clearly not the case for Pilgway if they were able to make nodes as a 3DC addon. Where Designer was not a painting application from the start, 3DC was. In short, if 3DC node/parametric texturing is an addon, it means that it can already work within the 3DC's framework as a normal feature. If Pilgway wanted it to be separate, it would have been far smarter to just have it as a stand alone application. The only way I could see an addon being acceptable in this particular case, is if it were for Blender, Maya, 3DS Max...etc rather than just 3DC by itself. As for the payroll subject, its tough. The key is to increase user base, which in turn generates more revenue in the long run. Higher prices or pay-walled features creates lower accessibility, and thus a smaller user base. This is especially true when the market is already saturated with options. If Pilgway could afford to it, I would personally suggest they make their software as cheap and as accessible as possible, just to grow their user base. Focus on growth, much in the same way Epic is doing now with their free software and games, and where Zbrush was with their pricing/no cost upgrades back in the day (though they did not have a saturated market to compete in). Once the user base grows exponentially and a strong foundation is built around those users, begin to increase pricing or offer those pay walls. The larger user base carries with it its own momentum. Higher quantity at lower prices can result in higher profit than lower quantity at higher prices, but the returns are usually slow to start at first. Imo it is critical that 3DC focus on growth (user base), as that is what gives the most sustainable revenue in the long run.

Texture artist don't need parametric textures and masking options? It would be a mistake for an important part of that pipeline to be hidden behind an addon. If he does indeed go that route, I might as well not bother upgrading to begin with. 1st party Addons also have a habit of being neglected.

Definitely depends on workflow, but I am in agreement with you if the workflow is good. 3DC has always been missing good procedural options, especially for masking and texturing. Substance Designer/Painter is pretty much the gold standard right now for the procedural aspect. I hope Andrew and the team have considered making an equivalent of the substances themselves (advanced smart materials) which can have their own set of sliders or functions attached. Call it "Coats". If "Coats" could be made in 3DC, and used in other software like Blender or Unreal, that would be a huge help in driving 3DC adoption. If used alongside sculpting via sculpting layers, then it adds a unique approach to sculpting that even Zbrush does not have. Imagine "coats" for voxel modeling and or tied to a brush (coat brush)? Lots of potential to market the hell out of that.

I don't think that is quite accurate. While it is true that some will not not like the change, they often become the change's biggest defenders after getting used to it. We saw this with Blender when it first became 2.5 and now with 2.8. The thing to remember is that what 3DC needs most of all is growth, from a business standpoint. That is the most important factor. If changes are made that upset some of the older user base, but attract a newer user base, what would happen? The older user base won't leave, they might complain, but that's about it. In addition new users will join the party. However if new users are not adopting the software, then all you have is the older group, which still might complaint but that's it. It's not like they have a lot of other choices at this point, and if they did not like the 3DC changes, do you think they would be fine with some other software's interface? It still involves effort. I still contend 3DC needs some serious refinement and a new "coat of paint" if it wants to grow. Such changes can bring a lot of new energy into a project, for both users and the developers. This is especially good for software that is not exactly on the top of the food chain. Granted this is all said without specifics, many of which have already been discussed in other threads in the past. Sometimes its harder to break a bad impression of software if the software looks or feels like nothing big has changed. I mean we still have people refusing to use 3DC because they still remember the so called "zealous religious demands" associated with 3DC usage (which was never an accurate depiction). It is hard to erase such impressions. There were tons of artist who would not even touch Blender, until they saw the "new" 2.8 blender which looked drastically different. 2cents

If the beta version posted above is the new interface, then to be brutally honest here, it is not much of an improvement. Slightly polished perhaps, but not drastically improved.

I am sure they are working hard, in fact I remember having a very good impression of Javis and I believe it was Andrew whom I briefly met at Siggraph many years ago. The simple fact remains though, this artifacting and odd glitching issue goes as far back as 2008 (verifiable with a quick forum search). Every software has some issues that keep haunting it for years, this appears to be one of 3D Coat's. There is no way this behavior has not been reported often enough, the fact it is still there either means its hard to fix or is not a priority, even still to this day. There have always been a lot of weird idiosyncrasies (my own experience) with 3DC and the only reason I come back here now is to see whats being done and if there has been improvement. I often see more features, which is good, but still a continuation of some long standing issues/quirks. Bringing up those certain long standing issues ("complaining?") does help in so much as it addresses the "priority" aspect. Quantity and consistency of complaints can result in higher priority and thus have their place. I get that some are touchy about this subject here, but at the end of the day the software is just a tool and a product, one most of us paid for (Consumer status). Complaints about issues are what consumers should freely give, and as a mere tool it should not be taken personally (or religiously for that matter).

This is one of the reasons I have stopped using 3D Coat. I had issues like this for years, with very little done to actually fix it. Masking was like a glitch roulette. It effected everything from texturing to sculpting, having to constantly reload. It gets old and the user should not have to do this. Best thing to do is wait until they focus purely on bug fixes and workflow improvements instead of the usual feature creep, or learn to deal with accept these issues as part of the "experience". I had enough and just went to working purely in Blender, which is so much more polished at this point (arguably more functional too). For the hand painted texture projects, 3D Coat is still the best.

Hello Tony, while Zbrush is super efficient in its design, I agree the interface and user experience can be a bit off putting if you are used to using other software. 3D Coat does remedy this annoyance to some degree, with a much better navigation and control scheme, however the truth still needs to be said. Zbrush has no real solid competition at this point. I cannot recommend 3D Coat as a replacement for Zbrush for sculpting meshes (hard/organic). If you want the best results stick with Zbrush. 3D Coat is better used for other tasks at the moment, such as retopology or hand painted textures. It is also worth noting that once 3D Coat hits version 5, they will probably start charging again for that version. Buying now might not be the best timing. Finally, this is just my personal recommendation. You should still download the demo and see if you can get the same or satisfactory results as you do in Zbrush, at least that way you know whether or not its worth it for you to switch. You also have one other option on the table, which is the new Blender. The sculpting features in that application are going through an explosive development phase which puts it in the same camp as 3D Coat as a second tier sculpting option. Feel free to try that too (its free). Relevant links based on whats been discussed: https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog https://3dcoat.com/download/

Zbrush is peculiar indeed and it breaks some interface standards that we come to expect however its also quite efficient in its design. When you mix efficiency with the fact that it really has no equal competition, naturally they can get away it. Unfortunately 3D Coat is not in the same position. It has direct competition. When you mix that competition with some inefficient design components, it really does not have the luxury to be too comfortable with its "peculiarities". I think what this comes down to for 3D Coat is improving efficiency by reducing convoluted design components and remove unnecessary fragmentation, all while positioning itself to compete strongly for one more areas (sculpting, painting, retopology and UV editing). Take a look what Marmoset Toolbag did. At first it carved out its place in the pipeline by offering a good means to preview and present game assets, however as viewports in DCC apps improved, and accessibility to game engines rose, they had to in turn find a way to still remain unique and relevant. Now instead of just being a preview application, it sells itself as being the ultimate tool for baking via an intuitive easy to use interface. Just for that alone users are shelling out close to $200. As the competition changes, 3D dcc applications get better, with more functionality that overlaps with 3D Coat's niche, 3DC has to find a way to react to those changes. Interface simplification and consolidation would help quite a bit, along with some strong features that really set it apart in an easy to use manner.

I'd be up for signing a petition or adding a signature as long as we can get enough of the "Early Access" people to get on board. Heck even those who bought after EA were misled, so their frustration counts as well. Even though I say all of this, I don't really have much hope in it doing anything, when we buy in to EA we are also taking a risk, and I have no idea if Valve will take the effort to deal with their bait and switch. A lot of people have gotten screwed over with EA titles, but its worth a try to get something going and over to Valve either way. The best we can do in the meantime however is warn others of Akeytsu's horrible business practice and behavior. How they treat their customers and their willingness to abuse the consumer-developer expectation of respect and trust. Let them know we are rightly pissed off and that any good will they created at first was thrown away. That causing the software to get more buggy over time and then hold those fixes hostage, that lying about whats coming for early access buyers, that encouraging sales for features they wont get until they pay once more, is not acceptable. On that note, it looks like they will get some competition in the stand alone rigging/animation front (aside from the old Messiah Studio) via Cascadeur. Unlike Akeytsu, the interface is actually modern and followed normal GUI paradigms. They are also offering the product for free for early adopteres, which is a nice olive branch to future consumers. Take note Akeytsu, this is how you do it. I can see this software easily overtaking any ground Akeytsu has made so far and it would be well earned given the way Akeytsu has behaved since EA.

Its hard to be interested in any of these updates at this point. I bought into the early access on steam, which sold itself as a chance to get a "great introductory price" ($80) for software that they claimed would get significant "production ready" features as time goes on. Well, all those production ready updates came years later (often after they teased them in the forums and on the steam hub), only now they wanted to charge those early access people once more to get the very thing they sold them on back during early access. They have the gall to frame the additional $130 upgrade charge as "loyalty offer". Such a slap in the face to their customers. That's pretty close to being a bait and switch scheme, and its disgusting. They tried to generate early access sales as an investment for future updates, only to hold off on all the production necessary updates in order to put them behind another paywall, which basically made the early access buy in pointless. It was an outright marketing scam, and I can't trust a company that is not honest with their sale practices. The $80 Early Access price, marketed as a "super discount" with the most necessary updates are literally being held behind an additional $130 upgrade aka "loyalty offer" price. That puts it at $210 total. That's not far from what they are asking for it now as a non-upgrade ($240). The early access price was clearly not a major discount at that point, especially not the 50%+ they advertised back then and the additional upgrade charge is clearly not a "loyalty discount" either. Just bait and switch. It was all pointless. Anyways it was a really piss poor marketing move that only ensures I don't want to buy anything else being offered. I'm not the only one to felt this way after they pulled this stunt, judging by their steam forum. Some users are finding serious bugs which they are essentially told they have to keep paying into the new version to get them fixed. Many of these bugs were not even present in the initial release either. These people have astoundingly bad optics and working with them might not necessarily be a good idea as partnerships should ideally be done with groups that have good character and honest marketing, but hey that's just my opinion and experience so far.