Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Andrew,

can you add a turn table button for the viewport(only need a full 360 rotation)? I don't need a render of my model, i'll just use screen capture software Camtasia to record the turn table. BTW what software do you guys use to assemble the sequence JPEG from the render?

What I dont understand is what the renderer is doing. When I hit render I lose the cast shadows shown in the viewport? then it starts to flash different brightnesses on the model and finally finishes the frame of animation with the model looking 98% the same as it does in the viewport with no cast shadows? then it moves to the next frame, is this everyone elses experience too?

I would rather have an export turntable option which outputs a 360 turn table rotation straight from the viewport with cast shadows. Maybe I just dont understand what the renderer is for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

hmmm....

i am getting the cudart.dll error on all of the exe except for GL64.exe which is fine cuz i am running Vista 64.

My problem is that the fonts of the UI are reduced to black boxes, so I cannot read the UI

OS: Vista 64

card: Nvidia 260 gtx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
hmmm....

i am getting the cudart.dll error on all of the exe except for GL64.exe which is fine cuz i am running Vista 64.

My problem is that the fonts of the UI are reduced to black boxes, so I cannot read the UI

OS: Vista 64

card: Nvidia 260 gtx

you need to overwrite the Unicode folder

with this one

everything should be fine after that :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I dont understand is what the renderer is doing. When I hit render I lose the cast shadows shown in the viewport? then it starts to flash different brightnesses on the model and finally finishes the frame of animation with the model looking 98% the same as it does in the viewport with no cast shadows? then it moves to the next frame, is this everyone elses experience too?

Maybe this will help:

Lamblight shader used, 3000-3500 rays, I tried to get the scale as close as I could but it's a little bit different in each render.

3DC_render_examples.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@phil, thanks alot for putting up that render setting pic, its very helpful! With 3000 rays, how long did it take to render 1 frame on average?

I decided to go with the Quicktime route!

@Andrew, what is a point cloud data? thanks for the update, downloading now!

edit: is it me or is "increase density 2X" and "decrease density 2X" switched? Maybe Andrew label it wrong? :P. Increase resolution does not change the size of the mesh anymore, sweeet!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@phil, thanks alot for putting up that render setting pic, its very helpful! With 3000 rays, how long did it take to render 1 frame on average?

No prob. It took about 10 seconds for each render I think.

This point cloud thing's interesting. Like I could create particles with LightWave, then convert them to points and save it out, then import them into 3DC as VS? At least that's how it sounds to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
No prob. It took about 10 seconds for each render I think.

This point cloud things interesting. Like I could create particles with LightWave, then convert them to points and save it out, then import them into 3DC as VS? At least that's how it sounds to me.

I would imagine it is to support importing scan data directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

great illustration of the renderers function philnolan, really didnt realise there was the ability to fine tune it so much, I almost think the "light scattering option" seems more like shadow scattering haha. I got some pretty cool results with a little bit of tweaking, thanks alot!

Thanks Andrew for the update, will try it soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I have some doubts about the transform tool. Currently the style of the handles are great for transpose stuff, but to position the subtools with better accuracy, I would prefer the older universal manipulator.

Had the time to test the new release, and that's so great to see object tree available, but I have to agree with BluEgo the transform tool is clumsy with the transpose line to move object around, I would really appreciate an universal manipulator too.

But the Object tree... It's fabulous, wonderful, much more better than Zbrush, being able to have group of object, being able to hide them... Everything I miss with Zbrush.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Had the time to test the new release, and that's so great to see object tree available, but I have to agree with BluEgo the transform tool is clumsy with the transpose line to move object around, I would really appreciate an universal manipulator too.

But the Object tree... It's fabulous, wonderful, much more better than Zbrush, being able to have group of object, being able to hide them... Everything I miss with Zbrush.

Thank you.

Agreed. I think a universal manipulator is a much better option for transforming whole objects. Now that we can have multiple voxel objects I think the need for this is greater too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost think the "light scattering option" seems more like shadow scattering haha.

Glad to be of service.

Same difference really. Imagine you're outside on a sunny day. You'll have one fairly hard shadow. Now imagine there are 2 suns (you're on an alien planet). Now you'll have two shadows and each will be a little less dark. Now 50 suns (you're in another dimension), lots of shadows and there's so much light filling them in that you can barely see them. (Please use sun tan lotion)

BTW Here's some 3D scans, including the armadillo-man that was used in a rigging video someone posted.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
mocaw,What are your system specs?I can't replicate the move error. There is a known bug in Alpha 43 with undo ,Andrew is fixing it.

Windows Vista Premium 64-bit SP-1

P820 Older Dual core 2.8Ghz

4GB DDR2 677 RAM

PCIe x 16 ASUS GeForce 8400 GS w/512MB dedicated RAM (but I guess it can go further if it needs to "share" memory- up to 2047MB)

I'm using DX10 BTW...

Two SATA 7200rpm HD 41.2GB free on C and 129GB free on other main drive.

I was also using my 4x5 Intous 3...not sure if that means anything!

Sorry if this is too much or too little info! Thank you!

I know my video card is a low powered cheap one...but until I had 3DC...believe it or not...this was over kill for me! How much does video card performance effect voxeling in 3DC? Right now I'm of the understanding that getting a higher performing "Cuda" card would effect redraw/lag when voxeling, where as the amount of video RAM would effect how high res your voxel model can get? I know these things are some what interdependent...but is that the gist of it? I'm sure it effects it more than one would think since voxels seem to be processed so well by current GPUs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Agreed. I think a universal manipulator is a much better option for transforming whole objects. Now that we can have multiple voxel objects I think the need for this is greater too.

I totally agree with you guys. I kind of wish the transpose in 3DC was like the transpose in the preview video for Zbrush 3, it was bone base(don't need an constraint,expression), it'll still be quick as the current implemention(which i really not fond of using(probably because of the odd handles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a standard universal manipulator would be better for moving objects around. As for transpose it's funny when I first heard about it I was really just imagining a rigging system and all I would use it for was posing a character. But now I find that I'm using it all the time just for moving random parts of the model around. Like yesterday I was working on some hair and one of the locks was a little too close to the body, so I used transpose to move and rotate it further away. So bone based might be a useful addition, but I don't think it should replace what we currently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Updated to V44. Only non-cuda package is updated!

Changes:

1) Axial symmetry tool

2) Import point cloud (experimental)

3) Possibility to import huge meshes in VS (up to 10 M)

4) Bugfixes

Hello Andrew,

great to see point cloud import implemented! But where to find this feature?

Wherever I look I only see the .obj/lwo/fbx import filters.

Holger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You got it on object tree, right click on a layer/group and you will see Merge Point Cloud.

But I don't think you can use it, at least for me when I tried to import this kind of data I'm only able to choose .obj, and it doesn't fit to scan data file format.

I don't know if you have some scan data to use Andrew but you can find some freesample here http://www.cyberware.com/products/scanners/index.html

But I'm not used of this kind of model, so I don't know if that's what fit to point cloud data or medecine data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I agree that a standard universal manipulator would be better for moving objects around. As for transpose it's funny when I first heard about it I was really just imagining a rigging system and all I would use it for was posing a character. But now I find that I'm using it all the time just for moving random parts of the model around. Like yesterday I was working on some hair and one of the locks was a little too close to the body, so I used transpose to move and rotate it further away. So bone based might be a useful addition, but I don't think it should replace what we currently have.

Phil: This is why transpose replaced the rigging system in zbrush3 in the end. The rigging approach was too tedious and totally overkill - especially when a good percentage of the time you aren't even working with a full character or creature body. A persistent skeleton only really makes sense when you are doing animation or a crap ton of posing for renders, one of which isn't possible in zbrush and the other, even illustrators rendering right in zbrush wouldn't have used as much. As you've found, it's very useful for all kinds of transforms and therefore much more versatile. This is why zbrush users were asking for it in 3dc. I actually think that Andrew's implementation of transpose is better, especially how it can be selection based - which is easier to use than masking. In zbrush you have to mask off all the parts you don't want to deform. 3dc works the opposite.

I really doubt you could implement a rig based system for voxels anyway. You wouldn't be able to handle points of self intersection, like when joints fold, or a limb clips into the body. As soon as that happens the voxel mesh would be ruined as far as its ability to be posed goes. You'd constantly be erasing/merging sculpt info into itself and having to do more cleanup, or fixing work. Polygons don't have this problem. The same is true with transpose and voxels, only at least you wouldn't be left with a useless skeleton that can no longer properly deform the mesh when you do end up with intersections or points where the volume merges with itself.

I should clarify that I'm really only interested in seeing a standard manipulator for manipulating 3d layers and objects - not as any kind of replacement or addition to transpose (I like it the way it is). A set of manipulator handles is just more intuitive for working with full objects/layers where there is no deformation occuring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Hi everyone,

I'm Alexis, webmaster of ZBrush.fr, the french ZBrush community.

I saw a picture made with ZBrush, a bad, ugly picture that shows voluntarily streched polygones. Besides, there a beautiful picture made with 3DC :

http://3d-coat.com/v3_voxel_sculpting.html

This is unacceptable. Even if there is no name under the picture, it clearly comes from ZBrush. What do the conceptor of 3DC would say if Pixologic displayed on their websites two pictures, one wonderful picture made with ZB, and another voluntarily ugly picture with the name "Voxels" and elements so we can clearly recognize 3D-Coat ?

At ZB.fr, we are very open to other softwares. There are regular topics about 3DC, we talk about it, we like it very much and we give informations about the software :

http://forum.zbrush.fr/index.php/topic,3668.0.html

Why ? Because we love 3D, and we don't want to talk about ZBrush only, killing other programs.

I say : Do you really have to kill a software to let live another ?

I'm very angry about that.

Alexis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Hi everyone,

I'm Alexis, webmaster of ZBrush.fr, the french ZBrush community.

I saw a picture made with ZBrush, a bad, ugly picture that shows voluntarily streched polygones. Besides, there a beautiful picture made with 3DC :

http://3d-coat.com/v3_voxel_sculpting.html

This is unacceptable. Even if there is no name under the picture, it clearly comes from ZBrush. What do the conceptor of 3DC would say if Pixologic displayed on their websites two pictures, one wonderful picture made with ZB, and another voluntarily ugly picture with the name "Voxels" and elements so we can clearly recognize 3D-Coat ?

At ZB.fr, we are very open to other softwares. There are regular topics about 3DC, we talk about it, we like it very much and we give informations about the software :

http://forum.zbrush.fr/index.php/topic,3668.0.html

Why ? Because we love 3D, and we don't want to talk about ZBrush only, killing other programs.

I say : Do you really have to kill a software to let live another ?

I'm very angry about that.

Alexis

Comparing one piece of software to another is common. The images are meant to display how 3dcoat's volumetric sculpting is different from other sculpting applications like zbrush, hexagon, mudbox, modo, and silo. I find the image a good comparison and visual aid in demonstrating this idea. I own a zbrush license and I'm not offended by the images. I think the comparison addresses some very major issues in the work flow in traditional sculpting applications. To me it's not killing another software, it's showing innovation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...