PolyHertz Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Some more competition in the 3D painting space it seems: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted September 8, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Oh this is gonna be the king of bugs , lag and lots of cursing LOL !!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted September 8, 2015 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) What I want is Megascans. And that seems to be taking forever to arrive. Is the main cause of the bugginess their decision to make their application a plug in to PS and not a stand alone? Edited September 8, 2015 by L'Ancien Regime 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted September 8, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 I'm curious to see how it performs, seeing that it works inside of Photoshop 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted September 8, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 They seem to be aiming it directly at 3D Coat, with the Quixel Suite. The Indie license is priced similar to 3D Coat's non commercial/edu license. And their commercial license is $389. Right at the same pricepoint 3DC Commercial version is. But those are the prices with their 30% off pre-order discount. I noticed that MegaScans doesn't appear to be part of the Suite http://quixelab.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/quixel-suite-2-0?variant=7168227651 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Rebelismo Posted September 9, 2015 Member Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 What I want is Megascans. And that seems to be taking forever to arrive. Is the main cause of the bugginess their decision to make their application a plug in to PS and not a stand alone? I'm waiting for Megascans here as well, but it makes me wonder how much that subscription is going to cost. I believe they mentioned that stability issues will be greatly improved in 2.0. It seems that they integrated Quixel into photoshop because a lot of texture artists were already familiar with that application and didn't want to jump into anything new. The interesting thing is that Quixel mentioned that painting in 8K is going to be smooth, and that sounds like a bold claim . Never had a smooth experience painting that large in PS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Member Goldchain Posted September 9, 2015 New Member Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 They seem to be aiming it directly at 3D Coat, with the Quixel Suite. The Indie license is priced similar to 3D Coat's non commercial/edu license. And their commercial license is $389. Right at the same pricepoint 3DC Commercial version is. But those are the prices with their 30% off pre-order discount. I noticed that MegaScans doesn't appear to be part of the Suite http://quixelab.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/quixel-suite-2-0?variant=7168227651 3D Coat is so much more. Quixel feels more like Substance's baby brother. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted September 9, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 3D Coat is so much more. Quixel feels more like Substance's baby brother.I agree, but they probably do have a larger default library of materials. This is something I've asked Andrew about addressing. The default library of Smart materials is OK, in 3D Coat, but it needs considerably more, IMHO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted September 9, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Its the material the reason everybody is buying , i was ready to buy once it first came to the market , but after trying it was too buggy to use. But the materials...... o boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted September 9, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Oooo and the fact that once you make a setup you can easily apply it to several other 3d models without even clicking a single button. Soooooo 3dc needs in my humble opinion 1) low poly modelling 1b) sculpt layers 2) Faster auto retopo 3) Ids to get a material setup to another model 4) More pbr materials After that just forget everything else for 1)Low poly modelling (big problem so far) 2)sculpt (already good to very good except speed) 3)Painting (already very good) 4)Retopo (already excellent ) 5)Material setup for batch 3d modelling. (big problem so far ) One ring to rule them all...... P.S Hell , i am gonna even like my own post because it rocks!!! Edited September 9, 2015 by Michaelgdrs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyHertz Posted September 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Its the material the reason everybody is buying , i was ready to buy once it first came to the market , but after trying it was too buggy to use. But the materials...... o boy. Yea same here. Bugs killed v1.x for me after only a few days of trying it. However, I really like the idea of having all the Photoshop brushes available to use directly in a 3D viewport (3DC sadly just cant compare in this area). That alone will be reason enough for me to give it the new version a shot once it's released. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 "coming fall 2015" is true ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted September 10, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Yea same here. Bugs killed v1.x for me after only a few days of trying it. However, I really like the idea of having all the Photoshop brushes available to use directly in a 3D viewport (3DC sadly just cant compare in this area). That alone will be reason enough for me to give it the new version a shot once it's released. I downloaded the trial once and was never able to use it because it crashed every time it launched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member tildee Posted November 30, 2015 Member Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Today is the last day to get a discount. Do I need Quixel for Architecture visualizations when I have 3DCoat? http://quixelab.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/quixel-suite-2-0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted December 1, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 It depends on your pipeline and what you want achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ghib Posted December 1, 2015 Advanced Member Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 You guys are forgetting how bad 3DCoat's Layer system is. No intelligent Layer Masking, Text only?, Layer Groups having no 'Pass Through' 3DCoat needs an overhaul in my opinion as it's starting to feel quite archaic. Both Substance Painter & Quixel Suite have a far superior Layer masking system which allows for rapid changes on the fly in a more non-destructive way. I honestly don't see anything changing in 3DCoat with regards to this for a LONG time. 3DCoat Smart Materials are nice but they are destructive. Meaning that once you've painted them down onto a layer it's set in stone. If you want to tweak the values you have to go back to the Smart Material and start from scratch again on your layer. This to me is a massive shame as I think 3DCoat with a much better Layer system would sit it head and shoulders above the competition. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted December 1, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Unfortunately you are correct. Fortunately / guessing / hoping , Andrew will get this done in the near future. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ghib Posted December 1, 2015 Advanced Member Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Unfortunately you are correct. Fortunately / guessing / hoping , Andrew will get this done in the near future. I wish I weren't correct as we are currently overhauling our own internal pipeline and reviewing the available 3d Paint packages on the market. I love using 3DCoat but unfortunately it has become apparent that it's not very flexible/powerful in the Layer dept. There are of course pros and cons with all the packages so I'm not being unnecessarily harsh on 3DCoat. At the moment, for our needs, 3DCoat is coming at the bottom of the heap (much to my displeasure) p.s. I would happily work closely with Andrew to help improve this side of 3DCoat but I fear that there is such a large backlog of ideas/bugs that this is not realistic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted December 1, 2015 Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I made some suggestions to Andrew for the exact same issue. Hope dies last as he has proved numerous times that he listens to costumers requests , Pro or Edu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 1, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 This is way overblown criticism. The layer system, imho, just lacks the thumbnail one might see on a layer in PS, and layer masking works much the same way in 3DC, as it does in PS. In some cases, it's better. PS basically links a mask to a given layer and it appears that it is part of the layer...but that is just how PS displays it. It is effectively a separate layer in it's own right. How so? Cause when you click to unlink it from the layer you can move the mask about, or the image, independent of one another. In 3D Coat, when you create a layer and use it as a mask, it isn't as elegant as you may expect it to be, but it's far from being clunky or archaic, as you describe, glib. The benefit it has over PS is that you can use one layer to mask multiple layers. And it's tight integration with PS means if you don't like the way masking works in 3D Coat, you can use PS as an extension of 3DC...and use it's masking system, by sending all your layers over with a simple CTRL + P. I know that sounds like a lot of work (CTRL P), but it's actually designed to be a feature of 3D Coat...tight integration. So, if you have a beef with one aspect or tool in 3DC, you can augment it with PS VERY, VERY, VERY easily. dDo piggy-backs off of PS, so how is it any better? Can the layer system in 3DC improve? Sure it can, but it ticks me off to hear people come on here and bash the heck out of the app, when it's actually pretty awesome. I like the way layer masking works. As for Smart Materials being destructive...not really. If you like all the tweaks to a Smart Material YOU SAVE IT SO YOU CAN USE IT LATER! Applying it to a layer = merging a layer group in PS. Cause that is what you are doing! You are taking a MULTI-LAYER MATERIAL AND APPLYING IT TO A SINGLE LAYER. Hello? How is that a fault of 3D Coat? If you like all the tweaks to a material, you want to save that as a new one. It's not rocket science. In short, just because 3D Coat may not suit your tastes in every facet, it doesn't deserve such harsh criticism. You forget, it has A LOT MORE TOOLS than Substance Painter and dDo....thus the development cannot stay focused on the paint room 24/7. There was more work in the paint room in the past 2yrs than all areas combined...yet you come here just to bash the app. 3D Coat is competing with separate specialized apps for Retopo, Sculpting, and Texture Painting, and it's not an easy task trying to be class leading in each of those tasks. So, have a little perspective before coming to Andrew's own forum to throwing a bucket of stink all over him. A lot of prospective customers are hearing you fuss about it, and assuming its' garbage because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyHertz Posted December 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Layers just need PS-compatible layer masks (like Andrew promised 1+ year ago...), thumbnails, and better drag/drop preview. With just those three things I'd be fairly happy overall. But yea the layer system is one of the more ignored and bare-bones parts of the paint system atp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ghib Posted December 1, 2015 Advanced Member Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 AbnRanger - Ok firstly, I feel that you may have just had another knee-jerk reaction. Let's try and keep in civil without any inflammatory insinuations, thanks. ( I'm not here to start a fight, merely to talk about possible limitations with a package I have personally invested a LOT of time with both beta testing and using professionally. I feel personally responsible for the majority of artists in our studio using 3DCoat. Wouldn't Andrew want to improve his application or at least listen to as many active users who may well have valid ideas about how to improve it? It could very well lead to more sales in the future. As I said in my previous posts we are currently reviewing and streamlining our pipeline here and each artist is testing all available packages on the market. What is becoming apparent is that for our purposes 3DCoat is lacking with versatility in its Layers system. Let me explain... In Substance Painter & QS all your Substance (Smart Material) settings are available at all times rather than locked inside a Material which then gets applied to a Layer. You can have as many Masks as you like applied to that Substance so you can keep your detail separate e.g. Material ID, edge wearing, painted specific details etc. It’s a very elegant system. Compare this to 3DCoat and you realise that it’s far superior. Imagine an Art Director reviewing your work and asking for you to change a whole bunch of parameters in your Smart Material in 3DCoat; you will need to go back to the original Material and build a new one (change parameters) then start again on your Layers from scratch. It’s destructive like I said. Why can’t we paint on a ‘Mask Layer’ in 3DC if it’s hidden? Is this a bug? If not then I find it very obtrusive. Also visually you need to perform a workaround to distinguish your Mask layers from ordinary paint layers. I use a prefix or suffix _MASK_ but again it’s not elegant and you need to remember to have all those layers hidden. You may work differently but I tend to try and keep all my details on separate layers to attempt to be as non-destructive as possible (I’m used to ‘Art Direction’) Double this up with many many Mask layers and you can understand our frustration. Our characters are VERY complex with many different elements to coat. Keeping all of this in one scene in 3DCoat with the current layer system is a nightmare if I’m being kind. Have you tried using an ID mask layer in 3DCoat? The magic wand tool is horrendously slow. To the point where it’s actually unusable. It is quicker to send ALL layers to Photoshop make a wand selection and create a new layer fill it with solid pixels and send it all back to 3DCoat than it is to make an ID selection within 3DC. Oh and this is another bug bear of mine, rather than being able to link one ID mask to as many Layers as you want you need to create a new MASK layer for every ID. It’s clunky. Anyway, as I mentioned in my other posts I do actually prefer using 3DCoat as it has many advantages over the other choices I mentioned i.e. you can link a mask layer to as many layers as you like. It has served us very well in the past but as I've outlined its Layer system is becoming less appealing for our particular needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 1, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Layers just need PS-compatible layer masks (like Andrew promised 1+ year ago...), thumbnails, and better drag/drop preview. With just those three things I'd be fairly happy overall. But yea the layer system is one of the more ignored and bare-bones parts of the paint system atp. With the PBR/Smart Material tech, I think he's gonna have to visit it soon. Reason I say that is I noticed the Layer system in the Smart Material editor is similar to what has been asked of Andrew in terms of standard paint layers. Expandable/Collapsing maps/channel, revealing what map/channel info is actually on that layer. Have the same toggle to expand/collapse the channels on any given layer, and a mask option for each one. He already has it working in one layer panel (Smart Materials)...why not the standard one? But, yes, I would prefer a PS style masking method, even though it's not critical for me at this point. I still like the ability to use one Mask layer to mask multiple layers if I need Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 1, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 AbnRanger - Ok firstly, I feel that you may have just had another knee-jerk reaction. Let's try and keep in civil without any inflammatory insinuations, thanks. ( I'm not here to start a fight, merely to talk about possible limitations with a package I have personally invested a LOT of time with both beta testing and using professionally. I feel personally responsible for the majority of artists in our studio using 3DCoat. Wouldn't Andrew want to improve his application or at least listen to as many active users who may well have valid ideas about how to improve it? It could very well lead to more sales in the future. As I said in my previous posts we are currently reviewing and streamlining our pipeline here and each artist is testing all available packages on the market. What is becoming apparent is that for our purposes 3DCoat is lacking with versatility in its Layers system. Let me explain... In Substance Painter & QS all your Substance (Smart Material) settings are available at all times rather than locked inside a Material which then gets applied to a Layer. You can have as many Masks as you like applied to that Substance so you can keep your detail separate e.g. Material ID, edge wearing, painted specific details etc. It’s a very elegant system. Compare this to 3DCoat and you realise that it’s far superior. Imagine an Art Director reviewing your work and asking for you to change a whole bunch of parameters in your Smart Material in 3DCoat; you will need to go back to the original Material and build a new one (change parameters) then start again on your Layers from scratch. It’s destructive like I said. Why can’t we paint on a ‘Mask Layer’ in 3DC if it’s hidden? Is this a bug? If not then I find it very obtrusive. Also visually you need to perform a workaround to distinguish your Mask layers from ordinary paint layers. I use a prefix or suffix _MASK_ but again it’s not elegant and you need to remember to have all those layers hidden. You may work differently but I tend to try and keep all my details on separate layers to attempt to be as non-destructive as possible (I’m used to ‘Art Direction’) Double this up with many many Mask layers and you can understand our frustration. Our characters are VERY complex with many different elements to coat. Keeping all of this in one scene in 3DCoat with the current layer system is a nightmare if I’m being kind. Have you tried using an ID mask layer in 3DCoat? The magic wand tool is horrendously slow. To the point where it’s actually unusable. It is quicker to send ALL layers to Photoshop make a wand selection and create a new layer fill it with solid pixels and send it all back to 3DCoat than it is to make an ID selection within 3DC. Oh and this is another bug bear of mine, rather than being able to link one ID mask to as many Layers as you want you need to create a new MASK layer for every ID. It’s clunky. Anyway, as I mentioned in my other posts I do actually prefer using 3DCoat as it has many advantages over the other choices I mentioned i.e. you can link a mask layer to as many layers as you like. It has served us very well in the past but as I've outlined its Layer system is becoming less appealing for our particular needs. Inflammatory? What do you think your post was? You came into this thread blasting 3D Coat with both barrels? It wasn't "I wish 3D Coat had this and here is why?" No....it was "People don't know how bad 3D Coat sucks!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ghib Posted December 1, 2015 Advanced Member Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Hello yet another typical AbnRanger knee-jerk reaction. Calm down fella. Both barrels blasting? This is NOT the wild west p.s. May I also quote myself This to me is a massive shame as I think 3DCoat with a much better Layer system would sit it head and shoulders above the competition. After re-reading your responses I feel your reactions are "Way over blown" Being critical of a shortcoming is completely different from Bashing, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 1, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 ...I've had problems with bugs and things like that a few years back, but that's been largely addressed, and I still get frustrated when things I asked for repeatedly by email, here on the forums and such...never get any attention. But just because blender has some cool retopo tools that 3D Coat doesn't have...yet, and what I've been asking for hasn't gotten the attention I think it needs, it doesn't mean the toolset sucks. Far from it. The Retopo Room needs some attention. The Sculpt room needs Sculpt layers. the Tweak room really needs some attention, and the Paint room could be improved. But each workspace (except the Tweak Room) is still excellent at what it does. Just needs to keep improving to make everyone happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 1, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Hello yet another typical AbnRanger knee-jerk reaction. Calm down fella. Both barrels blasting? This is NOT the wild west For someone who has known Andrew and the Pilgway staff for years, this is inflammatory...(your words) "You guys are forgetting how bad 3DCoat's Layer system is...." To someone who is using the 30 day trial, those words are damaging." But that's what you do when you come here, right? I don't recall anything positive. Just whenever you have a beef. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 2, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 .....In Substance Painter & QS all your Substance (Smart Material) settings are available at all times rather than locked inside a Material which then gets applied to a Layer. You can have as many Masks as you like applied to that Substance so you can keep your detail separate e.g. Material ID, edge wearing, painted specific details etc. It’s a very elegant system. Compare this to 3DCoat and you realise that it’s far superior. Imagine an Art Director reviewing your work and asking for you to change a whole bunch of parameters in your Smart Material in 3DCoat; you will need to go back to the original Material and build a new one (change parameters) then start again on your Layers from scratch. It’s destructive like I said. Why can’t we paint on a ‘Mask Layer’ in 3DC if it’s hidden? Is this a bug? If not then I find it very obtrusive. Also visually you need to perform a workaround to distinguish your Mask layers from ordinary paint layers. I use a prefix or suffix _MASK_ but again it’s not elegant and you need to remember to have all those layers hidden. You may work differently but I tend to try and keep all my details on separate layers to attempt to be as non-destructive as possible (I’m used to ‘Art Direction’) Double this up with many many Mask layers and you can understand our frustration. Our characters are VERY complex with many different elements to coat. Keeping all of this in one scene in 3DCoat with the current layer system is a nightmare if I’m being kind. Have you tried using an ID mask layer in 3DCoat? The magic wand tool is horrendously slow. To the point where it’s actually unusable. It is quicker to send ALL layers to Photoshop make a wand selection and create a new layer fill it with solid pixels and send it all back to 3DCoat than it is to make an ID selection within 3DC. Oh and this is another bug bear of mine, rather than being able to link one ID mask to as many Layers as you want you need to create a new MASK layer for every ID. It’s clunky. Anyway, as I mentioned in my other posts I do actually prefer using 3DCoat as it has many advantages over the other choices I mentioned i.e. you can link a mask layer to as many layers as you like. It has served us very well in the past but as I've outlined its Layer system is becoming less appealing for our particular needs. 1) Again...when you apply a Smart Material to a given layer, YOU the artist are asking 3D Coat to flatten/merge all the layers from it, to a single layer in your layer panel. It's not a flaw on 3D Coat's part! If you want to be totally "NON-Destructive" you can just use different maps, settings and conditions on individual layers and group them...like you would in PS. Smart Materials are just a way to create a PRESET, so you don't have to keep manually making all the necessary changes all the time. Once more, when you tweak any given Smart Material, YOU WANT TO SAVE IT AS A NEW ONE...so when your art director asks you to make some changes to the material you used YOU HAVE THE MOST UPDATED version on hand and ready to tweak some more...and SAVE THAT ONE AS A NEW MATERIAL. No need to have to go back to the original. You obviously would want to hide, delete or overwrite the layer needing the specified changes, by applying the newly tweaked smart material. It's wrong to imply that you have to start from scratch. You do not. That most recently updated copy contains all the relevant maps, conditions and settings, to which you can easily tweak and re-apply to the appropriate paint layer. 2) Too many layer masks? IT'S A TRADEOFF! It being separate has it's benefits and tradeoffs. In PS, you trade away the benefit of being able to assign a single mask to multiple layers. Sure you can copy and paste, but that isn't the same as one mask driving multiple layers. You give up something to GET SOMETHING! The way 3D Coat's layers work is exactly the same. You give up something, but you also GET SOMETHING you can't get elsewhere. What part of that is so difficult to grasp? So you don't want to see all those mask layers...THEN HIDE THEM. How? By selecting the layer(s) you want masked > layer group icon > drag mask layer into it. It's now hidden from sight. Is that REALLY so hard, folks? 3) The Magic Wand does need to be sped up (an e-mail request to Andrew at support@3d-coat.com) would help that happen. But to be honest, it's a redundant tool, and using the FILL tool > Fill with Freeze does the same exact thing....faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ghib Posted December 2, 2015 Advanced Member Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 I can tell you feel passionate and defensive about your chosen tool. None of what you're saying is 'TOO DIFFICULT TO GRASP' so I'll leave you to it. I on the other hand will continue to evaluate ALL tools available and give my feedback where necessary. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted December 2, 2015 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 I can tell you feel passionate and defensive about your chosen tool. None of what you're saying is 'TOO DIFFICULT TO GRASP' so I'll leave you to it. I on the other hand will continue to evaluate ALL tools available and give my feedback where necessary. Thanks for taking the time to respond. It's one thing to mention something is broken, or in need of improvement, but when it turns into bashing the app, it has a damaging effect, whether you realize it or not. There are a lot of new users here, who are trying the app out, or maybe they bought the EDU version while learning it. When they hear a lot of app bashing while mentioning how well others work, instead, it can have a negative effect on development. If 3D Coat doesn't grow in sales, it cannot grow in development. And if Andrew had to shoulder the load all by himself, then he'll eventually burn out. There are a number of things I've requested repeatedly and years later, still haven't seen any attention given to it. Andrew will get back to layers and the Paint room, but he has other parts of the app that require some development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.