A wish for feature requests and wishes for the future

[Taros]

Hello.

In the previous time I've seen a lot of nice ideas and proposals to make 3D Coat bigger and "ostensibly" better.

In my opinion 3D Coat is actually neither a polygon modeler nor an animation solution and not a render solution, too.

I think it should stay what it actually is: a painting and partially new sculpting tool with solutions for this topics. There are enough very good tools for modeling, animation and this stuff on the market, and the most of them can work together with and profit of 3D Coat.

One time someone will please for a physical renderer in 3D Coat and someone else bet for animation and rigging (what already happed as I remember) and a third person wishes postproduction features... This kind of requests will never end.

I think there should be borders, for now. 3D Coat should reach a bugfree and clean workflow version first, before such or some of the mentioned ideas could be implemented.

Before somebody writes a new feature request, please overthink your idea first:

1. Is this idea really helpful for the current workflow? (Which is actually far from finished, in my opinion!)

2. Does your idea fit to the philosophy of 3D Coat, to be a painting and sculpting solution?

I guess, first of all we users have to help the programmers to make 3D Coat a good and round program. Currently there are a lot of good ideas already implemented, but not all are worked out and there are enough bugs in different program areas, too. Already the current status means a lot of finetuning.

Please help us, to make 3D Coat not another "borg cube" tool, full of different tools and features, that no one finds or understands.

Though I am a forum admin, don't see this post as a order or something similar. My post represents simply my opinion. I am just a user like you all.

You are invited for a discussion.

Best wishes

Chris

[cnob]

Funny,

I was thinking almost the same yesterday.

I totally agree with that, a bugfree 3D-Coat will be worthier for all of us than any new features.

[splodge]

Before somebody writes a new feature request, please overthink your idea first:

1. Is this idea really helpful for the current workflow - which is actually far from finished, in my opinion?!

2. Does your idea fit to the philosophy of 3D Coat, to be a painting and sculpting solution?

1. Well if I suggest something it doesn't mean I want it added tomorrow. I'm all for bug fixing before adding new features.

2. There's no reason why 3D Coat needs to limit itself. I've seen somebody argue that 3D Coat should've remained a painting program and not added silly voxels. I'm sure most of us would disagree.

I believe with the new decimation feature 3D Coat has the potential to replace the old polygon and nurbs modelers. So I'd hate to see Andrew work on perfecting the retopo tools and then make them redundant a few weeks later by integrating a better decimation feature.

So I say - To infinity and beyond!!

...but fix the bugs first!

[splodge]

Ha!. I've just seen the feature request that probably inspired this thread.

I admit - that feature request is probably asking a little too much. And not a direction I wish to see 3D Coat go in.

[digman]

It is a tough market out there for 3D software. Keeping your core strong, which is painting,retopo and voxels for 3Dcoat plus adding features that would draw new users is not easy. I'm not sitting in Andrew's chair but easy to understand interface, great tools to get the job done and as bug free as possible are the greatest selling points in my decision to buy software.

I realise that the development versions will not be bug free and I understand by installing one that their will be some some bugs in the software. I would suggest though fixing them before adding more features in another development version.

[jacobo]

I definitely agree with Taros in his statement.

New features are nothing (until a flagship build is released) compared to stability!!

When you have tons of stuff and are nearing your deadline like a freight train, you only need one thing; stability and therefore as few crashes as possible.

Unless you're using the application for just f...king around, you don't need physically based renderers, full modeling capabilities, animation facilities, NURBS support and whatnot. All, you have to have is stability!!

All of these requests are highly unrealistic and will lead 3DC to loose its objective and will serve nothing but complicate its architecture with useless garbage. 3DC is a 3D sculpting software and it's simply the best around. Period... Feature requests should be kept to a level pertaining to the overhaul of performance not inflation of nick-nack features...

[Tony Nemo]

I concur with the need for core stability (sculpting, retopology and painting). Down the road, there may imerge some plugins for added funtionality.

[AbnRanger]

I definitely agree with Taros in his statement.

New features are nothing until a flagship build is released compared to stability!!

When you have tons of stuff and are nearing your deadline like a freight train, you only need one thing; stability and therefore as few crashes as possible.

Unless you're using the application for just f...king around, you don't need physically based renderers, full modeling capabilities, animation facilities, NURBS support and whatnot. All, you have to have is stability!!

All of these requests are highly unrealistic and will lead 3DC to loose its objective and will serve nothing but complicate its architecture with useless garbage. 3DC is a 3D sculpting software and it's simply the best around. Period... Feature requests should be kept to a level pertaining to the overhaul of performance not inflation of nick-nack features...

+1. What it currently does needs to be refined to the point that it competes on an even level or better with the competiton. Instead of NURBS support and other frivolous pursuits, all the attention should remain focused on speed, improving the tools that exist, and making it as stable as possible. There's lots of improvements needed in Voxels alone. Asking Andrew to divert attention to features most users won't ever touch or would rather do in another application, more suitable for the task, is an utter waste in my opinion.

[Calabi]

People are always going to be like that though. When something works perfectly well someone will always suggest "What would make that loads better would be wings". Of course wings would make anything better, and they've been added to loads of things already, but sometimes the time is not right to add wings. People arent ready for cups with wings, toaster wings, cheese wing or wheel wings, so those budding, would be inventors, with those genius wing variant ideas, have to wait, for the time when people are willing to accept wings on rice, beer wings, Blackberry with wings. But when that time comes, those would be inventors waiting in the wings, will reap the wings based consumer whirlwind.

[philnolan3d]

I will agree. I was just thinking a couple hours ago, as much as I love new features bug fixes and stability are much more important. As far as these huge new features like animation. Leave those to the other programs that are intended to do that stuff. Not only will it lose the focus of the program but more huge features present the opportunity for more bugs and will spread Andrew quite thin I think.

[Taros]

+1. What is currently does needs to be refined to the point that it competes on an even level or better with the competiton. Instead of NURBS support and other frivolous pursuits, all the attention should remain focused on speed, improving the tools that exist, and making it as stable as possible. There's lots of improvements needed in Voxels alone. Asking Andrew to divert attention to features most users won't ever touch or would rather do in another application, more suitable for the task, is an utter waste in my opinion.

Absolutely.

There are still so much building sites in the tool, that have to be finished or elaborated.

[AbnRanger]

Absolutely.

There are still so much building sites in the tool, that have to be finished or elaborated.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a bit rude in this regard to the next few people who ask for all these wiz-bang features, when a simple look at the bugs/issues threads or section illustrate how much work already lies ahead trying to iron out all the current shortcomings. I really would like for Andrew to take a few months off from adding any sort of of "New Features" and just go on a Fixing frenzy, instead. I have had a number of fix requests ignored (like gizmos not being centered on the object selected in the Vox Tree). I've had a number of models that I worked on, take several minutes to load up if at all. Voxels need a thorough going over and a major speedup, so we aren't left wondering if an operation is hung/crashing 3DC or not.

It can never compete with ZBrush or Mudbox with this sort of routine commonly taking place. No more fancy features til the current feature set is refined and cleaned up, please.

[Taros]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a bit rude in this regard to the next few people who ask for all these wiz-bang features, when a simple look at the bugs/issues threads or section illustrate how much work already lies ahead trying to iron out all the current shortcomings. I really would like for Andrew to take a few months off from adding any sort of of "New Features" and just go on a Fixing frenzy, instead. I have had a number of fix requests ignored (like gizmos not being centered on the object selected in the Vox Tree). I've had a number of models that I worked on, take several minutes to load up if at all. Voxels needs a thorough going over and a major speedup, so we aren't left wondering if an operation is hung/crashing 3DC or not.

It can never compete with ZBrush or Mudbox with this sort of routine commonly taking place. No more fancy features til the current feature set is refined and cleaned up, please.

Imagine how strong 3DC could be, if all the already existing tools would work clean and untainted?!

[Andrew Shpagin]

Most of all recent additions are not something principally new but are just streamlining or solving some principal problems of 3D-Coat (like recent "E" panel improvements or surface tools).

So, don't worry I hear your voices

[Flipper]

Andrew,

I am probably in the minority, since I only use 3dc to texture models. In my estimation there is nothing out there as easy to use. Whatever you do with voxels is just gravy.

Thanks for a very neat program.

[jacobo]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a bit rude in this regard to the next few people who ask for all these wiz-bang features, when a simple look at the bugs/issues threads or section illustrate how much work already lies ahead trying to iron out all the current shortcomings. I really would like for Andrew to take a few months off from adding any sort of of "New Features" and just go on a Fixing frenzy, instead. I have had a number of fix requests ignored (like gizmos not being centered on the object selected in the Vox Tree). I've had a number of models that I worked on, take several minutes to load up if at all. Voxels needs a thorough going over and a major speedup, so we aren't left wondering if an operation is hung/crashing 3DC or not.

It can never compete with ZBrush or Mudbox with this sort of routine commonly taking place. No more fancy features til the current feature set is refined and cleaned up, please.

Amen to that one... I've been meaning to start a thread focusing on what you've mentioned just now but just threw it to the back of my head cuz I thought I'd get hit hard by some users out there. I am trying to teach my assistants and juniors 3DC but they keep coming back with so many complaints about so many bugs they encounter that I had to write down a list for each of them of certain routines they need to avoid in the current version of 3DC in order to keep themselves from thinking that they're doing something wrong. I've found myself looking out for the most stable version so as to decide to go ahead and purchase licenses for my juniors (they're running 3DC in trial mode, some have expired) This is the 3rd time in 2 weeks I uninstalled the current version and reinstalled 3.1.17 because I have s..t loads of stuff I need to get done, and I simply can't take any chances with such tight deadlines at hand. It's a bit aggravating... On the other hand, seeing how such a genuine and sincere person Andrew really is, I keep assuring myself that whatever problem I encounter that I post or PM him, he patiently deals with all of them. I've been using this application since version 3.0 and I am certain that it's simply the best. And this goes for not only the application, but the programmer as well. Andy should just keep an eye on maintaining the balance between new feature implementations and the regressions they might potentially drag along with them because regressive bugs can be not only nerve racking but could sometimes mean deadline or bust in certain situations.

[AbnRanger]

Most of all recent additions are not something principally new but are just streamlining or solving some principal problems of 3D-Coat (like recent "E" panel improvements or surface tools).

So, don't worry I hear your voices

Thanks Andrew. We're not saying that there have been no such improvements. Indeed there have been. Such as the Surfacing tools additions. This is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Improving what is already in the application, just not going off on a wild tangent to add some new features...like NURBS support or trying to copy ZBrush's new Zspheres capability and such.

The most glaring thing for me is the wait time involved with Voxel operations. I just built a new Quad-Core system, and had to throw quite a bit of cash into it, in order to help speed things up in this regard...and it still is terribly slow when waiting for voxel operations to calculate.

I had one character sculpt that I spent some time on and saved, went back recently to pick where I left off and after 15 min waiting for it to load, I gave up and had to shut down 3DC in Windows Task Manager. Voxels are a good concept in theory, but oftentimes in practice, they present as many troubles as they do benefits. For this reason, I wonder if it might not be possible to follow Mudbox's example and add as many of the voxel tools into the regular (geometry) sculpting room, and simply try to improve the speed there to a comparable level.

The benefits of Voxel sculpting may be nice, but there are plenty of times, I'd trade those for some overall speed and stability...even if you have to be concerned with topology a bit. Is this where you are going with the surfacing tools?

[artman]

Thanks Andrew. We're not saying that there have been no such improvements. Indeed there have been. Such as the Surfacing tools additions. This is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Improving what is already in the application, just not going off on a wild tangent to add some new features...like NURBS support or trying to copy ZBrush's new Zspheres capability and such.

The most glaring thing for me is the wait time involved with Voxel operations. I just built a new Quad-Core system, and had to throw quite a bit of cash into it, in order to help speed things up in this regard...and it still is terribly slow when waiting for voxel operations to calculate.

I had one character sculpt that I spent some time on and saved, went back recently to pick where I left off and after 15 min waiting for it to load, I gave up and had to shut down 3DC in Windows Task Manager. Voxels are a good concept in theory, but oftentimes in practice, they present as many troubles as they do benefits. For this reason, I wonder if it might not be possible to follow Mudbox's example and add as many of the voxel tools into the regular (geometry) sculpting room, and simply try to improve the speed there to a comparable level.

The benefits of Voxel sculpting may be nice, but there are plenty of times, I'd trade those for some overall speed and stability...even if you have to be concerned with topology a bit. Is this where you are going with the surfacing tools?

It took you 15minutes to load the file,I never encountered such delays and I have a pretty weak first gen quadcore.

How many time did it took you to save file?

Try--Start new scene then choose merge .3b file from voxtree rmb menu and report if it took still 15 minutes to load.

Im loading a 28mil sculpt right now and its like 1 minute to load.

What are other operations slowdown?

[polyxo]

While I do agree with the wish for refinement of the existing toolset I see NURBS-support

several times mentioned as an example of questionable/neglectable things.

"Features which nobody really needs and can be easily be found inside other packages".

Just a quick comment on that matter:

1. Andrew hired another person to take care of that matter. So whenever and in what form a support for

Nurbs Geometry will come, it does not draw Andrews attention away from the core-application.

2)Andrew has expressed his interest to attract people who want to use 3DC for technical purposes

at several occasions. People who make Jewelery or Consumer-Goods however will likely not create them

inside Lightwave or 3DSMax but use programs which are Nurbs-based.

3) Voxel-based Modifications of existing Nurbs objects can thus far only be done inside just one other,

very expensive Software-package: Sensable Claytools

[Colwax]

While I do agree with the wish for refinement of the existing toolset I see NURBS-support

several times mentioned as an example of questionable/neglectable things.

"Features which nobody really needs and can be easily be found inside other packages".

Just a quick comment on that matter:

1. Andrew hired another person to take care of that matter. So whenever and in what form a support for

Nurbs Geometry will come, it does not draw Andrews attention away from the core-application.

2)Andrew has expressed his interest to attract people who want to use 3DC for technical purposes

at several occasions. People who make Jewelery or Consumer-Goods however will likely not create them

inside Lightwave or 3DSMax but use programs which are Nurbs-based.

3) Voxel-based Modifications of existing Nurbs objects can thus far only be done inside just one other,

very expensive Software-package: Sensable Claytools

Hi Everyone,

I'm using the 30 day Trial & still evaluating if 3D-Coat is easy to use & going to be suitable for my needs...so far it all seems good.

I'm a Jeweller & my only knowledge of "3D" programs is all NURBS based...MoI & Rhino to be specific.

As polyox has mentioned, I'm one of those that has NO knowledge or interest in looking at Lightwave, 3DSMax or any other SubD program.

My whole reason for looking at 3D-Coat is just the Voxel sculpting & the fact that it'd been mentioned that 3D-Coat might have NURBS Import in the future.

The rest of the features within 3D-Coat are of little use or any interest to me in what I make & do.

For the most part I'd be happy with just being able to directly Import a NURBS model 3DM file & then convert it to Voxels for sculpting.

Having said that, I'm not expecting to see this straight away...good things take time & I'm happy to wait & see what Andrew comes up with.

I agree with the fact that any bug fixes need to be the first priority & the main objective.

[AbnRanger]

It took you 15minutes to load the file,I never encountered such delays and I have a pretty weak first gen quadcore.

How many time did it took you to save file?

Try--Start new scene then choose merge .3b file from voxtree rmb menu and report if it took still 15 minutes to load.

Im loading a 28mil sculpt right now and its like 1 minute to load.

What are other operations slowdown?

Many times when doing a cutting/splitting operation...the wait time can take anywhere from 30secs to a few minutes. Retoplogizing a flat box shape object (I remember you or someone else helping to find another workaround for a similar issue recently), etc...just a few examples of tools/features not working as you'd expect. I'm sorry, but that is just not satisfactory to have these constant long wait times, littered throughout your worflow. For every issue voxels solve, it seems to introduce another. These are the kind of "Unfinished" things ZB and MB users are talking about. Here is a quote in a Mudbox forum, recently, by Wayne Robson, a Mudbox artist and trainer:

..."Lets face facts yes 3d coat has a lot of features...90% of them unpolished and of very little use to professional artists. I hardy see artists using either mudbox or zbrush rushing to jump ship.... but yes andrew shpagin is a very clever man without doubt.

Adding features like its going out of fashion is not the way forward...stability is..THEN new features. Would you be happy if a hundred new features we brought in for a future version of mudbox and only 10% was bug free enough to use? We all rememebr the initial 2009 release....I especially do as I got a lot of heat from users simply because it works 100% for me...."

I personally would like to see Andrew attack the calculation/wait times in Voxels, as well as the bugs. If it is not possible, then I'd much rather see all the Voxel tools copied over to the sculpt room, and focus on speeding geometry sculpting instead. Hey, Mudbox is proving it not only CAN be done, but IS being done....and fast enough to compete head to head with ZB.

[haikalle]

I agree everything that has said in this topic. Stability is the way to go right now. It has been talking about how some of bugs request has been lost in the forum...

We should think a better way how Andrew can see all the bugs that is living in current version. The current version is okey but still some bugs can be lost.

Maybe better version would be a list like this.

3.1.19 Bug List

---------------

Bug #1: [Link to topic] [solved]= if Andrew fixed the bug

Bug #2:

Bug #3:

On the top of the list would be the most important bugs. This way Andrew could see all the bugs and if they are solved or not in one page.

I tried to do this kind of list before but I found that it takes too much time for just one guy. The best way would be if the list is dynamic.

Every user could add bugs.

[digman]

Just stating by opinion below:

Andrew's statement on the forum section for updates:

New Releases and "Betas"

Links to newest updates will be posted

What we have here is what I term in the business world as a "confusion of the facts" We have the fact of bugs, stability, etc but there is some confusion on how all this is interelated.

Andrew does have a stable version, 3.1.15 which is the one he is selling on his site. That is the version he is most responsible to his customer base to make sure it is as stable and bug free as possible. Part of the confusion is how all the bug reports are put in the same area from version 3.1.15 to now 3.1.19 and soon to be 3.1.20. Really there needs to be two seperate bug report sections, one for version 3.1.15 ( or whatever is the lastest selling stable release.) Any bugs found in the stable version (the one for sell) would have the "highest priortiy" to be fixed even though it is now surpassed by the development versions. Again because that is the one he is selling to the public. He is not selling the development versions. We choose to install them. The fact remains though you have to choose which route to go as you can have only one version of the software running on a single computer. You can stick with the stable release or choose the beta route with bugs and stability issues.

Another part of the confusion is that the development versions are not clearly enough stated that they are beta versions and subject to having bugs and somethings could be broken. That is the nature of development software. Andrew makes it almost too easy for us to test the development versions (not having to wait months for a new release) but I'm afraid without very clearly stating that you are installing a development version this leads to some incorrect assumptions.

My suggestions:

forum section just for the lastest selling stable release that is for sell which would include a bug section. No posting of bugs for the development versions there.

forum section just for the development versions. plus having a statement in the installer informing you that this version is beta and subject to bugs and somethings could be broken at times plus only install if are willing to assume the risk. This is a very commom statement in beta software.

I like stability and bug free software too. but darn, I like testing all those new features or making some tools better plus we get to help out and make 3DC better by finding bugs and stability issues in the beta versions.I do though keep the other versions if I need to go back....

[philnolan3d]

plus having a statement in the installer informing you that this version is beta and subject to bugs and somethings could be broken at times plus only install if are willing to assume the risk. This is a very commom statement in beta software.

Perhaps you're suggesting that this should change and I missunderstood, but according to Andrew the current versions are not beta, he says if they are he will put "beta" in the file name and title bar of the program.

[digman]

Perhaps you're suggesting that this should change and I missunderstood, but according to Andrew the current versions are not beta, he says if they are he will put "beta" in the file name and title bar of the program.

I stand corrected as I did not know that Andrew had stated that but maybe a change would help because of bugs and stability issues at times...

[splodge]

Why is 3D Coat going to have a NURBS import option?. Why don't NURBS modelers convert their models into meshes and import the mesh?.

Don't most NURBS programs have a mesh export option?.

[splodge]

I personally would like to see Andrew attack the calculation/wait times in Voxels, as well as the bugs. If it is not possible, then I'd much rather see all the Voxel tools copied over to the sculpt room, and focus on speeding geometry sculpting instead. Hey, Mudbox is proving it not only CAN be done, but IS being done....and fast enough to compete head to head with ZB.

I'm tempted to agree, but things like the muscle tool is just too irresistible to use for details. I can't imagine some of the fancier tools being possible in surface mode. Not without some major polygon stretching.

ZBrush is also beginning to support voxels and it also suffers from very long waits when doing a remesh (converts to voxels and back again).

[philnolan3d]

ZBrush is also beginning to support voxels and it also suffers from very long waits when doing a remesh (converts to voxels and back again).

This is the first I've heard of this. I'm searching zb central for voxels right now and all I find is people asking for it.

[splodge]

This is the first I've heard of this. I'm searching zb central for voxels right now and all I find is people asking for it.

If you do a remesh then I think it's voxela that's used to calculate the new mesh. I think the new unified skin uses it too.

I've not heard anything concrete on whether it's voxels, just seems obvious to me. If you turn off smoothing when doing the remesh then you can even see the marching cubes!