Discussion about word definitions in 3D Coat

[Taros]

Hello.

Yesterday I talked with a friend of mine about 3D Coat. He is working in the cg industry, like me. So it was a good precondition to talk about the features of 3D Coat.

The interesting point in this discussion was, that he mentioned a situation that I already noticed, too: He asked me, where the stencils in 3DC are? I've explainted him, that actually the "image masks" are used as stecils.

But we two know, that the most sculpting tools are using the word "stencil" for fixed "mask areas" like images or saved masks, and the word "masks" nearly always for dynamic areas, which are alterable.

The problem in 3DC is, that the user have the same problem with "masks" like with "materials". Masks are used for "images" that are actually used as stencils, and the same word is used for linked layers. 3DC should differ between layer masks, painted masks and stencils(loaded images as masks).

A big problem, that I already mentioned, is the word "material", too. In my opinion 3DC have no materials, compared with other 3D applications. The only elements that could be used as a material, are the shaders in the voxel area or maybe the mathematical fill modulution types, too. Instead of using "projections" or just "images", 3DC uses the word material for the projection image library AND for content of UV sets - the last is a big understanding problem, here. UV sets have uv maps, but no materials, from my position.

I could give you more examples: Where is the difference between a pen and a pen in 3DC? You think, I made a mistake in my sentence? Really? But 3DC uses pens for brushes or pen tips and pens for pen pressure and depth informations or "draw modes". So what is what?

Again: I don't want to anger someone or nitpick. My wish is only to help to make the tool more usable and professional.

Ok, to cut a long story short:

I think, 3DC have some important definitions, which have to be examined and need to be renamed to the industry standards.

What is your opinion?

Best wishes

Chris

[Andrew Shpagin]

Yes, I agree, but the problem is that that words are "baked" int o tutorials, manual... Many changes need.

At least you can use correct words in German translation.

[Taros]

Yes, I agree, but the problem is that that words are "baked" int o tutorials, manual... Many changes need.

At least you can use correct words in German translation.

Yes, you are right. But one day it should be overworked.

I think, tutorials and the manual will never stay up to date in the fast changing cg industry or a growing application, like 3D Coat. So take curage and rework the application in the future. Maybe, it is not really needed now, but not unimportant too.

Best wishes

Chris

[asche]

i think taros is right ...

i wondered a couple of times about strange naming in 3d coat and i'd rather have it right in the programm and wrong in the help file, because then i most likely wouldnt even have too look into the manual

[Tony Nemo]

I agree, Chris. Editing the written docs is less problamatic than the spoken versions but most of the spoken is tool use and the visual will serve to clariify.

[philnolan3d]

This is something that has bugged me for a long time There are two different things called Materials. See this image:

If you look in the Windows > Popups menu the lower Materials in the pic is actually called "Object Materials (Surfaces)" Perhaps this one could just be called Surfaces on the tab. That would avoid confusion between the two, and at least it would fit the LightWave definition of the word. It wouldn't be possible to fit every programs definition.

[RenderBlur]

My 2 cents, personally I wouldn't worry about the Tutorials being off, I think correcting these terms in the program itself is much more important.

The thing is, Tutorials will never be universal for every version so instead they should be labelled and identified with the software version they were done on. Look at Dan Ablan's many CG tutorials, each is clearly identified with a version (Modelling in Lightwave 8.5, Rendering in LW 9.6, Modo 301 Signature Course, Modo 401 Course, etc...)

-Jim

[Colwax]

Hi Everyone,

As I'm a total novice with all of this SubD type modeling, I tend to rely fairly heavily on a programs Manual & Help files.

Obviously I don't want to clutter up the Forum with needless posts on "what does this really mean?"...that's supposedly what the Manual's for!

It's pretty hard trying to understand & get a grasp on definitions or terms used in 3DC when they appear to be different from everywhere else.

This Sub-Division Primer provided me with some help, but not much use if 3DC definitions or terms are totally different?

The 3DC Wiki provided me with some info, but much of it assumed I should already know what certain things meant...

But if the Manual / Wiki doesn't contain the info & then doing a Google Search on it only leaves you more confused??...what hope is there for a newbie user??

I do realise that I'm in a minority here, but having definitions or terms for things up to date should be important.

If it's too hard to constantly keep the Manual updated, then maybe have a "Sticky Post" on the Forum where links to various other references could be found?

regards Colwax

[philnolan3d]

This Sub-Division Primer provided me with some help, but not much use if 3DC definitions or terms are totally different?

Actually I'm surprised you found help in that primer since 3DC doesn't use SubDs. Well you can enable them in the painting room but all that does is clean up the display as far as I know.

[Colwax]

Hi Phil,

I guess it was more helpful in the broader sense, being that I've come from only knowing about using NURBS programs for designing jewellery.

My 3D knowledge was totally confined to using Rhino & MoI...although about 3yrs ago I did try Silo, but couldn't really grasp using it at all.

So I'm very raw & new to all of the poly modeling terms you guys use here...and that's separate to anything that's 3DC specific.

regards Colwax

[philnolan3d]

I guess it was more helpful in the broader sense, being that I've come from only knowing about using NURBS programs for designing jewellery.

My 3D knowledge was totally confined to using Rhino & MoI...although about 3yrs ago I did try Silo, but couldn't really grasp using it at all.

Ah well I'm in a slightly similar boat. I was taught LightWave in school which was around long before most of the other programs but when they came along they started using different words like LW uses Color and Diffuse, others don't have diffuse at all but use that word to mean "color". Also LW uses the word "Surfaces" to describe textures, colors, bumps, specularity, etc. while some of the newer apps use the word "materials" and "surface" is something else. You just have to get used to the idea that different apps use words differently I think.

[VolumesculptR]

Yes, I'm also agree with this topic (Thanks again Taros, but thanks to you are in another topic ).

And I'm also agree with Andrew - it's not so easy (just to seat and change some things at once) because of mentioned reasons (manuals, huge amount of tutorials). But in advance, it could (and as we see SHOULD) be done.

And there's, of course, no need to change/re-work everything...

May be (not the best idea, but I have such: ) as there's a parallel (alternative?) development of UI refreshing is going on, may be we (I don't know - who exactly, those who interested in progression of this topic and programm) can bind naming changes with fresh-UI-development? To make future versions 'more CG standards compatible'.

I'm not sure if there're naming copyright issues (guess not). But we can consider these issues too (in case of something).

Sometimes it seems kinda funny: ZB has 'brushes' and 3DC - 'pens' (and a lot of some other tools and names).

But (I'm sure, in conversations) we're using 'brushes' (but, probably of © - we have similar functionality

with different names. Not a problem at all, but... just funny).

Anyway, this topic should have be thought of.

[Taros]

@all: Thank you for the living discussion. Your opinion and experience helps always to optimize 3DC further.

@VolumesculptR: I guess, the most tools in the market use the term "brush" in conjunction with creating art content for using drawing techniques. The word "pen" is important too, but in the most cases used for the "tablet pen", which is meant for the hardware. Look at the industry standards lile "pen pressure", pen rotation etc. But there is a difference to brush size, brush jitter or brush shape. So I suggest to look which term hits the industry standards and use those. And there are already industry standards, otherwise we wouldn't discuss it here.

@philnolan3d: I am happy, because there is someone who realised the problems too. But I don't think it helps to keep the term "materials or surface". It is more important to catch the content and see that here are really uv maps meant and not materials. Materials or surfaces are something different, aren't they?

Best wishes

Chris

[philnolan3d]

As far as Brush / Pen, I personally like the word Brush better, especially since I've loaded the default Photoshop brushes, so some of the time I actually am using brushes. However on the other hand, consider that 3DC's pens are different than brushes in other apps because of the way they are made with different alphas for color/bump/spec/eraser.

[Taros]

As far as Brush / Pen, I personally like the word Brush better, especially since I've loaded the default Photoshop brushes, so some of the time I actually am using brushes. However on the other hand, consider that 3DC's pens are different than brushes in other apps because of the way they are made with different alphas for color/bump/spec/eraser.

Sure, but the target is the same. So why not use a word, which everyone understand and that is established?

[philnolan3d]

Sure, but the target is the same. So why not use a word, which everyone understand and that is established?

Well one reason could be because of the second part of what I said, they are two different things to an extent. That said I would still rather call them Brushes even if it's not the same.

[Taros]

Well one reason could be because of the second part of what I said, they are two different things to an extent. That said I would still rather call them Brushes even if it's not the same.

My opinion is that this difference is not so big. But if you use pens instead of brushes or pentips, what would you use for "pen" options if someone is talking about a tablet pen or something similar?

I still believe, that a industry standard terms like "brush" is the best here. The only difference is, that brushes in 3DC are more flexible and different to other tool, that's right, but they are finally the same.

Best wishes

Chris