Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Mudbox 2011


Recommended Posts

In my opinion, neither voxel detailing nor "Paint Room" detailing is the answer. There is no way around, given the state of today's above average hardware capabilities, using a polygonal skin at the in-between stages of meshed sculpture design. This is why Andrew has implemented the "Surface Tools".

And, I have to say, these tools are incomplete. Why, because they are, quite simply, polygonal sculpting tools, which Zbrush has expanded upon exponentially. I vote for, and am pushing Andrew for the inclusion of a very separate and specific "Polygon Layer" or "Polygon Room", if you will. This "Room", or set of tools should contain everything necessary for the precise creation of hard surfaced models. Organic shapes can be created quite nicely with the existing tool set.

It is in creating precise, "machined" hard surfaces that neither voxel tools nor painting tools, or both combined, can create accurate mesh edges and curves. Why fight it - polygons are king in this area, right now. Current hardware is not powerful enough to render these things, real time, by means of voxel architecture, and painting precise mesh flattening, curves and distortion is not possible either, with the current set of Paint tools, (which really are a combination of texturing and mesh displacement tools).

Now, add to the ordinary functions that other polygonal sculpting applications contain, the ability to add volume on the fly via "Adaptive Subdivision", (ala Sculptris), and 3D-Coat becomes the winner on all fronts.

Anybody want to cast their votes in this general direction?

Greg Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of people have already cast their votes with their push to have the Surface tools duplicated in the Sculpting room. Unfortunately at the moment the way 3DC works, in the painting and sculpting rooms it has trouble dealing with even semi-dense meshes. I think this is largely due to 3DC running like a game engine. So it seems to me this would require a full overhaul of the painting / sculpting / retopo rooms. I can't say for sure but I'm guess that's what's holding things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree here with Greg, as Andrew knows. I've voiced my concern here many times. Having the poly sculpting tools on par with mudbox and zbrush is, without a shadow of a doubt, a must. I love sculpting with voxels, there is nothing else like it. But sometimes you cannot do this - You must sculpt with polygons and there is no way around that. For detailing you can sometimes get away with the painting tools, and it usually looks pretty good. But when you need very specific details it's better to sculpt the high res poly mesh and bake those details to to your low poly asset.

Having all options available, working at full capacity is where I hope the it will eventually be.

I really hope that in the very near future that 3DC get some optimization passes as well, for the painting, brush engine and the poly sculpting tools (as well as a total overhaul on the poly sculpting engine).

EDIT: And of course the addition of all of the surface sculpting tools from the voxel room into the sculpting room for direct poly action, is as must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

If Andrew were able to implement the Surface tools in the Sculpt Room while adding multi-threading to it and the Paint room, that would be a major boon for 3DC. It was for Voxel Sculpting. I was stunned at the difference. Merging is now a non-issue...when it WAS perhaps the biggest headache and obstacle.

He's just going to have to go on a sabbatical again....lock himself away from all the daily requests, etc.

But in response to DirtRobots comments about sculpting...please explain why you can't do high detail work in Voxels, again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ZJX9Nfy8w

Granted, voxels do require a relatively robust system (particularly RAM due to the volumetric data that has to be stored) to get the most out of it, but I like the fact that the program scales with your hardware quite well. With a newer video card (with 1GB VRAM or better), 8+GB's of RAM (12 or more is best) and a quad-core CPU or better, voxel sculpting is VERY, VERY capable of getting ultra-high detail where you want it, and the brush speed approaches Mudbox and ZB levels when in Surface mode.

You have to know when to use Volume mode and when to use Surface mode...plus neither MB or ZB offer 3DConnexion device support, and that is what keeps me from using my seat of MB much. 3DC's versatility lets me do the WHOLE job in one place without HAVING to switch to Mudbox now...since Multi-threading/Multi-Res/Cache to Disk was added to Voxel Sculpting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that, multi-threading the brush engine wont be enough on it's own. That's not to say I don't want it multi-threaded, I really do. It'll be great that it's faster, but it will still produce artifacts. The brush engine itself also needs an overhaul to solve those artifacts. This is one of of the biggest flaws, IMHO... Those artifacts while painting are a real killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

To add to that, multi-threading the brush engine wont be enough on it's own. That's not to say I don't want it multi-threaded, I really do. It'll be great that it's faster, but it will still produce artifacts. The brush engine itself also needs an overhaul to solve those artifacts. This is one of of the biggest flaws, IMHO... Those artifacts while painting are a real killer.

The point I wanted to make is that yes, 3DC has areas in need of improvement, but much of the criticism here makes it appear to new or prospective users, as if 3D Coat is unusable or impractical for high-end work. That is absolutely false. It doesn't have to beat ZBrush or Mudbox in raw sculpting speed for a user to be get great results. A sports car enthusiast doesn't HAVE to buy/own a ZR1 Corvette or Lamborghini to have a smoking fast ride. Voxel Clay sculpting is very fast when you use the tools for their respective strengths. I know that I can get a little faster brush speed...and maybe a little bit better feel if I use my seat of Mudbox. But I don't because I can do more overall in 3DC and the 3DConnexion support seals the deal for me. It more than offsets the slight brush speed advantage. Not to mention that Voxels are VERY, VERY forgiving, compared to working with geometry sculpting. That alone makes it superior to both ZB and MB in a few key areas during the sculpting process.

Surface mode and Multi-Res tools are there for a very specific purpose...they are not just another option. Surface mode is SPECIFICALLY designed to provide faster brush speed, when you need it...but its toolset is not as versatile as Voxel Volume mode. So, that means you use Volume mode until you are ready for high detail work. There are some cases where you will want to use Surface tools (Smooth and SurfaceFreeze) intermittently, but for the most part use Volume mode up to a medium-high res threshold. If you are unhappy with Pose and Move speed in Volume mode, you may be too high in resolution for the task....but no worries. Use Multi-Res for that very purpose. Again...that is what it was designed for. To make those tasks much faster without penalty.

As for the Paint Room...again, some of the criticism makes it sound as if the application is broken. I don't recall seeing any artifacts when painting. I prefer to do most detailing in Voxels as it has more tools to use, and I rarely experience any noticeable speed penalty when painting. Much of that is because of a good video card (GTX 275 manually overclocked) and not using ridiculously large brush radius'. So, again, in it's current state, 3D Coat is a very viable competitor in it's market. Every single application has some niggly issues or weaknesses scattered throughout. Because 3DC has some of it's own, doesn't make it inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

But in response to DirtRobots comments about sculpting...please explain why you can't do high detail work in Voxels, again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ZJX9Nfy8w

Seriously, no attempt to flame, just want to point out that his model has what I call the inherent voxel 'lumpiness' and he uses surface mode, which I understand is a polygonal proxy for his detail. I was hoping he'd show the conversion back to voxels to see how the detail holds up. I'd guess that based on his index finger, it doesn't hold up quite to the level he's using as a demonstration (but is still good). I'd have to agree with Phil's workflow suggestion of painting that detail in as a normal map.

I don't really think voxels need to be proven as a high frequency detail solution - I think the advantages (and drawbacks) vs. polygons are clear and the toolset should reflect this to enhance things like non-destructive posing, being able to use HUGE brushes to quickly rough things out, the awesome boolean capabilities etc. A quick mask option is sorely needed, hiding voxels is so unpredictable. Once the rough form is done, time to sculpt the polys and UV and paint. This should be how 3dcoat is laid out, to guide the user through this process. If 3dcoat could adapt sculptris' poly-voxel hybrid system (if that's how the computer magic works) into the sculpt room, like OMG.

(Which actually makes me wonder if there isn't a way to export the surface mode mesh to use as the highres projection mesh in xnormal for normal mapping?)

I guess personally I feel that when I spend 10 minutes in surface mode tightening things up only to lose 30% when I convert, makes me want to fire up zbrush. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Seriously, no attempt to flame, just want to point out that his model has what I call the inherent voxel 'lumpiness' and he uses surface mode, which I understand is a polygonal proxy for his detail. I was hoping he'd show the conversion back to voxels to see how the detail holds up. I'd guess that based on his index finger, it doesn't hold up quite to the level he's using as a demonstration (but is still good). I'd have to agree with Phil's workflow suggestion of painting that detail in as a normal map.

I don't really think voxels need to be proven as a high frequency detail solution - I think the advantages (and drawbacks) vs. polygons are clear and the toolset should reflect this to enhance things like non-destructive posing, being able to use HUGE brushes to quickly rough things out, the awesome boolean capabilities etc. A quick mask option is sorely needed, hiding voxels is so unpredictable. Once the rough form is done, time to sculpt the polys and UV and paint. This should be how 3dcoat is laid out, to guide the user through this process. If 3dcoat could adapt sculptris' poly-voxel hybrid system (if that's how the computer magic works) into the sculpt room, like OMG.

(Which actually makes me wonder if there isn't a way to export the surface mode mesh to use as the highres projection mesh in xnormal for normal mapping?)

I guess personally I feel that when I spend 10 minutes in surface mode tightening things up only to lose 30% when I convert, makes me want to fire up zbrush. ;)

Again, you're making erroneous assumptions. If you noticed the first finger was mentioned in the demonstration to have been done at the same resolution (medium) the rest of the model was (in attempt to show the contrast in the subsequent example). You also may notice that the next example was a painted copy and then jacked up in resolution (from 8x to 32x).

Where are you getting this notion that you lose detail switching from surface to volume? Can you show us a video screen capture of this happening? I'd really like to see it, cause I've been using 3D Coat for some time and I've never noticed it. After all, the Surface mode just deforms the outer shell, if you will, that already resides in voxel mode...the difference is that it ignores volume data. The result isn't the issue here...it's the speed at which you get to the result that is the difference between the two modes.

Furthermore, you can retopo straight from Surface mode. The model doesn't have to be converted to volume unless you want it to for some reason. If you want to go through the extra time and steps to do your detail in ZBrush, then more power to you. There is room for improvement here and there...no doubt (same with any application), but voxel sculpting took a HUGE leap forward this summer and with that, became a much more viable alternative to either ZB or MB, in my opinion.

By the way, could you elaborate on this "inherent lumpiness" of Voxels? The model used is only medium resolution and that is made apparent from the quick demonstration. So, please expound on what makes a medium resolution model "lumpy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

If you noticed the first finger was mentioned in the demonstration to have been done at the same resolution the rest of the mmodel was (prior to increasing the resolution...showing what you could do at a medium-res level). You also may notice that the example was a painted copy of part of the hand and then jacked up in resolution (from 8x to 32x). When you convert from Surface mode back to Volume mode, exactly where are you getting this notion that you lose detail? Can you show us a video screen capture of this happening. I'd like to see it, cause I've been using 3D Coat for some time and I've never noticed a tangible loss of detail switching from surface back to volume. After all, the Surface mode just deforms the outer shell, if you will, that already resides in voxel mode...the difference is that it ignores volume data. So an ultr-high res layer done in surface mode will look the same once you switch it back. The result isn't the issue here...it's the speed at which you get to the result that is the difference between the two modes.

Furthermore, if that is indeed a concern of yours then why is that really a problem, when you can retopo straight from Surface mode? The model doesn't need to be converted to volume unless you want it to for some reason. If you want to go through the extra time and steps to do your detail in ZBrush, then more power to you. And could you elaborate on this "inherent liumpiness" of Voxels?

The model used is only medium resolution and that is apparent from the example used in the demonstration. So, please expound on what makes a medium resolution model "lumpy."

I have nothing to prove. I'm not attacking 3dcoat, I'm just telling you from the perspective of a somewhat-intermediate level 3dcoat user who has done a decent amount of reading/research on using 3dcoat - this is what I perceive. It just seems that 3dcoat requires 4x the resolution to look as crisp and smooth as mudbox and zbrush. Which literally puts it out of my machine's reach with my 4gigs of ram. So I can't really test 32x detailing. One super kick in the pants is that 3dcoat's smooth brush doesn't preserve volume at all. So every time I try to fix those chunky peanut butter lumps that come up, it's so hard not to destroy what I've just spent time pinching/flattening/whatever.

Finally, maybe this all comes down to a lack of a zbrush central/classroom type of resource for 3dcoat. I think new users have a tough ride getting into 3dcoat. I think more so if the new user has experience with other sculpting apps. 3dcoat and zbrush share the prize for the amount of web research required to understand true workflow functionality.

post-3023-12837471088425_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind in voxels 4x is a relative term, it doesn't really mean anything in terms of resolution. You could be at 10X and still only a few hundred polys. My current character is at 19mil polys and still works great on a 3 year old computer. Yes I have some more RAM than you but I'm also doing a ton of other things in Photoshop, installing a 15GB game, etc. and everything's running smooth as silk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Keep in mind in voxels 4x is a relative term, it doesn't really mean anything in terms of resolution. You could be at 10X and still only a few hundred polys. My current character is at 19mil polys and still works great on a 3 year old computer. Yes I have some more RAM than you but I'm also doing a ton of other things in Photoshop, installing a 15GB game, etc. and everything's running smooth as silk.

Yeah ram's the key, I can't make the jump past 4mil to 16. But as far as my own workflow, that's fine - I can rough out to my heart's desire with no issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Yeah ram's the key, I can't make the jump past 4mil to 16. But as far as my own workflow, that's fine - I can rough out to my heart's desire with no issues.

With a 4GB limitation, there is no doubt that ZBrush makes more sense to detail with...but 8GB's or better, you can get a ton of detail, although much of that could be done more efficiently (in terms of hardware resources needed) in the Paint Room (with live displacement or normal map painting).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying 3DC isn't a great application or that it's broken, just that it may be taken that way by an individual. :)

3DC isn't the end-all of anything, it's a great little app sure - But it does indeed have it's flaws. The brush engine is one of them and really needs a heavy work over before I'd call it complete, at least with painting that is. It works mostly fine in voxels.

The sculpt room also needs a heavy work over before you can do much else than creating simple morph maps. It should have at least sculptris level sculpting tools, or IMHO, the surface sculpting tools from the voxel room. This should put it on a higher caliber than it is at now with poly sculpting.

Everyone or every studio has their own workflows, so this might not suit what you need, but as I am in contact with a number of studios, producers, artists, etc., these things have constantly come up in discussion with nearly all of them. Brush engine and poly sculpting tools are the big two for most folks ATM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...