Feature request: No more features.

[AbnRanger]

Performance can be dependent on what you're trying to do, how you're trying to do it, and your system specs

in relation to the 'what' and 'how'.

Like any software, it takes a bit of time discovering it's stronger uses vs. areas it doesn't perform well at...

(P.S. Schnupps, it might save you some time by putting your system specs in you sig as well)

That response implies that people don't know how to use 3DC properly...and to some degree that may hold true. But it also ignores the glaring deficiencies and workflow killers in 3DC currently. I think those who keep trying to imply that 3DC is fine and nothing is wrong (you just need to learn it's magical secrets..that aren't mentioned in any of the tutorials, nor the manual) are suffering from severe fanboyitis. Just my theory...

What you really are saying that there are WORK-AROUNDS to attempt to reduce the issues with problematic areas of the program....the chiefest of which is Merging times. It's the big Black Hole in 3D Coat, that no one can deny. Even Andrew admits it's a problem...so you're telling us Andrew doesn't know his own program?

[wailingmonkey]

That response implies that people don't know how to use 3DC properly...and to some degree that may hold true. But it also ignores the glaring deficiencies and workflow killers in 3DC currently. I think those who keep trying to imply that 3DC is fine and nothing is wrong (you just need to learn it's magical secrets..that aren't mentioned in any of the tutorials, nor the manual) are suffering from severe fanboyitis. Just my theory...

What you really are saying that there are WORK-AROUNDS to attempt to reduce the issues with problematic areas of the program....the chiefest of which is Merging times. It's the big Black Hole in 3D Coat, that no one can deny. Even Andrew admits it's a problem...so you're telling us Andrew doesn't know his own program?

You're projecting an awful lot into what was from my end just a "need further information about what you're trying to do" statement. I own licenses to

Zbrush and Mudbox as well...they are not without their own set of limitations and work-arounds. I use them as tools to get whatever job is at hand

done based upon their strengths. I will move between each according to what I need to get done (and what I know to work based upon my own

experience, which, of course, is NOT all-encompassing as I am always trying to pick up more by way of experimenting).

You seem to feel that ranting will get you what you want out of 3DC and it will be your 1-and-only tool. Maybe it will. In the meantime, perhaps

you could consider that not everyone has to be in the "stop new features, 3DC doesn't work" camp OR the "3DC is fine, nothing is wrong" camp. I

happen to be in the "3DC does a lot of handy things, think I'll use it for what it does and make suggestions for what I'd like to see it do better"

camp. Probably there are many other camps out there too that are managing to use it in their workflow, no? But I'm not going to, in your words

from another post, 'dictate' their camp for them.

[AbnRanger]

You're projecting an awful lot into what was from my end just a "need further information about what you're trying to do" statement. I own licenses to

Zbrush and Mudbox as well...they are not without their own set of limitations and work-arounds. I use them as tools to get whatever job is at hand

done based upon their strengths. I will move between each according to what I need to get done (and what I know to work based upon my own

experience, which, of course, is NOT all-encompassing as I am always trying to pick up more by way of experimenting).

You seem to feel that ranting will get you what you want out of 3DC and it will be your 1-and-only tool. Maybe it will. In the meantime, perhaps

you could consider that not everyone has to be in the "stop new features, 3DC doesn't work" camp OR the "3DC is fine, nothing is wrong" camp. I

happen to be in the "3DC does a lot of handy things, think I'll use it for what it does and make suggestions for what I'd like to see it do better"

camp. Probably there are many other camps out there too that are managing to use it in their workflow, no? But I'm not going to, in your words

from another post, 'dictate' their camp for them.

One thing I do know is that Andrew has always worked hard to please, and does all he can to fulfill feature requests (within a measure of reason). However, this also places him in the vulnerable position of being overloaded and spending precious time on features that are far less important to the welfare of the program and the userbase. You call it a rant. I view it as reminding other users here that overloading Andrew with all manner of feature request can be detrimental to him and us all. He goes through many feature requests much quicker than most developers, so I'm sure in his mind, he sees some as relatively useful and quick and thus continues down this vicious cycle of picking off low-hanging fruit...instead of cultivating the roots of the tree (for long term health and growth), so to speak.

Let's take a step back for a while and let the man focus on the "Under the Hood" issues, why don't we?

[haikalle]

I agree with you AbnRanger most parts. We should focus more the stuff "under the hood". In 3d-coat there is all the features I need right now.

But I think that we can ask some easy to do features that are not taking so much time to do. Some those features can be very useful. Also another

thing is that when Andrew was doing PTex he was force to fix some under the hood problems. So sometimes when add a feature it also makes effects

in many areas of the program. It's all about the finding the right balance. But I fully agree that we should focus more about the under the hood

issues, But with the balance.

I really think that Ptex is not low-hanging fruit.

[AbnRanger]

I agree with you AbnRanger most parts. We should focus more the stuff "under the hood". In 3d-coat there is all the features I need right now.

But I think that we can ask some easy to do features that are not taking so much time to do. Some those features can be very useful. Also another

thing is that when Andrew was doing PTex he was force to fix some under the hood problems. So sometimes when add a feature it also makes effects

in many areas of the program. It's all about the finding the right balance. But I fully agree that we should focus more about the under the hood

issues, But with the balance.

I really think that Ptex is not low-hanging fruit.

Well...for what it's worth, I don't consider Ptex low-hanging fruit. It can be a very helpful tool to much of the userbase. I'm just thinking of alot of things that added since this thread was started. I think many of the users here refrain from voicing their concern for the bottlenecks in the program because they don't want to keep repeating the same theme and they assmue Andrew is aware of their concerns.

Developers generally try to adhere to what the community as a whole tells them. If only a few request something, it's viewed by the developer as insignificant. If Andrew thought performance was indeed the key issue with most users, I have no doubt he'd be all over it like bark on a tree. Instead of people voicing their concerns over this, they continue with much lower-priority requests...and THAT is all Andrew sees. What Andrew doesn't see is the people who experience these same limitations and instead of saying anything, they just go off and use other software.

I have a number of things I'd like to request as well, but I realize that it would mean delaying the critical things that remain yet undone.

[Digital777]

I also agree with some of the comments here, firstly i think the fact PTex was added was really great, people now know 3DC for having this feature and it is great to have although i don't think it should take focus of the main development. I would also like optimization and updates on the main tools to make them run ultra fast even on computers with lower specs and maybe some more options for them also.

The new app link feature is definitely a good idea but still slightly limited so a idea i would like to see expanded on, there is some good ideas (not mine) to expand on it -

http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5596

With decent SDK's it allows for people to develop things also so there would less need for Andrew to make a 3ds max or maya exporter/app link etc as other people could make those and maybe share the code so it could be built into the program later. So as 3DC is as far as i know developed by just Andrew if there was a good enough general use SDK or scripting feature also it could mean more time to spend on bug fixes etc but at the same time 3DC users would be making cool new features and tools to use. I think Andrew is doing great work though but there is only so much a single developer can do which is why i think the SDK idea is a good one.

[AbnRanger]

I also agree with some of the comments here, firstly i think the fact PTex was added was really great, people now know 3DC for having this feature and it is great to have although i don't think it should take focus of the main development. I would also like optimization and updates on the main tools to make them run ultra fast even on computers with lower specs and maybe some more options for them also.

The new app link feature is definitely a good idea but still slightly limited so a idea i would like to see expanded on, there is some good ideas (not mine) to expand on it -

http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5596

With decent SDK's it allows for people to develop things also so there would less need for Andrew to make a 3ds max or maya exporter/app link etc as other people could make those and maybe share the code so it could be built into the program later. So as 3DC is as far as i know developed by just Andrew if there was a good enough general use SDK or scripting feature also it could mean more time to spend on bug fixes etc but at the same time 3DC users would be making cool new features and tools to use. I think Andrew is doing great work though but there is only so much a single developer can do which is why i think the SDK idea is a good one.

I agree....but in the final analysis, one thing and one thing only will propel this program forward. Only one thing will make the industry stand up and take notice...PERFORMANCE. Raw horsepower. Fuzzy dice hanging in the windshield, and pinstripes down the side of the vehicle won't get us there any faster.

[Digital777]

AbnRanger that was one of my points, focus on the important stuff like optimization and performance. People want a load of other stuff also so my main point though was to make a more open SDK to allow 3rd party's to make things also and at the same time give Andrew more time to work on the main parts of the app. With a good SDK it means you have more developers (hopefully) working on the program rather than just 1 trying to do everything at once.

Edit -

For a good example of what i mean just look at blender's python scripting, there is always something new being made by the users. I can't even keep up with all of the stuff and there is a load of great tools for things like import formats, new shapes and sculpting tools always being released now and that is all mostly done by the users. These tools are even continued by someone else later if the original developer does not want to do it and also they are usually optimized and get bug fixes by the users making them if any are found.

This is why i said SDK/scripting because with SDK you can have closed code if you don't want everyone to use it but if you have open scripting also people can learn from and modify it also if you wanted to share the scripts. It was more of my thoughts on a good solution and time saver for Andrew that could work very well for this app and would also allow for exactly what you wanted which is optimization and better performance as main focus, but at the same time allow for cool new tools and features to be made by 3DC users.

[haikalle]

You have to remember that why there is so many diffrent tools for blender, it's because it's open source. For example sculpting tools in blender is written into core,

that's why it's fast. There is also pyhton support in blender, but I don't see that it would fit very well in 3d-coat. Maybe in EXport/import and retopo stuff but that

would be all. Most 3d-coat needs all the horsepower from your computer so that's why it's better to write directly into program. I like this way that Andrew opens some

doors Like he is doing with Applink.

[Digital777]

It's not just because it is opensource, the python scripting i was talking about that blender has is nothing to do with the regular builds it has although the scripts are often bundled with those. The scripting it has is basically just linking to the features it has inside the program and also allowing to extend the dialogs with the script. So even if it was closed source with the python scripting people could still make everything i said in the above post.

I am guessing by the opensource point you mean that it has a huge user base so lots going on and yeah that is true but even if there was less users it still has the possibility to make powerful tools only it would take much longer than how we know it now. As for the SDK's/scripting power it would all depend on what Andrew allowed to be done with it, as far as i know zbrush which is similar to 3DC in ways also does this and seems to be going well for them so i don't see why it wouldn't work for 3DC also.

I said above app link is a great move but there is only so much that can be done with it. I guess people dislike the SDK/scripting idea then but probably don't get the point of how it could save Andrew a load of time and also allow for nice new features. Basically it would be good for everyone and i doubt anyone would disagree if it was planned but it's really just a suggestion which could work well in my opinion.

[Roger_K]

I don't think people need to stop posting requests, I see you getting flack in other threads about opposing new features and agree with you but maybe the approach is wrong. its not up to you or other users what gets implemented and people are going to feel burnt if you tell them your idea is more important, even if they're spouting bull crap. no one forces Andrew to implement all the new stuff. He has self determination and seems to be doing what he wants. I think its up to the users to present the case convincingly that development needs to be directed to speed issues and repairing some of the broken workflows.

[digman]

My 2 cents worth,core performance and bug squashing will help 3DCoat at the present stage of development.

[ifxs]

My 2 cents worth,core performance and bug squashing will help 3DCoat at the present stage of development.

+1 !!

[Amber]

New features are nedeed but in :

-paint mode

-retopo modo

-better AO baking

there has been not much improvements in these area since 3DC release most of new features and improvements has been in voxel mode, I guess new features are reserved for 3DC 4.0.