Basic Polygon Modeler within 3d-coat?

[Rodney Brett]

I was curious as to how easy it would be for Andrew to create a basic polygon modeler within 3d-coat. I feel like some of the toolset is already in place in the retopology section.

Maybe create another UI tab called "Modeler", and simply create the basic set of tools like, extrude, append, cut, etc. Even some primitives. I really love the way 3d-coat does it's "split poly". It functions very nicely. Maybe take a look at SILO as a starting point. Still one of the best poly modeling apps out there, even though development's been dead recently.

What do you guys think? This would make 3d-Coat the ultimate program for me.

I'm sure this has already been brought up, but I couldn't find a post on it.

[artman]

There is a workflow I found out recently that is pretty fun to use.

You can make yourself a cage using voxel curves,a little bit like standard nurbs/spline modeling.

Then you using Retopo tools you draw polys over the cage,its really efficient.

If you toggle voxel curves visibility off then you can use Relax and Subdivide function

to get mesh smoothing like a real poly modeler.

You can add 2 or 3 edge loops with SplitRing to crease angles before using Relax to get cool hardsurface pieces too.

[Rodney Brett]

Interesting workflow, artman. This pretty much almost emulates "edge modeling", however, for my point modeling needs, I'm more of a box modeler. I'm going to try out your method and see how it goes. Thanks!

[T.H. ROCK]

Yeah, one of the folks here has a video on making clothes using retopo. So yeah, a polygonal modeler already exists in 3DC.

[artman]

however, for my point modeling needs, I'm more of a box modeler.

Hmmm...its missing extrusion and bevelling of faces,and also controls like scale,move and rotate of selected faces ...

Maybee one day,who knows?

[Havok]

Hi guys I'm new here so a little late to this post.

But I kinda want to know the same thing as the O.P - or ask how possible hard edge modeling will be as well.

I found the 3DCoat application through looking at alternatives to Silo.

Now I see 3DCoat is basically not made for any polygon "box modeling" like the poster above stated is available in Silo.

As Silo development has run practically dry I would suspect a LOT of guys slowly migrating to other apps as there are still bugs in Silo that remains unfixed and pretty mission critical at times.

I suppose while , from what I've read so far, 3DCoat will not be aiming to be a "one-stop-shop" for all your modeling,textured and animation needs.

Maybe Pilgway needs to try bring another app to light for Box modeling .... still leaves animating

I hope this post is'nt taking in the wrong way. Just wondering that's all.

[Digital777]

I think this type of thing would be good to have even if it starts out with very basic tools. Then later it could get updated over time to be more advanced. If something like that was added you could even avoid the need to use other apps for base meshes also as you could quickly make one and then just switch to voxels and it converts it ready to sculpt or just directly paint if you want low poly game models etc. This would be very useful in my opinion.

[Havok]

I agree Digital777. Could really speed up workflow and help in fleshing out the basic shape before sculpting.

[Taros]

This subject is already very old. There are always people who think they need polytools inside of 3DC Coat. It is the same like zBrush or Mudbox: This tools don't include traditional modeling tools, too. So why in 3DC? If you work deeper with 3DC, you will see, that traditional face modeling tools are not really needed. Especially for creating a basemesh...

And by the way: Why? There are so much tools, that solves traditional modeling in a perfect way, like blender, if you don't want to pay for the functionality. 3DC have other priorities in my opinion.

The work to program a whole modeling part in 3DC is wasted time. As soon as Andrew start with this, the people will begin to ask for better modeling functionality and begin to compare them with other, old and very good apps, that can never been reached - and then we have a new discussion.

Let 3DC stay slim but good. There is already this much things to improve right now...

[polyxo]

I don't think that spending the limited developer-time on implementing polygonal modeling tools makes any sense

at all. Instead - and I think that will be a more universal solution live-links to Modeling tools should get

established.

Zbrush lets you import a basemesh from an arbitrary SubD-Modeler and you can start Sculpting away. As soon

as you wish for larger changes in Topology you simply do the desired changes inside your Mesh-Modeler and

reload the model. Zbrush updates the topology while keeping the Sculpt-Information intact.

The same way one could imagine to send to Modeler and back (together with the surface-meshI)from the Retopo-Room

if really need be. I personally would certainly never need this feature.

Just remember how different our preferences with modeling-tools are:

Some swear on modo, others prefer Cinema and for me it is Silo which is the only polygonal Modeler I can stand.

Even if they were available I therefor wouldn't use 3DCoat's polygonal tools.

[Havok]

I suppose now that you guys put it that way. The retopology / UV stuff is definitely more important. If we create a whole model in 3Dcoat from scratch, maybe then having better retopo tools as well as improvements in the posing tools is energy better spent.

I guess I just need to change my mindset - try get comfortable with a pipeline instead.

Thanks for the perspective.

[Taros]

The retopo tools in 3DC are already state of the art. As soon as Andrew has finished the new autoretopology, retopo in 3DC will reach a level, where other tools have to compare with. The UV tools works already very good. Try them out more, or ask if you have problems and you will see what is possible. I use the uvs and retopo tools in 3DC every day, the only point is, that unfolding a high poly meshe could be faster, the best multithreaded, but I am very pleased with the results, at the end.

Best wishes

Chris

[Digital777]

Why? Because then 3DC can be a more rounded and all in-1 tool rather than a side tool for other apps for a single task or to use after modeling with another app first. Also you mention zBrush or Mudbox but i don't really see why 3DC should only keep to what these apps do, maybe people want these features with those apps also and the fact you say the topic is old just means it's a idea in demand so people have use for this.

I agree that there is other things to improve right now also but i still think this is a good thing for the to-do list. Also as well as taking out the extra step of making a base mesh in other apps just like the texture and retopo tools maybe if 3DC got modeler options it would evolve to be a favorite for this task also. There is lots of great apps to do this now already of course but this is also true for sculpting and texturing etc so in my opinion 3DC would be great as a multi task/complete solution for 3D.

[Amber]

The retopo tools in 3DC are already state of the art.

Mhmmm... they are good but calling them 'state of art' is too sugar, there is no preview subdivision support, you cant extend whole edgeloops etc etc. .... Topogun has better preview engine and there is a cool script for Blender which makes retopo much easier and faster than in 3DC.

[splodge]

Maybe the new quadrangulation process might make poly modeling a thing of the past. Let's see how it goes..

Poly modeling could end up like assembly language programming. Very few people program in assembly language these days. The performance gains just aren't worth the extra effort.

I just want a mesh that looks clean, I don't really care too much about a few extra polygons. And if I feel the quadrangulation process adds too many polys then it's no trouble to optimize by removing a few edge loops here and there.

But sticking with the programming analogy - even high level programming languages like BASIC have the ability to include assembly language instructions in their code. So it's always nice to have the option for low level access.

Dismissing feature requests for poly modeling isn't really fair as people naturally like working within with the same interface where possible. Some folks that are against poly modeling tools being added to 3D Coat are probably a big fan of voxels, yet other people feel that voxels are a waste of time and Andrew should have just stayed focussed on painting.

We all have our preferences, there's no bad features requests.

And on that note - can I haz a mp3 player in 3D Coat please?

[michalis]

Hmmm...its missing extrusion and bevelling of faces,and also controls like scale,move and rotate of selected faces ...

Maybee one day,who knows?

Extrude and scale is missing from retopo room, everything else is state of the art. Holes are always a PITA to me. Any tips?

[Amber]

Polygon modeler built in or not built in done by Andrew would rock

- SO WE ALL WANT IT -

[Javis]

No doubt it would rock. But there are better things Andrew could be working on than a modeler, and quite frankly, I already have a couple of modeling programs, I don't need another.

So no, we don't all want it. I'll speak for myself, thanks.

[haikalle]

I agree with geothefaust. Would be nice feature, but we already have some nice poly modelling programs. And let say that Andrew is adding this feature

into 3d-coat. Then there would be more feature requests for poly modelling tools and eventually it would go off track from the main purpose of 3d-coat.

The retopoly tools we have is well balanced with other tools in 3d-coat right now. Of course there is always room for improvements and maybe Andrew finds

something that keeps us both happy for long time.