All Activity

The only thing is, my work content process so far has been completed in 3dcoat. So if possible, I hope that the rendering process of 3dcoat can be more complete or better (it does not need to be too professional or perfect) The current rendering engine is actually very good for amateur rendering enthusiasts, but what is the problem? 1. Refraction calculation of transparent materials leads to complete darkness. 2. The effect of specular reflection is disappointing You only need to solve these two points. It does not need to be too large or complicated. It is enough for amateurs. It will definitely be difficult to implement all functions in one go. Bugs and conflicts will definitely be difficult. If you solve them step by step, Would it be more appropriate?

yea there are other things needed before this , like quads only in surface .. ive needed that since i bought the software

Hmm, I don't see a point in getting something like Octane/Vray inside of 3DCoat. Is it just for better quick renders and material preview? I have my doubts the developers are integrating and allowing any further shader network manipulation similar to other DCC apps and renderer plugins. Most concept artists, I imagine, are comfortable already with pushing models and texture maps out of 3DCoat into other rendering dedicated software. This will just lead more requests in users desiring a more general and broader 3D package with 3DCoat. Can the developers really support that change in direction? What kind of refactoring is required on that? There's a lot more to be considered. I highly doubt it would be 'free', and it would be something Pilgway would have to consider into their licensing pricing. I also don't expect out of the popular rendering software companies to be supporting a 3DCoat implementation in the long run - especially a company like Chaos Group, so I doubt it's them as an option. Maybe if I understood the intention of this kind of implementation more than as a general question this would make more sense for me.

Thank's for the answer, I'm gonna check it !

I don't think building the software out is a bad idea. Also, I don't think it's fair to say that 3DCoat wasn't engineered with that in mind. From my understanding, 3DCoat was originally made for Retopology and doing UVs, and the current state of 3DCoat is quite different than what it originally was. I think having different options inside of 3DCoat for rendering and animation are great idea. Animation would also mean having the ability to rig something up completely, which is cool. A more thought-out Render Room is the best place to start, and I don't think they need a ton of work. More cameras to choose from and physically move around and locate would be a good start, much like what can be done in Maya or Unreal. These would be just fighting though, as we aren't trying to capture from most of these (except maybe one outside of the viewport, depending on how it's set up). 3DCoat does have its option for rendering built in. It's not the best in the world, but it is free. Additional drop downs could be added in, similar to how RenderMan is right now, giving you the option to select what rendering agent you want to use, open source or paid for. I don't imagine it would be too big of a deal to bridge the software inside of 3DCoat. It wouldn't be the ideal situation, and you would have to check the Terms and Conditions to see if this is allowed, but you could bridge the most important aspects that would be needed. It wouldn't be the full software, not without just having a bridge to port it over, similar to how Zbrush is doing right now. In terms of price, if I were managing it for Zbrush, I wouldn't have anything to do with the billing. Make the software/bridge/plugin available as part of the next years software, and if you want to use it, you have to pay for that actual software (for example, you will need to pay for Keyshot). This would still take a lot of work, but I think the Rendering room is probably one of the areas in need of the most love. It's not bad, but it's definitely in need.

Maybe if there was an option to add a specific size of the cutter then you could repeat the cut all over the mesh. If there is another method of making circular cuts (I tried bevel on points but then you have to add cuts to make circular) then I would love to hear it. Enjoying modelling in 3dcoat as well as sculpting. Thanks

love the knife tool but is there a way to repeat the same size of the cutting polygon? Trying to get the same size cut over different parts of a mesh and having to guess the size isnt ideal.

Yes, poly models is used for Retopo or Modeling meshes

Aaaand I'm illiterate. It helps to drag it into 'Sculpt Models', NOT 'Poly Models'. Nothing to see here, please move along.

Sorry, probably should have specified 3D Coat 2024.17

So I've been following along (sort of) with Ian Thompson's "Intro to Surface Modeling" video on YouTube. I have successfully created an arch by sweeping a profile along a curve. As Ian suggested, I have opened the Poly Models panel and dragged my arch polygon mesh into a new folder there named "My Stuff". When I go into the Sculpting Room, my new "My Stuff" Poly Models folder is not present, so I can't access my model in Sculpting. Also not available for painting. What am I missing?

Perhaps in a future update then?