Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

AbnRanger

Reputable Contributor
  • Posts

    8,246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    Dnashj33

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

AbnRanger's Achievements

  1. This is a newer, more up to date video for creating Morph Targets in 3DCoat:
  2. That isn't 3DCoat's fault. That is the user placing too many tabs in one panel section and making the column too narrow to see the text. This is an EXTREME use case and it certainly isn't in the default UI layout. What about those who happen to like the Photoshop style structure of the UI. I personally don't like having to scroll through a column to reach panels or sections, like you say ZBrush does. That is why you have the Activity Bar, so that the most used panels don't even have to be docked in the UI, to quickly access them. Nobody said that there shouldn't be continued efforts to incrementally improve the UI. I am just saying that nobody at Pilgway said anything about a complete UI overhaul. Blender is the only app that has managed to do that in the past 20+yrs. That tells you and me that it is a HUGE undertaking, and not always beneficial compared to all the many features that could be added instead.
  3. What do you mean the UI looks outdated? 3ds Max, Maya, Photoshop, ZBrush, etc...have ALL had the same "outdated" UI they have had for decades, but I don't hear people beating down the doors for them to do a complete UI overhaul. They have only made some cosmetic tweaks. 3DCoat likewise has implemented a lot of incremental changes and no one on the staff said anything about making wholesale changes to the structure of the UI. That was just some users voicing their opinion about it. There have been so many improvements, but nobody gives Pilgway credit for those. It's as if all that effort was in vain. They did a complete UI Icon refresh in 3DC 2021. The layer system in 3DCoat doesn't need an overhaul, IMHO. It remains patterned after Photoshop's, now including Layer Mask and Clipping Mask support, plus color image thumbnails on each layer. That's the overhaul, and those improvements alone were long time requests. Now that we have them, one would think users would be happy. Hopefully, Andrew will be able to add Adjustment layers, too.
  4. What Paint Room "re-work" are you referring to? There are some developments (GPU brush engine and node network for Smart Materials if I understood correctly) underway, but I am not aware of an ETA. No one said there was a new UI being developed...just incremental improvements. Layer Mask revamp was part of this + search icon in panels, plus color image thumbnails on each layer, Activity Bar repositioned and made to hide away until you move your cursor near it, etc.
  5. I don't think this is a proper comparison, because Octane can handle some pretty dense scenes, too and it has a free version (Octane Prime w/ the main limitation being 1 GPU used...which is basically the same limitation for Arnold in Max and Maya) for multiple 3D applications, as I mentioned before. Why not use that as your basis for comparison, instead of one of the most expensive render engines on the market? I think the Concept Art market is rapidly trending away from Keyshot, as more and more concept art posted by Pilgway on social media, shows Blender and Octane as the most common render engines used. It used to be Keyshot for a number of years. Now that 3DCoat has this simplified export toolset, Concept Artists can export models that are not so heavy (because of Auto Decimation > Auto UV process during export), anymore, and thus there is little need for a $1k+/yr render engine just to handle high poly counts. Having a world class render engine INSIDE 3DCoat could change the whole game...at least in terms of serving the Concept Art/Design market, which 3DCoat has the biggest foothold in, currently. Know where your bread is buttered...and go there. I agree that it would be nice if 3DCoat had a good rigging system for posing characters/creatures, but IMHO, that would be much less useful than a superior render engine and material system. Mileage may vary, but if non-3DCoat users saw an article or Youtube video saying "3DCoat 2025 now comes with Octane (or VRay/Vantage/Lumen/Renderman/Maxwell, etc.) render + materials fully integrated," that would generate a lot more buzz and sales than "3DCoat 2025 now includes a Rigging system for Posing." Why? Because it would appeal to a much broader audience. I know most Concept Artists would certainly upgrade their licenses after seeing that. They would not feel so compelled to if it had a better rigging system...which I hope will get added at some point in the near future. But, for me, personally, I would prefer to see a top notch render engine inside 3DCoat, so I almost never have to leave the app to make a high quality model and render a model sheet, turntable, etc. with great looking glass (cannot do that so well currently) and or volumetric FX (Open VDB), and see perfect SSS, fur, cartoon shaders, etc.
  6. I am not aware of anyway to see + modify the normals of Paint, Retopo or Sculpt Meshes. Feel free to make that a feature request in an email to support@pilgway.com
  7. It's possible that the algorithm doesn't think such a high count is necessary. Another reason in your example, may be that the tiny areas at the tip of the fingers have too many vertices sitting on top of each other. Perhaps the Auto-Retopo algorithm has a vertex distance limit? I am not sure as I have never attempted to go that high. With Auto-Retopo, the goal is to make it as simple for the Algorithm as possible. Throwing a lot of complexity at any Auto-Retopo engine is not a good idea, as you will get undesirable results most of the time, regardless if the engine is in ZBrush, or plugins for other major applications. You want to run Auto-Retopo to generate the lowest number of polygons necessary > use the SMOOTH (CC)...Catmul Clark Subdivision...tool in the ENTIRE MESH section of the Tool panel, to subdivide the model further, if needed.
  8. I have seen these spots in a mesh before, but it's not that common (in my experience) and if you are using the new Multi-Resolution Levels, you can have 3DCoat take the base low poly mesh (from the Retopo Workspace) and generate all your upper levels of resolution from it...so, you get a pretty smooth looking mesh. I used that toolset for the High Resolution Head/Bust early in the 3DC 2023 promo video. It gave me a nice, smooth mesh that was based on the topology of the base mesh. Come to think of it...at one point right after he released the first build or two with the new system, I noticed a bunch of poles like you are talking about, but Andrew quickly fixed it right after I sent him a report, complaining about them. That should have been fixed well over a year ago. 3DC 2023 Release.mp4
  9. Again, Elemeno...you are not listening to my previous replies about this. 1) No, the price would NOT sky rocket. I know what the offer was and I was very surprised how doable it is for Pilgway, if they want to go forward with it. That's not too strange when you consider A) how much traction EEVVEE, UE 5, and now Octane PRIME (free but with only 1 GPU, in Blender, Modo, DAZ & Unity) has gotten in the industry. Plus, (B) the render engine in 3DCoat would be relatively limited in 3DCoat compared to the major 3D apps, because it's not a VFX or Animation platform. And (C) the company owning the render engine would only be licensing it, not spending their own development $$$ creating a plugin and maintaining it. Those are 3 factors that drive the cost down dramatically, compared to the normal plugins you see for major 3D applications. With them, you are not just licensing the render engine. You are paying for the license + paying their developer to create and maintain the plugin within the app. When Pilgway would sell a license of 3DCoat, the company is just asking a very small percentage of that amount. Furthermore, if this same company (who owns the render engine) is currently working on an updated free version for Blender, why in the world do you assume Pilgway integrating the render on by themselves, would make the cost go way up? That makes no sense. 2) Who says? It's just your speculation. Andrew could do this by himself, while other developers are still working on their assigned areas...like the Modeling/Retopo Workspace or GPU brush engine for the Paint workspace. Those areas would not be hampered one little bit. 3) Every MAJOR feature removes focus from other features. Hello? Now...Elemeno...Yes, I have a license of VRay for Modo and I have been on Octane Render subscriptions off and on, in the past. Anything else?
  10. Yeah, that use case is not really what most would try to achieve in 3DCoat anyway. That doesn't mean having a solid render engine in the application would be of no benefit. I keep going back to IRay in Substance Painter. Its purpose is to allow the user to render a high quality image of the model that was texture painted in the application. In some cases, that serves the user well enough...for Model Sheets or Product Renders, etc. Right now, the Default Render engine in 3DCoat isn't of sufficient quality to do that, so you almost have to render outside 3DCoat.
  11. The new Layer Masks work very well and are fully compatible with Photoshop Do you not have poles with quad meshes? With any character model, you will have quite a few 5 point poles just in the face region. You need them actually, to help keep loops going around the eyes and mouth. How do you suppose they magically disappear in ZBrush, when sculpting with Subdivision levels? So what if Pilgway posted some videos and paused? What is your concern with that? Anton Tenitsky is also a partner of Pilgway and posts 3DCoat videos regularly on his channel. (1) 3DCoat - YouTube (1) Anton Tenitsky - YouTube Not even counting the sculpting videos of Rygaard, there are hundreds of video tutorials on the 3DCoat Youtube Channel, and most of the newer features are covered already. Two of those are in this post alone. Korah, what is the purpose coming to this forum to persistently unload a laundry list of complaints, and cynical views about the software? Why not do something constructive with your time, instead of being destructive.
  12. Octane Render has free versions (limited to using one GPU, though) in Blender, Modo, Unity and Daz. That and the popularity of Unreal 5 as a real time renderer is one reason why an industry standard engine, integrated by Pilgway, is not out of the question. Many of these render engines have scatter utilities with proxies, so rendering a heavy scene isn't necessarily a big problem.
  13. I have not recently tested Vector Displacement map exports from 3DCoat, but the idea behind it was to offer Vector Displacement for render engines that supported them.
  14. You keep making a lot of assumptions that are just false. Integrating an industry standard engine would be = developing a major new feature like Smart Materials, Live Booleans, VDM Brushes, etc. and it would be viewed by the industry as a MAJOR new feature. Again, you keep assuming that it would jack the cost of 3DCoat up. I am not going to divulge any further information, but suffice it to say, that is not true. They received an unsolicited offer that is very tempting/favorable (for Pilgway) if they decided to accept it.
  15. I would strongly disagree. There are many painting features that Substance does not offer. It is limited to painting on low polygon, UV mapped models. You cannot edit UV's in Substance, and if you DO need to make changes to the UV after texture painting in Substance, you are screwed. In 3DCoat, it's no sweat. Substance cannot match 3DCoat in Handpainting, period. In that genre, 3DCoat is the absolute Boss, hands down. I personally like 3DCoat's new layer masking...which is practically identical to PS's masks and is compatible with it. Having the ability to texture paint on high poly meshes is awesome and Voxel Painting, in the right circumstances, is just insane. Vertexture is also a technology that nobody has, and lets an artist add ridiculous levels of resolution...even on a mesh that Vertex Paint would give low resolution results. As for baking, 3DCoat has better baking options when adjustments are needed, with an inner and outer baking cage and brush options to make custom edits in isolated/problematic places. There is room for improvement with Smart Materials and performance with large brush sizes is better in Substance, but to say that Texture painting in 3DCoat is inferior to Substance is purely subjective, IMHO.
×
×
  • Create New...