AbnRanger

There is active and ongoing development relating to the Paint workspace. It just hasn't reached the stage where they are willing to release the features to a Public Beta, yet. If I understood things correctly, there is developer working on a nodal texture network...probably an extension of the nodal network already in 3DCoat, for shaders. One of the primary objectives is to enable it to export to game engines like Unreal or Unity, with the nodal network intact. I am guessing that is via USD file export. There is also the GPU brush engine that will hopefully be made available to test, in the 2023 cycle. But, you are right. Andrew should be turning his focus back to the UI very soon, probably starting in the Paint workspace first.

I don't think Andrew just pulls a feature randomly out of a jar. He spent a lot of time with the Core API and scripting in general, over the past several years, hoping other users with scripting experience would be able to develop some helpful tools for the community, much like ZB's has many plugins/addons that extend its functionality. That hasn't really occurred (for 3DCoat), so Andrew is trying to make it much easier by building Python integration. In the short term, it may not seem to offer a huge benefit, but in the long term it should.

It's not lazy. It's telling the truth. What is lazy is not taking the time to watch a video that shows how the tool is supposed to be used, and yet still arguing about it's effectiveness. There is a right way and a wrong way to use any tool; whether it is in 3DCoat, ZBrush, Blender, etc. I know how this toolset works because I am the one who requested it from Andrew, as a solution (for preserving the original quad mesh with UV's intact, yet have it conform to all the changes to the High Poly Sculpt object). It may not be perfect, but neither is ZBrush's Subdivision workflow. It has its own drawbacks and limitations, also. That is why Pixologic added their own "bunch of hacky extra steps/tools (Dynamesh + ZRemesher)" to work around those limitations. Still, if you insist on using ZBrush's SubDivisions workflow, you WILL lose your original mesh + UV's the moment you use Dynamesh. If you don't use Dynamesh, then you have to deal with the limitations of the SubDivisions workflow...primarily polygonal stretching...which more subdivisions doesn't really solve. Personally speaking, I like that 3DCoat keeps the original mesh separate from the high poly sculpt, and that the changes to the high poly sculpt can be reflected in the original, low poly quad mesh that has UV's. Whatever small issues I might have to deal with (using CONFORM RETOPO MESH), seem easier to handle and is more flexible than it is in ZB. An example is the fact that I can use whatever mode or tool I need to, in the Sculpt Workspace, without worrying about losing my original low poly mesh and it's UV's. I can use Voxels or Surface mode (with dynamic subdivision built into/available for every brush). I can paint on the model and sculpt simultaneously and bake later if I want. I can use Voxel Paint if I want, as well.

Blending modes are strictly for PAINT information on a layer, using the COLOR channel. To test this, within the Sculpt Workspace, you can go to the PAINT section of the Tool Panel and choose the BRUSH tool. Bring up the COLOR PALLET (from the Windows Menu > Popups) and pick a color. Then on layer 1 paint a big thick stroke somewhere on your model. Create a new layer above it and this time paint something with a stark contrast to the color used on layer 1, right over it. Now, switch blending modes and you can see it work just as you would expect it to.

Anyone else have the viewport performance fall through the floor (like around 1-10fps) after a Cavity/Occlusion bake (especially with a Sculpt Object)? I have been having this problem for a long time and Andrew says it does not happen on his side. Every time I bake, it does this, no matter what file or build.

Why do I need to do a search? You said the brushes needed fixing, and I am asking you to please present those issues here, so we can pass them on to Andrew, or perhaps offer some changes in the form of a Brush pack? If you are ok with them, then perhaps Andrew can make them a default version. Personally, I like the Clay Brush as it is....even compared it to ZBrush's default Clay brush and in my experience there is very little noticeable difference. Both are buttery smooth and fun to work with. Same with the Rapid Brush. The Polishing/Trimming brushes may not work the way you prefer, so it would be helpful if you could provide side by side examples of them working in ZBrush and how the same type of brush in 3DCoat works in comparison. Do you want it to have more "bite" or less. Do you want it to have a softer edge, etc? What would a search of Artstation prove? Jama Jurabaev (Senior Concept artist & Art Director at LucasFilms) has shown many recent sculpting examples from 3DCoat and he has not made any public complaints about the Brush Engine. Nor has Bay Raitt, who said many times on the 3DCoat Facebook page that he loves sculpting in 3DCoat. He worked on Gollum in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. He also has not mentioned anything about the brush engine being flawed. And if either of them found them to be flawed, they would certainly contact Andrew directly and raise the issue with him. He knows both of them, personally. Bay Raitt - IMDb

There are some big things going on behind the curtain, already. The GPU brush engine for the Paint workspace is near completion, and one developer has been working on a nodal texturing network, and the model can be directly exported to Unreal Engine with all material nodes intact (if I understood it correctly). This is something nobody else offers, not even Substance Painter. I am not sure if this is done via USD export or what file format, or if it will also work when exported to other applications like Blender or Maya, 3ds Max, C4D, etc. I think some kind of procedural noise (beyond what is already available in the FILL tool) is also being worked on. If there is a nodal network for Materials, I think it will inherently be procedural. I have been pushing for the new Brush engine to be made available, in some BETA form at least, soon, because as you say, the Paint Workspace needs some attention. After Andrew finishes with the current Python scripting integration, he is supposedly going to start working on UI improvements, and that would likely start in the Paint workspace, with updated layers. Thumbnails for the different channels and masks are among the requests. I will also be advocating heavily for Adjustment Layers, that will be at least partially compatible with Photoshop's Adjustment layers. I also asked Andrew if he would please modify the current Activity Bar to work more like PS panel bar, where it is located in the same position and panels can be collapsed or expanded in the same way. This would allow new users to understand its function more easily and it wouldn't clutter the UI as much as the current Activity Bar does. I will try to find out more details and try to pass them on when I learn more.

Could you provide some specifics, perhaps even a screen recording showing the supposed flaws in the brushes that need fixing? Please show how even tweaking the parameters in the Tool Options panel fails to deliver the results you are looking for. If there is a real problem, I hope Andrew will indeed fix it. For what it is worth, he worked with Flavio Rygaard (a skilled sculptor with ZBrush sculpting experience, and contributor on this forum) extensively to try and bring the newest brush engine up to par (with ZBrush), as much as possible, and this continued back and forth for almost a year if not more.

I am not defending. Just trying to relay information I got from a recent conversation I had with Andrew. He even told me to let people on the forum know that he was working on Python scripting, if they were asking why the pace of new builds had slowed down. I am anxious to see some UI changes I had proposed several months ago, but if Andrew thinks adding Python scripting will have a bigger overall impact, then who am I to quibble with him about it?

Well, Andrew does still fix bugs, but he said the program currently seems stable and should allow him time to work on Python script integration. C++ is not so easy to learn and write. Other users have asked for it. Let's wait and see what comes of it.

Yes, in general, if there is a lull in new build releases, it is because Andrew is working on something very substantial. In this case he is working on Python scripting for 3DCoat.

Try changing the name of the object in the Sculpt Tree panel. 3DCoat may not update because the name is the same. Just a guess.

Could you make a screen recording of this happening and send it to Support@pilgway.com. If this is a bug, it will help them spot it and fix it quickly. I use hotkeys all the time, but don't have this issue, currently.

There is a list menu just above the graph to change it from a cylinder to cube, so it can also make nice rectangular columns also, for example.

You can change the wireframe color in the Preferences panel > Theme tab. Thickness, I don't think there is a parameter for that.

Actually, it has been progressing in this direction for some time now, as many modeling tools are Nurbs style features, and even the exporter is actually quite a big deal because I remember needing such a feature in 3ds Max, years ago and the closest thing I could find was a $1000+ PowerNurbs plugin.

I've heard a little bit about that. Looks interesting. FWIW, 3DCoat will and already (to some extent) has some hard surface modeling tools, to bridge the gap between poly-modeling and solid surface modeling. The plan is to have the Solid Surface tools suite in the form of an addon, and with it will come a polygons to Nurbs/Solid Surface converter...which is already in 3DCoat now, temporarily (for users to try).

Yes, I understand that there are Retopo tools in the modeling workspace, but they were never designed to be poly-modeling tools, where you build geometry in empty 3D space, rather than on top of existing models. They were designed to work while constrained to the surface of a high poly sculpt object. Therefore they are challenging to use without an underlying model. The MOVE tool is a good example. It wasn't designed to be manipulated in empty 3D space, but move while snapped/constrained to the surface of a sculpt object. With that in mind, I presumed the OP was poly modeling in the Modeling workspace and wanted to weld vertices together like he could in 3ds Max. I presumed that because he mentioned having difficulty making it snap weld to the target vertex. If there was a model beneath that it was being snapped to, he would not have this difficulty.

Yes, I knew that, but I presumed the discussion is about the Modeling Workspace

You can see the author cover this feature (starting) at the 4:13 minute mark in the video. 3ds Max essentially highlights the targeted vertex when the cursor is over it. I guess the closest vertex (to the camera) within the brush radius, should be highlighted when using the MOVE tool and other tools with vertex-welding functionality using the RMB drag option? Perhaps you can enable a hotkey like CTRL, when pressed down, to constrain the movement of the original vertex along the edge (rather than just screen space)?

I think that is because movement is screen based, so you would probably need to move your camera where the view is somewhat perpendicular to the edge the vertex is moving along. So, close to a side view. I know it is a bit frustrating, but this functionality was really created for the RETOPO workspace, which would keep that vertex constrained to the underlying high poly model via the AUTO-SNAP option at the top of the UI. This is one of those situations where the MOVE tool needs to be modified/enhanced to work better in a Poly-Modeling environment. You can request this at support@pilgway.com. Maybe the developer (Alexander) who works on the Modeling/Retopo room will chime in, here.

Unless the policy has changed without me hearing about it, you should be able to use your license on up to 3 machines...just not simultaneously. You can install it on your home PC, laptop and perhaps at your workplace, as examples, but only one can run 3DCoat at any given point. So, for example, a work colleague might be using your workstation and using 3DCoat, when you suddenly try to use 3DCoat at home on your laptop. You will get a prompt to close 3DCoat on one of the computers.

You can do this with the MOVE tool, the Add/Split Tool, Points to Polygons, and Strokes tool (via RMB click and drag a vertex onto another)

Try importing your high poly sculpt mesh to the Sculpt workspace because you have more options and it is easier to modify it than using the old legacy REFERENCE MESH option. Go to the Sculpt workspace and in the GEOMETRY menu, you have DEFINE MEASUREMENT UNITS option, where you can set it to Centimeters. Then go to the Tool panel on the left > scroll down to the OBJECTS section and click the IMPORT tool button > look in the Tool Options panel and click the SELECT MESH button. What you will see next is essentially a Preview version of the model. You may want to first bring it in, in Surface mode rather than Voxels...because Surface mode will be just like it was in your host application, except 3DCoat converts the quads to triangles. To commit it to the scene just hit the ENTER key or the APPLY button in the Tool Options panel. Once it is committed to the scene, you can start building your Retop mesh on top of it, in the Retopo workspace.

There are videos for practically every Retopo tool, on the 3DCoat Youtube Channel. Just because they were created during the v4 cycle, it doesn't mean they are any less informative or helpful than new ones would be, because the tools are largely the same except in cases where there are improvements added, and when there are new tools/features added, there is usually a new video covering the changes. An example is the Smart Retopo toolset. They are largely the same, but there was a number of improvements in the 2023 release, so video tutorials for that are currently being worked on, as we speak.