AbnRanger

He was told that increasing resolution would be the solution, and it is. What specifically isn't working for you? You can't find the Merge command, or can't find the Increase Resolution icon? I think the UI team has been changing some of the names of the tools a little. One of those is the "Increase" (Resolution) button in the vertical toolbar on the left. In the lower left-hand side of the UI, it looks like it's been re-named "Res+". However, the icon at the bottom of the Vox Tree Panel is still there (the Tooltip says "Increase Resolution"), and that's what I always use. Hope that helps some.Upon merging a model into Voxels, you can scale your model, before you hit the ENTER key, to increase the resolution, as another means. Just be careful that you don't scale it up too large. Again...no more than 50-60% of the total grid size, and the model should be manageable. 10-30% of the grid is optimal, in my own experience. You just don't want to be around 10-20million polys (polys as in a skin that essentially acts like shrink wrap for the voxel volume beneath), when you are roughing out your forms. You can see how many polys and object/layer has by looking toward the bottom center of the UI.

I think there is a misunderstanding here....not sculpt room tools in Surface mode (within the Voxel Room), but the reverse. Mirroring the Surface Mode tools/engine into the Sculpt Room, so you are working with geometry.And as for Modo 501 replacing the need for programs like ZBrush, 3DC and such....nah. It's just like the Viewport Canvas tools in Max. You can do a LOT of your 3D texture painting in Max, with some very Photoshop-esque tools/layers/blending modes, etc....but I really don't even bother using it, when I have 3DC to use instead. These specialized toolsets will never be outdone by built-in tools. For example, even if Newtek licensed 3D Coat to be integrated with Lightwave, it would soon be left behind in development as these types of arrangements always tend to one time deals. Imagine using LW with an integrated version of 3DC v 3.1....now you can see why Modo's sculpting tools will neither catch up, nor keep pace with these applications.

Yes, that is what I have been asking about for some time now...and I actually think it may prove to be the fastest sculpting model in 3DC. It would also be great for people who want to bring in models and just detail it without having to go through the retopology process. You can do that to a degree with Voxels (by importing the original mesh into the Retopo room and use that as your Retopo mesh), but staying in Polygonal mode when you import a model, has it's own advantages. I think the best thing about it though, is that it would make 3DC the most versatile sculpting toolset (Voxel, Polygonal, and Image-Based) in the business, at that point.

Yeah...that's why you want to increase it one level at a time, before you hit "APPLY" or the ENTER key. As far as scale. If it's tiny on the grid, it needs more resolution, but if it takes up a large portion of it, then you will have a slow go it. So, maybe a scale where it's somewhere between 10-30% of the grid

You have a Freeze tool, but it resides in the Surface mode...so whenever I need to use it, I just switch to that mode. I never use hide anymore. It doesn't really do anything functional that I'm aware of, save maybe allow you to get nice hard creases along the area hidden. When you hide in ZB or MB, I believe it dumps the hidden portion from memory, thus allowing better interactivity in the viewport. That's not the case in Voxels. Hiding doesn't save you any memory or give you more FPS.If you have a recent build, when using the transform tool, you have a checkbox in the tool options panel, "to center mass"...many of us had been asking for that for some time. It got added a few months ago. You also have the ability to "cleanup" your object by filling any holes before you're done. Right click the layer and choose "fill voids." doing this may actually save you some frustration when using Auto Retopo and baking Normal maps and such. I had an issue with a model once, and could never get AutoRetopo to work with it. Andrew took a look at it and found it had a number of hidden holes that was the cause of the problem. He soon thereafter created this tool to fix that problem. I agree about the lattice. It's been requested often. I mentioned a possible solution in your other thread, in the feature request section. Andrew listens, but has to prioritize the requests/bugfixes.

I like your idea, and Andrew will entertain any good ideas from the userbase. Much of the toolset is a result of this close interaction with the community...such as the "Cache to Disk" feature and Multi-Resolution. I e-mailed Andrew and made the case for "Cache-to-Disk", and he said he would consider it. As he was in the process of implementing the feature, he added some additional functionality...that is having a low res proxy in place. As it turns out, that gave him a platform for Multi-Resolution...something he had been wrestling with for a while. Another case is the Auto-Retopo feature. Andrew was working on a method that was introduced at Siggraph 2009...many from the community here added the ideas of being able to lay down some guides where we want edgeloops to flow, and paint areas where we want greater polygonal density. I added that maybe using the "Strokes" tool to apply guides for the edgeloops would be easier for Andrew to implement. Sure enough, that was how it worked out. So, the point is...if you really think you have a good idea, that can help everyone, shoot Andrew an e-mail (support@3d-coat.com), and explain it. If you can make any visual aids (in Photoshop), to help communicate the idea, then please do so. The 3DC UI actually was born from mockups and input from the community here. I think this willingness to respond to user input is one of the things that endears me to the program and makes it my favorite application. I don't think you'll find ANY application where your own input plays a bigger role in its development than 3D Coat. With all of that said...your idea sounds like it could help speed up all the sculpting tools in Volume mode...which is always welcome. Granted, the Multi-Res functionality is a terrific solution to the slow downs one experiences in Volume mode, but not having to use it as much would be greatly appreciated too. Andrew is supposedly going to be working on optimizing CUDA for volume mode, so now would be a good time to forward such an idea. I also would like to see a freeform deformation lattice added to the toolset. We don't want to overwhelm Andrew with too many requests at one time. But when he has the chance to look into it, I think one way to implement it without too much fuss, is to perhaps create a variation of the primitives tool (ffd), using the same gizmos/lattice options...and use a semi-transparent version of the primitive (that would normal be present) to essentially mark the boundaries of an object that will be deformed. What I might do is perhaps make FFD Lattice capability an option from within the Pose tool. This way you could use the selection tools within the Pose tool to set your falloff. This could make the Pose tool in 3DC incredibly powerful.

I find that sometimes, if something is amiss with the UV's, that is why it appears to bog down. When things are done right, baking is pretty decent on fairly new hardware.

Assuming it is not the 30 day trial, then you should have gotten an e-mail with the serial. If you have to format your main HD and install a fresh OS then, you will have to install serials on everything you re-install. But if you have a backup, then you should be able to restore your system with the backup image. In that case, no re-install should be needed. If you are sending your system to a shop, have them restore it for you.

Just go to the 3.5 updates thread (1st page) and download the latest build and re-install. If you're on a trial, it will just reset to a new 30days. If you have a license, you'll just enter the serial again. No problem.

Yeah, before you hit "APPLY" or the ENTER key (that will convert the model to Voxels), you usually want to hit the "Increase Resolution" icon at the bottom of the Vox Tree panel (layer panel), at least once...if it still doesn't look like it captured it correctly, hit UNDO and try it again...but this time, Increase the Res an additional time. It also will be more accurate if you scale it larger on the grid. The larger it is on the grid, the more Voxels it has. You will get a prompt to ask if you want to keep the original scale upon export, so don't worry about scaling it up in the viewport. However, be careful that you don't scale it too large. Otherwise it will be slow working with a model that is too dense. Also, you will want to close the ends of the coat, because I have found that Auto Retopo will try to make the object double sided, and that may not be what you want. One other nifty tool at your disposal is that you can import your character into the voxel room, and then use the Cloth (Simulation) tool to get that coat to drape better. In the Cloth tool options you can select your coat mesh from its directory location or from the Retopo room, if you have already topologized it there. It's good to at least get some natural weight and tension. You'll have to play with it a bit to find a good result.

I happen to appreciate the way 3DC layers work...as opposed to being FORCED to paint separate maps/channels on separate layers. When you export...3D Coat combines all the bump/normal channel information from multiple layers into one map. So, you could have 20 layers with bump/normal detail but it gets baked into one bump/normal map upon export. 30 layers of color, one color map upon export, etc.If you want to paint only bump/depth on one layer, knock yourself out...all you need to do is turn off color and spec for that layer. You can even export any layer as a separate map. So, if you want to paint a dirt map...knock yourself out....SSS map....knock yourself out. You are not limited from doing this in 3D Coat. Compare that to Mudbox, where you have only one channel per layer. In 3DC, you can have it either way. What is wrong with that much flexibility? Andrew should focus on Voxel Sculpting and leave painting to the professionals? Really? Please elaborate. So, you have Image-Based Sculpting (LIVE normal map/Displacement map relief and detail) with Mari and have a full-fledged Ptex toolset (not just PTex file format export capability), where you can export out and render in ANY render engine? Can you select from a library of 3D models, manipulate it's orientation, scale and such in a preview window and then use that model as a brush? 3D Coat started and continues to hang it's hat on it's 3D Painting toolset, and is arguably the most versatile of the bunch. I bought it as a replacement for Deep Paint 3D and I wouldn't trade it for Mari or BodyPaint any day of the week. It has room for improvement, but then every application does.

I think the lighting in 3D Coat's render is more like Sunlight/Daylight lighting in programs like Blender, 3ds Max, Maya, Lightwave, C4D, etc. It's easier to get decent results with it. For Graphic Design projects, you could do a lot of your rendering in 3D Coat and tweak the result in Photoshop, thereafter.

In the Tutorial section, Greg has a nice little series that goes from sculpting a game character (Ghost) in Voxels to painting textures in Per Pixel Painting mode. Also, you can search on youtube for "Fugazzi3D"...he has the most that I have seen so far.

They are saved, until you clear them. They are far more persistent than you realize. Once you go back to that stage of the wizard, they will be in place. I've opened up files months later and found the strokes still there.Give it a try...delete the Retopo layer and restart the Auto Retopo wizard again. No, you won't see it when you first start, because the first procedure is to paint areas where you want more polygonal detail...THEN, once you move to the Strokes segment, there they appear...still waiting.

The strokes you make will remain until you clear them. I can save the file, leave the app and come back to restart the AutoRetopo procedure, and as soon as I move to that step (strokes) in the wizard, those same strokes are still in place. Just because you don't see them when you UNDO or something, doesn't mean they aren't stored and waiting. They are.As for deleting strokes, you can do that. Simply click on the line you want to edit/delete. It then is highlighted in white, and you can delete it. There are some things the Auto Retopo tool is REALLY good for and others that it's not. If you want precise polyflow, even when you put down proper guide strokes, you will have some clean up left to do. It can get you pretty close, but it's still having to do a lot of guesswork. That's why I really don't waste time trying it with characters. The manual Retopo tools are pretty darn fast as it is. I think clothes, non-animated objects in a scene, and such is where you would find more benefit using Auto Retopo. Using the Strokes tool 80% of the time, you can knock out a character Retopo much faster than you might think, As the body is made up of cylindrical shapes, and then with the facial retopology, you can just trace where you want your edgeloops, and hit ENTER. If you have your character sketched out, you might try to get in the practice to drawing the topology over the face in Photoshop, or you could render out a front view of your sculpted Character (before you start Retopo'ing the face/head), in the Render room, and take that over into PS and do the same thing. That way you can more quickly hash out where you want to put your topology, and use the Strokes tool to trace it in short order in the Retopo room.

I don't notice any lag in Win 7 w/ CUDA when you use reasonable brush sizes on objects up to 20mill polys, so how could Linux with lag be 5 times faster? What are you using to measure this by? There is some lag if you work with oversized brush radius' in Volume mode, and to a lesser degree in Surface mode. Of course, that is why you have Multi-Res...to handle those situations, and it is ridiculously fast at doing it.

Wow...never expected to see that. Thanks for the taking the initiative . I'm slowly learning Fusion using the PLE...have been a long time Combustion user.

I think that approach is the most sensible one under your set of circumstances and needs. You have enough expense with other Graphic Design-related software. Blender is P-E-R-F-E-C-T for any Graphic Designer looking to implement more 3D into their designs (that's sort of how I got hooked on 3D). I think you'll end up in 3D, though. If you have fine art skills, the 3D industry is where you want to be. It's the one area where those skills will not only get fully utilized, but where you can just let your imagination go free. That is not the case in Graphic Art. You are often stuck doing page layout and text editing (in Adobe InDesign or Quark). To me, the Graphic Design Industry is for fine artists, what Internet browsing is to an expensive new Graphic Card. A complete waste of resources.I have a client/friend who is in such a predicament. I saw some of his personal artwork, which is fantastic, and yet he's been working in the sign and graphic design business for years. He's almost stuck in it because he has a family to support. He should be doing Matte Painting or Concept Design work. But now that I've strayed way off topic...time to return. Yeah...Blender's got PLENTY of juice for what you need. If it were commercial, it would likely be priced right about where LW is or higher. It has exceptional animation/rigging tools, as well as it's own compositor. I think you are also being a bit too harsh on it's native render. It's not bad at all...and should be able to do whatever you ask it to do. Nevertheless, you may be able to contact Vlado over at the VRay forums and ask about an upgrade path to 2 if you buy the stand alone now. There is a good chance he may make the v2 upgrade available for free when it's released.

VRay(2) makes more sense for me, seeing that it has VPR/Fprime ability in RT, and you can switch between GPU mode or CPU mode (GPU may not always be best since it relies on the graphic card's VRAM). http://www.youtube.com/user/ChaosGroupTV?News=VR2#p/u/19/5rWEFcEKYVE It also is supported by Vue Xstream...so that pretty much fills the need, without having to step out of Max entirely to render out the scene. FinalRender wasn't supported by Vue, and the darned IPR isn't stable enough to rely on...so that pretty much settles it for me. Thanks for the tip Geo. I wasn't sure RT was any better.

VRay 2 it is, then...

How does VRay RT work for you? The equivalent tool in FR is it's Interactive Render, but it seems a much ignored feature...and in practice, I can see why. It's so crash prone, it's unusuable in production. If it weren't for that, I would be fine with the tools I have.The one thing I really liked about it's IPR, is that it's the ONLY renderer for Max that allows you to get full blown interactive previews of volumetric FX plugins like Afterburn, PyroCluster and FumeFX. If only the da%#!@-ed thing worked without crashing! It's been that way for over a year now, and Cebas acts like they could care less. I was a big Cebas fan for such a long time, but every since they worked with Uncharted Territory on the 2012 film, they haven't been the same. It's like they go into hiding until VRay comes out with a new release...then they feel obligated to respond. That's why they announced the release of R3.5 within days of VRay 2. Before that, there wasn't a peep from them on the forums, for months. I don't think Newtek could get away with that kind of support/interaction...so, that's why I'm suddenly leaning toward LW 10 for the task. Mental Ray, as you know, doesn't work with Volumetric FX in Max, and iRay doesn't strike me as being nearly as efficient as FPrime or VRay RT, even if it does utilize CUDA enabledc cards.

I really think Newtek is hurting themselves by not stating what outside customers can expect with CORE when it is released. I would be much more inclined to make a purchase (regardless of what type of license...EDU or Commerical), if I knew they were working on CA tools in CORE. I'm thinking it's worth going back to LW just for the renderer. Do you know where that video went, where Graham Toms showing 3DC in use with LW 10....and it showed the enhanced polycount handling capability in Layout? It seems to have disappeared. I wonder why? Ah, snap! I just noticed that FinalRender 3.5 has just been released. It's half the upgrade cost for me (not real happy about that) Again, it's the tight integration LW's VPR has with it's renderer that makes it so tempting for me. I talked to Edwin (the head at Cebas) at their booth during SIGGRAPH and he seemed to blame Autodesk for the problems with their IPR. That's not going to help me get the job done...but outside of the IPR, I love the renderer. Tough choice to make... http://www.cebasstation.com/index.php?pid=hot_news&nid=394

"I made possibility to save separate voxel layers as 3B files (with subtree or no)."Thank you, Andrew...

How does the student to commercial upgrade work? Is it like Adobe products, when you buy EDU software, IT IS the commercial version...just at a significant student discount? LW used to have a killer competitive crossgrade ($395-$495), but I'm not sure where the distinction lies with the EDU license and the commercial. Would you be able to participate in the HardCORE program and all? I hope that Turbulence plugin isn't going to be another one like "Dynamite"...that essentially had the developer go awol on his customers. Turbulence would answer a problem I have had with HyperVoxels. I can spot when they are used on TV...it's substandard (in my estimation) and in big need of an overhaul. Perhaps it just needs better fractal noise algorithms, and finer control of them. That is the difference I have noticed between the two "Voxel/Volume" FX plugins for Max....Afterburn and PyroCluster. I'm really impressed with LW 10's VPR, and am really tempted to get in on that deal and use LW for surfacing and rendering, especially when using Vue XStream. I can do all my modeling and Character Animation in Max. I really like FinalRender (3rd party renderer for Max...on par with VRay), but the Interactive Renderer has been very crash-prone...and therefore nearly useless for me. LW seems to offer the least gotcha's and limitation now. The only last concern I have is instancing. I see that you can do it in CORE, but I would like to be able to do some instancing in LW 10 if I needed.

I don't know that I would characterize LW's CA tools as crippling...just not on par with others on the market. There are "plugins" such as Maestro and even better, Messiah Studio, that fill the gap fairly well. This is one area that Newtek has acknowledged as being in need of improvement, and in my opinion...an area they really should address early with CORE, if they really want to regain some momentum in the industry. Nevertheless, for your purposes, either Blender or LW would fit. I think Blender is actually, overall, the better application right now, compared to LW in it's current state. The one saving grace for LW has will continue to be, it's rendering...especially now with the interactive VPR. That is very nice. Previously, you had to buy a plugin renderer called FPrime, to get that level of interactivity. I think it may be the one thread that has held LW together these past five years or so. It's been ahead of it's time and only recently have other applications gotten on board with Interactive renderers.