AbnRanger

Again, you're making erroneous assumptions. If you noticed the first finger was mentioned in the demonstration to have been done at the same resolution (medium) the rest of the model was (in attempt to show the contrast in the subsequent example). You also may notice that the next example was a painted copy and then jacked up in resolution (from 8x to 32x). Where are you getting this notion that you lose detail switching from surface to volume? Can you show us a video screen capture of this happening? I'd really like to see it, cause I've been using 3D Coat for some time and I've never noticed it. After all, the Surface mode just deforms the outer shell, if you will, that already resides in voxel mode...the difference is that it ignores volume data. The result isn't the issue here...it's the speed at which you get to the result that is the difference between the two modes. Furthermore, you can retopo straight from Surface mode. The model doesn't have to be converted to volume unless you want it to for some reason. If you want to go through the extra time and steps to do your detail in ZBrush, then more power to you. There is room for improvement here and there...no doubt (same with any application), but voxel sculpting took a HUGE leap forward this summer and with that, became a much more viable alternative to either ZB or MB, in my opinion. By the way, could you elaborate on this "inherent lumpiness" of Voxels? The model used is only medium resolution and that is made apparent from the quick demonstration. So, please expound on what makes a medium resolution model "lumpy."

Before deleting a layer I often click "Clear." I'd prefer that it only clear the active/selected layer, and not the whole room...but if it is the only layer you have, I would try that. Sometimes I have had some hidden points hidden or hanging out in space (a bug I'm sure), and the only way to rectify the instability is to hit "clear."

The point I wanted to make is that yes, 3DC has areas in need of improvement, but much of the criticism here makes it appear to new or prospective users, as if 3D Coat is unusable or impractical for high-end work. That is absolutely false. It doesn't have to beat ZBrush or Mudbox in raw sculpting speed for a user to be get great results. A sports car enthusiast doesn't HAVE to buy/own a ZR1 Corvette or Lamborghini to have a smoking fast ride. Voxel Clay sculpting is very fast when you use the tools for their respective strengths. I know that I can get a little faster brush speed...and maybe a little bit better feel if I use my seat of Mudbox. But I don't because I can do more overall in 3DC and the 3DConnexion support seals the deal for me. It more than offsets the slight brush speed advantage. Not to mention that Voxels are VERY, VERY forgiving, compared to working with geometry sculpting. That alone makes it superior to both ZB and MB in a few key areas during the sculpting process. Surface mode and Multi-Res tools are there for a very specific purpose...they are not just another option. Surface mode is SPECIFICALLY designed to provide faster brush speed, when you need it...but its toolset is not as versatile as Voxel Volume mode. So, that means you use Volume mode until you are ready for high detail work. There are some cases where you will want to use Surface tools (Smooth and SurfaceFreeze) intermittently, but for the most part use Volume mode up to a medium-high res threshold. If you are unhappy with Pose and Move speed in Volume mode, you may be too high in resolution for the task....but no worries. Use Multi-Res for that very purpose. Again...that is what it was designed for. To make those tasks much faster without penalty. As for the Paint Room...again, some of the criticism makes it sound as if the application is broken. I don't recall seeing any artifacts when painting. I prefer to do most detailing in Voxels as it has more tools to use, and I rarely experience any noticeable speed penalty when painting. Much of that is because of a good video card (GTX 275 manually overclocked) and not using ridiculously large brush radius'. So, again, in it's current state, 3D Coat is a very viable competitor in it's market. Every single application has some niggly issues or weaknesses scattered throughout. Because 3DC has some of it's own, doesn't make it inferior.

If Andrew were able to implement the Surface tools in the Sculpt Room while adding multi-threading to it and the Paint room, that would be a major boon for 3DC. It was for Voxel Sculpting. I was stunned at the difference. Merging is now a non-issue...when it WAS perhaps the biggest headache and obstacle. He's just going to have to go on a sabbatical again....lock himself away from all the daily requests, etc. But in response to DirtRobots comments about sculpting...please explain why you can't do high detail work in Voxels, again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ZJX9Nfy8w Granted, voxels do require a relatively robust system (particularly RAM due to the volumetric data that has to be stored) to get the most out of it, but I like the fact that the program scales with your hardware quite well. With a newer video card (with 1GB VRAM or better), 8+GB's of RAM (12 or more is best) and a quad-core CPU or better, voxel sculpting is VERY, VERY capable of getting ultra-high detail where you want it, and the brush speed approaches Mudbox and ZB levels when in Surface mode. You have to know when to use Volume mode and when to use Surface mode...plus neither MB or ZB offer 3DConnexion device support, and that is what keeps me from using my seat of MB much. 3DC's versatility lets me do the WHOLE job in one place without HAVING to switch to Mudbox now...since Multi-threading/Multi-Res/Cache to Disk was added to Voxel Sculpting.

Sorry about that...I'll post one here shortly. I wanted to wait a bit to do one as the tool is still being refined, and some of my own experiments haven't given the kind of results you'd expect. It's about 80% there, but even with guides properly placed, I still get some trouble spots that make it hard to decide whether to spend the time to fix it or just do it manually from scratch.

Why do they need to glow? If you know what you want, click it. That's just my 2 cents...I'm all for add functionality, but not so much, for frills.

I had a model that was doing the same thing....wouldn't work no matter what steps I took. I sent it to Andrew and upon further examination, he said the model was too complex internally (I think I had created a hull/shell of the object (in attempt to keep the voxel density down). To rectify that, I'd have to do some kind of work around like export the model and remerge it back in, as there is no way for 3DC to fill a structure, currently. Maybe a primitive that surrounds it and then do an intersection. I don't know if that is similar to what is going on with your model, but you may want to send a copy of it to Andrew and let him take a look at it.

Yeah...in order to make clean up less of a hassle with trouble spots, usually when relaxing or subdividing the Retopo mesh, I asked Andrew if he could enable us to select a vertex anywhere on the mesh. In Max, Maya, etc...people coming from these programs expect to be able to select verts from any angle (with the option to disable selection of backfacing elements). So the answer was to allow a vert within a given distance of the cursor to be selectable, no matter where it is on the mesh. The way it was happened to be a major PITA when trying to clean up the occasional rats nesting that would occur (especially on relatively dense meshes). Many times you'd have to fight with the program to find an angle where you could get to the stray vertices. You still can't seem to be able to select a vert that dips beneath the voxel model. You have to turn the voxel object's visibility off, first. At least we got the Vox Tree in the Retopo Room to do that more quickly.So if Andrew can make that based on a fixed distance from the center of the cursor, that could perhaps fix the problem. That way it's not dependent on brush radius

Under the Texture Menu (in the Menu Bar), you choose Calculate Occlusion. The popup will have a parameter slider that will allow you to add more lights

You can also use strokes to make one row of faces and use a combination of split rings and move vertices (w/ edgeloops enabled) to make extrusions on the fly (I have those 2 tools hotkeyed to my < & > keys) for this purpose.

Yeah...what he said. Happy birthday, Andrew...easy date to remember. It's just 2 days after mine (21st).

Support@3d-coat.comPlease try to replicate the issue with a screen video capture recording, so as to help Andrew quickly get to the root of the problem. He can usually determine what's wrong just by seeing that screen capture, and it let's him get straight to work on a fix....rather than spending a lot of time trying to diagnose what is wrong. Jing, BB Flashback Express, and CamStudio (I believe there is a free version), are among the free resources available. It really does help.

Yeah, the shaders are helpful too, as you can choose a semi-transparent shader to see where your vertices are (when they are beneath the voxel surface). All this make it easier to clean up trouble spots when Relaxing or Subdividing the mesh.I think, especially for new users, that there should be an Auto-Retopo button in the tool pallet (under the Create section), as well as "Paint Details" button. That way all the tools for the job are easily found and in one logical location. Ultimately, it would be preferable to have a "Paint Details" button link to the Surface freeze tool without being sent to the Voxel Room...so users aren't having to bounce back and forth between rooms. Let the user do everything Retopo-related....in the Retopo room. It could be a bit of a turn off, for some trial testers and interested studios, to see that you have to use different tools scattered in different rooms/locations for one task. Allowing the Vox Tree panel in the Retopo Room narrows it down to having to do that only once, thus far. So, that's good progress anyway.

Well...it's fine to give an opinion, but to say outright that it's useless is wrong. If you tried it, you obviously never gave yourself the same adjustment period that you would allow for a Wacom tablet. And for $50-$100, it pays for itself in no time....used or new. I bought mine on EBay, used and have noticed no difference at all between it and a new one...plus I had the option to get a warranty for it for an extra $10 bucks or so. It just seems to me that you're making excuses, rather than trying to give the thing a real chance. That's fine if you're referring to your own experience....but to dogmatically proclaim here that it's worthless is an erroneous, ill-informed statement. Many here would certainly disagree with it. It's such an immense help for me that it has, and remains to be the No.1 reason I use 3D Coat.

Thanks for the hard work and speedy response, Andrew.

No time for rose sniffing when you're in a rush to get to work, right?...unless that is your vocation.

This is why I asked if you had one...cause you're making assumptions without firsthand knowledge. If you don't use it, why not reserve judgment? Leigh Bamforth mentions this ability (to paint/sculpt while rotating about the model), while he's doing it in his DVD's...check em out:http://www.kurvstudios.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Store_Code=KURV&Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=01-02-14 By the way, you can buy a SpacePilot on EBay anywhere between $50-$100...not $800. http://cgi.ebay.com/3Dconnexion-SpacePilot-3D-motion-controller-USB-/280551295693?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0

I'm not ambidextrous, and sure...like the Wacom tablet or anything, it takes a little adjustment period. Riding a bike didn't come naturally, but once I got the hang of it...it sure seemed like it. Some people, like the Ammish, are just adverse to new technologies...if you fall in that camp, more power to you. However, it's a mistake to make a blanket statement that it's rubbish (just because you don't particular like it or find it useful). Ask Leigh or Javis, most anyone who uses a 3DConnexion device...the vast majority would beg to differ. There are so many things you can do with it that make it worthwhile...another example: You can, with the same hand, select an orthographic view, select the "3D Lock" button (in the center of the view keys on the SpacePilot), hold down the pen and with a simple twist of the knob, get a perfect 360 degree indentation or extrusion, etc. Once you've done this, you will find all kinds of situations where this will come in handy. You just CANNNOT do that without the device....period. So, you were saying that it's perfect weather for a horse and buggy ride in Arizona? I think the AC and cruise control would come in handy...oh, that's right, you don't have that feature available in an Ammmish buggy.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Most people I've talked with who have a 3DConnexion device are glad to have the support and love the thing. Here you come and flat out slam it to the ground...calling it useless. Do you have one, and if so, what have you tried it with? I have a SpacePilot and it is the primary reason I haven't been using my seat of Mudbox much (no 3DConnexion support either). One of the things I like about it especially is the ability to paint and sculpt simultaneously while rotating around your model. No more sculpt...stop....rotate...sculpt...stop...rotate. It even speeds up tedious tasks in the retopo room. For example, sometimes the strokes tool will leave you with entire strips of poly's missing to have to go in and manually add in with something like the Points and faces. I literally can do that 2-3 times as fast using the spacepilot by gradually rotating around the model, while clicking to lay down polys as fast as I can, and it works like a charm. I can grab a vert (hold it) and rotate to another view and align it on the other axis as I rotate it. If you don't have coordination skills, how does that make the tool and support for it, useless for others? You can get from point A to Point B with shoe leather, a bicycle, or horse and buggy...but when I have the choice to use a Lexus instead, guess which one I'm going to choose...?

I think it's just a matter of time before Pixologic has to cave in and start charging upgrade fees. That is not a sustainable model, even though it helps generate plenty of buzz among the ZBrush community (as most of the crowd already has a seat). They have to rely on new sales only, and that is going to be to their eventual hurt, with all the competition coming on. It's actually helpful to 3D Coat for them to sustain that policy, as Pixologic generates less income and thus fewer development resources...allowing 3DC and Mudbox to catch up. Again, use Voxel Volume mode for what it is good for (cutting/Boolen type operations, blocking out a model, and getting to medium res before needing to switch to Surface mode), and use Surface Mode and Multi-Res for what they do well...even faster sculpting. Surface mode is very comparable to MB and ZB in raw sculpting speed. You just need a good chunk of RAM to take advantage of the benefits you find in Voxels. It's having to store more data, so that is the tradeoff...which each software in this category has at least one.

Andrew there is a major problem creating strokes after painting the dense areas with the surface freeze tool. It automatically converts the object to Surface and I've had the Strokes tool fighting with me every step of the way, with parts of the lines darting off beneath the surface in crazy ways. I finally tried to switch back to Volume mode and although that stopped the problem with the strokes....but doing that erases the areas I painted (for density), naturally. The Strokes tool had problems before with Surface mode. Maybe it never got fixed. I just haven't tried it since then. I'll send you a screen capture of the prolem later. I just wanted to warn others of the issue too, so they can skirt around it until it get's fixed.

Right now you already have the ability to do what you want the program to do for you. That is to clone a part, extrude and then subtract from the underlaying object. You can then build off of that.I'd like to see Cloth using shrink wrap, as there are some occasions where just cloning a surface doesn't get it...such as a football players jersey...there are gaps created between the padding underneath, and shrink wrap is the only thing that would do the trick. I asked Andrew about this during Siggraph, where instead of using gravity as a force to pull in the Y axis, that it could be modified to allow the force to pull along the closest normal from the object beneath.

All I know is that I stumbled upon it in the opening splash screen (under Yellow theme). I was curious as to what Yellow might look like, and when I noticed it was similar to Modo (I like that UI scheme), I stuck with it.

Thanks...my bad (slaps self on the forehead....a Homer Simpson moment...Doooh!), I was looking everywhere in the panel but the top. I just tried the feature for the first time recently, as I never really had a need to use it

There is a ton of things I'd like to see in a lot of software....since when does it all have to happen inside one release? 3DC has grown in leaps and bounds...enough that it should already be worth a 4.0 release. There was MAJOR work done to Voxel Sculpting recently that would make it worth the upgrade alone...and to have a major overhauled UV toolset (last fall), PTex (literally allowing most users to skip the UV process altogether in many cases), Multi-threadeding, Multi-Res, Cache to Disk etc in Voxels....That's more than any other vendor, so what gives?