AbnRanger

Nope...I bought 3DC right after v3 was released. And I primarily bought it as a 3D Painting replacement for Deep Paint 3D (which is essentially dead as they aren't supporting it). It was well worth it just for that...and now, the UV layout tools make it even more so. That's not even mentioning Voxel Clay sculpting and such. So...you're trying to compare it to ZBrush based on sculpting, but that's not an accurate comparison. 3DC is first a 3D Painting application...and in that capacity, is heads and shoulders above ZB and MB. Therefore, your comment about the price difference is only relative to less than half of the toolset.

BodyPaint was expensive as a standalone. They incorporated it within the C4D, and that forces you buy the base version whether you want it or not...Deep Paint is what I used...they have all but abandoned it...never had any video tutorials. And it no longer works with Vista or Win 7.You may not think 3DC is worth it, but ZBrush is $600: http://www.pixologic.com/store/ And Mudbox is $750 If you need a serious 3D Painting application that has top shelf UV layout tools and approaches ZB and MB in sculpting ability...3DC is a heck of a deal at half the price of ZB.

Andrew stated when v3 was released that as more features were added the price would correspond. Since then, a ton of features and improvements were added...so with those and PTex, an extra $15 is more than worth it, for those that have yet to purchase the application. If you're going to throw a fit over $15, then maybe you should be looking elsewhere. Maybe Blender is your cup of tea. There are standalone UV editing applications that cost more than 3DC:http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/ccov.php There are 3D Painting applications that cost 2-3 times more: http://www.maxonshop.com/us/ps/code=BP-N-4&act=gpage https://store.righthemisphere.com/categories/entertainment-bundle http://www.righthemisphere.com/products/dp3d/Deep3D_UV/index.html

Looks like a "Johnny come lately" to me...don't see what it does that 3DC does not.

Even then, UV editing is stupid fast in 3DC now...after all the work Andrew did to overhaul the toolset months ago, I don't do UV Unwrapping in 3ds Max anymore. So having to do UV's shouldn't cause any real heartburn.

With all the improvements that have come with 3DC since v3, a modest price increase from $285 to $299 would make sense to me. You said early on that the price will increase in accord with the increase in features.

When Voxels were first released (in beta prior to v3), I heard of them before (like Phil stated...Lightwave has used them for years), but I didn't know if it was just another term for the same "Pixols" that are implemented in ZBrush, or what. I had to read up on it to better understand how it was being implemented. But if I heard "Voxel Clay," then I have a good idea already. Plus, I think it actually sounds more interesting to newcomers. We tend to think everyone is already aware of 3DC and what it offers. That is not the case at all. Heck...even if I was just a fine artist, hearing the words "Voxel Clay Sculpting" would pique my interest.

Well...the word "Voxels" are no more exclusive to 3DC than "Pixels" are to Photoshop. "Voxel Clay" sounds like a winner. The UI naming can remain unchanged, but I would refer to it in the Manual and Marketing material as Voxel Clay...as that is precisely what it is, and it's easily understood.

I was watching some of the new videos of the surface tools, and it just dawned on me that an idea to possibly consider is, in the near future, re-name voxels and voxel sculpting, "Clay" or "CG Clay" sculpting. Only mentioning Voxels in the manual and website where the form of sculpting is described in more detail. The reason I say this is, it's still very new to much of the CG World and there is a very large percentage of people in the industry that never heard of 3DC or know very little about it. When they hear Voxel sculpting...unless it's explained to them, they don't know what it is or does, really. Make it simple and easy for them to understand and quickly know why it's unique. However, if you change the name to Clay or CG Clay Sculpting, it's immediately understood. It's more descriptive....as Voxels are really the method or explanation of HOW it's done. Ultimately, it's clay..CG Clay...and can be shaped and refined as such. I had never heard of Voxel sculpting before I came across 3DC. Even then, I had to read into it to understand what it was. What say ye, merry gentlemen...and ladies?

The first is the page in the browser as it is, the 2nd is another mockup...it leaves the Pilgway Icon out of the header, because you have three visual elements competing with each other. The fewer, the cleaner it looks. I like the background you have. Nice way to pull off all the text elements. In the lower left hand, I left out the Pricing for 2 reasons. One is most software sites generally don't show the pricing on the front page (some viewers may prejudge the software on the price before they look further into what all the application does). The 2nd is tied to the first. You can find the price when you click on the "purchase" or "Buy Now" tab...and what that does is...if they are ok with the price, they are already there ready to purchase with a single click. Just some ideas. Rarely have I ever seen a software site that has the purchase price on the mainpage. Just thought I'd make mention of that.

Did just a little more tweaking, and the attached is the before and after

One glitch I have noticed for a while is...if you subdivide it more than once, you see all kinds of holes in the mesh. Recently the first subdivision just wasn't enough to capture the incoming detail, so I hit subdivide again, and even though I saw what looked like a mess...I hit apply anyway (thought surely the voxels would be a mangled too). Low and behold, the voxel conversion came out pretty nice.Maybe Andrrew can look into that...why the mesh looks full of holes and appears to be unusable.

Sounds like a driver issue, maybe.

Pascal, you can import your original low poly mesh into the retopo room and snap/conform to your voxel model instead of having to retopo from scratch. I think that may be the closest you can come to a ZBrush/Mudbox workflow...and when you're ready to add even smaller detail, the Per Pixel Painting (in the Paint Room) will paint Normal and Bump maps on your model on the fly, in real time (using the same brush stencils/masks). I'd like to see where you go with this, with some texture and added detail. FWIW, the painting and UV layout tools rock too. Hope to see what you think after a test drive in those areas. By the way, there is a section in the forums called 3DC Exchange...where there are a bunch of brushes, textures, shaders and such. If you have any favorite brushes you wouldn't mind sharing (I bet you have some cool ones for texturing skin and such), please feel free to add to the pot.

OpenCL is a brand new standard...and it's easier said than done, especially when he's already sunk a lot of work into supporting CUDA. I'd much rather Andrew continue working on improving the tools within the program and squash bugs...than halt all of that in order to placate a few that knew upfront there was no support for their card or platform.

That's what I always say...

Thanks a bunch, Javis.

Yeah, I wonder exactly what operations involve CUDA...brush speed? Calculations where you see the progress meter? Converting to surface mode? The reason I ask is that it helps the user to know what sort of hardware upgrades to make. Right now the biggest slowdowns are the calculations; so if 3DC uses strictly the CPU than that would naturally be where a user may want to spend a bit extra, to get a higher performing CPU.

Speaking of Symmetry...I still think it's necessary for Andrew to enable an option in the Symmetry menu to "Transform Symmetry Plane." Artman...I tried the steps you mentioned in another thread, and never came out with a satisfactory result. So if you make the mistake of diving in on a primitive and forget to turn symmetry on, you will likely have to start over...it's a damn mess trying to fix it. I tried for over an hour or so recently and just gave up. I've asked about this two or three times, and nothing's been done to date.

I have the very same thing happen ALL the time...to one degree or another. If I subdivide the mesh more than once before applying, I get a mesh full of holes. I play around with the different options, and the only one that works sometimes is the "cross fingers" option. The Swear option never works, darn it!!

Thanks...sounds very promising.

By the time the would have the training available, it wouldn't be on 3.2..plus lot's of programs, including Maya, have rather buggy releases currently, so, I doubt that's enough to prevent them.I think the biggest impediment is probably finding qualified professionals to teach it. It's still relatively new, but plenty powerful. Dwayne Ferguson has a number of training titles for other software over at vtc.com, and he's a big 3DC advocate...so maybe he could lead the charge. But I think he's working on a movie project or short at the moment, so it may be too much to put on his plate.

Andrew, where are you going with the new surfacing paradigm and tools, if I may ask? Speed only, or are you trying to make it a similar workflow to ZB and MB and allow users to bake the result straight to a normal/displacement map (to be applied to a low-mid poly model)?

I have a subscription to Digital Tutors, and in a survey they sent me, I requested that they include a title for 3D Coat. I wonder if everyone here visited them and put in a similar request, if it might help influence their decision. Plus, getting training there will help give 3DC more exposure in the industry. Not only helping the program grow, but more jobs at studios that use it. http://www.digitaltutors.com/forum/index.php

Hey Javis, on that note I'd like to make 2 requests if I may...1)Trying to Mimick the traditional 3D application>ZB>Sculpt/Detail/Paint>export to 3D application. I'm going to be working on a character shortly that I may try to screen capture and add voice over afterward, but in case you can beat me to it, could you import/merge a character into Voxels and instead of doing retopology from scratch, simply import your original low poly model into the retopo room and snap that to the voxel mesh. From there, I'm sure you may want to tweak it some...maybe add some new loops and such. Then to the UV room, and to Per Pixel Paint and export model out. Someone here mentioned that once they initially merge the model into the voxel room, they immediately, before doing any sculpting, import and snap the low poly model to the mesh in retopo...and then periodically re-snap verts a few times in the sculpting process, to make it easier for the model to snap correctly in the end....especially if there are large changes in the model, and not just subtle detail. I think that is the workflow, most would be interested in seeing. 2) Tips on How to get a clean merge into Voxels...half the time, I get an ugly result and just give up even trying...even when trying to subdivide the model once or twice before hitting enter. I seem to get some measure of artifacts 90% of the time....even if the model's shape is relatively simple. Thanks Javis