AbnRanger

Thanks Andrew. We're not saying that there have been no such improvements. Indeed there have been. Such as the Surfacing tools additions. This is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Improving what is already in the application, just not going off on a wild tangent to add some new features...like NURBS support or trying to copy ZBrush's new Zspheres capability and such.The most glaring thing for me is the wait time involved with Voxel operations. I just built a new Quad-Core system, and had to throw quite a bit of cash into it, in order to help speed things up in this regard...and it still is terribly slow when waiting for voxel operations to calculate. I had one character sculpt that I spent some time on and saved, went back recently to pick where I left off and after 15 min waiting for it to load, I gave up and had to shut down 3DC in Windows Task Manager. Voxels are a good concept in theory, but oftentimes in practice, they present as many troubles as they do benefits. For this reason, I wonder if it might not be possible to follow Mudbox's example and add as many of the voxel tools into the regular (geometry) sculpting room, and simply try to improve the speed there to a comparable level. The benefits of Voxel sculpting may be nice, but there are plenty of times, I'd trade those for some overall speed and stability...even if you have to be concerned with topology a bit. Is this where you are going with the surfacing tools?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a bit rude in this regard to the next few people who ask for all these wiz-bang features, when a simple look at the bugs/issues threads or section illustrate how much work already lies ahead trying to iron out all the current shortcomings. I really would like for Andrew to take a few months off from adding any sort of of "New Features" and just go on a Fixing frenzy, instead. I have had a number of fix requests ignored (like gizmos not being centered on the object selected in the Vox Tree). I've had a number of models that I worked on, take several minutes to load up if at all. Voxels need a thorough going over and a major speedup, so we aren't left wondering if an operation is hung/crashing 3DC or not. It can never compete with ZBrush or Mudbox with this sort of routine commonly taking place. No more fancy features til the current feature set is refined and cleaned up, please.

+1. What it currently does needs to be refined to the point that it competes on an even level or better with the competiton. Instead of NURBS support and other frivolous pursuits, all the attention should remain focused on speed, improving the tools that exist, and making it as stable as possible. There's lots of improvements needed in Voxels alone. Asking Andrew to divert attention to features most users won't ever touch or would rather do in another application, more suitable for the task, is an utter waste in my opinion.

Yeah...there are a number of Art Institutes here in the LA area, and I'll see if I can't contact the Program Directors and mention it. Although some may be adverse to bringing in a perceived "Non-Industry Standard" tool...and let's face it, there aren't any instructors for them to hire to teach it...but, if it's allowed to be installed and let the students use it and learn on their own, it can start to gain a small foothold. Especially if the instructors learn and use it themselves, to incorporate it into their current class projects. If just used for texture painting, it wouldn't take even one class period to go over how to import their models in, texture and detail them and export it all back into Maya or Max. I bet the guys at DAVE would love to hear this news...as the UI and legacy of the 3DC is so Lightwave-centric.

I think that is an outstanding approach, Andrew. Autodesk is making it easier than ever with their relatively new (Education bundle) "Creation Suite" model....so instead of a student having to spend several hundreds of dollars on a given software title, JUST TO LEARN IT...they put Max, Maya, Softimage, Mudbox, and MotionBuilder all in one suite for the same price as just one license, previously. Like $150 USD for a one year license, and about $350 for a perpetual (EDU) license. Conversely, C4D costs about $700 just for the full EDU version (Studio). I can't see too many students shelling out $700 just to learn one program.I've been taking some Maya classes at a local college in the LA area, and I used 3DC on a major project. It had a lot of folks stop and look over my shoulder, as no one knew what it was I was using, and I had to use my laptop as I can't install my own stuff on the computers at school. It sure would have helped a great deal if I could have gotten 3DC in the classroom. No one on my team knew how to use 3DC, Mudbox or ZB. I could've shown those in my team how to get around in 3DC, and gotten much more done on the project. I considered asking you about it well before, but I didn't think you'd go for the idea (of trying to work out some arrangement for in-classroom licenses). The fewer hurdles you have for people to learn your product, the more your userbase will grow.

Merry Christmas to you too, Mr. Grinch!

Well, the size of the cursor seemed to have a lot to do with how fast it worked....as did the size of the mesh. It helps knowing you can crank up the depth value that large.

I've tried to use it a number of times before and the strength value doesn't operate the same way other brushes do, and therefore it's not consistent nor is it intuitive like they are. You shouldn't have to crank it that high just to start seeing some results. When the depth indicator is well above the round cursor then one expects that to be sufficient to get a decent result. That's all I'm saying. Consistency with other tools/brushes is in order.

Very helpful....I didn't even realize this was possible until you mentioned it. Any chance you can post a video tutorial (up on the Vimeo 3DC channel) so others learning 3DC can pick up on this and not have to go through the same amount of guesswork/trial and error? I think it's a very efficient flow if you are just adding detail to an imported model and want to be able to access the voxel/surface tools and mode.

Yes. I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to skip or minimize the retopo and UV process...trying to keep closer to a more traditional workflow. I wonder if it's possible to use the base/original mesh with (UV's imported as well) in the retopo room as a starting point (once done in voxels/surface mode), and just make some tweaks, instead of having to start from scratch. One could also just use the relax brush in UV's, perhaps to relieve any UV stretching, or apply ABF unfolding to the original UV's?

I wonder if there is a way to import a mid poly character/object, with UV's already done, and to prevent from having to retoplogize and redo UV's, bake the work done in voxels and/or surface mode straight to a normal/displacement map (to be used on the original model)? If not, I wonder if Andrew could enable the original model's mesh to snap/conform in the retopo room...instead of having to redo all of that by hand...again.

Thanks for the tips...I noticed a bit more of a difference in surface mode, but it still didn't work like you'd expect...which I think is key. There shouldn't be ANY brushes where you have use special tricks to get it to operate properly (and in accord with it's name...fill should immediately start filling in holes and crevices...not make you scratch your head wondering what you're doing wrong). The new surface tools seem to work the way I hoped voxels would.

I can't ever seem to get any sort of tangible result with the Fill brush in Voxels...it's the most useless tool imaginable. I jack the value up to maximum and it still acts like it doesn't want to work. This isn't a one time occurrence. I've never been able to get much if anything done with it. Narrow crevices maybe a smidge, but anything wider than that and you're flat out wasting your time trying. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Does seem to be much faster, but after some work on a landscape, when clicking the icon in the voxel tree to revert back to voxels, I was sitting for 20-30 min waiting for something to happen and ended up having to nix 3DC in Windows Task Manager. That's the one thing I hate about this program...you don't know if it's hung or if it's still trying to calculate. I'm not aware of anyone having to wait 30 min+ for Mudbox or ZBrush to mull over a decision. That just kills the whole workflow when you have to go get a cup of coffee and come back and it's still not done....go use the John and it's still not done. Can we not fix this?

So, will you have the 3DC webinar that you guys hosted back in October, which you mentioned on this site...available on your own webpage? Also, what has become of those monthly webinars?BTW, I bought your DVD a while back and hope to see a follow up title...something along the lines of "Intro to 3DC." What I like about those types of DVD's is that there is always something an intermediate or advanced level user can find that they missed or just didn't know. That's what I like about sites such as digitaltutors.com, vtc.com, lynda.com, etc. You can pass over the areas you're comfortable with and cherry pick the areas you want to focus on. That's a bit hard to do with a 20hr sculpting session. While I'm glad you went through the trouble to go through the whole sculpting process, I still think that a comprehensive look at 3DC, maybe a 5-20hr DVD would be much more in demand, and your sales would grow as the program grows...especially if you added "What's New in v3.x" at certain intervals, so that it stays relatively current, and you could sell the amendments as downloads for a small fee...so those who bought the original can take advantage of those.

I think a good follow-up would be to go through a more traditional workflow, that ZB and MB users are accustomed to. That is taking a low-mid poly model that already has UV's set up, and all the user wants to go is sculpt in all the detail in voxels then bake those details onto a displacement or normal map. Not having to retopologize and UV all over again. I think that workflow would be what many if not most would be interested in seeing and will probably outsell the voxel sculpting video...as that video really address only one major component of 3DC. Something more comprehensive is needed...similar to DVD's like "Intro to ZBrush" or "Intro to Mudbox."Right now, what's available is fragmented in bits and pieces and the user has to hope they can process all those (from different sources) and come away with a decent grasp of the program overall. One that goes through and gives a comprehensive look at each room/mode...not just voxels...and how the user can fit those into their workflow, would be rather popular, IMHO.

What I am getting at, is the fact that I did the very same thing last year...looked at the "Good Deal" as it appeared. Only to regret that decision later. A quad-core w/ 6gb RAM for $799.Had I taken the time like I normally do, and shopped around for equivalent components, I could've put together a better system overall for the same price if not slightly better. These off the shelf are put together so cheaply, so many cut corners...for example, the case. It's a Micro-Atx form factor for a reason. To cut material costs. Resulting in overly cramped space....very poor airflow for high end components. The Ram...it may seem like a good amount, but a little secret is, they are essentially OEM's for a reason. They barely pass at a given speed. Put that memory in a system build and try to over clock it even a tiny fraction....crash, crash, crash. Same with the CPU. Obviously they are getting the rejects from Intel and AMD that again, have NO OC ability AT ALL. They are already at their limit. Aftermarket bought components usually have plenty of OC overhead (at least Intel chips do, as well as Black Box AMD's). The biggest and most glaring evidence I present is the power supply. I was stunned to find that they only put a 250W PS in that quad-core Dell. The video cards are usually pretty cheap too, even if it is decent series model. You'll be able to take a look at it and usually see some sort of "shortcut" in build and quality. Most likely, it will be the absolute cheapest version of the card, with the weakest cooling fan/system they can put on it. I had to go out and immediately buy a new card and Power Supply to power it. I can't stress this enough. Everywhere you look at one of those systems, it's weak and cheap compared to a comparable aftermarket build. The Motherboard is no exception. About as bare-featured as you can get and virtually no bios settings to speak of. You have no bios to even attempt to overclock it...I told you why. Not just for warranty purposes, but to keep from having their whole Corner Cutting/OEM part scheme from being exposed. It really is a sham if you look at it. The companies are pushing "Hi performance model", when it barely can be labeled as such. It's like advertising a Corvette when most of the frame and chassis is a Camaro. If most customers realized this, at least half would choose otherwise. I don't see myself buying another one again anytime in the near future...not even for a cheap, no frills render node. So, when you buy a i7 920 with 8GB, a comparable build would let you OC comfortably and stabily to the performance level of something that would cost you much, much more...like $1k more. THAT is getting Bang for your Buck.

All I know is that I bought an ATI 4850 and ended up having to sell it in favor of an NVidia card because I had all kinds of issues with it and Combustion when compositing...practically unusable. Bought the NVidia and it worked like a charm...PLUS CUDA....PLUS PhysX which I can use in 3ds Max. NVidia just seems more friendly to the CG community, whereas ATI is solely focused on gaming.If you want to buy a card cause you'll save $20 bucks and then wish later you had the features on the NVidia card, go for it.

There are some good deals to be had, but I would highly suggest building one yourself. The store bought ones may seem to fit, and indeed they may be sufficient for what you want initially, but when you buy the same level of gear and build it yourself there are some tremendous advantages. One being the ability to stretch your dollar BIG time and Overclock your system to the degree that it would cost you several hundred $$$ more to buy that same speed off the shelf. Plus you will want to buy your own mid-tower with plenty of space and fans to let your system breath. The store bought ones are just too compact, and their components are often just barely capable of handling what you're trying to do...such as the MB, Memory speed/timing, Power supply, etc. By the way...Intel CPU's and some AMD (Black Box Editions) are intended to have plenty of OC overhead, meaning you generally can (with a well-cooled system) push the clock speeds well beyond their stock speeds...like a 2.3 QuadCore Intel can easily go to 3.2-3.6 and run very stable...and that's air-cooled (case with plenty of fans...as most aftermarket cases now do) I just can't stress how valuable it is to buy your own components and get EXACTLY what you want, to run exactly how you want. There are plenty of "How To" videos on youtube and such, if you've never done it before. It's something that will enable you to "Do It Yourself" from here on out. Some of us here can make some recommendations or point out some good deals we've seen recently (as I just done some upgrading myself).

ATI cards are excellent bang for your buck gaming cards, but they don't give a flip about CG applications. I used to be an ATI guy for the longest time, but with some programs not working properly (Combustion) with ATI cards/drivers, and with NVida cards featuring CUDA and PhysX...it's a no-brainer for CG artists, in my opinion.

I haven't seen anything comprehensive either....just voxels. There are some titles at Kurv Studios...but you kind of are left to piece together a short tutorial here and another there to figure out a standard workflow. ....nothing that shows you how to take a low to mid mesh from a 3D application (that you already applied UV's to) and would like to apply voxel scuplting results out to normal/displacement maps (without having to retopologize...essentially modeling AGAIN...and doing UV's AGAIN). Javis made one that shows how to take a voxel sculpt and output the result to a normal map, but it appeared he still had to retopologize it and layout UV's AFTER the Voxel sculpting. There's no doubt, 3DC has a lot of potential and can already do some outstanding work, but in my opinion, the training available for it is what is holding it back more than anything. There is a wealth of comprehensive training for ZB and MB. Once 3DC improves in this area, I think it will start to take off

This is precisely why I was advocating a LIVE link to the different major 3D Applications (at least ones with a true IPR available to them...such as Lightwave, Max, C4D, and Maya). You can see a demonstration of how the live link would work by the following video covering the live link between Combustion's (Paint tools) and Max (Material editor):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGk_1MpxIFY In Max, you have VRay RT and now FinalRender R3 with IPR's similar to the Lightwave Render plugin, FPrime. So, with such a live link, you can paint your materials, including bump, and watch them update in near real-time on your 2nd monitor in the other application. You can enable GI caching in both of those renderers so the updates would not have to re-render GI each time, and thus texture changes would be near instantaneous. The best part of all is that what you see is indeed what you get (at final render time)

What's wrong with this picture? The bridge is selected...the Transform tool is active and the transform gizmo is located wherever it pleases (instead of the center of the object selected). I merged the bridge in the other day...scaled it a few times...rotated it, and the gizmo stuck in it's own orientation, so subsequent scaling would be skewed and distorted. Can we please fix this? This has happened a few times before...and I thought I was just forgetting some step, but there is nothing in the transform controls to reorient the gizmo where it should be (object center).

Saw this mini-review in Mag. #122: http://www.3dworldmag.com/page/3dworld?entry=3d_coat_3_1_released

You can set your Swap/Page file much higher than that. Something else you could try is, if you have Vista or Windows 7, you have a feature called "Ready Boost"...so that you can take a cheap 4-8GB thumb/flash drive, plug it into a USB port and one of the options in the AutoPlay dialogue box is to allow it to be used for ReadyBoost. Flash memory is usually faster than reading and writing to a HD. It's not a replacement for having plenty of RAM in your system, but it can make a noticeable difference in some situations (like loading programs faster). The OS knows when it's faster to read/write to a HD and when it's faster writing to flash memory via ReadyBoost...usually random calls will get used by Ready Boost. It helps give your system a bit more of a lift under heavy loads like this...give it a try.