AbnRanger

I have been suggesting this for a while, and Andrew was going to focus on this + layers panel changes a few years ago, but that plan got derailed by "blue sky" suggestions from I don't know who...to "Hey Andrew, you could change the 3D Printing Industry with a powerful, yet low cost (roughly $50) modeling/sculpting toolset for those who want to make models for 3D Printing." I think someone else made the same suggestion for a low budget MOD TOOL for TF2. Both of those suggestions/ideas flopped (in terms of a cost/benefit analysis), as it took valuable development time away from the main application. Also, many other feature requests have jumped to the front of the line since, but I agree 100% that the Paint workspace is past due for some substantial work, starting with Layer Masks with thumbnails just like Photoshop. And the UI improvements can happen in the process. I don't think we should expect huge structural changes (apart from some consolidation between PAINT objects and RETOPO/MODELING objects, hopefully at some point), but just improvements throughout the application. In the end, it takes enough users speaking in unison to "get some grease on that squeaky wheel." As for nodes for the materials, one person just said 3DCoat needed to be more procedural (ie, non-destructive edits with different noise patterns) like Substance Painter, but it was a waste of time trying to develop a node-based material option like Designer. I don't know...just speculating...but, wouldn't a node-based option that provided the non-destructive, procedural workflow of Painter, but went further and offered a lot of what Designer does also, be a good thing? I mean masking improvements can be handled by Andrew while the developer of the node system is working on that. They can do both at the same time.

Actually, the API scripting and Python inclusion was Andrew's attempt to help the community assist in building custom tools and such. Going Open Source would just put Pilgway out of business, overnight. It might have worked eventually for Blender, but it's not a workable business model for most other businesses.

Perhaps I am missing something in your question, but I think you are asking why does the model (for Live Smooth option in the MESH menu of the Retopo/Modeling Room) have triangles in it, correct? That is because all meshes that are in the Sculpt workspace, get triangulated (Surface mode). Part of the reason for this is because Surface mode has Dynamic Subdivision built into the brushes and some of the tools, such as Cutoff. It also is more interchangeable with Voxels than a Quad mesh would be. With that said, Andrew has stated that he may add quads in the Sculpt Room at some point. He is currently refining the Live Boolean featureset, and probably will need to turn his focus next to making some major UI improvements, as that was a stated goal of the 2023 cycle. So, it may be a while before he can get to the quad mesh option for the Sculpt Room.

I find from my own experiences in the past, that if you can perhaps screen record exactly what it is that you want to happen when performing a certain function, or pasting a link to a video where the action in another app is performed the way you would like to see it done in 3DCoat, it will help the developers a great deal. It can really speed up the process of getting your request implemented. Sometimes, just explaining things in text form leaves them still guessing what it is exactly that you are asking for.

Try and send that file to support@pilgway.com through the option in the HELP menu, and then shoot them an email mentioning this problem briefly. Andrew should be able to test it and find out why, rather quickly.

I agree to some extent. Sometimes a tool is worked on for a while and Andrew thinks it is done. That is why it is important for us users to mention our request while he is actively working on a given feature, such as the VDM brush maker (Pick & Paste tool). I mentioned some issues I ran into. He did fix some, but there is still some improvement needed (ie., if the height of the object being copied is more than a nose or ear, it doesn't accurately capture it. A small or large horn as an example, won't be correctly captured). It seems Andrew has already moved on from it, which is a bit disappointing, because it is far less useful than it could be, in a production environment. Nevertheless, the Mesh to NURBS is something other users have asked for, and just because you or I may not see a need for it in our personal workflow, that doesn't mean others do not. It and the modeling tools are being worked on simultaneously. There are a lot of improvements in the modeling tools lately, including the Align Vertices tool and Smart Extrude. I recently asked Andrew about a small, but helpful change in the Retopo/Modeling workspace, and that is to make the UX/UI a bit more intuitive and familiar regarding Selections. Namely to remove the SELECT tool and just make selection active anytime a user clicks on the sub-object modes (faces, verts and edges). I also mentioned how there needs to be an OBJECT mode, making the selection of entire objects/meshes easier and familiar. He agreed this needs to be done, and gradual improvements like this are coming. Until we post a tutorial in English, you can enable English subtitles on the video, and follow along, where Alexander made a number of improvements to the Smart Extrude tool, which you can see in both of the videos.

Generally, if you have a problem, it is good to try and test and see if it is repeatable on a simple test scene...like those you find available from the splash screen. I don't run into as many issues as you have, but yes, there are times when a certain tool you want to use is buggy. Andrew is pretty responsive, though. So, if you can repeat the same problem (I sometimes just restart the app because it helps once in a while) on a sample scene/model, chances are it is indeed a bug. If you can show that in an email to support@pilgway.com, you will be surprised how quickly it gets addressed. There may be some exceptions, but Andrew tries to squash quickly any bugs that are brought to his attention.

If you are placing points and don't actually see the circles representing them, that indicates something is really skewed with scale/width values. Setting them back to the defaults can help in such a situation.

Wow. There is no place for this kind of talk on a software forum. You can have different views about the features that are needed and improvements without this kind of vitriol and abuse.

Pier, what OS are you using? Windows, MAC, Linux? Could you possibly record a screen capture of these things happening?

It should be listed in the SURFACE brushes of Voxel Mode, too. It is possible that it was mistakenly hidden if you used the CUSTOMIZE UI option in the EDIT menu. To quickly fix that, you could RMB click any of the brushes in the SURFACE brushes and choose SHOW ALL TOOLS IN SECTION. If that doesn't work, could you mention what OS you are using? Perhaps it isn't yet in the MAC or Linux builds, if you are using one of those OS's. I am not sure, as I just use the Windows version.

I don't recommend importing via REFERENCE MESH, because it is an old legacy (very early days of 3DCoat, around V2) option and should have been removed from 3DCoat as an option several years ago. Importing a reference model in 3DCoat is better done through the Sculpt Workspace.

I thought the Modding Tool was discontinued years ago?

These types of broad generalizations cannot help anyone. They don't help the developers know what you deem to be wrong...specifically. Please give explicit examples of the things you find fault with. Perhaps others in the community will confirm it and the developers then know it's worth addressing. The layout is designed to be very similar to Photoshop, so that is not going to change. There is nothing wrong with having different workspaces because 3DCoat specializes not in just one task but many, thus having all the tools for one stage of a studio pipeline, in one location, and another set of tools in another location, is not unintuitive in my opinion. However one improvement I have been asking for over the past few years is that Retopo/Modeling and Paint Meshes should be merged/unified, so they are no longer separate objects. This way, the UV tools are all located in one place. The way it is now, yes, I agree, creates confusion for new users.

It's always been like that, because development probably just assumes users want to set different sizes in each project. As an example, for a character, it would not be uncommon to use a 4k map for the head, a 4k for the body, but just a 2k map for the props and secondary objects like belts, hats/helmets, shoes, etc.

Thanks for sharing the issue with a video example. That will help Andrew address it, quickly. I know it is frustrating. It happens to me sometimes, but not very often. This is being reported, so hopefully it can be fixed by the next build.

There is some noticeable lag, but I don't think it is from a lack of performance. As you can see in the example you posted, the Sculpt mesh is being moved in realtime as you would expect. However, the Retopo Mesh gets snapped once you release the pressure from your stylus. So, it is a secondary action that is being performed. Please send support a request to optimize this "Conform Retopo Mesh" feature, so that the Retopo mesh can be modified at the same time as the Sculpt Mesh, instead of being snapped afterwards. That is what causes the pause or delay after the stroke has been made. I asked Andrew if he would look at this, but sometimes it takes input from other users before he realizes it is important enough to address.

I think Andrew is working on bugs primarily and Live Booleans. Hopefully the UI work will follow soon. Usually, if things are quiet around here, it means Andrew is working on something pretty big.

To be quite honest, I don't know how well Vector Displacement maps (exported from 3DCoat) work at this point. If you choose Micro-Vertex painting (it is older than Per Pixel Painting), I believe it will output Vector Displacement maps, but I have not tested it in years. If you paint/sculpt something in the Depth channel, using Micro-Vertex painting, it should appear in the final exported model. I will have to run some tests and see.

The tutorial didn't have SWEPT N GENERATOR on it, because it was a tutorial series showing a range of new modeling tools. I hope this helps:

Somewhat, yes. Wherever the simulation object intersects another object, it will pin it. So, for example, if you make a belt for a character, it will pin the pants where it touches them.

I don't think the decimation routine was ever designed to go beyond 99.9 (100)%. However, what you could do is simply decimate it a second time, to get it even lower, if you need.

No. It should go straight to the UV workspace. I will pass it on to Andrew. Thank you for reporting it.

That model would be fine for the purposes of demonstrating the process in a tutorial. The simple answer is, yes, 3DCoat can certainly handle the task. Currently the file would need to be in the STL format. If you have some decals/graphics that should be applied to the model, please attach those with the model in a private message. It won't be shared or used in any capacity, apart from the tutorial; and I will list a credit for the model in the video. As for the trial version of 3DCoat, you get a new chance to try 3DCoat each time there is a new version (ie., 3DC 2021, 2022, 2023). Lastly, STL files will come in triangulated, but if you need clean quad topology, there is a process to import as a Sculpt Object and use Auto-Retopo to essentially generate a new quad-based mesh. I don't think it is necessary in your use case, but it's an option.

I recorded a video tutorial, but after a bit of editing, I had 2nd thoughts about making it public since the sample/test file is maybe a bit too simplistic for that purpose. Testing, it is okay, but for a tutorial, it should probably be a more practical every day example. Nevertheless, the process is rather simple. From the splash screen you can choose the PAINT WITH UV'S (Per Pixel) > click the folder icon to locate the STL file. The import menu will have AUTO UV's chosen by default because it detects no UVs. I would check the AUTO SMOOTH checkbox toward the bottom, because otherwise the normals will look pretty bad on a triangulated mesh like that. I also would choose WELD VERTICES so that any overlapping vertices that might be on the model, will get welded together. Choose the size of the texture map, you would like, toward the bottom of the panel. After clicking OK, you can proceed to Texture paint and export when you are done, using any of the extensive choices of Application/Render Engine/Game Engine presets.