Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

AbnRanger

Reputable Contributor
  • Posts

    8,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbnRanger

  1. Here are some examples I made. It takes a few more steps I think, in 3DCoat, than ZBrush, and perhaps Andrew could improve the Bas Relief tool further. Nevertheless, it is very capable of doing this kind of work, in my opinion. The client I made a Bas Relief coin for, was very happy with the result...and it was all done in 3DCoat.
  2. Because it does Bas (Low) Relief. ZBrush's implementation is just better, currently. This is because they use a technique that helps flatten the entire model more, before extruding the center point toward the background onto which it will be fused or connected with. Like a Coin, for example. I made a Bas Relief for a client, not long ago, using curves similar to this technique. But, I could have used this technique, using 3DCoat's Bas Relief for at least part of it. Zbrush essentially creates a 3D alpha from a projection (camera?) and then uses that alpha to essentially use like an extrude brush. I am currently testing this in 3DCoat, by dragging a model to the Sculpt Models pallet > Creating a brush alpha (2k) from it via the "Create from 3D Model" option. EDIT: The author uses a clever trick around the 21 minute mark of the 2nd video, to use this Bust in the creation of Bas Relief. But he uses a few other tools, along with Bas Relief, to get the desired results. The Split and Transform tool are those additional tools.
  3. Ahhh, okay. I thought the idea was something like GBall's request to use a low poly mesh to drive the high poly (deformations), especially now that the Retopo/Modeling room has soft selection.
  4. There already exists something a bit like this in 3DCoat. It is in the Retopo/Modeling Room, called LIVE SMOOTH. It is somewhat like the reverse of the "Conform Retopo Mesh" feature in the Sculpt workspace, where 3DCoat conforms changes done in one room, to the mesh in the other one. It works quite well, actually, but unfortunately, it doesn't work both ways...not yet. I asked Andrew if he would enable this functionality.
  5. This video demonstrates the ways to assign a Parent layer and to be honest, I think it's quicker to just drag a layer onto the one you want to make the parent. Even faster than hitting a hotkey > and picking in the viewport, although I think the Pick by Click option for Change Parent should be allowed to invoke with a hotkey.
  6. You are very welcome. I hope it is a good solution for you.
  7. What you would probably want to do in such a situation, is to keep the individual limbs on their own layer, so that the torso or hips are not affected when you are sculpting your forms. Later, when you have completed your early block out/rough forms stage and maybe even the intermediate form stage, then you could merge the limbs with the torso and head. 3DCoat has a Mannequin available to use for this very purpose.
  8. I don't know that it is a bug. Why not? Because when you RMB click the Sculpt Tree layer, to bring up the menu, you have a decision to make when you choose the CHANGE PARENT (or other options in that section of the list menu). Do you want to select from a 2nd list (containing a list of all the Sculpt Tree layers) or use the Pick by Click method. You have to click the icon for the latter. Andrew perhaps thought it wasn't an option where a hotkey assignment made sense, for this reason. I often choose this RMB option and was thinking just the other day, about how it could be made easier to access. For one thing, I think it is too frequently used to have to RMB click and move the cursor all the way to the bottom of a long list menu. It's not very efficient, that way. Maybe re-locate that section further up the list, to the 3rd or 4th section...so these boolean options are close to your cursor = fast selection.
  9. Do you mean that the ON PLANE option, did not work when using the Vox Hide tool? It should. If it didn't then perhaps there is a bug. I will test and see if I can confirm it.
  10. This is partially true. When importing a model into the Sculpt Room, yes, topology and UV's are discarded, however, as you recall in my posts about this topic, it is preserved by importing a copy into the Retopo workspace before the sculpting process begins > Enable CONFORM RETOPO MESH in the toolbar of the Sculpt Room. Conform Retopo with Proxy Mesh Demo.mp4
  11. I'm not missing your point, as I have repeatedly said from the beginning that a low poly, UV mapped mesh imported into ZB would lose it's UV's and topology anyway....IF/WHEN Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro were used (because they are Re-Meshing toolsets, after all). I never even implied that you lose it immediately on import. Where we differ is in the workflow once such a model is imported. Will it need significant deformation or proportional changes? If so, then Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro will probably get utilized in many if not most cases (to avoid nasty polygonal stretching issues). Using a base human(oid) model can and is often used to sculpt something very different. Why start from ZSpheres or a simple sphere, when you have a base mesh that gets you more than halfway there, and you have a tight deadline, just as the Flipped Normals guys state? If a 3DCoat artist were to use this basic workflow (import a decent base mesh with UV's already applied), they would NOT need to Retopo and UV this model, as the author mentions Zbrush users would need to do, at this point in the video. I think this is a HUGE timesaver and Conform Retopo Mesh is a very underappreciated toolset. It lets the artist use whatever they want for the Sculpt Mesh, while preserving the UVs and Topology of the original. Nevertheless, Andrew implemented the Subdivision Level toolset that was asked for here, except for the Quad mesh. That may come, too, sooner or later.
  12. On a side note, regarding the current Python scripting integration in 3DCoat, I wonder if ChatGPT could be used to help users create their own scripts in 3DCoat?
  13. If there is an "On Plane" option in the tool, you can use that to visually walk the cutting plane away or towards the camera using the "+" or "-" key (Num pad)
  14. "@AbnRangerhopefully this makes it clear as to why we need proper subdivision levels and quad meshes rather than a hacky workaround." Let's revisit these examples, and discuss them one by one. Video Example 1: The Sculpt Object (Proxy Mesh) is decimated way too much. The Proxy mesh was not designed to be used this way. Decimating that low is just to reduce the polycount to make the scene lighter. It's of no help whatsoever, if you want to make adjustments to the mesh. It's too extreme...like trying to use a Chain saw to sand a piece of furniture. Just decimating 4-8x was more than sufficient to provide the performance benefit you are seeking. Many times, you don't even need to step down to a lower level of resolution, to get good performance while using tools like Pose, Transform, or Move. Video Example 2: CONFORM RETOPO MESH is unchecked (disabled), therefore it cannot do its job. If you have to disable the Retopo Wireframe for some reason, you can do that in the list menu (Retopo Room) right above the Tool Panel, in the Tool Bar. That lets the user choose how the Retopo mesh is displayed. But, you cannot simply turn it off and expect it to work after you have made your sculpting edits. It simply will not work that way. Video example 3: When using Large scale Edit tools like Move, Transform, or Pose, the performance is actually quite good also. Especially if you use the Proxy or new Multi-Level Resolution system, to step down a bit in resolution. The only "lag" one might notice is when Conform Retopo is used. It performs a secondary, follow-on calculation to snap the retopo mesh to the sculpt mesh. It's not a performance killer by any stretch of the imagination, as it is barely noticeable in most cases, as you can see in the sample video below. FWIW, the video is in real time. Not sped up, so viewers can see the actual performance when using these tools. Conform Retopo with Proxy Mesh Demo.mp4
  15. Okay, understood. This is making my point for me, actually. I am saying that it is an unfair complaint to say that 3DCoat cannot keep a base model's topology, when it absolutely can. Then the complaint morphs into, "well, it doesn't work very well (when Conform Retopo Mesh is used), even after multiple tutorials demonstrate that it in fact does work well. In 3DCoat you CAN use a low poly, UV mapped base mesh, to start sculpting with and keep it all the way through the sculpting project. You cannot do this in ZBrush, unless you try to go without using Dynamesh and Sculptris Pro. The truth is a user has to jump through a lot more workflow hoops than 3DCoat does. This is why I asked Andrew to add this Conform Retopo feature. You never have to worry about scrapping your original, UV mapped base mesh and building another one (ZRemesher/Auto Retopo) to replace it. In Zbrush you do.
  16. I understand your point, but I think you are missing something, still. One of the issues you raised was that one cannot import their base mesh (into 3DCoat's Sculpt Workspace) with UV's, and preserve the topology & UV's. I am saying that would also be the case in ZBrush when you use Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro. In both situations and in both applications, you are using that UV mapped mesh as the starting point....correct? We clearly disagree about "Conform Retopo Mesh" and some of this is because you used it improperly in the video examples you showed on the first page of this thread. Please, instead of continuing to debate about its usefulness, watch the videos and then do some more testing. I think it really could change your views about it.
  17. I had the same problem with the Retopo Models pallet, and reported it also. Hopefully Andrew will fix it in the next build.
  18. There is active and ongoing development relating to the Paint workspace. It just hasn't reached the stage where they are willing to release the features to a Public Beta, yet. If I understood things correctly, there is developer working on a nodal texture network...probably an extension of the nodal network already in 3DCoat, for shaders. One of the primary objectives is to enable it to export to game engines like Unreal or Unity, with the nodal network intact. I am guessing that is via USD file export. There is also the GPU brush engine that will hopefully be made available to test, in the 2023 cycle. But, you are right. Andrew should be turning his focus back to the UI very soon, probably starting in the Paint workspace first.
  19. I don't think Andrew just pulls a feature randomly out of a jar. He spent a lot of time with the Core API and scripting in general, over the past several years, hoping other users with scripting experience would be able to develop some helpful tools for the community, much like ZB's has many plugins/addons that extend its functionality. That hasn't really occurred (for 3DCoat), so Andrew is trying to make it much easier by building Python integration. In the short term, it may not seem to offer a huge benefit, but in the long term it should.
  20. It's not lazy. It's telling the truth. What is lazy is not taking the time to watch a video that shows how the tool is supposed to be used, and yet still arguing about it's effectiveness. There is a right way and a wrong way to use any tool; whether it is in 3DCoat, ZBrush, Blender, etc. I know how this toolset works because I am the one who requested it from Andrew, as a solution (for preserving the original quad mesh with UV's intact, yet have it conform to all the changes to the High Poly Sculpt object). It may not be perfect, but neither is ZBrush's Subdivision workflow. It has its own drawbacks and limitations, also. That is why Pixologic added their own "bunch of hacky extra steps/tools (Dynamesh + ZRemesher)" to work around those limitations. Still, if you insist on using ZBrush's SubDivisions workflow, you WILL lose your original mesh + UV's the moment you use Dynamesh. If you don't use Dynamesh, then you have to deal with the limitations of the SubDivisions workflow...primarily polygonal stretching...which more subdivisions doesn't really solve. Personally speaking, I like that 3DCoat keeps the original mesh separate from the high poly sculpt, and that the changes to the high poly sculpt can be reflected in the original, low poly quad mesh that has UV's. Whatever small issues I might have to deal with (using CONFORM RETOPO MESH), seem easier to handle and is more flexible than it is in ZB. An example is the fact that I can use whatever mode or tool I need to, in the Sculpt Workspace, without worrying about losing my original low poly mesh and it's UV's. I can use Voxels or Surface mode (with dynamic subdivision built into/available for every brush). I can paint on the model and sculpt simultaneously and bake later if I want. I can use Voxel Paint if I want, as well.
  21. Blending modes are strictly for PAINT information on a layer, using the COLOR channel. To test this, within the Sculpt Workspace, you can go to the PAINT section of the Tool Panel and choose the BRUSH tool. Bring up the COLOR PALLET (from the Windows Menu > Popups) and pick a color. Then on layer 1 paint a big thick stroke somewhere on your model. Create a new layer above it and this time paint something with a stark contrast to the color used on layer 1, right over it. Now, switch blending modes and you can see it work just as you would expect it to.
  22. Anyone else have the viewport performance fall through the floor (like around 1-10fps) after a Cavity/Occlusion bake (especially with a Sculpt Object)? I have been having this problem for a long time and Andrew says it does not happen on his side. Every time I bake, it does this, no matter what file or build.
  23. Why do I need to do a search? You said the brushes needed fixing, and I am asking you to please present those issues here, so we can pass them on to Andrew, or perhaps offer some changes in the form of a Brush pack? If you are ok with them, then perhaps Andrew can make them a default version. Personally, I like the Clay Brush as it is....even compared it to ZBrush's default Clay brush and in my experience there is very little noticeable difference. Both are buttery smooth and fun to work with. Same with the Rapid Brush. The Polishing/Trimming brushes may not work the way you prefer, so it would be helpful if you could provide side by side examples of them working in ZBrush and how the same type of brush in 3DCoat works in comparison. Do you want it to have more "bite" or less. Do you want it to have a softer edge, etc? What would a search of Artstation prove? Jama Jurabaev (Senior Concept artist & Art Director at LucasFilms) has shown many recent sculpting examples from 3DCoat and he has not made any public complaints about the Brush Engine. Nor has Bay Raitt, who said many times on the 3DCoat Facebook page that he loves sculpting in 3DCoat. He worked on Gollum in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. He also has not mentioned anything about the brush engine being flawed. And if either of them found them to be flawed, they would certainly contact Andrew directly and raise the issue with him. He knows both of them, personally. Bay Raitt - IMDb
  24. There are some big things going on behind the curtain, already. The GPU brush engine for the Paint workspace is near completion, and one developer has been working on a nodal texturing network, and the model can be directly exported to Unreal Engine with all material nodes intact (if I understood it correctly). This is something nobody else offers, not even Substance Painter. I am not sure if this is done via USD export or what file format, or if it will also work when exported to other applications like Blender or Maya, 3ds Max, C4D, etc. I think some kind of procedural noise (beyond what is already available in the FILL tool) is also being worked on. If there is a nodal network for Materials, I think it will inherently be procedural. I have been pushing for the new Brush engine to be made available, in some BETA form at least, soon, because as you say, the Paint Workspace needs some attention. After Andrew finishes with the current Python scripting integration, he is supposedly going to start working on UI improvements, and that would likely start in the Paint workspace, with updated layers. Thumbnails for the different channels and masks are among the requests. I will also be advocating heavily for Adjustment Layers, that will be at least partially compatible with Photoshop's Adjustment layers. I also asked Andrew if he would please modify the current Activity Bar to work more like PS panel bar, where it is located in the same position and panels can be collapsed or expanded in the same way. This would allow new users to understand its function more easily and it wouldn't clutter the UI as much as the current Activity Bar does. I will try to find out more details and try to pass them on when I learn more.
  25. Could you provide some specifics, perhaps even a screen recording showing the supposed flaws in the brushes that need fixing? Please show how even tweaking the parameters in the Tool Options panel fails to deliver the results you are looking for. If there is a real problem, I hope Andrew will indeed fix it. For what it is worth, he worked with Flavio Rygaard (a skilled sculptor with ZBrush sculpting experience, and contributor on this forum) extensively to try and bring the newest brush engine up to par (with ZBrush), as much as possible, and this continued back and forth for almost a year if not more.
×
×
  • Create New...