Jump to content
3DCoat Forums


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mocaw

  1. Why is the OSX beta so much slower to download? On the same computer, my windows 3DC beta downloads in 15-20min, on OSX it is taking between 4-8hrs. I'm thinking they are hosted on a different server, but why the bandwidth difference?
  2. I hope we'll be able to turn off the visability of the BG HDRI, but still light the objects with it. Some of the HDRs can really blow out BG and make it hard to see what you're doing. Otherwise- awesome sauce!
  3. OK, so I actually liked smart coated too. How about "Smart Coating" layers? Does that pass the grammer test? Smart Materials is good, but I get not wanting to get into some TM legal BS. Some companies are really touchy about that, and if Pilgway came out with it, then got smacked with a warning that made them have to update the manual and interface AND rebrand videos etc. it could be more money lost than is worth taking the chance for.
  4. I like smart coat so far the best. It's straight forward, says what it does, and probably easy to translate, and as mentioned has the bonus of having part of 3D coat's name in there. Smart coat is good because it implies that the process is semi automated, or has some programing intelligence behind it. MultiCoat is fairly good too as is Material Coat, but they don't have this description of the action or what it does in the name. Patina is nice, and actually the most accurate AFAIK in terms of saying what it creates, but the term maybe too obscure. Random names on my part: Intele Coat Matter Maker Real Coat Matter Coat Reality Coat Elemental Coat 3DCoating Creator Alchemy Coat
  5. Interesting, what is the padding like on the bake? In MODO, what settings are you using too?
  6. Javis Jones helped me out- thanks Javis! I figured out a good starting point. Used tube clay, and then created an alpha with some vertical type lines, turned the intensity down low, spacing set very low, and detail up. For a more "fur" like rake, I used a fallof curve so it starts out gradual in intensity and then ends quickly. Not sure how to save a preset...but here is the file from me going to my preset and right clicking-> save presets. 3DC Fake Rake LC 1a.zip
  7. I know it must be easy to create a LC rake brush...but I can't figure out how to do it. LC seems to take the alpha and space it nicely...and I just want to drag it out (with some of the stipple alphas). I mainly wanted to sculpt in some rough fur on an animal. Any thoughts on how to do this? Thanks, -g
  8. If I try to export maps via Textures->Export- I only get black files, or oddly, a weird solid purple/roayl blue color for displacement. I can export the maps if I go File->Export- though that has fewer options it seems, and still my displacement maps have a weird purple fill (see image). Normal maps using File->export and other maps seem fine...sans this weird purple fill in the displacements... Any suggestions?
  9. Thank you for the work you're putting into the new autoretopology, and I am sorry for your loss Andrew. It is nice to know though that people in many parts of the world still live in multi-generational households. With children under foot and grand parents under the same roof the circle of life must seem much more complete, and everyone must have a greater appreciation for how interdependent we all are. It is a life experience with all its ups and downs sorely lacking in my culture at the moment. So while I feel for your loss Andrew, it also brings warmth to my heart to know that people still live as we should- together. From birth through to death. Thank you once again for all the hard work you've done Andrew, and during such a trying time. You must have a wonderfully supportive family to have such strength in such trying times.
  10. Down a little further on the list is vector displacement, which you could do before threw a third party node, but now with it more widely distributed, I think will get used more. AFAIK mudbox and 3DC are the only applications that currently generate such maps. Maybe a good time to press into the SI front and sell some 3DC licenses eh? http://area.autodesk.com/softimage2012 I really think this is only a positive for 3DC.
  11. I'm by no means an anti mac guy, but it's true that Apple does no favors to programmers in terms of making things easier. Be patient as Andrew works on things, he is not ignoring you or any Apple users. That said, if I were a programmer and 90% of my main user base including studios were using something other than Apple systems, which one do you think I'd attend to first if I had to choose? I'm not trying to start some flame war here, just saying if you step back and look at the dollars and sense part of it + over all user base satisfaction...
  12. Hey my ideas are far from perfect...but I like to try and help out if I can! I think throwing out ideas is more constructive than saying A- make it awesome B- make it better than awesome C- I want it RIGHT NOW and I don't care about how you do it. I personally appreciate it when people not only have a request for something, but try and think as an end user how it might work. So many things that end up being amazing because of the talents of a programmer and software designer seem to be started by thoughtful user requests. I think it saves them time too as it might cut down on "mind reading". What do I know though about software development? I haven't written anything beyond a clock and calendar in Pascal and a few REALLY simple ICE trees! All the more reason for me to appreciate Andrew's endeavors and all those other crazy "Siggraph" level computer scientists skills and dedication.
  13. So far the Anthropology is good for me and REALLY good if you lay enough lines down. Perfect- no nothing is perfect only infinity close and I'm sure Andrew is trying to get there. The only thing so far that kind of is kind of odd is the wizard. I think...maybe it should be a check box option. So when you run it, you get a screen that says "Welcome to the wonderful wizard...press USE WIZARD button to use the Wizard, Expert Mode button to manually go through each step" Then in the lower right or left, there should be a check box that says something like "Click here to not show this window again and always be in expert mode. Can be brought back in preferences". Wizards just aren't my thing- though I appreciate being walked through something the FIRST time or so. After that I just want most of that to go away! Thank you though Andrew- already this is amazing and only getting better. I threw some crazy stuff at it in my tests, and with a little aid on the part of the user there were very few "oddities". ***************************************** On an aside- would there be anyway to put in a third "assit" mode other than the drawing green V and Red U lines? I found that on things like crazy branches that are hard to get a direct angle on without intersecting other branches, that these tools were hard to work with. I thought of two solutions (though I'm not a programmer so take it with a grain of salt). The first idea was to, allow us to put down points in order of the base of the appendage out to the tip. Like I was saying, with things like hair or branches, this would be easier for the user to do. So you'd put point one at the base and then maybe the last point at the end/tip. Kind of like working with curves in 3DC. Just like curves, the more you use, the more higher the chance of accuracy. Left click would lay them down, and a right click would terminate it and allow you to move on to the next branch/appendage etc. The second idea was more of a kind of ray casting solution that would check as you drew where the last point was, and with a distance tolerance setting (could be brush size) would see if an intersected point was suddenly much further away than the last one, and then cast a ray(s) into the scene, from the brush point, until it hit the next geo that was hit and closest to the last point drawn on the line. It would probably have to cull backside polygons etc. Let me know if this doesn't make sense and I'll draw a diagram- though I think it will make sense to Andrew!
  14. Well the goal is always quads, but we all know come "production" if it looks good...and it works...run with it! Still...quads are the goal... That said...some programs "get" how to deal with N-gons better than others...and some also let you spin the internal edges etc. For all the rest...again...quads are the goal!
  15. I can tell you, for certain, that he does not ignore any point that is brought up and valid. Now prioritizing when and how he or any company handles these requests/ideas/fixes is subjective, and is determined by a ratio of need/expense/ease/user-outcry/user-weight. While many of us were happy to just have a competent 3D paint app, and would still be loyal to it without Voxels, retopology, etc. Pilgway is fighting an up hill battle (and winning IMHO) with several other very capable applications. So while yes, bug squashing and refinement are really needed, blazing a tech trail ahead of the competition is also needed to sure up a larger user base and ensure enough of a gain to then have the time to refine. I mean, 3DC comes out with features that many people drool over, only to have a certain company release a teaser video with table scraps and nice dance music which some how steals the spot light away at times. It's style vs. substance IMHO, and right now 3DC is putting a lot of pressure on the substance part of equation. While the average freelance user may think the style wins the day...a lot of 3DC seats are being bought up by companies who KNOW the difference. To your benefit, as an added bonus, these same companies WANT a stable app and request it in targeted ways. Besides- 3DC IMHO has always been about filling in the gaps left by other programs- and now it's even filling them in where some of didn't even know there were gaps!
  16. I am not some freakish fan, but I do have eyes. While yes, it is not like those perfectly calibrated examples shown from the sigg paper, it is very impressive still. Given that these features are almost alpha still, it is a bit early to pass judgement IMHO. Did the sigg paper authors supply a working tool for us to try and break? Did they tailor their code to each model? There is so much work between a working example in a research paper and actually making a tool a regular end user can use that to compare them, so early, is nearly dishonest, and hardly fair. I think the only thing fit to judge at this point is the coder, who has an amazing ability to take an abstract idea, and turn it into a useable tool. Thanks again Andrew, the votes so far are 99% with you and your developement of this feature!
  17. Looks like an awesome start to a great new feature. It also looks like, not only will the tool improve as Andrew tweaks it, but as we as users get a grip on how best to use it and control it...kind of almost like a new modeling beast in that way. I really like the semi-manual idea to it now, as there are a lot of times you just can't trust what the computer wants to do esp the more complex the sculpt/mesh is. Glad to hear Siggraph is going well! Looking forward to some shots of the goings on via the show floor.
  18. Sorry that was just a general gripe in my rant along with several other points that were not targeted at you. Sorry for the confusion. I will have to look up this tech you are talking about as it sounds interesting. I wonder though; since it was demoed by nvidia, does that mean it is something more well suited to GPU enabled applications?
  19. With all the rage going on with "adaptive subdivisions" which are nice...if you have a lot of limitations (cough zb currently) it had me thinking of what that might look like for voxels. On the one hand, you could just translate the idea of what sculptris was doing to voxels...where there is an adaptive density of voxels. However...I thought maybe there is a more flexible way that gives the control BACK to the user and is maybe easier to program? How about instead, just using layers like we already can, and adding a layer with extra density for details. The key is that it would be MORE aware of the other layers, and interact with them. So if you sculpt in on your model, to say create a crack, it not only would be at the higher density of that layer, but it would also "push" into the surrounding voxel model. It's almost like a small softbody simulation for your voxel brush. This could make it so you could sculpt finer details in areas and decide just HOW detailed it needs to be, while not having to up the density of your base model. You can do a fairly good head at a mid density, but to add pores and wrinkles might require more density. This might solve that problem. Or how about a tree that has limbs...the trunk could be one density...and as the limbs grew out you could have denser layers. The key here is that the higher density voxels would "fill" in the difference in the gap between the higher and lower density area to make a smooth transition between the layers. Just a thought!
  20. Don't you think there is s big difference between live optimization and putting it through the decimation in zb? I found the feature in zb amazing for things that were to be...not deformed...but if you were going to deform or add some modeling to it it's a nightmare IMHO. Besides, sculptris meshes are fairly light weight IMHO. Getting it to do quads, in real time, and optimized...well good luck to em! The rendering in zb is garbage IMHO, granted, some people who like to torture themselves find it rewarding, and produce amazing things with it, but I like using a standard render engine and scene, with real shaders etc. Besides...with GPUs around I think it's time they canned it and went with something more flexible and faster for the rendering side of things. I'm not holding my breath though on ANYTHING pixologic promises, or reports to be doing. Until it's released and in the public hands, it's hype or vaporware given their track record. The funny thing is that the sculptris paint tools, while = to ms paint when compared to 3DC or Bodypaint, is light years beyond the current half baked zb method- so hopefully that will improve for all of those people looking to detail their models in it. Almost none of this solves the on going and problematic issues of using zb though- how do you get, easily and reliably, all of the goodness from zb into your standard 3D program? Half of the good stuff still lives and dies at the edges of its windows or requires un-necessary voo-doo IMHO. No...the biggest things to me that would be gains for pixologic are: A: ditch their idea of what a UI should be and go with the sculptris version B: Use the adaptive subdivision tech to help relieve the sub divide to oblivion method C: Use real paint tool methods- stop trying to re-invent the wheel that already been done- and just use what sculptris has to offer.
  21. Only problem is...didn't mudbox 1 have a similar adaptive style...but when it came to actually doing more flexible things with the model and changing resolution they had to abandon it? Hey +1 that AD didn't get it. Fact is though...they didn't need it. -2 that the dude sold out so quickly. He could have made it further on his own or with his own small team OR even just sold it for more in a year or so. Oh well- I could care less to be honest. I'll be surprised to see a program with the functionality of sculptris AND zb in the next five years at the rate Pixologic works. They'll probably manage to make a detestable interface while their at it though! I also wonder...how the "cool" factor is going to play out when something costs 600 bucks vs. Free. A lot of expectations change between those two models of funding!
  22. I'd place my wager as Andrew being in the top ten if not the best! Have no proof other than the development of 3DC...but how many near solo projects even get half this far in twice the time?
  23. Well I totally agree- if there is a way to do it that is better, either in form, function, or both, then I'm all for it! It doesn't have to be by the use of vector maps if it's better or the same even.
  24. Yes, and it is close, but not quite as easy to use PLUS it is missing an important aspect- it does not "grow" the object with pen pressure. I'm not talking just about scale- I'm talking about the severity of the displacement. When you go grab the ear object- it just plunks it down. Granted, you could then smooth it etc. but that's not nearly as elegant. What if you were creating terrain out of a pre-defined bolder? They'll all look the same with just the object method we presently have. It also has a pre-defined vector, that while in someways is less flexible, the vector map always is orientated the right way- no need to fiddle with the settings. YES- but again, just because it is particularly due to a short fall by MB tech, does not make its concept irrelevant. AFAIK though, that could be adaptive, dynamic sub divisions in MB, which are not really all that bad. Not as flexible as voxels, but still a lot more wiggle room than the divide all method. Hey, I'm not saying we should get arid of this great tool, merely either have a new one or better yet augment this one. Sometimes flexibility comes at the cost of usability for certain tasks. When you need that power it's great...but sometimes it's nice to have a "dumbed down" version for working quickly in certain aspects. However, I'd argue that for certain tasks, this method is not "dumbed down" but an more elegant solution. Key words here are for certain tasks- not all. This is why I suggested it be instead a layer on a pen, or created on the fly from a mesh capture. There is no reason we couldn't have a screen cap of the object that represents it. You can't say what a mesh is without opening the file or going by the name either- unless you are that good at storing matrices in you head! Again, there is no reason you'd have to "look" at the vector map directly. And once again, a vector map tells things where they WANT to be, and can end up, not just "be there" in space like a mesh does. In this way you can "grow" points/voxels slowly towards that goal. Just like the difference between using a mesh "wrinkle" vs. using a displacement map. It's much easier to on the fly control the severity. The same goes with a vector displacement, however it allows this to happen in three directions, not just one. Well, one should not just look a solution to a different problem and write it off entirely. Their problem is merging a mesh onto another one, however, in their attempt to solve that problem, the exposed a useful adaptation- the ability to affect the severity of the 3D displacement in real time and intuitively. We are not trying to solve THEIR problem where we have none, more gleaning a generally useful concept. Care to think of how many tools are in 3DC, that were made first in say...PS or ZB, that we take for granted? Some of them were made for fairly different us...but that doesn't mean they don't work and serve use well in 3DC!
  25. In another thread, several of us discussed the need for brushes that not only displace outward but also inward. Using a displacement map with the zero point set to mid gray is the traditional way. Taros found another solution to regular displacement "up and down" but this one works in any vector. Instead of a scalar map, it uses a vector map and he showed how it's used in Mudbox to create complex geometry on the fly! Which made me think that not only should this feature be in 3DC, but that it truly is something that just seems MADE for voxels. If there was a way to import a mesh as a brush and have it work the same way (maybe generate a vector displacement map on the fly) and be able to slowly push in the direction of the vectors (so you can control the depth) that would be even more awesome. To go further, if you could capture a portion of the surface of a voxel sculpt, similar to how you can during painting, and have that made into a brush that would be even more amazing. This would make it possible to have brushes with over hangs etc. Great for making trees, grass, ears, cliffs, caves, you name it.
  • Create New...