simmsimaging

I tried it again today and the Fade on Edge is not doing anything at all for me. Can anyone verify if it's working on their version? b

I checked the vid - it doesn't really apply to this issue unfortunately, but it's a cool fix in the program I have tried several times now with Fade on Edge off and on and it makes zero difference in this file. Is it possible this function is broken in the latest build? b

That Triangle painting is handy! Never saw that before - thanks for the tip! I am aware of the 2D route, and that is how I usually go back and fix things up, but it is still creating a lot of unnecessary work for me and would rather avoid it. I will check that link out too - thanks for that as well. b

Thanks Andrew - I tried this an it did not seem to make any difference at all. Any other settings that interact with this parameter?

I have always had this issue painting in 3DC: painting on a surface (like a cube for example) and getting near the edge always creates a stretched out overspray down the other (90 degree angled) sides of the shape. It's almost impossible to avoid in 3DC, for me anyway. This is taken care of in Zbrush via the brush controls that prevent spraying over edges or beyond certain surface angles etc, but I cannot figure out how to prevent it in 3DC. It makes it very hard to paint details on edges of things without messing up their surface, and vice-versa. Is there some kind of control that I'm missing? It's gotta be there somewhere.... Thanks /b

+1 Straightforward 2D layer masking would be huge. Once that is in place support for existing layer masks in PSD files would be helpful too. It is annoying to always have to save off copies in Photoshop to maintain masks when going back and forth between 3DC and PS. I'm not convinced that 3D masks are needed, but it would certainly be cool if we could have 3D objects that act as friskets - something we could move around relative to the object and that "block" paint. It would really make texture painting in 3D feel more like "real" painting/airbrushing. Could be cool, but not sure how useful it would really be

+1 Straightforward 2D layer masking would be huge. Once that is in place support for existing layer masks in PSD files would be helpful too. It is annoying to always have to save off copies in Photoshop to maintain masks when going back and forth between 3DC and PS. I'm not convinced that 3D masks are needed, but it would certainly be cool if we could have 3D objects that act as friskets - something we could move around relative to the object and that "block" paint. It would really make texture painting in 3D feel more like "real" painting/airbrushing. Could be cool, but not sure how useful it would really be

bumping this thread: any thoughts on implementing something like this?

I want the ability to move the whole layer around rather than part of it, and that could be done in the UV editor - that's what I figured it would have to be. The copy tool seems to always do a projection which means the image gets interpolated every time, and that is a problem for maintaining crisp detail. If the layer was moveable, like in Photoshop, then a small decal on a layer could be moved around and adjusted endlessly and without detail loss. Of course if it is scaled etc then there would be interpolation. Just picture having a logo on a layer of a texture on a box. If you need to reposition the logo it is very easy to just move the layer around to do it. At this point I just go to Photoshop and move it there, but it would be much better to have it be interactively viewable on the model so you could position it with less guesswork. Does that clarify? b

Yes, that is what I wanted to do. The transform copy tool is of limited use IMO. /b

The distort tool is interesting (hadn't seen that before), but really doesn't deal with this problem. Skew/rotate etc are good, and if this was a flat box or something I could definitely get something in the right vein, but it won't help with curved geometry. As well, these tools are great for the first round, but if we need to adjust it later you have to do it all again, and it's not easily reproducible. For me, clients are always asking me to change stuff and then go back and forth on it, so something more flexible and repeatable is essential. For now the only way to do it "right" is with photoshop unfortunately. Thanks for the idea though. b

A tool similar to Photoshop's "free transform" tool that operates on image layers would be hugely helpful. It's a minor but very common task for me, and having to go back to Photoshop resize or rotate etc a single image layer is a pain. Possible? /b

I didn't think that through welll enough: in most cases this would be okay, but I'm wrapping artwork around a can, and it needs to follow the UV's and contour around the can, which won't work with a material projection. I need to basically adjust the size/position in UV space, but seeing it live on the can will make it infinitely faster and more accurate. Sounds like I'm hooped without going back and forth with Photoshop. /b

Thanks. I will give the material route a try. It's not ideal, hopefully a more "simple" transform tool could be worked out. I'm actually surprised the request doesn't come up more often. Appreciate the help! Brett

I think this has been asked about before but searching did not turn up an answer: I really miss the ability to free transform entire layers when creating texture maps. It's especially useful for positioning things like decals in 3D space. I know I can ship the layered map over to Photoshop but then I lose that 3D positioning potential. Is there a way to free-transform image layers that I have missed? I specifically mean existing images, not the image pasting tool that lets you adjust on import, and I don't want the select/transform tool because that only grabs part of the image - it's the whole layer I'm after. Thanks in advance for any tips! b

Congrats on the update Andrew - just d-loaded 3.3 and it looks great. I haven't been using 3DC of much late (no call for texture painting on recent stuff) but was having a play with Ptex again. I am not clear on how I can paint using Ptex mode and export to "normal" textures. If I import a model for ptex painting I don't seem to get the UV set on the model, and when I export the texture (texture\export\diffuse map) I can only choose among the ptex sets. What is the workflow for doing this so I can paint with Ptex but end up with maps renderable in Vray etc.? Thanks in advance /b

I'm trying to paint some 16bit and 32bit displacement maps using 3dCoat (manually painting a "color" map to use in Max for displacement). 3DC keeps converting things to 8bit colour space though. Is there a way to work with either 16 or 32 bit in 3DC? If not are there plans to support that? Thanks /b

Definitely. Layer masking is a major requirement, especially for moving files back and forth with Photoshop. I had assumed it was already in the pipeline, but if not then pls do add it as a wishlist item. b

+1 Painting is good, but navigation of layers ( and sub-objects) is still cumbersome. I also appreciate the scope of what Andrew is trying to do, but I agree that some core features need to be solidified before adding too much in. Just my POV. b

Thanks Javis - I hadn't really seen that before, thanks. Having played with it maybe I can change my request to be a tweak of this function? It's not totally obvious that it will accept values higher than 100 (the slider stops at 100, but you can punch in higher values numerically) and it's necessary to go more like 400-500% to get a really small brush. 100% falloff is really about 50% of the brush size. When at >100% values the brush starts to get a bit jumpy though, like the spacing is too high, so it's of limited use. Also be nice to have control of the transition edge. Maybe this function could be improved/tightened up, although I understand it's not a priority. Thanks /b

For sure - this is a great addition to 3DC. b

I read that as a question often asked of him, not his POV. Either way though, he speaks to that pretty clearly just a couple of lines after that: "We tried sending these packed textures directly to Renderman at one point (before Ptex) but it didn't give us the performance or filter quality that we wanted. For us, the Ptex file format and rendering performance is critical." Given the accuracy/detail you can get with it, and the potential overhead control/drop if render engines support the format, why wouldn't this be better than PP in 3DC? Have I misunderstood things? (again) b

Yep, I agree - it's quite workable for now, but I'm always after the best detail, so if I can see it around the corner I won't be content to settle if I don't have to Maybe that is in another message from him? I didn't read that into what was quoted anyway. However, there seem to be some pretty clear advantages to Ptex from what I have seen so far so not sure why he would say that. b

So here is the result of all the testing/playing and help from Artman and the others on the forum: Original renders were about 6K each (this file is about 30K pixels wide at full res ) Thanks to all for the help with this - I really appreciate it. b

And the last one: imported for Ptex. This for sure is the best. I imported at a few resolutions, but in the end found starting high and not having to up the res later works best. This was imported at 60million polys, which gave me a starting point of 6-7 2K maps. I upped the res in a couple of places to see how that worked - it's pretty amazing. I can only seem to work with 2K maps though - using the "increase mesh and texture resolution" function totally screwed things up - gave me a semi invisible object that I couldn't paint on. Now - the trick is (yet again) getting this detail out Exporting the .obj or even trying to export texture maps gives me (for this model and after increasing re in a few places) about 12 texture maps, all at whatever size I wanted (in this case I chose 8K). It took a while to pump those out. I tossed those as I don't have a render engine that can use them. I guess the only way to export the results from a mulit-res Ptex paint is via Texture Baking? I did try this and it worked pretty well (see second attachment - that is the map on the lo-res mesh rendered in Vray). I chose for the target the same lo-res that I painted on and it worked pretty well, although there is a loss of detail through this process, it's pretty good. Is this the only/best way to get a single usable map out of Ptex right now? Obviously the ideal solution is to have a render engine that supports Ptex - but until then.... Thanks /b