ajz3d

I'd like to know about the progress too.

I'm a little bit torn about what I'm about to say now because I like 3D Coat a lot and have been using it for many years (and will still continue to use it), but in my opinion none of the retopo solutions currently available on the market (including Houdini's TopoBuild, which, even as a long time Houdini user, I don't understand why everyone is so excited about as it doesn't offer anything new) can compare to NVil's Draw Mesh SteamLine tool feature wise. For me this tool offers the most efficient semi-automatic retopo right now, and NVil has been my "go to" app for this kind of jobs ever since this tool was developed (to a point where I spent two years trying to run it under WINE, as it's totally windows app unfortunately - but it works on 3.20). When Farsthary first announced that he is working on new retopo tools (and it was way before the Draw Mesh work even begun, I think), I imagined that those tools would look exactly like Draw Mesh. You draw main edge loops and let the algorithm generate the fill geometry for you. This is extremely productive because you don't have to waste your time to draw geometry that needs to follow some kind of rules anyway, and as thus shouldn't need your attention at all (or should require your minimal attention at most). But Draw Mesh isn't the tool on its own in the retopo process. When retopologizing an asset in NVil, you still have access to the full modelling suite offered by the program. And its modeling toolset is pretty damn powerful. In my eyes way more powerful than what Blender 2.8 have to offer at its current state (minus modifiers, because NVil doesn't have them). Pilgway could make some sort of a deal with DigitalFossils in order to combine forces against some of the more powerful competition. Because why the hell not? Maybe it's worth a try to get to some form of agreement? We could get the best semi-automatic retopo algorithms available on the market, powerful modeling solution and excellent sculpting/texturing software combined together in one superpackage. Let's kick the new ZRemesher ass by giving the user more control on his retopo mesh. You can watch Draw Mesh in action (on a 3DC-made sculpture) on my playlist, but do note that this is an old demo of very early Draw Mesh version, and since those videos were recorded, many improvements have been introduced to that tool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ndpC8lMO0&list=PLNPeRk-wjBGiod2fk0YSaYCK0Oh6JpMQj

Of course, but nothing stands in the way to unify the brushes between the two modes. Like I said (implicitly), I'm aware of the difference between how 3DC surface mode works in contrast to the voxel mode. Not every aspect of each brush is portable to voxels (like dynamic subdivision). But I think Dynamesh (based on voxels) uses a similar principle (add/subtract volume then remesh), minus the dynamic part of the 3DC voxel sculpting (because in ZB you still need to manually remesh the model after stretching it too much). And still, all ZB brushes feel and act in the same way in any of its sculpting modes, and all brushes are available in all modes, with maybe an exception of a few very specialized ones. Brush customization began with an introduction of General Clay Brush, or at least it looked like that from a perspective of 3DC end user. This brush was a pretty damn good start at that time, but it does have some quirks (like this one, for example: https://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2331). If we're going to get a fully customizable brush system that would affect the surface in an even more predictable and efficient way than already existing brushes - that's already awesome. But if this system was to be consistent between surface and voxel modes - that's even better!

I hope that the new brush system means that corresponding brushes from Surface and Voxel worlds would be unified in how they affect the surface (minus dynamic tessellation for obvious reasons). What I like about ZBrush sculpting is that all brushes are available in each sculpting "mode" and behave in exactly the same way, no matter whether they're used in Dynamesh, standard SubDiv sculpting or even dynamic tessellation. I'd like to have this in 3D Coat too. Predictability and consistency.

@L'Ancien Regime, this video looks very interesting indeed, but don't we already have something similar in 3D Coat? This promo video of v4.8 comes to mind: The implementation is different, but I think the final result is comparable, if custom curve profiles in conjunction with retopo surfaces/spline-cut surface primitives were used. Teya video is playing so fast that it's impossible to see the details of the workflow, like how was the NURBS-like smooth surfaces created (at the front and back of the vehicle). From primitives, imported geometry or perhaps they were generated from sketches? Really hard to tell. PS. I really liked the first song from Teya's video. Kind of reminds me of Evil Dead 1 score. Pretty cool.

@SERGYI, thank your for the info. I appreciate that you guys are working on it. Last time I checked, I couldn't run 3D Coat under WINE. It crashed on each launch attempt. Before crashing however, it did manage to create its configuration directories in ~/Documents - the location I don't want them to be in... Anyway, maybe I didn't try hard enough, I admit. After all, I didn't upgrade my system to GNU/Linux to launch Windows binaries. I can only imagine how using 3DC through WINE complicates the pipeline. I think I'll wait until you guys get those things sorted out, and for that I keep my fingers crossed. I have full trust in you.

Huh? $ 3000 is much more than I paid seven years ago for my 3930K/64GB GTX660Ti workstation in a top notch Antec case, 24" Eizo monitor, Intuos 4 Pro M and other components and peripherals. This price is simply... insane.

I received multiple inquiries regarding bugs I reported on Mantis, whether they were fixed in the most recent version or not, and I can't even comment on them because the last GNU/Linux version is months old.

@SERGYI How long until new GNU/Linux build?

With all respect to Teya's developers releasing a new proprietary sculpting software, who exactly is their target? Artists who own 3D Coat or those who own ZBrush? Or those who own both of those computer programs? My point is that if an emergent sculpting software (Teya) would be a libre software that would respect user freedom, then it would be something totally different and really worth considering, when compared to already existing proprietary software. Otherwise, what exactly Teya has to offer for a person who already uses proprietary ZB & 3DC combo? PS. Libre doesn't mean that you can't earn big bucks from it. PS2. Please don't treat my post as a hostile one towards Teya. Treat it as a post full of questions of a troubled and cofused mind. PS3. Does Teya run on GNU/Linux OS? I'm not sure if it's because of µMatrix *wink, wink* , but I couldn't find any information about software requirements on their page.

It's been a while since I used 3D Coat, so perhaps someone will offer a better solution. There is a Geometry->Close Holes command that I think is capable of closing holes that make the geometry non-manifold. There's also a Fill Holes tool that does a similar thing. However, judging from your screenshot, it looks that the holes you have, or at least some of them - as seen from this angle, do not make the mesh non-uniform. In this case I can think of two workflows. The first one is to convert the collar to voxels and use Fill tool. By massaging around the holes you will get the points of the mesh merge together and form a continuous geometry. But - it works best on flat surfaces and you will loose some surface detail on surface to voxels conversion. Also, on curved areas you will get a visible deformation in the surface. The second, and probably a better idea, is to retopologize the collar in the Retopo Room. Subdivide it a couple of times to make it better conform with the reference surface details (and correct points that fall into the holes) and then import it (via Import tool) in the Sculpt room.

@Morgs: You might also find those instructions helpful. Theyre' about setting up licensing and custom configuration directory: Also, if I may advice you on manual "installation" location on GNU/Linux systems, I suggest to unpack 3DC into a subdirectory of /opt path. Then create a symbolic link to 3DC executable in /usr/local/bin/. Reasons: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html

Good news indeed. Thanks, Sergyi.

Ah yes. that's a different story. One of many reasons which made me jump off the Windows train near the end of last year. Then, when I was about to buy 3DC license for GNU/Linux, I stumbled upon Sergyi's post. Well, I guess I can only cross my fingers and wait.

I know. I was trying to emphasize that running 3DC through Wine is not an acceptable solution for a production software (with all respect to Wine team of course). I hope that the situation with GNU/Linux builds really is just a temporary one, and we will soon see updated releases on the download page.

@Przemas: I have to agree with @pbowmar and @Allabulle. Using 3D Coat through Wine is a potential source of problems. For example, ask yourself a question: who will you send bug reports to? Pilgway or Wine development team? How will you know that a problem you're experiencing is caused by 3D Coat and not Wine (or vice-versa)? Sometimes you can probably tell, but not always. Please remember that "Wine Is Not an Emulator". It is not meant to robustly run all Windows software. For that you have hardware virtualization and passthrough.

Hello and thank you @SERGYI, I've set COAT_FILES_PATH to point at ~/.config/3dcoatv48 and it works. Additionally, 3D Coat doesn't create legacy directories for V4 and V3 anymore, so this env path solved two of the reported problems. I didn't touch COAT_SERVER, FSERVER_LOGFILE and FSERVER_LICPATH paths yet because I'm currently on trial of the GNU/Linux version of 3D Coat, so I guess I don't have anything to configure and point at. I think 0002385 and 0002386 can be marked as resolved. User error... What remains is the problem with 3D Coat changing file/dir permissions.

@Tony Nemo, I opened your .3b file and I didn't see any issues with the geo (neither hipoly nor retopo or exported stuff). However, I forgot that GNU/Linux version is a little bit behind the Windows one, so I guess I'm not up to date with the most recent betas and thus can't be of any help here. Sorry about that, Tony.

Can you share the .3b file or just the affected geometry?

Hi, If I'm not mistaken, voxel mode in 3D Coat uses marching cubes algorithm to generate geometry. Therefore you will always get slightly rounded edges, no matter what voxel resolution you choose to work with. You can only minimize this effect. If you want super sharp edges on cubes and still use something similar to Constructor tool, try surface mode and primitives tool with 3D grid set to appropriate spacing. Then, once you're done, retopologize the geometry to get rid of inner walls.

Hi. I just moved to GNU/Linux and noticed some general issues with how 3D Coat's configuration directories are handled: 0002384: Every time 3D Coat executable is started, it sets 77777 file mode bits to all 3D Coat-related paths 0002385: 3D Coat creates its configuration paths directly inside user's home directory 0002386: 3D Coat V4.8 creates legacy configuration paths By the way, is it possible to edit an already submitted Mantis report? I made some typos and would like to correct them. IIRC we could do that in earlier MBT versions.

I disagree with that person who told you this BS. You don't need to be an engineer nor a programmer to work with Houdini unless you want to work with Houdini SDK. Or if you want to develop Python tools, but programming background isn't mandatory here IMHO. In fact, I personally know a couple of TAs and TDs who currently work for major GameDev and film studios and who don't have a technical (IT) background. In fact most of them have a degree in fine arts (or even completely unrelated sciences) and that doesn't hinder them at being absolutely fantastic in handling Houdini. Tools, assets and FX they produce are absolutely astounding. Regarding working for free, unless you're developing your own project - NEVER EVER work for free. Even as an intern. By doing this you might be working against our community. It not only lowers the average salary for a person who deals in 3D, but also lowers the respect of a potential employer towards all of us and the time we had to spend to learn the skill, knowledge and know-how.

Carlos, if we don't give our consent to what is asked in the e-mail, then only our personal data from Pilgway's business partners - Bluesnap Inc. (payment processing) and SendPulse Inc. (newsletter) - will be removed, am I right?