Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

cookepuss

Member
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About cookepuss

  • Rank
    Neophyte

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.robertsanta.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York
  1. cookepuss

    V4.1 BETA (experimental 4.1.17D)

    Looks like DX CUDA is missing in the x64 package for 17A.
  2. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    Even so, the installer on the SIMP64 version does appear to be broken. I've literally (re)downloaded it 6 times across a few different machines. One of those machines was just recently nuked. I know that it's not my main desktop. On each machine, the installer won't even get past that message I posted above. This is literally the first time I've gotten that message in the 3 years I've been using 3DC. Totally weird. I tried d/l-ing with and without a manager, but the result is the same. The SIMP64 installer seems effed. Anyway, I'm sure that Andrew will resolve it soon enough. No sense in driving myself crazy.
  3. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    The 3d-Coat-V37-18C-SIMP64.exe installer is definitely bad. I tried again this morning, on a different (fresh) PC. I figured that maybe it was just something about my PC or me being tired last night. Nope. Still the same error. Also, the v3.718C file size clocks in at 92.9mb compared to the 117mb of v3.718B version. That can't be right.
  4. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    @Andrew: Head's up. The "Without CUDA, 64-bit" (3d-Coat-V37-18C-SIMP64.exe) for v3.7.18C looks like it is wrecked. I downloaded it 5 times, including with a download manager, and got the following error each time I tried to install.
  5. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    LOL True. I just meant it in more of a "use at your own risk" kind of way. Right now, you turn them on and nothing appears, at least not on my end.
  6. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    @BurrMan: Actually, I think that the one being hostile is you. Nobody's being an "ingrate" - which is insulting btw. Personally, I do think that the situation wasn't particularly well managed or implemented. Separate releases for the v3.x fixes and a time limited v4 beta would've squashed this situation totally. Bundling the v4 beta functionality with the v3 fixes certainly wasn't ideal. Like I said, the v4 functionality was turned on for me by default - even after I had nuked my PC. These sorts of things create confusion. An unclear opening page creates confusion. Could things have been done more efficiently? Sure. Live and learn though. This is not an indictment of Andrew. It's not to be taken personally. As Andrew himself said, the community's involvement is essential to what's going on. If people can't express their concerns then what's the point? I've seen many companies go down in flames for not taking constructive criticism. Although I've been quiet on this forum since joining, I've been a user for 3 years. Except for a bug or two here & there, I've usually kept my yap shut. Andrew's been more than great about listening to these dissenting views. Would he always agree? Probably not. Dismissing it as babble from a bunch of ingrates is something he wouldn't do though. Honestly, he doesn't need you defending him. What he's hearing here is just par for the course. It's a consequence of doing business these days.
  7. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    I agree with you 100%. That's why I don't personally like the idea of bundling the v4 beta and v3.x fixes as one release. They should be separate. This removes all of this confusion. A separate beta of V4 functionality removes that particular complaint. You take a certain risk you by bundling them into one release. V3.x won't ever be V4. Some people will understand that. Some won't. The trick is to leave it (the beta features) stable-ish, but not as robust as what's to come in the v4 final. The beta functionality is just a sampling of what's to come, presumably. You don't want to give away the farm. These beta features should come with a clear disclaimer that these features are WIP. Accessing them is like getting a sneak peak. It might sound like trying to "squeeze" your customer base, but at least it's honest. It's either that or don't release these beta features as part of 3.x at all. It's a balancing act. Like I said, the ideal solution is to separate the two, v3.x fixes from v4 beta. Separate releases kills this whole debate. Mixing them together is what creates the problem. BTW: Until this latest version, the V4 beta features were all turned on by default for me. Never once did I have to manually turn them on. Never once DID I actually turn them on. They just were on by default, prior to this version. I could easily have assumed, had I not read this ongoing thread, that these were just additions to v3.x. That they used to be on by default for me could've easily led me to that belief. Yeah. I don't want to come off as if I'm ranting. I just want to help present a balanced argument. Personally, I'm fine with whatever decision's made. Not my toys. Not my call.
  8. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    And that right there is the key. Time limiting the features in a closed beta situation situation is fine. I've had to deal with that situation many times before. No big deal. Time limiting them on an open beta, to your entire customer base? Not so sure that isn't annoying. It's made even more annoying by mixing in that public beta with core fixes and releasing it as one release. They should be separate releases, imo. That's not such an uncommon practice. Still, what Andrew chooses to do is his own business.
  9. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    That much is true. However, assume nothing. That's what I say. Invariably, there will be people who DON'T know what is commonly accepted. Putting everything in black and white safeguards you from backlash. I would've just had them as separate releases. Here are your v3.x fixes. Here's the time limited v4 beta. Black & white. This way, there's no confusion. Overlapping them into one build? It might be convenient, but I'm not quite sure that's so great of a practice. I know that other developers separate fix releases from public betas and that tends to work out just fine. It seems like a small distinction, but it's really not. Again, that's just my take. If V4 is going to be that much more robust and stable, what's the threat of keeping the beta features in v3.x? People will just look at their crappy, buggy beta features in v3.x and say, "Well sh**! Now I have to upgrade. Andrew just made it so tempting. I can't keep on using beta features that don't always do what I want." Get what I'm saying? If V4 is going to be so great, there is no threat. Just stop publicly testing further updates of those features in v3.x now. This way, the gap between the beta versions and the final versions will be that much greater. The temptation to upgrade to v4 will be that much greater too. Consider the beta versions as tasty samples. To yank them from the v3.x release, especially without prior warning, is like yanking a cookie from my mouth. This is something that should've been explicitly stated on Day 1. Assume nothing, especially in business.
  10. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    See? Now I feel bad for saying anything. I feel as if I'm guilting you or something. I feel bad for making YOU feel bad. You're free to do what you want. 100%. I support whatever decision you make. I just think that, if I were the one deciding, I'd probably leave the beta features working here without limitation, but NOT update them any further (publicly) until v4 comes out. No time restrictions, but no more public updates to those features until v4 goes live. Take in all of the bug reports you can about these features while they're still in beta. Take in all of the little suggestions you get from the wish lists. Encourage people to use these tools as much as they can. Focus on making them more stable right now. Later, after v4 comes out, you can focus on making them more robust. If you feel that you want to more testers because your current in-house crew isn't big enough... Invite a few trusted users into a private testing. This way, when v4 comes out, the beta features will be so much more kick-ass. We'll be massively tempted to upgrade to v4 then. Our half-working beta features will then look like crap compared the the glorious versions you release when V4 goes final. That's what I would do. You're your own man. Do what you want though. 3DC is your baby not mine. If v4 turns out to be as good as you hope, I'll be the first in line to buy it.
  11. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    I saw that, but my post still stands. Remember that. If we're an essential part of the process then you need to treat us like it. Again, nobody's asking for v4 for free. Just saying that there should be some quid pro quo for us doing a job you can't afford to pay for, namely testing. Free bug fixes is great and all, but not yanking those features (however misshapen) is great too. If v4 turns out to be as great as you hope then we'll come back and pay for the upgrade to get those beta features fully working. Yanking the beta tools? That's a sure fire way to lose customers. Not a lot, but some.
  12. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    I don't want anybody to lambast me for saying this, but I do think that this policy is unfair. The disabling of these features, afaik, wasn't publicly disclosed on the first page or at start up. That's why this message is catching a whole lot of people off guard. I think that the (logical) assumption was that we weren't just guinea pigs for v4. The assumption was that these features, meant for v4, were in beta state here in v3.x, but would be in a stable, final state in v4. There was no mention that these beta state v4 features would just up and disappear for v3.x users. The assumption was that they'd simply remain in a beta state in v3.x and we wouldn't get the finalized versions unless we updated to v4. There certainly was some ambiguity. I don't think that you were clear enough, Andrew. Disabling certain features after December 10 is, I'm sorry to say, kind of a cheap trick to pull on paying customers. That's like somebody buying a car, enjoying the hell out of it, and then having the dealership remotely disabling the radio & air conditioner. "But it still works. Those other features aren't necessary. If you want the A/C and radio again, just come back and pay us." Well, Mr. Dealer, you really didn't disclose that before I drove off the lot. You mumbled a few things kinda vaguely and NOW you expect me to see your point after the fact? Why couldn't you just continue to let me "beta test" my A/C and radio like you led me to believe I could? I certainly would have paid to trade in my old car for the new model once you had all of the "beta" kinks worked out. But now... This should've been a full disclosure situation. I think that, with the way page 1 was phrased, a whole lot was left up to the imagination. The line of ambiguity was right along: "This is an update. This is a beta." Well, which one is it? Is it an update for us to download or is it something we're just beta testing for future generations? Rolling testable beta features into a legitimate update was, imo, a mistake. You should've just kept those beta features in private testing. Now you've got a bunch of people pretty upset. They previously had (seemingly) unlimited access to those features and now... not. Even if the features weren't fully functioning, taking them away at this point seems.... I don't know.... wrong. That's like, "Okay. I got all of the reports and data I needed. Thanks for testing them. Let me disable those features now." Consider this, Andrew. How much would it have cost you to pay people to beta test these new features? Instead, you got a free fleet of willing guinea pigs. Nobody is asking you to give out v4 for free. Nobody.I think that people are just saying, "Don't disable the beta features. Allowing us to keep them, even if they are misshapen and don't work 100% of the time, should be considered our payment for us doing a job you could've paid to have done. We'll buy v4 so that we can get them upgraded to full working status. Just don't take away what you already gave us." It's a little disingenuous of a thing to do in a thread that's titled "3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread" Beta testing for v4 should've had its own thread. A v4 featured release should've been a separate thread and download. Retroactive continuity stinks. Editing the first page to reflect what you really wanted to say doesn't change the facts about what you really did say or, in this case, failed to say. I'm not telling you what to do. Don't get me wrong. I just think that, it's not something I would've done. Not when you've got people, paying customers no less, testing these feature for you for free. Again, nobody's asking for v4 for free. They're just saying, "Don't cripple what you already gave us." It's you're right to do that. However, imo, it's just bad for the reputation. People will be VERY careful when downloading future updates. They'll also be very careful about recommending 3DC to their friends, especially when you hold the power to revoke released features - beta or otherwise.
  13. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    That looks like it did the job. Works reliably and predictably in PPP, Microvert, AND reference mesh now, Thanks a lot, Andrew.
  14. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    It's a partial solution. Let me explain. The problem with OBJs importing and displaying in all sort of random states? That's fixed. Imported models now display predictably. I don't worry about it randomly importing as some blotchy or semi-transparent mess anymore. Having said that, the reason why it's a partial solution is as follows: 1. Importing an OBJ for PPP works beautifully. The default shading mode is a smooth relief and everything displays as expected. Every time. 2. Same perfect and and predictable results with microvertex 3. Importing an OBJ as a reference results in a default shading mode of flat. Every time. I can click "1" to get back into relief mode just fine. After that, every other model imported in that 3DC session will be in relief mode too. However, if I restart 3DC, it reverts my default shading mode to flat again. This is the same exact problem I've been having since v3.708.
  15. cookepuss

    3D-Coat 3.7 updates thread

    I'd try, but there's no attachment to your post. Sorry.
×