alvordr

Hello, again, folks! I've managed to finally get another training course established on Udemy. This time, it's called "Simple Game-Ready Asset Creation In 3D Coat." OK, so the title isn't so simple, but the aim is to focus on the process of making a game-ready asset in 3D Coat and getting it into a game engine. Below are the highlights: - 15 videos, covering over 2 hrs of instruction (not too long, not too short, honing in on most important concepts) - Simple asset creation (because most tutorials that aim to help you get your assets into a game engine spend too much time on the asset and not the process) - Organized process from concept to game engine (UDK and Unity) - Plus a bonus on how to get your asset into Marmoset! (For beauty shots!) The first 5 people to purchase the course will get 50% off the price, SO ACT FAST!!! COUPON: https://www.udemy.com/simple-game-ready-asset-creation-in-3d-coat/?couponCode=U3D1002 DIRECT COURSE LINK: https://www.udemy.com/simple-game-ready-asset-creation-in-3d-coat/ <-- Currently only privately viewable, so 3D Coat community members get first dibs!

So glad that axial symmetry is getting attention.

While I completely agree for the most part, it does in some way matter in this particular thread, assuming we can keep it related to how the beta reacts to various graphics drivers. Granted, it doesn't matter if there isn't anything Andrew and company can do.

AbnRanger, I guess I misunderstood, or perhaps missed somewhere where you changed your opinion on AMD cards. I've never been a fan of Radeon (ATI) cards, so I've always stuck with NVidia, since they started in the consumer market. Aside from the early ones burning out, they've been very good for my purposes. Granted, I've not upgraded from the 550Ti and probably won't for a long time now.

I imported an existing mesh to per-pixel-paint and did the hide in the UV room with no problem.

I recall AbnRanger saying something about 660 cards not working well with 3DC. I decided to take his advice and skip that one. He did, however, imply that we should consider an AMD card. I wasn't convinced, but I do appreciate his experience with 3DC. So far my 550Ti works like a charm. I've maxed it out at 51 million polys on 3DC, not that I would ever need to go even remotely that high.

You might consider the tweak room, after you've gotten it into the UV or Retopo Room. It's not robust as a sculpting room, but it might serve your purposes.

Unfortunately, none of those work, so something's messed up. I checked the "Customize Navigation" there, as well, but no luck on anything, despite telling it to "Move in screen space." Tried other settings. I finally deleted the Options.xml and still no luck. Are you using the latest beta?

Hey, did something change in how we pan the scene? I haven't done anything profound in 3DC in weeks, so I'm a bit rusty, but I noticed in the latest version I have to hold both left and right mouse buttons down to pan, rather than middle mouse. Even the tool tip for the pan button shows that it's supposed to be Alt+Middle Mouse Button, but it no longer works. One of the main things I love about 3DC is that it is highly configurable. Can we please have that configurable? The options don't appear to allow for a user-defined control for this.

AJ, What 3DC version are you using and which OS? If you would like me to test your file, here, I'll be glad to. It does look like the smooth quality on a freeze is striated. However, the speed on mine (3DC 4.1.08B on a Windows 7 64-bit Pro machine) works in real-time. I used the standard 1.5M mannequin to test. You can see my specs in the signature line.

Seems like we keep deviating away from the Paint Room focus. I get fixing crashes that result from some of this work, and the extra tools in other rooms are nice, but the Paint Room still needs work. I thought that was the focus of this line of updates.

I thought that was Cntl key.

Your smoothing based on resolution, so yes, it should be tighter on a higher resolution. Seems like it's working as it's supposed to.

This is one where I would start with a different program, such as 3ds Max or Cheetah. This isn't to say it can't be done in 3D Coat, but I find it easier to line up a tileable texture setup with blocks that way. Having said that, once that's done, you can sculpt each brick a bit differently, to give it variation. If you've laid out your pattern correctly...say in a 256x256 grid, then you'll be able to tile your resulting texture maps. I've done this, but it's a super long process. You're likely better off just using something like PixPlant, CrazyBump, and/or Filter Forge to make a such a texture.

I personally like the fact that the retopo changes color, as it indicates when retopo groups are separated and having one color won't always be as visibly useful with the sculpture.

LOL, oh the fun of rigging...well done on the model.

I have to agree. I almost always retopo by hand, now. It's the best way to get full control over your mesh and to make sure it's as clean as possible.

I'm saying I wouldn't draw the intersecting lines...just strokes annotating one path and let the software place a user-designated number equa-distant intersecting lines to make the quads.

Frankly, the strokes tool would be much better if we could simply draw the lines in one direction, say across the arm vertically, and then press the number of subdivisions we want going perpendicular to that. You wouldn't even need a modifier dialogue, but simply key in the number and press enter to commit.

You can see in CryEngine, at the 5 min mark on this video, what foliage can look like in a game engine: ...but modeling/texturing can be an easy or difficult matter. Using Maya, you might do this: http://www.3dtotal.com/team/Tutorials/realistic_grass/realistic_01.php Using Max, you might do this: or this... http://www.evermotion.org/tutorials/show/7958/creating-3d-grass or this... http://www.ronenbekerman.com/making-of-baltic-sea-house/ or this... or this... or this... or this... or this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riyOfKz9YoI or this... or this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_WRWoXHEOw Using Blender, you might do this: You can look at any or all of these and get the idea, but it also depends on your project. If you're putting this into a game engine, you'll likely want to use cards, like they're using in many of these. The program you're using might be different, but the concept is basically the same. If you're putting this into a film, then you might want to take a more detailed and realistic approach (higher poly).

If you're plugging a texture into a luminosity/emissive shader channel in another program, like 3ds Max or Unreal Engine, etc., then just about anything will work. However, if you want certain areas to highlight and not others, usually this requires either black and white or black and color (white or the color being where you want it to be emissive), or utilize the alpha channel in the texture map to hide non-emissive areas.

If you have a Mac and around $100 or so to spend, Cheetah3D is an excellent choice for a standard modeler that is extremely easy to learn and has a huge feature-set, albeit not as mature in some areas as others. The render engine is one of the best I've seen. Used in conjunction with 3D Coat, it's almost all one needs to get just about anything done, short of having a more mature animation tool.

I wouldn't necessarily create this kind of asset with a sculpting program of any sort. Not that it's not possible, but it's a task better left to particle engines. Granted, it all depends on what you're looking to do. That said, you can use the snake or spike tools in the voxel room, making sure to choose appropriate settings for the task. However, if it's for a game engine, I would just do this in a traditional modeling program and use cards. If it's for a turntable where you're character might be standing, etc., then you've got some work ahead of you, as you'll likely want it to look as detailed and high-res as your character.

Andrew, Congratulations on getting 4.1 out! I haven't had a chance to test the last release, but I know you've worked hard to get it done. We really appreciate it.

That looks like something arising from a need to flip a channel. As far as the seems, not sure, but I don't use SL, so it's hard for me to test.