Calabi

Has anyone recieved their emails yet?

Cool! Thanks for the vid Psmith and the tip Taros. I think the colour variations may be a bit to much but I can easily tone them done.

There are lots of tutorials for Zbrush which go into this Color Spray method of texturing, two examples below. http://www.pixologic.com/docs/index.php/Tutorial:_Using_Colorized_Spray http://www.johnstrieder.com/downloads/js-makingof-assassin.pdf I'm wondering how to emulate that technique in 3DCoat. I have messed around with the settings and think I've got some of them the jitter and rotation amplitude. But am not sure how to get the colour variance. Its obviously not hue I'm not sure if saturation, or what other settings.

It is the painting room. I'm just wondering how you guys make your brush's because mine always seem to not look right.

The one you use to paint on the model in per pixel mode, the depth option. I dont know what that comes out as, but you create(in photoshop) the brushes, or use the ones down the side.

How do you guys go about making/applying bump maps. I've been experimenting with trying to get something to work with this object but nothing seems to work. I think the jaw area looks ok. I managed to do that by applying a really noisy bump then deleting parts of it with another bump map. Does it look ok, is there another better way?

Do you know about retopoing? because thats probably what you want to be doing after voxelling and before painting/exporting.

It may be usefull but just bare in mind that plenty of studies have been done that indicate that people in general dont say what they mean, they try to apease the questioner or antagonise as that case appears to be, to get across there rightous view. I dont see much of what they are suggesting would really change there minds. Perhaps what they dont say is more important information. They dont appear to know much about the software.

I'm sure they'd like 3d-Coats UI to function like the perfectly artisticly intuitive Zbrush(that was sarcasm by the way). I wouldnt listen to those guys too much, they dont say what they mean, and they dont know what they say.

That religious thing is nonsense its an excuse, 98point nine percent of people would never notice or care about that religious message. Someone whom says they arent buying it for that reason is basically lying(to themselves as well), using that as an excuse because they wouldnt use it anyway. The main reason I think 3dCoat is not more popular is just the industry is set in its ways. The artists have their pipelines, and preffered softwares the same with the companys. Its not about whos best, its about whos entrenched, whom got their first. I doubt its going to change much either, not unless something drastic happens. New artists replacing the old ones, having more sense and not just kowtowing to what the old artists say perhaps(perhaps a geographic divide, poorer countries choose the affordable software, richer countries gravitate to the rip off software). Also it might change by 3dCoat doing something, no other software does, and that everyone has to have(even then though the other softwares might steal it or copy it, but then it already has with the autoretopo(perhaps it needs to be shown off a bit more?). Perhaps the artists minds will not be changed for anything?

I have to say cuda is definitely worth it. Got myself a new system with a gtx 460, and voxels fly.

They are but not in the way I'm suggesting. It would be nice to pick different random methods, which are weighted instead of the uniform standard computer randomness(which isnt really close to real randomness). You can paint in crevasses but it is too digital. Gravity or a directional bias could have all kinds uses, you could get get all kinds of interesting effects if you were able to throw your paints at the canvas. It was only an idea, a thought for a possible thing in the future. I think the emulation of real medias would benefit everyone, its the way things will go eventually, surely.

I'm not sure if this is a request or its already able to be done in certain ways. But one thing that annoys me with these digital painting packages (especially photoshop) is their precision or their logicalness(cant think of word right now). Just look at this video. I'd like to see some things we experience and take for granted in the real world to be transplanted into the digital. Like gravity, the paint moves down, electromagnetism as the paint is attracted to one another an into the crevices, it drys and causes effects. You have these all without even asking. Also better randomness, like spray paints with the little dots to be more random or the paint brushes and their applications to be more random, not exactly more random but less precise, better random(albeit that may be impossible in a computer). Just a more dirtier painting where the paints behave more unpredictably, perhaps you could see the paintbrush for a more general overall, more loose painting. Its what separates the digital from the real, just my thoughts.

The jaw area looks like the most off to me. It should angle upwards at the back(and probably come up a bit more, womens, faces are close to a square/circle, mens are more rectangular/angular.

Use the falloff and or a soft brush. The falloff if I recall correctly, will make any brush soft edged.

It does look a bit(tiny bit) like Sad Sack from the raggy dolls. Just needs the hair.

Just had a mess about with a face.

Thanks AbnRanger you were right. I had a hole, filled it and was fixed. Result. Looks as if it got a bit confused. The auto retopo will definitely need to be guided. Perhaps it would be an idea if it ignored surface details(heights) within certain ranges.

I cant get this object to work for some reason, thought it might be the file and that its because its with another object that has been retopoed, so I isolated it, but it still wouldnt work.

At least it I know it wasnt just me being stupid now. Yeah I think it might be better if it just had a slight radius round the center of the brush where it jumps to the vert instead of being dependant of the brush size. I think Wings3d and Silo has that sort of behaviour.

That first image was after I manually moved the points. I've tried moving the spline really close to the edge it doesnt work.

Yeah, will do, thanks Tony. I did a little compare, first one is without guidelines. I've noticed if you have one guideline then you have to have guidelines for all areas, because it can throw it off, it uses those guidelines to define the whole object I guess. I didnt increase any areas the whole thing is about 6000 polys.

Thanks, I wasnt sure if it was a good idea or not. I'll probably have another go at the skull, I should be able to get it a bit better.

Yeah, I guess. I just dont see the point of basemeshes, when it can be done in the sculpting packages. Sculptris and 3dCoat dont require topology. I was thinking, along the lines of this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P3lsj2XFpg&feature=related No blocking out. Just pull out and sculpt immediately, of course it depends on how much detail you want.

I'd skip the creating the basemesh in silo and sculpt it in either 3DCoat or Sculptris from a sphere or curves, it would be way quicker(might be?).