Jump to content
3D Coat Forums


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Rygaard last won the day on June 28

Rygaard had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Rygaard

  • Rank

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    3D-Coat, Sculpt, Anatomy, Texturing, characters, humans, creatures, animals, designs, work in progress, art

Recent Profile Visitors

712 profile views
  1. Rygaard

    3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread

    Sorry ... I forgot to comment that I was using symmetry in X. It seems that if you do not use symmetry the Split tools works on surface mode. Is this behavior normal with the Split tool on surface mode?
  2. Rygaard

    3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread

    Hey everyone, I am using 3d-coat version 4.8.21SL Possible bug in Split tool in Surface mode. On the surface mode, the Split Tool is not working properly. The tool is not dividing the object and separating in layers in voxTree as we are accustomed to using this tool. It has the same behavior as the CutOff tool, deleting the part that was selected. In voxels mode Split tool is working properly. thank you.
  3. Rygaard

    Define Measurement Units and Edit Scene Scale ???

    @Falconius I did the same thing as you, but I did not have much success. Actually, I do not understand how to set the scene in 3D-Coat for specific projects like I mentioned in the topic introduction. If a 3d-coat user wants to work on different kinds of projects how could he set the scene of it ?! Because there are projects aimed at: 1- 3d printing: We have to be precise in the measurement units (priority for meters or centimeters). Where there must be an exact 1: 1 relationship between 3d-coat and the blender, otherwise we will have problems. 2- Animation-oriented project: Please correct me if I'm saying something wrong ... But as I said we need to use real-world measures to succeed, because there might be some kind of problem with respect to simulations of physics, displacement map and other things. I say this because I've seen and read several people commenting on that kind of subject. 3- Project focused on games: I will specifically talk about Unreal because I have an interest in learning this engine. I think for Unreal the ratio of units of measurements should be in meters and need the exact ratio of 1: 1 to avoid problems. In my current project, you can see that in SceneScale, something happened to be left with strange values. I think the default is X, Y, Z = 0 and SceneScale = 1. I do not know what happened. It may have been some export process -> import that I did and I did not know that would happen that kind of behavior inside the 3d-coat. I do not know how much the SceneScale and units of measures influence the design within the 3d-coat. I do not know if these values influence Voxels, surface mode, brushes and 3d-coat functionalities. I think it must influence in some way ... but I confess that I do not know. I created this topic so that us 3d-coat users could clarify and understand this subject that is very important in the accomplishment of any project. Please, anyone who has experience and knows about it, share it with everyone so that everyone can correctly configure the project within 3d-coat and with other applications. Thank you very much.
  4. Hey everyone... As I did not have much knowledge with 3d-coat in relation to Define Measurement Units and Edit Scene Scale. I started a project without paying attention to these two important settings that are found in the Geometry menu. I would like to ask the help of all of you to used this topic to explain the subject better and with that you would help others who use 3D-Coat. Doubt 1) In a project I'm working on, only now that I've realized that the values in the Edit Scene Scale are all changed as you can see in the image I've attached. If I change the value of SceneScale to 1 will what happens in my file? I would have problems if I change this value which is currently 137.963562 for 1? Could I change units from millimeters to meters? Because it is in millimeters... Could someone explain it better? Doubt 2) I realized that by default 3D-Coat uses millimeters. I would like to have a 1: 1 ratio between 3D-Coat and Blender because of a 3d print job and I also believe it will help in mesh workflow for animation and games. Currently in 3d-coat version 4.8.21, what would be the best configuration between 3d-coat and blender without there being any problems in the scale and positioning when it imports -> exports -> imports again for 3D-Coat? I realized that when I use these 2 programs, the scale almost always changes. Maybe because I do not know how to configure. Sometimes the sculpture when it returns to the 3d-coat comes either large or small and the pivot gets altered also causing the sculpture to be located in another position completely different from when I exported. I think using meters would be the best unit of measure because I've read that physical simulations, displacement maps and other things will be best produced when configured using actual measurements of the world in meters. How do you work with Measurement Units and How does the Edit Scene Scale work? Doubt 3) How to properly set up each project (for 3D print? for Games? for animation?) What would you advise for 3d-coat users in the initial scene setup within 3d-coat? Anyone who is knowledgeable in this subject, please share with the whole community about all of these subjects that I mentioned above. This is very important... Thank you for your attention and help.
  5. I do not understand much about programming or development of a 3d program. But would not it be a good thing if 3d-coat accepted python programming? I see fantastic things happening in Blender because programmers use python. Please, my friends, correct me if I am saying something wrong ... But many amazing tools could not be developed by the python language as it happens in Blender? Would not it be something to be thought of for the 3d-coat? python would be good or bad for 3d-coat? Would that make Andrew's life easier? I would greatly appreciate hearing more about it. Thank you very much
  6. What a good news! I'm glad of it. Thanks for letting us know that version 5 can still go out this year! I'm already wondering what awaits us in this new generation of 3D-Coat! I hope from my heart that all our suggestions do not become obsolete. I was even a bit scared of this, because our suggestions are important and essential features and tools during the development of a project! It would be like 3D-Coat to become a king-kong! In the good sense! I know 3d-coat is already a giant, but it would look even better. It may be that in version 5 there will be tools and features even better than the tools we suggest! This is my hope ...
  7. I know the functionality of Fill Holes. Thank you for the tips. I think you completely misunderstood what I'd like to say or maybe it was my fault that I did not explain my suggestion better. At no time am I disrespecting the 3D-Coat program. 3D-Coat has its own essence, strength, particularity, unique tools and features and several qualities that made me buy it and make it my main program. At no time, in my last suggestion (Enter key) to recreate a new mesh in surface mode through a functionality that even exists inside the 3D-Coat itself, as far as I know I have not mentioned any other type of 3d program and in no time I told 3D-Coat to become a copy of another program! If that was the case, I would not have bought 3D-Coat but another program! If you completely misunderstood what I meant, I apologize for not expressing myself more comprehensively, but if you understood what I meant, please, don't get me wrong, but you need not have said what you said to me in your last paragraph. Please, with all my respect, do not put words I did not say in my sentences. When we suggest something, it is not to be a copy but rather to try to get the idea of a tool or functionality working so that the developers can better understand, in a more precise way what their users are trying to suggest to improve even more the 3D-Coat. We know that many tools or functions that already existed in 3D-Coat now exist in other programs in a modified way. You yourself, please correct me if I am wrong, when at some point you suggested something, I believe you have already seen this tool or function in some other 3d program and in my opinion I do not see anything wrong with this . If you realize something positive why not develop with your own particular this function within 3D-Coat? What is wrong with it? So will 3D-Coat stop developing features and tools? Because, nowadays, most things already exist! What do you tell me about Sculpt Layers? How long have 3d-coat users dreamed and asked Andrew to implement this functionality within the 3d-coat that already existed in other programs? I am very happy that Andrew, after a long time, has implemented Sculpt Layers, but he will develop in his way, according to 3D-coat, in a unique and particular way this functionality! Sculpt Layers developed by Andrew is different from the Sculpt Layers that already exist in other 3d programs, we can realize that Andrew is pioneering and revolutionizing Sculpt Layers! Andrew got Sculpt Layers to accept the mesh being dynamically tessellated, with Live Clay and Remove Stretching Brushes that even in the other 3d programs until the moment I know, this is not possible. And Andrew is adding many features that will be unique within the 3d-coat for our Sculpt Layers. I think that's great! Now, you wonder if Andrew thought, "I'm not going to make this feature or tool because it already exists in another program." What would it be like to have such a thought? Would he stop developing? Andrew would not go crazy to be able to develop unique things (as I said most things are already created)? Andrew would not listen to its users that is only intended to help improve 3d-coat? I think the positive things that facilitate the life of the artist in his creation and productivity will be and always will be welcome. Why not improve 3D-Coat with things that already exist? But being developed in its own way, unique and even better than it already exists? In my opinion, I do not see anything wrong with that! I love 3D-Coat, but we have to recognize that other 3d programs also have great tools. As I already said, please do not get me wrong, but I need to have said that I did not intend to turn 3d-coat into a CTRL + C program from other 3d programs. Please, once again do not put words I did not say. the 3d-coat will continue to be its own animal, will continue reaping its fruits, even implementing functions and improving them in a unique and own way that already exist in other 3d programs. In my opinion, 3D-Coat, in the stage that is, is already known and deserves all the recognition by the program that is. I really admire the work of Andrew and his developers! I'm just trying to help!
  8. I was thinking about the function of the ENTER key in Surface (sculpt room) mode. We all know that when we are in Surface mode sculpting or modeling, if there is a problem with the mesh, press the ENTER key and a window will appear asking the amount of polygons for the user to inform 3D-COat so that it can do internally a programming code that will convert the mesh to voxels and will return the new mesh to the Surface mode in seconds. It is the same as the user was in VoxTree, click on the icon to go to Voxels mode and then click on the icon to return to the Surface mode. That said, when we are in Surface mode, we know that when we go to Voxels mode (pressing the ENTER key or VoxTree icon) we will have to enter a trillion polygon value so we do not lose the details we already sculpted in the surface mode . In case you have a super pc everything is ok, but if you have a medium pc, it is difficult to work with trillions of polygons just to keep the detail work of the sculpture you have done in surface mode. And after returning to Surface Mode, you will have to reduce the amount of trillion polygons in order to be able to re-sculpt again and be careful not to lose detail in the mesh during this process. I think working in this way does not make much sense, has no efficiency and the pc ends up being slow and with great chances of 3d-coat to stop working. You may also think that converting the mesh to voxels and then returning to surface mode can fix a problem mesh. But this does not always happen, I did a test where I used the Inflate and the Pinch Brushes to cause serious damage to the object and to make the mesh exploded inside. When the user saw the mesh externally it seemed that everything was ok, but inside the mesh was in trouble. So I thought converting the mesh to voxels (ENTER key) all my problems would be fixed but unfortunately that was not what happened. Internally, there were still problems with the mesh and I had to manually repair using Reconstruction Brush and even though I was taking great care not to affect the surrounding areas, I ended up affecting those areas and I had to sculpt the area region to fix the procedure caused by Reconstruction Brush. So I thought, since we are in surface mode, why instead of 3d-coat converting the mesh into voxels (ENTER key), could 3d-coat generate a new mesh through another type of routine? Please, allow me to explain my suggestion to you better. What I would like to suggest would be a more Surface Mode oriented code, something very similar when you choose the process to do AUTOPO -> Instant Meshes (auto), and instead of generating polygons for the Retopo Room, this code would generate a new mesh with the amount of polygons desired by the user. This new mesh would fix any problems or errors in the mesh (such as holes, intersections and other types of errors) and the best thing is that this new mesh could still remain as much as possible the details already sculpted in the mesh by the user. This process would still be the same as the users are accustomed to doing. We would press Enter, we would inform the amount of polygons, but the result would be the generation of a new mesh more efficient, light, fixing possible errors in the meshes and with the details still remained (according to the quantity of polygons of course). Of course, if the user wants to convert to voxels he can do this manually through voxtree. That way, we would have the 2 worlds in our hands, meshes generated for Surface mode (Instant Meshes type) and meshes generated by Voxels mode. That way, would increase the amount of techniques or methods applied in the sculpture, would increase productivity and efficiency for users.
  9. I would like to make a correction on the Close Holes in Surface, Close Hole and Fill Hole tools in 3D-Coat (surface mode). The method I did using Vox Layer to generate an open mesh behind the bust, actually the tool does not generate a hollow mesh (no polygons in the back) ... I said it wrong and I apologize for my mistake! In fact, Vox Layer generates a mesh with a very thin thickness. Therefore, 3D-Coat shows a warning that the mesh has no holes and that is why the Close Holes in Surface, Fill Hole and close holes tools were not "working" as they should be. Again, apologies for my mistake. I generated a new mesh and with the Poly Remove tool, I erased the back faces of the bust and so I got a mesh without volumes and without polygons in the back. I used again the 3 tools to be able to close the hole behind the bust and they have resulted in the following image: As you can see the result was not exactly what I wanted. Maybe, I'm not sure how to properly use the 3 tools to get the result I'd really like, but the tools worked. I wish the result would be a better surface. Now, I took the same mesh for Meshmixer and Blender programs. The result as you can see is the way I would expect to close the hole in the mesh. The meshmixer closed the hole creating a dense mesh, but with better quality. In blender, I just used the Fill tool, I did not bother closing the hole with quality in the mesh. I believe there is a better tool for having a much better quality result. In my opinion and conclusion, I wish 3d-Coat would have closed the hole in the same quality as meshmixer gave me.
  10. Certainly! We need to stay in the same room as much as possible. I have tried several techniques inside the Surface mode in Sculpt Room and I have been encountering many difficulties. For example, a production focused on 3d printing. I've been missing a number of tools in which I could manipulate, change, and repair meshes inside the Sculpt Room (especially in Surface mode). I've been insisting a lot on surface mode because that's where most of our production will be made. At no time I am leaving aside the Voxels mode which is very important as well, but is more focused on the early part of a production, such as in volume creation. In surface mode, we have fantastic tools and functions that specialize in the refinement and detailing of the mesh. And the most important is the implementation of Sculpt Layers that Andrew is developing that is in the beta version (If in the beta the sculpt layers is very good, I imagine when it is completely stable and compatible with other functions and tools of 3D-Coat. In my opinion, it will be the best Sculpt Layer system within all programs). Unfortunately, as I was saying above, in Surface mode there are very important tools and functions missing so we can manipulate and repair the mesh, as in the following situations: - A tool is missing that can close large holes or all the holes in the mesh, as in Zbrush with theirs Close Holes tool. I know there are the Close holes and Fill Holes tools in the 3d-coat, but for some cases both tools do not work. For example, you can try the following experiment. Select the Vox Layer tool, with the rectangular selection, select only half of the skull bust, set the tool to Create as Surface, layer offset = 0 and thickness = 0. With the mesh generated, in surface mode, try to close the back of the bust (which has no polygons). You can try using the tools I have said (Close Holes and Fill Holes) that 3d-Coat will not close the mesh with polygons. After that, go to the Geometry / Close Holes menu ... and nothing will happen, because 3D-Coat warns that the mesh has no holes. To close this hole, I figured we could go to the Retopo Room and create the back with polygons, import that back of the reto to the same layer in the surface mode, but we'd have two problems. 1) If there is any intersession between the meshes 3d-coat will not merge between the meshes. 2) If the mesh happens to be merged in the same layer, we still have the problem of bridging the two surfaces. There may be other methods for performing a simple operation of closing a mesh surface, even if that hole is somewhat complicated to close. But, currently, it is a painful procedure to be done to perform a Close holes within the surface mode. - Tools are missing in Surface mode as the tools that we have inside the Retopo Room, so that we can repair and make modeling with the edges or polygons of the meshes that are in the Surface Mode and also an Bridge tool between Edges. - Projection of details and shapes Within Surface mode, it would be very important the tools that I already talked about as project all, Copy tool and something similar to Morph target. - The tools and functions that exist in the Paint Room could be duplicated into the Surface Room: . Height Adjustment Tool (MAGNIFICATION E REDUCTION) . Clone Tool . Transform / Copy Tool . Copy / Paste Tool . Spline Image Tool . Eraser Tool . CONDITIONS Droplist could also be present in Surface Mode - Freeze Brush. . Different Freeze types that exist in the menu: Toggle Freeze View and other functions. . VERY IMPORTANT: Clip Mask Layers for Sculpt Layers - Another very important function that Andrew could change is the following: When we are in Surface mode and we press the Enter key, we define the amount of polygons so 3D-Coat can perform the procedure of transforming the mesh into Voxels and return to Surface Mode. Instead, why does not the function accomplish something similar to what happens in Zbrush dynamesh? Please allow me to explain, when the user sculpted shapes and details using Dynamesh and the user needs to perform that redo mesh procedure with another dynamesh and even setting the amount of polygons in the dynamesh settings, Zbrush generates a mesh where all the shapes and details still remain in the mesh. Of course if the user has defined a lower number of polygons the program will not generate something where the details will stay in the mesh, but it will do everything to make the mesh as close as possible to the mesh at the beginning of the process. In 3D-coat, if we press ENTER, we need to define trillions of polygons so that the mesh remains with the same details as before pressing the ENTER key. The problem with this is that if you had a mesh with a reasonable amount of polygons, you will have a very heavy polygon mesh. I do not know how Andrew could change this, but if he could generate another program code so that the mesh does not have to do this Voxels / Surface procedure, re-evaluating the mesh to fix problems and at the same time it would be more important to keep the details already made by the user, would be fantastic. - I also miss functions with Polygroup and different types of polygon selections that exist in Meshmixer. In fact, I did videos explaining and detailing these functions. - Function to be activated in the Move Tool and Pose Tool to restrict the influence of the brush area between two surfaces in a more topological way. For example, you try to close the eyes or mouth of a character without affecting the entire surrounding region. I also explained this in the video. I know there are many suggestions, but I think these tools and features mentioned above would make the 3d-coat surface mode become a real power and could not be missing in 3d-coat (surface mode).
  11. It's great that you've talked about one of the tools that exist in the Paint Room like the Clone Tool. I'm glad of it ... I agree with you and to be honest ... I would very much appreciate that if it were possible most of the tools and functions that exist in Paint Room, that Andrew could somehow create or duplicate these tools and functions from Paint Room to Surface mode (sculpt Room). I think it is a fantastic and essentials features that would increase our power to create and manipulate the meshes, that is, we would have great possibilities in Surface Mode. Surface mode would become even more powerful and unique! I'm wondering what Surface Mode would be like with Project All tool, Copy Brush, and the other tools that exist in Paint Room would be duplicated for Surface Mode (Sculpt Room) ... It would just be perfect!
  12. Reprojecting details from one mesh to another mesh with completely different topology: Hey everyone, It's been a while since I suggested some tool for 3D-Coat. So.... I believe that many users, like me, have arrived at a stage of sculpture, in the Surface (Sculpt room) mode, where we detail the mesh and for some reason we have to reproject all the details that took too long to be made in another mesh. How to do this procedure? Many people would say that we could convert the mesh to voxels mode and use the Copy tool or other tools to simulate this projection of details from one mesh to another. I agree that these techniques could work, but for you to switch to Voxels, there is a problem, we all know that we will have to enter a value of 1.0 trillion polygons so that the mesh converted to Voxel can have all those details exactly the same as of the mesh when in Surface mode. Another problem is that if we were working with an open mesh, imagine working with half a head and no polygons behind. In this situation, when we tried to convert to Voxels the mesh would explode or there would be some defect in converting to Voxels. To avoid this, we know that we would need to use the Shell tool and then convert to Voxels using trillions polygons again. At this point, I ask everyone ... and if for some reason we could not convert the mesh to voxels? How could we project all the details of one mesh to another mesh with different topology while in Surface mode? Some users might suggest some techniques. Maybe using tools like Clone and Vox Layer, but unfortunately, it would not work very well because when you were to merge a layer with the vox layer or Clone, 3D-Coat would not allow this Boolean procedure because one mesh intersects the other (in surface mode). To avoid this, we would have to erase all the polygons in the area where intersession happens, merge layers, and if there is no error in Boolean operation, we would have to somehow use some technique to bridge the mesh to the other. So, I ask, what if we were working on a mesh for 3D printing? After the part is detailed and you have the Keys to fit between parts? In this situation, we know that we have to be exact, we can not change the mesh and if we could we would have to change almost nothing. What I do know is that unfortunately at this point we have no way out of our problem or some technique with tools or functions inside the Surface (Sculpt Room) mode. Therefore, I would very much like to suggest some tools in Surface Mode, where we could perform the projection of details between different meshes. This process is very important for various types of jobs. I could have made a video to show this process of transferring detail between meshes, but I found a video that already demonstrates all the tools that would be needed to make this process: 0:26 - 1:18 minutes - Explaining the process. 1:18 - 1:42 minutes - Using Project All (With the default tool settings) 1:43 - 1:53 minutes - result of not having been efficient. 1:54 - 2:02 minutes - Reason for not having been efficient 2:03 - 2:39 minutes - Controlling the projection with the Slide Distance value. (almost perfect result) 2:40 - 2:49 minutes - Reason to still have some defects in the projection. 2:50 - 2:55 minutes - Return to mesh at the initial time. 2:56 - 3:20 minutes - Before retaking the projection, use and explanation of the Store Morth target tool 3:21 - 3:34 minutes - Remaining the projection process 3:35 - 3:39 minutes - Procedure for preparing the mesh where errors occurred in the projection 4:00 - 4:43 minutes - Morph Brush: Explanation and use of the tool 4:43 - 6:05 minutes - Manual process with Clay brush to help the mesh projection 6:06 - 6:25 minutes - Almost perfect result. 6:26 - 7:28 minutes - Limiting the projection to some areas with the use of Masks. In 3D-coat, we have the Copy Brush found in Voxels mode. I'd like to suggest that we could have in Surface mode a Project All tool and we could also have Copy Brush to perfect some mistakes (if the project process did not work 100%) or project what the user would like with Copy Brush. In 3D-Coat, this project all could respect the Freeze areas and so would not project any details in those areas. The Store Morph Target technique could be replaced by Clip Mask (if Andrew added Clip Mask to Sculpt Layers) or some other tool that would mimic this function. I know Andrew is busy with so many things to be done, but I hope someday we could have these great tools in Surface Mode which is one of the most important Modes within the Sculpt Room. What do you guys think about that?
  13. Hey everyone, I have 3 doubts: 1) Saving a mesh or object from VoxTree in 3b format. Can this 3b object keep all the work done on layers of sculpture related to it? In the test I did, the 3B file does not save sculpt layers relating to the mesh of the VoxTree layer that I saved in .3b when I import this .3b file. With you, do the same thing happen? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) I was thinking of separating objects from VoxTree (dismember the project into mini projects) where the main file could be lighter and smaller ( just a container for the mini files .3b files that are part of the same project ). An example would be a sculpture of a character. I separated in the Vox tree : * Character Container |_ character mesh |_ Clothes |_ Accessories. I would like to do something similar to what happens in the Blender program. Having a main file and in it I would use the Append or Link method as needed. When I worked on a 3b mesh and saved, it would automatically modify file 3b. and in the main project this file would be updated and modified. Could I do something like that? ------------------------------------------------------- 3) You could kindly indicate to me an open source or free program so that I can fully organize myself in my private projects in the sense of task and asset management, calendar and etc (preferably it is just a single program for better usability). The program I was testing was Redmine, but it's complicated in upgrades and stuff. I also saw an opensource program called Tactic, but I did not understand anything, very complicated and I did not find any video that would explain the running beginner users like me. thank you
  14. Rygaard

    3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread

    It's working! The problem was that I was trying to drag the voxtree layer by the icon without first selecting the layer in voxtree. If someone happens the same as me. First select the voxtree layer and then drag to the Models palette.
  15. Rygaard

    3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread

    I think I've found a possible bug in 3d-coat 4.8.20 SL version. When I try to drag an object from VoxTree to the Models palette, the 3d-coat generates a black image and a 1kb obj file non-existent. Could anyone confirm if this error is happening?