Rygaard

Hi Lizbot, thank you and welcome to the world of 3D-Coat! Owww... you break me! I'm joking with you! I've been in the same boat as you, in my way of learning I also had several doubts and confusions during my progress in 3D. For me many features did not make sense and I did not understand why they existed. Over time, you will gain experience with your practices, either through hits or through mistakes, and you will better understand how things work. I would like to give you more explanations or technical terms, to try to make you understand better. However, I can only tell you that Strengh (detph) is different from Plane Offset. I know this example is not the best, but imagine the following. You'll hammer a nail into the wall. Plane Offset is your limit of strength and Strengh is the intensity of your force that you will apply. The Plane offset in addition to defining the limit of influence of deformation in the mesh, calculates the average of the Faces above and below. This means that if you use values with negative numbers in the Plane Offset, the plane (spheres of influence) will descend (like an elevator) entering the mesh and because of this calculation of the average made of the faces above and below, in practice we will have a Brush with more controlled brushstrokes, with a better transition and smoothing at the moment of addition or subtraction in the deformation of the mesh. When you set the plane, its intensity goes along with the plane, so logically the intensity will become weaker or not according to the positioning of Plane Offset. Honestly, for you to understand better, you have to use the Plane Offset in conjunction with Strengh and experiment. Besides you feel, you will see the result that the functionality will provide you. Blender's Plane Offset works in much the same way as the ZBrush's Imbed function. In my opinion, Plane Offset and Imbed are the same things. I think the only difference that exists between the two is that the ZBrush Imbed is more polished and has more features. I was already forgetting to comment, but Strenth (Depth) with low intensity only seems to be similar with the functionality of Plane Offset with negative values, but I assure you Strengh (depth) is not the same as Plane Offset or that will provide you with the same benefits that Plane Offset will give you. If anyone can help with a better explanation about Plane Offset or Imbed, please share with us. But right now it's the best I can do. I hope I have helped you understand better. I agree with you, I hope that the developers provide us with these features that will surely make a huge difference in our work! Please feel free to email Support by requesting these features. Thank you very much!

It's normal your doubt, most people also do not understand correctly and confuse about the relationship between Plane Offset and Strengh (Depth or Intensity). At first, both functions seem to be identical, but in fact they are very different. Imagine that the Brush is a sphere in which its volume influences the deformation of the surface of the mesh and in the middle of that sphere there is a center line or Plane. The Plane is like an elevator that can be moved up or down relative to the surface of the mesh. When moved (configured the value of the slide), the plane moves this sphere of influence into or out in relation of the mesh surface. In Blender, the Brush size plus the Plane Offset = will define the boundary of the influence edges of the Brush deformation intensity. Therefore, the Plane Offset will set the maximum distance that the Brush will pull or push the mesh to happen deformation. The Strengh (Depth or Intensity), defines how fast you will reach this distance defined by the Plane. The default value for Plane Offset is 0. This means that the Plane is at the same level as the mesh surface. Half of the sphere is inside and the other half is out of the mesh. When we change Plane Offset to negative values, the plane will move the sphere of influence into the mesh resulting in a smaller deformation influence, that is, the Brush will have less deformation intensity on the mesh surface. Even if you have a high Strengh (Depth) value, but with Plane Offset with a high negative value, you will have a deformation of the mesh surface that is null or very weak because the sphere of influence of deformation is inside the mesh. Now, when we change the Plane Offset to positive values, the plane will move the sphere of influence out of the mesh resulting in an enormous deformation influence, that is, the Brush will have a greater deformation intensity on the mesh surface. Of course there are several factors that influence on the deformation of the mesh like the sensitivity of the Tablet, FallOff, Alphas and other functions of the Brush system. With the Plane Offset function you have full control of the influence of the deformation of the mesh. Refined Brush Control. You can see in the Plane Offset video the benefits that this function provides for us artists. I hope I have helped you to understand the difference between Plane Offset and Strengh (Depth).

I understand your positioning and the way you expressed yourself was even funny. I want to believe that I am doing my part to help the community and maybe help 3D-Coat in development, even though I am aware of my limitations. Perhaps, my voice can make a difference and become the voices of other people who would also like to be favored with a stronger 3D-Coat. In the end, all people will be graced by these implementations. Honestly, I would have my conscience heavy if I let it go and I did not do anything at all. Do not get me wrong, but if Andrew and the developers do not listen to what their customers suggest or ask, then there would be no other way than buying the competing program and abandoning 3D-Coat. And I believe that this is not the case. I have no contact with Andrew, I'm not a special contact, I'm not part of his team, despite all this, I think Andrew listens to me and analyzes if I have reason for the things I try to show him at point of view of an Artistic. Because it is the artists who use the program and know the necessities that are essential to the accomplishment of a quality work. I am a very private person and I do not like to comment on certain things. However, from some versions of 3D-Coat, I'm glad to see that some features that are present in the program, I have a certain participation. Including, bugs fixed! I know Andrew does not respond to me sometimes, but he does the same with other people here in the community. Maybe because the whole world will contact him, so he does not see my email that goes unnoticed ... Let's have faith! I hope @Andrew Shpagin will get in touch about... the top 5 key features.

Hey everyone. What I would like to talk about is very IMPORTANT. I would like to share with you all 5 features (videos) that are very important and extremely essential in the sculpting process that unfortunately do not exist in 3D-Coat. In all honesty, these 5 features, with all my experience, are urgent features that could be present for artists who use 3D-Coat to sculpt and detail their work. I do not have words to describe how these 5 features would change our work within 3D-Coat. I discovered that these features already exist and work perfectly in Blender. And frankly, I am very sad to know that these key features do not exist in 3D-Coat and would certainly make all the difference in our work. I quit all my work, and for three days consecutives, after a lot of work and a lot of effort (because I do not speak English fluently), I finally managed to do the 5 videos after many failures trying. Note: I tried to leave the videos with short durations and very objective. I've done these videos demonstrating and explaining in the best possible way so that you can realize the importance of having these features urgently. These videos are sorted and numbered by what I consider to be priorities for the top 5 features that do not exist in 3D-Coat. Even after a lot of effort and work to make the videos, I know it will be worth it. I believe and I hope that @Andrew Shpagin will watch all 5 videos and realize how important it is to have these 5 important and essential features for 3D-Coat's Brushes and Alphas system for us artists. In fact, the order of priorities would be: 1.Plane Offset - 2.Sample Bias - 3.Curve FallOff - 4.Size - 5.Adjust ---> 1. Plane Offset ---> 2. Sample Bias ---> 3. Curve FallOff ---> 4. Size ---> 5. Adjust I've already emailed Andrew with these videos and I'm expecting some response. Please, if you like and agree, help me to help you too, please contact Andrew asking for the implementation of these features. Thank you very much for your attention.

@haikalle Thank you for all the hard work you are doing. I wonder how complicated it must be to develop something like what you're doing. Let me ask you a question. Is there any kind of boundary between Blender and 3D-Coat? What I would like to say is how far something done in Blender could be transferred to 3D-Coat? I work a lot on the Sculpt Room (Surface and Voxels) so many doubts would be related to the sculpting process. Examples 1 - Character being worked on the 3D-Coat Sculpt Room, transfer this character to the blender, then make Uvs for this Blender sculpture, use the Blender displacement Modifier so that I can use any texture map to detail this character, apply the displacement modifier, return to 3D-Coat. And the detailing results made in Blender are applied to a New Layer in the Sculpt Room (non-destructive process). 2- Is it possible to make a texture shader using the Nodes system in Blender and the result to generate an Alpha / Stencil in their respective Palettes in 3D-Coat? And also a Smart Material (if possible)? - I would very much like a real-time Blender - 3D-Coat connection. The real-time use of the EEVEE Render would be fantastic. - Real-time use of various Blender sculpting and modeling tools appearing in real time in a New Layer in Sculpt Room's surface mode. (non-destructive process). Sorry if I said something wrong, I have no programming knowledge, and I really do not know if my suggestions would be possible to do. Thanks for everything

Thank you for enriching the content of this topic with your comments and knowledge! Exactly what you said about the Rooms being good for some users I had already commented on and I had already noticed. This separation of Rooms made the 3D-Coat community also separate. I can tell you the reason later. The separation of Rooms led people wanting a Room to become more developed than the other Room. And if a particular Room did not develop these people would not mind for the simple reason of not using the Room (tools and features). I've always seen people on youtube (and elsewhere) saying they prefer to use ZBrush to sculpt and detail their sculptures than to use 3D-Coat. All of these people's work will be done using ZBrush for their personal reasons. Therefore, 3D-Coat only served only to be used to complete the work of these people using the Retopo Room, and perhaps the Paint Room. What does that mean? That means if these people use ZBrush, those same people will not care if the Sculpt Room develops. But of course, the Retopo Room must have priority or another Room that completes that person's workflow. I know you are free to use any program that you think fits best in your project, but at the same time for the evolution of 3D-Coat as a whole becomes complicated. We know the power that 3D-Coat has in each room. And when you realize that if a single Mesh could have the benefits of every Room in your favor, you begin to reflect on the numerous opportunities for workflow techniques you could perform within 3D-Coat. When I talked about Blender and the freedom the user has to use all the tools and features of the program anytime he wanted, this changes the game completely! And honestly I would like the same thing to happen with 3D-Coat.

Thank you! Sorry, it's true, it's difficult if I do not demonstrate with examples and also with my project that I'm doing at the moment. I will try to make a video regarding Boolean operations. I can assure you that the "non-uniform" red icon is not present. I'm always careful with this "red icone" because I know this always causes problems at the time of the sculpting and probably should cause problems with boolean operation as well. Generally, I work with millions of polygons (between 600 thousand - 28 million - maybe even more). I know the amount of polygons in a mesh influences the time it takes for 3D-Coat to perform the Boolean operation calculations and other functions found in the Menu / Geometry. I wonder if the performance on your computer is fast to perform these calculations? Because even knowing that the computer I work with is old (CPU: Intel Core i7-2600 3.40 GHz / MotherBoard: Asus P8P67 LE / Memory: 32 GB DDR3 / Video Card: NVidia GeForce GTX 970), I always suffer from the delay that takes a lot of time to complete the operations. My question is whether the reason for calculations to perform a certain operation on Surface Mode is because of my PC or because of 3D-Coat? I ask this because on that same computer when I use other programs (even working with millions of polygons) I do not suffer from the time delay in performing boolean operations and etc ... I do not have that kind of problem. In other programs it may take a while because of the millions of polygons, but in 3D-Coat takes much longer even.

I also agree with you. Blender Outline is powerful and extremely organized with information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ani2PiPi3ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rYaBDcHG6U ----------------------- This separation of 3D-Coat data in several windows is logically explained by the different rooms or programs (if you prefer) that have specific tasks. If I say something wrong, please correct me, but I feel that Rooms do not communicate completely because they are exactly separate and different mini programs that are present in the same program. It's like I use different programs with some incompatibility and I need to create an OBJ or FBX file so that a Room can see the existence of that object so I can perform a simple task. It is not a dynamic workflow. If you need to do something different or more complex, then trouble begins and confusion. In all honesty, a new user will always get lost and confused in the program. Even those who try to teach the workflow of the program to one user will end up suffering for the other person to understand. Because it becomes complicated to explain something that people are not accustomed to use normally in other programs. I'm not saying that being different from other programs is bad, but I mean the way the program works. I'm not going to lie, I've suffered enough to understand the process! What worries me the most is that the creation of a new Room can happen. This would be great if 3D-Coat worked differently. I believe you're right that to have a single room (or two rooms. This would be the Render Room) would need an organized outliner and with all the information like in Blender. It's hard for you not to talk about another program about that. Sometimes people can understand what you are suggesting in copying another program. But it's not that, it's just to serve as a basis and to be able to explain things. For me, the Rooms could be Task Layouts. If users wanted to create new layouts with the tools and functions that exist in any area of 3D-Coat that the user most uses in their work would be possible and thus, the user would have a clean interface with only what he needed as tools sculpture, painting, UVs, retopo and etc. That means that everything in the program would be in your favor at any time. With just a single mesh and endless possibilities of techniques for your workflow.

You're right. Most of the time this planning should be done as you described it and I know it ... The problem is that when you have as a final product a mesh for 3D Printing (Action Figure) this planning can not be executed in this way. The Cuts Process and Keys is a step that can only be done in the final stages of the workflow. As well as cutting changes and keys also happen. Therefore, the step of performing Boolean operations, many times, unfortunately happens after you will not radically change the sculpture (usually the sculpture is detailed locally at that stage). If you cut and make the keys in the initial or intermediate stage of the project, the cuts and Keys will present problems because there are always pose changes or other things necessary to improve the project. In no way after performing the cutting process and keys you can modify the mesh. So the cuts and keys phase is almost at the end of the workflow. That's why I'm suffering a lot in Boolean operations on 3D-Coat surface mode.

I noticed that you changed the order of Rooms in the interface. That's cool. But at the same time, I believe that a complete simplification in 3D-Coat's workflow would be better. The use of a single mesh throughout the program would give us freedom and fluency across all areas of 3D-Coat with the use of all tools and features, and we could use a variety of techniques in support of your work. In Blender, you can model, sculpt, exit from sculpture mode and return to Polygon Editing to perform modeling tasks, make vertex selections by creating groups through Vertex Groups, use non-destructive modifiers, open temporary UVs, apply detailing techniques in the mesh through texture maps, return to the sculpture mode. Create new texture maps, bake textures and a world of things. This is all done in a single mesh, without breaking any type of workflow and without any doubts and confusion. Whatever you need to do at that moment, you can do it in an easy way. This type of workflow also happens in ZBrush and I believe that this also happens in Mudbox (who uses the mudbox can speak better than I do). In my opinion, a free workflow that you can do whatever you want, as I just described to you in relation to Blender, is the best way forward. We live in a time when everything is dynamic and things happen very fast.

Hi Gorbatovsky! Thanks for your comment... It is true that 3D-Coat has a different ideology than other programs. I know it would be very insane if the user only selected 1 single vertex or a few vertices on a Hi-Res sculpture without having some function or purpose. That really would make no sense at all. But please allow me to try to briefly explain how important this flow between Modeling and Sculpture is by addressing selections and other techniques. The selection of 1 or more vertices (polygons or edges) would be necessary for different types of modeling techniques, sculpture, painting and etc. There would be the possibility of repairing the mesh by selecting vertices, edges or polygons of the problem area and then using retopo room or other features to solve problems or perform numerous modeling techniques in the mesh and then return to the process of Mesh Sculpture. I apologize for emphasizing more on modeling and sculpture, but there would certainly be advantages to painting techniques, use of temporary UVs for some features and techniques related to texture maps. I have selected some videos on youtube related to Blender in the creation and use of Vertex Groups, Modifiers, Non Destructive Form Modeling, Live Boolean Operation: 1) Yan's Daily Tips #109 - Vertex Groups 101 - Blender Tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InMMXuliIRE 2) Vertex Groups - Blender Fundamentals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzRS2cCiBnc 3) Speedflow workflow with vertex groups - WIP - Solidify https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_IFEF6Igs 4) Blender Quick tip 9. Displacement modifier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIeCJfoaoIw 5) BoolTool 0.2 : Amazing Blender Addon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Z7awlhzQg ------------------------------ Below 2 videos related to ZBrush Polygroups and use of a map texture in a Mesh that has UVs. I confess that I think Blender's Vertex Groups more robust! 6) 028 ZBrush Polygroup Basics with basic ZModeler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVAul7tSWn4 In the video below, you can apply displacement map because there are UVs in the mesh: 7)Import Mari Displacement in ZBrush https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNYW350XVPQ ------------------------------ - Gorbatovsky, I found this fantastic program in which you can see how modeling is fast and intuitive by using smart popup menus that show the functions we need according to the selected tool: 7) VECTARY Demo | Free 3D modeling software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWTObimFAck ------------------------------- - Simple video of selections, addition and subtraction of meshes, and other things done in Meshmixer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJqkS6ucZ0I

Exactly! I have not used 3DS Max for a while, but it seems to be the same thing as Blender. Please correct me if I am saying something wrong. In Blender, the modifiers work in the same way. The influence of Modifiers on Mesh can be constrained if you use a selection of Vertices or polygons, where you choose which part of the mesh the Modifier will change to Mesh. The most important and fantastic is to be a completely non-destructive process and the user can use texture maps. The modifiers work according to the order they were applied, giving the user complete freedom to change the order of the Modifiers in the Mesh and at the end if the user wishes to be able to apply all the modifiers in the mesh. Sorry I talk so much in Blender, because it is the program that I have most used at the moment and also for being a powerful 3d program. I believe that many things I say here can be done in 3DS Max, Maya, Mode in a similar way. I would very much like to suggest to Andrew and developers the implementation of Modifiers in 3D-Coat. +1 At the same time, I would ask for a way to have a single mesh so that we can have a robust Vertex Group Selection system as it exists in the blender to work with both modifiers and various program functions. +1 Below I'm putting the Displacement Modifier link from BLender so that everyone can see what I'm talking about, and the MOST IMPORTANT thing is that you can use a texture map to be able to perform the real-time and non-destructive displace procedure on Mesh . https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/deform/displace.html Below I am putting the link on the Vertex Group system which is a powerful system that selects and creates one or groups of vertices according to the influence weight between 0 and 1 (0 - 100%) and this is very important to have a falloff between the vertices in the Mesh areas: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/meshes/properties/vertex_groups/assigning_vertex_group.html I believe that these two systems (Modifiers and Vertex Groups) would be sensational for 3D-Coat. Look at how many fantastic modifiers there are in Blender: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/index.html Sorry for being a bit repetitive, but it would be great to have a single mesh so we could have these systems inside 3D-Coat, because the use of texture maps (UVs) can only be done in the Paint Room. Sculpt Room and Retopo Room can only see their respective Meshes (Hi-Res and Low Res). Therefore, for a free workflow a single mesh is necessary so that we can have all the systems working in our favor.

You're right, I had thought about this in relation to the mesh structure in this process ... But I kept hoping anyway. Even more knowing that Andrew performs miracles in programming. I keep wondering, many users would like to have a Live Boolean or non-destructive Boolean process in Surface Mode. How could this be possible? If currently, the Boolean operation in surface mode besides taking a long time in the process because of millions of polygons, still often does not succeed ... I know we can perform Voxels Boolean operations with efficiency and success all the time, but think of situations where you have a sculpture in Surface Mode and for some reasons you can not convert to voxels. In such cases, you need to perform Boolean operations on Surface Mode ... And most of the time you do not succeed, it's frustrating. No, this way in zbrush this can not be done... but we know that in ZB in other ways Boolean operations are done successfully and yet they have Live Boolean.

@Gorbatovsky Thank you for your explanation! Yes, it makes sense to have 2 meshes inside the 3D-Coat, the first mesh being the sculpture Hi-Res (sculpt room) and the second mesh the topology (low poly). With this, unfortunately there is no compatibility between Rooms and Meshes ... I think the simplification inside 3D-Coat would be the best thing... existing only a single mesh. It would be great if you could change the mesh of the Sculpt Room using the tools and functions of the Retopo Room, Paint Room and etc. For example, in other programs, and more especific speaking about Blender you have the freedom to sculpt and if you want to change something with the modeling tools, make selections of polygons (vertices), use modifiers, paint, and etc you can and then you can go back to sculpt freely ... If you want to do UVs, texturing, rigging you can also ... Of course some operations may be lost, but my point is that you have freedom throughout the program with a single and unique mesh to accomplish tasks that you want. I think the mesh structure being the same in all Rooms of 3D-Coat would be an excellent workflow, total freedom. I do not mean ending the Rooms, because there is a program structure behind everything. The Rooms could be present internally ensuring the program works, but for the users the freedom to have a single mesh and to be able to operate in the way you want throughout the 3D-Coat would be fantastic. Sorry if I said something wrong, I'm not a developer or programmer, I just want to help.

Thank you for your tip... but I know we can press the Enter key and choose a relatively good number of polygons to perform a Boolean operation. The problem with this is that you lose the detail locally that has been made, because in this process of the Enter key is almost the same as you convert your Mesh to Voxels and return to the surface mode. What I thought was the process we have of Proxy, where we define a number of polygons through the decimate, do the Boolean operation and then go back to the original mesh with all the details kept. If this process (Proxy) were done, I think that a few more lines of code could result in Boolean operations with quality and success. Of course this has to be tested, since it was an idea I had. But some tests I did, decimating 2 meshes, then performing boolean (add, sub, intersect) operation, I got a little more success. Other Boolean operations were not very successful (Remove Intersection with...). This will also depend heavily on the shape of the mesh and the location between meshes. That Star object that comes in the 3D-Coat, I did not succeed and appeared that message of failure of the operation. This little test that I did, gave me a lot of hope regarding Boolean operations in 3D-Coat's Surface Mode. So I thought about the idea of using the Proxy -> Decimated -> Boolean operation -> Original Mesh Return with details kept and Boolean operation succesfully. I think it's worth testing ...

I do not know if this would be a possible and plausible suggestion that could help a lot regarding Boolean operations in Surface Mode that many failures occur in the operation (warning window saying that it was not possible to perform the operation due to many things). Then came the following idea: @Andrew Shpagin, it would be possible for you to make a similar operation of the Proxy Method (decimated) on a relatively low number of polygons in order to perform Boolean (Union, subtract, and etc) operations efficiently, quickly, and quality. And then return to the original mesh while keeping the details? Could it be that with this procedure that already exists in 3D-Coat could improve and have more success in boolean operations in surface mode?

@kev00 Thank you for your opinion ! When you are in the Retopo Room, you do not have the Apply-UV option. In Retopo Room, you have all the necessary tools and controls that will provide you with all the support to realize the opening of UVs with quality. You currently do not need to go to the UV Room. Even after you open your UVs in the Retopo Room, your object will not be present (visible) in the UV Room! The Apply-UV option is located in the Commands section of the UV Room. If you want to manipulate your UVs in the UV Room, your object should be recognized as a Paint Object. What this means is that you have to perform the Bake procedure or Import an Object from the File / IMport / Model menu for Per Pixel Painting. Or Through the home screen when you start 3D-Coat (Windows Menu / Popups / Start Menu) by choosing the UV Map Mesh option that will ask you to locate the object you want to work with. After selecting the Object, the Import Object for Per Pixel Painting window will appear and you will select the settings of the texture size and etc., then define your settings, then 3D-Coat will open the UV Room so you can manipulate your UVs. In the UV Room make your modifications, then go to the Session Commands and press the Unwrap Button. Then you will find in the same session COmmands the Apply Uv-Set button, so you will confirm and update the UV related modifications of this object. When you enter the Paint Room, a message about UV changes appears, click Ok to confirm. You have to remember that your mesh will only be seen in any Room according to the chosen workflow. ---------------------- You can paint on your High Res Mesh at any time. You can paint before you even go to the Retopo Room. You'll paint for Vertex Points, which means you'll need a very dense mesh to get the best quality, or you can subdivide the mesh locally into the areas where you need to paint with quality. After you paint on this Hi-Res mesh, you can go to the REtopo Room (generate your topology and UVS aperture), then Bake and finally go to The Paint Room to do your texturing process. The last step export your project. ----------------------- I'm not going to say that I learned this from one day to the next, I took a lot of time to understand the process since I always came from a workflow where my mesh was visible in any operation I wanted to perform on the concurrent program. For me, it was easier to understand and perform numerous production techniques. In my opinion, in 3D-Coat, Rooms does not have fluent communication between them. In my lack of programming knowledge, I may be speaking at the moment something wrong, but I would like to work within 3D-Coat with the same mesh across all the Rooms in a free way and that any tool I used would affect this mesh. I would not have to understand why my mesh is visible in one room and the other room is not. For me, it is very important an agile workflow, fluent, easy to understand, easy to solve any problem or radical changes in the mesh. Please do not get me wrong! I'm not saying that the 3D-Coat workflow is currently bad, is not it! Just saying that it is confusing and does not have complete communication between all the rooms (or mini programs). For me, a single Room with Layouts preconfigured according to the task that can be completely customized and created by the user (choosing menus, popups, tools, brushes that are used most) would be a dream. This means that all the tools and functions that exist within 3D-Coat would be applied in a single mesh.

@kev00 Thanks for your post. I know how complicated the workflow of 3D-Coat seems to be. Remembering that I have been through it and sometimes I still get confused. I will try to explain in a brief and not very detailed way the process that you need to perform. When you finish your sculpture, you can go to the Retopo Room directly to do your topology manually or using the automated form by right-clicking the VoxTree and choosing the Autopo function. After autopo generates its polygons, in the tools you will find a session called UV. In which you can perform the procedure of opening the UVs of your object using the tools Mark UVs, Edge Loop and UV Path. Defining your seams, go to the section called Commands and you will find the Unwrap option that will complete the process of opening UVs. The next step, through the Bake Menu, you will find options according to your goal, in which you will take your object to the Paint Room. You can do the bake using the Per-Pixel option that is more focused on Normal Map, but remembering that this option will also generate displacement map. You also have 2 other choices: - Microvertex: It is more related to Displacement Map. You can sculpt in the Paint Room, however you will have to define more polygons and other configurations for better quality. One good thing about this type of option is that you can export the mesh with Displacement Map applied directly to the mesh (This option will be present in the File / Export menu and you will have 3 types of mesh resolution. At this point you will have to make tests of the resolution you have chosen, since 3D-Coat will generate a mesh with a high number of polygons depending on your choice.) This function is very similar to the option of applying displacement map in ZBrush, difference is that in ZBrush you will have a preview of how your mesh will look before applying. - Ptex: I will not talk much about PTex because I do not use it and it has disadvantages. Making Bake by Per-Pixel and Microvertex can cause many doubts in which option to choose. But I think in your case the most appropriate would be the Per-Pixel. After you choose Bake w / Normal Map (Per-Pixel) from the Bake menu, 3D-Coat will present you with a window that will allow you to have Bake control: You will set the Inner Shell and Outer Shell by setting the values through the preview and in case you need more precise control use Scan Depth Altering Tools options. Remember that for both the Outer Shell and the Inner Shell you will not be able to have penetrations between the object and the Shell from the preview. Summarizing with less technical words: The Outer Shell will not be able to enter the Object and the Inner Shell will not be able to leave the Object. After setting your bake settings, an Import Object for Per Pixel Painting window will appear. In this window you can configure the texture size and other specific settings. For the reason that I use Blender, I logically choose Blender for the Normal Mapp Software Preset setting. I have the option in Initial Subdivision to choose whether the mesh can be subdivided similar to the use of a Blender subdivision modifier. If you choose to subdivide your mesh, do not worry because at the time of exporting the object you will have the opportunity to choose the original mesh without being subdivided. The next UV Map Typing setting is for you to keep the UVs that you have already opened there in the Retopo Room or if you do not have UVs you can choose the Auto Mapping option that 3D-Coat will automatically generate UVs for you. In case, if you wish at any time, you can go in the UV Room and perform the procedure of opening UVs and return to the Paint Room without any problem. The other settings I'll leave with you to explore them. Finally, you can go in the Paint Room, there will be your object and you can begin to carry out your process of texturing. Finished its texture, the time has come to export. You can export texture maps separately through the Textures / Export menu or you can export your object and textures through the File / Export Object and Textures menu. Choosing this option will bring up an Export window where you can define several more precise settings for your project. I hope I've helped! Let me ask you a question: For you, what would be the best type of workflow within 3D-Coat? Would it be a good thing a possible Fusion of Rooms? If you could explain, why did you agree and said "I agree with you. I've been using a coat for over a year and I'm still confused." Everyone's opinion is very important so that the developers can hear us and who knows some change in relation to the Rooms workflow in 3D-Coat. Thank you.

@Andrew Shpagin ... Ohhhhh My Godsssssssssssss.........with all respect .... Have I told you that I love you today? hahaha Thank you very much my friend! Could you see about the MidValue Function????

@kev00 Please, Could you put your comment on the topic that I created "3D-Coat: Please, unifies the workflow by fusing the Rooms - Important step for 3D-Coat". And at the same time explain how you would like and expect a workflow within 3D-Coat? Thank you very much.

People can get confused when I talked about the merger of Rooms. I was given the freedom to call "Rooms merging" because in my view, the workflow based on a single mesh flowing seamlessly across all different types of Rooms or areas of 3D-Coat programs would be the best solution. This means Simplification with efficiency generating more productivity, techniques and the final quality of our work. If you ask any user, that kind of fluency within any program would be exactly what new or more experienced users would expect from a program and not the difficulty of understanding why a Mesh appears here in this Room and does not appear in the other Room. " What do I do now"? This possible merging of the Rooms would not be intended to disrupt or complicate the usability of the program, especially by filling the interface with all the tools of the program in the same view or interface. On the contrary! This nomenclature I gave Layouts would be a way of organizing the interface, which would also allow us users to customize the interface, menus and popups, creating new and unique layouts according to what you are doing or task performed. For example, if you work with Sculpture, you would have the chance to make a sculpture-oriented interface, however adding tools from different areas of the program such as: Tools and functions of Painting, UVs, Retopo and etc that would make your job easier. That means all the tools you use most would be in the Layout you created. That is, complete freedom and efficiency of your work. And completely wipe the interface of tools that you are not in the habit of using. Thus, we could create and share our Layouts in the 3D-Coat community. My suggestion of merging Rooms would also be linked to the optimization and improved performance of 3D-Coat. Now the name like you would call Rooms, Layouts or Menus Sets for me is not important. The most important thing for me is to have this workflow fluent and efficient within 3D-Coat in its various areas or rooms without causing problems or confusion. I work a lot in Sculpt Room, if I aim to create an Action Figure to be printed on the 3D printer, I would like this fluency and freedom to use all the possible tools that would help me to create and solve any kind of problem related to my mesh I would have the freedom to create anytime Uvs and texture maps for a single Mesh that would allow me to further detail this sculpture through these texture maps (perhaps for example by applying displacement maps directly to the mesh). That means I could count on all the features of the Rooms united in favor of a single Mesh. And there's more, I could apply different types of techniques with such a workflow. As well, this workflow is not only for 3D printing, but also for all other areas like in the areas of animations, games and etc ... All would benefit without exceptions. In addition, we could have a complex and efficient system of polygon selections that would help a lot even in procedures of modeling, sculpting or modifications of part of a mesh and also in techniques of Painting. These selections could be used in all areas of the program! This would open the possibility of a new system of non-destructive Modifiers similar to Blender. These modifiers would accept selections of polygons that restrict or not influence of this modifier on the mesh. Have you ever imagined how many good things could come through this kind of merger of Rooms?

@Gorbatovsky Thanks for your comment and opinion. Of course, Andrew will decide. Interesting to know that the Mesh of the Retopo Room has more info than a mesh in the Sculpt Room. I thought that the Sculpt Room for supporting millions of polygons (high poly) could easily support polygons created in the Retopo Room. Excuse my lack of knowledge, but let me ask you a question? In the case of programs like ZBrush, Mudbox and other programs ... all these programs use only a single Mesh (having UVs or not) and these programs work fluently and effectively without presenting many problems related to memory. Of course, it will depend a lot on the hardware that the user has, but even medium-quality computers reasonably support a same mesh that has millions of polygons without having memory problems. How is this possible in relation to these programs? I thought that 3D-Coat would not find any problems with memory, which would even improve the performance of the program with the possible merging of the Rooms. I'm glad that Andrew is aware of a simplification where Mesh has a free pass throughout 3D-Coat (being high or Low Poly). If Andrew has spoken about it, for me this can be a fantastic start to a possible merging of Rooms within 3D-Coat with Layouts or Menus Sets ( @Carlosan) according to the task the user wants to perform. I get excited about it. I think it would be possible ... This is the moment for the people of the community to act and please come up with suggestions with concrete solutions so that a possible merger of Rooms can happen without problems or difficulties. With this we can introduce Andrew to the reasons and how important this merger of Rooms for our workflow becomes more simplified, efficient and most importantly the compatibility of all the tools and functionalities in favor of a single Mesh. I think a lot of improvements (tools and features) could be made with this possible Fusion of Rooms. Today, the workflow is very agile and changes in the work are done radically and quickly. A workflow that is not fluid compromises the entire pipeline of a project. We need to simplify the process and thus increase productivity.

Haikalle, thank you for your opinion! I know this merging of all Rooms or any merging of Rooms into 3D-Coat would be tricky to do. Even though I'm not a programmer (developer), we're talking about a complex code structure that is 3D-Coat. But at the same time, the merger of Rooms could not be postponed or put aside. I know that would be a big challenge for Andrew, but we know Andrew's ability and the sensitivity he would have when he listened to his customers' opinions. Today, we need to do more dynamic and intuitive things, solve various problems that arise or even drastic changes that happen in our work in an easier and more effective way. I think it would greatly increase our productivity and creativity. And sure enough, new users would be attracted and they would get 3D-Coat.

@AbnRanger I really understand what you mean. My difficulty in understanding how 3D-Coat works was difficult and I confess to you that I almost gave up using 3D-Coat. I wonder how it is for you that tries to explain to all new users the workflow of 3D-Coat. It is difficult in a user's mind to have a workflow that is not intuitive and fluid. We have several programs in one and this communication between these different programs becomes difficult. But at the same time so that we can have an efficient simplification in 3D-Coat, I think that the mesh (geometry) should have a free pass throughout the 3D-Coat, no matter if it is High Poly or Low Poly. This would make any 3D-Coat user's life simpler and more effective. We could have any kind of workflow we wanted. Even use UVs (map textures) in the meshes being sculpted. (Currently in the Sculpt Room it does not accept Uvs - texture maps). Countless possibilities could be made. The only limitation would be the user's creativity. Abnranger, I completely agree with you that simplification needs to be urgently done and resolved. In my opinion, merging all the Rooms would be the best way, but what's best for 3D-Coat I'd be supporting.

@Gorbatovsky I do not understand what you said ... and it looks like your comment disappeared .... Do you also agree with this possible merging of the rooms and thus allowing users a simple workflow to be understood, dynamic and fluid throughout the program and thus all tools and functionalities can be used in the same Mesh? Since you are a programmer, please, could you tell us, if this could be done? With this merger, would anything programming on 3D-Coat become easier to do? I know this merger would not be easy to do and it would also be something that Andrew and all of the people in 3D-Coat would have to agree on because it's a difficult choice to make because it will tinker with the structure of the program, but anyway , I as a user and artist, I think merging the Rooms would be the best way to be followed so that 3D-Coat users can have all the tools and functionality turned on the same mesh without having problems or workflow breaks. And still many things could happen with this merger of Rooms.