L'Ancien Regime

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Or alternatively, when we get full NURBS/BREP modeling in 3D Coat, it will not be some foreign other, some alien contraption irrelevant to an artistic modeler's needs, it will be an integral part of the work flow, so that you can just do youir boolean on that NURBS/BREP sphere or whatever other such object and then select the spline of the boolean intersection then throw a precisely measured bevel or chamfer you want on it, even an irregular one, and you'll have a perfect BREP object you can instantaneously in software translation from it's NURBS/BREP state into a surface mode object or even a voxel one at any resolution you want to specify. With version 2024.20 there's no NURBS/BREP primitives so I can't do that in the NURBS room yet. Soon however... Translated to .stl and then imported to 3D Coat. Trying to do this in Surface polygon mode or Voxel mode is like putting trousers on a dog and teaching it to walk like a man, frankly. We know that this can be done....but SHOULD it be done?

God I hope Andrew and his staff don't get sucked into that meatgrinder. That would be such a waste.

This supercharges texture painting by hand. That's awesome. I struggled getting the texture depth I wanted with just the Normal Map extraction in the Paint Room and never got the the full depth I wanted of the texture in the renders. This will be a very powerful new paint room tool I foresee, especially in adjunt with Vertex Painting and maybe even Volumetric painting.

I asked Copilot AI about this; "3D-Coat introduced the feature to convert a normal map into a mesh in its 2021 release. Specifically, this functionality was added in version 4.9.06, where they updated the shaders editor to allow the use of a bump/depth texture for the normal map slot, which would then be converted to a normal map-like look automatically" Any 3dCoat experts that can confirm this? I'm not sure if they're talking about the same thing that's being shown in OP's video. And thank you webmaster for that link to the tutorial. That's excellent stuff. It's the solution to a lot of problems.

I keep hearing this "so many bugs" routine. I've been using 3D coat for 14 years and I don't get any more bugs with it than any other CG program I've ever used. I've had nothing but good experiences painting layers in 3D Coat. It's definitely less prone to crash than Substance Painter.

For sketch on a plane a fast intuitive trim tool like MOI3D is essential. Really looking forward to seeing this entire CAD and BREP toolset being given Pilgway's original rethinking. Also a strong crossover from the Modeling room's Smooth Selection (Catmull Clark) SubD tool, perhaps developed in functionality from its present incarnation which is already adequate for its needs would be awesome as NURBS manual retopology of Catmull Clark polygonal modeling is de rigeur in Alias AutoStudio and Rhino 7 and 8.. https://www.rhino3d.com/features/subd/ This shows SubD to NURBS retopo automatically performed but initially it could be done manually..

First I want to say the polygon modeling room is really excellent. I like it a lot and it exceeds my expectations. I like it better than Blender's polygonal modeling and it's a good rival to Maya and even Houdini's polygonal modeling suite. And now that we have s NURBS/BREP room in the works, while it's still at an embryonic state, I'd like to suggest one thing. Both NURBS and BREP are completely dependent upon curves, B splines and I think that if it already isn't being planned then I would strongly recommend a complete reworking of the curves suite of tools, both in functionality and in presentation/interface. In its present state it's not parametric enough and it's not precise enough. Curves needs to be made easier and more intuitive to use while also affording a setup for great precision and modification in a totally ergonomic manner. Your new CAD room will stand or fall on this. Splines are the absolute foundation of NURBS and BREP work flow. MOI3D, Rhino and of course Alias Automotive and ICEMSurf have this nailed. I find that the current curves setup while adequate in voxel/surface room, in fact quite enjoyable to use there, won't cut it in a CAD/BREP environment. It's somewhat inchoate in its presentation currently. I'm sure if it's given some serious rethinking something incredible will come out of it. When things get complex and tangled it's going to require a combination of refinement and rigorous interface organization. Have some inspiration; https://www.behance.net/gallery/99440287/Satellite-Hardware-Simulation-Test

If you watch videos of the best portrait digital artists it seems like over 80% of their work is done with the Move tool + Symmetry.

Whichever interface you choose the 3D Coat interface is colorless. I think the size of the icons isn't the problem. I think there should be a little bit of color in them to make them stand out from the rest of the interface. It just helps to catch the eyes from the otherwise monchromatic interface. You don't want to go overboard with it but just a tiny bit will help with icon recognition

A separate fee for the CAD room will be $75-150. The price will depend on the type of geometric kernel. And you won't have to endure its presence if you don't want to fork out the fee.

I don't see any conflict either nor do I see having different modeling tools as being separate entities either. They will all work in concert just as they do in Houdini. You can make a Nurbs model, voxelize it with OpenVDB for modifications in that form then polygonalize it back and forth as part of a seamless workflow. But now instead of a bunch of very expensive programs and time consuming file transfers it'll all happen in one very inexpensive program. You're already making sculptures in voxels with OpenVDB then adding minute details in Surface Mode then retopologizing it by hand or automatically and then using that for extracting displacement or normal maps and then painting the UV maps. Adding a NURBS/BREP system just gives you another toolset to add to that. And that is artistic as hell. Imagine using Move or Pose or Bend tools in Voxels on a modern auto design, or a piece of jewelry, surface mode it for added details and then modifying parts and details with NURBS. How is that not "artistic"? Maybe the Pre Raphaelites or Sympolists would disapprove but Daniel Simon would approve I think. I just hope there's plans in Gorbatovsky's project for making two adjacent surfaces or splines to make them match tangentially

When you really get into modeling stuff problems arise, technical problems. Different modeling technologies grew up for some very specific reasons, to solve unavoidable problems. Using voxels provides a very intuitive clay emulation, smoke emulation, but it's not very good for complex and precise bevels and chamfers for example. It's perfect for organic creatures, but for mechanical stuff it's like putting trousers on an elephant. Polygons with quads are great for game models and UV mapping for texture painting but have a lot of drawbacks, like jaggies and out of control polygon counts. NURBS are great for aerodynamic surfaces and mechanical surfaces and avoid the drawbacks of coarse polygons but are terrible for organic creatures SubD is a compromise between NURBS and Polygonal modeling, excellent for rapid 3d sketching to be then retopoed with NURBS for a perfect finish? There's some very good reasons why Alias is still a big deal and why they added SubD to their unsurpassed NURBS toolset. BREP is perfect for solid mechanical objects, like machine parts esp if you want to do physical simulations of shear and weight for volume of materials in an object, and also provide intuitive rapid bevels chamfers and booleans When you're working on a project based on real world situations you're going to need all these toolsets (and more!) at one point or another. How convenient will it be to have all of them in one application so that you can smoothly go back and forth between them in one program with a seamless workflow? The only program that fully embodies all these technologies currently is Geomagic with Freeform. (by the way Freeform Ghost of MIT was the first computer sculpt program but it never took off because it required a haptic device that cost $6000 to $24000) My proposal to 3D Coat was to do something very similar but at low cost.

When I looked at it my first question was "is it going to have BREP too?". So I assume Parasolids are BREP. Very nice. Excellent.

Is this CAD room part of the Mesh to NURBS room or are they separate? By the way this is really an amazing development. I'm impressed.

That will be interesting. Will it have real time displacement? real time vector displacement too? Height maps?

Well yes and no; Substance Designer copied Houdini's original node based non destructive workflow so it's not much of a leap to go over to Houdini from Substance Designer.

And I'm egotistical enough to actually believe (not) that I had some small influence on the decision to do this with my Twitter post to @Entagma in January 2020.

Why would anybody use DAZ?

That's pretty incredible about using Lumen for cinematics. Despite its speed it still does total displacement maps and even Vector displacement too. There does seem to be some doubt about it's ability to handle glass substances with refraction reflection attenuation density and caustics however.

That is a hell of a lot of VRAM. The price is actually quite reasonable all things considering.

Exactly. And nanite... 312 billion triangles with a RTX 3090 in UE 5. 3D Coat to nanite workflow streamlined.

Well if 3D Coat does do this route (and it seems to me to be an immense labor, though what do I know?) then I hope that in typical Andrew Shpagin manner it's not just something old rehashed but rather new, advanced and cutting edge. 1. Path tracer not ray tracer 2. XPU render like Karma; uses GPU and CPU with an eye on the approaching end of X86 and the advent of ARM (Advanced RISC Machines) like Apple's M1, M2, M3, M4 etc. Windows 12 will have a Qualicom Snapdragon ready version. Intel and AMD are in trouble and NVIDIA is already beginning to abandon the GPU market both because of lucrative AI contracts and also the advent of SOC's (System On a Chip) that AMD and Apple are creating with increasing power. ARM SOC's are the future it appears. Cooler and lower energy costs are driving this change as well as the efficiencies of not having separate cache memories for the GPU and CPU and data transfer problems inherent in them. https://wccftech.com/snapdragon-chipsets-within-3-years-account-for-qualcomm-oem-60-percent-sales/ 3. Is fully USD/Solaris compatible with a lighting engine that's more than just HDRI, with actual point/spot/soft box/realistic simulated sky and sun lights at the very least for analyzing sculpted surfaces the way serious sculptors require. After all, fundamentally render engines are all about light and how it physically works so 3D Coat as a sculpting program definitely needs a pro lighting engine to go with its rendering ability. That's not to denigrate the HDRI lighing in 3D Coat now but it does call for individual lights that professionals require. The ideal graphics 3D program should be like entering a huge warehouse studio with a black matte interior where sound stages are erected by movie designers with meticulous and powerful control over lighting rigs. We need to build stage sets. 4. It should render height maps/displacement maps and Vector Displacement maps. 5. And yes with Andrew's pioneering efforts in openVDB along with Houdini FX it should do hair and particles and clouds and fluid shaders and caustics too..so glass and other fluids with light refraction and attenuation using real scientific substances like Maxwell Render. If he can do all that then he should sell 3D Coat for the same price as Zbrush. (or more?) Of course you could just download UE5 for free and use that. I mean it's cinematics are insane. I don't see how Andrew can come up with anything that approaches Unreal 5.1 at this point. He should be setting up 3D Coat to synch in with Unreal Engine closely, like he did with Photoshop. Use Unreal Engine and then save up for a RTX 5090.

Zbrush didn't have to create Keyshot. But Keyshot plugs into Zbrush. I think it's the only render engine that directly does that. I think Zbrush was wise to do it that way. Keyshot costs $1188 a year. Nobody at Zbrush has complained that Zbrush didn't just create its own in house render though a lot of people are upset that Maxon bought Zbrush. That alone opens the door to Pilgway to look at what Zbrush was doing so right before Maxon took over. It wasn't its inhouse render engine. That $1188 a year for Keyshot doesn't even include particles and clouds etc so it's not a top of the line render engine like Karma or Maxwell Render. It's a lookdev render engine. That price should indicate the expense entailed in just producing a cut down lookdev render engine. 3D Coat should be the #1 sculpting app. What it should have is a decent rigging system, not for animators (though reverse IK would be very useful) but properly posing characters you're sculpting.. I think that's much more doable for a reasonable price and for sculptors and asset creators it's a lot more useful. Yes I know all about the Pose Tool. It's interesting and useful, even in designing a pistol grip for an automatic rifle. but for posing figures I think a decent rigging system for bipeds or quadrupeds would be much more useful. Then when you've got that maybe a bit of a vellum style physics engine so that a tricep resting against the lat muscles for example don't overlap but just press and spread out naturally like flesh does. IOW tools that create a greater naturalism in a sculpted model. I mean it's already got a cursory cloth tool in it that does certain physics operations like draping over another object.

Thanks for that Cavity Masking tutorial. Just what I wanted.