Grimm

I followed your video and tried to do the same on Linux and it worked with no lockup. As AbnRanger said, it's probably a problem with MaxOS or with your system setup.

Very cool, I'm just waiting for the Linux version.

Awesome, downloading now.

No problem. I await patiently.

Thanks, I would love to but I can't, not at least until they release the Linux version. Jason

I created a very simple ring object and then ran Autopo on it which went well. I added some more seams in the Retopo room and then I tried to accept the UVs to bring them into the Paint room. But that option is missing, at least I can't find it anymore. Maybe I'm in a strange mode? Also the Autopo didn't complete the process like it usually does, although I think others had commented on that already? Thanks, Jason Edited to add 3D-Coat version: 4.5.23b

Out of curiosity I spent some time looking into what makes OpenVDB different. The first thing is that OVDB is a sparse volume dataset, in that if there is nothing at a particular 3D point in space, then there isn't a voxel there as well. This is different from dense volume datasets that have voxels at every point in 3d space if they are empty or not. This can save a huge amount of space in memory and on disk and makes it faster to load and process. This also means that you don't have to have a pre-defined domain for the volume, it grows and shrinks as needed. With Blender's smoke and fire simulations you have to have a defined domain and if the simulation goes out of the domain it gets cut off. Another plus with OpenVDB is the huge amount of work that has gone into it's internal data structure. This structure allows really fast access to the voxel data with both random and linear methods. This makes it really nice for renderers and for applying transformations, noise, etc. on the voxel data itself. The OpenVDB file format also allows multiple grids in the same file. So you can include smoke and fire, or have a whole sequence of grids for animation. I don't know how this compares to other particle systems, but it's would be a definite step up with Blender's. Jason

Arrg, all of the OpenSL should be OSL for Open Shading Language, not Open Sound Library. Sorry about that.

That's a good question, I don't know. If you go to http://www.openvdb.org/ they also list Renderman, Arnold, Realflow, Clarrise, Guerilla Render, and Maxwell as supporting it. I know that Blender will support it at some point as well. I have poked at the library a bit and it's pretty easy to setup a volume with it and there is a lot of built in tools. It seems to be a trend these days with many companies releasing their in-house tools as open source. In general I don't mind as then us little guys can play with the big boy's toys.

This is a huge update for Octane, so many things have been added that I will just point you to the web page: https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=51681 Here are the changes in 3.0 from 2.2x: https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=51679 All 2.0 license holders can run 3.0 Alpha and Beta, but you are going to need a license to download and see this content. For those of you who don't have a license there is a short list of the added features: Volume rendering with OpenVDB with support for absorption, scattering, and emission. Environment medium volume support Deep image rendering with EXR 2.0 support and a Photoshop compositing plugin. Soon support for OpenSL, OpenCL, and other features will be added. So far my tests have been good, Octane is even a bit faster than 2.2x versions. The devs have even gone as far as writing compilers and ported code for OpenVDB and OpenSL that is also for both CUDA and OpenCL. Here is a test of a smoke volume: Jason

Excellent, downloading as I type this. Thanks, Jason

I just ran into this issue again, exactly like you said. I imported an object I made in Blender (made sure to not export UVs) for UV mapping. 3D-Coat automatically made the UV map and I applied it. Then, just as what happened to you, I selected the paint room and it asked again to apply the UVs. The object was covered with the black dots and artifacts. So I tried to do the same workflow but this time I canceled the UV application when it prompted me in the paint room. This worked with no artifacts, so it looks like 3D-Coat isn't detecting when you apply UVs in the UV room and when it applies them twice it messes up the UVs. I will put in a Mantis report for this. Jason mantis report: http://3d-coat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2046

Cool, I have been grabbing them as you post them. I haven't had a chance yet to try them out yet.

I had the same issue with Blender, in that if you load an object (I was using obj) that has bad UVs applied. The fix for me was to tell Blender not to export the UVs as I hadn't created any. The other fix is to save the project and then reload it (I'm not sure if you need to restart 3D-Coat or not). Once you do that it should work fine. Jason

Cool!

Yeah, I understand, but I'm finding that the procedurals are just too limiting for what I want to do. I'm beginning to split out the layers in each smart material into separate materials and then using them individually to get the effects I want. Then I can place them exactly where I want. For instance I made three different brass materials and I'm thinking of adding a couple more so it's easy to control the look (dark corroded for cracks and crevices, bright polished for worn spots, etc). That and I'm finding that some of the models I import into 3D-Coat are making it difficult to generate the curve map correctly. I'm also having a difficult time generating a good AO map as well. Having a control to temporarily turn off the procedurals would make using the materials much easier I think.

Yes, exactly, although I was just using one layer. I would like to have any painted depth be blended into and replace the current depth. Or maybe just having a modulate/replace option for the depth layer in the smart materials?

Thanks carlosan, I tried that but it doesn't make any difference. Now that I have thought about it some more, I think what I'm looking for is an absolute mode for depth, instead of a relative mode. Percentages are relative (adding 0% to depth does nothing) whereas an absolute mode would basically replace the existing depth with the painted depth.

Thanks Tony, I changed the depth from 0% to 1% and used the Ctrl key while painting. But it didn't change the original depth from the other texture.

This is probably a misunderstanding on my part but I'm curious is there is a workflow for this. Lets say you have one texture that has 100% depth defined and another with 0% depth defined. If you first lay down the 100% texture and then start to apply the 0% texture on top of it. I expected that the 100% depth would be replaced by the 0% as you paint over it, but it doesn't happen that way. I tried changing the depth opacity but it looks like the math just doesn't work that way. I have been using smooth to try and get the effect I want but it doesn't always work as I would like. Is there anyway of doing this?