Jump to content
3DCoat Forums


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Prominent


About RabenWulf

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,782 profile views
  1. Hello Tony, while Zbrush is super efficient in its design, I agree the interface and user experience can be a bit off putting if you are used to using other software. 3D Coat does remedy this annoyance to some degree, with a much better navigation and control scheme, however the truth still needs to be said. Zbrush has no real solid competition at this point. I cannot recommend 3D Coat as a replacement for Zbrush for sculpting meshes (hard/organic). If you want the best results stick with Zbrush. 3D Coat is better used for other tasks at the moment, such as retopology or hand painted textures. It is also worth noting that once 3D Coat hits version 5, they will probably start charging again for that version. Buying now might not be the best timing. Finally, this is just my personal recommendation. You should still download the demo and see if you can get the same or satisfactory results as you do in Zbrush, at least that way you know whether or not its worth it for you to switch. You also have one other option on the table, which is the new Blender. The sculpting features in that application are going through an explosive development phase which puts it in the same camp as 3D Coat as a second tier sculpting option. Feel free to try that too (its free). Relevant links based on whats been discussed: https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog https://3dcoat.com/download/
  2. RabenWulf

    Interface discussion

    Zbrush is peculiar indeed and it breaks some interface standards that we come to expect however its also quite efficient in its design. When you mix efficiency with the fact that it really has no equal competition, naturally they can get away it. Unfortunately 3D Coat is not in the same position. It has direct competition. When you mix that competition with some inefficient design components, it really does not have the luxury to be too comfortable with its "peculiarities". I think what this comes down to for 3D Coat is improving efficiency by reducing convoluted design components and remove unnecessary fragmentation, all while positioning itself to compete strongly for one more areas (sculpting, painting, retopology and UV editing). Take a look what Marmoset Toolbag did. At first it carved out its place in the pipeline by offering a good means to preview and present game assets, however as viewports in DCC apps improved, and accessibility to game engines rose, they had to in turn find a way to still remain unique and relevant. Now instead of just being a preview application, it sells itself as being the ultimate tool for baking via an intuitive easy to use interface. Just for that alone users are shelling out close to $200. As the competition changes, 3D dcc applications get better, with more functionality that overlaps with 3D Coat's niche, 3DC has to find a way to react to those changes. Interface simplification and consolidation would help quite a bit, along with some strong features that really set it apart in an easy to use manner.
  3. RabenWulf

    Akeytsu Discussion Corner

    I'd be up for signing a petition or adding a signature as long as we can get enough of the "Early Access" people to get on board. Heck even those who bought after EA were misled, so their frustration counts as well. Even though I say all of this, I don't really have much hope in it doing anything, when we buy in to EA we are also taking a risk, and I have no idea if Valve will take the effort to deal with their bait and switch. A lot of people have gotten screwed over with EA titles, but its worth a try to get something going and over to Valve either way. The best we can do in the meantime however is warn others of Akeytsu's horrible business practice and behavior. How they treat their customers and their willingness to abuse the consumer-developer expectation of respect and trust. Let them know we are rightly pissed off and that any good will they created at first was thrown away. That causing the software to get more buggy over time and then hold those fixes hostage, that lying about whats coming for early access buyers, that encouraging sales for features they wont get until they pay once more, is not acceptable. On that note, it looks like they will get some competition in the stand alone rigging/animation front (aside from the old Messiah Studio) via Cascadeur. Unlike Akeytsu, the interface is actually modern and followed normal GUI paradigms. They are also offering the product for free for early adopteres, which is a nice olive branch to future consumers. Take note Akeytsu, this is how you do it. I can see this software easily overtaking any ground Akeytsu has made so far and it would be well earned given the way Akeytsu has behaved since EA.
  4. RabenWulf

    Akeytsu Discussion Corner

    Its hard to be interested in any of these updates at this point. I bought into the early access on steam, which sold itself as a chance to get a "great introductory price" ($80) for software that they claimed would get significant "production ready" features as time goes on. Well, all those production ready updates came years later (often after they teased them in the forums and on the steam hub), only now they wanted to charge those early access people once more to get the very thing they sold them on back during early access. They have the gall to frame the additional $130 upgrade charge as "loyalty offer". Such a slap in the face to their customers. That's pretty close to being a bait and switch scheme, and its disgusting. They tried to generate early access sales as an investment for future updates, only to hold off on all the production necessary updates in order to put them behind another paywall, which basically made the early access buy in pointless. It was an outright marketing scam, and I can't trust a company that is not honest with their sale practices. The $80 Early Access price, marketed as a "super discount" with the most necessary updates are literally being held behind an additional $130 upgrade aka "loyalty offer" price. That puts it at $210 total. That's not far from what they are asking for it now as a non-upgrade ($240). The early access price was clearly not a major discount at that point, especially not the 50%+ they advertised back then and the additional upgrade charge is clearly not a "loyalty discount" either. Just bait and switch. It was all pointless. Anyways it was a really piss poor marketing move that only ensures I don't want to buy anything else being offered. I'm not the only one to felt this way after they pulled this stunt, judging by their steam forum. Some users are finding serious bugs which they are essentially told they have to keep paying into the new version to get them fixed. Many of these bugs were not even present in the initial release either. These people have astoundingly bad optics and working with them might not necessarily be a good idea as partnerships should ideally be done with groups that have good character and honest marketing, but hey that's just my opinion and experience so far.
  5. RabenWulf

    3d coat pro

    I was able to migrate from Steam to 3D Coat, as the first version I bought was on Steam. This was done via the upgrade process though, so it might be a tad different if you buy pro on steam.
  6. There's two things to take away from that bit of development. The first is that in its current form it would be useful for multiresolution sculpts, where you could add detail on top of a UVed mesh with multiple levels of resolution. The second is that if this is the start then it would be safe to say it wont simply end at that level either. It all happens in steps, the biggest difference is because its blender, we tend to see it early on in its development. non-related add:
  7. I am referring to specifically to features that are not currently in the 2.80 build so far, but are planned for 2.81+. The developer behind it started his own sculpting branch and was eventually hired full time by the Blender Institute. There is a lot that has not yet been merged into master, so what you see in regular 2.8 right now (the basic low end sculpting features) is not what I am talking about. See: https://twitter.com/pablodp606 And: https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog The autoretopology is also part of the equation. They added a few remeshing functions + automatic retopology. This alone won't match up to what Zbrush or 3D Coat results atm, but someone went and threw a wrench into the equation and created Zbrush's remeshing/retopology capability for Blender (as well as Maya, Max and Modo). http://www.cgchannel.com/2019/10/check-out-neat-automatic-retopology-tool-quadremesher/ Even the improved boolean workflow you describe is part of the developments. There are a lot of developments going on and its not easy to track them all. Foresight reveals that 3D Coat's primary appeal feature wise is being developed in Blender. What has also changed is the level of funding, with over $100,000 flowing into the development fund every month due to backers from Nvidia, AMD, Epic and Ubisoft. This is going to be very disruptive some commercial software packages, which includes 3DC.
  8. Disclaimer: I'd rather post in existing blender topics than create a new one. This is not a VS post. Since you bring up competition, this needs to be said imo: Blender is eating away at 3D Coat's appeal. We have 3 big things going on right now development wise: 1) Blender's sculpting capabilities are improving drastically to the point where it can be seen as on par with 3D Coat. With the advent of polygroup like functionality, direct 3D modeling, modifiers (including traditional multires modifier), and smart posing tools, quadremesh, one could argue it has already began to surpass the 3D Coat sculpting work flow. 2) Aside from some great 3rd party addons, Blender has began to develop a retopology mode in order to match the current standard of the retopology task. 3) At the latest Blender Conference, it was announced that the goal with the brush engine and painting features was to combine what you get with Krita with Substance Painter. Add in the fact you already have a substance designer like node workflow and the texturing capabilities of Blender will far surpass 3D Coat's current texturing capability. More importantly, Blender is free and has backing from Nvidia as well as AMD. The point of saying is to point out that all three of those areas are what 3D Coat is known for, as well as why people would be interested in picking it up in the first place. If that is matched or surpassed by a free software package, the question is, how can 3D Coat continue to grow or continue to exist in its current form? Blender is going to force the competition to think a bit differently, where their software fits within the larger field of CGI, and what they are offering to get those sales. I hope Andrew can come up with a compelling reason for people to use 3D Coat in the future, to either compete with whats coming out in the near future, or to bring something unique to the table so that the software has its place in the pipeline. Blender is simply disruptive, in a good way for us as consumers, but perhaps not so good for software like 3D Coat.
  9. You didn't do anything wrong by making this thread in the first place. It is inevitable there will be discussions and analysis of the tools (and their developer) that are part of this field. These software solutions are all in competition with eachother to a varying degree. The contention regarding "vs" threads is that it promotes the idea that you have to play sides, like a sports team. At some point it becomes more about defending your "team" rather than discussing the neutrally, the software itself. This is less a problem with the software and more a problem with users themselves defaulting into such behavior. With that out of the way, it is important to discuss what 2.8 brings to the table. Whether we like it or not, Blender has become disruptive software, meaning it as a free alternative to the commercial options is highly disruptive. Knowing this, its possible to simply discuss the cause and effect it can have, as well as where it sits in comparison to the competition at this point in time.
  10. I think a lot of artist would love to see a solid zbrush alternative, (cheaper, better UI, better navigation) but so far no one else has really stepped up to the plate to compete on the same level. With Blender ramping it up on a sculpting level, we start to see the cheapest option of all (free). If the sculpting experience is better, there is basically no reason to look at any other buggy paid alternative at that point (which is where 3D Coat sits). More importantly, I don't think we need another 2-3 years to see that happening, more like a few months with Pablo's sculpting branch developments being merged into master for Blender 2.81. Just flip through this guy's twitter/artstation to see the constant developments happening with regards to sculpting (even painting and retopology): https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog/1vEn/new-blender-sculpt-mode-introduction
  11. If blender keeps developing in the direction its going, I can't see how 3D Coat can continue to grow (user base) in the future. This is actually something to think about. If Blender's sculpting, retopology and painting tools continue to get better, due to the nature of a true modeling environment, substance designer like texture creation via nodes, a real time viewport and tons of high quality addons, what does 3D Coat really have going for it? Food for thought.
  12. There is certainly a great opportunity for this approach with 3DC. I would totally be behind going that route as well, assuming the results are good and its not another gimmick.
  13. This comment brings back fond memories. To be quite honest, this thread played out exactly like a few other zbrush related threads (some which were locked and deleted due to the person you are quoting becoming extremely hyperbolic over this very subject. He simply refuses to allow anyone to offer positive criticism towards 3DCoat as it relates to Zbrush when presented in a positive light. It some how always turns into criticism being vitriol and hate, rather than just honest and consumer neutral opinions. There is some serious deja vu going on. Ironically, even the "lets make 3DC better" disclaimers following 3DC criticism fell on deaf ears. The same person even posted tons of examples of great sculpts + renders done in 3DCoat, only it was quickly pointed out that those artist actually stated they did the sculpting in Zbrush and not 3DC (which was primarily used either for retopo or painting). This is why we cannot have nice things as far as sculpting goes in 3DC. It is amazing that we have to keep having this discussion with regards to sculpting over and over again, while the same person keeps acting out in the same way. I give them credit for consistency at least, but its turning itself into a meme at this point. I can only say this horse has been beaten to death. Same 3Dconnection worship, same sculpt layers being the only major thing needed apparently, despite tons of flaws in the sculpting workflow. So much of 3DC is subpar as far as sculpting goes, and much of it is low hanging fruit which can be addressed if time is put into it (masking for example). Its a great application that has potential, but that potential in some areas is not being addressed. Zbrush is great for a reason, and its not because it was "first". We are seeing far more headway as well with Blender taking a serious competitive approach to sculpting ( https://twitter.com/pablodp606) with its sculpt quest. As time goes on, there is becoming less of a desire to use 3DC due to progression in other software hitting the low end. Even projects like ArmorPaint are attempting to cover the substance painter workflow. I am almost wondering if it would be in 3DC's best interest to just go open source and work in the same way Godot operates, take money from donations and pull in developers who will contribute voluntarily. Perhaps then 3DC can gain a lot more momentum and make some serious headway, with Andrew doing most of the oversight, but that's just my opinion. After so many of these zbrush/sculpting topics over the years, its hard not to be a little pessimistic with regards to 3DC. Just my 2 cents.
  14. Since it has not been mentioned here, I'd like to also point out Quixel chose to respond to the news as well. Mixer is going to be their new texturing software and they are planning to sell it for $99. What I find fascinating is how they do texture generation, where Substance Designer is node based, they opted for a layer based approach. I would even suggest it is in 3D Coat's best interest to consider a layer based procedural texturing approach as well as it already has the advantage as far as texture painting goes.