RabenWulf

If you were Demoing 3D Coat back at the 2010 Siggraph then I probably met you as I stopped by the 3D Coat booth. I was also there for the Pixologic event. So if you wish to think of me as some middle schooler, you are welcome to do so but I'm afraid I'm a bit older than I would like to be. I really hope you are not trying to pass off the conspiracy theory as deductive reasoning. It would be nothing short of intellectual dishonesty given what little information has been presented. You really need to give some objective proof that its a copy. I mean I could easily argue that the only reason 3D Coat added Voxels was because of Zbrush's Pixol's. Would you believe that? One could use the same kind of "reasoning" you are to come to that kind of conclusion over who is copying who. Since you are so adamant at proving me wrong on something... lets look at your 1 & 2. 1) You are missing the point of those features. They are not the same nor is the workflow the same. Its not a D**K size comparison. Nor does the max "polycount" define betterment. I really dont know where it starts to chug and quite frankly I really dont care. What I do care about is that the Pixol's rely on my CPU and are very efficient with system resources. The workflow with Dynamesh is to pump out your form, you can do detailing but ideally you start detailing with normal subdivison layers after the dynameshing. Last time I was in zbrush I had no problems up at around the 70 million mark and really that was overkill, no need to ever go that high...at least for game assets. This is also the reason why they are focused on quads, because its better with the subdivision element. 1.5) since it appears 3D Coat isnt reliant on the traditional subdivision approach, the tris over quads makes sense. Its not using the same workflow or approach, which is a good thing. 2) Let me clarify the "essentially just merged the two together so that the Pixols work through the dynamic topology information generated" bit, because my intent was not to say that its a direct copy that was put in zb, I thought I made that clear with the following context, if not then I'm at fault for that..sure. My implication was that they acquired sculptris and the talent behind it because of his talent at creating dynamic topology and through that addition to the team they approached it through their pixols and with the goal of hitting those quads, (which appears to dynamically remesh via quads on top of sculpted geometry). If you want to say I am wrong for not wording it better, you can have it. I really don't care. Again though is there really any point to this? Whether its ego or just the need to fulfill the confirmation bias... Its getting a bit tiring. We both like 3D Coat, I'm sure we can leave it at that.

Ok, got it. So you basically admit to having a confirmation bias. You have NO proof, just a conspiracy theory. Even if they hypothetically were to be inspired by 3D Coat, its not healthy for software development to assume or demand that ideas can only exist with the group that "appears" to do it first. It's one thing to steal code, another to build upon whats perceived as a good idea or approach. In the same vein, imagine if 3D Coat didnt adopt the photoshop style of layers and layer blending. The consumer wins out when conventions are formed and approaches can be shared. Clearly my words bug you way too much though, or else you wouldnt have posted 4 times in a row. Normally people just edit their original post, just a pro tip. Additionally, colorful words such as "barged in" are a bit silly. You could say anyone that replies in a thread is "barging in". Theres no room for such convenient narrative driven language in a good thread. You also said "that Pixologic copied it as best they could, by adding dynamesh." and that was the point I was contesting. If you cant back that up with proof, then really we are just going around in circles and theres no point to any of this. Both software packages are good and a good debate can be had for which approach is better, though if that were to occur I would rather save it for a separate dedicated thread.

Yes because a fanboy clearly says he loves both 3d coat and zbrush right? If defending software from claims you cannot back up (by asking for proof) makes someone a "fanboy", then anyone who defends against a claim about 3d coat thats wrong or without proof is...by your logic, also a fanboy. You didnt think that through. I'll repeat it again, since really nothing else matters "Regardless of whats been said, the burden of proof is on you IF you make the claim that pixologic reacted to or copied 3D Coat in some way." Give me legitimate proof and I will believe you. Its not hard and I have no loyalties when it comes to software or brands. So go for it, the burden of proof is on you. You can trump all my claims easily by backing up yours, which is the original point of contention.

I think you are over simplifying what I said. I made it clear that I put emphasis on the programmer behind Sculptris and that its not a "copy" of the same thing inside of zbrush. It's clear you have a confirmation bias regarding zbrush brush though, I dont know if its due to fanboyism regarding 3d coat or if you just dont like how zbrush works (many dont). Regardless of whats been said, the burden of proof is on you IF you make the claim that pixologic reacted to or copied 3D Coat in some way. Otherwise, it just sounds like the peddling in personal projections and bias based theories. If you feel this will go too off topic, then lets just drop it because I cant really agree with baseless projections like that. If you have proof, objective in nature, then thats the quickest way to get me to agree with your claim.

Look I have friends at Pixologic, was even trained in zbrush by one of their devs. You are quite wrong about that assumption. I personally love both 3d coat and zbrush, but to be objectively honest, what you are saying just isnt true. I feels more like confirmation bias rather than fact. Zbrush remeshes based on the Pixol information, but even then what you see on the screen ISNT 3D. Its 2.5D which is what you are missing. The visuals are just an approximation, what you export is converted into 3D. Additionally, you really need to take some time and study up on what features have been in zbrush for a long time and evolved since then. You cannot objectively claim they are "reacting to" or copying 3D Coat. In fact zbrush pretty much IS the sculpting market, they dont fear anyone because they have no "real" competition regarding in the marketplace. I would love for 3d coat to become the competition (market wise), but really its not... not even close at this point. I do appreciate your sentiment in pumping up 3D Coat in such a manner, but you really need to understand the viewpoint differences between them and 3D Coat. They are quite literally in their own world.

I do not believe this information is true. One thing to understand about pixologic culture is that they really dont look or care about what other applications are doing unless it involves inter connectivity. One of the reasons zbrush is so powerful, even without dynamic topology, is that it can reach extremely high polycounts without GPU reliance. Its literally 2.5D as opposed to 3D. Because of this, they have used what they call Pixols as opposed to Voxels, and trust me they have been using them longer than 3D Coat has. Pixol's act more in a 2d fashion but still store depth information. The performance boost is intense. When they hired the guy (and acquired) behind Sculptris, which featured dynamic topology sculpting, they essentially just merged the two together so that the Pixols work through the dynamic topology information generated. It's actually quite good and its more efficient from a performance standpoint as well. Tbh, I would rather use Pixologic's Pixols over 3D Coat's Voxels if given the choice purely for the performance boost you get. Works great on any bit of hardware with some decent ram and a good CPU. This isnt to say Voxels is a bad approach, but with every pro comes the con, and in this case is its the heavy need for system resources. Would love to see it continue to develop over time, but when it comes to sculpting performance and the required system resources for high end detail is pretty important.

I can vaguely say that you probably wont be disappointed with 901 then. It appears they have covered quite a bit of ground with this upcoming release.

Adobe and Autodesk are the two worst companies that could buy The Foundry. Adobe is not a good company, I dont get where some of their support comes from.

I'd like to post a partially minor grievance with 3d coat. The zoom in and out, whether by hotkey or by UI element, doesnt work right when moves left to right diagonally. You can either go up or down vertically, or left to right horizontally and get it to act normal. Almost every other software package I use, modo/maya/blender..ect reads diagonal movement as well. I hope this is a minor fix that can be added to 4.5 prior to its release.

Regarding the Trial tag showing up.... I also counted around 27-30 seconds before it appeared. Doesnt matter the mode. It didnt affect the number of layers, resolution or export options... so it appears to have no negative effect other than showing up in the header. Regarding shaders, to be honest I find most of the default ones to be extremely bad. Better to just have it link to a folder with normal matcap images. A few of the default ones do seem useful, but mostly I just find myself using matcaps.

Couple points: 1) Its much more expensive, and not as inviting. For example: 12 month sub for Maya will cost you $1840, after that you lose the license until you commit to another $1840. How is this logically more inviting than a $1500-$1800 software package with no expiration and no forced upgrade penalty? Every year so far, Modo has also had 40% off sales, which drops it to around the $1000 mark. 2) My significant other works in VFX studio here in Hollywood, they use Modo just fine for VFX work (high profile film and tv shows). But you are right, up to version 801, it could be better...which is why 901 (coming out in May) has a big update regarding this very subject. There's some stuff I cant mention because its in their direct connect section (private info), but once its publicly released, you can pretty much cover a lot more ground with Modo on the VFX front. We are already starting to see some modo users pick up Houdini Indie as a companion app. Thats enough hints I can give at this point. 3) Modo doesnt force you to upgrade, nor is it about keeping current (as mostly the big updates just add features). Unlike with Autodesk you do get service packs for free, these are released throughout the year in between major versions. I did'nt upgrade to 801 because I didnt need its new snapping system or some of the other functionality it came with. 901 does have a lot of stuff I can get a lot of use out of, so the upgrade. Cost me $399 at the time. Thats less than one quarter's worth of a Maya sub. 4) I personally believe the subscription option is far more relevant to studios who are working on a project and may not need the licenses after or that its just easier to maintain from a studio standpoint. I really cannot see the benefit, financially, from a single user pov. On the flip side, Modo Indie along with Mari indie did present a sub option, about $9.99 a month for a 6 month plan, or $15 for both. Now that I can understand. Anyways just some feedback... from what I am seeing with 901, it will impress and address the concerns some may have had with Modo.

I can vouch for the Trial status showing up after a short period of time in the Voxel room.

Well there are some great reasons to skill avoid Autodesk, no matter how good Maya starts to look. For starters, the price point + no upgrades and the forcing of users onto a subscription platform after their 2016 lineup. Its a recipe thats not going to benefit the consumer, at all. So far after switching to Modo, I quite literally have very little in the way of regret. Better modeling tools, UVing is just as good (and simple) as 3D Coat, Similar retopo workflow, sculpting...ect In addition to that, there's the 3d coat applink, substance integration... AND the software has not only seasonal discounts, but upgrades that dont punish you for skipping a version or two. This means someone with Modo 201 can jump up to Modo 901 by just paying the same upgrade cost as everyone else. This way you are not forced into constantly upgrading just to keep your "upgrade price" going every year. Its extremely pro consumer. Unlike Autodesk, Luxology/Foundry do not really buy out plugins and other applications in place of at home R&D. They do most of their own development, and with the added python scripting... we expect 3rd party development to get a huge boost. Blender is really growing up too, but the con to its licensing and developer approach... is that not everything is polished nor do we see a lot of 3rd party integration of commercial products...such as Substances.

Yep thats a big one. Masking should at least be up at zbrush level for sculpting and or mari for painting. Its getting up there though.

This is interesting, on the Modo forums someone posted an official Autodesk video detailing the changes to Maya. On the bullet point list in the video, they literally entered "Mudbox in Maya". Again this is from Autodesk.

They would be smart just to toss it on steam for a flat rate of $50-100 and leave it be. I'd probably buy it just for the giggles, but yeah I highly doubt they plan to keep it going (development wise) much longer. Then again, who knows. Autodesk is an odd ball.

Oh they do... lots more being added. One of your wishes came true as well... Not sure about the other just yet but wouldnt be surprised if they fixed that too...the viewport has been a big subject for awhile now. If you are a current license holder, you can have access to their direct connect forum. it features sneak peaks not yet released. As a rule of thumb stuff in there cannot be shared outside of that forum. That said, I can share this one though because the video has been publicly released. Also currently Modo 901 is $1200 with the 20MODO promo code via CGrivers. Best time to get it if anyone is on the fence. http://www.cgriver.com/luxology-modo/8064-modo-801-individual.html Also FXGuide article on the rendering improvement: http://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/modo-901-exclusive-tech-sneak-peek/ Indie is still the best deal for low price modo. 901 Indie probably wont happen until SP2 is out on the full version.

Anything that is closer to what zbrush offers (look and feel) is a huge plus in my book.

For sure, from what we are seeing on Polycount and just the quick gains its suddenly making, I can see Modo going quite far. I think the foundry knows this too, thus the big games push for 901 (supposedly). I know some of the foundry people are also showing up at game jams and other game related events to show off and support modo use as well. Lets hope it ends up in good hands.

So I have been having massive issues with 3d coat in general....the latest problem I am having is that the brush alpha is freaking out. Its as though its getting warped and pinched in certain modes so far, mostly surface and paint, it was doing it in voxel mode as well but now not anymore. I have no idea what is going on, but the results of trying to paint or sculpt with the brush alpha like that is pretty bad. Here's a pic Any ideas on whats going on and how to stop it from doing this? I have never had so many issues pop up from one program before... Any help is appreciated.

Possibly, I have narrowed down some stuff. Modo was a bad example because it was only with Indie and indie ended up having some extremely poor colorspace issues, which I was able to resolve inside of modo by switching the RayGL on and off...its a temporary solution to something buggy in Modo Indie. Given the tests others have done, theres still something wonky with 3d coat but I really cant put a finger on it, and suddenly having a collection of problems isnt helping identify any given one. On the new desktop I put together with a 970 to test all this out, its not present anymore after updating once more. There's still some banding in the rendering but as others have said its only present when you zoom in. Over all though on this other PC it seems to be mostly gone for now... on the flip side what replaced it is some issue with the alphas (brush alphas) are spherized and warped. So lovely 3d coat replaced one problem with another. Between this and indie Im getting more trouble than its worth atm. Anyways I think the banding issue or just general clairity of color blending is worth looking into but this particular issue at least temporarily is resolved since I have just switched comptuers due to lack of options. The other PC is fine for everything, just not 3d coat.

I'm wondering if its tied to color space issues or what its being set as by default. This is on a fresh OS install PC with the gtx 970. So its something thats occured across PCs. Wonder also if its tied to an nvidia update, windows 8 update... another thing they share in common is advanced system care software, but im not sure how that can create banding. Still I cant rule anything out at this point.

No difference sadly. Even Smoothing (shift) has no effect on the banding. For better quality image: (then hover over image, click + sign) OK!!! NEW DEVELOPMENT. Seem's whatever happened got worse, its now effecting every application thats working in 3d. Here's a shot from Modo, it has never done this before on this machine. Looks like its probably not 3d coat at all then... but what can be causing it with varying degrees on all my computers. I have to be missing something obvious here. Its not a monitor issue since it shows up the same on all of them, regardless of PC. Different HDMI cables for all, so its not damaged cable. Windows 8.1? Thats something they all have in common. Checking temps, nothing is going above 75. Gotta be OpenGL related perhaps... back to trouble shooting. I cant continue my work with this issue.

I have no regrets switching to Modo actually. It's just that great! Blender makes a great fallback as well... still needs a lot of work though. Hopefully the new keymap update will make it a bit more user friendly.

Recently thought I would point out that I ended up picking up a new GTX 970 the other day and installed it into a computer with a fresh install of Window's 8. The results are the same, there has to be something missing from this equation.