Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

RabenWulf

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RabenWulf

  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.
  15. I definitely wont be purchasing any more Algorithmic products anymore. I'll be sticking to what version I have now with a slow transition either back to 3D Coat or depending on how Blender 2.8 pans out, their tools + plugins. Armor Paint looks promising, and there seems to be a general interest in getting Blender to pick up where Allegorithmic started.
  16. Honestly, I'd even suggest NOT using 3D Coat for awhile... try some of other software out there. Substance Painter, Zbrush, Blender...ect Sometimes its good to walk away from what you know to see what else is out there and how they approach certain tasks, or design features a certain way.
  17. Hmm you may be right, I was thinking of the grid/snap options under "draw", a feature I never had to use so I was going off of memory with that one. After playing with it, it appears that it is limited to setting up the grip, snapping the grid, but tools seem to at the same time ignore the grid you set up. For clip curve, if you hold shift it will snap but it completely ignores the grid. If so that's a pretty big oversight on Pixologics part. Also during that process, I came across a numerical input for "position" and "size" inside the geometry panel. So that is there apparently. Some of the stuff they add usually flies under the radar due to obscure implementation.
  18. Hmm to be fair, while I am not aware of any direct numerical input for transform operations in zbrush at the moment (3DC does have this, agreed), the new gizmo 3D does offer more precise control than previously with the transpose widget. A numerical value is displayed when using the gizmo 3D, and you can work with increments. Snap to grid and similar snapping features should have been added back in 4r5 if I remember correctly, so its definitely there. I'd argue what drives concepting is not just the feature set but the speed in which the artist can work. Zbrush atm requires a lot less actions to get a lot more done. For example, the gizmo3D can automatically move all or selected sub-tools with a quick click of the button. Parametric primitives, live booleans, shadow box, polygroups with quick hotkey selection, mask and deform modifiers,posing...ect a lot of these relate to concepting quickly. I really wouldn't put 3D Coat ahead of it based on that for concepting. I definitely prefer 3D Coat's navigation approach and brush control (right mouse button drag) over Zbrush's weird navigation controls, and its reliance on spacebar or S key to resize. In being more conventional, UI wise, 3D Coat has more potential at being accessible. This is something even Mudbox has over zbrush. Also out of curiosity, what was the purpose of the picture? I looked up the webinar, and Kingslien is talking about how Maya, Max, XSI are all battling it out for hard surface modeling, which is the lower left. There was no one battling it out for the "soft" and "loose" organic modeling field, which he has in the upper right. This is where zbrush came in, and why it was placed up in the upper right of his graph. With polymodeling, zbrush starts to hit on the lower left which is that hard surface stuff he references. Basically he created a graph showing where software packages are falling into based on approach and target audience. He explains how zbrush targeted the loose and soft "organic" modeling market with little to no competition, and then began to smartly intrude on the territory that max, maya, xsi..ect were battling it out for. This is actually a great message for 3D Coat as well, since it was doing the same thing but on a texture painting/retopology level. =) That would be interesting. Modo mostly is using it for visualization purposes and some basic operations. I don't think sculpting is on the table yet, or if it ever will be. We need these applications to master quick modeling in VR space first, as sculpting requires a kind of control that's hard to achieve with current VR input. If Mudbox does target VR, it would be mostly a marketing stunt they could turn heads with, but the only way they an really compete is by upping the quality/workflow as it relates to sculpting. They have some serious catching up to do.
  19. Naturally I agree with the sentiment regarding Autodesk "throwing in the towel" in part due to 3D Coat. To call 3D Coat sub-par to zbrush, love it or hate it, is a tad accurate. It doesn't need to be of course, but at this point in time, zbrush is just too far ahead. I also agree that 3D coat is better, sculpting wise, than mudbox though if Autodesk prioritizes mudbox again to be the zbrush competitor, 3D Coat could get knocked back a peg. With regards to being a multipurpose piece of software, that is both a pro and a con. It means that you may not be used for all tasks, but rather one specialized task, you may be part of the pipeline but not THE PIPELINE itself. Zbrush can UV, model, paint and render. Some of the best digital sculptors, even for game art, work in zbrush for the most part, even with retopo. Now they could send it to 3D coat for retopo, UV and painting (though when that happens its usually stylized, like with Blizzard), in fact 3D Coat is the go to application for hand painted textures. A lot of the baking will be done in a substance or marmoset based application as well. In short it means 3D coat is not usually going to be used for the sculpting, but perhaps the retopo and painting (depending on art style). This means 3D Coat, even if its decent at sculpting wont be used. This can be changed with further development, the so called catching up with zbrush. I'd argue that since 3D coat is not necessarily pulling away sculptors in a significant quantity, autodesk may instead try to re-target that market. They also have access to studios directly, many which work with autodesk suits already, which love it or hate it can lead to more seats and users. The demand is there, its just a question on whether or not 3D Coat chooses to match the bar that zbrush has raised. Either way 3D coat will be fine with the texture painting (hand painted especially) and retopo, its just a matter of competing in the other high demand parts of the pipeline. Less is more (application usage) if you don't lose out on quality.
  20. I think they also realized there is still no serious competition to Zbrush. The market is open to competition, but no one has stepped up to the plate to really match Pixologic. There is a lot of money to be had there. I hoped 3D coat would be the serious contender but so far its not showing signs of serious competition. If Autodesk gets back into the 3D Sculpting game (even with texture painting thrown in), it will change the current dynamic we have now. The biggest one at risk would not be zbrush so much as 3D coat.
  21. Time to bring this back. Live sculpt off going on right now, Summit 2017 will happen over the next few days. https://www.twitch.tv/pixologic
  22. It started happening today and I have no idea why. When I put any pressure on the cintiq pen while it "paints" (not navigation or menu selection), the entire UI starts to blur... the level of blur depends on the amount of pen pressure I use. I tried rolling back my PC, one day at a time back to when it was working fine. The problem has not gone away. Just a few minutes ago I just got a warning saying "instability error! Please save your work, dont overwrite.." ect Whats going on!?! This extremely weird. Note: other applications, both 2d and 3d do not show this same issue.
  23. RabenWulf

    3DCoat 4.7 (BETA testing thread)

    Not so much SPainter, but a general combining of input fields into one or two context driven panel. The management side of things needs to be updated, especially as more gets added over time (brushes, alphas, matcaps, shaders, categories for each..ect). SP makes it easier for sure, but they also have the problem of displaying too much any one given time. In that sense I would look at Zbrush (and to a minor extent ddo/photosho) with its input areas, which then pop up the resource window for alphas, matcaps..ect Apparently the new version of Mari is getting a UI upgrade that focuses on pop out panels as well (thank god).
  24. RabenWulf

    3DCoat 4.7 (BETA testing thread)

    Beyond what was mentioned below? I could refine the mockups/concept if I felt it actually had some impact. I wont lie, most of the time it feels fruitless. The UI could be streamlined though, a lot can be combined and built to work a cleaner interactive panel.
×