RabenWulf
-
Posts
246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by RabenWulf
-
-
10 hours ago, Mr.Panka said:
To answer to RabenWulf
1 They're is competition, it's not only zbrush and 3DC. You can sculpt in Maya or Modo or even Blender too. It's not as good, but it exist. And Let be honest, I love 3DC, but Substance (I don't even know what you mean by "colouring book"but whatever...), quixel and mari are better for pure texturing.
Are they a lot of good and accessible renderer ? yes of course ! but the goal is not to do a new renderer, they are building a way to plug an external renderer. I don't see your point.
2 I don't know why you think the zbrush renderer is "widely use". Do you have any sources or numbers ? (Are you saying than it's nice to have a good renderer in a sculpting app ? O.o)
3 If you argument if "3DC dev team are lying, this take dev time await from the sculpt and paint room" I don't know that to say, I have no info on the subject.
I missed the post where they said than 3DC will be more expensive because of the ability to plug a external renderer. Can I have a link to this post ?
4 See answer 3
Once again, I don't think "you can do that by exporting to an external software" is a good argument.
That's nice to see a lot of peoples are discussing what the software mean to them :). I understand than an external renderer is useful for a concept artist, but almost useless for someone who texture assets for a video game.
I feel like you didn't read my post objectively.
On 1) I said that its both a matter of saturation and "realistic" competition. Maya, Modo and Blender are not the "realistic" competition for sculpting at this point. They do not add to the "saturation" of the said market. Mudbox could claim to be part of that, but its facing its EoL (end of life) while Autodesk slowly ports some of that functionality into Maya. Realistically this means Zbrush has the monopoly with 3D Coat being the closest thing to the only competition it has. It is an area that has high demand, but low supply.
You mention these applications, but I wonder do you have the license for them or have used them extensively? I have a license for zbrush, mari, modo, substance designer/painter*, NDO (quixel)... so when you say "lets be honest, I love 3DC, but Substance, quixel and mari are better for pure texturing." It tells me that you probably haven't actually used these applications. What is "pure texturing" even mean? You don't realize how good 3D Coat is compared to them, especially on a workflow level. For actual painting, 3D Coat does not have much in the way of competition. The market is not over saturated.
*(Regarding Substance Painter acting like a coloring book, this is due to painting vector like masks which in turn show the substance associated with the them. This allows for dynamic scaling, but the actual painting quality is low. They just recently added basic brush opacity layering (link). Hard to suggest its a better "pure texturing" solution when something like that had to be added so long after its release. Its quick for pumping out substance based content, which was the purpose for painter in the first place.)I already explained quite a bit in the first post, but that seems to have been glossed over for whatever reason.
3D Coat has 3 major features that are not part of an over saturated market: Texture Painting, Retopology (with autoretopo) and Sculpting. One (or all of) these were the main reasons 3D Coat was picked up both in the past and in the present. They are important parts of the pipeline that do not have much in the way of competition. Again, its about saturation relating to realistic competition.
2) Zbrush "BPR" render is widely used. Many zbrush artist rely on it to render out their sculpts, often times with fibermesh being a part of the asset. In fact its probably the most used rendering solution for dedicated zbrush artist at this point. Spend some time at zbrush central. If you know what to look for, it is easy to spot. Not every sculptor is going to be dropping $350-500+ on keyshot + the bridge, which is a still a recent addition to zbrush.
As for whether it is nice to have a good renderer for sculpting applications. Obviously yes. However for sculpting applications, the sculpting quality/capability is far more important than the final render options. What is in 3D Coat now is satisfactory, otherwise 3rd party solutions work just as well, but the core features need to be matching the to tier competition first. Sculpting and painting especially, as well as over all workflow.
3) Where are you getting this "3DC dev team are lying, this take dev time await from the sculpt and paint room" from? Read my post again because more the half of it appears lost on you. I offered two perspectives as to why people would be against the move to add a 3rd party rendering solution at this particular point. You said you didn't understand, so I explained it to you precisely so you can understand.When you say, "Once again, I don't think "you can do that by exporting to an external software" is a good argument."
It is a good argument depending on the conditions at play, including but not limited to what is perceived as a priority. This was already explained in point 3 and point 4. Its a bit redundant to mention it again but since you skipped over it, I ended the post with "More info is probably needed, and if Pilgway tackles some of those prereqs to work well within a new renderer, that wouldnt be a bad thing for users as whole ".
Cheers. -
12 hours ago, Mr.Panka said:
I just really don't understand that. if you follow this way of thinking, you can say it about every aspect of 3DC. why sculpting when zbrush exist ? why texturing when quixel/SP exist ? why retopo when topogun or Maya exist ?...
It's also great to have a way to plug an external renderer because you can't do that with zbrush (you can use keyshot & bridge, but it's really expensive). it's a huge advantage for concept artists and a good selling point.
If it's not slowing down the developement of other areas of 3DC, I don't understand why peoples are against it. It's probably less work than trying to keep the internal renderer of 3DC up-to-date anyway.
1)
-Its a matter of saturation. How many, realistically speaking, competitors are there to Pixologic's Zbrush? How about multi-channel/pbr Texture Painting? Retopo? The answer is not much. 3D Coat grew in usage because those markets were not over saturated, the choices were very few if any at all. Thus 3DC was picked up often just to be a dedicated retopology tool for example. So what 3D Coat offers now, Sculpting, Painting, Retopology (those 3) are high demand, low supply features. Zbrush needs serious competition, Substance Painter is tied to substances and is more of a coloring book for those said substances. Mari is $2k for the professional version and it doesnt do symmetry. In fact you need a beefy rig just to use it, and the workflow has you painting on a 2d canvas before projecting it onto the said mesh. So what other options? There are practically none at the level 3D Coat is at.
- How many rendering solutions are there, that are actually good and highly accessible? Too many. Its an over saturated market. It is not a "high in demand" feature since there are way too many of them and in many forms, whether external or part of an existing application. So its not nearly as important.
2)
Zbrush already has a widely used renderer built into it, as it exist as a dedicated sculpting application and external render going in doesnt make much sense at this point. What is inside of Zbrush now can render out multiple types of render passes as well as fur. It covers the bases needed for what ZBrush offers.
3)
Can't understand why people would be against it in 3D Coat? Simple:
- It takes development time and resources that could be spent on areas that are far more important to the 3D Coat user as well as the appeal 3DC has as well as its place in the market. A great render option usually follows great assets worth rendering, if the quality of asset creation or the pipeline associated with it needs work, then it makes sense to have that as a priority before rendering out beauty shots in the native application. Since 3D Coat can export assets, the NEED for rendering within the native application is tiny. Again in part due to over saturated market for renderers.
- Lets assume the above isn't valid since one can claim its a different developer working on it. Ok, then are there any repercussions? Why would some one be opposed to this development? Simple. COST! Are you willing to pay more to cover the license cost that goes into adding such a renderer? If you think Keyshot for zbrush at $350 (starting) is expensive, how will you feel about 3D Coat costing more? Depending on the rendering option they go with, the cost will inevitably go up. I certainly don't want to pay more for a feature 1) I don't need and 2) already have access too elsewhere. Toss on the fact some are quite fine with the results 3D Coat gives natively, the priority for such a development is low.
- Both perspectives are valid.
4)
- There is less to gain from the rendering solution, at least for the user at this point in time. Sculpting needs to be better, a better UI, workflow, material system, lights/scene layout/control...ect are lots of prerequisites that go into taking advantage of a good rendering solution while also getting good results.
- More info is probably needed, and if Pilgway tackles some of those prereqs to work well within a new renderer, that wouldnt be a bad thing for users as whole... well outside of the potential for licensing cost to go up (assuming they go with a licensed rendering solution that cost $). -
16 minutes ago, stusutcliffe said:
Hi Speike-styles, I dont understand what you are saying , what program are you talking about here?
He is talking about Unreal Engine 4, which aside from game development is being used as a stand alone rendering tool.
-
On 4/7/2017 at 1:18 PM, jene said:
in my personal opinion, the rendering software is enough .
I hope that sculpting capability of 3D-coat is improved rather than rendering.
The rendering in 3D Coat could definitely be better, whether real time like Marmoset Toolbag or a progressive renderer like iray.
Rendering however is something that should be low on the list, as there are so many more important areas that need improvement in 3DC, things people actually buy 3DC for.
You touched on the on of the most important ones, sculpting. Zbrush needs strong competition, and a lot of people are looking at 3DC for that. -
3 hours ago, Javis said:
Smart material layers, layers masks and UV changes/improvements are in dev right now.
Awesome! Thanks for info Javis. Looking forward to more details when its ready, especially in regards to workflow.
-
1
-
-
Do we know whats going on development wise for the next version and or big update? Any future progress on sculpting (brush) improvements?
-
There is a noise tool/brush but its extremely limited compared to the Noise Maker in zbrush. You could probably use the paintbucket tool in paint to fill a pattern with a freeze (mask) then use that for some kind of displacement... but nothing as simple as noisemaker.
-
1 hour ago, Nossgrr said:
I just couldnt pass ZB for $119. I checked the features page and indeed it has export to .obj. Bought it. I hope in the future they'll loosen the features a bit and include stuff like GoZ and decimation. In the meantime, 3D Coat meets all my retopo and paint needs
I'll let you guys know how it is once it's released.
Yeah its a tough one, such a good deal for an "indy" version of zbrush.
My biggest concern however is the effect it will have in regards to 3D Coat. One of the perks of 3DC was that it was targeting that lower end (price range). Pixologic has now appropriately identified that market and created a product for it. Smart move on their part. Hoping 3DC can stay competitive and up the sculpting quality to match this new product. I might even grab a copy myself, as a streamlined version might be more enjoyable to work in than the zbrush (pro) version I am used to. -
So they showed off Zbrush Core last night, also launched the Zbrush Core website. I don't see anything yet to suggest no commercial usage. Price tag: $150 (or included with the $200 Wacom 3D tablet).
Here is the website: http://zbrushcore.com/featuresReally does look like a slimmed down version of Zbrush with a lot of features removed, and a limit placed on brushes/polycount.
-
1
-
-
This is going to be a disaster. Who exactly is their target audience? Kids that run windows XP?
Its sad too because Nvil was going the right direction, but it needed some serious marketing and a new name. In a way they are getting that, but in the worst way possible. -
Not really a good deal when you consider the fact that OBS and FFsplit are both free.
A lot people assume they are just for streaming, but in fact they are full fledged screen recording software packages which can save locally.
FFSplit:
http://www.ffsplit.com/
OBS:
https://obsproject.com/
-
On 9/7/2016 at 6:05 AM, Nossgrr said:
The new Wacom Intuos 3D comes bundled with ZBrush Core, $199 price tag so Core cant be that expensive on it's own.. I need a new tablet so this is very exciting.
I guess we'll know on Sept 30th for Core and hopefully ZB5
Just found a video of a bunch of artist getting together and using ZCore.
When I read this again:
"Pixologic is pleased to announce ZBrushCore, a streamlined version of ZBrush designed for all artists and enthusiasts of both traditional and digital art. At its heart, ZBrushCore is the same as ZBrush. All features in ZBrushCore are also found in ZBrush and everything learned will directly translate to its big brother. The difference lies in the intended use of each software.The award winning ZBrush® is the leading software for professional sculptors, modelers and illustrators working in a variety of industries. ZBrushCore is designed for users who are new to 3D as well as illustrators, students and 3D printing enthusiasts."
I am starting to believe they may not allow commercial viability. -
Pixologic just announced ZbrushCore.
" Pixologic is pleased to announce ZBrushCore®, a streamlined version of ZBrush designed for all artists and enthusiasts of both traditional and digital art. At its heart, ZBrushCore functions the same as ZBrush. Every skill and technique learned and applied in ZBrushCore will carry over seamlessly to ZBrush. "
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?202273-Announcing-ZBrushCorePixologic will officially unveil ZBrushCore for both Windows® and Mac OS® during the ZBrush Summit starting September 30th, 2016.
I am surprised by this move... its both good and bad. The software will become more accessible, possibly at a very low price point. On the other hand, it will directly hit the kind of niche that 3D Coat is hitting as an alternative sculpting application.
-
1
-
-
Does anyone else have weird artifacting when masking out parts of a mesh? Not sure if its a common issue or not. For example, in this case I am vox extruding based on a selection, but weird artifacts appear after the first vox extrude. I can't figure out how to get rid of it either. Currently using 2.7.09 (GL).
.thumb.jpg.45021ede96819333d654baff971ab782.jpg)
And this is what it looks like in the Render room.
.thumb.jpg.95045ec8f1c22efb31550fb823313ab9.jpg)
-
1
-
-
After using a variety of software and looking at the 3D Coat interface a bit... I wanted to go ahead and start a new or current UI update thread. More specifically these are my personal recommendations and or solutions to polishing up the Interface.
One of the first things I noticed with 3D Coat is that it suffers the same problem Mari does, in other words... its filled with micromanaging panels and wasted screen real-estate. If Andrew is going to keep adding functionality and features to 3D Coat, refining the Interface and freeing up some space will be a huge benefit. For example, layer masks in the layer stack will probably require a beefier layer stack panel.
Starting off this thread, I want to bring some attention to the Brush Panel and through it the Alpha, Strips, Stencil and Material Panels. Together, they simply take up too much space and much of their interactions require what is happening with the Brush itself.
From this perspective, we can see a lot of space can be saved if these panels were simply not there.... yet we need to interact with them. They currently take up way too much space, and also offer very little organized interaction. Some users start to become overloaded with custom materials, alphas, strips and stencils...
What if all of this can be consolidated within the Brush Panel itself?
This solution can streamline the interface and remove the panel micromanagement. Like many other 3D packages, it creates input fields in one location, rather than toggling on and off various alphas and materials spread out across many open panels.
Above:
Clicking on input boxes within the Brush Options panel will cause a pop up panel to appear. Within are the actual alphas and materials that can be used for that input. Instead of layers upon layers of tabs for categories, they can be placed alphabetically in a pulldown menu. Alternatively, some other method can be used, but the stacks of tabs we have now is not ideal in the long term. What you also see is the ability to save presets (ala Photoshop and Substance Painter). Whatever material, alpha, strip, brush setting can be saved as a brush preset, much like with sculpting it can now apply to painting as well. This will open up the door later down the line for photoshop like brush selection and user created brushes (painting)... especially if the brush system continues to add more types of behavior. Since the Brush settings are not always going to be accessed, especially with presets, it should be able to be collapsed under a "settings" header.In addition to migrating the panels over as input areas within the Brush panel, the actual Brush Operations panel can also exist within the Brush Options panel. This organizes and keeps brush related functions within the same UI space, which will not only make it easier to interact with but also adds a bit of convention to the UI.
The Brush Panel should, in my opinion, try to be the central attribute editor for almost everything that interacts with it and can require some form of input. While these graphics are mainly focused around the painting room, I believe the same can work with the sculpting room as well, maybe minus the Smart Material input field (or included if the option for painting and sculpting are combined in some fashion similar to zbrush).I also wonder if the Brush Panel can have an option to be context sensitive so that it transitions to tool options based on the tool selected. For example, the fill tool (brush) which gives the options to fill a surface or mask it out. A lot of the inputs found above the viewport can actually be consolidated into these context sensitive panels... such as the "more on convex, less on convext" list.
Feel free to contribute with your own solutions or changes, since its better to keep this kind of subject all in one place.-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, arumiat said:
Is there a way to get a hold of the old 4.5 default shaders? The old white standard and 'brown' were perfect, the brown let you view from any angle without light issues as well.
Yet to explore the other updates, but looking good, thanks!
Yep. Andrew included a traditional matcap shader as a default.
Here are the steps to get something even better than the old 4.5 ones.First, get a solid matcap pack, or any image used for matcaps. I recommend downloading many of the freely available ones on the net. For example I like to use these: http://www.9bstudios.com/9bstudios/communicate/Entries/2012/5/13_9b_studios_mCap_Library_Released.html
(Scroll to the bottom of the page for download link. You should get a zip file, inside you will find some folders and modo files. You only want the one titled: "MCap_Images". Save it somewhere and then follow these steps.)
In 3D Coat:
1. Look for a shader called MatCap_RedWax, its the first reddish looking one that comes with 3D Coat (post pbr shader implementation).
2. Right click on it and construct new shader. Name it whatever, Usually I go with MatCap_01..ect
3. It will then give you the option to load an image. This is where you grab one of the matcap images you just downloaded. Based on the image you select, the different kind of "shader" look you will get.
Try 9b_MC_053.png from that pack above, its pretty good. There are a lot of good matcaps out there, you just have to find them. You can even screen cap some of the zbrush ones and save them as .png files for use in 3D Coat.
This is how you can get the old shader look, and even get some better matcaps in the process.-
5
-
-
Thanks for the update Andrew.
Noticed you have "Brushing Improvements Thread" in your signature as well. Appreciate the fact that its there.-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, TXB4 said:
Is it possible to add a black line around my model something like this within toolbag?
If not is there any work around... This isnt my work its just an example
Sort of.
You have two options.
1. Download marmoset 1 (not 2) which has an outline feature.
2. Create a cage of your mesh (basically duplicate the mesh, expand it a bit) and invert the face normals in your modeling application then import along with your mesh. After that you apply a black material to it.
You can see method 2 being used here:
https://skfb.ly/EpEr -
Yes, thats the first video that pops up when you youtube dynamesh. Congrats.
One does not have to worry about topology in so much as one does not need to worry about topology in 3DC, they both have their solutions and they work fine. Not only do you have access to two algorithms relating to dynamesh (hold alt + dynamesh gives the second one), but easily followed up with zremesher if one needs to use it and on top of that it can pull from guides which the user can set themselves based on curves, furthermore since its all quad based the user can subdivide on top of all that and keep those subdivisions.
I'm not going to get into this again with you bud. There shouldnt be anything to argue here. Both have solutions to the same problem and they work fine.-
1
-
-
To be fair, you do not have to worry about topology either with Zbrush via Dynamesh.
Via online docs:
" DynaMesh is a perfect solution for free-form sculpting because it removes all need for focusing on topological constraints."
Just throwing that out there to avoid confusion.
-
1 hour ago, Carlosan said:
Hi, i need help with this question
Wacom Cintiq 13".
Any1 know of settings which optimize the pen?
For example, what is the pen version of zoom?
Thanks.
Wacom Tablet Properties will be installed along with the driver. From there you can set up the pen. The most common config I have seen is to have the top side button as right click, and the bottom side button as middle click. This will let you alt + top side button for zoom.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:
You don't have to show a "feeling." If the quality of the brush strokes are as inferior as you claim, it will be apparent. The "feeling" is most certainly there in 3D Coat. You just refuse to give it any credit, when much is due. A Mecedes doesn't have to have the same FEEL behind the wheel as a Lexus to make it a fine luxury automobile. But some people, like yourself will take the glass half-empty view of things. Same goes for Masking and Polygroups. SHOW US THE DISCREPANCY, rather than just telling us. I know about Polygroups, and after you attempt to show where 3D Coat comes up short, I'm going to show you where you are wrong and do not know 3D Coat as well as you think you do. There is a LOT of the same functionality of polygroups right within 3D Coat.
Just show us, already, so everyone can learn from benefit from this little challenge.
Hey, at least I have the balls and maturity to buy and or seriously learn software before making a conclusion off of it. You should try that some time with zbrush, it is obvious you wont though. Its not hard to do what I am asking you to do, it is far more relevant than making youtube videos of stuff you can already find all over youtube. Something is wrong with you if you cant even go and do that much. Using cars as some kind of magic comparison is nothing short of a logical fallacy. It is silly, stop it.
Why dont you go seriously learn zbrush? Talking from experience is a lot more productive, but hey I cant expect too much from a fanboy right? I'm not going to play your "show me your videos" game, its not a good shield nor will you seem to accept why its not necessary. Might as well argue semantics at this point since thats about as far as you are willing to go. -
That video really doesnt say much, its obvious the results are not nearly the same nor can you make sweeping judgements based on carving a few lines on a sphere or flattening a few edges....
How do you show a feeling? With ZB there is a feel, a kind of quality to the how the mesh is being displaced as well as as a form of control via the wacom pen thats present. When you mix this with the brushes and the options tied to the brushes (very simple) you get flawless results. This impacts the quality of the sculpt. Thats why you wont get it until you actually get over your zbrush interface trauma and for at least curiosity sake figure out what they are doing different that results in such good results. Its the difference of having a fine scalpel and a mallet.
Other areas are worth a video demo, such as masking, polygroups, transform/posing, and overall mesh control... but there are hundreds of videos already covering that.
With ZB you can pull out an entire arm, with finely detailed muscles, fingers and automatic polygroups from one sphere easily... masking gives quick and detailed control when pulling out geometry, no fiddling with pose tool settings or artifacts, no swaping between voxel and surface mode. No need for curves. Just easy mask, pull, and sculpt. Doing the same thing with 3D Coat, even using voxel mode's curve or freeze brushes takes way too long and its extremely low in quality, trying to detail on top of it becomes more of a struggle than is necessary.
This can be solved in 3DC with improving the sculpting quality across the board, reassessing how "pose" and "transform" work, how masking is currently implemented and the lack of fine control over the masks, the ability to mask by depth, or get some kind of selection group (polygroup) to easily work with. Too many brushes act like you are squeezing out toothpaste and not finely layering on surface mass. Its critical to understand why this is important and the easiest way to do so is to "taste" zbrush seriously.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:
....if you firmly believe your claims and are not just repeating what you've heard other state, you will have no problem recording a demonstration to stand behind your claims. I'm willing to stick my neck out and do the same, so let's both take the challenge.
I can say the same to you, pick up and learn zbrush first... use it on a project, know it inside and out then come back and talk to me. I already explained why your "challenge" is pointless, but you seem to be using it as a kind of shield.
-
1
-
.jpg.e27d5e69a5c904383008036fd0875f86.jpg)
.jpg.929e54e6e1ff8f79e87fef0a5379e0c5.jpg)
3DCoat 4.7 (BETA testing thread)
in New Releases, Bugs Reports & Development Discussion
Posted
Regarding the substances, or lack there of...
If procedural noise/patterns can get added, as well as the method in which to modify the values/behavior of those noise/patterns... then they could be used in a similar fashion to substances. At least within 3DC itself, since outside applications (maya, modo..ect) have direct ".sbar" support these days. The output maps can be used however. --> https://trello.com/c/BgbsyDSK
With regards to nodes, that's a tough one. Layers are basically nodes, only they are stacked and layered in a fairly linear fashion. What nodes bring to the table is a mixture visual UI elements and user options in regards to input/behavior. While I am not entirely sure it would be a perfect match for 3DCoat (as it stands now), I do think it could benefit from a more basic form of nodal workflow... at the very least as far as noise/pattern set ups go. They could be extremely powerful when used with voxels and mesh generation as well.