RabenWulf
-
Posts
246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by RabenWulf
-
-
I'm always working with it and it always comes off as gimmicky.
Gimmicky is an interesting word, again based on sentiment. What exactly feels gimmicky and define the terms/context to which that applies. If so can that be applied to 3D Coat features?
Once you start defining the terms and the context for which it is applied, such words either have real meaning or none at all.
-
@L'Ancien
Not sure when you last tried Zbrush but given the more sentiment based opinion of it... it looks like it has been a long time. Imagine if I described 3D Coat as missing PBR texture painting and lacking paint layers... thats how off your interpretation of Zbrush sounds. Though this could be in part due to not using a current build of it, just as someone might have an opinion of 3D Coat from long ago.
Objectively, its best to look at where the software stands now in its current form, the past versions or what was or wasnt there do not matter.
Regarding alpha quality, yes Zbrush's system gives far sharper and more detailed results. Zspheres are just one feature in zbrush, there are also curves in zbrush too. You can find them used in everything from specialty brushes to guides for autoretopo. Curves have a lot of uses in zbrush for select features.
When you mention clay... or the "clay feel" have you tried using the numerous clay brushes in zbrush? From Clay Buildup to Clay polish? There is even a wax shader, that when mixed with dynamesh and clay brushes gives it a very organic feel. It sounds odd when someone suggests zbrush doesnt feel very clay like... it really depends on the brushes used.
On the subject of struggling with it... I find that the hardest part people have trouble with when using zbrush is that they refuse to step back and look at it as something outside of the expectations tied to other software. For example, the file, edit, view menu items do not exist in the same way as they do in everything else. Its a kind of stubbornness from the user that makes it hard to adopt, I faced it myself at first. Step back and look at the application objectively, and what you see is a blank canvas with categories laid out on top. Each category, via menu, is just a collection of panels. These panels are just docked around on the interface but its really just a blank canvas with categories for the panels. Once you realize this it becomes one of the most easy to understand applications out there imo. Each panel is its own separate little UI and they make it easy to understand, especially with the help popups. Some of the best zbrush artist only use a fraction of the features, the simplicity is powerful in and of itself... trying to use everything can make it overwhelming. Same can be said with 3d coat.There are really no weird tricks with zbrush that I can think of when it comes to the basics. Its pretty direct. Some of the extra features just require learning how to maximize their use, like shadowbox or the poly modeling features.
I highly recommend you give it another go and then look at each objectively to find out where the differences are in terms of one specific area... sculpting quality and time required to get best results. -
I'm getting tired of all of those ridiculous problems that surface when you least expect them.
Tbh, that has been my experience with 3D Coat from the get go. There is always something going horribly wrong or bugging out, it gets tiring after awhile. The newest issue, at least on my end, is now the masking is behaving erratically, with a weird blotchy result or strange smears when trying to smooth borders. Before that the pen input would just jump around from working to not working... which requires a restart of 3d coat to fix or as one user suggested rolling back to some older wacom drivers. The user shouldnt have to go through this so often. I'm at the point where I am just considering dropping 3D Coat altogether, which would suck... So far Mari hasnt given me these problems and while I dislike the work flow it has become a far more stable and optimized experience. Tough choices.... Anyways that bit I quoted you as saying is the exact sentiment I feel right now. Its tiring....
-
2
-
-
If you really think "3D Coat sucks" at sculpting....
I said and I quote "The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation."
To suggest that I said "3D Coat Sucks" is simply dishonest. Saying something sucks and saying it doesnt compare well with the leading sculpting software are two different things. Anyways, it seems like you are not willing to learn zbrush and come to conclusions off of actually working with the software. Owning both along with many other software packages and actually putting the effort into working with them gives me an objective outlook where things stand concerning this subject.
On the original topic, of which I was responding to, there is no need to "lol" at someone because they use 3D Coat for one specific feature, and the biggest pull (imo) for 3D Coat right now (especially with pro level artist) is a mixture of texturing and retopology tools. If a user has zbrush the chances are high they wouldnt be using 3d coat for sculpting over it since theres a night vs day difference in the workflow and result. I would love nothing more than for this difference to disappear with more development, but it is there and it is obvious to someone who uses both.
Ultimately this may just be another agree to disagree situation. I do think your responses border on the fanboy side though, or at least thats the impression it gives to the more software agnostic types like myself.
-
So instead of just playing around with a trial, learn it and force yourself to use it for a few weeks at the very least. Again its the difference of night and day. As for your claim of "ZB bias", that is utter rubbish. Its just a confirmation of your bias. I wasnt simply suggesting separate subtools are the only means but more that you are wrong in your understanding of zbrush. You just obviously do not know much about it. There are different approaches in zbrush that quite honestly give better results, whether you are using the geometry HD feature or just working in a highly optimized environment where polycount does not bottle neck right away. If the dynamic topology isnt giving more detail than the options in zbrush, then its not really a good feature to be arguing in favor of. I dont think you get that.
I already said I dont want to turn this into another 3d coat vs zbrush thread, so lets try to avoid repeating this again (yes we have had this conversation before though with you claiming zbrush copied 3d coat).You cant spot the difference in sculpting surface detail and stroke quality so I don't see any reason to try and argue the case further other than to say go learn and use zbrush for a bit. I am not here to confirm your biases or get into a comparison contest...
The one thing we can agree on is that 3D Coat has a lot of room to grow and I am sure we would love for it to grow, but if you keep saying some implementations are better than they really are, that process might get slowed down a bit. -
I am up to date with 3D Coat's sculpting capability and I sculpt in it often enough for smaller things If I am too lazy to do the export import dance between modo, zbrush and 3d coat. Sure 3D Coat has come a long way, but its still not even close to the stroke quality and level of detail you get in zbrush. Its just not even up for debate. In return I can ask when was the last time you tried to seriously sculpt in zbrush? The difference is just night & day... I personally would love to stay in 3d coat more often as I like the controls and layout a bit better, but the stroke quality, lighting, masking..ect is still pretty poor compared to zbrush.
Now I could turn this into a zbrush vs 3d coat debate, but its really not the point. I do disagree with your "isolated subdivision" comment as it can be done in zbrush too just different approaches and subtools vs layers. But going down that rabbit hole would just be off topic, since the extra features imo are not as important as the basics... and its the basics which I find fault with.
Regarding the production viability for sculpting in 3DC, that is really subjective as it depends on the expectations of the user/client. I have tried to use it numerous times for serious work but the quality always suffers + the time it takes to get it the way I want to look (expectation) is extended. This isnt due to knowing one app more than the other, since I actually prefer 3DC's controls and layer stack over zbrushes... its just simply the workflow (masking & transform are big ones), the detail from alphas/strokes and just general behavior of the brush isnt up to that level.On sculpt layers. I honestly wouldnt put them as a high priority since they dont do much if the stroke/displacement quality is still low. Its one of those features that works really well when you have great results in the quality department, but if the quality is still not there then all you are doing is giving the option to layer sub par results. It doesnt address the original problem.
I believe for a lot of people, painting or retopo are the main reasons they pick up 3D Coat, not that they wont look into the other features but if they do its often found lacking.
At the end of the day its about results... painting is pretty good in 3DC and its Retopo made it a great addition for many artist just for that one singular feature alone. -
he seems to use 3d-coat only for painting LOL
I have had so hard times trying to explain to people that in 3d-coat you have it almost all (except for rigging and animation, I miss some basic pivot adjust too (and better rendering))
But seems that people that had invested so much time learning z-brush cumbersome interface is a little afraid of leave their 'comfort' zone...
Why LOL at him for that?
Zbrush isnt that hard and neither is the interface...control scheme is different though. Right now the best things 3d coat has to offer is retopo and painting. The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation.
On that note, the only reason I purchased 3d Coat was for the painting, possibly retopo...since everything else wasnt better or even equal to what I had in Modo + Zbrush. I personally would love to work more in 3d coat, but the quality + time consumption (or lack there of) would suffer.
-
Then the only advice I can give is to keep looking for a driver that works for you. For me it was 6.3.11w3 and my problems stopped after installing it. The driver that will work for you might be different though.
Thanks, I'll try rolling that far back... or hold off for a 3dc update and just use Mari for now. Just too many problems with 3DC in general, really makes it hard to enjoy using the software.
-
Are you by any chance experiencing the problem I described here: http://3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18337 ?
Yep, thats the latest issue to plague me with 3D Coat. Always having to restart 3D Coat. Reinstalled intuos drivers. Even before this new issue the quality of the strokes felt a bit inconsistent, just not so extreme as with now.
-
Time to vent a little bit... I have been fighting with 3d coat painting for awhile now, specifically how 3D Coat works with my tablet and pressure. I am getting to the point where I just want to stop using it altogether. Its inconsistent, sometimes the full pressure effect even though im putting little to no pressure at all, this makes blending a nightmare (hand painted textures), other times the quality of the strokes are just not very good (or sharp). I dont know if its also due to 8 bit imagery from 3d coat but the lack of smooth value blending also becomes very noticeable. So what I am forced to do is go back and forth to Krita (via external editor feature) and paint there (where the strokes, values, blending, its all consistent and accurate). I dont want to have to do this... so I guess you can say the resolved feature I am requesting is... really polish up and fine tune the texture painting. Something is just off about it which is really ruining the quality of my hand painted textures.
(just to add, I have a dual set up with a cintiq and an intuos. Due two a beefy machine I can go up pretty high with the texture resolution, UVs are not tiny). Outside of 2d editors behaving properly/consistently, Mari Indie has also given good results. This is definitely something with 3d coat.) -
After the latest Substance Painter update I decided to load it up. Its been awhile since I have used it and the first thing I noticed was a new tab... called Smart Materials. After all the effort 3DC went through to pick a non taken name...
-
PC is the best way to go. Really dont know why people keep buying Macs this day and age...I can understand at one point it made a lot of sense since apple had a good lead with their laptops and windows had a crappy version after every other release...Thats a thing of the past now. Windows 10 with DirectX12 and a current gen PC will be damn good.
I'd recommend going Intel though... AMD has yet to prove they are good for CGI and their next line of CPUs are untested. Its not worth the risk. Plus, Intel is very power efficient. Also get a good Nvidia card... -
I think SSS in PBR materials is on deck next, and hopefully Sculpting layers in the Sculpt Room right after that. It's omission is the last (major) remaining reason for ZBrush and Mudbox users to shun 3D Coat as a viable production sculpting app. It already has far more sculpting brushes/tools than Mudbox: the brush feel and performance is fairly comparable now.....but the lack of Sculpt layers (per object) and masking of those layers, makes sculpting in 3D Coat much less attractive than what they already use.
There is sculpt layer capability in the Paint Room, using image-based sculpting, but one would have to break up their sculpting work between opposite ends of the pipeline. That's. Not. Good. If Andrew implements Sculpt Layers as well as he did PBR, then more and more talented sculpters are going to want to use 3D Coat, and take full advantage of LiveClay.
I would also like to see the Tweak Room completely done away with and just add an icon at the bottom of the tool panel in the Paint Room, to open the the handful of tools now in the Tweak Room, within the Tool Options Panel.That would help streamline the UI a bit and put the transform/low-poly sculpting tools where one could easily find them. I would then place some subtle, but noticeable divider between the PAINT - UV tabs and the Sculpt - Retopo tabs. This way the app begins to make sense visually, and the different UV toolsets in different rooms, is less confusing to new users.
The Paint Room and UV room are companion workspaces, as the Sculpt Room and Retopo Room are companions workspaces
Interesting. I agree on the need for sculpt layers, Modo just got them in 901 as well and its quite nice to have. Also agree on Mudbox really not having much to offer at this point, as for sculpting (feel) 3DC feels like its on par if not better than it.
If 3DC were to appeal to zbrush sculptors or those familiar with zbrush, I think the brush feel is just as critical as the features themselves. When I use Zbrush, theres a certain feel and look that I fine lacking in any other application that has sculpting. It also does an amazing job at displacing a surface based on the alphas used. So I hope that with addressing sculpting aspects of 3DC, as you said sculpt layers but also look and feel of the sculpting itself.
On the topic of the tweak room, I agree with you on that. Maybe it would be better just to turn it into a modeling room instead (take a page from the zbrush modeling features) as that workflow works perfectly with sculpting functionality.
-
Thanks and congrats.
Whats next on the list for 5.0? Any particular areas you want to cover or address with 3DC? Modeling? Sculpting? UI?
-
Here's the full demo featured at the 901 launch event.
-
So hopefully this bit will give a bit more encouragement regarding how long they will be holding onto the Foundry.
"'The HgCapital team, lead by Nic Humphries (an electrical engineer by trade), have deep software experience and take a long-term view on their investments, which in some cases span a decade or more. '"
Key words are long-term view and the spanning of "decades or more". -
Minor: I'd like the presentation for alphas, shaders..ect to have the same visual consistency as the rest of the UI. What I mean by this is the removal of the black squares (background), the look of the shader orbs either showing full matcap images or at the very least have the boxes include rounded corners like the voxel/sculpt tool icons. Brushes in the presets tab also have the black removed to give a much more consistent visual presentation.
In short, just some more visual consistency across the UI as a whole. It would definitely help 3D Coats visual appeal/professionalism going into 4.5. -
Its more like... everyone knew they were working on something and Intel didnt care b/c they also have some aces up their sleeves. We have known for awhile that their "Zen" would use Intel's approach to hyper threading, which is good. Another interesting factor is whether or not Samsung buys them out, which has been the talk recently. Samsung wants them, badly. If that does happen, I think Intel really will have some competition. As far as Intel goes, it seems we are just getting just a bit of what they have. I prefer AMD but use Intel and honestly believe that if AMD drops something great, Intel pulls something better out of their R&D department. It sucks but thats the way its been going.
Currently using their new 5820k CPU btw. It was less out of choice but more by necessity. Its freakishly hard to beat intel at their own game. -
Might need an update for SP4
-
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.
-
Oh, but it is true. Pixols never prevented nasty polygon stretching/distortion (Voxels do) and isn't the same concept as Voxels. What's more is Pixologic did indeed bother themselves with what a competing app was doing, as they tried to answer 3D Coat voxel sculpting with their version....Dynamesh. But it's far more limited than 3D Coat's implementation. Then they bothered themselves with trying to answer 3D Coat's Auto-Retopo with Z-Remesher. Their first implementation was no better than 3D Coat's, but after a while they revised it and it now works better. But, the point remains...they took notice, indeed and tried to copy it. No problem, though. Two can play at that game.
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.
To compare 3DCoat sculpting with ZBrush
in CG & Hardware Discussion
Posted · Edited by RabenWulf
And that is a valid reason for not picking up zbrush. When working with a budget, 3d coat offers far more value in that regard...well technically so does Blender. Regarding vfx and linux... eh for sculpting its not really that important. Linux is more common for rendering out composited shots but the actual asset making is another story. I know of one VFX house personally, a big one, which has zbrush and maya for their PC machines and Mac for Nuke. The compositors get the elements created from the people who create them (2d/3d)(zbrush, maya, modo, after effects..ect) and then send it off to the in house render farm. If linux was so important in the element making process, we would see AE for it.
Linux is in an interesting position right now as well... windows 10 being an amazing release + Apple OS going with their own API really complicates things.