RabenWulf

Its usually some of the studios that request it. Often they will work on a time limited project and licenses go to waste after they are done. Since the licensing isnt fluid or can be resold, subscriptions make more sense.The problem is thats just a tiny fraction of the total market, so pushing it on everyone to achieve a consistent revenue source with little to no forced development is a pretty low blow.

Side note: If we want control of different channels with independent opacity, better to just implement substances then since theres a whole "perfected" system around it.

The pro is that you would be able to work at much higher resolutions with less of a performance hit though. Pros and cons. If 3d coat were to offer mari like capability it would cover each apps weaknesses. Perhaps this can be done with a 2d paint room (or another aspect of the previewer window being a 2d paint surface) that can work at a much higher resolution and auto bake it onto the 3d mesh when done. That would probably catch a lot of attention. That said, I have Mari but really dislike painting in it, in part due to lack of true 3d painting and the setup needed to get going.

Yep, referring to the fill bucket tool with the gradient option. The reason I wanted to see if the same happens for you with a fill object or on a larger scale is because I noticed when I work big or with larger brushes, the effect is more visible, but if I zoom in and work small it is not... this leaves me to believe its some how based on scale as well. The banding seems range from small and large depending on scale and whats being done.. Also No worries I know you are trying to help, hope it doesnt come across as combative at all. I'm focused on trying to ID the issue as well, as its quite literally a frustrating experience. =)

See if it happens to you while doing the whole object with a normal brush type (non rectangular).

Sample 3G file. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6C-cBuP60GjODJwZFJ6RnMtSTQ/view?usp=sharing This is what I see in the sample:

No problem, I meant asking questions about exporting anything more than 8bit textures, since it doesnt necessarily address the subject of banding. I was expecting or looking for some kind of setting that may address this inside of 3d coat itself (similar to that of PS or Krita). This line if inquiry though would lead us off on a tangent, and ultimately pointless if the banding issue cant be identified and resolved. =)

I see, so exr is the only way to get anything above 8 bits out of 3d coat? That seems a bit odd. I did verify that picking exr pumped out something above 8 bits but the same visual banding seen on screen is present in the export as well. Sorry I probably shouldnt go off on that tangent atm, at least until we can figure out the source and or solution of the banding.

The compression via image upload isnt the issue in this particular case in part because its still showing what we are seeing live on the screen inside of 3d coat. If anything its making the issue even more evident. More importantly, how does anyone export anything over 8bits from 3d coat? I have not found a way and everything that comes out of it is 8bits.

Yep, tried just about every version thats come out since 4.5beta. Just now with version 11. On two different computers, going to try a third now but at this point I dont think its going to change anything. Also 1 cintiq screen, 1 tv screen and 2 different monitors (samsung, LG and wacom). I know its def not the monitor, especially since its only 3d coat showing it...but I did give it some consideration just in case despite the inconsistency. Both openGL and DX versions attempted as well. I'm wondering if its an nvidia issue perhaps? Are you using ATI? Add: You know whats weird, I am not sure its strictly related to the paintroom. If I apply a matcap onto a sculpt for example, you see some banding as well... or with the new environment background getting blurred it shows up too.

Yeah when I do a gradient I get something like this instead. If I chose more extreme values it becomes even more apparent.

Done, though I really have no idea how it ranks on the severity scale. For me personally its extremely high, in part because the only reason I picked up 3d coat was for the texture painting. Every other feature I have covered in Modo/Zbrush. While Andrew is working on the paintroom though, it might be worth addressing, especially if other users pick it up for the texturing features. http://3d-coat.com/mantis/view.php?id=1775

Sadly both linear filtering on and off dont seem to show a noticeable difference. This is really frustrating.

From what I am hearing, the 980 only gives you a and I quote "10% improvement for a 60% more price increase". Which is probably why nvidia tried to throttle the 970. That said, given that info why not go 2x970 SLI then? Seems like you would get more for less that way.

Ok, so I brought my old 6 core AMD 1100T back to the land of the living. It has an nvidia 560ti in it and about 16 gigs of RAM. Put a new copy of Windows 8 in it, installed all the usual drivers. Got the demo of 3d Coat, plugged in a wacom intuos 3 (with drivers) and basically got it all set up. Problem still exist. I'm starting to believe the banding is part of 3d coat. Two different computers, and seeing it on a youtube video leaves me to think that either its an option I am missing or just something with 3d coat that some might not be noticing. Try starting with a dark value, like a dark dark blue, and then raise the lightness, blending it outward. Its easy to see the banding that way.

Yes using the beta, but this issue happened in the non beta versions as well. I'm setting up another PC now as we speak to test it out, if I get the same results ill post a project file thats doing it.

From my meager research, it seems like there is a convoluted or missing means to work with 16 and 32 bit channels for texture work. Perhaps a low hanging fruit would be to polish the means in which users paint and export different file types/bits.

So I was flipping through some videos on youtube, and this Polycounter's project is showing the same thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_pgGMYwZsQ Are we sure this isnt something everyone sees in 3d coat?

eh I still bought two of them anyway. Still worth the money, but I do agree with the anger regarding the forced bottlenecking (maiming) of the card in order to keep the premium version more appealing. The strix 780 isnt worth it either, though much of it in part due to the fact that bitcoin miners really messed up the market for older GPUs, which can now sell for a lot more money than newer cards with equal or better specs.

As a Modonaught myself, thanks for making these. Would really love to see some tighter integration with 3d coat and Modo, or some kind of partnership in the works. I know once the Foundry acquired Mischief, they began looking into more consumer friend range of software to be part of the Mischief lineup. This could potentially open up some options for 3d coat if they ever decide to "sell out". Not saying they should, but it is an interesting time for software development. So many great options these days, and at an extremely affordable price range.

Regarding what was said above, it would probably make more sense to just have nice falloff options alongside a masking overhaul/revamp. It should also be called "masking", since lets be honest here. That's what the expectation is and new users will pick up or like software faster if it follows a bit of convention on that front. You cant have something be intuitive if its not familiar. A personal peeve I have is how the matcaps ("materials") look and work in 3dcoat. Would be great to have them updated with a lot of the free matcaps that exist out there or a simple folder you can call on with those litspheres/matcaps that 3dcoat can pull from (just like modo..ect) I find that a good matcap and how its rendered really helps in the sculpting process.

Great stuff, thanks. Such a big difference with where 3d coat used to be, the polish and painting is what got me to purchase. Anything that improves performance is a great target in my book. Thanks. (on a side note, does 3d coat only deal with exporting 8-bit maps or is there some means to select 8/16/32 for 4.5?)

Out of curiosity, is there a particular road map for 4.5 that Andrew is going off of (thats been revealed to the userbase) or it kind of a primary target and lots of bug fixing?

Sounds like you are basing that off your preferences (based on what you deem is easier) than anything actually going on right now. Substances are trying to become (and doing a good job at it) an emerging standard in the PBR workflow. They are tightly integrated into some existing game engines including Unity and Unreal Engine 4. They specifically build an sdk for integration of both engines and asset creation software. Thus you can find integration in Modo, Maya, and 3ds max. Studios like Naughty Dog have built their game engine on top of software such as Maya and any game can make use of substances, though few at this point are pushing the dynamic shader/texture aspect just yet. You are also extremely wrong on the cost associated with substances, they are designed to be low cost and highly efficient in the space they take up. What might cost a MB or two for a set of textures will measure in the KB with substances. It literally is the emerging standard and by standard I mean just that... not that its the only way to do something PBR related but that its a common and or universal approach that can build bridges and push innovations...which is exactly whats happening. Regarding DDO, Its a great photoshop plugin, but its also just that. It has limitations, requires being tied to photoshop as the core, and its not fast...its slow. Very slow compared to the substance workflows. Designer/Painter have a learning curve, yes, but also once mastered are extremely fast. Designer is more of a sandbox targeting the technical artist in which they can create just about anything.... DDO is not really designed with the technical artist in mind, which is fine... I prefer it that way most of the time myself. Thus they came out with both b2m and painter to fill that difference audience. Substances do so much more and remain dynamic, which DDO cannot claim after the fact. Its not really something you can compare to Substances, but both can pump out some maps.

Tried with the falloff from 0-100, no difference in quality. I did notice was not as apparent if I used a much smaller brush radius, but that pretty much means you are stuck working at micro levels. Even trying to smooth doesnt have an effect on those weird color distortions. Tried it on a new pixel painted object, a default cube, a sphere... ect all with just one layer and its the same. In the original project I did have an AO like map on multiply but the new tests have no such thing and feature the same issue. Also have tried with both settings tied to the wacom pressure and on mouse mode.