Silas Merlin

I think light baking with reflections might also be broken but I think it's not really possible to test with this situation. //edit Fixed on .63

2021-62 It is not possible to select an environement map ? I see the list of default maps but clicking on one does not change to it. //edit Fixed on .63

@OgierQuand vous posez une question en français sur ce forum, merci de me tagger comme ceci. Je ne lis pas le forum : si je viens vous répondre c'est parce qu'on me prévient que vous avez posté. Ca serait donc bien de me tagger pour que je sois notifié automatiquement. Merci.

Autant que je sache, 3d-Coat ne permet pas de peindre en dehors des îles. (mis à part automatiquement avec le padding que vous semblez avoir éliminé complètement). Si vous voulez éditer la couleur au delà des îles dans 3d-Coat, la seule solution que je connaisse est un hack : intégrer dans votre maillage deux triangles formant un carré, mappés sur la totalité de l'espace UV 0-1 Vous pouvez le peindre sur un layer placé en dessous de vos autres layers. A propos de l'apha qui n'est pas complètement transparent, celà pourrait venir du layer ambient occlusion. cachez le layer AO en cliquant sur le petit œil avant l'export pour voir si c'est le cas. (ce qui est une bonne idée de toute façon, pour ne pas que l'ambient occlusion soit ajoutée à l'albedo à l'export). Il existe aussi un hack pour exporter un alpha, a condition que vous n'ayiez pas besoin de l'emissive : Vous pouvez peindre votre alpha sur un layer dont vout définissez l'alpha blending comme "use as emissive". Placez ce layer en dessous de vos autres layers pour qu'il ne soit pas visible. Peignez le masque en Blanc sur ce layer. A l'export, pour le channel alpha, dans le menu déroulant, choisissez "emissive power (mono)".

Vous pouvez probablement : -garder la brush options panel ouvert pour inverser quand vous le voulez -créer deux brosses, une inversée et l'autre non. -utiliser un des modes alternatifs du clone tool -utiliser Topological symmetry qui ne nécéssite pas un maillage symmétrique

Bonjour, qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire par "de façon constante" ? Est-ce que vous voulez inverser pour toutes les brosses ? Ou bien est-ce que vous voulez dire que quand vous relancez 3d-Coat la brosse n'est plus inversée et vous devez cocher la case à nouveau ?

because now carve tool requires existing geometry under the brush for it to work (Geometry can be on another layer). To achieve a similar thing as in the video you could use the 2d-paint tool.

Please no. You seem to want 3d-Coat to Become Blender. I don't like Blender. I like 3d-Coat. To me it all comes down to this : either a software has an internal logic that is compatible with you or not. Personally, I am not compatible with Blender or Zbrush. If all software used Blender's logic (which is beyond me), then I would simply be left out of 3d altogether. Point is : There needs to be different approaches so that everyone can find one software that suits them. When you find it, you use that as your main tool, and you open the other ones only to accomplish certain tasks that are not possible in your main package. There are things that can be improved for sure. for example the "conversion" which is straightforward only if you sculpt>retopo>bake. For any other workflow it can become nightmarish, because the means of moving one object type to another are not obvious and dispersed in different menus/panels. Also : -if you want to bake from paint object to paint object you need to do so with the target mesh saved on disk (not loaded in the software) -you can't bake color from paint object to sculpt object (you need to subdivide the paint object in another software first so that 3d-Coat can bake from texture to vertex colour at import) As for your eyebrows, you simply need to hide paint layer 0 for the transparency to show after baking. If I understand correcly the performance of the various tools requires different types of meshes. for instance, if you try to sculpt on uv-mapped mesh, it will become sluggish as the polycount rises. as for popups and warnings, they should remain exceptional, not the norm, otherwise 3d-Coat will no longer be 3d-Coat. all the changes you request would make 3d-Coat not be 3d-Coat anymore.

What we see in the viewport is a mere mesh representation of the underlying voxels. This shows that there is an issue in the voxel structure, not necessarily limited to the area of the visible hole. So there is likely no easy fix in some cases. (you might be lucky with the following solution) quick dirty fix : right click vox layer > To global space. Dirty because in your case this will probably not just close the gap cleanly as with a "regular" hole. In this case you may get artifact-like voxels, which could include thin long lines that you will need to get rid of. But at least the volume will appear watertight again, and the voxels will be fixed. I would like to say that what caused your issue in the first place is the use of surface tools in voxel mode followed by an action that xkipped the voxelization process (like switching to cutoff tool after surface tool). However, the recent release notes indicate that this problem has been fixed for good. Maybe you are not using the most recent build ?

Ah, you mean that the empty paint object remains after you import an actual mesh in your workflow ? I have not experienced that and I can see how it is a problem, then. Here, I will show you why I have never thought it to be a real problem in my case : the empty object and materials vanish at the time of baking : Untitled.mp4

I get this in 4.9 all the time but I never reported it because it does not seem to do any harm. But yes, it is annoying. I mean, it happens when you have nothing in paint room, but you have sculpt mesh (and retopo mesh, not baked)

I would personally hate that. I would rather be able to set default save path (desktop) and default file name in preferences, so that when I save, it just saves, without prompting. That is the reason I start 3d-Coat by double clicking on a start file > to bypass splash screen

That would be awesome, yes in user preferences ! however, there is something more : The first time you "Save" (CTRL+S) should act as "Save incrementally" (SHIFT+CTRL+S) otherwise you will damage your start-up file each time you hit CTRL+S by accident. (I know, because I have been working with start-up files for years. I double click on a start-up file to open 3d-Coat). That said, it is already possible to add your start-up file to the splash screen. I have never attempted it myself because the steps are not user friendly : https://3dcoat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21893-solved-how-to-changeexpand-the-start-up-window/&do=findComment&comment=150717

I don't remember, but it does not matter. I do use the feature, but I am not really satisfied with the way it is implemented, because I find it quite complex to set up and to know what to tick or untick, in preferences and it baking pop up. also I find it frustrating that "treat materials as separate textures" has no effect when unticked when Digman's feature is not active. I mean, utlitmately, this is what I would find the most useful : the ability to have separate materials all exported into a single texture. Update paint mesh with retopo mesh will break paint layers when uv islands have been moved (which is a shame). Other than that, what you describe (reassigning materials) should not break paint layers in my own (limited) experience. EDIT : Have you tried giving the new (merged) materials a name that is different from any and all of the names of the previous materials before they were merged ? That is, maybe if you have "material1, material2, material3" all merged into "material1", then 3d-Coat will be confused when you update paint mesh. (just a supposition, not tested), as opposed to naming the new material "material4" which would be distinct from all the names previously in use.

This would be better suited for the Discord, but, anyway : -IMHO It would be preferable if you used the term sculpt object instead of "sculpt layer", because sculpt layer is something different from what (I assume) you are refering to : the high poly, or sculpt object, stored on a vox layer in the sculpt tree. Ok, so, now, provided I understand correctly, for what you are trying to do, there is absolutely no need for Digman's experimental feature. if you have only one watertight mesh in the sculpt space, (one sculpt object), with several retopo objects regardless of the number of materials (called uv-sets in the retopo room), then, baking is very straightforward. All you need to do is untick name correspondance in the baking menu, then do "bake with normal map". That's it. It does not matter if the retopo objects are welded or not, there will be no visible seam : in short, there is no need to make separate sculpt meshes for the body of a character. Only if you are baking separate parts like eyes or teeth do you need to worry about how to bake, and even then it is not necessary to use name correspondance : Use name correspondance only if you have one retopo object per sculpt object (for example body, eyes, eyelashes, upper teeth, lower teeth). If, on the other hand, you have more than one retopo object for the body, then, bake sculpt objects one by one. For that, you first select the part of the retopo mesh you want to bake (for example the whole body distributed accross several retopo objects in your case), hide everything you are not baking in the sculpt room (eyes, teeth, etc...), tick "bake selected" in the bake menu, and then bake with normal map. Repeat the process for the other parts (or use name correspondance at the same time as "bake selected" if applicable. EDIT : I meant to answer this when I was notified of your reply, but did not find time to answer until now. I replied without reading the rest of the thread and failed to see that your questions had been answered since then. Sorry. forum doesn't allow deleting posts...

Carlosan, as I explained just now, this was just theoretical : if you have more retopo objects than you have sculpt objects, then how can name correspondance work ? (if you give each retopo object a distinct name, they won't match with a sculpt object)

It would be a very sad world if features could be used only for the specific purpose they were designed for. Anyway, here is what I meant : If you want to create three materials for each of your three separate objects, (Nine retopo objects total, for 3 sculpt objects), then name correspondance just cannot work. (because the names of 9 retopo objects can't match 3 sculpt objects). AH! A workaround to test : give the same name to each retopo object in a group of three, matching the name of the sculpt object. this could maybe work (to be tested) After baking, when you go to paint room you will get a warning that multiple materials share the same name (making it impossible to export all textures). this will be easily solved of course either by renaming them in uv-room, ot just painting like you would in your scenario and then unifying the uv-sets in the retopo room before updating paint mesh, again as per your scenario.

I did not keep 2021-9 to test, but I am pretty sure baking with reflections worked better at that point. Now screenspace reflections seem to have no effect, emissive has no effect, added lights have little effect, and the most disturbing : custom angle for environement light has no effect.

yes wth clearly divided sculpt objects that do not intersect there is no issue (no need for name correspondance). However, when you have multiple intersected objects (not welded) to bake, you simply cannot use the beta feature to treat retopo objects as materials because you have to disable name correspondance. Therefore the baking will not know from which object to bake at the intersections.

I don't know if you have tested starting with more than one sculpt objects, and several retopo objects for each meant to become materials of one paint object : It won't work well, because as soon as you enable the beta feature, you lose benefit of "name correspondance".

Here is what I use it for, but it is awkward : I want several materials sharing a single texture, and I don't want to have to copy/paste textures in photoshop. so I need to first bake (with the no baking option) one object > several surface materials I export that, then delete the paint object. go back to retopo room and this time actually bake from high poly but with a single surface material. when I eventually export this, it will be the texture that I use... on the previously exported object with the separate materials. Of course easiest would be not to worry about surface materials at all, and create them after the fact in Blender ? Why always Blender/photoshop? Why can't we just do everything inside 3d-Coat itself ? So frustrating. Why, for instance is 3d-Coat unable to export Collada with multiple materials correctly ? (it only works if there is just one) why do you need to export all layers to external editor to be able to extract the wireframe ? I'm sure there are many things like that but I can't remember them now.

Suddenly I have doubts about my earlier reply. I have used this feature in the past by unchecking the box, but I always have a difficult time understanding what exactly I need to tick/untick and where to get the result I want. and now... I see that in 4.9 the wording is the opposite in preferences. could it be that you are right, and the wording has been reversed but not the behaviour ?

If you read the tooltip carefully you will see that it works as described. remember, default is on. when you turn it off, the feature works in conjunction with this option in the baking dialogue :

Zipping while saving is very slow ? about one minute for a voxel sketch with 4 million tris ?

I think I read in the notes that light baking was implemented for sculpt objects ? Here is a test with painted sculpt objects in the render room : And here is what happens when you go to paint room and bake light with reflections : Here is the file to do the test. you have to match the render room settings yourself, since they do not get saved : Start_001.3b