Jump to content
3DCoat Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OutOfShadow

  1. That's true - I also wish Max had an indie version. Though I think maya is a better fit for me due to its animation toolset, I still think Max would great as an indie option for modeling. I kinkd of prefer Modo though. Note that I'm not telling anybody to do anything, it is just an opinion that they might not have even considered yet. May or may not be feasable, but I feel it would be a more attractive option than the current option. On your comparisons with zbrush core and substance painter - While I love what you can do in 3DCoat, most people doing games will get painter anyway (and probably also quixel), because there is no integration (currently) with substance designer - amongst other reasons. I think 3DCoat is a great place to start and is great for most tasks, but once you really get into game development, you'll most likely pay for substance anyway. With regards to zbrush core - it's not really the same thing (and will be more expensive than an indie version of 3DCoat - maybe they could do a price of $147). I don't think zbrush core is worth it - unless you want to do the upgrade path eventually, whilst using and learning a very small subset of the tools. I think zbrush is great and I appreciate core, but I would much rather go with 3DCoat, since it is a more generalist app, and I don't just do sculpting all day. The pricing is incorrect - 3DC pricing is on special when it is $280, full price is more expensive (and could be even more expensive if you look at features, especially if you have an indie version to upgrade from as well). It cannot be on special all the time. Also, Even if they charged $280 all the time, I think it is too cheap and if anything kills the development it will be that - thankfully they only offer this special every once in a while. Also, my arguments are not for me personally - I think 3DC is reasonably priced and has an exciting feature set. It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with a more attractive licensing and a better entry point for those that might be interested in the software. If they see the 'amateur' version, and note that they can't use it commercially, then they'll just spend a few more bucks on zbrush core since they can actually use that - yes it does not have 3d painting or retopo tools, but even Houdini has retopo tools these days (and it's not that bad - improves with every other release. Not 3DC, but not bad) - and as I mentioned, you'll most likely get painter anyway, eventually, even if you have 3DC. Zbrush is also a more popular option for sculpting - so it might be considered to instead go for best in class apps in this case (ie. the zbrush and substance route). Anyway, they probably won't change it. I just don't find the amateur version attractive at all, and I'm sure nor do other people. It is difficult to recommend to students - the fallback usually is that I simply prefer the usability of 3DC over Zbrush, and that it is a more generalist application, which may be the best and most affordable option for beginners. Problem is people don't want to pay for stuff they can't use commercially - and like I said, the other apps are more popular, even though they may not always be better, necessarily. I look forward to V5. Wonder if we'll ever see the retopo tools that Farsthary worked on. Cheers.
  2. I'll agree to disagree. Zbrush 'core' or indie is a very striped down version and does not really feel worth the price (in my opinion), unless you want to follow the upgrade path eventually (which we thankfully also have with 3DCoat). You cannot compare zbrush (or anything really) to Houdini. Their indie version is actually attractive - it is the full application with only minor limitations. The full version costs more than a yearly sallary where I am from, and if you compare even the price of Houdini core to indie - it is a very attractive option. Can't say that for Zbrush, mainly because of how stripped down the software is. I also feel that the devs need to look outside the box, and not just at what Zbrush is doing - at least when it comes to licensing models. There is no logic to your arguments around substance, because you mention how expensive it is, yet talk about zbrush (which is slightly more expensive than full 3DCoat), yet zbrush also offers an indie license (called 'core'). For you $280 is cheap, for people around here, not so much. Also, this is a special - not the actual price, so I'm not concerned with this special price. I would prefer an indie version and an upgrade path and support the company fully than be concerned only with specials - you don't see zbrush offering many specials. I would rather pay full amount over time, through the upgrade path, than be cheap - I would rather want to support the development (I am a developer myself). Yes, the Houdini license is expensive (where I'm from), but it is an immense value for money. One cannot really compare then, but what you can do is think that, if you offer the upgrade path (as they do anyway with the amateur thing), that this would still make it a great value for money - especially since you can use it on your projects. Once you start to make some money, you can then just upgrade to full. You claim that an indie version would 'kill' the revenue. I doubt that. Speaking from experience (as I explained), paying for something that you are not really allowed to use is not an attractive option. Now, if you change the amateur license to an limited commercial indie license, which has an upgrade path to full commercial license, (just like it is now) then that would be a more attractive option for me (and I'm sure for a lot of people, whom would rather spend an extra few bucks as you mentioned for zbrush core and use that instead for their projects. If anything, that is what is killing revenue for 3DCoat right now). I do now want to "but it means laying off current developers for them. Is that what you want?" as you assume like a politician or something - I came here to give an opinion and an alternative. I am sure they will do their calculations and see whether they think it is actually a viable option, or not. I did not come here for your hostility. I won't argue with you any further, since I have more important things to do anyway, and it seems you just are afraid of change - which is also a very big negative for software industry (I do computer science myself) since the only thing there is change (as long as the change is not a subscription, of course - don't like that stuff). (I won't bother emailing, since I have in the past (about other things) and have received no response - I'm sure this will at least please 'abnranger'.) Cheers.
  3. Hi there, I want to ask whether you guys think they should change the 'amateur' license to an 'Indie' license instead (Where you are allowed to use it commercially instead, say when you make less than $100000 per year). I feel like this is a much better model to get people to use 3DCoat. A few Examples. - If you look at Allegorithmic - they have indie licenses of their software for about $150. You can use that commercially as long as you don't make more than a certain amount of money per year, else you have to upgrade to the full license. - Unity has a similar model, but is free. So you can use it for free (even commercially) as long as you don't make more than a certain amount per year. (their free skin is bad though, can't stand it). - I think the best model for me is Houdini. You have a free license, which you can use to learn the software. This is not an educational license, it is simply free with restrictions such as a render watermark and import and export restrictions. It is great for personal learning - much better than some 30 day trail. They also have a less restrictive educational version that is used at universities and schools etc. Then the indie license - full license with all features and a different file format. Minor limitations on things like render size output and so forth - nothing major. It is very usable and is not nearly as restrictive as other software. Same deal applies though - you can use it as long as you don't make more than a certain amount per year (if I remember correctly). Then they have the full versions. I prefer the Houdini licensing model - a trail is often not good enough. You want to learn the software on your own time - maybe over a long period of time, not just one or 2 months. Only once you actually start or plan to start making money with the software does it make sense to then spend a lot of money on it (where I am from $150 is a lot - a monthly salary if you are even lucky enough to have a job). I think if they have a free version, it will draw more people in, which makes it difficult to then switch to something else when you are use to 3DCoat. A small upgrade to indie (for commercial use) is then not such a big jump, one you are comfortable with the software. I speak from experience when I say people don't want to pay for things that they cannot use commercially in any capacity - they just don't. With this, you have to pay for an 'amateur' license that you can only use to learn the software with?? This does not make sense (maybe 5 years ago, but not anymore). I once had to pay a LOT of money (at least a lot for me) for educational software, that I was not allowed to use for any commercial projects. This did not stick well at all, and eventually I switched to something else (Houdini) which has a much better license outline. Students can even use the free version - It is very restricted, but you can learn a lot with it before having to spend money. Then they have the educational option, indie license and so on. I understand that companies don't have endless resources, and it may cost some money to go this route (not everybody has autodesks resources), but the current options are not very attractive. I like 3DCoat, and I hope they seriously revise the way they do licenses before they release 3DCoat 5 to optimise the success of the release. I hope this will be taken into consideration and I look forward to the next release. Cheers.
  4. Hi I'm new to 3DC, well kind of. I've been following development for a while and like the look or feel of it more so than Zbrush . I'd like to use it along Houdini, for its retopo, sculpting and painting tools. I was wondering what happened to those cool tools that Farsthary worked on? Also, will we see more sculpting and low poly updates in the future? I like the material painting, but would like to see other areas improve as well. Do you guys think Houdini/3DC would make a good combo? I'm tiring of the Zbrush interface and voxels seems like a better fit. It's just cool. Cheers
  5. I think Houdini and 3DC - great combo since you can sculpt & paint in 3DC, which you can't in Houdini
  6. Hi there. I tend to read forums and do not post much. I'm really interested in 3DCoat and using it along with Houdini. It is rather expensive where I am from (and I'm a part time UNI student), but hopefully I can pick it up near the end of the year and support it that way. For some reason, I'm more interested in 3DCoat than Zbrush - though I hope they give low poly modeling and sculpting tools more love in the future - and not just texturing tools (thought those are great too). Looking forward to the road ahead.
  • Create New...