Dmitry Bedrik

The second time in a row, all objects (layers) in the scene are deleted from me. This happens under unclear circumstances. Once I wanted to delete one layer, it was not deleted, I clicked on the trash icon several times, and as a result all my ~ 60 layers were destroyed. Now I just clicked the button a step back and got the same result above.

Hi, I remind you that a long time ago I made a collection of matcaps for 3D Coat and a blender. https://gum.co/matcap3dcoat

I am happy with the new version. Thanks. Please stop testing raw versions on users. It does not cause anything other than negativity.

Is the transition from pascal to normal c ++ finally?

Looks like you're trying to insert meshes with voxelization. There is a checkmark when importing an object. Well, make a layer immediately in surface mode.

Is there any kind of active help here, besides changing photos on fake profiles of non-existent people who came in to change their photo by registering many years ago and not writing a single message to create the appearance of forum attendance?

No need to confuse cycles and e-cycles. E-cycles is a paid addon, where the dude just swapped the start of the denoise (it starts on each tile, not on the whole image, which makes the transition to the next tile faster) and proudly passes it off as a new render, also selling for inadequate price.

Hey. Please explain to me how to cut the model into pieces, if the model has a thickness (inside it is empty or filled with something, it doesn’t matter - the task is to cut the shell). Imagine taking this tennis ball and the white line on it is the line where it should be cut. The ball can have any thickness, and this thickness can be arbitrary in different places near the cut (i.e., the cross section on the cut can be thicker or thinner). Depending on the task (or design error), the thickness, as I said, can change, now we need one option, tomorrow we need another, and the model should be cut into two parts anyway .. In case we need to cut something flat, there can be no problems. However, when there is such a curved surface, except for adjusting the camera for each segment of this section and tearing with the help of the "view from the camera" I do not see an exit at the moment. Maybe someone knows how this can be done “in one click”, for example, by constructing even such a complex slice once, and then by clicking the mouse or pressing a key, the model is divided into two (let's stop at two for now) parts ?

Free for over 10 years.

Luxrender is a physically correct engine. In addition, when compared to cycles, it processes caustics and refraction much, much better and faster.

Use a blender and a luxrender. This render is much better than cycles.

Hey. For some reason, the Step Back command works terribly slowly (you can wait up to 30-50 seconds) on meshes in 500k + polygon models. This is true for voxels, for the surface I did not check. For example, using a "Hide Layer" hotkey (hover over the object you want to hide and press the key combination) hides the object, but the "step back" works as slowly as if it were rebuilding a layer-like mesh like an onion, and only then shows the desired mesh. At the same time, clicking on the characteristic eye next to the layer works without any complaints. I have i7 6800k, 32 gb RAM, GTX 1080 Ti, and I think it’s strange that on such a powerful computer, such simple things work so strange.

When I change the smoothing setting for the smoothing brush, this setting also changes for the clay brush.

When I change the smoothing setting for the smoothing brush, this setting also changes for the clay brush. I consider this a bug.

A free blender is enough for this.

It is easier and more beautiful to do either with the placement of bubbles manually or with a simulation of particles.

It looks just as “fun” as all that almost two years ago. Where do these errors come from? In one version they may not exist at all, in the next version it will be regular, in two versions there may not be tons of errors, but some new one will appear where everything was perfect a year ago. The gods of indivisible chaos are involved here.

The rest of the 3D world quietly uses cards with alpha transparency, where only a value greater than zero has an effect, thus, from zero to one, there is an increase from zero impact to maximum, which allows you to create various relief elements with smooth transitions. The fact that this rise is created over the entire area of influence of such an "alpha" is just a mistake of the developers.

Well, does Max or Maya have no addon? Given that more than half of the cool plug-ins for the blender are free - you can assume that they come with the blender by default. And what's the point of saying that there were five, or, even "better", ten years ago? It's like comparing Pentuim 4 and Core i7. Ten years ago there was a blender version 2.49, and it was actually in the same condition in which its development was abandoned, and this was around 2002.

However, if you want to do something detailed, you can not do without working with classical modeling. Let's just say that in this model of the girl there is nothing but hair (and that is doubtful), which could not be done with ordinary modeling. I ask you not to confuse it with "let's then do all the pores with polygons manually."

True? How, then, without any problems, was I able to create this two years ago? (2.79 version) Why do people who see something different from the Maya or 3DS Max interface go crazy saying that the blender is something uncomfortable and incomprehensible, while the blender seems to be the second, after zbrash, to go along the path of combining tools into tabs, instead of copying the interface of the word or calculator, creating an elegant and understandable menu? The problem is not the blender interface, the problem is people who experience duckling syndrome. At the same time, the current version of the blender, having just pulled off half of the interface, ceased to be convenient and original, adding a bunch of empty and unnecessary places, instead hiding a bunch of familiar buttons that you could get right away in a bunch of other submenus that still need to be expanded and searched them there. The official blender forum is quite clogged with topics that are ignored or even blocked at the same time as no one asked users where to develop further. Perhaps it was a kind of closed ballot, what was the point then? Who gives the donate more, he offers? As for the Eevee render, it will not be a discovery for anyone that there is a marmoset, which at the moment in some cases is simply more convenient and faster, does not require any baking or anything else. There was such a renderer, an Blender Internal, the actual difference between an Eevee and this Blender Internal is real-time lighting (preview). The essence remains the same, it is still necessary, as in game engines, to bake lighting, adjust reflections and other things. Undoubtedly, such a render is also a cool thing for free, but not everyone needs plastic renderings without realistic lighting. Nevertheless, the render is not something for which it’s worth redoing everything so that “it would be like in Maya”.

Well, this is a question for the developers, what are they aimed at. I wrote a lot to them, wrote a lot on the forum, that we need to change something, move somewhere, improve user support, and so on, 90% of this remained unanswered and unchanged. So far, 3D coat for me is a cheaper (and buggy) replacement for zbrush. However, in terms of sculpting, the blender will develop for another two or three years to the point that at least it will look like 3D coat. In fairness, remove all glitches from 3D coats (after all, in the free blender, in version 2.79, they are not there, the stability of the program is close to 100%), and zbrash may not be needed. Perhaps the only things such as non-destructive Boolean operations, which are in the blender and a number of other programs, and I saw something similar in the zbrash, in 3D coats are unlikely to appear in the next five years. One of the things that so far leaves me with 3D coat is a convenient and simple interface, unlike the insane number of tabs in zbrush, most of which are “just there”, waiting for their moment. It is clear that everything can be set up there, and even studied, but why, after going into the 3D coat, after a couple of minutes I was able to create something intelligible, and in zbrush I stumble about where there are “layers” and generally how to choose objects? ..

I think that for the most part, people really want a normal tutorial. Like Eric Keller wrote in his book Introduction to Zbrush, where everything is chewed from the very beginning, to some relatively complex (for beginners) things. (450+ pages) In fairness, blender, zbrush, that a number of other programs, manuals from developers do not differ in detail and details. In fact, the instructions “how to make a dragon out of a default ball” are written by professionals or those who have recently learned to sculpt these dragons themselves. That is, those who use the program as a hobby and / or for work. You didn’t often see that game developers, for example, starcraft, were tournament champions, or that Gabe Newell was the record holder for speedy passage through half-life?

Hey. How can I flip a curve along one of the axes (just as I can flip any layer)?

However, when it became possible to create objects through curve profiles, the video came out without problems.