wailingmonkey

Radial symmetry. Been waiting 4 years for it and would love to see it finally in and working across all rooms. Agree with Taros that layer masking is already possible, although I do agree that PS-interoperability and duplicate functionality would be the next feature to add after Radial symmetry. *edit* I should add that being able to pick a custom "point" for where radial symmetry is used would be an ideal capability...but happy to just get basic radial symmetry into 3DCoat!

Hopefully this is already possible due to the coding used for merging meshes in the Voxel room. I've got some old sculpts of heads that I'd like to use as a basis for new heads on a "topology-finalized" lowpoly model. It would be a time-saver to be able to import my retopo geometry, re-position/re-scale/rotate it such that it is in close proximity to the sculpted heads, snap the retopo vertices to the sculpted head, and then export the retopo geometry back out, but RETAIN it's original scale/translation/rotation values. I realize there are other means of getting what I'm after, but it would seem to be a significant time-saver to just be able to either check a box to "Retain Translate/Scale/Rotate values" on import of retopo mesh, or check a similar box on export indicating that you don't want to keep the newly edited translate/scale/rotate values, but rather use the values from the imported mesh..

Garagarape...first of all, overall I'm digging your dood here. He's got quite a bit of character and uniqueness about him. In terms of things that jump out at me, I've put a few notes on the attached image...which you can take or leave for however much they are worth to you. Nice stuff, Garagarape!

Script, Just a quick test on my end with your .obj file...it definitely looks like an export issue from 3dsMax. Below is the dialog I get on trying to import into 3DC (notice, no multiple UV map names at bottom even though I've checked off 'tiles' box). Additionally, I quickly imported into Silo and can see you've got 3 separate meshes, but all of the UVs are stacked within the 0-1 UV space.

TimmyZDesign, on 28 Aug 2013 - 11:53 AM, said: .... Would it be possible to interactively create poles on the mesh with the new autoretopology tool you are making? The poles are arguably the most important thing for creating good topology. If we could interactively create the poles (and automatically see the autoretopology update) then it would be an ideal autopo tool. ........................................................................... Agreed!! Love to be able to, say, put 5-star poles in strategic places (under arm -armpits, around legs at hips, eye-sockets, etc.) and just let the quads fill in! Deleting areas that are unsatisfactory and then repeating...would seem to be a super-fast retopo process... .

Oh...yeah...sorry Pix, not sure why I assumed you meant constraining within the Paint room. (maybe due to thread topic I've now gone astray from, lol ) Anyhow, I agree it would be handy in Vox room too. Thankfully there are other tools that while not as immediate, can still be used for constraining (E-panel choices combined with brush type, 2D grid, curve tool on 2D grid and ortho view, etc.). Maybe put in a request thread or mantis for it? (you've got my vote)

Pix Jigsaw, Use your shift key, just like Photoshop. (feature has been there since before version 2, if I recall correctly) Perhaps tricky, but left-click, hold shift and drag out horizontally, vertically, or 45-degrees...screen-space.

based upon your comments, you probably already know this, but with 2 steps (first erase, then paint and extrude) you can get pretty close to this capability with the 'paint with splines' tool: and you get a better 'blend' between the extruded bits (I left 'additive painting' unchecked in depth options) *edit* forgot to say, you'll need to have 'use spacing' checked in the options with the paint-with-splines tool... I used 104% for the buttons alpha above.

You can choose to focus on the above, Andrew, or you can see the silliness in it. 3D-Coat has, and continues to provide a ton of utility since it's inception as well as over the majority of it's betas (some of the betas were closer to alphas, of course). However, you'd be advised to hear what PolyHertz says and attempt to remove yourself as 'developer' as you do so (similar to what all good artists must do when hearing critiques of their work if they want to improve it) 3D-Coat still has necessity to really polish it's toolset such that the user isn't surprised by bugs or confused by naming conventions/UI. Don't take it personally...we all seek for a better 3D-Coat and can see it's potential to become the workhorse we all want.

yep, my mistake, BeatKitano...what you're showing is what I meant. here's a couple of refresher posts indicating it's desired addition: http://3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3356 http://3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4256 Never touched Raul's version, and I see it having value across the program and not just in voxels/surface modes. Shame Andrew hasn't been able to spend a bit of time considering if it's at least viable to add... *edit* oh, and found this too: http://3d-coat.com/mantis/view.php?id=50

actually, I think he means this: Been waiting on radial symmetry for, what, 3 years now? (whistles)

thanks for sharing these, artman!

Looking forward to that, thank you Styler!

a fairly quick way to get some space back would be to use WinZip or WinRAR to compress and store all of your old (and probably unused) file versions once you've moved on to the next saved version. not ideal, but should give you back some immediate space...

yay! Baking is back! Thank you for fixing it so quickly, Andrew.

Excellent! Thank you, Andrew. FYI, I can't bake with 'Texture Baking Tool' with the method you've described above...I had tried that technique as an option earlier, but it fails as well. (produces pure grey texture file) Hopefully you'll kill the bug that's affecting the tool as a whole!

thanks again, marupura! It appears you are luckier than me! At any rate, I've uploaded a video of what I've encountered with trying to bake. Perhaps it's machine/video-card or CUDA specific? (My vid-card is GTX 560ti running drivers 301.24 and I've got CUDA 4.2.1 installed) bake_texture_error-process.mov

Howdy Polygoon and marupura, thanks for your input too! Polygoon, my model never went through the voxel process, this was strictly trying to bake from a model with an imported texture and 1 UV setup, onto another external model with altered UVs. marupura, your UV-swap technique works perfectly, thanks! (another option to solve the 'no bake' error) It worked on my heads to just swap the UVs instead of trying to bake. Based upon your feedback, it would seem there's still an error in the baking tool specifically with imported textures (diffuse is all I've tested thusfar) and attempting to bake them onto external objects, though. I hope Andrew can have a look at it, as it's handy to swap textures onto objects that may not have the exact same polycount or point order but still be in the 'same' world space....

thanks for verifying, LJB! just tried again with microvertex and with all possible file extensions and no joy. Hope it's a quick fix and something was commented out or some such....

can someone verify if the Bake tool is working? (I'm on Vista 64-bit CUDA DX) I've got 2 heads, exactly the same, but with different UVs on 1 that is textured...trying to bake that texture onto the other head (as external object, and tried as a retopo for per-pixel but that didn't work either) with proper UVs and get nothing but grey... Here's a test object for anybody that can't be bothered to use their own. Have only tried (and failed) with per-pixel,,,, bake-test_object.zip

I appreciate your tenacity, Roger_K! (bump +1)

mmm...specularity in voxels....

would be a great addition to have all 3 (as geothefaust suggests)...it's got my vote since 2009.

can anyone confirm whether texture baking to a low-poly object (another model note in the scene) is working for diffuse? (3.7.05B CUDA 64-bit windows) I ran an occlusion on a higher res model, then tried to bake to another different low-poly model (same placement in 3D space, just different Sub-D and UVs) and ended up with just a flat grey diffuse...