Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Henry Townshend

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Henry Townshend

  1. A HUGE thanks from the heart for the implementation of B+W masks. They are working really great now since 2024.14, and having the additional advanced functionality already in, like converting existing layers to masks, is very welcome! It's a fantastic feeling to finally be able to combine 3D Coats extremely good paint room tools with the robustness of masks. Crossing fingers for non destructive adjustments to come.
  2. Thx much! I just now realized what it does, as I never clicked "Ok" before: It sends a pic to a non-existing-anymore 404 website So I guess it'd be save to remove. Couple of times I lost progress again in the meantime due to it causing crashing.
  3. Thx for having a look and the info. Jeah, seems most reasonable to remove it to not interfere with certain shortcut combos. But of course that would be sad for people using it already and being used to it. I cross fingers it either gets removed or deactivateable again.
  4. This is the most workflow breaking default key combo I have ever witnessed. Esp for people who use a ton of hotkeys, Zbrush style, like Shift+Ctrl+Alt+Whatever Key in combination, and working fast, it is almost inevitable to hit these. I wouldn't mind, if the program wouldn't crash guaranteed every single time I accidentally hit it, and often causing me to lose progress, even tho I already save frequently, incrementally, which is Shift+Ctrl+Alt+S for me. I looked into the Help menu and couldn't find what you described @AbnRanger. Could you maybe hint me to how to disable this function in 2024+ ? I browsed the Preferences, but nothing caught my eye so far.
  5. Same Issue here. Wrote Andrew mutliple times about it. Baking/Cage display gets ignored/skipped most of the time. Models come out fine , always, but textures are empty. Very sad this feature is not reliable 90% of the time. I tried everything, no repro pattern I could hold on to. No reliable workarounds. It makes this otherwise amazing function eat away time and nerves.
  6. Same here. I'm a bit surprised by this. I recall 3D Coat usually being super fluid while painting. I'm on 2024.12. It seems there is a performance degration somewhen since the last versions. It's not really pleasant anymore to paint.
  7. Jeah I also figured he said "they will appear in .06" but that probably doesn't mean fully functional, yet, right. The groundwork seems well done tho. It should work great once it does, as it has the basic needs in there already. And I hope the undo instability/confusion will get fixed too once it's official.
  8. Could someone hint me to how this works? I add a mask to a layer via the Photoshop like mask symbol. It appears. For some reason, it is already filled in the little preview icon. I try to paint B or W into the mask, nothing happens. Maybe I am overlooking something, but currently at least in this first version, the mask functionality doesn't seem to work as expected. I tried with Opacity, which it doesn't rely on. I tried with Eraser, which works, it erases the mask, but also erases the layer too, sadly. Also, it is extremely buggy with undo. The UI itself and the ability to enable disable is already great. But if I'm not doing something severely wrong, the system is not yet usable. Please have a look at this vid: 2024-02-14 11-53-58.mp4
  9. Aww, thx. That's sad. Painting Vertex Colors onto regular UV mapped, per pixel painted meshes (e.g. mapped onto Trim Sheets, Atlases etc.) is a very common age old technique in Game Art. For instance, before texture memory was as affordable as today, color variation or visual breakup like dirt and grime could be stored in Vertex Colors directly at authoring time in an external application.. What you're refering to is also valid of course, and more contemporary. Usually you can paint the colors in engine, right, but that's not what I want to do in this case, hence why I need to paint them myself. I'm working on a game where we don't use a realistic art style, otherwise the way you described would be 100% suitable and I wouldn't even bother painting Vertex Colors outside the engine for a more realistic artstyled PBR scenario. I would of course do it way more non destructive and modular inside the engine directly, and drive material blends with it. But, we use Vertex Colors to add more subtle color variation to meshes, to have an additional color layer. I know I could technically do the same with a second UV set, but our shader only supports to add Vertex Color into the "mix", which is perfect for not having to author and store another texture, but simply splat color onto the vertices. We wanna add a lot of hue variation, which is why I paint "painterly" onto the Vertices of the already UV mapped and textured meshes. (Something not really possible inside any game engine I know of, as most are just for very rudimentary RGB painting to drive interporlations, so no smoothing, no hue jitter, etc) I can do this in Blender no problem, but I would have heavily preferred doing it inside 3D Coat. However, I think it wouldn't be worth a feature request. Thanks much for your time!
  10. Thanks again, and glad you agree, so I'm not nuts :P Unfortunately, for filling only parts of a geo on a paint object with multiple separate geometric parts, all those options are not exactly helpful, tho all great stuff. It would be great if we could simply "Fill with Unfreeze", or have that 0 option do exactly that. I think having the zero option would be the easier one for devs. Or maybe a tickbox "fill invert freeze", whatever would be the lowest hanging fruit, would be great. It makes sense right? cause if you are offered the ability to fill smth. with freeze, the opposite should also exist.
  11. Thanks for the answer! Interesting, I don't perceive this as logical at all. What I would expect is that "Fill with 0 Freeze" would actually fill the mesh with 0 freeze, meaning that it inverts the effect of "Freeze with 1" , by "unfreezing" it. So I would expect a freeze of 0.5, to add a mask with opacity of 50%, and a Freeze of 1.0, to add 100% freeze, and, a freeze fill of 0, adding 0%, meaning that part then should be unmasked again. Why should it be logical that fill with zero freeze simply adds no freeze? Then this option is kinda redundant, right? If it simply does nothing. If I don't wanna fill any area with Freeze, I simply don't click it. I wouldn't go and click on objects to fill them with 0 freeze if that does nothing. Unless I'm overlooking something, What I want to achieve is to simply "fill unfreezed", meaning I want to exclude parts of the already frozen objects from freeze by filling it with non freezed areas. And I thought this option of 0 should do exactly that. If you know any other way, without having to manually unpaint the freeze, and accidentally hit other objects in perimeter by trying that, I'd be thankful.
  12. Thanks for the answer! To specify, as said, I want to use the VCs inside engine in a shader, so I don't need to bake them to texture, nor do I need to import the model with VCs already on it, cause I do want to paint them inside 3D Coat. What I want to achieve is actually pretty simple: * I model a model inside Blender, unwrap that model there * Then I want to import that model into 3D Coat, just to give it Vertex Coloring pass, but without losing it's UV's Result I'm after: A UV Mapped mesh which's UV map stays intact coming into 3D Coat, which I can then Vertex Paint onto, and then export afterwards with: * Intact, same UVs (no auto re-wrap or anything, but keep the same UV coordinates it was imported with) * Vertex Color Information on it that I painted on and then can export with the mesh I think this is pretty common for Game Environment art, so there's gotta be a straight forward way to do it.
  13. Hi, I'm currently trying to import a UV mapped game res mesh to add some vertex colors onto to use those inside a shader in game. I can't seem to do this successfully without losing the meshes UV's. If I import for PerPixel Painting, I can not Vertex Paint. If I import for Vertex Paint, the Mesh seem to be converted or at least it's UV's neglected on import. I tried doing this in Blender, which works ok'ish, but feels so unnecessarily overcomplicated and convoluted, and lacking in terms of painting, filling and masking/hiding options compared to 3D Coat, that it's hard wanting to do it there.. plus I have all my custom fav presets in Coat with which I would like to do the painting with (not to mention it's lightyears more fun painting anything in 3D Coat than in Blender due to it's fabulous brush engine). Would appreciate any help, as I think this should be possible, and I just likely don't know how.
  14. Absolutely awesome news! Can't wait! And I too also hope non destructive-adjustments come in soon. Thanks so much! Stoked to see that Paint Room progress is happening. And you even tackle B+W masks first and foremost. Just awesome.
  15. Any news on non-destructive adjustments?
  16. +1 , same for paint layers. Pretty standard functionality. 3D Coat one of the most amazing, if not the most amazing artistic program ever created, and, has a ton of features and functions other programs lack and not even remotely offer, even industry standard software. However, it still lacks fundamentals like these in 2024.
  17. Actually I forgot one: The possibility to snap to underlying surface while using Move and Snake Hook Brush, e.g. extruding a hair strand that follows the underlying surface.
  18. I love 3D Coat Sculpting. A few things are lacking imo to enable an artist to work more quickly and efficiently on a fundamental workflow level. I like to request: Transform Tool to respect symmetry, not using Pose Tool as workaround. It accumulates a lot of wasted time and interrupts flow. Pose Tool, while fantastic, is no substitude for simple, quick, symmetrical transformations. It would be further nice if hitting "G" to freely translate an object with symmetry on would respect it as well, as a logical continuation. When using "Center of Mass" on Gizmo with symmetry active, the center of mass shouldn't be set on the world center between the pieces, but rather on the local of the mirrored piece, meaning when working on hands with active X symmetry, and hitting "center of mass", we should have the gizmo on the center one hand. There is a "Center in Local" button in the Gizmo menu of the Transform Tool, however, it doesn't work as expected for me. "Move Infinite Depth" mode for the Move Brush, like in ZBrush, where we can move an object completely all the way through, not only what is in front of us to gradiate to the back, but the complete silhouette instead:
  19. Any news on this maybe? Having a Transform tool neglecting Symmetry is a huge workflow and time interruption when needing to assemble things quickly.
  20. Thanks a loooot !!!! If we could also get the "Super Relax" CTRL+SHIFT Smooth Mode in as well in Multi-Res, as was talked about, it would round things well up. Seriously, thank you for being so open for feedback and the hard work put into this wonderful tool.
  21. Hello! A pretty common workflow in ZBrush is once you're done with your dynamic topo sculpt, you clone your mesh. Then you Remesh the clone to a low level with even toplogy. So far, this is possible in 3D Coat. Now in ZBrush you subdivide your low Mesh once, and then, re-project it back again to the high poly source, keeping exactly its shape. And subsequently, you do this for every next Subdiv step up, until you're round about the same or at least a sufficient polycount to hold the original dynamesh/Scultpris Sculpt details, only now on an even topoed Sculpt with several subdiv levels. Same worklow can be done in Blenderr, using Subdiv or Multi Res and Shrinkwrap modifier. 3D Coat now has Multi Res, and it has an awesome Re-Project tool, too. So I tried to re-create this with the Multi Res Mode, expecting this would be no problem. But it seems we don't have the Re-Project tool available when using Multi-Res. Is this an oversight? This really suprises me. It would be much and urgently needed imo.
  22. And I highly hope that MipMaps for the Paint Room are also on top of that list (I wrote Andrew multiple times about it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mipmap
  23. Thank you @Carlosan! I did it and it worked. You just BLEW MY MIND. Thanks so much for taking the time to rewrite the guide! Why do you guys not promote this? And how does this even work while 3D Coat being so performant with so many layers? OMG. You made me love 3D Coat even more today. I would highly suggest that you guys do a contemporary video presentation of this, as I think not many users who come from Painter know this. Now I hope even more that we get the mentioned Paint Room improvements!!!
  24. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, in hindsight, I should have clarified this more: I meant the focus on a separate branch of the app as a Print compatible tool, not the Sculpting in itself. What I meant is, that I highly assume (and already also was part of such a 3D Print endavor using Blender once) that people who want to do printing wouldn't necessarily use 3D Coat for it, as it seems a bit overkill for just that task, when Blender, and many free Printing apps are available to hobbyist printers. So what I meant is I would have rather seen this effort gone into existing, long standing gaps in Paint Room/Textura, than adding yet another distribution branch to the software that has to be maintained. Of course, 3D Coat can do whatever it wants with it software, as it is their baby and a result of 20 years of brutal passion and effort and Mathematician Wizardy (the idea of making it Open Source I find absurd). I feel blessed that such an app exists and am immensely thankful for it. I nontheless like to offer my perspective as someone well versed in other software who sees the fundamental lackings and problems, as many others here do who come as long year users from other 3d texturing software. I think the gist of it is 3D Coats Painting is simply amazing and offers so much that other apps don't even remotely offer in terms of hands on experience and artistic-ness, and it is just so damn close to fill those gaps, that it can be nerve wrenching for those who really like to adapt it more fully into their production workflow, taking advantage of exactly this, but being hinderd by the braking shortcomings. It is all meant well, BECAUSE we all know how great the paint tools are and feel. But we also know how it lacks behind on standard contemporary workflow principles and non destructive elements, and performance (e.g. Blending Sliders). 3D Coats' Sculpting is astounding, and I couldn't live without it anymore. It is an absolute blast to work with. It helps me to create what I want in an organic, non polygon bound way and I absolutely love it. The reason why I mentioned not doing the leap of faith of abandoning ZBrush (it was a pretty scary step) without Blender and Quad Remesher, is that I simply couldn't live without ZRemesher, despite 3D Coats Autopo being good. I rarely use Blender for sculpting. I always used ZBrush. But ever since I did more and more sculpting in 3D Coat, I found myself never opening ZBrush anymore. Once I knew my way around, customized my UI and laid all my commonly used functions to shortcuts, it is hard to find any other tool that enables you to work as fast as in 3D Coats Sculpt Room to simply pump out forms, and express yourself in 3d as if it was a painting program. It is one of my favorite tool sets ever (Same with it's Retopo). I wish I could say the same 100% for the Paint Room. If it would ever feel as great as Sculpt Room to work in, if there wouldn't be those gaps and usability problems, like unusable sliders, among all that was mentioned I don't need to repeat, it would make 3DCoat much more complete (and Textura as a standalone tool) than adding more and more new, and different functionality on top, imho.
×
×
  • Create New...