Henry Townshend

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.

Any news on non-destructive adjustments?

+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.

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.

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:

Any news on this maybe? Having a Transform tool neglecting Symmetry is a huge workflow and time interruption when needing to assemble things quickly.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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.

Could you show me an example of how this is done? I think just copy pasting together sentences from a forum post hardly resembles a documentation. It is very confusing and exhausting to try to follow, with the non fluid English and confusing continuity problems. So far, I am not entirely sure or convinced we're talking about the same feature. Saving out UV layouts and reload them doesn't compare to a whole UV layout change while keeping your exact 3D paint strokes on a model after re-import, re-projecting them. If this is really true, that 3D Coat also has this feature, it would be amazing, and a sad thing that there is no fuzz made about it. Would be good to see it proven in a graspable example, in action. I tried it myself, storing the UV Layout, change the UVs on the mesh, re-import the mesh with new UVs (Replace Geometry), and tried to load the old Layout to see if it works, without success. But maybe I did something wrong. Could you please show me that this here is possible in 3D Coat?: ChangeMeshUV_Painter.mp4

I am a heavy user and praiser of 3D Coat's Sculpting. I frequently communicate with the support in email and helped to fix some recent bugs, and am responsible for the "Super Relax" CTRL-SHIFT Smooth Mode now coming to Multi-Res mode, to have cleaner surface in this mode too. I even canceled my ZBrush subscription due to 3D Coat's Sculpting (In conjunction with latest sculpting performance improvements and the QuadRemesher Add on in Blender, without I would have never done it). I am confused by this kind of reply and fail to see where I implied any of that. And I honestly think this also disarms nothing of what I stated. And yes @micro26 , performance with a gazillion layers is def. one of 3D Coats largest strength in comparison with Painter. Painter will get choppy, no matter what system. 3D Coat feels snappy with a million layers still, which makes it very enjoyable to work with, which I hope won't change. Except that the Blending slider speed is much too slow, which is where 3D Coat "chopps", becoming unusable to work with when needing to fine adjust layer opacity, ruining that "snappiness" somewhat completely (The same happens with "Adjustments preview", which are also unusable). But you have to be aware that Painter offers the ability to non destructively re-import a different UV layout for your mesh without your texturing breaking (which is the selling point of it from day one, btw.) For this, it stores every brush stroke in 3d space onto the model (look at the file size if you don't believe me) to be able to re-project in case of UV layout changes. This comes at a significant cost when layer stack grows, smth 3D Coat or Marmoset do not deal with. Jus saying, it's not only procedurals causing performance to lower, this is misleading. Procedurals are likely just a fraction of the calculation time needed compared to the non destructive UV feature, which is one large reason of why it went industry standard back in the day, and still being it today, in the first place. Can you achieve nice textures in 3D Coat, too? Sure, Ive seen exceptional texturing done in 3D Coat. Some artist even still use PS to make their PBR textures. It always depends on the artist, no matter the tool, totally agree. But does that mean we should neglect and ignore the obvious glaring lack of non destructiveness of the tools rather than help to improve those (in comparison to implement a Substance Designer clone) relatively lower hanging fruits? I think not. A lack of non destructive HSL and Levels and such, makes 3D Coat's texturing ill suited for adapting flexibly to art direction changes in a production, or simply just adds a lack of iteratibility, smth. that is highly needed, and expected from artists in our times. Doing an HSL onto a layer in 3D Coat, and the layer is forever adapted. Can I fine tune my value range of a certain layer by Levels in 3D Coat? Or am I limited to a "Brightness and Contrast" operation, that immediately gets "applied" to the layer, destructively. This is the root of the problems, not the lack of procedural patterns. We are not just talking about hand painted Blizzard models here. This is something completely different from professional PBR texturing workflow needs. And clipping masks are not a replacement for B+W masks.

It wouldn't be a "good thing". This is easily explained by the fact that Substance Designer is a COMPLETELY different software than anything that is currently in 3D Coat. It is a highly specialized software, with immense depth and complexity in what it does, which took 10 years of specialized development to get to that point (nearly Day One user here). Just having a "Graph based interface", as many software's nowadays do, doesn't automatically make smth. "Substance Designer"'. If you used the software for a longer time and know what it does, esp. also in a game dev context, you would start to realize that this assumption is naive. There is nothing remotely comparable in 3D Coat for the procedural creation of tiling textures and game engine interoperability that justifies the notion of it having the ability to integrate such a tool set or rival it. "Should be more procedural" - I def. agree! But, this what we're talking about is just the procedural basics that are currently missing, not that it needs procedurality in a Substance Designer like level, but procedurality and non-destructiveness like Painter! (Marmoset, Mari, or even just PHOTOSHOP(!)) I'm not being negative here, I LOVE 3D Coat, and I 'm just trying to prevent the next naive user input causing Andrew and crew to go the "Lets do a Printing app in the age of where free Blender sculpting became highly accessable and performant, because hobbyist user XYZ said so" approach. Just because 3D Coat offers a Smart Material System (which it doesn't even offer in a way that you can re-use existing Layer Groups as Smart Materials like in Painter, negating some of it's core benefits), doesn't automatically make it suitable for becoming a "Substance Designer" like tool. I'd like 3D Coats Paint Room to catch up to just the minimum industry standards. Wether that's with a node based approach, or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point. I have a slight suspicion that people who suggest "3D Coat should integrate something like Designer" simply don't wanna pay for another software package and again, try to make 3D Coat the all in one holy cow package to cut their costs, which is a very un-noble and damaging input for the devs, and the progression of the software's already inherent strengths, which many of us are moaning for as supporters and lovers of the tool, but just can't use it in a serious production pipeline like we would like to. 3D Coat's Paint Room is a Layer based 3D Painting application. It is first and foremost an equivalent, or aimed equivalent to Substance Painter, or more like a "Photoshop in 3D Space". And it should focus on that imho. There is enough procedural gaps to fill there, before trying to create a new node based procedural Tiling Texture generation tool inside of the software. And again, one look at the current Shader Graph Editor in 3D Coat should tell us that there is already enough to do to even bring a graph based interface to a decent UX level, because I can almost guarantee you, that the current state is smth nice for programmers to may play around with, but not something that artist wanna have attached and use in conjunction with their layer stack when texturing. This is the construction site that should be tackled to get feature complete and UX ready first. To think that, onto this base, something remotely to Substance Designer could be integrated on top, really is delusional. The only thing that's likely gonna happen is that it will be a super duper basic mimic of Designer, just enough to toy around with, at the cost of all the other basic features still being rigerously neglected, cause dev time flowed into trying to mimic a tool which functionality is not inherent at all in 3D Coat. Having a graph based interface tied to layers? Like Armor Paint or Mari have? Yes, this is imaginable, but it will not or shall not try to resemble Substance Designer, and anyone who would suggest or pressure Andrew and Crew to do something like this, does quite some harm in the software's progression in usability and further helps preventing a wider adaption of it as a texturing tool, esp, since the rise of Textura as an alternative. Just having a few noise nodes and be able to blend them and distort them, tile them, etc. all that good, essential basic stuff, is welcome! But it is NOT equivalent to what Substance Designer is. I would love a robust node system for handling HSL, Levels(!), etc. no question. But it doesn't even really make a large difference if node based or not, the main thing would be that the basic gaps would be filled solidly. Look at Marmoset how they built their (basic)procedural systems in their Texturing Tools small, but cleverly planned, bit by bit. Not even 2-3 years later they rule and their tool set even surpasses Painter in some small UX aspects (so that Painter had to catch up, and did), because they did their homework and have good and experienced artists use it and collect their feedback, and, interact with them frequently on Discord in a professional manner. 3D Coat could do this, too, with their already excellent base of a Paint Room that just feels great to work in, but lacks the non-destructive basics on multiple ends. But trying to adapt Substance Designer in it's current state, feels not like a "good thing" at all as a next approach to Paint Room improvements.

This is a brave statement, akin a surrealistic pipe dream. If you have long used Substance Designer, or just looked at what Substance Designer always had offered in terms of non destructiveness and PBR feature completeness, and what it has become, esp. since recent versions 13 with splines and paths tools, wireless receivers, etc., it is very safe to assume that 3D Coat will most likely never reach up to par with their graph based material authoring interface, let alone "enhance" it. I'd rather would like 3D Coat Texturing focus on their huge strength of being a highly organic and inherently artistic "Hands On" painting software, and fill all the gaps it needs to complete a regular layer based painting program, like Substance Painter, or Marmoset. Focusing on remotely reaching Substance Designer's procedural capabilites doesn't make a lot of sense at a point where we don't even have Black and White Masks in regular Paint Room (Something that is the fundamental structure of Designer, and Painter, at the very core of the workflow). If a team can not even include basic contemporary standard features in their already in built painting functionality for years and years, I highly doubt we get even a remotely equivalent of Substance Designer in 3D Coat. This statement lets me only assume a lack of knowledge and experience of the power of Substance Designer, or at least a way to brief experience with it to tell the difference. Substance Designer is much, much more than layering images on top of each other. It's procedural functionality for authoring of tiling textures is a production proven force to behold. If 3D Coat adapts a hybrid workflow of Layers and Nodes, that would be pretty cool of course! However, if it looks and feels remotely like the current Shader Node Editor, this is so far away from any Substance Tool from a UX and usability standpoint, so many light years away form even something remotely as usable as Substance Designer, that it would probably raise the question of why not staying with layers in the first place. It should be focused on the basics that are currently lacking in the Paint Room first, to make a graph based approach successful for 3D Coat, meaning by offering all the features that are currently not in, and fill in all the gaps, and treat the graph based approach as a nice addition to it (like Mari or Armor Paint, for instance), not as a Substance Designer equivalent. If there still isn't even integration of B+W white masks in a painting software, and left in this state for decades, it makes it kind of questionable to start to pursue to rival Substance Designer. 3D Coat doesn't even have the basic, non destructive features of Substance Painter, yet, or any contemporary PBR painting program, for that matter, and neglected them for years, and still seemingly has other prios. (I have given tons of frequent feedback to the devs on what is still missing to make it more usable in a game dev pipeline context, to make it match more Painter/Designers crucial features). So why would the plan be to start to make a Substance Designer approach? Which is an even more vastly complex software that relies even more on non destructive principles than Painter does. But having simple graphs nested with layers, I'd be all in, that would be super useful and even unique. I just would keep the efforts spend on procedural generation capabilities low, and try to instead foucs on solidly get the current Smart Materials System into this graph based approach, get B+W masks, ID maps, non destructive Adjustments, Real Blend modes fo all PBR channels, dedicated channels for AO, Opacity, SSS, etc. , instead of chasing being anywhere as solid as Substance Designer as a procedural generation tool.

Thanks for the responses @Elemeno and @Carlosan . I def. stick to 3D Coat, as I love it. I seldom have any severe issues other than the functional ones I post here. I don't have any problems with the Software in general, like many other frequently ranting users here do. Just want to clarify this: I am not joining the eternal 3D Coat global workflow or UI complaints club. I just thought this was a support forum. So getting no answer to if something was recognized as issue or not, can be very frustrating for an experienced user, who takes his time (subtracting from his own work) to not only hint at these problems, as in "dis broken, please fix", but also tries to clearly describe them and record them, also trying to make sure it's not on my end. Hence, why I bumped this. It was the second post of mine with a somewhat urgent problem that went without any sign of being registered or replied to. I get that it's a small team, but that has nothing to do with the quality of Support on these forums. The least I think would be not over the top to expect would be a signal of these issues I'm experiencing and reporting here being registered and valid. Nothing to do with the software team, at all. They are doing an incredible job imo. It's more like me trying to guess if it was worth spending my time reporting something clearly and in detail here. I totally also get that issues being ironed out by priority. But again, this has nothing to do with support not answering and confirming users who take their time to report. I was totally unaware that reporting issues here is basically in vain in terms of generating priority, and that email is the only way to being registered more vehemently. I always assumed gathering and propagating these would be part of Support instead of the users responsibility. I had issues reported here in the past that where fixed immediately in the next version, so please pardon my confusion. I will in future stick to email then and avoid using the forums. Thanks for the hint.

Sorry for bumping on this, but it feels kinda dis-satisfactory to only get "confused" smiley reactions on the forums lately when reporting something. Is anyone else experiencing this? Will something may be done about it? Cloth Sim is a pretty important part of workflow nowadays, and Blender and ZBrush offer it. I would really like to be able to utilize an already existing cloth tool in 3D Coat. If "Pick Volume" -> "Start" would work without the unwanted remnant duplicate of the current object influencing collision, that would be awesome.

Hey, I have this problem now for some time. I would love to be able to use 3D Coats cloth sim, I think it works and feels great, despite sadly the lack of self collision (which I would really love to see added, as the meshes interpenetrate themselves all the time). Most of the time, I would like to use it picking my existing Volume rather than the default square it opens with. However, the behaviour is never as expected, as the cloth object gets duplicated and the source object stays in place, interfering with the collision. The expected behaviour would be that the current picked Volume becomes the cloth object, not some additional object. This makes it really hard to use this tool, and it has so much potential as another cool feature for the sculpting process. I just ditched ZBrush for sculpting entirely, terminating my subscription, due to the awesomeness of 3D Coat. However, I could work with cloth flawlessly in ZBrush during sculpting, and if only this "double object" problem would be fixed this would enable me to also use cloth sim during sculpting in 3D Coat as well. I have seen a Podcast with Jama Jubarev where he uses the Cloth tool in an older version of 3D Coat, and it worked exactly as expected, no unwanted object duplication when he picked his current Volume as cloth object. Unfortunately, I can't find the video anymore. However, I highly assume that this is a problem that may got introduced somewhere. I would deeply appreciate if this could get fixed, and maybe even self collision be considered to be added, which is also present in ZBrush, and Blender, enabling the user to prevent creating a self intersection mesh he often can not salvage. Please see this video to see what I mean about unwanted cloth object duplication (you can also see the result of self penetration on the borders of the resulting cloth): 2023-10-13 09-28-43.mp4

Unfortunately this was not the solution @Carlosan. It still happens, so it is not the Touch setting on my Wacom. Pity. What I noticed, but could be wrong also, when I use the "Smooth All" function, it sometimes happens right after hitting my hotkey for it, which is "ALT+S". Otherwise, I'm out of ideas and hope this can be addressed. 3D Coat really starts get in into the way of getting stuff done due to this for me, which is sad, as it is usually the opposite. I don't hink recording a video would help here. What happens is just that the camera is offset far away, and once it is, when I hit SHIFT+A, it snaps back. However, from that point on, it will offset again and again, seemingly randomly after a few seconds.

OMG, thanks for asking this. I just realized not long ago I enabled "touch" on my Wacom tablet to be able to zoom without mouse in some things like Unity Inspector and Substance Designer graph view. I will disable it now and see if the problem disappears. However, I'm fairly certain it was also there before I started working with touch enabled. But I'm not 100% sure. Crossing fingers. Thanks!

Hello, after a random while of sculpting, at some point, the viewport camera constantly gets wide offset the model, without any cause by the user. It was already something I battled with on a daily basis using 3D Coat. Hitting CTRL+A only focuses on the model again for some seconds, before the cam gets offset wide out of focus randomly again, with no means to continue the sculpting session anymore, but having to save an iteration, quit and restart. However, before v30, it happened only occasionally, but kinda frequently, but, a save and reload usually fixed it for some time. Ever since 2023.30, the problem seem to have intensified. I have to close my sculpting session every few minutes , which is unacceptable really. I can't work like this anymore. Could this please get fixed? It is incredible flow breaking. I saw its been reported somewhere already but I can't remember. This is a major usability bug I feel. One that ultimately would have to drive me over to blender for sculpting, which I'd love to avoid, cause I absolutely adore 3D Coats sculpting. I hope it can be addressed soon.

I like to report a long standing bug for me in the Render Room: Turning any lights intensity to zero will fully freeze 3D Coat without recovery on my end. (An option on each light to bypass/disable the light via a checkbox would furthermore be helpful) Add: Same happens when I use a shortcut to switch to Render Room (I have it assigned to "F8" in mycase)

I want to say thanks for the updated Gizmo colors in the latest versions! It really eases the overall read when working a lot with the gizmo and the colors tastily blend in. It's a small adjustment, but I really think it's a great UI improvement not to have full sat RGB colors on the handles, but non primary subdued ones instead. Thanks a lot! Another thing I would like to say is: I noticed that Proxy Mode is now declared as legacy method, I hope that you don't plan to exclude it from the app at any point :/ I really adore this feature in 3D Coat, it helps so much with iterative sculpting. I appreciate Multi Res mode, but it is not the same use case nor a replacement for Proxy mode in any case. To attain the same functionality as Proxy Mode with Multi Res, a user has to decimate his model several times, sometimes resulting in 6-7 lower subdiv levels. Whereas in Proxy Mode, a user can set the amount like say "16X" , hit the Proxy button and it's done in few seconds. Same when going back up. So I hope developers are not planning to drop this feature from the program in newer versions, that would be a real bummer for me. Unless we have Proxy and Multi Res merged, meaning we may could use a set amount of decimation for going down a level, Multi Res is not an advanced way of Proxy mode, or even a replacement for it. Would be highly really appreciated if it would be kept in the program. I think it would be an immense loss tbh if it gets dropped in favour of Multi Res only. It is one of 3D Coats exceptional unique strength, besides allowing dynamic topology with sculpting layers, which is insane. Every other program has Multi Res or Subdiv Levels, non has Proxy Mode. For me it's an exceptional function that frees me from ever having to think about topology during sculpting. I know Multi Res is also topology independent, but as said, it's not a "better way" of doing Proxy Mode. It's a different functionality that serves the user with multiple resolution levels. Proxy Mode is a means to quickly broadly adjust your dynamic topology sculpt. Just wanted to say this because seeing Proxy Mode declared as "legacy tool" for Multi Res in the Preferences has kind of alarmed me.

I wanted to ask for long time: Is there a particular reason why we have two different export dialogue modals, depending on if we export meshes or if we export textures? When I export meshes with 3D Coat, it opens the Windows Explorer window as used to. When exporting textures, it opens an entirely different, somewhat disjointed window. I find this very flow breaking when having to export to have to re-navigate an entirely different window without the ability even to paste in a path as string. It would be way more efficient for users if we simply can export with the exact same regular Explorer usage when exporting textures as well.

Hello. In regards to my problems with "Decimate-AutoMap_Export" option often being stuck and not completing. @Oleg_Shapo I'd like to share another file where it's impossible for me to use the function without it getting stuck. Sometimes during "Optimizing". stage, albeit the certain object has barely over 1mio. For instance, if you try to decimate auto map export only his yellow-orange west in this file, I can not get it work. Soon after the scan depth process is done and it starts "Optimizing", then it will get stuck, even though I chose a reduction percentage of 0%. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ay3qlf439a739wx/greifs_Pose_Anger_049.3b?dl=0 What worked for me finally, was to export each individual object as "Regular Export" as FBX. But using USD or USDZ seems to get stuck for me for some reason. Maybe I'm too impatient, I think this is very complex and is expected to take some time. However, if a single object would take so much time like let's say half an hour, this makes at much less viable. Of course it's nothing compared to days of manual retopo and mapping I understand. But I would like to use the option for quick 3d concepting in engine. So I hope this file might be further helpful for inspection. I would really love to use this function more fluidly and reliably.