buqa

In fact, I'm against "universal" gizmo and for unique ones. Why? Thats simple. In the beginning, you have to ask, how much information should be in perfect case sticked to Gizmo. And the answer is: "A lot." You should have icons for Move, Rotate ond Scale, thats obvious, but you shoul have icons for planar Move, Scale and Rotate (XY, XZ, YZ) as well asi for uniform Scale a free Rotate and Move. Informatoin abou how much (degrees, units, percent) you affected your model would be great as well. And maybe something I can't remember just now. Probably its not possible to place all these informations on one Gizmo, so you have to have more states (or get over the loss of opitons, but its no good) a you can divide the state of gizmo in few ways. Division between separated Move, Rotate and Scale is imho most logical. But if somebody thinks out how to get all these things into one well arranged gizmo, I wouldn't be against. And 3dioot is right, maybe it's not necessary to have all three axes when using only screen space, but depends on how much should 3DCoat be modeler and how much ... just Zbrush. Andrews choice.

I think that core of 3ds max, one of the oldest step-children of Autodesk, wasn't rewritten for much longer than 4 years. It definitely wasn't rewritten since Autodesk acquisition in ... eee ... 2004?

I think it is the saddest event that have ever happen in (3D) CGI. Autodesk is acting like black hole, or better said, Imperium, building it's own Death Star and it is up to Obi Wan Andrew to fight the Dark Side

I thing its useless to thing about voxel sculpting now. These are not only 3 additional bytes for color, but another byte for specularity, another for alpha, another for this or that ... and it isn't possible with current desktop hardware to carry all these informations in everyone of milion voxels in scene. It would great of course to have full voxel sculpting and painting, but maybe in ten years we will have HW for that. Artag> Personaly i think that the problem isnt in file sizes on HDD, but in RAM consumption in real-time.

What abou some kind of Ribbon-like interface - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing) ? Lot of people don't like it at the beginning, but they love it when they get used to it. The main point is quite easy - to show only that options that are available (and reasonable, of course) at the moment. Now (especially within voxel sculpting development) is UI often quite confusing a lot of commands are obsolote ore useless, but it's not really important. What important really is is that the "big cleaning of interface" needs a lot of planning, thinking and testing (best possibility is to find someone who is really educated in ergonomy, I had just three lessons of ergonomy at school, but I really understand it's importance). When UI wasn't done as the first thing (as developers of Silo and Modo did), it should be done at the end, when all possible functions will be known.

I found the treasure! Yes, for real, I was using the Move tool with symmetry and I was pushing voxels inwards, when something started to reveal. Strange was that the blocky thing in the middle wasn't affected by the Move tool at all. And this blocky thing on the left is strange as well, it was made by one stroke with rounded Carve brush ... I dont't know how

I know it might be one of the biggest request of voxel sculpting at all, but I'm just curious: Andrew, are you planning (or maybe "is it possible") to bring some "non-linearity" to voxel sculpting? Curve tool is great example. You make a curve, set everything, confirm, model of curve is transferred to voxels ... but later you realize the the curve needs some adjustments. It might be easy to adjust it by some tools (move) and it might be not (if you few hours later realize, that you in fact need sharp corner instead of round). And it would be great to have a chance to edit the curve even after the confirmation a use of other tools. It could be applied for merge tool as well and maybe for others. I think it was in one of those videos from other software packages here. They had some objects which could move independently (like subtools in zBrush, but using of subtools in zBrush is like living in World of Pain) and when they had came closer, they welded together "voxel way". A then you still could transform both objects separately etc. As I said, I'm not sure whether it is possible in philosophy od 3D Coat, but as we all know, for Andrew, so called God of Code, impossible is anything

That reminds me one idea a got recently. Now, if you right-click, you have drawing plane as tanget plane to surface. But sometimes you can't see (or just can't define the point with the exect normal you need), so it would be great to have a option of defining 3-point plane (the only plane containing these three points).

3dioot> I have never said that voxel sculpting is inappropriate for organic modeling. Thats not true. In fact, there is no better way (known for me) of organic sculpting. I just said, that achievment of some "effects" (like super-smoothnes or super-sharpness) can be much more HW consumpting for voxel sculpting then for polygon modeling. I think the difference between voxel sculpting and scuplting from polygons is quite similar to difference between bitmap and vector drawing (where bitmap represents voxels a vectors polygons). Both have some advantages and disadvantages and its not fair to supress disadvantages just because we are too excited Its nothing against Andrew or 3DC, its just the nature of this technology.

I think the main disadvantage is that the voxel sculpting is in fact based on cubes. And cube isn't very organic shape so you need enormous number of cubes to keep "organic" shapes, transition etc. on every detail in every angle anywhere in 3D space an it is still hard (or impossible) to avoid some jaggedness (or how to say it) as you can see in the image above your post. The second disadvantage is that ts impossible for current hardware to work in super-fine details (like lets say skin pores or fingerprints on model of whole body), cos the number of cubes you would need for that will be even bigger than enormous, not possible for our poor quad-core CPUs a gigabytes of RAM Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice. (line for Red Dwarf fans ) I hope I dont't get the whole technology wrong.

No, just for the paid ones

I think that Andrews prices are definitly fair and reasonable. I'm a "poor student" from "poor country" (maybe not when speaking of Africa, but definitly when speaking of USA, England, Germany etc). 200$ (or 100 for upgrade) seems a lot of money. And it is lot of money ... for a bread, but not for a 3D software. As few people before me said, if you want to judge whether the price is too high or not, look and the competitors first. The only big mistake Andrew made was, that he made the princing too complicated to understand. Various prices for upgrade for various customers depending on their purchase money, it is way to confuse customers, even worse, to make them angry. If Andrew said, 3.0 will be for cca 200$, upgrade from 2.1 to 3.0 will be for cca 100$, everything would be much clearer and easier. But he is still new in big business, isn't he And now I'm thinking of one possible way, Andrew can turn 3D-Brush 3.0 into new product, let say, 3D-Clay. Then you will have 3D-brush (2.1) with discontinued upgrading (only some hot bugfixes) a and 3D-Clay. 200$ will price for new piece of software, 100$ will be price for upgrade to new software. Yes, it is a sleight, trick or cheat when asking me, but it is legal and everyone does it a no one complains, until you mention it.

I have one idea for retopo tool. I've seen this in some 3ds max plug-in, OrionFlame or maybe PolyBoost, but it doesn't matter. It is a function that, if you switch it on, tries to keep quads wherever it is possible. It is quite especially usefull with split tool, I've append picture of mesh how it should look like with this option switched off and on. Blue dots are current vertexes, red dots are new vertexes made by split tool. Of course, it can't be used for every possible transformation with every tool, but for some in common use certainly yes

I know I'm not the first one to mention it, but full bezier edit of splines (with all these handles and corners) would be great But don't take an example from Photoshop ... Corel Draw or Inkscape way of making/editing splines is much better.