BluEgo

I have to say, about a QT gui, that QTs are not hard to learn at all . They are very robust and well implemented/organized. You can setup a dockable layout with very few lines of code. For lazy people there is also a QT Designer tool that helps creating new GUI visually, even if I always prefer to write them. In other words, it is a pleasure to develop with QT

Thank you!

Just to understand, has this technique something to do with ABF++, which Andrew implemented in these days ?

Yes, I really want to say that 3DC is not developing in the right way. Currently it is becoming a sort of Frankestein, with a lot of features taken by various papers, but there is not planification, no roadmap.... why ? The feeling I have is that the approach to coding is not professional. Sorry Andrew for this conclusion, I admire you for your great ability, but I can't be happy when I see all this potential wasted in the wrong direction. For example.... why are you coding ABF++, as I can see on twitter, instead of re-thinking the whole interface and behaviour of your voxel brush engine? There are a lot of missnig features, like a GUI curve to edit the alpha/falloff of your brush, a control which set the offset of your brush from surface, a better move tool, a control to blur your alpha, and above all, less synthethic and more artistic feeling when using brushes. I agree with Taros, "Here are a lot of professional artists with brilliant technical background", please listen to them, not to fanboys.

I am not saying 3DC is not a good software. I love it for texturing and retopo purpose (it is really a GREAT piece of software), but for voxel actually is not good enough. We are not funboys. We are pro who want their tools act as they should I totally agree with this.

I think I can We are talking about brush feeling, not about making "subdivision levels" in voxels or something really hard to obtain with this kind of technology Furthermore, a more logical implementation of the brushes is something that has nothing to do with voxels.

Well, I think this sounds a little bit harsh, but I have to say that I agree with some of the concepts you are explaining here. I know that something is technically possible and something not, but here the focus is not adding new features, but improving the brush feeling. Currently the brush engine is terrible. Well, maybe is not terrible, but hey, is the worst currently available, if you try mudbox and zbrush. What I see, are new features every single day, but the brush engine is always the same. Why? 3DC is really plenty of features, I understand that coding something new is much more interesting, but these features are not well minded and integrated in a robust workflow. As 3dioot said, the basics are still the same...

3DIoot I simply love your idea about brushes wich emulate different levels of resolution. GREAT!

I would like to have the ability to import models with multiple uv sets and paint on them. Multiple UV sets are different sets in which a polygon can have different UV coordinates. You can import model with this kinf of UV with .lwo or .fbx file format I also would like to assign every painted layer to the UV set of my choice

I resolved baking one of my textures from one UV set to the other, just to have a preview of what I am doing in 3DC. Anyway could be interesting having this kind of support

Exactly.

Thank you Andrew. I am not using OBJ, but LWO, because a .obj file cannot use more than one uv set. So I can have two completly different UV set on the same model. If I can't use them on 3DC, I think this should be definitively a feature request to take in account Of course, in every Layer I can paint, I should also be able to assign it to the UV set I prefer.

I tried to import a model with multiple UV sets in per pixel painting mode. The start window recognizes that there are two uv sets, but when I try to open the Texture UV editor, the second one is empty. Why? Furthermore, I would like to know if there is a way to assign a layer to one uv-set, because it is strange to me that you can import a model with multiple uv-sets and then you can't paint on them simultaneously. Thank you !

Eheh, I like all these suggestions, comparing 3DC to ZB and MB. Maybe now it's time to dedicate next 2 or 3 MONTHS to the brush engine ? ( I am serious about the time to spend above this feature...)

I am sad too, but I think that it could be a wise decision to release 3DC before august, I will explain later why I really love 3DC, and probably, when 3.0 will be out, the company where I work will buy a lot of licenses of it, but here there are my thoughts. Currently 3DC seems a patchwork of cool features not well integrated between them ot incomplete. Now I can understand better the development of other softwares like modo, in which every release dosen't contain so much new features, but the base is really strong and well thought (even if every release is full of bugs ). Anyway, I read that one of their developer said that often they can write a new feature in very short time actually, but to make that new feature really well integrated with the software, making it usable and then to fine tune it, they can spend months before they can release it. For instance the new interface is cute, but tools are not well organized. Just to make an example, why the top option bar changes to reflect the voxel tool used if some other parameters are in the parameters window? Shouldn't it be better if they were unified or something else? And then, pens are in a different window then pen option, which is cool, but I would like to click over the icon of the pen to see the pens list. Why in per pixel painting there are normal maps in a layer, and you can't load them as depth information in low poly models ? And of course, I can't tell it enough, this is a painting-sculpting application, and the main thing to enjoy it should be a great and robust brush engine. I know how much efforts Andrew put in this piece of software, and the best thing of 3dc is that FOR SURE all the bugs will be squashed out. He is a master in this, and he release patches very often, instead of many other companies. So I am not worried about bugs, but I hope that 3DC 4.0 will not have ANY new features, but only remake all what is done and improve it at a new level. What I think is that maybe Andrew is trying to release 3DC before August, and I have to agree. In this date ZBrush 4.0 will be released and no one knows what they will have. If they will release an implementation of voxels and the ability to paint in layers, they could steal some buyers from 3DC. And then there could be other reasons of course, anyway I hope Andrew knows that 3DC it is not mature enough and he will try to show us that it will be.

Sorry philnolan3d, I didn't mean how to use ball images, but how to write the code to use them

Hello Akira! I am starting to to study cgshaders, but I have some difficulties. For example I really would like to know how you can create a matcap shader. Theorically I thought that for every normal you substitute a pixel of your ball image, but I am not sure. Can you give me some suggestions please ? Thank you !

Another thing I noticed, which I think is a bug, is that often, if I edit the projection in external editor, when I come back to 3dcoat, the texture sometime is projected also on back faces, even if I have Ignore back faces checked out Can someone else confirm this ? Furthermore, I noticed that the clone tool is always sharp, even if I select a smoothed alpha, could you fix also this please ?

Here in the studio I am working we are testing 3dcoat mainly to paint textures over low poly models. 3D coat it's really amazing in this field, and I hope that in the future it will not be anything else more than a super specialized painting / sculpting software. So, we noticed something strange using per pixel painting: 1) Speed. It's incredible SLOW on some operation, like importing a low poly mesh and then creating, switching and deleting a new layer. I think this is one of the most important features to be addressed to have a pleasant experinece when texturing 2) Normal map. I know andrew wants to add the capability to paint on cavity based on normal map, but... I think the current workflow of adding a normal map on a layer is really bad and not coherent with the philosophy ot the software. You already have the depth channel to paint depth informations. What I think is that you should consider the possibility to load the normal map in the depth channel, enabling so all the drawing capabilites of 3dCoat Thank you for listening !

I am really happy to hear you are thinking about a solution to implement this feature. It's not a problem if this will not be in the v3 release.

This is a good point, but maybe I am lazy, it is really difficult to me moving masses and making some adjustments to the silohuette, when you are at higher resolutions. I think that the main purpose of voxels is freedom, which is limited if you can't go up and down in resolution. Another thing which could help should be to improve the move voxel tool. While it works quite well (not perfect) at very low resolution, when you increase it, the move tool is too sharp, even if you set the smooth alpha brush. And about alphas, I really would like the ability to not use them if I wish, and set the hardness of the brush with a falloff curve, exactly as in zbrush, which is one really basic but very powerful feature.

What I think Might Pea is trying to do, is to clone a layer with the blending set as normal map, which is an image, not the depth channel.

Well, after the UI revamp I think that the best thing Andrew should do, is to improve what is already there, instead of adding new features. And so I mean of course the brush engine, improving the feeling of the sculpt experience, organizing tools and options of voxels in a better way, making a good clay, plus the ability to go up and down in voxels resolution.

Hi ghib, really thank you to let me know this. I am very glad Andrew will put this feature in the future