Ace-Angel

Zbrush is good, but more times then not it screws up the normals and Textures. Stretching and skewing the Colors maps especially. 3DC doesn't have it that issue so far. What you paint is what you get, no extra secrets when rendering.

Oh, thank you. I knew it was something simple, but I couldn't imagine it being simpler than this. Argh, I need to learn 3DC more before trying bigger objects. Thank you once again.

I sent you the email. Unfortunately, I have a slow connection, so I was forced to upload it on RS. If you want, I can later on send it as a direct email, late at night, once the speed picks-up.

Yes, I checked everything, for some reason the program says it imported the Large Mesh fine, but I don't see it anywhere. I do see the base-mesh, but not the fully sculpted one. Here is the image, first image is base mesh, second is my sculpted model and the lower below are the UV's. 3DC doesn't import them for some reason. It's show the base-mesh fine, but it either runs out of memory for the sculpted ones or I can't seem to find them anywhere.

Hey to all, I just finished sculpting a model in Zbrush, and decided to import it inside 3DC to start the Coloring and Texture creation. The model I'm trying to import is about 1.6m polygons, but for some reason the Big Mesh Import function isn't working...any ideas why people?

Wow, some of you people really missed my point. First of all, not everything is black and white, merger and acquisitions, nor money. At least in the short run, since all those come together more or less in the long run. Heck, EVERYTHING is about money in the long run. Secondly, Max hasn't re-written it's code in YEARS! Thats why the program is bloated, and thats why we have 3 different version of Max as opposed to 1 with everything in it. Even some of the Vets in the scene claim this. I mean look at Adobe...did it improve PS at all? No, but apparently CS4 is the next best thing since a re-written code. I explained everything which wouldn't pass by a person's head, clearly and firmly. I don't need to mentions things such as User base, Finance, and other old motto's which the industry is based upon, heck, I don't even need to mentioned that Max is bloated because that is painfully obvious.

Here is the deal on why Max is buying out most of it's competition and it's a very clever reason too. Now incase you people get bored easily, don't read what I will post, for it will abit of a history lesson too. Now how many of you use Mudbox, 3D-Coat or Zbrush? Chances are, if you have a beefy PC, the answer is a sounding 'YES!'. But, believe it or not, technology like that of Zbrush and others has been around since the early 1990's, the only issue was that the most 'primitive' way of creating such 'products' available to public was IP'ed under the person who found out how to do it in the first place. This meant that if I was Pixologic and I wanted to create Zbrush using this 'technology' (for a lack of better terms) all the way back in the early '90's, chances are, I would have to dish out large chunks of cash to the founder to have the rights to use his technology. So what gives you ask? Well...simple, I would much more willingly hire a team of talented vets in Graphic Development and Coding, start my own company, and start finding way of creating a products based upon the same concept, but with a different way of...shall we say using it...based upon our own technology. This not only would void the IP of the original founder who found out the original concept (for we all know, idea's cannot be IP'ed, only the Methodology) but I would be able to IP my own Method as well make millions in the process. That was history part 1, now, onto part 2. Another known fact in the Graphic and Design department is that no matter how good your software is, you ARE going to have re-write every 4 years. Lets take NASA for example. Every 4 years, NASA brings out a new software or better more, a new OS which not only is updated, but much more optimized and compatible, this ensures that if there are any 'black-holes in the OS (and experssion which means glitches build inside the very core of the program and not simple bugs that get easily covered by patches) they not only get solved, but are never an issue in the next iteration of the said software. However, what NASA does do in the process if should issues arise is submit quick 'Hotfixes' which are there as glue, holding the issue together, but they're not built on as a final problem solver. With that, lets not forget the the people working on updating and re-writing the OS work all year round, even the 3 years prior to the release of the new OS. If the CryEngine cost Crytek 12 million to make and Konami well over 25 million to make, how much would you think it would cost NASA to make? Call me crazy, but all that fancy gimmickry which is beyond people like me = large cash. Now apply the same formula to AD or any other Graphic Developer out there. What do you get? It's simple, you'll need a company with several millions set aside every 4 years, having a team taking note and re-writing everything in the core code, fixing previous issue, optimizing and solving compatibility issues while implementing new features and codes. If all of that doesn't cost twice or even 3 times the prices of a coder making an engine (+ don't forget that coding a utility is ten times harder then coding a game and requires more people) then I don't know what does. So end of History Part deux. So what is the so called 'Conclusion'? AD can either go out, try to invest large amounts of cash in 'creating' new stuff without using the same Methodology found in other programs (which will cost them ALOT) as well rewrite a totally new version of the software in question every 4 years (another large cash in of money) or do the easiest thing possible...go out, buy the other programs as well the technology available in it for a fraction of the price. AD is clever...bit of a bastard child but clever.