Paint Guy

Andrew, I downloaded 3.1.02 mac. Installation said successful! but when I launched 3DCoat it still said version 3.1.01. I tried a second time and the same thing 3.1.01. What could I be doing wrong?

I hope you weren't offended Phil. Your point is well taken. I guess what works for one person may not work for another. One thing I try and remember is they're all just tools. Whatever tool(s) can get the job done best is the tool I want to use. Anyway's this has strayed far off the original topic so I digress.

For the record I didn't say "Get used to it" but get into it! but yes it's not for eveyone.

This was requested months ago and is highly needed. Now that 3.1 is out I hope Andrew get's a little time to sort through the many Feature Requests and can filter out the most important ones for implementation into 3DCoat.

ZBrush get's a bad rap for it's UI but once you get into it it's not too bad. So far 3DCoat and ZBrush are working well together for me. Only time will tell.

Javis, Hi, no I am on mac an ZBrush has no mac demo yet so I am trying to do due diligence before I buy it and ask a lot of questions. I don't like the UI but I have tried ZBrush before and I eventually could find my way around OK.

Awesome, thanks Taros, so if I understand correctly I only need to create the UV's in 3DC then export the .obj from 3DCoat.

I am looking at buying ZBrush but using 3DCoat for my UV's but I want to make sure ZBrush has no problem using UV's created in 3DCoat. Also you just need the .obj and the .uv file correct? Thanks

Happy Birthday Andrew!

Totally agree! It would be nice if this could be fixed.

Great explanation. I now see that increasing and decreasing sub-d levels or "resolution" in the voxel world will not work with voxels as well as with polys as in ZBrush. The only way I see it working is to retop the voxels in 3DCoat and then take to ZBrush. In ZBrush you can then increase/decrease subdivisions better.

Have you heard of any kind of a timeline regarding this "Mystery" feature?

OK stop teasing us like that. that's not fair! lol. Does it have something to do with "Posing" voxels because if it does you might have just saved me from spending $600 on ZBrush. So what is it?

Hi, is there version "N-O" for mac soon!

I agree. Using Voxels in 3DCoat is fine if you only want a static model but the new ability in ZBrush to "pose" and "repose" a model at any time during the sculpting process is a definite show stopper! I think the current 3DCoat posing tools should be scrapped for a "bone" type posing system that would allow you too easily pose a voxel model and then making the bones exportable to other 3D apps for animating.

You said "All ends up with Polygons these days" That's a good understanding of it. So I guess both ZBrush and 3DCoat using polygons in essence but just with different mathematic equations? In ZBrush it seems you basically add details after you have created the general shape or form of the model, whereas in 3DCoat you are adding mass and details all at once. I agree I love the way voxels lets you sculpt without constraints but on the other hand the ability to pose and repose a model in ZBrush at any stage of the game is awfully tempting! Someone mentioned on ZBrush Central that you will be able to import a low poly mesh and then add the ZSpheres to pose it so you aren't constrained to using the ZSpheres for sculpting a base mesh. This along with GoZ will really allow for rapid modeling. I drool at the ability to be able to pose my models within 3DCoat like they will now be able to in ZBrush. Let's say for the sake of argument that in 3DCoat we wanted the ability to create an armature or bones either before or after we have created the voxel sculpt similar to what ZSpheres is doing. Wow, let's hope Andrew get's on it ASAP! Lastly, do you see any "Disadvantages" to the new method ZBrush is using to apply the muscle mass? In you opinion from a technical standpoint are voxels any better than the new method of adding in mass over a ZSphere? I don't see why a person couldn't sculpt in a base mesh with ZSpheres, then import to 3DCoat, to UV and retop, then export back into ZBrush for details.

I think some sort of Bones system would be a real improvement too if it was possible to do.

ZSpheres http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=073956 Mesh Puppetry http://www.kunzhou.net/publications/MeshPuppetry.wmv That Video is really impressive but I am still torn between what is a better working method. The ZBrush method of using polygons and ZSpheres for posing or the 3DCoat method of using Voxels? As an artist it is essential to pose my models and the ZSpheres look so tempting but in the ZBrush ZSphere II video am I correct in thinking they are adding muscle mass using a type of spherical polygon tool and not voxels? I have to wonder if ZBrush has made the right move to stick with using "Polygons" rather than adopting a Voxel type system, but then again Voxels have their own set of problems with Posing and deforming when posed, so I am really interested in the best approach. I would be interested in your thoughts. Below I have written what I see as the benefits and weaknesses of both polygons and voxels but I am in no way a technical person so my understanding of these technologies is limited. Do you think you might use ZBrush for ZSpheres and 3DCoat for Retopology, Painting and UV's? Thanks Voxel Strengths I love Voxels for their ability to "unite or weld" 2 separate meshes together and for their ability to allow you to sculpt freely without worrying about deforming polygons or poly count. Voxel Weaknesses The problem with voxels is in their ability to hold a structure when bent or shaped. For example I don't see how it is possible to pose a voxel model and then have it return to it's original shape. Also if you bend a limb using voxels the overlapping voxels would intersect causing the intersected areas to fuse or weld together wouldn't they, unlike polygons which keep their shape and stay separate. Polygon Strengths Polygons are easier to deform and pose due to the fact that they have structure. They are more predictable when posing and can be reposed without worrying about deformation unlike Voxels which when deformed cannot return to their original shape. Polygon Weaknesses In the ZBrush ZSphere II video when they add the muscle mass are these not glorified polygons. If they are, then when they overlap does that not produce tons of overlapping polys underneath the outer shell when exported? Also when using polygons you have to always be aware of poly count and stretching of polys. You can only deform the model to a point and then the polys become stretched and you have n where to go. With voxels you can add continually with no restrictions.

I don't disagree, I just think it would be better if you could have those figures on the 3DCoat disc or the website and allow Users to "Choose" which model they would like to have at Startup.

Absolutely! Please add an inflate tool like in ZBrush! This tool allows you to go over any type of surface and "inflates" whatever is underneath. For example if you create a rock texture then you simply use the "inflate" tool and go over rocks to enalarge them in certain places. Also a "Rake" tool and others. The brushes in Mudbox and ZBrush work like a charm and are so plentiful. Andrew really needs to try them out before he can see their usefulness. I'm afraid it's impossible to explain, you just have to try it. Talking about the brushes just doesn't do them justice. I hope Andrew picks up a copy of ZBrush/Mudbox to try the brushes, A lot can be learned and time saved if he would just try it for himself.

Personally, I don't like the idea of "Someone" creating generic male, female, busts etc. for the Startup Screen as everyones tastes are different. I never use any of the supplied models as they are just not my style so having someone create figures for the startup screen is not to my liking, but the option to allow Users to load their own base mesh figures would be really helpful. Rather than have someone create base figures for the "Startup Menu" that many people may not like why not have a "Repository" of figures somewhere on the website so we could share and choose a figure that was to our liking like Taros suggested and then allow users to "load" their own models into the Startup Window. I would like it to remain mostly "As IS" with some minor modifications. Voxels Folder Icons for importing (leave AS IS) Second Option to open "blank scene" (leave AS IS) Sphere (1 sphere only (not 3) Allow Users to use their own base meshes in the import screen.

This is a MUST have feature!

Oops I don't know where I got Gavin from, Sorry about that Javis. Goodrichm, Phil, and Costanel, thanks for those links I will check them out!

I don't understand what posing has to do with it. Maybe you could explain. I am talking about this in Microvertex though as Microvertex is the closest to ZBrush. If I import a low res mesh into 3DC, then I would like the ability to press 1x and then do some sculpting, then press 2x and add more detail then 3x, more detail etc.etc. until the model is highly detailed. Then save out Displacement mapat highest resolution. Then I would like to drop the subdivisions back down to 1x (the lowest and the same poly count as was originally imported) and then export the mesh as .obj. There is also another reason I would like to be able to have the ability to increase and decrease subdivision or poly's. If you are working at level 5 or 6 with a lot of detail and then you decide you don't like a particular part of the model like the horns for example, you can drop down to level 1 or 2, remove the horns and then bump up to where you were at level 5 or 6 and the detail is still there. It's such a good way to work IMO because it offers so many options and possibilities, where the current method "LOCKS" you into a certain sub-D level and is very restricting. I hope this makes sense. I don't know if you have used ZBrush but if you have you'll know what I'm talking about. That's a good start. I agree about the ability to draw depth in order. The ZBrush Rake tool works very well in the way it layers on the mesh.

Andrew will we be seeing any work on any of the following in the coming days/weeks? Ability to go up/down in poly count in Per Pixel and especially Microvertex. If we could press 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc. like ZBrush it would be great IMO. More improvement to brushes (It would be nice to have more brush types like "Rake" and others) Also I'm finding the brushes are not feeling as detailed as in ZBrush. I can't put my finger on it but they don't seem to apply texture as detailed. I find it really difficult to get the detail and results I want in 3DCoat but in ZBrush it just works right out of the box. Maybe the default brush settings could be set to give more detail or something. http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2647 It would be nice to be able to increase/decrease poly count in microvertex like ZBrush. If I import a sculpt into ZBrush I can import it at a low poly count and then sculpt, slowly adding more detail and upping the meshcount as I go. I can also go back in mesh count to make large changes if I need to, then go up again where I left off. I also like the ability to be able to se the sculpt increase in resolution when I press 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, in ZBrush. I prefer this over 3DCoats method of allowing you to choose an initial poly count and then you are stuck with it. Also if you could change the poly count numbers from 240, 960, 3840,15360, 61440 etc. to 1x,2x,3x,4x,5x,6x. I realize the steps go up in increments of 4 but I don't think it is necessary. http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2871 Wrap Mode - Ability to tile a mask across a surface so you could create a wall of bricks for example. Also Please Add Numerical Indicators for Mask and Texture Scale, Rotation and Position! http://www.pixologic.com/docs/index.php/Wrap_Mode_Tutorial Please Add Numerical Indicators for Mask and Texture Scale, Rotation and Position http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3040 In retopology, can we have ability to draw lines which will control seam and poly flow, so when Quadrangulate is applied the polys would follow some structure. Currently polys get twisted in arms legs etc, when using Quadrangulate. More details in Feature Requests. http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3027 Please allow users to choose a render size in pixels. For example 1024 x 768 (16:9 aspect ratio) This is important as sometimes you need a specific size. And Please ability to save as .tiff too! A Render "OPTIONS" panel with ability to chhose size of render, type of file etc. Please make the render area not include the Render Panel or the top Menu. http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2767 Also I think ZBrush "Mesh Extraction" is better than the current method of using "Extract Skin". Mesh Extraction is very fast and efficient for creating clothes, helmets, gloves and many other objects from any piece of geometry and edges remain crisp or squared off like real clothing would be and the back or inside of the extracted mesh is smooth not jagged like in 3DCoat. http://www.pixologic.com/docs/index.php/Mesh_Extraction Great Job on 3DCoat Andrew.