Psmith

Proflooney: If you mean using the retopology tools to produce a ring of polygons around the flange, the resulting topology would not end up respecting the sharp edges. Not the current set of tools, anyway. In the retopology room you can use layers, so any new topology is preserved by itself. But, if you plan to add anything, feature-wise, to the existing model, it makes sense to "merge" your existing model into the voxel room - add some new voxel features, and use this as a 3 dimensional template to snap your new topo lines to and export this new mesh to the paint room, complete with a normal map which represents the details you added in the voxel room. The trouble is deciding how to create the part in the first place. CAD programs do tend to produce bad topology, so, no matter what, you are forced to redo it, somehow, if you want to use 3D-Coat to apply accurate texture details. With Andrew's new algorithm, all kinds of new possibilities open up, which can take full advantage of all of the fabulous tools found in the voxel room - also cutting down, drastically, the amount of work needed to be performed in the retopo room. Without this new algorithm, it is "Checkmate" as far as voxels are concerned - just too laborious. Go Andrew, Go!

This question makes me wonder about just how obsessed we are, (me too), about doing everything with just one application. Like trying to build a house with a set of wrenches. The case you present is really a job for a CAD application, which work with solid forms, not skins, the format of all the polygon modeling applications. True, voxels work with solids, too, but, in 3D-Coat, everything needs to end up as well organized polygons that respect edges - very hard to do with retopo tools. In a cheap or free CAD program, like Sketchup, an object like this can be made soooo quickly by dragging out a circle, extruding the thickness, drawing on the top surface 4 more circles, (rotated and copied around the center as an array), and extruded downward to form the holes. About a 30 second operation using Sketchup. The only practical reason for using 3D-Coat for such an operation would be if, firstly, the app supported arrays and snapping - and, secondly, if the auto-topo tools accurately detect edges, (and bevels). If that same part needed beveled edges, the creation process would be far more laborious in 3D-Coat, while needing only a little more time to be created in Sketchup. Of course, good luck translating the Sketchup Collada format into a readable.obj format.

I really do wish I had waited for the next generation of tablet computers. But, to make full use of one, all of the time, one must have software that is specifically designed to be used with a stylus, alone. So few apps have been made this way. Of course, this will open up a huge market for new interface design, once these tablet computers become the norm. But, you know, after being in this game for sooooo long, I don't even want to think about all of the money I've spent on "cutting edge" technology. In fact, I'd rather revert to using obsolete hardware with economically designed software that runs well in low powered environments. Blender used to be designed to run on low powered machines, (and 2.5 still demonstrates such economical design, relatively speaking). I love economical stuff, these days - economically streamlined, economically priced, economical (minimal) user interface. This is why the mouse still has so much appeal to me. Economy and speed. Greg Smith

Gentlefolk: Though I own a Wacom Cintiq, I hardly ever use it, even for sculpting. I work mostly on my laptop and have used mice since 1985, constantly. I find that they offer some control that a stylus, extended from the end of wobbly fingers cannot match. True, it can be likened to using your fist, but for many "regular", non-sketching operations, (like using the "curves" tool in 3D-Coat, the "Move" tool, etc.), it can be a better choice. It really amounts to what you have grown used to. Also, unlike a fist, I use my mouse with my fingers, (it is a small, notebook mouse), which offers similar dexterity to a stylus. There is also the matter of workspace navigation and brush settings: I can, without trying to reach awkward stylus buttons, pan, zoom,rotate around my sculpture, adjust brush size and depth intensity without even thinking much about it. For "blocking in" operations, (which tend to occupy a great deal of time when using voxels), a direct interface connection, that the mouse supplies, really makes things advance smoothly with little fuss. Many of us older guys still like to use the mouse and find it an absolute necessity, (especially when moving between applications). Have you ever tried whipping out your tablet and stylus and using it with your laptop in an environment like a coffee house - trying to balance the tablet next to, on top of or beside your laptop, trying desperately not to interfere with the keyboard? Talk about a disembodied, disconnected graphic experience! The mouse is a simple and direct interface between your mind, your hand and your computer - exactly fitting the function for which it was designed in the first place. There are a few voxel and surface tools that do benefit from the use of subtle, varying pressure that a stylus and a tablet are excellent at applying, but, there are many mouse oriented work-arounds. What I'm trying to point out is that modeling and sculpting and retopologizing and texturing are all connected and involve using many tools, menus and movements that the mouse is simply more efficient at performing. It's simple, it's cheap, it's highly functional. I don't know if any of you have seen how many thick cords, junction points and boxes and unsightly cables that a Wacom Cintiq possesses, but it is absolutely outrageous and impractical for mobile use, (though I have done it). Now, I don't want to boast, but, just for kicks, I'd love to participate in a sculpting competition that is time based, in person, with some of you stylus wielding young whipper snappers, sometime - (hey, maybe at Siggraph). Anybody want to buy a Cintiq? Greg Smith

Andrew: I'm investigating the Phoenix Game Engine for the possibility of integrating 3D-Coat into their game pipeline. The community is getting a lot of attention and is growing. It is especially appealing to artists because of its friendly approach to game modification and character animation. In anticipation of inviting lots of new game "modders" to this great game engine community, I'm wondering if your educational version could be made available for those who's interests are to create game mods "just for fun" and not for profit. Not necessarily the "free" version for educational institutions, but the $140 version. Would this version be appropriate for these kinds of users? Psmith

Andrew: Try this: set 3 nodes, click, click, click - from left to right. Now, if you go back to the first node and drag out a "branch", it connects to the first node in a different way than the other 2 - it is a straight line segment and it makes a different "weld" as it joins that node. True, you can drag out a node, at random, from any other node, but the joint is always different than a "curved" joint, which flows from node to node. When you left click and drag out any new node, the transition is not smooth from the original node to the dragged out node. I think that there should be an option to left click a "target" node, (or right click), and then single left click from that randomly picked node to place a new, curved and "flowing" node - eliminating the abrupt transition, (weld), that occurs when you left click and drag out a new node. Thanks, Greg Smith

I recently encountered some behaviour I did not expect when using the new curve tool. I wanted to create a shape where I start making the curve in the middle of the shape. I created new nodes starting from the middle, then moving toward one end. I, then, wanted to start making a new part of the curve that continued the curve going in the other direction, with the first node, now the middle node, as its source. I know that you can simply click on the middle node and drag out to form a new branch, but these types of branches do not curve, but are actually independent straight line segments from the node you drag from. I could find no way to begin a new curved segment from a random node point. If you single left click on any node to select it, you get the transform manipulator which prohibits you from single left clicking away from that node to create a new curved segment. So, basically, I'm lost or I have discovered a flaw in the curve tool. There needs to be a convenient way to start a new curved segment from any randomly selected curve node - not only straight line segments. Once this function is added, it would probably merit making a short manual of some kind that details the many uses and functions of the curve tool, since it is one of the most complicated and powerful ones in the program. Greg Smith

Speaking about the production of "content" - I'd like to address this topic, if I may. 3D-Coat currently does have excellent tools that have been aimed at producing "content". But, as some of the users so humorously put it, the large portion of the content that ends up being produced with applications like 3D-Coat tends to fall into the category of elven/orc/alien hybrid muscle man Siren Amazon Beauty Queens with warts and veins and pores, or something. I've been watching the parade of images flow by over there at ZBrush Central since 2002 - the diversity of "content" has only grown narrower over the years. My eyes simply can't abide any more of this sort of "content". Nor can they abide any more close up head sculptures of aging men who have led very hard lives. If there was any way of validating such a survey of users, I would think that the findings of such a survey would truthfully indicate that the majority of users of both ZBrush and 3D-Coat would fall into the category of "CG wannabes". And, why does the variety of 3D "content" made with applications like 3D-Coat hold to these very narrow lines? Because CG wannabes think that this is what "the industry" and their peers want more of. Of course, both applications have their supply of "professionals" which use both applications for the production of hyper-real elven/orc/alien hybrid muscle man Siren Amazon Beauty Queens, but, I would venture they are in the minority of purchasing users. I honestly don't see much of a future for "professional" 3D "content" production applications that provide sets of hyper-real sculpture making tools. Eventually, everybody is going to grow weary of seeing turntables of hyper-real sculptures - regardless of the genre these pieces strive to emulate. The phrase "What is it all for?" comes to mind. I make this case simply to show that there are other, far more entertaining uses that software like 3D-Coat can be employed for. I think many users would spend their money to investigate some of these more rewarding avenues, like that of animation and story telling. And, somebody is going to have to change the tide that is moving the swarms of CG wannabes with software purchasing dollars. I think that Pilgway could directly benefit by this slight change in focus, as well. Greg Smith

I, too, really enjoy working with curves the Andrew way. It does, however, leave me longing for more. Of course, people already have asked for the ability to make a "curve rig" permanent, and that it really function as a full-fledged "rig" instead of a kind of framework on which to add muscle, etc. And, I'm sure this will come, in time. But, the spontaneity and fluidity of voxels makes me, naturally, want to see them extend their magic, even further, into the realm of animation. All of these creations of ours seem so much more valuable once they have a "life" of their own. Greg Smith

Akira: Looking at the .dds files that are in two similar shader folders, (Dirty Stone, Dirty Stone Bump), they both have normal map textures included, so I'm not sure what causes one of the shaders to display a realtime bump texture and the other not to display it. Is this something we (non-programming) users can set up, or is this reserved for the shader gurus? Thanks, Greg Smith

Hans: Thanks. Yes, this is very interesting, indeed. You could get lost in there. Greg Smith

Akira: Thank you - I kind of understand what the 3 maps are doing, but would it be possible to use 6 maps instead of just 3, as shown in the 3DS Max example? This might produce even more complex and believable results. What a time saver! Greg Smith

Andrew or Others: Does anyone have the expertise to describe what goes into a complex shader like the "Tree" Shader in the "Shaders" palette? To me this shader is incredible in the types of effects that are possible related to the"altitude" or slope of a surface. It actually makes some of the most interesting terrains, very quickly, that I've ever seen. Can someone explain, in a step-by-step fashion, how such a shader is created and/or modified with other textures, (think of the bark and landscape possibilities)? Thank you, Greg Smith

Phil: But doesn't it just feel so nice in the palm of your hand? See what I mean, Greg Smith

Phil: You may represent one of the more thoughtful Apple customers. It would appear, however, based on Apple's sales reports, that this may not be the status of most Apple purchasers. I can't think of another company that could get away with some of the stuff, function and value-wise, that Apple has pulled off. I would attribute this marketing audacity to the amount of effort, expertise and money spent by Apple to promote the Apple brand and "image". Most Apple devotees have "bonded" with the Apple brand, not because it is a superior hardware platform, in many cases, but because of the look, the feel and all the associations that you get when you become a "member" of the devoted Apple audience. You may not have known, in advance, what that iPhone packaging was like, but I'll bet it left a permanent impression in your consciousness about Apple quality standards. Just ask Guy Kawasaki, long time Apple fellow and the quintessential Apple Evangelist. He'll tell you straight. In fact, you can see his comments, and those of many other long time Apple followers and participants, about the Apple strategy and success in this Netflix sponsored video, "Welcome To Macintosh". Or, just read about it on this site. And, of course, you can purchase the documentary at your local iTunes store. Greg Smith

I've always been impressed with good "packaging" and product aesthetics. Pixologic has gotten better and better at presenting their product in the best possible light. I don't know about you, but when I go to the store, (usually some kind of consumer electronics store), I'm greatly influenced by the aesthetics of both the product packaging and the product, itself. Just look at how Apple has become the successful company that it is, mostly based on what their products look and "feel" like. Have you ever bought a "high-end" Apple product? Just look at the expense they put into the packaging, alone! I bought one of the earliest Macintoshes because it was so simple and aesthetically pleasing, both to look at and to use. After all, most of us are "graphics" people who entered the field because of our attachment to "the way things look". If you are trying to sell a product or a service, you better put a great deal of your effort into shedding the best possible light on what it is you have to sell. Those ZBrush videos are absolutely excellent, from a marketing perspective - and, truthfully, that is all that matters with regard to successful sales. I'm also one of those very early ZBrush adopters, and all I can say is that Pixologic has been polishing and refining that application, and the presentation of that application, with great success, year after year. I mean the way the UI looks, feels, the way the brushes "feel" - it's all aesthetics - and good ones, tasteful ones. I'll do everything I can to influence Andrew in following as many of these exceptional application development and marketing techniques as his budget will allow. Greg Smith

Blender Import Fixed Andrew: Thank you for fixing this so quickly. Now, fantastic terrains and models of every sort can be seamlessly imported for use in the Blender Game Engine. With the new GLSL support, and the use of normal and specular maps, models made and viewed in 3D-Coat can be accurately represented in the game engine. I tested a very large terrain model made with voxels, translated automatically by means of "Quandrangulate for Per PIxel Painting" - textured in the "paint" area and exported to Blender with excellent results. What an incredible and fast production pipeline! psmith

Andrew: Here is the Blender error log for a model I sculpted with voxels and then Quadrangulated for Per Pixel Painting and then exported as an .obj file: Psmith

I'm using Blender version 2.48 for Windows and I'm getting quite a long list of errors in the console. Yes, you are right, it probably is an error in the mesh, but I created the terrain sculpture with voxels and then translated via "Quadrangulate for Per Pixel Painting", and textured it within 3D-Coat, so any errors are not my doing. I was able to import less complex meshes just a week ago using .obj from 3D-Coat, (78, I believe). Psmith

Andrew: It seems Blender can no longer read either the .obj file format or the .lwo formats from 3D-Coat, probably since version 78 or before. So sad, since I've been able to make some very nice terrains for use with the Blender game engine, normal maps, caves, arches, etc - which very few terrain editing applications allow. Psmith

Height Map Exporting Andrew: I'm sure others have thought of this, too, but 3D-Coat is a really good choice for hand sculpting and painting terrains of every kind. Would it be possible to add a "height map" export function that allows the user to export the texture along with the height map? The game engine I am currently using, full time, requires height map data to generate terrains for in-game use. I know I could sure use this feature every day. Thanks, Psmith

A Manipulator That is Hardly There I agree with those who think the manipulator should be barely visible so that it does not hide what you are manipulating. Personally I prefer transforming things "the Blender Way", by just using a single keyboard key and then executing the transform. I heartily hope that this will become, at least, an option. Also, the rotation "rings" have always bothered me and are usually far too large. Rotation "fins", placed way out at the end of each axis obscure things the least. Also, the axis "rods" should be as thin as they can be and still be visible, not thick, like Tinkertoys. If the manipulator is made translucent, it becomes even less of a problem and does not interfere with the what is being transformed. It also looks better when it is translucent. Lots of interface items looks better when they are translucent, in my opinion. Psmith

Voxel Painting versus Normal Painting I'm not sure why some consider it an advantage to directly paint on voxel sculptures. If rendering is implemented on the "regular" side of 3D Coat and we already have been furnished with the means to automatically mesh and UV map our voxel sculptures - all that remains is to start painting on the converted objects. Shader baking could be added to the voxel functions, however. Low poly meshing is in the works and the painting tools will be relatively trivial to improve, so all the functionality will be completed on the "regular" side of 3D coat. The voxel side has, as its main function, making "painting" and sculpting objects fast and fluid, which it already does. If anything, both "sides" or areas of the application might be made more unified so that voxel sculpting simply becomes a set of functions that are part of 3D Coat, as a whole. Psmith

There are so many things to say regarding this latest release - from me - all positive. Firstly, let me say I think what Andrew has produced is a gift to us all. I'm sure everyone can see how this one tool will empower all of us to work faster, with more freedom, with more beauty - like artists rather than programmers. All of the "drawing" tools are absolutely unlike anything offered elsewhere - very spontaneous, yet they can be quite accurate, unusual and liberating. The "fill" option for the curve tool makes so many things possible and simple to achieve. Each of these tools produce art that flows out and is smooth to apply, almost like 3 dimensional paint - making it attractive to those who prefer "painting" mediums and techniques as well as those who love sculpting. They are appealing to artists of every medium. The shader technology is fantastic and beautiful. The stone shaders are really stunning. I'm sure more user control is in the works for applying all of these. If I could request anything, here, it would be to have the option of saving the real time rendering of the screen, just as we see it while using 3D Coat. Many times, I prefer the renders produced by the real time renderer over those of the more complex and delayed one. The effects produced by both the shaders and the texturing tools often look better, inside 3D Coat, than when the models are exported and rendered elsewhere. I realize we could simply use external screen capture tools, but it would be so nice to directly export real time images , (and animations?), from inside 3D Coat. I don't think it will be easy for me to let go of the idea of skeletal rigging inside 3D Coat, either. Think of all the additional steps and tools that could be comletely eliminated from many "pipelines". I, personally, would spend most of my quality time using 3D Coat instead of the many applications I am now "forced" to use. I'm sure many of you feel the same way. Mind you, I'm not suggesting having rigging tools added now, but the promise of rigging in the not so distant future would be something nice to look forward to. And, I'm sure, nobody could implement rigging more nicely than Andrew. Thanks again, so much, Andrew. Psmith

Andrew: Both videos, and most of things I make are made with a mouse. Very odd the way the lack of falloff occurs. Psmith