Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Andrew Shpagin

V4.1 BETA (experimental 4.1.17D)

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry.  You're correct.  I wasn't trying to say that you were ignoring it in that sense, nor was this really aimed at you.  It was to say that we shouldn't ignore a feature request just because it could be handled in another package.  Keep in mind that not everyone has the same software you do, or have the time to do work-arounds, which is usually where feature requests come in.  Thank you for helping him.

Edited by alvordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, please, I did not want to start any kind of rant here. I just thought lattice deformation (as in the screenshot I have posted) would be a nice feature addition to 3D Coat. If that is not what others here want, so be it. :)

 

Lattice deformation can be done outside of 3D Coat, as well as a number of other things. I can use Sculptris for LC sculpting, ZBrush for vertex painting and auto retopology, Mari and Photoshop for texturing, Modo or Topogun for manual retopology, and still get the work done without starting up 3D Coat in the first place. But to not add a new feature because there is a workaround or there are other programs that can do it instead is just silly in my eyes. The fewer programs we have to use in our workflow the better.

 

But thats just my personal opinion of course. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I know understand Digman's departure. This is amazing. No point in helping, if you say workaround it means you're against features. You didn't know ? Now you know...

I'll now stick to my new rule: don't give a ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's not often that you see Beat and Abn getting all snarky and it not being directed towards each other... Holiday fueled tension around here or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just refrain from continuing this conversation, Beat, but thanks for proving my point.  Wilson, I hope you get the feature you requested.  I know it's on a long list of things Andrew's working.  As much as I can see that improving certain things would help, I still love using 3DC.

Edited by alvordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a workaround for many of the problems you've been addressing lately can be solved by using ZBrush or Mudbox and avoiding any features or fixes....got it :)

I've been having to resort to sending retopo meshes to 3ds Max every time I need to create a SHELL, or if I want to use it's Dot Ring tool. I've had to WORK AROUND this way for a long, long time because the request has gone unheeded. But if this feature qualifies as "low hanging fruit" it might jump to the front of the line....you know ahead of all the other important stuff....like fixing holes and exploding meshes that have been a common experience in this app for a long time, now. And if it's easier, it will jump in front of other peoples long, long, long standing requests. That's how it works....around....here. :D

 

I said this to Stas years ago, about 3D Coat's development. It's more like a frantic race (cause of only one developer), to squash bugs and add features at the same time. Never stopping to make sure each workspace has had time to undergo a thorough inspection and refinement of tools. The Pose Tool is a good example. It's had issues here and there, for a long, long time, and I've had to record and record examples where it's not working right. Even now, Andrew made an adjustment, and it still doesn't work right. So, now I have to take that request and go back to the end of the line all over again. Very, very frustrating.  Instead of getting everything nailed down in one go, one has to file a Mantis report and watch it get buried after a month or so,

 

It's better (kind of like the Brushes in Surface mode have been handled) to get the whole community involved at once and nail down all the issues and requests, in one setting....rather than tending to one issue and hastily moving on to something entirely different...leaving it undone (kind of like Auto-Retopo).

Edited by AbnRanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AbnRanger,

 

I hear you.  I agree 100% on the fixes.  I just wouldn't want to dismiss a feature request, simply because it can be done somewhere else.  I found it odd that when I went back to doing what I've been doing in Retopo, I had to change the mirror snap to 100% again..after spending some time wondering why it was broken again.  It wasn't...but I didn't realize the setting had changed, when I loaded the beta 10.0.10  Anyway, I'm waiting as patiently as I can to see what comes.  I don't mind a blend of features and fixes, but if there are fixes that could have been implemented that are over a year old, then I'm left wondering why those cases are still open.  While I look at 3DC, at times, and think about getting frustrated as to why I can't do something, I also think about the time it would take me to do it in another app.  I'm still a fan of 3DC.

Edited by alvordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just refrain from continuing this conversation, Beat, but thanks for proving my point.  Wilson, I hope you get the feature you requested.  I know it's on a long list of things Andrew's working.  As much as I can see that improving certain things would help, I still love using 3DC.

As with any software, if you want something, YOU HAVE TO GET IN LINE...everyone else has their ticket (Filed Mantis Request). Take a number and wait in line, like every other software and everywhere else in life. In the interim, Beat suggested a means to handle the task by using a feature of 3D Coat......that FEATURE is streamlined interoperability with Photoshop. IT IS A FEATURE. So, if someone suggests a workaround is to use 3D Coat's live interoperability with PS as an alternate means to complete a task (while waiting for said request), why is that not a valid suggestion? That's the entire reason Andrew developed the connection between the two apps, so they together could be used as an extension of each other.

 

It's works very, very well, actually. If I want to use the CURVES adjustment tool or other tools that exists solely in PS, then I can quick jump over, use it and get back in a matter of CTRL + S > ALT + TAB. I personally like the request...as I can see a lot of usage for it, myself (ie., good for scaling reptile scales on a dragon or other type of character). But Beat's suggestion is a good one to use while we wait.

 

Edited by AbnRanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all agree that the most critical bugs need to be fixed first, before adding in new features. That mesh explosion/corruption bug in the Voxel room is one that stands out for me. I can't speak to what needs work in the other rooms since I mainly sculpt in 3DC. Given the choice, I would rather have a few tools that are really stable and work smoothly, than a lot of cool features that are buggy and unreliable.

 

At it's current price point, 3DC must focus on doing a few things really well. It can't compete, feature for feature with Mari, ZB or MB. I think Andrew needs to decide if he wants to expand 3DC's capabilities. If he does, then he needs to take on more help, raise the price and hope his current user base supports him. I think it's too much for one person to continue to develop an ever expanding program without help. I see 3DC as a sculpting and painting tool for freelance artists and advanced hobbyists (hence the low price). If you need more than the basic tool set of 3DC, then upgrade to ZB, MB or Mari.

Edited by SilverCity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew... he needs to take on more help, raise the price and hope his current user base supports him.

 

Andrew does need help, no doubt about that. Ideally there would be one dev per room so no matter what part of the app a user cares about they know it'll get updates regularly. But realistically it seems 3DC doesn't sell well enough for that to happen. And raising the price could result in even fewer copies being sold offsetting any benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you need more than the basic tool set of 3DC, then upgrade to ZB, MB or Mari.

 Well MB is much more basic than 3DCoat when it comes to sculpting,and painting....features for features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all agree that the most critical bugs need to be fixed first, before adding in new features. That mesh explosion/corruption bug in the Voxel room is one that stands out for me. I can't speak to what needs work in the other rooms since I mainly sculpt in 3DC. Given the choice, I would rather have a few tools that are really stable and work smoothly, than a lot of cool features that are buggy and unreliable.

 

At it's current price point, 3DC must focus on doing a few things really well. It can't compete, feature for feature with Mari, ZB or MB. I think Andrew needs to decide if he wants to expand 3DC's capabilities. If he does, then he needs to take on more help, raise the price and hope his current user base supports him. I think it's too much for one person to continue to develop an ever expanding program without help. I see 3DC as a sculpting and painting tool for freelance artists and advanced hobbyists (hence the low price). If you need more than the basic tool set of 3DC, then upgrade to ZB, MB or Mari.

Basic toolset? Are you kidding? What experience do you have with Mudbox and ZBrush? I own a seat of Mudbox, that I bought since I became a 3D Coat user, and it gathers dust because I prefer to work in 3D Coat. Mudbox doesn't have half the tools/capability 3D Coat does in either sculpting or texture painting, so that tells me you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It once was better in terms of raw sculpting speed (that gap has largely been closed with V4), and it still has some unique features, but I find that the Surface mode sculpting (apart from some of the holes and explosions that are being worked on) has become FAR more advanced than what I have in Mudbox.

 

ZBrush may still be the gold standard in terms of sculpting, but 3D Coat now presents a legit and major challenge on that front (especially with dynamic tessellation) and is a MUCH more advanced toolset in every other area of the app (except the Auto-Retop part....which Pixologic copied from 3D Coat!). Better, more extensive Modeling and Retopo tools, Texture Painting, UV Editing. ZBrush doesn't even offer Ptex capability. So, when people like yourself, presume that it's a more advanced application than 3D Coat...it's a false presumption. They get that impression based on work artists have done with it. Those same artists were largely comfortable with ZB before 3D Coat ever came along. It had a head start on 3D Coat by several years, and it created this niche...so naturally it's going to have a larger following.

 

In my honest opinion, 3D Coat has overtaken Mudbox as Pixologic's chief competitor. Autodesk has a way of taking a great plugin or piece of software and killing it....slowly. Just ask Softimage owners about that. I discovered it firsthand with my seat of Combustion. I also don't see any other texture painting application out there, apart from Mari, that touches 3D Coat. Mari is $2k plus yearly subscription/maintenance....and it only does texture painting. That's it. It's too narrowly focused and too expensive for most small to medium sized studios.

 

My beef here is not what 3D Coat can't do...but on fixing/refining what it already does....which is a LOT more than it's competitors.

Edited by AbnRanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew does need help, no doubt about that. Ideally there would be one dev per room so no matter what part of the app a user cares about they know it'll get updates regularly. But realistically it seems 3DC doesn't sell well enough for that to happen. And raising the price could result in even fewer copies being sold offsetting any benefit.

Andrew said it was difficult to hire other programmers because he would end up fixing the bugs of others...so what he really needs is not more help,but clones of himself :). He also talked about making 3DCoat partially open-source at some point but it was hypothetical I think....About raising price:I hardly think that would help imo...it would be really kill 3DC I think. Price is one of the few things that  really get some people onboard that would totally turn to ZB/MB if they were less expensive.

 

What is missing here is rock solid stability (being worked on as we speak) and powerful showcasing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew said it was difficult to hire other programmers because he would end up fixing the bugs of others...so what he really needs is not more help,but clones of himself :). He also talked about making 3DCoat partially open-source at some point but it was hypothetical I think....About raising price:I hardly think that would help imo...it would be really kill 3DC I think. Price is one of the few things that  really get some people onboard that would totally turn to ZB/MB if they were less expensive.

 

What is missing here is rock solid stability (being worked on as we speak) and powerful showcasing..

It's hard to get the latter until the former is taken care of. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I touched a nerve and I stand corrected if my impressions of the other programs were wrong. I don't use MB, so I only know of it from what I have read in the past. I'm mainly coming from the viewpoint of 3D sculpting and, for me, 3DC is great for what I do.

 

My general point was that as a single developer, there is only so much Andrew can do. 3DC has a lot of advanced features, but for me, all those tools and functions need to work and be stable. The Voxel room has improved greatly since I first started using 3DC, so I'm optimistic that the other areas can see those same improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew said it was difficult to hire other programmers because he would end up fixing the bugs of others...so what he really needs is not more help,but clones of himself :).

 

Well that's true if the code base between rooms is too intertwined instead of more modular, or if he hired poor programmers (any programmer who needs to rely on others to fix their mistakes shouldn't be hired). Of course, if the reason he said that is because he would hire them in bursts and then stop paying them before they finished fixing any bugs they created to save on funds, that's a whole other deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's true if the code base between rooms is too intertwined instead of more modular, or if he hired poor programmers (any programmer who needs to rely on others to fix their mistakes shouldn't be hired). Of course, if the reason he said that is because he would hire them in bursts and then stop paying them before they finished fixing any bugs they created to save on funds, that's a whole other deal.

No,I think 3DCoat is just pretty complex piece of software....I think he would need to fix bug of even very good programmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we need to wait in line, AbnRanger...which is why things like the one below getting resolved when it did (Priority: normal, Severity: feature) gets fixed before other, more severe and older issues stand.  Seems like that's what you've been saying all this time.

 

http://3d-coat.com:8081/mantis/view.php?id=986

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My beef here is not what 3D Coat can't do...but on fixing/refining what it already does....which is a LOT more than it's competitors.

 

There is a lot of merit to that statement.  I was thinking about this tonight, as I was working on a project and found that some of the problems I have even with the "stable version" of 3D Coat shouldn't be there, and (in part) only differs slightly from betas in that they have some added features and a few fixes.  This is likely just semantics, but I feel that a stable version means everything works as intended without crashing, aside from unknown bugs that pop up here and there, through usage and/or testing...but that should be minimal.  As AbnRanger has pointed out, there are sliders that don't appear to do anything at all, even in the stable version and some things that haven't been fixed for a very long time.  Otherwise, it's just another beta that's not unlike the betas we have now, save for a few point versions that cause super critical problems.  Am I off the mark on this?

Edited by alvordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 This is likely just semantics, but I feel that a stable version means everything works as intended without crashing,

Issues that generate crashes are most of the times fixed in priority by Andrew above anything else.(unless he is not able to reproduce.)

 

Please specify which crashing issues in current stable build you are referring to.

Thanx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+100. I just sent Andrew an e-mail and a work file about the inconsistent results. One UV map (Body) on the same model, exported a displacement map correctly and the other UV Map (Head) completely blank. Me and Digman recently discovered the Texture Baking tool is the same way...pretty broken.

 

This is why I get so frustrated and upset, sometimes. Here I am wasting hours trying to find out why something as simple as object scale is out of whack (after reporting it for YEARS), or exporting a displacement map isn't working and then end up have to waste time trying to work around it. While at the same time, we have folks asking for 2D Grid gizmos, EPS file saving/exporting, lattices on materials, etc....all the while, we have a LOT of broke stuff....features that simply don't work...sliders that don't...well....SLIDE! Inconsistent tools throughout the entire app (there is a Transform gizmo/tool in the Voxel tool panel, Pose tool, Primitives tool, Retopo Room and the Tweak Room, and not a single one of them is the same. This causes totally unnecessary confusion and adds to a new user's learning curve. Not good. Not good...at all.

 

Heck, we even have entire ROOMS (Tweak Room) that are fossilized and dilapidated.

 

Andrew and Raul, I do appreciate all the hard work, but please...before you consider yet another feature addition, ask yourself if all the known things that are broken....are FIXED. All the nice features in the world don't matter if you are having to fight with the application to finish your work.

 

Now, Merry Christmas to everyone. :D

 

The 2D Grid is important. Just like any other tool or function in 3DC. The 2D Grid before, was incomplete, bugged really, and damn near unusable, and certainly not reusable. Nor could it be used for professional scenarios. Now it can. Consider this; Each little feature in 3DC like the 2D Grid that is incomplete, not finalized, and buggy getting these kind of finishing touches, one section or one tool at a time. It might not be ideal, but it's more realistic.That said, I'm the one, specifically for me and a client on a project, that requested the 2D Grid enhancements. I couldn't be more thankful for it. It's one tool that is now fixed, in a long list of things that need fixed and no longer needs attention. So if it happens one tool or function at a time, I'll take it.

 

Anyway, all I'm saying is, it's a small team operation, as much as I would like to see it, I'm not sure it's realistic to expect a huge pass in huge areas of the program to fix bugs. Even with Raul they can only work on one thing at a time (in this case sculpting tools for LC and surface mode).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2D Grid is important. Just like any other tool or function in 3DC. The 2D Grid before, was incomplete, bugged really, and damn near unusable, and certainly not reusable. Nor could it be used for professional scenarios. Now it can. Consider this; Each little feature in 3DC like the 2D Grid that is incomplete, not finalized, and buggy getting these kind of finishing touches, one section or one tool at a time. It might not be ideal, but it's more realistic.That said, I'm the one, specifically for me and a client on a project, that requested the 2D Grid enhancements. I couldn't be more thankful for it. It's one tool that is now fixed, in a long list of things that need fixed and no longer needs attention. So if it happens one tool or function at a time, I'll take it.

 

Anyway, all I'm saying is, it's a small team operation, as much as I would like to see it, I'm not sure it's realistic to expect a huge pass in huge areas of the program to fix bugs. Even with Raul they can only work on one thing at a time (in this case sculpting tools for LC and surface mode).

Well, I wasn't aware that it was buggy. Hadn't seen anything on that. Don't get me wrong. I can see the new gizmo's usefulness, and Paint Layer groups, too...but if folks can't get their work done and are fighting with the app at every turn, that, to me, is far more important than new additions

 

On a slightly different note, I found the issue of the paint-drying slow movement in the Tweak Room. Tested it on a lower poly version in PPP mode, and it worked fine. But on the same model in MV mode...slow as frozen molasses. Seems that it is one of those parts of 3D Coat that never got Multi-Threaded...just like the sliders in the Paint Room. Seems like most every function in 3D Coat that isn't multi-threaded, is dreadfully slow.

Edited by AbnRanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×