Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Andrew Shpagin

V4.1 BETA (experimental 4.1.17D)

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to use the retopo tools for the first time in quite a while, and whenever I create a face, no matter the tool, all that happens is the strokes/vertes/edges dissapear, no faces show up.

Right now I'm using just a regular integrated i5 4670 gpu instead of a dedicated one, so maybe 3DCoat doesn't like that?

Edited by PolyHertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to use the retopo tools for the first time in quite a while, and whenever I create a face, no matter the tool, all that happens is the strokes/vertes/edges dissapear, no faces show up.

Right now I'm using just a regular integrated i5 4670 gpu instead of a dedicated one, so maybe 3DCoat doesn't like that?

You're probably trying to apply geometry on the wrong side of the axis (w/symmetry on)...or you have the wrong Retopo layer selected, or the layer you have selected has the visibility turned off. These videos might help explain some of this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a bug and reported in Mantis for 4.0.14.  Extrude direction set to vertex normal doesn't appear to work.  I used the Build Tool (inverted) on a cylinder and it only "squeezed" in in the view direction.

 

EDIT:  This was user error on my part...forgot to uncheck ignore back faces.  Disregard.

Edited by alvordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're probably trying to apply geometry on the wrong side of the axis (w/symmetry on)...

 

Yep, that was it. Thanks :)

 

One other question while I'm at it, how do you import more then one obj as reference meshes? I'd like to add extra elements to a retopo I'm working on but importing a reference resets the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that was it. Thanks :)

 

One other question while I'm at it, how do you import more then one obj as reference meshes? I'd like to add extra elements to a retopo I'm working on but importing a reference resets the scene.

You can only import one OBJ FILE at a time, but if you gather all the objects you want to export from your host app, into one scene, you can select them all and when exporting all those objects are part of the file. It doesn't have to be one object per file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I don't know yet if this bug was fixed- I don't see a listing for it in the version updates thread. Mainly it's same bug others had in thread on

SOS section of this forum- where only the jpg of a file is left over and the file disappears from HD- think it is Mac issue

 

 I'm running 4.0.11 Mac- Planning to go the route of data recovery and hope I can get the file back.

After this I will update to 4.0.13- but still would like to know if this Mac issue was fixed of the disappearing file (jpg only remains)

info on this appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice if 3D Coat supported Vector Displacement Materials (Stamps) or Brushes. It only supports gray-scale maps.

 

Agreed. It's surprising how, after all of this time, Mudbox is still the only sculpting app which can do this. I can sort of understand why Pixologic never implemented it given the way they went with their proprietary Insert Multi Mesh feature, but not 3D Coat which still relies on greyscale maps. I'd love to see vector displacement "stamps" become the norm instead. That way the library you build (and share!) could be used in any sculpting app exactly as shown in the video you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I don't know yet if this bug was fixed- I don't see a listing for it in the version updates thread. Mainly it's same bug others had in thread on

SOS section of this forum- where only the jpg of a file is left over and the file disappears from HD- think it is Mac issue

 

 I'm running 4.0.11 Mac- Planning to go the route of data recovery and hope I can get the file back.

After this I will update to 4.0.13- but still would like to know if this Mac issue was fixed of the disappearing file (jpg only remains)

info on this appreciated

I reported this problem to Mac programmer, he will contact you soon.

Excuse for this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaarrrrrggggghhhh!!! :wacko: Booleans in Surface mode. Do it at your own risk....just like switching between Voxel and Surface mode used to be. Cause it was not multi-threaded. Nor are Booleans in Surface mode. It "might" take a minute...it might take all day. Hope you got another PC to work on something else all day. Going on 30min now and it's still chugging away on one thread. With 11 other threads left idle. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. It's surprising how, after all of this time, Mudbox is still the only sculpting app which can do this. I can sort of understand why Pixologic never implemented it

given the way they went with their proprietary Insert Multi Mesh feature, but not 3D Coat which still relies on greyscale maps.

Note that in 3DCoat merging with the "on pen" option is available, which falls in the same category of tools as Insert Multi Meshes.

 

To me it appears a very odd and needlessly convoluted workflow to bake an image out of a 3D object (lossy in tendency) in order to transform portions

of a mesh to the shape of the original geometry – that is, when one can simply take the real (still editable) piece of geometry to perform that task as well :) .

 

I believe that this ear-sample created by the Mudbox-makers primarily was a proof of concept - intended to impress people. In this area that clip clearly was effective,

but I can not imagine anyone using that technique regularly – at least inside an application which allows merging in real geometry as well!

This is not intended as a talk against Vector Displacement – but I rather see its merits in use as texture-maps, derived from finished models.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that in 3DCoat merging with the "on pen" option is available, which falls in the same category of tools as Insert Multi Meshes.

 

To me it appears a very odd and needlessly convoluted workflow to bake an image out of a 3D object (lossy in tendency) in order to transform portions

of a mesh to the shape of the original geometry – that is, when one can simply take the real (still editable) piece of geometry to perform that task as well :) .

 

I believe that this ear-sample created by the Mudbox-makers primarily was a proof of concept - intended to impress people. In this area that clip clearly was effective,

but I can not imagine anyone using that technique regularly – at least inside an application which allows merging in real geometry as well!

This is not intended as a talk against Vector Displacement – but I rather see its merits in use as texture-maps, derived from finished models.

Could not agree more .:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reported this problem to Mac programmer, he will contact you soon.

Excuse for this problem.

Hi Andrew, 

ok thanks - file retrieval not possible- is gone- data recovery failed. Please tell programmer to let me know if still is a problem in latest version or if something specific triggers this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaarrrrrggggghhhh!!! :wacko: Booleans in Surface mode. Do it at your own risk....just like switching between Voxel and Surface mode used to be. Cause it was not multi-threaded. Nor are Booleans in Surface mode. It "might" take a minute...it might take all day. Hope you got another PC to work on something else all day. Going on 30min now and it's still chugging away on one thread. With 11 other threads left idle. :mad:

I don't know what you mean. It needs a only some seconds here...

I tried layer subtraction, layer merging and merging external objects. My testscene had about 2 million polys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that in 3DCoat merging with the "on pen" option is available, which falls in the same category of tools as Insert Multi Meshes.

 

To me it appears a very odd and needlessly convoluted workflow to bake an image out of a 3D object (lossy in tendency) in order to transform portions

of a mesh to the shape of the original geometry – that is, when one can simply take the real (still editable) piece of geometry to perform that task as well :) .

 

I believe that this ear-sample created by the Mudbox-makers primarily was a proof of concept - intended to impress people. In this area that clip clearly was effective,

but I can not imagine anyone using that technique regularly – at least inside an application which allows merging in real geometry as well!

This is not intended as a talk against Vector Displacement – but I rather see its merits in use as texture-maps, derived from finished models.

I agree. It could be helpful in the Paint Room (MV mode), but I don't see it offering much more than what we already have in the Voxel room. But after speaking with Andrew yesterday, about the need for BAKING real vector displacement from the Retopo Room, he seemed open to giving it a try. So, anyone else who wants to see this happen...make sure to drop a note to Andrew (support@3d-coat.com).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About needs and speak with Andrew...

 

Can i ask for a Noise Marker equivalent feature, and a possible future development here ?

 

ty

 

post-10142-0-60142000-1391191571_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About needs and speak with Andrew...

Can i ask for a Noise Marker equivalent feature, and a possible future development here ?

ty

attachicon.gifNOISEMARKER.jpg

It is nice. But how to solve this in the sculpting rooms without having UVs before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we could solve that with a shader.

A shader dont need UVs.

 

 

Simple question.

Is ther a way to switch Y and Z axis? All of my other programms use Z for vertical movement.

Would be nice if i could keep that similar in all apps.

Edited by Malo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we could solve that with a shader.

A shader dont need UVs.

 

 

Simple question.

Is ther a way to switch Y and Z axis? All of my other programms use Z for vertical movement.

Would be nice if i could keep that similar in all apps.

You can swap the y and z on export, if you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice. But how to solve this in the sculpting rooms without having UVs before?

 

the original example use an alpha to sculpt geometry

 

In 3DC we can switch from sculpt room to paint room and fill all the surface object using fill tool with modulating type: custom and fill with freeze ON

 

Next when back to sculpt room... any extrude along normal axis do the trick

 

making this process more user friendly, automatic some steps and give the option do mapping trough stokes... will do the magic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can swap the y and z on export, if you need.

Not realy what i mean.

I mean the axis in 3d coat. Like in the pose tool. X and Z are horizontal and Y is vertical.

If i click on "Place Gizmo along Z" it should place the gizmo vertical and not horizontal.

All of my apps and machines at work uses X and Y for horizontal movement and Z for vertical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice. But how to solve this in the sculpting rooms without having UVs before?

There is cube mapping option in Fill tool to be used instead of uvs.

But Uvs will produce better controlled results.

 

Most Zbrush noisemaker examples on the internet use Uvs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So noisemaker alternative must be a Paint Room tool ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So noisemaker alternative must be a Paint Room tool ?

Well,you can already use it to directly add depth/color ect in Paintroom wihtout filling with freeze before hand....so its already there,there is no need for an "alternative".

 

Solution is of course to allow import in surface mode that preserve Uvs/ vertex order...but it would be impossible to use LC brushes and keep those,so user would be only allowed default SF mode brushes.

Same thing with dynamesh in Zb,it pretty much kills any Uvs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't need UVs and doing it in the Voxel Room allows for greater fidelity than, say a 512x512 or 1024x1024 map, etc.  You could simply paint a freeze on the area you want to apply the noise to, but instead of it doing some kind  of VoxLayer or Cut & Clone, etc. it applies an even brush all around, or at least to the power of the freeze.  The frozen areas would be your UVs.  By the way, you can use all the NoisePlugs in ZBrush without UVs applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 By the way, you can use all the NoisePlugs in ZBrush without UVs applied.

Try it using tiled alpha maps like tiled fabric,metal rings ect... You will see that without uvs it does not look nice at all. :)

Cubemapping is much better in 3DCoat than in noisemaker anyway...

 

Also "the frozen areas would be your uvs" I dont see how that would give the surface any sorts of coordinates as fas as distribution of tiles...its just a selection you are talking about. Distributing fractal or procedural  noise over surface without uvs is easy,Fill tool does it already...but when distributing tiled images over a surface that has many curve/plane changes is very difficult to get nice distribution without uvs.

 

The specific picture Carlosan showed is using Uvs and would look awful without uvs in noisemaker.

attachicon.gifNOISEMARKER.jpg

Share this post


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

×