Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Is this supposed to be happening with the move tool?

By tradition, I'm a painter and am just recently trying to learn sculpting. Being a noob, I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in these tools. I know that Zbrush and Mud and such don't have the voxel sculpting tools, but what exactly is the advantage for us? Besides the cool snake and spikes I mean...those are obvious.

post-267-1221948610_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may seem like a total noob question, but how do you adjust brush "intensity" when you are using a mouse?

Thanks

I wouldn't recommend using a mouse, but if you have to there's the sliders at the top.

Is this supposed to be happening with the move tool?

what exactly is the advantage for us? Besides the cool snake and spikes I mean...those are obvious.

I've never seen that happen with the move tool, of course I've barely had time to touch it. Looks like a bug. The advantage is that in ZB and MB you have actual polygons that you are tweaking. If you try to "move" it one of those you're stretching out those polygons which can cause distortions in the geometry. If you tried to use something like our slice tools you'd have to rebuild the polygons where the hole was cut. if you try brushing the same spot on the geomerty you'd end up distorting the polygons too much and it looks bad. These things aren't a problem with voxels. There are more advantages too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
By tradition, I'm a painter and am just recently trying to learn sculpting. Being a noob, I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in these tools. I know that Zbrush and Mud and such don't have the voxel sculpting tools, but what exactly is the advantage for us? Besides the cool snake and spikes I mean...those are obvious.

The biggest advantage is that voxels are like working with real clay. and just like clay we can reshape a voxel sphere into absolutely anything. We can add and remove mass indefinitely. We can take two seperate objects and blend them together seamlessly. This sort of thing is impossible in programs like ZBrush or Mudbox.

It's still early days yet for 3D Coat. But I predict that speed combined with intuitive tools will be its biggest advantage. We're goiing to be able to create a model in a fraction of the time it takes in other programs.

But for now we're just having fun. We're all just big kids playing with playdoh and seeing what we can make. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Hello!

初めまして!!

Yes! I am a freelancer.

My office on Meiji-St. in Shinjyuku Sity.

I am envious of you who can speak English.

3.00ALPHA-10(DX)

WinXP Pro sp2 32bit

Dual-Xeon3G HT

3G Ram

RadeonX1950

-------------------------

http://www.k2.dion.ne.jp/~output/c/3d-coat.html

I work at shinjuku also. Shinjuku gyoen mae. I saw your review of 3dc in cgworld magazine. Maybe I can check out your office. You have a dualxeon. Wow! I use core 2 duo laptop only. But lightwave and 3dc runs perfectly. Lets make 3dc more popular in japan ne?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets make 3dc more popular in japan ne?

Well LightWave sure is popular enough there.

Andrew: Is it possible to make the "tweaking" of curve nodes less sensitive? You can even see in my Youtube video I really have a hard time making the node thin. It seems like which ever way I move the mouse it wants to get fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Here my test

<a href="http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3dcoatcp2.jpg" target="_blank">http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3dcoatcp2.jpg</a>

I have tried a full character from the base sphere(using carve,flatten(sometimes does black spot),clay and move).

I think that serious work can be done when saving works.

Here I have made the mistake to improve resolution too early,after that (statistics give 1.8 million triangle)working is becomed really difficoult.

In mho this is a great tool,the only thing that need improvement is the move tool,it works good,but is a bit slow.

If there will be a way to move not the volume itself,but a low res version on it,that binds the highres,the user could trasform faster big regions,for doing proportions work moving big regions is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about reducing resolution. Believe me I don't know the first thing about coding, but I know you're working with triangles and LightWave's qemLOSS3 (by Marvin Landis) reduces polys with triangles. I thought it might help to look at his web page for it, which has lots of information on how it works.

<a href="http://amber.rc.arizona.edu/lw/qemloss3.html" target="_blank">http://amber.rc.arizona.edu/lw/qemloss3.html</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this supposed to be happening with the move tool?

By tradition, I'm a painter and am just recently trying to learn sculpting. Being a noob, I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in these tools. I know that Zbrush and Mud and such don't have the voxel sculpting tools, but what exactly is the advantage for us? Besides the cool snake and spikes I mean...those are obvious.

Please re-download v.11. There was UNDO bug with so looking results (as Juan mentioned). But yesterday it was fixed and uploaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I was just thinking about reducing resolution. Believe me I don't know the first thing about coding, but I know you're working with triangles and LightWave's qemLOSS3 (by Marvin Landis) reduces polys with triangles. I thought it might help to look at his web page for it, which has lots of information on how it works.

<a href="http://amber.rc.arizona.edu/lw/qemloss3.html" target="_blank">http://amber.rc.arizona.edu/lw/qemloss3.html</a>

I think i spotted a bit of a flaw in your logic. So you are sculpting with voxels and you come up with a link to reduce the amount of polygons of the surface mesh that is generated from it? If you are talking about resolution in this program it will be reducing or increasing the detail of the voxel grid while maintaining the same volume. The detail of the polygon skin is directly dependant of the resolution of the voxel grid below. It has little use to make it finer then the shapes supplied by the voxels and it would be very silly to make it so low in resolution that it wouldnt display all the shapes made by the voxels. So surface resolution is hardlinked to voxel resolution. Only exception to this is in the final stages where you may want to sculpt the super fine details with meshtools in an extra tesselated version of the surface skin. But that bridge will be crossed when we get there.

3dioot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i spotted a bit of a flaw in your logic. So you are sculpting with voxels and you come up with a link to reduce the amount of polygons of the surface mesh that is generated from it? If you are talking about resolution in this program it will be reducing or increasing the detail of the voxel grid while maintaining the same volume. The detail of the polygon skin is directly dependant of the resolution of the voxel grid below. It has little use to make it finer then the shapes supplied by the voxels and it would be very silly to make it so low in resolution that it wouldnt display all the shapes made by the voxels. So surface resolution is hardlinked to voxel resolution. Only exception to this is in the final stages where you may want to sculpt the super fine details with meshtools in an extra tesselated version of the surface skin. But that bridge will be crossed when we get there.

3dioot

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Why not trying a hierarchical approach?

I mean,multiresolution subdivision surface store the difference between individual levels,doing something like that for the voxel resolution is impossible?

In painting and sculpting the top down approach is the most used.

First you do masses,after you go to do details.

When you move big parts you don't need all the details,only a medium/coarse viewing of the volume.

Something like that could be absolutely fantastic and innovative.

Sorry Andrew for this random thinking,the tool is very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...