Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

V4.5 BETA (experimental)


Recommended Posts

  • Contributor

I dont like the painting in Painter, 3d Coat is much more handy, thats true.

But if you want to change some colors on your model, it is always a trial and error until you get what you want or need.

And i think Filllayers would be good start to work more in a non destictive way.

 

I was hoping Andrew could give some feedback on it, if it would be possible to create something like Filllayers for 3d coat.

But, maybe i should create some requests if he wont answers.

 

I would love to have fill layers with masking to paint specific materials to specific part (and that would solve the problem I mentioned earlier: not being able to remember which materials were used) and make quick adjustments to colour and such too.

 

Now the trial and error part is biased, the problem doesn't really lie with how 3dc does things but more how quickly it does them.

I mean, the preview tickbox on basic functions like "brightness, saturation, hue" is terrible.

It's so slow that you're forced to work in such a sluggish way it indeed becomes trial and error.

 

I don't know about you but I would love to have a general optimization pass done on the paint room at some point.

The ao calculation take forever, minor color adjustment are painfull to do due to preview needing another calculation etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Thats exaclty what i mean, with trial and error.

Sure it is possible to change the color, normal, roughness and metalness but it is not realy comfortable.

 

Anyway.

Could anybody confirm that the Filloptions in the PBR Material uses Cube Projection if you set it to UV Mapping.

Looks like the UV-Mapping option gets ignored.

Edited by Malo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to have fill layers with masking to paint specific materials to specific part (and that would solve the problem I mentioned earlier: not being able to remember which materials were used) and make quick adjustments to colour and such too.

 

Now the trial and error part is biased, the problem doesn't really lie with how 3dc does things but more how quickly it does them.

I mean, the preview tickbox on basic functions like "brightness, saturation, hue" is terrible.

It's so slow that you're forced to work in such a sluggish way it indeed becomes trial and error.

 

I don't know about you but I would love to have a general optimization pass done on the paint room at some point.

The ao calculation take forever, minor color adjustment are painfull to do due to preview needing another calculation etc.

 

 

IMHO, this is where 3DC starts to fall flat in the paint room, right now. Mari, dDo (thanks to using PS) and other tools have the benefit of lots of optimization and clear dedication to making the tools faster and bug squashing. It's neat having these features in 3DC, but if they are slow as molasses, people will be turned off by it. For example, I textured a portable generator with PBR materials in 3DC, it has one UV map, with 4 tiles, 2k textures... And it was slow as sap on a freezing cold day. It was not fun to use. It's been improved a little, but it needs a lot more.

 

I can't say it enough. Optimization, fix/enhance existing tools and work flows, squash bugs and follow some industry standards for UV map I/O.

 

I'm not trying to sound ungrateful Andrew, I love the PBR materials! They are necessary in a growing competitive market. But stability and performance are features too. Don't forget about them. :)

Edited by Javis
Fixed typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

IMHO, this is where 3DC starts to fall flat in the paint room, right now. Mari, dDo (thanks to using PS) and other tools have the benefit of lots of optimization and clear dedication to making the tools faster and bug squashing. It's neat having these features in 3DC, but if they are slow as molasses, people will be turned off by it. For example, I textured a portable generator with PBR materials in 3DC, it has one UV map, with 4 tiles, 2k textures... And it was slow as sap on a freezing cold day. It was not fun to use. It's been improved a little, but it needs a lot more.

 

I can't say it enough. Optimization, fix/enhance existing tools and work flows, squash bugs and follow some industry standards for UV map I/O.

 

I'm not trying to sound ungrateful Andrew, I love the PBR materials! They are necessary in a growing competitive market. But stability and performance are features too. Don't forget about them. :)

+1. Been banging the drum about performance for ages. Especially the sliders (Opacity, Glossiness, Depth in Layer Panel....and sliders in Adjustment Panels). They are so slow, you just CANNOT use them. Imagine if your car ran as rough and non-responsive as the slider adjustments in the Paint Room. It's painful. I even showed this to Andrew multiple times.

 

Maybe move to DX11 (we've been stuck on DX9 since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth) and OpenGL 4 and shift the load from the CPU to the GPU, using these? Pretty sure that's what Mudbox does, and it's wicked fast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Request is open for Fill Layers

Feel free to add you +1

 

Mantis

http://3d-coat.com/mantis/view.php?id=1736

Trello

https://trello.com/c/ghjYS3DG/312-fill-layer-for-paint-room

 

For more informations take a look at this.

http://3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17291

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I could make a Feature Request but I'd first like to hear everyone's thoughts on this:

 

How do you feel about the current mask functionality, do you think it's adequate? Personally, I'd like it to work like Photoshop, having a b/w mask on a layer that you can paint on (and visualise on the model!).

It's clearer, and it's compatible with Photoshop.

Clip layers don't really do it for me (they serve a different purpose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could make a Feature Request but I'd first like to hear everyone's thoughts on this:

 

How do you feel about the current mask functionality, do you think it's adequate? Personally, I'd like it to work like Photoshop, having a b/w mask on a layer that you can paint on (and visualise on the model!).

It's clearer, and it's compatible with Photoshop.

Clip layers don't really do it for me (they serve a different purpose).

 

I think the majority of people would like regular layer masks. I was expecting it after axial symmetry was added (remember the poll?), but seems like Andrew forgot about it. :(

Edited by PolyHertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

I could make a Feature Request but I'd first like to hear everyone's thoughts on this:

 

How do you feel about the current mask functionality, do you think it's adequate? Personally, I'd like it to work like Photoshop, having a b/w mask on a layer that you can paint on (and visualise on the model!).

It's clearer, and it's compatible with Photoshop.

Clip layers don't really do it for me (they serve a different purpose).

Well,they dont serve a different purpose....they have the exact same purpose.

Also you can paint and visualise clip masks on your model...I dont understand ,it seems you are implying we can't.

The only things that are different is they are 1) held on a different layer...(advantage of this is you can mask multiple layers at once using only one mask and any change on the mask will affect all linked layers...regardless of any stacking) 2)they are not compatible with PS.

 

I too think it would be better if they we're held on the same layer even if we would loose advantage mentioned above ,its still better from an organisational point of view i think and its probably the first step too for compatibility with PS. Also Substance Painter works that way too.

But since Im really not hindered by the current implementation Im not gonna push for this to happen (but won't bother if it does)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could make a Feature Request but I'd first like to hear everyone's thoughts on this:

 

How do you feel about the current mask functionality, do you think it's adequate? Personally, I'd like it to work like Photoshop, having a b/w mask on a layer that you can paint on (and visualise on the model!).

It's clearer, and it's compatible with Photoshop.

Clip layers don't really do it for me (they serve a different purpose).

 

 

- View Channels will make a nice addition

let to select,paint,adjust opacity by channel,

or add/erase transparency

post-10142-0-26286000-1422203007_thumb.j

 

- Create a new channel. As Gimp -as example- 

post-10142-0-75549600-1422203678_thumb.j

 

- Add a layer mask: allows non destructive editing of transparency

post-10142-0-24077400-1422203443_thumb.j

Any alpha channel mask could be selected by different layers

 

Any layer mask will be apply over the layer, or the alpha can be used as selection

post-10142-0-02117000-1422203544_thumb.j

 

i think that will be a very nice feature: +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have to say, I have tried to get excited about PBR and waiting in the background to see how people react.  I downloaded a few recent updates, but just can't get into it.  I love the idea of getting more realistic results on the fly, but I find it too cumbersome to simply pick up.  Maybe I'm not being fair and need to spend more time with it, which will undoubtedly make it more useful and fun for me, but I'm just not there.  What I think would help is improving the UI and process of the PBR functionality.  That may be considered for a later time or not all, but it's my hope that we can get something in place that doesn't require going through more than a few videos to really pick up.  Plus, I do realize this is in it's infant stages and still in beta.

 

For what it's worth, I do think the concept is great, and I'm hoping that this is all just me.  It's hard to go from Cheetah3D's implementation of materials to Max, Maya, Mudbox, ZBrush, or 3D Coat, etc. and not feel that everything else is just lacking...granted there's no good painting ability in Cheetah3D and it's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

I'm striving to come up with feedback that's more concrete to give some idea of how to progress, but I'm struggling with that, too....it's like I can't put my finger on some of this, without overhauling the whole system, which I know is neither realistic or desirable.  If I can be more clear about it, in the future, I'll list some ideas to be considered.

Edited by alvordr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

RabenWulf, on 04 Jan 2015 - 6:02 PM, said:snapback.png

PBR painting is great so far, but I am starting to be concerned (still as a new user of sorts) that some how one of the biggest pulls for grabbing 3d coat is going to be lost in the process.

I am specifically referring to that hand painted "blizzard" style of texture painting that 3d Coat has in part become known for. Quite a few Blizzard artist use 3d coat for just that. With the current PBR setup I cannot find a way to have the old diffuse/spec shader enabled. This means when painting black values you get light grey because of the PBR, nor will you get accurate representation of the texture itself. Am I missing something?

If its completely gone in with the push to add PBR, then could it be perhaps added in the same way one would toggle voxels with surface (pbr vs non-pbr), or just have a separate room for it?

Andrew's answer to RabenWult question "This is known problem and 4.5. will not be released without solving this."

 

@alvordr... I hope this means that there will be upon loading 3DC the ability to choose the PBR style or the older style of working. I enjoy PBR very much and am glad Andrew is developing it but not everything in 3D needs PBR hence the need to swtich between both modes.

Edited by digman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

RabenWulf, on 04 Jan 2015 - 6:02 PM, said:snapback.png

Andrew's answer to RabenWult question "This is known problem and 4.5. will not be released without solving this."

 

@alvordr... I hope this means that there will be upon loading 3DC the ability to choose the PBR style or the older style of working. I enjoy PBR very much and am glad Andrew is developing it but not everything in 3D needs PBR hence the need to swtich between both modes.

its already there, choose 'compatibility shader' from list in view menu.

(desc:This shader is maximally compatible with 4.1 and earlier.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well,they dont serve a different purpose....they have the exact same purpose.

I don't agree. I use Clipping masks in Photoshop to make sure a layer never goes outside of another layer, but here's what's important: Every layer being clipped can then *still* have its own non-destructive alpha!

And then if it's in a group, *that* can also have its own alpha. Not to mention the Blend-If settings every layer has, which are amazing!

 

And to add a mask currently, we need to add a layer, paint on it, set its visibility to 0%, go into another layer's settings, select the layer you want to use as mask (which are now listed in reverse following order!), and then select your original layer again if you want to paint on it again.

Edited by Mighty Pea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Masking layers are great, especially if vector based but its not the best solution... I actually think Substance Painter hit on the best design approach, which was to have both masking channels attached to layers/groups + modifier sublayers (HSL..ect), as well as allow for temporary masking (basically paint a mask like you would in zbrush). Its a combo that hits just about every part of that particular workflow. Quick masking for sculpting and painting, layers for longer term post paint modification and modifier nodes (sublayers) to tweak parameters and create certain effects.

Would be nice to see 3DCoat delve deep into that kind of workflow/mindset, even possibly have nodes or a texture/material/effects room (layer or node based), a bit like substance designer but more streamlined.

Edited by RabenWulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

its already there, choose 'compatibility shader' from list in view menu.

(desc:This shader is maximally compatible with 4.1 and earlier.)

I know about the compatibility shader but you still have to make materials in the new way... What I am talking about is before PBR... That is what RabenWulf and alvordr are talking about I believe. I would like to have both ways as I stated, you do not always want to work through creating materials in the PBR fashion. Plus the use of your external ediior in the old fashion way.

 

I do know that these are beta versions and Andrew is still developing the PBR workflow, has to get that working right first...

Edited by digman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well the compatibility shader fixes one of the initial problems, which was that you could never get true black values displayed in the viewport. Its one part of the problem that he's addressed. Materials and how they work as opposed to the old method + spec vs gloss is the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I don't agree. I use Clipping masks in Photoshop to make sure a layer never goes outside of another layer, but here's what's important: Every layer being clipped can then *still* have its own non-destructive alpha!

And then if it's in a group, *that* can also have its own alpha. Not to mention the Blend-If settings every layer has, which are amazing!

 

And to add a mask currently, we need to add a layer, paint on it, set its visibility to 0%, go into another layer's settings, select the layer you want to use as mask (which are now listed in reverse following order!), and then select your original layer again if you want to paint on it again.

Artman was right. PS is actually just stacking a separate mask layer onto the layer you are applying it to. That's why you can unlink the layer thumbnail from the mask thumbnail. They are two separate layers in reality...presented to the user in thumbnail form. While I have personally asked Andrew to add layer masks, in the past, the way it is done in PS....I have since come to realize that you effectively have the same thing in 3D Coat...just without the thumbnails. So, it's not as big a priority in my view, as is PERFORMANCE issues that have been raised over and over.

 

Especially non-functioning sliders. I mean trying to use them is utter futility. Them even being present in the UI is like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown....you just know she is going to pull the ball at the last second. :)

 

Sliders in 3D Coat:

 

tumblr_nirdojTZZ51smmsbuo1_400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask to make 3DC a Substance clone or Zbrush clone is not the way -from my point of view- to take.

 

All suggestion are welcome, but some solution are copy and paste of another developments.

 

The community need to found a creative way to understand how 3DC internally works, and how can be enhanced. Not asking to make a copy/paste of other apps.

 

And to remember the habitual cycle on soft development: new features = bad performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There should be a mix of both understanding of how software works internally but also not try to be restricted by it, otherwise the needs will not necessitate change.

Knowing the wants is just as important as finding out how best to accomplish it given the limitations and whether or not the limitations can be removed for that particular goal/milestone.


So in this case, if someone says Zbrush in regards to masking... (and its not just zbrush its a handful of applications, including blender) that paint temporary masks on a surface. If someone says Substance Painter or Photoshop, they are referring to an example in which layers (vector or rasterized) have masking layers attached or the ability to attach sub layers for specific modifiers.

If we didnt give use cases that can be found in other software (easily found and observed in action) then it would be harder to convey the desired effect much less where most current software come from. Each design generally pulls from previous designs... that layer stack in 3d Coat with its new, duplicate, delete, move up and down row... that behavior is photoshop. Just like Blender's modifier stack pulls from 3DS Max. It would be bad feedback to avoid mentioning any software in which usage is observed and tested to work. When you try to keep reinventing the wheel, you will more often than not make the software either worse or less accessible.

Its all about objectivity and critical thought, not sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Ask to make 3DC a Substance clone or Zbrush clone is not the way -from my point of view- to take.

 

All suggestion are welcome, but some solution are copy and paste of another developments.

 

The community need to found a creative way to understand how 3DC internally works, and how can be enhanced. Not asking to make a copy/paste of other apps.

 

And to remember the habitual cycle on soft development: new features = bad performance.

Agreed. What really bothers me is the incessant barrage of new feature requests, when we have a MOUNTAIN of features that have been asked for....heavily supported by many long-time members/users here....and patiently waited on for years, and yet they continue to get buried by the weight of all the new requests "Andrew, please do this....because Substance Painter does it!"

 

They might very well be a solid request, but they should also take a number and wait in line, like the rest. Rather than insist that it's an urgent must have, just because it's not quite as convenient to do in 3D Coat as it is in PS or SP. Layer Masks are a great example of this. There are glaring PERFORMANCE issues that have long gone unattended, and are bad enough to turn new users off....period.

 

Slow hide/unhide of layers. Sliders that are as slow as frozen molasses. 3D Coat still struggles with large brush radius'....especially if one has to paint on an 8k map or larger. These issues in 3D Coat simply preclude it from being used in production on films. If it weren't so, it would be a great tool for that market, too. But the PERFORMANCE simply prohibits it. Even for game models, the sliders are just excruciatingly slow. The Tweak room is like a hobbled, crippled appendage, just hanging off the side...without much use, because it hasn't seen any attention since 3D Coat was first developed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BETA9

- Longstanding problem with crashes in UV room/auomapping solved.

-PMR materials gizmo moves correctly in all mapping modes, hovering preview rectangle with gizmo will not hide material preview.

- Mapping in PBR materials correctly treated - no more locked to mappint that set in material settings. Preview in rectangle corresponds to mapping type in the top bar.

- Different preview introduced for planar/uv mapping of PBR materials.

- restored edit projection

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@AbnRanger,

 

You are exactly right in your idea of what is a priority. Usability, stability, performance, these should be some of the most important areas of development...and for obvious reasons. There's nothing wrong with wanting more features of course, though often times they are asked based on assumption improvement or need...they should still be mentioned of course but some things are either not as great as they sound or just not as important as some other areas of improvement. Fill layers are a minor convenience in Painter.. in a way, 3DC already has them by importing existing maps... which is part of the need Painter fills. If you want to import a diffuse map for example, in painter you do so via the fill layer. Its just a universal application of one or more channels. Masking and sublayers with modifiers have a far more immediate usage...   Anyways, you are entirely right on pushing for fixes over most new features, though there are exceptions obviously...and few buy updates for fixes sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reporters are not allowed to delete issues!

If you want to delete an issue follow this steps please:

 

1. Set the issue to feedback

2. Write your wish to delete the issue

2. Assign the issue to one of the following admins. They can delete the issue as soon as possible:

  • carlosa Carlo San
  • Taros
  • daniel
  • Psmith
  • philnolan3d
  • geothefaust
  • artman

 

Thank you

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Reporters are not allowed to delete issues!

If you want to delete an issue follow this steps please:

 

1. Set the issue to feedback

2. Write your wish to delete the issue

2. Assign the issue to one of the following admins. They can delete the issue as soon as possible:

  • carlosa Carlo San
  • Taros
  • daniel
  • Psmith
  • philnolan3d
  • geothefaust
  • artman

 

Thank you

Chris

euh...Im not an admin .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...