Reputable Contributor digman Posted January 20, 2016 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) My above post, just to be clear was not related to the depth lock icon which I already knew about. What Javis mentioned here is true: "Only the depth controller on the top bar and the SMats own depth settings should ever control this." The problem resides in the below. I found a difference in how the fill tool was calculating the depth compared to the regular brush which is set at the same depth and brush radius when using a smart material. I did some testing because of Taros mentioning some problems with the fill tool... Edited January 20, 2016 by digman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosan Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 create an individual thread for this topic i suggest yes to be more clear and dont mix topics ty ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Done: Proposal for better painting and depth management: http://3dcoat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18817 The pen depth lock is not needed and makes a lot of things more complicated as they already are. See my proposal above please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member ray Posted January 21, 2016 Member Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 I've been investigating about linear workflow and whether 3d coat supports different color spaces settings inside the viewport (it seems it doesn't) Now in the latest beta version (18.01.2016) a setting was added that applies gamma automatically to textures when exporting! That made me wonder, maybe this is the solution already and the whole viewport color space settings aren't actually needed.... In other words, I ask myself whether there's a difference beween * painting in the standard (probably sRGB) viewport - pretending it's the colors as rendered - and then linearizing when exporting (like is possible now) and * Having a gamma corrected viewport, gamma corrected color pickers, drawing linear textures directly. Maybe this isn't necessary - the difference is just about imported textures - could it be true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member wilson66 Posted January 21, 2016 Advanced Member Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Strange issue: when selecting a smart material with a tiled texture and filling the object using the rectangle lasso, the texture is applied extremely blurred. When painting using a brush, the texture is applied in the correct high resolution. After painting with the brush, using the ractangle lasso to apply the material works also in the correct resolution. When restarting 3DCoat and re-opening the scene, the same problem occurs again (it does not when closing the scene and re-opening it without closing 3DCoat). Only after painting the selected smart material onto the object using a brush makes the rectangle lasso method work again. Same problem appears with right-clicking the smart material -> Fill whole layer. Edited January 21, 2016 by wilson66 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Do someone have an idea what this could be the reason for? I used a smart material. Plugged the bumpmap/depth map into the depth channel of the smart material. For me it looks like 3D-Coat reduce the colors or do something with the contrast. There must be a bug in the normalmap conversion from rgb images. @Andrew: Have attached a screenshot and the bumpmap for testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor digman Posted January 21, 2016 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Do someone have an idea what this could be the reason for? I used a smart material. Plugged the bumpmap/depth map into the depth channel of the smart material. For me it looks like 3D-Coat reduce the colors or do something with the contrast. There must be a bug in the normalmap conversion from rgb images. @Andrew: Have attached a screenshot and the bumpmap for testing. I tested and works on my end... no stair casing... version 4.5.28 non cuda 64 bit---GL Edited January 21, 2016 by digman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 I tested and works on my end... no stair casing... version 4.5.28 non cuda 64 bit---GL Is this the paint room and a normalmap? I am talking about the paint room and smart materials. Maybe I have used a too big depth value? But why this still happen? The greyscale image should deliver enough steps. Strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor digman Posted January 21, 2016 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Paint room for PPP, Created a simple smart material set depth to 100% Top tool panel depth was set to 100% as well. greyscale put into the depth channel of the smart material for creating the normal map. Used the fill tool and handpainted as well. No stair casing... Adjusting the depth % in the layers panel also does not create staircasing. Setting the depth precentage to 117% as shown in your picture produces the staircasing. " Maybe I have used a too big depth value? But why this still happen?" That is a good question and one that Andrew would need to answer. EDIT: Closed and reopened 3DC, I just tried again and this time at 117% depth produced no artifacts. I tested this twice each time closing 3DC, then creating a new scene each time. Maybe a random bug you found. Close 3DC and reopen with a new scene. Use the default cube in PPP mode and see if there are no artifacts... If successful and no artifacts, then a random bug could be a possible... Edited January 22, 2016 by digman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member b33nine Posted January 22, 2016 Advanced Member Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 There's some kind of bug with the pose tool where after deselecting the previously selected faces dissapear. Can anyone else confirm? It might be tied to the undo bug that's been floating around for ages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Paint room for PPP, Created a simple smart material set depth to 100% Top tool panel depth was set to 100% as well. greyscale put into the depth channel of the smart material for creating the normal map. Used the fill tool and handpainted as well. No stair casing... Adjusting the depth % in the layers panel also does not create staircasing. Setting the depth precentage to 117% as shown in your picture produces the staircasing. " Maybe I have used a too big depth value? But why this still happen?" That is a good question and one that Andrew would need to answer. EDIT: Closed and reopened 3DC, I just tried again and this time at 117% depth produced no artifacts. I tested this twice each time closing 3DC, then creating a new scene each time. Maybe a random bug you found. Close 3DC and reopen with a new scene. Use the default cube in PPP mode and see if there are no artifacts... If successful and no artifacts, then a random bug could be a possible... What about your pen radius? I used one with the value of "1".Thank you. EDIT: Another answer could be my scene proportions. I am using an imported model. Maybe it was created very small in the 3D-Coat scene. My brush radius with the value of one is huge in compare to the model. The scene scale could be the reason. Maybe we can talk about import scaling factors related to the used tools which could be set before importing a model? In a pop up window? Of working with blender I know 3DCoats models are in blender 100 times bigger. So maybe blender models are 100 times smaller in 3DCoat. This could really be the reason. Check it later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor digman Posted January 22, 2016 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) @Taros... I used various brush radius... 1.00 as base so larger and smaller than that. There was no staircasing at any brush radius size. I forgot to add that information... Edit: Here is a 3DC file set to Blender's scale... at least for the sculpt room. You could test using this 3DC file. the default 2 meter blender cube will import as a 2 meter cube into 3DC and export out the same. This is using the import without voxelization method. I mention this so you could test... It would seem that the scale would carry over to the paint room as well but of course I have no solid accurate information on that. Blender Scale Final.3b.zip Edited January 22, 2016 by digman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 I will record a video what happen here as soon as I am back at homeoffice and have some time. Working for a client today. Thank you digman EDIT: By the way. I guess it was not the scene scale. The main reason is the very high depth value. The normalmaps are not normalized then and begin to be too high. Whatever. I will take a record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member wilson66 Posted January 22, 2016 Advanced Member Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 @Wilson: I guess you have changed the pen size in the meantime, after used the rectangle? Or you have changed the projection scaling... A lot of possibilities. Unfortunately... But I am shure you have scaled the radius before used the pen and then used the rectangle again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Question: I was really shure there is an option in the UV room where I can just organise the uv islands WITHOUT scaling. Just arrange them beside each other. Or do I am wrong?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor digman Posted January 23, 2016 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) EDIT... removed my statements... I thought PackUV by holding the down the ctrl key would not scale the uv-islands only reshuffle them. It can scale as well. I thought how it worked in the past there was with no scaling. This is what I found now... You can hold down the ctrl key and reshuffle a few times without scaling, then on the next try it rescales the uv-islands PackUV2, I know it re-scales but without rotation and this will not mess up your normal map. Is this a bug? though my memory can fail me here, as I do not use these tools very often... Sorry for all my edits... Edited January 23, 2016 by digman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member wilson66 Posted January 23, 2016 Advanced Member Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 @Wilson: I guess you have changed the pen size in the meantime, after used the rectangle? Or you have changed the projection scaling... A lot of possibilities. Unfortunately... But I am shure you have scaled the radius before used the pen and then used the rectangle again. Nothing was changed at all. Why would I post about this if I had done something obvious like changing the projection scaling? Same problem happens on two different systems (and another artist I work with), so there is some kind of bug at work here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted January 24, 2016 Contributor Report Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) It looks like point hardness is not stored in .curves files. Edited January 24, 2016 by ajz3d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 It looks like point hardness is not stored in .curves files. Which room? Which tool have you used, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Nothing was changed at all. Why would I post about this if I had done something obvious like changing the projection scaling? Same problem happens on two different systems (and another artist I work with), so there is some kind of bug at work here. No problems here... used camera projection, noise depth, rectangle and brush. All worked like expected with the default sphere in version 4.5.28. Can you send me the smart material please? Would like to see what happen with yours. And a step by step doc for reproduction please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member wilson66 Posted January 25, 2016 Advanced Member Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 I created a screen capture. Would really like to know whats going on here, I have often used smart materials in the past and never had such a problem. screen capture 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Michaelgdrs Posted January 25, 2016 Contributor Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 I created a screen capture. Would really like to know whats going on here, I have often used smart materials in the past and never had such a problem. screen capture OK. Reproduced. Seems to be a bug with depth textures using them 1st time with rectangle. As soon as you are using a regular brush, this problem disappear. Are you so kind and post it into mantis please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted January 25, 2016 Contributor Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Which room? Which tool have you used, please? Sculpt Room, Curves tool (Save and Load to .curves file). Point hardness is not loaded with the .curves file, so either it's not stored in the file at all, or loading of curves is broken. Edited January 25, 2016 by ajz3d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member wilson66 Posted January 25, 2016 Advanced Member Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 OK. Reproduced. Seems to be a bug with depth textures using them 1st time with rectangle. As soon as you are using a regular brush, this problem disappear. Are you so kind and post it into mantis please? Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Sculpt Room, Curves tool (Save and Load to .curves file). Point hardness is not loaded with the .curves file, so either it's not stored in the file at all, or loading of curves is broken. EDIT: Yes. You are right. Reproduced. Post it into mantis please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor digman Posted January 26, 2016 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) Version 4.5.28 beta... Is it possible to update the Texture Baking Tool to the new PBR standards with the export settings... Using the texture baking tool is still a valid way for importing a highpoly mesh with a UV set and textures into PPP or MV and baking to an external low polygon mesh with a uv set. Attached image shows what the Texture Baking Tool has atm. Edited January 26, 2016 by digman 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted January 28, 2016 Contributor Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 EDIT: Yes. You are right. Reproduced. Post it into mantis please. http://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2081 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.