Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Andrew Shpagin

V4.5 BETA (experimental)

Recommended Posts

@Abn_Ranger

 

It's an annoying bug, I got it very often while switching between rooms too.

I get texturing top bar in sculpt room and vice versa. Ui is not refreshed properly and you need to reswitch between rooms to get the proper ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a bug ?

 

Shift+M > paint with depth displacement

Texture Paint > Normal is show as global normal but grey scale

attachicon.gifNormal.jpg

 

No, I think ABRranger just didn't understand what was being asked. Beatkitano said 'Ah, actually I meant the source black and white map that normals are being computed from.'

 

The point is for the depth channel to be shown as a grayscale displacement map. Height/Displacement maps are grayscale.

And additionally, a viewport mode in which the depth channel is displayed as the unshaded greyscale source texture.

 

edit: Just so there can be no more confusion:3DC_depthnormals.png

 

 

 

On the left is 'relief only'. What's being asked for is a viewmode in which you see the depth-TEXTURE, unshaded, mapped to the mesh.

On the right is the Normals view in the Texture Editor. What we're asking for is an additional DEPTH view, in which we see the depthmap.

Edited by Mighty Pea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think ABRranger just didn't understand what was being asked. Beatkitano said 'Ah, actually I meant the source black and white map that normals are being computed from.'

 

The point is for the depth channel to be shown as a grayscale displacement map. Height/Displacement maps are grayscale.

And additionally, a viewport mode in which the depth channel is displayed as the unshaded greyscale source texture.

 

edit: Just so there can be no more confusion:3DC_depthnormals.png

 

 

 

On the left is 'relief only'. What's being asked for is a viewmode in which you see the depth-TEXTURE, unshaded, mapped to the mesh.

On the right is the Normals view in the Texture Editor. What we're asking for is an additional DEPTH view, in which we see the depthmap.

I really don't see how that would be of any benefit....to see depth with textures in 2D. You can see that in the 3D viewport where it's most important and beneficial. The reason I say this is because there are so many more substantial features that users have been waiting for years, and I cannot see this jumping ahead of those in line. If I want to see relief, I can see it in the depth map or in the 3D Viewport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crash bug:

On "Import Object for Per-Pixel Painting" if cancel button is pressed. Anyone else confirm?

it doesn't crash for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squeaky Wheel wants to know what's the ETA of the PBR Mac version coming out?!!

 

Squeak, squeak, Mac version, squeak,squeak,squeak,squeaks,squeak,squeak, Mac version,squeak,squeak.

 

Some guys have all the luck

Some guys have all the fun.

+1

+1

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PBR----Brush engine.

 

Ok, first this is not PBR vs Core Brush Engine post.  PBR is coming and development time is being spent on it...

 

It is a request that the Brush Engine get it's much needed improvements, The hold nine yards... Brush Engines also have improved over the last several years just like we have PBR materials which we did not have several years ago. 3DC's Core Brush Engine after PBR needs development time...

 

I will not go into a list here but look at any modern 2D paint program to see what we could use in 3DCoat... 

Some 2D paint programs. TwistedBrush, Artrage, Krita, Corel Painter, Photoshop, Clip Studio Paint to name a few, you made add your own as there are others.

Now of course we can not have all our cake and ice cream but I am sure if Andrew said he was going to work on the Core Brush Engine and adding some long overdue promise features plus improvements, sliders anyone?... he would also get lots of suggestions... ;)

 

Now the above is not a suggestion of order of development time as the retopo room needs some love and much asked for certain type file uv imports... This on top of general bug fixes and getting features that are already there fully functional...

 

The above posting is my 2Cents worth and has no promises of being impartial but purely subjective.... :blink::wacko:

Edited by digman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current brush engine needs quite a bit of work, its missing tons of options available in other painting apps, and the default brush set isn't exactly great either.

I personally only use the most basic brushes in 3DC and then use projection from Photoshop for any others because I cant replicate many of them in 3DC, and of course ABR support is hit-or-miss too as a result.

Even the basic creation and sorting system for brushes/alphas is pretty clumsy atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...compared to 2D painting apps maybe but I can't think of a better 3D painting app other than Mari (which is missing tons of 3DC features..and now pbr.)

Mudbox is very strong performance wize but 3Dcoat has a much richer toolset....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...compared to 2D painting apps maybe but I can't think of a better 3D painting app other than Mari (which is missing tons of 3DC features..and now pbr.)

Mudbox is very strong performance wize but 3Dcoat has a much richer toolset....

 

Actually Mari does have PBR support as of version 2.6

 

And yes, I was comparing it to 2D apps, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that? Strictly speaking in terms of brush control, why shouldn't 3DC strive to be as good for painting as those apps?

Edited by PolyHertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Mari does have PBR support as of version 2.6

 

And yes, I was comparing it to 2D apps, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that? Strictly speaking in terms of brush control, why shouldn't 3DC strive to be as good for painting as those apps?

I concur with the above statement.

 

3DCoat already mimics features that 2D paint programs have. I am not being critical of 3DC but that the Core Brush Engine has become outdated but that is an opinion of course. What was fine 5 years ago is now limiting. For anyone reading my first, do not take my first post as you can not produce good paint work from 3DC now...

 

The purpose of my post was if possible some of the features of modern 2D programs would be added to 3DC in a development schedule decided my Andrew...

If Andrew told us he was going to work on the Core Brush Engine and ask us to post our suggestions, I know doubt that the patter would be full since 2D brush engines have grown in power and feature sets that 3DC might be able to mimic...

Edited by digman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mari doesn't even have Symmetry painting because of its canvas painting approach. Also it needs quiet good PC to run well compared to 3d-coat and Mudbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mari doesn't even have Symmetry painting because of its canvas painting approach. Also it needs quiet good PC to run well compared to 3d-coat and Mudbox.

 

The pro is that you would be able to work at much higher resolutions with less of a performance hit though. Pros and cons. If 3d coat were to offer mari like capability it would cover each apps weaknesses. Perhaps this can be done with a 2d paint room (or another aspect of the previewer window being a 2d paint surface) that can work at a much higher resolution and auto bake it onto the 3d mesh when done. That would probably catch a lot of attention. That said, I have Mari but really dislike painting in it, in part due to lack of true 3d painting and the setup needed to get going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually opacity does not influence gloss/metall values itself.

It is opacity of g/m application.

How do you think, g/m requires additionlal slider for own opacity? It was there actually, I removed it to avoid cluttering.

If opacity is 0 nothing will be painted. Because it is opacity for ALL.

Do I need separate opacity for gloss/met?

 

All opinion are welcome.

 

ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Andrew on Mantis

After long thinking, i have to say it is true.

If you lower diffuse opacity, you have to lower metalness, roughness and depth, too.

Think about that.

You have 50% leather that looks through 50% gold.

If you see gold and leather at the same time, gold cant be 100% metalness and roughness.

It have to be mixed with the metalness and roughness values from leather.

 

But where in the whole world did you see a constellation like that?

I have never seen 50% gold, i only see 100% or 0% gold. Something is golden or not.

Same with leather, if leather is not 100% leather, it is no leather.

 

I would not separate the Values or create extra sliders.

You have to follow some rules on texturing in PBR and something like that could break the technic behind that.

 

Edit:

For more information

http://www.allegorithmic.com/pbr-guide

Edited by Malo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true, but if you paint with 50% opacity, metal and rough have to set to 50%, too.

But it is incorrect if you paint with 50% opacity, but stay at 100% metalness and roughness.

 

Maybe i am wrong, but i think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note: If we want control of different channels with independent opacity, better to just implement substances then since theres a whole "perfected" system around it.

Edited by RabenWulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

implement substances is not a technical impediment but business.

And the decision must be take by Allegorithmic not Pilgway.

 

back to the question: separate opacity for gloss/met ?

yes.. no... all opinion are welcome, and to add a note at Mantis is appreciated.

 

ty all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.5 Beta11: Selecting "UV Mapping" as the preferred Mapping Method in the PBR Material Editor does not seem to have any effect. It looks correctly in the preview window, but when a paint layer is filled using that material the Textures will be applied using the Cube Mapping Method instead.

Edited by wilson66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im lost with that ticket, following Unreal guide:

 

In terms of the "physically based" aspect of our Materials system, there are really only 4 different properties with which you need to be familiar. These are:

- Base Color

- Roughness

- Metallic

- Specular

All of these inputs are designed to take in values between 0 and 1. In the case of Base Color, this means a color with RGB values that fall between 0 and 1.
 
- Base Color simply defines the overall color of the Material.
- The Roughness input literally controls how rough the Material is.
- The Metallic input literally controls how "metal-like" your surface will be.
- The Specular input is used to scale the current amount of specularity on non-metallic surfaces. It has no effect on metals.
 
How this apply to 3DC workflow ?
Ty in advance to any reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two PBR workflows - metalness/roughness and specular/glossiness, so don't really understand why for Unreal Engine they are mixed. In 3d-coat you work metalness/roughness workflow, but when done you can export your textures in specular/glossiness workflow. There's a PBR guide from Allegorithmic: http://www.allegorithmic.com/pbr-guide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a metal-rough workflow, the specularmap is not needed.

Speculrmap is only needed if you want to changes the hardcoded F0 value of 4% for dielectric materials.

 

Edit:

 

3d coat dont work with metal-rough

Use metal-rough maps in a PBR material and paint with it, You see, it is wrong.

You have to invert the roughness map to work correctly in 3d coat.

Edited by Malo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×