Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Andrew Shpagin

3DCoat 4.7 (BETA testing thread)

Recommended Posts

On 14.10.2016 at 8:32 PM, dimitribastos said:

Does anyone have problems with AUTOPO on 4.7.11? Here, from a simple to complex object, when I do AUTOPO 3D-Coat does not respond anymore.

Hi. Have you tried to fill voids before activating autopo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Taros said:

Hi. Have you tried to fill voids before activating autopo?

This is a must but still Autopo has lots of problems that need resolving which have been addressed in detail a number of times. I love 3DC so do not take my words on this as being negative. This is such an important feature that it needs to work flawlessly with all types of models. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there. I will try to upload soon, sorry for keep you waiting. I was working on a Project, which you can see on the gallery by the way.

I've made some manual retopology in the end because I was on a deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.7.12

- New primitives in retopo room - cylinder, torus, cube, ellipse, spiral.

- Layer picker fixed (does not pick invisible, AO, normalmap layers)

- Numerical values in gizmos are moving ojects as well (for pose/transform). It was broken in 4.7.11

- Draw spline stroke in a single pass, each next stroke in strokes bunch uses initial normals and surface placement.

- Whole spline movements works correctly with 2d/3d snapping.

- more safe fbx export for non-english user name

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.7.13 (very probably stable)

- Video hints! The example

vhint.png

The list of controls covered by video hints will be updated automatically online.

- Retopo cube primitive has correct topology, without zero-sized bevel.

- Correct freeze with conditions

- Correct icons for retopo primitives

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great addition (youtube links) , it will help so many people.

Also many many thanks for adding the Instant Light export preset Andrew and Team , many HUGE thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andrew for all the updates to the betas. 3DC keeps progressing and I will always continue to use it.

I will again address the autopo issue. I am still experiencing poor results with autopo. A animal simple tooth. All voids fill etc etc. Painting Density has no effect whatsoever. The polygons are not denser where I paint the areas to have more polygons. Autopo will add a lot of polygons on flat areas and not any denser polygons where I paint density. 

Since the work I am doing is for production work, I as other artist need autopo to work as intended and as stated. I am now having to consider buying Zbrush which is 795 dollars just to get Zmesher which also draws me away for using 3DC. I have been a user of 3DC since late 2007, right at 9  years now.  These models I am working on are scans so they are more complicated in nature but as address many times, 3DC autopo fails on producing good results on even lest complicated Models.

I am not saying that Zmesher has no problems but 3DC autopo has lots more problems at the moment. 

When in your busy schedule please take a deep look at autopo, you are a brilliant programmer and I know that you can work wonders...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, digman said:

Thanks Andrew for all the updates to the betas. 3DC keeps progressing and I will always continue to use it.

I will again address the autopo issue. I am still experiencing poor results with autopo. A animal simple tooth. All voids fill etc etc. Painting Density has no effect whatsoever. The polygons are not denser where I paint the areas to have more polygons. Autopo will add a lot of polygons on flat areas and not any denser polygons where I paint density. 

Since the work I am doing is for production work, I as other artist need autopo to work as intended and as stated. I am now having to consider buying Zbrush which is 795 dollars just to get Zmesher which also draws me away for using 3DC. I have been a user of 3DC since late 2007, right at 9  years now.  These models I am working on are scans so they are more complicated in nature but as address many times, 3DC autopo fails on producing good results on even lest complicated Models.

I am not saying that Zmesher has no problems but 3DC autopo has lots more problems at the moment. 

When in your busy schedule please take a deep look at autopo, you are a brilliant programmer and I know that you can work wonders...

I've always been able to auto-retopo simple objects like teeth, exceptionally well. Surprised you are having issues. Can you show a screen shot of what you are trying to auto-retopo?

Worked pretty well on this model, recently:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested to help as well.

I remember we changed info and setting once David , both mine but also yours where working so good.

I am in for help .

 

P.S All settings , density , hard surface , all of them work fine here.

Edited by Michaelgdrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both correct in your statements but autopo fails also which is a correct statement on my part.

I can not show the model but you can see a little of the autopo mesh in question.  You will see a few errors at the top of the retopo mesh because these areas are thin.

I would clean this up by manual fixing but I am just showing for density atm.

Now the reason I want denser polygons at the top of the tooth is so I can capture this area better.  There is enough polygons for the autopo to create denser areas. There are some larger flat areas on the model that do not need as many polygons as the autopo is putting there.

I ran one autopo with no density and the other with a painted density setting all the way up to 5.  There no difference.  Now on some models painting density will work at times but others nope...

Sometimes a scanned model will come out looking fine say a animal skull and other times, well has shown in the picture of autopo of a animal skull. No voids on both though the second skull is more complicated than the other. 30,000 polygons for the skull was my polygon target amount. 

I am addressing this in hopes that Andrew will revisit the autopo. At one time he said he had a better way, hopefully one lest prone to errors. 

In the work I am doing, I can not hope that the autopo will work, it "needs" to work.

You guys know me well enough that I will only report when I really think there is a problem.

No density.PNG

Capture.PNG

Edited by digman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, digman said:

You are both correct in your statements but autopo fails also which is a correct statement on my part.

I can not show the model. You will see a few errors at the top of the retopo mesh because these areas are thin. I would clean this up by manual fixing but I am just showing for density atm.

Now the reason I want more denser polygons at the top of the tooth is so I can capture this area better.

I ran one autopo with no density and the other with a painted density setting all the way up to 5.  There no difference.  Now on some models painting density will work at times but others nope...

Sometimes a scanned model will come out looking fine say a animal skull and other times, well has shown in the picture of autopo of a animal skull. No voids on both though the second skull is more complicated than the other. 30,000 polygons for the skull was my polygon target amount. 

I am addressing this in hopes that Andrew will revisit the autopo. At one time he said he had a better way, hopefully one lest prone to errors. 

In the work I am doing, I can not hope that the autopo will work, it "needs" to work.

You guys know me well enough that I will only report when I really think there is a problem.

No density.PNG

Capture.PNG

There is always room for improvement, for sure, but in my own experience it does work pretty well on primitive, less complex shapes. And on more complex shapes, like an entire character, or just a head, it can take a number of different tries to get what you want. It's why I will usually leave the more complex shapes to using the Strokes tool as far as a I can > clean up the other manual Retopo tools. The strokes tool can often do things just as quickly as Auto-Retopo.

I don't think Andrew is going to go back into Auto-Retopo anytime soon, because he is already working on Layer masks in the Paint room, and others are trying to get him to do some things with UV editing (creating an option for native UV Tiles, rather than UV sets). Then comes Sculpt layers and some other things in the Sculpt room, like tool-grouping and bringing Surface conditions into the Sculpt Workspace, so users have direct access to cavity painting with the Freeze brush and Pose tool selections, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and BTW, as far as it needing to just work in all situations, that is asking way too much. Why? Cause it's throwing a ton of complexity at the application, trying to figure exactly how the user wants the topology to flow. An algorithm will always be somewhat "dumb" in that regard, and it needs a lot of user guidance to get the job done. On simple shapes, it usually "works every time," but the more complex the shape, the more room for error. Surely you know by know that one area it has trouble is thin objects. Don't try to use it in those situations. Use the Strokes tool for that part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the issues , and i believe both of you are correct.

When i work on Autopo i follow more or less what Don described in the previous messages.

What can i say , i am lucky? But it works , more than 90% of the times i use it.

BUT , there are times that it just fails and needs guides , sometimes it produces worst results with guides sometimes it takes it spot on.

 

That's why i wanted / needed so bad the new retopo tools Raul made. There are not perfect but they cut a lot of production time if you get the idea on how they operate.

On the other hand we have the good old strokes that David show me back then (how to correct operate it) and it does wonders.

 

My 2 cents at the end?

Always mix em up , as Autopo and every auto solution just follows coding algos (even Z or Instant meshes) , it cant beat the user manual work in any case.

 

Tip - Alternative workflow. (3D Coat)

 

1) Duplicate the sculpt (so you can have it in one piece)

2) Cut the second sculpt in pieces!!!!

3) Auto retopo the pieces separately (try to use the same or similar settings)

4) Manual connect the autopo pieces

5) Buy Instant Light PBR Renderer as it freaky renders everything you give it with superior quality!!!!!!!!  ha hahahaahah ahahahahaaaa

 

Tip - Alternative workflow -2 (Instant Meshes - 3D Coat).

Work on Instant Meshes , bring it in , auto relax and then manual relax / brush it up .

 

 

Edited by Michaelgdrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, in all situations is a little too much to ask but improvement can be done... Some frustration talking there, We all experience that at one time or the other with 3DC.

Correct, on autopo working with simpler less complex models.

Not skimping on polygon count.. These are not to be low polygon game models. 

Autopo is not an end all, a choice depending upon the model. Sometimes all autopo, sometimes a combo of both and others just need manual retopoing

I understand that Andrew can not stopped development on other areas to just work on Autopo because of my reporting. He has a development schedule and time constraints.

Zbrush purchase is something I wanted to do for a while and it is not to supplant 3DC or just to have Zremesher but to have more 3D tools at my disposal. If Zremesher gets the job done for these "type of models" then all is good.

Port the 3DC model off to Zbrush for the autopo  and then back to the retopo room for the retopo mesh.

Uv and bake then off to the next project... 

Edited by digman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tip - Alternative workflow -2 (Instant Meshes - 3D Coat).

Work on Instant Meshes , bring it in , auto relax and then manual relax / brush it up .

 

Already doing that Michaelgdrs... smile  

Bring into ZbrushCore. Dynamesh the model to a lower polygon count

You can also resample the model down in voxel mode and then export dense quads.

Bring into Instant Meshes to lower the polygon count for the retopo mesh. I think it is easier for Instant meshes to create a lower polygon count with less errors if it follows a quad curvature. My opinion of course. 

Use the instant meshes for the retopo. fix errors, bake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha we are using very very similar workflow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time I was having a lot of trouble with Autotopo as well, but then I found out that if I used a fairly low resolution voxel proxy as a basis things went pretty smoothly.

I was also thinking that it would be cool if Andrew made the autotopo functionality opensource so that it could be perfected and developed to fit multiple use cases by the community.  Since I too was considering purchasing zbrush for the zremesher, but it just didn't seem like a good justification for the purchase if that was all I'd be using it for.  

One thing I would still love to see is the ability to to use autotopo on a partially retopologized mesh.   

Edited by gbball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should say, it would be nice if the autotopo was made opensource as a standalone application that integrated seamlessly with 3dcoat, but could be used within other workflows as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gbball said:

At one time I was having a lot of trouble with Autotopo as well, but then I found out that if I used a fairly low resolution voxel proxy as a basis things went pretty smoothly.

I was also thinking that it would be cool if Andrew made the autotopo functionality opensource so that it could be perfected and developed to fit multiple use cases by the community.  Since I too was considering purchasing zbrush for the zremesher, but it just didn't seem like a good justification for the purchase if that was all I'd be using it for.  

One thing I would still love to see is the ability to to use autotopo on a partially retopologized mesh.   

Another dirt-cheap option is to "rent" Mudbox and try it's Auto-Retopo toolset, if it's not quite working right in 3D Coat. Modo 10.2 now has Auto-Retopo, so if that's another option for those already using Modo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this last release very stable to make it official ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.7.12 and 4.7.13

Primitives , select cube , subdivide , select add , apply , --> crash , 

Primitives , select cube , subdivide select add apply , , if it pass add cube and select subtract , apply , --> crash again.

On 4.7.11 it works with out issues.

 

Share this post


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

×