Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread


Recommended Posts

  • Contributor

I hope that the new brush system means that corresponding brushes from Surface and Voxel worlds would be unified in how they affect the surface (minus dynamic tessellation for obvious reasons).

What I like about ZBrush sculpting is that all brushes are available in each sculpting "mode" and behave in exactly the same way,  no matter whether they're used in Dynamesh, standard SubDiv sculpting or even dynamic tessellation. I'd like to have this in 3D Coat too. Predictability and consistency.

Edited by ajz3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
23 minutes ago, ajz3d said:

I hope that the new brush system means that corresponding brushes from Surface and Voxel worlds would be unified in how they affect the surface (minus dynamic tessellation for obvious reasons).

What I like about ZBrush sculpting is that all brushes are available in each sculpting "mode" and behave in exactly the same way,  no matter whether they're used in Dynamesh, standard SubDiv sculpting or even dynamic tessellation. I'd like to have this in 3D Coat too. Predictability and consistency.

The new system of brushes will not be this way you are thinking of unifying surface and voxels brushes. It would be more of a system for you to combine functions and alphas (maybe in a layer type) to be able to create a new Brush. I think it would be a similar system in creating brushes in programs for drawing and manipulating 2d images. Even though I'm not a programmer, I can tell you that Voxels is something completely different from surface mode, there's no way to unify Voxels and Surface Brushes.

I believe that improving the control of the brushes (performance and control of the deformation of the mesh surface = Imbed and other functions) in a system similar or better still than exists in ZB and Alpha related functions (Midvalue, levels Curves, Radial Blur, Blur, Sharp, tiles, and others) as it exists in ZB, we would have one of the best systems of Brushes in a sculpture program.

I've been sculpting a lot in 3D-Coat (surface mode) and I can tell you that it's fantastic and delightful to sculpt 3D-Coat after you learn how the current system of brushes works for your work.
But I would very much like the things I've said about Brushes and Alphas to be seen with a lot of love and attention by the developers because this really would change the game so that several artists could migrate from ZB to 3D-Coat and so they would go on to sculpt and detail their works in a completely realistic way within 3D-Coat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Of course, but nothing stands in the way to unify the brushes between the two modes. Like I said (implicitly), I'm aware of the difference between how 3DC surface mode works in contrast to the voxel mode. Not every aspect of each brush is portable to voxels (like dynamic subdivision).

But I think Dynamesh (based on voxels) uses a similar principle (add/subtract volume then remesh), minus the dynamic part of the 3DC voxel sculpting (because in ZB you still need to manually remesh the model after stretching it too much). And still, all ZB brushes feel and act in the same way in any of its sculpting modes, and all brushes are available in all modes, with maybe an exception of a few very specialized ones.

Brush customization began with an introduction of General Clay Brush, or at least it looked like that from a perspective of 3DC end user. This brush was a pretty damn good start at that time, but it does have some quirks (like this one, for example:  https://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2331).

If we're going to get a fully customizable brush system that would affect the surface in an even more predictable and efficient way than already existing brushes - that's already awesome. :) But if this system was to be consistent between surface and voxel modes - that's even better! :yahoo:

Edited by ajz3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
46 minutes ago, ajz3d said:

Of course, but nothing stands in the way to unify the brushes between the two modes. Like I said (implicitly), I'm aware of the difference between how 3DC surface mode works in contrast to the voxel mode. Not every aspect of each brush is portable to voxels (like dynamic subdivision).

But I think Dynamesh (based on voxels) uses a similar principle, minus the dynamic part of the 3DC voxel sculpting (because in ZB you still need to manually remesh the model after stretching it too much). And still, all ZB brushes feel and act in the same way in any of its sculpting modes, and all brushes are available in all modes, with maybe an exception of a few very specialized ones.

Brush customization began with an introduction of General Clay Brush, or at least it looked like that from a perspective of 3DC end user. This brush was a pretty damn good start at that time, but it does have some quirks (like this one, for example:  https://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2331).

If we're going to get a fully customizable brush system that would affect the surface in an even more predictable and efficient way than already existing brushes - that's already awesome. :) But if this system was to be consistent between surface and voxel modes - that's even better! :yahoo:

I understand what you mean. This kind of unification would be welcome too!
In fact, I am completely in favor of anything that enhances the Sculpt Room (tools and features). I work a lot on Surface Mode and you're right about General Clay, the problem is that if you do not have functions to improve the control of brushes (including the interactivity of deformation of the mesh surface), alphas and also the performance , in my opinion, it will not do you any good trying to do any kind of brush and even a new brushes system if you do not have the structure behind that system.
I think that as you use ZBrush, you can understand me that in ZB you have a total control of the brushes like for example the Imbed and in the part of Alphas the Midvalue and other functions, all this together forms a powerful structure that allows the user to create any kind of brush and have a great experience at the time of sculpting (deformation of the mesh in a natural way and what you expect to happen).
I agree with you that the sculpture process inside 3D-Coat is already very good and that Andrew so far has done a great job on the brushes, but in my opinion it can still be improved and we will all win with these improvements! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rygaard said:

@Andrew Shpagin
Please, Could you give some news to all of us about 2 things?

1) About the new brushes system you were developing?

2) Please, would a function similar to MidValue be possible for Alphas (this function exists in ZB)? This function is essential and very important, it would help a lot to the detail of the mesh surface avoiding problems of edges around the alpha and control of the alpha in the surface of the mesh (control in the scale of grays) helping the alpha to stay flat in the surface and not inflating the surface!

Thanks for the great work on 3D-Coat!

1. Still in developmant. Moves not fast, I need to interrupt on bugfixes and urgent requests. I hope it will be in next build, but can't tell it 100%

2. Left top pixel taken as zero for the alpha. Why this is not enough to define zero level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
23 minutes ago, Andrew Shpagin said:

2. Left top pixel taken as zero for the alpha. Why this is not enough to define zero level?

Thanks for answering me...

How great to know about the brushes system!

Sorry, but I did not understand when you talked about "pixel taken as zero for the alpha". Is it some new function that we users can configure in alpha? Like a slide?

Currently, when I create an Alpha in an external program or when I get into a textures site and import to 3D-Coat, there is usually a ladder effect out or inside the mesh surface. And there is also an effect of inflating in or out of the surface when using Falloff. I can not put the details in a flat shape on the surface by influencing the surface of the mesh in and out at the same time without having the effect of inflating.

Please, could you see the video I made (It's important)? I know it has 12 minutes, but I show exactly what happens in using Alpha within 3d-Coat and at the same time I show ZBrush the Midvalue function.

If you can answer me after watching the video about MidValue I thank you very much ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
11 hours ago, Andrew Shpagin said:

15.03.2019 4.8.35

- Possibility to unwrap stripe-like UV islands into straight lines. Use "UV->Selected->To Stripe".
- Store pose selection to layer, picking pose selection from the layer. Works similar (to some degree) to poly groups in ZB.
- Edge for all curve modifiers may be customized in really rich way.
- Less memory consumption during the export. It means possibility for stable 16K textures export.
- Unused locked textures will be deleted automatically to save disk space.
- Running several different versions of 3D-Coat will not interfere with each other. Previously it was causing problems with Undo, eliminating cached volumes.
- FBX import without vertices welding to preserve vertex order during the export/import
- Curves got really rich update. Now it is possibly to construct many different shapes using curves in non-destructive way. Click RMB over the curve and look at the list of modifiers. There are videos that describe how it works:
  Swept Surface 1 - https://youtu.be/8BCawmVqGK4
  Creating a surface of revolution - https://youtu.be/XdYuoaNIwsA
  Polyhedron - https://youtu.be/c7Xld8udEXM
  Swept Surface 2 - https://youtu.be/pLkBVx8vKPI
  Swept Surface 3 - https://youtu.be/p8g6pn_810s
  Sword - https://youtu.be/Qyy-aqPG1iY
  Goose - https://youtu.be/f9mY5wlvvwA

Thanks Andrew. Is there a 4.8.35SL version? Sculpt Layers doesn't seem to work on the the 4.8.35 build, and the ERASE layer Brush is missing, even on 4.8.34SL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Andrew Shpagin Lastest release is awesome. This reminds me requests to add nurbs modeler tools. 

And for me the easiest example to understand how to work with nurbs is MoI or Fusion360.

MoI is also a fantastic complementary tool for a polygon-based artist since its CAD toolset and advanced boolean functions enable extremely rapid creation of mechanical or man-made type “hard surface” models.

- Curves got really rich update. Now it is possibly to construct many different shapes using curves in non-destructive way.

 

anchor_thing_screenshot.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I wait each new 3DCoat's update like I wait for the next episode of GoT or the next marvel, just so excited to see what you'll add to an already perfect tool

Great to hear about the strip-like UV tool, it's getting really similar to what we have on 3dsmax or maya (but with 3DCoat black magic tools ;)). Nice stuff as always !

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

4.8.35SL GL WIN10 (AutoZipScenes turned off)

I'm getting freezes on save and autosave for some scenes that appear lightweight, and not on others which might be much heavier.

Also Sometimes in Sculpt room, tools just stop working, I have to save and reload.

----------

On the bright side, there was a bug I never talked about that just went away with 4.8.35 :
With the last few versions, I don't remember since when, after baking, I had to save and reload the file, otherwise, if I started painting right away, I would get a "3dc has become unstable" message, be prompted to save my work, and then 3dc would shut down.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21.03.2019 4.8.36
 - Unwrap method "To stripe" polished and set as default within "Unwrap" command to be used when applicable. This method unwraps strips of quads into accurate and straight lines. Unwrap detects such cases automatically.

 - Voxelizing dialog offers new options - closing holes and additional subdivision before the voxelizing.

 - Options for automatic holes closing/additional subdivision during the voxelisation.

 - Pose tool angle snapping problem fixed, switching from other tools to Pose tool transforms freeze state to pose selection, Undo problems in pose + free form fixed.

- fixed various pose undo problems.

SL version:

 - New tool in surface toolset: Magnigy layers

 - Magnify depth tool works correctly for sculpt layers.

 - Clone tool for sculpt layers works correctly.

 - FillTool + sculpt layers are working correctly.

 - Enabled eraser tool for sculpt layers.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
7 minutes ago, Andrew Shpagin said:

21.03.2019 4.8.36
 - Unwrap method "To stripe" polished and set as default within "Unwrap" command to be used when applicable. This method unwraps strips of quads into accurate and straight lines. Unwrap detects such cases automatically.

 - Voxelizing dialog offers new options - closing holes and additional subdivision before the voxelizing.

 - Options for automatic holes closing/additional subdivision during the voxelisation.

 - Pose tool angle snapping problem fixed, switching from other tools to Pose tool transforms freeze state to pose selection, Undo problems in pose + free form fixed.

- fixed various pose undo problems.

SL version:

 - New tool in surface toolset: Magnigy layers

 - Magnify depth tool works correctly for sculpt layers.

 - Clone tool for sculpt layers works correctly.

 - FillTool + sculpt layers are working correctly.

 - Enabled eraser tool for sculpt layers.

@Andrew Shpagin ... Ohhhhh My Godsssssssssssss.........with all respect .... Have I told you that I love you today? hahaha Thank you very much my friend! 
Could you see about the MidValue Function???? :)

Edited by Rygaard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you @AndrewShpagin. :)

I am curious, is there anything you can say on overall bug fixing? Seems like there are a lot of bugs being squashed in the latest builds that I am noticing, but it would be good to hear if this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I'm painting and sculpting by accident on whatever layer I am on...
I guess with some effort it would be possible to clean up the mess, by moving the paint information from one layer to another, then merging layers.

However, there is no clear indication as to what information this or that layer holds, and for what object.

I don't know if anything should be done about that, but the one thing I wish for is a function to "Apply sculpt information" from a layer. In my mind, this would apply the transformations to the mesh itself, and remove it from the layer. Does this make sense ?

 

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

@carlosan : Sorry for not getting back to you about that sooner. I have one such file I kept for testing. I will test with the new version and if it persists I will upload it somewhere, it is "lightweight" but still 400MB so not easy with my slow internet.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Actually, I think it is a cool "feature" that the curvature map doesn't update automatically.
For example you calculate your cavity on your sculpt object with say, a rock shader (with normal map). Then, you change the shader to something else, but the curvature map remains unchanged. This means that when you paint, your smart material will act according to the old curvature map, allowing for some interesting and unexpected results.
Until you decide to bake curvature again.

I'd rather it remained that way :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 3/17/2019 at 6:25 PM, Carlosan said:

@Andrew Shpagin Lastest release is awesome. This reminds me requests to add nurbs modeler tools. 

And for me the easiest example to understand how to work with nurbs is MoI or Fusion360.

MoI is also a fantastic complementary tool for a polygon-based artist since its CAD toolset and advanced boolean functions enable extremely rapid creation of mechanical or man-made type “hard surface” models.

- Curves got really rich update. Now it is possibly to construct many different shapes using curves in non-destructive way.

 

 

Hopefully, this will appear on the Coat during the year (at least). Because there is a big problem when you try to make a small hole in small pieces of the mesh - the program either crashes or creates bugs. It would be necessary to deal with this at the beginning. 

Edited by Dmitry Bedrik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

I do not know if this would be a possible and plausible suggestion that could help a lot regarding Boolean operations in Surface Mode that many failures occur in the operation (warning window saying that it was not possible to perform the operation due to many things). Then came the following idea:

@Andrew Shpagin, it would be possible for you to make a similar operation of the Proxy Method (decimated) on a relatively low number of polygons in order to perform Boolean (Union, subtract, and etc) operations efficiently, quickly, and quality. And then return to the original mesh while keeping the details?

Could it be that with this procedure that already exists in 3D-Coat could improve and have more success in boolean operations in surface mode?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
2 hours ago, Rygaard said:

I do not know if this would be a possible and plausible suggestion that could help a lot regarding Boolean operations in Surface Mode that many failures occur in the operation (warning window saying that it was not possible to perform the operation due to many things). Then came the following idea:

@Andrew Shpagin, it would be possible for you to make a similar operation of the Proxy Method (decimated) on a relatively low number of polygons in order to perform Boolean (Union, subtract, and etc) operations efficiently, quickly, and quality. And then return to the original mesh while keeping the details?

Could it be that with this procedure that already exists in 3D-Coat could improve and have more success in boolean operations in surface mode?

Can you not instead, RESAMPLE the model to the desired level > hit ENTER to essentially Dynamesh/Remesh the model (poly distribution is completely uniform) > try Boolean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
6 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Can you not instead, RESAMPLE the model to the desired level > hit ENTER to essentially Dynamesh/Remesh the model (poly distribution is completely uniform) > try Boolean?

 

6 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

...I'm sorry. I had a brain fart and forgot that hitting ENTER basically let's you resample in the process.  :D So, just hitting ENTER > choose the lower poly count desired > try boolean.

Thank you for your tip...

but I know we can press the Enter key and choose a relatively good number of polygons to perform a Boolean operation. The problem with this is that you lose the detail locally that has been made, because in this process of the Enter key is almost the same as you convert your Mesh to Voxels and return to the surface mode.

What I thought was the process we have of Proxy, where we define a number of polygons through the decimate, do the Boolean operation and then go back to the original mesh with all the details kept.
image.png.0855cf775904db4d1b8517fea9d7d66d.png
If this process (Proxy) were done, I think that a few more lines of code could result in Boolean operations with quality and success. Of course this has to be tested, since it was an idea I had.

But some tests I did, decimating 2 meshes, then performing boolean (add, sub, intersect) operation, I got a little more success. Other Boolean operations were not very successful (Remove Intersection with...). This will also depend heavily on the shape of the mesh and the location between meshes. That Star object that comes in the 3D-Coat, I did not succeed and appeared that message of failure of the operation.

This little test that I did, gave me a lot of hope regarding Boolean operations in 3D-Coat's Surface Mode. So I thought about the idea of using the Proxy -> Decimated -> Boolean operation -> Original Mesh Return with details kept and Boolean operation succesfully. :) 


I think it's worth testing ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
10 minutes ago, Rygaard said:

 

Thank you for your tip...

but I know we can press the Enter key and choose a relatively good number of polygons to perform a Boolean operation. The problem with this is that you lose the detail locally that has been made, because in this process of the Enter key is almost the same as you convert your Mesh to Voxels and return to the surface mode.

What I thought was the process we have of Proxy, where we define a number of polygons through the decimate, do the Boolean operation and then go back to the original mesh with all the details kept.
image.png.0855cf775904db4d1b8517fea9d7d66d.png
If this process (Proxy) were done, I think that a few more lines of code could result in Boolean operations with quality and success. Of course this has to be tested, since it was an idea I had.

But some tests I did, decimating 2 meshes, then performing boolean (add, sub, intersect) operation, I got a little more success. Other Boolean operations were not very successful (Remove Intersection with...). This will also depend heavily on the shape of the mesh and the location between meshes. That Star object that comes in the 3D-Coat, I did not succeed and appeared that message of failure of the operation.

This little test that I did, gave me a lot of hope regarding Boolean operations in 3D-Coat's Surface Mode. So I thought about the idea of using the Proxy -> Decimated -> Boolean operation -> Original Mesh Return with details kept and Boolean operation succesfully. :) 


I think it's worth testing ...

That's not going to work. You cannot perform boolean operations on a proxy because there is way too much change in the mesh structure. Cutting off a part of a proxy leaves a massive amount of confusion for the application to figure out how to propagate the changes to the proxy onto the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
30 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

That's not going to work. You cannot perform boolean operations on a proxy because there is way too much change in the mesh structure. Cutting off a part of a proxy leaves a massive amount of confusion for the application to figure out how to propagate the changes to the proxy onto the original.

You're right, I had thought about this in relation to the mesh structure in this process ...
But I kept hoping anyway. Even more knowing that Andrew performs miracles in programming.

I keep wondering, many users would like to have a Live Boolean or non-destructive Boolean process in Surface Mode.
How could this be possible?
If currently, the Boolean operation in surface mode besides taking a long time in the process because of millions of polygons, still often does not succeed ...

I know we can perform Voxels Boolean operations with efficiency and success all the time, but think of situations where you have a sculpture in Surface Mode and for some reasons you can not convert to voxels. In such cases, you need to perform Boolean operations on Surface Mode ... And most of the time you do not succeed, it's frustrating.

29 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

can you perform a boolean operation on a lower resolution mesh in ZB and have it not throw your higher SubD levels out of whack?

No, this way in zbrush this can not be done...
but we know that in ZB in other ways Boolean operations are done successfully and yet they have Live Boolean.  :(  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...