Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Andrew Shpagin

3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread

Recommended Posts

Undo/redo in paint-room broken = confirmed

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Andrew Shpagin

I have 3 doubts regarding to the new Unified brushes:

1) Could you tell us in a little more detail how this system of "Unified Brushes" will be? Will it be a brushes creation system similar to the Krita and PaintStorm programs?

2) Will you implement more properties and functions within the Unified System of Brushes to have better control over the behavior of the brushes and also for the alphas of the brushes?

3) Will this system be compatible with the Surface Mode Brushes presets already created before Unified Brush?

thank you

1) It will be sort of cunstructor with layers of effects, each layer has own alpha if need and pressure flow. I don't know how it is none in Krita, in 3DC it is intended for sculpting, so main point is shape growing.

2) Main purpose is excellent quality of sculpting and control over the stroke.

3) First, it will be as additional brush that may be duplicated. Then each existing brush will be mimicked by this one. If need, I may do compatibility with presets, but it is far not first step.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will alpha brushes that we have created still work in the paint room with the new unified system? Like if I needed to have a bolt alpha brush to paint normal map detail could I still do that?

Share this post


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

1) It will be sort of cunstructor with layers of effects, each layer has own alpha if need and pressure flow. I don't know how it is none in Krita, in 3DC it is intended for sculpting, so main point is shape growing.

2) Main purpose is excellent quality of sculpting and control over the stroke.

3) First, it will be as additional brush that may be duplicated. Then each existing brush will be mimicked by this one. If need, I may do compatibility with presets, but it is far not first step.

Please consult with Bay Raitt during this development effort. He said he was willing to assist you in any way he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mystical said:

Will alpha brushes that we have created still work in the paint room with the new unified system? Like if I needed to have a bolt alpha brush to paint normal map detail could I still do that?

Alphas are just images, so of course alphas will remain.

I am talking about mechanics of sculpting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

Please consult with Bay Raitt during this development effort. He said he was willing to assist you in any way he can.

Of course, when it will come to fine tuning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Andrew Shpagin said:

Alphas are just images, so of course alphas will remain.

I am talking about mechanics of sculpting.

Awesome, I was not sure if the unified brush was not going to support them and it was just going to rely on a built in system only. Good to know they will still be useable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Andrew Shpagin said:

 in 3DC it is intended for sculpting, so main point is shape growing.

Is there any possibility of working in quads geometry avoiding tris ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carlosan said:

Is there any possibility of working in quads geometry avoiding tris ?

I don't see how it would be possible. Not with LiveClay/Dynamic Tessellation being a key part of the Sculpting platform. It would break up the workflow considerably, in order to try and force quad topology and I personally don't see the net gain in doing so. As long as the brushes work well, it doesn't matter to me whether the sculpt object is quads or tris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason for a system of Quads would be for the sculpture at subdivision levels, ie production similar to ZBrush or Blender, where it would be another type of system that accepts UVs directly in the mesh that is being sculpted and preserves throughout the process (if the user wants UVs).
This type of system 3D-Coat does not work, because it was designed to make the retopology at the end of its production, opening of UVs and ect ...
I know the essence of 3D-Coat is based on the rooms that can still be maintained, but I am in favor of implementing the quads system that will bring us a workflow that everyone is accustomed to do and the benefits of various functions and properties that this type of system allows.

For me, the more work options that Andrew can implement in 3D-Coat is completely welcome! ;)

I think one thing everyone here must agree is that the only thing that matters being a mesh of Tris or Quads the Brushes need to work perfectly (that's the base), giving the user an optimal experience in the behavior of the brushes to perform the sculpture wonderfully well as the detailing on the surface of the mesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for the fact that there was a similar zbrush system of detail levels. However, not to the detriment of what 3D Coat can already do. In the end, apparently, the expectation of such an addition may be delayed for a couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How difficult and how long will the implementation of "exrtudion" when using the pose tool? Most often, I use this tool to create all kinds of grooves. And as a result, the walls of this groove are ugly and crooked. I do not think that it is so difficult to make a division of polygons for every millimeter of ascent, for example. To do this operation manually is very tiring and tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sorda said:

How difficult and how long will the implementation of "exrtudion" when using the pose tool? Most often, I use this tool to create all kinds of grooves. And as a result, the walls of this groove are ugly and crooked. I do not think that it is so difficult to make a division of polygons for every millimeter of ascent, for example. To do this operation manually is very tiring and tedious.

The Pose tool is just one way to extrude. For crisp and clean extrusions, you may want to use the Subdivide tool/brush to add plenty of geometry exactly where it's needed, without having to jack up the resolution on the entire model. LiveClay brush w/ Zero Depth value is also a good option to prep the area where you need to make extrusions. Then, of course, make your extrusion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rygaard said:

The only reason for a system of Quads would be for the sculpture at subdivision levels, ie production similar to ZBrush or Blender, where it would be another type of system that accepts UVs directly in the mesh that is being sculpted and preserves throughout the process (if the user wants UVs).
This type of system 3D-Coat does not work, because it was designed to make the retopology at the end of its production, opening of UVs and ect ...
I know the essence of 3D-Coat is based on the rooms that can still be maintained, but I am in favor of implementing the quads system that will bring us a workflow that everyone is accustomed to do and the benefits of various functions and properties that this type of system allows.

For me, the more work options that Andrew can implement in 3D-Coat is completely welcome! ;)

I think one thing everyone here must agree is that the only thing that matters being a mesh of Tris or Quads the Brushes need to work perfectly (that's the base), giving the user an optimal experience in the behavior of the brushes to perform the sculpture wonderfully well as the detailing on the surface of the mesh.

I think that is the main reason, here...IT'S WHAT PEOPLE COMING FROM ZBRUSH ARE USED TO. That's not sufficient reason to completely redo the Sculpting platform. The Cost to Benefit ratio just doesn't warrant it, IMO. If you want to maintain your UV's, just import your original low poly mesh into the Retopo Workspace. You will have your UV's ready and waiting when it comes time to bake your cake. :D

If you want Subdivision levels, you already have that, with the Proxy Levels. It performs the very same task using a different approach or technique. Everything doesn't have to be done the ZBrush way. If the Brush system and Sculpt Layers rocks, then 3DCoat is a viable production-level sculpting app alternative to ZBrush. It think it's quite comical to see Pixologic chasing features in 3DCoat (Voxelize/Dynamesh, Auto-Retopo, LiveClay, etc.) while people want 3DCoat to chase ZBrush's old features, like quad Sub-D levels (when it's not really an improvement over the current approach). ZBrush still doesn't have Voxels. Dynamesh is like hitting the ENTER key in Surface mode, but it's not an equivalent to Voxel sculpting, which still has some of it's own advantages.

Dynamesh and Sculptris Pro also collapses/removes Sub-D levels and Sculpt layers. So asking for Quads in order to get something that is going to get lost in your workflow, anyway, seems counter-productive. Let's stay on Sculpt Layers and Brush development, please, Andrew. There are still major parts of Sculpt Layers that's missing. Masking and Depth Modulation (like the Magnification/Reduction brush in the Paint Room) being the two big ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

I think that is the main reason, here...IT'S WHAT PEOPLE COMING FROM ZBRUSH ARE USED TO. That's not sufficient reason to completely redo the Sculpting platform. The Cost to Benefit ratio just doesn't warrant it, IMO. If you want to maintain your UV's, just import your original low poly mesh into the Retopo Workspace. You will have your UV's ready and waiting when it comes time to bake your cake. :D

If you want Subdivision levels, you already have that, with the Proxy Levels. It performs the very same task using a different approach or technique. Everything doesn't have to be done the ZBrush way. If the Brush system and Sculpt Layers rocks, then 3DCoat is a viable production-level sculpting app alternative to ZBrush. It think it's quite comical to see Pixologic chasing features in 3DCoat (Voxelize/Dynamesh, Auto-Retopo, LiveClay, etc.) while people want 3DCoat to chase ZBrush's old features, like quad Sub-D levels (when it's not really an improvement over the current approach). ZBrush still doesn't have Voxels. Dynamesh is like hitting the ENTER key in Surface mode, but it's not an equivalent to Voxel sculpting, which still has some of it's own advantages.

Dynamesh and Sculptris Pro also collapses/removes Sub-D levels and Sculpt layers. So asking for Quads in order to get something that is going to get lost in your workflow, anyway, seems counter-productive. Let's stay on Sculpt Layers and Brush development, please, Andrew. There are still major parts of Sculpt Layers that's missing. Masking and Depth Modulation (like the Magnification/Reduction brush in the Paint Room) being the two big ones.

I do not know what it's like to use ZBrush for a while. Of course I did not forget how things work there! :D

I have also spoken, including one of the topics I created, that is what you have just said about ZB getting "borrowed" tools and features from 3D-Coat and perfecting in some way.

I agree that 3D-Coat is unique and has its own identity as the way to have a mesh ready with UVs and then perform the bake of the cake! :)

What I miss, the ease of visualizing the effect of the map displacement map on the mesh to be able to configure the intensity of the displacement and apply in the mesh. This my friend, is very important for anyone who wants to work with 3d Impressions.

Since I'm not a programmer, I do not know if there would be a need to redo the 3D-Coat's sculpting platform just to implement this Quad system. Please do not understand that I want the quads system, I just said that this system has its benefits too and that would be welcome if it happened! ;)

My opinion is that 3D-Coat needs to reinforce what it already has. Stop to think about the amount of tools and features we already have and that honestly need to be polished, improved and added more important functions in them.
An example, in the surface mode, Copy Clay is fantastic and unique (Zbrush does not dream of having), but this tool is "left out" and with errors. That makes me sad!
Speaking of brush, the Move Brush and Pose Tool could have options to restrict the area of influence of Brush, this means that we could easily move parts of the mesh without changing others, such as closing or opening the eyes, mouth, model surfaces that are in contact with each other.

I've been sculpting a lot in 3D-Coat and I can tell from my experience that the Brushes system is not far behind ZBrush, but of course it could be improved.
3D-coat has an arsenal of tools that ZBrush does not have (I think). These tools like Sphere, Muscle, Spike, Tooth and etc. enable users to have a true clay modeling experience as it does in real life. And of course the Live Clays Brushes that have been on 3D-Coat for years ...

Please, do not get me wrong, the problem is that Andrew develops all these tools and features and for some reason are forgotten. It could be different from this reality, could perfect what we already have and add more important functions as I said earlier. That would be fantastic.

I would very much like Andrew to further refine the behavior and performance of the Brushes, giving us an even better experience than we already have with some other functions that are important so that we can more accurately control Brush behavior on the mesh surface (who knows one of the functions similar to ZBrush's Imbed).
 
The only thing I would very much like to have and that I would ask a lot is that Andrew could revise the clay-type code of the Surface Mode.
I wish the clay could sculpt on the surface of the mesh no matter if the mesh topology (Tris) was stretched, no matter how many polygons (few or millions), no matter what, just sculpted without causing intersection problems or unwanted effects in the mesh.
Sorry to comment, but ZBrush's ClayTubes (family clays brushes) are topologically independent, you can sculpt in the mesh, regardless of anything, you always get the desired result without problems.

I believe that this refinement of the 3D-Coat Brushes system could be worked out along with the perfection of the Alphas system. Our alpha supports 8 bits, we could have an update to 16 bits, what do you think? :)

And never forgetting ... SCULPT LAYERS always!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Rygaard. It's almost scary how similar feelings I have about 3d-coat with you :) There is so much to love in this app. Couple small things are missing but not any that would kill workflow. I'm so glad that Andrew is taking a big task and retune brush engine. Exciting to see the results of this. And like you said I'm also hoping that he could find a way to add "move vertices distance influence" feature into pose/move tool. It can be real time saver tool in some situations.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, haikalle said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Rygaard. It's almost scary how similar feelings I have about 3d-coat with you :) There is so much to love in this app. Couple small things are missing but not any that would kill workflow. I'm so glad that Andrew is taking a big task and retune brush engine. Exciting to see the results of this. And like you said I'm also hoping that he could find a way to add "move vertices distance influence" feature into pose/move tool. It can be real time saver tool in some situations.

I thank you for your words @haikalle! Thank you for sharing the same feeling about 3D-Coat!
I will always be sincere in my opinions and feelings regarding 3D-Coat.
I hope people do not distort my words and do not understand differently, in a negative way what I was really meaning to express myself.

One thing I've always observed and always kept silent, but now I'll expose my thinking.
I got tired of seeing on Youtube, opinions of people who mainly put Zbrush as the best and "only" main program option for production, especially in the Sculpting and Detailing of characters, objects, scenarios. It seems that ZBrush is a divine being, that there is a cult for ZBrush!

I got tired of watching videos saying there is no better program than ZBrush.
 
I got tired of trying to find videos talking about 3D-Coat and I ended up listening to most of these people (ZBrush users) use 3D-Coat just to do Retopology or UV aperture.
Please, do not get me wrong, I do not want to disparage anyone who uses 3D-Coat just to for a certain task. I just got tired of seeing 3D-Coat being used only to complete a piece of production made entirely in ZBrush and then returning to ZBrush again.

And before you say that I'm being sentimental in my opinions about 3D-Coat for the reason that I love this program ... Honestly, I tell you I'm not being passionate, no! I am using reason and my experience of being able to create and sculpt sculptures at a high level within 3D-Coat.
It is not possible that these people (youtubes of Zbrushes) do not see 3D-Coat as it deserves to be seen!
It's not possible that these peoples do not try to sculpt 3D-Coat and create a beautiful sculpture.
Unfortunately, the 3D-coat Sculpt Room for these people is not taken seriously.

Sorry for anything, but I'm tired of witnessing Powerful Marketing on ZBrush's behalf, even though I know ZBrush is a great program, but I can not believe that if you do a simple youtube search about 3D-Coat, you will not find many SpeedSculpt videos, turntables, tutorials or anything else as easily as you can find millions of videos in favor of ZBrush.

I agree with you!
I'm very happy that Andrew is reviewing the 3D-Coat Brushes system and I hope this is just the beginning so he can also review many other tools and functions that already exist within 3D-Coat, and of course, not forgetting Sculpt Layers and other new and essential features.


And if somebody says that I suggest functions that exist in ZBrush, I'll keep suggesting it, because in the same way they borrow functions that already existed in 3D-Coat and improve their program, why can not we borrow it too (in a good way)?

Again I apologize for any words I have used, but I hope to see 3D-Coat in its proper place and if it depends on me, I will help.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to add consistent work of brushes in one area? I see it as a macro, when in the area where something paints, sculpted by the user, one after another different brushes work. For example, a unit, and then adding small parts. Two in one, so to speak, so as not to have to first divide, then select the desired tool and work with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29.12.2018 4.8.31

- Fixed many different undo issues.

- Drag & Drop multiple layers in VoxTree

- Better picking edges/points in retopo room even if pen radius is tiny.

- Ref images changes:

1) ESC closes guides

2) Edit plaсement and paint over ref images are separated to different menu commands to avoid unintentional painting.

3) Possibility to show plane only for exact views (option in references droplist)

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to say that 4.8.31 does appear to having working undo functions. I did several paint tests and then used undo via hotkeys and the menu options and it appears to register correctly.

Share this post


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

×