Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Andrew Shpagin

3DCoat 4.8 BETA testing thread

Recommended Posts

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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I keep wondering, many users would like to have a Live Boolean or non-destructive Boolean process in Surface Mode.

Just how does it work in Zbrush? There would be fewer questions on boolean if the mesh did not crash or the program would not crash on the simplest things with several hundred polygons. Blender's boolean operations are so good that they allow you to create fantastic things in hard-surface style. We can say, they say, yes, this is not the case, there is a sculptor, and there it is not a sculptor, but what is the coat really strong for then? In addition, the boolean voxels work fine, but when you need to make a lot of holes, you need tens of millions of voxels to make it work. With that, when you go to the polygons, your grid will float. There will be no clear and hard edges. And that's bad.

This is from the series, when, according to the blurred outlines of the mesh, we can say that someone just started working in 3D coat on a minimal suitable computer, as well as newcomers to Substenc Painter, who thoughtlessly throw in a couple of filters and consider that they have cool textures.

And again, over the past year from the moment I started using the program, what I brought in the last two updates makes me happy. I hope this will continue in the future and will bring the boolean operations to standard. Awful things with a mesh during boolean operations, this is my main interest to the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please add translations for the Russian language in the description of the tools. In addition, for some tools, the description is simply the name of the tool. While each of them has a lot of nuances that are inexperienced to the inexperienced user and except for a couple of months of use, he will not know about them.

And as I wrote a year ago, add the ability to edit the hints in the program. Including translations. Some translations of names and functions are very clumsy.

Thank. 

Share this post


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

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.

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.  :(  

The real answer is to plan a bit ahead and do booleans in the earlier to intermediate stages, so you don't have to worry about missing LiveClay details (although you could convert to voxels with a high resolution to keep the detail). It's not much different than using smart sculpting strategies, regardless of whether you are in 3DC or ZB. If you start detailing too soon, you sort of box yourself in, or risk having to do a lot of that work all over again.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

The real answer is to plan a bit ahead and do booleans in the earlier to intermediate stages, so you don't have to worry about missing LiveClay details (although you could convert to voxels with a high resolution to keep the detail). It's not much different than using smart sculpting strategies, regardless of whether you are in 3DC or ZB. If you start detailing too soon, you sort of box yourself in, or risk having to do a lot of that work all over again. 

 

You're right. Most of the time this planning should be done as you described it and I know it ...

The problem is that when you have as a final product a mesh for 3D Printing (Action Figure) this planning can not be executed in this way.

The Cuts Process and Keys is a step that can only be done in the final stages of the workflow.
As well as cutting changes and keys also happen.
Therefore, the step of performing Boolean operations, many times, unfortunately happens after you will not radically change the sculpture (usually the sculpture is detailed locally at that stage).
If you cut and make the keys in the initial or intermediate stage of the project, the cuts and Keys will present problems because there are always pose changes or other things necessary to improve the project.
In no way after performing the cutting process and keys you can modify the mesh. So the cuts and keys phase is almost at the end of the workflow.
That's why I'm suffering a lot in Boolean operations on 3D-Coat surface mode.

Share this post


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

You're right. Most of the time this planning should be done as you described it and I know it ...

The problem is that when you have as a final product a mesh for 3D Printing (Action Figure) this planning can not be executed in this way.

The Cuts Process and Keys is a step that can only be done in the final stages of the workflow.
As well as cutting changes and keys also happen.
Therefore, the step of performing Boolean operations, many times, unfortunately happens after you will not radically change the sculpture (usually the sculpture is detailed locally at that stage).
If you cut and make the keys in the initial or intermediate stage of the project, the cuts and Keys will present problems because there are always pose changes or other things necessary to improve the project.
In no way after performing the cutting process and keys you can modify the mesh. So the cuts and keys phase is almost at the end of the workflow.
That's why I'm suffering a lot in Boolean operations on 3D-Coat surface mode.

Andrew mentioned having improved Surface mode booleans, recently, and when I do some simple tests, it seems to work as expected. Can you screen record exactly what problems you are having? It's hard to speculate on a solution when I don't even know what you are trying to do (Intersect, Split, Cut, Merge, etc.), or if any of the objects have the red "non-uniform" warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Andrew mentioned having improved Surface mode booleans, recently, and when I do some simple tests, it seems to work as expected. Can you screen record exactly what problems you are having? It's hard to speculate on a solution when I don't even know what you are trying to do (Intersect, Split, Cut, Merge, etc.), or if any of the objects have the red "non-uniform" warning

Thank you! Sorry, it's true, it's difficult if I do not demonstrate with examples and also with my project that I'm doing at the moment.
I will try to make a video regarding Boolean operations.
I can assure you that the "non-uniform" red icon is not present. I'm always careful with this "red icone" because I know this always causes problems at the time of the sculpting and probably should cause problems with boolean operation as well.

Generally, I work with millions of polygons (between 600 thousand - 28 million - maybe even more). I know the amount of polygons in a mesh influences the time it takes for 3D-Coat to perform the Boolean operation calculations and other functions found in the Menu / Geometry.

I wonder if the performance on your computer is fast to perform these calculations?
Because even knowing that the computer I work with is old (
CPU: Intel Core i7-2600 3.40 GHz / MotherBoard: Asus P8P67 LE / Memory: 32 GB DDR3 / Video Card: NVidia GeForce GTX 970), I always suffer from the delay that takes a lot of time to complete the operations.
My question is whether the reason for calculations to perform a certain operation on Surface Mode is because of my PC or because of 3D-Coat?
I ask this because on that same computer when I use other programs (even working with millions of polygons) I do not suffer from the time delay in performing boolean operations and etc ... I do not have that kind of problem.
In other programs it may take a while because of the millions of polygons, but in 3D-Coat takes much longer even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent 4.8.36 pose tools not offer way to color weight  with line transportation  (gradiant color weight)

If I set Transpose mode as "Line" , and  click  to set  1st point ,  now it work as select full (and color all mesh with 100%)

with other option (Ring, sphere) work as same as before. So I think it seems new bug ,, 

No,, I seems  miss use this option usage ^^;  it need to keep hold and draw line,,then it work. 

transportation.JPG

Edited by tokikake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pose tool lacks a normal gradient setting. As I did not try, that a year ago, that now, a smooth gradient can only be done on the narrow border of the selected area. As a result, instead of a smooth piece, you pull out a hefty flat or other original part of the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the setting is for some reason only a small line on the edge of the selection. And does not apply deep into. Instead, you must enter a change in the gradient from the edge to some center of the region. For a circle, it's easy. For the square. While for complex curvilinear surfaces (more complex than a star), I suggest simply adjusting the offset from the edge of the selection, and you can make any irregularities with the gradient curve. 

Where is my good gradient.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could "volumes unghosting themselves upon save/autosave" be moved to a list of very, very, very annoying bugs, if there is such a list ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy_1978 said:

EXPORT FROM 3DSMAX doesn't work since 8.33 version !

Why did you paste the entire page, so people have to scroll for some time just to get to or beyond your post? Don't do that, please.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 11:34 AM, Dmitriy_1978 said:

EXPORT FROM 3DSMAX doesn't work since 8.33 version !

What do you exactly mean? I need steps to reproduce, scene, some explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 7:16 PM, lesaint said:

Could "volumes unghosting themselves upon save/autosave" be moved to a list of very, very, very annoying bugs, if there is such a list ?

Is there a way to reproduce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Speike-Styles said:

Hi I might have found a bug within the Voxel room.

 

Here is a Video showing the Problem.

Did you find out how to make particles in 3d-coat?  :) 

Share this post


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

Did you find out how to make particles in 3d-coat?  :) 

Yeah, this looks cool, hope it could be a new feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, animk said:

Yeah, this looks cool, hope it could be a new feature.

It would be epic: Particle System + Hair System!  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.04.2019 4.8.37

- Context sensitive RMB menu in retopo room, it is especially helpful in "Select" tool for low-poly modeling.

- Extrude-like tools in retopo room are more convenient and intuitive, similar to other 3d  editors.

- Sharp edges marking in Retopo room. Baking, import/export supported.

- In UV settings you may control the default unwrapping method.

- List of ghosted, isolated volumes stored into scene file (3B).

- Bunch of crashes fixed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

2.04.2019 4.8.37

- Context sensitive RMB menu in retopo room, it is especially helpful in "Select" tool for low-poly modeling.

- Extrude-like tools in retopo room are more convenient and intuitive, similar to other 3d  editors.

- Sharp edges marking in Retopo room. Baking, import/export supported.

- In UV settings you may control the default unwrapping method.

- List of ghosted, isolated volumes stored into scene file (3B).

- Bunch of crashes fixed.

Are the Retopo tools (like BRIDGE) shown by your developer, in some of the threads here, available? I don't see them, even though he says they are available.

Share this post


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

- Extrude-like tools in retopo room are more convenient and intuitive, similar to other 3d  editors.

1) Selecting Faces, the Extrude Faces tool behaves in a strange way. NOTE: The Auto Snap option is not enabled.

2) What has changed to make an extrude in a similar way to other modeling programs? The extrudes I made look the same as the past versions of 3D-Coat ... Any new tools I could not identify?

image.png.26e641fe2ef428816b2e7cdf96b00b0c.png

3) When you select Edges and use the Split tool nothing happens ... just the Cut preview and it does not allow you to execute the cut.

image.png.ab6915ea0a39f880b62f58fa3043d9b3.png

Share this post


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

×