Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
AbnRanger

Let's discuss new surface modeling features here

Recommended Posts

I think it would be best to unify the Paint and Retopo mesh structure in 3DCoat so the Tweak Workspace can be removed > Retopo workspace will be renamed TOPO or POLY EDIT Workspace and become the environment to work on all low poly meshes. No more Paint Mesh and Retopo Mesh...just Low Poly Mesh. 

That would allow the UV room to be the dedicated workspace for ALL UV work...no more UV room for just Paint Meshes and UV tools in Retopo Room for Retopo meshes. This creates too much confusion for new users, and if users need to modify or fix their Paint Mesh, it's a bit of complicated and convoluted process to do so, currently. They have to send a copy to the Retopo Room > fix/edit the mesh > replace the Paint room mesh and hope it doesn't cause a mess with your UV's and texture work.

With a unification of Paint and Retopo Meshes, then the addition of more comprehensive modeling tools will make sense. Right now, new users expect to just Retopo in the workspace. Adding a whole new section of modeling tools will overcrowd the Retopo workspace, because half the toolbar is UV tools. Adding a new modeling room would just add more confusion and complexity. That is why 3DCoat needs to be simplified first. If we don't, 3DCoat will only become a big MAZE of disparate rooms and more convoluted workflows. 

SIMPLIFY. SIMPLIFY. SIMPLIFY. Please. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I think it would be best to unify the Paint and Retopo mesh structure in 3DCoat so the Tweak Workspace can be removed > Retopo workspace will be renamed TOPO or POLY EDIT Workspace and become the environment to work on all low poly meshes. No more Paint Mesh and Retopo Mesh...just Low Poly Mesh. 

That would allow the UV room to be the dedicated workspace for ALL UV work...no more UV room for just Paint Meshes and UV tools in Retopo Room for Retopo meshes. This creates too much confusion for new users, and if users need to modify or fix their Paint Mesh, it's a bit of complicated and convoluted process to do so, currently. They have to send a copy to the Retopo Room > fix/edit the mesh > replace the Paint room mesh and hope it doesn't cause a mess with your UV's and texture work.

With a unification of Paint and Retopo Meshes, then the addition of more comprehensive modeling tools will make sense. Right now, new users expect to just Retopo in the workspace. Adding a whole new section of modeling tools will overcrowd the Retopo workspace, because half the toolbar is UV tools. Adding a new modeling room would just add more confusion and complexity. That is why 3DCoat needs to be simplified first. If we don't, 3DCoat will only become a big MAZE of disparate rooms and more convoluted workflows. 

SIMPLIFY. SIMPLIFY. SIMPLIFY. Please. 

That's sounds great plan. Thumps up from here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my suggestion for rooms would be this:

PAINT ------- MODELLING(including retopo tools) ------ SCULPT ------ RENDER

But AbnRanger summed it up very well. Before adding, we need to simplify.

Edited by haikalle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tweak Room must evolve to Modeler Room.

Paint <> Modeler <> UV must be interconnected

Retopo Room must stay -retopo tools and uv tools need improvement, it is the usual thing (note: to study the tools offered by the competition)-

Sculpt Room must stay (need better sculpt tools, Andrew is woking on it)

Render Room must evolve allowing links to external render engines.

Scripting need to add Python Support.

Uptodate SDK to allow development of External Plugins 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Carlosan said:

Tweak Room must evolve to Modeler Room.

Paint <> Modeler <> UV must be interconnected

Retopo Room must stay -retopo tools and uv tools need improvement, it is the usual thing (note: to study the tools offered by the competition)-

Sculpt Room must stay (need better sculpt tools, Andrew is woking on it)

Render Room must evolve allowing links to external render engines.

Scripting need to add Python Support.

Uptodate SDK to allow development of External Plugins 

I have to strongly disagree. 3DCoat does not need another room. Converting Tweak to a Modeling room would just make the app more complicated, convoluted and frustrating to learn. There needs to be just one Low Poly Mesh structure. That reduces the number of Object/Mesh types from 3 to 2. There is no logical reason to have a Retopo workspace and Modeling. The task is interconnected. You would simply have one section of the Tool Panel for Retopo and another for Direct Poly-Modeling. In many apps that have Retopo tools, there is just a separate tool section for retopo work, not an entirely different workspace. It's unnecessary redundancy, which makes it harder for new users to learn. 

LESS IS MORE. We need to use the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Silly) method, here.  That means fewer rooms, not more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AbnRanger 
I totally agree with you as if I think of a long-term development. 

Do you imagine the effort that means to change how 3DC works internally? It would be necessary to rewrite the program.

As i said:

3 hours ago, Carlosan said:

This is the source of continuous problems: New users dont understand that Paint Objects, Retopo Objects and Sculpt Objects are not the same, they are not connected.

Using any other app, you work over the same mesh adding hierarchy or modifiers, 3DCoat works like several different programs that use the same display, with a design very similar to the separation of lightwave between layout and modeler. Or similar design found on old CAD app, where users need to switch in between workbenches. 

Will it ever be possible to work in a future version that unifies the workflow and allows us to work in one single mesh in all the rooms, or better yet, stop working with rooms and work on menu sets ?

maya manu set.jpg


I believe that a distribution like the one I propose would be a close solution to begin to stabilize code between the development of Alex added to Andrew development.

That would build the foundations to think of a future development where they can abolish working in different worbenches and work in a unified hierarchy of meshes construction history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×