Jump to content
3D Coat Forums
Rygaard

3D-Coat: Please, unifies the workflow by fusing the Rooms - Important step for 3D-Coat

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I'm creating this topic that may be one of the most important topics for 3D-Coat and maybe controversial.

Currently, 3D-Coat has Rooms that allow the execution of a certain task like Sculpt, Paint, Retopo, UVs, Render and etc. 3D-coat acts as if it were different and independent programs in one.
 
This way the problems and confusions in relation to the 3D-Coat workflow begin.
I was already a new user of 3D-Coat and at that time I was completely confused the way the program behaved with a Mesh. Why did a mesh appear in a Room and was not present in the other Room? It was as if I used different programs and at the same time did not communicate with each other or that there was no compatibility. I kept wondering how this was possible if I'm using the same program?
I had so many questions and doubts about 3D-Coat that I could not understand. The time has passed and I think that new users and even some users who use the program for a certain time still have doubts, can not understand how 3D-Coat works and at certain moments are frustrated.

This separation of Rooms also gave rise to the separation of users within our community who use 3D-Coat. I've seen people saying that it was not interesting for them to have certain functionality or tools because they simply did not use that Room. An example of this is people who use ZBrush and then use 3D-Coat to do reptology (perhaps UVs or Painting) and those same people would not be interested in developing and implementing tools in the Sculpt Room. The reason for this is the simple thought that ZBrush offers all those features and will only use 3D-Coat for a certain workflow complement. Again, I repeat, people are free to use the program as best they please. I have nothing against these people.

But what does that mean? This means that there will always be one room more developed than the other because people who use one room more than the other will want improvement in that room. It does not matter if a particular room is left undeveloped. This becomes an arm-twist among the users of 3D-Coat and not a union in favor of a strong program as a whole.

In my opinion, it would be very important for 3D-Coat to change the direction of its development. This change would be in relation to the workflow and structure of the program. I know it would be difficult, but the solution would be the merging of all Rooms, allowing a single mesh being worked through the whole program without having problems of communication between the Rooms and their respective tools and features.
So instead of working in Rooms, 3D-Coat would have Layouts or Menu Sets that could even be customized by users according to their work or task.

This merging of Rooms would allow a fluid and interactive workflow between the "Rooms" or better said Layouts. This type of workflow would be the kind of workflow that any user would expect when using a program because it would facilitate usability, efficiency, interactivity and at the same time we could have all the tools, functionalities, and future modifiers (similar to Blender / 3DS-Max have) and addons working together in a harmonious way and that would result in a powerful workflow. Imagine all the tools working in favor of a single Mesh, the freedom that users would have to perform any kind of worklow they wanted and in the end would be a job of extreme quality.

This merger would open new and great possibilities for tools and functionalities without breaking the workflow and the most important would be the attention of new users.

In my opinion, 3D-Coat is fantastic, but it does not see its potential.
What do you think about this merger?
Leave here your thoughts, suggestions and opinions on the subject.
Thank you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gorbatovsky I do not understand what you said ... and it looks like your comment disappeared ....
Do you also agree with this possible merging of the rooms and thus allowing users a simple workflow to be understood, dynamic and fluid throughout the program and thus all tools and functionalities can be used in the same Mesh?
Since you are a programmer, please, could you tell us, if this could be done? With this merger, would anything programming on 3D-Coat become easier to do?

I know this merger would not be easy to do and it would also be something that Andrew and all of the people in 3D-Coat would have to agree on because it's a difficult choice to make because it will tinker with the structure of the program, but anyway , I as a user and artist, I think merging the Rooms would be the best way to be followed so that 3D-Coat users can have all the tools and functionality turned on the same mesh without having problems or workflow breaks. And still many things could happen with this merger of Rooms.

Edited by Rygaard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with the Sculpt room being entirely separate, as the nature of the mesh is so drastically different than low poly quad meshes one might import. But there should not be 2 additional mesh types (Paint & Retopo). This is unnecessary redundancy and makes working in 3DCoat more of a chore or pain. 

High Poly Mesh = Sculpt Room

Low Poly Mesh = Paint/TopoEdit/UV Rooms

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if it's incredibly hard for me to explain the workflow, it HAS to be hard for the new user to learn.

Simplification NEEDS to be done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merging all rooms is very interesting idea. Replacing rooms with layouts could work quite nicely. But I'm quite sure that this task is going to take a long time if Andrew is showing the green light for it. 
My suggest is that let's starting from merging two rooms into one and let's see what happens. Because even that is a big challenge for even Andrew I think.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @AbnRanger I really understand what you mean. My difficulty in understanding how 3D-Coat works was difficult and I confess to you that I almost gave up using 3D-Coat. I wonder how it is for you that tries to explain to all new users the workflow of 3D-Coat.
It is difficult in a user's mind to have a workflow that is not intuitive and fluid.
We have several programs in one and this communication between these different programs becomes difficult.

But at the same time so that we can have an efficient simplification in 3D-Coat, I think that the mesh (geometry) should have a free pass throughout the 3D-Coat, no matter if it is High Poly or Low Poly.

This would make any 3D-Coat user's life simpler and more effective. We could have any kind of workflow we wanted. Even use UVs (map textures) in the meshes being sculpted. (Currently in the Sculpt Room it does not accept Uvs - texture maps). Countless possibilities could be made. The only limitation would be the user's creativity.

Abnranger, I completely agree with you that simplification needs to be urgently done and resolved.
In my opinion, merging all the Rooms would be the best way, but what's best for 3D-Coat I'd be supporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, haikalle said:

Merging all rooms is very interesting idea. Replacing rooms with layouts could work quite nicely. But I'm quite sure that this task is going to take a long time if Andrew is showing the green light for it. 
My suggest is that let's starting from merging two rooms into one and let's see what happens. Because even that is a big challenge for even Andrew I think.  

Haikalle, thank you for your opinion!
I know this merging of all Rooms or any merging of Rooms into 3D-Coat would be tricky to do. Even though I'm not a programmer (developer), we're talking about a complex code structure that is 3D-Coat.
But at the same time, the merger of Rooms could not be postponed or put aside.
I know that would be a big challenge for Andrew, but we know Andrew's ability and the sensitivity he would have when he listened to his customers' opinions.
Today, we need to do more dynamic and intuitive things, solve various problems that arise or even drastic changes that happen in our work in an easier and more effective way. I think it would greatly increase our productivity and creativity.
And sure enough, new users would be attracted and they would get 3D-Coat.

Share this post


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

@Gorbatovsky I do not understand what you said ... and it looks like your comment disappeared ....

Andrew is the chief architect of 3DCoat. And he will decide.

I can only say my opinion.
Mesh Retopo have more info then Mesh of Sculpt Room.
If make one mesh work in 2 rooms of Retopo and Sculpt, then the data will occupy a huge amount of memory.

I think that the mesh of the room Retopo needs to be develop, so that it is displayed whith  smoothing.
In addition, Andrew spoke about the need to make a more interactive mode of working with 2 Room mesh.

Andrew still speaks out on this topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But at the same time so that we can have an efficient simplification in 3D-Coat, I think that the mesh (geometry) should have a free pass throughout the 3D-Coat, no matter if it is High Poly or Low Poly.

Andrew spoke me about this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Gorbatovsky said:

Andrew spoke me about this.

 @Gorbatovsky Thanks for your comment and opinion.

Of course, Andrew will decide.
Interesting to know that the Mesh of the Retopo Room has more info than a mesh in the Sculpt Room. I thought that the Sculpt Room for supporting millions of polygons (high poly) could easily support polygons created in the Retopo Room.

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but let me ask you a question?
In the case of programs like ZBrush, Mudbox and other programs ... all these programs use only a single Mesh (having UVs or not) and these programs work fluently and effectively without presenting many problems related to memory.
Of course, it will depend a lot on the hardware that the user has, but even medium-quality computers reasonably support a same mesh that has millions of polygons without having memory problems. How is this possible in relation to these programs?
I thought that 3D-Coat would not find any problems with memory, which would even improve the performance of the program with the possible merging of the Rooms.

I'm glad that Andrew is aware of a simplification where Mesh has a free pass throughout 3D-Coat (being high or Low Poly).

If Andrew has spoken about it, for me this can be a fantastic start to a possible merging of Rooms within 3D-Coat with Layouts or Menus Sets ( @Carlosan) according to the task the user wants to perform.

I get excited about it. I think it would be possible ...
This is the moment for the people of the community to act and please come up with suggestions with concrete solutions so that a possible merger of Rooms can happen without problems or difficulties.
With this we can introduce Andrew to the reasons and how important this merger of Rooms for our workflow becomes more
simplified, efficient and most importantly the compatibility of all the tools and functionalities in favor of a single Mesh. I think a lot of improvements (tools and features) could be made with this possible Fusion of Rooms.
Today, the workflow is very agile and changes in the work are done radically and quickly. A workflow that is not fluid compromises the entire pipeline of a project. We need to simplify the process and thus increase productivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind having specific rooms, although I think there are too many.  For instance I like the sculpt room and I don't want it all cluttered up with a bunch of stuff unrelated, (and layout's is not a better answer, why have layouts when you can have optimized rooms?).  What really bothers me is how cumbersome the flow is between the rooms.  It's hard to go from one to the other smoothly.  Especially when you are new to the program.  Indeed even if it's just some simple irritants like voxels showing up in a different room when you don't want them or the paint stuff showing up in a different room when you don't want it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People can get confused when I talked about the merger of Rooms.
I was given the freedom to call "Rooms merging" because in my view, the workflow based on a single mesh flowing seamlessly across all different types of Rooms or areas of 3D-Coat programs would be the best solution. This means Simplification with efficiency generating more productivity, techniques and the final quality of our work.

If you ask any user, that kind of fluency within any program would be exactly what new or more experienced users would expect from a program and not the difficulty of understanding why a Mesh appears here in this Room and does not appear in the other Room. "
What do I do now"?

This possible merging of the Rooms would not be intended to disrupt or complicate the usability of the program, especially by filling the interface with all the tools of the program in the same view or interface. On the contrary!
This nomenclature I gave Layouts would be a way of organizing the interface, which would also allow us users to customize the interface, menus and popups, creating new and unique layouts according to what you are doing or task performed.
For example, if you work with Sculpture, you would have the chance to make a sculpture-oriented interface, however adding tools from different areas of the program such as: Tools and functions of Painting, UVs, Retopo and etc that would make your job easier.

That means all the tools you use most would be in the Layout you created. That is, complete freedom and efficiency of your work. 
And completely wipe the interface of tools that you are not in the habit of using. Thus, we could create and share our Layouts in the 3D-Coat community.

My suggestion of merging Rooms would also be linked to the optimization and improved performance of 3D-Coat. Now the name like you would call Rooms, Layouts or Menus Sets for me is not important.
The most important thing for me is to have this workflow fluent and efficient within 3D-Coat in its various areas or rooms without causing problems or confusion.

I work a lot in Sculpt Room, if I aim to create an Action Figure to be printed on the 3D printer, I would like this fluency and freedom to use all the possible tools that would help me to create and solve any kind of problem related to my mesh
I would have the freedom to create anytime Uvs and texture maps for a single Mesh that would allow me to further detail this sculpture through these texture maps 
(perhaps for example by applying displacement maps directly to the mesh). That means I could count on all the features of the Rooms united in favor of a single Mesh. And there's more, I could apply different types of techniques with such a workflow.

As well, this workflow is not only for 3D printing, but also for all other areas like in the areas of animations, games and etc ... All would benefit without exceptions.
In addition, we could have a complex and efficient system of polygon selections that would help a lot even in procedures of modeling, sculpting or modifications of part of a mesh and also in techniques of Painting.
These selections could be used in all areas of the program!
This would open the possibility of a new system of non-destructive Modifiers similar to Blender. These modifiers would accept selections of polygons that restrict or not influence of this modifier on the mesh.
Have you ever imagined how many good things could come through this kind of merger of Rooms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my ideal work flow would be

1. Sculpt an object

2. Retopo (using auto tools ) 

3.  Push the Retopo mesh to the UV room without baking. 

5.  Go to UV room unwrap, fix UVs, then apply uv set

6.  Go to the paint room and paint sculpt 

7.  Bake

8.  Paint normal maps  

9.  Export. 

 

 

my current workflow is very confused, but maybe I'm doing it wrong

1. Sculpt an object

2. Retopo (using auto tools only) - most of the time it never works.  I usually just end up using decimate.

3.  Bake with normal maps (I don't want to do this, but it's only way I know to get the new mesh in the UV Room)

4.  The mesh then appears in the UV room.   

5.  Fix UVs and apply uv-set

6.  Go to the paint room and delete all the baked layers

7.  Reload 3d coat because sometimes the paint object looks all messed up

8.  Paint

9. Export. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kev00  Thanks for your post.
I know how complicated the workflow of 3D-Coat seems to be. Remembering that I have been through it and sometimes I still get confused. I will try to explain in a brief and not very detailed way the process that you need to perform.


When you finish your sculpture, you can go to the Retopo Room directly to do your topology manually or using the automated form by right-clicking the VoxTree and choosing the Autopo function.
After autopo generates its polygons, in the tools you will find a session called UV. In which you can perform the procedure of opening the UVs of your object using the tools Mark UVs, Edge Loop and UV Path. Defining your seams, go to the section called Commands and you will find the Unwrap option that will complete the process of opening UVs.
The next step, through the Bake Menu, you will find options according to your goal, in which you will take your object to the Paint Room.
You can do the bake using the Per-Pixel option that is more focused on Normal Map, but remembering that this option will also generate displacement map.
You also have 2 other choices:
- Microvertex: It is more related to Displacement Map. You can sculpt in the Paint Room, however you will have to define more polygons and other configurations for better quality. One good thing about this type of option is that you can export the mesh with Displacement Map applied directly to the mesh (This option will be present in the File / Export menu and you will have 3 types of mesh resolution.
At this point you will have to make tests of the resolution you have chosen, since 3D-Coat will generate a mesh with a high number of polygons depending on your choice.) This function is very similar to the option of applying displacement map in ZBrush, difference is that in ZBrush you will have a preview of how your mesh will look before applying.
- Ptex: I will not talk much about PTex because I do not use it and it has disadvantages.

Making Bake by Per-Pixel and Microvertex can cause many doubts in which option to choose. But I think in your case the most appropriate would be the Per-Pixel.

After you choose Bake w / Normal Map (Per-Pixel) from the Bake menu, 3D-Coat will present you with a window that will allow you to have Bake control:
You will set the Inner Shell and Outer Shell by setting the values through the preview and in case you need more precise control use Scan Depth Altering Tools options. Remember that for both the Outer Shell and the Inner Shell you will not be able to have penetrations between the object and the Shell from the preview. Summarizing with less technical words: The Outer Shell will not be able to enter the Object and the Inner Shell will not be able to leave the Object.

After setting your bake settings, an Import Object for Per Pixel Painting window will appear.
In this window you can configure the texture size and other specific settings. For the reason that I use Blender, I logically choose Blender for the Normal Mapp Software Preset setting. I have the option in Initial Subdivision to choose whether the mesh can be subdivided similar to the use of a Blender subdivision modifier. If you choose to subdivide your mesh, do not worry because at the time of exporting the object you will have the opportunity to choose the original mesh without being subdivided.
The next UV Map Typing setting is for you to keep the UVs that you have already opened there in the Retopo Room or if you do not have UVs you can choose the Auto Mapping option that 3D-Coat will automatically generate UVs for you. In case, if you wish at any time, you can go in the UV Room and perform the procedure of opening UVs and return to the Paint Room without any problem.
The other settings I'll leave with you to explore them.

Finally, you can go in the Paint Room, there will be your object and you can begin to carry out your process of texturing.

Finished its texture, the time has come to export.
You can export texture maps separately through the Textures / Export menu or you can export your object and textures through the File / Export Object and Textures menu.
Choosing this option will bring up an Export window where you can define several more precise settings for your project.

I hope I've helped!

Let me ask you a question:

For you, what would be the best type of workflow within 3D-Coat? Would it be a good thing a possible Fusion of Rooms?
If you could explain, why did you agree and said "I agree with you. I've been using a coat for over a year and I'm still confused."

Everyone's opinion is very important so that the developers can hear us and who knows some change in relation to the Rooms workflow in 3D-Coat.
Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Rygaard

Not having to switch to the UV room has helped a bit, but the uv tools in the retopo room is missing the apply-uv set option.

The reason I'm confused?

I guess what I don't understand is when I should be baking or painting.    In my mind,  before I paint anything I should have the sculpt mesh, the retopo mesh, and the UV's completed.     Why should I have to bake before going to the paint room?   I want to paint against the high res mesh first, bake down, and then paint textures before exporting.   

The workflow I'm looking for is sculpt-> retopo ->uv -> paint -> bake -> touchup paint ->export.  

But the workflow I think 3d coat is looking for is sculpt->paint->retopo->uvs->bake->touch up->export

Maybe I'm just doing things in the wrong order for 3d coat.

So for me,  I don't understand when I should be using each room and that's part of the confusion.   Having it  in a single room might not be as confusing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kev00 Thank you for your opinion !

When you are in the Retopo Room, you do not have the Apply-UV option.
In Retopo Room, you have all the necessary tools and controls that will provide you with all the support to realize the opening of UVs with quality. You currently do not need to go to the UV Room.

Even after you open your UVs in the Retopo Room, your object will not be present (visible) in the UV Room! The Apply-UV option is located in the Commands section of the UV Room.

If you want to manipulate your UVs in the UV Room, your object should be recognized as a Paint Object.
What this means is that you have to perform the Bake procedure
or
Import an Object from the File / IMport / Model menu for Per Pixel Painting.
Or
Through the home screen when you start 3D-Coat (Windows Menu / Popups / Start Menu) by choosing the UV Map Mesh option that will ask you to locate the object you want to work with.

After selecting the Object, the Import Object for Per Pixel Painting window will appear and you will select the settings of the texture size and etc., then define your settings, then 3D-Coat will open the UV Room so you can manipulate your UVs.

In the UV Room make your modifications, then go to the Session Commands and press the Unwrap Button. Then you will find in the same session COmmands the Apply Uv-Set button, so you will confirm and update the UV related modifications of this object.
 
When you enter the Paint Room, a message about UV changes appears, click Ok to confirm.

You have to remember that your mesh will only be seen in any Room according to the chosen workflow.

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

You can paint on your High Res Mesh at any time. You can paint before you even go to the Retopo Room. You'll paint for Vertex Points, which means you'll need a very dense mesh to get the best quality, or you can subdivide the mesh locally into the areas where you need to paint with quality.

After you paint on this Hi-Res mesh, you can go to the REtopo Room (generate your topology and UVS aperture), then Bake and finally go to The Paint Room to do your texturing process. The last step export your project.

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

I'm not going to say that I learned this from one day to the next, I took a lot of time to understand the process since I always came from a workflow where my mesh was visible in any operation I wanted to perform on the concurrent program. For me, it was easier to understand and perform numerous production techniques.

In my opinion, in 3D-Coat, Rooms does not have fluent communication between them. In my lack of programming knowledge, I may be speaking at the moment something wrong, but I would like to work within 3D-Coat with the same mesh across all the Rooms in a free way and that any tool I used would affect this mesh.
I would not have to understand why my mesh is visible in one room and the other room is not.
For me, it is very important an agile workflow, fluent, easy to understand, easy to solve any problem or radical changes in the mesh.

Please do not get me wrong! I'm not saying that the 3D-Coat workflow is currently bad, is not it! Just saying that it is confusing and does not have complete communication between all the rooms (or mini programs).

For me, a single Room with Layouts preconfigured according to the task that can be completely customized and created by the user (choosing menus, popups, tools, brushes that are used most) would be a dream. This means that all the tools and functions that exist within 3D-Coat would be applied in a single mesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 11:30 PM, Rygaard said:

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but let me ask you a question?
In the case of programs like ZBrush, Mudbox and other programs ... all these programs use only a single Mesh (having UVs or not) and these programs work fluently and effectively without presenting many problems related to memory.

In the case of programs like ZBrush, Mudbox and other programs ... 

The structure of the mesh they may be the same.
And first you sculpt from clay and create a mesh with a million polygons.
And then, on the basis of the 1st, you create a 2nd low-poly mesh. You have two mesh.

You want to change the 1st mesh and the 2nd automatically must to change?
For example: this is how the geometry changed in the CAD programs, the drawing changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gorbatovsky Thank you for your explanation!

Yes, it makes sense to have 2 meshes inside the 3D-Coat, the first mesh being the sculpture Hi-Res (sculpt room) and the second mesh the topology (low poly).
With this, unfortunately there is no compatibility between Rooms and Meshes ...

I think the simplification inside 3D-Coat would be the best thing... existing only a single mesh.
It would be great if you could change the mesh of the Sculpt Room using the tools and functions of the Retopo Room, Paint Room and etc.

For example, in other programs, and more especific speaking about Blender you have the freedom to sculpt and if you want to change something with the modeling tools, make selections of polygons (vertices), use modifiers, paint, and etc you can and then you can go back to sculpt freely ... If you want to do UVs, texturing, rigging you can also ... Of course some operations may be lost, but my point is that you have freedom throughout the program with a single and unique mesh to accomplish tasks that you want.

I think the mesh structure being the same in all Rooms of 3D-Coat would be an excellent workflow, total freedom.
I do not mean ending the Rooms, because there is a program structure behind everything. The Rooms could be present internally ensuring the program works, but for the users the freedom to have a single mesh and to be able to operate in the way you want throughout the 3D-Coat would be fantastic.
Sorry if I said something wrong, I'm not a developer or programmer, I just want to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The modifiers you apply to an object are stored in a stack. By navigating up and down the stack, you can change the effect of the modifier, or remove it from the object. Or you can choose to “collapse” the stack and make your changes permanent.

source

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The modifiers you apply to an object are stored in a stack. By navigating up and down the stack, you can change the effect of the modifier, or remove it from the object. Or you can choose to “collapse” the stack and make your changes permanent.

source

Exactly! I have not used 3DS Max for a while, but it seems to be the same thing as Blender.
Please correct me if I am saying something wrong.

In Blender, the modifiers work in the same way. The influence of Modifiers on Mesh can be constrained if you use a selection of Vertices or polygons, where you choose which part of the mesh the Modifier will change to Mesh.
The most important and fantastic is to be a completely non-destructive process and the user can use texture maps.
The modifiers work according to the order they were applied, giving the user complete freedom to change the order of the Modifiers in the Mesh and at the end if the user wishes to be able to apply all the modifiers in the mesh.

Sorry I talk so much in Blender, because it is the program that I have most used at the moment and also for being a powerful 3d program. I believe that many things I say here can be done in 3DS Max, Maya, Mode in a similar way.

I would very much like to suggest to Andrew and developers the implementation of Modifiers in 3D-Coat. +1

At the same time, I would ask for a way to have a single mesh so that we can have a robust Vertex Group Selection system as it exists in the blender to work with both modifiers and various program functions. +1

Below I'm putting the Displacement Modifier link from BLender so that everyone can see what I'm talking about, and the MOST IMPORTANT thing is that you can use a texture map to be able to perform the real-time and non-destructive displace procedure on Mesh .
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/deform/displace.html

Below I am putting the link on the Vertex Group system which is a powerful system that selects and creates one or groups of vertices according to the influence weight between 0 and 1 (0 - 100%) and this is very important to have a falloff between the vertices in the Mesh areas:
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/meshes/properties/vertex_groups/assigning_vertex_group.html

I believe that these two systems (Modifiers and Vertex Groups) would be sensational for 3D-Coat.
Look at how many fantastic modifiers there are in Blender:
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/index.html

Sorry for being a bit repetitive, but it would be great to have a single mesh so we could have these systems inside 3D-Coat, because the use of texture maps (UVs) can only be done in the Paint Room. Sculpt Room and Retopo Room can only see their respective Meshes (Hi-Res and Low Res). Therefore, for a free workflow a single mesh is necessary so that we can have all the systems working in our favor.

Share this post


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

speaking about Blender you have the freedom to sculpt and if you want to change something with the modeling tools

Rygaard, thank.

I understand that in the Blender program you are working with a one mesh in Edit mode and Sculpt Mode.

3DCoat has a different ideology and I do not understand why it is necessary to choose individual edges or faces in digital clay.
I understand that you need to create separate regions of vertices of digital clay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

3DCoat has a different ideology and I do not understand why it is necessary to choose individual edges or faces in digital clay.

At least in order to clean up a huge number of holes arising from boolean operations. In Blender with a grid of even 5 million polygons, you can remove holes manually. In koaty most likely you will encounter a lot of problems with this. Especially when the tools needed for this do not work.

ESPECIALLY, when it is seen that in the grid the edges under each other pass and do not intersect. It’s just that two grids at the same time begin to exist somewhere, and you can’t do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sorda said:

At least in order to clean up a huge number of holes arising from boolean operations.

Thank you, I understood why you need sometimes retopo room tool  for the mesh in the Sculpting room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not quite. I think even a zbrash will not pull in direct work with polygons when there are tens of millions of them. Simply optimize the boolean operations and decide something with when, in sculpting, the edges of the model begin to intersect with each other at different levels. 

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

×