Jump to content
3D Coat Forums
Rygaard

I will not be silent this time. Just my opinion !

Recommended Posts

This is me using Catumull-Clark subdivision on the the same mesh I was working with in 3D-coat (in the youtube video I posted earlier) in Blender, this time in Blender I'm using a triangulated version of the mesh not a quad version.  I get pretty much the same results I got using res+ in 3D Coat.

So it seems 3D Coat already has Catmull-Clark subdivision in the sculpt room.  It definitely exist elsewhere in the program.

Also, @AbnRanger , I watched all the videos you posted and all of them require a destructive workflow where in order to work with a preexisting mesh in the sculpt room, you need to alter it fundamentally.  First by triangulating it, and second (in the case of a voxel mesh) by increasing the resolution to a very high degree to retain the details.  I'm cool with all of that because of what 3D Coat allows you to do with those kinds of meshes.

However, there are many cases where you just want to work with your original mesh directly.  And it begs the question, why use 500,000 triangles to represent a mesh that could just be 30,000 triangles (15,000 quads)?  Also, why manipulate a high poly mesh at the same time as a low poly version of the same mesh using a limited set of tools and a cumbersome workflow in order to retain the integrity of the original mesh?  Yes we have curves, and liveclay and soon sculpt layers, but we have no way to work on our mesh directly in the sculpt room.  That is the bridge that will allow users to move back and forth from other apps to 3D Coat without worry.

If users could work with their quad based meshes in the sculpt room, nothing would be stopping them from changing the quad mesh to a triangulated surface mode mesh or a voxel mesh, they'd still have that option and also have access to the current set of tools that exist to support that workflow.

Also, Photoshop has Vector layers, video layers, raster layers, adjustment layers, smart object layers, 3D layers, etc.  Each offering it's own set of tools in addition to a common subset of tools that behave the same way across all of those layer types.

Adding a quad based layer mode in the sculpt room is not a bad idea.  I can't see why anyone would be against it.  I think it's necessary.

GIF.gif

Edited by gbball

Share this post


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

This is me using Catumull-Clark subdivision on the the same mesh I was working with in 3D-coat in Blender, this time in Blender I'm using on a triangulated version of the mesh not a quad version.  Pretty much the same results I got using res+ in 3D Coat.

So it seems 3D Coat already has Catmull-Clark subdivision in the sculpt room.  It definitely exist elsewhere in the program.

Also, @AbnRanger , I watched all the videos you posted and all of them require a destructive workflow where in order to work with a preexisting mesh in the sculpt room, you need to alter it fundamentally.  First by triangulating it, and second (in the case of a voxel mesh) by increasing the resolution to a very high degree to retain the details.  I'm cool with all of that because of what 3D Coat allows you to do with those kinds of meshes.

However, there are many cases where you just want to work with your original mesh directly.  

If users could work with their quad based meshes in the sculpt room, nothing would be stopping them from changing the quad mesh to a triangulated surface mode mesh or a voxel mesh, they'd still have that option and also have access to the current set of tools that exist to support that workflow.

GIF.gif

If you prep your low poly model properly before importing it into 3DCoat, it won't need a super high resolution. That's where we differ. There is a right way to work in 3DCoat and a wrong way. When you know that, one can work a lot more efficiently than you claim. When I saw how you were using CONFORM RETOPO MESH, I just had to stop. You said "It's very problematic...this just doesn't work right....I know you know a lot about 3DCoat, have a good deal of experience and have contributed a lot, but it wasn't working right because you weren't using it right. 

You don't use Conform Retopo Mesh with two completely different meshes and completely different shapes. That's begging for problems.

Share this post


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

I understand that, but CONFORM RETOPO is actually a feature I requested of Andrew so we would have a means of having a Quad mesh conform to the Sculpting changes we might make, and it works really well for me. It was never intended to make two different meshes with totally different shapes, conform. I just had to say something the moment I saw that. I don't think it's fair to Andrew to claim it doesn't work well when it's not being used properly. None of the video tutorials showing how CONFORM RETOPO works, demonstrates it being used that way. Can we at least agree on that much?

I'm coming around a bit, but not because I think 3DCoat falls short the way you think it does. It's mainly because I think it could be a great asset to poly-model with, right in the Sculpt Workspace. Still, it would be a massive undertaking and I'm not sure Andrew would be willing to do that.

I definitely agree with you, it's great to have and I'm glad it's there.  It doesn't replace working on the mesh directly, but when you need to work with liveclay or voxels booleans, it's there to support that workflow.  And I imagine it's feasible with that already in the application, that you could, if there were quad layers in the sculpt room, conform a quad layer sculpt to a surface or voxel mode sculpt.  Which would also be insanely powerful.  The user could in the end choose which sculpts to bake from and potentially bake right onto a quad mesh that they've been working with in the sculpt room.

Share this post


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

If you prep your low poly model properly before importing it into 3DCoat, it won't need a super high resolution. That's where we differ. There is a right way to work in 3DCoat and a wrong way. When you know that, one can work a lot more efficiently than you claim. When I saw how you were using CONFORM RETOPO MESH, I just had to stop. You said "It's very problematic...this just doesn't work right....I know you know a lot about 3DCoat, have a good deal of experience and have contributed a lot, but it wasn't working right because you weren't using it right. 

You don't use Conform Retopo Mesh with two completely different meshes and completely different shapes. That's begging for problems.

I agree, I merely used that as a demonstration of where subD sculpting would be beneficial to the existing alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gbball said:

I agree, I merely used that as a demonstration of where subD sculpting would be beneficial to the existing alternative.

I am starting to think it could be incredibly useful for hardsurface work, too, because with modeling tools added, it could let users create easier and cleaner bevels and such, plus quad booleans with a lot less calculations, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working adding modifiers to the original mesh would make a big difference (implementation of Modifiers in 3D-Coat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proxy mode works to perform a task similar to Multi-Resolution, but it's not the same as the Multi-Resolution system.
@AbnRanger Please, do not understand that Proxy Mode is bad, it does not work, that users are complaining or that users do not recognize how important the functionality is or anything else negative.
On the contrary, I find Proxy Mode fantastic, very powerful, one of the main features of the program, I use and love Proxy Mode. I'm very thankful that you helped Andrew implement Proxy Mode.
But, the Multi-Resolution system is completely different from Proxy Mode.

Test in Blender: Add the Multi-Resolution modifier, work with it, and see what it does exactly. Proxy Mode simulates Multi-Resolution (it does a great job), but one thing is to simulate, another thing is you have exactly the functionality of Multi-Resolution.

I fully understand that it is the working nature of 3D-Coat for you to work between the Retopo Room and Sculpt Room. The process in a way is very intelligent and powerful.

But it's not the same as you using the same mesh and working directly on it, it's very different in every way.
With all due respect, any user who has the chance to choose between working directly in the mesh and have all the benefits of it and choose to work in the current way of 3D-Coat. I think that a lot of people would choose to work directly in the mesh. I love 3D-Coat everything in it is powerful but I think things could be simpler with less "work around".

In the videos, you demonstrated, the process of how a user has to deal with the mesh within 3D-Coat.
Honestly, you've had a lot of work, a lot of "works around" and I understand because that's how 3D-Coat works.
You had to take many steps so you could use the mesh (including Thicken command).

The imported model became triangulated in the Retopo Room and became a nightmare for you to alter something with the Retopo Room tools, so much so that you gave up fixing the mesh in the Retopo Room.
I'm not saying 3D-Coat is not able to fix the triangulated mesh, but it's much harder because the mesh is tris. Imagine if this imported model had a little more resolution. It would be pretty crazy to work with the Retopo Room tools.

One point you've talked about importing an object already worrying about the topology, having the correct edges loops in the mesh of the Host application, I disagree with that.
Because we have the Retopo Room that have the same tools and functionalities as a program like Blender, Maya and so on. It does not make sense in my head that you have the Retopo Room and you first worry about making changes to an external program.

Of course we can use the Retopo Room tools in the imported mesh, but it becomes very difficult to work with a Tris mesh in the Retopo Room. And even with these changes in the mesh in the Retopo Room, the mesh that is in the Sculpt Room will not have these modifications. There is no direct connection because there are two different meshes.
The Multi-Resolution system (quads) supports this type of process of manipulating the mesh more efficiently, it is another animal that would be at your disposal.

The connection between Sculpt Room and Retopo Room works with Conform, but it's not exactly efficient (do not get me wrong saying that). Let me explain:
If you make a lot of changes with the other Brushes and deform the mesh dramatically, you will need to go to the Retopo Room and make all the adjustments manually with the Snap, and this process of putting the vertices in the correct position becomes a bit laborious and complicated in relation to the positioning precision of these vertices.
This means that when you use the snap, the vertex can jump to another part of the region. To fix you have to turn off the snap and manually reposition the vertex and turn the snap back on. You may end up losing control of the process and going on too much mess.
Another important thing to be said is the performance of this process that becomes slow or painful with the manipulation of the two meshes at the same time (the mesh of the retopo room and the hi-res mesh of the sculpt room).

Do things work on 3D-Coat? Yes they work and I love it.
But it's not exactly what I'd expect to do with a mesh in a 3D program.

What is more efficient and easier to work with?
Work in this way that you demonstrated in the videos with the mesh or you have a system with Multi-Resolution and working directly in the mesh any way you want?

When you import a mesh into Surface Mode or Voxels, you completely change the structure of the mesh and at the same time you lose the UVs. This is a problem? No, this is not a bug and no problem, that's how 3D-Coat works.
But if you want to work directly with production mesh and with UVs this becomes a problem. Because the user can not work on it, then yes it becomes a problem. Currently, 3D-Coat does not allow you to work directly on the mesh and does not have a Multi-Resolution Quad system.

On the other hand, the 3D-Coat system becomes powerful this way, because you have the mesh in the Retopo Room with the UVs and you change and sculpt in the Sculpt Room. Whatever changes you make in the sculpt room, you have to go to the Retopo Room and make the necessary changes.
This operation if you stop to think is fantastic and powerful because you do not care about the mesh when you are carving.
However, there is another side that is not good, as I have already said, later you will have to fix everything manually, and sometimes this task is not easy and very painful, in the Retopo Room.

In my opinion, you have a lot more work with all these work arounds than dealing with the mesh directly.
When you work directly in the mesh, the result is the one in front of you. What you see is what you get.

Share this post


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

Working adding modifiers to the original mesh would make a big difference 

You mean add modifiers in Blender or a possible implementation of Modifiers in 3D-Coat? :)

Share this post


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

I am starting to think it could be incredibly useful for hardsurface work, too, because with modeling tools added, it could let users create easier and cleaner bevels and such, plus quad booleans with a lot less calculations, etc. 

Are we able to convince you about a Multi-Resolution system (quads) and at the same time, the artists work directly in the mesh ... a possible unique mesh? ;)
Because otherwise, I will try more and more! :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all remember how this thread started, it started with an overrated fanboys company making their statements

Quote

"... so the tools you're probably gonna have to learn here are first Zbrush. If you are character artist Zbrush is to go to tool.
We have people asking cannot sculpt in Modo, Blender, 3D-Coat? Technically yes, practically NO!
"Zbrush is by far the most advanced sculpting tool here! "  
"Also because it's just become it is the industry standard..."

 

The problem is people here have focused in the "me me me", "works for me", "my workflow", the "I love 3DCoat mentality" and not thinking about the whole industry and why people who use Zbrush or other programs might want or not to try 3DCoat, if the sculpting toolset is great, it works, it does what other sculpting program does.
Yes, 3DCoat works and it is a great software, I have heard and read about people talking about using it in their studios not only for painting or fixing something but also to sculpt environment, same with Mudbox some people use it but not many, it is the few % who uses other but Zbrush, especially for Character stuff, like the quote says.

So the question is Why again, and my answer again is about workflow and how fast you can achieve something, how the program helps you to achieve what you need for your work. Comparing Zbrush to others, especially 3DCoat, I think that the Zbrush workflow around masks, visibility and polygroups is what is a big plus about Zbrush workflow. 3DCoat has the tools to do the same but they are not fast enough and they are scattered around that you have to jump around the UI to get to do the same you can easily do inside Zbrush because Zbrush is made with that in mind and recently they even made Polygroups better by offering PolyGroupIt.

 

And I am not going to pretend I am an expert in 3DCoat sculpting workflow, it's not like I use 3DCoat to sculpt everyday of my life, but let's make an example, if you import a model from someone else, the model has only one layer but many parts, many intersecting parts and it's not easy to select them and all that. how are you going to easily separate pieces in their own layer for you to work better on them if that's what you want? how can you isolate a piece unless it is already in another layer? in Zbrush it's easy, you can use visibility or mask or polygroups for that.

But what about 3DCoat? First rule you have to know is, the object have to be imported as Surface Mode, so the first question is, why would the default option in import panel is to import as voxels? Who in their right mind would want to import their objects as voxels not knowing what it is going to look like? what is going to be merged? what hole is going to be filled by the voxels? I mean, Surface Mode already triangulates the mesh which is bad enough so having a complete different mesh taking over without even knowing what is voxels is just the first mistake about 3DCoat, 3DCoat should focus on importing the model as it is and then you use voxels if you want, not the other way around, especially for new users that don't know what they are even doing.

But yes, you import without voxelization... then what do you do? Surface mode supports Freezing the mesh which would be the masking, but there is no option to freeze connected meshes, you can expand your freeze but it will pick everything that is on the way. The only way I found it was to use Quick Pose, which takes two hundred millions clicks on Modify to expand the mask, and then you can either Hide Frozen Area, then Object-ify Hidden or do anything from there, and while it works, it is terribly slow to work like that. Of course some people might argue that Zbrush is different and 3DCoat got a nice layer system and all that, but sometimes rearranging layers can be weird, in Paint room layers are just weird to work with, it's not as nice and fluid as I wish since it is technically a core part of the program and you are forced to use them since voxels can only be used in layers unless you want things to be merged, but then, I honestly hate to have many layers, especially since many layers will always start to get confusing but naming layers all the time is time consuming. 

 

At least they aren't like the Paint Objects tab, where you can't do anything, you can't merge objects or do what you do in any normal 3D package, that's even worse since you have to prepare everything the best before moving to the Paint Room, if you got a model with 10230912 objects, you gotta deal with it. Like using Reference Mesh in a mesh like that is a paint, especially since you bake an object or object and they end up on the same place.

Yes, using 3DCoat from zero, and starting from a sphere and all, can be nice, but many times you have to do things in a proper 3D package like Maya for the scale factor and for planning a level design or whatever and then you export it and do the high poly details inside Zbrush or 3DCoat in this case. so you are not always free to do things from scratch. Unless you expect new users to import the models in the retopo room to get the exact same model you exported (because it will get triangulated anyway by sculpt room), to go to the Sculpt room then, to go to the import command, and get it from retopo check w/o voxelization and then subdivide and all... subdivisions that you can't even undo, you click subdivision and you have to re-import it because you click subdivide too many times... I really don't know what to think about it. I mean, it is the same if you just import it directly in Sculpt mode, but some people want to see their meshes the way they exported them, not the Surface mode version.


And this is what I mean about it is an awkward workflow, it is connected in some ways but still fragmented... so is this what the industry wants? Seems like it's too much the change in workflow for the industry to want it even if the Sculpting tools are great and nice and Voxels is just nice to have for sculpting and such. I just don't know how many would want this fragmented 3DCoat workflow. I even read the suggestion of a quad mesh type, and that's going the opposite way of what I was thinking. Because yes, subdivision levels would be nice but if that depends on a new mesh type, I would rather educate people on learning the way 3DCoat is if the workaround is to add yet another type of mesh inside 3DCoat.

But I don't get why we should think Surface Mode is some type of special sculpting mesh that needs to be triangulated everywhere. For example, Zbrush imports your mesh the way you export it, quads or triangles, and if you use Sculptris mode, it will only modify and start adding triangles and changing the part of the mesh where you do something, not the entire thing. So, just because you decided you wanted more details in a small part of the mesh or remove something by smoothing it or whatever, it doesn't mean you want all your low mesh to be modified.

 

In the end, it is obvious Andrew and the 3DCoat team will work on the existing features and they will improve them as it is. Like he hasn't even finished with Sculpt layers to think about subdivision levels and all that. But subdivisions have proven to work fine it's not a stubborn idea, like I said before, Zbrush with Zmodeler and the new Object deformers plus Dynamic Subdivision and edge creasing can do great things, which is ridiculous to just think about making things like that with high poly meshes. I mean, this is the way anyone would work in any 3D package, low poly and subdivide crease edges or fencing and quads quads quads. This is the reason why Pixologic worked on Zremesher 3.0, Zremesher is not even about organic meshes, it is about the Hard surface workflow same as the Snapshot3D. 

So it is not only about the sculpting tools, which are great in 3DCoat and let you do anything you want and more, but it is also about how you generate your models and import them, how it complements with other 3D softwares in a pipeline and how open it is for plugins and python or whatever, how easy and fast is to achieve something, the stability and performance of the software, and all that stuff, because that's other thing, 3DCoat needs a powerful computer to perform the best and do everything, while Zbrush allows you to work on something on a low spec computer, I mean if you got a powerful computer you can reach more millions of polygons than Zbrush, but if you got a crappy computer or those Windows tablets, it's more likely it will work okay in Zbrush while on 3DCoat it will be slower. Like I heard someone saying getting 90 million polys in 3DCoat and less with Zbrush. 

So for 3DCoat artist, for individual artist, for people who want a cheap option to start and if they have never bought Zbrush, 3DCoat will be a great choice, but it will be hard to convience anyone like old Zbrush users or the industry that 3DCoat is great until 3DCoat team doesn't fix these little things about that don't make the workflow any faster or easier like other softwares may do, yes, and of course the tutorials and the showcase for how great 3DCoat is about sculpting. Like I said on my first post, most of the time I see these 3DCoat in the used apps for a model, the part they used 3DCoat for was not paint nor sculpting which are like the best things about the software  but maybe UVs and maybe Retopo and maybe both if we are lucky and that's it, and that's pretty sad, a software with so much potential and features used in what can be done in other softwares, just used for the most basic things. I know 'industry standard' plays a big role there, but maybe when 3DCoat gets more polished and less fragmented and easier for anyone to use and the existing features work the best all the time and elements of the UI can be simplified to be less and better instead of having many buttons to do the same, like we don't even need a change of UI but just organize it, I am sure it will benefit everyone who uses 3DCoat even if 3DCoat doesn't become anything for the big industry like it is now. At least I saw that 3DMotive has a new tutorial and they are using 3DCoat for the handpainting stuff, not PBR as usual but that's good they are using 3DCoat, not for the sculpting though of course. But painting better than nothing!

 

I will only wait and see what Andrew and 3DCoat team do with 3DCoat for next updates and v5. But I hope many of the things about the workflow will get better and less fragmented.

Edited by Emi
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I think we should all remember how this thread started, it started with an overrated fanboys company making their statements

 

The problem is people here have focused in the "me me me", "works for me", "my workflow", the "I love 3DCoat mentality" and not thinking about the whole industry and why people who use Zbrush or other programs might want or not to try 3DCoat, if the sculpting toolset is great, it works, it does what other sculpting program does.
Yes, 3DCoat works and it is a great software, I have heard and read about people talking about using it in their studios not only for painting or fixing something but also to sculpt environment, same with Mudbox some people use it but not many, it is the few % who uses other but Zbrush, especially for Character stuff, like the quote says.

So the question is Why again, and my answer again is about workflow and how fast you can achieve something, how the program helps you to achieve what you need for your work. Comparing Zbrush to others, especially 3DCoat, I think that the Zbrush workflow around masks, visibility and polygroups is what is a big plus about Zbrush workflow. 3DCoat has the tools to do the same but they are not fast enough and they are scattered around that you have to jump around the UI to get to do the same you can easily do inside Zbrush because Zbrush is made with that in mind and recently they even made Polygroups better by offering PolyGroupIt.

 

And I am not going to pretend I am an expert in 3DCoat sculpting workflow, it's not like I use 3DCoat to sculpt everyday of my life, but let's make an example, if you import a model from someone else, the model has only one layer but many parts, many intersecting parts and it's not easy to select them and all that. how are you going to easily separate pieces in their own layer for you to work better on them if that's what you want? how can you isolate a piece unless it is already in another layer? in Zbrush it's easy, you can use visibility or mask or polygroups for that.

But what about 3DCoat? First rule you have to know is, the object have to be imported as Surface Mode, so the first question is, why would the default option in import panel is to import as voxels? Who in their right mind would want to import their objects as voxels not knowing what it is going to look like? what is going to be merged? what hole is going to be filled by the voxels? I mean, Surface Mode already triangulates the mesh which is bad enough so having a complete different mesh taking over without even knowing what is voxels is just the first mistake about 3DCoat, 3DCoat should focus on importing the model as it is and then you use voxels if you want, not the other way around, especially for new users that don't know what they are even doing.

But yes, you import without voxelization... then what do you do? Surface mode supports Freezing the mesh which would be the masking, but there is no option to freeze connected meshes, you can expand your freeze but it will pick everything that is on the way. The only way I found it was to use Quick Pose, which takes two hundred millions clicks on Modify to expand the mask, and then you can either Hide Frozen Area, then Object-ify Hidden or do anything from there, and while it works, it is terribly slow to work like that. Of course some people might argue that Zbrush is different and 3DCoat got a nice layer system and all that, but sometimes rearranging layers can be weird, in Paint room layers are just weird to work with, it's not as nice and fluid as I wish since it is technically a core part of the program and you are forced to use them since voxels can only be used in layers unless you want things to be merged, but then, I honestly hate to have many layers, especially since many layers will always start to get confusing but naming layers all the time is time consuming. 

 

At least they aren't like the Paint Objects tab, where you can't do anything, you can't merge objects or do what you do in any normal 3D package, that's even worse since you have to prepare everything the best before moving to the Paint Room, if you got a model with 10230912 objects, you gotta deal with it. Like using Reference Mesh in a mesh like that is a paint, especially since you bake an object or object and they end up on the same place.

Yes, using 3DCoat from zero, and starting from a sphere and all, can be nice, but many times you have to do things in a proper 3D package like Maya for the scale factor and for planning a level design or whatever and then you export it and do the high poly details inside Zbrush or 3DCoat in this case. so you are not always free to do things from scratch. Unless you expect new users to import the models in the retopo room to get the exact same model you exported (because it will get triangulated anyway by sculpt room), to go to the Sculpt room then, to go to the import command, and get it from retopo check w/o voxelization and then subdivide and all... subdivisions that you can't even undo, you click subdivision and you have to re-import it because you click subdivide too many times... I really don't know what to think about it. I mean, it is the same if you just import it directly in Sculpt mode, but some people want to see their meshes the way they exported them, not the Surface mode version.


And this is what I mean about it is an awkward workflow, it is connected in some ways but still fragmented... so is this what the industry wants? Seems like it's too much the change in workflow for the industry to want it even if the Sculpting tools are great and nice and Voxels is just nice to have for sculpting and such. I just don't know how many would want this fragmented 3DCoat workflow. I even read the suggestion of a quad mesh type, and that's going the opposite way of what I was thinking. Because yes, subdivision levels would be nice but if that depends on a new mesh type, I would rather educate people on learning the way 3DCoat is if the workaround is to add yet another type of mesh inside 3DCoat.

But I don't get why we should think Surface Mode is some type of special sculpting mesh that needs to be triangulated everywhere. For example, Zbrush imports your mesh the way you export it, quads or triangles, and if you use Sculptris mode, it will only modify and start adding triangles and changing the part of the mesh where you do something, not the entire thing. So, just because you decided you wanted more details in a small part of the mesh or remove something by smoothing it or whatever, it doesn't mean you want all your low mesh to be modified.

 

In the end, it is obvious Andrew and the 3DCoat team will work on the existing features and they will improve them as it is. Like he hasn't even finished with Sculpt layers to think about subdivision levels and all that. But subdivisions have proven to work fine it's not a stubborn idea, like I said before, Zbrush with Zmodeler and the new Object deformers plus Dynamic Subdivision and edge creasing can do great things, which is ridiculous to just think about making things like that with high poly meshes. I mean, this is the way anyone would work in any 3D package, low poly and subdivide crease edges or fencing and quads quads quads. This is the reason why Pixologic worked on Zremesher 3.0, Zremesher is not even about organic meshes, it is about the Hard surface workflow same as the Snapshot3D. 

So it is not only about the sculpting tools, which are great in 3DCoat and let you do anything you want and more, but it is also about how you generate your models and import them, how it complements with other 3D softwares in a pipeline and how open it is for plugins and python or whatever, how easy and fast is to achieve something, the stability and performance of the software, and all that stuff, because that's other thing, 3DCoat needs a powerful computer to perform the best and do everything, while Zbrush allows you to work on something on a low spec computer, I mean if you got a powerful computer you can reach more millions of polygons than Zbrush, but if you got a crappy computer or those Windows tablets, it's more likely it will work okay in Zbrush while on 3DCoat it will be slower. Like I heard someone saying getting 90 million polys in 3DCoat and less with Zbrush. 

So for 3DCoat artist, for individual artist, for people who want a cheap option to start and if they have never bought Zbrush, 3DCoat will be a great choice, but it will be hard to convience anyone like old Zbrush users or the industry that 3DCoat is great until 3DCoat team doesn't fix these little things about that don't make the workflow any faster or easier like other softwares may do, yes, and of course the tutorials and the showcase for how great 3DCoat is about sculpting. Like I said on my first post, most of the time I see these 3DCoat in the used apps for a model, the part they used 3DCoat for was not paint nor sculpting which are like the best things about the software  but maybe UVs and maybe Retopo and maybe both if we are lucky and that's it, and that's pretty sad, a software with so much potential and features used in what can be done in other softwares, just used for the most basic things. I know 'industry standard' plays a big role there, but maybe when 3DCoat gets more polished and less fragmented and easier for anyone to use and the existing features work the best all the time and elements of the UI can be simplified to be less and better instead of having many buttons to do the same, like we don't even need a change of UI but just organize it, I am sure it will benefit everyone who uses 3DCoat even if 3DCoat doesn't become anything for the big industry like it is now. At least I saw that 3DMotive has a new tutorial and they are using 3DCoat for the handpainting stuff, not PBR as usual but that's good they are using 3DCoat, not for the sculpting though of course. But painting better than nothing!

 

I will only wait and see what Andrew and 3DCoat team do with 3DCoat for next updates and v5. But I hope many of the things about the workflow will get better and less fragmented.

On the contrary. It was a complete bashfest of 3DCoat before I chimed in. I simply wanted to give 3DCoat a fair shake. That's it. It's a LOT better than you let on. I really like the CONFORM RETOPO feature, whereas you and others criticize it. Why? Because I can take a model done in a host app like Max or Maya, with proper topology for animation/game engines, and have it conform to all the sculpting edits I make....rather than having to convert the same low poly mesh to dynamesh > dynamic tessellated mesh > Zremesher > dynamesh > Zremesher > Projection > Manual Retopo. In 3DCOoat, I don't have to fool with all of that! The same low poly mesh I imported can be the same mesh I bake to, and all the time it's being shaped/conformed to all the proportional and surface changes I may make (in the Sculpt workspace). Just because that quad mesh is in the Retopo Workspace means practically nothing. 

THAT IS A FASTER WAY TO WORK! Especially when you factor in the use of a 3DConnexion device (it's easy to discard its importance if you don't use one, but that doesn't make your claim valid, because you don't realize what you are missing). We are talking about an hour each day, shaved off, not having to stop > navigate > stop navigate thousands of times per day. Being able to add PBR textures and sculpt at the same time on your high poly mesh...rather than having to export the model out to Substance Painter also saves a lot of time. But you never factor that into your criticism. 

 

Share this post


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

t

12 hours ago, Rygaard said:

Test in Blender: Add the Multi-Resolution modifier, work with it, and see what it does exactly. Proxy Mode simulates Multi-Resolution (it does a great job), but one thing is to simulate, another thing is you have exactly the functionality of Multi-Resolution.

Can you share a video because i have a hard time understanding what you mean?

 

Share this post


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

On the contrary. It was a complete bashfest of 3DCoat before I chimed in. I simply wanted to give 3DCoat a fair shake. That's it. It's a LOT better than you let on. I really like the CONFORM RETOPO feature, whereas you and others criticize it. Why? Because I can take a model done in a host app like Max or Maya, with proper topology for animation/game engines, and have it conform to all the sculpting edits I make....rather than having to convert the same low poly mesh to dynamesh > dynamic tessellated mesh > Zremesher > dynamesh > Zremesher > Projection > Manual Retopo. In 3DCOoat, I don't have to fool with all of that! The same low poly mesh I imported can be the same mesh I bake to, and all the time it's being shaped/conformed to all the proportional and surface changes I may make (in the Sculpt workspace). Just because that quad mesh is in the Retopo Workspace means practically nothing. 

THAT IS A FASTER WAY TO WORK! Especially when you factor in the use of a 3DConnexion device (it's easy to discard its importance if you don't use one, but that doesn't make your claim valid, because you don't realize what you are missing). We are talking about an hour each day, shaved off, not having to stop > navigate > stop navigate thousands of times per day. Being able to add PBR textures and sculpt at the same time on your high poly mesh...rather than having to export the model out to Substance Painter also saves a lot of time. But you never factor that into your criticism. 

 

 

Again this is NOT about 3DCoat, it is about the industry choosing Zbrush over OTHER call it 3DCoat and Mudbox or whatever. We could have the same talk about Mudbox, but it is OBVIOUS we will say the negative points about 3DCoat because guess what? This is a 3DCoat forum. Mudbox is used more for sculpting Characters than 3DCoat in production, and Mudbox is still not relevant compared to Zbrush. The question is why, and I already said many point that can affect the industry, Zbrush was born long ago, many people use it, many people are used to their workflow, it works, it offers too many ways to generate any type of model, why would be the reason to switch from Zbrush to 3DCoat then? if 3DCoat has awkward things behind it? it works and it is great, the sculpting tools are great, but the workflow to do some things are just not there. Maybe they didn't want to copy Zbrush on things, but sometimes you got to copy to make the artist happy and efficient, and work fast which is what matters.

 

I am sorry but you keep talking about Conform Retopo, like if it was some magical wand that people are going to love... Most people are going to make a really low poly blockout for the reference and scaling and the idea, then do the high poly, then do the retopo and then do the baking and texture. So Conform Retopo is the least of the problems here!

 

And even if it was relevant topic, you bring it up but you seem to forget that Conform Retopo only works on really few brushes, do you remember how many? three, Move, Pose and Transform. So you can you enlight me how is that different from what Zbrush does? when you use Subdivisions inside Zbrush, anything you do in the 1st subdivision level it is exactly what you do with conform retopo, the difference is that in Zbrush it works on ANY Brush, not only move. And guess what? it will also work on the Hightes or whatever other subdivision level (to some extend obviously), it is connected, it is fast. it works most of the time unless you do the same you can do in 3DCoat and pull and stretch things too much it will be useless. But here is the difference, in Zbrush since you are working on the same mesh you transform and move things around and low poly will obviously follow the high poly, unlike 3DCoat where you are FORCED to use it because they are not the same mesh, and you want things on the same place when you got back to bake the changes.

 

Obviously if you use other features like Dynamesh or Sculptris mode, you have to discard the Subdivisions, but like I said, most people want to work freely and they won't do a low mesh just to sculpt alot of stuff on it and be limited by it, only small details that won't change the shape of the mesh but you can do that many times on the texture process anyway. But you sometimes even if Zbrush complains about having subdivision levels and you have to delete them, you can sometimes freeze them and the changes will be projected when you unfreeze them, so sometimes it might work, you didn't lose much time.

 

Oh I use an Intuos Pro tablet, my left hand is for the keyboard shortcuts and my right hand for the tablet... why would I need a 3DConnexion device? in what way it would benefit me? or what if I ever get a Cintiq display which I am planing to? maybe if I use use a 3DConnexion with my feet....

 

And I already mentioned Smart Materials in 3DCoat Sculpt Meshes, and I talked about how you can't export them or use them out of 3DCoat so how useful is that? nothing. you would have to do some workaround get that working, export the mesh with just the exact decimation that will hold the details, retopo by decimate or doing something to get the sculpt mesh in a normal mesh to be UVed and get cage the best possible way to get all the details and materials baked from high to poly. Then you have to hope for the baker will pick every single detail and information from the high poly and hope there are not missing spots on the PBR materials. And you know why that happens? and why it is so complicated? because it's not the same Mesh... It's disconnected and fragmented and the only way to connect it is through baking, that means, that it might fail or miss some spots, especially when the mesh is thin or have many objects together and then you have to spend time making retopo objects and making sure the Sculpt Mesh layers matches with the low retopo objects names so they can get baked separately by the name.

And you forgot a little detail, what if you did all that and you want to keep working on the Sculpt mesh? you would have to get all that workaround you did and delete it because you will go back to Sculpt Room where all that is lost and you would have to re-do the decimation or whatever, conform retopo to a low poly and then do the baking again, hoping it grabs the details again.

 

In... yes it doesn't support PBR, but it doesn't mean you can't use Matcap or the normal shaders to do nice texturing of course not useful for any render or game engine... but if they support PBR someday whatever way they do it, internally or external plugin like they do PolyGroupIt or UVpeel, you would still be able to UV unwrap the high poly mesh and paint your PBR, like you can do today, keep sculpting if you need, export it if you need, export the textures if you need, you are not limited and you don't need any workaround to get that color information out of Zbrush like you have to do in 3DCoat because the meshes are different, the program is fragmented and you can't do anything about it. So you can do everything faster and easier, you will probably be able to do the baking from high to low poly of the PBR and at least have something. I don't know, it doesn't do it today.

 

In my first post I actually talked about this. And yes, it would be a plus if the Sculpt Mesh could be UVed and exported with Smart Materials, even if I want to take the rist and use the highest poly count in my sculpt mesh, but today I would count it as a nothing positive since you can't do anything with it outside 3DCoat, only render it or do all the work for you to get that Sculpt mesh UVed. 

I also mentioned that 3DCoat is a better texturing program than Substance Painter in my opinion, the only advantage Substance Painter has over 3DCoat is the obvious support ofr Substances you create in Designer, But I never liked it too much, I only feel is a good tool to apply the Substances and that's it, but Substance Painter texturing tools are too rigid and limited, and too non-destructive, I feel it takes creativity away. 3DCoat has some problems in the UI that make it sometimes a little awkward to work with compared with Substance Painter, especially the layers and managing them and work with them, but I like 3DCoat more, I also got used to the instability of attaching Smart materials to layers, but it doesn't support Substances and that's a real negative about 3DCoat, it also make it hard to create and export masks to use for example Unreal Material and not use maps for the albedo and such. It can be done, but it is slow, like I said, 3DCoat can do many things other softwares do, like working with Visibility and Masks (freeze) but it doesn't mean is fast or it is made around those features like other softwares do, so people who come from other software would not want to come and change their ways if that's the way they always worked before.

Edited by Emi
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Again this is NOT about 3DCoat, it is about the industry choosing Zbrush over OTHER call it 3DCoat and Mudbox or whatever. We could have the same talk about Mudbox, but it is OBVIOUS we will say the negative points about 3DCoat because guess what? This is a 3DCoat forum. Mudbox is used more for sculpting Characters than 3DCoat in production, and Mudbox is still not relevant compared to Zbrush. The question is why, and I already said many point that can affect the industry, Zbrush was born long ago, many people use it, many people are used to their workflow, it works, it offers too many ways to generate any type of model, why would be the reason to switch from Zbrush to 3DCoat then? if 3DCoat has awkward things behind it? it works and it is great, the sculpting tools are great, but the workflow to do some things are just not there. Maybe they didn't want to copy Zbrush on things, but sometimes you got to copy to make the artist happy and efficient, and work fast which is what matters.

Fair points but 3dc arrived many years after zbrush(a 20year old software). Now the competition on "sculpting" is even bigger . Zbrush was considered a cheating on forums :P back in 2005 . 

Multiresolution has several good points such as keeping your initial mesh around ,sculpting with textures on ,level 1 can be rigged and animated and then do sculpting  on the rest levels  as secondary correctives, multires can have bigger polycount on highest levels ,feels smooth on quad sculpting and several more. It also has its negatives such as baking on a very distorted high poly level1 will produce artifacts on baking, level1 quads have to be equally spaced and under heavy sculpting you see streches and many more. 

 

I guess it comes down to pipeline and personal preference but i think 3dc is not advetised as much as z so its logical to assume its not used as much.But its a false assumption cause many studios adopt it into their pipeline ,zbrush lacks several featurers unique in 3dc.

Most z artist i ve shown 3dc had trouble finding their zbrush brushes like every action they do has big impact on the mesh and everyone asks where are my subd levels( :P )  even though i describe it as a buffed sculptris on steroids. Also why there are surface tools inside voxel mode.

I hope sometime in the future we get changes on the brushes behavior(eg sculpting with depth 34563123 doesnt make much sense) and make the 3dc approach on levels more apparent.

 

Edited by micro26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Emi said:

 

Again this is NOT about 3DCoat, it is about the industry choosing Zbrush over OTHER call it 3DCoat and Mudbox or whatever. We could have the same talk about Mudbox, but it is OBVIOUS we will say the negative points about 3DCoat because guess what? This is a 3DCoat forum. Mudbox is used more for sculpting Characters than 3DCoat in production, and Mudbox is still not relevant compared to Zbrush. The question is why, and I already said many point that can affect the industry, Zbrush was born long ago, many people use it, many people are used to their workflow, it works, it offers too many ways to generate any type of model, why would be the reason to switch from Zbrush to 3DCoat then? if 3DCoat has awkward things behind it? it works and it is great, the sculpting tools are great, but the workflow to do some things are just not there. Maybe they didn't want to copy Zbrush on things, but sometimes you got to copy to make the artist happy and efficient, and work fast which is what matters.

 

I am sorry but you keep talking about Conform Retopo, like if it was some magical wand that people are going to love... Most people are going to make a really low poly blockout for the reference and scaling and the idea, then do the high poly, then do the retopo and then do the baking and texture. So Conform Retopo is the least of the problems here!

 

And even if it was relevant topic, you bring it up but you seem to forget that Conform Retopo only works on really few brushes, do you remember how many? three, Move, Pose and Transform. So you can you enlight me how is that different from what Zbrush does? when you use Subdivisions inside Zbrush, anything you do in the 1st subdivision level it is exactly what you do with conform retopo, the difference is that in Zbrush it works on ANY Brush, not only move. And guess what? it will also work on the Hightes or whatever other subdivision level (to some extend obviously), it is connected, it is fast. it works most of the time unless you do the same you can do in 3DCoat and pull and stretch things too much it will be useless. But here is the difference, in Zbrush since you are working on the same mesh you transform and move things around and low poly will obviously follow the high poly, unlike 3DCoat where you are FORCED to use it because they are not the same mesh, and you want things on the same place when you got back to bake the changes.

 

Obviously if you use other features like Dynamesh or Sculptris mode, you have to discard the Subdivisions, but like I said, most people want to work freely and they won't do a low mesh just to sculpt alot of stuff on it and be limited by it, only small details that won't change the shape of the mesh but you can do that many times on the texture process anyway. But you sometimes even if Zbrush complains about having subdivision levels and you have to delete them, you can sometimes freeze them and the changes will be projected when you unfreeze them, so sometimes it might work, you didn't lose much time.

 

Oh I use an Intuos Pro tablet, my left hand is for the keyboard shortcuts and my right hand for the tablet... why would I need a 3DConnexion device? in what way it would benefit me? or what if I ever get a Cintiq display which I am planing to? maybe if I use use a 3DConnexion with my feet....

 

And I already mentioned Smart Materials in 3DCoat Sculpt Meshes, and I talked about how you can't export them or use them out of 3DCoat so how useful is that? nothing. you would have to do some workaround get that working, export the mesh with just the exact decimation that will hold the details, retopo by decimate or doing something to get the sculpt mesh in a normal mesh to be UVed and get cage the best possible way to get all the details and materials baked from high to poly. Then you have to hope for the baker will pick every single detail and information from the high poly and hope there are not missing spots on the PBR materials. And you know why that happens? and why it is so complicated? because it's not the same Mesh... It's disconnected and fragmented and the only way to connect it is through baking, that means, that it might fail or miss some spots, especially when the mesh is thin or have many objects together and then you have to spend time making retopo objects and making sure the Sculpt Mesh layers matches with the low retopo objects names so they can get baked separately by the name.

And you forgot a little detail, what if you did all that and you want to keep working on the Sculpt mesh? you would have to get all that workaround you did and delete it because you will go back to Sculpt Room where all that is lost and you would have to re-do the decimation or whatever, conform retopo to a low poly and then do the baking again, hoping it grabs the details again.

 

In... yes it doesn't support PBR, but it doesn't mean you can't use Matcap or the normal shaders to do nice texturing of course not useful for any render or game engine... but if they support PBR someday whatever way they do it, internally or external plugin like they do PolyGroupIt or UVpeel, you would still be able to UV unwrap the high poly mesh and paint your PBR, like you can do today, keep sculpting if you need, export it if you need, export the textures if you need, you are not limited and you don't need any workaround to get that color information out of Zbrush like you have to do in 3DCoat because the meshes are different, the program is fragmented and you can't do anything about it. So you can do everything faster and easier, you will probably be able to do the baking from high to low poly of the PBR and at least have something. I don't know, it doesn't do it today.

 

In my first post I actually talked about this. And yes, it would be a plus if the Sculpt Mesh could be UVed and exported with Smart Materials, even if I want to take the rist and use the highest poly count in my sculpt mesh, but today I would count it as a nothing positive since you can't do anything with it outside 3DCoat, only render it or do all the work for you to get that Sculpt mesh UVed. 

I also mentioned that 3DCoat is a better texturing program than Substance Painter in my opinion, the only advantage Substance Painter has over 3DCoat is the obvious support ofr Substances you create in Designer, But I never liked it too much, I only feel is a good tool to apply the Substances and that's it, but Substance Painter texturing tools are too rigid and limited, and too non-destructive, I feel it takes creativity away. 3DCoat has some problems in the UI that make it sometimes a little awkward to work with compared with Substance Painter, especially the layers and managing them and work with them, but I like 3DCoat more, I also got used to the instability of attaching Smart materials to layers, but it doesn't support Substances and that's a real negative about 3DCoat, it also make it hard to create and export masks to use for example Unreal Material and not use maps for the albedo and such. It can be done, but it is slow, like I said, 3DCoat can do many things other softwares do, like working with Visibility and Masks (freeze) but it doesn't mean is fast or it is made around those features like other softwares do, so people who come from other software would not want to come and change their ways if that's the way they always worked before.

See, that's what I'm talking about. You skew your argument in favor of ZBrush, by dismissing it's limitations and workarounds, while magnifying and exaggerating those you perceive 3DCoat to have. That's precisely why this discussion is going nowhere. I've already shown video tutorials on how to get the most out of Conform Retopo, and it mentions that it only works with....LARGE SCALE TRANSFORM TOOLS (by design).....which is what you NEED it for.

You don't need it for most brush sculpting edits. All you have to do for brushing is periodically hit a hotkey to instantaneously switch to the Retopo Room > tap the area you brushed (3DCoat Projects/Snaps the quad mesh to the changes) with the BRUSH tool and in 3 seconds flat you are done. Knowing you can work this way and totally bypass the Retopo stage, means you only have to model ONCE. No piddling with ZRemesher a half a dozen times > Retopology > Export to Substance Painter for texturing. You can do all that in 3DCoat, in a fraction of time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion: 

Forget polymodeling. We need a new paradigm.

* I copycat myself * (and yes, i forwarded this to Andrew)

The system of voxels used by 3dcoat is uniform grid. To model in detail, you need extremely large amounts of voxels.

To avoid that we need hierarchical system: sparse voxel octrees.

A nVidia whitepaper describes it very detailed http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia_research_pub_018.html

Found more information in this great blog entry.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

See, that's what I'm talking about. You skew your argument in favor of ZBrush, by dismissing it's limitations and workarounds, while magnifying and exaggerating those you perceive 3DCoat to have. That's precisely why this discussion is going nowhere. I've already shown video tutorials on how to get the most out of Conform Retopo, and it mentions that it only works with....LARGE SCALE TRANSFORM TOOLS (by design).....which is what you NEED it for.

You don't need it for most brush sculpting edits. All you have to do for brushing is periodically hit a hotkey to instantaneously switch to the Retopo Room > tap the area you brushed (3DCoat Projects/Snaps the quad mesh to the changes) with the BRUSH tool and in 3 seconds flat you are done. Knowing you can work this way and totally bypass the Retopo stage, means you only have to model ONCE. No piddling with ZRemesher a half a dozen times > Retopology > Export to Substance Painter for texturing. You can do all that in 3DCoat, in a fraction of time. 

 

 

Yes, the discussion is going nowhere, that's why I said it was not useful to open this thread again. I actually said it was useless, since Andrew and 3DCoat team have to work on the existing features and dreaming about Subdivisions and some people suggesting yet a new type of QuadMesh, and waiting a change on the UI and all, or the removal of the Rooms, although I don't know why Retopo and Paint room, UV and Tweak are not the same room...

But still, the point of this discussion is about something you have NEVER talked about, and I keep repeating myself like a parrot to see if you understand it. This is NOT about 3DCoat, it is about the INDUSTRY and why Zbrush became Industry Standard and why people who are used to Zbrush will probably never use 3DCoat for their pipelines.

I have made 1 billion points, Why 3DCoat is failing to make peolpe think it is a viable Sculpting tool for a PIPELINE... yet, you bring up ONCE AGAIN, the conform retopo. And you let the little biased imaginary fairies put words in your brain like saying I am skewing arguments.

This is the last time I am going to even mention Conform Retopo, because it was made for a workaround for 3DCoat fragmentation. While Subdivisions have always done the same thing for decades, where you can change Level 1 or level 6 or level 20 and the highest or lowest subdivision vertices will follow the changes has always been there. So it is not a feature or a limitation or a workaround, it is the WAY IT WORKS and that's it. That's why on Zbrush it works on any brush because you move a vertice, and the vertice  will manipulate other vertices in other subdivision levels, low or high. 

The point of Subdivision levels was that some people want to work with it because that's the way you do it in most 3D packages, and now you can do it easily inside Zbrush as well. Zbrush opened a lot with Zmodeler, plus the new gizmo deformers, with the use of the DYNAMIC subdivision levels for the hard surface modeling side. it works great. And it is something 3DCoat will never be able to achieve unless they support something like Dynamic subdivisions, but especially because of the same 3DCoat fragmentation and limitations like the conform retopo you talk about.  to make 3DCoat work like Zbrush or Maya or whatever other software that does subdivision levels, is to keep going back and forth between retopo and sculpt room, every time you make an extrusion or bridge in retopo room, you have to go back to to the sculpt room and pick from retopo and apply the same flat or normal subdivision levels you need to test how it looks, then go back to retopo room and keep working on it. Do you think this is a good workflow? in Zbrush (and other softwares) it works great, real time, you deactivate the subdivision levels and keep working, you crease the edges and do whatever you want, this is the way it has been working for decades.

It's like you love quoting me and making me your target because I don't say what you want to hear, but you don't even take the time to really read my messages, and make real arguments to '#ChangeMyMind', you keep mentioning and focusing in the 1 single point I care less about and probably the INDUSTRY and most people don't care about it either, which is Conform Retopo.

It's not like I espect to change your mind anyway so I am wasting my time, but getting the quotes and then reading "Conform retopo" ONCE AGAIN, made me want to reply and waste my time. 

Like... from all the billion points I touched and I talked about, there was a really important one, one of the most important ones actually, things the industry is used to and it works to make the workflow and art faster and easier, and 3DCoat either doesn't provide and alternative or is slow at doing them.

Zbrush, it does everything around Polygroups, Mask and Visibility, you have easy access to do those functions, features like Zmodeler work around polygroups, the new shape extenders deformer stuff in the Gizmo and the gizmo and transpose do work around masking, you can convert masking to polygroups, you can do many types of masking AO, Cavity, by alpha, by color, by features, You can create polygroups around everything, visible, hidden, by normals, polypaint... you know, 'group' things by polygroup, which means you can easily hide and see and work on whatever you want to work on without having do split objects to Subtools,  they even released PolyGroupIt to make it even easier to add complex polygroups and shapes and do amazing things with it, some tools will have options to take into account the polygroups or function as a whole mesh, there is also the Edgeloops, Group loops and Panel Loops, the polish can be done by polygroups as well. Zbrush has this way of doing things around easy masking and Hiding and making polygroups, inverting the masking or the visibility, adding or subtracting masks is is just a click or you drag your left click with either shift, ctrl and alt combinations.

Everything is just like that! Amazing workflow so fast and easy to work without having to mess with subtools or layers (in the case of 3DCoat). 

Some people might think it is okay, and 3DCoat has layers and that's enough. but I don't want to work on 300 layers to achieve something, we are already forced to use layers in voxels because voxels can't have intersecting parts, but on Surface Mode which is the one that supports Freezing/Masking anyway, you shouldn't have to split anything to different layers just to work on them. Layers should be something done to organize the model, not to dictate how you should work. And the problem is also that working and moving layers around and knowing what each layer contains in 3DCoat is just not there, at least Subtools show you a thumbnail. Paint Room Layers have the same problem, and it is even worse to work with them because you can't even select layers and in bulk, it is 1 by 1, which make it worse. But in Zbrush working on the same subtool is possible even if you create complex and diverse sculptures with thousands of different objects inside of it, and then you might use subtools for the live booleans or whatever. But they don't force you to always work on different subtools, if you don't want to, and masking, polygroups, and visibility is what makes that possible.

While 3DCoat doesn't have anything like Polygroups, it can technically do the Masking, Visibility, but it is slow or not great implemented to be used or make it fast and easy like Zbrush does it. there is no easy access to it like Smooth by holding shift is, or well, like ZBrush does it. 

Also 3DCoat Freezing besides the fact that it is something you need to look for like if it was just another brush but not important for the workflow, it is awkward the way it functions because on some tools it serves as selection like in Pose, and in others as a normal mask. so It is kind of awkward since it should freeze what you paint, not serve as a selection for some tools.

But I already gave an example in my last message about what if a model is imported and and it is imported in 1 single layer, and it has many intersecting pieces and you want to work parts in different layers or even in the same layer? the only ways to do this is by hiding everything else to either work on them or Hide what you want to work on and then Object-ify hidden so it will be in a separate layer. Let's be honest, Object-ify the whole layer and get 300 layers is not nice and useful, again, layers where you can't see the content of each later and it says "_copy001, _copy002, copy300" is not useful AT ALL.

So how can you work inside 3DCoat like I would in Zbrush? well, the only way I could find to really do it is by using Quick Pose command and it would work okay until I found out myself clicking 100 billion times Modify to expand the selection on the connected meshes, Freezing for some reason when you use Expand Frozen Area, it doesn't care about individual meshes, if something is intersecting it will start selecting whatever is on the way, and the only tool that I found that doesn't do that and selects connected meshes is Quick Pose. After the 100 billion clicks, I hide the frozen object(s) and object-ify hidden. and you get beautiful separated pieces without having to object-ify everything. Sometimes the Quick Pose would fail to mask every single polygon but it worked most of the time, but it was terribly slow, and also 3DCoat doesn't offer a way to hide connected meshes or anything or easily hide or unhide stuff. And this is something you can do in less than 5 seconds in Zbrush even if meshes have or not individual polygroups.

This is what I mean with working with efficient workflow and having the features to make the artist work the best they want to work on, something 3DCoat lacks on many fields. I mean 3DCoat has great sculpting tools, but so Mudbox and other programs do it as well, because it is all about pushing vertices up and down (of course 3DCoat has voxels which is a nice thing).

But at this point, what I mean is is that the sculpting tools in 3DCoat can become the greatest in the industry and the question is... will the industry finally want 3DCoat even if it offers many slow workflows compared to Zbrush which is what people already know and love?


I would ask a bigger question, does Andrew even care about it? Does he cares about becoming an industry standard? does he want to see his software features in thousands of art like you see Zbrush doing? Does Andrew wants his software to be used for Sculpting and retopo and UV and not just mostly for Retopo and UV? or Maybe he is happy with the way things are, happy customers, individual artist, indie companies who want a good cheap amazing sculpting alternative software and if the industry uses 3DCoat for more than Retopo or handpainting or something, well, more power to 3DCoat but maybe he doesn't obsess about the idea of 3DCoat being a bigger software for the industry like some users do.


So why should we care? if you use 3DCoat, then be happy, if you think v5 offers great things, you will pay for the upgrade, and more years of free good updates will come. Maybe someone will never stop using Zbrush or maybe they will switch from Zbrush to 3DCoat or maybe they will switch from 3DCoat to Zbrush for what Zbrush offers, and others might do the same with Substance Painter to 3DCoat or from 3DCoat to Painter and there is nothing we can do. It's just a software, and if more users come or go, it shouldn't matter in the end.

Lets put it this way, if 3DCoat doesn't add support for Substances for the paint room and someone can't let Designer go because it is just an amazing piece of software to make textures and be able to dynamically change stuff, then we can't expect the person to embrace 3DCoat, same with other tools in the sculpting room and so on, doesn't mean that the software, 3DCoat in this case, can't accommodate to what users might be used to, and offer features and workflows that other softwares like Zbrush have that people are used to, and they have proven to work. But nothing will ever change that 3DCoat offers amazing tools for today and tomorrow, and if people can work around 3DCoat and its awkward workflow in some places, then they will still make amazing things if they want to, if people never touched Zbrush then 3DCoat is a cheaper and great alternative and there is zero excuse for anyone to say they can build better things in Zbrush than in 3DCoat. 3DCoat has the necessary tools and features to make anything even complete assets for anything and anyone, it doesn't matter if it is faster or slower than Zbrush in some stuff, it offers the tools so there are no excuses for anyone at all.

Just like Chris Harvey from Oats studios once said "For example, you would probably guess that our main organic modeler, Ian Spriggs, uses Zbrush, but in fact, he’s Mudbox all the way, and I’m great with that. If it gives you results, use it." Let's hope more people and studios notice amazing softwares like 3DCoat, and like Oats Studios care and think more about the results than what is "industry standards" or not.

 

Now I will rest from this thread and move on since I already said all I wanted to say. which means people can rest from my long posts. :)

Edited by Emi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Emi said:

I have made 1 billion points, Why 3DCoat is failing to make peolpe think it is a viable Sculpting tool for a PIPELINE... yet, you bring up ONCE AGAIN, the conform retopo. And you let the little biased imaginary fairies put words in your brain like saying I am skewing arguments.

 

Was that really necessary...to start hurling personal insults? You can disagree with my points without that. I gave a solid basis as to why your arguments have been heavily skewed in favor of ZBrush. Because you highlight shortcomings you perceive in 3DCoat yet fail to mention or consider ANY shortcomings in ZBrush. It too has limitations in each different mesh type and workflow...and it too requires a number of "work-arounds." My point is that if Zbrush requires workarounds, to deal with different mesh types, why is it only a problem w/ 3DCoat? If you need to periodically snap the Quad/Retopo mesh with the brush, why is that such a hassle...and having to lose SubD levels + Sculpt Layers and base mesh, in order to convert to Dynamesh > use ZRemesher not a hassle? I personally like 3DCoat's approach better. You don't. Fine. We can agree to disagree.

The reason ZBrush is so entrenched is because they carved the digital sculpting niche years before anyone else came along; and being the first meant practically everyone in the industry heard how great it was and started using it, because there was no alternative. That gave them not only a huge head start before Mudbox, then 3DCoat came along. If Mudbox had been the first, it probably would have created an entrenched market foothold and would have been the dominant sculpting app at this point. Taking on an entrenched market leader is extremely difficult. Just ask AMD.

The goal of 3DCoat isn't market dominance in the area of sculpting and probably never will be, but to provide extremely competent tools in the areas of Sculpting, Retopo, UV and Texture Painting. Just being very close to ZBrush is sufficient for a lot of artists, especially those who don't particularly like ZBrush's odd UI, or like me, who choose not to use it much because it has no 3dconnexion device support. I find it hard to work in any 3D app without one. It feels like working in Photoshop with a mouse. Being in the same conversation as ZBrush, when the topic of digital sculpting comes about, is actually a pretty solid achievement for Andrew, considering how far it's come, and the fact that 3DCoat doesn't specialize just in Sculpting or just in Texture Painting. He has to spread the development time and effort and doesn't have a tenth of the staff Pixologic has. 

Share this post


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

My opinion: 

Forget polymodeling. We need a new paradigm.

* I copycat myself * (and yes, i forwarded this to Andrew)

The system of voxels used by 3dcoat is uniform grid. To model in detail, you need extremely large amounts of voxels.

To avoid that we need hierarchical system: sparse voxel octrees.

A nVidia whitepaper describes it very detailed http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia_research_pub_018.html

Found more information in this great blog entry.

 

That would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 2:13 AM, Rygaard said:


No one is making comments that are not constructive.
But you're acting completely passionate about 3d-Coat, to the point that you do not want to see or not accept that there are some things that are not good about how 3d-Coat works.



The only thing I hope is that all of us together can make 3d-coat better! :)

This comment brings back fond memories. To be quite honest, this thread played out exactly like a few other zbrush related threads (some which were locked and deleted due to the person you are quoting becoming extremely hyperbolic over this very subject. He simply refuses to allow anyone to offer positive criticism towards 3DCoat as it relates to Zbrush when presented in a positive light. It some how always turns into criticism being vitriol and hate, rather than just honest and consumer neutral opinions. There is some serious deja vu going on.

Ironically, even the "lets make 3DC better" disclaimers following 3DC criticism fell on deaf ears. The same person even posted tons of examples of great sculpts + renders done in 3DCoat, only it was quickly pointed out that those artist actually stated they did the sculpting in Zbrush and not 3DC (which was primarily used either for retopo or painting). This is why we cannot have nice things as far as sculpting goes in 3DC.

It is amazing that we have to keep having this discussion with regards to sculpting over and over again, while the same person keeps acting out in the same way. I give them credit for consistency at least, but its turning itself into a meme at this point.

I can only say this horse has been beaten to death. Same 3Dconnection worship, same sculpt layers being the only major thing needed apparently, despite tons of flaws in the sculpting workflow.

So much of 3DC is subpar as far as sculpting goes, and much of it is low hanging fruit which can be addressed if time is put into it (masking for example). Its a great application that has potential, but that potential in some areas is not being addressed. Zbrush is great for a reason, and its not because it was "first". We are seeing far more headway as well with Blender taking a serious competitive approach to sculpting ( https://twitter.com/pablodp606) with its sculpt quest. As time goes on, there is becoming less of a desire to use 3DC due to progression in other software hitting the low end. Even projects like ArmorPaint are attempting to cover the substance painter workflow.

I am almost wondering if it would be in 3DC's best interest to just go open source and work in the same way Godot operates, take money from donations and pull in developers who will contribute voluntarily. Perhaps then 3DC can gain a lot more momentum and make some serious headway, with Andrew doing most of the oversight, but that's just my opinion. After so many of these zbrush/sculpting topics over the years, its hard not to be a little pessimistic with regards to 3DC.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by RabenWulf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 2:30 AM, Carlosan said:

My opinion: 

Forget polymodeling. We need a new paradigm.

 

There is certainly a great opportunity for this approach with 3DC. I would totally be behind going that route as well, assuming the results are good and its not another gimmick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if sparse voxel octree were implemented, you still need to work with a quad based mesh at some point unless you're just focused purely on sculpting and you don't care about rigging and texture painting at some point.

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

×