Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Rygaard

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, haikalle said:

@polynut Nice to hear that you gave 3d-coat a shot. I agree, blender is shaking 3d industry a big time. I think that 3d-coat is doing well if they focus on UV-PAINT-SCULPT-RETOPO area.
3D-Coat is already good at those but make them even better keep artists to stay to be interested about this app in the future too. If 3d-coat tries to do everything (like modelling) then my fear is

that this app becomes too big and maintance the code becomes harder and slower. Of course in the end this is just my opinion so don't take this too seriously :)

Agree 3d coat should stay away from the temptation of poly modeling tools since blender is free and in modeling it is very efficient even better than 3ds max when you know how to use it. 3d coat should focus on better tutorials and help manual + retopo, sculpt and UV.

Would be also cool if 3d coat could implement bercon noise maps!

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Agree 3d coat should stay away from the temptation of poly modeling tools since blender is free and in modeling it is very efficient

This logic is very questionable. Free software makes sense mainly for individuals. For industry it's not a determining factor. In that logic, for example, blender should stay away from video editing and compositing,  since there are more efficient tools and some of them are free.

But i believe, blender devs tryied to create more complete package, which has many tools suitable for multiple tasks. So why not 3D-Coat?

Edited by druh0o
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, druh0o said:

This logic is very questionable. Free software makes sense mainly for individuals. For industry it's not a determining factor. In that logic, for example, blender should stay away from video editing and compositing,  since there are more efficient tools and some of them are free.

But i believe, blender devs tryied to create more complete package, which has many tools suitable for multiple tasks. So why not 3D-Coat?

I simply think they should focus on something else where they have strenght since writing a complete low poly modeling suite will take a hefty amount of time and resources!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a lot of work, but a lot of real work to do what I did.
So I'm helping to clarify in the best possible way so that all people can better visually understand what a unified and single-mesh system would be.

In half an hour of video, I put a huge amount of information, examples and explanations.
I wanted to make a short video, but unfortunately it's practically impossible to do with so many hours of demonstration. I apologize for having speeded up the video, but only then I could...  put so many important and essential things in just 30 minutes.

I worried and focused completely on the tools and functionalities. The way this system works unified and with a single mesh.
This system allows you to have any type of workflow possible in an easy, fast, intuitive, simplified and non-destructive way. At any time, you can modify your work without any kind of problems and confusion. You are completely free to do whatever you want.

I sincerely know that it is difficult to change something, but I have a little hope that something can be done ...
I had the best of intentions and I'm trying to do my part so that something can happen.
I hope I can bring a reflection to the community and that the people watching the video be fair if what I'm suggesting is something that will make 3D-Coat become better or not.

I'll send this video to @Andrew Shpagin and who knows he might notice something good in the video.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 2:59 PM, polynut said:

I simply think they should focus on something else where they have strenght since writing a complete low poly modeling suite will take a hefty amount of time and resources!

While I think if one day 3D Coat did approach a low poly modeling room/upgrade it would turn out awesome I do agree now is not the focus for it. Blender 2.8 with all the add-ons I've added makes it very powerful, so good I dropped Maya as my main modeling tool and I've been a Maya user for years and years.

I'd love to see 3D Coat continue to strengthen its paint room since its the main reason I bought the program. The bonus UV unwrapping room is also very nice, as it make UV unwrapping fun and easy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think whatever changes are made should be benefitial to an end to end workflow.  A strong start to finish workflow should always be considered, while also being flexible enough to jump back and forth between modes/rooms to edit and make changes as needed.  Non-destructive workflows and maximum flexibility.  Changes to one room need to be considered in relation to the whole.  So, for example...how to changes to retopo benefit an end to end workflow?  The program will become too fragmented if things are developed too much in isolation. 

Share this post


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

I think whatever changes are made should be benefitial to an end to end workflow.  A strong start to finish workflow should always be considered, while also being flexible enough to jump back and forth between modes/rooms to edit and make changes as needed.  Non-destructive workflows and maximum flexibility.  Changes to one room need to be considered in relation to the whole.  So, for example...how to changes to retopo benefit an end to end workflow?  The program will become too fragmented if things are developed too much in isolation. 

I think I'm tired of saying that. That's the biggest reason 3d-Coat is so separate from the Rooms. People only use 3D-Coat for certain tasks. This is why one Room is more developed than the other and this is why there is no better communication and interactivity fluent in all Rooms.

I will always be the first in favor of any implementation in any Room, because I know that in addition to 3D-Coat will become better, I will also be benefited in some way even if I do not use that specific Room often, but the problem begins when things are implemented without there being a better integration between all the Rooms, if this happens I can not develop my work in a fluent way and that when I need to make some change in my workflow, things start to get complicated.

I know that I will be criticized when speaking that... it is as if I use different types of programs within the 3D-Coat and the "motto" would be each room by itself and maybe some communication. It's my opinion. So I am forced to use another program and it makes me very sad and frustrated because I would like to accomplish everything I wanted to do inside 3D-Coat. Because I'm addicted and I love 3D-Coat!

The actual operation of 3D-Coat is just different Meshes optimized for specific tasks. This means a linear system, different types of Meshes in different Rooms. For some moments, this type of operation is smart and good (I love it), but for a more advanced and integrated workflow then it gets tricky to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 1:02 AM, polynut said:

After 17 years with 3ds max i switch to Blender last year and all i can say is that Blender is becoming an amazing 3D app but as much as i like Blender i am also afraid that blender will kill many other paid 3d app and i would not be surprised at all if Allegorythmic sold to Adobe because they were afraid of Blender very fast development with the node base approach.

I also heard rumors about a new per feature development funding that would surely bring a lot of attention from the industry.

I bought 3d coat to complete Blender since i don't like the limited UV tool in blender and the spline are also very weak. I also tried the blender sculpt tool but i largely prefer 3d coat. For painting i already have the substance indie package with painter but again i largely prefer 3d coat painting capabilities and painting in Blender is not very good yet.

Retopo is also a feature i was looking for in 3d coat since in blender it is very weak and only addon like retopoflow make it better.

Currently i am just starting getting familiar with 3d coat and all i have to say is that the documentation is very weak and the video tutorials sometime very confusing or not well organize to get you up to speed. Also there is no WOW factor when watching 3d coat videos compared to zbrush video making it look like you can do amazing stuff right out of the bat. Maybe it is because some models show in video are not very exciting and the tool use on them don't show the real potential.

When i was shopping between zbrush or 3d coat all the videos i saw on the 3d coat official channel didn't convince me but curiously this video here make me go for 3d coat instead of zbrush : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f8Dno52kqY

The goal of tutorials is not to WOW people with high-end models, but to demonstrate the tools. Too many artists expect software to blow them away with every tutorial. That's what Galleries are for, to show what can be done with the software by extremely talented artists.

There are plenty of tutorials that do cover some pretty detailed work, but for the most part, those are paid tutorials from sources like LearnSqaured, Pluralsight, etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of a tutorial is not to show characters, objects, realistic scenarios or any other form, but knowledge so that you can get the direction to perform these works. Knowledge is the key to everything. It can range from specific tools to different workflow techniques.

I have seen fantastic tutorials that the artist teaches excellent techniques and still does not please people.
In fact, I have never been able to understand how and why these people complain even with precious information passed on for free.
Unfortunately, they do not just complain, but I've also seen negative reviews and insulting the person passing the information.

I'd rather an artist teach good information through anything ugly than an artist who shows a realistic character, pretends to teach something, and in fact, without any real information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good sign:

https://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2439

Tweak room is soon gone. For sure step into right direction. 

12 hours ago, Mystical said:

I'd love to see 3D Coat continue to strengthen its paint room since its the main reason I bought the program. The bonus UV unwrapping room is also very nice, as it make UV unwrapping fun and easy.

I agree. Paint room is one of the main reasons why people buy 3d-coat. For me there is all the tools a need for painting. I just need some boost in overall. Like enable/disable can take a long time and 
also painting mesh with high resolution textures can be a bit slow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paint room need better layer mask system. And Smart Stencils.

Just a reminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, haikalle said:

This is a good sign:

https://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2439

Tweak room is soon gone. For sure step into right direction. 

This can be good or bad news.

Before, I was in favor of having the Tweak Room removed from the program (because at the time I thought that I was innocent in the workings of things ).
But if you stop to think about workflow in 3D-Coat, the Tweak Room is the only Room that is connected to the Paint Room. This means that regardless of whether you choose Per Pixel PAinting, Microvertex Painting or Ptex Painting, the Tweek Room is the only Room that works connected and in "real time" to the Paint Room and UV Room, any change in the mesh you make in the Tweak Room is instantly modified without problems in the Paint Room and UV Room.

Of course you could send the Mesh that is in the Paint Room to the Sculpt Room, but you do not have the same connectivity that happens directly between the Paint Room and the Tweek Room, especially if you work with Microvertex Paint (as far as I know ) that you do not have the option to perform with ease the Paint Room Mesh Update in the same way as Per Pixel Painting.

I believe that this kind of interaction between the Paint Room <-> Tweek Room and UV Room is what most users would like to work within the 3D-Coat in every Room connected to each other.

If the Tweak Room is extinguished, the program may become even more separate from the Rooms (depending on how the codes will be), and if that separation does happen between Rooms, users will have more difficulty in their workflow.
Sorry for what I'm going to say, this would never be something that I would like to see happen and I never thought to say it until today and I say it with sadness, but in this way, it would be easier to separate 3D-Coat in different programs: Each Room in a physically separate program, because that's what I see here in the community. There are different groups of users who only use 3D-Coat for certain tasks and are not interested that the program should be developed as one and have a better unified workflow within the program.

I tried to suggest something that improves the communication between Rooms, because my biggest dream is to work only within 3D-Coat with complete interactivity, simplicity and communicability between all the Rooms, allowing me to use any functionality and tools in my favor and at any moment that I need in my Mesh.

I sent a possible solution to @Andrew Shpagin regarding a certain unification by all the Rooms without him needing to rewrite the 3D-Coat code from scratch. And also without changing the operation that happens in 3D-Coat currently.
I'm waiting for him to respond, if what I suggested would be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Sculpt room has already strong connection with paint room. Vertex colors, freeze tools work really nicely together. So I think that when tweak room is gone, how it works is very similar way how you use vertex paint tool 
right now, it just reversed... this time you go to from paint into sculpt room.  

Share this post


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

I think that Sculpt room has already strong connection with paint room. Vertex colors, freeze tools work really nicely together. So I think that when tweak room is gone, how it works is very similar way how you use vertex paint tool 
right now, it just reversed... this time you go to from paint into sculpt room.  

Agreed. There has long been a connection between the Paint Room and SCULPT Objects, but never a connection with the Sculpt Room and Paint Objects. I really hope this means Andrew is working on the latter. I was just trying to tweak a Football Player scene with lots of low poly, UV mapped Paint Objects. I couldn't TWEAK the pants area because the underlying skin would not come along, when using the MOVE tool in the Tweak Room. It's kind of frustrating how deprecated and limited the TWEAK room really is.

Enabling Sculpt Move, Transform, Pose tool would be a HUGE improvement. I sent Andrew a video a month or so ago, fussing about the Tweak Room, but he never answered back. I hope this is at least in part, a response to that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Paint Room models can be modified on Sculpt Room without loose UVmaps/udims, that is great.

If Sculpt models can be sculpted (sculpt layers) and painted at same time without it being necessary to change rooms, that is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could the Sculpt Room handle UVs?
It is impossible because we all know that when working in the Sculpt Room the mesh structure is changed to another mesh of only triangles and automatically any UVs are lost. This is the nature of the Sculpt Room (to this day).


I think this would happen only if in one of the solutions the Sculpt Room starts working with structure meshes in quads, tris and or NGons as it happens and works in Blender and ZBrush (I'm not sure about NGons).
This means that Andrew would have to rewrite codes in 3D-Coat and it's a difficult decision that only he could decide and I think he tries to avoid for reasons that only he knows and that could be understanding.

The truth is this:
Each type of mesh in 3D-Coat is optimized for different tasks.

To make changes, some modifications are necessary in the 3D-Coat code.
At this moment, there is a large wall in front. The question is what to do at this moment?


One solution would be to virtually rewrite the 3d-coat (I think this would be the last thing Andrew would do, because it's a hard decision to make) and the other solution would be just what I'm waiting for. I wish Andrew could answer me if the solution I suggested to him would be possible to do...

Share this post


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

This is a good sign:

https://3dcoat.com/mantis/view.php?id=2439

Tweak room is soon gone. For sure step into right direction. 

@Rygaard If you read the mantis report it actually says the tweak room functionality is being moved to the sculpt room.  I'm crossing my fingers that this means we're going to get something more along the lines of what we've been hoping for.  Quad/n-gon based meshes in the sculpt room with UV information and texture information retained...with access to some of the sculpt tools.  And then if we're really lucky...non-destructive subdivision levels.

Edit: This is the response shown in mantis

Hello. Tweak room will be closed soon. All functionality will move to the Sculpt room.

Edited by gbball
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Rygaard If you read the mantis report it actually says the tweak room functionality is being moved to the sculpt room.  I'm crossing my fingers that this means we're going to get something more along the lines of what we've been hoping for.  Quad/n-gon based meshes in the sculpt room with UV information and texture information retained...with access to some of the sculpt tools.  And then if we're really lucky...non-destructive subdivision levels. 

Edit: This is the response shown in mantis

Hello. Tweak room will be closed soon. All functionality will move to the Sculpt room.

Yes, I read. This leaves me with some hope of something, but at the same time I will not delude myself because for that to happen it would require a reformulation of codes in 3D-Coat.

@gbball I do not know if you have seen the video I made regarding the unification of Rooms and the advantages of a single mesh in 3D-Coat. In this 30 minute video, I explain in the best possible way with many examples many important information and implementations that would make 3D-Coat become much better.

I sent this video to Andrew and he saw it.
I apologize to everyone, but since I do not know if I can share what he told me about it all, then I would not want to say things he told me without his consent to share with everyone. In case, there are no problems, I share with everyone.

In my opinion, there are two paths to be taken in order to achieve a better unification between the Rooms:
1) It would be to rewrite the 3d-coat from scratch. That would be an option, but it would be a very difficult decision to make.

2) I sent Andrew a solution that he would not need to rewrite from scratch or modify the 3D-Coat's current operation.
If it were possible to make my suggestion, practically 3D-Coat would become unifying. I'm waiting for his response if what I thought would be the solution to everything. I have hope it is. If not, at least I'm trying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rygaard,

Nice video. I see now the benefits that would be possible.  It would be great.  It would definitely be more of an undertaking for the dev team than what I was thinking, but definitely the most flexible option possible.  It would be great if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@gbball,

Thank you! I was very worried about the 30 minutes duration of the video. But I had too much information that could not be left out. And also the need to emphasize and explain things in a simple way for people to understand.... has made the video longer.

Of course, this type of system would only provide benefits for all Rooms in 3D-Coat if it were possible to implement something similar. Completely flexible and fluent.

Have you stopped to think and imagine what you could accomplish with such a system within 3D-Coat?
Combining the power that the 3d-coat has along with everything I've explained, there would be no more confusion, everything would be more intuitive and you could do anything within the program since all the Rooms would be connected at your disposal.
The features and tools I talked about in the video, could be implemented in a better or unique way within 3D-Coat. It would be a great inspiration for unique things.

I have no doubt that in the future ZBrush will implement modifiers on your system. Similar things began to emerge.

Because of my knowledge of how 3D-Coat works, I do not know if my thinking would be wrong with the idea I had, because of the lack of knowledge of the 3D-Coat code architecture, but even so, I risk to say that the solution to this unification of the system and a single mesh would not have to rewrite 3D-Coat from scratch and would not have to change the current operation of 3D-Coat.

I apologize for not sharing my idea or possible solution so far.
I would like to share my suggestion (idea) that I had, but first of all I would very much like to hear from Andrew himself if this would be a possible solution to be made.

To be honest with you, I have a lot of expectations and hopes about this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't think it's a good idea to try an impose such drastic changes, for I feel are minimal benefits. If someone were building an app from scratch, perhaps. But, you have to think from Andrew's perspective. He's spent YEARS developing the tools that are in 3DCoat and you are asking him to scrap all of that, for the most part...just so it will be more conventional (quad based).

Again, you can perform all of those modeling edits in the Sculpt room right now, using the Pose tool, which is the Modeling Swiss Army Knife of the Sculpt Room. And unlike ZBrush, you can make your original low polygon model or retopo mesh conform to large scale changes while you are working on a VOXEL or Dynamically subdivided model. Once you use Sculptris Pro or Dynamesh, you practically kiss that original low poly model good bye, SubD levels and Sculpt Layers, all.

The Mutli-Resolution (Proxy) workflow in the Sculpt Room is a viable alternative to conventional SubD levels...which again, get scrapped, anyway, when working In ZBrush, the moment you use Dynamesh or Sculptris Pro. In 3DCoat, you don't have to worry about that. When you need to step down to a lower poly level, select that level in the Proxy Slider and click the cache icon. Boom. You are working at a lower level and can return to your higher level with a single click. It doesn't have to work the ZBrush way for me to get the same function.

I think it's already a lot to ask just to merge Retopo and Paint Meshes. Zbrush has a certain way of working, that requires a number of steps to work around it's limitations. I just wish more users would accept that 3DCoat's sculpting platform is simply a different approach with different technologies (ie Voxels. Dynamesh is still not Voxel sculpting...just the remeshing part. Same as hitting the ENTER key in Surface mode) and stop trying to force Andrew to make it fit ZBrush's conventions. After all, Pixologic and Mudbox thought enough of 3DCoat's LiveClay that they stepped out of their old convention to add it to theirs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 2:22 PM, Mystical said:

While I think if one day 3D Coat did approach a low poly modeling room/upgrade it would turn out awesome I do agree now is not the focus for it. Blender 2.8 with all the add-ons I've added makes it very powerful, so good I dropped Maya as my main modeling tool and I've been a Maya user for years and years.

I'd love to see 3D Coat continue to strengthen its paint room since its the main reason I bought the program. The bonus UV unwrapping room is also very nice, as it make UV unwrapping fun and easy.

I did the same and i was using 3ds max for 15 years before i switch to blender and i am never going back since modeling is stellar as it is!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 10:59 PM, AbnRanger said:

The goal of tutorials is not to WOW people with high-end models, but to demonstrate the tools. Too many artists expect software to blow them away with every tutorial. That's what Galleries are for, to show what can be done with the software by extremely talented artists.

There are plenty of tutorials that do cover some pretty detailed work, but for the most part, those are paid tutorials from sources like LearnSqaured, Pluralsight, etc

 

 

Don't get me wrong i am not saying the video tutorials are bad just that they don't show the true potential of the software and they are not organize efficiently in my own opinion. A section with only quick tip to get artists in the production pipeline would help tremendously. I know it is not easy since i have been teaching 3ds max for 7 years in college but there is always place for amelioration.

I don't know if you know the guy from Udemy, Timothy Trankle who currently have free blender+3d coat tutorial here the link : https://www.udemy.com/advanced-3d-prop-modeling-in-blender/

This guy tutorial is simply of of the finest example i saw so far showing 3d coat capabilities in a very elegant way, for those interested hurry up because this is a 500 limit so i got it 5 days ago and they should have some place left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imposing or forcing are very strong words and such words have never been used.
What is happening are constructive suggestions and opinions for 3D-Coat to become better.

You have every right to speak, but I do not believe that you said that a unified system and the possibility of using a single mesh (quads, tris and perhaps ngons) that would allow for a number of powerful features and tools, as well as a better ease of use of the program, are considered to be "minimal benefits".

It is not a matter of becoming conventional using quads or imitating the operation of other programs.
If this quads system were so bad, I'm sure no artist in the world would use it. Nobody else would use Blender, ZBrush, Mudbox and others.
You could be fair and recognize that this "conventional" system is powerful and has several good points, so it is used massively by most of the artists and studios for production. And incredible as it may seem, it is one of the reasons that ZBrush is considered by many people as the industry standard program.

Being quads or not all systems have good points and bad points. Nothing is perfect. I think the only thing that makes the difference in favor of the artist is that the artist has the freedom to have in his hands all the features and tools in his favor, including possibilities to merge different methods from different worlds and this will always be a differential and will benefit the work of the artist. The artist can always benefit from the use of different types of techniques to solve various problems during his work. And all this I've told you is done in a quick and easy way.

Another very important thing to be said and made very clear here is that I am at no time disparaging the work of Andrew and much less I'm wanting him to discard everything he has done for years. That would be extremely irresponsible of me to say something like that. I've always talked about how much I admire and I'm a fan of Andrew's work. And it was precisely because of Andrew's wonderful work that I got involved with 3D-Coat.

My God! So, are you saying that I can do everything I've demonstrated in Blender's Edit Mode using the Pose Tool, Conform, and Snap?
Okay, you can do it to some extent and you know it.
In Blender, I used all the selection and modeling tools directly on the mesh. Each polygon, edge, and vertex changed or created, moved, rotated, and resized would be exactly where I left the mesh. I do not need to use conform or snap for hours and take a lot of caution in moving the vertices with Snap, because any carelessness can happen several problems.

You just talked about the ZBrush and I did not understand why so far...
Everything you said was criticizing ZBrush. And I used Blender just talking about Blender's built-in features and tools. If I'm not mistaken, I did not once say the name ZBrush throughout the video. If I did, I honestly do not remember.

In Blender when you use Dynatopo (equivalent to LiveClays or Remove Stretching from 3D-Coat and Sculptris Pro or Dynamesh from ZBrush) you can enter Edit Mode and use Proportional Edition for large modifications to Mesh and you can also use Non-destructive Modifiers in your favor.
I think Dynatopo has as its main goal to create volume and sculpt to a certain extent, not to sculpt detailing.
Yes, you can get to the extreme of detailing Mesh using Dynatopo as well. At that moment, it is up to the artist to decide how he will carry out his work.

I have shown that even after you have used Dynatopo (extreme example), you have the possibility to add the Multi-Resolution modifier in a mesh completely made of tris, to work with the levels of subdivision, and you have the possibility to perform until the opening of UVs to carry out different types of techniques and to follow with its work normally.
Of course if I go back to using Dynatopo, I will lose the UVs and the benefits of Multi-Resolution. But this is no problem, because I can go into Dynatopo, make any changes, exit Dynatopo and if I want I can still stay in that mesh with tris and get on with my work. Or, I can do a retopology or use a production mesh and reproject my work done on Dynatopo in that Mesh. I have the freedom of innumerable choices of how to proceed with my work.

Yes, you're right Proxy is a powerful alternative, it's something that tries to simulate subdivision levels for the Sculpt Room and the proxy has its own characteristics. But the proxy can not accomplish most of the things I've demonstrated in using Blender Multi-Resolution. Even though I love 3D-Coat, I have to be fair and say that the proxy does not work as Blender Multi-Resolution. Please watch the video, I explained and demonstrated several things with Multi-Resolution and all its advantages and benefits. You can easily see the difference.



In case you have not seen, for example, in Blender, one of the benefits of Multi-Resolution is not a system that gets you stuck in the same topology. This means that you have the freedom to change the mesh (Cuts, Extrude and any modeling tool) if you need it for some reason and then soften the mesh (if there is a mesh problem) and it is this... problem solved easily! :)

I do not want to defend ZBrush, but I think you're exaggerating.
It's okay that you do not like ZBrush or the way ZBrush works, but it is not possible that you say that in ZBrush you need to take numerous steps to work according to the "limitations" of the program.
So how do you solve things in 3D-Coat? Do not you have to take several steps too?

At least one of the most famous features of ZBrush you did not complain and you was not against that was Andrew implemented the use of Sculpt Layers in 3D-Coat. Like, a system similar to the Noisemaker and some other functionalities. Do not get me wrong, but I also agree with you and I'd agree to whatever implementation Andrew did, regardless of whether he was inspired by ZBrush, Blender, Mudbox or any program in the world. If this makes 3D-Coat better and brings me benefits why would I be against it?

One thing I noticed and I wish I was wrong is that the person who is trying to "force" users to use just one type of system is you.
You are not even giving people the right and chance to suggest and choose how they would like to work within 3D-Coat.
The possibility of implementation of quads (multi-resolution and all the things I said in the video) would not replace the dynamic tessellation of 3D-Coat, on the contrary it would be just another valid and powerful alternative for users.

If the things I've said and suggested in the video are wrong and do not add anything to 3D-Coat becoming better, then Andrew please disregard, because I'm not here to subtract. I just want to help.

One thing that is very well said by you is that ZBrush, Mudbox (and I include Blender as well) allows artists to choose the type of system they would like to work on, whether by dynamic tesseling or Multi-Resolution and also the possibility of mixing the 2 methods and reproject the details in the end.

About that "old convention" I think you're totally mistaken. I never knew and I've never seen that these programs just abandoned the quads system which is just the process of any mesh for production by the dynamic tessellation system. They only included in the program the possibility of working with the dynamic tessellation system.
They gave only more freedom of creation to the artists and it does not matter if they were inspired by 3D-Coat to implement this type of system.
What matters is that they did and gave artists a chance to be even more creative.

Anyway, in 3D-Coat using Liveclay at work, you will not need to create a mesh on quads through retopology? Or are you going to use tris mesh for your production?
At the end of your job, I think you will need to have a quad mesh on production. Now, if you work with 3d printing, then you do not have to worry if the mesh is made of quads, tris and etc.

Again, I used Blender and not ZBrush.
I demonstrated the benefits of a unified system and I suggested the features and tools, which in my opinion, that would only make great achievements within 3D-Coat and I'm not trying to force Andrew to do anything. I'm simply demonstrating only good things so that if Andrew realizes it's worth it and brings benefits to 3D-Coat, it has some chance of being implemented. And so I, you and all the artists who use 3D-Coat can benefit and use these implementations to our advantage in our work. :)

The suggestion or idea I told Andrew, even though I was not a programmer, I do not think there would be a need to rewrite 3D-Coat from scratch and would not change the current operation of 3D-Coat.
I believe it would be improvements, implementations and few changes in the code regarding communication between two rooms.
Under no circumstances... no work thrown away. ;)

Edited by Rygaard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long threads with multiple users persistently asking Andrew to add Quad-Based Sculpting w/ Subdivisions (when he could have gone that route early on, but strategically chose to go with new technology....Voxels and later LiveClay) is somewhat tantamount to forcing him to do something he doesn't want to. Mainly because it would require a large investment in development time and capital, when he doesn't really see a need for it. Nor do I, to be quite honest. I have yet to see clear advantages of doing so, because all the supposed advantages I've seen are either minimal or can be easily replicated with currently available tools.

I cannot stress enough that there is simply NO WAY possible to have a Unified Quad Mesh (with UV's) and keep it....while switching back and forth between Voxels and Dynamic Tessellated meshes...along with all the modifications made to the surface...large and small alike...NOT EVEN IN ZBRUSH. You could before Dynamesh and Sculptris Pro, but now that they are there, you have to do a bit of planning and use a number of workarounds, including the necessary use of Z-Remesher to regenerate a completely new mesh w/ clean quad topology. And with a new mesh, you also have to redo your UV's.

In 3DCoat, if you have a low poly, UV'mapped base mesh, that you want to use to bake all the details down to, and have it conform to changes you make along the way, you have that option! If I want to model something in the Retopo workspace and later merge it with my Sculpt mesh, I can do that, too, with Voxels and in many cases, Surface mode, too. I would much prefer Andrew add tools that further enhance the current workflow, or streamline it, rather than adding another platform that adds to the complexity of the app...not only for the user, but most importantly, for Andrew. This has to be a nightmare for him...especially the part about adding quad subdivision levels on top of the Multi-resolution/Proxy levels that are already in the app...and adding that on top of an already somewhat confusing VoxTree panel and Layer Panel (Sculpt Layers).

I can only imagine the headache and difficulty it would be for Andrew to try and implement, and for what real added benefit? Not much, that I can see, and I've been using 3DCoat since V3, over a decade ago. IMO, Instead, what would be the most beneficial use of development time, instead, would be:

1) Sculpt Layers completed with Layer Masking support.

2) An improved Noise Generator w/ a library of different procedural noise patterns (like ZBrush's NoiseMaker), Most definitely.

3) Vector Displacement brushes? Yes, please. There are some tools that offer a decent alternative (like Import w/ On Pen option), but for things like Dragon/Alligator/Reptile scales, it's almost a MUST HAVE. ZBrush added this support a few years ago and Mudbox has had it since the beginning. Speaking of Vector Displacement, having a properly functioning Vector Displacement map on export (from PPP)

4) Bringing the CONDITIONS Painting list menu into the Sculpt Workspace, when the Freeze tool or Pose tool is active.

5) Work on improving the UI. SO MANY SMALL changes need to be made. Things I've been asking for for years before this Quad Mesh w/ SubD levels request

6) Improvement of UV editing performance, mainly in the area of moving shells around. I was working with a larger model with about 6 UV maps, but most of them were rather simple and only 2k in size. Yet moving the islands around was slow as frozen molasses...because it's single threaded.

7) Spline Deform option in the Pose Tool, or a separate tool altogether

8 ) Improved Brush Engine in Paint Room. Using very large brush radius' especially on 4k or larger UV maps, has long been a sore spot. I don't know if a GPU paintbrush engine is still in development or not.

9) Channel Opacity/Intensity sliders in the Layer Panel (when texture painting) is abysmal and virtually unusable. That certainly needs to be addressed well before any Quad SubD request.

10) Liquefy type of tool in the Paint Room

11) Color Picker Bar in the TEXTURES > ADJUST > HUE-SATURATION Panel. The user is flying blind without it, as they don't know what color they moving toward.

12) Revamped Layer Masking

13 Adjustment layers (Photoshop style)

14) Consolidation of Paint and Retopo Meshes, so they are one unified mesh. This would allow the Tweak Room to be removed, and UV tools in Retopo Room removed...so that all UV work is done strictly in the UV room, where new and experienced users alike, would expect it to be. 

Andrew could get a lot of these done in the amount of time it would take to add Quad Meshes + SubD levels in the Sculpt room. I'd personally rather go that route, instead.

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

×