[Функция] Использование черно-белых масок слоев в покрасочной комнате

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

So I have been using an Allegorithmic version of Substance Painter until it broke on me last year, and since have been using 3DC for my painting needs. I use the non-destructive layer mask workflow, usually to mix textures created from Substance Designer together, but was disappointed to see that 3DC does not use black and white masks for its layer masking. I tried dealing with the current clipping mask system, which works until I try to smooth the transitions. I am assuming that this is because the smooth brush only works with colors, not color and transparency. So the result is usually splotchy instead of a proper gradient no matter how many times I go over it with the smooth brush. I believe that using a black and white layer mask would not only solve this specific issue, but also allow us to properly use masks in our layer stack.

[Henry Townshend]

+1

[Elemeno]

its quite a big job... and they are currently working really hard with what they can...

hopefully 1-0 black and white masks will be implemented soon ... maybe a overhaul on the ui would be nice.. on how layers work etc..

honestly i would love 3dcoat to go open source ... the amount of work people could help with would be amazing..

ui changes , improvements,tools etc.

[Carlosan]

let's wait when GPU texturing and the new node system for the creation/edition of materials will be ready.

It should be something like in Substance Designer or maybe even better somehow.

That will change the total approach to PBR.

All that should be released in 3DCoat 2023.

[Elemeno]

5 hours ago, Carlosan said:

let's wait when GPU texturing and the new node system for the creation/edition of materials will be ready.

It should be something like in Substance Designer or maybe even better somehow.

That will change the total approach to PBR.

All that should be released in 3DCoat 2023.

honestly... i really hope they get proper tools soon... alot of my sculpts are hard surface... if i create in here i need to go into zbrush and polish the surface and edges ,

all the polish tools destroy the surface or edge line

[tiburbage]

On 10/29/2022 at 3:36 AM, Carlosan said:

let's wait when GPU texturing and the new node system for the creation/edition of materials will be ready.

It should be something like in Substance Designer or maybe even better somehow.

That will change the total approach to PBR.

All that should be released in 3DCoat 2023.

Carlosan, I hope the team will give us some insight into where the texturing system is heading, and in a general sense, when we will start to see the implementation of it in the Paint room. I came here to "+1" being able to have Masks on Layers in the Substance Painter sense of that because after just working through a complex vehicle model baking/texturing process using Painter, it is obvious how core it is to getting the work done in a layer-based system. It is more than just being able to use various auto-masking methods, with manual tweaks on top as needed, it is about fast visualization (e.g. Alt+Click on the layer (or folder/group) mask swatch to immediately switch the viewport to Mask mode).

However, I've also had the sense that a layer-based system, despite how familiar they are to most artists, can tend to break down in the face of larger scale, more complex model projects, especially when you are having to manage many texture channels at once. If Andrew et al have a "next generation" vision for 3D painting/texturing, I'd love to see that happen. Painter is certainly a powerful 3D texturing solution, and provides many nice UI/UX features, but I think there is room for competition even in the pro/production asset creation space if a solution which is robust, has high ease of use (more artist than tech artist focused), where the workflow is as non-"destructive" as possible. There are certainly many who really want a production texturing alternative to the Adobe/Substance 3D offerings.

Based on many Google and YouTube searches, I don't get the impression that Textura or 3DCoat proper have had much of an impact on production 3D texturing (e.g. for game or vfx asset creation). I think the opportunity is there though.

Edited May 27, 2023 by tiburbage

[tiburbage]

On 10/29/2022 at 3:36 AM, Carlosan said:

let's wait when GPU texturing and the new node system for the creation/edition of materials will be ready.

It should be something like in Substance Designer or maybe even better somehow.

That will change the total approach to PBR.

All that should be released in 3DCoat 2023.

I'm just curious to know whether the Paint Room and related are up for a significant update in 2023 as you suggested they might be. It's been a long time now since the milestone updates of the 4.x cycle. I think it is *possible* for 3DCoat::Paint to be discussed by the 3D community right along side of Painter. IMHO, although there's no changing people's minds about apps like ZBrush, the functionality of the Sculpt room along with retopology capability is as good as you can find out there.

[Henry Townshend]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:36 PM, Carlosan said:

It should be something like in Substance Designer or maybe even better somehow.

This is a brave statement, akin a surrealistic pipe dream. If you have long used Substance Designer, or just looked at what Substance Designer always had offered in terms of non destructiveness and PBR feature completeness, and what it has become, esp. since recent versions 13 with splines and paths tools, wireless receivers, etc., it is very safe to assume that 3D Coat will most likely never reach up to par with their graph based material authoring interface, let alone "enhance" it.

I'd rather would like 3D Coat Texturing focus on their huge strength of being a highly organic and inherently artistic "Hands On" painting software, and fill all the gaps it needs to complete a regular layer based painting program, like Substance Painter, or Marmoset.

Focusing on remotely reaching Substance Designer's procedural capabilites doesn't make a lot of sense at a point where we don't even have Black and White Masks in regular Paint Room (Something that is the fundamental structure of Designer, and Painter, at the very core of the workflow). If a team can not even include basic contemporary standard features in their already in built painting functionality for years and years, I highly doubt we get even a remotely equivalent of Substance Designer in 3D Coat. This statement lets me only assume a lack of knowledge and experience of the power of Substance Designer, or at least a way to brief experience with it to tell the difference.
Substance Designer is much, much more than layering images on top of each other. It's procedural functionality for authoring of tiling textures is a production proven force to behold.

If 3D Coat adapts a hybrid workflow of Layers and Nodes, that would be pretty cool of course! However, if it looks and feels remotely like the current Shader Node Editor, this is so far away from any Substance Tool from a UX and usability standpoint, so many light years away form even something remotely as usable as Substance Designer, that it would probably raise the question of why not staying with layers in the first place. It should be focused on the basics that are currently lacking in the Paint Room first, to make a graph based approach successful for 3D Coat, meaning by offering all the features that are currently not in, and fill in all the gaps, and treat the graph based approach as a nice addition to it (like Mari or Armor Paint, for instance), not as a Substance Designer equivalent.

If there still isn't even integration of B+W white masks in a painting software, and left in this state for decades, it makes it kind of questionable to start to pursue to rival Substance Designer. 3D Coat doesn't even have the basic, non destructive features of Substance Painter, yet, or any contemporary PBR painting program, for that matter, and neglected them for years, and still seemingly has other prios. (I have given tons of frequent feedback to the devs on what is still missing to make it more usable in a game dev pipeline context, to make it match more Painter/Designers crucial features). So why would the plan be to start to make a Substance Designer approach? Which is an even more vastly complex software that relies even more on non destructive principles than Painter does. But having simple graphs nested with layers, I'd be all in, that would be super useful and even unique. I just would keep the efforts spend on procedural generation capabilities low, and try to instead foucs on solidly get the current Smart Materials System into this graph based approach, get B+W masks, ID maps, non destructive Adjustments, Real Blend modes fo all PBR channels, dedicated channels for AO, Opacity, SSS, etc. , instead of chasing being anywhere as solid as Substance Designer as a procedural generation tool.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Henry Townshend
typo

[Hickz]

43 minutes ago, Henry Townshend said:

This is a brave statement, akin a surrealistic pipe dream. If you have long used Substance Designer, or just looked at what Substance Designer always had offered in terms of non destructiveness and PBR feature completeness, and what it has become, esp. since recent versions 13 with splines and paths tools, wireless receivers, etc., it is very safe to assume that 3D Coat will most likely never reach up to par with their graph based material authoring interface, let alone "enhance" it.

I'd rather would like 3D Coat Texturing focus on their huge strength of being a highly organic and inherently artistic "Hands On" painting software, and fill all the gaps it needs to complete a regular layer based painting program, like Substance Painter, or Marmoset.

Focusing on remotely reaching Substance Designer's procedural capabilites doesn't make a lot of sense at a point where we don't even have Black and White Masks in regular Paint Room (Something that is the fundamental structure of Designer, and Painter, at the very core of the workflow). If a team can not even include basic contemporary standard features in their already in built painting functionality for years and years, I highly doubt we get even a remotely equivalent of Substance Designer in 3D Coat. This statement lets me only assume a lack of knowledge and experience of the power of Substance Designer, or at least a way to brief experience with it to tell the difference.
Substance Designer is much, much more than layering images on top of each other. It's procedural functionality for authoring of tiling textures is a production proven force to behold.

If 3D Coat adapts a hybrid workflow of Layers and Nodes, that would be pretty cool of course! However, if it looks and feels remotely like the current Shader Node Editor, this is so far away from any Substance Tool from a UX and usability standpoint, so many light years away form even something remotely as usable as Substance Designer, that it would probably raise the question of why not staying with layers in the first place. It should be focused on the basics that are currently lacking in the Paint Room first, to make a graph based approach successful for 3D Coat, meaning by offering all the features that are currently not in, and fill in all the gaps, and treat the graph based approach as a nice addition to it (like Mari or Armor Paint, for instance), not as a Substance Designer equivalent.

If there still isn't even integration of B+W white masks in a painting software, and left in this state for decades, it makes it kind of questionable to start to pursue to rival Substance Designer. 3D Coat doesn't even have the basic, non destructive features of Substance Painter, yet, or any contemporary PBR painting program, for that matter, and neglected them for years, and still seemingly has other prios. (I have given tons of frequent feedback to the devs on what is still missing to make it more usable in a game dev pipeline context, to make it match more Painter/Designers crucial features). So why would the plan be to start to make a Substance Designer approach? Which is an even more vastly complex software that relies even more on non destructive principles than Painter does. But having simple graphs nested with layers, I'd be all in, that would be super useful and even unique. I just would keep the efforts spend on procedural generation capabilities low, and try to instead foucs on solidly get the current Smart Materials System into this graph based approach, get B+W masks, ID maps, non destructive Adjustments, Real Blend modes fo all PBR channels, dedicated channels for AO, Opacity, SSS, etc. , instead of chasing being anywhere as solid as Substance Designer as a procedural generation tool.

This is, without a doubt, one of the best comments I've read on this forum. The absence of simple b+w masking (yes, I know clipping masks exist, but the workflow is damn atrocious) alone makes it such a pita to work with smart materials in coat, how can you aim at Substance Designer? The paint room has been neglected for the time I'm acquainted with coat and seemingly long before then even. How long has GPU engine for paint room been mentioned for already?

Guys, please, you have to deliver the fundamentals first (some of which users have been asking for a decade at this point), to compare coat to painter (not to say anything about designer) is somewhat laughable at the current state of events imo.

[AbnRanger]

On 10/28/2022 at 10:27 PM, Elemeno said:

its quite a big job... and they are currently working really hard with what they can...

hopefully 1-0 black and white masks will be implemented soon ... maybe a overhaul on the ui would be nice.. on how layers work etc..

honestly i would love 3dcoat to go open source ... the amount of work people could help with would be amazing..

ui changes , improvements,tools etc.

Actually, the API scripting and Python inclusion was Andrew's attempt to help the community assist in building custom tools and such. Going Open Source would just put Pilgway out of business, overnight. It might have worked eventually for Blender, but it's not a workable business model for most other businesses.

[AbnRanger]

On 2/14/2022 at 5:24 AM, ZurokSlayer7X9 said:

So I have been using an Allegorithmic version of Substance Painter until it broke on me last year, and since have been using 3DC for my painting needs. I use the non-destructive layer mask workflow, usually to mix textures created from Substance Designer together, but was disappointed to see that 3DC does not use black and white masks for its layer masking. I tried dealing with the current clipping mask system, which works until I try to smooth the transitions. I am assuming that this is because the smooth brush only works with colors, not color and transparency. So the result is usually splotchy instead of a proper gradient no matter how many times I go over it with the smooth brush. I believe that using a black and white layer mask would not only solve this specific issue, but also allow us to properly use masks in our layer stack.

I have been suggesting this for a while, and Andrew was going to focus on this + layers panel changes a few years ago, but that plan got derailed by "blue sky" suggestions from I don't know who...to "Hey Andrew, you could change the 3D Printing Industry with a powerful, yet low cost (roughly $50) modeling/sculpting toolset for those who want to make models for 3D Printing." I think someone else made the same suggestion for a low budget MOD TOOL for TF2. Both of those suggestions/ideas flopped (in terms of a cost/benefit analysis), as it took valuable development time away from the main application.

Also, many other feature requests have jumped to the front of the line since, but I agree 100% that the Paint workspace is past due for some substantial work, starting with Layer Masks with thumbnails just like Photoshop. And the UI improvements can happen in the process. I don't think we should expect huge structural changes (apart from some consolidation between PAINT objects and RETOPO/MODELING objects, hopefully at some point), but just improvements throughout the application. In the end, it takes enough users speaking in unison to "get some grease on that squeaky wheel." 

As for nodes for the materials, one person just said 3DCoat needed to be more procedural (ie, non-destructive edits with different noise patterns) like Substance Painter, but it was a waste of time trying to develop a node-based material option like Designer. I don't know...just speculating...but, wouldn't a node-based option that provided the non-destructive, procedural workflow of Painter, but went further and offered a lot of what Designer does also, be a good thing? I mean masking improvements can be handled by Andrew while the developer of the node system is working on that. They can do both at the same time.

[Henry Townshend]

13 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

 wouldn't a node-based option that provided the non-destructive, procedural workflow of Painter, but went further and offered a lot of what Designer does also, be a good thing? I mean masking improvements can be handled by Andrew while the developer of the node system is working on that. They can do both at the same time.

It wouldn't be a "good thing". This is easily explained by the fact that Substance Designer is a COMPLETELY different software than anything that is currently in 3D Coat. It is a highly specialized software, with immense depth and complexity in what it does, which took 10 years of specialized development to get to that point (nearly Day One user here). Just having a "Graph based interface", as many software's nowadays do, doesn't automatically make smth. "Substance Designer"'. If you used the software for a longer time and know what it does, esp. also in a game dev context, you would start to realize that this assumption is naive. There is nothing remotely comparable in 3D Coat for the procedural creation of tiling textures and game engine interoperability that justifies the notion of it having the ability to integrate such a tool set or rival it. "Should be more procedural" - I def. agree! But, this what we're talking about is just the procedural basics that are currently missing, not that it needs procedurality in a Substance Designer like level, but procedurality and non-destructiveness like Painter! (Marmoset, Mari, or even just PHOTOSHOP(!))

I'm not being negative here, I LOVE 3D Coat, and I 'm just trying to prevent the next naive user input causing Andrew and crew to go the "Lets do a Printing app in the age of where free Blender sculpting became highly accessable and performant, because hobbyist user XYZ said so" approach. Just because 3D Coat offers a Smart Material System (which it doesn't even offer in a way that you can re-use existing Layer Groups as Smart Materials like in Painter, negating some of it's core benefits), doesn't automatically make it suitable for becoming a "Substance Designer" like tool. I'd like 3D Coats Paint Room to catch up to just the minimum industry standards. Wether that's with a node based approach, or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point.

I have a slight suspicion that people who suggest "3D Coat should integrate something like Designer" simply don't wanna pay for another software package and again, try to make 3D Coat the all in one holy cow package to cut their costs, which is a very un-noble and damaging input for the devs, and the progression of the software's already inherent strengths, which many of us are moaning for as supporters and lovers of the tool, but just can't use it in a serious production pipeline like we would like to.

3D Coat's Paint Room is a Layer based 3D Painting application. It is first and foremost an equivalent, or aimed equivalent to Substance Painter, or more like a "Photoshop in 3D Space". And it should focus on that imho. There is enough procedural gaps to fill there, before trying to create a new node based procedural Tiling Texture generation tool inside of the software. And again, one look at the current Shader Graph Editor in 3D Coat should tell us that there is already enough to do to even bring a graph based interface to a decent UX level, because I can almost guarantee you, that the current state is smth nice for programmers to may play around with, but not something that artist wanna have attached and use in conjunction with their layer stack when texturing.

This is the construction site that should be tackled to get feature complete and UX ready first. To think that, onto this base, something remotely to Substance Designer could be integrated on top, really is delusional. The only thing that's likely gonna happen is that it will be a super duper basic mimic of Designer, just enough to toy around with, at the cost of all the other basic features still being rigerously neglected, cause dev time flowed into trying to mimic a tool which functionality is not inherent at all in 3D Coat. Having a graph based interface tied to layers? Like Armor Paint or Mari have? Yes, this is imaginable, but it will not or shall not try to resemble Substance Designer, and anyone who would suggest or pressure Andrew and Crew to do something like this, does quite some harm in the software's progression in usability and further helps preventing a wider adaption of it as a texturing tool, esp, since the rise of Textura as an alternative.

Just having a few noise nodes and be able to blend them and distort them, tile them, etc. all that good, essential basic stuff, is welcome! But it is NOT equivalent to what Substance Designer is. I would love a robust node system for handling HSL, Levels(!), etc. no question. But it doesn't even really make a large difference if node based or not, the main thing would be that the basic gaps would be filled solidly.

Look at Marmoset how they built their (basic)procedural systems in their Texturing Tools small, but cleverly planned, bit by bit. Not even 2-3 years later they rule and their tool set even surpasses Painter in some small UX aspects (so that Painter had to catch up, and did), because they did their homework and have good and experienced artists use it and collect their feedback, and, interact with them frequently on Discord in a professional manner. 3D Coat could do this, too, with their already excellent base of a Paint Room that just feels great to work in, but lacks the non-destructive basics on multiple ends. But trying to adapt Substance Designer in it's current state, feels not like a "good thing" at all as a next approach to Paint Room improvements.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Henry Townshend
clarify, typo

[AbnRanger]

1 hour ago, Henry Townshend said:

It wouldn't be a "good thing". This is easily explained by the fact that Substance Designer is a COMPLETELY different software than anything that is currently in 3D Coat. It is a highly specialized software, with immense depth and complexity in what it does, which took 10 years of specialized development to get to that point (nearly Day One user here). Just having a "Graph based interface", as many software's nowadays do, doesn't automatically make smth. "Substance Designer"'. If you used the software for a longer time and know what it does, esp. also in a game dev context, you would start to realize that this assumption is naive. There is nothing remotely comparable in 3D Coat for the procedural creation of tiling textures and game engine interoperability that justifies the notion of it having the ability to integrate such a tool set or rival it. "Should be more procedural" - I def. agree! But, this what we're talking about is just the procedural basics that are currently missing, not that it needs procedurality in a Substance Designer like level, but procedurality and non-destructiveness like Painter! (Marmoset, Mari, or even just PHOTOSHOP(!))

I'm not being negative here, I LOVE 3D Coat, and I 'm just trying to prevent the next naive user input causing Andrew and crew to go the "Lets do a Printing app in the age of where free Blender sculpting became highly accessable and performant, because hobbyist user XYZ said so" approach. Just because 3D Coat offers a Smart Material System (which it doesn't even offer in a way that you can re-use existing Layer Groups as Smart Materials like in Painter, negating some of it's core benefits), doesn't automatically make it suitable for becoming a "Substance Designer" like tool. I'd like 3D Coats Paint Room to catch up to just the minimum industry standards. Wether that's with a node based approach, or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point.

I have a slight suspicion that people who suggest "3D Coat should integrate something like Designer" simply don't wanna pay for another software package and again, try to make 3D Coat the all in one holy cow package to cut their costs, which is a very un-noble and damaging input for the devs, and the progression of the software's already inherent strengths, which many of us are moaning for as supporters and lovers of the tool, but just can't use it in a serious production pipeline like we would like to.

3D Coat's Paint Room is a Layer based 3D Painting application. It is first and foremost an equivalent, or aimed equivalent to Substance Painter, or more like a "Photoshop in 3D Space". And it should focus on that imho. There is enough procedural gaps to fill there, before trying to create a new node based procedural Tiling Texture generation tool inside of the software. And again, one look at the current Shader Graph Editor in 3D Coat should tell us that there is already enough to do to even bring a graph based interface to a decent UX level, because I can almost guarantee you, that the current state is smth nice for programmers to may play around with, but not something that artist wanna have attached and use in conjunction with their layer stack when texturing.

This is the construction site that should be tackled to get feature complete and UX ready first. To think that, onto this base, something remotely to Substance Designer could be integrated on top, really is delusional. The only thing that's likely gonna happen is that it will be a super duper basic mimic of Designer, just enough to toy around with, at the cost of all the other basic features still being rigerously neglected, cause dev time flowed into trying to mimic a tool which functionality is not inherent at all in 3D Coat. Having a graph based interface tied to layers? Like Armor Paint or Mari have? Yes, this is imaginable, but it will not or shall not try to resemble Substance Designer, and anyone who would suggest or pressure Andrew and Crew to do something like this, does quite some harm in the software's progression in usability and further helps preventing a wider adaption of it as a texturing tool, esp, since the rise of Textura as an alternative.

Just having a few noise nodes and be able to blend them and distort them, tile them, etc. all that good, essential basic stuff, is welcome! But it is NOT equivalent to what Substance Designer is. I would love a robust node system for handling HSL, Levels(!), etc. no question. But it doesn't even really make a large difference if node based or not, the main thing would be that the basic gaps would be filled solidly.

Look at Marmoset how they built their (basic)procedural systems in their Texturing Tools small, but cleverly planned, bit by bit. Not even 2-3 years later they rule and their tool set even surpasses Painter in some small UX aspects (so that Painter had to catch up, and did), because they did their homework and have good and experienced artists use it and collect their feedback, and, interact with them frequently on Discord in a professional manner. 3D Coat could do this, too, with their already excellent base of a Paint Room that just feels great to work in, but lacks the non-destructive basics on multiple ends. But trying to adapt Substance Designer in it's current state, feels not like a "good thing" at all as a next approach to Paint Room improvements.

I am aware of the depth and complexity of Designer and the comparison to Designer isn't stating that the goal is to try and compete with it, but that some of that type of functionality is in mind when the nodal system is being developed (by a separate developer at Pilgway). We can have different views about what the priorities should be, and that is perfectly normal in a software community. Implying that 3DCoat should just give up on Sculpting development just because Blender sculpting tools have evolved somewhat, would be like one expecting Adobe to give up on Painter once 3DCoat adds better layer masking and procedural texturing. Why would they? Just because you may not use the sculpting tools in 3DCoat, that doesn't mean many others don't. I am all for more Paint room development, but not at the expense of completely abandoning the Sculpt workspace. It is still the primary toolset for many in the Concept Art segment.

[micro26]

I used both painter and 3dcoat and there are differences but I found both apps to lack certain things but ultimately its up to the artist to make them useful.  If I am not mistaken 3dc does not advertise as a material authoring app but rather as a texture painting , those are different areas and compared to designer of course it  falls short .  Its like posting on substance forums asking for voxel sculpting tools    Compared 3dc to painter I think it stands pretty good as a painting app, not saying it lacks too much but you can have good results if you combine elements  with other apps like 2d editors or blender.    Painter has procedural which awesome until you reach a few number of layers and you get laggy  , it depends on hardware(?) I guess though . I really like the anchor point feature though and using filters like blur  etc . It might be a bit faster with painter but you can get good in 3dc as well if you give it a try, its up to the user . 

As for the bw masks for the topic I use smart materials with clippings to different layers and group them in folders and naming them so as they make some sense while stacking layers. 

[Carlosan]

exactly, not material authoring app but I think will be good to add a nodal system for texture creation with basic voronoi, perlin, cloud, worley, etc...

On this way I asked Andrew time ago to create a Smart mask editor.

My hope:
BW, bitmap, color selection & condition layer mask + better bake system saved by project (to be able to access curvature, bent, AO maps currently created on cache) and to be able to create ID maps (material, object, uvs) , position, etc...

note: also dont forget that we need a realtime filters by layer

[Henry Townshend]

10 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Implying that 3DCoat should just give up on Sculpting development just because Blender sculpting tools have evolved somewhat, would be like one expecting Adobe to give up on Painter once 3DCoat adds better layer masking and procedural texturing. Why would they? Just because you may not use the sculpting tools in 3DCoat, that doesn't mean many others don't. I am all for more Paint room development, but not at the expense of completely abandoning the Sculpt workspace. It is still the primary toolset for many in the Concept Art segment.

I am a heavy user and praiser of 3D Coat's Sculpting. I frequently communicate with the support in email and helped to fix some recent bugs, and am responsible for the "Super Relax" CTRL-SHIFT Smooth Mode now coming to Multi-Res mode, to have cleaner surface in this mode too. I even canceled my ZBrush subscription due to 3D Coat's Sculpting (In conjunction with latest sculpting performance improvements and the QuadRemesher Add on in Blender, without I would have never done it).

I am confused by this kind of reply and fail to see where I implied any of that. And I honestly think this also disarms nothing of what I stated.

And yes @micro26 , performance with a gazillion layers is def. one of 3D Coats largest strength in comparison with Painter. Painter will get choppy, no matter what system. 3D Coat feels snappy with a million layers still, which makes it very enjoyable to work with, which I hope won't change. Except that the Blending slider speed is much too slow, which is where 3D Coat "chopps", becoming unusable to work with when needing to fine adjust layer opacity, ruining that "snappiness" somewhat completely (The same happens with "Adjustments preview", which are also unusable).
But you have to be aware that Painter offers the ability to non destructively re-import a different UV layout for your mesh without your texturing breaking (which is the selling point of it from day one, btw.)
For this, it stores every brush stroke in 3d space onto the model (look at the file size if you don't believe me) to be able to re-project in case of UV layout changes. This comes at a significant cost when layer stack grows, smth 3D Coat or Marmoset do not deal with. Jus saying, it's not only procedurals causing performance to lower, this is misleading. Procedurals are likely just a fraction of the calculation time needed compared to the non destructive UV feature, which is one large reason of why it went industry standard back in the day, and still being it today, in the first place.

Can you achieve nice textures in 3D Coat, too? Sure, Ive seen exceptional texturing done in 3D Coat. Some artist even still use PS to make their PBR textures. It always depends on the artist, no matter the tool, totally agree.
But does that mean we should neglect and ignore the obvious glaring lack of non destructiveness of the tools rather than help to improve those (in comparison to implement a Substance Designer clone) relatively lower hanging fruits? I think not. A lack of non destructive HSL and Levels and such, makes 3D Coat's texturing ill suited for adapting flexibly to art direction changes in a production, or simply just adds a lack of iteratibility, smth. that is highly needed, and expected from artists in our times. Doing an HSL onto a layer in 3D Coat, and the layer is forever adapted. Can I fine tune my value range of a certain layer by Levels in 3D Coat? Or am I limited to a "Brightness and Contrast" operation, that immediately gets "applied" to the layer, destructively. This is the root of the problems, not the lack of procedural patterns.
We are not just talking about hand painted Blizzard models here. This is something completely different from professional PBR texturing workflow needs. And clipping masks are not a replacement for B+W masks.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Henry Townshend
typo, clarify

[Carlosan]

But you have to be aware that Painter offers the ability to non destructively re-import a different UV layout for your mesh without your texturing breaking

@Henry Townshend This is also possible to do in 3DC, please take a look at the manual

[Henry Townshend]

1 hour ago, Carlosan said:

But you have to be aware that Painter offers the ability to non destructively re-import a different UV layout for your mesh without your texturing breaking

@Henry Townshend This is also possible to do in 3DC, please take a look at the manual

Could you show me an example of how this is done? I think just copy pasting together sentences from a forum post hardly resembles a documentation. It is very confusing and exhausting to try to follow, with the non fluid English and confusing continuity problems.

So far, I am not entirely sure or convinced we're talking about the same feature. Saving out UV layouts and reload them doesn't compare to a whole UV layout change while keeping your exact 3D paint strokes on a model after re-import, re-projecting them.

If this is really true, that 3D Coat also has this feature, it would be amazing, and a sad thing that there is no fuzz made about it. Would be good to see it proven in a graspable example, in action. I tried it myself, storing the UV Layout, change the UVs on the mesh, re-import the mesh with new UVs (Replace Geometry), and tried to load the old Layout to see if it works, without success. But maybe I did something wrong.

Could you please show me that this here is possible in 3D Coat?:
 

 

 

 

[micro26]

Have you tried this ? Seems to work ok but I am not sure if this is what you mean. 

[Hickz]

36 minutes ago, micro26 said:

Have you tried this ? Seems to work ok but I am not sure if this is what you mean. 

What he means is that even after completely changing the uv layout the painting gets reprojected despite having completely different uvs (because substance painter keeps every stroke in memory). For fast paced gamedev workflows this is a lifesaver.

I don’t think this is an option in 3dcoat.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Hickz

[AbnRanger]

2 hours ago, Hickz said:

What he means is that even after completely changing the uv layout the painting gets reprojected despite having completely different uvs (because substance painter keeps every stroke in memory). For fast paced gamedev workflows this is a lifesaver.

I don’t think this is an option in 3dcoat.

3DCoat has been able to do this for years, actually. One method is the IMPORT UV option as previously mentioned above, but another is using the Texture Baking Tool.

 

[AbnRanger]

11 hours ago, Henry Townshend said:

I am a heavy user and praiser of 3D Coat's Sculpting. I frequently communicate with the support in email and helped to fix some recent bugs, and am responsible for the "Super Relax" CTRL-SHIFT Smooth Mode now coming to Multi-Res mode, to have cleaner surface in this mode too. I even canceled my ZBrush subscription due to 3D Coat's Sculpting (In conjunction with latest sculpting performance improvements and the QuadRemesher Add on in Blender, without I would have never done it).

I am confused by this kind of reply and fail to see where I implied any of that. And I honestly think this also disarms nothing of what I stated.

And yes @micro26 , performance with a gazillion layers is def. one of 3D Coats largest strength in comparison with Painter. Painter will get choppy, no matter what system. 3D Coat feels snappy with a million layers still, which makes it very enjoyable to work with, which I hope won't change. Except that the Blending slider speed is much too slow, which is where 3D Coat "chopps", becoming unusable to work with when needing to fine adjust layer opacity, ruining that "snappiness" somewhat completely (The same happens with "Adjustments preview", which are also unusable).
But you have to be aware that Painter offers the ability to non destructively re-import a different UV layout for your mesh without your texturing breaking (which is the selling point of it from day one, btw.)
For this, it stores every brush stroke in 3d space onto the model (look at the file size if you don't believe me) to be able to re-project in case of UV layout changes. This comes at a significant cost when layer stack grows, smth 3D Coat or Marmoset do not deal with. Jus saying, it's not only procedurals causing performance to lower, this is misleading. Procedurals are likely just a fraction of the calculation time needed compared to the non destructive UV feature, which is one large reason of why it went industry standard back in the day, and still being it today, in the first place.

Can you achieve nice textures in 3D Coat, too? Sure, Ive seen exceptional texturing done in 3D Coat. Some artist even still use PS to make their PBR textures. It always depends on the artist, no matter the tool, totally agree.
But does that mean we should neglect and ignore the obvious glaring lack of non destructiveness of the tools rather than help to improve those (in comparison to implement a Substance Designer clone) relatively lower hanging fruits? I think not. A lack of non destructive HSL and Levels and such, makes 3D Coat's texturing ill suited for adapting flexibly to art direction changes in a production, or simply just adds a lack of iteratibility, smth. that is highly needed, and expected from artists in our times. Doing an HSL onto a layer in 3D Coat, and the layer is forever adapted. Can I fine tune my value range of a certain layer by Levels in 3D Coat? Or am I limited to a "Brightness and Contrast" operation, that immediately gets "applied" to the layer, destructively. This is the root of the problems, not the lack of procedural patterns.
We are not just talking about hand painted Blizzard models here. This is something completely different from professional PBR texturing workflow needs. And clipping masks are not a replacement for B+W masks.

It was the mention of Blender as a free sculpting alternative to 3DCoat, that seemed to imply this. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.

Quote:

"I'm not being negative here, I LOVE 3D Coat, and I 'm just trying to prevent the next naive user input causing Andrew and crew to go the "Lets do a Printing app in the age of where free Blender sculpting became highly accessable and performant, because hobbyist user XYZ said so" approach."

[Carlosan]

@Henry Townshend Hope you find this workflow steps more clear than manual

 

[Henry Townshend]

On 11/12/2023 at 4:15 AM, AbnRanger said:

It was the mention of Blender as a free sculpting alternative to 3DCoat, that seemed to imply this. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.

Quote:

"I'm not being negative here, I LOVE 3D Coat, and I 'm just trying to prevent the next naive user input causing Andrew and crew to go the "Lets do a Printing app in the age of where free Blender sculpting became highly accessable and performant, because hobbyist user XYZ said so" approach."

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, in hindsight, I should have clarified this more: I meant the focus on a separate branch of the app as a Print compatible tool, not the Sculpting in itself. What I meant is, that I highly assume (and already also was part of such a 3D Print endavor using Blender once) that people who want to do printing wouldn't necessarily use 3D Coat for it, as it seems a bit overkill for just that task, when Blender, and many free Printing apps are available to hobbyist printers.

So what I meant is I would have rather seen this effort gone into existing, long standing gaps in Paint Room/Textura, than adding yet another distribution branch to the software that has to be maintained. Of course, 3D Coat can do whatever it wants with it software, as it is their baby and a result of 20 years of brutal passion and effort and Mathematician Wizardy (the idea of making it Open Source I find absurd). I feel blessed that such an app exists and am immensely thankful for it.
I nontheless like to offer my perspective as someone well versed in other software who sees the fundamental lackings and problems, as many others here do who come as long year users from other 3d texturing software. I think the gist of it is 3D Coats Painting is simply amazing and offers so much that other apps don't even remotely offer in terms of hands on experience and artistic-ness, and it is just so damn close to fill those gaps, that it can be nerve wrenching for those who really like to adapt it more fully into their production workflow, taking advantage of exactly this, but being hinderd by the braking shortcomings. It is all meant well, BECAUSE we all know how great the paint tools are and feel. But we also know how it lacks behind on standard contemporary workflow principles and non destructive elements, and performance (e.g. Blending Sliders).

3D Coats' Sculpting is astounding, and I couldn't live without it anymore. It is an absolute blast to work with. It helps me to create what I want in an organic, non polygon bound way and I absolutely love it. The reason why I mentioned not doing the leap of faith of abandoning ZBrush (it was a pretty scary step) without Blender and Quad Remesher, is that I simply couldn't live without ZRemesher, despite 3D Coats Autopo being good. I rarely use Blender for sculpting. I always used ZBrush. But ever since I did more and more sculpting in 3D Coat, I found myself never opening ZBrush anymore. Once I knew my way around, customized my UI and laid all my commonly used functions to shortcuts, it is hard to find any other tool that enables you to work as fast as in 3D Coats Sculpt Room to simply pump out forms, and express yourself in 3d as if it was a painting program. It is one of my favorite tool sets ever (Same with it's Retopo). I wish I could say the same 100% for the Paint Room. If it would ever feel as great as Sculpt Room to work in, if there wouldn't be those gaps and usability problems, like unusable sliders, among all that was mentioned I don't need to repeat, it would make 3DCoat much more complete (and Textura as a standalone tool) than adding more and more new, and different functionality on top, imho.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Henry Townshend
typo, clarify

[Henry Townshend]

Thank you @Carlosan! I did it and it worked. You just BLEW MY MIND.  Thanks so much for taking the time to rewrite the guide!

Why do you guys not promote this? And how does this even work while 3D Coat being so performant with so many layers? OMG. You made me love 3D Coat even more today. I would highly suggest that you guys do a contemporary video presentation of this, as I think not many users who come from Painter know this.

Now I hope even more that we get the mentioned Paint Room improvements!!!

[Henry Townshend]

And I highly hope that MipMaps for the Paint Room are also on top of that list (I wrote Andrew multiple times about it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mipmap

[tiburbage]

On 11/10/2023 at 3:20 PM, AbnRanger said:

I have been suggesting this for a while, and Andrew was going to focus on this + layers panel changes a few years ago, but that plan got derailed by "blue sky" suggestions from I don't know who...to "Hey Andrew, you could change the 3D Printing Industry with a powerful, yet low cost (roughly $50) modeling/sculpting toolset for those who want to make models for 3D Printing." I think someone else made the same suggestion for a low budget MOD TOOL for TF2. Both of those suggestions/ideas flopped (in terms of a cost/benefit analysis), as it took valuable development time away from the main application.

Also, many other feature requests have jumped to the front of the line since, but I agree 100% that the Paint workspace is past due for some substantial work, starting with Layer Masks with thumbnails just like Photoshop. And the UI improvements can happen in the process. I don't think we should expect huge structural changes (apart from some consolidation between PAINT objects and RETOPO/MODELING objects, hopefully at some point), but just improvements throughout the application. In the end, it takes enough users speaking in unison to "get some grease on that squeaky wheel." 

As for nodes for the materials, one person just said 3DCoat needed to be more procedural (ie, non-destructive edits with different noise patterns) like Substance Painter, but it was a waste of time trying to develop a node-based material option like Designer. I don't know...just speculating...but, wouldn't a node-based option that provided the non-destructive, procedural workflow of Painter, but went further and offered a lot of what Designer does also, be a good thing? I mean masking improvements can be handled by Andrew while the developer of the node system is working on that. They can do both at the same time.

Regarding your comments about nodes, I agree with you. I really like how nodal material/shading in Blender works, and think it a more apropos analogy than the highly specialized Substance Designer. Nodal does allow for a highly procedural and customizable workflow, with full control over order of operations/compositing order, and can potentially simplify the tools and menu entry points needed to otherwise express the same functionality. I think that's a big reason why the Blender developers are so on board with "everything Nodal". How to integrate that into a layer-based system is probably tricky, I don't know.

As an interested user, I'd at this point like to know what thoughts Andrew et al have on the texturing and painting area, what changes or improvements they are thinking about, and how familiar they are with Painter and what its strengths are (and why so many pro texture artists have adopted it as their primary app for that work).

 

My own personal wish list focuses on better preview rendering capability, improvements to the Texture Editor, perhaps replacing it with a 2D view where 3DCoat supports a true split viewport view (analogous to Painter), and better sync'ing of the 3D and 2D views per texturing data channel (something Painter excels at).

Edited November 30, 2023 by tiburbage

[AbnRanger]

6 hours ago, tiburbage said:

Regarding your comments about nodes, I agree with you. I really like how nodal material/shading in Blender works, and think it a more apropos analogy than the highly specialized Substance Designer. Nodal does allow for a highly procedural and customizable workflow, with full control over order of operations/compositing order, and can potentially simplify the tools and menu entry points needed to otherwise express the same functionality. I think that's a big reason why the Blender developers are so on board with "everything Nodal". How to integrate that into a layer-based system is probably tricky, I don't know.

As an interested user, I'd at this point like to know what thoughts Andrew et al have on the texturing and painting area, what changes or improvements they are thinking about, and how familiar they are with Painter and what its strengths are (and why so many pro texture artists have adopted it as their primary app for that work).

 

My own personal wish list focuses on better preview rendering capability, improvements to the Texture Editor, perhaps replacing it with a 2D view where 3DCoat supports a true split viewport view (analogous to Painter), and better sync'ing of the 3D and 2D views per texturing data channel (something Painter excels at).

I don't think I am allowed to say much about this topic, but Pilgway received a good offer from the maker of a very high-end render engine (used to be the Industry Standard render for the Arch Viz and Film industry and may still be)...about integrating it in 3DCoat. I think it could be a game changer, especially if the nodal system works well. I hope Andrew will enable dual monitor support, at least for the Render workspace/preview, Nodal/Smart Material editor and 2D Texture Editor.

Anyone else who would like better preview rendering should send Andrew their request (support@pilgway.com), as it could help expedite this process (by giving it High Priority status).

[Andrew Shpagin]

Masks will appear in 2024.06 build

[AbnRanger]

4 hours ago, Andrew Shpagin said:

Masks will appear in 2024.06 build

Fantastic News! I hope they will be compatible with Photoshop Masks, also. Please enable MULTI-LAYER selection (to be able to hide/unhide, delete or move to a Folder, together), as it can be a real pain in the but and super slow/inefficient, trying to DELETE or UNHIDE, etc. one layer at a time + having to wait for each layer to process the command, which can sometimes take several seconds. This would also include Multi-layer selection of other panels such as PAINT OBJECTS, SURFACE (UV) MATERIALS, and RETOPO/MODEL mesh layers (Poly Groups). We can Multi-Select in the Sculpt Room (Sculpt Tree panel), but nowhere else. This is needed in other areas if for no other reason, but for the sake of application consistency.

Adjustment layers (ala Photoshop)...to go along with Layer Masks...would make the Paint Room additions a real treat!