Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Should 3DCoat integrate an Industry Standard Render Engine?


Should 3DCoat integrate an Industry Standard Render Engine?  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Integrate ?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      6


Recommended Posts

  • Reputable Contributor
2 hours ago, alexn007 said:

Great discussion, but honestly, for me, the 3DCoat render is not to bad. With 3DCoat, I tend to author my assets, model, UV, retopo, and paint. I only use the render to help give a quick preview of a raytraced render. But I don't see it as a final render. Once I get it out of 3DCoat, I'll bring it into another package adjust final material adjustments, lighting, and then add procedural elements if needed before kicking off a final render.

I wouldn't want to pay more for 3DCoat to have an industry-standard render built into it, since this would also mean, there would need to be a proper lighting module and the material system would need to support that render. for example, if Renderman or Vray was to be included, then I would expect to use that renderers material system. That won't come for free and would certainly hike up the cost of 3DCoat. If 3DCoat was also an animation and rigging package then maybe, but all the renderer will be used for is single frame or turntable renders, I don't think it is quite worth it. My 2 cents anyway.

I am sure that such a render would necessitate proper lights and cameras (with gizmos like in major 3D apps) and use it's own materials. Keep in mind, Substance Painter has iRay built-in...so, it too has a pretty nice default render, built on a previous industry standard Render (Mental Ray).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Posted (edited)

The render engine, (and I'm guessing vray, and Bulgaria as the close country :) ) situation would be super nice IF 3dcoat could go all the way to being a "world builder" type of app (concept world even - if working "dirty"). But then it would need to develop layout tools, realtime viewport lighting tools, animation tools (object and camera if we're serious) and scene organizational, or asset management tools etc. etc.

Now if 3Dcoat could be the "asset creation beast" with a stellar and robust import-export feature that feeds other APPS (yes, mainly blender, lets be honest) with very flexible back-and forth data flow then 3Dcoat would be the boss. Yes, I loved vray when I used 3dsmax, but nowadays a ton of people export to blender, or Unreal, maybe maya and enjoy the already robust animation, layout, outliner organizational tools - and render engines - of those apps.

 

If this render engine integration is going to happen anyway, don't poll it - I guess.

 

It would be very nice to have world class vray renders in 3Dcoat only to then export the stuff to integrate it into a larger context (a game level, or a cg environment of a movie). To showcase single props, or vehicles  maybe on a diorama, yes vray would be nice for that. Please also consdier beefing up the applink, streamlining the data flow in and out of 3Dcoat.   

Edited by yoohasz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I voted NO. reasons:

3Dcoat is for model creation, and as such, it still have some catching up to do:

- Vs Zbrush: continue to improve the feel of the brush, stability of program,auto-retopo and UV algo.
- Vs maya\Blender: improve the fluidity of modeling room and the user experience when modeling
- Vs Substance painter: in my opinion remake the entire UX and UI all together. Still no ability to save smart material that is multiple different smart materials. I would look at quixel mixer UX and take some notes and remake this system.
- Vs entire industry: in my opinion no more separate rooms. please...

And now you want to split their resources and attention to rendering? why.. there are great tools for rendering from blender to unreal. for quick Look and feel, what 3dcoat provides is more then enough

Keep up the good work guys.
for me, i wait to 3dcoat will have decent flow in using its modeling tools, already explained that in details in other posts. and remake the painting and smart material UIUX, and then ill be happy to upgrade again. rendering engine is not why i open 3d coat for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/6/2024 at 7:53 AM, AbnRanger said:

Could you please screen record some kind of comparison as to how this is a big benefit in another application and show where in 3DCoat, that sculpting with a triangulated mesh fails to offer this benefit? I just have a really hard time picturing how this happens to be a need in 3DCoat, because I have never felt like "Man, if only I could sculpt with quads, this would work so much better." I promise, I am not being cynical. I just need help understanding why quads is such a big need. If someone could show me, I am open to be persuaded. 

i mean the simple answer would be using multires, but to be fair , i only ever use 3dcoat for concepting , so having quads only would only be good if you have poly objects and sculptable objects as one , sculpting onto something and not being able to edit it using polygon modelling tools is why i cant polish my meshes inside 3dcoat , if there was an options to integrate quad remesher with an optional license purchase that would seem better than a renderer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
On 5/8/2024 at 4:52 PM, Just a user said:

I voted NO. reasons:

3Dcoat is for model creation, and as such, it still have some catching up to do:

- Vs Zbrush: continue to improve the feel of the brush, stability of program,auto-retopo and UV algo.
- Vs maya\Blender: improve the fluidity of modeling room and the user experience when modeling
- Vs Substance painter: in my opinion remake the entire UX and UI all together. Still no ability to save smart material that is multiple different smart materials. I would look at quixel mixer UX and take some notes and remake this system.
- Vs entire industry: in my opinion no more separate rooms. please...

And now you want to split their resources and attention to rendering? why.. there are great tools for rendering from blender to unreal. for quick Look and feel, what 3dcoat provides is more then enough

Keep up the good work guys.
for me, i wait to 3dcoat will have decent flow in using its modeling tools, already explained that in details in other posts. and remake the painting and smart material UIUX, and then ill be happy to upgrade again. rendering engine is not why i open 3d coat for

I personally think the prospect of having an industry standard render engine integrated fully into 3DCoat, with the possibility to export a scene with its materials preserved to open in other major 3D applications (that also have this render engine available), ready to use as is, is huge. Another point to consider is the market which 3DCoat caters to the most...Concept Art...would stand to benefit from it, heavily. Being able to export to Blender or Unreal is great, but not having to export at all, and render with an industry standard render engine is even better, IMHO. As I mentioned earlier, it would also elevate 3DCoat's credentials in the industry, significantly. Another reason the proposal to Pilgway seems reasonable is because it's implementation would be Pilgway's responsibility, not the owner of the render engine, itself. They usually have to invest a lot of time, effort and treasure to create a plugin for a 3D application. In this case, Pilgway would do all the heavy lifting of integrating it, themselves.

Of course, for it to have its maximum value in 3DCoat, there would need to be proper lights and camera gizmos added to the application, so the user can place and adjust them accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

I personally think the prospect of having an industry standard render engine integrated fully into 3DCoat, with the possibility to export a scene with its materials preserved to open in other major 3D applications (that also have this render engine available), ready to use as is, is huge. Another point to consider is the market which 3DCoat caters to the most...Concept Art...would stand to benefit from it, heavily. Being able to export to Blender or Unreal is great, but not having to export at all, and render with an industry standard render engine is even better, IMHO. As I mentioned earlier, it would also elevate 3DCoat's credentials in the industry, significantly. Another reason the proposal to Pilgway seems reasonable is because it's implementation would be Pilgway's responsibility, not the owner of the render engine, itself. They usually have to invest a lot of time, effort and treasure to create a plugin for a 3D application. In this case, Pilgway would do all the heavy lifting of integrating it, themselves.

Of course, for it to have its maximum value in 3DCoat, there would need to be proper lights and camera gizmos added to the application, so the user can place and adjust them accordingly. 

but why? the current render engine is perfect enough ... especially for concept work , if you want you can buy renderman license but buying a license to use in 3dcoat would cost pilgway millions !! and for what? so we can take what we create here , put into other software to polish it and texture it to then go back into 3dcoat to render it ...

plus their current render work with the light baking tools ... if your render room had multiple lights set up the light baking would need reworking . its alot 

be nice for the future if they improved their current engine but nobody EVER is going to give someone a renderer for free to implement inside a software thats paid for 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
34 minutes ago, Elemeno said:

but why? the current render engine is perfect enough ... especially for concept work , if you want you can buy renderman license but buying a license to use in 3dcoat would cost pilgway millions !! and for what? so we can take what we create here , put into other software to polish it and texture it to then go back into 3dcoat to render it ...

plus their current render work with the light baking tools ... if your render room had multiple lights set up the light baking would need reworking . its alot 

be nice for the future if they improved their current engine but nobody EVER is going to give someone a renderer for free to implement inside a software thats paid for 

You should read my previous posts more carefully, so that you don't hear what I didn't say. Nobody said the Render engine would be free to Pilgway, nor that it would cost millions. You didn't read what I just said in my post that you quoted, either. The company who made the offer would not be paying one of their developers to create a plugin...which is the normal protocol. In this case, Pilgway would assume the responsibility for integrating the render engine. That is one reason why their offer is much more feasible and reasonable.

The Current render engine falls short in many ways, and Renderman Integration, while free for Non-Commercial use, would cost the user another $500, and is not integrated inside 3DCoat to where the Interactive CPU or GPU render works. It will crash a relatively heavy scene (Sculpt Workspace), has no Shadow Catching Material functionality (nor does 3DCoat's native render engine), so rendering with an HDRI environment leaves the object floating in the air. It also will only render one UV set. If your model has multiple UV's, forget rendering it in Renderman. For this option to be more fully integrated, I think Pixar and 3DCoat would need some kind of contractual agreement, which they currently do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

You should read my previous posts more carefully, so that you don't hear what I didn't say. Nobody said the Render engine would be free to Pilgway, nor that it would cost millions. You didn't read what I just said in my post that you quoted, either. The company who made the offer would not be paying one of their developers to create a plugin...which is the normal protocol. In this case, Pilgway would assume the responsibility for integrating the render engine. That is one reason why their offer is much more feasible and reasonable.

The Current render engine falls short in many ways, and Renderman Integration, while free for Non-Commercial use, would cost the user another $500, and is not integrated inside 3DCoat to where the Interactive CPU or GPU render works. It will crash a relatively heavy scene (Sculpt Workspace), has no Shadow Catching Material functionality (nor does 3DCoat's native render engine), so rendering with an HDRI environment leaves the object floating in the air. It also will only render one UV set. If your model has multiple UV's, forget rendering it in Renderman. For this option to be more fully integrated, I think Pixar and 3DCoat would need some kind of contractual agreement, which they currently do not.

isnt moonray opensource... cant they use that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, Elemeno said:

但为什么?当前的渲染引擎已经足够完美了...尤其是对于概念工作,如果您愿意,您可以购买 renderman 许可证,但购买在 3dcoat 中使用的许可证将花费 pilgway 数百万美元!为了什么?所以我们可以将我们在这里创建的内容放入其他软件中对其进行抛光和纹理化,然后返回到 3dcoat 中进行渲染...

再加上他们当前使用光烘焙工具进行的渲染工作...如果您的渲染室有多个灯光设置灯光烘焙需要返工。如果他们改进了当前的引擎,这对未来来说是件 

好事,但没有人会免费为某人提供一个渲染器,以便在付费软件中实现 

Sorry, I don't think it's perfect. I want to use 3dcoat to realize refraction art (conceptual art of glass artwork) with real-time modification of transparent materials. The current 3dcoat cannot support my attempt at all.
The main problem focuses on the superposition of specular reflection and transparent materials

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/11/2024 at 3:45 AM, AbnRanger said:

I personally think the prospect of having an industry standard render engine integrated fully into 3DCoat, with the possibility to export a scene with its materials preserved to open in other major 3D applications (that also have this render engine available), ready to use as is, is huge. Another point to consider is the market which 3DCoat caters to the most...Concept Art...would stand to benefit from it, heavily. Being able to export to Blender or Unreal is great, but not having to export at all, and render with an industry standard render engine is even better, IMHO. As I mentioned earlier, it would also elevate 3DCoat's credentials in the industry, significantly. Another reason the proposal to Pilgway seems reasonable is because it's implementation would be Pilgway's responsibility, not the owner of the render engine, itself. They usually have to invest a lot of time, effort and treasure to create a plugin for a 3D application. In this case, Pilgway would do all the heavy lifting of integrating it, themselves.

Of course, for it to have its maximum value in 3DCoat, there would need to be proper lights and camera gizmos added to the application, so the user can place and adjust them accordingly. 

Bro, you dont need Vray's accurate GI and pretty color space in a software that specialized in creating 3D forms. And most of us dont want to pay extra for that because we already have other render solutions.

What you need is the best tools to create 3d models. 

Maybe tomorrow someone will open a post "hey, it could be nice to have rigging and animation so i can move my designs". and before you know it, its 1000usd per seat. 

If YOU want to render better then what the MODELING software provide, then YOU should buy a renderer and use it. (or learn blender) you should not push a company that create a MODELING software to buy a render engine for you. 

They gave you a nice render engine that will allow you to show your creations, 3D coat dont need state of the art render engine because the software is not for final rendering. 3D coat is a software for asset creation, and that is all my friend. it should be great at that, and price accordingly. 

3Dcoat problem is luck of context sensitive tools in modeling room, bad UX in paint room, not enough learning content that can help bring new users, and not enough social media presence. Pilgway dont buy reviews on youtube to expose the tool, dont hier social media expert, and im afraid that will be their downfall in the next decade. which is bad for me because i love this tool and use it a lot for sculpting and baking. 

Not having industry - grade render engine is not a problem in this product.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
11 hours ago, Just a user said:

Bro, you dont need Vray's accurate GI and pretty color space in a software that specialized in creating 3D forms. And most of us dont want to pay extra for that because we already have other render solutions.

What you need is the best tools to create 3d models. 

Maybe tomorrow someone will open a post "hey, it could be nice to have rigging and animation so i can move my designs". and before you know it, its 1000usd per seat. 

If YOU want to render better then what the MODELING software provide, then YOU should buy a renderer and use it. (or learn blender) you should not push a company that create a MODELING software to buy a render engine for you. 

They gave you a nice render engine that will allow you to show your creations, 3D coat dont need state of the art render engine because the software is not for final rendering. 3D coat is a software for asset creation, and that is all my friend. it should be great at that, and price accordingly. 

3Dcoat problem is luck of context sensitive tools in modeling room, bad UX in paint room, not enough learning content that can help bring new users, and not enough social media presence. Pilgway dont buy reviews on youtube to expose the tool, dont hier social media expert, and im afraid that will be their downfall in the next decade. which is bad for me because i love this tool and use it a lot for sculpting and baking. 

Not having industry - grade render engine is not a problem in this product.  

Thank you for informing me of what my needs are. I wasn't quite sure, but now I am. Thank you. :D

Who said 3DCoat was (just) a modeling application? It does a lot of tasks very well, and since it has had a Rendering workspace, there is no reason it shouldn't excel there as well. As I stated before, Substance Painter, a key competitor of 3DCoat, already has a solid Render engine (that was in 3ds Max for a long time)...IRay (the GPU engine of Mental Ray. Maybe you should visit their forums and make the same case you presented here...that they have no need for that, since it is just a Texture Painting application. I am sure they have to license that engine from NVidia because the plugins for major 3D apps are not for free. Just because YOU don't see the need or benefit of an industry standard render engine in 3DCoat, that doesn't mean most users share your view. There are probably many Concept Artists who would strongly disagree with you about that. Being able to render their 3D assets/scenes inside 3DCoat could save them the hassles of exporting to an external source and allow them to make adjustments to the materials & lights while they are still working on those assets in 3DCoat. Plus, as good as Blender's render is (Cycles), I am sure many would choose to render in an Industry Standard engine inside 3DCoat if they had the option to.

As for the UI/UX of the Paint workspace, that is an odd criticism because the UI/UX is patterned after Photoshop...including the new Layer Masks. Works very much like PS layer masks and is even compatible with them. You can easily and quickly switch between 3DCoat and PS with a single hotkey combination (each way). As for Social Media, 3DCoat does have a vibrant presence there...with scores of examples of artist's work and tutorials posted each week, on a near daily basis. Did you search online before you posted your comment, because you may want to take it back. Regarding tutorials, did you search through the playlists of the 3DCoat Youtube Channel beforehand? There are hundreds and more being added all the time. Just because the 3DCoat 3RD PARTY COMMUNITY is not as large as Adobe's or Pixologic's/Maxon's, it is not the fault of Pilgways. Nevertheless, Anton Tenitsky has a TON of 3DCoat content on his channel and there are plenty of 3rd party resources available. You just need to do a little Google or Youtube Searches to find them. Even Gnomon Workshop has several titles where 3DCoat plays a major role in the creative process. Just Google "Gnomon Workshop, 3DCoat" and you will find them. Your could also search "Learned Squared, 3DCoat."

There is actually a LOT of training content available to help users get up to speed in the application. Just look for it.

https://www.youtube.com/@PILGWAY3DCoat/playlists

https://www.youtube.com/@AntonTenitsky

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/10/2024 at 3:45 PM, AbnRanger said:

I personally think the prospect of having an industry standard render engine integrated fully into 3DCoat, with the possibility to export a scene with its materials preserved to open in other major 3D applications (that also have this render engine available), ready to use as is, is huge. Another point to consider is the market which 3DCoat caters to the most...Concept Art...would stand to benefit from it, heavily. Being able to export to Blender or Unreal is great, but not having to export at all, and render with an industry standard render engine is even better, IMHO. As I mentioned earlier, it would also elevate 3DCoat's credentials in the industry, significantly. Another reason the proposal to Pilgway seems reasonable is because it's implementation would be Pilgway's responsibility, not the owner of the render engine, itself. They usually have to invest a lot of time, effort and treasure to create a plugin for a 3D application. In this case, Pilgway would do all the heavy lifting of integrating it, themselves.

Of course, for it to have its maximum value in 3DCoat, there would need to be proper lights and camera gizmos added to the application, so the user can place and adjust them accordingly. 

 

I've been agaisnt the whole render engine in 3D coat thing since the beginning. It needs to perfect its core competency in modeling. If it integrates with anything it should integrate itself with UE 5.5 etc. 

UE is free

UE is turning into a monster for not just games but cinema

UE is approaching the same level of render beauty that with a 4090 or who knows a 5090 it's going to take over the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

3D Coat has a Node system for materials.
Who actually knows how to use it? Who uses it?
I think it has been a waste of time and working on Applink for Blender that has more robust procedural shading system along with geometry nodes is much better use of that time.

Same applies for Render Engine. Make a bridge to UE5 since that's the future of fast preview rendering. With Eevee Next Blender will be amazing preview Renderer as well (If not final even).
If you do try to integrate an engine from somewhere, it will be 2 years behind, maintenance will struggle and your efforts will be spread thinner yet again, when I haven't seen fix for the multi-res pole issue. I'm gonna make a separate post about that however.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
15 hours ago, L'Ancien Regime said:

 

I've been agaisnt the whole render engine in 3D coat thing since the beginning. It needs to perfect its core competency in modeling. If it integrates with anything it should integrate itself with UE 5.5 etc. 

UE is free

UE is turning into a monster for not just games but cinema

UE is approaching the same level of render beauty that with a 4090 or who knows a 5090 it's going to take over the world...

 

2 hours ago, ArtaWorks said:

3D Coat has a Node system for materials.
Who actually knows how to use it? Who uses it?
I think it has been a waste of time and working on Applink for Blender that has more robust procedural shading system along with geometry nodes is much better use of that time.

Same applies for Render Engine. Make a bridge to UE5 since that's the future of fast preview rendering. With Eevee Next Blender will be amazing preview Renderer as well (If not final even).
If you do try to integrate an engine from somewhere, it will be 2 years behind, maintenance will struggle and your efforts will be spread thinner yet again, when I haven't seen fix for the multi-res pole issue. I'm gonna make a separate post about that however.

I can understand these views, when you don't intend to render the finished product inside 3DCoat. However, there are many artists who would want to do this if 3DCoat had a solid rendering solution. Right now, I would honestly categorize 3DCoat's default Rendering as "Modest or Moderate" whereas the other toolsets in the application are "Excellent" (poly-modeling isn't there yet, because Pilgway didn't commit to building a toolset for that until a few years ago). Perhaps the largest market that 3DCoat serves is the Concept Art Industry, and it is growing bigger by the day. Just look at the content posted on the 3DCoat Facebook page and Artstation (search for 3DCoat on that site). It is exploding and with a solid integrated render engine, 3DCoat might capture that market entirely.

Facebook

ArtStation - Artworks

Artists who are creating content for their demo reels would also likely benefit by having an industry standard render engine inside 3DCoat. And who said it would set 3DCoat's development back 2 years? That is baseless speculation at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

 

I can understand these views, when you don't intend to render the finished product inside 3DCoat. However, there are many artists who would want to do this if 3DCoat had a solid rendering solution. Right now, I would honestly categorize 3DCoat's default Rendering as "Modest or Moderate" whereas the other toolsets in the application are excellent (poly-modeling isn't there yet, because Pilgway didn't commit to building a toolset for that until a few years ago). Perhaps the largest market that 3DCoat serves is the Concept Art Industry, and it is growing bigger by the day. Just look at the content posted on the 3DCoat Facebook page and Artstation (search for 3DCoat on that site). It is exploding and with a solid integrated render engine, 3DCoat might capture that market entirely.

Facebook

Artists who are creating content for their demo reels would also likely benefit by having an industry standard render engine inside 3DCoat. And who said it would set 3DCoat's development back 2 years? That is baseless speculation at best.

ok sure why not .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
Just now, Elemeno said:

ok sure why not .

My point is simple. If a person's workflow doesn't benefit from having a solid render engine in 3DCoat, then of course they would not favor any development effort in that area. But, there are many, especially the Concept Art market, who would render in 3DCoat if it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Thank you for informing me of what my needs are. I wasn't quite sure, but now I am. Thank you. :D

Who said 3DCoat was (just) a modeling application?

Ok, so, first, if you dont understand 3Dcoat is an asset creation tool then you dont understand what software you have purchased. 
I can open a thread and ask it for you and show you their answer. 

Now, You want them to increase the price of this Asset creation tool for all of us, so you can render inside 3Dcoat, even though you have dozens of other options to render. 2 of which are industry standard and free (blender and UE5). 

My friend, im not trying to insult you, but you objectively have a problem to understand how difficult it is to PROPERLY fuse a solid renderer into 3Dcoat, and how much more price it will put on the product. 

CYCLES is so good at this point, that you have to implement octane \ arnold to compete with its quality. 

Arnold will add 287$ to 3Dcoat yearly price

Octane will add 264$ to 3Dcoat yearly price

And might even put 3Dcoat on subscription plan all together. I dont want to pay 600$ for my modelling suit, just to have the same renderer i have in maya also in my modelling tool, just with lesser integration. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
10 minutes ago, Just a user said:

Ok, so, first, if you dont understand 3Dcoat is an asset creation tool then you dont understand what software you have purchased. 
I can open a thread and ask it for you and show you their answer. 

Now, You want them to increase the price of this Asset creation tool for all of us, so you can render inside 3Dcoat, even though you have dozens of other options to render. 2 of which are industry standard and free (blender and UE5). 

My friend, im not trying to insult you, but you objectively have a problem to understand how difficult it is to PROPERLY fuse a solid renderer into 3Dcoat, and how much more price it will put on the product. 

CYCLES is so good at this point, that you have to implement octane \ arnold to compete with its quality. 

Arnold will add 287$ to 3Dcoat yearly price

Octane will add 264$ to 3Dcoat yearly price

And might even put 3Dcoat on subscription plan all together. I dont want to pay 600$ for my modelling suit, just to have the same renderer i have in maya also in my modelling tool, just with lesser integration. 

 

You missed a lot of what I previously said about this topic, so please go back and read my first few posts. I have been around 3DCoat since it's earliest V3 Beta days. I know what kind of application it is, and once more, there are other competing applications that also offer a solid rendering option, such as IRay. It is no slouch, as it is basically the GPU version of Mental Ray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

You missed a lot of what I previously said about this topic, so please go back and read my first few posts. I have been around 3DCoat since it's earliest V3 Beta days. I know what kind of application it is, and once more, there are other competing applications that also offer a solid rendering option, such as IRay. It is no slouch, as it is basically the GPU version of Mental Ray.

And who uses Mental Ray anymore? There's some very good reasons for that. Importons for example haha.

 

Renderman, Cycles, UE5 are all free. Integrate them into 3D Coat..why reinvent the wheel?

Edited by L'Ancien Regime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

You missed a lot of what I previously said about this topic, so please go back and read my first few posts. I have been around 3DCoat since it's earliest V3 Beta days. I know what kind of application it is, and once more, there are other competing applications that also offer a solid rendering option, such as IRay. It is no slouch, as it is basically the GPU version of Mental Ray.

Bro...

Your deep knowledge of 3Dcoat has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of this product positioning in the global market. 

3Dcoat in its nature is a asset creation tool that allows you to work with Insane amount of data. If you implement a renderer, that renderer should support all 3Dcoat  technologies. That renderer should be able to render 3Dcoats native voxels as well as polygons. 

Now pilgway have to hire senior kick ass rendering algorithm guy to solve how 3Dcoat is going to translate voxels, to something arnold can understand, while using all arnold features like TX files and dot ASS file. Convert all paint room data into an arnold TX file so it can render super fast... good luck to them. 

Why arnold? well its still the engine that cat chew the most data. you can also try Vray but good luck with the pricing. 

Those super talented programmers will ask for around 10-20K usd a month, they are not cheap to hire. + the arnold price. 

So its around a 300K investment from 3d coat. in the bare minimum. they still have to continue hire this guy to hunt bugs and continue to implement new renderer features every . 

And for what? instead of you exporting your creation to blender \ unreal \ maya \ literally any renderer on the market? 

 

I rather having them investing 300K to rebuild many of the software modeling and painting (not sculpting, its pretty great already) UX, which is what i purchase this tool for. 
 

Edited by Just a user
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Just a user said:

Bro...

Your deep knowledge of 3Dcoat has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of this product positioning in the global market. 

3Dcoat in its nature is a asset creation tool that allows you to work with Insane amount of data. If you implement a renderer, that renderer should support all 3Dcoat  technologies. That renderer should be able to render 3Dcoats native voxels as well as polygons. 

Now pilgway have to hire senior kick ass rendering algorithm guy to solve how 3Dcoat is going to translate voxels, to something arnold can understand, while using all arnold features like TX files and dot ASS file. Convert all paint room data into an arnold TX file so it can render super fast... good luck to them. 

Why arnold? well its still the engine that cat chew the most data. you can also try Vray but good luck with the pricing. 

Those super talented programmers will ask for around 10-20K usd a month, they are not cheap to hire. + the arnold price. 

So its around a 300K investment from 3d coat. in the bare minimum. they still have to continue hire this guy to hunt bugs and continue to implement new renderer features every . 

And for what? instead of you exporting your creation to blender \ unreal \ maya \ literally any renderer on the market? 

 

I rather having them investing 300K to rebuild many of the software modeling and painting (not sculpting, its pretty great already) UX, which is what i purchase this tool for. 
 

3d coat is the best 3D paint program by far: C4D, Zbrush polypaint, Substance Painter are all inferior to it but it needs work.  I'd love to see the paint room entirely redesigned ergonomically. For example the image icons need to be big enough to clearly see what they are before you select them. They're just too small even on their largest size now. But if they were bigger they wouldn't fit in the attribute section on the right hand of the monitor. And that's just for starters. Like making Vector Displacement Mapping as intuitive to use as Normal Map painting.

 

 

Edited by L'Ancien Regime
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 minutes ago, L'Ancien Regime said:

3d coat is the best 3D paint program by far: C4D, Zbrush polypaint, Substance Painter are all inferior to it but it needs work.  I'd love to see the paint room entirely redesigned ergonomically. For example the image icons need to be big enough to clearly see what they are before you select them. They're just too small even on their largest size now. But if they were bigger they wouldn't fit in the attribute section on the right hand of the monitor. 

My friend, Maybe you dont know how to use Substance painter, But its about 5-7 years ahead of 3dcoat in painting.

- The library which is by itself defeating 3Dcoat

- The Baking quality and speed

- The Smart material workflow and the ability to break the format of a smart material to a new one which 3Dcoat does not have

- The simplicity of the UX

- The clean UI

 

What are you even talking about? did you even used substance in a professional workflow ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
30 minutes ago, L'Ancien Regime said:

And who uses Mental Ray anymore? There's some very good reasons for that. Importons for example haha.

 

Renderman, Cycles, UE5 are all free. Integrate them into 3D Coat..why reinvent the wheel?

That is simply because Autodesk bought Arnold to be it's new default render engine. IRay was actually a very good GPU render engine, in 3ds Max. It is now the default render engine Substance Designer and Painter and Daz, Solid Works (who uses that, right? LOL), etc.

Renderman is free only for NON-COMMERCIAL use, and no one is re-inventing the wheel. Pilgway has a standing offer to integrate an industry render engine that is arguably better than either Cycles or Lumion (UE5 raytracing render).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
34 minutes ago, Just a user said:

Bro...

Your deep knowledge of 3Dcoat has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of this product positioning in the global market. 

3Dcoat in its nature is a asset creation tool that allows you to work with Insane amount of data. If you implement a renderer, that renderer should support all 3Dcoat  technologies. That renderer should be able to render 3Dcoats native voxels as well as polygons. 

Now pilgway have to hire senior kick ass rendering algorithm guy to solve how 3Dcoat is going to translate voxels, to something arnold can understand, while using all arnold features like TX files and dot ASS file. Convert all paint room data into an arnold TX file so it can render super fast... good luck to them. 

Why arnold? well its still the engine that cat chew the most data. you can also try Vray but good luck with the pricing. 

Those super talented programmers will ask for around 10-20K usd a month, they are not cheap to hire. + the arnold price. 

So its around a 300K investment from 3d coat. in the bare minimum. they still have to continue hire this guy to hunt bugs and continue to implement new renderer features every . 

And for what? instead of you exporting your creation to blender \ unreal \ maya \ literally any renderer on the market? 

 

I rather having them investing 300K to rebuild many of the software modeling and painting (not sculpting, its pretty great already) UX, which is what i purchase this tool for. 
 

It wouldn't cost that because Andrew would probably be the one who would integrate it. He would still fix bugs like he always does, even when working on major new features. They also have different developers working on different areas of 3DCoat, so development in those areas would not stop. Again, I don't expect to change your views. But, there are plenty of users in the community who would welcome an industry standard render fully integrated, as long as it didn't significantly (if any) increase the price of 3DCoat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 minutes ago, L'Ancien Regime said:

I tried it and didn't like it. I love 3DCoat's results. I think it's better than Mari too.

I'm happy you are satisficed with 3Dcoat painting, but its still inferior to Substance painter in many different levels. it have to be rebuild from the ground up to start matching substance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

That is simply because Autodesk bought Arnold to be it's new default render engine. IRay was actually a very good GPU render engine, in 3ds Max. It is now the default render engine Substance Designer and Painter and Daz, Solid Works (who uses that, right? LOL), etc.

Renderman is free only for NON-COMMERCIAL use, and no one is re-inventing the wheel. Pilgway has a standing offer to integrate an industry render engine that is arguably better than either Cycles or Lumion (UE5 raytracing render).

Does not matter, Its still gonna cost them at least 6 figure investment to implement it. meaning at least 1000 new 3dcoat users. you think 1000 new users will start using 3dcoat because it have the same renderer other software have? no. 

1 minute ago, AbnRanger said:

It wouldn't cost that because Andrew would probably be the one who would integrate it. He would still fix bugs like he always does, even when working on major new features. They also have different developers working on different areas of 3DCoat, so development in those areas would not stop. Again, I don't expect to change your views. But, there are plenty of users in the community who would welcome an industry standard render fully integrated, as long as it didn't significantly (if any) increase the price of 3DCoat.

From the amount of bug reports vs bugs getting fix, i would assume Andrew is already working hard and his plate is completely full. are you trying to work him to death or something?  
I really try to stay as polite as possible, but your answers, specially this one about Andrew "will just do it by himself", shows me you dont have understanding in development, and dont really care about the well being of the guys behind 3Dcoat. you just want what you want and you think its possible without doubling the app price and without putting HUGE effort. I will end this discussion here, I'm sure Pilgway have enough common sense not to invest in this direction.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...