Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Should 3DCoat integrate an Industry Standard Render Engine?


Should 3DCoat integrate an Industry Standard Render Engine?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Integrate ?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      8


Recommended Posts

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

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. 

I would strongly disagree. There are many painting features that Substance does not offer. It is limited to painting on low polygon, UV mapped models. You cannot edit UV's in Substance, and if you DO need to make changes to the UV after texture painting in Substance, you are screwed. In 3DCoat, it's no sweat. Substance cannot match 3DCoat in Handpainting, period. In that genre, 3DCoat is the absolute Boss, hands down. I personally like 3DCoat's new layer masking...which is practically identical to PS's masks and is compatible with it. Having the ability to texture paint on high poly meshes is awesome and Voxel Painting, in the right circumstances, is just insane. Vertexture is also a technology that nobody has, and lets an artist add ridiculous levels of resolution...even on a mesh that Vertex Paint would give low resolution results. As for baking, 3DCoat has better baking options when adjustments are needed, with an inner and outer baking cage and brush options to make custom edits in isolated/problematic places. 

There is room for improvement with Smart Materials and performance with large brush sizes is better in Substance, but to say that Texture painting in 3DCoat is inferior to Substance is purely subjective, IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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. 

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

You keep making a lot of assumptions that are just false. Integrating an industry standard engine would be = developing a major new feature like Smart Materials, Live Booleans, VDM Brushes, etc. and it would be viewed by the industry as a MAJOR new feature. Again, you keep assuming that it would jack the cost of 3DCoat up. I am not going to divulge any further information, but suffice it to say, that is not true. They received an unsolicited offer that is very tempting/favorable (for Pilgway) if they decided to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

You say 3D Coat will capture the market? Not before they make it out of Beta stage, that even the stable builds find themselves in.

Masking is vital part of workflow of any sculptor. They don't work for years, no matter the stable builds you try.

 - Multi-res is vital for anything that isn't in concept stage. We don't have that working (I don't count pole riddled mesh working) It can't work with quads shading like Zbrush and creates nasty poles when triangulating.
- If you google any tool in zbrush you find Pavlovich video covering it in 2 minutes or less.
- Coat just now did a few videos and stopped again. But good we have 40 hours of making a Rhino content.

I use the software because I like it but it's nowhere ready for production purposes.
Every feature added is half-baked. It's like a raw potato with quick-fried outer layer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
54 minutes ago, ArtaWorks said:

You say 3D Coat will capture the market? Not before they make it out of Beta stage, that even the stable builds find themselves in.

Masking is vital part of workflow of any sculptor. They don't work for years, no matter the stable builds you try.

 - Multi-res is vital for anything that isn't in concept stage. We don't have that working (I don't count pole riddled mesh working) It can't work with quads shading like Zbrush and creates nasty poles when triangulating.
- If you google any tool in zbrush you find Pavlovich video covering it in 2 minutes or less.
- Coat just now did a few videos and stopped again. But good we have 40 hours of making a Rhino content.

I use the software because I like it but it's nowhere ready for production purposes.
Every feature added is half-baked. It's like a raw potato with quick-fried outer layer.

Coat has its limitation but this comment is also biased. Coat still has its place in the market. Many artists use it to create stunning pieces, and it is useful to create certain kind of models.

But yes, for high end complicated models, it is mostly used in early stage or for retopo, UV etc. Let's discuss with a bit more patience for the software and each other. The topic is about how much necessity of a professional render engine, not about criticizing other aspect of Coat.

I like the software and I use it to build up models. Because of its capability, I may never use it to really render anything. My models usually have tens, sometimes a hundred, of millions of tris. Render them as a scene in Coat? Come on. I would like the developpers to work more on bugs and optimizations but as long as there are enough people have need for such a render engine, ok. My concerns still remain in pricing and resource.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
2 hours ago, Sui said:

Coat has its limitation but this comment is also biased. Coat still has its place in the market. Many artists use it to create stunning pieces, and it is useful to create certain kind of models.

But yes, for high end complicated models, it is mostly used in early stage or for retopo, UV etc. Let's discuss with a bit more patience for the software and each other. The topic is about how much necessity of a professional render engine, not about criticizing other aspect of Coat.

I like the software and I use it to build up models. Because of its capability, I may never use it to really render anything. My models usually have tens, sometimes a hundred, of millions of tris. Render them as a scene in Coat? Come on. I would like the developpers to work more on bugs and optimizations but as long as there are enough people have need for such a render engine, ok. My concerns still remain in pricing and resource.

Octane Render has free versions (limited to using one GPU, though) in Blender, Modo, Unity and Daz. That and the popularity of Unreal 5 as a real time renderer is one reason why an industry standard engine, integrated by Pilgway, is not out of the question. Many of these render engines have scatter utilities with proxies, so rendering a heavy scene isn't necessarily a big problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

Octane Render has free versions (limited to using one GPU, though) in Blender, Modo, Unity and Daz. That and the popularity of Unreal 5 as a real time renderer is one reason why an industry standard engine, integrated by Pilgway, is not out of the question. Many of these render engines have scatter utilities with proxies, so rendering a heavy scene isn't necessarily a big problem. 

One vehicle or building of thirty million maybe fine, but a scene may contain many such vehicles and buildings. The scene would remain high density even after decimation. In my experience, Coat is not good at handling this.

But this is only my case and no matter how much we talk about this it's still just making more assumptions. The decision belongs to the developpers to make. They have more to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
3 hours ago, ArtaWorks said:

You say 3D Coat will capture the market? Not before they make it out of Beta stage, that even the stable builds find themselves in.

Masking is vital part of workflow of any sculptor. They don't work for years, no matter the stable builds you try.

 - Multi-res is vital for anything that isn't in concept stage. We don't have that working (I don't count pole riddled mesh working) It can't work with quads shading like Zbrush and creates nasty poles when triangulating.
- If you google any tool in zbrush you find Pavlovich video covering it in 2 minutes or less.
- Coat just now did a few videos and stopped again. But good we have 40 hours of making a Rhino content.

I use the software because I like it but it's nowhere ready for production purposes.
Every feature added is half-baked. It's like a raw potato with quick-fried outer layer.

The new Layer Masks work very well and are fully compatible with Photoshop

Do you not have poles with quad meshes? With any character model, you will have quite a few 5 point poles just in the face region. You need them actually, to help keep loops going around the eyes and mouth. How do you suppose they magically disappear in ZBrush, when sculpting with Subdivision levels?

So what if Pilgway posted some videos and paused? What is your concern with that? Anton Tenitsky is also a partner of Pilgway and posts 3DCoat videos regularly on his channel. 

(1) 3DCoat - YouTube

(1) Anton Tenitsky - YouTube

Not even counting the sculpting videos of Rygaard, there are hundreds of video tutorials on the 3DCoat Youtube Channel, and most of the newer features are covered already. Two of those are in this post alone. 

Korah, what is the purpose coming to this forum to persistently unload a laundry list of complaints, and cynical views about the software? Why not do something constructive with your time, instead of being destructive.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
7 minutes ago, Sui said:

One vehicle or building of thirty million maybe fine, but a scene may contain many such vehicles and buildings. The scene would remain high density even after decimation. In my experience, Coat is not good at handling this.

But this is only my case and no matter how much we talk about this it's still just making more assumptions. The decision belongs to the developpers to make. They have more to consider.

Yeah, that use case is not really what most would try to achieve in 3DCoat anyway. That doesn't mean having a solid render engine in the application would be of no benefit. I keep going back to IRay in Substance Painter. Its purpose is to allow the user to render a high quality image of the model that was texture painted in the application. In some cases, that serves the user well enough...for Model Sheets or Product Renders, etc. Right now, the Default Render engine in 3DCoat isn't of sufficient quality to do that, so you almost have to render outside 3DCoat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

ok lets say ... they decide to implement a rendering engine , 
1. price will sky rocket and more than likely have to go to a rental service 
2. it will be time consuming for the team .
3. it removes focus from serious issues that 3dcoat currently has and away from any features that would actually be practical .

now .. @AbnRanger do you currently own a license for a renderer ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I'm well aware I need poles. But as I was saying - the triangulation Makes the mesh unusable.
I cannot rig any mesh that's been built multi-res in 3D Coat which makes it a huge hindrance.

Nor can I use it as base for anything else if I want to go into different software.
The point about videos is that there is lacking documentation about the NEW 3D Coat and most of videos are over 5 years old.
I was happy 3D Coat channel started getting videos on separate features and that should be the norm for future as well, so we can easily look it up like documentation for specific uses.

image.thumb.png.173da4d324ee93a03bd36a0f2f112d6f.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

The new Layer Masks work very well and are fully compatible with Photoshop

Do you not have poles with quad meshes? With any character model, you will have quite a few 5 point poles just in the face region. You need them actually, to help keep loops going around the eyes and mouth. How do you suppose they magically disappear in ZBrush, when sculpting with Subdivision levels?

So what if Pilgway posted some videos and paused? What is your concern with that? Anton Tenitsky is also a partner of Pilgway and posts 3DCoat videos regularly on his channel. 

(1) 3DCoat - YouTube

(1) Anton Tenitsky - YouTube

Not even counting the sculpting videos of Rygaard, there are hundreds of video tutorials on the 3DCoat Youtube Channel, and most of the newer features are covered already. Two of those are in this post alone. 

Korah, what is the purpose coming to this forum to persistently unload a laundry list of complaints, and cynical views about the software? Why not do something constructive with your time, instead of being destructive.

Thanks for that Cavity Masking tutorial. Just what I wanted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Yeah, that use case is not really what most would try to achieve in 3DCoat anyway. That doesn't mean having a solid render engine in the application would be of no benefit. I keep going back to IRay in Substance Painter. Its purpose is to allow the user to render a high quality image of the model that was texture painted in the application. In some cases, that serves the user well enough...for Model Sheets or Product Renders, etc. Right now, the Default Render engine in 3DCoat isn't of sufficient quality to do that, so you almost have to render outside 3DCoat.

Trust me many concept artist accomplish their works this way. Some use Blender and some use Substance Painter for texturing. Some may use a renderer and then paint over in PS. For most cases, a concept model will not be one-time only. For those who are doing large landscape, they will definitely go out of Coat because it cannot hold so many objects. For those who are working with creatures or items, vehicles, Zbrush provides more precision and quality, which is why some artists only use Coat for early stage modelling. (P.S. I am talking about realistic works) What kept them in Coat is the ease to build models. Even so, how to keep the quality of exported models is always a big problem. I risk losing details every work in Coat. I really hope Coat can be like Blender where I can do all the work in. But that is way more than just a render engine. If we are going out of Coat anyway, why using a renderer built in Coat. And because of the quality lost when transferring textures, concept artists I know hardly use Coat for texturing.

To make Coat a more solid tool, it takes more than just an engine, but many more works on the earlier stage. The Sculpt Room becomes slow when polycount exceeds a hundred M; the Modelling Room is not intuitive enough; the Retopo room is not capable to hold dense mesh and many small optimization to make.

Again, I am not totally against the idea. There are people who in need of a new renderer. Just really, Pricing and Time are the issue here. If they really manage to work it out without raising the price. Then cheers. But really, I doubt it. It is a major implementation, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
17 hours ago, Elemeno said:

ok lets say ... they decide to implement a rendering engine , 
1. price will sky rocket and more than likely have to go to a rental service 
2. it will be time consuming for the team .
3. it removes focus from serious issues that 3dcoat currently has and away from any features that would actually be practical .

now .. @AbnRanger do you currently own a license for a renderer ?

Again, Elemeno...you are not listening to my previous replies about this. 

1) No, the price would NOT sky rocket. I know what the offer was and I was very surprised how doable it is for Pilgway, if they want to go forward with it. That's not too strange when you consider A) how much traction EEVVEE, UE 5, and now Octane PRIME (free but with only 1 GPU, in Blender, Modo, DAZ & Unity) has gotten in the industry. Plus, (B) the render engine in 3DCoat would be relatively limited in 3DCoat compared to the major 3D apps, because it's not a VFX or Animation platform. And (C) the company owning the render engine would only be licensing it, not spending their own development $$$ creating a plugin and maintaining it. Those are 3 factors that drive the cost down dramatically, compared to the normal plugins you see for major 3D applications. With them, you are not just licensing the render engine. You are paying for the license + paying their developer to create and maintain the plugin within the app. When Pilgway would sell a license of 3DCoat, the company is just asking a very small percentage of that amount.

Furthermore, if this same company (who owns the render engine) is currently working on an updated free version for Blender, why in the world do you assume Pilgway integrating the render on by themselves, would make the cost go way up? That makes no sense.

2) Who says? It's just your speculation. Andrew could do this by himself, while other developers are still working on their assigned areas...like the Modeling/Retopo Workspace or GPU brush engine for the Paint workspace. Those areas would not be hampered one little bit.

3) Every MAJOR feature removes focus from other features. Hello?

 

Now...Elemeno...Yes, I have a license of VRay for Modo and I have been on Octane Render subscriptions off and on, in the past. Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
17 hours ago, ArtaWorks said:

I'm well aware I need poles. But as I was saying - the triangulation Makes the mesh unusable.
I cannot rig any mesh that's been built multi-res in 3D Coat which makes it a huge hindrance.

Nor can I use it as base for anything else if I want to go into different software.
The point about videos is that there is lacking documentation about the NEW 3D Coat and most of videos are over 5 years old.
I was happy 3D Coat channel started getting videos on separate features and that should be the norm for future as well, so we can easily look it up like documentation for specific uses.

image.thumb.png.173da4d324ee93a03bd36a0f2f112d6f.png

I have seen these spots in a mesh before, but it's not that common (in my experience) and if you are using the new Multi-Resolution Levels, you can have 3DCoat take the base low poly mesh (from the Retopo Workspace) and generate all your upper levels of resolution from it...so, you get a pretty smooth looking mesh.

I used that toolset for the High Resolution Head/Bust early in the 3DC 2023 promo video. It gave me a nice, smooth mesh that was based on the topology of the base mesh. Come to think of it...at one point right after he released the first build or two with the new system, I noticed a bunch of poles like you are talking about, but Andrew quickly fixed it right after I sent him a report, complaining about them. That should have been fixed well over a year ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Zbrush didn't have to create Keyshot. But Keyshot plugs into Zbrush. I think it's the only render engine that directly does that. I think Zbrush was wise to do it that way. 

Keyshot costs $1188 a year. Nobody at Zbrush has complained that Zbrush didn't just create its own in house render though a lot of people are upset that Maxon bought

Zbrush. That alone opens the door to Pilgway to look at what Zbrush was doing so right  before Maxon took over. It wasn't its inhouse render engine. That $1188 a year for Keyshot doesn't even include particles and clouds etc so it's not a top of the line render engine like Karma or Maxwell Render. It's a lookdev render engine.

That price should indicate the expense entailed in just producing a cut down lookdev render engine.

 

 

3D Coat should be the #1 sculpting app. What it should have is a decent rigging system, not for animators (though reverse IK would be very useful) but properly posing characters you're sculpting..

I think that's much more doable for a reasonable price and for sculptors and asset creators it's a lot more useful. Yes I know all about the Pose Tool. It's interesting and useful, even in designing a pistol grip for an automatic rifle. but for posing figures I think a decent rigging system for bipeds or quadrupeds would be 

much more useful. Then when you've got that maybe a bit of a vellum style physics engine so that a tricep resting against the lat muscles for example don't overlap but just press and spread out naturally like flesh does. IOW tools that create a greater naturalism in a sculpted model. I mean it's already got a cursory cloth tool in it that does certain physics operations like draping over another object.

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...
  • New Member

Yes please add it!!!!!  Don't forget 3Dcoat is not just a modelling&retopo tool, it's extremely popular among concept artists and designers. It would be super helpful to have a better render engine as part of whole workflow. Current 3dcoat render engine is ok for single object rendering for clients, but can't produce very realistic renders.   With it's own shader system a more powerful engine I can even do whole environment concept art inside 3Dcoat. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
On 5/15/2024 at 6:14 PM, L'Ancien Regime said:

Zbrush didn't have to create Keyshot. But Keyshot plugs into Zbrush. I think it's the only render engine that directly does that. I think Zbrush was wise to do it that way. 

Keyshot costs $1188 a year. Nobody at Zbrush has complained that Zbrush didn't just create its own in house render though a lot of people are upset that Maxon bought

Zbrush. That alone opens the door to Pilgway to look at what Zbrush was doing so right  before Maxon took over. It wasn't its inhouse render engine. That $1188 a year for Keyshot doesn't even include particles and clouds etc so it's not a top of the line render engine like Karma or Maxwell Render. It's a lookdev render engine.

That price should indicate the expense entailed in just producing a cut down lookdev render engine.

 

 

3D Coat should be the #1 sculpting app. What it should have is a decent rigging system, not for animators (though reverse IK would be very useful) but properly posing characters you're sculpting..

I think that's much more doable for a reasonable price and for sculptors and asset creators it's a lot more useful. Yes I know all about the Pose Tool. It's interesting and useful, even in designing a pistol grip for an automatic rifle. but for posing figures I think a decent rigging system for bipeds or quadrupeds would be 

much more useful. Then when you've got that maybe a bit of a vellum style physics engine so that a tricep resting against the lat muscles for example don't overlap but just press and spread out naturally like flesh does. IOW tools that create a greater naturalism in a sculpted model. I mean it's already got a cursory cloth tool in it that does certain physics operations like draping over another object.

 

I don't think this is a proper comparison, because Octane can handle some pretty dense scenes, too and it has a free version (Octane Prime w/ the main limitation being 1 GPU used...which is basically the same limitation for Arnold in Max and Maya) for multiple 3D applications, as I mentioned before. Why not use that as your basis for comparison, instead of one of the most expensive render engines on the market? I think the Concept Art market is rapidly trending away from Keyshot, as more and more concept art posted by Pilgway on social media, shows Blender and Octane as the most common render engines used. It used to be Keyshot for a number of years. Now that 3DCoat has this simplified export toolset, Concept Artists can export models that are not so heavy (because of Auto Decimation > Auto UV process during export), anymore, and thus there is little need for a $1k+/yr render engine just to handle high poly counts.

Having a world class render engine INSIDE 3DCoat could change the whole game...at least in terms of serving the Concept Art/Design market, which 3DCoat has the biggest foothold in, currently. Know where your bread is buttered...and go there. I agree that it would be nice if 3DCoat had a good rigging system for posing characters/creatures, but IMHO, that would be much less useful than a superior render engine and material system. Mileage may vary, but if non-3DCoat users saw an article or Youtube video saying "3DCoat 2025 now comes with Octane (or VRay/Vantage/Lumen/Renderman/Maxwell, etc.) render + materials fully integrated," that would generate a lot more buzz and sales than "3DCoat 2025 now includes a Rigging system for Posing." Why? Because it would appeal to a much broader audience. I know most Concept Artists would certainly upgrade their licenses after seeing that. They would not feel so compelled to if it had a better rigging system...which I hope will get added at some point in the near future. But, for me, personally, I would prefer to see a top notch render engine inside 3DCoat, so I almost never have to leave the app to make a high quality model and render a model sheet, turntable, etc. with great looking glass (cannot do that so well currently) and or volumetric FX (Open VDB), and see perfect SSS, fur, cartoon shaders, etc.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

I don't think this is a proper comparison, because Octane can handle some pretty dense scenes, too and it has a free version (Octane Prime w/ the main limitation being 1 GPU used.. etc

 

 

Well if 3D Coat does do this  route (and it seems to me to be an immense labor, though what do I know?) then I hope that in typical Andrew Shpagin manner it's not just something old rehashed but rather new, advanced and cutting edge.

 

1. Path tracer not ray tracer

Quote

2. XPU render like Karma; uses GPU  and CPU with an eye on the approaching end of X86 and the advent of ARM (Advanced RISC Machines) like Apple's M1, M2, M3, M4 etc. Windows 12 will have a Qualicom Snapdragon ready version. Intel and AMD are in trouble and NVIDIA is already beginning to abandon the GPU market both because of lucrative AI contracts and also the advent of SOC's (System On a Chip) that AMD and Apple are creating with increasing power.  ARM SOC's are the future it appears.  Cooler and lower energy costs are driving this change as well as the efficiencies of not having separate cache memories for the GPU and CPU and data transfer problems inherent in them.

https://wccftech.com/snapdragon-chipsets-within-3-years-account-for-qualcomm-oem-60-percent-sales/

 

3. Is fully USD/Solaris compatible with a lighting engine that's more than just HDRI, with actual  point/spot/soft box/realistic simulated sky and sun  lights at the very least for analyzing sculpted surfaces the way serious sculptors require. After all, fundamentally render engines are all about light and how it physically works so 3D Coat as a sculpting program definitely needs a pro lighting engine to go with its rendering ability.  That's not to denigrate the HDRI lighing in 3D Coat now but it does call for individual lights that professionals require. The ideal graphics 3D program should be like entering a huge warehouse studio with a black matte interior where sound stages are erected by movie designers with meticulous and powerful control over lighting rigs.  We need to build stage sets.

 

shutterstock_5886285ad.webp.86ac367512b0fc9940252ad127064c44.webp

2001-photos-Tom-H.thumb.jpg.38ee6d0e9ab73f445966eeb196dd1c0b.jpg

 

4. It should render height maps/displacement maps  and Vector Displacement maps.

displamecent_mushrooms_02.thumb.jpg.63d40abe8a7c57ad6211c09be239a5cf.jpg

 

5. And yes with Andrew's  pioneering efforts in openVDB along with Houdini FX it should do hair and particles and clouds and fluid shaders and caustics too..so glass and other fluids with light refraction and attenuation using real scientific substances like Maxwell Render.

If he can do all that then he should sell 3D Coat for the same price as Zbrush.  (or more?)

Of course you could just download UE5 for free and use that. I mean it's cinematics are insane. 

 

I don't see how Andrew can come up with anything that approaches Unreal 5.1 at this point. He should be setting up 3D Coat to synch in with Unreal Engine closely, like he did with Photoshop. Use Unreal Engine and then save up for a RTX 5090.

 

Edited by L'Ancien Regime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add my humble opinion

Interchange of CG assets has long been an industry-wide challenge, with different renderers and 3D engines each using different shading systems, languages, and pipelines.
OpenPBR or Open Physically-Based Rendering housed by Academy Software Foundation serves as an open standard capable of accurately modeling most CG materials found in typical professional VFX and animation workflows.

 

Integrate an Industry Standard means integrate into an ecosystem that allows interaction with other software used in the production line.

And this is not only to have import/export options, BUT to use the same standard.

 

OpenPBR, MaterialX, OpenUSD... if the new render engine it is not based on these standards would be a waste of time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Carlosan said:

Integrate an Industry Standard means integrate into an ecosystem that allows interaction with other software used in the production line.And this is not only to have import/export options, BUT to use the same standard.     OpenPBR, MaterialX, OpenUSD... if the new render engine it is not based on these standards would be a waste of time.

 

Exactly. 

And nanite...

312 billion triangles with a RTX 3090 in UE 5.

3D Coat to nanite workflow streamlined.

Quote
  1. Sculpt Your Mesh: Start by sculpting your 3D model.
  2. Retopology: You can either manually retopologize your sculpt or use automatic retopology (autopo) tools to create a clean mesh.
  3. Bake Displacement Map: In 3D Coat, bake a displacement map from your high-resolution sculpt to the retopologized mesh. Use the “Bake into Scene/Micro Vertex” option.
  4. Subdivide Retopo Mesh: Subdivide the retopology mesh based on the displacement map.
  5. Convert Displacement Map to Real Geometry: In the Paint Room, convert the displacement map into real geometry. This creates a detailed mesh with multiple subdivision levels.
  6. Export Real Geometry: Export the real geometry (not just textures) from 3D Coat.

This method allows you to create assets suitable for Unreal Engine 5’s Nanite. You can also use tiling detail normal maps on larger assets if needed1. Nanite enables rendering high-definition assets directly in Unreal Engine scenes without the need for manual optimization or LOD models2. Keep in mind that 3D Coat offers both methods for creating assets compatible with Nanite, so choose the one that best suits your project

 

Edited by L'Ancien Regime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Lumen ?

Also EEVEE Next is a great contendervs Vray, Redshift or Keyshot.

 

But on the other side Marmoset as Bake/render option to show off content is invaluable. 

Its render quality, baking options and ease of use for showing presentations make it an almost essential tool. With a small finetuning 3DC can compete in that niche easily.


For me, any addition that improves the quality of our work is welcome. :good2:

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That's pretty incredible about using Lumen for cinematics. Despite its speed it still does total  displacement maps and even Vector displacement too. There does seem to be some doubt about it's ability to handle glass substances with refraction reflection attenuation density and caustics however.

 

1025027995_lumenpathtracingue5.thumb.JPG.59ea41fe1eea1be31193c62bf9dc0771.JPG

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

  • 3 months later...
  • Advanced Member

This post again shows perfectly for me how 3D Coats potential to ever be used more in production pipelines by professional artists is held back by hobbyist mindsets who give the devs all the wrong ideas and treat the software as a playground for their own specific megalomania needs and dreams.

Wake up guys, have you seen Marmoset Toolbag 5 is on the way? The Beta is already out.

https://marmoset.co/toolbag/beta/

You think 3D Coat in it's current state, still lacking industry standard features/functionality/reliability on multiple ends, to compete with that? Marmoset even has some serious, serious competition now to Substance Painter, because they are listening to versed, skilled artists, and come from a game art background themselves. These guys know absolutely what they are doing and what real time artists need today.

Yes, 3D Coat has some features and paradigms Substance Painter does not have, and I personally love them, it is a "hands on feel" not found in other apps for sure. It also has features and paradigms Zbrush does not have, in fact, I can't even go back to ZBrush due to 3D Coat sculpting being so freeformly awesome (and also because Blender Modeling and Sculpting exists, which so far eliminated my need for a Maxon sub). But, 3DC misses all the crucial contemporary features game and real time artists need, both in functionality, flexibility/non destructiveness, and speed, especially when it comes to materials/texturing. The Paint Room doesn't even have Mip Mapping for per pixel painting, making a noisy preview mess out of any high frequency patterns like Jeans etc., making it impossible to accurately preview your textures for use in other real time renders or game engines, who ALL use Mip Mapping as standard since eons.

Try using the blend sliders to blend smoothly without experiencing lagging that equals system freezing during texturing, and then tell me we need a render engine in this software. What it has for rendering is absolutely fine for what it is. It's actually pretty great for a sculpting app. Don't waste the devs resources, and let people with serious needs working in actual production some day be able to integrate this tool fully into their pipelines, or allow them to enthusiastically recommend the program to others without having to have a bad conscious about it, instead of adding yet another experiment into this program. Like, the absolutely unusable and UI/UX wise aesthetically offensive shader nodes (which were back then advertised as a Substance Designer alternative directly in 3D Coat, with users expressing similar concerns about prioritization, and we still till this day do not see any benefits of them in Paint Room).

Give us non destructive HSL filters, Levels, let me select freaking multiple paint layers at once and paste them into another group. Let me have true blend modes for Roughness and Metallic like ANY other texturing app on the market. Have proper ID mask selection. Have proper, dedicated extra channels for AO, SSS, Emissive or user custom channels. Talking about Anchor points?

Some of what is written here seems so obviously coming from users who seem not battle tested using any tool in production, under a deadline. 3D Coat better than Mari? Better than Substance Painter? All the features that ARE superior to other apps, are simply and sadly HELD BACK completely by the lack of any rock solid basics, turning them into "nice to haves" in the long run, rather than the powerful additions they could be if the basics would have been nailed down properly.

But jeah, let's all want a Render Engine for an Art making app. I couldn't have said it all better myself @Just a user I am glad to read some users here being reasonable and oppose this. Didn't take me more than 5sec to vote NO, and that delay was just stemming from my initial confusion if I read the title right or not.

I am looking forward to using Toolbag 5, where I will render and/or texture a lot of work I created in 3D Coat, but not the other way around for sure. And I don't think any serious artist in their right mind who needs to present their work in the best possible light would. I say this as someone who loves to pre-render/lookdev my sculptures/painting inside 3D Coat render room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/6/2024 at 1:41 PM, Carlosan said:

With a small finetuning 3DC can compete in that niche easily.

This statement is bizarre. Have you ever used Marmoset even? What kind of "small fine tuning" do you think would bring 3D Coat on par to it? Let alone that Marmoset is far from serving a "niche" as a tool. It's basically industry standard for rendering real time art for like forever, and for baking it has become THE option since v4.

Tons of working artists bake their maps in there every day, even those who use Substance Painter. So I'd be curious to what kind of simple "tweak" 3D Coat would just need to "easily" get to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Henry Townshend said:

This statement is bizarre. Have you ever used Marmoset even? What kind of "small fine tuning" do you think would bring 3D Coat on par to it? Let alone that Marmoset is far from serving a "niche" as a tool. It's basically industry standard for rendering real time art for like forever, and for baking it has become THE option since v4.

Tons of working artists bake their maps in there every day, even those who use Substance Painter. So I'd be curious to what kind of simple "tweak" 3D Coat would just need to "easily" get to that.

i agree .. things should be done in areas that need it , especially the ui/ux ... 

unfortunately a render engine isnt it , i cant even sculpt in this software now .. this software exists for me now for retopology 

they have lost their way the past 2 years by adding mesh to nurbs and photogrammetry ... that quite frankly ive never seen used at all...

they have neglected the side we came for but again .. everything takes time ... my license runs out soon and i wont be buying again .. when they do work in the areas needed then maybe just to support but atm .. its not enjoyable to use

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

My two cents...

I'm not sure about integrating third party engine, but reworking current, built in engine would be nice, especially for concepting purposes, as it doesn't require retopo, uv mapping, etc.

Adding different types of lights and better controls of those lights - currently it's pretty basic to put it mildly.

Implementing some way to handle emissive materials would be great.

Having some proper volumetric effects would also be nice.

Lenses and camera controls.

Edited by Mihu83
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor
On 9/22/2024 at 1:53 AM, Henry Townshend said:

This post again shows perfectly for me how 3D Coats potential to ever be used more in production pipelines by professional artists is held back by hobbyist mindsets who give the devs all the wrong ideas and treat the software as a playground for their own specific megalomania needs and dreams.

Wake up guys, have you seen Marmoset Toolbag 5 is on the way? The Beta is already out.

https://marmoset.co/toolbag/beta/

You think 3D Coat in it's current state, still lacking industry standard features/functionality/reliability on multiple ends, to compete with that? Marmoset even has some serious, serious competition now to Substance Painter, because they are listening to versed, skilled artists, and come from a game art background themselves. These guys know absolutely what they are doing and what real time artists need today.

Yes, 3D Coat has some features and paradigms Substance Painter does not have, and I personally love them, it is a "hands on feel" not found in other apps for sure. It also has features and paradigms Zbrush does not have, in fact, I can't even go back to ZBrush due to 3D Coat sculpting being so freeformly awesome (and also because Blender Modeling and Sculpting exists, which so far eliminated my need for a Maxon sub). But, 3DC misses all the crucial contemporary features game and real time artists need, both in functionality, flexibility/non destructiveness, and speed, especially when it comes to materials/texturing. The Paint Room doesn't even have Mip Mapping for per pixel painting, making a noisy preview mess out of any high frequency patterns like Jeans etc., making it impossible to accurately preview your textures for use in other real time renders or game engines, who ALL use Mip Mapping as standard since eons.

Try using the blend sliders to blend smoothly without experiencing lagging that equals system freezing during texturing, and then tell me we need a render engine in this software. What it has for rendering is absolutely fine for what it is. It's actually pretty great for a sculpting app. Don't waste the devs resources, and let people with serious needs working in actual production some day be able to integrate this tool fully into their pipelines, or allow them to enthusiastically recommend the program to others without having to have a bad conscious about it, instead of adding yet another experiment into this program. Like, the absolutely unusable and UI/UX wise aesthetically offensive shader nodes (which were back then advertised as a Substance Designer alternative directly in 3D Coat, with users expressing similar concerns about prioritization, and we still till this day do not see any benefits of them in Paint Room).

Give us non destructive HSL filters, Levels, let me select freaking multiple paint layers at once and paste them into another group. Let me have true blend modes for Roughness and Metallic like ANY other texturing app on the market. Have proper ID mask selection. Have proper, dedicated extra channels for AO, SSS, Emissive or user custom channels. Talking about Anchor points?

Some of what is written here seems so obviously coming from users who seem not battle tested using any tool in production, under a deadline. 3D Coat better than Mari? Better than Substance Painter? All the features that ARE superior to other apps, are simply and sadly HELD BACK completely by the lack of any rock solid basics, turning them into "nice to haves" in the long run, rather than the powerful additions they could be if the basics would have been nailed down properly.

But jeah, let's all want a Render Engine for an Art making app. I couldn't have said it all better myself @Just a user I am glad to read some users here being reasonable and oppose this. Didn't take me more than 5sec to vote NO, and that delay was just stemming from my initial confusion if I read the title right or not.

I am looking forward to using Toolbag 5, where I will render and/or texture a lot of work I created in 3D Coat, but not the other way around for sure. And I don't think any serious artist in their right mind who needs to present their work in the best possible light would. I say this as someone who loves to pre-render/lookdev my sculptures/painting inside 3D Coat render room.

"Hobbiest mindset?" What part about iRay already being an integrated render (far better and more capable than 3DCoat's current default render engine) in Substance Painter did you miss? This was an integrated Render engine in 3ds Max for years, before Autodesk switched to Arnold. The point being that it is a very serious production render for those who are using Substance and it has been integrated for some time, now. Please visit the Substance forums and tell them what a hobbiest tool it is, and a distraction from adding production level tools. 

Mari also has a very solid, production level (very photorealistic or NPR) render engine integrated (Modo's Render). It seems strange to me that those who say 3DCoat needs to catch up to it's competitors somehow forget that it's competitors already have substantial render engines built in and even 3DCoat Textura includes the 3DCoat Render Engine for final renders or previews. The thread is about a legitimate proposal to Pilgway from a major industry leading Render software company (that everyone knows about)...not an idea from a hobbyist. Maybe you can tell this software company to keep their amateur ideas to themselves? I respect others having a different opinion, but to be personally insulting to those who have a different view, essentially calling them a bunch of amateurs, is uncalled for in my opinion. 3DCoat's biggest market is probably Concept Art, and what benefits them may not necessarily benefit you, but if not...just say "I don't think this would benefit my workflow much and I would instead prefer x and z feature." There is no need make personally disparaging remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

"Hobbiest mindset?" What part about iRay already being an integrated render (far better and more capable than 3DCoat's current default render engine) in Substance Painter did you miss? This was an integrated Render engine in 3ds Max for years, before Autodesk switched to Arnold. The point being that it is a very serious production render for those who are using Substance and it has been integrated for some time, now. Please visit the Substance forums and tell them what a hobbiest tool it is, and a distraction from adding production level tools. 

Mari also has a very solid, production level (very photorealistic or NPR) render engine integrated (Modo's Render). It seems strange to me that those who say 3DCoat needs to catch up to it's competitors somehow forget that it's competitors already have substantial render engines built in and even 3DCoat Textura includes the 3DCoat Render Engine for final renders or previews. The thread is about a legitimate proposal to Pilgway from a major industry leading Render software company (that everyone knows about)...not an idea from a hobbyist. Maybe you can tell this software company to keep their amateur ideas to themselves? I respect others having a different opinion, but to be personally insulting to those who have a different view, essentially calling them a bunch of amateurs, is uncalled for in my opinion. 3DCoat's biggest market is probably Concept Art, and what benefits them may not necessarily benefit you, but if not...just say "I don't think this would benefit my workflow much and I would instead prefer x and z feature." There is no need make personally disparaging remarks.

him: you think like hobbyist 
you : start by comparing autodesk and adobe budget to pilgway 

@Henry Townshend is right here. you guys have no idea what are you talking about.  

Since i told pilgway that 3dcoat does not function properly on my new macbook m3 max, all that has been done is to ask me to behave like their beta tester for free. and the app is unusable. i haven't used 3d coat since. cuz its so buggy its barely can called alpha stage. 

I cant use the product for its initial goal which is sculpting. and users ask for render engine. cuz they think you "just implement" it. oh god. 
Good luck pilgway, i regret my last upgrade, i wish i could get a refund. i'm using blender for the past 2 months, also for sculpting. 

Blender is better for sculpting then 3d coat. blender can handle less data and have less features, but the features it introduce are working properly and its stable, so i can count on it. and finish my work. 

6 / 10 that is working is better then a 9/10 that is crushing 15 times a day on a new machine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...