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
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 2
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.

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
Posted (edited)

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

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...