Carlosan Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Elemeno Posted July 1 Advanced Member Share Posted July 1 poly modelling , cad modelling anything where a single face is manipulated inside 3dcoat is too confusing to use .. cant we just get some sculpt improvements? this software is slowly becoming "jack of all trades master of none" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosan Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 Posting the same thing in each thread does not solve the problems you have when using the software. Please use the corresponding contact emails reporting bugs, it is the best way to help repair them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted July 3 Advanced Member Share Posted July 3 (edited) Is this CAD room part of the Mesh to NURBS room or are they separate? By the way this is really an amazing development. I'm impressed. Edited July 3 by L'Ancien Regime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosan Posted July 3 Author Share Posted July 3 The CAD room is extra and is still in development. 10 percent done so far. This new room requires its own license. The reaction of designers is very important to us. If there are good sales, we will switch to the Parasolid core. We use a geometric modeling kernel Open Cascade. For any other questions please contact @Gorbatovsky 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted July 3 Advanced Member Share Posted July 3 (edited) 4 hours ago, Carlosan said: The CAD room is extra and is still in development. 10 percent done so far. This new room requires its own license. The reaction of designers is very important to us. If there are good sales, we will switch to the Parasolid core. We use a geometric modeling kernel Open Cascade. For any other questions please contact @Gorbatovsky When I looked at it my first question was "is it going to have BREP too?". So I assume Parasolids are BREP. Very nice. Excellent. Edited July 3 by L'Ancien Regime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Elemeno Posted July 3 Advanced Member Share Posted July 3 On 7/1/2024 at 6:58 PM, Carlosan said: Posting the same thing in each thread does not solve the problems you have when using the software. Please use the corresponding contact emails reporting bugs, it is the best way to help repair them. no bug was mentioned , however a cad room discussion was opened and i was entering the discussion with my opinion on cad modelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted July 3 Advanced Member Share Posted July 3 (edited) On 7/1/2024 at 1:52 PM, Elemeno said: poly modelling , cad modelling anything where a single face is manipulated inside 3dcoat is too confusing to use .. cant we just get some sculpt improvements? this software is slowly becoming "jack of all trades master of none" When you really get into modeling stuff problems arise, technical problems. Different modeling technologies grew up for some very specific reasons, to solve unavoidable problems. Using voxels provides a very intuitive clay emulation, smoke emulation, but it's not very good for complex and precise bevels and chamfers for example. It's perfect for organic creatures, but for mechanical stuff it's like putting trousers on an elephant. Polygons with quads are great for game models and UV mapping for texture painting but have a lot of drawbacks, like jaggies and out of control polygon counts. NURBS are great for aerodynamic surfaces and mechanical surfaces and avoid the drawbacks of coarse polygons but are terrible for organic creatures SubD is a compromise between NURBS and Polygonal modeling, excellent for rapid 3d sketching to be then retopoed with NURBS for a perfect finish? There's some very good reasons why Alias is still a big deal and why they added SubD to their unsurpassed NURBS toolset. BREP is perfect for solid mechanical objects, like machine parts esp if you want to do physical simulations of shear and weight for volume of materials in an object, and also provide intuitive rapid bevels chamfers and booleans When you're working on a project based on real world situations you're going to need all these toolsets (and more!) at one point or another. How convenient will it be to have all of them in one application so that you can smoothly go back and forth between them in one program with a seamless workflow? The only program that fully embodies all these technologies currently is Geomagic with Freeform. (by the way Freeform Ghost of MIT was the first computer sculpt program but it never took off because it required a haptic device that cost $6000 to $24000) My proposal to 3D Coat was to do something very similar but at low cost. Edited July 3 by L'Ancien Regime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Elemeno Posted July 3 Advanced Member Share Posted July 3 1 hour ago, L'Ancien Regime said: When you really get into modeling stuff problems arise, technical problems. Different modeling technologies grew up for some very specific reasons, to solve unavoidable problems. Using voxels provides a very intuitive clay emulation, smoke emulation, but it's not very good for complex and precise bevels and chamfers for example. It's perfect for organic creatures, but for mechanical stuff it's like putting trousers on an elephant. Polygons with quads are great for game models and UV mapping for texture painting but have a lot of drawbacks, like jaggies and out of control polygon counts. NURBS are great for aerodynamic surfaces and mechanical surfaces and avoid the drawbacks of coarse polygons but are terrible for organic creatures SubD is a compromise between NURBS and Polygonal modeling, excellent for rapid 3d sketching to be then retopoed with NURBS for a perfect finish? There's some very good reasons why Alias is still a big deal and why they added SubD to their unsurpassed NURBS toolset. BREP is perfect for solid mechanical objects, like machine parts esp if you want to do physical simulations of shear and weight for volume of materials in an object, and also provide intuitive rapid bevels chamfers and booleans When you're working on a project based on real world situations you're going to need all these toolsets (and more!) at one point or another. How convenient will it be to have all of them in one application so that you can smoothly go back and forth between them in one program with a seamless workflow? The only program that fully embodies all these technologies currently is Geomagic with Freeform. (by the way Freeform Ghost of MIT was the first computer sculpt program but it never took off because it required a haptic device that cost $6000 to $24000) My proposal to 3D Coat was to do something very similar but at low cost. no ... i know what they all are , its just anything is implemented like cad modelling or poly modelling the ui and workflow is confusing and i end up wasting so much time when it could be made alot better . thats why i think any cad room or modelling room is pointless until they have a proper workflow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Henry Townshend Posted July 3 Advanced Member Share Posted July 3 On 7/1/2024 at 7:52 PM, Elemeno said: cant we just get some sculpt improvements? I for once agree with this here. The Sculpt Room and especially Paint Room Room still have basics missing other software has for decades as standards, and you guys stack another separate Room after putting so much development effort already into the modeling room. Of course whatever developers decide, it's their thing. But my suspicion is they are not really lead by professional users needs anymore, but by "wouldn't it be cool if" hobbyists wishlists of strange sorts. And what that should lead to seems strange to me as a passionate user of this software for primarily making art and game art, privately and professionally, and who ditched Substance Painter and Zbrush as a leap of faith in favor of 3D Coat. Sculpting and Painting is such a strong suite of 3D Coat and should not be neglected in favor of piling up more foreign features imo. Artistic users screaming for years and years what is still missing there to make it professionally/Industry compatible. I predict no one or very few tech fetish people will use 3D Coat for CAD. 3D Coat is an ART tool. Voxel Modeling is already capable to create shapes like these, especially with live booleans. Is it precise? No. Does it need to be to make art? No. Users do not chose 3D Coat for dry precision work. Users chose 3D Coat to make art. I can not understand why 3D Coat doesn't play upon it's strength in which it is unique in the industry: A godsent 3D software fusing 3d Concepting and Production for artists at its core. Better to polish that and iron out the kinks, to be more widely adapted, and integrated as a tool into pipelines, so all users, and the hard working devs, can benefit. Not focusing on experiments enjoying people, or people who like to bend the software to their very private dreams of wanting to get something that costs thousands of dollars in other software for cheap. I see e.g. something as crucial as non destructive Adjustments being off the table, but a CAD room is being worked on. Very strange decision to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosan Posted July 3 Author Share Posted July 3 Sculpt Room is developed by @Andrew Shpagin Modeling/CAD is developed by @Gorbatovsky They are two areas of development with different times and that do not interfere with each other. I don't see any conflict. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted July 4 Advanced Member Share Posted July 4 (edited) I don't see any conflict either nor do I see having different modeling tools as being separate entities either. They will all work in concert just as they do in Houdini. You can make a Nurbs model, voxelize it with OpenVDB for modifications in that form then polygonalize it back and forth as part of a seamless workflow. But now instead of a bunch of very expensive programs and time consuming file transfers it'll all happen in one very inexpensive program. You're already making sculptures in voxels with OpenVDB then adding minute details in Surface Mode then retopologizing it by hand or automatically and then using that for extracting displacement or normal maps and then painting the UV maps. Adding a NURBS/BREP system just gives you another toolset to add to that. And that is artistic as hell. Imagine using Move or Pose or Bend tools in Voxels on a modern auto design, or a piece of jewelry, surface mode it for added details and then modifying parts and details with NURBS. How is that not "artistic"? Maybe the Pre Raphaelites or Sympolists would disapprove but Daniel Simon would approve I think. I just hope there's plans in Gorbatovsky's project for making two adjacent surfaces or splines to make them match tangentially Edited July 4 by L'Ancien Regime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted July 4 Reputable Contributor Share Posted July 4 On 7/1/2024 at 12:52 PM, Elemeno said: poly modelling , cad modelling anything where a single face is manipulated inside 3dcoat is too confusing to use .. cant we just get some sculpt improvements? this software is slowly becoming "jack of all trades master of none" The developer working on this (Alexander) does not work in the Paint, UV, Sculpt (normally) or the Render Workspaces. Pilgway sees the popularity of upstart new CAD modeling app, Plasticity, and sees an opportunity to offer similar functionality inside 3DCoat because there are already many NURBS tools and NURBS like tools for Polymesh generation. Andrew is the main developer for those workspaces and tasked Alexander to work on the Retopo/Modeling/CAD-NURBS tools. Therefore, if you have a problem with the functionality in those fore-mentioned workspaces, send an email to support@pilgway.com which Andrew typically receives. You are communicating directly with him when you send a bug report or request to that email. Here, you are generally just speaking to other members and the forum monitor. Andrew chimes in from time to time, but emails to support is the direct pipeline of communication with him. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted July 4 Advanced Member Share Posted July 4 2 hours ago, AbnRanger said: The developer working on this (Alexander) does not work in the Paint, UV, Sculpt (normally) or the Render Workspaces. Pilgway sees the popularity of upstart new CAD modeling app, Plasticity, and sees an opportunity to offer similar functionality inside 3DCoat because there are already many NURBS tools and NURBS like tools for Polymesh generation. Andrew is the main developer for those workspaces and tasked Alexander to work on the Retopo/Modeling/CAD-NURBS tools. Therefore, if you have a problem with the functionality in those fore-mentioned workspaces, send an email to support@pilgway.com which Andrew typically receives. You are communication directly with him when you send a bug report or request to that email. Here, you are generally just speaking to other members and the forum monitor. Andrew chimes in from time to time, but emails to support is the direct pipeline of communication with him. A separate fee for the CAD room will be $75-150. The price will depend on the type of geometric kernel. And you won't have to endure its presence if you don't want to fork out the fee. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosan Posted July 6 Author Share Posted July 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Henry Townshend Posted July 9 Advanced Member Share Posted July 9 (edited) On 7/4/2024 at 4:38 AM, AbnRanger said: Therefore, if you have a problem with the functionality in those fore-mentioned workspaces, send an email to support@pilgway.com which Andrew typically receives. You are communicating directly with him when you send a bug report or request to that email. Here, you are generally just speaking to other members and the forum monitor. Andrew chimes in from time to time, but emails to support is the direct pipeline of communication with him. This is what I do, almost on a daily basis now. It seems to me that there are several things in improvement limbo and currently increased frequency of problems with basic functionality, and, tops, urgently needed non destructive features commonly needed in production pipelines are neglected. On 7/4/2024 at 1:48 AM, Carlosan said: They are two areas of development with different times and that do not interfere with each other. I don't see any conflict. Usually what this means is, that there is one less work force on things that are more urgent. That is what makes the ""Conflict"". Software Development resources are distributed to new features, instead of bringing the old ones into polish/reliabilty. On 7/4/2024 at 2:21 AM, L'Ancien Regime said: How is that not "artistic"? Maybe the Pre Raphaelites or Sympolists would disapprove but Daniel Simon would approve I think. Same as with all your tech terms like BERF, BARF and Surf or the likes, I do not know any of those people/categories, and I am not ashamed about it. CAD software is used in Concept Art for sure. I am not against 3D Coat expanding how they see fit, it is not the most foreign/illogical move as a Concept Art software to go that route. What I am against is 3D Coat neglecting what is not done/not yet 100% reliable and with basic expected contemporary functionality gaps not filled, still needed to conclude the strong artistic base and make it competetive/recommendable to people who wanna use it in a production pipeline. (we can not even drag and drop multiple paint layers till this day) It is naive to believe that developing another large feature like a whole Room with adding a new paradigm won't continue to pile up the Whack A Mole like hunt of new issues, which what users like me, using 3D Coat in game production, are worried about. If you ever worked in any software development, this is a classical feature creep. Edited July 9 by Henry Townshend typo, grammar 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted July 9 Reputable Contributor Share Posted July 9 36 minutes ago, Henry Townshend said: This is what I do, almost on a daily basis now. It seems to me that there are several things in improvement limbo and currently increased frequency of problems with basic functionality, and, tops, urgently needed non destructive features commonly needed in production pipelines are neglected. Usually what this means is, that there is one less work force on things that are more urgent. That is what makes the ""Conflict"". Software Development resources are distributed to new features, instead of bringing the old ones into polish/reliabilty. Same as with all your tech terms like BERF, BARF and Surf or the likes, I do not know any of those people/categories, and I am not ashamed about it. CAD software is used in Concept Art for sure. I am not against 3D Coat expanding how they see fit, it is not the most foreign/illogical move as a Concept Art software to go that route. What I am against is 3D Coat neglecting what is not done/not yet 100% reliable and with basic expected contemporary functionality gaps not filled, still needed to conclude the strong artistic base and make it competetive/recommendable to people who wanna use it in a production pipeline. (we can not even drag and drop multiple paint layers till this day) It is naive to believe that developing another large feature like a whole Room with adding a new paradigm won't continue to pile up the Whack A Mole like hunt of new issues, which what users like me, using 3D Coat in game production, are worried about. If you ever worked in any software development, this is a classical feature creep. I understand your personal preference for polish over added features and to a large degree, I agree. However, Pilgway reserves the right to do whatever they think they need to do to compete effectively in a market that has a growing behemoth (Blender) to compete with...pumped full of corporate donation$, even if it doesn't yet match 3DCoat's capabilities in certain areas. They want to be able to diversify 3DCoat's market to the CAD segment, too, because the Entertainment segment is getting thinner and thinner, thanks to Blender. As I stated in another thread, the developer working on that is already tasked to work on the Retopo/Modeling tools and there are already a number of NURBS/CAD centric tools (including Polygon to NURBS conversion feature that is an expensive plugin for some major 3D applications) in 3DCoat. Andrew works on the rest of the application, and has other developers that assist in him those areas...so, THAT work is not hindered by the addition of a CAD/NURBS module. That module is strictly a business decision on the part of Pilgway...it is not being done to simply add more features. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Henry Townshend Posted July 12 Advanced Member Share Posted July 12 (edited) On 7/9/2024 at 8:55 PM, AbnRanger said: even if it doesn't yet match 3DCoat's capabilities in certain areas. This is an understatement really. I am a 13 years Blender user, knowing my way around all common addons. While Blender is a DCC beast, 3D Coat, for me, is a true Art tool. It offers artistic paradigms, usually only found in 2d/painting software, in 3d space. It feels organic where many other tools feel robotic. It is an incredible accomplishment. I just wish they would equally focus on pipeline reliability and polished functionality as tools like Blender do, which I think would def. help more to compete in the market than trying to jump wagon current trends. However, thanks for taking the time to illuminate the business perspective. I have to say tho that if a company decides to use 3D Coat in production, that, in a sense, also very much influences THEIR business, in terms of time and reliability of getting things done. And if that's not the case, sadly, they can not afford to keep 3D Coat out of mere good will, cause we all have to fight against our very own Behemoths', too. Even more impactful: People who convince their company to use 3D Coat in the pipeline, and then having to justify unreliabilities, time loss, missing functionality, stand responsible for that, and simply having to spend their time on being a voluntary tester/reporter to keep the program usable for them in production, as a paying costumer. And as thankful as I am for that it is being listened to my feedback and the close communication that one can have with 3D Coat, the reliability/missing commonly expected functionality is still something that out of my view damages the programs marketability and word of mouth. It hits somewhat that I can not recommend 3D Coat/Textura to as many people as I would like to, simply because they roll eyes when it is revealed to them that there is no "Levels", nor non destructive "HSL", or that the layer blending is too slow to work with, or that textures look like oversharpened/moired due to the lack of the most crucially needed Mip Mapping lacking in the viewport, making it impossible to accurately author high frequency details in textures for games that are not just handpainted. It is honestly hard to believe for myself that a tool that is that well thought out and that artistic, in 2024, lacks these things, and yet seems to consider itself completed in those areas. I think 3D Coat, despite being exceptionally well thought out as an art tool, still has to go some way to understand and have empathy with professional users, who are putting trust into the tool to earn their salary by trying to progress commercial projects with it. I think this is very much a large aspect of why it is so difficult to compete with battle tested software like Blender or Zbrush, where reliability is a first class citizen, because those devs understand this very well, which is why those tools are trusted by thousands of professionals and studios across the world. It doesn't have to do with corporate money or budget alone, but with sheer priorization, sensefulness and purposeful selectivity on the development decision part. The professional user base pays for the software to in turn be able to reliably offer their skills to earn their own bread. If that is being made difficult for them by not caring about reliability and functional completeness to enable them to withstand the needs of contemporary pipelines, then it is kind of self explanatory why sadly this wonderful program is not being integrated as wide spread as others, and as a result seemingly has to do business decisions like this. (Which I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart will have a positive outcome) Trends come and go. Art stays. Plasticity is fashion currently, it's specialized and pretty affordable. But people already jumped on that wagon, already are learning the tool, or staying on their Fusion, Moi, what have you. So, in a sense, similar to Modeling Room v.s. Blender, it seems to me like tailoring to a market that is already kind of satisfied. Which is nothing wrong with, but you'd probably have to able to offer something more than just merely "being the cheaper version". The other things 3D Coat already offers, Voxel modeling flexibility, having a painterly wise more powerful (but incomplete) Substance Painter in built, incredibly powerful layer compatible dynamic topology, being able to PBR texture your sculptures, Automatic Game Res Export, most artistic Retopology... etc. etc. All that, no other software has, especially not under one umbrella, and most of the time not without any addons, which is why 3D Coat already is utterly impressive in terms of what it offers (It would just need to be properly advertised and tutorial'd, but that is another story). The sad thing is, that in turn, all other competitor software has all the other, more basic, crucial things in, that are demanded in a contemporary, flexible, art directable pipeline as basic needs, which 3D Coat for some reason, lacks. Even tho those are separate, more specialized tools: If 3D Coat would realize that bringing their multi room structure that is basically a cleverly put together, but unfinished mirror of multiple trusted software, into an "on par" state to those other software and by this, strengthen their core on mutliple ends at once, instead of continuing to expand it, this would, imho, make 3D Coat way more competitive and increase it's USP. Trying to tailor it to everybody, in turn, makes it in essence a tailoring to none (excluding me, and other passionate users who love the program, but not without an effort and good faith to see past these things, which can not be expected as a general tolerance in a professional context, where money also has to be counted). To be completely blunt: I feel empathic for the hard working developers, because I personally feel they are being mislead. Nevertheless, I wish all the best for the CAD Room Module and hope to see some positive outcome, and, cross fingers that potential benefits then will also be re-routed towards the the neglected aspects in future. Edited July 12 by Henry Townshend typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member gbball Posted July 12 Advanced Member Share Posted July 12 (edited) To chime in as a long time user. I have at times lately felt as thought 3D Coat has lost it's way. I've become somewhat disillusioned with the lack of finish on certain aspects of the tool. I've been a long time proponent of subdivision based multi-resolution modeling/sculpting for a non-destructive workflow and when I heard it was coming, I was thrilled...however the implementation while better than not having it, still doesn't support quad based meshes or sculpting. That and other things that could be huge like the almost useful node setup, the implementation of gltf export but not glb just adds to a long list of things that feel like they're not going to get done. The program feels increasingly disconnected in ways that it shouldn't. What drew me to 3D Coat in the first place was the workflow and user experience. It was more fun to sculpt in than anything else...and I'd still say that today...however, to this day, the sculpting is somewhat imprecise when you're ready to finish something off...not that it's not possible, but it's harder than it needs to be. There seems to be a lot of really great functionality, but not a lot of useful workflows and several edge case issues that haven't been resolved.@Andrew Shpagin I know it's an expense, but your team would benefit greatly from a dedicated UX person. Haikalle years ago did great work by combining several retopo tools into one more powerful tool with sensible alternative functionality. Someone who can script and leverage the vast amount of functionality in 3D Coat to facilitate more compelling workflows. The reality is these kinds of things will likely seem trivial to people who are very good programmers, but the implementation to support out of the box compelling workflows will go a really long way. Having someone like that on board will allow the rest of the team to focus on building tools and fixing bugs. Further, someone in this role could focus on iterating on the tools based on user feedback which you get a lot of here in the forums...feedback which currently doesn't feel like it's being acted upon. It's almost like a game is being made and the engine has a ton of nice tech, tools and functionality, but there is not enough focus on level and narrative design. You guys need that person on your team. To add, I know Blender is out there and it keeps growing, but people will always pay for useful tools that don't get in your way. Tools that make good assumptions about how people might want to work out of the box...but are still flexible enough to tweak to your liking. Edited July 12 by gbball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Hickz Posted July 12 Member Share Posted July 12 13 hours ago, Henry Townshend said: This is an understatement really. I am a 13 years Blender user, knowing my way around all common addons. While Blender is a DCC beast, 3D Coat, for me, is a true Art tool. It offers artistic paradigms, usually only found in 2d/painting software, in 3d space. It feels organic where many other tools feel robotic. It is an incredible accomplishment. I just wish they would equally focus on pipeline reliability and polished functionality as tools like Blender do, which I think would def. help more to compete in the market than trying to jump wagon current trends. However, thanks for taking the time to illuminate the business perspective. I have to say tho that if a company decides to use 3D Coat in production, that, in a sense, also very much influences THEIR business, in terms of time and reliability of getting things done. And if that's not the case, sadly, they can not afford to keep 3D Coat out of mere good will, cause we all have to fight against our very own Behemoths', too. Even more impactful: People who convince their company to use 3D Coat in the pipeline, and then having to justify unreliabilities, time loss, missing functionality, stand responsible for that, and simply having to spend their time on being a voluntary tester/reporter to keep the program usable for them in production, as a paying costumer. And as thankful as I am for that it is being listened to my feedback and the close communication that one can have with 3D Coat, the reliability/missing commonly expected functionality is still something that out of my view damages the programs marketability and word of mouth. It hits somewhat that I can not recommend 3D Coat/Textura to as many people as I would like to, simply because they roll eyes when it is revealed to them that there is no "Levels", nor non destructive "HSL", or that the layer blending is too slow to work with, or that textures look like oversharpened/moired due to the lack of the most crucially needed Mip Mapping lacking in the viewport, making it impossible to accurately author high frequency details in textures for games that are not just handpainted. It is honestly hard to believe for myself that a tool that is that well thought out and that artistic, in 2024, lacks these things, and yet seems to consider itself completed in those areas. I think 3D Coat, despite being exceptionally well thought out as an art tool, still has to go some way to understand and have empathy with professional users, who are putting trust into the tool to earn their salary by trying to progress commercial projects with it. I think this is very much a large aspect of why it is so difficult to compete with battle tested software like Blender or Zbrush, where reliability is a first class citizen, because those devs understand this very well, which is why those tools are trusted by thousands of professionals and studios across the world. It doesn't have to do with corporate money or budget alone, but with sheer priorization, sensefulness and purposeful selectivity on the development decision part. The professional user base pays for the software to in turn be able to reliably offer their skills to earn their own bread. If that is being made difficult for them by not caring about reliability and functional completeness to enable them to withstand the needs of contemporary pipelines, then it is kind of self explanatory why sadly this wonderful program is not being integrated as wide spread as others, and as a result seemingly has to do business decisions like this. (Which I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart will have a positive outcome) Trends come and go. Art stays. Plasticity is fashion currently, it's specialized and pretty affordable. But people already jumped on that wagon, already are learning the tool, or staying on their Fusion, Moi, what have you. So, in a sense, similar to Modeling Room v.s. Blender, it seems to me like tailoring to a market that is already kind of satisfied. Which is nothing wrong with, but you'd probably have to able to offer something more than just merely "being the cheaper version". The other things 3D Coat already offers, Voxel modeling flexibility, having a painterly wise more powerful (but incomplete) Substance Painter in built, incredibly powerful layer compatible dynamic topology, being able to PBR texture your sculptures, Automatic Game Res Export, most artistic Retopology... etc. etc. All that, no other software has, especially not under one umbrella, and most of the time not without any addons, which is why 3D Coat already is utterly impressive in terms of what it offers (It would just need to be properly advertised and tutorial'd, but that is another story). The sad thing is, that in turn, all other competitor software has all the other, more basic, crucial things in, that are demanded in a contemporary, flexible, art directable pipeline as basic needs, which 3D Coat for some reason, lacks. Even tho those are separate, more specialized tools: If 3D Coat would realize that bringing their multi room structure that is basically a cleverly put together, but unfinished mirror of multiple trusted software, into an "on par" state to those other software and by this, strengthen their core on mutliple ends at once, instead of continuing to expand it, this would, imho, make 3D Coat way more competitive and increase it's USP. Trying to tailor it to everybody, in turn, makes it in essence a tailoring to none (excluding me, and other passionate users who love the program, but not without an effort and good faith to see past these things, which can not be expected as a general tolerance in a professional context, where money also has to be counted). To be completely blunt: I feel empathic for the hard working developers, because I personally feel they are being mislead. Nevertheless, I wish all the best for the CAD Room Module and hope to see some positive outcome, and, cross fingers that potential benefits then will also be re-routed towards the the neglected aspects in future. I would surely agree with the above and also add that I don't see how you'd like to compete with plasticity at this point (which offers an amazing experience at 150$ for the indie and grows at rates beyond great), but I do hope it works out in the end for the future of 3dcoat. What I wouldn't agree with is that plasticity is a "trendy" software - it sure might be, but Nurbs/surface modelling has been around for god knows how long but it has never been offered in a keyboard driven, friendly package (not only in UX, but in price too). And so it is here to stay for a loooong time, and I can't see 1 person developing it catching up to that. With every patch 1 thing gets fixed while other 3 fall off, it doesn't make sense to try to expand the toolkit without having basic needs met along with STABILITY (which should be the number 1 aim for any professional software). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted July 12 Reputable Contributor Share Posted July 12 I said it multiple times and it seems I have to repeat it again...the developer working on the CAD module has virtually nothing to do with UX, Sculpting or Painting tools, so polishing or reliability is not affected by his work one way or the other. He was hired a while ago for this area, only, and he is just doing HIS job...not Andrew's. Adding a CAD module does not distract from work being done in the rest of the application. Pilgway "can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time," so to speak. Send Andrew an email (support@pilgway.com) mentioning the problems you have with the other areas of the application. Don't forget, they are still doing all this work right in the midst of a war, where Russia targets civilians practically on a daily basis...a Children's Hospital and large shopping Mall was recently targeted by Russia, so it is still a very distressing situation they live in, and Ukraine has been tightening it's Mobilization rules. Both co-owners of Pilgway have post graduate degrees in Physics, so they may also be contributing to the war effort in some technical way. Some of the staff could also get called up at some point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member L'Ancien Regime Posted July 13 Advanced Member Share Posted July 13 6 hours ago, AbnRanger said: I said it multiple times and it seems I have to repeat it again...the developer working on the CAD module has virtually nothing to do with UX, Sculpting or Painting tools, so polishing or reliability is not affected by his work one way or the other. He was hired a while ago for this area, only, and he is just doing HIS job...not Andrew's. Adding a CAD module does not distract from work being done in the rest of the application. Pilgway "can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time," so to speak. Send Andrew an email (support@pilgway.com) mentioning the problems you have with the other areas of the application. Don't forget, they are still doing all this work right in the midst of a war, where Russia targets civilians practically on a daily basis...a Children's Hospital and large shopping Mall was recently targeted by Russia, so it is still a very distressing situation they live in, and Ukraine has been tightening it's Mobilization rules. Both co-owners of Pilgway have post graduate degrees in Physics, so they may also be contributing to the war effort in some technical way. Some of the staff could also get called up at some point. God I hope Andrew and his staff don't get sucked into that meatgrinder. That would be such a waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Elemeno Posted July 13 Advanced Member Share Posted July 13 23 hours ago, AbnRanger said: I said it multiple times and it seems I have to repeat it again...the developer working on the CAD module has virtually nothing to do with UX, Sculpting or Painting tools, so polishing or reliability is not affected by his work one way or the other. He was hired a while ago for this area, only, and he is just doing HIS job...not Andrew's. Adding a CAD module does not distract from work being done in the rest of the application. Pilgway "can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time," so to speak. Send Andrew an email (support@pilgway.com) mentioning the problems you have with the other areas of the application. Don't forget, they are still doing all this work right in the midst of a war, where Russia targets civilians practically on a daily basis...a Children's Hospital and large shopping Mall was recently targeted by Russia, so it is still a very distressing situation they live in, and Ukraine has been tightening it's Mobilization rules. Both co-owners of Pilgway have post graduate degrees in Physics, so they may also be contributing to the war effort in some technical way. Some of the staff could also get called up at some point. i completely understand , people want as much as they possibly can for their money , but saying the person working on cad doesn't work on sculpting tools stability etc doesnt mean they can help whoever is right now there are alot of things wrong with the rooms that actually mean something , i used to love 3dcoat because the main area the sculpting tooms were fast and lots of way to do things , but lately its become unstable ,brushes dont work as intended (flatten ) being one of those , weve been begging for years for things to be implemented an not seen a single one ... ive been waiting for quads only inside surface mode since v4 ,alot of us have , and each year we buy the license and dont get anything we need or want fixed or added, radial symmetry from designated area is another were currently binded to axis we need alot more freedom there surely must be a better way to determine peoples time and resources that make their lives and the communities better , why not post a poll about a feature to work on , we all vote based on what would really help at that point in time and then they work on that . they could focus the whole team of working around that area while one implements the feature other work on bug fixes , i dont know but i can see peoples frustrations as we pay for software that we just dont use anymore because its outdated tools and stability issues end up costing us our time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Elemeno Posted July 13 Advanced Member Share Posted July 13 in fact maybe the page could be locked as its gone way off track . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted July 13 Reputable Contributor Share Posted July 13 7 minutes ago, Elemeno said: i completely understand , people want as much as they possibly can for their money , but saying the person working on cad doesn't work on sculpting tools stability etc doesnt mean they can help whoever is right now there are alot of things wrong with the rooms that actually mean something , i used to love 3dcoat because the main area the sculpting tooms were fast and lots of way to do things , but lately its become unstable ,brushes dont work as intended (flatten ) being one of those , weve been begging for years for things to be implemented an not seen a single one ... ive been waiting for quads only inside surface mode since v4 ,alot of us have , and each year we buy the license and dont get anything we need or want fixed or added, radial symmetry from designated area is another were currently binded to axis we need alot more freedom there surely must be a better way to determine peoples time and resources that make their lives and the communities better , why not post a poll about a feature to work on , we all vote based on what would really help at that point in time and then they work on that . they could focus the whole team of working around that area while one implements the feature other work on bug fixes , i dont know but i can see peoples frustrations as we pay for software that we just dont use anymore because its outdated tools and stability issues end up costing us our time I have asked for a lot of features over the years. Many were implemented and many were not. When hundreds of people are making requests each day/week, that is what will happen. We have to get in line and wait our turn. Sometimes, I have to repeat my request multiple times before it gets implemented. A lot of it comes down to priority, but also whether or not Andrew really sees a need or if a feature will really benefit users. I would like to see Factures get more fully integrated with Smart Materials, but that may not happen for a while, because Andrew is working on other things. On a personal note, I think the Quad only mode in the Sculpt room is a matter of usefulness. I personally do not see a dire need for it, and I doubt Andrew does, either. Please record a video showing precisely why it would be such a game changer for you, personally. That may be all it takes for Andrew to finally look at it. I don't feel the need for quads, myself, and feel like I can sculpt whatever I need to in Voxels or Surface mode, as is. But I am open to change my view on it if someone can show me what difference it would make. Regarding polish and stability, I agree, and that is why I am always reporting bugs as soon as I spot one. I know it can be frustrating at times, especially if you have a tight deadline to meet. Nevertheless, you are missing my point about the developer of the modeling/CAD tools. Not every developer is able to squash bugs and work on every part of the application. He has made some tools for the Sculpt workspace, but his task is what Pilgway gave him to work on. If you are upset with the pace of development in the other areas of the application, feel free to send emails to support@pilgway.com 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Henry Townshend Posted July 15 Advanced Member Share Posted July 15 (edited) On 7/12/2024 at 11:51 PM, AbnRanger said: Don't forget, they are still doing all this work right in the midst of a war, where Russia targets civilians practically on a daily basis...a Children's Hospital and large shopping Mall was recently targeted by Russia, so it is still a very distressing situation they live in, and Ukraine has been tightening it's Mobilization rules. Both co-owners of Pilgway have post graduate degrees in Physics, so they may also be contributing to the war effort in some technical way. Some of the staff could also get called up at some point. Thanks for pointing this out. It was the reason I felt bad about my comments in the first place. This is prolly the worst point in time to open such a can and potentially put the devs under any stress. I hope this didn't come across as unthankful. I frequently express my grattitude to Andrew in email, cause I think what he's/they are doing under the circumstances is nothing short of hero-esque. I think it was just that when revealing this new pompous feature/room, it was naturally triggering this conversation. I just want to add/conclude from my side that I do not think that anyone is "dissatisfied with the current 'pace' of development". But rather with prioritization and perceived urgency of certain issues. Edited July 15 by Henry Townshend typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Elemeno Posted July 15 Advanced Member Share Posted July 15 3 hours ago, Henry Townshend said: Thanks for pointing this out. It was the reason I felt bad about my comments in the first place. This is prolly the worst point in time to open such a can and potentially put the devs under any stress. I hope this didn't come across as unthankful. I frequently express my grattitude to Andrew in email, cause I think what he's/they are doing under the circumstances is nothing short of hero-esque. I think it was just that when revealing this new pompous feature/room, it was naturally triggering this conversation. I just want to add/conclude from my side that I do not think that anyone is "dissatisfied with the current 'pace' of development". But rather with prioritization and perceived urgency of certain issues. also would like to say that this is a discussion theres never any hatred in these comments , these guys do amazing so again this is just a discussion 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.