This is by far the hardest software to get to grips with

[Oleg Shapov]

49 minutes ago, pieralessi said:

I don't understand the getting its identifier by pressing RMB+LMB

Hover the mouse cursor over the desired element in the UI and press RMB+LMB. If successful, there will be a message below. Then click the ellipsis and Add command. And name it as you like.

[pieralessi]

2 hours ago, Oleg Shapov said:

Hover the mouse cursor over the desired element in the UI and press RMB+LMB. If successful, there will be a message below. Then click the ellipsis and Add command. And name it as you like.

Done but... now? Some good video? The tool don't have a name so I can find it on tutorials or documentation? This is the main cause of stubbornness when learning 3D Coat

Edited June 4 by pieralessi

[pieralessi]

Something happened suddenly, I click a lot and the node doesn't get deselected, it just rotates the view as if I were pressing ALT

[pieralessi]

7 hours ago, pieralessi said:

 

One piece of advice: you should look up video compatibility on the forum. It would help a lot, and it would save you time and the hassle of explaining what I need you to explain.

Some reply?

[Carlosan]

8 hours ago, Oleg Shapov said:

Please send me the curves with which these tools do not work.

As Oleg said, sent him the project to take a look.

It is difficult to replicate watching pictures.

[AbnRanger]

12 hours ago, pieralessi said:

Thank you for your response and that of everyone else on this forum. I don't know if this has happened to you, but I bought 3D Coat so I could use it as fully as possible, especially for product rendering without having to pay the hefty Autodesk fee or paying for numerous add-ons to make the complicated Blender easier.
I understand that some people will be more interested in one room than another, but that doesn't mean I have to settle for only what interests others and get frustrated with the rest. The documentation generally doesn't cover these topics or deals very superficially with them, and anyone who wants to delve deeper will find themselves in a literal battle of learning and discord for not being able to align themselves with the personal interests of other users and "teachers," whom I respect, but who continue to ignore the harsh reality: When I click on a certain part, something doesn't happen or happens as expected. Even though the program has many explanatory labels, they don't fully "illustrate" its function, much less intuit the steps that, once superficially explained, should be intuitive, but aren't. This also doesn't allow you to differentiate between a misused tool or a bug, which there are.
Although the program isn't just for painting, sculpting, and texturing, but also for modeling, lighting, and rendering, have you done projects with these rooms? You're probably wondering: "How complex is what you're looking to do?" And I'll answer: "How comprehensive are the tutorials and guides?" Or "How effective do you find the tools?" Have you ever started working with polygonal modeling after hours of watching tutorials? I was surprised too, and I liked many of them, but when you put them into practice, it's not the same. That surface you were looking for just doesn't turn out the same. In any other program (free or paid), there's clear documentation, certified courses, and a growing community focused on all the software. There isn't a single advanced polygonal modeling course on the entire web. I've taken a couple of the ones you show in the links, but those are limited to sculpting and texturing, and the instructors themselves admit they don't master everything or don't respond. You have no idea how tedious it is to have to spend days and even weeks contacting support or researching tutorials just to figure out that you needed to open a palette or window, dig through almost 40 lines of lists with unfamiliar nomenclature, and realize you had to click on something that you'd never imagine was related to the tool you were using, and then start the whole ordeal over again with another tool. Explaining to you exactly what isn't working or what you don't understand is like asking you for specific chapters and verses from the Bible without you being able to explain Christianity or the divine mystery to me. I invite you to look at the 3DCoat website for a list of institutions that supposedly teach this software worldwide and go into each of them. Did you know that 3D Coat is also promoted for industrial design? I invite you to challenge users to show real industrial design projects made with spline curve and polygonal modeling tools and explain them on a YouTube channel. Don't talk to me about a 30-day trial because you know it's impossible that in that time you can't understand if the difficulties you encounter are common or just a bug. I think many here, seeing what the website promises, don't need to ask themselves whether what is shown there is true or a pure fake. I have made complaints and suggestions since 2022, and I see that by 2024 there are no corrections in this regard.

3DCoat is like many, if not most, 3D applications. There are some areas where it excels and areas where it may simply be adequate. I don't know of a single 3D application where this is not the case. The Render room would be one of those that are just adequate (Although it does have Renderman support, albeit limited to still images and no shadow-catching material). Most of the focus has been on Sculpting, Texture Painting, Retopo and UV tools. Polymodeling and NURBS/Solid Surface tools are still relatively new in terms of development. Pilgway is trying to diversify and offer a growing set of CAD/NURBS tools, so that artists/designers from either industry can make and move assets from 3DCoat to CAD applications. Blender being free and getting tons of corporate $$$ is making it very difficult for other 3D applications (of all kinds) to compete and survive. Pilgway staff are also in the middle of an existential war and it makes it very difficult to conduct business at a normal pace.

Again, I ask that you take the time to go through that series about Polymodeling, that I linked to previously. You said there is no single course covering the polymodeling tools, please wait until you have finished that series, okay? Ian put a lot of work into it.

[pieralessi]

10 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

3DCoat is like many, if not most, 3D applications. There are some areas where it excels and areas where it may simply be adequate. I don't know of a single 3D application where this is not the case. The Render room would be one of those that are just adequate (Although it does have Renderman support, albeit limited to still images and no shadow-catching material). Most of the focus has been on Sculpting, Texture Painting, Retopo and UV tools. Polymodeling and NURBS/Solid Surface tools are still relatively new in terms of development. Pilgway is trying to diversify and offer a growing set of CAD/NURBS tools, so that artists/designers from either industry can make and move assets from 3DCoat to CAD applications. Blender being free and getting tons of corporate $$$ is making it very difficult for other 3D applications (of all kinds) to compete and survive. Pilgway staff are also in the middle of an existential war and it makes it very difficult to conduct business at a normal pace.

Again, I ask that you take the time to go through that series about Polymodeling, that I linked to previously. You said there is no single course covering the polymodeling tools, please wait until you have finished that series, okay? Ian put a lot of work into it.

What version is the polymodeling room on? Why are they charging for software that isn't finished? Was that clear in the software's offer? Pope Francis I said it well, and Leo XIV still maintains it: "We have lived through the Third World War in pieces." I am a Venezuelan immigrant in Italy. Russia has been in my country militarily, along with Iran and China, for more than 20 years. I lost all my working years because I left the country, and they won't recognize my $100 pension. I tried to start my freelance business in Italy after working hard in England. For family reasons, I had to come back, and illness XV+IV ended up destroying everything. Taxes wiped out the little I had earned, and on top of that, a good part goes to finance the war, but here we have to wait a year for a preoperative exam. I bought a program with great sacrifice that promises to do certain things, and it's impossible to discover its errors in 30 days. If other programs have defects, support resolves them completely in a short time. If you sell it to me cheaply, you still have to deliver what you promise, otherwise they already know what to do.

[AbnRanger]

19 minutes ago, pieralessi said:

What version is the polymodeling room on? Why are they charging for software that isn't finished? Was that clear in the software's offer? Pope Francis I said it well, and Leo XIV still maintains it: "We have lived through the Third World War in pieces." I am a Venezuelan immigrant in Italy. Russia has been in my country militarily, along with Iran and China, for more than 20 years. I lost all my working years because I left the country, and they won't recognize my $100 pension. I tried to start my freelance business in Italy after working hard in England. For family reasons, I had to come back, and illness XV+IV ended up destroying everything. Taxes wiped out the little I had earned, and on top of that, a good part goes to finance the war, but here we have to wait a year for a preoperative exam. I bought a program with great sacrifice that promises to do certain things, and it's impossible to discover its errors in 30 days. If other programs have defects, support resolves them completely in a short time. If you sell it to me cheaply, you still have to deliver what you promise, otherwise they already know what to do.

Every application evolves...including ZBrush. It wasn't long ago that they added some of it's most well known features, like Z-Remesher, Dyna-Mesh, Dynamic Subdivision (Sculptris Pro), etc. Was ZBrush "unfinished" before those tools arrived? When they added major tools, they often would improve them from time to time. So, likewise, 3DCoat ADDING polymodeling tools to it's Retopo toolset doesn't mean they are totally finished and will never see refinements and new features. Again, I ask you to watch the following series on Polymodeling in 3DCoat before you make statements like "Why are they charging for software that isn't finished?" Who said they are unfinished?

The Polymodeling tools are not intended to compete with major 3D apps, that have had 2 decades to build and refine their modeling toolsets. It's intended to give 3DCoat artists sufficient ability to model with polygons without having to leave the application to do it. It is also designed to compliment the Voxel Modeling toolset. One object may be easier to model with voxels > Retopo/Auto-Retopo and another object might be easier to build with polygons. 

[AbnRanger]

21 hours ago, pieralessi said:

I tried doing it with a plane divided into four, but when I clicked on the circular area, nothing happened. The video omits an important part: if I'm using the curve tools, I must first go to... and then... to be able to select the faces without complications. See the video above about a non-intuitive step before selecting when using curves.

You have to understand that when you are creating or editing CURVES, you are in an entirely different mode or stage of creating/editing a model. When you are done creating or editing Curves, you need to step out of that draw mode (hit the E-key to bring up the E-Panel and choose the mode you want to work with next), and into a Brush drawing mode or Shape SELECTION mode. I have to choose different selection modes in 3ds Max or Blender. Why does 3DCoat lose points for doing the same? When I am painting or working in the UV workspace, I know I may need to switch my drawing mode to something more appropriate for the specific tool or task. When you are creating & editing curves, you are in a CURVE draw mode. If you suddenly decided you want to select some polygons, edges or verts, you simply switch to the appropriate draw mode for that task. Again, please watch the Ian's series on "Low Poly modeling in 3DCoat." He covers a lot of ground and explains things in great detail, at a pace anyone can follow.

If you really want to speed up the process of changing draw modes, you can assign hotkeys to them (some of the F keys might be suitable for that) by hovering your cursor over the desired draw mode (in the E-Panel) and hitting the END key. That will allow you to make the keyboard assignment. Another option to quickly switch and you don't even have to look down at your keyboard, is to use the HMC Voice Command software. You don't even have to fool with making custom hotkey assignments. Just say the name of the tool, menu item, draw mode, etc. and it selects it for you, while you continue to focus on the model. It's a 3rd party plugin that is worth exploring.

[AbnRanger]

On 5/5/2025 at 2:02 AM, Elemeno said:

bit of a lengthy video , but it shows my frustration with the current workflows of 3dcoat , being able to do basic tasks .

i used the modelling room for 5 minutes and i couldnt carry on,

ive been 3d modelling for many years now, i started when i was young , and im an old man now ... ive used many softwares over my time , but this is by far the hardest software to get to grips with .

 

 

 

I was re-watching the video and noticed the questions you had towards the end. You could also use R-Fill or the Cap tool for that, depending on your needs. They both CAP (fill) an open hole in a mesh, but do it differently. Sometimes you just want to cap with a single N-Gon. Sometimes you may want edges converging into a single vertex in the center (ie., for eyeballs, ends of sharp objects like teeth, etc.). The Cap tool does both of those. Other times, you may want 3DCoat to cap with clean quads (R-Fill). Please watch Ian's series and you'll have a much deeper understanding/proficiency in 3DCoat, with regard to the modeling/retopo tools. 

 

[pieralessi]

57 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

Every application evolves...including ZBrush. It wasn't long ago that they added some of it's most well known features, like Z-Remesher, Dyna-Mesh, Dynamic Subdivision (Sculptris Pro), etc. Was ZBrush "unfinished" before those tools arrived? When they added major tools, they often would improve them from time to time. So, likewise, 3DCoat ADDING polymodeling tools to it's Retopo toolset doesn't mean they are totally finished and will never see refinements and new features. Again, I ask you to watch the following series on Polymodeling in 3DCoat before you make statements like "Why are they charging for software that isn't finished?" Who said they are unfinished?

The Polymodeling tools are not intended to compete with major 3D apps, that have had 2 decades to build and refine their modeling toolsets. It's intended to give 3DCoat artists sufficient ability to model with polygons without having to leave the application to do it. It is also designed to compliment the Voxel Modeling toolset. One object may be easier to model with voxels > Retopo/Auto-Retopo and another object might be easier to build with polygons. 

Everything you're saying is unfounded because there are new features like the Nurbs feature, but the Polymodeling feature hasn't been developed yet. What you're saying about ZBRUSH is absurd because you're confusing "new tools" with "existing but buggy ones" (and years old). I'm not the only one making complaints about this on this forum.

[pieralessi]

1 hour ago, AbnRanger said:

You have to understand that when you are creating or editing CURVES, you are in an entirely different mode or stage of creating/editing a model. When you are done creating or editing Curves, you need to step out of that draw mode (hit the E-key to bring up the E-Panel and choose the mode you want to work with next), and into a Brush drawing mode or Shape SELECTION mode. I have to choose different selection modes in 3ds Max or Blender. Why does 3DCoat lose points for doing the same? When I am painting or working in the UV workspace, I know I may need to switch my drawing mode to something more appropriate for the specific tool or task. When you are creating & editing curves, you are in a CURVE draw mode. If you suddenly decided you want to select some polygons, edges or verts, you simply switch to the appropriate draw mode for that task. Again, please watch the Ian's series on "Low Poly modeling in 3DCoat." He covers a lot of ground and explains things in great detail, at a pace anyone can follow.

If you really want to speed up the process of changing draw modes, you can assign hotkeys to them (some of the F keys might be suitable for that) by hovering your cursor over the desired draw mode (in the E-Panel) and hitting the END key. That will allow you to make the keyboard assignment. Another option to quickly switch and you don't even have to look down at your keyboard, is to use the HMC Voice Command software. You don't even have to fool with making custom hotkey assignments. Just say the name of the tool, menu item, draw mode, etc. and it selects it for you, while you continue to focus on the model. It's a 3rd party plugin that is worth exploring.

My friend, if it's that obvious and simple, why isn't the start and end of a drawing session determined by a separate room or a good contextual palette, like polygonal modeling tools? I've been using programs for 30 years, and there's something called "UX Design" that determines "UI Design." You can research the acronyms on the web. I'm a user, and I've realized that I have to adapt to the thinking of a certain number of "collaborators" who should all follow the same work philosophy; otherwise, the software would remain a mess of hidden options, as if it were a video game. 3D Coat must adapt to the needs of users and improve the product. Not keep releasing dated versions with seemingly new features that are always in development. Fixing a bug isn't exactly a tool's advancement; modifying it and giving it more functionality is quite another matter. Do you know how much time I've wasted demonstrating things that are too complicated to understand, testing tools numerous times to figure out where the strange results come from, and researching first to test and then complain? I've made many complaints about tools on this forum, but they only respond to a few or ask for the original file because it's impossible to send them a video here. Do you think I'm having fun playing the hater when after three years I should be able to just use my program? If you sell me a car and tell me the wheels are being manufactured or I had to connect the battery from the hood, you know what to do.

[pieralessi]

58 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

I was re-watching the video and noticed the questions you had towards the end. You could also use R-Fill or the Cap tool for that, depending on your needs. They both CAP (fill) an open hole in a mesh, but do it differently. Sometimes you just want to cap with a single N-Gon. Sometimes you may want edges converging into a single vertex in the center (ie., for eyeballs, ends of sharp objects like teeth, etc.). The Cap tool does both of those. Other times, you may want 3DCoat to cap with clean quads (R-Fill). Please watch Ian's series and you'll have a much deeper understanding/proficiency in 3DCoat, with regard to the modeling/retopo tools. 

 

I don't understand why, when I asked my questions about surface tools a while back, support contacted me directly with the programmer, who only showed me videos from his own channel in Ukrainian, without showing the shortcuts and with poorly translated subtitles. I recently came across these videos, which have been around for a while and are very good, but they're lacking. There are options not mentioned, and testing them in the program is impossible because they aren't explained. Trying them out just by looking at the gray labels isn't enough. Showing a simple surface with one or two tools doesn't illustrate the program's potential. I can test the tools one by one, but I end up on the forum and spend a lifetime doing it because they end up sending videos of other tools that aren't the same even though they look similar, which is confusing. I'll give you an example, when I saw the Surface Patch video I understood that it could perfectly replace the other similar ones because it allows me to preview the result, but when I put them into practice it is not the same, yesterday I explained it in a post above (look for it and you'll see), then, inexplicably for me some curves were joined perfectly through the tools to join nodes in the curves but when doing it with another it simply did not give me the result, they asked me for the file because they will have no idea what happens, was the curve corrupted by any involuntary operation trying options? I least know.

[AbnRanger]

12 hours ago, pieralessi said:

Everything you're saying is unfounded because there are new features like the Nurbs feature, but the Polymodeling feature hasn't been developed yet. What you're saying about ZBRUSH is absurd because you're confusing "new tools" with "existing but buggy ones" (and years old). I'm not the only one making complaints about this on this forum.

How can you know they are underdeveloped when you don't even know how to use the tools yet, according to your own words? I politely asked you to watch the tutorial series covering the subject in great depth, but instead, it's as if you prefer to come here and argue. If there is indeed something wrong with the tools or they are in need of improvement (of course most every toolset can use some degree of improvement), then yes, it's helpful (for everyone) to bring it up...but in a constructive, rather than a derogatory/abrasive manner.

3DCoat is primarily a Texture Painting, Sculpting (and Voxel Modeling), Retopo and UV Editing application. In the past few years, Pilgway has tried to add to the Retopo toolset and offer a PolyModeling workspace, so users don't necessarily have to leave the application for this task...so, yes, the Polymodeling toolset is relatively new compared to the other areas that have been in development for over a decade, and is still being improved incrementally.

The same thing applies to NURBS. Some NURBS-based tools have been in the application for a while, and the ability to convert a polymesh to NURBS > export to a CAD centric application is still a work in progress. This is how Public Beta works...instead of Pilgway sitting on a feature for a year (until a new release), like many applications, the developers allow users to get their hands on the tools in the early beta stages and help them refine the tool or toolset...which naturally includes their input on improvements or additional features/options added to it, but also Bug reporting. You can either have a good and constructive attitude about the Bug reporting or a bad one, that isn't constructive for anyone. That choice is yours.

I have had to report many, many bugs in the past and continue to, because it not only helps me get a stable toolset, but it helps the developers and other users also. If you do send support@pilgway.com a bug report, it might be helpful to mention the word BUG prominently in the email title because Andrew prioritizes Bug fixing over feature development, and will generally stop whatever feature he is working on, to fix a bug that is reported.  

[AbnRanger]

12 hours ago, pieralessi said:

My friend, if it's that obvious and simple, why isn't the start and end of a drawing session determined by a separate room or a good contextual palette, like polygonal modeling tools? I've been using programs for 30 years, and there's something called "UX Design" that determines "UI Design." You can research the acronyms on the web. I'm a user, and I've realized that I have to adapt to the thinking of a certain number of "collaborators" who should all follow the same work philosophy; otherwise, the software would remain a mess of hidden options, as if it were a video game. 3D Coat must adapt to the needs of users and improve the product. Not keep releasing dated versions with seemingly new features that are always in development. Fixing a bug isn't exactly a tool's advancement; modifying it and giving it more functionality is quite another matter. Do you know how much time I've wasted demonstrating things that are too complicated to understand, testing tools numerous times to figure out where the strange results come from, and researching first to test and then complain? I've made many complaints about tools on this forum, but they only respond to a few or ask for the original file because it's impossible to send them a video here. Do you think I'm having fun playing the hater when after three years I should be able to just use my program? If you sell me a car and tell me the wheels are being manufactured or I had to connect the battery from the hood, you know what to do.

Have you watched the video series I posted twice? It's as if you just want to rant before you watch the training material provided by the company, and that will not achieve any productive results here.

It's very simple and easy. When you are working with Curves, you use a CURVE DRAW MODE. When you are done creating or editing CURVES, you pick another draw mode from the E-Panel. Why must you argue with me about this?

[MJonathan]

Hi AbnRanger,

I've noticed that you often respond defensively. I believe it's important to clarify that people here are not trying to say that 3DCoat is a bad software. On the contrary, most of the feedback is intended to help the company grow and improve the software.

In my opinion, users have been offering feedback for years, yet the development team continues to add more 3D tools that aren’t practical for professional workflows—instead of refining and optimizing the existing ones.

Why do I say some of these tools aren’t useful? If 3DCoat aims to create an advanced CAD system to attract a different user base, perhaps it would be better to develop a separate application rather than adding more complexity to the current software. 3DCoat should focus on its core strengths: sculpting, painting, retopology, and UVs. The additional “rooms” only increase complexity. While the team argues that each room is isolated, that’s not a solid solution. A well-designed application shouldn’t need to be compartmentalized. Blender, Maya, 3ds Max, ZBrush, and Cinema 4D are all fully integrated environments.

3DCoat needs to be restructured to enhance its core strengths instead of adding more tools and rooms that remain in beta for years and go largely unused. Simplicity is essential for maintaining a robust system.

This software is already a gem when it comes to voxel sculpting, hand-painting, retopology, and UVs—but there’s still a lot of room for improvement to make these tools more solid and production-ready. What do I mean by "more solid"? First of all, the rooms should not be isolated; features should interact seamlessly. For example, in the Sculpt Room, many brushes don't work as expected. Why not support quads? Most professionals want the flexibility to work as they do in other industry-standard applications. In painting, the baking algorithms and brush scaling performance need improvement—large brush radius cause significant slowdowns. Also, the layer sliders are unresponsive.

UVs have improved in terms of speed, which is great—but why isn’t there support for UDIM layouts? Why can't we scale UV shells proportionally to texture resolution (pixel density)? As for retopology, I don’t have major complaints at the moment, but it could also benefit from refinement.

In conclusion, if 3DCoat wants to attract users from other disciplines, the team should consider developing separate, specialized applications rather than expanding the current software with more complex and disconnected features.

[pieralessi]

9 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

How can you know they are underdeveloped when you don't even know how to use the tools yet, according to your own words? I politely asked you to watch the tutorial series covering the subject in great depth, but instead, it's as if you prefer to come here and argue. If there is indeed something wrong with the tools or they are in need of improvement (of course most every toolset can use some degree of improvement), then yes, it's helpful (for everyone) to bring it up...but in a constructive, rather than a derogatory/abrasive manner.

3DCoat is primarily a Texture Painting, Sculpting (and Voxel Modeling), Retopo and UV Editing application. In the past few years, Pilgway has tried to add to the Retopo toolset and offer a PolyModeling workspace, so users don't necessarily have to leave the application for this task...so, yes, the Polymodeling toolset is relatively new compared to the other areas that have been in development for over a decade, and is still being improved incrementally.

The same thing applies to NURBS. Some NURBS-based tools have been in the application for a while, and the ability to convert a polymesh to NURBS > export to a CAD centric application is still a work in progress. This is how Public Beta works...instead of Pilgway sitting on a feature for a year (until a new release), like many applications, the developers allow users to get their hands on the tools in the early beta stages and help them refine the tool or toolset...which naturally includes their input on improvements or additional features/options added to it, but also Bug reporting. You can either have a good and constructive attitude about the Bug reporting or a bad one, that isn't constructive for anyone. That choice is yours.

I have had to report many, many bugs in the past and continue to, because it not only helps me get a stable toolset, but it helps the developers and other users also. If you do send support@pilgway.com a bug report, it might be helpful to mention the word BUG prominently in the email title because Andrew prioritizes Bug fixing over feature development, and will generally stop whatever feature he is working on, to fix a bug that is reported.  

"How can you know they're underdeveloped if, according to your own words, you don't even know how to use the tools?"
Don't interpret my words as you see fit. The tools don't work as they appear in tutorials and the incomprehensible gray labels.

"I politely asked you to watch the tutorial series that covers the topic in depth, but instead, you seem to prefer coming here to argue."

If you haven't read all my posts from three years ago, you'll have no idea what I'm talking about. Since my first worthy complaint as a client, they always respond politely but defensively and without really addressing my needs. The videos don't show everything, and out of every five questions I ask, they answer two. Don't try to manipulate my opinion.

"If there is indeed a problem with the tools or if they need improvement (of course, almost all tools can be improved), then yes, it's helpful (for everyone) to mention it... but in a constructive way, not derogatory or abrasive."

I've always done it, but I can't maintain the calm atmosphere when they always respond with, "Every contributor is free to think and has their own way." If that's fighting for you, there's nothing you can do. I've always contributed ideas for improvements, but for you, that's fighting, put your pride first.

"3DCoat is primarily a texture painting, sculpting (and voxel modeling), Retopo, and UV editing application. In recent years, Pilgway has tried to expand the Retopo toolset and offer a PolyModeling workspace, so that users don't have to leave the application for this task. So, yes, the PolyModeling toolset is relatively new compared to other areas that have been in development for over a decade and are still progressively improving."

And if so, why did you charge me for the program? Are you making me pay for a car just to tell me the gas tank is under development? I bought 3D Coat 2022, and nowhere does it say that its tools are in development. The modeling suite was already included, and it's been three years. If it's like you say, you're admitting that the tutorials are incomplete because they talk about tools in development that would be impossible to show.

"The same goes for NURBS. Some NURBS-based tools have been in the app for a while, and the ability to convert a polygon mesh to NURBS and then export it to a CAD application is still in development."

This is how the public beta works: Instead of Pilgway leaving a feature undeveloped for a year (until release), as is the case with many apps, the developers give users access to the tools in the early stages of the beta and help them refine them. This includes, of course, your input on improvements or additional features/options, as well as reporting bugs."

I PAID for 2022 as a public beta? From the beginning, I made my contributions unfairly because 3DCoat's promotion doesn't mention that it has tools in development for which the customer has already been charged.

"You can have a positive and constructive attitude toward bug reporting, or a negative one; that's not constructive for anyone. The decision is yours."
I didn't pay for public betas. If I revert to 2022.58 (I can't download .60), then the one I have isn't finished. If I want 2024, would I have to pay for the unfixed bugs because it's in eternal development?

Do you want a decision? They'd rather give me back what I paid, including taxes.

"I've had to report a lot of bugs in the past, and I continue to do so because it not only helps me maintain a stable toolset, but also helps developers and other users. If you send a bug report to support@pilgway.com, it might be helpful to mention the word BUG prominently in the email subject, as Andrew prioritizes bug fixes over new feature development and usually stalls any feature he's working on to fix a reported bug."

It's great that you acknowledge reporting bugs! It means I'm right to say there are bugs and that I've made my complaints politely from the start. You can't charge people for bugs; you fix them first and then put the software up for sale. If it's about endless development phases, be like Blender, make it free software, and let those who find it so good and manageable contribute without any bad tempers. I think you'd gain more that way.

[pieralessi]

9 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Have you watched the video series I posted twice? It's as if you just want to rant before you watch the training material provided by the company, and that will not achieve any productive results here.

It's very simple and easy. When you are working with Curves, you use a CURVE DRAW MODE. When you are done creating or editing CURVES, you pick another draw mode from the E-Panel. Why must you argue with me about this?

See? I'm providing corrections, and you insist on playing the victim. Can you imagine me having to watch a 10- or 20-minute video discovering that the reason for one of my many concerns lies within a palette that keeps closing when, like other tools, it "should" be in a pop-up palette?
Friend, I insist you read my previous posts. If when I file a complaint, they contact me with a new developer who has never read my previous arguments, like in your case, you always dismiss me as a hater, at your convenience? I think so.
3D Coat isn't free software, perhaps open source, which isn't the same thing.

[pieralessi]

5 hours ago, MJonathan said:

Hi AbnRanger,

I've noticed that you often respond defensively. I believe it's important to clarify that people here are not trying to say that 3DCoat is a bad software. On the contrary, most of the feedback is intended to help the company grow and improve the software.

In my opinion, users have been offering feedback for years, yet the development team continues to add more 3D tools that aren’t practical for professional workflows—instead of refining and optimizing the existing ones.

Why do I say some of these tools aren’t useful? If 3DCoat aims to create an advanced CAD system to attract a different user base, perhaps it would be better to develop a separate application rather than adding more complexity to the current software. 3DCoat should focus on its core strengths: sculpting, painting, retopology, and UVs. The additional “rooms” only increase complexity. While the team argues that each room is isolated, that’s not a solid solution. A well-designed application shouldn’t need to be compartmentalized. Blender, Maya, 3ds Max, ZBrush, and Cinema 4D are all fully integrated environments.

3DCoat needs to be restructured to enhance its core strengths instead of adding more tools and rooms that remain in beta for years and go largely unused. Simplicity is essential for maintaining a robust system.

This software is already a gem when it comes to voxel sculpting, hand-painting, retopology, and UVs—but there’s still a lot of room for improvement to make these tools more solid and production-ready. What do I mean by "more solid"? First of all, the rooms should not be isolated; features should interact seamlessly. For example, in the Sculpt Room, many brushes don't work as expected. Why not support quads? Most professionals want the flexibility to work as they do in other industry-standard applications. In painting, the baking algorithms and brush scaling performance need improvement—large brush radius cause significant slowdowns. Also, the layer sliders are unresponsive.

UVs have improved in terms of speed, which is great—but why isn’t there support for UDIM layouts? Why can't we scale UV shells proportionally to texture resolution (pixel density)? As for retopology, I don’t have major complaints at the moment, but it could also benefit from refinement.

In conclusion, if 3DCoat wants to attract users from other disciplines, the team should consider developing separate, specialized applications rather than expanding the current software with more complex and disconnected features.

Thank you for your intervention and support, I have explained them countless times within the forum for three years about the reason why I bought the program, I was really surprised by what was offered and when I expressed my legitimate dissatisfaction, they have always responded defensively. This goes without saying, but it is a logical thing: A customer buys what is offered, and Pilgway has not fulfilled their promise to me. If other customers are happy with sculpting and painting, perfect!, but that does not mean that the rest of the clientele should be treated as a hindrance. The fact that someone ask about a tool that does not work as expected, does not have a detailed explanation in the documentation and they release videos that do not cover even 50% of all the things you encounter when using the program and that you have to spend important hours of your life trying to be truly reciprocated with any questions is a huge lack of respect and you cannot expect cordiality from me, I have had enough. They cover their backs with the 30-day trial, (I did it on Mac but when I bought the software I changed to Windows) which is said to be easy, but it's impossible to notice everything it's missing, or if it does exist, it only works halfway. We all know that not only are tutorials needed, but also courses that demonstrate the program's true potential at different levels in all its aspects. I took two on Udemy, and they're limited to a few sculpting tools. If you ask about the others, they don't even recognize them or don't respond. If you search on YouTube or Artistation, you find the same thing. If you check the 3D Coat website for institutions that belong to a learning plan, at least in the ones I investigated, none mention 3D Coat. This is supposedly part of what motivated me to purchase the software. To this end, no one has ever responded to me on the forum.

[AbnRanger]

23 hours ago, pieralessi said:

See? I'm providing corrections, and you insist on playing the victim. Can you imagine me having to watch a 10- or 20-minute video discovering that the reason for one of my many concerns lies within a palette that keeps closing when, like other tools, it "should" be in a pop-up palette?
Friend, I insist you read my previous posts. If when I file a complaint, they contact me with a new developer who has never read my previous arguments, like in your case, you always dismiss me as a hater, at your convenience? I think so.
3D Coat isn't free software, perhaps open source, which isn't the same thing.

You stated on the first page of this thread that there were no structured courses on the topic of Polygonal Modeling in the application, so I politely asked you twice to please watch the IN DEPTH series provided on the Youtube Channel. Your statement implied that you do not yet know fully how to use the tools...because as you stated (incorrectly) that there wasn't enough training material for the tools. I pointed to where you could find them. 

 

[AbnRanger]

8 minutes ago, AbnRanger said:

You stated on the first page of this thread that there were no structured courses on the topic of Polygonal Modeling in the application, so I politely asked you twice to please watch the IN DEPTH series provided on the Youtube Channel. Your statement implied that you do not yet know fully how to use the tools...because as you stated (incorrectly) that there wasn't enough training material for the tools. I pointed to where you could find them. 

Quote: "Everything you say is true, but the company can't just wash its hands and ignore the situation. They know I didn't buy the program for gaming, but for work, and it's impossible to deal with the program's complexity in 30 days. I've complained a lot about many things, but they respond the same way you did, and in my case, it's worse because there are no polygonal modeling or curves courses that are comprehensive or properly go into detail about all the options. They just want you to ask questions on the forum, but in the end, they send you the same long video that doesn't go into detail about what you need, and it takes a long time to find an answer."

 

[AbnRanger]

23 hours ago, pieralessi said:

Thank you for your intervention and support, I have explained them countless times within the forum for three years about the reason why I bought the program, I was really surprised by what was offered and when I expressed my legitimate dissatisfaction, they have always responded defensively. This goes without saying, but it is a logical thing: A customer buys what is offered, and Pilgway has not fulfilled their promise to me. If other customers are happy with sculpting and painting, perfect!, but that does not mean that the rest of the clientele should be treated as a hindrance. The fact that someone ask about a tool that does not work as expected, does not have a detailed explanation in the documentation and they release videos that do not cover even 50% of all the things you encounter when using the program and that you have to spend important hours of your life trying to be truly reciprocated with any questions is a huge lack of respect and you cannot expect cordiality from me, I have had enough. They cover their backs with the 30-day trial, (I did it on Mac but when I bought the software I changed to Windows) which is said to be easy, but it's impossible to notice everything it's missing, or if it does exist, it only works halfway. We all know that not only are tutorials needed, but also courses that demonstrate the program's true potential at different levels in all its aspects. I took two on Udemy, and they're limited to a few sculpting tools. If you ask about the others, they don't even recognize them or don't respond. If you search on YouTube or Artistation, you find the same thing. If you check the 3D Coat website for institutions that belong to a learning plan, at least in the ones I investigated, none mention 3D Coat. This is supposedly part of what motivated me to purchase the software. To this end, no one has ever responded to me on the forum.

That is precisely why I asked "Have you watched the series that covers the topic of Polygonal Modeling in 3DCoat?" I'll ask it again. You say you are not being shown by Pilgway how to use the tools, and I am merely trying to point you to a series that covers it in great detail, yet you persist in arguing instead of answering the simple and polite question..."Have you watched Ian's entire series on Polygonal Modeling?" Yes or No. If no, then please go watch the series and tell us all if or where it falls short explaining things. 

 

[pieralessi]

3 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

That is precisely why I asked "Have you watched the series that covers the topic of Polygonal Modeling in 3DCoat?" I'll ask it again. You say you are not being shown by Pilgway how to use the tools, and I am merely trying to point you to a series that covers it in great detail, yet you persist in arguing instead of answering the simple and polite question..."Have you watched Ian's entire series on Polygonal Modeling?" Yes or No. If no, then please go watch the series and tell us all if or where it falls short explaining things. 

 

With all due respect, I also demand this from you as a client: Do you think if I say "yes," you're going to wash your hands of my reasonable complaints? These conversations have been going on for about three years, and I'm tired of being evaded by people who have real issues with the software. You've already admitted that the modeling suite is still under development, so asking me generalized questions won't give you any grounds; it only serves to justify one of my many legitimate complaints, which are practically ignored. In this same forum topic I have also exposed problems with the surface path tool, the surface does not reflect the shapes of the curves and I am still waiting for you to explain why, you only talk to me about using other tools, that is not answering the problem, I have wasted too much time trying similar tools, also with the curve adjustments, with the repeated and reported crashes of a "stable" version, and you limit yourself to making it seem that an action as important as "stop editing curves" was practically hidden in a drop-down palette (something illogical), and yes, you mentioned it in the video, don't ask me which one, I can't memorize everything like you, but that does not justify you because there are many other very necessary things that when trying in the program simply do not work for me because they do not have a clear explanation anywhere and I do not know whether to interpret them as a bug or wrong action on my part. This is why, in addition to tutorials, more complex samples should be made, committed to real, recognized references, such as a specific object. If external courses are limited to sculpting and painting, it won't be because "3D Coat is primarily for this," you know it's a lie. Otherwise, there wouldn't be polygonal modeling tools, logically. I've explained all this several times; if you just want to see a hater, that's your decision. You haven't answered my other questions, but for you, it's "eager to fight." And don't come to me now with the idea of explaining again "what I don't understand," because we're not talking about Microsoft Paint. I'm not a programmer, and I only demand that the tools you sold me work correctly and in an understandable way, and that the tutorials don't limit themselves to describing the obvious and demonstrating the steps with objectionable results. It's useless for you to ask me questions ignoring everything I've discussed with you and other users in this forum. What MJonathan said is completely true, so why don't you improve the software instead of being defensive as if that will shut me up? I've also expressed my constructive criticism. I've never used offensive words. If I've been upset, I have every reason to be.

Edited June 7 by pieralessi
text

[animk]

Is the future CAD room's purpose kinda overlap with modeling room? 

For hard surface, CAD tool has much more advantage comparing to polygonal modeling, that's why plasticity is created, and some blender users have switched to that.
 

I am wondering if it's possible to merge the modeling tools and CAD tools into one room.  Like Fusion 360 it has traditional CAD tools, but also provide not so fancy subd modeling tools just enough to make the general shape that can't be made with traditional CAD tools.

Edited June 7 by animk

[SreckoM]

Honestly not sure why did you thought that 3DCoat polygonal tools are advanced ... They are like WIP to be honest. 

Also saying tools do not behave like on videos, means you are doing something wrong. 

It would be great if you give us example of what do you think is great UX with modeling tools. Otherwise we can only read I do  not like this, does not work like I expect ....

Also, I am not defending 3DCoat polygonal tools, I never manage to figure out logic and entire workflow, so awkward. So I avoid using them. But I am/was modeling in Modo for decade, and Modo is in that regard another dimension, so it is not strange that I perceive 3dCoat polygonal modeling like coming from stone age era  ...

I think  that 3DCaot issue  with polygonal tools are that they came from retopo tools and were made how developer thinks they should work.

Edited June 7 by SreckoM

[pieralessi]

2 hours ago, SreckoM said:

Honestly not sure why did you thought that 3DCoat polygonal tools are advanced ... They are like WIP to be honest. 

Also saying tools do not behave like on videos, means you are doing something wrong. 

It would be great if you give us example of what do you think is great UX with modeling tools. Otherwise we can only read I do  not like this, does not work like I expect ....

Also, I am not defending 3DCoat polygonal tools, I never manage to figure out logic and entire workflow, so awkward. So I avoid using them. But I am/was modeling in Modo for decade, and Modo is in that regard another dimension, so it is not strange that I perceive 3dCoat polygonal modeling like coming from stone age era  ...

I think  that 3DCaot issue  with polygonal tools are that they came from retopo tools and were made how developer thinks they should work.

"Honestly, I don't know why you thought 3DCoat's polygonal tools were advanced... To be honest, they're like works in progress."

I don't understand your question, but I'll answer. Even though there's a 30-day trial, it's impossible to tell if the tools are in development or not, and that should have been publicly announced. I don't know what programmers mean by "development status," but to me it means that the programming isn't finished and can cause inconveniences. I've used Blender, and if we compare them to 3DCoat's, at least at first glance, they seem more advanced and easier to use. When you see a software that promises a lot of good things, you don't need to start modeling complex things or see if you can fit the six faces of an asymmetrical object into the reference images. These are things that a software that claims to be useful for industrial design should already include without me even asking. If we add to that the limited-time offer with a discount to support Ukraine, I didn't see why I wouldn't take advantage of it. At that time, the tutorials they published later didn't exist; they were published over time. I've never said that the tutorials on the official channel are bad, but I do say that they don't cover all the tools (of which there are many), and learning one isn't necessarily the same as learning another.

It's important to emphasize that you can't sell something without warning you that it won't work completely, and if this happens (I'm not saying it won't), at least fix it soon, not three years later.

As I explained to AbnRanger: We're not talking about Microsoft Paint. I'll give you an example: I bought the Affinity suite. The company never sold its software until all the issues were fixed. Then they started selling the first ones, Designer and Photo. I had no problem understanding it because I'd been using Adobe for a lifetime, and it even seemed simpler to me. But when many other new users asked questions or compared them, they created a dedicated physical book that complemented the documentation. It was well coordinated and up-to-date, allowing many to test and self-train. The user community grew and collaborated a lot, becoming an excellent competitor to Adobe in certain well-defined areas of design. Publisher had been promised jointly, but they didn't sell it until it was 100% operational. They only sold it in beta for free. When new features appear, they let you use and test them in new versions, and once they've perfected it (bug-free), they release it for sale. Many have asked them about video, animation, and web applications, but they say it's never been in their plans, and they're very clear: Canva has just been acquired, but no radical changes have been seen.

"Also, saying that the tools don't behave like they do in the videos means you're doing something wrong."
Not necessarily, because the video examples are simple and it's not clear whether an arched surface, for example, actually follows the drawn curves. This happened to me with the surface patch tool. The explanation makes it seem like the best of all, but when I used it, the final meshes had deformations I couldn't avoid. I complained, but I don't remember who told me about using E.Fill, but it's for filling previous meshes, not for creating the surface from curves. Add to all this the wait for a clear answer; I never start a project.

"It would be great if you could give us an example of what you think constitutes a good user experience with modeling tools. Otherwise, all we can say is, I don't like it, it doesn't work the way I expect..."
User experience is what shapes the user interface. The two correspond to each other. These terms are used more in web design, applications, and in both physical and digital user interface design. I compare it to signage design: the icons themselves tell you what to do, or the textual explanation is clear. I understand that in software it's more complex and that no interface is 100% intuitive, much less in 3D software. We know that. But the problem I encountered with 3D Coat was that trying to use the tools, even with explanations, labels, and drawing on my experience with other programs, I couldn't even get a certain tool to work. I did many investigations, but the almost nonexistent channels that talk about modeling acknowledged not touching this area because they didn't understand it and because of a lack of explanation, not because they expected the full development.

“Also, I'm not defending 3DCoat's polygonal tools; I can never understand the logic or the complete workflow, which is awkward. That's why I avoid using them. But I've been modeling in Modo for a decade, and Modo, in that sense, is another dimension, so it's no wonder I perceive 3DCoat's polygonal modeling as something from the Stone Age…”

This comment supports all my arguments. If I had no intention of using the modeling suite, perhaps I wouldn't have any complaints, or few. However, I noticed that the lighting is archaic and the quality of the renders doesn't match what's shown on the website. I sent them complaints on the forum and never received a response. Perhaps that's why they insist so much on using it as a Blender add-on. In a recent YouTube recommendation, the creator of Blender Secrets recommends 3D Coat as an add-on. I suggested in the comments that he do a 3DCoat Secrets. He never responded, but I wonder if he'd be able to cope.

“I think 3DCoat's problem with polygonal tools is that they come from Retopo tools and were designed the way developers think they should work.”

I don't know. I buy what they offer. If it doesn't work, fix it, and if they don't want to fix it, they know what to do.

[Oleg Shapov]

Only a few of the Modeling tools are still in development. Most of them work as intended.

[Elemeno]

slightly going off course here , i originally made this thread as for help , as you see, i posted something aand ranger gave a reply to help etc .. i was hoping this would encourage others share more knowledge around the tools and if so post maybe ideas on how to improve said tools .. arguing over this isnt the point of the thread .
 

[pieralessi]

34 minutes ago, Oleg Shapov said:

Only a few of the Modeling tools are still in development. Most of them work as intended.

The surface patch hasn't satisfied me. I used it, but it generates a surface with deformations at the edges. I tried to do my best, but in my case, it didn't work. I made a legitimate complaint (which isn't a fight), but I was advised to use R-Fill, which is a Mesh fill tool, very different from a surface generation tool from curves. To use R-Fill, I would have to work on the resulting mesh or at least be able to eliminate the fill, leaving only the edges of vertices and edges. Honestly, I haven't been able to do this in 3DCoat because the entire polygon is eliminated. If there is a way to do it, I would appreciate it if someone could explain it. Applying it from an edge composed of faces, in the case of a curved surface, would not create a smoothly continuous surface because it is precisely on the edge faces where it usually deforms with Surface Path. R-Fill is similar to Blender's Grid Fill, but Blender really has very limited tool execution.

 

 

[AbnRanger]

6 hours ago, animk said:

Is the future CAD room's purpose kinda overlap with modeling room? 

For hard surface, CAD tool has much more advantage comparing to polygonal modeling, that's why plasticity is created, and some blender users have switched to that.
 

I am wondering if it's possible to merge the modeling tools and CAD tools into one room.  Like Fusion 360 it has traditional CAD tools, but also provide not so fancy subd modeling tools just enough to make the general shape that can't be made with traditional CAD tools.

I'm not 100% certain, but in the Modeling Workspace, in the 2025 builds, there is a section being developed called SMART HYBRID, which enables both to work in unison. I hope that is going in the direction you wished for?