My Review of 3D Coat 3.1

[Guest Cinnamon]

I finally got around to trying the demo of 3D Coat (OpenGL). Now I'm going to give my review on the software, overall I think that 3D Coats interface has been cleaned up since the previous versions that I have used in the past, although having an option to have icons instead of text would be nice or vise versa. Also I think that there could be an option where if you were to ALT-<mouse button> press you'd get some tool bar pop up which could mean taking away some of the buttons within the default user interface.

Then I decided to try what 3D Coat 3.1 is claiming it's fame to, which is voxel painting so I decided to load up a simple sphere and paint a planet in a galaxy far, far away. My initial response of the tools were very nice but half way in creating my planet I needed to subdivide the model so I did just that once, but I noticed that even before subdividing then after subdividing that my painting of voxels was a tiny bit slow but nothing to worry about after I subdivided I noticed the speed decrease and a lag, so now I just continued on painting but with this lag it wasn't that enjoyable after a short while I subdivided again.

It was at this point 3D Coat showed it's lag to the point that it was warning me the program was unresponsive most of the time, this made my experience with 3D Coat turn very sour, and not enjoyable. I decided to subdivide one more time to which 3D Coat plan out just died which I helped by ending this session of a program that was coughing very hard. Now it could be most of the users here know 3D Coats limits and don't push them or don't need to push them but it was very disappointing, maybe I put to much hope into this version. Unless there are some tricks I don't know that someone can share I'll have to chalk my use of 3D Coat not very enjoyable not because it's not a great piece of software it's that it's not matured to over come the problems that it has.

The painting tools I didn't try as I've used them in a previous version of 3D Coat and they can only be better then what they were at the time which they were good then, the Retopology tools I didn't try as I was more interested in the voxel painting. Regardless of the reviews be it negative or positive Andrew does deserve a pat on the back and credit for taking on a project like this on his own and and he keeps plugging away he will fix his mistakes in future versions and get that attention that currently 3D Coat is still lacking. Most people who pay $600-$1000 for Zbrush or Mudbox there will be a hard time to get them to shell over $300 more for retopology tools or 3D painting which still is 3D Coats strongest point when they are already using Photoshop and the only hitch is the learning curve with Photoshop that you can skip with 3D Coat.

I'm open to anyone who has any suggestions on taking my review and turning it around, maybe there is some techniques I don't know about. In brief Zbrush interface is hard to get use to and ZSpheres which is what Zbrush is really pushing at makes Zbrush more of a modeler on it's own. Unless I'm wrong you can't take Zspheres and blend them with an already imported object but the interface is the turn off and those that use it probably use it often so they get custom to it, if you don't use it often as I've read it's as though you have to do a brief learning course on it again. And as for Mudbox it's a great piece of software it's only problem is it's price and some bugs it still has to be ironed out. For the price of Mudbox you shouldn't see no problems, but you do either that or the price should be cut in half then Autodesk would see more picking up Mudbox over Zbrush even with some of the bugs. I still have to try them both out.

Edited September 8, 2009 by geothefaust
Edited to make the post READABLE

[VolumesculptR]

Hi there!

It's rather hard to read such an unformatted text "review"...

and to go on with any of your hardware specs ??

Have you tried DX-version (less lagging BTW) ?

[jedwards]

I would like to know what your hardware specs are because I am making some detailed sculpts in 3dc on both an imac (intel, 2gb, 2600 HD 256mb) and pc (intel q6600, 2 gb, nvidia 9500 gt 512 mb) and both systems allow me to sculpt to a very acceptable quality level. I don't consider either of these systems to be adequate for serious sculpting work, yet I am working with what I have just fine. I would also like to see the sculpt you were working on. One of the biggest mistakes people make is in subdividing up quickly without blocking out forms properly first at the lowest level. On a slower system this is going to be even more painful.

I am only curious of your specs and example because I tried to help one of our concept artists at work with a fresh install and 3dc ran very sluggish for him too when just sculpting with a sphere. The only thing I could think of was that his gfx card was older than mine, and he was using the software on a 30 " monitor, which probably taxes the card no matter what software he uses.

[Pixelpantscher]

I finally got around to trying the demo of 3D Coat (OpenGL). ... Most people who pay $600-$1000 for Zbrush or Mudbox there will be a hard time to get them to shell over $300 more for retopology tools or 3D painting which still is 3D Coats strongest point when they are already using Photoshop and the only hitch is the learning curve with Photoshop that you can skip with 3D Coat. I'm open to anyone who has any suggestions on taking my review and turning it around, maybe there is some techniques I don't know about. In brief Zbrush interface is hard to get use to and ZSpheres which is what Zbrush is really pushing at makes Zbrush more of a modeler on it's own. Unless I'm wrong you can't take Zspheres and blend them with an already imported object but the interface is the turn off and those that use it probably use it often so they get custom to it, if you don't use it often as I've read it's as though you have to do a brief learning course on it again. And as for Mudbox it's a great piece of software it's only problem is it's price and some bugs it still has to be ironed out. For the price of Mudbox you shouldn't see no problems, but you do either that or the price should be cut in half then Autodesk would see more picking up Mudbox over Zbrush even with some of the bugs. I still have to try them both out.

I think you never had to earn your money with any 3d application, so let me try to explain why I purchased now 3DC while also using Zbrush.

3DC is nothing but another tool in my box and I bought it for exact 1 job for the moment. This job could not be made with Zbrush - the customer is sending

STL files. Naturaly there are ways to come around this, but this takes time and this time is much more then the 235.- bucks the 3DC license is.

So one good reason to buy it.

But now let's go one step ahead. If I can satisfy the customer due to my new tool, I will get more orders of the same type and more orders means

more income.

This is only the comercial side at this moment, there are some more reasons to go for 3DC (just my opinion):

If there would not be some people purchasing a software with a great potential at a stage the software is not fully matured, there would not be any chance to

go on developing the app (no money - no developement )

I like the way things are handled here - the Pilgway team - the people here in the forum - all the guys making nice and clear and free tuts and so on.

I want to support this and therefor I purchased 3DC.

Regards

Hans

[Guest Cinnamon]

I'm using 3D Coat on a Q6600 with 4 gigs of RAM on a 8800 GTS. Painting on just the default 3D Coat sphere and subdividing it up to three times renders the same results in the DX version as the GL version. I know about sculpting out rough forms, but I don't want to be getting a form started then add more and I experience lag, it already lags once I do a second round of subdividing. From what I've read nor ZBrush or Mudbox experience this on a system like this so this is why I bring up the concern, I should not be made to felt like it's wrong too, regardless on how little or how much income I make. I'm just now in the market for a digital sculpting tool and after watching all three mature I want to choose the right one.

[faizol]

I'm using 3D Coat on a Q6600 with 4 gigs of RAM on a 8800 GTS. Painting on just the default 3D Coat sphere and subdividing it up to three times renders the same results in the DX version as the GL version. I know about sculpting out rough forms, but I don't want to be getting a form started then add more and I experience lag, it already lags once I do a second round of subdividing. From what I've read nor ZBrush or Mudbox experience this on a system like this so this is why I bring up the concern, I should not be made to felt like it's wrong too, regardless on how little or how much income I make. I'm just now in the market for a digital sculpting tool and after watching all three mature I want to choose the right one.

just like one can't compare Hash Animation Master with Softimage or Houdini, the same principles apply for 3d sculpting software. The underlying technology is vastly different between the products mentioned. To be fair, you should at least defined the target user and how the features advertised would help the targeted users. For example, you can't go to Hash Animation Master's forum and complain the lack of procedural bone setup just like in houdini for you to do your animation/rigging job. That being said, 3d-coat is uniquely positioned to cater to specific target markets within the specific production pipeline. The obj export out so far is better than any other 3d sculpting software. What use of fast interactive and gazillion of subdivision if u cant export it out and use it in your animation package? Unless of course if you just would like to have everything rendered in the 3d sculpting software itself.

For the features advertised, the voxel sculpting technology and the ease of use, I say that 3d-coat is at least as comparable to the much more expensive 3d sculpting software out there.

#edit: I don't really experience lagging in user interactivity until 5-6 or above of subdivision iterations, by which usually that means I did unnecessary stuff and almost guarantee that i have messed up my model altogether.

[philnolan3d]

I have to say, I couldn't read that review it was giving me a headache and making me go cross-eyed. Please make future posts in the default font size with paragraphs.

[jedwards]

I'm using 3D Coat on a Q6600 with 4 gigs of RAM on a 8800 GTS. Painting on just the default 3D Coat sphere and subdividing it up to three times renders the same results in the DX version as the GL version.

This is what had me confused with my coworker's setup. It isn't much different from yours or mine and yet I seem to have no problems sculpting with 3dc compared to what I've seen on his machine. There must be something that is throwing performance off on yours because I don't think it should be slowing down the way it is.

[Robert G]

I have to say, I couldn't read that review it was giving me a headache and making me go cross-eyed. Please make future posts in the default font size with paragraphs.

Sorry to say, but same here.

Unreadable!

Maybe you can still change it?

Robert

[Javis]

Yeah... I couldn't bear to read it, unfortunately. Would you mind editing your post so that it's a bit more legible, please? Thanks!

[Heath_3d]

Hi Cinnamon,

A couple of points that might help you out. First up, the strength of voxel sculpting is to let you be free of certain restrictions of surface sculpting. So if those restrictions aren't a hindrence, use a surface sculpting program. One thing to keep in mind is that you can hide off parts of your object to increase performance(I have to do this in zbrush as well when it comes to detailing). Finally, keep in mind 3d Coats original function: detailing models in the paint mode. The software has great tools for adding really fine detail in texture, these details generally won't need the functionality of voxel sculpting.BTW, don't be too surprised if you get a bit blasted for leaving a negative review of the software on it's own site, however, it's good too know what new users first impressions are of 3dCoat.

-Heath

[Guest Cinnamon]

I'm going to play around with it a little more today, hopefully today. None of the suggestions offered seem to pin point what the problem is with why it's slow?

As for the text I can read it perfectly fine on this CRT I'm using, but I'm not going to sound one sided. The problem is when writing I was originally going to break it up into smaller paragraphs but I've noticed a trend in forums in general people skip paragraphs then complain about something you said but failed to read the skipped paragraph then huff and puff and loose there mind at the person who wrote it, but if they just would not skip any of the paragraphs then it would ease the thread replies, understand. Next time I'll break it up, actually this is reply is broken up

[Javis]

Please, in the future format your posts so that they are readable. Giant walls of text are not readable. Arguing about the fact does not help.

I have edited your original post to be compliant with the multiple moderator requests.

[philnolan3d]

I have edited your original post to be compliant with the multiple moderator requests.

Thank you, I'll go read it now. (all of the paragraphs)

[Javis]

Indeed! Much easier on the eyes now.

Cinnamon, how much RAM does that 8800 GTS have? I don't have that problem whatsoever until I've increased the resolution (not subdivided) of the voxels until about 4-7 times depending on the number of voxels on the current layer on which I am performing the resolution increase.

Do you have updated drivers?

How about the CUDA kit, is it installed?

Try instead, using the DX version and not the OGL version. Your card likely wont be handling it well if you also have CUDA turned on while using the OGL version, since it's being used for both.

[philnolan3d]

Agreed. I have the same card and I can get up to 25 million triangles before it starts choking.

[cuffins]

Agreed. I have the same card and I can get up to 25 million triangles before it starts choking.

Mmmh, 25 Million Triangles...I have the same Card plus a Core2Quad and 8 Gig of Ram but come on with 25 Million Triangles this becomes quite slow. Okay you can inc res to that polycount, but it's not really usable. For me a max. count of around 14 Million triangles will work... not with big brushes, but that's fine.

We need predefined test conditions like a benchmark to compare our systems -> Polycount / Brush / Brushsize / Zoomfactor / GL or DX version / speed of Brushstroke -> Framerate

Otherwise it's all guessing...

[Andrew Shpagin]

Use DX version of 3DC instead of GL. At least on 8800 it should work much faster, especially on Vista.

[philnolan3d]

Mmmh, 25 Million Triangles...I have the same Card plus a Core2Quad and 8 Gig of Ram but come on with 25 Million Triangles this becomes quite slow. Okay you can inc res to that polycount, but it's not really usable. For me a max. count of around 14 Million triangles will work... not with big brushes, but that's fine.

To be fair it was usable at 25 million, I was able to sculpt on it, but just barely. I ended up hiding large chunks of my sculpture in order to work easily.

Edit: Just to be clear I don't feel like you need to go that high. After doing that model I decided that it was smarter to get a pretty good shape, then save the really fine details for painting in the normal map. No reason to eat up all of your system resources if you don't have to.

[Javis]

Definitely no need to go that high at all. I've taken a voxel object up to around 50million with my video card (GTX 275, w/ 1896MB of GDDR3 on the video on card), and could still sculpt. Slowly, but yes, still sculpt. I can comfortable sculpt around 35million with this video card, using the DX version.

[Guest Cinnamon]

I have the CUDA kit installed, I will update the video drivers then give an updated review within this thread.

[Guest Cinnamon]

If I didn't have CUDA installed 3D Coat wouldn't run, unless it would but that is what I was informed. I'm going to update the drivers then give an updated review from there, I hope this works.

[Guest Cinnamon]

ll