Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Twitter discussion: What Andrew is currently doing.


Recommended Posts

  • Contributor

It's not a procedural texture though is it?  Maybe I misunderstood how it works.

 

I'm curious, if we already have one of these new material layers, and then paint some more normal map details, will there be a live update for the material, or will it need "re-baked"?

cavities are updated,the material conditions are  "live" but the painting/filling is final...so  if you did a previous fill  or painted the material on a layer you need to delete those and fill/paint again.

 

Output is affected by input and the magic happens using mathematical functions, so I'd assume they are more or less - procedural (minus what you paint manually).

That's speculation of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not procedural so that name is not going to work. It uses image maps only, with a minor procedural noise generator for tweaking those images if you want.

Anyway, it's pretty cool. If you want to try it out, it's in the Google drive folder. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Output is affected by input and the magic happens using mathematical functions, so I'd assume they are more or less - procedural (minus what you paint manually).

That's speculation of course.

No,there is no procedural stuff involved.

Basically you need to prepare some maps first....tillable maps work the best.

ex:gloss,metalness,a bump or normal map,a mask ect...

You can make those using photoshop if you have some skills but the best is to use programs like Bitmap2Material or Pixplant.

Its gonna let you extract all synched maps from a photo/image and make it tillable.

Bitmap2Material is really the best app because it is previewing using PBR.

The magic is cube-mapping....it allows you to "apparently" seamlessly apply your maps all around your mesh with one click using fill tool...but you can also use other projection modes (plane,spherical and uv-mapped ect..)

You might want to use Uv-mapped method when pattern needs some direction...cube-mapping is really good for noisy/chaotic textures (that feels procedural) but is less good with flowing,directional stuff...

 

Now what is really new is the conditions and the layering system(...cube-mapping was already in the old "material" tool.)

 We can now add multiple layers (each of those layers are combinations of the maps mentioned above)

And you can use conditions to tell 3Dcoat how you want those layers to be applied.

(ex:masked or not ,More on Top,More on convex/concav,Ao based,cavity based ect...)

By using different layers with different conditions you can create very powerful "materials" that can be applied with one click if cube-mapping is used or you can manually paint it through projection like we always could before....

You can save and share those as presets in .pak format using 3DCoat Add extension from file menu.

 

To make a comparison ,Its a more powerful version of Substance Painter projection tool.

Its really not like ddo it won't create/generate the scratches for you ...But I find control of placement and scaling a lot more efficient than in ddo...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

And you can use conditions to tell 3Dcoat how you want those layers to be applied.

(ex:masked or not ,More on Top,More on convex/concav,Ao based,cavity based ect...)

By using different layers with different conditions you can create very powerful "materials" that can be applied with one click if cube-mapping is used or you can manually paint it through projection like we always could before....

 

 

Thanks for the explanation of the new tools Artman.  So these new conditions would be the part that is procedural, very cool.  I can't wait to try it out, Linux version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Anything where the software is determining how the texture is computed is procedural.  AO, cavities, noise, etc are all procedural processes.  I do see that this shouldn't be called procedural because you can still build the material without using any of the conditionals or masks, so no worries.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I like smart coat so far the best. It's straight forward, says what it does, and probably easy to translate, and as mentioned has the bonus of having part of 3D coat's name in there. Smart coat is good because it implies that the process is semi automated, or has some programing intelligence behind it.

 

MultiCoat is fairly good too as is Material Coat, but they don't have this description of the action or what it does in the name.

 

Patina is nice, and actually the most accurate AFAIK in terms of saying what it creates, but the term maybe too obscure.

 

Random names on my part:

 

Intele Coat

Matter Maker

Real Coat

Matter Coat

Reality Coat

Elemental Coat

3DCoating Creator

Alchemy Coat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I don't see why we can't just use Smart Materials. Decades ago LED's where referred to as such. So was that wire that could be crumpled up and would revert to its original shape when immersed in hot water. And windows that would go from clear to opaque when electricity was applied. Plenty of graphics programs use "shaders" "paint" "materials" etc. and no one gets confused or upset. Why try to find something else, when Smart Materials fits so well? All the other suggestions don't really feel right some how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like smart coat so far the best. It's straight forward, says what it does, and probably easy to translate, and as mentioned has the bonus of having part of 3D coat's name in there. Smart coat is good because it implies that the process is semi automated, or has some programing intelligence behind it.

MultiCoat is fairly good too as is Material Coat, but they don't have this description of the action or what it does in the name.

Patina is nice, and actually the most accurate AFAIK in terms of saying what it creates, but the term maybe too obscure.

Random names on my part:

Intele Coat

Matter Maker

Real Coat

Matter Coat

Reality Coat

Elemental Coat

3DCoating Creator

Alchemy Coat

I like patina also. ;-)

Full disclosure, mocaw helped with that name for it last week.

Patina Coat. Oh yes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Hey Javis, thanks for responding,

 

What I was getting at is, is it legal to take a term that has been around for decades, assign it to a program feature, and now it belongs to you, to the exclusion of anyone else using it, in that context? I'm not trying to be facetious, is that really the way it works legally? Or are you saying that it's just not worth the potential problems that it may cause. Just curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Robert!

 

In the past there have been companies that have done that very thing, over a trivial feature, such as pie menus for example. Pilgway also had some trouble with another company over the name of what 3D-Coat used to be, 3D Brush, hence the name change.

 

Anyway, I like Smart Materials personally, too. I think it is descriptive (though not as direct as the word patina), and is really just keeping in "standard" with language from another application. Personally, I don't really see it as a problem, but I could see what Andrew does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I don't see why we can't just use Smart Materials. Decades ago LED's where referred to as such. So was that wire that could be crumpled up and would revert to its original shape when immersed in hot water. And windows that would go from clear to opaque when electricity was applied. Plenty of graphics programs use "shaders" "paint" "materials" etc. and no one gets confused or upset. Why try to find something else, when Smart Materials fits so well? All the other suggestions don't really feel right some how.

Agreed. Smart Materials doesn't sound like a trademarked term at all. It's very generic, as it's just a simple description of what it is. It's nothing like "Z-REmesher" or anything. We already share a lot of naming conventions with Photoshop and aren't concerned about trademarks. Same with Stamps and Stnecils. Nothing wrong with keeping naming conventions more standardized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

No,there is no procedural stuff involved.

Basically you need to prepare some maps first....tillable maps work the best.

ex:gloss,metalness,a bump or normal map,a mask ect...

You can make those using photoshop if you have some skills but the best is to use programs like Bitmap2Material or Pixplant.

Its gonna let you extract all synched maps from a photo/image and make it tillable.

Bitmap2Material is really the best app because it is previewing using PBR.

The magic is cube-mapping....it allows you to "apparently" seamlessly apply your maps all around your mesh with one click using fill tool...but you can also use other projection modes (plane,spherical and uv-mapped ect..)

You might want to use Uv-mapped method when pattern needs some direction...cube-mapping is really good for noisy/chaotic textures (that feels procedural) but is less good with flowing,directional stuff...

 

Now what is really new is the conditions and the layering system(...cube-mapping was already in the old "material" tool.)

 We can now add multiple layers (each of those layers are combinations of the maps mentioned above)

And you can use conditions to tell 3Dcoat how you want those layers to be applied.

(ex:masked or not ,More on Top,More on convex/concav,Ao based,cavity based ect...)

By using different layers with different conditions you can create very powerful "materials" that can be applied with one click if cube-mapping is used or you can manually paint it through projection like we always could before....

You can save and share those as presets in .pak format using 3DCoat Add extension from file menu.

 

To make a comparison ,Its a more powerful version of Substance Painter projection tool.

Its really not like ddo it won't create/generate the scratches for you ...But I find control of placement and scaling a lot more efficient than in ddo...

Thanks for clearing this up, Artman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Smart Materials doesn't sound like a trademarked term at all. It's very generic, as it's just a simple description of what it is. It's nothing like "Z-REmesher" or anything. We already share a lot of naming conventions with Photoshop and aren't concerned about trademarks. Same with Stamps and Stnecils. Nothing wrong with keeping naming conventions more standardized.

 

Agree or not, legal matters are up to Pilgway staff to decide when a company has a licensed or trademarked property, even something is trivial or mundane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...perhaps "Smart-Coated" Materials would be a bit more descript than "Smart Coat" if Andrew goes in that direction?

 

 

That's past tense, not very indicative of what it's currently doing or is going to do for you. When describing something that can be done for you, you want to describe it with a present or future tense, not a past tense. Design 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Agree or not, legal matters are up to Pilgway staff to decide when a company has a licensed or trademarked property, even something is trivial or mundane.

I know it's up to Andrew. Never said anything to suggest differently. But it is still a generic tool label, not something that is labeled in unique manner. For example, if they named it "D-Materials" or "Smart D-Materials." Then there is the important matter of "standardization." Most artists like standardization, to help lower the learning curve, and increase familiarity.  If Andrew likes Smart Materials, then there is good reason to keep it, going forward. If Quixel has a problem with it, all they have to do is notify him of their objection, and it would be no major problem changing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

That's past tense, not very indicative of what it's currently doing or is going to do for you. When describing something that can be done for you, you want to describe it with a present or future tense, not a past tense. Design 101.

Doesn't apply here. You don't have to object to every suggestion I make because you like doing so. Just ignoring the post will suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...