Applink Developer haikalle Posted September 2, 2011 Applink Developer Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Then when time allows a user scripting/real SDK so people can develop new tools and dialogs etc in a similar way to blenders python plugins allows which would be amazing. Hi! Blender and 3d-coat are two totally different programs. You should more look for zbrush and mudbox. They both don't have SDK, except for applinks what I know. The reason for this is that they are programs that handle much data at same time. Python sdk would be too slow for doing it, and c++ sdk would take one year or more to code well into 3d-coat. I would much more like to see very well coded brush engine. Where you can create your own brushes without sdk. And I's sure that this is already planned for future. Of course I would love to see fully working SDK, but I'm afraid that benefits of doing that could be quite a small to compare of time to code it. We will see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Digital777 Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well Sketchup also has a similar thing and Zbrush seems to have ZPlugins and ZScripts but i don't use that program so i just used blender as a example so people get what i mean really. For scripting it could be anything really like lua, javascript or some custom code even, blender uses python which is powerful but others would also work well. I listed that and the SDK last and said "Then when time allows" because i know other people here view things like improving the GUI and the default tools as a lot more important (with the recent Liveclay updates i am sure that won't be a problem much longer though). If these ever happen though the rate at which new features is made will be a lot faster though because 3rd party devs can then add and share resources. You also get features that you may never have expected but are really useful and all you have to do is look at the sketchup or blender plugin forums (why i listed it before) to see that scripting works well and how much value it can add to the main program. But yeah i am not saying this is needed asap or anything but if it ever does and the SDK/scripting system is done well enough it will be amazing and everyone benefits from it. Edit - I really like your brush engine idea also by the way, with a good system to import/save and share the brushes/tools that would be a really cool feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Applink Developer haikalle Posted September 2, 2011 Applink Developer Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Those are very good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farsthary Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hi guys! more good news, an inflate brush! http://farsthary.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/growing-grapes-or-the-new-inflate-brush/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Digital777 Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The customizable brushes would be great i think. I like the idea of sliders/values for different things that adjust how the tool works and then being able to store good settings in a XML/text preset to re-use or share with others. Currently i don't think the main preset system is good enough and needs some updating, it would probably work better for each tool to have it's own presets rather than a global setup also in my opinion. With things like the Tube, Rope and Tendril brushes since they are sort of similar i think that type of customization would work well with them. So you could have sliders like - Jitter amount, Jitter min, Jitter max, Twist amount, Twist speed, Twist spacing, Distortion amount, Refine Steps, Detail, Smoothing etc In my opinion things like jitter would work much better for the actual tool rather than stored with the brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philnolan3d Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Digital777 Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 more good news, an inflate brush!http://farsthary.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/growing-grapes-or-the-new-inflate-brush/ Wow nice, i like the way it builds up also as that will make it nice and easy to work with. Great work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted September 2, 2011 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hi guys! more good news, an inflate brush! http://farsthary.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/growing-grapes-or-the-new-inflate-brush/ Sweet...thanks a bunch. That was really fast! As far as the UI concerns, I think later on, just one LiveClay Button will suffice...one that opens a floating toolbox/pallet just like the shaders, that has icons which indicate what the function is. Hovering over the icon will display a text with the tool name...this is not much different than what ZB or Mudbox has. Alternatively, the LiveClay toolbox could be identical to the floating toolbox you get when hitting the SPACE bar (maybe hotkeyed to the "L" key or something, by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member polyxo Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Sweet...thanks a bunch. That was really fast! As far as the UI concerns, I think later on, just one LiveClay Button will suffice...one that opens a floating toolbox/pallet just like the shaders, that has icons which indicate what the function is. Hovering over the icon will display a text with the tool name...this is not much different than what ZB or Mudbox has. Alternatively, the LiveClay toolbox could be identical to the floating toolbox you get when hitting the SPACE bar (maybe hotkeyed to the "L" key or something, by default. Well... that's exactly the way I think this would not make sense. In fact that's is very different to what Zbrush offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor artman Posted September 2, 2011 Contributor Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hi guys! more good news, an inflate brush! http://farsthary.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/growing-grapes-or-the-new-inflate-brush/ At last!!! Fantastic. Its really great to see this behavior along adaptive tessellation because in zbrush it is one of the most violent(distorting) action you can have on topology. Its usually not possible to further sculpt on heavily inflated areas,topology is too much damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member b33nine Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Inflate brush is a nice addition to the arsenal. My only input is that even when you were using the soft edge alpha in the demo, it looks like the edges of the stroke are really hard, should have been a lot more feathering I thought considering the alpha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor artman Posted September 2, 2011 Contributor Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Inflate brush is a nice addition to the arsenal. My only input is that even when you were using the soft edge alpha in the demo, it looks like the edges of the stroke are really hard, should have been a lot more feathering I thought considering the alpha. Maybe Falloff slider works.....we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farsthary Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Maybe Falloff slider works.....we'll see. oh yes guys, falloff is inn, I have included it soon after the video by Andrew request, is really powerful now and you will enjoy it soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted September 2, 2011 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well... that's exactly the way I think this would not make sense. In fact that's is very different to what Zbrush offers. You're saying that neither ZBrush nor Mudbox has icons that indicate what the brush/tool does, eh? Really? So, just what to you suggest those little thingies are in the (ZB's) Brush pallet? Decorative UI elements?http://www.pixologic.com/zbrush/features/07_brushes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farsthary Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 @Michalis I think I have solvd the 0 Depth bug in LiveClay, now with that option, just local refinement, no displacement at all cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member polyxo Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 You're saying that neither ZBrush nor Mudbox has icons that indicate what the brush/tool does, eh? Really? I was saying that each and any Brush in Zbrush has all its settings exposed. What you see in the Brush-Palette is just a (very large) bunch of Presets. So you could for instance take the Pinch brush and make a Move Brush out of it or mix in some Gravity or Noise if that makes sense to you. Clear now? Edit: See Screenshots, On all Brushes one has all these Settings at disposal to fine tune their performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philnolan3d Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I was saying that each and any Brush in Zbrush has all its settings exposed. What you see in the Brush-Palette is just a (very large) bunch of Presets. So you could for instance take the Pinch brush and make a Move Brush out of it or mix in some Gravity or Noise if that makes sense to you. Clear now? Edit: See Screenshots, On all Brushes one has all these Settings at disposal to fine tune their performance. This sounds like it would require a rewrite of the entire brush engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member polyxo Posted September 2, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 This sounds like it would require a rewrite of the entire brush engine. Well, with LC a lot of things have to get done anew anyway, One might have the choice at this point: As a Programmer spend time to define each Brush to their final implementation or instead concentrate an overall Framework of Brush-Attributes. In the latter case one could leave it to some true Expert Modelers who really know how to tweak all Sliders to maximum Performance. Results then could get released as Presets for the broader user-base. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member LorenzoS Posted September 3, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Inflate brush. Way cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 This sounds like it would require a rewrite of the entire brush engine. That's correct, and that is what is happening at this moment, and has been happening for sometime to accommodate LC and previously for some other things. Eventually it is going to be complete, and as Andrew said the goal is to have a user customizable brush engine. It just seems to be happening sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philnolan3d Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Oh yeah I knew it was a long term goal, just wasn't aware he was making a hard push at it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Funny, seemed pretty obvious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor LJB Posted September 3, 2011 Contributor Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 hmmm All this LC stuff looks promising but I have yet to get any usable results on anything I try using LC tools for refinement, I still feel much more in control using Voxels, Even at Higher Vox res. When I take the LC Brushes small enough to produce the kind of detials I feel we should be getting from LC the stroke just ends up skipping randomley and Smoothing and refinement seems to show this same behaviour. Depth of brushes seems to have to be cranked up sooo high to acheive results at Smaller brushsizes and this maybe effecting my skipping/spacing problem. Currently the only way I feel its usable is using the LC to localise resolution with No Depth (as mentioned somewhere above) then use the standard tools to add sculptural details. Actually I feel this is best way to use as Localised High resulition brushes seem a little bit of a hinderance when going back and polishing up your work ready for generating maps (Stamp is useless unless the resolution of the alpha is considered). to that end Maybe a brush for Localised resolution that isnt dependant of Brush Radius? Like Ptex Set the resolution dependant on the details you want then Work the details in. Im not sure LC and Voxels dont clash/contradict each other a little too much? they both offer the same things at lower resolution essentially create geo without topology issue, so I wonder, as we already had this should we not focus on something more along the lines of Refinement, Currently all the demos and videos I see show me stuff I could already do with Voxels SO Im feeling that 3d coat just has a new way of doing what it already did. Sorry If that seems negative but it all seems a bit blinded by what is possible with less thought on usabillity and reason why, I know its early days and these are 'beta tools'. I too look forward to Improvements/Rewritten engine Currently everything is so preset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member michalis Posted September 3, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 @MichalisI think I have solvd the 0 Depth bug in LiveClay, now with that option, just local refinement, no displacement at all Great! How difficult is to have it assigned on the ctrl+reduce key? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member renderdemon Posted September 3, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 I really hope that the LC work can be go directly in voxel mode(I mean an adaptive voxels res). In my opinion only one mode should be used,jumping between voxel/surface it's not a great thing. If I have to jump between mode probably it's better to do low res sculpt in voxel and export the result to Zbrush and detailing there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted September 3, 2011 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 I really hope that the LC work can be go directly in voxel mode(I mean an adaptive voxels res). In my opinion only one mode should be used,jumping between voxel/surface it's not a great thing. If I have to jump between mode probably it's better to do low res sculpt in voxel and export the result to Zbrush and detailing there. I am anxiously waiting on Voxel Subcells (Dynamic resolution ability in Volume mode) more so than LiveClay as well, but (for now) you CAN just leave all your high frequency detail work to the end of your work stage and do all of that with LiveClay. Then just bake your maps from Surface mode.We are essentially just TESTING LivelClay right now. Remember, Voxels are Andrew's Brainchild. He's not abandoning it in favor of Surface mode. It will get it's due attention too. Probably just a tougher nut to crack, as this is uncharted waters for the industry (dynamic Voxel resolution). Like Leigh, I still favor working in Voxel (volume) most of the time, as it seems much more forgiving/flexible to sculpt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member MADjestic Posted September 3, 2011 Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Im not sure LC and Voxels dont clash/contradict each other a little too much? they both offer the same things at lower resolution essentially create geo without topology issue, so I wonder, as we already had this should we not focus on something more along the lines of Refinement, Currently all the demos and videos I see show me stuff I could already do with Voxels SO Im feeling that 3d coat just has a new way of doing what it already did. There are objective differences between the representations of surface data as voxels, and as polygons. Quite naturally, as long as the complexity of your model remains below a software/hardware limitations, results, as long as the toolset is consistent, would be nearly identical, irrelevant to whether it is polys or voxels. However, if one exceeds such limits, one hits objective limitations of voxel representation (higher complexity -> higher price => lower sculpting complexity threshold). Obviously enough, the desired level of complexity is a subjective thing, but so is your preference, possibly, to use 3dcoat voxel engine for lower resolution sculpting. Until we get an optimized voxel engine that is on par with the capacity of the poly engine in every way, and gives additional advantages unique to voxels - certainly, one would never have a reason to go back to polys, but that has not happened yet, has it? One may argue - why investing in poly-surface modeling, rather than investing further into voxel modeling? Raul is well known for his work related to Unlimited Clay in Blender (and LiveClay for 3dCoat), in a way, it's his speciality here - that's his contribution to 3dcoat. Possibly Andrew could overhaul the voxel engine, but I can imagine him being quite busy with 3dcoat upscaling and working on many other aspects of the application and toolset. That is a tremendous task, in accomplishing wich I wish them all best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member polyxo Posted September 3, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Remember, Voxels are Andrew's Brainchild. That's not correct.Voxels were used for nearly 20 years in commercial 3D Applications before they were implemented in 3DCoat. Andrew was the first to make Voxels available in an affordable program though and he took significant steps to develop them further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member MADjestic Posted September 3, 2011 Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 That's not correct.Voxels were used for nearly 20 years in commercial 3D Applications before they were implemented in 3DCoat. Andrew was the first to make Voxels available in an affordable program though and he took significant steps to develop them further. Proof-link or didn't happen :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member polyxo Posted September 3, 2011 Advanced Member Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Proof-link or didn't happen :P Sigh, a quick Google search might help. I really wonder who brought up this myth that Andrew invented Voxels. He at least never said such Nonsense. Is this Paper old enough to qualify? The Sensable Guys started in '93 at the MIT... Edit: Here's another Paper published in 1989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts