farsthary � Moving to 3D Coat!

[Andrew Shpagin]

Regular sculpting room has no good perspective because I don't like idea of duplicatuon of same tools in both rooms - Sculpt + voxel surface.

And Voxel surface mode is a lot lot faster.

So my choice is to tune Voxel surface up to maximum and make possibility to load/edit regular meshes there (will be done quite soon). Loading regular meshes there is important milestne that will allow Raul make miracles there. I think sculpt room will remain, but it will be some sort of mirror of voxel surface mode, with same functionality, technology and engine.

[haikalle]

Sounds good plan. What about the case where you have Dynamic Subdivision model in surface mode and you want to take that back into voxel mode. Does

it mean that dynamic tessalation is gone too. Is is possible to build some kind of bridge between voxel mode and dynamic subduvision surface mode.

If that is hard to do, my suggestion would be that when you go back to voxel mode it would only update the area your are painting leaving rest untouched, then

this way I could edit only needed areas in voxel mode.

[Andrew Shpagin]

Sounds good plan. What about the case where you have Dynamic Subdivision model in surface mode and you want to take that back into voxel mode. Does

it mean that dynamic tessalation is gone too. Is is possible to build some kind of bridge between voxel mode and dynamic subduvision surface mode.

If that is hard to do, my suggestion would be that when you go back to voxel mode it would only update the area your are painting leaving rest untouched, then

this way I could edit only needed areas in voxel mode.

You will be able to merge to voxels with bigger resolution than initial one.

[haikalle]

That's very good to know.

[Dreamcube017]

Hm I think I've gotten slightly lost as to where this argument is going.

So basically waht does this all mean?

I hnever used the polygon sculpting room anyhow.

It was always import model foradding detail or just making voxels from scratch.

[michalis]

@ekunzendorf

I'm sure I've left something out

Yes, that all these don't work in my case. Do some complicated, real sculpture, an interesting pose and see. See how snapping method fails.

@ Andrew

To be able to import a quad mesh in surface mode, directly, to have subdivisions there (catmul-clark please), to have a better gismo for posing, these will be grate.

Meanwhile, a note for the wish list. When two vertices are in the same position should automatically be merged. As tools do this in retopo room. But when importing an external cage this isn't happening and these isn't a way to know it. This is extremely helpful when combined with the curve tool. I already constructed low poly variations of splines, without cups. You see what my point is? Just export under splines palette, use it as retopo cage, replace it in splines with the closed one and drop to voxels if you like. But there isn't any reason for this.

When I posted this method nobody seamed to care here. What are you, all of you, masochists? LOL

As long we don't have render engines, VG engines that can support a real time voxels model, where voxels can handle color information, where no need to have any kind of UVs ...

The polygonal surface will remain the nature of 3d sculpting. So, 3dcoat has to be a surface editor first of all.

Yes, the old method with 3d scan is basically the same with the vox method. With a difference though. You can fix the problems there, you can't fix them in retopo+snapping room! You have to export the mesh to another app.

Andrew! Its nice to work using one app only. But will not happen in 3dcoat as you don't have a real surface editor here. I have to use blender or other app to fix the topo/snapping problems. @Dreamcube017, I hope this makes clear what the argument is about.

SO, you call this "outspoken". Is this true?

Most of 3dc users in this forum avoid posting their creations, avoid commenting. This application is made for art, art is the most important.

Have a visit at zbrushcentral, compare the zb gallery with the 3dc gallery. 3DC can produce better art, this and only this can really help Andrew to do the job.

As for zbrush4(stable as rock), you can practically work as being in 3dc surface mode and drop to voxels from time to time / remesh and project in zb. SImilar results, ready for retopo then. You see my outspoken point now?

[haikalle]

As for zbrush4(stable as rock)

That made me smile

[Gilded]

You do have subdivision levels....in the Voxel Sculpting Room. It's resolution independent, so you can bring a model in with ridiculous amounts of detail, and still temporarily step down to a much lower resolution as needed. The feature is called "Mult-Resolution." When you are ready to export all your high detail work (bake normal/displacment maps), you can important your base mesh into the retopo room and it will snap to the model. If there are only tertiary details, then you will have no problem with it snapping properly. If there are major structural changes, you may have to massage the base mesh to fit into place or redo the topology in some areas.

Once it's snapped, you can now subdivide before exporting or adding edgeloops only where you want the extra geometry.

Multi-resolution looks great although that isn't all I'm referring to.

I understand voxel resolution and surface mode and the ways to speed up the voxel workflow, but what I'm referring to is essentially the reason why users of 3d coat such as myself end up switching between 3d coat and zbrush. Surface mode is not a proper substitution for the sculpting fidelity in zbrush. With surface mode you still have to bake the details back down to the voxel sculpt and you don't have the control of sliding between quad levels on the whole model.

When I do retopo I find the fastest way for me is to make a very basic retopo and then subdivide until the mesh conforms to all of the details, giving me a mesh made entirely of quads (with the details as actual quad geometry). This would be great to use after the fact for the subdivision level based sculpting in zbrush and mudbox which has the advantage I described, as well as preserving edgeflow for posing, but it is not possible (as far as i know) to export the mesh into zbrush with all of the subdivision levels.

Multi-reolution solves a lot of sculpting problems for me (just not edge flow for posing but that can be handled by the retopo). If there were effective tools to pose a mesh at the end of the process after retopo then that would solve any workflow issues I've had. Thanks for getting me to look into muli-resolution .

[Tom K]

Andrew wrote : So my choice is to tune Voxel surface up to maximum and make possibility to load/edit regular meshes there (will be done quite soon). Loading regular meshes there is important milestne that will allow Raul make miracles there

So will you make the voxel surface mode into an actual poly-sculpting room where you can either send a voxel or load a mesh?

I think sculpt room will remain, but it will be some sort of mirror of voxel surface mode, with same functionality, technology and engine.

For what reason would there be any need for two different poly rooms if they have the same functionality? why not just send the voxel over to the sculpt room , then have a button to send it back over to voxel room if that's where it needs to go?

As it is now the voxel surface room is kind of a secret hidden room that isn't obvious when you first start using the program. Wouldn't it be better to have that be a proper room like the others?

Tom

[haikalle]

As it is now the voxel surface room is kind of a secret hidden room that isn't obvious when you first start using the program. Wouldn't it be better to have that be a proper room like the others?

I like how it works right now. I would suggest that let's take sculpt room totally away. And let's add that same surface icon what we have in voxel room into layer panel in paint room. But this would mean that the layer system have to update that the base layer would be: object->layer, because right now it shares all the layers with all the objects.

[Tom K]

I remember reading a review somewhere of 3d coat and one of the complaints they had with the program was the fact that the whole surface room was hidden behind that little button.

I can also say that when I first started using 3d coat it was a while before I realized it was even there. I just happened to see it in a tutorial somewhere.

I'm sure I'm not the only one. Judging from what I've see written on the forum many people don't know about that right away.

Plus, after they add the ability to load a mesh model in , you will have to have a way to start off in the surface room. Depending on what you are doing, you might not even go into the voxel room.

Tom

[michalis]

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. About the 'surface mode", I don't like to sculpt on tri meshes. If you like it its ok for you.

@Haikalle, I mean this about stability, zbrush4 never crashed, in my hands. The mac build. I use to work in zbrush, 3dcoat and blender 2.49b the same time.

[AbnRanger]

For what reason would there be any need for two different poly rooms if they have the same functionality? why not just send the voxel over to the sculpt room , then have a button to send it back over to voxel room if that's where it needs to go?

As it is now the voxel surface room is kind of a secret hidden room that isn't obvious when you first start using the program. Wouldn't it be better to have that be a proper room like the others?

Tom

Well, it's because you are dealing with triangular meshes in the Surface mode, and it is an extension of Voxel Sculpting. The Sculpt Room is an extension of the Paint Room, and you are dealing with quads. I don't think having the same tools is confusing at all. If you want to generate a model from scratch or use Voxels for what it is good at, you have that as an option. If you don't and you just want to work in a traditional manner (import low-mid poly model and sculpt detail), then an overhauled Sculpt Room would be more preferable (to many).

I would also re-name the Sculpt Room "Poly Sculpt" to help eliminate the confusion for new users and those evaluating the application with the 30 day trial.

[Tom K]

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. About the 'surface mode", I don't like to sculpt on tri meshes. If you like it its ok for you.

Don't you have to sculpt on tri meshes in the surface room?

Tom

[Psmith]

Tom:

Well, it's not a bone fide "Room" (yet), but only a "mode" - a temporary one that does, indeed, force you to sculpt on triangular polygons rather than quadrangular ones.

So, to mirror the kind of sculpting and the kind of tools that will be available in the "Surface Mode" to the "Sculpt Room" makes some sense - but, in my opinion, makes the app even more complicated than it already is.

If the "Sculpt Room" does become the habitat for true, quad-bending polygon sculpting, then I think it really should be, at least, renamed "Poly Room", to avoid confusion.

Greg Smith

[Tom K]

Well, it's because you are dealing with triangular meshes in the Surface mode, and it is an extension of Voxel Sculpting. The Sculpt Room is an extension of the Paint Room, and you are dealing with quads. I don't think having the same tools is confusing at all. If you want to generate a model from scratch or use Voxels for what it is good at, you have that as an option. If you don't and you just want to work in a traditional manner (import low-mid poly model and sculpt detail), then an overhauled Sculpt Room would be more preferable (to many).

Makes sense. But it also means that the two rooms will actually be quite different, since only the surface room would have the new dynamic tessellation in it. Unless they come up with dynamic quad subdivision.

I guess the tools would be the same. just the results you get could be different.

Tom

[3DArtist]

I would also like to see the Sculpt room renamed to Poly sculpt or just Poly.

And in that room a development of what is already there with additional features: better object manipulation, Instance creation, multi-resolution sculpting, posing tools (bones, etc), improved morph target creation, mdd support, bullet hard/soft dynamics, etc. Maybe a little excessive but some ideas.

Oh, and welcome farsthary!

[Psmith]

Tom:

Since Dynamic Tesselation does deal strictly with triangular polygons, it's only real advantage over voxels is speed on lower powered hardware, (and high powered hardware). I think it is a good and nice solution for "the little guy".

Wait, one other advantage of Dynamic Subdivision over voxels is that voxel sculpting is essentially dealing with evenly spaced triangles, requiring much higher resolution of a model, throughout, to get things like crisp edges and sharp details - and thus, requiring much higher powered hardware to be practical.

Dynamic Subdivision, by nature, adds more triangles, specifically along things like edges - making crisper and sharper edges possible with a far smaller number of polygons - and thus, requires much less hardware power to manipulate - but, for higher powered hardware, provides a huge sculpting "speed boost", as well.

Greg Smith

[michalis]

@Psmith, I missed something here, so, we'll have dynamic tessellation and voxels now?

This UI has a great great problem. Be reasonable, face it. You need a target here and you don't have it. The target is a surface quad poly mesh with UVs. In the future ... well, then voxels could be perfect. But 3dcoat is made to convert everything to a retopo quad UV mesh. Voxels don't belong to 3dcoat actually. 3DCoat is a helper application, not a stand alone one. If a stand alone app (like MB or ZB) is what you have in mind, then do so. Start from the UI. Having the target in mind. I started sketching a new UI for 3dcoat, just for fun. It was clear to me that I missed the target in five minutes.

[AbnRanger]

@Psmith, I missed something here, so, we'll have dynamic tessellation and voxels now?

This UI has a great great problem. Be reasonable, face it. You need a target here and you don't have it. The target is a surface quad poly mesh with UVs. In the future ... well, then voxels could be perfect. But 3dcoat is made to convert everything to a retopo quad UV mesh. Voxels don't belong to 3dcoat actually. 3DCoat is a helper application, not a stand alone one. If a stand alone app (like MB or ZB) is what you have in mind, then do so. Start from the UI. Having the target in mind. I started sketching a new UI for 3dcoat, just for fun. It was clear to me that I missed the target in five minutes.

I think the idea is to have dynamic tessellation in Surface mode only. But the problem I see right away, in that approach, is that when you switch to voxel/volume mode you have to already have a high resolution anyway, otherwise you stand to lose much of that detail (you just gained from DS).

What I would like to ultimately see from Voxels is to actually convert it to working strictly with shaded voxels only (much like working with Volumetric Effects shaders in major 3D Applications, ie. HyperVoxels, Afterburn, FumeFX, Maya Fluids, etc).....no outer mesh. But instead of smoke, fire, and fluids, it would be more solid/dense in nature. Isn't this somewhat similar to the way ZBrush works, regarding Pixols?

I think one of the things that slows Voxel sculpting down is that for every brush stroke, it not only has to turn voxels on or off, but also has to resample the the outer mesh. Using SHADING to visually represent the voxels instead, could increase performance considerable, in my opinion. Once a user is happy with their model, then I could see a triangle mesh applied so that you could do a direct export or allow snapping in the Retopo Room to work.

As for Surface Mode, I might consolidate the whole thing with the Sculpt Room w/the Dynamic Tessellation...much as TomK was referring to. Instead of toggling to a separate mode, they could toggle to the new Poly Sculpt Room the same way they do to Surface mode now. An it would look much the same as being in Surface mode. As soon as someone clicks on the Poly Sculpt toggle, 3DC would then merge/convert the volume to the triangular mesh (that is currently used in Voxel/Volume mode).

[michalis]

+1 AbnRanger

Dynamic Tessellation may produces smoother surface, better for snapping topology too. Smoother hi density with details I mean.

If I understood correctly, will be the new surface mode. Easier to handle but loosing details when dropping to voxels again. Booleans in vox mode of course, details in new surface mode. Fair enough. What I like to see it a decent after topology sculpting room with details, multi resolution and posing tools. A better retopo and UV editor room. Capable to handle more than 6K quads. hm hm I should say 4k, an extrude tool could be nice too (there is one? lets forget it)

[Tom K]

Another possibility is that in addition to the dynamic tessellation would be dynamic DE-tessellation. this way, if you change a voxel to poly mode it could remove the polygons in the areas they weren't needed and hopefully give you a poly model similar to one you would have gotten by using the dynamic tessellation. Or else, like AbnRanger said, you would just end up already having millions of extra unneeded polygons.

I'm not sure, but it seems like this is something he is working on with his smoothing relaxation algorithms for unlimited clay? Or maybe that's something different entirely.

Tom

[spacepainter]

Another possibility is that in addition to the dynamic tessellation would be dynamic DE-tessellation.

DE? What is DE?

Ooooow, do you mean reduction?

[spacepainter]

For those that don't know what this dynamic stuff is about

Just download sculptris from the zbrush-site for free and try the system. It's almost the same stuff Raul made independently.

[Tom K]

DE? What is DE?

Ooooow, do you mean reduction?

Yes. polygon reduction. Similar to the reduce brush in sculptris only have it do it automatically.

Tom

[michalis]

It's almost the same stuff Raul made independently.

Is this precise? I think he already mentioned that he was going for voxels first, then turned to UC, met this sculptris guy and had some great talk.

In any case voxels is the more close to real clay approach. Booleans! Cuts!

A question, will we be able to merge in new surface mode? With negative volumes etc. Import directly there? I think not, wondering...

I really have a logical problem here, I'm confused. Mysticism isn't my favorite.

[Psmith]

Michalis:

I believe so - merging will be there because Andrew has already said that all primitive functions will be included. The primitives need boolean function to be truly useful.

Greg Smith

[digman]

From Andrew's Twitter today "All preparations for changing 3DC code in team done. Now making possibility to load regular meshes in voxel surface mode."

Edit: Link corrected

Thanks Tom, I was not paying close enough attention and paste the wrong url in.

http://twitter.com/andrewshpagin

[michalis]

I believe so - merging will be there because Andrew has already said that all primitive functions will be included. The primitives need boolean function to be truly useful.

There? where? In surface mode? Booleans there? You need loops for boolean surface operations. Like groboto. To be useful, really useful I mean. Now we have to retopo them. Pity that autopo loops don't work as they should be. With a nice option that says 'double or triple loops', (yes we could use split loops tool but we need clean loops first) , that could be nice. So humble but so useful.

[Tom K]

From Andrew's Twitter today "All preparations for changing 3DC code in team done. Now making possibility to load regular meshes in voxel surface mode."

http://www.3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7475&pid=57047&st=40&

your link goes right back to this page.

Tom