Farsthary update channel

[philnolan3d]

Yeah, I was thinking a history attack may require a lot of major programming.

[gbball]

Please use NVil as inspiration for poly modelling, or better yet just hire Kun (Istonia) to make it for you.  He's amazing and about as prolific as Andrew when it comes to iterating. http://voidworld.cmcproductions.co.uk/index.php

 

Agreed,

 

I would love to see Kun join the team.

[ajz3d]

It's not that clicky at all. And besides, don't expect a mod or history stack in 3DC. That's a fat request if there ever was one!

Why? Implementing modifier stacks doesn't sound too complicated.

After all, what is a stack (in the meaning of a geometry modifier stack)? It's a certain state of geometry. You can store it as .obj or some other more comfortable and faster-to-access (custom) format inside the .3b file, or hell, even as a hidden retopoGroup (as a hack). Each [n] item will operate on [n-1] item as it was the original geometry, and [n] item could be stored inside .3b file in the same format. So [n+1] (another level on the stack) would operate on [n] item. Etc, etc.

True, we don't know if 3D-Coat's code allows for this without major modifications, but if it's well written, and I'm sure it is, this shouldn't be a problem I think.

[ajz3d]

Agreed,

 

I would love to see Kun join the team.

3D-Coat+Nvil =

[Javis]

Sure, hire a few more developers and it might not be too trivial. But with the current resources, I doubt it's realistic.

[ajz3d]

Sure, hire a few more developers and it might not be too trivial. But with the current resources, I doubt it's realistic.

We only wish 3D-Coat the best, Javis.

[gbball]

Sure, hire a few more developers and it might not be too trivial. But with the current resources, I doubt it's realistic.

 

You never know what could be arranged.  I think Nvil is still relatively obscure I think.  I don't know that the developer is even working on it full time.  It complements 3d Coat beautifully though. 

 

Like you said, I'm not sure that it's possible since the codebase is c# rather than c++.  But Alias and Wavefront merged years ago to help make Maya an industry leader, so I figure anything is possible.

 

Anyways, this is probably not the place to discuss it, since it's Raul's thread.

 

All that being said.  I think 3d coat has an opportunity to do something better than standard polymesh modeling.  Something that would gracefully degrade to regular polygonal modeling, but within 3d coat could be so much more.  I would love to work with the team to implement my idea which I've alluded to before.

 

Perhaps it's something we can connect on this summer Raul as I will finally have some time come July.

[Javis]

We only wish 3D-Coat the best, Javis.

 

 

Absolutely. I'm just saying don't get your hopes up too high. It would be cool, just not very realistic.

You never know what could be arranged.  I think Nvil is still relatively obscure I think.  I don't know that the developer is even working on it full time.  It complements 3d Coat beautifully though. 

 

Like you said, I'm not sure that it's possible since the codebase is c# rather than c++.  But Alias and Wavefront merged years ago to help make Maya an industry leader, so I figure anything is possible.

 

Anyways, this is probably not the place to discuss it, since it's Raul's thread.

 

All that being said.  I think 3d coat has an opportunity to do something better than standard polymesh modeling.  Something that would gracefully degrade to regular polygonal modeling, but within 3d coat could be so much more.  I would love to work with the team to implement my idea which I've alluded to before.

 

Perhaps it's something we can connect on this summer Raul as I will finally have some time come July.

 

 

Maybe so! Good things come in small packages. Or so I hear.

[geo_n]

It's not that clicky at all. And besides, don't expect a mod or history stack in 3DC. That's a fat request if there ever was one!

 

I didn't say mod stack for 3dc.

I said it for modo for not having non-destructive workflow after all these years and with the backing of the foundry and all its resources...nada. Meshfusion getting there but with its meshy mesh output, no thanks.

 

Andrew is doing well on his own but I don't see a single programmer able to pull off non-destructive workflow.

 

Anyway I'm ok with 3dc copying the fundamentals(selection/deselect, lasso, falloffs, action center) of lightwave modeller which modo then copied. it is simple and straightforward.

[AbnRanger]

The Retopo Room is already pretty close to being a full-fledged poly-modeler, and I think Andrew tasked Raul to work on the modeling tools...as he has already begun to. I don't see the logic in hiring an outside developer to do his assigned task for him. Let's be patient and see what Raul has in store. We might end up with a much improved Auto-Retopo or quad-mesh generator, to boot, as I thought it was on the "To Do" list. I like the current Transform Gizmo, but it needs (to add) the ability to move and scale along 2 axis' simultaneously...like most 3D apps have. It's a must, IMHO, because the user will need to do that frequently. Soft/Gradient Selection is also an absolute MUST for any poly modeling app. as it will be needed frequently, as well.

 

As for the prospect of a history stack.....Andrew already started adding History to the Primitives tool (needs some refinement, IMHO, but it's a start), and he said it could lead to history stacks in other tools (Pose Tool next?). Like Geo_n said, selection efficiency in 3D Coat needs to be top notch (ie., selection sets drop list rather than saving to a file). That will take it pretty far. But before we start unloading all of our lists of requests...how about Priority No.1 being absolute TOOL CONSISTENCY, throughout the app? Allow me provide a few examples. Selecting loops for UV seam selection already exists. So, why is there not an identical method for standard edge-loop selection? I don't get that inconsistency. You are using edges to make a seam selection (when in UV mode). It makes no sense, whatsoever, to leave that functionality out of the SELECT tool. You have a SELECT PATH and UV PATH tool that are identical. Speaking of the Select Path tool....once you make a selection, if you want to RELAX that selected path....you have to switch back to the SELECT tool to do it. Why?

 

This highlights a long-standing problem with 3D Coat, most new features are rushed and sometimes left unfinished. Myself and others have been asking Andrew for a full-fledged procedural noise generator for 3D Coat (both in the Sculpt and Paint Room). He starts off with the Noise tool, but never adds but one noise type and then leaves it untouched to move on to PBR or other tasks. I even gave him links...even the files themselves, to a free open-source library of procedural noise maps (Bercon Maps)...but Andrew won't bother adding them. I don't understand it. This is one of the most powerful tools in ZBrush, and 3D Coat users have been deprived of similar functionality for years...even though it's been requested numerous times. Why make a Noise generator at all, if you aren't going to supply a host of noise types? Why have just a handful of Procedural noise patterns in the Fill tool, when you add many more patterns (via free libraries of those patterns).

 

There are just loads of inconsistencies and unfinished tools (many with not so much as an icon or even a simple tool-tip) like this throughout 3D Coat, that require users to request and request and request and request over and over and over...for years to get them corrected. This really needs to be addressed. When working on a tool that has a counterpart in other workspaces, GREAT care should be taken to ensure that they are 100% identical in functionality and features. The Transform gizmos have been all over the place in inconsistency...and remains so, with the transform gizmos in the Tweak Room. Nothing like the Gizmos elsewhere in the app. What does that tell new users? That Pilgway can't be bothered making their tools consistent across the entire app? They can spend almost a year on PBR, but cannot waste their time making like tools match? It's frustrating, from a user's perspective, because if nothing else, it only steepens the learning curve and introduces confusion.

 

Another inconsistency that I've been begging Andrew to fix is FreeForm Lattices in the Sculpt Room. With the Primitives tool active, you can select a model from the models pallet and set an arbitrary number of control points on the lattice. Not so with the FFD lattices in the Pose tool. You are limited to just a handful of presets. Consistency = efficiency + easier learning curve.

[Carlosan]

Low poly extrude and scale prototype

Posted on June 17, 2015 by Farsthary

This is quick alpha test for low poly modeling tools in 3DCoat.

Still there’s a lot of room for improvement from shader to UI, also in selection since there’s currently no selection mechanism rather than freeze values. Is something must be reworked in the future.

 

[Michaelgdrs]

COMMMEEEEEE oOOOOONNNNNN 

[AbnRanger]

Raul, is there any way to develop a proper Beveling tool in the Sculpt Room. That EXTRUDE tool looks to be very close, but bevels aren't necessarily extruded. Using the Pose tool and E-Panel Splines does work to some degree, but not always. On irregular shapes, it can be really difficult to make it work. That's why a dedicated bevel tool would be very welcome.

[Denis]

Raul, is there any way to develop a proper Beveling tool in the Sculpt Room. That EXTRUDE tool looks to be very close, but bevels aren't necessarily extruded. Using the Pose tool and E-Panel Splines does work to some degree, but not always. On irregular shapes, it can be really difficult to make it work. That's why a dedicated bevel tool would be very welcome.

+ 1

[TimmyZDesign]

Raul, is there any way to develop a proper Beveling tool in the Sculpt Room. That EXTRUDE tool looks to be very close, but bevels aren't necessarily extruded. Using the Pose tool and E-Panel Splines does work to some degree, but not always. On irregular shapes, it can be really difficult to make it work. That's why a dedicated bevel tool would be very welcome.

+1