Jump to content
3DCoat Forums


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent


About RabenWulf

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,492 profile views
  1. RabenWulf

    3d coat pro

    I was able to migrate from Steam to 3D Coat, as the first version I bought was on Steam. This was done via the upgrade process though, so it might be a tad different if you buy pro on steam.
  2. RabenWulf

    Blender 2.81 Alpha is out, stable release in November

    There's two things to take away from that bit of development. The first is that in its current form it would be useful for multiresolution sculpts, where you could add detail on top of a UVed mesh with multiple levels of resolution. The second is that if this is the start then it would be safe to say it wont simply end at that level either. It all happens in steps, the biggest difference is because its blender, we tend to see it early on in its development. non-related add:
  3. RabenWulf

    Blender 2.81 Alpha is out, stable release in November

    I am referring to specifically to features that are not currently in the 2.80 build so far, but are planned for 2.81+. The developer behind it started his own sculpting branch and was eventually hired full time by the Blender Institute. There is a lot that has not yet been merged into master, so what you see in regular 2.8 right now (the basic low end sculpting features) is not what I am talking about. See: https://twitter.com/pablodp606 And: https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog The autoretopology is also part of the equation. They added a few remeshing functions + automatic retopology. This alone won't match up to what Zbrush or 3D Coat results atm, but someone went and threw a wrench into the equation and created Zbrush's remeshing/retopology capability for Blender (as well as Maya, Max and Modo). http://www.cgchannel.com/2019/10/check-out-neat-automatic-retopology-tool-quadremesher/ Even the improved boolean workflow you describe is part of the developments. There are a lot of developments going on and its not easy to track them all. Foresight reveals that 3D Coat's primary appeal feature wise is being developed in Blender. What has also changed is the level of funding, with over $100,000 flowing into the development fund every month due to backers from Nvidia, AMD, Epic and Ubisoft. This is going to be very disruptive some commercial software packages, which includes 3DC.
  4. RabenWulf

    Blender 2.81 Alpha is out, stable release in November

    Disclaimer: I'd rather post in existing blender topics than create a new one. This is not a VS post. Since you bring up competition, this needs to be said imo: Blender is eating away at 3D Coat's appeal. We have 3 big things going on right now development wise: 1) Blender's sculpting capabilities are improving drastically to the point where it can be seen as on par with 3D Coat. With the advent of polygroup like functionality, direct 3D modeling, modifiers (including traditional multires modifier), and smart posing tools, quadremesh, one could argue it has already began to surpass the 3D Coat sculpting work flow. 2) Aside from some great 3rd party addons, Blender has began to develop a retopology mode in order to match the current standard of the retopology task. 3) At the latest Blender Conference, it was announced that the goal with the brush engine and painting features was to combine what you get with Krita with Substance Painter. Add in the fact you already have a substance designer like node workflow and the texturing capabilities of Blender will far surpass 3D Coat's current texturing capability. More importantly, Blender is free and has backing from Nvidia as well as AMD. The point of saying is to point out that all three of those areas are what 3D Coat is known for, as well as why people would be interested in picking it up in the first place. If that is matched or surpassed by a free software package, the question is, how can 3D Coat continue to grow or continue to exist in its current form? Blender is going to force the competition to think a bit differently, where their software fits within the larger field of CGI, and what they are offering to get those sales. I hope Andrew can come up with a compelling reason for people to use 3D Coat in the future, to either compete with whats coming out in the near future, or to bring something unique to the table so that the software has its place in the pipeline. Blender is simply disruptive, in a good way for us as consumers, but perhaps not so good for software like 3D Coat.
  5. You didn't do anything wrong by making this thread in the first place. It is inevitable there will be discussions and analysis of the tools (and their developer) that are part of this field. These software solutions are all in competition with eachother to a varying degree. The contention regarding "vs" threads is that it promotes the idea that you have to play sides, like a sports team. At some point it becomes more about defending your "team" rather than discussing the neutrally, the software itself. This is less a problem with the software and more a problem with users themselves defaulting into such behavior. With that out of the way, it is important to discuss what 2.8 brings to the table. Whether we like it or not, Blender has become disruptive software, meaning it as a free alternative to the commercial options is highly disruptive. Knowing this, its possible to simply discuss the cause and effect it can have, as well as where it sits in comparison to the competition at this point in time.
  6. I think a lot of artist would love to see a solid zbrush alternative, (cheaper, better UI, better navigation) but so far no one else has really stepped up to the plate to compete on the same level. With Blender ramping it up on a sculpting level, we start to see the cheapest option of all (free). If the sculpting experience is better, there is basically no reason to look at any other buggy paid alternative at that point (which is where 3D Coat sits). More importantly, I don't think we need another 2-3 years to see that happening, more like a few months with Pablo's sculpting branch developments being merged into master for Blender 2.81. Just flip through this guy's twitter/artstation to see the constant developments happening with regards to sculpting (even painting and retopology): https://www.artstation.com/pablodp606/blog/1vEn/new-blender-sculpt-mode-introduction
  7. If blender keeps developing in the direction its going, I can't see how 3D Coat can continue to grow (user base) in the future. This is actually something to think about. If Blender's sculpting, retopology and painting tools continue to get better, due to the nature of a true modeling environment, substance designer like texture creation via nodes, a real time viewport and tons of high quality addons, what does 3D Coat really have going for it? Food for thought.
  8. RabenWulf

    I will not be silent this time. Just my opinion !

    There is certainly a great opportunity for this approach with 3DC. I would totally be behind going that route as well, assuming the results are good and its not another gimmick.
  9. RabenWulf

    I will not be silent this time. Just my opinion !

    This comment brings back fond memories. To be quite honest, this thread played out exactly like a few other zbrush related threads (some which were locked and deleted due to the person you are quoting becoming extremely hyperbolic over this very subject. He simply refuses to allow anyone to offer positive criticism towards 3DCoat as it relates to Zbrush when presented in a positive light. It some how always turns into criticism being vitriol and hate, rather than just honest and consumer neutral opinions. There is some serious deja vu going on. Ironically, even the "lets make 3DC better" disclaimers following 3DC criticism fell on deaf ears. The same person even posted tons of examples of great sculpts + renders done in 3DCoat, only it was quickly pointed out that those artist actually stated they did the sculpting in Zbrush and not 3DC (which was primarily used either for retopo or painting). This is why we cannot have nice things as far as sculpting goes in 3DC. It is amazing that we have to keep having this discussion with regards to sculpting over and over again, while the same person keeps acting out in the same way. I give them credit for consistency at least, but its turning itself into a meme at this point. I can only say this horse has been beaten to death. Same 3Dconnection worship, same sculpt layers being the only major thing needed apparently, despite tons of flaws in the sculpting workflow. So much of 3DC is subpar as far as sculpting goes, and much of it is low hanging fruit which can be addressed if time is put into it (masking for example). Its a great application that has potential, but that potential in some areas is not being addressed. Zbrush is great for a reason, and its not because it was "first". We are seeing far more headway as well with Blender taking a serious competitive approach to sculpting ( https://twitter.com/pablodp606) with its sculpt quest. As time goes on, there is becoming less of a desire to use 3DC due to progression in other software hitting the low end. Even projects like ArmorPaint are attempting to cover the substance painter workflow. I am almost wondering if it would be in 3DC's best interest to just go open source and work in the same way Godot operates, take money from donations and pull in developers who will contribute voluntarily. Perhaps then 3DC can gain a lot more momentum and make some serious headway, with Andrew doing most of the oversight, but that's just my opinion. After so many of these zbrush/sculpting topics over the years, its hard not to be a little pessimistic with regards to 3DC. Just my 2 cents.
  10. Since it has not been mentioned here, I'd like to also point out Quixel chose to respond to the news as well. Mixer is going to be their new texturing software and they are planning to sell it for $99. What I find fascinating is how they do texture generation, where Substance Designer is node based, they opted for a layer based approach. I would even suggest it is in 3D Coat's best interest to consider a layer based procedural texturing approach as well as it already has the advantage as far as texture painting goes.
  11. I definitely wont be purchasing any more Algorithmic products anymore. I'll be sticking to what version I have now with a slow transition either back to 3D Coat or depending on how Blender 2.8 pans out, their tools + plugins. Armor Paint looks promising, and there seems to be a general interest in getting Blender to pick up where Allegorithmic started.
  12. Honestly, I'd even suggest NOT using 3D Coat for awhile... try some of other software out there. Substance Painter, Zbrush, Blender...ect Sometimes its good to walk away from what you know to see what else is out there and how they approach certain tasks, or design features a certain way.
  13. RabenWulf

    Autodesk Decides to Reinvest in Mudbox

    Hmm you may be right, I was thinking of the grid/snap options under "draw", a feature I never had to use so I was going off of memory with that one. After playing with it, it appears that it is limited to setting up the grip, snapping the grid, but tools seem to at the same time ignore the grid you set up. For clip curve, if you hold shift it will snap but it completely ignores the grid. If so that's a pretty big oversight on Pixologics part. Also during that process, I came across a numerical input for "position" and "size" inside the geometry panel. So that is there apparently. Some of the stuff they add usually flies under the radar due to obscure implementation.
  14. RabenWulf

    Autodesk Decides to Reinvest in Mudbox

    Hmm to be fair, while I am not aware of any direct numerical input for transform operations in zbrush at the moment (3DC does have this, agreed), the new gizmo 3D does offer more precise control than previously with the transpose widget. A numerical value is displayed when using the gizmo 3D, and you can work with increments. Snap to grid and similar snapping features should have been added back in 4r5 if I remember correctly, so its definitely there. I'd argue what drives concepting is not just the feature set but the speed in which the artist can work. Zbrush atm requires a lot less actions to get a lot more done. For example, the gizmo3D can automatically move all or selected sub-tools with a quick click of the button. Parametric primitives, live booleans, shadow box, polygroups with quick hotkey selection, mask and deform modifiers,posing...ect a lot of these relate to concepting quickly. I really wouldn't put 3D Coat ahead of it based on that for concepting. I definitely prefer 3D Coat's navigation approach and brush control (right mouse button drag) over Zbrush's weird navigation controls, and its reliance on spacebar or S key to resize. In being more conventional, UI wise, 3D Coat has more potential at being accessible. This is something even Mudbox has over zbrush. Also out of curiosity, what was the purpose of the picture? I looked up the webinar, and Kingslien is talking about how Maya, Max, XSI are all battling it out for hard surface modeling, which is the lower left. There was no one battling it out for the "soft" and "loose" organic modeling field, which he has in the upper right. This is where zbrush came in, and why it was placed up in the upper right of his graph. With polymodeling, zbrush starts to hit on the lower left which is that hard surface stuff he references. Basically he created a graph showing where software packages are falling into based on approach and target audience. He explains how zbrush targeted the loose and soft "organic" modeling market with little to no competition, and then began to smartly intrude on the territory that max, maya, xsi..ect were battling it out for. This is actually a great message for 3D Coat as well, since it was doing the same thing but on a texture painting/retopology level. =) That would be interesting. Modo mostly is using it for visualization purposes and some basic operations. I don't think sculpting is on the table yet, or if it ever will be. We need these applications to master quick modeling in VR space first, as sculpting requires a kind of control that's hard to achieve with current VR input. If Mudbox does target VR, it would be mostly a marketing stunt they could turn heads with, but the only way they an really compete is by upping the quality/workflow as it relates to sculpting. They have some serious catching up to do.