Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Improving the Voxel Brushes: Help us Help you


Recommended Posts

  • Member
Andrew, The Size at which brushes can be affective severely (especially at high voxel levels) limits thier usefulness, I emplore you to take a further look at 3Dioots Idea thread, It not only offers a possible solution to Area of influence but also a boost to performance. I think Area of influence and Performance are areas that must to address first and foremost. Then once stable tweaks to other brushes would become much easier as this limitation will not be a constant.

That's exactly the issue I'm having. I can't take my sculpts to the level that I usually do in Zbrush. Everything is just too stiff at high resolutions. So I'm using 3d-coat just to block stuff. Which is already very useful, beyond that it's just very limiting for me right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
That's exactly the issue I'm having. I can't take my sculpts to the level that I usually do in Zbrush. Everything is just too stiff at high resolutions. So I'm using 3d-coat just to block stuff. Which is already very useful, beyond that it's just very limiting for me right now.

What i find is that Voxels Can produce the level of detail Like ZBrush But the problem is that due to the lay of the voxel topology you need to work at a much much Higher level. I did some experiments a while back and found that I needed Roughly 15 - 18 miliion tris on just the head which would equate to 7.5 - 9 million quads, Now I can acheive the kind detail i require with far les quads than that in ZBrush or mudbox. So the irregular flow of voxels is a big problem here when it comes to detailling. only way around it is currently just up the resolution and work on tiny miniscule area. Which takes So much longer that until brush optimisation is accomplished its completely unviable for me to detail here. Using alphas and a drag stroke I would expect to be able to lay pore and crease detail down pretty fast but it can take hours with Voxels as perforamce is just snails pace. And I have two FAST workstations. this is why I point again at 3Dioots thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
What i find is that Voxels Can produce the level of detail Like ZBrush

Sorry to say, this is not true. It COULD produce it, but with each level of resolution you add, the smaller the possible brush size. Thats the restriction. In earlier alphas this was possible, however tearing and artifacts appeared at large brush sizes (if I remember right only with CUDA), so i guess Andrew linked the maximal brush radius to resolution. If I add 2 levels of resolution the maximal brush size is so small that id rather have the artifacts back and disable CUDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
Sorry to say, this is not true. It COULD produce it, but with each level of resolution you add, the smaller the possible brush size. Thats the restriction. In earlier alphas this was possible, however tearing and artifacts appeared at large brush sizes (if I remember right only with CUDA), so i guess Andrew linked the maximal brush radius to resolution. If I add 2 levels of resolution the maximal brush size is so small that id rather have the artifacts back and disable CUDA.

I dont think you read my post correctly!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
sorry if i misunderstood, my english lacks <_<

No problem, If you go back through my posts, I do say that this detail is only possible at Much much higher levels, and manipulating these high levels is nigh on impossible due to the area of influence (Size of workable brush) being so small. I have been able to get acceptable detail comparable to what I would expect from ZBrush but it took me so long with tiny Stamp strokes that it really isnt viable right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
I did some experiments a while back and found that I needed Roughly 15 - 18 miliion tris on just the head which would equate to 7.5 - 9 million quads

The problem is polygon distribution, which is always constant in voxels. In Zbrush even a poor base mesh (for example, a cube) can be divided in such way that the polygon distribution will be very efficient, because you can move polygons around and subdivisions will be optimal to the level of detail that you need(within constraints of topology).

A clear example is the pinch tool in Zbrush. You can have definition using the pinch tool even in lower levels of division. This is impossible with voxels, you need resolution first. You can have a whole detailed human in zbrush with 500.000 quads(1 million tris). 3d-coat needs 10x more triangles to represent the same model. That's why poly sculpting is so efficient.

Unless some really aggressive optimizations take place I don' think people will use pure voxel sculpting at this point. 3Dioot have some really interesting ideas. I hope something like that gets implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
The problem is polygon distribution, which is always constant in voxels. In Zbrush even a poor base mesh (for example, a cube) can be divided in such way that the polygon distribution will be very efficient, because you can move polygons around and subdivisions will be optimal to the level of detail that you need(within constraints of topology).

A clear example is the pinch tool in Zbrush. You can have definition using the pinch tool even in lower levels of division. This is impossible with voxels, you need resolution first. You can have a whole detailed human in zbrush with 500.000 quads(1 million tris). 3d-coat needs 10x more triangles to represent the same model. That's why poly sculpting is so efficient.

Unless some really aggressive optimizations take place I don' think people will use pure voxel sculpting at this point. 3Dioot have some really interesting ideas. I hope something like that gets implemented.

Actually if you export a raw voxel mesh into say ZBrush or Mudbox abd hit the Wireframe you will see that due to the way voxeling occurs there is never a constant, It continually changes and the layout and shape of how the voxels lay is actually far from consistant, So however the brush engine works this is what it has to contend with (See Below), Compared to Regular polygon flow. This is why detail comparable to ZBrush is only available at super high levels, Also dont forget at every stroke resampling takes place which can in effect remove your previous detail stroke. so only super high levels afford a surface that resamples without losing the previous strokes detail.

Voxel_Flow.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
Unless some really aggressive optimizations take place I don' think people will use pure voxel sculpting at this point. 3Dioot have some really interesting ideas. I hope something like that gets implemented.

Actually, some people have done some really remarkable sculpting with voxels and will certainly continue to do so. Optimazation is obviously very important but the speed with which projects of almost any description can be prototyped, leads me to believe voxel sculpting will be very popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Yes Fabio I understand what you mean. I know I quoted you in that last post but It was more a general observation than a directed reply. I just want people to understand why its so tricky to 'get a good pinch' and a 'tight line' in understanding this people have to agree what Andrew has done thus far is such a great achievement, and be a bit more understanding of the challenges in creating better brushes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Yes, exactly. I guess there's a lot of people out there thinking they are sculpting on those tris, when it's actually the result of the "marching cubes" over a voxel volume. You can't pinch voxels, you can pinch things inside them. Like Photoshop, resolution is needed.

Because we need so much resolution to get the same level of ZBrush or Mudbox, and we can't go back levels of resolution. Some things are just impractical.

You know, part of the problem are the digital artists. A real sculptor working with clay or stone would feel comfortable in 3d-coat because they have this way of working where they know how to block a model so they don't need to change the structure that much after the thing is done.

But that's the nature of the medium, we need to get stuff done insanely fast in our jobs. So we need this flexibility. I hope Andrew is aware of this issue. I don't know if he is an artist also. But that's the kind of thing that sometimes a developer isn't thinking about.

So, like you said the problem is performance, not so much the brushes themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@ Fabio

Yep i totally agree on the sculptor comment. However a digital medium also has cons as in that it for example will always be less intuitive then using your hands. This is ofset by things like symmetry, undo, no setup time etc. However the truth is that compared to real clay the lineair approach forced on people through voxels is a con even in the hands of traditional sculptors. The fact is that with a realy clay sculpt you can always go back to working roughly. Use a pallet or your hands, slice a big part of or add a slab of clay. This is not possible currently once you move up in resolution.

You could say brushes are not the problem but performance is. This is true to an extent. However the current approach is far from optimized (in fact quite the opposite). What this means is that great performance gains can be had through optimizing the tools/brushes themselves. I personally believe the voxel sculpting proces is fast enough, how its used -through the tools- however is not.

@ LJB

Its great to see this level of discussion regarding voxel brushes/sculpting. You seem very driven about it which makes it easier for me to take some distance. ;)

You were spot on in my thread. You can apply the same principal to alpha based tools by, for example, taking the alpha resolution as a base to define the cap of. In general the performance to be gained through that is a bit less (but still substantial) compared to the obvious candidates like a true clay. Ive thought it trough to a much higher level then what i wrote down but due to timeconstraints and the fact that i dont feel like wasting my time on an idea that Andrew might not be willing to invest serious time in i havent expanded on it too much. There are ways to use this principle in a much broader sense and link this cap more dynamically to not only brush alpha but even to brush shape (because in theory a pointy brush would need a higher resolution then a smooth sphericial one) but that goes well beyond an initial proof of concept in the form of a voxel clay thats based on this theory.

3dioot

PS

Coding wise i can imagine its a real challenge to cap voxel resolution inside a brush's area of influence and have that result in changes on a higher level of voxel resolution in such a way where it will always work and still lead to a performance gain. So im quite curious wether Andrew sees any possibilities to even realise this coding wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
not only brush alpha but even to brush shape (because in theory a pointy brush would need a higher resolution then a smooth sphericial one) but that goes well beyond an initial proof of concept in the form of a voxel clay thats based on this theory.

Exactly this is why rather than size or scale I have started reffering to an 'Area of influence', to try and aid this analogy. A pointy brush would not necesarily need a high level at its edges, but more so where the point became sharp the outer ring of the point (and Im thinking of a conical brush here) would function perfectly well at a lower level of. A seperate channel in a brush engine could be used to set this brush based levelling with seperate scaling and overall levelling dependant on brush size. But this is all complete speculation. Whether or not any of this is possible, efficient or practical is completely in Andrew's hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Leigh, by constant I mean homogeneous in large scale, as a whole.

In poly Sculpting you can control distribution. You can have more polygons on the face than the body.

Uniform isotropic distribution is the main advantage of voxel sculpting

Without that it's impossible to create new geometry,I think there is no way to have topology freedom and control over the meshing(you can use different layers doing the sculpt in layers).

It's the main disadvantage also.

About that,people here seems not understanding that brushes will never be so good like we wish.

If we think to poly sculpting(Zbrush,mudbox,blender),we can generalize that in these programs we sculpt(I mean when we do a stroke) over an arbitrary patch surface(actually more patches stiched together),like a nurbs surface but with linear interpolation.

For example,if we have a plane subdivided a bit(like a patch surface) and we displaced the polys along the normals,what we have at the end?

Again a patch, where some vertices are upper or lower(but the surface is continue in a LINEAR way because the connections between vertices doesn't change or break).

It's like working with linear curves(polylines),even if they aren't smooth they are connected,and never stepped(stepped is a square curve,if you think to audio synth programs or 3d animation curves you can understand easily how different is a square curve compared to a linear curve).

Even if c0 continuity isn't good enough to give smooth result,phong shading and subdivision algorithms make possible to have smooth and detailed surfaces,and c0 become c2 or c1,depending on where we are on the cage subdivision surface(poles).

So,displacing a subdivision surface creates again a subdivision surface.

In voxel it's a completely different story.

Every time we do a stroke we are discretizing(like doing an audio sampling) the stroke,and the voxel resolution is the step used.

So if we do again the plane previous example,we start with a plane(as voxel the plane has s thickness)and after some strokes we have a discrete(stepped) version of the actions we have done.

So the only way to have a clean results is using small step(it's depend for sure of what we are doing).

So,for me the only way to improve that is trying some adaptive step size for voxel,as you do stroke the program analize your action and choice the right resolution(but how this can work I really don't know)

Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
Uniform isotropic distribution is the main advantage of voxel sculpting

Without that it's impossible to create new geometry,I think there is no way to have topology freedom and control over the meshing(you can use different layers doing the sculpt in layers).

It's the main disadvantage also.

About that,people here seems not understanding that brushes will never be so good like we wish.

If we think to poly sculpting(Zbrush,mudbox,blender),we can generalize that in these programs we sculpt(I mean when we do a stroke) over an arbitrary patch surface(actually more patches stiched together),like a nurbs surface but with linear interpolation.

For example,if we have a plane subdivided a bit(like a patch surface) and we displaced the polys along the normals,what we have at the end?

Again a patch, where some vertices are upper or lower(but the surface is continue in a LINEAR way because the connections between vertices doesn't change or break).

It's like working with linear curves(polylines),even if they aren't smooth they are connected,and never stepped(stepped is a square curve,if you think to audio synth programs or 3d animation curves you can understand easily how different is a square curve compared to a linear curve).

Even if c0 continuity isn't good enough to give smooth result,phong shading and subdivision algorithms make possible to have smooth and detailed surfaces,and c0 become c2 or c1,depending on where we are on the cage subdivision surface(poles).

So,displacing a subdivision surface creates again a subdivision surface.

In voxel it's a completely different story.

Every time we do a stroke we are discretizing(like doing an audio sampling) the stroke,and the voxel resolution is the step used.

So if we do again the plane previous example,we start with a plane(as voxel the plane has s thickness)and after some strokes we have a discrete(stepped) version of the actions we have done.

So the only way to have a clean results is using small step(it's depend for sure of what we are doing).

So,for me the only way to improve that is trying some adaptive step size for voxel,as you do stroke the program analize your action and choice the right resolution(but how this can work I really don't know)

Bye

Yes exactly, Levelling/Stepping the influence of the brush cotrolled by size and AOI (Area of influence, sorry i just cant be bothered to type that any more) regardless of the volumes level (though the higher the better) seems a more sensible as this may lead to manipualtions of volumes with a higher level without degradation of detail. Your explanation above is nice, and discriptive. It also clearly illustrates why a jump up and down in Resolution would, if possible, never function as people here would expect.

Even if Andrew can work something on the lines of a subdivision system by which the user can change the level both forward and backward, Detail would only remain (and this is pure speculation, as the process of degrading may in itself be distructive) if the volume stayed current, with no alterations to shape. As soon as you where to switch down and make big alterations the structure of the volume at higher level would change meaning it could never be recreated, leading to loss of detail. so there would seem no reason for the switch down in resolution for large alteration. Which is what people here want Subdivions functionality for.

As to further improvement and suggestion Maybe think more along the line of manipulating the Volume rather than the surface, as that is possible. for instance a better pinch might be obtained by inflating the volume either side of desired pinch line. I dont know the dynamics of the current brushes so once again I speculate that might be how it is already achieved.

One last thing, Decreasing the level of influence to the voxel volume by the brush would certainly lead to better rapid Brushes like Rake and Clay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I think we could have at least some big improvements in surface mode. Assuming that in surface mode we are only dealing with polygons, not voxels at all, I was expecting a much higher performance. When big changes are needed we could switch to surface mode. Currently surface mode IMO isn't really much faster than voxel mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is a great thread of ideas. Lots of food for thought.

Some things I would like to see in Vox Sculpting:

-Deformation cages/lattice for advanced volume deformations.

-Spline deformation

-Line Pose tool that selects volume all the way to pivot point with adjustable falloff. Current tool creates bends, not rotations, mainly because weighting only goes half-way.

-Freeze tool (also in sculpt room)

-Procedural growth/filling of vox stamps to grow coral and other complex organic shapes. For example you could make a volume on one layer and have a tool that either grows a surface covering of vox stamps with adjustable parameters (size, rotation, etc) or fills the volume with vox stamps (turn a rectangle into a filled volume of bricks for example, create cloud shapes by filling with bubbles, etc)

-Better scaling. Many imported vox stamps are imported as tiny at first even when they are scaled to be several meters in size in other apps. There should be some sort of universal unit of measure for 3DC or some way to set up such a unit in preferences. I suspect some people may even like the option to have a visual representation of this scale while they are working as well.

-Better resolution management. Reading the workflow of a lot of sculpters on this forum it seems that quadrangulate and reimport are used a lot to keep resolution down. If this has become such a common solution, perhaps there should be an easier/faster tool to do it automatically. Perhaps something like an "Optimize Mesh" command that would automate the process?

-Angle falloff option for flatten tool. Sometimes it is necessary to brush very close to an edge with flatten, with the result that the angle becomes 'smudged' by pulling up vox beyond the edge. It would be nice if there was some sort of angular tolerance option for the flatten tool so that edges can be somewhat preserved even if the brush passes over them.

Stepping resolution seems to be the #1 request, across all painting and sculpting modes (judging from other threads). It seems odd that a system that essentially uses cubes as data cannot be easily turned into a 'nested' resolution system. Think of it like a box that contains a stack of 64 cubes (4 layers of 4x4 cubes), inside each of those small cubes is 64 smaller cubes. Etc etc. In theory this could even be done in reverse fairly easily, to the point where ultimately a whole sculpture of cubes could be packed into one cube. To get access to the finer details you would need the ability to pack and unpack all the cubes at once, one level of boxes at a time.

Anyway, once Andrew decides on a solution for that one issue I think the workflow will become much faster. The resolution feature and vox freeze are such huge requests from ZB and MB users because it becomes necessary for complex models. After some consideration while writing this post, I think that as long as these two features remain absent it could become an exercise in frustration to discuss other new features. This is not because I think the app is somehow damaged or unusable without them, but once they are added the workflow for vox will change dramatically and it will put users in a better position to see which other tools need tweaking or which additional features could improve functionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great thread of ideas. Lots of food for thought.

Some things I would like to see in Vox Sculpting:

-Deformation cages/lattice for advanced volume deformations.

-Spline deformation

-Line Pose tool that selects volume all the way to pivot point with adjustable falloff. Current tool creates bends, not rotations, mainly because weighting only goes half-way.

-Freeze tool (also in sculpt room)

-Procedural growth/filling of vox stamps to grow coral and other complex organic shapes. For example you could make a volume on one layer and have a tool that either grows a surface covering of vox stamps with adjustable parameters (size, rotation, etc) or fills the volume with vox stamps (turn a rectangle into a filled volume of bricks for example, create cloud shapes by filling with bubbles, etc)

-Better scaling. Many imported vox stamps are imported as tiny at first even when they are scaled to be several meters in size in other apps. There should be some sort of universal unit of measure for 3DC or some way to set up such a unit in preferences. I suspect some people may even like the option to have a visual representation of this scale while they are working as well.

-Better resolution management. Reading the workflow of a lot of sculpters on this forum it seems that quadrangulate and reimport are used a lot to keep resolution down. If this has become such a common solution, perhaps there should be an easier/faster tool to do it automatically. Perhaps something like an "Optimize Mesh" command that would automate the process?

-Angle falloff option for flatten tool. Sometimes it is necessary to brush very close to an edge with flatten, with the result that the angle becomes 'smudged' by pulling up vox beyond the edge. It would be nice if there was some sort of angular tolerance option for the flatten tool so that edges can be somewhat preserved even if the brush passes over them.

Stepping resolution seems to be the #1 request, across all painting and sculpting modes (judging from other threads). It seems odd that a system that essentially uses cubes as data cannot be easily turned into a 'nested' resolution system. Think of it like a box that contains a stack of 64 cubes (4 layers of 4x4 cubes), inside each of those small cubes is 64 smaller cubes. Etc etc. In theory this could even be done in reverse fairly easily, to the point where ultimately a whole sculpture of cubes could be packed into one cube. To get access to the finer details you would need the ability to pack and unpack all the cubes at once, one level of boxes at a time.

Anyway, once Andrew decides on a solution for that one issue I think the workflow will become much faster. The resolution feature and vox freeze are such huge requests from ZB and MB users because it becomes necessary for complex models. After some consideration while writing this post, I think that as long as these two features remain absent it could become an exercise in frustration to discuss other new features. This is not because I think the app is somehow damaged or unusable without them, but once they are added the workflow for vox will change dramatically and it will put users in a better position to see which other tools need tweaking or which additional features could improve functionality.

And again... the 1000 time...

"Please post feature requests or questions of this kind into the corresponding sub forum. -> Click here"

Thank you...

And don't be angry, but your good ideas never will be found if you distribute them in different forums and posts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I have these ideas for the 'feel' of brushes:

surface 'draw' stroke is much faster than voxel 'increase', but with same brush(I mostly use the default one, which looks approximately like a gaussian curve) the strokes look sharper. I think it's issue of step or the way the stroke handles normal, and I think with some tweaking this could work both same way. I can get used to it, but still, it's incomfortable when you are new.

another thing is the mentioned intensity of larger voxel brushes on large resolutions, but I think that can be resolved with some growth of voxel sculpt strength adaptively to the performance of the computer(derived from framerate).

But generally, I think it's not really effective to compare literally the workflow with the classical poly sculpting. I thought 3d-coat workflow is that you add high poly detail in paint/sculpt modes after retopologisation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
And again... the 1000 time...

"Please post feature requests or questions of this kind into the corresponding sub forum. -> Click here"

Thank you...

And don't be angry, but your good ideas never will be found if you distribute them in different forums and posts. :)

Hi Taros,

I'm not angry, but please let me correct you since you seem confused.

I'm just posting ideas for refining voxel sculpting's workflow. That is the purpose of this thread. Read the first post, made by the admin geothefaust. He asked us to go overboard when giving suggestions ("let your imagination fly"). You are actually fighting his thread by redirecting vox feature requests and discussion to another thread.

The ideas I mentioned have already been sent to Andrew weeks ago (along with a rake toolset I made, which answers the other vox-related user post you redirected), this is just public discussion.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think Oliver Thornton has completely right.

How can we brainstorming brushes improvement without thinking to how works the system?

btw, a thing I would like to see is more or less the same absolute strength for the smooth brush,

Depending on how low is the resolution,strength seems to be extremely high at low levels,falling down for high levels of resolution.

Maybe an user option that can scale(multiply) automatically the strength when resolution go up,on low res the smooth is too strong(so it should reduced a bit),on upper res is weak(it should increased a bit).

Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things I would like to see in Vox Sculpting:

-Deformation cages/lattice for advanced volume deformations.

-Spline deformation

-Line Pose tool that selects volume all the way to pivot point with adjustable falloff. Current tool creates bends, not rotations, mainly because weighting only goes half-way.

-Freeze tool (also in sculpt room)

...

Sorry, if I made a mistake. It was not my intention.

Correct me, but aren't the mentioned points up there feature requests, that have no direct connection to this voxel brush discussion?

But if I am wrong, please sorry.

Best wishes

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all, looks like a busy night!

I really like your ideas Oliver, I am waiting for stuff like this soon too. Especially lattice deformers. Though this thread is more for the brushing system and not for voxel tools in general.

Anyway, I think we are all perpetrators when it comes to posting in the wrong areas sometimes. I know I have too. I ask that we all post in the proper areas. The reason is, Andrew may not see your post in the wrong area and therefore, your ideas or bug may not be taken into consideration. Let's all remember that we are all here for the same reason, to use 3DC and help it become the best texturing, sculpting and retopo package in the world. That is my goal, and the goal of this thread. So let's get back at it. :)

Right! So on to bigger and better things here - I like a lot of these ideas coming out of people. Let's ask ourselves,

"How can we help 3DC have the best sculpting brushes in the industry?"

"What makes a good brush?"

"How does this brush feel, and how can *I* improve it?"

Let's compare some other applications for a moment. A lot of people say mudbox has the best brush "feel" of any program. How can we adopt a similar feel, or BETTER feel then mudbox? What ways can we improve them?

Zbrush has a custom brush system, with presets. Is that the way you want to go too? It is very nice to be able to do this, as you can tailor a brush to suit your particular needs.

What about a combination of the all these ways: Feel of mudbox brushes, customization ability of zbrush brush system AND the ease of use of 3DC? That is my ideal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@renderdemon - Thanks.

@Taros, geothefaust - Apologies for the confusion guys. The thread title does indeed say Voxel brushes, but Javis your initial post goes much, much broader than that (asks for feedback on any sculpting tools to be specific, requests imagination, etc). I re-read the post several times before writing my own post. Sorry I went overboard using that as my guideline, but I guess in the long run I don't see the voxel brushes as being a problem when the two most requested 'tweaks' to the sculpting system have not been implemented. To me this is the larger challenge in competing with the performance of other 3d sculpting apps or simulating their functionality.

If brushes are the sole focus though, then stroke smoothness is an issue across all modes. It is currently almost impossible to get a completely smooth stroke from any brush with noise at the edges, the 6 default round brushes are the only ones that are perfectly smooth it seems. I have sent Andrew numerous examples of this, to which I have received the response that I should be using the airbrush for smooth strokes in paint mode, which kinda defeats the purpose of having a regular brush imo. Why have one brush that does stuttered strokes and one for smooth? Regardless, the result is that stuttered is the default smoothness and it affects the brush behavior in almost every vox brush mode that uses pen alphas. If this can be overcome then we can at least have smooth strokes in all modes, which would cut down greatly on excessive smoothing or filling being done to account for brush alpha stuttering now.

We already have a presets panel. Windows>Pop-ups>Presets. That it does not work in the vox room should be regarded as a bug, but that's a different thread.

ZB users have been requesting 'repeat stroke' since 3DC v2. Not something I use much, but since we're on the subject of brushes I thought it should be mentioned.

I see from the twitter feed that I can knock the scale issue off of my list soon. Thanks Andrew! :yahoo:

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...