It would make 3dCOAT more universal!

[ddd]

Hi guys!

I'm new here and newbie in 3d sculpting.

I have little experience with Zbrush, and a working with quads for a sculpting became for me normal. In any time i can add loop, or increase/reduce degree of mesh, or something else. Quads is so useful.

 But i was confused when opened 3dCoat first time. I saw awesome sculpting only with triangles in Voxel room and the useless Tweak room for quads. Why not to unite both room for most powerful sculpting with both kind of surface but to leave retopo function? Yes, you agree, tweak is using mostly for retopo, but why not? Sorry for my english

 

 

[Gary Dave]

I think you may be confused as to the purpose of the sculpt room in 3d coat. I'm not an expert myself but when you talk of adding loops easily with quad based geometry, you're talking about modelling, rather than sculpting. You will never need to make loops or ring selections while sculpting in 3dc.

 

The tweak room is for retopo'd/low poly assets. (I don't use it though, all "normal" modelling is done in the retopo room for me.)

[ddd]

Sorry, i wrong described.

I'm talking rather about the "ideal" 3DC for me.))

There will have levels of divide, where on lower levels simple modeling would be good (like in tweak and retopo rooms), but on higher levels would useful sculpting(like in voxel room). And you could switch between levels. That's turned 3DC to most powerful software for sculpting. Yes , that is similar Zbrush, but if you want to be the best you need to take a best.

[Gary Dave]

Are you talking about subdivision levels for increasing the detail on a sculpt? Because you can do that in 3dc with things like Res+ or Re-sample, it also has a few tools for dynamically increasing the detail for the area you're sculpting on, rather than the entire mesh.

[Aleksey]

basically this is a request for multi level sculpting like in cinema4d and zbrush.

 

this request has been made many times. time will tell if it is added.

[AbnRanger]

basically this is a request for multi level sculpting like in cinema4d and zbrush.

 

this request has been made many times. time will tell if it is added.

He expects 3D Coat to work like ZBrush, but 3D Coat is a different creature. It's voxel toolset is unique, and so much so, that Pixologic copied it as best they could, by adding dynamesh. It still doesn't hold a candle to voxel sculpting in 3D Coat. 3D Coat uses triangles in Surface mode as it enables dynamic subdivision...something neither ZBrush nor Mudbox offer. As Gary mentioned, you can step down levels of resolution at any time, and restore it, but it works differently in 3D Coat. The only thing truely missing is Sculpt Layers (per object) in the Sculpt Room. You do have Sculpt Layers in the Paint Room, using Image-Based Sculpting (live displacement/normal map painting), but it breaks one's workflow by splitting the sculpting process between the early stages in the pipeline to the later stages.

 

Andrew said it was a high priority (adding Sculpt Layers to the Sculpt room) and would be one of the first things to tackle after 4.5 is released.

[RabenWulf]

 It's voxel toolset is unique, and so much so, that Pixologic copied it as best they could, by adding dynamesh. It still doesn't hold a candle to voxel sculpting in 3D Coat. 3D Coat uses triangles in Surface mode as it enables dynamic subdivision...

 

I do not believe this information is true. One thing to understand about pixologic culture is that they really dont look or care about what other applications are doing unless it involves inter connectivity. One of the reasons zbrush is so powerful, even without dynamic topology, is that it can reach extremely high polycounts without GPU reliance. Its literally 2.5D as opposed to 3D. Because of this, they have used what they call Pixols as opposed to Voxels, and trust me they have been using them longer than 3D Coat has. Pixol's act more in a 2d fashion but still store depth information. The performance boost is intense.

When they hired the guy (and acquired) behind Sculptris, which featured dynamic topology sculpting, they essentially just merged the two together so that the Pixols work through the dynamic topology information generated. It's actually quite good and its more efficient from a performance standpoint as well.

Tbh, I would rather use Pixologic's Pixols over 3D Coat's Voxels if given the choice purely for the performance boost you get. Works great on any bit of hardware with some decent ram and a good CPU. This isnt to say Voxels is a bad approach, but with every pro comes the con, and in this case is its the heavy need for system resources. Would love to see it continue to develop over time, but when it comes to sculpting performance and the required system resources for high end detail is pretty important.

[AbnRanger]

I do not believe this information is true. One thing to understand about pixologic culture is that they really dont look or care about what other applications are doing unless it involves inter connectivity. One of the reasons zbrush is so powerful, even without dynamic topology, is that it can reach extremely high polycounts without GPU reliance. Its literally 2.5D as opposed to 3D. Because of this, they have used what they call Pixols as opposed to Voxels, and trust me they have been using them longer than 3D Coat has. Pixol's act more in a 2d fashion but still store depth information. The performance boost is intense.

When they hired the guy (and acquired) behind Sculptris, which featured dynamic topology sculpting, they essentially just merged the two together so that the Pixols work through the dynamic topology information generated. It's actually quite good and its more efficient from a performance standpoint as well.

Tbh, I would rather use Pixologic's Pixols over 3D Coat's Voxels if given the choice purely for the performance boost you get. Works great on any bit of hardware with some decent ram and a good CPU. This isnt to say Voxels is a bad approach, but with every pro comes the con, and in this case is its the heavy need for system resources. Would love to see it continue to develop over time, but when it comes to sculpting performance and the required system resources for high end detail is pretty important.

Oh, but it is true. Pixols never prevented nasty polygon stretching/distortion (Voxels do) and isn't the same concept as Voxels. What's more is Pixologic did indeed bother themselves with what a competing app was doing, as they tried to answer 3D Coat voxel sculpting with their version....Dynamesh. But it's far more limited than 3D Coat's implementation. Then they bothered themselves with trying to answer 3D Coat's Auto-Retopo with Z-Remesher. Their first implementation was no better than 3D Coat's, but after a while they revised it and it now works better. But, the point remains...they took notice, indeed and tried to copy it. No problem, though. Two can play at that game.

[AbnRanger]

....oh, and no, Pixologic did not MERGE Sculptris together with ZBrush. ZB still does not have any form of dynamic subdivision. Nor does Mudbox. And don't mistake my points about 3D Coat's unique traits as a generalized statement degrading ZBrush's overall sculpting toolset. I understand where it excels, but I also know where it doesn't necessarily. Again, Dynamesh....not Pixols is their attempt to provide the benefits of voxels inside of ZBrush. But that toolset itself is much more limited in scope than Voxels in 3D Coat. Test it for yourself. Try to get upwards of 30mill polys (adaptive mesh surrounding the invisible voxels) in both 3DC Voxels and then 30mill in Dynamesh. Come back and tell us how it compared, in your tests.

 

As for Sculptris being merged into ZBrush, can you please screen record a test in ZBrush, yourself, where you can dynamically subdivide the mesh in local areas, while sculpting...using these newly merged tools you referred to? I'm very curious to see how that works, because it would be news to me that it even existed.

[RabenWulf]

Oh, but it is true. Pixols never prevented nasty polygon stretching/distortion (Voxels do) and isn't the same concept as Voxels. What's more is Pixologic did indeed bother themselves with what a competing app was doing, as they tried to answer 3D Coat voxel sculpting with their version....Dynamesh. But it's far more limited than 3D Coat's implementation. Then they bothered themselves with trying to answer 3D Coat's Auto-Retopo with Z-Remesher. Their first implementation was no better than 3D Coat's, but after a while they revised it and it now works better. But, the point remains...they took notice, indeed and tried to copy it. No problem, though. Two can play at that game.

 

Look I have friends at Pixologic, was even trained in zbrush by one of their devs. You are quite wrong about that assumption. I personally love both 3d coat and zbrush, but to be objectively honest, what you are saying just isnt true. I feels more like confirmation bias rather than fact.  Zbrush remeshes based on the Pixol information, but even then what you see on the screen ISNT 3D. Its 2.5D which is what you are missing. The visuals are just an approximation, what you export is converted into 3D. Additionally, you really need to take some time and study up on what features have been in zbrush for a long time and evolved since then. You cannot objectively claim they are "reacting to" or copying 3D Coat. In fact zbrush pretty much IS the sculpting market, they dont fear anyone because they have no "real" competition regarding in the marketplace. I would love for 3d coat to become the competition (market wise), but really its not... not even close at this point.

I do appreciate your sentiment in pumping up 3D Coat in such a manner, but you really need to understand the viewpoint differences between them and 3D Coat. They are quite literally in their own world.

[AbnRanger]

Look I have friends at Pixologic, was even trained in zbrush by one of their devs. You are quite wrong about that assumption. I personally love both 3d coat and zbrush, but to be objectively honest, what you are saying just isnt true. I feels more like confirmation bias rather than fact.  Zbrush remeshes based on the Pixol information, but even then what you see on the screen ISNT 3D. Its 2.5D which is what you are missing. The visuals are just an approximation, what you export is converted into 3D. Additionally, you really need to take some time and study up on what features have been in zbrush for a long time and evolved since then. You cannot objectively claim they are "reacting to" or copying 3D Coat. In fact zbrush pretty much IS the sculpting market, they dont fear anyone because they have no "real" competition regarding in the marketplace. I would love for 3d coat to become the competition (market wise), but really its not... not even close at this point.

I do appreciate your sentiment in pumping up 3D Coat in such a manner, but you really need to understand the viewpoint differences between them and 3D Coat. They are quite literally in their own world.

You didn't address what I asked you to. That is to try and perform a test between a model of 30mill with Voxels in 3D Coat and then one with 30 mill using Dynamesh in ZB, because those are tools I referred to. Pixols and 2.5 have nothing to do with the matter. It's a straw man argument. That is to say, you are trying to put words in my mouth and argue against it.

 

When I talk about 3D Coat's Voxel toolset being unique, I did so in the context that it does not operate the same as ZBrush. The OP wanted 3D Coat to work with quads like ZB, and I mentioned that it doesn't for a reason. THAT was the point. It's a different creature. The closest thing in ZBrush to Voxels in 3D Coat is Dynamesh....not Pixols and the 2.5D platform. Apples and Oranges. So, please...if you were indeed trained by ZBrush Masters, show us a little demonstration of Dyanmesh working as well with 30mill+ polys as 3D Coat's Voxel mode. I'm everyone would like to see that.

 

Secondly, you mentioned that Sculptris dynamic tessellation was MERGED with ZBrush. Please show us a brief demonstration of that, since you know ZBrush so well. We are all waiting to see this.

[AbnRanger]

And you are misinformed to claim that Dynamesh and ZRemesher weren't attempts by Pixologic to answer 3D Coat's Voxel toolset and Auto-Retopo. It was, and I don't care how many "friends" you claim to have at Pixologic.Why? Because Voxels were unique to 3D Coat alone in this particular market (Clay Tools isn't the same market). Then 3D Coat was the first to come out with Auto-Retopology.

 

As I said, the context of my statements toward the OP, not you....was that 3D Coat doesn't have to copy ZB. It was/is unique on it's own and worked/works well...to the extent that even the industry standard app felt compelled to create their own rough equivalent to 3D Coat's implementation of Voxels (Dynamesh) and Auto-Retopo. Please, if you are going to correct me, at least show us those two demonstrations (Dynamesh vs 3DC Voxels @ 30mill polys + ZBrush's Dynamic Tessellation tools merged from Sculptris).

[AbnRanger]

...I'll go another step further, and point out that 3D Coat can do the same thing (copy features/tools). It happens all the time in the industry...in all industries, for that matter. Once someone comes out with a dazzling new technology, other competitors feel compelled to implement their own versions of it, if they can. The do it to simply remain competitive and to either maintain or obtain market share. Simple market economics. In fact, PBR in 3D Coat 4.5 is itself an answer to a relatively new technology cropping up from relatively new competitors, in Substance Painter and DDO. Sculpt layers is something myself and others have been asking Andrew for, for some time. It's been in ZB and MB for years. It does exist in 3D Coat, currently, but only in the Paint Room...not in the Sculpt Room, and that breaks up the sculpting workflow. So, there is no reason a developer cannot implement something they see working well in other applications, into their own, in some capacity. Especially when it is the result of user demand. If your users are heavily requesting it, why shouldn't the developer listen and accommodate them. So, I can't blame them for that.

 

But, how does that apply to what I was saying to the OP? 3D Coat doesn't have to copy everything ZB or MB offers. It's been pretty unique in approaching the same tasks with different tech. And if the Industry standard copies some of that tech. then you know you're doing something right.

[RabenWulf]

I think you are over simplifying what I said. I made it clear that I put emphasis on the programmer behind Sculptris and that its not a "copy" of the same thing inside of zbrush. It's clear you have a confirmation bias regarding zbrush brush though, I dont know if its due to fanboyism regarding 3d coat or if you just dont like how zbrush works (many dont). 

Regardless of whats been said, the burden of proof is on you IF you make the claim that pixologic reacted to or copied 3D Coat in some way. Otherwise, it just sounds like the peddling in personal projections and bias based theories.

 

If you feel this will go too off topic, then lets just drop it because I cant really agree with baseless projections like that. If you have proof, objective in nature, then thats the quickest way to get me to agree with your claim.

[AbnRanger]

I think you are over simplifying what I said. I made it clear that I put emphasis on the programmer behind Sculptris and that its not a "copy" of the same thing inside of zbrush. It's clear you have a confirmation bias regarding zbrush brush though, I dont know if its due to fanboyism regarding 3d coat or if you just dont like how zbrush works (many dont). 

Regardless of whats been said, the burden of proof is on you IF you make the claim that pixologic reacted to or copied 3D Coat in some way. Otherwise, it just sounds like the peddling in personal projections and bias based theories.

 

If you feel this will go too off topic, then lets just drop it because I cant really agree with baseless projections like that. If you have proof, objective in nature, then thats the quickest way to get me to agree with your claim.

Actually, you took the fanboy approach in trying to defend ZBrush, when I wasn't even talking to you. The OP was asking "3D Coat needs quads"...because ZBrush does. I said it's by design. 3D Coat tries to be different, and here's how. It doesn't have to copy everything ZBrush does. I used examples of where they actually copied tools from 3D Coat, then you rushed in, trying to correct me with false information

 

 

When they hired the guy (and acquired) behind Sculptris, which featured dynamic topology sculpting, they essentially just merged the two together so that the Pixols work through the dynamic topology information generated. It's actually quite good and its more efficient from a performance standpoint as well.

Those were your own words. Again, if you are going to try and correct me, SHOW ME where I'm wrong. I compared Voxels in 3D Coat to the closest thing in ZBrush, which is DYNAMESH....NOT PIXOLS. You are letting on like you know more than you actually do. So, make it conclusive. DEMONSTRATE where Dynamesh is superior to Voxels in 3D Coat. Also, demonstrate or show conclusive information that backs up your above statement. I conclude you don't know what you are talking about and are reaching to try and correct me....to the point of butting into the conversation just to do so.

[RabenWulf]

Yes because a fanboy clearly says he loves both 3d coat and zbrush right? If defending software from claims you cannot back up (by asking for proof) makes someone a "fanboy", then anyone who defends against a claim about 3d coat thats wrong or without proof is...by your logic, also a fanboy. You didnt think that through.

I'll repeat it again, since really nothing else matters "Regardless of whats been said, the burden of proof is on you IF you make the claim that pixologic reacted to or copied 3D Coat in some way." Give me legitimate proof and I will believe you. Its not hard and I have no loyalties when it comes to software or brands. So go for it, the burden of proof is on you. You can trump all my claims easily by backing up yours, which is the original point of contention.

[AbnRanger]

...You have to be utterly naive to ignore the fact that Pixologic conveniently comes out in R4, with a host of new features that were all unique to 3D Coat, and demonstrated in feature demos only 1-2yrs previously. In R4 they "COINCIDENTALLY" came out with their own Voxel implementation (Dynamesh...not to be confused with Pixols...they aren't the same...you can ask them and they'd admit as much), just 2yrs after 3D Coat introduces it to the market. They also "COINCIDENTALLY" copying other features, like 3D Coat's Sketch Tool (Shadowbox), replicating objects along a spline the same way it was demonstrated in our Curves tool/Kitbashing tutorial, Conveniently coming out with a copy of 3D Coat's Kitbashing toolset, and then does the very same with Auto-Retopo...all "COINCIDENTALLY" within the R4 timeframe.

 

It's a fact that is evidenced by the sheer number of tools that were unique to 3D Coat and the time span with which they produced their own versions of those tools. It was no coincidence. Pixologic saw some features in 3D Coat they thought was cool and was probably requested by their users, and they implemented those features. I wouldn't expect any company to admit they are copying features from another. Who does that? Andrew is not going to say he's copying from DDO or Substance Painter, but he does need to get out ahead of this PBR fad in the industry. Otherwise it will be harder to compete. By Pixologic incorporating many of the features from 3D Coat that make it unique, they help make it less unique and less of a competitive threat. That's just how the market works.

 

By the way, for arguments sake,  even if I choose to be a fanboy of 3D Coat, at least I am in the proper forum to do so. Maybe you haven't noticed,  but this IS the 3D Coat forum. Thus, it's not the appropriate forum to display ZBrush fanboyism.

[AbnRanger]

[AbnRanger]

They also conveniently came out with Shadowbox, which was their own implementation of 3D Coat's Sketch tool

 

 

 

I've been around 3D Coat well before they did all this, and everyone but you knows this was no coincidence

[AbnRanger]

Yes because a fanboy clearly says he loves both 3d coat and zbrush right? If defending software from claims you cannot back up (by asking for proof) makes someone a "fanboy", then anyone who defends against a claim about 3d coat thats wrong or without proof is...by your logic, also a fanboy. You didnt think that through.

I'll repeat it again, since really nothing else matters "Regardless of whats been said, the burden of proof is on you IF you make the claim that pixologic reacted to or copied 3D Coat in some way." Give me legitimate proof and I will believe you. Its not hard and I have no loyalties when it comes to software or brands. So go for it, the burden of proof is on you. You can trump all my claims easily by backing up yours, which is the original point of contention.

You keep talking and keep dodging. You won't demonstrate the simple things I asked you to, because it would embarrass you to attempt to. It would prove you didn't know what you were talking about when you butted into the conversation trying to correct me.

 

1) To the OP, I said 3D Coat's Voxels were a better implementation than ZBrush's rough equivalent, Dynamesh. You barged in and said I was incorrect. SHOW ME WHERE I AM INCORRECT. Show me a screen recording of you working with a model of 30mill polys in ZBrush's Dynamesh and then 30mill polys in Voxel mode, in 3D Coat.

 

2) Show us this MERGING of Sculptris' Dynamic Tessellation into ZBrush...per your very own words  Just do it, so we can see who was indeed incorrect. If I was, I'll fess up. But SHOW ME.

[RabenWulf]

Ok, got it. So you basically admit to having a confirmation bias. You have NO proof, just a conspiracy theory.

 

Even if they hypothetically were to be inspired by 3D Coat, its not healthy for software development to assume or demand that ideas can only exist with the group that "appears" to do it first. It's one thing to steal code, another to build upon whats perceived as a good idea or approach. In the same vein, imagine if 3D Coat didnt adopt the photoshop style of layers and layer blending. The consumer wins out when conventions are formed and approaches can be shared.

Clearly my words bug you way too much though, or else you wouldnt have posted 4 times in a row. Normally people just edit their original post, just a pro tip.

Additionally, colorful words such as "barged in" are a bit silly. You could say anyone that replies in a thread is "barging in". Theres no room for such convenient narrative driven language in a good thread. You also said "that Pixologic copied it as best they could, by adding dynamesh." and that was the point I was contesting. If you cant back that up with proof, then really we are just going around in circles and theres no point to any of this.

Both software packages are good and a good debate can be had for which approach is better, though if that were to occur I would rather save it for a separate dedicated thread.

Edited May 6, 2015 by RabenWulf

[AbnRanger]

I

 

Ok, got it. So you basically admit to having a confirmation bias. You have NO proof, just a conspiracy theory.

 

Even if they hypothetically were to be inspired by 3D Coat, its not healthy for software development to assume or demand that ideas can only exist with the group that "appears" to do it first. It's one thing to steal code, another to build upon whats perceived as a good idea or approach. In the same vein, imagine if 3D Coat didnt adopt the photoshop style of layers and layer blending. The consumer wins out when conventions are formed and approaches can be shared.

Clearly my words bug you way too much though, or else you wouldnt have posted 4 times in a row. Normally people just edit their original post, just a pro tip.

Additionally, colorful words such as "barged in" are a bit silly. You could say anyone that replies in a thread is "barging in". Theres no room for such convenient narrative driven language in a good thread. You also said "that Pixologic copied it as best they could, by adding dynamesh." and that was the point I was contesting. If you cant back that up with proof, then really we are just going around in circles and theres no point to any of this.

Both software packages are good and a good debate can be had for which approach is better, though if that were to occur I would rather save it for a separate dedicated thread.

Pro Tip? Are you kidding? Where were you when Zbrush R4 was initially released in 2010? In Middle School? High School? I was demonstrating 3D Coat at Siggraph. If a company suddenly comes out with 5+ features that were previously unique to another application, only...that's more than enough evidence to use deductive reasoning. Ever heard of that? It's used every day in court rooms every where. If a driver is swerving on the road, fails a field sobriety test and refuses to take Breathalyzer test, there is enough evidence to use deductive reasoning and convict the person of a DUI.

 

Pixologic would never admit that they blatantly copied tools from 3D Coat, even if they know they did. You cannot tell me they suddenly decided to implement Auto-retopology on their own. Andrew was the very first developer to use it in a sculpting application. Even Mudbox copied it a few years ago. It is what it is, but you want to play make-believe and deny it.

 

Now, let's get back to that demonstration you were supposed to do, to prove I was incorrect in my post to the OP.

 

1) Dynamesh vs 3D Coat Voxels. 30 mill polys each

 

2) Sculptris' Dynamic Tessellation merged into ZBrush

 

Please show us...we're waiting.

[RabenWulf]

If you were Demoing 3D Coat back at the 2010 Siggraph then I probably met you as I stopped by the 3D Coat booth. I was also there for the Pixologic event. So if you wish to think of me as some middle schooler, you are welcome to do so but I'm afraid I'm a bit older than I would like to be. I really hope you are not trying to pass off the conspiracy theory as deductive reasoning. It would be nothing short of intellectual dishonesty given what little information has been presented. You really need to give some objective proof that its a copy. I mean I could easily argue that the only reason 3D Coat added Voxels was because of Zbrush's Pixol's. Would you believe that? One could use the same kind of "reasoning" you are to come to that kind of conclusion over who is copying who.

 

Since you are so adamant at proving me wrong on something... lets look at your 1 & 2.
1) You are missing the point of those features. They are not the same nor is the workflow the same. Its not a D**K size comparison. Nor does the max "polycount" define betterment. I really dont know where it starts to chug and quite frankly I really dont care. What I do care about is that the Pixol's rely on my CPU and are very efficient with system resources. The workflow with Dynamesh is to pump out your form, you can do detailing but ideally you start detailing with normal subdivison layers after the dynameshing. Last time I was in zbrush I had no problems up at around the 70 million mark and really that was overkill, no need to ever go that high...at least for game assets. This is also the reason why they are focused on quads, because its better with the subdivision element.

1.5) since it appears 3D Coat isnt reliant on the traditional subdivision approach, the tris over quads makes sense. Its not using the same workflow or approach, which is a good thing.
 

2) Let me clarify the "essentially just merged the two together so that the Pixols work through the dynamic topology information generated" bit, because my intent was not to say that its a direct copy that was put in zb, I thought I made that clear with the following context, if not then I'm at fault for that..sure. My implication was that they acquired sculptris and the talent behind it because of his talent at creating dynamic topology and through that addition to the team they approached it through their pixols and with the goal of hitting those quads, (which appears to dynamically remesh via quads on top of sculpted geometry). If you want to say I am wrong for not wording it better, you can have it. I really don't care.

Again though is there really any point to this? Whether its ego or just the need to fulfill the confirmation bias... Its getting a bit tiring. We both like 3D Coat, I'm sure we can leave it at that.

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by RabenWulf

[AbnRanger]

I'll just leave it at this...my point to the OP is that it is not likely to happen (going with quad-based sculpting), and here is why. I pointed out that 3D Coat was unique even to the point that Pixologic came out with Dynamesh a few years after Andrew implemented Voxel sculpting. It addressed some of the weaknesses in ZBrush prior to that....such as poly stretching and lack of good Boolean type of operations...that voxels naturally provide. So, that's not to bash Pixologic, but point out that if an industry standard thinks it's worthwhile adding to their own app, then that is something of an indirect endorsement of that toolset.

 

And with Surface mode, it remains triangles largely for the dynamic tessellation that is still pretty unique in 3D Coat...meaning it is not currently available in either ZB or MB. With that being the case, it supports my original point. There is no need for 3D Coat to switch to quad-based sculpting, and there is already too much invested in LiveClay/Dynamic subdivision to go a completely different direction, now.

 

As to whether Pixologic copied all those features I mentioned....pixols have nothing to do with it. Dynamesh voxelizes the content and remeshes it (with a hotkey), similar to how one sculpts in Surface mode and can quickly voxelize their object by hitting the ENTER key and have it converted back to surface mode, on the fly. And when ZRemesher was introduced, it was indeed a copy of Auto-Retopo in 3D Coat, because NOBODY had stroke guides...except 3D Coat. In fact, the Stroke guides was a request by me, to Andrew, as a way to give the algorithm a hint as to where the user wanted the edgeflow to follow. Sort of a Strokes Tool on Steriods is how I described it. NOBOBY had that...except 3D Coat. Then when Z-Remesher came out, sure enough, they too had the stroke guides. Same thing with Mudbox. So, there is no "conspiracy theory"...it's patently obvious to practically everyone.

 

Nevertheless, as I said before, ALL companies do it. They must do it, to stay competitive and to accommodate user demand. Andrew didn't copy PBR from Substance Painter or DDO, just to copy. He simply accommodated user's requests, and it was necessary to stay ahead of the power curve in this regard. PBR has become a huge fad and implementing it helps 3D Coat stay relevant.

 

There is then no sense in arguing whether Pixologic copied the tools or not. They are just like all companies. They are going incorporate tools they don't currently have, that may exist in other tools, if their userbase asks them to and if they think it will help.That's just how the market works.

[The Candy-floss Kid]

Technology solutions like intelligence are convergent.
With regard diversity and choice , would that we only drink one drink, eat only one basic food, listen to the music of only one musician , enjoy the art of only one artist, argue over who painted the first ever vase of flowers and thereby deride all subsequent painters of vases of flowers as plagiarists.

Would that we hold ourselves as creatively accountable for originality as we presume to do so of others by want of good grace.

[Taros]

I have read all the posts. The discussion has began very objective. Why trying to defend a software again? Please stop this friends.

 

zBrush is a great software and currently industry standard. 3D-Coat does a very good job too and has a growing community. Both apps profit from each other and from many more third party apps. There is no zBrush and 3D-Coat only on the market. Don't forget this.

 

Both tools has their pros and contras. That's it! Not more and not less. We can discuss about bugs, problems or workflows and collect ideas how to improve our daily work. And why not using BOTH tools to do this?

 

Don't try to compare and defend any software. This is a oneway street and ends in angry users. You waste your time. Better use your time to share your experience and help yourself or others in this way.

 

Friends, don't forget: You are talking about sofware here. It's only a piece of code. Please keep professional and come back to a friendly level.

 

I am creating graphics since 1985 and tired to read such kind of discussions again and again and again. So stop this at this point please.

 

Do you agree?

 

Thank you
Chris

[L'Ancien Regime]

Oh, but it is true. Pixols never prevented nasty polygon stretching/distortion (Voxels do) and isn't the same concept as Voxels. What's more is Pixologic did indeed bother themselves with what a competing app was doing, as they tried to answer 3D Coat voxel sculpting with their version....Dynamesh. But it's far more limited than 3D Coat's implementation. Then they bothered themselves with trying to answer 3D Coat's Auto-Retopo with Z-Remesher. Their first implementation was no better than 3D Coat's, but after a while they revised it and it now works better. But, the point remains...they took notice, indeed and tried to copy it. No problem, though. Two can play at that game.

 

 

The only thing you have to worry about in 3d Coat is voxel stretching which can be fixed with the push of one button. 

[Tony Nemo]

Is there any reason to prefer "To Global Space" or "To Uniform Space"? I always choose the Uniform version and have always gotten a correction.