Forums

Thank's for the answer, I'm gonna check it !

I don't think building the software out is a bad idea. Also, I don't think it's fair to say that 3DCoat wasn't engineered with that in mind. From my understanding, 3DCoat was originally made for Retopology and doing UVs, and the current state of 3DCoat is quite different than what it originally was.  I think having different options inside of 3DCoat for rendering and animation are great idea. Animation would also mean having the ability to rig something up completely, which is cool. A more thought-out Render Room is the best place to start, and I don't think they need a ton of work. More cameras to choose from and physically move around and locate would be a good start, much like what can be done in Maya or Unreal. These would be just fighting though, as we aren't trying to capture from most of these (except maybe one outside of the viewport, depending on how it's set up).  3DCoat does have its option for rendering built in. It's not the best in the world, but it is free.  Additional drop downs could be added in, similar to how RenderMan is right now, giving you the option to select what rendering agent you want to use, open source or paid for. I don't imagine it would be too big of a deal to bridge the software inside of 3DCoat. It wouldn't be the ideal situation, and you would have to check the Terms and Conditions to see if this is allowed, but you could bridge the most important aspects that would be needed. It wouldn't be the full software, not without just having a bridge to port it over, similar to how Zbrush is doing right now.  In terms of price, if I were managing it for Zbrush, I wouldn't have anything to do with the billing. Make the software/bridge/plugin available as part of the next years software, and if you want to use it, you have to pay for that actual software (for example, you will need to pay for Keyshot).    This would still take a lot of work, but I think the Rendering room is probably one of the areas in need of the most love. It's not bad, but it's definitely in need. 

Maybe if there was an option to add a specific size of the cutter then you could repeat the cut all over the mesh.  If there is another method of making circular cuts (I tried bevel on points but then you have to add cuts to make circular) then I would love to hear it. Enjoying modelling in 3dcoat as well as sculpting. Thanks

love the knife tool but is there a way to repeat the same size of the cutting polygon? Trying to get the same size cut over different parts of a mesh and having to guess the size isnt ideal.    

Yes, poly models is used for Retopo or Modeling meshes  

Aaaand I'm illiterate. It helps to drag it into 'Sculpt Models', NOT 'Poly Models'. Nothing to see here, please move along.

Sorry, probably should have specified 3D Coat 2024.17

So I've been following along (sort of) with Ian Thompson's "Intro to Surface Modeling" video on YouTube. I have successfully created an arch by sweeping a profile along a curve. As Ian suggested, I have opened the Poly Models panel and dragged my arch polygon mesh into a new folder there named "My Stuff". When I go into the Sculpting Room, my new "My Stuff" Poly Models folder is not present, so I can't access my model in Sculpting. Also not available for painting. What am I missing?

Perhaps in a future update then?

If this includes MaterialX support + real lights/cameras sign me up!

This works but edge selection appears to be limited to referencing edges. Points selected are limited to referencing points. However, face selections can reference edges or points. There needs to be a little more of a hybrid experience with selection transform and extrusion. In Maya and zbrush. You make a selection(or mask) and then while holding shift and clicking and dragging it extrudes.

On the upper right side you can adjust degree & contrast Remember that Conditions only work on freeze for sculpt surface mode or Surface Paint on vertex on Paint Room. But the standard sculpting brushes do not respect conditions, only work on Freeze mask to restrict where surface sculpting tools will be applied to the surface of the model.

Source... Throughout the years, I have been trying to understand normal mapping and the problems that usually appear when working with them.  Most explanations I found are usually too technical, incomplete or too hard to understand for my taste, so I decided to give it a try and explain what I gathered. I recognize that these explanations may be incomplete or not 100% accurate, but I want to try anyway.  PDF file (Gumroad) / PDF file (Artstation)

Try triangulating the model BEFORE baking. And use this preset (experimental) for the export step (preset location is C:\Users\<username>\Documents\3DCoat\data\ToolsPresets\ExtTools) Blender & SPainter.xml Should you triangulate meshes before exporting to substance? Yes. Different 3d engines will triangulate quads in different order, and with different rules about which way it splits them (ie. which two corners to use). This can result is slightly different lighting as the normals will interpolate in different ways. It can also affect the way textures are applies on trapezoids and other quads as shown here- although that can be a problem anyway as the texture will be strangely mapped. It's not a major problem normally, although I have had issues with a few props looking very funky, but there's no downside to triangulating things before the texturing so why not do it ?

> Show tool options settings

The 3B file is way too large to upload because I am using VPN. The file I share contains both normal maps from SP and Coat. As for the steps, I used Instant Mesh to do autopo to decease the poly count to around one fortieth. Then I auto unwrapped the UV sets, auto mapping and auto check for overlaps. I then baked and exported the low meshes and normal maps from Paint Room, with all presets set to Blender Cycles. The meshes and maps were then imported to SP. I baked maps in SP except for the normalmaps.