1786 replies to this topic

[LJB]

i like what eric suggests as well - very intuitive, but whats the albedo channel all about ? i did a search in the manual but found nothing . . .

Basic Diffuse channel

[Andrew Shpagin]

In an ideal situation, ...

A bit more clarification:

Every layer can't have all channels accessible.
Now layer have

RGBA + Specular (4 mono channels at all)

and layers summary have

RGBA + Specular + RGB (for specularity) + Emissive - (8 mono channels at all)

In so way I may use layers to produce colored specular and emissive.
What I see is missing in current implementation is to add additional blend mode "Highlight emissive"
Other way is to keep blend modes as it was but add additional option how to treat layer - as color + specular, as emissive or as colored specular. But it is more complex (in terms of UI and understanding of user) and not sure that it is really better than previous case.

[Eric Cosky]

A bit more clarification:

Every layer can't have all channels accessible.
Now layer have

RGBA + Specular (4 mono channels at all)

I am probably missing something here, but it seems like what I wrote would be compatible with what you have explained. No additional per layer channels are envisioned. I do see now there is only a single RGBA value for the layer, which changes things a little bit, making it simpler.

I was trying to describe a way for the user to control where the existing RGBA data for each layer would be accumulated, accumulating the RGBA components of each layer to one of the final output textures. The layer would only be able to assign one destination for the RGBA.

I am probably missing something, but it seems like what I am describing is just how the user would select the destination textures using mutually exclusive buttons on the layer's row in the panel rather than menu items. The implementation seems very similar to what you said here:

Other way is to keep blend modes as it was but add additional option how to treat layer - as color + specular, as emissive or as colored specular. But it is more complex (in terms of UI and understanding of user) and not sure that it is really better than previous case.

That's pretty much what my UI sample is intended to demonstrate - how to treat the layer in a user friendly manner. The UI seems like it would be very straightfoward - just click on the icons visible on the currently selected layer row for which one of the layers summary that the RGBA should go to. Since there would be no new per-layer data, other than flags controlling which target buffer it should send data to, this would make it possible to have the additional output buffers (reflection, etc) with the only increase in memory being the final output texture and perhaps a secondary buffer used during accumulation. The shader used to present these textures could do whatever they wanted with the data they are provided.

Here's an update of the sample that works with the single RGBA channel. Only one button would be able to be selected at a time, and it would control if it would be Color+Specular (the original 3DC behavior), ColorSpec RGB + Gloss A, Emissive RGB + Luminance A (used for glow effect shaders), and Reflection RGB + Refraction scalar. Its much simpler now that I understand there is only a single RGBA color to work with, and it seems to fit the standard set of texture data assets might want to use. Note: The X shown over the normal would also be shown over all but one of the icons.



I really appreciate being able to make these suggestions, even if they turn out to not make sense to do for whatever reason.
Thanks for reading!

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Heath_3d]

Hi Andrew, I've just had a look at the colored spec blend mode and find it mostly great. One problem though is that when using cube mapping(the environment shade option in the view menu)
the reflections get tinted a completely different color to what is expected. Metal effects such as gold,brass and copper are especially reliant on colored spec and cube mapping used in conjunction with each other.
Otherwise, I actually really like the way the blend mode system works, as it makes it very easy to check subtleties by switching back and forth between colored spec and standard blend modes.

[cookepuss]

I have a dumb question. Maybe I'm missing something.

With v3.707a, I would load my reference model to retopo and it'd be a nicely shade white (or whatever). I easily do my retopo just fine. With the v3.708 series, my reference model would load in semi-transparent and not at all solid looking. Now, with v3.709, my reference model imports as almost solid white. Was some new feature added after v3.707a that I've missed?

I'm on Win7 x64 and using an ATI RadeonHD 5770 1GB. I've tried swapping out video drivers so know that's not the problem for me this time. I don't want to report a bug if none exists. I'm just curious if I'm doing something wrong. Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong thread.


On a different note, I can see that there's poly count info in the status bar of the retopo room. Is there any way to move it up to some sort of Maya-like HUD? Or did I miss that too? If not, that'd be convenient thing to have, better than having it in the status bar.

Again, sorry if these questions have obvious answers or are being posted in the wrong thread

[mercy]

Andrew

New Ghost mode could allow us to see the Boolean result here:
as we move the second ghosted object, always see the Boolean-result, because its transparent:


No Ghost mode:
I have to move the second object or turn off its visibility to see if the boolean result is looking good or not:

[LJB]

Mercy I think what your describing would be better off as an extension to the boolean operations not ghosting. Call it an intersection preview if you like, and it would only really work if you specify whether your going to make a subtration? So it serves better purpose with a more direct link to boolean operation.

Transparency (Ghosting) in ZBrush allows fine control of subtools at borders of intersection, and even manipulation through the obscuring volumes, This can be Extremely useful.

[kay_Eva]

Hello! I know this is rather trivial, but can we have some better shaders for voxel sculpting at some point? Right now the majority of them are unusuable and the ones that are usuable are still not as good as the ones in sculptris but especially Zbrush. It's not just a matter of being prettier, but the way the light interacts with the model can be inconvienient.

Thanks

[michalis]

@kay_Eva
You have better shaders in 3dc. Try to modify and save some textured based ones. You can also bake them, bumps are translating to normal maps!
About zbrush, well, it's superior on this. However, have you figured out how to export some baking from these? Not that easy, neither great, sometimes.
especially when cavity is involved.

[gbball]

I hate to turn this into a feature request thread, but I've wanted for a long time the ability to save my light setup that I could load it in a different scene. Not sure if this is already possible, but I haven't been able to figure out how to do it.

Also, I mentioned this to Raul a while back, but I don't know if the message got relayed Andrew, but I think it would be great to have a realtime boolean layer, where we could toggle between cut away or intersection mode. That way you could move the voxel layer to hide or reveal what you want and be able to evaluate what it will look like realtime.

I think these layers, could be used for masking purposes, by freezing the regions that are hidden.

[Zeddicus]

I would agree that shaders, and by extension the renderer, are the weakest parts of 3D Coat right now. ZBrush does do a much better job IMHO, but it's not perfect either. Lights can be a real pain for instance, one thing I feel is better in 3DC.

[philnolan3d]

Where's this Ghost mode? I just saw Don's video on it but I don't see it in mine. I have the latest version on the first page installed, 3.7.09 CUDA DX 64 However I see in the video it's 3.7.09B

[carlosa]

http://www.3d-coat.c...-09B-CUDA64.exe

[LJB]

Phil think of it as a Glimpse of things to come and be patient.

You know occasionally when things are implemented on request Andrew works closely with those that requested and we don't see it included in open beta straight away.

[philnolan3d]

Leigh: Well since an official feature video was posted on it I assumed it was available. I know some features are tested behind the scenes before public beta release.

Thanks Carlosa.

This really feels just like using background layers in LightWave Modeler.

[Zeddicus]

I've been doing retopo work and discovered that creating new polygons via the strokes option completely ignores the "Virtual mirror mode" setting which I have turned on. Is this normal behavior? As it is now I have to exit symmetry mode, delete the extra polygons which are being made on the other side, then turn symmetry back on. This leads me to believe it might be a bug but I honestly don't know for sure.

[Creator]

Hi !!

I've got question.
Is theren an option to bake displacement into UV from imported object? For example:
I'm importing object without voxelization, than sculpt something, and i want to bake displacement to UV existing in this object. Is it possible without doing retopology?
I know you can import this model again to retopo room, than snap it to our sculpted model and bake, but sometimes it is impossible to fit the model correctly.
Maybe some workflow tutorial ?

Thx in advice for help.

[philnolan3d]

Creator: If I understand you correctly you could just go into the Retopo room and load your object again from the Retopo menu. It should have the UVs intact I think. Then just pick "Merge to Scene (Microverts)" from that same menu. and it should send you to the Paint room with your displacement applied.

[michalis]

@creator
I guess, it's a hi poly model, it's a subdivided low poly after retopo and UVs.
So, we have UVs, a cage, a hi res model. Right? Do as Phil says.
Wondering though. It smells zbrush, why don't you directly bake displacements there? ZB is very good on this.

[simmsimaging]

Having tested Mudbox 2013 I am still finding major problems with fine detail painting on many meshes. It's amazingly fast for big areas/hi-res/large brush painting though. So of course I have one working great in 3DC, and one in Mudbox, but neither does both at the moment....

My question for Andrew: I just wanted to verify that you had acknowledged and were working on the brush performance problems for painting? I seem to remember you posting that you were going to look into it, but so many of the brush problems/requests have to do with voxel stuff that I'm not really sure anymore. Can you confirm that this is something on the priority list for updating/upgrading?

I see it as the number one stumbling block to 3DCoat becoming a fully capable texturing tool at almost any production level, and just to re-iterate: texturing is 95% of my interest in 3DC (another 3% for UV work, and 2% for voxel type work). I understand priorities vary


Thanks /b