playnowbot

Yep, right now if you are doing hand painted style texturing, 3D Coat is probably one of the best options out there for it due to tool set, layout and ability to quickly pull colors and blend them together. A handful of blizzard artist are known to use it. Otherwise its usually photoshop or a plugin for 3ds max. I managed to pull out some what better results in Mari, but due to its unique design (and formerly price point), I can see how it wouldnt be considered.at least just yet.

ON a side note, here is Blizzard's Tyson Murphy in action. (1) I've already told you several times that I've been studying Zbrush since it first appeared. For certain functions it's indispensable. But having said that I prefer 3D Coat overall.

I suspect most of us here feel that way; that's why we're here even though the big party is over at Zbrush forum. (2) I've never liked the sortware's ergonomic concessions to the 2.5D workflow in Zbrush, the Meats Miers style of working It's a major pain in the ass. I want to scupt in 3D, Period. I don't want that 2.5D garbage.

And I don't care if it can produce 3 Trillion pixols. I don't want pixols and I resent the interface concessions they continue to make to allow for the pixol workflow. (3) And as for clicking too much yeah I stand by that. Here's a test you can all run for yourselves; You're making a figure; you have it roughed in. Now you want to add fingers and a thumb to its hand. (4) Maybe I'm just not adept enough at ZBrush but I've discussed this very task with expert Zbrush pros and their steps for doing what should be a simple task are arcane and clumsy, hell, vexatious compared to 3d Coat's simple clear workflow. 1) No you havent.

List the times you have said something along the lines of 'I've already told you several times that I've been studying Zbrush since it first appeared'. Here let me do the work for you. The number of times you have said something similar to the above? 0 What you DID say, in two separate post is that you 'work with it and its gimmicky' and that you are 62 and have a history degree.

Neither count as suggesting you are constantly telling me several times that you are 'studying zbrush since it first appeared'. Additionally 'studying' is far different than using. Its a silly word choice to use.

Nor can you call it an academic field of study. I am not trying to be rude here but you either have no problem lying or are just imagining things. Neither of which helps your argument, and if you have a valid one and made a good case. Chances are high I can/will agree with it. 2) Define 'concessions to a 2.5d workflow'. When I saw you try to make some distinction between 2.5d and 3D as being your primary argument. I suppose in response to constantly asking you to address what terms define 'gimmicky'.

I couldnt help but laugh. It sounds like you are just making stuff up at this point. Zbrush still has Zdepth (its in the name), it has a grid, you can transform in xyz. And the results on export are assets in 3D. So your whole basis on 2.5D being the problem is literally ABSURD. You say you have been 'studying it' constantly but clearly not based on that response. Looking at their documentation once a month doesnt count either, no more than I can flip through flight sim 2000's user manual and then tell everyone I 'study planes'.

The reason for coming to this conclusion is that you seem to be basing it off of the 1999 zbrush which started (after a siggraph demo) as only a very limited 2d + 2.5d painting application. Zbrush has moved waaaaay past that point, long ago. On top of that you mock the 'pixols', saying you dont want them. For what good and specific reason? You cannot possibly have one.

Funny thing, Pixols contain x,y and z information. Guess what other name uses a similar technique?

Who uses Voxels? My point is your dislike of 'Pixols' seems a bit odd. At the end of the day, both zbrush and 3d coat have the user working in what appears to them as a 3D space and it gives 3D results.thats is literally ALL THAT MATTERS. 3) 'clicking too much' Again what are you clicking? You have a tablet, and a pen.

You can drop in a mesh item and start sculpting. With dynamesh, you dont worry about topology. Everything else you need is just tied to a modifier key. Sliders are part of the interface or via hotkey (S brings up a size slider under the tip of the pen, hold and drag left or right). To suggest this is all 'clicky' seems at odds with how zbrush actually works. You will have to give specifics to make that a valid argument. On creating 'fingers'.

Simple, hold control and paint a circular mask(s). With control still selected, tap the empty space to invert (faster than doing it via ctrl+I) and then either use a tool that pulls out the form or easier just use the move widget, hotkey M.

This lets you quickly pull out the shape for fingers. If you chose to have them as a separate poly group, they can be easy to select and isolate.or you can just tell zbrush with a click of the button to send it over as a separate subtool. This is literally a quick and low step process. Again with dynamesh you are not worrying about topology. Additionally, a lot of artist just have tools (brushes) that automate fingers anyway and its easy to do.

You make the finger once and convert it into a tool. You cannot tell me with a straight face this is some how 'clicky'. I pulled this out of a sphere in a very short period of time, just using masks, quickly pulling out the shape with the move key, 2 brushes and dynamesh. Very little 'clicking' required outside of sculpting on the mesh itself.

I was able to get better results faster and the polygroups made it very easy to manage. If you need to see it in action though, go youtube anyone working with dynamesh and creating creatures or body parts. Perhaps you think the only approach is zspheres, which is a much older workflow.

4) Maybe you are not. But if not, why pretend to be? I don't see the logic in that. I question the 'expert zbrush pros' you talk to in order to come to the conclusions you have.

Tbh it sounds like you just made that up but if for some reason you didnt then I would severely question the 'pro' qualifications of the people you are talking to. Conclusion, I get that zbrush seems alien at first to a lot of people. And it rubs them the wrong way.

But its really not alien at all. Its very simple.just different in how the menus are laid out. I disagree with your assessment that 3D Coat is more direct, its not.

They are about the same on the directness level. I do agree with the control preference and layout in 3D Coat. Which I have been consistent on. The controls are great and mirror controls In Modo (with maya keymap) perfectly. When quality and time become important though, those will trump preferential controls and layout. That might be the difference in pro vs hobbyist mentality, who knows. I think everyone here can agree that we want to see 3D Coat get better, but to do that we cant be suggesting that 3d coat and zbrush are on the same quality level with the sculpting workflow/results.

Thankfully 3D Coat (as per original subject of this thread) isnt only picked up for the total sum of its features, but often the ones its really well known for and that is painting and retopology. Nothing wrong with that either, people used to pick up Modo just for its modeling tools, its taking them awhile to get everything else up to speed to compete with its rivals. Now retopo is great in Modo, UV editing is better than 3D coat imo with fewer 'clicks'. They wouldnt have gotten to that point though if the userbase kept telling them those features were already good or on par with specialty apps. Look, I'm 62 years old.

I have a university degree in history from UBC (Times of London rated #32 in the world) I know exactly what I'm saying. Doing the simplest tasks when you're sculpting in Zbrush is a frustrating click fest. I don't want that. I want a straightfoward approach to sculpting and painting. Zbrush is getting maximum hype, and since it was first on the scene (actually it was second on the scene after Free Form Ghost) and it has such a huge user base of professionals that it appears that it's superior mainly because of the sheer quantity of work that has had to be done on it. Ryan Kinglien, Zack Petroc and Scott Eaton have done fantastic things with Zbrush and that's great.snip I get it, you are old by your own admission and feel your degree is some how relevant to this conversation. So what does that have to do with asking for specifics and on naming your terms regarding the use of the word 'gimmicky'?

I feel like you just rambled on without actually backing up or addressing what 'gimmicky' means within the context of a sculpting application. Is that a reason to get bent out of shape over? So far what you have given me is that you believe its full of hype and you are under the impression you click too much inside of it. Is this correct?

Do you see that from an outside perspective, this starts looking more like a grudge rather than legitimate criticism? So if you are unwilling to try and learn a specific piece of software, how then do you know how to evaluate it objectively? Why bother getting offended over it? Nearly every video regarding zbrush has them up and sculpting with very few 'clicks' at all.especially since we are working with cintiqs and tablets here. This isnt a software war here, there shouldnt be any sides in this conversation. Talk specifics if you are going to throw out sentiment based terms like gimmicky or hype because otherwise it just looks like a confirmation bias run wild. I can't tell though, if you were being sarcastic with the Windows 10 comment?

If Zbrush were more accessible I would definitely have tried it out. Even though I'm a hobbyist and use Linux, I'm not adverse to spending some money on software I can use. I have a education license for 3D-Coat and I have purchased Octane when it first came out.

I even spent way too much money on Pfhoe (matchmoving software), which doesn't exist anymore (it got rolled into Pftrack). Not sarcastic at all regarding Windows 10.

Its a great OS/update, easily the most significant since xp and 7. It certainly hinders the appeal of hopping on over to Linux at this point in time (imo).

There is just not much to gain (software wise) by making such a move.The new CEO has been playing all the right cards so far, especially with the free update. Regarding money and zbrush, well they do or at least did have an edu version, not sure if its still around. There's the trial too. Its value is really dependent upon the kind of work you do I suppose.

Regarding tracking software, seems like Mocha has been playing their hand right as well as you can find Mocha lite bundled with apps like Hitfilm and I believe AE. Of course as a hobbyist user my requirements are much different than the pros. Zbrush is way too expensive to even consider, hell it costs almost as much as my new system build. 3D-Coat is much better positioned in that aspect.

The other consideration is that there is no Linux version, might not be a big deal for a lot of people, but to me it's big. In this day and age, especially with vfx software, there is no excuse for not having a Linux version. Even Blender has a Linux version. Just thought I would throw my 2 cents into the fray. And that is a valid reason for not picking up zbrush. When working with a budget, 3d coat offers far more value in that regard.well technically so does Blender. Regarding vfx and linux.

Eh for sculpting its not really that important. Linux is more common for rendering out composited shots but the actual asset making is another story. I know of one VFX house personally, a big one, which has zbrush and maya for their PC machines and Mac for Nuke. The compositors get the elements created from the people who create them (2d/3d)(zbrush, maya, modo, after effects.ect) and then send it off to the in house render farm. If linux was so important in the element making process, we would see AE for it. Linux is in an interesting position right now as well. Windows 10 being an amazing release + Apple OS going with their own API really complicates things.

@L'Ancien Not sure when you last tried Zbrush but given the more sentiment based opinion of it. It looks like it has been a long time. Imagine if I described 3D Coat as missing PBR texture painting and lacking paint layers. Thats how off your interpretation of Zbrush sounds. Though this could be in part due to not using a current build of it, just as someone might have an opinion of 3D Coat from long ago.

Objectively, its best to look at where the software stands now in its current form, the past versions or what was or wasnt there do not matter. Regarding alpha quality, yes Zbrush's system gives far sharper and more detailed results. Zspheres are just one feature in zbrush, there are also curves in zbrush too. You can find them used in everything from specialty brushes to guides for autoretopo. Curves have a lot of uses in zbrush for select features. When you mention clay. Or the 'clay feel' have you tried using the numerous clay brushes in zbrush?

From Clay Buildup to Clay polish? There is even a wax shader, that when mixed with dynamesh and clay brushes gives it a very organic feel. It sounds odd when someone suggests zbrush doesnt feel very clay like. It really depends on the brushes used. On the subject of struggling with it. I find that the hardest part people have trouble with when using zbrush is that they refuse to step back and look at it as something outside of the expectations tied to other software. For example, the file, edit, view menu items do not exist in the same way as they do in everything else.

Its a kind of stubbornness from the user that makes it hard to adopt, I faced it myself at first. Step back and look at the application objectively, and what you see is a blank canvas with categories laid out on top. Each category, via menu, is just a collection of panels. These panels are just docked around on the interface but its really just a blank canvas with categories for the panels. Once you realize this it becomes one of the most easy to understand applications out there imo.

Each panel is its own separate little UI and they make it easy to understand, especially with the help popups. Some of the best zbrush artist only use a fraction of the features, the simplicity is powerful in and of itself. Trying to use everything can make it overwhelming.

Same can be said with 3d coat. There are really no weird tricks with zbrush that I can think of when it comes to the basics. Its pretty direct. Some of the extra features just require learning how to maximize their use, like shadowbox or the poly modeling features. I highly recommend you give it another go and then look at each objectively to find out where the differences are in terms of one specific area. Sculpting quality and time required to get best results.

I'm getting tired of all of those ridiculous problems that surface when you least expect them. Tbh, that has been my experience with 3D Coat from the get go. There is always something going horribly wrong or bugging out, it gets tiring after awhile. The newest issue, at least on my end, is now the masking is behaving erratically, with a weird blotchy result or strange smears when trying to smooth borders. Before that the pen input would just jump around from working to not working. Which requires a restart of 3d coat to fix or as one user suggested rolling back to some older wacom drivers. The user shouldnt have to go through this so often.

I'm at the point where I am just considering dropping 3D Coat altogether, which would suck. So far Mari hasnt given me these problems and while I dislike the work flow it has become a far more stable and optimized experience. Tough choices. Anyways that bit I quoted you as saying is the exact sentiment I feel right now. If you really think '3D Coat sucks' at sculpting.

I said and I quote 'The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation.' To suggest that I said '3D Coat Sucks' is simply dishonest. Saying something sucks and saying it doesnt compare well with the leading sculpting software are two different things. Anyways, it seems like you are not willing to learn zbrush and come to conclusions off of actually working with the software. Owning both along with many other software packages and actually putting the effort into working with them gives me an objective outlook where things stand concerning this subject. On the original topic, of which I was responding to, there is no need to 'lol' at someone because they use 3D Coat for one specific feature, and the biggest pull (imo) for 3D Coat right now (especially with pro level artist) is a mixture of texturing and retopology tools.

If a user has zbrush the chances are high they wouldnt be using 3d coat for sculpting over it since theres a night vs day difference in the workflow and result. I would love nothing more than for this difference to disappear with more development, but it is there and it is obvious to someone who uses both. Ultimately this may just be another agree to disagree situation. I do think your responses border on the fanboy side though, or at least thats the impression it gives to the more software agnostic types like myself. So instead of just playing around with a trial, learn it and force yourself to use it for a few weeks at the very least. Again its the difference of night and day. As for your claim of 'ZB bias', that is utter rubbish.

Its just a confirmation of your bias. I wasnt simply suggesting separate subtools are the only means but more that you are wrong in your understanding of zbrush. You just obviously do not know much about it. There are different approaches in zbrush that quite honestly give better results, whether you are using the geometry HD feature or just working in a highly optimized environment where polycount does not bottle neck right away. If the dynamic topology isnt giving more detail than the options in zbrush, then its not really a good feature to be arguing in favor of. I dont think you get that.

I already said I dont want to turn this into another 3d coat vs zbrush thread, so lets try to avoid repeating this again (yes we have had this conversation before though with you claiming zbrush copied 3d coat). You cant spot the difference in sculpting surface detail and stroke quality so I don't see any reason to try and argue the case further other than to say go learn and use zbrush for a bit. I am not here to confirm your biases or get into a comparison contest. The one thing we can agree on is that 3D Coat has a lot of room to grow and I am sure we would love for it to grow, but if you keep saying some implementations are better than they really are, that process might get slowed down a bit. I am up to date with 3D Coat's sculpting capability and I sculpt in it often enough for smaller things If I am too lazy to do the export import dance between modo, zbrush and 3d coat. Sure 3D Coat has come a long way, but its still not even close to the stroke quality and level of detail you get in zbrush.

Its just not even up for debate. In return I can ask when was the last time you tried to seriously sculpt in zbrush?

The difference is just night & day. I personally would love to stay in 3d coat more often as I like the controls and layout a bit better, but the stroke quality, lighting, masking.ect is still pretty poor compared to zbrush. Now I could turn this into a zbrush vs 3d coat debate, but its really not the point. I do disagree with your 'isolated subdivision' comment as it can be done in zbrush too just different approaches and subtools vs layers. But going down that rabbit hole would just be off topic, since the extra features imo are not as important as the basics. And its the basics which I find fault with. Regarding the production viability for sculpting in 3DC, that is really subjective as it depends on the expectations of the user/client.

Bol.com trust mini card reader for mac. Saicoo Smart Card Reader DOD Military USB Common Access CAC, compatible with Mac OS, Win. Just picked up this card reader to ease the challenge of dumping very large video files from a micro SD card used in my DJI Mavic Pro. Rocketek RT-SCR1 DOD Military USB Common Access CAC Smart.

Free Download: Wacom Intuos Pro Tablet Driver 6.3.11w3 For Mac Free

I have tried to use it numerous times for serious work but the quality always suffers + the time it takes to get it the way I want to look (expectation) is extended. This isnt due to knowing one app more than the other, since I actually prefer 3DC's controls and layer stack over zbrushes.

Its just simply the workflow (masking & transform are big ones), the detail from alphas/strokes and just general behavior of the brush isnt up to that level. On sculpt layers. I honestly wouldnt put them as a high priority since they dont do much if the stroke/displacement quality is still low. Its one of those features that works really well when you have great results in the quality department, but if the quality is still not there then all you are doing is giving the option to layer sub par results.

Free Download: Wacom Intuos Pro Tablet Driver 6.3.11w3 For Mac Download

It doesnt address the original problem. I believe for a lot of people, painting or retopo are the main reasons they pick up 3D Coat, not that they wont look into the other features but if they do its often found lacking. At the end of the day its about results. Painting is pretty good in 3DC and its Retopo made it a great addition for many artist just for that one singular feature alone. He seems to use 3d-coat only for painting LOL I have had so hard times trying to explain to people that in 3d-coat you have it almost all (except for rigging and animation, I miss some basic pivot adjust too (and better rendering)) But seems that people that had invested so much time learning z-brush cumbersome interface is a little afraid of leave their 'comfort' zone. Why LOL at him for that?

Zbrush isnt that hard and neither is the interface.control scheme is different though. Right now the best things 3d coat has to offer is retopo and painting. The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time.

I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation. On that note, the only reason I purchased 3d Coat was for the painting, possibly retopo.since everything else wasnt better or even equal to what I had in Modo + Zbrush.

I personally would love to work more in 3d coat, but the quality + time consumption (or lack there of) would suffer. Time to vent a little bit.

Free Download: Wacom Intuos Pro Tablet Driver 6.3.11w3 For Mac Pro

I have been fighting with 3d coat painting for awhile now, specifically how 3D Coat works with my tablet and pressure. I am getting to the point where I just want to stop using it altogether. Its inconsistent, sometimes the full pressure effect even though im putting little to no pressure at all, this makes blending a nightmare (hand painted textures), other times the quality of the strokes are just not very good (or sharp). I dont know if its also due to 8 bit imagery from 3d coat but the lack of smooth value blending also becomes very noticeable. So what I am forced to do is go back and forth to Krita (via external editor feature) and paint there (where the strokes, values, blending, its all consistent and accurate). I dont want to have to do this. So I guess you can say the resolved feature I am requesting is.

Really polish up and fine tune the texture painting. Something is just off about it which is really ruining the quality of my hand painted textures. (just to add, I have a dual set up with a cintiq and an intuos. Due two a beefy machine I can go up pretty high with the texture resolution, UVs are not tiny). Outside of 2d editors behaving properly/consistently, Mari Indie has also given good results. This is definitely something with 3d coat.).

Fixes: - Other enhancements and bug fixes Note: - Be sure to uninstall any current tablet driver installation before installing. It is highly recommended to always use the most recent driver version available.

Do not forget to check with our site as often as possible in order to stay updated on the latest drivers, software and games. Try to set a system restore point before installing a device driver. This will help if you installed a wrong driver. Problems can arise when your hardware de. Wacom Intuos Pro Tablet Driver 6.3.11w3 for Mac OS.