If Andrew just solved the Large Brush bottleneck with CUDA or optimized the code in OpenGL or DX, that would solve my issues on the performance side. That card just would not work with some of my CG apps. They were trumpeting their Streaming capability back when I had a 4850. Holding out hope that more applications will get onboard with OpenCL instead is a fruitless endeavor. Too many GPU renderers only using CUDA, to limit myself in this regard. I'm still not ready to go with AMD just yet. Maybe bring in a GPU programmer (temporarily) who can help him figure out a solution to this bottleneck. So yeah, I'd prefer this long-standing issue get fixed before any other major features are added. It isn't just me noticing this, and he thinks you can just use a smaller brush to remedy the problem. I even showed Andrew this comparison (screen share) twice in the past 2yrs, and he basically shrugged it off as unimportant. It handles 8k maps far better than 3D Coat handles 4k maps. On large maps (4k+), 3D Coat really struggles with large brush sizes. But Large brushes remain 3D Coat's Achilles heel. In fairness, small to medium brush radius' offer pretty brisk and fluid strokes. This exists in the Paint Room as well as the Voxel Room. However, I don't think even these will cause a huge ground swell of texture artists switching to 3D Coat.until Andrew solves the dilemma of Large Brush lag in 3D Coat. But all of these things may not be so easy to implement in 3D Coat's architecture. This way you have a lot more control and easily see what is masked and what isn't. Layer Mask thumbnails is another (including the ability to have them on each channel/map). This would take up less RAM and keep things tidy. I'd like to see the ability to expand or collapse those, and even delete a channel/map that I don't need or want on that given layer. Each layer is really 3 hidden sublayers (depth, color and spec maps). Why? Because that is effectively what you have. I asked him about treating each layer in 3D Coat as a Layer Group is, in PS. As long as it can handle most of tasks I would normally do there, and somewhat efficiently, that's enough for me. I don't think it's necessary to have 3D Coat be a complete clone of Photoshop. What's poor about it? Interoperability with PS is one of 3D Coat's strengths. 3D Coat has some amazing texturing tools that are unique to it.features you won't find in PS. It has it's own strengths and tools that were developed over a 20yr period and with a huge development staff. Pointing out a problem or making a feature request is always welcome, but let's not make this a 3D Coat slamfest.saying "I know folks who won't use it because it doesn't do things exactly the way it does in PS." If they want to work in PS.nothing wrong with that. Let's not trash and belittle the application simply because you didn't realize what it could do, or it doesn't offer them in a way you'd prefer. You said it didn't have layer adjustments like in PS, but for the most part, it does (TEXTURES menu > ADJUST).
You said 3DC doesn't have layer masks.but it does. Name a 3D Texture painting app that does? I could come up with an equally long list of PS features or interoperability features that they don't offer, as well. Neither does Mari, or ZBrush, Mudbox or BodyPaint.
Yet we are here fussing that it doesn't do everything that PS does or the same way PS does. It's intended to be a stand-alone 3D texturing app that affords a good deal of interoperability with PS. It isn't useless simply because it doesn't offer some of these things. I can agree on some level, but again 3D Coat isn't designed to be a PS clone, feature for feature. With it being currently crippled with the Kepler cards, it's practically worthless. Why is this important? Cause you are going to want to have decent wireframe performance when using LiveClay, as you'll have it on so you can see the tessellation or reduction as you sculpt. I'm thinking it might, because instead of a true 's a shaded wireframe = not good for performance. Problem with that is I don't know if it's an issue with 3D Coat only. I'm pretty ticked off about it and considering putting something up on youtube about it, to warn others in the CG community not to waste their money taking a step back.
To be fair, the FPS is much higher when wireframe is not turned on, but I asked Andrew if there was something he could do on his end (in 3D Coat).thinking maybe it was something to do with the way 3D Coat handles wireframe in DX or GL, but he just passed it off to Nvidia (some rep he knew), and that guy just passed it off as drivers, maybe.saying it wasn't happening on his Quadro 5000 (no kidding, Sherlock.I had already mentioned that the problem didn't exist with the 470 I had).
0 kommentar(er)
