Then, on top of poly or voxel sculpting, you have a 3rd platform for sculpting detail, and it's far more efficient on your system.that is Image-based Sculpting, in the Paint Room. You can see from the model in the video, that you can go as detailed as you need.super detailed hair, eyebrows, skin pores, etc. But that doesn't mean one cannot use 3D Coat to create a crazy level of detail.including hair. So zbrush is not an option.Īnd you get that impression, just how? By gallery work? Sure, there is a lot more of that in ZBrush circles.because they already carved that niche into the market well before Mudbox and 3D Coat came along. My first feel of the program was that the sculpting les detailing then zbrush. I am glad I have both but I started with 3DCoat and would never want to be without it.
Texture painting in 3DCoat is much better especially with the new pbr system.ģD Coat is cheaper and does a lot of things in a quicker, easier way. I think there is a similar work-flow in 3D Coat though. I took the sculpt into Zbrush, duplicated the sub tool, Zremeshed it, subdivided it a few times and projected the details across creating an easily poseable model.
I had a situation recently where I wanted to dramatically pose a 20 million poly sculpt in 3DCoat and it was proving problematic. Zremesher is really nice though and I do prefer it over 3D Coat's Autopo. UV mapping also works really well and really fast in 3D Coat compared to Zbrush.
Zbrushes Dynamesh still feels clunky in comparison. Less menus getting in the way, less to think about and working with voxels feels like true sculpting freedom. I absolutely love the multi-level sculpting in Zbrush but find 3D Coat way quicker to just 'create' in. I think both programs have their strengths and weaknesses but they work really well together.
0 kommentar(er)
