Looking for opinions from artists and technical folks alike on 3d software features
polycounter lvl 3
Hello everyone, I’m a coder and I do a little bit of 3d on the side. I’ve been writing a piece of 3d software for a while now and I’d like some input from you guys. I hope this is ok to post here 
What are the shortcomings of the software packages you use according to your experience?
What kind of features have you needed in the past but could not find?
What kind of features would you like added now and why?
Generally speaking, what kind of feature would you like to see in a 3D application? Anything that may seem impossible to implement is welcome to mention, I’m looking to get the creative juices flowing and any idea is more than welcome! Thank you.
What are the shortcomings of the software packages you use according to your experience?
What kind of features have you needed in the past but could not find?
What kind of features would you like added now and why?
Generally speaking, what kind of feature would you like to see in a 3D application? Anything that may seem impossible to implement is welcome to mention, I’m looking to get the creative juices flowing and any idea is more than welcome! Thank you.
Replies
shape recognition is missing.
If a package can identify the primitive shapes that make up an object then it can do a huge variety of stuff with the information - not least intelligently LOD and unwrap them.
For instance in modeling this m84, I made it all out of booleaned primitives.
In making the LODS for the green housing I would love if I could go back to the pre-boolean state, switch a 6 for a 4, 2 or 1, and get out my LODS only requiring a re-uv of the affected part.
in short: if the parameters are cells in excel, I would want to be able to refer them to others instead of having their own unique values.
And another one from the top of my head. The ability to right-click a UI element to assign a hotkey to it. Most of the elements are very hard to find in the hotkey settings as there are so many with similar or identical names.
At the op, if this is just for fun, maybe better look into adding a feature to blender than to create yet another application which probably doesn't have enough appel on its own.
It's far better to pick a niche, build something that does it well and make sure it talks to the big packages properly.
The biggest success stories in this vein include keyshot, substance and Zbrush but there are plenty more.
What they have in common is that they all either do something you can't do in maya/max or simplify something that's enough of a pain in the arse that you save more money than it costs to buy.
As for whether this is feasible as a product or not, I’m yet to actually decide where to go with this, I’m merely exploring ideas for the sake of ideas themselves, I am fully aware I won’t be able to compete with Maya or Max, or heck even Blender.
I simply wanted to know what people want in their packages as a way to give myself perspective as to what different people want and need, it’s something I’m enjoying, the journey is quite fulfilling.
Poopipe mentioned shape recognition above. If you could include this for sensible automatic retopology of hard surface models that would also be a big plus.
Eg. Something as simple as generating median curves (or whatever the 3d equivalent is called) of a solid mesh could inform rig building, topology, even uv layouts.
Similar algorithms in 2.5d give you the foundation for safe autobevelling
The problem is that the people clever enough to invent this stuff often don't realise how what they've invented can be bent into a tool - with that in mind, it's quite heartening to see a developer coming straight to the source
That's exactly what I've thought about and what has lead me to think about this and play around with ideas.
I saw so many potential "tools" and all the math worked out for it and it's basically being delivered on a gold plate for someone to work on and nobody does, especially with the way 3D packages are stagnating because of the whole "industry standard" stuff, every major studio having an army of programmers available for when their artists want a tool and bam gets implemented in house and never sees the light of day, it's a little sad, at least to me.
Which is why I'm asking you folks, if I manage to make one single tool and help one fellow artist do one single thing, this whole thing to me would be successful. Which is why I came here. To see what artists actually want! I hope to get more feedback from you guys.
And nothing have changed with that during last 30 years. We still wasting half of our life time trying to dig out what software folks do and how it works instead of focusing on our own creative tasks and art related nuances. The whole "uncanney valley" phenomena have surfaced because of that imo. In traditional figurative art such uncanney thing had been disappeared gradually since 13 century . With just general development of art school and traditions.
I don't have a recipe of how to fix it. Imo software folks usually have just fundamentally different cognitive approaches or something. It's why probably it's so hard usually to explain something to a shader coder while a fellow artist understands you just after a first word.
Thus when I see something like "For 3d artists, by 3d artists" in a software advertisement I instantly know it's not true and would be just another mess I would have to spend a year to figure out. Some "artist focused" software companies couldn't even write a help that really helps and not causing more questions then answers.
After so many years we still couldn't get an easy solution for an adequate visual feedback in 3d tools, close to a game, not even in a soft like Substance Designer without lots of special voodoo. So I don't believe things could change in close future. Maybe in 200-300 years
So far "convenient 3d/ 2d software " is an oxymoron like "dry water" .
If I ever implement something in a piece of software, I'll make it a few click solution, I'll try my best to do that or at least point artists in the right direction.
And I'm afraid I have to disagree with you when it comes to "convenient 3d/2d software" is an oxymoron, it really is not. All tools are somewhat simpler once you actually spend some time, some more than others ie Modo vs Blender.
1. A space shuttle cockpit kind of a mess on a screen , countless check-boxes ,buttons and sub-menu organized in some random "crazy programmer" style of logic. To do something you have to check in here, than there and there and don't forget to have a certain feature on in a certain god forgotten deep corner of a soft. I have a huge list of such "hidden features" in my Evernote. Oh, and things are still not working as expected anyway because of well, you may have been done a mistake before and have to go back and figure out what it is and do it completely on your own, no hints form the soft.
2. Help system that could be understood only by person who wrote it .
3. Lots of lacunas and shortages nobody would tell you about before you would happily discover them after a year spent on learning.
So to do something you have to fight with a software non stop usually while searching for workarounds, searching for compatible 3d party solutions and swearing badly in the process.:) Half of this forum is for that.
And finally when it works you just have no time any more to focus on actual art nuances.
My guess we would get convenient tools only when such tools acquire a kind of AI behind them and UI would reflect an artist styled " from a general idea to a more specific one" way of thinking.