Hey man! That’s me…lol I was hoping you’d pick up the slack! 
1 Like
I mean, I WANT to, but people keep bothering me to do stuff!
The biggest hurdle for me to pass is the learning curve. I don’t really know how to use 3DCoat, and Textura looks, well, like 3DCoat. If I want to give any semi-coherent comparison to Substance Painter, Mixer, and the like, I’ll have to figure out how to use it.
It looks like there’s a lot of power there waiting to be tapped, but it’s not exactly the most immediately intuitive program around.
1 Like
Yep. That is the other side of the investment equation when deciding on software. You practically have spend as much time learning it to decide as you would spend to just use it! Well almost…lol
User reviews and tutorials do help though. Just it’s kinda new.
1 Like
4 Likes
That is great. Nice work there.
Zbrush is way more efficient, just harder to use for some. I personally don’t like working in it despite its performance and sculpting fidelity.
3D Coat has a sculpt tree (photoshop like layer stack). Sculpted parts can be added to layers, hidden or shown, nested, duplicated…etc This can let you work on pieces individually or all at once. Meshes can also be added to a sculpt models asset browser or a spline window for use in all sculpts. Its a better system than the subtool approach imo.
The biggest disadvantage with 3D Coat is that it is still rough around the edges, with long standing bugs never quite going away. If you can get around the bugs and rough parts, it is not a bad alternative. For the high detail stuff though, Zbrush is still hard to beat.
Textura is just a stripped down version of regular 3D Coat, so if you already have the regular 3D Coat version, you are already covered.
I’d have stuck with just “3D Coat Paint” or something along those lines. Simple and obvious what its designed for. The search terms would overlap with Painter (Substance), giving the software more visibility with the same target audience.
1 Like
Thanks for the review. Good and objective!