I finally started paying for 3D stuff

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
1

After almost 2 decades not spending a dime on 3D, I decided I had enough struggling at every corner with freeware.

  • I used Blender, Gimp, MakeHuman and Meshroom for pretty much everything.
  • I used several free vegetation generation add ons.
  • I scanned my trunks, took normal maps of leaves.
  • I made my own HDRI using Google photosphere
  • I sculpted characters, I hand drew their PBR textures. I made every single hair and wrinkle on them.
  • I spent countless hours trying to understand how to get a good result out of the cloth and fluid simulations.
  • I rigged my characters, set up my IKs, my bone constraints and all the shebang. With and without rigify.
  • I collected PBR materials and free assets from Sketchfab, Polyhaven, Textures.com, ambientCG, Blendswap and more. And any node setup Simon Thomes and Erindale would share.
  • I tortured nodes to the point where a spaghetti plate is easier to go through.
  • I once had my computer compute for 5 straight days at max CPU max GPU for photogrammetry
  • I downloaded the whole library of Carnegie melon mocap, and that was really, really painful to go through
  • I collected every silly 3D scanned person I could find online with an acceptable licence
  • I once spent 2 days only baking a scene in Blender

I have proof for all of it!

As painful as it sounds, and despite my efforts, the results remain inferior when compared to similarly experienced artists using market leading software and assets.

So I began the process of learning (and eventually buying I fear):

  • Daz3D (which I found the most convincing amd flexible, for a price remaining somewhat reasonnable)
  • Marvelous Designer
  • Substance painter (sounds like a no brainer despite my love for nodes)
  • Polycam for photogrammetry (I always doubted whether I made the right choice VS reality capture, I’ll blame Ian Hubert if not)
  • the Vegetation Blender add-on (and I might totally crack for Grasswald too, I’ve been wanting it for so long)
  • Mixamo for animation?

It’s quite a lot to digest, but the results are indeed better.

I’d love for you to share your experience on the topic.

How far should one go with free software?
What do you consider is worth paying for?

3 Likes
2

I hear you on that. I’m just a hobbyist, but I do purchase some of my software too. I did purchase Substance, back when you could purchase an owned copy of it. I’m stuck with version 2019.3, but it still does more than I will ever need. I also purchased a license for 3D-Coat, which is a real good deal. I bought it on their lease until purchased plan. I finished the payments in 2022 and they are giving me free updates until 2024, a very nice deal.

I also have a subscription for Octane Render, which is $20 per month. I don’t like the subscription plan, but at least it’s not as bad as Adobe’s. Just to add for completeness, I also pay for Blender as a silver development donator.

As far as plugins go I have purchased a lot. I like the Grasswald, and Botaniq plugins, but they are pretty expensive right now. I got into them when they first came out and cheaper, which is the way to go if you can. It’s kind of the roll of the dice, my rule of thumb is that when I see a new plugin that I like, and it’s inexpensive, I go ahead and purchase it.

Jason

3 Likes
3

Easy answer: I pay for software that produces the results I want, with the least amount of hassle. And that includes paying for Blender, and paying for excellent addons.

Other than Blender, a full Adobe CC subscription. (Doesn’t include Substance, but I don’t need it either.)

3 Likes
4

It really depends on the software, for example I bought ClipStudio but moved completely to Krita which is free. I’ve used 3DsMax but prefer Blender by a lot.
I don’t like subscription models because it doesn’t feel like you own the software.

2 Likes
5

For a long time I endeavored to make everything myself from scratch. I realized at some point that I was limiting my options as far as what sorts of scenes I could practically create within a reasonable time period. Now I have lots of assets and addons. However, the ability to create whatever you need from scratch is priceless. So no time lost or wasted learning to make things. There will always be things you need that simply aren’t available as assets.

7 Likes
6

Definitely, and creating something from scratch is the best way to learn too, you’ll know the topic in greater depth than people that take shortcuts. Also limitations are the breeding ground for creativity.

5 Likes
7

When you’re using third party assets anyway, it’s already not “from scratch” so there’s no meaningful difference between using say, makehuman or a commercial character solution except quality you get out of the box and the skill needed to make it look good.

So, unless limiting yourself to Creative Commons assets as a matter of principal to you (nothing wrong if it is!), if you’re using third party assets you may as well select what works best for your workflow, time, and budget, and focus on specializing on the aspects of 3D art that bring you the most joy, or are most relevant to your specialty/career. Besides, the content you buy helps out other 3D artists who chose to specialize there, so everyone wins. (You can also sometimes donate to freebies, if they were really good)

As far as you can. Use it when it’s the best tool for the job, or when you need a cost-effective alternative to the best tool for the job.

I would highly recommend Affinity Photo as an alternative to GIMP/Photoshop. Commercial, but no subscription, capable of a lot of things Photoshop can do, and more than a couple things Photoshop can’t do. (Admittedly, Photoshop can do somethings AP can’t as well)

Something that saves me time, improves my workflow, or is outside my current capability (and has compatible licensing with what I need it for, of course).

2 Likes
8

Thanks all for the replies.

I hate to bring down the conversation to the ground, but practical question: Do you think it is worth learning zbrush for sculpting or Blender will do just fine?

9

It depends on what kind of sculpting you want to do, and how much detail you need. Blender is great for quick sculpts but struggles with high poly sculpting

1 Like
10

Zbrush handles brushes better, and has sculpt layers. Blender Studio never said so directly, but it sounded like they really wished they were using Zbrush instead of Blender for Charge.

And most importantly, even with a powerful computer, pore level detail in Blender is… Well, try it and you’ll want Zbrush no matter how much you resent the expense. Even with a good computer, it’ll be worse than you think from everyones warnings.

But if you remove the body and only sculpt the head and hands it’ll be feasible.

3 Likes
11

Hey that’s a great topic !

I’ll give you the answer that works for me :smiley:
In general for my personal work I tend to use mainly free resources and softwares and my goal is to learn as much as I can.

For professional work, if it’s simpler to buy a software, resource , plugin or whatever, it would be unprofessional to charge the client for wasted time trying to recreate something that I can buy cheaper. But it’s fair to charge my client to buy these resources, so if I need to buy 3D models or something it’s part of the invoice.

To answer properly you should consider where is your own value. If your value comes from your art only , then in some ways it’s not very important how it’s done. The most important is your eye, and your ability to bring your vision to life.
If your value is in your technical knowledge, then probably not cutting too many corners is better.

It’s even more true when you work in a production environment, you can’t come and install all the addon / plugin you like and you are encouraged to use either default tools, or tools bought by the company and accepted by pipeline department.

Sometime people are so dependent on external tools, that they don’t know how to build a simple shader, build a simple rig, do proper lighting… Their portfolio might be cool, but eventually we might see that they don’t manage to do much all by themselves. Productions add a lot of extra constraints that makes a lot of tools irrelevant. Especially those meant to “save your soul from technical burden and let you to focus on opening all your creative chakras to unveil the genius sleeping inside you…” they generally don’t fit bigger production constraints.

But a lot of paid tool can be very useful, something that allows to make better UV, or since it’s the only thing that comes to mind actually, a lot of good tools for video are really used on most of what you see. Plugins like neat video, realsmart motion blur, particular , optical flares …
These are the tools you definitely need when you work with video for instance and they don’t have good free counterparts .

Lastly, when I started to learn I used mainly FOSS tools, it worked really well for me because they are so unforgiving that you really need to learn how stuff works. So when using a better tool it’s always an upgrade, to give you a quick example. If I manage to track stuff in blender in my personal work, and at some point switch to syntheyes, it always work for me. Auto track will make my life so much easier. And when auto track doesn’t work, I can always do supervised track, just like in blender.

2 Likes
12

First you need to figure out your production/artistic needs and goals. If you want to be a professional digital sculptor, then you need to know and use Zbrush.

1 Like
13

Because im focusing on video game models, im basically always need to do UVs, baking and texturing.
So Substance Painter and Disigner was no brain deal. I buy them on Steam so it was really cheap and more importantly - no subscribition which i absolutely hate.
For baking i chose Marmoset Toolbag. When i try the demo for the first time i was like - “300 bucks for baking?! Are. They. Nuts.?!” But hell, literally a 1 hour with Marmoset and i buy full version. Gorgeous piece of software.
For UVs i trying RizomUV developers of which promises me a trouble free unwrapping without headaches. They didn’t lie.

Still wasnt really touch it, but i buy EmberGen for VFX which i planning to make in nearest future. Closest alternatives to it is Houdini, but again - subscribition model are not something which i like.

For editing photos/textures i buy Affinity Photo as a closest alternatives to Photoshop. Cant say im really happy, but its anyway far better than free alternatives like gimp.

For 2d graphics (vector) i didnt find anything except Inkscape. Laggy, buggy but there’s only 2 alternatives: Affinity Designer, which are paid to own, but lack of some features which Inkscape have. And Adobe Illustrator - nope.

1 Like
14

As far as you want to. I don’t think there’s a “should” here, it differs by person based on their needs, their wants, their constraints.

I personally will prefer FOSS software over commercial software any day, but that’s a political preference unrelated to what I do with it. This is a hobby, not my work, and FOSS does generally better than just ok – Blender, GIMP, Inkscape, Krita, Darktable. At my level I never feel seriously constrained yet by the tools. I’ve in the past, for work, bought expensive commercial software because the client’s pipeline used it, and I am glad I no longer have to do that, but it’s probably relevant for a lot of people who have to maintain interoperability.

Whatever makes the process significantly easier, smoother, more pleasant. Whatever gets tedium out of the way of the work/art.

I still like making everything myself at this point, but I anticipate there will be a time when it becomes more about getting what’s in my head out of it than it is about learning to model. For somebody who is at that point, however they got there, I again don’t think there’s a “should” – whatever makes it happen, that realization of your art, that’s worthwhile acquiring if you can afford it.

I’ll probably buy several of the top hard surface add-ons soon; they’re amazing time savers. When I get to realistic landscapes and archviz in my learning, Graswald is on my list too, probably several of the vegetation add-ons. Some GreasePencil add-ons are dope, like Sketch-n-Carve. Will probably also buy something for fluids. I keep getting tempted by good asset management, but the Asset Browser is coming along. I feel pretty good about buying Blender add-ons; they tend to be cheaper than their commercial-software equivalents, and it feeds the Blender ecosystem.

Outside of Blender, if I could at all make my peace with subscription models and Adobe’s near-monopoly (:ugh; hate it), I might buy Substance Painter. It is best in class. But I am not bending on the subscription thing, it’s not negotiable; I need to own the software, not be at the mercy of a commercial entity, its continued existence, accessibility, and pricing. Maybe I’ll bite the bullet and buy the Steam version while it still exists, but I am torn about it.

I’m tempted by something that uses SDFs – like MagicaCSG (which is very cheap at this time).

Been thinking about other baking and UVmapping solutions, but so far I can manage, and I don’t see myself laying out $300+ just for better baking, even though Marmoset is much better at it. Blender is making some important improvements in UVmapping, so I’ll just wait until my needs truly outstrip Blender.

If I were into high-poly sculpting, ZBrush. From what I have observed other people talk about and demonstrate, that’s where Blender stops being good enough and becomes a hindrance.

1 Like
15

I agree with everything you said in this paragraph and approached SP from the exact same mindset. Initially I said I’d never even do the Steam one, but honestly, I’ve never regretted changing my mind on that one, it was 100% worth it. No matter how good you think it is, when you learn how to use it, you’ll realize it’s even better. Blender, Quixel, and ArmorPaint, while all capable in their own ways, don’t compare.

4 Likes
16

I have to respectfully disagree. My intense dislike of ZBrush has very little to do with the price, and wouldn’t change if it became a free software. I’ve never really noticed the issues with higher poly sculpting blender that other people are mentioning, at least not as drastically. On my current computer, I can sculpt on meshes of 25 mil with very little if any lag, which is usually more than enough for me to get pore level detail, and if I ever need to go higher, I don’t mind chopping the mesh into couple parts if it means I can avoid ZBrush.

1 Like
17

I’'m curious, what exactly did you see in your 1 hour test drive that turned you from “You’re asking for how much!!” to “Shut up and take my money”?

I must admit I don’t do a lot of baking, so there is probably a lot that I am unaware of.

18

Blender sculpting does have one advantage over Zbrush in certain situations: it has an actual 3D view with real perspective and a real camera (zbrush doesn’t, the camera acts like a zoom). This can make it easier to get the general shape of a character correct.

Zbrush wins on the fine detailing. Well, Blender can actually get a decent level of detail if you don’t use the multires modifier while sculpting (multires has a performance penalty for each extra level of division), but you will need to add one sooner or later on the model for baking purposes.

2 Likes
19

Yea at some point you have to bite the bullet and invest. Blender is great but MD is unmatched for cloth sims, and buying assets simply… saves you time. If you’re a professional and do sculpting regularly, Zbrush is (was?) a no-brainer at 700e (haven’t kept up with the Maxon acquisition and potential price changes). I have a license but barely use it because my current work is more on the cartoony side of things. Krita for paiting, Affinity suite for touchups.

I’m interested in your results ! I have a few things to scan and no dedicated equipment (only a smartphone with a very good camera). I was going for Reality Capture but I haven’t even heard about that other solution.

1 Like
20

Photogrammetry is really a big topic and would deserve its own thread. Happy to share my experience though.

I have tested Meshroom and Polycam extensively and have rumed out 3DFzephyr after trying it fairly. I have not tried reality capture.

Meshroom is free and great as an introduction to photogrammetry. You have a pot of control and the pipeline is reminiscent of the node system, which is great.
Unfortunately, it only relies on your computer and does not seem very optimized. Large datasets will take an incredible amount of time (in the range of hours to days).
It lacks essential features such as manual grooming or a turntable algorithm. Its output is also largely non optimized, so I had to decimate and bake a lot in Blender, which was also very time consuming.
It is unrivalled for tree barks though.

Polycam is like the apple of photogrammetry. 3 buttons and it intends to do all the rest for you, including PBR materials generation. That sounds awful, but it actually does the job really well. It is far superior for human details, the models are processed within minutes.
I pay 50 euros a year for it and I have 200 models per month, limit I never reached.
Unfortunately, it succks for trees, but it’s reaally good for anything else.

Finally, 3DFzephyr is really in between. A little more control over the pipeline, a free version milited to 50 photos and decent results for turntables. It relies on your computer resources too, unlike Polycam which is cloud based.

The software is not unimportant, but the quality of the dataset are really the first, second and third factor affecting the quality of the models.
Pay particular attention to depth of field (anything blurry is unusable), ensure to fill the frame with the subject (or details of this last one) and make sure to have at least 60pc overlap between your pictures.

Really good models are also photographed with appropriate lighting. Prefer cloudy days outside, and set up a giod lighting “studio” inside, it will change the results dramatically.

Also, start with a rock, that’s super rewarding :wink:

All the best!

4 Likes