Most likely not. We’re maintaining it for the latest release only at this point. The GitHub version is our development version, and so it’s being continually updated for API changes.
There are similarities for sure, but having never used the Modo one I cannot say what the exact similarities or differences are.
What a surprise, two independent companies have developed a same retopo mechanism.
But Blender is free and your script is good, i will certainly try it, if you add quad draw like in maya then we will have a complete and more complex product.
Quad draw is not on our list but several others are. You can check out the roadmap here for the first tools we’re working on (they’re already in full development: http://cgcookie.com/blender/forums/topic/retopology-tools-development-roadmap/
There are other forums that compare Blender to Maya/3dsMax/Modo/C4D/frying pans/kitchen sinks/etc. Feature requests are one thing, but I don’t use Maya (anymore) and I can’t see myself shelling out 4 bazillion dollars on it or anything similar.
Maya lt is only $700, and dedicated retopo tools are much less. I think we can use the 4 bazillion dollar argument anymore since in the larger scheme of things pricing has gone down quite a bit for higher accessibility.
Sorry to butt in, but “only $700” is relative, and considering that is for a gimped product, not even available for Linux, it’s not a very hot deal… Personally for the same price I’d much rather get this and support the CGCookie crew.
If your budget is small, $700 might as well be 4 bazillion. The point I failed to make was that comparing these retopo tools to those found in a commercial (expensive) product is not really fair. However, I believe what Jonathan and Patrick are doing will eventually stand up nicely with those of Maya and other commercial products.
Glad with that! 
Hi!
Not a surprise! After ZBrush Auto-retopo (don’t remember correctly) many companies started to “think” about making something similar. It’s a normal coincidence according to current GSoC 2013 presented papers. I think here is not a “conspiracy” stuff.
Blenderheads will get “blender stuff”, Mayaheads will get “maya stuff” and etc Artists choose the tools they like most.
I like Blender a lot because of it’s modern and revolutionary nature, it’s progressive team that works with soul.
Ok but… every 2 software in the world is illegal aka free 
not only blender, even in large companies.
Maya LT costs $795 which is almost $800 - Not $700, the full version of Maya still costs $3765.
Hey everyone!
I’ve just pushed out the version 1.0 release of Contours. This is the first non-beta release and comes with a lot of new features, improvements, and bug fixes.
You can get it here: http://cgcookie.com/downloads/contours-retopology-tool/
If you’ve already got a copy then simply download it again from your user dashboard: http://cgcookie.com/dashboard/#orders-downloads
Hi,
It’s asking me to BUY it again. I already purchased the previous version. So are upgrades free?
Edit: nevermind, I found that I can download the update at
http://cgcookie.com/dashboard/#orders-downloads
If you’ve already bought it then you can just redownload it from your dashboard: http://cgcookie.com/dashboard/#orders-downloads
Thank you. Sorry for the confusion . Can’t wait to give it a try
$35 for this, or $100 for Topogun…
Topogun is by far better, but at least you know the contours tool goes to a better cause and further development.
This looks like its shaping up, but I have one gripe.
GPL licensing is mentioned several times, even as a selling point, yet there are no obvious links to the source code on the product web page.
Currently you can find the source code here: https://github.com/CGCookie/script-bakery/tree/master/scripts/addons/contour_tools
It’ll soon be moved to it’s own repo, though, to make things more clean. This is not a requirement of the GPL, from my understanding, to link the source code. Rather the source code cannot be restricted. Or am I misunderstanding something?
To add to this, the key reason for the GPL licensing is to not lock down any of the code or prevent it being used in other projects.
I’m not a lawyer, so the following is personal opinion.
GPLv2 says:
- You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Since your add-on is purely source code and not a compiled binary (perhaps this could be remedied by distributing the .pyc files instead), it would seem to me that directly charging for it beyond distribution costs instead of just encouraging donations violates the GPL.
Technically offering to send people a CD with the code at “cost” would probably be enough to enforce the letter of the GPL, but the intent or spirit seems clear to me.
Don’t take this as me wanting a “free lunch”, your add-on looks terrific and may very well be worth what you charge for it, and people should certainly be encouraged to contribute money or time towards development of it. But you cannot have it both ways, and frankly my personal preference would be that you close-source this add-on rather than trying to obfuscate whether it is actually freely available or not.
