Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Hexagon is certainly well-equipped with tools and has some edge, line and surfaces modelling capabilities which are more efficient than Blender. It is certainly adequate for what the average Daz studio user requires to make morphs, kit-bash and make props.
It has lagged behind developments in modelling apps to bring it back into the professional sphere. Not talking about all the nice bright and shiny bloat tools that see very little use, but the bread-and-butter stuff that is needed for an efficient work-flow.
My personal wishlist is for 64bit, error-catching, dynamic topology sculpting, normal map projection, retopo, spin, screw, true mirror modeling, stackable deformers, layers, NURBS, re-mesh, tri-to-quad conversion and improved UV mapping.
A standalone modeler has no need for rigging because these don't transfer between apps, but a sort of temporary armature to enable deformation of a portion of a mesh would come in very handy.
Yes, like any app, it does take some work to understand, but it is a lot better than it was a year or so ago. The UI development team has been resuscitated mainly due to Andrew's urging and they are making good progress. Yes, he was treated very rudely at the conference - there are a lot of vested interests and ego's involved in maintaining the status quo. Don't know if you saw his retraction of his original proposals? He admitted that he was not a UI designer and that proposals were impractical, once it was pointed out to him.
I personally think that if Blender had to adopt Carrara's method of windows or rooms for different functions, it would be a lot more user-friendly because they would not have to crowd the UI so much, trying to fit all the functions in.
What is the problem with undo? Ctrl-Z is standard in all apps. Pointless opening in the render camera view if you are going to start modelling - all you have to do is hit 0 and you have it. Navigating is simple and the camera controls are exactly the same as viewport navigating - all you need is middle-mouse, Shift+middlemouse and scroll.
You want awkward - try Daz Studio:)
...in Daz, undo also affects camera moves & such. Doesn't seem to do so in Blender. There are times I get stuck in one view mode and cannot find a way back other than closing the programme. Very frustrating. There seems to be no "back" or "restore view" option, unless it is some hotkey function I am unaware of (which is one of my major gripes about Blender).
Also when importing an item from a different format (like .dae for example), I get no sizing options, it just imports the object at whatever its original size is (unless this t too is "hidden" on some hotkey) . In Daz, Carrara, or Hexagon I can set the scale of the the object before importing.
Just way too "clunky" in my opinion compared to Hexagon.
Only have a two button trackball. Also in Studio, Carrara, and Hexagon, I do not need to touch the keyboard at all to make camera moves. In Daz, Bryce, and Carrara the rendering camera is whichever one you are currently looking though (which isn't the case in Blender).
I agree, it would be better if, as you mentioned, Blender were to adopt the Carrara/Poser concept of "rooms" for the different functions. Don't need the animation or render controls taking up workspace when modelling.
This is one of the reasons why I like Hexagon so much more as it is focused only on modelling.
All current tools can be improved on as far as adding productivity features for them. I love the polyline tools but I would like them even better if you could adjust vertices positions the spacing or distribution them like you want etc.. This is one such advancement to improve productivity. Doesn't should like much will be done to move Hex forward so this more than likely will never happen.
...wish we could do polls like in the old forums. Would like to see the response a call for improving Hexagon would get.
Simple method of doing that - draw your shape using the curve tool. Draw a straight line approximately the same length and tessellate it to get the number of points you need - these will be evenly distributed. Using the original curve, bend the new line and delete the original :)
Well, they really need to do something with this software. Even for $20, or practically free. Can do damage. When I use Hexagon, it crashes a lot, due to compatibility. I enjoy, and use Hexagon, but today, had to decide to search for another 3d making software. I did change my compatibility to windows XP (Sp2), and it just keeps shutting down. It is a loss for me.
I use Windows 7.
System Requirements for Hexagon.
Hexagon 2.5
Windows®
Mac®
• Pentium 3 Processor (or equivalent) or greater
• 1.5 GHz (2.5 GHz or faster recommended)
• Windows XP, 2000 (SP2+)
• 512 MB RAM min (1GB+ recommended)
• 500 MB free hard drive space for installation
• OpenGL compatible graphics card with at least 128 MB RAM (256 MB+ recommended)
• Power PC G4 Processor® (G5 or greater recommended)
• 1 GHz (1.8 GHz or faster recommended)
• Mac OS X 10.2 up to 10.6
• 512 MB RAM (1 GB+ recommended)
• 500 MB free hard drive space for installation
• OpenGL compatible graphics card with at least 128 MB RAM (256 MB+ recommended)
Note: Not compatible with Windows 2003 Server
...improved UV mapping and sculpting would be good additions. Other than that nothing else. Also I keep wondering why does it still have Second Life primitives? Does anyone use that anymore?
Can you elaborate on what is lacking with respect to UV mapping and sculpting? I'm just getting into Hexagon and knowing the weak spots ahead of time might help me avoid some problems :)
The sculpting in Hex is really old technology - before the invention of dynamic adaptive topology. What this means is that Hex works with the topolgy you have. It does a pretty good job of it, if your mesh is dense enough give it something to work with. Dynamic adds mesh as needed, continually subdividing in places that need finer detail as you go.
This quickly adds up to very high definition mesh. Try the free Sculptris to see what I mean.
This goes hand-in -hand with retopogy and normal map projection, where you remake the mesh, using the high-definition one as a basis to make a low definition one, then generate a normal map and project it onto the low-definition version to get the fine detail without the high poly count.
Hex's UV mapping is limited to projection and basic unwrapping. It is actually pretty good good for relatively simple models, but has the limitation that it doesn't save seams and pins, so this must be done in one sitting. It also has no concept of proportion and will usually allocate a very large part of the UV grid to an insignificant part of the mesh and cram the major part into a tiny portion, leaving you to eyeball getting the proportions right. It is also inclined to crash if you do too many changes and undo is fatal.
I always recommend a standalone specialized UV mapper - they give so many more options and automated actions. Huge time-saver if you are inclined to make very big, complex models.
As illustration, this mech I'm currently doing was UV mapped in less than 1 second in UU3D. The UV map is useless as a template for texturing, but perfect for 3D painting. The process is "face mapping", where each face is laid out separately - Hex doesn't have that feature, or many other similar time-saving features.
What UV mapping tool do you currently recommend? I had previously stumbled across the Roadkill UV Tool, but I wasn't sure if that was still the best recommendation for free tools.
What are generally classified as sculpting tools are the ones which are, mysteriously, under the UV and Paint tab - Displacement, Soften, Pinch and Inflate.
I don't know of any really good free UV mapping apps. I believe the UV mapping capabilities of Wings3D are pretty good, but have never tried it. Roadkill showed great promise, but had a lot of flaws, such as only handling relatively low-poly meshes and serious selection problems. Development mysteriously stopped some years ago. I think it ended up being a plugin for Maya?
I use UU3D and am very happy with it. It is pretty technical, not a lot of non-jargon documentation or tuts, but have been getting free updates for years and the owner is very responsive to suggestions for improvement, as well as answering questions. One of the best CG investments I've made.
..as I don't have a very steady hand for 3D painting due to severe arthritis (and cannot afford an application like 3D Coat) I need a UV mapping tool that works better for setting up templates.
UU3D does that as well, plus many other functions for unwrapping or projection mapping :)
Hex's 3D paint is also pretty good!
...Not terribly expensive, but when you mention "pretty technical" and "not a lot of non-jargon documentation" it makes me a bit apprehensive.
Using a scale that has Hexagon on one end and Blender on the other (with regards to ease of the learning curve) which end would it be closer to?
Very tricky question:)
If I hadn't had few years in Anim8or, Hex would have been more difficult for me to learn, and if not for Hex and Carrara experience, Blender would have been a lot more difficult.
On a scale of Hex =1 and Blender =10, I'd put UU3D at about 3 or 4!
...so a little more technical than Hexagon but not as incomprehensible as Blender.
...and it can create templates for normal texturing.
I'll definitely have to look into it then.
You can look at UVmapper pro also. http://www.uvmapper.com/downloads.html
There is a demo you can download to try it.
I don't know how it compares to others.
Give Silo 2.3.1 a try. Now 64 bit. It's stable, so far, on Win 7 Pro 64.
I also have the colours pretty close to Hex. :)
...yeah, but it is 159$. I already have Hexagon which, like I mentioned, I paid pretty good money for.
My apologies, I had intended that for the OP.
It would be really nice if they could come out with a new hexagon software . I really enjoyed using it. I still do enjoy using it. I would love to see them merge it with the daz software. Specially if they can put a special figure maker module in with it then import it into the daz system. But I know that's only a pipe dream those. Daz is not like they use to be any more. They lost some thing over the years now. What it is I am not sure but wish they can get it back again.
Sue
...been facing east towards Utah and bowing down seven times a day but no sign yet.
I don't see that happening anytime soon. I believe it may have to do with elements of it's codebase being licensed to a 3rd party. DAZ has been selling it cheap or giving it away for so long I doubt it's not worth their effort any longer.
Havning said that, I paid about $15 for 2.1 which still works fine so if in the future it stops working on a newer operating system and they tweak it so it will work I'll be happy with that. I just don't think there is another version on the plan. No one at DAZ will say. It's a shame, I would pay good money for a new improved version.
And your are right about DAZ is different now then when I first started using their software.
...Carrara was the same, as a matter of fact Daz bought it from the same company that owned Hexagon (Eovia) . Carrara has seen major revisions including the addition of 64 bit support, Genesis/G2 support, bullet physics, vertex modelling, terrain and vegetation instancing, as well as Luxrender support (Luxus). If Daz could do this with a fairly comprehensive programme like Carrara,, they could do the same with a programme like Hexagon which is dedicated to a single task, modelling.
Agreed. I just don't think the will is there. If I remember correctly, Hex used to sell for about the same as Silo, $159.00 I think. I imagine, and only imagine, that it would take a bare minimum of 10,000 users paying that amount or even $100 for DAZ to want to put the resources into it. Selling it for chump change, I dunno.
I have Modo, Silo and have been playing around with Nvil but I still default to Hexagon. It's quick to learn while Modo is great it is time consuming to learn.
Anyway, we can still hope.
...modo was priced way out of my reach (1,500$, and as I heard, will be 500$ more expensive for the upgrade bringing the cost to 2,100$) Silo is OK but Hex still has a better UI plus the two way bridge to Daz Studio SIlo still doesn't have the best UV mapping/wrapping tools either.
If I remember correctly the original price for Hexagon was 149$. I bought it on sale for 75$ (less a 20$ remainder of the voucher credit I had which out of pocket ended up costing me 55$). So yeah, I paid good money while on a tight budget for what ended up a totally buggy and unstable programme. I'd like to see that investment pay off.
It shouldn't be anywhere as near as involved to update as Carrara or even Bryce did. and again in the end, with Studio and Bryce, Daz3D would have a powerful suite of linked 3D applications, much more so than trying to do it all with one programme.
I may be wrong, but I recall that one of the major things done to carrara 6 (or 7) was pretty much a total rewrite because the original code was some funky custom language - and hexagon is still coded in the original intermediate language. If so, the main hangup on improving hexagon is to re-work the entire code base without breaking anything (any more than current, anyway) so that future changes can be made by a wider group of programmers.
..exactly my point. If the could do it for Carrara, they can do it for Hexagon.
I can't deal with Blender's cumbersome UI & setup, frustrated with Hexagon's instability, and cannot afford modo which is why I still have yet to get into modelling.
I paid a LOT less than that in a sale. was maybe $9-10 i snapped it up but yet to really use it.
Blender was the first modeler I used and it was a steep learning curve. I picked up Hexagon and love it for modelling and UV mapping, but the stability is an issue.