| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Jan 2025 : 14:07:01
|
Several years back, I got into playing with blender for a couple years. I had a lot of fun doing this. Sadly, I've probably forgotten half of it because I haven't touched it for a while. But, painting 3d models in blender was for me.... a pain in the arse (at least older versions). So, I turned to Microsoft's Paint3d for windows 10, which was intuitive as hell and very much fun. It couldn't do the detail I really wanted, but it was good enough for A) Free and B) someone just playing around to make a 3d model that they could add "labels" to for tattoos, heraldic symbols, etc... Don't get me wrong, there were a LOT of problems with it too. Sadly, though, Microsoft has chosen to stop supporting this software, having never imported it to windows 11 and stopping downloads. I'm trying now to setup a new laptop and want to get something to use with it (and downloading the newest version of blender as well, so maybe that will be better).
So, my question... and maybe noone here will have an answer... anyone used anything else that's free and SIMPLE? I see some stuff talking about adobe's substance painter, an "armorpaint" software, and a quixel mixer. Of these, substance paint requires a monthly subscription it looks like, so its out. Armorpaint LOOKS like it was made with someone like me in mind, but that doesn't mean its without issues, and it looks like it may have a slight cost now (like $20). I so far don't even see where to download quixel. I'm probably going to download armorpaint for now, and I'm looking to see if there's a free version.... but I know how software is... since the videos I was looking at were from 4 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something else I may want to try.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
kateupton
Acolyte
1 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2025 : 07:44:42
|
Hi Sleyvas,
Given your preference for free and simple, Quixel Mixer is likely your best bet in 2025. It’s free, downloadable via Epic Games, and offers an intuitive interface for painting 3D models without overwhelming you with options. If you’re willing to spend $20, ArmorPaint is a fantastic alternative that’s tailor-made for your use case—casual, direct painting with minimal fuss. |
 |
|
|
gimox
Acolyte
1 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2025 : 10:08:34
|
| Do you need layers and procedural painting tools, or just simple hand-painting? Blender's texture painting has improved, but it can still feel clunky. If you just need basic painting, you might not need something as feature-packed as ArmorPaint. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2025 : 12:26:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by gimox
Do you need layers and procedural painting tools, or just simple hand-painting? Blender's texture painting has improved, but it can still feel clunky. If you just need basic painting, you might not need something as feature-packed as ArmorPaint.
When I was doing this all the time for fun, I was just hand painting (i.e. click a brush and color in spots). There were a few times where I was painting inside of blender by coloring each individual object and putting it together, but that was with things that I pretty much built all of it (for instance a picture of an open book that I created a cover for and put text on the inside pages as a 3d object, etc...), but I must admit I haven't tried a newer version of blender. I guess I'll download the latest version and see what that's like. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2025 : 00:10:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by gimox
Do you need layers and procedural painting tools, or just simple hand-painting? Blender's texture painting has improved, but it can still feel clunky. If you just need basic painting, you might not need something as feature-packed as ArmorPaint.
I finally caught some time and decided to try out a newer version of blender (4.2) from the microsoft store. It looks like a nearly new interface. I will say painting something basic does seem to be a lot better and I've only been trying for 5 minutes. I need to figure out how to make things look more metallic, etc... but I'm sure with an hour or two under my belt it'll be better. Thanks. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
theresatharrod
Acolyte
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2025 : 06:45:38
|
| ArmorPaint might be a good choice-simple and affordable. You can also try Material Maker, which is free and user-friendly. Quixel Mixer is free with an Epic Games account but works best with Unreal Engine. Texture painting in the latest Blender is also more user-friendly now. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2529 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2025 : 21:27:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
But, painting 3d models in blender was for me.... a pain in the arse (at least older versions).
Awkward GUI? Well, it's Blender...
quote:
and B) someone just playing around to make a 3d model that they could add "labels" to for tattoos, heraldic symbols, etc...
Do you mean using clear labels within a given mesh, so that you could find it quickly?
I think Wings3D (for an immediately available example) doesn't have it, beyond using custom vertex colors. But since such swappable details should be in separate textures, the most obvious solution is to name materials in a recognizable way, so that you can just find it in the list -> select [everything with this material] from context menu -> align to selection.
quote:
So, my question... and maybe noone here will have an answer... anyone used anything else that's free and SIMPLE?
What exactly do you want? Mapping as such? In the end, it depends on the model format. Obviously, pretty much every line of 3D modelling software has some way to do this, but follows its own idiosyncrasies. From select -> choose the unwrap mode, then dragging vertices or edges of the cutout around the texture image in Wings 3D (pure mesh) to flowchart-based texture builder in Art of Illusion (very procedurally oriented).
UV unwrapping? It obviously cannot be automated too well, because software does not know what projection is the best for user's actual needs in the general case. On the upside, there are tutorials on internet for any stage of the process, including this.
quote:
blender (4.2) from the microsoft store
From what? 
Anyway, Blender site says the current release is 4.4.3 (April 29, 2025) |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2025 : 03:00:00
|
Yeah, I messed with using blender for an hour and gave up. Getting anything to look metallic, etc... was a pain in the ass. It does really suck that the silly microsoft paint3d is gone, because honestly, for hand painting a virtual mini.... it was better for me than anything you could pay for, and it was free. It was easy as hell, you could easily change brush type, color types, whether they were flat, glossy, metallic, etc... Now, was it good for much else than painting a mini real quick and then taking a picture of it? No, not really.... At least I still have one pc running windows 10 with the program, but it won't last forever.
On labels, you don't seem to understand. I could take any image and basically turn it into a "skin" that I could stretch over a section of a mini. To give ideas, take an image and stick it on a shield, take an image and turn it into a tattoo, take an image and make it look like embroidery on a robe, surcoat, etc.... |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
37011 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2025 : 04:59:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, I messed with using blender for an hour and gave up. Getting anything to look metallic, etc... was a pain in the ass. It does really suck that the silly microsoft paint3d is gone, because honestly, for hand painting a virtual mini.... it was better for me than anything you could pay for, and it was free. It was easy as hell, you could easily change brush type, color types, whether they were flat, glossy, metallic, etc... Now, was it good for much else than painting a mini real quick and then taking a picture of it? No, not really.... At least I still have one pc running windows 10 with the program, but it won't last forever.
Look around online... I know some things that were removed from more recent versions of Windows, people have made standalone installers for. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2529 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2025 : 20:32:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, I messed with using blender for an hour and gave up. Getting anything to look metallic, etc...
Ah, so just getting the materials look right?
It's not a tool side problem, it's a data side problem. As in, just copy/tweak or create a small library of materials with the right parameters for your software. From downloadable free resources, if necessary, but better build yourself from tutorials if something similar is available this way (it probably is). Then reuse and tweak materials from your library.
quote:
you could easily change brush type, color types, whether they were flat, glossy, metallic, etc...
So, a decent pre-made library, yes.
quote:
I could take any image and basically turn it into a "skin" that I could stretch over a section of a mini.
That's how textures work, yes. 
quote:
To give ideas, take an image and stick it on a shield, take an image and turn it into a tattoo, take an image and make it look like embroidery on a robe, surcoat, etc....
So you want to stick a new picture as a limited "decal" on top of a pre-existing texture?
Is the problem "how to slap a new texture on top of the old" at all? For the cases you listed, either:
A) The new texture replaces the original texture. Then of course it needs to be a variant of said original edited to paint over whatever you want. Since you feed into 3D software only one ready picture for the texture, merging of the "decal" picture with the base must be done before that point, via using layers in the graphic editor. Mechanically the simplest. Copyright-wise (if any) the worst since it's derivative of the original texture. Headaches-wise also the worst since unwrapped textures for anything more complex than a box tend to be rather distorted, and you have to distort your decal just the right way to fit on it (unless the given part is unwrapped very flat).
B) The model has extra surfaces for the areas where "decal" texture is applied (cloned triangles raised by 0.01 or some such). Doing it on an animated model is going to be pain, but once it's there... Merging is done in the 3D engine itself. Your decal needs highly contrast transparency component (usually done via layer mask in editor) to cut off unpainted areas. Also, consider less than 100% opaque if you want the original to be seen through (wood texture "under" thin paint or skin "under" tattoo).
C) Your model format supports easy texture overlays / skins. You will need an instruction on exactly how to set it up in the given software. Also, likely distortion problem as in case (A).
Likely requires a transparent "decal" picture much like in case (B), but the size of a full texture. Just like in case (A), import the original as the base layer and paint on others so that you see how it looks, but before exporting the result turn off visibility for the base picture. If this causes problems with wrong canvas size, just make a "visible" transparent layer of the original size.
Or is the problem in conversion of source images into textures suitable for a given use as such?
That’s a picture editor / filters job. Though of course it takes some practice to see what is actually required for a picture to look right when imported and then used on an actual model (again, both which texture component actually does what and the possible idiosyncrasies of software). |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2025 : 20:38:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, I messed with using blender for an hour and gave up. Getting anything to look metallic, etc... was a pain in the ass. It does really suck that the silly microsoft paint3d is gone, because honestly, for hand painting a virtual mini.... it was better for me than anything you could pay for, and it was free. It was easy as hell, you could easily change brush type, color types, whether they were flat, glossy, metallic, etc... Now, was it good for much else than painting a mini real quick and then taking a picture of it? No, not really.... At least I still have one pc running windows 10 with the program, but it won't last forever.
Look around online... I know some things that were removed from more recent versions of Windows, people have made standalone installers for.
Well I'll be damned Wooly. Yeah, I found this online... and it didn't work exactly as shown, but when I searched for paint3 instead, I found something.
https://www.xda-developers.com/secret-way-to-get-paint-3d-from-microsoft-store/
inside of the search I found something that brought me here
https://en.softonic.com/download/microsoft-paint-3d/windows/post-download
Thank you immensely... I was really damned annoyed.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2025 : 20:48:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, I messed with using blender for an hour and gave up. Getting anything to look metallic, etc...
Ah, so just getting the materials look right?
It's not a tool side problem, it's a data side problem. As in, just copy/tweak or create a small library of materials with the right parameters for your software. From downloadable free resources, if necessary, but better build yourself from tutorials if something similar is available this way (it probably is). Then reuse and tweak materials from your library.
quote:
you could easily change brush type, color types, whether they were flat, glossy, metallic, etc...
So, a decent pre-made library, yes.
quote:
I could take any image and basically turn it into a "skin" that I could stretch over a section of a mini.
That's how textures work, yes.
quote:
To give ideas, take an image and stick it on a shield, take an image and turn it into a tattoo, take an image and make it look like embroidery on a robe, surcoat, etc....
So you want to stick a new picture as a limited "decal" on top of a pre-existing texture?
Is the problem "how to slap a new texture on top of the old" at all? For the cases you listed, either:
A) The new texture replaces the original texture. Then of course it needs to be a variant of said original edited to paint over whatever you want. Since you feed into 3D software only one ready picture for the texture, merging of the "decal" picture with the base must be done before that point, via using layers in the graphic editor. Mechanically the simplest. Copyright-wise (if any) the worst since it's derivative of the original texture. Headaches-wise also the worst since unwrapped textures for anything more complex than a box tend to be rather distorted, and you have to distort your decal just the right way to fit on it (unless the given part is unwrapped very flat).
B) The model has extra surfaces for the areas where "decal" texture is applied (cloned triangles raised by 0.01 or some such). Doing it on an animated model is going to be pain, but once it's there... Merging is done in the 3D engine itself. Your decal needs highly contrast transparency component (usually done via layer mask in editor) to cut off unpainted areas. Also, consider less than 100% opaque if you want the original to be seen through (wood texture "under" thin paint or skin "under" tattoo).
C) Your model format supports easy texture overlays / skins. You will need an instruction on exactly how to set it up in the given software. Also, likely distortion problem as in case (A).
Likely requires a transparent "decal" picture much like in case (B), but the size of a full texture. Just like in case (A), import the original as the base layer and paint on others so that you see how it looks, but before exporting the result turn off visibility for the base picture. If this causes problems with wrong canvas size, just make a "visible" transparent layer of the original size.
Or is the problem in conversion of source images into textures suitable for a given use as such?
That’s a picture editor / filters job. Though of course it takes some practice to see what is actually required for a picture to look right when imported and then used on an actual model (again, both which texture component actually does what and the possible idiosyncrasies of software).
Honestly man, I'm entirely self trained on 3d modeling design. So much of what I do is haphazard, but I've made a few hundred models by combining and modifying things from what other people did. What's sad is that now that I haven't really used blender for about 3 years... I've forgotten half the tricks I learned. So much of what I've made is useful only as virtual objects (i.e. printing them with a 3d printer just won't work, unless you make them HUGE .... which I actually did for a few things for fun, mostly my favorite "scenes" of minis)
But anyway, my problem is solved now that I found a way to install paint3d on my new PC. Hopefully it will stay. So, if I want to make a picture of a new character... find an STL file that looks something like them, paint the portion I want to use from the angle I want, take a picture... add it directly to a character sheet or even drop the image into paint.net and play with filters. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2025 : 21:45:32
|
Just for grins.... just took an STL that I had downloaded of a minotaur monk, took a few minutes to paint it just enough to take a picture, threw on a decal of some fire. Then I took said same picture, pulled it into paint.net and applied an ink sketch effect so that it looks less like a 3d model that's painted (so like 1 minute of time in paint.net). I mention this because people that make stuff for DM's Guild and similar can use stuff like this methodology to make decent pictures for their products without having to really pay for anything. It may take a few minutes, but you can often get the "look" that you yourself want instead of an interpretation from another artist.
minotaur monk with about 5 minutes of time spent painting the STL then saving as an image
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11C77G3jkP1LSe12jJ_ahuncaK8rXN6KX/view?usp=drive_link
taking same image into paint.net, then just applying an ink sketch effect.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YNtCcYl_oYjZZIgO0tXhb6uUcTe1aBix/view?usp=drive_link |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
|
|
le0stream
Acolyte
3 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2026 : 11:20:19
|
I understand that pain very well, but from a slightly different angle.A long time ago I also started with Blender, and it frustrated me a lot. The interface, the materials, the overall logic, and the feeling that even simple things required knowing too much. At that stage I just wanted to take a model and paint it, not build an entire pipeline around it.
Over time, after digging around on YouTube and finding more down to earth tutorials, I realized that many things in Blender can be simplified quite a bit. This can be done either through the right addons or simply by knowing a few basic techniques. Not everything becomes intuitive right away, but it stops feeling so hostile.
For me this eventually grew into a deeper interest. I started learning texture painting, simple PBR materials, working with references, and using separate texturing tools like ArmorPaint or 2D editors combined with UVs. It took time, but it gave me far more control than I initially expected.
Despite all of that, over time I ended up moving into this space in a more or less professional way. I now work on creating 3D assets and animations, and some of that work can be seen in the list of games presented here in more detail. That path was gradual and not something I originally planned, but it grew naturally once the tools stopped feeling like an obstacle and started feeling like something I could actually use.
At the same time, I completely agree that the tool should match the task. If the goal is to quickly get a visual for a character, a scene, or an illustration, simple solutions like Paint3D or your workflow of 3D to screenshot to 2D stylization are often much more effective than a technically correct professional approach.
I think there is also another important point here. These tools do not become simpler over time. They accumulate features, nodes, layers, and parameters, which can be intimidating for beginners or hobbyists. Finding a personal and comfortable way of working is not laziness. It is a reasonable adaptation. |
Edited by - le0stream on 13 Mar 2026 14:47:52 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2026 : 14:55:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by le0stream
I understand that pain very well, but from a slightly different angle. A long time ago I also started with Blender, and it frustrated me a lot. The interface, the materials, the overall logic and the feeling that even simple things required knowing too much. At that stage I just wanted to take a model and paint it, not build an entire pipeline around it.
Over time, after digging around on YouTube and finding more down to earth tutorials, I realized that many things in Blender can be simplified quite a bit. This can be done either through the right addons or simply by knowing a few basic techniques. Not everything becomes intuitive right away, but it stops feeling so hostile.
For me this eventually grew into a deeper interest. I started learning texture painting, simple PBR materials, working with references, and using separate texturing tools like ArmorPaint or 2D editors combined with UVs. It took time, but it gave me far more control than I initially expected.
At the same time, I completely agree that the tool should match the task. If the goal is to quickly get a visual for a character, a scene, or an illustration, simple solutions like Paint3D or your workflow of 3D to screenshot to 2D stylization are often much more effective than a technically correct professional approach.
I think there is also another important point here. These tools do not become simpler over time. They accumulate features, nodes, layers, and parameters, which can be intimidating for beginners or hobbyists. Finding a personal and comfortable way of working is not laziness. It is a reasonable adaptation.
Lol, hopefully I'm not talking to a bot (and please don't be offended, we've seen a lot of bots showing up), but I wanted to say .... dude, you just NAILED exactly all the problems I've seen.
Thankfully, oddly it was Wooly that had me go find another way to install Paint3D. Also, its pretty odd that you just posted to this thread because last night and this morning I got a hankering to make some more pictures, so I made some foxibous (see the brainstorming anchorome thread for links).
Since I don't do this all the time, I've found I've forgotten so much that I taught myself in the last seven years or so with blender ... but I gotta agree, add ons changed a lot for me with it. Just the gem add ons were a major bonus for taking a model and just making it prettier. Also, yes, as these things get additions, they jsut become more complex to deal with. I am by no means an "artist", but this medium has given me at least some way to express what's in my brain. While I don't have a lot of time to spend on this type of thing due to work, and my eyes are getting old and so its harder to do, I find it oddly relaxing.
Anyway, nice to meet you ... if you can share tips, I'd love to hear them. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2529 Posts |
Posted - 14 Mar 2026 : 20:18:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
but I wanted to say .... dude, you just NAILED exactly all the problems I've seen.
They are common.
I would recommend the beginners to install something very straightforward with tutorials available, such as Wings 3D (it’s FLOSS). Good to see the basics of how meshes, edges and UV mapping work together.
Then use whatever fits your actual task. Which unfortunately requires some knowledge of what is over there.
If you just need 3D character art, MakeHuman is made for this (and also FLOSS). Add relevant plugins and assets (look at the official library) to avoid inventing bicycles... until you need a particularly fancy bicycle. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
Edited by - TBeholder on 15 Mar 2026 06:01:20 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2026 : 01:01:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
but I wanted to say .... dude, you just NAILED exactly all the problems I've seen.
They are common.
I would recommend the beginners to install something very straightforward with tutorials available, such as Wings 3D (it’s FLOSS). Good to see the basics of how meshes, edges and UV mapping work together.
Then use whatever fits your actual task. Which unfortunately requires some knowledge of what is over there.
If you just need 3D character art, MakeHuman is made for this (and also FLOSS). Add relevant plugins and assets (look at the official library) to avoid inventing bicycles... until you need a particularly fancy bicycle.
Thanks. Makehuman looks interesting, but not really sure what is special about wings 3d.. may try it though. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12246 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2026 : 14:11:28
|
| Also, just to make sure... have YOU personally used these tools (Makehuman and wings 3d).... asking because I've seen a lot of people just saying things based on google or AI telling them things. I've seen many applications that boast how easy they are, etc... and some may be extremely easy, but effectively useless because they don't do much, etc... |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8091 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2026 : 13:29:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, just to make sure... have YOU personally used these tools (Makehuman and wings 3d).... asking because I've seen a lot of people just saying things based on google or AI telling them things. I've seen many applications that boast how easy they are, etc... and some may be extremely easy, but effectively useless because they don't do much, etc...
I used Blender. A lot, for a long time. It's basically the "default" 3D tool, the first one everybody learns, the most popular, the most common.
I used Wings 3D. Almost as much, almost as long. I tried it out, I quickly found it was basically the same or better than Blender in every way for *my* needs so I immediately abandoned Blender. If you already know (or knew) Blender then you'll probably (re)learn Wings 3D very quickly.
I also tried Natron, ZBrush, Houdini, and Armory 3D (after I got tired of Blender, before I chose Wings 3D). Each of these had different tools built for different niches, so (aside from discovering that they didn't fit *my* needs/uses as well as Blender or, later, Wings 3D) I haven't got much useful to say about them.
I've since moved onto Autodesk, SolidWorks, Maya, MATLAB. Each of these "complex" tools is far more powerful and useful in every way, so once you know them there's just no reason to go back to the "simple" tools. But each one also has a comprehensive learning curve and substantial ongoing subscription cost (they were part of the time and money I spent on my profession).
All that being said, I have observed that sometimes 3D objects with hacky/workaround intricacies are basically locked into the specific app (and specific version) that they were created within. Migrating them into other tools can end up causing problems which need to be addressed with some rework. Sometimes rework takes just a few seconds or can even be automated with a single click on some smart tool or script. Sometimes rework can take longer, or can take much longer, or can even take longer than (re)creating the thing from scratch.
So I sometimes still find myself using Blender. Again, it's basically the "default" tool, and it's the most popular, and almost every 3D thing done by others - in online libraries, in commercial software, in game engines, in 3D printing APIs, in CNC APIs - is available in some Blender-supported format. Blender can't do as much as the tools I prefer but if I want to be quick and lazy (I want to avoid wasting time reworking or fixing broken models) then Blender is my go-to. Blender is not the tool I use or prefer to do my 3D work, it's just too gutless - but Blender is the first tool I use when opening up somebody else's 3D work, it just wastes less of my time.
If your past 3D projects represent your future 3D intentions then I think Blender and Wings 3D are both good choices for you.
There's *always* more to learn in Blender and there's *always* more tools or add-ons available for Blender, although at some point migrating onto new software is smarter and better than eternally spinning around in Blender. Again, I don't really know much about the other alternatives I tried out because they all seemed pretty good but I didn't use any of them very long. This is one of those things you gotta move around before you can move up, you gotta spend a little time trying the alternatives yourself, because you won't really know what your limits are (and what your software's limits are) until you're out of your comfort zone.
If it's worth anything to you, I would "objectively" rate myself about 6/10 or 7/10 (or maybe 8/10) in terms of 3D mastery. Something between Intermediate and Advanced. I've been doing it for nearly 20 years. Although my aptitudes lean toward structural and mechanical properties more than towards pretty skins and textures - I do engineering work, not artwork - Autodesk/SolidWorks is just one of many tools I use to make my living, it's not something I focus onto exclusively. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 24 Mar 2026 14:02:26 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Painting 3d models WITHOUT Paint3d
