Crash on save

[Taron]

If that ever happened to me... jeeez. Danged, I just hate it, when I can't test such troubles. Oh, hey, maybe you guys have an image that does that and let me have it, see if I get this, too?

sometimes it looks like this
what does it mean?

click click helps

[Taron]

Hmmm...at such high resolutions it sometimes takes a moment to refresh. Only after you confirm it will actually run the resolution changer, that could explain the black moment.

I'm having the same or similar problem trying to save or expand the canvas above 5k resolution. Windows just reports Exception_Access_Violation and kills the program every time, so I'm afraid to use the program at all for anything serious if I'll just lose my work, as much as I love the program otherwise.

Win 10
Ryzen 9 12-core
Nvidia 2070 super, 980 gtx
64gb ram

[Taron]

For the time being, Verve itself may continue to have troubles with 5k resolution. Oddly enough, Vervette has no troubles with it. However, when the time comes, I will bring Verve there, too.
I still can't help but wonder when such resolutions become the only way to do "serious work". Sure, it's been almost 10 years ago, but I've done Blockbuster Hollywood VFX and themepark projections, never exceeding 4k and some of the best movies had been 2k for decades. Prints I've created and sold were under 3k. I just don't quite fully understand it. 99.999% of all content that truly reaches millions if not billions of people goes through the web, while only recently monitors started handling 4k resolution. What venue requires 5k+ res to be considered serious? I'm honestly curious about it? ...I'm not dismissing it or something of that kind, don't worry, I'm just curious.

It's true for most commercial applications there are standards, which have more to do with money and production/time cost than anything as far as I know. Technology is outpacing standards as 8k screens are already on the market, and at least how I see it the future is in vector-based art if resolution just multiplies. In theory all the color and fluid mixing even in this program could be recalculated from all the strokes if they were recorded as I've seen using Substance Painter, as much of a nightmare programming it all would be. If the goal here is fluid simulation, why not expand it to include mixing material properties as well beyond viscosity, like irridescent paints, instead of just in layer properties? Instead of only a height map, have metallic/roughness maps for pbr material painting, which could then be transferred to 3D materials too. You've probably already thought about these though, I'm just having ideas at the moment.

I'm no professional artist yet, still finishing up college first in 3d character design, but for me I like to work at higher resolutions so I can scale them down to half the size for the final image. I already work on a 3440x1440 10-bpc display, so doubling that puts me over 5k, and I tend to work higher than that in photoshop. The main reason is to have cleaner lines, but even in a full painting I like to be able zoom in on detailed parts of an image without pixellation. The same would be true for scaling of larger print sizes, if I wanted to have maximum standard print quality at 300px per inch, that's 3600px^2 for a 12in^2 painting, which is pretty small. Photography already takes much higher resolution images which I use instead of a scanner for transferring traditional sketches to digital for painting, and it's preferable not to need to downscale an entire project because a program can't handle the dimensions. Even for 3D models the texture resolutions can go beyond 8k now, with the associated performance problems of course.

Again, I love what your program can do, it beats anything the mixer brush can do in photoshop and runs really well besides the resolution. I did try Vervette which works great too, though I don't think I saw an option to increase the resolution yet? Glad you're still working on things though, the only alternatives I know of are ArtRage or Corel Painter, which don't seem to have the same level of options, besides the price tags. Really they should be hiring you xD

[Taron]

<insert record player screeching hold at line 2> ...Verve already has the record feature! ...it even has a simply playback already, but it's there to later enable repainting everything in various ways, including scaling! (It is a "hidden" feature, though, not documented, because it was just a test).
press [u] to start recording
press [u] again to stop recording
[Shift]+[u] is playback
It just shows you that this is in there for a long time, but I haven't gotten around to create the necessary GUI components for control. I have always had so many ideas about it, can't wait to make them happen!

Mixing materials was another thought of mine early on, but it will require more channels (aka yet another fluid processing), while I was debating whether I turn those channels into fixed target parameters (glossiness, metallic, translucency and transparency (refraction, yes!) for example) or custom parameters, OR ID percentage of chosen materials, blending between their settings. Certainly would slow things down, but could be tremendous excitement! ...maybe one day.


Ah, yeah, you're still young, as are most (such a clever observation of mine ), but that means you have totally skipped over the great-old-days, when pixel graphics were all there was and every pixel counted. Nowadays, instead of working with an appreciation for the pixel, people just ignore the immense control they offer and count on scaling for "anti-aliasing" to get smoother, yet, crisper lines. I understand this very much, but I'd so love to make people conscious again about the power of pixels and how you can exploit digital art so much more once you are aware of how to deal with them.
My primary concern is always speed, as weird as this may sound. Nothing annoys me more than the feeling of remote controlling a brush that eventually does what I already did. I love the immediacy of Verve, how even a halfway decent hardware gives you this direct translation of your motion. That's why resolution is for me less dramatic after a certain minimum has been achieved.
In 3d texturing one nowadays uses 3d painting apps such as Zbrush or Substance or the likes. In the good old days one would use photoshop on top of a flat projection of the geometry UVs, haha...oh yeah, "imagination", hahahaha. But if one did 3d textures, then certainly higher resolutions are desirable, no doubt.

Cool, yeah, OH, You only know the "Vervette Sandbox". This is not "Vervette". It's just my WebGL testing sandbox while I'm developing Vervette. The full version allows you to set any resolution you wish, though I was limiting it to 4 digits, hahaha (9999x9999). I was amazed how the browser handled that resolution without fluids. I haven't tried it, yet, with fluids, though. But Vervette is far, far, far more than just a fluid-dynamics exploration. It is a full on painter with most ordinary modes, too. So.... I'm working on it!

Well, thank you for sharing a bit about you!
It means a lot to me and I love to know more about artists here. We have a world of ideas and observations to talk about and exchange and knowing each other helps us understand where those ideas come from, too.

As for price tags, well, I must go commercial, too. There is no other way. But I will keep it reasonable and it is after all how we exchange energy. I've run dry and I need some replenishment urgently.

Youngish anyways, I like to think I got to see the best of both worlds. I still remember the old CD-rom computer paint programs that Disney put out. I say finishing college but I started 8 years later too, not quite 30 yet but I'll finish before then xD

Yeah I definitely appreciate how fast your program is, it doesn't matter how much processing power you have, photoshop and substance still slow down with large brushes. I'm also used to working with pixels, and I love the detail people put into pixel perfect art, but after using Substance for 3D stuff it just had me thinking this is how all art programs should work, it's vector-based while still allowing raster level control of things. I'm glad you're already ahead on that ^^. I know just enough programming to imagine how things would work without actually knowing how to do any of it, like if the extra material channels could all be assigned to their own CPU cores to avoid slowing down the GPU xD. I'll keep waiting on your progress then, no other company seems to be doing much to improve their tools otherwise. Even at a price it still beats paying for real paint, as nice as real materials are.

There's also the david.li fluid paint simulation online I was looking at that had an interesting brush hairs simulation to go with it, seemed like it was pretty efficient. There's always more features to add of course

[Taron]

Woooot...I've never seen that!!! ...how fun! I mean "david.li", that's pretty sweet! Rudimentary, but very quick therefore.
Yeah, I can't believe I'm 1 year away from 50. Time flies. I still vividly remember the 5 1/4" floppies, hahaha. not to mention datasette on my C=16.

Well, cool! Thanks for that link!

in this online painter there is something interesting with the change of colors from digital to natural (I like the natural triangle more like CMYK)
a long time ago it was on the forum ... there is a comment under the video
I wonder what Aaron Rutten would say about your sandbox now ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leAWPF6-VyA&t=26s&ab_channel=AaronRutten