With the disappearance of the Mac Displacement Map Thread (like so many mac threads before it), it is fitting to note that Mudbox 2009 for the Mac appears to be shipping. Demo coming next week according to Autodesk’s forums. http://area.autodesk.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/25575/
-K
That’s pretty cool. I’ll definitely download the trial for fun. Personally though, ZBrush seems very superior, for less $. I’ve never used Mudbox, so I’m interested to try it, but ZBrush appears to be a much more independent, capable, and artistic tool.
I’ve watched and watched vidz on Mudbox. I’ve never see anyone create original geometry on the fly in any of them. Nor have I ever seen anyone work on more than one mesh. Could be very wrong, but if Mudbox is just so you can detail one tool at a time to bring into a different environment, then what’s the damn point? Subtools, and an environment where you can pile them on quickly is the fun side of digital sculpting. It’s a blast creating an entire scene inside of ZBrush, with so much artistic freedom.
For many workflows, I’m sure it’s a great tool. Might even be one for me. At a glance, though, it just doesn’t appeal to the artist in me at all. I couldn’t care less about detailing some dumb ass toad torso if I can’t build onto the scene in house.
Actually Mudbox lets you work with a whole tree of meshes. It’s really a different tool in many ways because it’s designed to fit into a pipeline versus one man band. If you don’t want to use Mudbox’s starting points, then you pretty much start with a base mesh from a more typical modeling program such as Silo, Modo, or Maya. Personally, I use both Mudbox and ZB.
They are two different approaches to the same problem.
Mudbox is geared to users with a pipeline (such as create geometry, detail & paint, animate, render.)
Zbrush is geared to the all-in-one artist. It has tools for creating (zspheres), tools for detailing and paint, and rendering. ZBrush, unless you insist upon counting turntables, really doen’t support animating.
Mudbox plays nice with others including fairly reliable import/export including key elements such as UV in/out, Displacement and Normal maps.
Zbrush does not place nice with others, esp. ZB 3.12. It is quite fussy on UV import (less so in ZB3.1 vs 3.0), and its map generation is broken in ZB3.12. Without map generation, it is difficult to incorporate ZB3.12 model into a pipeline, requiring a mix of PC and Mac tools. This is OK for larger shops, but smaller one-man shops which are Mac-only are SOL.
I’ve also come to seperate the two companies. Autodesk is a big, heartless bureacracy. Pixologic is little, heartless, and often petty operation. (Note the deleted threads they don’t like, the pissing off od Wayne Robson, the inability to even make an accurate statement about bug fixes, etc.)
I like ZB the product, but Pixologic’s attitude is a “take it or leave it.” On the other hand, Pixologic so far has given free upgrades for life. Autodesk will inevitably try to get $200-300/year out of Mudbox users once they hit their stride.
Neither product is ideal. On the Mac platform, ZB is essentially a closed system. This will suffice for single users with little or no intent to render outside of ZB. Shops that need a pipeline will have to to look to other players like Mudbox, Silo, or Modo for sculpting tools.
Since I’m also a teacher with private students, their is another key difference between the products. ZBrush is very steep in learning curve and its user interface can be difficult for novices to manage. For most new users, Mudbox is far more approachable.
I personally believe that, should Pixologic continue to innovate, that users will “graduate” from Mudbox to Zbrush over time. However, this will depend somewhat on Pixologic. My past experience (and that of several of my students on Macs) is that Pixologic is driving their own customers into the arms of Mudbox, if only for the safety of a reliable, interoperable solution. I expect they will be disappointed ovet time in some of Mudbox’s shortcomings. These include: hefty workstation requirements, lower polygon counts than ZB, and (as you have pointed out) no geometry creation tools. I also find that Zbrush, to me, feels more fluid (having worked extensively in both on the PC under Vista.)
Do I plan to keep using mudbox in pipeline projects? Yes. Do I plan on using ZBrush for ground up figure design? Yes. If you can afford both, I recommend both since they do different things. If can you afford only one, then you have to evaluate what you will be doing with the sculptures. If you’re playing in a production pipeline (create-detail-animate-render) with real deadlines, you may want to consider Mudbox. If you are a sculptor who demands the most powerful sculpting environment, you’ll probably want ZB (if you can stand the quirks.) If you’re on a PC and need RAID (say for video editing) you’re hosed with ZB right now.
It is certainly my hope that Pixologic mends it ways with respect to customer relations, but watching threads and people disappear is probably not going to convince me (or anyone else following the ZB vs Mudbox discussions) that ZB truly understands how many of us would like to see them succeed and how disappointed we are in the flawed 3.12 release and their flawed DRM system.
-K
I’ve always wondered about that since I’ve never really seen it. Most of the vids I’ve seen are time lapses. Likely just sketches and busts. Can you use a whole bunch, like with subtools, to deck out a scene? Or does it slow things down beyond a few accessories?
That’s definitely why the box doesn’t seem as good to me, my workflow is not really for 3d output. I could imagine how frustrating it could get within that kind of pipeline if the pieces just don’t fit.
ZBrush is the perfect compliment to digital painting, though. Since that’s what I do all day every day, my opinion is definitely biased and from a different perspective than the usual modeler.
I would also put it this way–I have both Painter and Photoshop. Superficially they do a lot of the same things, but they also do enough different things, I keep them both around. (And I have Sketchbook Pro too, because for quick sketch ups, it’s perfect for me.) It comes down to the right tool for the right job. In this case, through serious missteps, ZB isn’t the right tool for pipeline jobs on the Mac, and the only ways around it are to work in Windows. It’s OK with me if ZB doesn’t want to be pipeline suitable on the Mac, but then they should say so up front, rather than tantalizing their Mac customers with an incomplete and clearly broken product. If Corel had pushed out a version of Painter as broken as ZB3.12, I would have considered dumping them for Photoshop, as many Mac users will likely dump ZB3.12 for Mudbox 2009.
What breaks my heart is: It didn’t have to happen this way. Pixologic made decisions, both architecturally and out of arrogance that has driven much their original Mac base away. They could have made the architecture changes (as they had said) back in the ZB2 days. They didn’t. They could have started the Mac port in parallel with ZB3 Beta, rather than apparently wait until nearly ZB 3.1 was done (or so it seemed.) They could have shown some recognition that 18 months to port ZB3 to the Mac was going to be too long a gap to satisfy their loyal customers. They could have recognized that putting out a barely tested product–dare I say “Beta” product–they call it “transitional” now–was not going to fly with many customers. They could have, by now, at least put out a patch for some of the more flagrant issues with the product, rather simply deleting the dissatisfied discussion of the few customers left from their message board.
Nobody made them promise ZB3.5 in 2008. No one made them say the fixes will be in ZB3.5 instead of the patch. No one made them say, we’ll tell you more in Q1 and then turn around and say, “We’re not going to say anything.” These were Pixologic’s decisions.
As far as mulit-mesh use, I really haven’t pushed Mudbox this way. Because its part of my pipeline, the pieces tend to go straight into Maya for scene making. (Maya has a pretty good rendering environment–Mental Ray.) It doesn’t seem to bog down for me with several meshes, but most of the time I only need a few meshes to develop the character or object in relation to other objects like clothes and accessories. The real comp’ing and rendering work for me is Maya or C4D. Maybe when ZB at least has true rigging (versus simple a on-the-fly transpose that usually requires re-sculpt after posing the figure) I feel that ZB is a sufficiently complete environment for my needs. ZB’s material system, though neat is also rather limiting.
If you’re happy with ZB, there is no need to switch. If you have to work in a pipeline, because you need to do the things ZBrush doesn’t do (which are numerous) then, at least on the Mac, you need to look elsewhere until ZB 3.5 emerges from the shadows.
-K
If they would just release a patch for the Mac version of ZBrush (or even announce that one is imminent) then Mac users would be less inclined to look around for alternatives, because ZBrush totally rocks when it works properly. It would be a tragedy to give away customers rather than fix it.
Hey Kerwin, did they delete the thread that had a workaround to the displacement issue? I can’t seem to find it.
.
Well I’m getting a bit of a special offer from industry chums on Mudbox and I’m happy to create meshes in LW/Modo/Quidam, sculpt and then export for render in my 3D app, so I think Mudbox - in terms of user-friendliness, a sensible, modern UI and speed/power - seems ideal for me.
Still haven’t sold the damn ZBrush license though - wish i could get my money back; maybe I’ll try a begging letter. (Anyone want it?)
Pixologic are insane. All of this could have been avoided with a few nicely-worded emails or forum posts. And I still don’t believe the Mac version couldn’t have been patched by now.
to be totally honest, I own both- and use both. I can see your pain from being a mac user w/ all of the bugs, but can’t relate exactly since I use the PC version.
other than that, the only notable difference (to me) between Z and Mudbox, is that when Mudbox 2010 comes out I will have to pay for it 
Mudbox has its share of flaws as well, but here lately the service packs have been taking care of the major ones. I agree that pixologic needs to put some sort of maintenance cycle into the mix, rather than just one ‘development’ team that handles everything from R&D to the tiny bug fixes. I dont know of a single professional artist who wouldn’t mind paying for some sort of ‘gold’ subscription where we could get regular bug fixes and access to beta builds. that kind of revenue could support the entire development cycle honestly…
Who gives a flying f*** about mudbox.
Don’t get me wrong autodesk make great products, but ZBrush is far superior.
Yes it has a steaper learning curve because of the non-windows-like Interface, but once you get used to it, Windows interfaces look and behave SUCKY! :lol:
I’m telling you guys, when 3.5 comes out it’s gonna blow everything else out of the water.
Mudbox smudgebox…Pixologic just have better stuff - you know it’s true.
I really wanna use 3.5, but I won’t switch because it is taking longer than expected - thats what all the fuss is about - Everyone is not angry because Pixologic lack a development team that can’t code - it’s because they want 3.5 SO BAD