Yeh, as someone who has used Max since the bad old days, I’d have to observe that its poor reputation is not entirely deserved. Whilst I’ve switched to XSI for the most part, Max really excels in the “quick and dirty” jobs where you’ve gotta get it done fast. Particle systems are much better than XSI, and Brazil and vRay are really sweet renderers. There are some problems with Max’s architecture, but I’d very happily have a licence on hand for personal use if I could justify the purchase.
definately something cool in store for the merger of Max and Maya, that is bound to happen…
I see a huge potentiaL for Mudbox with Maya. With big R&D behind it I see serious competition for ZB. The pace of development in ZB has been so slow that another year will be a change in leadership in sculpting programs. I for one am still waiting for a decent Maya mouse navigation in ZB. How hard can it be? Maybe Pixologic hear its customers now , maybe not.
Well bless my socks, I see 3.1 is out, maybe they heard after all :eek:
LOL. You are so evil!!! I would have LOVED that myself being a PC member at DAZ!! Oh well. I like ZBrush better anyways!!! 
The best thing that ever happened for zbrush users was when mudbox came out. Much like back in the day when there was Maya and Max always clashing heads. They would totally ripping each other off on cool new features (and inciting many Nerdgasims at SIGGRAPH). Case in point on improvements after Mudbox.
- Now there are layers
2)Now there are subtools - Now there is a gradient background (I’m not really sure why they ripped that off)
4)Now there is selective subdivision on only part of a mesh (at least its in the documentation I haven’t actually done it yet) - They actually came out with a new (:rolleyes: beta) version.
- ? No maya hotkeys. That actually suprises me though maybe with the 3.1 hotkey editor it can be done.
Don’t get me wrong I’m totally a zbrush guy and think once it gets more stable will be the greatest thing ever in CG modeling. Like someone once said, “Good artist copy and great artist steal.”
I don’t think Autodesk is going to RIP mudbox. Just as they haven’t RIPed Motion Builder but have just seeminly started to work out the kinks with making there products compatable. I’m not sure how motion builder has evolved (I don’t use it) though being at SIGGRAPH they are definatlly still pushing people to buy it and showing how there working out the compatibility bugs. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but I hope that they make some improvements in it so zbrush can take the best of them. Ultimatly that may have to wait a couple of years when Maya and Max will surely merge and it gets thrown in the mix.
I still dont understand why people compare ZBrush and Mudbox so much… Mudbox is only a sculpting program and it only compares (mildly) to ZBrush in the sculpting arena
people seem to often forget that sculpting is only (in my mind) roughly 1/3 of what zbrush is built for and capable of
the only two features I have ever heard anybody claim Mudbox to have over zbrush are the Maya style navigation and tangent symmetry… I find it really really hard to believe that those two features justify buying a whole nother (more expensive) program which leaves behind the 2.5D painting, texturing, rendering, transposing, materials, re-topologizing, customizing, movie-recording, billion polygons, and above all pixologic’s awesome generosity and interaction with their customers
I can see Mudbox being something interesting if they find a way to integrate it smoothly into Max or Maya or the inevitable superbeast merging of softwares… but I’ll believe it when I see it… and it’s looked to me like development always slows to a crawl in the midst of mergers, so I doubt I’ll see it for quite a while
but the biggest professional interest in zbrush is for its ability to sculpt hires onto 3d meshes.
frankly, most modelers are truly IRRITATED by zbrush’s other features because they invariably get in the way.
the app has a legacy a paint program… not as a 3d program and while i can totally understand why many cherish zbrush for it’s unique character and ability to make really unique images quickly, for others, it really does just get in the way.
zb is a pit stop before maya (or lightwave, xsi, etc.)
i always thought that zb could benefit tremendously from acknowledging this fact and making a different interface tailored for sculpting 3d modelers… and it seems that with the latest revisions, this is coming to pass.
that’s good.
as for mudbox acquisition, i think autodesk will bring quality and discipline… but at a STEEP PRICE.
very few of maya or max’s point releases are free.
so for those who don’t have limitless supplies of money, you get the worst of all worlds - FREQUENT UPGRADES. PAID UPGRADES. EXPENSIVE UPGRADES.
i do a very focused analysis of what software i can afford to buy. i take into account not only purchase price but TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP including price and frequency of upgrades.
mudbox failed in their initial release according to my metric. i have no doubt that it will become worse after the autodesk acq.
but gladly, i am a proud new zb3.1 owner since siggy and have a hiroshi “dots” sculpture (10 of 10!) to prove it. turns out that zbrush passes my affordability metric!
woo hoo!
sculpting time for me!
jin
With all due respect >> if you use Word (just one example of many), do you complain because you never use charts within this app, and still there are menues for it?
Taking away things “below” 3D from ZBrush? Impossible!
i’m NOT advocating taking anything away.
i’m just telling you that for most of us who come from modeling from programs like maya, max, lightwave, nendo, etc, we aren’t here primarily for the paint program aspect.
i want to make and work with MODELS… not a canvas.
but, as i said, i totally understand those who like that aspect of zb.
anyhoo, it is an issue that pixologic created by trying to cater to both crowds.
all they need to do is create an interface that is aimed at one crowd or the other (which they are starting to do) (and similar to dreamweaver [artist interface or programmer interface]) and the same program can be all to all people.
anyway, this is why people compare zb to mudbox… because they don’t really care about the other aspects of zb.
jin
oh,
and ask any 3d modeler familiar with using max, maya, etc…
the analogy of WORD with CHARTS is NOT AT ALL AKIN to the situation between zbrush and 3d modeling.
it is not just that there are other windows and options that allow for painting on a canvas… the entire program and all of its conventions betray a workflow that is ALIEN (yes, that strong) to most 3d modelers.
anyhoo, the question was asked. this is the answer.
but the interface is becoming MUCH more friendly to the modelers (i would bet that this is as a result of clients like ilm, ubisoft, and many users) while retaining its canvas creation properties so it seems like pixologic is navigating the dangerous waters well.
jin
The interface has been discussed for the entire lifespan of ZBrush so far. Mainly because of being “non standard”, and being difficult.
Now, time has done the most work there for me - you simply get used to it.
So with the actual version - I still do not need displacement maps (maybe I should), and I do not find it especially difficult to ignore my possibility of using them. There is no final render for me within ZBrush - same thing: nice to know I could, and that’s about it then.
What I mean: a stripped down version (either 2,5D or 3D) would force me to decide what version it had to be, when the presence of an “overload” of possibilities does not hurt me at all.
Also, I can see no radical change to the interface now, just some cosmetics maybe.
I wasn’t aware that there was an universal interface that everyone except zbrush used.:rolleyes:
maybe it’s your perpetually rolling eyes that prevent you from seeing clearly.
jin
zaphod,
again, it is not the overload that i am saying is the problem. it is the, as you said, “nonstandard” nature of the interface.
worst thing for me was the “pick up/drop” workflow and that my model is a tool. this works PERFECTLY for a program where your EMPHASIS is the canvas and you only want to doodle around a little bit for a polymesh that is merely a COMPONENT of the painting.
this is BAD for a person whose ENTIRE FOCUS is the polymesh. and the fact that you can ACCIDENTALLY DROP your model… that is not a natural workflow for 3d modelers.
this is what i mean that the very essence of the program is alien to “traditional” 3d modeler.
anyway, if you’re not intimately familiar with other 3d modeling paradigms, you may not understand what i’m getting at… but i am not saying that there is problem with MORE per se.
the new interface has little touches like allowing you to start with a polymesh (most likely a sphere for creators) and then you start off in a mode that is familiar to 3d modelers.
sure, you could accidentally drop your model but the new interface seems to make concessions for the 3d modeler… especially 3.1.
jin
p.s. ctrl-click-release ctrl-drag… worst… interface… idea… ever… seriously… wtf?! there are other option keys! this is something that has always made me want to punch my screen.
also,
it took me a VERY long time to realize that ROTATING THE MODEL is how you’re supposed to work.
THIS IS ANATHEMA to 3d modelers!
you leave your model as centered and orthogonal as possible and you only ever rotate around YOUR VIEW - never the model.
again, something that is alien to traditional 3d modelers.
and perhaps it is incorrect to say “interface” only that is alien. it is the philosophy? the main emphasis of the program? anyway, in many ways, we can tell that this is not a program that was designed originally to do 3d and for 3d modelers, this has been an issue.
jin
I was introduced to ZBrush as a modeler and it only garnered my interest as a new and unique way to model… but now that I’ve experimented with every aspect of the program and understand the way it works and the concepts behind it, I see the sculpting as the secondary aspect of the program
2.5D is the basic underlying concept of ZBrush, and it is originally that concept which allowed detailed, brush-based 3d sculpting in the first place… I think the 3d sculpting was implemented as a more intuitive manner of 2.5D painting… instead of trying to paint 3d images in 2d space (which just isnt intuitive), you can sculpt objects like clay with the 2.5D tools and then construct your 2.5D images piece by piece
personally, I fell in love with this idea when it finally clicked with me… it’s the most beautifully unique and powerful concept in digital art since the invention of layers
after hanging around here and reading stuff from the older ZBrush veterans, playing with the older interfaces, and studying the way zbrush evolved from these concepts, it seems to me that zbrush’s integration into full 3d workflows was kind of incidental… and dont get me wrong… it’s awesome… but I’m starting to share the opinion with a few of the older zbrushers around here, that it’s a shame pixologic is under so much pressure to cut their roots and focus entirely on the full 3d side of things
the only thing that disappointed me when 3.0 was released was the complete lack of any new 2.5D features… it’s 100% sculpting upgrades… and it’s all awesome stuff… but it’s just sad to see that original spark of genius getting left behind…
that root is what makes ZBrush different, and still more powerful, than anything else… sure other programs are starting to catch on and explore the sculpting feature, but they’re only exploring a side-effect of the original 2.5D concept, which is why I cannot consider them even comparable… they’re spelunking a single cave in an entire world that pixologic opened up and I hope people see that and stop trying to pressure them into trapping themselves in that cave as well with threats of competition
so what if someone else claims that cave - there’s a whole world to conquer
I dont understand the problem people have with the interface… it takes a little getting used to, but really… what is the fundamental difference between rotating your model or rotating your view around the model?.. I can open up maya and rotate around my model, and then open up zbrush and rotate my model and you know what?.. it looks like exactly the same thing on my screen!
the alt+click movement is wonderful… it’s all the movement in the program summarized in a single key which your finger never has to leave… that’s convenience like nothing else… why do something with 4 keys when you can do it with 1?
and dropping the model shouldnt even be an issue because you don’t lose it… it’s still right there in the tool menu exactly the way it was when you dropped it, and it should even be already selected for you… ctrl+n, click-and-drag… you’re back to work
I just dont understand how somebody can look at Maya, Max, etc, and then look at ZBrush… and then say that ZBrush’s interface is difficult… my only assumption is that when you’re used to clutter, you get confused when it’s cleaned up
@jin
Well, as we must live with what we’ve got (and, it is quite a lot, I think), I am in a way glad to see, that folks with a different background also have to find a way to deal with the ritual of “mastering” the interface.
Might have been a reason to at least try MB, but (thankfully?) the previous owner made this not that much easy (your metrics). I think this will not change with MB being at Autodesk.
Does this bother me?
Certainly not!
salmongod “the only thing that disappointed me when 3.0 was released was the complete lack of any new 2.5D features… it’s 100% sculpting upgrades… and it’s all awesome stuff… but it’s just sad to see that original spark of genius getting left behind…”
I totally agree with this statement, i was very saddend to not see any updates to the 2.5 features, lighting/rendering etc.
jindoung"maybe it’s your perpetually rolling eyes that prevent you from seeing clearly."
what’re you twelve?