Hi Francis,
I think it would be quite impossible to suggest improvements without pointing ZBrush´s downsides.
One thing that would be obvious to any upgrade was to keep the improvements made in one version to the next, like RAPID UI button, which was very useful in version 3 and was removed from 3.1. The same thing happened with the brushes listed by name in ZB3, which were changed by a fancy shelf with pretty balls, that on the deadline paranoia that professional concept designers live in are obsolete and confusing. If there are so many interface preset options, with all kinds of colors and button corner details, why not leaving at least one option that resembles 3.0 interface?
Unfortunately the great --E-- homemade plugins can´t manage the first 2 brushes in 3.1. Pixologic should have done that for us, as a default, but they didn´t.
In fact Eric (thanks, man!) did for free what Pixologic engineers are paid for, but that´s another case.
One of the most annoyng things that 3 and 3.1 users were forced to become used to, is the fact that ZADD deformations now needs the primitive tools to be converted to polymeshes, and a pop up alerts and reminds us that ZB 2 didn´t have that drawback.
It really looks like a huge step backwards, after so many years of modeling freely on primitives since the first version.
Another interface inconsistency that screams out right in the first seconds of a 3.1 first time user is the name of the TWEAK brush, that as been renamed back to MOVE. It is so basic, such a first usage tool, that was called MOVE, then TWEAK, then MOVE again, and considering that 3.0 and 3.1 releases were just a few months apart, users probably expected to find the same tool names for the same purposes.
One thing that could also be expected in any interface was a single name for a single function, or different names for different functions.
Consider the term “LAYERS”.
In any other software it means just one thing, and nothing else. In ZB layers and 3D layers are in different places, with different purposes, and SUBTOOLS that looks exactly like layers, are not.
Now consider finding, or teaching, like in my case, the concept of TEXTURE to a ZB student.
There is a TEXTURE menu on the screen top, and another TEXTURE submenu under TOOL, that is nothing but a UV MANAGER, and this should be its name, or maybe UV MASTER, since there are so many of them already implemented in the interface.
And when it comes to checking UVs, or going color >texture, sometimes the model becomes black or invisible. Onced you get used to it, OK, but how long does it take to make sense and become natural workflow?
By the way, if I can assign GUV, AUV, shperical, cylindrical an planar UVs to a mesh, or disable them, it would be reasonable if I had a button for bringing in a custom UV made outside ZBrush, as it is so very common in this business.
MAKE POLYMESH is most of the time accessible in the TOOL menu, but in specific situations, it can only be found under DEFORMERS, which is beyond any user´s comprehension.
Yet another interface mistery is after you are done with retopology, and you have projected all your finest details to you new mesh, Meats Meier says in his video tutorial that you can press MAKE ADAPTIVE SKIN, AND create a displacement map from that new topology, but he does not show us how. The fact is that this new skin has all SubDiv levels, but when you go to the lowest and try to create a map, the button CREATE DISPMAP is grayed out, and no matter how hard you try to save it, clone it, rename it, export it or reconstruct subdiv from it, you will not have this button available.
Its a bug, another one. An engineering failure, and a marketing lie.
Just a big a lie, as it was a lie presenting surface rigging miraculous promises in that teaser video, released in 2005, announcing a 2.5 version that never came through.
Yes, I´m mad at all this.
I´m mad to have spent my money on a Beta version.
I´m mad to depend on a bugged software to work, an having to teach ZBrush with all its bittersweet features.
I´m mad because I also spent money and time in DVD tutorials, and I´m having to consider going through it all again to learn MudBox, just because it works as any other 3D application on the market.
I´m mad to be unrespected as a user, as a buyer and as a professional who depends on softwares to deliver a product, and the clients don´t care if it´s a bug or whatever, he wants the job done.
He´s paying a designer for it, and I´m supposed to deliver it well and on time.
That´s why I don´t care about a sleek interface, it could look lide DOS, as long as it worked consistently and coherently, all the time.
Well, Siggraph is on its way, and hopefully Pixologic may care a bit more about usability than a fancy outlook this time.
They owe it to us all.
Nice try on those Betas, it was nice playing with the new toy, but please hand me a working version 4.0, I got jobs piling on my desk and some bills to pay.
Oh yes, and a Mac version with french fries, will ya?
Bye all,
Montalvo