Have fun with this crazzy Nurbs modeler! 
(existe en “french version” 
HelloThis may seem silly, that I am asking this on a zbrush forum, but I was wondering which was better, zbrush or mudbox? Are they essentially the same? I work in Maya and Zbrush currently and was just wondering if mudbox was worth my time.
Mudbox is simpler to use but not less powerful when it comes to detailing. I am selling my pro license. Transfer is possible without fuzz. I am using ZB for ages and bought Mudbox for a single job and now it’s sitting on the shelve… If anyone is interested, make me an offer.
Cheers
Rainer
I can try and answer your question as someone who started out with ZB2 and had no clue what I was doing. I’m a decent 2D illustrator and when I found ZBrush I rushed right in to try to make my drawings a 3D reality without learning the tool properly.
I checked your user gallery and it looks like you were doing the same thing I did when I found ZBrush. I’ve worked with Mudbox and Zbrush and the fact of the matter is, to achieve good results, ZBrush and Mudbox work the same way. Neither program has a secret. You always HAVE TO HAVE PATIENCE AND BUILD THE FORM THROUGH EACH LEVEL OF SUBDIVISION. Work each and every level of the very basic base mesh until you can’t work it anymore—then you’re ready to step up and subdivide.
In other words, if you’re trying to detail an eye wrinkle at level 3 and it “spikes up”—it’s not ready for detailing. Leave it alone…work the rest of the model overall until the next level. Your eye wrinkles won’t have any base to be built on without a base.
Sure, there are a lot of tools that are are proprietary to each program, but the basis of each are the same. If you’re looking to make a purchase, I would say, hands down, buy ZBrush. It has much more power at this point than Mudbox, and it is a GREAT deal for what they charge. The polypainting alone is worth it. Then add in the ZBC community and all of the useful plugs that are offered for free. Not to mention that compared to Mudbox, there is a boatload of documentation and support for Zbrush.
Check out the wiki if you haven’t already: http://www.zbrush.info/docs/index.php/TOC
Also, check out VEOH.com and search for ZBrush. Lots of nice tutorials there. If you’re looking for in-depth tutorials, Gnomon and Digital Tutors have a great selection of DVDs that can help clear the way too.
Hope this helped!
I used both, and I prefer ZBRUSH to Mudbox. Mudbox is way slower, changing levels are slow, etc. The only advatnages over zbrush are the true 3D brush, and the viewport controls (although for sculpting I prefer the zbrush way). And in mudbox there are no true materials. But a bit more user friendly. But to me functionality is more important than the user friendliness.
Well you also have to remember that zbrush is more then a 3d sculpting tool plus the fact is that when sculpting it is not true 3d but rather 2.5d so they act and work a little different from each other i know one thing that is different is the way the move brush acts in mudbox compare to zbrush because one is acting in a 3d environment and the other in a 2.5d environment. Mudbox is a true 3d sculpting environment most people jumped ship to mudbox in the past because it was the first sculpting package to have interactive layers along with a simple user interface and true vertex symmetry which made it easy to sculpt posed characters symmetrically. Also the two packages behave somewhat different from each other when sculpting and the file saves are alot larger in mudbox then in zbrush because its a true 3d environment and zbrush is implied 3d plus it runs on a different algorithm.
Also like what was already said zbrush can handle allot more polygons then mudbox when sculpting and when switching through subdivision levels with out slowing down. It pretty much comes down to whether you want a package that is just for pure sculpting or you would like a do everything tool all in one package.
WOW, thank you all for you informative responses. Like I had said I already use Zbrush and have not had any reason to switch, I was just thinking that since Autodesk acquired mudbox the pipeline might be a little easier.
That being said, I have not yet fully explored a Maya->Zbrush pipeline yet, aside from exporting/importing .obj files.
On this point i was wondering if any of you knew a good tut or reference that really explains/illustrates a proper Maya/ZBrush pipeline, one in which textures can transfer.
Can some one answer my post above?
Hi. Before the flames start, and I get banned, I want people to know why I feel that Mudbox was ripped off of Zbrush.
The foremost reason is that one of the founders is Dave Cardwell. We all know that he and the Weta boys from Lord of the Rings beta tested Zbrush 2.0. We all enjoyed seeing Dave’s work before we had a copy of Zbrush 2 to drool over!
But at the same time, it seems that Cardwell and friends were busy creating Mudbox with the INTENT to sell it! So Pixolator was basically working with the enemy! I was very excited when I originally saw that there was another program along the lines of Zbrush. But I was deeply saddened when I found out what Mr. Cardwell and friends had done.
The next reason that I believe that the Skymatter boys are a bunch of thieving fools: THEY SOLD OUT TO AUTODESK AT VERSION 1.0!!! Come on, if they TRULY had any pride in their product, and were not just out to sell a stolen idea, they wouldn’t have sold the company so quickly. Look at Silo, Modo, and others that have a great following, but are not selling at this point. Because they actually OWN the idea that they sell.
This Mudbox thing has erked me since I learned Dave Cardwell was involved. I am surprised no one else has mentioned this in this forum.
You can see some of the details about the creators of Mudbox in this interview:
Don’t know if you saw this. Many months old but…
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=49346&page=2&pp=15&highlight=autodesk
Its only a “TOTAL ripoff” if they actually stole the code, or some of if, for thier Software. Was Zbrush the first to develope an artist friendly software for high resolution modeling and editing, yes. It does not appear that Mudbox wants to be a illustrators tool (the way Zbrush is)… another reason its not a “total” rip off. Much of the other 3d apps we use took old school CAD programs and made them better suited for 3d animation developement. I’m certainly not complaining that I have multiple choices today, i.e Maya, XSI, 3ds Max, Lightwave, Cinema 4d etc. etc…
Zbrush is a powerful tool at a great price, but it has its problems, mostly with its non intuitive workflow in a 3d animation pipeline. If it were not for these issues, Weta may have never looked to develope thier own tool. Having said that, IMO Zbrush>Mudbox, (even with its “issues”) for the time being.
Ultimately competition is good for the end user. Its up to Zbrush to address its flaws now, and I hope they do. Ideally, they will/would make a more 3d animation pipeline friendly spin off version, thus “ripping off” Mudbox.
Amorphium existed long before the first ZBrush was released, did Pixolator rip off Amorphium? Of course not, actually the idea of mesh sculpting is blindingly obvious, ZB was just the first app to do it really well, Mudbox was the second. There will be others…
Hey guys. I am hearing you on all of your points and agree. I enjoy competition to add variety, help set prices, and spur innovation and progress, no problems with competing 3d apps and modelers. And I am not against another program having similar/identical backgrounds or principles.
My main quabble is that Dave Cardwell and Weta Digital were such heavy beta testers of Zbrush and worked directly with Pixolator. Imagine you own a race car team, and you work specifically with Toyota to develop new technology. Then the members of your race team suddenly have an IDENTICAL idea and sell it! Surely anyone who would be motivated to create a similar program to Zbrush would be a Zbrush user/fan. But to have such trust in the Weta team from Pixolator, and then a backstab! If they truly cared, they wouldn’t have HANDED Zbrush competition to Autodesk in less than a year; this portrays the possibility that it was all financially motivated. The BEST thing they could have done, would have been to collaborate with Zbrush to make a new/alternate interface. That is what I would have done if I truly appreciated the help that Pixolator gave me and my team. They obviously had the know-how. So rather than help make their BRILLIANT friend Pixolator ADVANCE Zbrush, they decided to sell some competition to ZBrush and then sold it to Wal-Mart, leaving their users behind, and their project! No heart.
Actually , that is how programmers/developers work. If you like a piece of software, but it doesnt completely suit your needs. You make one yourself that does.
i can’t imagine you’re entirely serious with this argument a. it’s not as though folks are offered the opportunity to beta test apps solely for their benefit. if anything we could make the strong assumption that a lot of the feedback given by those mudbox guys was met with some opposition by pixologic. so there they are ( again an assumption ) attempting to give back in support of the app ( zbrush ) and where that relationship fails they decide to create an app of their own. while both apps work with the same basic concept. brush based sculpting. they approach it from almost polar opposite philosophies
maybe its a mind game!
maybe spys from russia came over here to invent Zbrush, make it super complex and update it once a decade to confuse us into a digital age of polygons. Meanwhile a cold war is creeping up all around us. With all the super nerds at peace with their polygons we would have never seen it coming.The good people at WETA invented Mudbox to mask this also. By creating a program that would dummy down the interface, so that the 2nd class nerds that could not handle Zbrush would also be distracted.
and what about autodesk?
OW NO
NOT AUTODESK!!!
you guys what if autodesk?( Is icisae initae to itea)
(puts on foil hat)
True, developers make tools that suit them best. It’s all good. We are just a closely knit bunch because we have all been involved closely with the development of certain programs. We don’t want to see anything bad happen to that community. I mean, what if Autodesk bought Zbrush? Would you be happy about this? Probably not, I wouldn’t.
This whole thing came up when a friend at work was saying how much he LOVES Modo and the interface. And he was saying that he gets FREQUENT updates as well as personal relationship with the developers, and they ACTUALLY CARE about the program/project and their users. Modo is similar to Mudbox in that it is also a bastard child of another program: Lightwave (I’m sure most are aware of the founders of Modo). So one could probably make the same argument that I am about Modo and Newtek, but there IS a difference. Modo CONTINUES to develop their project with care. Skymatter sold out at 1.0 like a bunch of whores.
IF this was their original intention, they could have tried a LITTLE harder to persuade Pixolator to let them help with Zbrush development. This is all hypothetical, because none of us know what went on between Weta and Pixologic. If Weta members told Pixolator specifically: “we plan to develop a competing product with intentions of selling the app.” Perhaps there could have been some collaboration: again hypothetical. And I realize that none of this is terribly realistic! I personally would much rather have Mudbox’s features available in Zbrush, rather than have Autodesk whoring out Mudbox.
You should really watch what you say, and have you facts a bit straighter.
Dave, Tibor and Andrew were all at weta beta testing Zbrush 2 and some would argue helping pixologic turn zbrush from a toy into a production tool.
The reason mudbox was born was because at some point there was a fundamental difference in thought between Pixologic and the weta guys about what Zbrush needs to be, and how it should work. Pixologic was not going to make the tool they wanted, so skymatter was created to bring those ideas to fruition.
Last time I checked this was the entertainment business. Movies, video games, tv shows are there to sell advertisements and make money first, and entertain second I’m afraid. Dave, Tibor and Andrew funded the creation of mudbox and payed a small team of programmers with their own money for probably 2 years, kinda ballsy.
I always find it entertaining when kids complain that people/studios/ companies have sold out. If someone hands you a cheque with X millions dollars on it, i would like to know if you rip it up when put in that position. People have families, kids, mortgages.
Lastly, did you ever think of the positives of Autodesk acquiring mudbox. The resources now available to develop the program have just gone up by a factor of 100. Dave, Tibor and Andrew now all work for Autodesk guiding the programs development, with a team of 30? programmers instead of 2 or 3. If they had really wanted to sell out they would of taken their money and ran, not still be involved with the product at the highest of levels.
Looking at things a little differently now?
Very true; Since those 3 are still WITH Autodesk, I will change my perspective slightly. And I will also retract the “selling out like whores” comments. But you should watch what you say before you call me a “kid”. And I never claimed to KNOW of any facts, and believe I specifically said hypothetically.
The fact that there may have been a “difference of thought” BETWEEN Weta and Pixologic UNDERMINES the fact that Pixologic was GRACIOUS enough to enlist the help of Weta, and SUGGESTS that Weta was somehow entitled to this relationship and the opportunity. But you could definitely argue that if those 3 were not involved with Pixologic, then Mudbox would not exist.
I know everybody is about money and we gotta pay mortgages, but that CAN’T be the end of EVERY story! If that were the case, than we would be having this discussion in the Autodesk forums instead of the Pixologic forums. The other side of the argument is that MONEY has driven the industry to give us many things that we are close to, such as Zbrush. But I don’t believe that Pixolator’s MAIN motivation for Zbrush was money, it seems to me that it was ART and INNOVATION.
Either way, this is more of a rant by me than an argument. I don’t know why I get so personal over software? The gentlemen at Weta are very talented and deserve their chance too.
PS: I find it funny that the “Other” forum is even heavily moderated here.