ZBrushCentral

Other commercial applications discussion thread

Community
#521

yep, same sentiments here. Tried it out in Bootcamp, and I don’t know how I could ever be productive with MB 2009. Divided a simple model up to just over 1 million polys and the lag was really noticeable. There are some nice layered texture painting features there—but after just 3 paint layers were created, I got a “low memory” warning. Yikes!

I think you have to have a fairly nice graphics card to run it effectively. I do not have a super great graphics card (just the one that came with my imac), so that probably explains why I was having problems. Oh well!

#522

I just tried it out as well. I must say that I am disappointed on the apparent hardware demands of this program. I can’t barely move within the viewport. There are some cool features, but I feel that ZBrush is much more usable and efficient within my pipeline. I would love for Pixologic to include some sort of Image Texture painter with layers, like in Bodypaint.

I also extent my ‘Thank You’ to Pixologic for making Zbrush.:slight_smile: - Lennart

#523

word to that sentiment max, but thats what makes this niche of the industry exciting, the constant competing between mudbox and zbrush is what makes them such innovative programs. always on their toes so to speak. lets just hope they never sell out to autodesk.

#524

That just it henrysouth, we have to thank mudbox simply because it pushes zbrush to become better. Competition is what drives innovation yet zbrush is so far ahead I don’t ever see mudbox to be on par with it in the near future.

#525

Guys do not get me wrong but if anyone is going to spend 750$ on an application they better get a better computer. Mudbox uses alot of vertex shaders and gpu related stuff. it is very naive of you to demand that it should run on slower computers with lesser graphics cards. On the otherhand Zbrush is not an opengl application, they just are not same.

I have tried Mudbox as well and I really think that they have done a very good job as far as sculpting and tools go. In all fairness it is pretty good sculpting tool. However I would have no reason to move to Mudbox especially with that price tag on it. I think that it is overpriced. That is like price of Modo which offers sculpting, texture painting, modelling rendering and some basic animation (plus scripting, macros, deformations etc).

#526

hardly naive, to get a client base make it accessible. i mean bugger buying maya on my pay cheque but zbrush is always there and with a full pipeline, mudbox is always going to be the slow older brother of zbrush. and frankly i dont know many studios that use mudbox at least without zbrush to back it up.

#527

I tried it earlier and it ran fine for me. Not that i’m going to switch from ZB or anything, but i subdivided a mesh up to 33 million polys and was able to work on it comfortably. Maybe it’s because i’m running on Vista 64bit.

#528

I doubt that Mudbox is a Zbrush killer since Zbrush is totally a different ball game to start with. But I am sure that Mudbox will gain a lot of ground after this release even after such pricing. Remember when Modo came out it was 800$ for a modeler and everyone ridiculed, many people was unhappy that it did not have this and that but most of those people use Modo at this point. I am sure Mudbox will do well because of texture painting and high poly count. As I said thou I am a happy ZBrush-Modo camper so I have no reason to move to Mudbox. But I am sure that more and more companies will want their employees to know Mudbox. So it is a good reason to download the trial and learna as much as you can.

All I want Pixologic to fix mesh explosion problem and odd issues with retopo using zspheres for the next release. Once those are out of the way nothing can beat ZBrush for quite sometime.

Btw if you are a serious digital sculptor you need to move to 64bit operating system . The 64bit os will make all the difference in the world even for Zbrush. Just make sure that you put at least 8 gb ram.

#529

ok im done with mudbox ill give them another chance in version 3. it has a bunch of nice features like real time amb occ real time tone mapper real time cgfx matariels etc. but its sculpts pretty crappy in my opinion. im sure the ground work is there and in 2 or so more versions it might kick ass but for today i feel zbrush is still king and i still got best value from my zbrush. that 500 bucks i spent 4 years ago was the best money i ever spent

#530

A paintbrush, a pencil and a airbrush? :eek:

It’s what Mudbox V1.0 should’ve been, so it’s hard to be impressed. They’ve basically just delivered on the hype of Mudbox V1. Maybe Mudbox 2010 will deliver on the hype of Mudbox 2009 and there’ll be decent painting tools.

With a bit of luck they may even match the power of MS Paint with Mudbox 2020.

#531

I have tried MB. I’ve noticed a significant improve on polygon quantity, I could easily work with 8 millions of polygons, on my XP32, Gef8800 (not being a qualified card). BUT. Sculpting was nowhere to zbrush. There are few tools that came handy, like erase, scrape. It is good, that the side panels contains every setting to the given tool I am using. Layers are far better than in Zbrush. AO didn’t impressed me too much. Nor tone mapping. The new shaders ddin’t gave me as much visual feedback as the matcap materials in ZBRush.

All in all, in my case ZBrush vs Mudbox 2:0. That doesn’t mean mudbox is ****, it has lot of features, that would be nice in ZBrush. It’s my overall score.

#532

Really interesting points about volumetric sculpting in the last few posts. I did tend to think of volumetric sculpting as being the non plus ultra method for free sculpting. But CowboyBunny is quite right with his point, that a lot of sculpting approaches base on the subdivision model and it’s side effects. I really doubt that volumetric sculpting has any substancial benefits over the subdivided mesh when it comes to closed forms and broad surfaces.

But were I really see the domain of volumetric modelling is in the field of massive detail and greeble. I did this smal test in 3D Coat and I really would love to be able to do this in ZBrush:

[Junkyard_01.jpg]Junkyard_03.jpg

These are screenshots straight out of the 3D Coat Viewport. The gradient was added in Photoshop. I mainly used the snake tool to construct the “beams”. I guess Meats Meier would love this approach…

It’s a nice thing to be able to “grow” rocks without any stretching issues and to fuse those outstretching forms together. It complete freedom an the side of structural detail. That’s were I think, volumetric sculpting shines. For creatures and other things with low structural and high surface detail, I think the subdivided mesh approach still is better.

Attachments

Junkyard_02.jpg

#533

Ok Got the MudBox out and used it for 5 hours wih training vids and help files and had a real close look at as much as I vould do in that period.
My Conclusion"

  1. It is by far INFERIOR to ZBrush even though I was hoping beyond hope that it would be a killer so I could leave ZBrush behind with all its quirkiness and faults.
    But NO - Autodesk failed again to capitalize on an opportunity and it all boils down to lack of control depth in most areas.
  2. The fact that rendering, well what rendering is so lame for starters.
  3. The materials are way to short in control and depth.
  4. The overall speed is OK but falls apart badly after 2 million eg.
    The viewport speed on my machine (Q6600 with a midrange VCard) was actually OK but who cares because in ZB it just does not matter.
  5. The little tweaks in lights, shadows, depth of field, fog etc are almost non existant not to mention the many brushess that ZB HAS and MB does NOT.

On a good note some of the layer GUI was OK and maybe ZB could take a look at making their layers system more approachable.

OK As I said I was hoping to find a replacement for ZBrush but all I found were 5 hours wasted. This MudBox is NOT a competitor for ZBrush at this stage and if I may suggest something to Autodesk - you listening guys? - if you are going to continue to develop it then for the sake of all of us and for Autodesk’s credibility PLEASE, either forget it or do a real development and dont waste so much money on HYPING your products but on the development of them.

Its a sad day for Autodesk! Its a sad day for us all because Zbrush could really do with a serious challenge.

#534

Sorry for the spam! Just trying to make a point here. Added more details.

[Junkyard_04.jpg]

And I would definetely say that real drop shadows would be a major enhancement to ZBrush, too.

#535

You people are so grumpy, pissed off and negative :slight_smile: Art requires a positive attitude :slight_smile:

Mudbox is a good tool and if you are a serious digital sculptor and have some money on the side you should own it. It is a good tool with some extra features that ZB does not have like layered painting.

Lets also make it clear that these 2 tools are not the same technology. They may serve for common purpose but they are on totally different machines. To me they are not competing with eachother even thou they seem to be competitors. One is a 3d tool other one is 2.5d tool. For example if you want precise polygon drawing and real perspective probably Mudbox is a better choice. If you want freedom probably ZB is your choice. Mudbox also offers uv matching when importing a mesh which domething ZB does not have. ALso ZB has mesh explosion problem when importing a new uv model which is a serious hassle at least for me. Mudbox does not seem to have that.

Anyways I love ZB and i will be sticking to it. But when I have some extra cash I might buy Mudbox at some point.

#536

ive tried Mudbox aswell…where is performance??? complicated controls…
Zbrush forever!)) Waiting for Z4 )

#537

MB’s gui and camera manipulation are its selling points for me. Not as quirky to a maya user. I downloaded both MB & ZB program trials and used each for the first time this week. I can sculpt the same in both but feel more comfortable in MB.

my 2cents

#538

For my part, I take the human guy that come from mudbox and push him to 33 millions poly and it’s easy to work on. I have a Ati 1600 xt pro, 4 gig ram, core2duo, and it’s going fine exept a little lag when I finish to sculpt, it’s a bug they have with all ATI card, they are suppose to correct it. For performance, I found it pretty good now. The paint tool can be better sure, but for me, the most important was the projection brush… the rubberstamp must be welcome by the way… I like the fact that I can model and having a image ref in the background who follow my character when I move the camera in front view, pretty useful.

#539

same here - took the sample guy and pushed him up to 33 Millions of polys and sculpting and painting worked like a charm. No speed decrease what so ever… The performance is definitely great on my system (Vista x64, Quadro FX 1700, 8 GB RAM) but feature-wise it´s nothing that makes me really wanna upgrade (own Mudbox 1 non-Commercial and Autodesk wants about 400 EUR for an update) Waiting for ZBrush 3.5! Let´s see what Pixologic have up their sleeves…

Marco

#540

Most* production workflows in games, don’t use retopo tools, I’d say. Seems the norm’ to work from a concept in a 3dediting programme. But I can see in fields where visualisation is more of a factor that it would be a big plus. Which considering Mudbox2009 seems to be aiming for that market it’s very odd that it doesn’t include retopo tools.

3dcoat - Nemomiod was saying the great advantaged of 3dcoat, I just wanted to add that it’s path and marquee tools are superb for creating hard surface-like details. Something which is hard to do in any other sculpting tool. Great for so adding details to though normal maps.

On the downside I loathe it’s sculpting tools and it’s brushes. Not being able to change subd-levels is a head turner for me. Vers. should address these issues.

I tested the Mudbox 2009trial It’s really unimpressive for new tools. It lacks a lot of tools you’ve come to rely on, like the lazy brush. Tho the tools it does have seem to be greatly improved, the pressure and control just seem heavenly to use. The feel of the brushes really is amazing. And of course the super high resolution models you can get. On my machine I get about twice the polycount compared to Zbrush 3.