ZBrushCentral

Other commercial applications discussion thread

Community
#561

all programs are typically x64 compatible. For example, the entire adobe master collection (with the exception of photoshop) is 32bit native. But it installs just fine on a 64bit Windows OS. The same goes for ZBrush- it has no native 64bit version, it’s just a 32bit app running on a 64bit system.

All 32bit apps are given a 4gb RAM limit on x64, when the app is native 64bit the sky is the limit. Meaning the 8GB of ram I have would actually benefit me in ZBrush. I can currently get higher polycounts in Mudbox 2009 than Z3 due to the fact that mudbox is native 64bit and uses as much RAM as I allow.

Not that I particularly NEED higher polycounts at the moment, but to say Zbrush takes ‘full advantage’ of your 64bit OS is misleading to say the least.

#562

I really meant to say compliant. I’m sure there was some noise around here of a 64 bit version of Zbrush.
Just like you Testure I’ve been, educated that the only real advantage of a 64bit OS is that it allows a user to use an abudents of memory.

One question I have is, can a 32bit pieace of software on a 64 bit OS use over 3gb of ram? & outside of memory are there any other worthy advanatages of 64 over 32bit?

Anyone actually 100% completely know the answer to this question?

#563

I’m guessing you were joking?! If not then I guess I’ve been duped >.< Becuase that really is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. I guess it’s all dependent on how large your monitor is and resolution, but still, I can’t see how u can tell the difference in “detail” from a 100k sphere and a infinity poly sphere unless your monitor is the size of Europe!

#564

No, I wasn’t joking. Turns out it was caused by a bug in Mudbox that resulted in spikey strokes when using a very small brush. I don’t know if they’ve since fixed it as my trial ran out.

ps… Mudbox is a nice program. I’m not trying to crap on it. Just stating facts :slight_smile:

#565

Sounds like, possibly a shader thing?
Anyway, that spikey issue you mentioned, reminds me of another issue in Zbush, how it doesn’t handle polls well at all(5 edges or more that join together) I noticed that mudbox doesn’t have the same problems. Tho, I haven’t fully tested mudbox.
Still Mudbox isn’t half the program Zbrush is. I really think since Zbrush 3 kinda destroyed the market competition. Mudbox developers thought it best to aim for a different market, that being highend only.

I hope Mudbox will keep giving Pixologic the competition it needs. As it seems to respond to it.

#566

Mudbox is really intended to be just for detailing. Skymatter may have added modeling features but now that Autodesk are running the show I suspect the programmers have been instructed to make it complement their other applications like Maya, rather than compete with them.

So competition is more likely to come from 3D Coat rather than Mudbox.

#567

Running ZB3 in an 64Bit Vista environment enables ZB to aquire 4GB RAM as it is large address aware. Running in 64Bit mode also yields about 10-15% more performance from the processor as certain operation require less cycles.
32Bit is DEAD, nobody develops or invests with a focus on 32Bit any longer.
Lemo

#568

As lemmonado mentioned, in addition to having access to a larger amount of memory, you also see performance increases due to the fact that 64bit systems move larger amounts of information at a given time (thus using less cpu cycles to complete a similar task on a 32bit machine). This happens with 32bit apps as well if you run them in a 64bit environment, so ultimately yes- the only advantage to running a native 64bit app in a 64bit environment is the larger memory amounts.

in response to your other question- I can only answer in regard to windows x64 (vista and XP), I don’t know about linux or other variants… but in windows, all 32bit apps are given 4GB of memory, but it’s up to the individual program to actually use it. An application that is not large address aware will only be able to access 2GB. Most memory intensive applications (even if they’re not focused on 64bit development) are already Large Address Aware, as the flag was also used in 32bit versions of windows.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

And of course, a native 64bit app has no such limitations.

#569

ALthough their servers are currently swamped,
http://www.cornucopia3d.com/
Cornucopia 3d is giving away free downloads of their new Vue 7 “Pioneer,” a starter 3d Environment application. Everyone who downloads the beta will get a FULL License for free when the application goes full release.

Can’t hurt at that price…

~OM

#570

yeah server is swamped at the moment…

vue is awesome though, can’t wait to try out the beta. thanks for the post!

#571

on that note- does anybody know the difference between Vue 7 Pioneer and Vue 7 Infinite? Vue is made by eon software, but the “Pioneer” seems to be Cornucopia? Seems a bit odd… is it the same software, or is this an external company blurring the lines between brand recognition?

#572

I don’t know the specs, but watch out for this sharp pointy thing: “A Cornucopia3D account is required to activate the product. Vue 7 Pioneer can be extended with 12 optional modules that add specific functionality to the base product.”

#573

Hi everyone, I’m new to the forums here, and I need help!

I’ve already rooted out Mudbox… (blech…) So…

After using the demo of ZB extensively for almost the full allotted time and also using 3DCoat for a few days. I’ve got to say that 3DCoat is my top choice right now. I’ve compared all the features that I would be using in my pipeline, and the ease of use for each of them.

What I’m wondering, is can anyone show or tell me why I should go with ZB over 3DCoat? Is there something I’m missing?

One of the biggest setbacks with ZB, is that there is no low polypainting. Texture painting requires a really high poly count to get “decent” results, of course there is Zapplink, but, that doesn’t seem to work most of the time from what I’ve heard from other users. On the other hand, 3DCoat v3 (which is due to release Q1 2009) has this feature no problem, in fact, not only can you paint directly on the mesh like ZB, but you can also paint directly in the UV window.

Also, comparing the retopology tools, 3DCoat has the upper hand there as well. Another thing I’m enjoying so far using the demo, is the voxel sculpting.

That all said, someone please tell me what ZB has over 3DCoat? I need help, thanks!!

#574

I’m curious why the PolyPaint requirement for high polygon counts is a limitation? The concept behind PolyPaint is that each point you’re painting corresponds to a pixel on the texture. That means that a 1K texture is equal to about a 1 million poly model. A 2K texture is a 3-4 million poly model and a 4K texture is about 10-12 million. (Most mapping has a lot of empty space.)

ZBrush can easily handle these polygon counts on most systems. Especially the 1K and 2K texture equivalents.

So with ZBrush you can paint your model at any time during the creative process, even before mapping has been assigned. You can even change mapping without losing any work that you’ve done painting. When done, you simply transfer the paint to a standard texture and export that. You don’t need to take the high poly model into your other app.

So how does any of this end up being a limitation for you? It should be providing several advantages over traditional texturing methods.

#575

Millions of polygons and blazing high end performance on lenient system specs, for one?

Zbrush is primarily a sculpting app, at which it sets the standard, that also happens to do a surprising number of other things, like texture painting, illustration, and rendering pretty decently.

If your primary need is texture painting, there are applications that specialize in that, or otherwise offer more options. People rarely pick up ZBrush for primarily that reason, but they use it because it can do very well in that area, as well as all the other things its brilliant at.

Frankly though, if the power ZB offer in its specialty areas is not apparent to you , its probably not something thats going to be important to you, and not something you need.

(and FYI, you can paint any sized texture on a low rez mesh with even better results than polypainting, you just have to use the legacy projection master function, which is not as direct , interactive and intuitive as you might like. The reason you use polypainting, is because its more interactive, and embeds color information directly into the mesh independant of UVs or texture…which you can then transfer to any new UV layout or texture.)

#576

I have both and have used both quite a bit, but prefer ZB. The main thing for me is sculpting speed. 3D-coat is a little laggy still. The variety and refinement of ZB’s toolset is a big plus for me. I have found Zbrush to be a bit more robust for doing real work and high polygon levels than 3D-Coat, which will very promising shows its immaturity as a product.

Sooo . . . if feature count were my only criteria, then 3Dcoat, Silo or Modo might be the way to go . . . however, for robust sculpting at high polygons, with refined features like lazy-mouse, extensive brush and alpha customization, and a decent texturing/painting solution, I’d have to give the edge to ZB for its superior speed.

If I was looking for a pure painting solution, I might give Bodypaint (Maxon’s product) the nod, as it has a pretty extensive paint set for photoshop-like painting of models. (I’ve used Bodypaint quite a bit for detailing simple, already sculpted models, but with ZB3 I’ve found I use BP less and less.)

At the end of the day, it will come down to your skill as an artist, and I find for my work that ZB is the best going for detailed sculpting work.

3D-Coat is coming along nicely, but I’ll have to see how that volumetric sculpting works against real-world, high detail models.

-K

#577

3dc’s Voxel sculpting is much easier to get into and does not have the learning curve that zbrush has. You can get some pretty nice results with voxel sculpting and it is fun to use if you are just sketching. It’s very flexible in terms of being able to just add details on anywhere. Big problem is it’s speed. One your object gets to a certain resolution your ability to make changes to the obj become severely impaired. There isn’t even a way for the user to optimize the speed of voxel sculpting. I’ve tried it and I like it. But I’m unsure of it’s expandibility. I’ve tried it on an 8 core quadro fx 5600 8 gigs of ram, and after a while, sculpting becomes impractical. It has some serious speed issues that need to be overcome.

#578

Well, I can’t speak for the original poster- but my problems with polypainting are the following:

  • ZBrush requires you to break your UV’s in order to use textures as diffuse source materials when painting. Why? There are workarounds, I know (and use them regularly), it just seems like an unnecessary extra step.
  • You don’t always need one million polygons, but need a 2k map. Example: Vehicles or game props/characters. It’s a lot faster texturing a 6k poly character when it’s actually 6k polys. Again there are workarounds- you can subdivide your props or characters to 2mil polygons+ and paint from there, but again it seems like an unnecessary extra step.
  • Polypaint locks you to the topology you have built. For a game engine specifically- you still need a decent polycount for faces/heads and hands, but you may try to cheat a bit by using larger polygons in areas where you expect to ‘cover up’ less detail by using textures and normal maps. Even when subdivided to 2mil polygons, a broad area like the chest may still end up being pixelated looking when all is said and done (so in this area, 1 poly does not equal one pixel). If I had a dollar for every time I had painted a character’s texture in Polypaint, then opened it up in photoshop to basically re-do the areas that were ‘pixelated’ (I say pixelated loosely, because the blocks of color are not actually taking up one pixel). The WHOLE reason behind all of this is the way polypaint breaks you away from your UV’s… if the UV’s dictated the amount of texture space your model received, you could control where your model gets the most texture detail.

So basically, that’s why I switched over to bodypaint 3d for all of my 3d-painting. Occasionally i’ll use zbrush for polypainting something fast, but I always do so knowing that I’ll probably end up having to fix it in photoshop when I’m done.

so yeah, there you go :slight_smile:

#579

I suppose it depends on the project. Dividing a model into millions of polygons just for the sake of a colour texture can feel like overkill. In this scenario ZBrush will sometimes start to struggle where other programs wouldn’t break a sweat.

But regardless, I think ZBrush’s approach is definitely future proof.

#580

For me the main advantage ZB has over 3D Coat is that you can create an efficient mesh right from the start. This means you don’t have to use retopology tools to rebuild your model.

I think ultimately it’s always going to come down to the speed at which you can get something out of your head and into a .obj file. Right now ZBrush’s workflow allows me to be quicker.

3D Coat has huge potential though. That potential lies within its coder Andrew. The guy is incredibly smart, and more importantly - highly motivated.