ZBrushCentral

Other commercial applications discussion thread

Community
#581

unless i’m mistaken, zb’s pixol technology seems to be voxels already… the voxel space resolution being determined somehow in a relationship with the canvas resolution (a factor of?) with z depth being bound by the canvas on the “far” side and probably some fixed distance coming toward us on the “near” side…

zb already seems to have a limited (or at least tightly constrained) version of voxels that already allows the coloring of them…

i wonder how much more development effort it would take to unconstrain zb into a fullblown voxel sculptor (not in terms of replacing what we already have) but as an additional mode…

it may not actually be the best technology for sculpting when all is said and done… maybe the nature of the technology would still make it much slower than what we already have in zb… but it would be interesting to have as an option.

or if it is indeed a techno dead end, it would be interesting to hear pixologic’s take on it.

cuz that 3dcoat demo did indeed make me do a double take.

jin

#582

I think Pixols and voxels are quite different.

But it seems to me that it doesn’t really matter which method is used, the key really lies in dense meshes and not voxels. When using high resolution meshes almost anything is possible when modeling because it’s quite easy to add and remove geometry. So yes, Pixologic could easily add to ZBrush the unrestricted sculpting tools of 3D Coat.

The problem comes later when you need to export your model and you need an optimized version of it. Right now the only solution is to rebuild your model using topology tools.

I’m gonna be interested to see if redoing the topology of models becomes widely accepted. I’m still not convinced myself. It just seems to be shifting topology concerns from the start of the process to the end of the process. and if anythiing, at the end it seems even more fiddly!. :slight_smile:

Of course, this is all assuming that the artist even cares about topology. Many artists only want a 2D image of their work.

#583

“I think Pixols and voxels are quite different.”

certainly it’s up for debate. nobody knows for certain and it just bugs the heck out of me that that’s the case. i hate market speak… many of us attend siggraph and read up on these kinda things… just tell us what they are technologically speaking… alas.

but what makes you think so?

for me, the ease with which you can “drop and pickup” to/from pixols and 3d meshes seems to argue for it… and also, the fact that you can actually go the other way and actually turn brush strokes themselves into 3d meshes…

initially, i thought pixols were just pixels with material and a normal map but the more i work with them, the more they seem to have a real 3d, z component to them and that the only distinction between pixols and a full blown voxel modeler is that pixols are tightly constrained to the canvas and you are given no 3d camera.

sigh… one of the things i wish pixologic would just explain…

jin

p.s. another interesting this is when you try to rotate a stroke using the manipulator… it seems like the stroke (maybe a vector curve?) is indeed being transformed - but the pixol manifestation is done after the curve is mapped back into 2d space…

#584

Pixols do have a Z component, and yet they’re still two dimensional. Nothing can exist behind the pixols you see on the canvas. So if you draw something onto the canvas then it will be lost the moment you draw over the top of it. I suppose they’re quite similar to bump maps.

Now voxels seem much more complicated. But with my little brain it seems that memory is configured into a 3D cube. (think 1000s of canvases all layered on top of eachother). So voxels exist behind the voxels you see upon the screen. It seems with voxels you’re actually drawing inside a 3D space as opposed to deforming a pixol canvas.

Having said all that, even the wikipedia says that pixols are similar to voxels. Now I’m no expert on 3D and so I aint gonna argue with the mighty wiki. :slight_smile:

#585

“Pixols do have a Z component, and yet they’re still two dimensional.”

yeah that’s why i think it is what i think it is… if you have a z component it’s NOT strictly 2d. technically speaking it’s 3d… bump maps and normal maps are both cheats that give you a normal value that isn’t really there for the purposes of lighting but it doesn’t really imbue a z…

but what i think pix is doing is using voxels and insisting that the user interacts with them only in a 2d manner (i.e. restricting user rotation around etc…).

but yeah, your guess (along with everyone else including the wiki writer) is as good as mine. as i said, they won’t talk about it so we’re left in the dark.

jin

#586

You must be using a diff ZBrush than me, because there is no way to get good edge flow from the start. Zspheres you say? Get real, you have to do so much hand holding, and tweaking it is a royal pain. Nevermind making good hands or feet. They are limited, and their limitations bite you on the butt.

Zbrush has the best sculpting tools, but the retopo is passable at the best of times. Try 3d-coat 2.10, it is a dream. Far better than Topogun since it actually works for me. I intend to use both Zbrush and 3D-coat, eith basic figure design and remeshing done in 3d coat. It’s voxel and retopo tools are dreamy.

PIXOLS are just a Zbuffer with material info glued on, this trick has been done for years. They are not voxels.

Andrew has just started work on automatic mesh quadranglization. So you can automatically generate a mesh that is ‘good enough’ for further high detail sculpting, or clean it up more for animation.

#587

hmmm… what does that mean? “just a zbuffer with material info glued on”? “this trick has been done for years”… in what? where? where would i have seen that? what other apps use this old trick? i’d love to see some documentation or wiki articles on this apparently “old chestnut”.

jin

#588

MacWorld will get an announcement from Autodesk about 3 apps heading for the Mac…I’m betting Mudbox will be one…get your asses in gear Pixologic.

http://architosh.com/2009/01/mwsf-autodesk-loves-apple-new-mac-ports-coming/

I hope XSI is one of the others.

#589

Example:
http://www.brandonhawker.com/projects.html
http://www.brandonhawker.com/projects/spheres/ShadedSpheres.java

Basically, treat the screen as a 2D array, storing depth and optionally a material at each point. For the purposes of shading, to come up with a illumination normal, you take the average of a point’s z index with those of it’s neighbors, and combined with the lighting normal and material, color that pixel on the screen.

Clifford Pickover in some of his old books gives further examples, using the ‘spheres’ to make seashells.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/home.htm

Also, I think one of the older Graphics Gems books covers this, and I had a friend in college who wrote some code like this in Pascal (around 1991) as a cute demo.

Pixols, like this Zbuffer method, can not be ‘rotated’, they are more like a bas-relief, glued to the screen.

#590

Boy, I hope it’s Mudbox after the stupidity I’ve seen the last two weeks from Pixologic. I love ZB, but I need working tools Today, not “whenever”,
-K

#591

cool! thanks for the info.

i’ve never heard of this before…

darn… kinda disappointed they aren’t voxels… that would have made the addition of fullon voxel sculpting easier… but then again, the merits of voxel sculpting remain to be seen…

thanks again.

jin

#592

I will dump this company like a $5 whore if I can get a workable solution from AutoDesk.

#593

Its official, now all we need are the details

http://architosh.com/2009/01/mwsf-autodesk-announces-five-new-mac-products/

#594

What exactly is the “stupidity” that you are referring to? Just curious.

I hope it’s going to be a patch for Mudbox as well. I love the painting feature of Mudbox the most, but sheesh, sometimes it can really be a “crash-o-matic”

Edit: Ah, just caught the announcement, no mention of a patch.

#595

The declaration that the issues with the mac version (e.g. bad displacement maps) is a not a “showstopper.” Along with the tone we should be greatful for a “transitional” version altogether (albeit half-broken).

The level of arrogance to tell me and my students what are showstoppers and breaking the commitment for a fix with 3.5 in Q4 2008, is one of the poorest PR moves I’ve seen from a vendor in a while. We’re just asking for product parity and usability that should be de facto.

I think: (broken promises + broken product + denial + arrogance)*(putting it in writing) = stupidity

At least in the PR domain. I’m sure Pixologic has their reasons for everything, but telling customers --who have clearly expressed an issue is a showstopper-- that it is not a showstopper, so quickly after telling customers the fix isn’t there and no ETA, is a PR move that I would expect from Detroit. :smiley:

I’m almost willing to put up with Mudbox’s weaknesses if I don’t have to fight get a displacement map anymore. (And this from someone who has been using ZB for about five years.)

Sorry to come off bitter–I don’t mean it that way. I feel Pixologic has broken faith with the Mac user community and is pretty unrepentant about product quality and limitations not found in the PC version. If they were at least forthcoming about fixes, I’d probably not be so harsh, but this is getting terribly unrealistic to have confidence in Pixologic’s mac-based efforts.

At least we’re going to start seeing some competition, and in a market economy, competition is good for the buyer. Mudbox, even quirky provides a high res alternative to ZB, which to be honest is no pillar of stability on high memory operations either (at least on my macs.)

-Kerwin

#596

Looks like Mac users are gonna be able to get muddy!

http://architosh.com/2009/01/mwsf-autodesk-announces-five-new-mac-products/

#597

LOL—I got all excited and posted a separate thread. WHoops. :lol:

#598

From today’s press release:

“Autodesk Mudbox 2009: A highly intuitive application for painting, texturing and re-touching 3D models. Mudbox software gives 3D modelers, artists and designers the freedom to create without worrying about the technical details. Breaking the mold of traditional 3D modeling applications, Mudbox 2009 provides an organic brush-based 3D modeling and texture painting experience that ignites the creative process. Mudbox 2009 for Mac OS X is expected to be available in English in February 2009. Autodesk suggested retail pricing for Mudbox 2009 is expected to be $745 USD*.”

http://pressreleases.autodesk.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=514<%2Ftd>

#599

Oh, now I understand the frustration. Being able to create a ( good ) displacement map is a basic fundamental and needed function of any modeling program.

I can’t believe they wouldn’t make that a priority to fix. Maybe creating normal maps might be a work-around, but that doesn’t always apply in many situations.

I love ZBrush as well, but as far as displacement and normal maps, I’ve been having much better results generating those in Mudbox than in Zbrush when exporting those to Lightwave ( personal experience anyway ).

#600

I’ll certainly add Mudbox to my kit in February when it ships. Who knows, there is supposed to be an incorporated service release that will settle down some of Mudbox’s current stability issues.