ZBrushCentral

Time to split ZB 2.5D into a separate product?

ZBrush Usage Questions
#1

I’m beginning to wonder if it isn’t time for Pixologic to consider splitting off the 2.5D features of ZBrush into a stand-alone product. This is largely because it seems that little attention is given anymore to the 2.5D features-- ZBrush has become primarily a modelling program where the 2.5D features take a back seat.

The 2.5D features is largely how I use it. But I still use Version 3.1, because for that it seems those features are a bit more stable-- some issues crept into the product with a feature that I’ve been using regularly as of 3.5 or so, and though I submitted a ticket and they were apparently able to reproduce it, they also have apparently seen fit not to address it. I consider it a bug, but it seems to be one that if they have any interest in fixing, it’s so low priority that as of this date nothing has changed and the support ticket, still in their system, leaves no indication whether or not they ever plan to address it. I’ve been patiently looking forward to each new release, on the hope that they’d find it worth fixing, only to find they’ve spent plenty of time with new 3D modelling features, and little if anything has been done to the 2.5D functionality.

And I’m sure they are focussed on the 3D functionality, as that is by now their bread-and-butter for the product, and those features are no doubt enormously complex and challenging to develop. It’s a fantastically powerful product, with so much power now that it has progressed far beyond what I may ever use. It’s certainly nice to know that they are active in the development of the product, but unfortunately, that developent seems to have left the 2.5D features I use the most in the dust.

After all, the company name is PIXOLogic, and the PIXOL 2.5D concepts are certainly unique and useful-- I know of no other program that can accomplish the kind of things I’ve been using it for, while for 3D modelling, there are lots of other products that I could choose from (not that I wouldn’t still choose Z-Brush, it’s just that for 2.5D, I’m rather at their mercy)…

Any thoughts?

–
A.

#2

I would love to see more attentoin for 2,5D from developers but mainly from other artists. It’s hard to find an illustration made with 2,5D.

It’s like with PaintStop being still very primitive in some fields and not really developed.

I’m not after spliting ZBrush in different apps - its’ goal is to be an ultimate sollution for an artists, so it has to weork on many different fields.

Maybe if we, the users, would use 2,5D more, post it, share, look for feedbaack Pixo would work more on it?

#3

Perhaps vector tools like those in Adobe Illustrator. :wink:

#4

Personally I like the way it’s currently set up. I’m more of a 3d guy, but I still use 2.5d pretty often when it comes to making textures, alphas, and of course projection master.

#5

Well, I’m glad to hear from others who value the 2.5D features. I’ve been kinda feeling like the lone ranger with it…

Perhaps a discussion of what enhancements might be made to 2.5D would help generate some interest or inspiration.

Or perhaps some tips & tricks that people have figured out with it, just to keep it more active.

One area I’ve been thinking about, but don’t quite know how it could be done, is some level of animation with it-- perhaps using 2.5D for backgrounds or environmental elements that you could do at least a limited amount of camera and object movement within. For example, I have a bunch of semi-abstract or “environment” paintings such as the attached, that I’d love to find some way to add motion to, zoom into or around in, though obviously it would have to be limited, since it’s not an entire 3D environment. And converting them to full 3D would be too immense for the most part. I have used the heightmap to produce stereo images however, which works pretty darn good. And speaking of which, features to make that easier could be interesting-- what I did is to export the rendered image and the heightmap to an external paint program that can use a heightmap to apply a shift amount to the image using an alpha map. Animation might be better as a separate program, and it could potentially use heightmaps plus images and slide them across each other, with the ability to manage a series of 2.5D images that it could manipulate, fade or merge between, zoom in and out of, tilt, etc. move 3D objects around in, etc. And though that could be done by a third party, since the ZBrush 2.5D results are pretty unique to the product, any commercial product designed to do such animation would be limited to ZBrush customers probably, as I know of nothing else that can produce images + heightmaps with the sort of power ZBrush can, so the market from the third party’s perspective could be pretty limited (from Pixologic’s perspective too, possibly, and if so, unfortunately)…

I’ve also tried throwing the image & heightmap into a game engine as a terrain, which produced interesting results, but it did not render there as detailed as I would like it to have…

I’ve also produced some images designed as textile prints, where perhaps more sophisticated edge wrapping features could be useful-- though there are several tricks that can be used to accomplish this, it might be made easier somehow.

Plus, I’m thinking that possibly some means of separating the layer height information-- to slice up the image on for example, topo-style elevation lines, so that operations could be limited to specific elevations-- though I suppose some kind of stenciling could accomplish that, but again possibly something could be done to make that easier…

Some people might say, “well, there’s great full 3D animation programs, why would you WANT to do animation in 2.5D?”, and of course, the answer is, because 2.5D allows a much greater density than is usually practical with full 3D. Certainly it’s much easier to build up complex backgrounds than it would be to construct them entirely out of 3D parts. My sample image here is probably not the best example of that, as a lot of the detail could be done with bump maps I suppose-- but then I begin to wonder, what if an entire totally complex 2.5D canvas was used as a bump map? What would it look like? How would it render? Maybe my assumptions here are incorrect-- but if so, then perhaps what is needed is a tool to convert 2.5D canvasses to bump maps that can be readily mapped on planes and then included in animations with Maya or something-- but would there be enough depth to do them justice and make them as useful as I can imagine the 2.5D original could be if the apparent depth information can be better utilized with camera movements? I suspect not…

–

A.

Attachments

Fumarole4l.jpg

#6

That is a horrendous idea!
Its like cutting off ones thumbs.
I am using 4r4 and have never even seen versions older than Z4 but I use 2.5D constantly and for so many things it would ruin ZBrush to remove it.
I see some of the things you mention like it not being updated in the same way as the 3D end of things but I suspect that will change, it looks to me like Pixologic works on large areas at a time and that 2.5D is simply waiting its turn.
If this were not the case things like the deformation pallet bugs would have been fixed sooner, that seem to be mearly on hold while some big stuff happens.
I would bet that Z5 will be a gigantic step up much like I have heard that the jump from Z3 to Z4 was.
The funny thing is I suspect that all that fancy 3D stuff you see while working with 3D objects in ZBrush is Pixols just like the ones you see in 2.5D and that this little fact(?) is why ZBrush can do what it does and do it SO MUCH FASTER than anything else. I think, but do not know this for a fact, that all those polygons you see are just Pixols or a visual representation of them. 2.5D and 3D are a perfect set and should not be separated, can you imagine in ZBrush 5 being able to do something like wrap a 2.5D document around a 3D object like one of those silly 2D images? Removing 2.5D from ZBrush would prevent that from EVER happening and that would be horrible.
Anyhow I hate the idea of removing 2.5D, then I would have to beg Marcus to turn the 2.5D program into a bloody plugin.
Give them time, they are very smart people and I betcha that BPR is coming soon to a 2.5D document near you.

Cheers!
Mealea

#7

One last thing, you work almost exclusivity in 2.5D?
I want to see you work!!!
Fumarole4l.jpg is seriously cool by the way.

#8

Do you know that PaintStop works the same way as Projection Master or more accurately is PART of it?
Make a detailed 3D object, then while its still in EDIT mode go into PaintStop, you will be presented with the Projection master UI and then off you go painting your object.
Its awesome!.

#9

No I didn’t knew that! Thank you, i must try this.:slight_smile:

#10

Well, I’m not sure that removing it completely is what I had in mind, but I thought perhaps if they had a separate development team working on it and perhaps also making it available as an independent product it might get a little more attention…

Here’s hoping that all the things you say that may be in store for ZB 5 will come true…

Also, Sculptris kicks some serious butt too… I love how easy it is for organic stuff-- and have been mentioning it to all my friends who want to start getting their feet wet with 3D-- the ultra-simple interface goes a HUGE way towards simplifying the 3D start-up process. Now if it just didn’t crash on my main desktop system-- though I think I know why, I’ve got a seriously antiquated video card-- an old intel chip on the motherboard… Time to dig up something else-- in fact I think I’ve probably got something I can use in a junkbox around here somewhere… Ever since my laptop died I’ve been somewhat impared-- at least ZBrush works fine with this old MB…

–

A.

#11

I must admit I was a little despondent over an obscure glitch that arose around v3.5 that impacted my workflow, but I take it all back now-- that glitch and another issue that I more recently discovered in one of the 2.5D features just got fixed in the 4R4 P2 patch! I’m one happy camper now–

Keep up the fantastic work you guys at Pixologic! You’re knockin’ 'em dead out there as far as I’m concerned.

And if any of the rest of you haven’t yet tried out Sculptris, you need to put everything else down for a minute and check it out-- I use it for initial sketches for organic things and then pull them into ZBrush. It’s, to use a phrase from Steve Jobs, “insanely great.”

–

A.

#12

I just woke up and this post made my day.

Also Sculptris is what caused me to get ZBrush, you are correct, its fantastic.