Thanks, Gasoil, for your thoughtful reply. I see what you’re saying. Even I see hints at what you’re talking about, as far as retopologizing goes. Who knows? Maybe some day a version of Decimation Master will reduce the number of polys and then remap them, all at the same time! 
Take Care.
Also, if you need a swiss pocket knife that has thousands of blades, all of which are tough to get out and aren’t labeled clearly then you’re in luck with Zbrush!
Look, I’m no fan boy of either product, but the amount of sucking up that goes on in here really makes many people look fanboy-ish. Zbrush has a horrible UI, is still stuck with pretending like 99% of the people who use it don’t use it for making 3d models (aka it needs a proper 3d navigation space), and has been missing some key features that other programs do have (layered painting). Mudbox has a terrific UI, is extremely easy to use and navigate in, but lacks a huge amount of the great features that Zbrush has. Both programs could use to learn something from the other. One is not a “carving knife” while the other is a “swiss pocket knife”. Go take a look at the Mudbox image gallery and tell me that it doesn’t have the tools needed for people to make amazing art from it. “Carving knife” indeed. :rolleyes:
The carving knife vs. Swiss Army knife comment is indeed a bit of a broad stroke. I think a lot of the “fan boy” kudos for ZBrush come from the fact that it’s an app that doesn’t require a very powerful computer to produce nice results (ZB 2.5D vs. MB true 3D.) Anyone who used ZB2 knows that Pixologic has already learned a ton from Mudbox back when MB was just a little app under the Skymatter banner.
Remember when Mudbox first came out and it had those cool “flatten” brushes?
I still like Mudbox, but I’d just rather use ZBrush. The complaints about the UI are valid, but I guess I’m just used to it at this point.
nezumi – How long you been using both softwares to make a such statement? 
KPtoons, Thanks for the info m8.
It looks like that no one has gone to Siggraph but KPtoons only. :evil:
Come on, those who have been to SIG, spill it out please.
If I’m going to carve something, I’d rather have a carving knife. If I’m going camping I’d rather have a Swiss army knife. Not that accurate a comparison. Both apps bring something to the table at the same time they fill in each other’s gaps in a lot of ways.
Guys, I said that with carving knife you CAN do the job as well. But lets take simple example here - you need to do octopus from scratch. Good luck making base for it in mudbox. You have to retopologize it later on - have fun in mudbox (while retopo in ZB may not be fastest - I can make the job done with it). Then make yourself set of nice UVs in Mudbox and youre good to go And so on.
Now, if one is using pirate soft or works in studio that provides software - it doesnt make a difference, can jump between different appz and get the job done. But it starts matter if you want to actually BUY separate soft for each task you can now do in ZB.
Mudbox is a great tool as well - all I am really missing in it are Zspheres or equivalent tool. It gives me absolutely amazing control in minimum time when building base. Plus - navigation… I DONT WANT to be forced into pushing ALT all the time. While it makes sense in Maya or Max on bigger, crowded scenes - when I am sculpting it is just annoying. Mudbox could make it just like zbrush AS AN OPTION.
Both softwares are going head to head now - there is not much left to add. While Pixologic is trying to reinvent modeling Autodesk is carefully adding just about enough options to keep people comfortable. 3Dcoat is simply adding EVERYTHING - but is genius just on retopology, and free Blender now is offering really good sculpt as well…
At this point though I dont see any real game changer on horizon - its all down to personal preferences. Have fin making stuff. With swiss pocket knife or whole bunch of separate tools. Whatever you like. BE HAPPY! PEACE.
nezumi – you don’t have to excuse tho.
Lapaev - Ow you just edited your funny little post? Too bad - I prefered it when you were talking in the name of EVERYBODY LOL
I just said clearly enough what I meant. And is just that - not what you think it is, not your personal interpretation of it. Dont need any excuses as I couldnt care less what you think about my personal point of view.
I prefer Zbrush but that doesn’t mean I hate mudbox. Whats more - I was hoping for mudwalker between ZB and Mudbox, that Wayne Robson developed. As far as I know it was never released though.
What matters for me is just that - get the job done, realize your creation, make it happend. I am also using Sculptris and Blender at times, when I feel like it. Too bad you are so close minded.
meh, I can mention Poser, Vue, Gimp and Blender and the flames will fly. I get either accused of being “Bad Lazy artist” for using scene and figure layout programs or I get called a homeless 3D dabbler…
As far as programs go, to each thier own. There is no perfect tool, with the exception of Zbrush 
.
Here’s an idea, why not use…Both? :eek: :eek: :eek:
I know tons of people that Sculpt in Zbrush then bring their final low poly into Mudbox for texturing. Probably won’t need this pipeline with the release of ZB4, but it’s still a good workflow method in my opinion.
I’m really anticipating the release of Z4! It’s been a wild trip guys…
nezumi - ok
I love all the back and forth going on.
Zbrush vs Mudbox debates are always entertaining. We have them at work as well. I worked with fanboys of both software, and its always the same. Zbrush has more, but it comes with a cost. Mudbox is easy to use, but also comes with a cost.
Some of the costs I have dealt with in Mudbox, as well as others at my studio have not yet been mentioned here as far as I can tell. Here is a post made by a coworker of mine over on The Area that sums it up pretty well.
Keep in mind that post is dated.
In my opinion a pointless argument. Two different tools for different tastes. Like the old saying “there is an ass for every saddle.”
And before anyone flames me for being a fanboy of zbrush, I’ll go ahead and save you the trouble and say that I am. It’s the best tool for what I want to do at the moment both with work and with personal projects. To be clear, it’s the best… for ME… not the best for all. ~the end haha
I work in IT and “Tech Wars” never cease to amaze me. There is of course the classic Mac v PC debate, which is equally ludicrous. We’re basically talking about the merits of two operating systems… loyalty over an OS is just nuts!
Software debates are the same. I suppose it all comes down to people wanting to vindicate their own choice as much as convincing others. If you’ve spent a fair chunk of money on something, and gone to the trouble of learning it until you’re effective with it, you want that time and money to be worthwhile.
I did try both ZBrush and Mudbox. I preferred ZBrush, although I was at least partially biased from the outset. There were some nice things in Mudbox though and I can see why some people might prefer it… just not me.
I see it all the time in all walks of life. People buy 4x4’s even though they don’t drive off road. Then when they find they can’t reverse the damn thing they complain it’s too big.
Buy it because it suits your needs, not because you like the colour, followed by a complaint that the steering sucks.
Carry out some research before you spend your money. But sometimes you have to take a gamble. Problem with gambling is you don’t always win. So make the most of what you’ve got, or go and gamble again and again and again…
We’re all human and we’re all different, some of us stranger than others. I suppose the future will bring software packages that can be personalised, the way you want it, with the bits you want in it. But for now that isn’t the case.
I chose ZB and I made the right decision. Although I run into some issues, I’m looking forward to the upgrade (FREE), which sounds promising.
If you want it done properly (to your liking), do it yourself. But I bet someone else won’t like it…
Not wanting to be too drawn into the debate - but my studio has looked at Mudbox and there’s a lot of stuff to like in it.
The interface is easy for most people to get their heads around, the mirroring is excellent and the package allows you to paint on textures, something that as a games artist zbrush is really let down by.
It’s not as advanced as zbrush though and there’s often the feeling with it that they’re developing it in a nice methodical way ‘add painting, add layers, add new shaders’ while zbrush is constantly making weird jumps of genius (some of which aren’t really needed). Primarily my sole complaint about zbrush at the minute is it’s ignoring older tools or forcing people into particular ways of working which force you to go out of the package to find better alternatives. I work in games - and it’s not good for texturing or retopologizing. Yes you ‘can’ do both in zbrush - but not to the level I’d like (e.g. adding edge loops, dragging out polygons or whatever in the case of retopologizing).
Hopefully both will improve.
And on that note - this upgrade looks excellent - the ability to create non organic stuff seems to have taken a huge leap forwards, improved subtool control sounds brilliant and (please god) the layer painting looks hopeful. Just… textures pixologic. We need them no matter how much you want us to pixel paint…
There is some link on Aurick’s post about polypainting advantages. http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6624740&postcount=47 Ofcourse, it’s just a his point of view, but something prompts for me that we will not see textures in zb4.
Amen!
But anyone can paint textures on Zbrush using Projection Master… no?