Mudbox or ZBrush?
polycounter lvl 16
Hi. I'm working to a scene and now that I've modeled the high poly objects in Maya, I want to add some details to them. I intend to learn one of this programs: Mudbox or ZBrush; to detail my models.
What program should I use in your opinion? ... my work is on environment part, I like to model buildings, props ...
Thanks!
What program should I use in your opinion? ... my work is on environment part, I like to model buildings, props ...
Thanks!
Replies
I'm also curious of some opinions on this as I think it's been awhile since 1 of these threads popped up, with the newer releases of both programs.
People keep saying that Mudbox has fewer brushes than Zbrush. While this is technically true, people forget/don't know how to use stamps in Mudbox properly. You can make just about any brush available in Zbrush, in Mudbox. (With the exception of the new hard-surface brushes)
A huge advantage of mudbox is the fact that is it real 3D, not some weird 2.5d pixols (yes, pixols). Mudbox sculpting is quick, accurate, navigation around the viewport is just like that in Maya and Max. You'll get the hang of it really fast.
Whereas Zbrush, the learning curve is very steep. You'll go through a few days swearing and cussing, trying to navigate the unintuitive interface.
However, once you've found your way around Zbrush, it definitely beats mudbox when it comes to sculpting, with all the extra features and such.
Each have their own pro's and cons. Check out the tools available in each, and weigh your own pro's vs. cons. Like I said, personal preference. As a long-time mudbox user, I'm just starting to learn zbrush, because of the tools it has that will benefit my workflow in the long run.
Try them both! There are trials available for free.
Zbrush is very hard to get used to and learn how to use properly, but once you do you will have an edge over mudbox cause of all of its features.
At first i thought Zbrush was hard and annoying, i thought what people said about learning it would be tough but i watched "Ryan kingslien: Comprehensive Introduction to ZBrush 4" and was completely blown away on how awesome ZBrush is. I didn't know the UI can be customized so extremely. i didn't know that it could UV i thought Zspheres were useless and i barely even knew how awesome the Move brush was. now its all clear to me just how amazing Zbrush can be.
Now i still would rather use Mudbox because i use Maya and the first time i opened Mudbox i was able to start sculpting something without even knowing a thing. The controls were pretty much the same and at first glance the UI wins you over.
Its the little things that make me love a certain software. first ill narrow it down to what it does then ill go for:
The UI
Customization
Similar presets/Hotkeys/Camera controls
Name.
I do adore the price of Zbrush to and that you get free upgrades instead of sacrificing your soul for a later bugged out build with a feature that should have been there from the beginning.
With the proper help Zbrush is very easy to get use to. I learned everything i wanted just from that one Workshop you'll understand the UI is what you want it to be but the camera WILL take much time getting use to. (Don't use Zswitcher it only makes things worse)
Zbrush never crashed on me either
Get the Eric Keller book on learning ZBrush 4. By the end of it, you'll be able to get around and get stuff done without a problem!
Yes, agreed! I fell into that trap myself. Just learn the ZBrush native way and you'll be way better off. Once I realized that I could use the right mouse button for camera stuff and didn't have to click in the void anymore, it became a non-issue.
Regarding sculpting : Zbrush has more exotic brush that can really help you nail down the final stages of a model. However, when it comes to massing things out I find Mudbox more responsive and more accurate. Its also important to consider that mudbox will gove you a real perspective - exactly the same as what you would get in a game engine or a regular 3D app. Zbrush has more of an orthographic feel (even in persp mode) which is helpful sometimes, but the lack of proper 3D is a huge weakness.
Z has great mesh editing tools (extract, remesh, dynamesh, Zspheres), Mudbox has none of that.
I personally use Mudbox for all my sculpting, and Zbrush for the rest (adding pieces, starting an armature, and so on). I would recommend to learn Mudbox first, then adding Zbrush to your arsenal later.
conversely Mudbox always felt like brushing on an eggshell surface. Build up feel is flimsy/delicate to me. ( probably just my preference resulting in such a perception )
Also in mudbox it is initially a real struggle for me to get sharper frequency details ( mudbox is more work not to be so muddy ).
Like mentioned by everyone else...
If u r use to Maya viewport navigation, than navigation and object manipulation in Mudbox will be enjoyable.
So much so for me that I suffered my complaints about mudbox for that ease of viewport handling. ( wish photoshop would "get it" as well and adopt alt rmb mmb lmb navigation in it's 3d offerings )
However.
Since Zswitcher was introduced by draster I now get my Maya navigation in Zbrush,
And I haven't looked back since.
Also
$$$
Now that Zbrush 4r2 has been released I'ts dam easy to appreciate how every update is FREE!
Late Edit:
I guess I should also mention the nice toolset zbrush has when it comes to modeling hardsurface props, buildings, and seamless textures.
I was recently vouching for Mudbox, but had a change of heart, since Mudbox still is somewhat underwhelming.
The UI customization is next to nil; as in good luck keeping everything under you left hand. Pressing Ctrl+Alt actually locks keys, forcing you to press them again, sometimes, locking down in turn the scale of you brush size.
People should stop criticizing ZBrush for it's 'wacky interface' since it's less wacky then Mudbox. Mudbox interface is utter crap, with lots of space gone to waste, and extremely bizarre set outline. It might seem easier, but overall, it blows.
The texture tools, while powerful, lacks basic stuff like smudge, stuff which even Max's Canvas has, and trying to use the bridge function between Max, Photoshop and Mud is a nightmare, especially with 4K textures. Normal maps are the worst offense in this regard, especially if you want to load up a low poly model, and put up you normal map, so that you can start your diffuse and such.
I also don't mind noting you that the hotkeys are extremely unfriendly. Allowing the user to customize the Ctrl key, without a warning that it used by the Clone tool, until I access the clone tool much later on is just lazy.
The x64 bit of Mudbox is also a big joke, I wasn't expecting a miracle, but the performance is still sub-par to x32 version of Mud.
Their solution of 'select parts you want to crease', a function with ZB had ages ago, and in Max's case, a plugin with which you can import the smoothing groups to ZB, is something which Mudbox just got, and is very poor at that as well.
Overall, I honestly can only recommend ZB. If you have spare change or access to Mudbox later on, learn both by all means, but investment wise, ZB is the better mileage by far.
I then tried ZBrush and it was a really different feel for me.
I think the texturing is better for me in Mudbox, but you can't go past the brushes and the way that you sculpt in ZBrush. So much control. Also getting normal and diffuse out of ZBrush is really easy too.
The only thing I don't like about ZBrush is the camera control. Maybe I haven't used it enough to get used to it, but it seems really awkward. The 'pivot' point of rotating around a model seems to change all the time and sometimes the camera goes all out, I'll have to sculpt on an angle to see a certain part.
Other than that, they are both good choices, but ZBrush is a bit more advanced IMO
Is there a way to change this or make it stop?
If there is i dont know where to look to change it
Would you happen to use a tablet with Zbrush?
I was told by a few that rotation is easier with one.
But Zbrush, in just about every other way, is superior. I like the sculpting tools more, and the freedom the rest of the features provide. Given the choice I'll use it hands down. Now if only they would fix the perspective. :poly122:
I've tried the two programs a little, and yes, with Mudbox I get use to much quickly - that's probably because I use Maya. For ZBrush ... I think I'll have to watch some tutorials first, because I just don't know how to work in.
I will learn the basics of this programs, and then decide witch one is better for my buildings/props models, etc (characters excluded
Thanks for your advices and good luck to your work
(sorry for my nooby english)
As with ANY other situation where multiple proggies will work, the answer is simple:
Whichever you find easiest and fastest to work with.
For buildings, Sebastien Legrain has some videos up on Pixologic's classroom about using Projection Master. I have a feeling getting used to the new noise system might also help for buildings (the noisemaker plugin isn't fully released just yet, but from a video I saw you could add a seamless alpha such as a brick pattern to act as the noise, allowing it to nicely update along the sides of a building even as you pull out new walls). For sculpting hard surface shapes in general you might want to check out some of the tips posted by Steve Warner, Etcher, Nicolas Garilhe, and Ofer Alon.
[ame="
mud is far behind in sculpting... hope we will see some improvements there...
Basically went back to Max's Viewport Canvas, which works surprisingly well.
Another feature worth mentioning is Ptex. Ptex is pretty damn awesome.
Another thing Max's Viewport Canvas does tons better is dealing with mirrored/stacked uv's and the like. Mudbox is way finicky there.
if you subdivide him two times it should work without any problems...
and the edge bleeding works in 2012 much better than in 2011...
So, if you spend all day long sculpting for for a living, then ZBrush is worth learning ASAP.
If you have to use lots of different 3d apps and just need a little sculpting and texture painting as part of your workflow then Mudbox might be the best solution for you.
Personally i would use what you like and makes sense to you.
I hate trying to eliminate a tool if it solves my problem well.
Mudbox is really fast at doing what it does and it's a great place for fast sketching and sculpting even if your primary tool is ZBrush.
Even if I only used Mudbox, I would want a copy of ZBrush for the re-topo tools. That alone will pay for a copy of ZBrush real fast.
Best
Mark
I think I spent about the first three-to-four hours thinking zbrush had a steep learning curve. Then I spent a short while watching Eat3d's introduction dvd and the zclassroom videos, then finished the work day doing a few short tests to evaluate my understanding of what I thought was going on. By the end of the second day I felt entirely comfortable using zbrush on its own and with my other 3d and 2d software.
I might try my hand at putting together a little introductory guide, because I'm pretty sure the only real trick is to understand the document and the material system.
ee... those retopo tools are not really good... better spend 100 bucks for topogun...
I'm speaking in general terms about the ease of use for each application, your own personal mileage may vary.
And yes I was speaking of the remesh/dynamesh.
Thanks! Realy useful tutorials.
I usualy torn on SpeedFan when I play games or work in Maya or other 3d applications, and I noticed that Mudbox uses more of my graphic card and ZBrush more of the CPU
Your Mudbox experience will be VERY tied to your GPU.
Just about everything is happening in the GPU.
The more GPU memory you have the better, so if you're looking for an excuse to get your boss to buy that fancy new Quadro card or FireGL/FirePro card, Mudbox will perform better as you throw GPU memory at it.
If you double the amount of GPU RAM you will almost double the number of sub-D polys you can push through it.
Best
Mark
The 3d mesh is cached into GPU RAM. The more GPU RAM the larger the files you can load without degraded performance of the interface/feedback.
try to subdivide the mesh up to 80 mio... and you will see everything is goin into your system ram... with GPU ram you are really limited... its only for storing the textures... mud will run more smooth with more GPU ram but to go into high polycounts you need system ram... 24 gig or more would be best...
from the mud help
http://download.autodesk.com/global/docs/mudbox2012/en_us/index.html?url=files/GUID-5713C752-6572-41E2-B2D9-469F8F55AE1-322.htm,topicNumber=d28e53248
When you run out of GPU RAM it's got to go to system RAM.
Then you will get slow downs.
If you have 512MB you will swap out to system RAM much faster than if you have 6GB of GPU RAM.
GPU RAM is for storing evrything from your screen's frame buffer the 2d AND 3d brushes AND the geometry/canvas that you are painting and sculpting on...
For detailing existing work I would say Mudbox is a great and easy to use tool, but as a general purpose all in one I would say Zbrush. Even though it is harder to learn my studies in rock formation showed me that Zbrush users got better results faster than Mudbox. As yet Mudbox has served me well but I can see me learning Zbrush at some point as already I am beginning to see shortcomings. I think Mudbox has the potential there and if Autodesk play their cards right it could become the dominant sculpgint platform but its defintley not there yet,
Though a bit unrelated I must say If i could go back in time I would have started with Zbrush instead as honestly after learning Mudbox Zbrush scares the shit out of me.
I whant to ask you guys what brushes do you use for sculpting rocks, damaged bricks or walls, pillars ... that kind of stuff.
In my little time that I spend with ZB I found that Clay + Smooth Subdiv is a good technique for sculpting this kind of stuff, do you know other methods?
you are right... ive done tests today...
mud makes heavy use of GPU ram also for geometry...
sry...