with the latest service pack the results from mudbox should be cleaner...
also if you lower the seeting for uniform and use a hard constrain in the center line...
but its clear zbrush is the winner here...!
the topo looks in some places like hand crafted... great job pixo...
You do have layers for polypainting. Granted, they're super basic and nothing amazing, but they're there. I use them routinely.
The only problem is that Polypaint WORKING with Layers is actually a bug, not a feature that Pixo made, they left it in, it was a happy mistake that happened.
This can be seen when you do some fancy stuff with layers when it comes to blending certain things for (example) skin textures, materials, and baking them down to your diffuse or collapsing the layers.
At least once every couple of layers, I have to pop an Empty layer or two, and collapse everything with that, or else ZB will start throwing at me corrupt paint or blotchy black spots the next time I load the model.
So in that regard, I'm worried if they ever decided to patch something with the layers, and we lose out on polypaint in the process. That would suck major time since almost all of my archives have at least 2 layers for my poypaint on my PC
I use scultping layers, and I have issues with them corrupting my polypaint, so I currently texture in mudbox. If pixologic makes a more robust painting layer system with layer masks and psd support I would have no reason to use any other app.
Anybody use any of the other new features yet? Like trim cuts, the crease curve?
The trim brushes function exactly like the clip brushes except they delete the geometry and the close the hole with a new polygroup. This opens up a bunch of new options to play with. As for the crease brush, it's basically a slice curve brush with a crease applied to it. I personally haven't found a good purpose for that yet.
Also the B-radius working with slice curve now is really awesome, especially when combined with panel loops.
that, and i've yet to have a client ask me for a .mud format file. but i'm regularly asked for .ztl files. so it makes absolutely zero financial sense.
An interesting point, but why use a .mud format, or a .ztl file for that matter. Both are proprietary for their respective applications and hardly what I would call an open format for a pipeline. I'd much rather have a more open and flexible format for pushing my data upstream and downstream in a pipeline.
all of those support subd level and group information ?
also how big do the file sizes get.
so far, i been converting all my .mud files to zbrush .ztl files mostly because the of client requirement and ztool file sizes are a LOT smaller than any other format i have seen so far.
a 3.5gb mudbox file comes down to a ~300mb ztl file.
An interesting point, but why use a .mud format, or a .ztl file for that matter. Both are proprietary for their respective applications and hardly what I would call an open format for a pipeline. I'd much rather have a more open and flexible format for pushing my data upstream and downstream in a pipeline.
well, when they've asked for .ztl files, i'm assuming it's so that if they need to reposition things to make baking easier they can do (i tend to have my low poly w/ UV's as a subtool within the .ztl file so you can use transpose master to move everything about all at once). or if they find that they might want a certain part of the high res tweaked proportionally they can move to a lower subdivision and do it easily. and in some cases it's probably just for records keeping... you never know when you might need to revisit and revise an asset!
.obj/fbx etc. are all decent formats but they really lack the flexibility that .ztl offers when it comes to making any changes.
thats a special case in games... normally the client wont get any 3d files... only the final output... an image sequence or a point cached animation...
if the client wants a .ztl file... he is getting one...
same for .mud or all other files...
My point was that ztl, isn't very flexible and only works with Zbrush, nothing else. Though to be fair its the same for .mud or any other scene file format
I'm not rubbishing formats like .mud/.ztl, like any other specific software scene format are great at what they do, but not so good when it comes to pushing data through a pipeline, into other softwares, or into a game for that matter. (at least I'm not aware of anyone exporting .ztl/mud to a game).
Hence why many people do use obj/fbx, and more recently alembic (.abc). Different formats have different uses.
You do have layers for polypainting. Granted, they're super basic and nothing amazing, but they're there. I use them routinely.
I've used that method you're referring to, but it's honestly not as flexible as I'd like it to be. If it had a layer painting system similar to PS's (along with blending modes) it would be badass. Like arshlevon mentioned, I'd have no reason to use any other app aside from my primary 3d software...and that would be really minimal.
The upgrade from QRemesher to Zremesher is pretty much exactly what I wanted, this must be black magic!
Having said that Zremesher still has the same flaw that Qremesher had, it creates spirals instead of clean edge loops. Ofc you can't see this on screenshots, but if you send your model to 3DS max and doubleclick on the edges of long parts like arms, legs and fingers you'll almost certainly see them.
Having said that there is a new feature that noone mentioned yet: you can retopologyze only parts of the model, which will hopefully make it possible to eliminate those spirals directly in Zbrush by retopologyzing them again.
Bellsey: flexible or not, only a .ztl allows for easy changes to be made, as well as stuff like layers and subdivision steps.
It's nothing to do with exporting into the game, it's so the client can adjust things if need be. You'd provide them with an obj/dae/fbx of the low and highpoly as well, since those can be loaded into anything.
Bellsey: flexible or not, only a .ztl allows for easy changes to be made, as well as stuff like layers and subdivision steps.
I'm not disputing that, but of course that applies only to a Zbrush scene/asset.
Although you import meshes into Mudbox and rebuild the subdivision levels (even the UVs), providing they were previously subdivided using the Catmull-Clark method. This can be handy if the original scene data is lost or you just have the final hires mesh.
I can't recall if Zbrush can do this (expecting it could).
@MM
my experience of the Mudbox 2014(including SP1) scene sizes is pretty much the same as yours, approx a 20% reduction. That's literally opening a previous Mudbox scene version and then just saving it with Mudbox 2014.
Can we please get off the topic of Mudbox vs. ZBrush or whatever the hell is going on here and discuss the new features of ZBrush? Thanks.
I'm excited to use the new ZRemesher but I think I'll get just as much use out of the clipping brushes as well. I hope version 5 has a bit more hard surface tools that don't involve booleans, then again I'm just eagerly awaiting ZB finally being 64-bit.
The upgrade from QRemesher to Zremesher is pretty much exactly what I wanted, this must be black magic!
Having said that Zremesher still has the same flaw that Qremesher had, it creates spirals instead of clean edge loops. Ofc you can't see this on screenshots, but if you send your model to 3DS max and doubleclick on the edges of long parts like arms, legs and fingers you'll almost certainly see them.
Having said that there is a new feature that noone mentioned yet: you can retopologyze only parts of the model, which will hopefully make it possible to eliminate those spirals directly in Zbrush by retopologyzing them again.
Yeah, I noticed the spiral thing as well. Blast. Hopefully they'll have a toggle for this in the future.
How do you go about only topoing a specific part? just hide the rest I assume?
Wow... Now I know what program to aim for (I was waffling between mudbox and Zbrush to be honest.)
That topology reducer with those guides looks really sweet! I'm going to have to hunt around for some videos of it being done to see how smooth the process is because this looks like one of those "too good to be true" things and I'm paranoid there's a hitch somewhere in there.
They should really start working on the updates for Sculptris because some of us can't really afford Zbrush or Mudbox.
Why cant they just add to the current release instead of making a huge issue out of one or two things in one new release.
Sorry I am just grumpy this morning.
I doubt they won't ever work on Sculptris updates. Sculptris acts as bait, to get people interested in digital sculpting and thus maybe a possible upgrade to Zbrush.
And honestly, Zbrush is not that pricey. Just save your pennies It is absolutely worth it.
Otherwise, Blender has also some nice sculpting tools with a similar approach like Sculptris.
The trim brushes function exactly like the clip brushes except they delete the geometry and the close the hole with a new polygroup. This opens up a bunch of new options to play with. As for the crease brush, it's basically a slice curve brush with a crease applied to it. I personally haven't found a good purpose for that yet.
Also the B-radius working with slice curve now is really awesome, especially when combined with panel loops.
I doubt they won't ever work on Sculptris updates. Sculptris acts as bait, to get people interested in digital sculpting and thus maybe a possible upgrade to Zbrush.
And honestly, Zbrush is not that pricey. Just save your pennies It is absolutely worth it.
Otherwise, Blender has also some nice sculpting tools with a similar approach like Sculptris.
I have zbrush lad. heh heh heh lol I just find it weird that they are not doing anything to remotely improve sculptris.
Anybody use any of the other new features yet? Like trim cuts, the crease curve?
Checking features as I browse the update docs. Trim cuve w/ brush radius enabled (clip brush modifier tab) does a cool boolean based on the size of your brush. Like a slice curve but will also delete the sliced path.
Or if you want the opposite result, keystroke with the alt. Works great with the open curves, but the result I get from closed ones (circle, rect) is not the same expected result - I`m not getting a booleaned core.
Tried it. It's "ok". The zremesher has issues with sharp angles. So, sculpting a rock form and zremeshing is out of the question. Solo is fun, alittle redundant.
yeah, symmetry doesnt seem to work with the new trim brushes.
Ive noticed masking partially hidden geometry and applying a polygroup has about a 30% chance to crash my zbrush. anyone else have experience that?
TY Torch Btw, I've had the spiraling loops problem when doing autotopo in 3dcoat at work (even with guides), but in the few zremesher tests so far the loops wrap around just fine.
You guys should check out the updated Frame Mesh feature too. It will draw curves on the geometry edges, polygroup edges, and creased edges. It adds some much needed precision for the curves brushes, and it's good for funky scifi kitbashing or Giger inspired greeble.
Minimum System Requirements:
OS: Windows Vista, or newer, 32-bits or 64-bits.
UGH.. i know its sad I still use xp. Waiting to upgrade when i can afford a new rig.
It's a shame ZRemesher looks like a huge improvement from QRemesher.
Yeah think the update before this was when they dropped support for XP. I can still use the older versions but I'm gonna have to wait and build a new computer before I can use any of the new cool features. So I'm in the same boat as you.
Replies
also if you lower the seeting for uniform and use a hard constrain in the center line...
but its clear zbrush is the winner here...!
the topo looks in some places like hand crafted... great job pixo...
This can be seen when you do some fancy stuff with layers when it comes to blending certain things for (example) skin textures, materials, and baking them down to your diffuse or collapsing the layers.
At least once every couple of layers, I have to pop an Empty layer or two, and collapse everything with that, or else ZB will start throwing at me corrupt paint or blotchy black spots the next time I load the model.
So in that regard, I'm worried if they ever decided to patch something with the layers, and we lose out on polypaint in the process. That would suck major time since almost all of my archives have at least 2 layers for my poypaint on my PC
That might finally make me ditch Mudbox, yeah..
The trim brushes function exactly like the clip brushes except they delete the geometry and the close the hole with a new polygroup. This opens up a bunch of new options to play with. As for the crease brush, it's basically a slice curve brush with a crease applied to it. I personally haven't found a good purpose for that yet.
Also the B-radius working with slice curve now is really awesome, especially when combined with panel loops.
An interesting point, but why use a .mud format, or a .ztl file for that matter. Both are proprietary for their respective applications and hardly what I would call an open format for a pipeline. I'd much rather have a more open and flexible format for pushing my data upstream and downstream in a pipeline.
all of those support subd level and group information ?
also how big do the file sizes get.
so far, i been converting all my .mud files to zbrush .ztl files mostly because the of client requirement and ztool file sizes are a LOT smaller than any other format i have seen so far.
a 3.5gb mudbox file comes down to a ~300mb ztl file.
well, when they've asked for .ztl files, i'm assuming it's so that if they need to reposition things to make baking easier they can do (i tend to have my low poly w/ UV's as a subtool within the .ztl file so you can use transpose master to move everything about all at once). or if they find that they might want a certain part of the high res tweaked proportionally they can move to a lower subdivision and do it easily. and in some cases it's probably just for records keeping... you never know when you might need to revisit and revise an asset!
.obj/fbx etc. are all decent formats but they really lack the flexibility that .ztl offers when it comes to making any changes.
if the client wants a .ztl file... he is getting one...
same for .mud or all other files...
@MM
mudbox 2014 files are now smaller...
I'm not rubbishing formats like .mud/.ztl, like any other specific software scene format are great at what they do, but not so good when it comes to pushing data through a pipeline, into other softwares, or into a game for that matter. (at least I'm not aware of anyone exporting .ztl/mud to a game).
Hence why many people do use obj/fbx, and more recently alembic (.abc). Different formats have different uses.
I've used that method you're referring to, but it's honestly not as flexible as I'd like it to be. If it had a layer painting system similar to PS's (along with blending modes) it would be badass. Like arshlevon mentioned, I'd have no reason to use any other app aside from my primary 3d software...and that would be really minimal.
how small ?
last time i tried the trial the file size was only 15-20% smaller so a 3.5gb file was something like 2.7 as i remember
ztl files are almost 1/10 of mud files. big difference and saves lot of time in transfering.
has there been significant update to that in service pack 1 ?
Why cant they just add to the current release instead of making a huge issue out of one or two things in one new release.
Sorry I am just grumpy this morning.
Having said that Zremesher still has the same flaw that Qremesher had, it creates spirals instead of clean edge loops. Ofc you can't see this on screenshots, but if you send your model to 3DS max and doubleclick on the edges of long parts like arms, legs and fingers you'll almost certainly see them.
Having said that there is a new feature that noone mentioned yet: you can retopologyze only parts of the model, which will hopefully make it possible to eliminate those spirals directly in Zbrush by retopologyzing them again.
It's nothing to do with exporting into the game, it's so the client can adjust things if need be. You'd provide them with an obj/dae/fbx of the low and highpoly as well, since those can be loaded into anything.
I'm not disputing that, but of course that applies only to a Zbrush scene/asset.
Although you import meshes into Mudbox and rebuild the subdivision levels (even the UVs), providing they were previously subdivided using the Catmull-Clark method. This can be handy if the original scene data is lost or you just have the final hires mesh.
I can't recall if Zbrush can do this (expecting it could).
@MM
my experience of the Mudbox 2014(including SP1) scene sizes is pretty much the same as yours, approx a 20% reduction. That's literally opening a previous Mudbox scene version and then just saving it with Mudbox 2014.
I'm excited to use the new ZRemesher but I think I'll get just as much use out of the clipping brushes as well. I hope version 5 has a bit more hard surface tools that don't involve booleans, then again I'm just eagerly awaiting ZB finally being 64-bit.
Yeah, I noticed the spiral thing as well. Blast. Hopefully they'll have a toggle for this in the future.
How do you go about only topoing a specific part? just hide the rest I assume?
Blender.
PowerAnimator
That topology reducer with those guides looks really sweet! I'm going to have to hunt around for some videos of it being done to see how smooth the process is because this looks like one of those "too good to be true" things and I'm paranoid there's a hitch somewhere in there.
I doubt they won't ever work on Sculptris updates. Sculptris acts as bait, to get people interested in digital sculpting and thus maybe a possible upgrade to Zbrush.
And honestly, Zbrush is not that pricey. Just save your pennies
Otherwise, Blender has also some nice sculpting tools with a similar approach like Sculptris.
Softimage ;-)
Thanks for the guides and examples, everyone. I just installed the update. :thumbup:
What does a b-radius with slice curves create?
I have zbrush lad. heh heh heh lol I just find it weird that they are not doing anything to remotely improve sculptris.
Checking features as I browse the update docs. Trim cuve w/ brush radius enabled (clip brush modifier tab) does a cool boolean based on the size of your brush. Like a slice curve but will also delete the sliced path.
Or if you want the opposite result, keystroke with the alt. Works great with the open curves, but the result I get from closed ones (circle, rect) is not the same expected result - I`m not getting a booleaned core.
Switched to Zbrush a little under a year ago and just been constantly impressed by it.
Ive noticed masking partially hidden geometry and applying a polygroup has about a 30% chance to crash my zbrush. anyone else have experience that?
That happened to me yesterday while doing a panel loop to hidden mask. I just thought I dialed the settings too high for my lo spec laptop.
I am unable to do the auto update. Whenever I do, it asks me for the license.
Me: Welp, I think my retopo is pretty good!?
Zbrush: Hold my beer.
All they did was mailed me and gave instructions for auto update. I will read em again and find the 4r6 installer.
OS: Windows Vista, or newer, 32-bits or 64-bits.
UGH.. i know its sad I still use xp. Waiting to upgrade when i can afford a new rig.
It's a shame ZRemesher looks like a huge improvement from QRemesher.
Have you already tried this?
https://pixologic.com/zbrush/downloadcenter/instructions/full-installer.php
Yeah think the update before this was when they dropped support for XP. I can still use the older versions but I'm gonna have to wait and build a new computer before I can use any of the new cool features. So I'm in the same boat as you.