Mudbox compared to Zbrush
polycounter lvl 5
Hey, so i have been exploring Zbrush a bit and i find it really powerful but one thing that really bothers me is the viewport navigation.
I don't like the way to zoom and rotating around my geometry always seems troublesome. So i looked up Mudbox and it seems to be really similar to 3ds Max viewport navigation wise (and i really like and am used to 3DS max's way of navigating).
So basically i was wondering could i use Mudbox instead of Zbrush and not get penalized in my workflow? What makes Zbrush better (as everyone seems to tell me) and should i force myself to learn Zbrush?
I don't like the way to zoom and rotating around my geometry always seems troublesome. So i looked up Mudbox and it seems to be really similar to 3ds Max viewport navigation wise (and i really like and am used to 3DS max's way of navigating).
So basically i was wondering could i use Mudbox instead of Zbrush and not get penalized in my workflow? What makes Zbrush better (as everyone seems to tell me) and should i force myself to learn Zbrush?
Replies
Also maybe consider setting rotation to Y only, it's set to XYZ by default and that will cause the camera to roll when orbiting. Sometimes thats useful but most of the time I prefer Y rotation.
- VDM stamps
- Stable 64-bit version for years
- Eminently usable
- Cheap subscription price
- Better viewport
- Robust layers
- Crossplatform (runs on Linux)
- Better map baking, although usually not so great that you'd want to use it instead of Xnormal in most situations
- You can paint right on the model
- Painting supports multiple channels and Ptex, which can be handy
- Supports importing hard-surface data like edge creases
- Tilable sculpts are super easy to set up and don't come with any strings attached like having to work at twice the resolution in the 2.5d canvas to get a semblance of antialiasing, or having to set every brush to use wrap mode, and it comes at virtually no performance penalty unlike Zbrush wrap mode
- Mudbox has fewer issues with scale in my experience and doesn't really prefer models to be in that [-1,-1,-1] to [1, 1, 1] space that Zbrush likes (though in practice this isn't really an issue)
Objective strengths of Zbrush
- Dynamesh means that you don't have to worry about putting together a base mesh in most cases
- Has some modeling tools built in with the latest release
- Projection Master and the 2.5d canvas let you do some neat tricks with texturing that aren't quite the same in Mudbox
- There are loads more brushes and you'll almost always have the right brush to accomplish your goals, and Dynamesh makes some brushes practical in Zbrush that wouldn't be in Mudbox
- Zremesher is a little nicer than Mudbox's built-in retopology, even though both are quite capable for going from a concept sculpt to final detailing and adjustment
Subjective strengths of Zbrush:
- Lots of the brushes feel nicer and more responsive to me
- It feels like you can generally get things done faster
- Updates are generally more substantial than Mudbox's and so far they've always been free, with no real evidence suggesting that they would ever require payment
Overall I'd give Zbrush the edge for portfolios and Mudbox the edge for production, though those edges are both vanishingly small. Zbrush feels like it's much more of a tool for artists.
mudbox - chugs on even a supercomputer
That being said ....
... you are absolutely correct about the Zbrush viewport navigation and overall model presentation being an issue. Some artists don't mind it at all, while I personally find it to very problematic, especially after witnessing the impact this can have on production (that is to say, models not looking "right" once seen outside of the app). In theory it doesnt sound like much, but in practice it can really affect the perception of the model. Because of that I end up using both programs - Zbrush for anything that involves merging meshes, extracting/duplicating parts, and so on ; and Mudbox for all the actual sculpting and form assessment.
I firmly believe that when one feels like "something feels off", one shouldn't "power through it" but rather clearly identify what is wrong. If that means using Mudbox in conjunction with Zbrush, then so be it
And good luck !
I completely agree. I use zbrush for the occasional task, but I end up spending more of my sculpting time in mudbox. I prefer the camera and navigation in mudbox as it is exactly the same as maya, as well as having the viewport which has proper correlation to maya's viewport and cameras. keep in mind though that my day to day tasks are far more production oriented.
I think its because the lower poly verion of any final mesh has more 'directional planes' but a high poly sculpt has a rounded bulgey feel to it.
Trying to resolve between the two has become a major issue for me
i even think max now has issues with readability in that the base model, with a basic blinn shader looks so different from my final vray render with lighting/shaders etc whic is even dependent on which hdr I use:)
My horrible workflow has recently involved constantly shifting between max and zbrush/mudbox and not seeing remotely the same thing.
I actually hate the midbox ui, all those damsn shortcuts:)
Probably the most helpful thing for me was to learn more (and practicing) photography. This made me realize that the ortho view in Zbrush is actually pretty good for portraits since it gets pretty close to the look of a telephoto shot. But then when switching perspective on all bets are off
And as you said, from there there is also the problem of materials, shadows, and so on ... One useful trick is to load a patterned reflection map, which then reveals all the bumps in a surface. But of course it doesn't help much with assessing proportions anyways.
If anything, the Zbrush to Keyshot bridge might end up a being a good way to alleviate the issue.
i really try to shoot my own reference whenever possible. this way i know the exact focal length i shot with and i can easily match that in maya or mudbox. for me it makes it easier to judge and work out forms, proportions and relationships. i'm still not 100% certain if the field of view slider in zbrush has a correlation to actual field of view in the real world or in other 3d apps. then there is the whole issue of field of view and the relationship it has with camera sensor size. anyone ever test it in zbrush to see if it does correlate properly?
I think that sometimes i have something that looks good in zbrush, but back in max I then realize maybe I have gone too far, ie overworked it, so it's not just the perspective issue - shader readability also comes in to it
ZippZopp - I think that zbrush perspective is not very accurate , but have never done any real tests myself
http://sortadone.blogspot.fr/p/zbrush-focal-angle-tutorial.html
Yet I am still not convinced that it is accurate, because of the very nature of the Zbrush viewport which is just distorted 2d.
That being said, even more "standard" 3D programs are not accurate either since none of them take the curvilinear aspect of perspective into account ...
i dind't test for 4r7 but as long as long as the perpective changes when you make your model bigger or smaller, i don't think one should rely too much on zbrushs perspective.
What comes to ZBrush's interface and navigation, I love it, with a tablet of course. With a mouse, it's unsuable, naturally.
As has been said I find mudbox chugs even on going between subd levels, I just dont have the patience for it. As far as ZBrush image presentation I never use matcaps but I have noticed quite a few folks use the ortho view almost exclusively.
For me ZBush hands down.
That's actually very interesting - since my main Zbrush use is mesh handling (merging, running dynamesh, qremesher, and so on) I personally almost exclusively use the mouse for it - even for things like grabbing and smoothing. But then again, I don't do much actual sculpting in it. Funny how everybody is so different !
Yeah, in Mud the default Sculpt brush is not very useful at all until the later stages. Wax is basically mandatory.
I do like me some Z though.
Just wanted to strongly support making the sculpt in zbrush and afterwards check in ofher softwares to validate the work. Scott Eaton also acknowledges the default focal lenght 50, is just too strong, it is better to sculpt closer to an orthographic view, (I've set mine at 20-22 focal lenght on 4r6) that way it is much less distorted and feels close to mudbox. But some people change the FOV and lighting which is a great way to double check the voliumes.
Also checking sculpts on marmoset is another solution for that. Just do a decimation, export to OBJ, and check in marmoset which is the most user friendly software of all : ) just to make sure. It makes a big difference as it was mentionned.
Yup, agreed!
i find hopping through subdivision levels unbearable in mudbox. i do it all the time when sculpting and as soon as my sculpt reaches a few million polies i can't seem to get any acceptable performance out of that program. a world of difference from zbrush.
decent for 3d-texturing though. another thing - not sure if they even develop it much anymore? seems meaningful updates all happened years ago.