Mudbox! YEah, i want it!
polycounter lvl 18
I am interested with program Mudbox, I so much heard about it.
Prompt places where it is possible to esteem about it would be excellent if gave a link on a trial the version
P.S: sorry my stupid english=)
Prompt places where it is possible to esteem about it would be excellent if gave a link on a trial the version
P.S: sorry my stupid english=)
Replies
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=353952
Cheers,
Shawn
Who's developing it?
*I could be wrong. It's happened before.
Or is it just the fact that its new.
I find zbrush great as it has a shed load of scripts to enhance your workflow.
But isn't zbrush good enough for ya:).
Or is it just the fact that its new.
I find zbrush great as it has a shed load of scripts to enhance your workflow.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I could get a program to do what Zbrush does without the "unique" interface, I'd jump all over the chance. What little I've heard of mudbox is that it might be a program to do that. And a bit more. Of course, I really can't say my information is very good.
In terms of results, it's actually almost a mathematical impossibility that what you can create with mudbox could be vastly different from what is currently possible with ZB. They are both after all based on the fundamental principle of heightfields.
The hope however as I see it, is that (unlike ZB) mbox brings a 'normal', intuitive (and perhaps more crucially) quick to learn interface to the concept of geometry painting, and that's gotta be a good thing. Zbrush's learning curve will be the death of it If it aint careful.
ok, so we get a new competitor, fine. but is it known if mudbox includes 3d texturing tools like ZB does? that's the other side of the coin and very very helpful at least in my world. i've been using zbrush since 1.23, four years ago, when it was not advertised as a sculptor but already very helpful in painting textures and lighting them afterwards.
i know weta used studiopaint at least partially on kong for texturing characters/creatures (you can see it running in their making of videos on that female texture artist's screen), so i wonder if mudbox is intended at all to cover this area and might even be up to studiopaint goodness?
I only use the geometry sculpting tools because the rest just feels weird, and non-flexible workflows like not being able to add in new objects concerns me that before I take anything into Zbrush I must be super sure it's finalised.
Not to mention the performance (maybe specific to me), god knows how people get into the millions of polys with it.
Zbrush is a great tool, I don't think anyone disputes that. I'm interested to see what they do with 2.5 (3.0?).
i think a lot of what makes up the hype here is that it's a tool used by weta. we had the same thing going with zbrush2 beta testing in 2004, me thinks. we shall see.
One thing that's bugging me a little about the mudbox hype, is that people seem to think that it will suddenly turn them into Dave Cardwell overnight.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've actually been beta-testing CardBox, which is actually a large box containing a generator which turns people into Dave Cardwell overnight.
super: performance - ZB does only care about your processor(s) and RAM, graphics card speed is totally irrelevant. also, use masks extensively to hide stuff you're not working on and turn off that mirror tool (instead resym later).
As the tool has told very dear me Daz, it only. But I want the convenient tool.
Zbrush certainly super a thing, but not an ideal. And here so much all have told about this most Mudbox. By the way, I heard that in Mudbox it will be possible to store geometry and details layers, as in Photoshop.
Thanks everything, we shall continue our discussion.
and a good perspective view so that you can see what the bleedin thing actually looks like as you work
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually there is a kind of perspective view in Zbrush. As far as I know, it's not useable with the edit mode (
About Mudbox, I'll just wait and give it a try when it will be rlzed
a. Much more intuitive to use. People have been quoted as just sitting down and sculpting how they like within minutes, no manuals required, supposedly it is just that natural.
b. It is not limited by polygons. I don't understand this fully just yet, but it's been said. Perhaps it is working on pointclouds ala clay? Don't know, don't care, cause a. is enough for me.
It was developed internally by Weta, there is an interview that says this. The question here is why would someone who used zbrush spend the money to develop a program that does the same thing? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just by zbrush licenses? I think what we can safely assume is that it is different enough from zbrush, and evidently superior enough to zbrush to warrant it's development by someone who otherwise wouldn't need it. And it may just be a tool, but the more intuitive tools become, the thinner the barriar between being creative and being limited gets.
I'm in the beta. I won't (and can't) say anything about it - except once you use it you will never even think about touching the horrible piece of shit that zBrush is. And you will realize what a horrible piece of shit zBrush is. (note - I was a hardcore zBrush fanatic before - that's how much better it is).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of thing I keep hearing about it. Which makes me wonder what the hell it does compared to Zbrush. And it's comments like that which, for me at least, are hyping it up as an exciting new tool - not giving any illusions of suddenly becoming an awesome artist.
Btw, can you say who's developing it?
[ QUOTE ]
super: performance - ZB does only care about your processor(s) and RAM, graphics card speed is totally irrelevant. also, use masks extensively to hide stuff you're not working on and turn off that mirror tool (instead resym later).
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to go off-topic, but I've got a P4 3Ghz with HT enabled (recommended by Zbrush), 1.5GB RAM and yet I cannot edit more than a 200k mesh. I read Zbrush will not run with more than 2GB, so adding another 512MB will let me sculpt into the millions? Surely not.
I really don't understand why I get such crap performance. Even 50k meshes, when filling the entire canvas don't move more than 15fps.
seems to me that those who complain so much about zbrush's interface didn't try hard enough.
[/ QUOTE ]
From experience, I couldn't disagree more. Have you actually worked in a production environment where large groups of people have been introduced to Zbrush and had to learn it?
I've witnessed it firsthand, and it aint pretty.
seems to me that those who complain so much about zbrush's interface didn't try hard enough.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol dont try hard enough, yeah yeah im sure.
from: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=264492&page=1&pp=15
Here is an article on ZBrush at www.awn.com
http://vfxworld.com/?atype=articles&id=2636
There is one comment so far on the article by:Tibor Madjar Kong Asset Lead Modeler Weta Digital
It's quick and easy to register on awn to view the comment but to save you the trouble I'll quote him here.
Quote:
Hello, I was disappointed with the article on Zbrush 2 [Digital Eye: To Z or not to Z? Its No Longer the Question]. Zbrush 2 contains some powerful features and so I appreciate the novelty the software must have presented to the author. However, consequently, the article strikes me as lacking a requisite balance, and does nothing to uncover the software's limitations or any level of dissatisfaction experienced by many of its users. But more importantly, the article contains several factual inaccuracies. It is true that Dave Cardwell, myself, and the rest of the Models team at Weta collaborated with Pixologic in the development of Zbrush 2 in 2003, supplying much of the feature set later released in this version and providing the software with a previously lacking production perspective. However, despite this, Weta in fact no longer uses or rarely uses Zbrush -- for anything. 1. Weta no longer uses or rarely uses Zbrush 2 2. I am using MUDBOX to design and detail my models. 3. The "nasty armies" were not "created in ZBrush" 4. I am not "designing characters for ... Chronicles of Narnia" 5. I am not "designing characters for Kong ... in ZBrush 2" For future reference, I invite you to contact me directly for information or confirmation concerning my work. I am more than happy to share these things with you within the bounds of Weta's NDA. On a side note, I feel it is worth highlighting that until MUDBOX, software makers were not offering any serious competition to Zbrush and consequently users had little choice when it came to high resolution, brush-based modeling. There is and always will be a measure of frustration with existing tools as users and productions demand more from software. However, so many articles and reviews about Zbrush make it seem like it has already "arrived at the destination" and often read more like press releases than informative articles from respected industry journals. I would suggest that readers might appreciate a bit more investigation and balance in the upcoming reviews of Massive and Face Robot. I know I certainly would and look forward to the next two articles! thanks, Tibor Madjar Kong Asset Lead Modeler Weta Digital
So that confirms that they are using Mud Box.. I haven't found any actual information about the program itself though.
Theres this little app too which can be found in that thread, i watched a video and the ui seemed much better than zbrush's with some pretty cool selection/manipulation tools as well.
http://kolbyjukes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=179
video:
http://rapidshare.de/files/4915003/claytools01.avi.html
Hopefully the competition will drive improvements in zbrush also, forcing them to innovate again
and to be honest...the first time i picked up max/maya...it was more difficult to navigate. i think sometimes the fact that people are so used to a certain app(and yes, max/maya have similarities)it hinders them from picking up others. i think to get the basic...BASIC navigating/sculpting tools in zbrush, all you have to do is just devote a solid week(on/off)and you will start to understand stuff. of course....i've never used mudbox, AND i'm no pro at zbrush...so that's easy to say. haha.
But with Silo 2.0 coming out my concern decreases hehe, I'll most likely just use zbrush (or mudbox if I was to get it) to add on the finest of details.
I too wait for it with impatience:)
My intention is create the mesh in Silo, sculpt it to the main form I intend, use topology brush if need be, then take it into zbrush for projection master to add the finest details.
The sculpting won't be able to go to the level of zbrush/mudbox, but I doubt anyone is too concerned about that
i think in future it will be interesting to see where both apps go from there.
Personally, i use ZBrush about once a month and everytime i open it i have already fogotten all the keys and part of the navigation, so mudbox with it's standard 3D app layout should suit me better
so, everybody and their dog (no offense) is already using this in the beta test? how ... underwhelming.
and thanks strangefate for putting it back into perspective a little.
super: FYI, something must be wrong with your installation or machine. these numbers sound ridiculously low. on my dual 3 ghz xeon, i can go over 4 million and still work. even my stoneage athlon from 2001 can go higher than what you list. as for memory - i guess if you apply the windows 3GB switch then it might consume more than 2GB which is the normal process limit for 32 bit apps - on a 32 bit windows anyway.
hth
you can open maya, and if you have ever used anything else on a computer before you know how to open, save, export , import, cause its the same as everything else
http://www.mudbox3d.com/
http://www.mudbox3d.com/images/guiPreview.jpg
Also, just a quick update to let you know we are preparing to make selections from the applications we received to join the Mudbox beta program. The beta team will be expanded in a series of rounds, and we will be contacting a limited number for the first round as early as this week. (By the way, if you haven't received any correspondence from us yet, and you signed up with a free email service [eg. yahoo, hotmail, etc.] please check your junk folder.)
http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=96944
Zbrush gives great results if you can tolerate it. It gives results no other app can give at the moment. It's quick to learn the basics, and get started, with the supplied documents. More difficult to remember it. I finally gave in and tried it. I hated every moment of it. Watchihg other artists attempt to explain and defend it was a good laugh. Shouldn't fall for peer pressure. The app sucks.
Perhaps the people at Pixologic can now focus on a new app designed for artists. I can't wait try Mudbox, or the apps that follow it. Good thing I saved $500.