Zbrush vs Mudbox

Clos3d

I'm just done learning Zbrush and my friend tell me that a new app is out and it is apparently better than Zbrush. I've looked into it a bit but I don't feel ready to burn my head for another week.

If anyone can fill me up on ''why is better'' or ''why is not''. I'd like to hear your tought about it.

oXYnary

http://boards.polycount.net/showflat.php...;gonew=1#UNREAD

elkwood

well i for ones love ZB ..
and ZB is comeing out whit 2.5 sone

Xenobond

Zbrush was nice for a time because basically that's all there was. But now there is more competing products emerging like mudbox and others (other pure modeling programs are integrating the poly sculpting tools). It is still too early to say which one is the best though. I personally like mudbox because it is all about the poly sculpting. It's not some facet to an odd 2d/3d paint program that slapped in model importing in the worst way possible. To me mudbox has an easy to learn interface because of that same reason. It's geared primarilly for poly sculpting, and is not cluttered by all the painting and other junk.

It's kind of the same type of thing as how Bodypaint is. I really like using it to paint most of my models in, but it has too much of the cinema4d tools lingering around making it confusing to new users. If there was a straight up model painting app that focused on emulating photoshops psd layers 100% and had a decent brush system, I'd jump to that in a heartbeat.

It's all about what's easier for you, though.

dejawolf

i taught my lil sis at 12 to work with mudbox in 5 minutes.
she's never worked with a 3d app, and can barely draw in photoshop.
in comparison, she just stares blankly at the zbrush interface.

diZzyWalnut

... Any news about the price of MUDBOX ?

solar

Im quite sure mudbox is a huge improvement over zbrush but i've yet to export an obj to mudbox from max successfully(even going via silo causes problems). Its important things like this that should just "work" in a new app hoping to trump current tech. And just to be clear I have no issues at all going from max to zbrush.

conte

i think Zbrush+mudbox in working will be great.
not zbrush vs Mudbox=)

Rhinokey

[ QUOTE ]
Its important things like this that should just "work" in a new app hoping to trump current tech.

[/ QUOTE ]

well theres the problem.. mudbox is not a "new" app.. its an app thats in beta.. which means its not finished. hopefully they will fix that for you.. but also i've exported several objects from mudbox to max. with no issue

EarthQuake

I've exported 50+ models flawlessly in obj format, the only times i've had issues are when i start to get corrupt polys in some places, which i think is a symmetry bug. But otherwise, always works perfectly. You might just be trying to load way too large obj files in max, which i've had problems with going from mudbox too(and zbrush for that matter). But any program that can actually open a file with a large amount of raw data the files are fine in(modo, xnormal, ect)

Ruz

well zbrush has zapplink, zmapper and numerous other scripts.
also it seems there is nothing you can do in mudbox that you can't do in zbrush.

Joao Sapiro

...except learning way faster , and since time is money eheheh...

would be cool a merge, mudbox interface with zbrush tools in an organized way...

EarthQuake

Modeling in perspective, tools that actually make sense to use(size beinng a fixed value, not some retarded arbitrary value reletive to screensize, holy fuck who would have thought of that). Settings for pressure senstivity. Its not really about having a bunch of cool new features(that you will use 5% of the time anyway) its about vastly improving the basic features that you use constantly.

ironbearxl

Zbrush 1.0 was like trying to fly a mothership, 2.0 is not as cluttered, but they should optimize it some more after the 2.5 update I hope.

MoP

Earthquake: solar was talking about TO mudbox FROM max, not the other way round.

EarthQuake

Oh oh, make if thats the case and you're having problems importing files just make sure you have quads and no tris! For some reason mudbox will triangulate all polys as tris if you have a single triangle. Maybe theres a setting somewhere to turn this off if so i dont know about it. Anyway a quick fix to this is to just meshsmooth your model in max before you sub-divide and it will make only quads.

Jelmer

EQ: Importing the mesh in ZBrush first, and exporting it into Mudbox after that, will work too. That way you'll keep your lowest subvivision level.

EarthQuake

How does that work? I've use a similar workaround that involves importing the lowest from mudbox into zbrush, and reconstructing sub-d to get the absolute lowest out which seems to work alright.

Fuse

i use wings to import mesh into mudbox from max

Psyk0

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe theres a setting somewhere to turn this off if so i dont know about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, i read in the help file or whatever, that it's not yet possible to properly subd a mesh with triangle(s)...it's beta after all. As you said, easy to fix.

I love mudbutt so much i'm getting a face tattoo, Mike Tyson style!

Renaud Galand

[ QUOTE ]
Oh oh, make if thats the case and you're having problems importing files just make sure you have quads and no tris! For some reason mudbox will triangulate all polys as tris if you have a single triangle. Maybe theres a setting somewhere to turn this off if so i dont know about it. Anyway a quick fix to this is to just meshsmooth your model in max before you sub-divide and it will make only quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Tris in your model will definitly f*ck it when you'll try to get it subdivided (web-ish style subdividing), but you definitly CAN import without any problem a triangulate mesh in mudbox. I personally got some import problems whith importing obj from max to mudbox when I tried the software for the first time (the mesh was loaded by mudbox but I wasn't able to see it in the viewport...). FOR ME, it was just a obj cfg problem. Just make sure your # of Digits is not bigger than 6 or 7 (with Zbrush, I always put this number to 12 to maximise the matching, but it looks like it doesn't work sooo well with mud box. Btw, 6 or 7 is just enough )

low odor

I had the same prob as Renaud...with the # of digits..but as Renaud pointed out, it's an easy fix, and thus far have had no other problems importing obj files into mudbox..

I've only had Mudbox for a day and I impressed with its ease of use

almighty_gir

has anyone tried rendering a normalmap within mudbox? cos im having trouble with that.

Joao Sapiro

its still very beta i believe, but its very intuitive , im still amazed of the user friendly interface of mudbox, it is clearly made from artists to artists.

Downsizer

I'd try, but I dont have mudbox. No one responded to the beta application. I can only hope there is a public demo availible soon.

The Zbrush demo was about as productive to me as a McDonalds employee trying to design an office building.

As to the choice, it depends on cost really. Zbrush + gnomon training dvds may be cheaper than the final mudbox price. no idea. But i'll take the time to learn either to get the job done.

JKMakowka

Just as an additional information: The next version of Blender will have sculpting and re-topo integrated, and from what I have seen so far, it seems to work pretty good.

tacit math

quoting a post by teatime on the silo boards

thread : http://www.silo3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7196

" Mudbox is 100% middleware. Thanks to simple apps like Nvidia Melody, people can develop normal mapped models without splashing out more cash.

Even with Zbrush you can make a model from scratch, paint, and normal map it, then take it into a larger app like XSI or maya and rig and animate it.

Let's face it with the release of Silo 2, mudbox is going to have to be damn competitive in pricing! If it's more than $250 I can't see many freelancers or smaller studios actually buying it. It would be hard to justify. "

Psyk0

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone tried rendering a normalmap within mudbox? cos im having trouble with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have. The map comes out fine, but im having problems making it work in max .

ElysiumGX

[ QUOTE ]
i've yet to export an obj to mudbox from max successfully(even going via silo causes problems). Its important things like this that should just "work" in a new app hoping to trump current tech

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right...Autodesk should update its outdated OBJ export script so that it's able to work with newer apps. As it stands, exporting OBJ from Max is not advised.

Keg

mudbox does allow for creation of cube's, plane's and sphere's

not up to the same level as say zbrush, but it's purpose is painting detail for items already created. And honestly it does the job quite well.

Wells

[ QUOTE ]
I've only had Mudbox for a day and I impressed with its ease of use

[/ QUOTE ]

solar

The thing is ElysiumGX, Max works with every other app, it might be a crap exporter, I don't actually know but then I've never had a problem exporting obj's from max and I do it pretty much every day. I might be wrong but shouldn't Mudbox work with Max rather than the other way around. I mean thats the whole purpose of Mudbox, to integrate with other apps to be used for a detail pass. I also just tried adjusting the no of digits lower than 6 but still no joy, the mesh is 100% quads. I could just be missing something obvious though

Ruz

I had problems exporting obj from max but my settings that work are : turn off normals and smoothing groups, leave on texture cooridinates and bump up the digits to 9. also make sure you export as a polymesh. works fine in zbrush. not sure about mudbox
seems like they took the old habware obj exporter , from max 5 and incorporated that in to all the subsequent versions of max. Very lazy IMHO