Do any Maya users use Zbrush.

[lostpencil]

Hey Rebo,

I would be interested to see if anyone has done this as well. I evaluated using the tool a few months back, but the best part of the tool - the UV texturing - relied on a specialized UV mapping technique (it mapped each polygon to a square-ish sort of UV grid). This didn't port well into Maya or Lightwave at the time (the UV boundaries were clearly seen). I also believe that the polygonal meshes that result from the modeling are quite heavy.

[bentllama]

I am starting to learn Zbrush now and plan to incorporate it into my workflow.

edit: zbrush could aid in making some killer normal maps :)

[S. J. Tubbrit]

In a related area, I thought this was quite nice, a good way to add organic details to your meshes

http://www.brilliant-creations.com/zbrushtutorial.htm

[somlor]

I was just about to refer to using Zbrush to create detailed meshes from which you can extract displacement maps to render detail onto a lower resolution model, (ie:here (http://www.geocities.com/nausicaahyeseung/displace_page.html ) and here (http://www.drone.org/tutorials/rayDisplace_userGallery.html)) but I'm assuming you are the same rebo from Spiraloid so you already know that. :)

I have also been seriously considering purchasing ZBrush for this alone, and for it's usefulness in quickly creating textured models/scenes for prototypes or print work.

lostpencil: I was actually very curious about ZBrush's texturing / painting capabilities. Are you, or anyone else aware of wether they fixed the sort of problems you were having? It would be nice if Zbrush could double as a Deep Paint of sorts.

[s]

[Mandrake]

Originally posted by bentllama
I am starting to learn Zbrush now and plan to incorporate it into my workflow.

edit: zbrush could aid in making some killer normal maps :)

Same idea here:) .. see you in few months to see what we've
came up with;)

[rebo]

Heh, yea i am somlor, hi. I am trying to figure out the best way of working with Zbrush, i think Zspheres is the way to go and then mould with the artizan type tools. I wonder if there is an option that gives the artisan smoothing effect. I could only find push pull in Zbrush.

Here is the thread from Spiraloid http://cube.phlatt.net/forums/spiraloid/viewboard.php?BoardID=2 .

[MasonDoran]

rebo...look under the deformations window...there is a smooth option there that is the same as Mayas...where it averages verts without adding geometry....practice painting alpha masks when u use deformations...

[lostpencil]

Hey Somlor, I think you can still use different mapping methods (spherical, planar, etc) so you can get maps in Zbrush that work with other packages. But the UV mapping method that works best within Zbrush didn't port well (I don't recall what it was called off hand). I haven't tried it recently so you may want to experiment.

[ambient-whisper]

you mean auto UV tiling?

[lostpencil]

That's it! Thanks ambient!

[lostpencil]

Sooo... out of curiosity I downloaded their test object (the one with the UV tile mapping. And an interesting thing occured. The render using Maya's renderer produced the as per mentioned previous problems with UV borders. But rendering with Mental Ray produced no such borders.... So I thought... hmmm...maybe there is a setting in the Maya shader that has a setting I'm missing and lo and behold: if you turn on mipmap for the filter type and set prefilter under the file texture options it renders fine.
Here are some pics.

http://www.lostpencil.com/temp/maya_render.jpg
http://www.lostpencil.com/temp/maya_render_mipmap.jpg
http://www.lostpencil.com/temp/mental_render.jpg

Hmm... now I have to revisit Zbrush again... Thanks guys!

[rebo]

Yea that auto UV tiling sure is different. My concern is it will be impossible to edit the maps in photo shop and you will have to do it all via 3D paint tools

[lostpencil]

Yep, that's a valid concern and a definite workflow change.

[Western3D]

i've been playing around a fair amount with the texturing in ZBrush and can safely say that the texture exporting from ZBrush was fixed in version 1.55b. there were a lot of changes made, really.

UVTiles got replaced by AUVTiles. the new version lets you specify different size squares on the texture grid based on the sizes of the model's polys. so if you have a model with identically-sized polys you can leave the setting at the default and all squares on the texture will be the same size. but if there are majorly different poly sizes in the model then the texture mapping can be done with different size squares. at the most extreme setting the largest texture squares will be 30 times bigger than the smallest, which makes for more even fewer distortions. if you don't care about having to unwrap the texture for 2D painting, AUVTiles is the way to go! there's basically no stretching anywhere on the model. but there are things you need to do to get the best results. click here (http://www.pixolator.com/zbc-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010200)

as for the problem of seams around the polys, that's been fixed. the texture now looks the way it is supposed to in any program. but as lostpencil said, some programs need to have the texture settings looked at.

of course, you don't have to use AUVTiles either. zbrush will use any mapping that's applied to an imported model. so you can map it in Maya or UVMapper or whatever and texture it in ZBrush and unwrap when you need to.

the new version has some really cool stuff done to it, too, to make it more user friendly. zbrush's UV's are flipped compared to most other programs. well, if you import or export a bitmap, ZBrush will automatically flip the texture for you. in addition, if you export a model from ZBrush with a texture applied, then ZBrush will automatically save the bitmap, flip it vertically, and run something called "Fix Seams" which traces around the edges of the textures and helps prevent seams in other programs. it's really sweet!

[S. J. Tubbrit]

Hi,

Although I've done similar tests with a workflow for getting low-poly models mapped with a normal map derived from a high-res version of the same mesh, my tests were done with an early version of raydisplace (available on highend), I've been looking at the workflow for doing this within Zbrush, and I have to say that this way looks fantastic. However, I have a few questions, if anyone would be willing to help me out with the answers?

It's kind of a ''would this work' with questions' workflow : -

1. Let's say I model my low-poly mesh in Maya.

2. I set up my UV's in Maya.

3. I then take this mesh into Zbrush, and divide the model 2 times or whatever I need to start painting the high-res detail that I require, which, btw, I have a question for right now, I have downloaded the demo to see if it will meet my requirements, but for sculpting or drawing on a 3d model, I was messing around with a sphere, there is only zadd or zsub, and it seems I can only add a set amount each time, i.e. it displaces exactly the same each time I stroke my pen across the surface, how can I get a softer stroke? and is there a way to 'smooth' an area after painting?

4. Anyway, back to ZBrush, so I have my model loaded in and I have divided it twice say, now I start sculpting my detail until I get something I like.

5. From this I can export the model back out as the high-res version, and I can also now derive from this surface my 'normal' map, ok, but is it also possible to derive a displacement map? And also, when I subdivided, did I lose my UV information, or is it propgated to the smoothed version?

I'm also including a step here, where I take the high-res mesh back into maya and using the sculpt poly tools I smooth out some areas of the mesh that look a little messy, and then bring it back into Zbrush for creating the normal map, now like I said, if the UV information is kept intact ( ? ), can zbrush also create a displacement map based on the high-res mesh? and will it be 256 colour map, or 16 or 32 bit?

6. Assuming I can get a diplacement map too as well as a normal map, use RayDisplace (updated version for Mental Ray) and render through that my low-res mesh, the end results should ideally be indistinguishable from the high-res mesh that was created in Zbrush, yes?

7. This actually sounds too good to be true, as all the detail of the model is kept in the maps, this means my low-poly version is not only just used for animation, but also for the final render too, making things a hell of a lot better and easier to use in the long run.

Hope this all makes sense, I'd appreciate any help and direction here?

Regards

Steven J. Tubbrit
Home Page (http://www.steven-tubbrit.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk)

[somlor]

Originally posted by S. J. Tubbrit
I have a question for right now, I have downloaded the demo to see if it will meet my requirements, but for sculpting or drawing on a 3d model, I was messing around with a sphere, there is only zadd or zsub, and it seems I can only add a set amount each time, i.e. it displaces exactly the same each time I stroke my pen across the surface, how can I get a softer stroke? and is there a way to 'smooth' an area after painting?

Yes, you can change your brush size/power and do smoothing. I've only dabbled with the demo myself so I can't tell you how off the top of my head, but I know it's part of the toolset.

4. Anyway, back to ZBrush, so I have my model loaded in and I have divided it twice say, now I start sculpting my detail until I get something I like.

5. From this I can export the model back out as the high-res version, and I can also now derive from this surface my 'normal' map, ok, but is it also possible to derive a displacement map? And also, when I subdivided, did I lose my UV information, or is it propgated to the smoothed version?

The way I understand how the rayDisplace plugin works, is that it casts rays from your low poly mesh out to the high density one to create your displacement map. The high density mesh doesn't need UV maps at all because the maps are calculated through the raytracing. You then apply your normal/displacement map(s) to the low poly model and it uses the existing UV maps. If you then use a renderer capable of true displacement (RMan, MRay), it will actually deform the geometry along with the UV map, so everything will be peachy. If you are using a renderer that can only do bump mapping the "displacement" and your textures won't look right from certain angles, especially in silhouette.

6. Assuming I can get a diplacement map too as well as a normal map, use RayDisplace (updated version for Mental Ray) and render through that my low-res mesh, the end results should ideally be indistinguishable from the high-res mesh that was created in Zbrush, yes?

Theoretically. ;) This is a relatively new technology and I haven't tested it myself yet, but that is definitely the idea and there are plenty of test renders to show that it does work.

7. This actually sounds too good to be true, as all the detail of the model is kept in the maps, this means my low-poly version is not only just used for animation, but also for the final render too, making things a hell of a lot better and easier to use in the long run.

Exactly! :bounce: That's why this is such an exciting approach. UVW unwrapping, rigging and animating will feel like a breeze this way. It's pretty amazing.

Keep checking in on the Spiraloid forum. There are some very sharp guys preparing some great free tools to make this process accessible to anyone.

:thumbsup:

[s]

[S. J. Tubbrit]

Hi Sean,

thanks for your reply. Like I said, I've been testing 'normal map' data with an older version of raydisplace, I've grabbed the latest version that works with Mental Ray and I've only just had a chance to read through the latest documentation detailing how I can also get a displacement map too from the higher res mesh, maybe I should have done that to start with, I'm forever jumping ahead of myself.... :)

Yup, watching (and participating : ) ).... :)

Regards

Steven J. Tubbrit
Home Page (http://www.steven-tubbrit.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk)

[rebo]

Basically everything somlor says is correct. One small Correction tho, most software can do displacement mapping tho this is implimented in mainly 3 different ways.

The first Simply uses a diplacement map to move vertices in an original mesh depending on map. (Tho this is outdated)

The 2nd tesselates the origninal mesh a finite amount and then moves those verticies depending on the map. Then the surface is passed thru the render. (maya does this)

The 3rd which is often refered to as true displacement integrates displacement mapping into the rendering engine itself as it uses micro polygons by default to resolve surfaces on a per pixel level. This is the fastest and most memory efficent (extra geometry isnt stored) way of using displacement mapping. (Rman compliant renders and i think MRay do this).

For the purposes of using displacement and normal maps obtained from a hi res Zbrush mesh either the 2nd or third way will be sufficent.

[dmthurman]

Bay Raitt uses Zbrush. He loves it.

David T.

[hotbuffalosauce]

so far zbrush seems to be useful for previs for us.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.