Zbrush or Mudbox?

[beaker]

The other 1000 threads on this same exact topic in the zbrush and mudbux forum don't answer this question enough for you?

[Bucket]

I'm going to approach this from another perspective. Often times I find someone who has a mild interest in art. They want to start using some piece of software because that seems to be the way of the future. The common is that software is making it easier to make great looking content.

For the well rounded and well trained artist, software might make things easier. But for the artistically weak, it only makes things more difficult. Your first venture into learning any piece of graphics software will be the hardest. It gets easier overtime. But with that said. A tool is just a tool. Learning the tool does is not same as learning the art.

The very best in the industry worked very very hard to get to where they are... There is no shortcut to greatness although a lot of companies love to advertise their software as such so they can sell more product. Don't fall for that. To get great you must have serious commitment. Learn the art not the tool.

(sorry if this comes off as rude and assuming you know nothing. I just see this question everywhere, everyday)

[fraserad]

Point taken.

[beaker]

I didn't mean to be rude, the question just gets asked so much that you want to pull your hair out.

[Arcanox]

There's arguements either way for this type of thing, but personally in terms of performance I found Zbrush was way more responsive when switching between sub-div levels. I had some problems with Mudbox taking ages to switch between each level and it put me off from the software right away. Those particular problems aside, it's still a great program and it may have been something about my rig that caused that issue.

One of the biggest problems people have with Zbrush is that it's interface and terminology is SO different than anything else, while Mudbox is setup more like a traditional 3d app. It took me a good while of mucking around with Zbrush 2 and making absolutely useless models before I got the hang of things. Once you get into it though, using the program is like riding a bicycle, and very easy to manage. If you have access to quality learning dvd's and other materials, I would try going with Zbrush and the learning curve won't be nearly as harsh. The Pixologic team seems to come out with little gadget scripts every month that keep expanding the programs functionality as well.

[Rod Seffen]

Certainly if it's industry popularity you're concerned with, then zbrush is by far more widely used, simply because mudbox has only been around for a year and is still at version 1, and is still basically just a sculpting app at it's core, while zbrush has all sorts of other bells and whistles attached to it.

Personally, I hate every aspect from zbrush from it's first line of code, but a lot of good people use it to do a lot of good work.
Anyway, look out for V2.0 of mudbox arriving this year, it's going to even the contest a lot between it and zbrush 3.0.

[brook011]

I'm going to approach this from another perspective. Often times I find someone who has a mild interest in art. They want to start using some piece of software because that seems to be the way of the future. The common is that software is making it easier to make great looking content.

For the well rounded and well trained artist, software might make things easier. But for the artistically weak, it only makes things more difficult. Your first venture into learning any piece of graphics software will be the hardest. It gets easier overtime. But with that said. A tool is just a tool. Learning the tool does is not same as learning the art.

The very best in the industry worked very very hard to get to where they are... There is no shortcut to greatness although a lot of companies love to advertise their software as such so they can sell more product. Don't fall for that. To get great you must have serious commitment. Learn the art not the tool.

(sorry if this comes off as rude and assuming you know nothing. I just see this question everywhere, everyday)

Very well put. The software is nowhere near as important as the artistic capability of the person wielding the software. "Wield like a lightsaber"

[Renderer08]

Bucket is right, learn the art not the software.



But to quickly answer the question. Zbrush is more robust as of now. Mudbox is more intuitive to navigate but has less features. However Autodesk bought Mudbox so we might see major improvement in the future.

[musashidan]

Also depends on what, exactly, you need the software to achieve.Mudbox is excellent if you just intend to jump in and out with no hassles.Easy to learn without all the bells and whistles.
however,on the other hand ZB has amazing depth of features if you intend to create a mesh there,do your UV's,sculpt,texture,render or even retopologise or pose your mesh.
Personaly,i have used ZB(off and on) since 1.55 and have recently started to use MB.
MB suits my needs better as i retopo my meshes in 3dsMax.so for me,MB just seems more natural for my workflow.
If you choose ZB,then be prepared for an unorthodox learning curve,but one that is managable and not too steep.
If you choose MB,then be prepared for a learning curve less steep than MS paint:)

[twedzel]

The only thing keeping me in Zbrush right now is its texture painting capabilities. When mudbox has it, I'd switch in a heart beat. Personally I'd much rather work in a dedicated 3d app that feels and responds like a 3d app, than this 2-1/2 D ZBrush thing.

At work it doesn't make any sense to buy a license of mudbox only to buy a license of something else for texture painting when you can just do both out of ZBrush. So many studios just stick with ZBrush. I think if mudbox can compete in this arena you'll see way more studios jump to it. Neither of these apps have proprietary pipelines and plugins written from them. Both of them have shallow learning curves. So studios can shift quit quickly on which one they'll support. Mudbox is a true 3D app and is supported on linux, so I could only see studios shifting to it unless the next installement of ZBrush is trully awesome (and the next update of mudbox is less than stellar).

[casht]

Im wondering if Autodesk will ever add Mudbox directly into Maya as a modelling feature.
Why go to a seperate program when all its doing is making up for what the traditional routes to a model lack...
Ive been tinkering with this issue and have found that as an artists Im rather impatient when it comes to getting my "pencil" to actually write...My analogy is that zbrush just doesnt seem to be worth my time when all I want is the detail that I see so often coming from these threads...dont worry about wether or not I personally can achieve such beauty. The fact is that money is driving these art tools and in MY mind pixelogic needed to fill their program with tons of "features" to make it worth buying alone when it stood as the only real sculpting program of its kind. Im seriously leaning towards Mudbox because its ease of use in a chaotic world of maya or any other full 3d app.

[beaker]

Im wondering if Autodesk will ever add Mudbox directly into Maya as a modelling feature.Autodesk already announced that they had no plans to integrate Mudbox into Maya.

[gfx-cube]

I have a poll and a thread similair to which one to choose on my site. Reason im linking you is that one of my members "foxymop" had a little to say about them too.

http://www.gfxcube.com/others-questions-answers/54-zbrush-mudbox.html

[M3N7H0L5]

learn both but one at a time..

[Ashz0r]

I've been using mudbox for quite a while now and I wouldn't advise it if you are exporting displacement maps from it, its so buggy, sometimes it exports them sometimes it gives you a random make no sense error its completly pot luck if it exports or not. Hopefully in the next version they fix this because it is a very nice program to sculpt in.

[rtalz]

Go with Zbrush. Full license of mudbox costs 300usd more than Zbrush 3. Zbrush does way more than Mudbox as well. Zbrush has a weird initial learning curve though. It takes a few days of really working with it for everything to sink in. Mudbox on the other hand has room to place everything in front of you, so the learning curve is litterally hours at most. I like mudbox for it's ease of use but, zbrush is simply the superior product.

[hakanpersson]

I stick to beaker on this one. But to keep my suggestion short, zbrush is strange app, and usually takes weeks to months of practice just to understand and appriciate it. If you have that time and lust to dedicate yourself, I am sure you will be a fanboy of it sooner or later.

With that said, if you decide to learn zbrush, dont ever think of opening mudbox during that time, especially if you know maya already. Because then your soul will be lost to autodesk forever:D

[r4inm4ker]

I've been using mudbox for quite a while now and I wouldn't advise it if you are exporting displacement maps from it, its so buggy, sometimes it exports them sometimes it gives you a random make no sense error its completly pot luck if it exports or not. Hopefully in the next version they fix this because it is a very nice program to sculpt in.

Actually i found the exporter much better than zbrush's . It can nicely export 32-bit displacement map with scale of 1, without any need to adjusting alpha gain and offset.
(Ever wonder why almost half of threads in troubleshooting forum on zbcentral are dealing with displacement and normal maps?)
it also produce much closer results than MD3 (from zbrush). Maybe you have some incorrect settings that lead to those errors.

[CoolDuck]

What about modo for sculpting? Anyone tried that? The app can also paint.

[fx81]

a picture is worth a thousand words :)

http://i28.tinypic.com/2ynmm9s.jpg

[Dc5RAGE]

thats a hilarious pic dude... I am an animation student and I am somewhat okay with maya, I went with zbrush just because more of my proffessors use it. After never using a program even remotely similar I havent had too many problems. I did find the ui a little hard to get used to after only using maya but I have been playing with zbrush for about a week now and I love it. I do however have alot of buddies that use mudbox and I imagine after I get the hang of zbrush I will attempt to learn mudbox.

[casht]

Ha! Zbrush looks dangerous....

[DaddyMack]

a picture is worth a thousand words :)

http://i28.tinypic.com/2ynmm9s.jpg

Amen brother

[rtalz]

Once you are comfortable with zbrush there is almost litterally no learning curve involved with moving over to mudbox. The reverse can't be said however.

[FreakWizz]

Well in case it has not been mentioned....

Mudbox before Autodesk, was the best sculpting and possibly software experience I've had in so many years of 3D programs, I use an Intuos3 and when using a custom setup as i do for most of my sculpting, and I admire it's elegance and simplicity really achieves the nicest workflow of all the sculpting applications. It's almost like somebody actually thought about the amount of clicks and buttons it takes to achieve a task and kept it simple. (Bravo!)

Mudbox unlike Zbrush is truly 3D, Zbrush despite advertising is not a real 3D Camera like the standard 3D programs, It's always tied to a canvas resolution but manages to be just as useful most intensive purposes despite this, most people can't tell the difference anyway. :)

Unlike Zbrush, Mudbox uses OGL and Zbrush uses it's own CPU based renderer, this means Zbrush can handle many more polygons in comparison, and you need a hefty videocard and system to ge the most out of Mudbox.

Zbrush does have some amazing tools that are not present in Mudbox, It is cheaper and more fully featured, Mudbox is overpriced in comparison. But i can do most things in Mudbox with less effort and more enjoyment. I tend to think software developers have forgotten workflow, and Mudbox restores my faith in software, and for that reason i find it a joy to use. I hear that Autodesk are showing Mudbox 2.0 on June 15th.... So perhaps delay and decisions to buy until then. I assume Vector Maps and texture painting in MB2. Let's hope we see them in June!

Modo is gettings better at sculpting, but for myself is limited and convoluted in painting andf sculpting, for an integrated package it's nice to have the renderer to quickly view
the sculpts, but Modo has a lot of stability and bugs and really needs to improve before i could use it everyday. It cannot compare to Bodypaint for Painting and Mudbox/ZB for sculpting for myself at this stage.

3D-Coat which is a cheaper sculpting and painting application is getting better, technically only Modo and 3D-Coat have the ablity to use Vector Maps in sculpting, and offer export and import of them. For the price it's quite amazing and getting better everyday, it also offers a lot of nice features. Vector maps are much cool! :)

PS. Nice Image FX81... :)

[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.