New Update for Autodesk Mudbox Development Preview!

[Necronomiden]

though posted before they did add a new video :buttrock:
(http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=59&t=653798&highlight=mudbox)

[Sonk]

though posted before they did add a new video :buttrock:
(http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=59&t=653798&highlight=mudbox)

yeah, FYI this model was textured in Mudbox 2009.

[ThomasMahler]

This looks very cool. I have quite a couple of characters that I'd test the performance with. The renderer looks good enough for folio shots, so I'm sure we'll see Mudbox renders in galleries everywhere.

[cresshead]

looks like autodesk added game engine rendering to the viewports like we have for 3dsmax and maya..will be interesting to see exactly 'what' is mudbox2009 at siggraph and also see how it's competition moves forward in response [modo and zbrush]

[ViCoX]

Looks very nice indeed. I hope to see some painting features nextweek : o

[DDS]

that was quite cool :buttrock: I like the flawless rendering techniques. Let's see if it's compatible with all videocards, not like other Autodesk products...such as maya.

[mdee]

Very impressive indeed. I'd like to try it hands on before I get over excited though :)

[Wizdoc]

I love how there's real competition between ZBrush and Mudbox. Every time one releases a version, the other is forced to up their game.

ZBrush 2 was the reigning champion until Mudbox took the ball away with their really impressive release. Pixologic countered with the phenomenal update of ZB3 (and 3.1.) and took back the title. But Looks like Autodesk is preparing to wipe the table with Mudbox 2009. Still, I doubt Pixologic was caught with their pants down. I'm sure ZBrush 4 is going to equally rock everyone's world. It has to, really.

Interesting times.

[P_T]

People wouldn't even had any reason to switch to MB 1.0 if Pixologic had only streamlined their GUI/workflow.

Personally, I don't think Pixologic can keep holding on to their customers if they keep their GUI/workflow. There's only so much features they can add before workflow becomes the deciding factor in choosing between ZB and MB. Being the more conventional 3D app, MB has the advantage in this area.

[Buexe]

I agree, P_T, while I spent some time trying to get used to the zbrush way of doing things, and actually they do alot of stuff very well, but this pseudo-3d environment still feels awkward.

[Spin99]

I hope they release a "basic" version for us lesser humans again :/
It's not as if all the potential customers are running high end workstations,
and leaving the pro features out can only be worth it for all the hobbyists out there.

Terrificness.

[visionmaster2]

millions polys, shadows, real time depth of fields in viewport...please autodesk, do the same in 3dsmax !

[Sonk]

looks like autodesk added game engine rendering to the viewports like we have for 3dsmax and maya..will be interesting to see exactly 'what' is mudbox2009 at siggraph and also see how it's competition moves forward in response [modo and zbrush]

I'm sure Brad would laugh at that statement... ;) I wont be surprised if they had SSS in Mudbox 2009 either.

[Frank Lake]

Pixologic countered with the phenomenal update of ZB3 (and 3.1.) and took back the title.

If you look at the ZB3 release honestly. The "free" price tag to existing users very much biased the issue. :wise: "It's free and I don't have to relearn/unlearn a software from the ground up!? EPIC WIN!!"

My only hope is that the RT engine is a "real" RT renderer and not an engine based off of a gaming renderer. That and the price is "reasonable". :D

[ha-dou-ken]

I can't wait for his.I tried to learn and relearn zbrush but...

[Rod Seffen]

The more I see of it, the more it's clear that Mud2 will leave zbrush and it's 2.5d hacks in the dust.
The only think I currently use zbrush for is some texturing, and there will soon be no need even for that.
Also, considering the how long zbrush 2 -- zbrush 3 took to achieve, I wouldn't be expecting zbrush 4 any time soon.

[cresshead]

could be that modo takes the crown this time round?

zbrush- unique 2.5 d..not 3d...but has modeling and painting
mudbox - 3d views but no modeling [as yet] and no painting [yet]
modo- already has modeling, painting and displacments...could displacements take a new step forward?

[GatorNic]

I love how there's real competition between ZBrush and Mudbox. Every time one releases a version, the other is forced to up their game.

ZBrush 2 was the reigning champion until Mudbox took the ball away with their really impressive release. Pixologic countered with the phenomenal update of ZB3 (and 3.1.) and took back the title. But Looks like Autodesk is preparing to wipe the table with Mudbox 2009. Still, I doubt Pixologic was caught with their pants down. I'm sure ZBrush 4 is going to equally rock everyone's world. It has to, really.

Interesting times.

True True. However the only the only problems I am seeing for Zbrush vs Mudbox is development cycles and money. It took like what...4 years for ZB 3 to come out? How long till 4? Skymatter and Pixologic are/were tiny companies compared to the likes of Autodesk. Autodesk is able to put alot more money behind development (if they choose to) and you know the have yearly development cycles. You could very well see Mudbox 2010 before ZB4. Don't get me wrong I love ZB, but it will be interesting how things develope with Autodesk in the picture.

As for adding modeling and such to Mudbox, I hope not. I would rather see Mudbox strictly be sculpting/texturing. I would rather they focus on improvements to that (which looks like they are well on their way). Speed, efficiency, and stability are all I would want. Oh and a Linux port would be sweet!

[kiaran]

May I be the first to say:

WIREFRAME ON SHADED!! Woot!

[Necronomiden]

why do people complaint so much about zbrush's GUI i don't understand, its simple and customizable...the only downfall to zbrush its texturing, i only wish it had layers.

anyways, the new mudbox does look very promising

[SheepFactory]

True True. However the only the only problems I am seeing for Zbrush vs Mudbox is development cycles and money. It took like what...4 years for ZB 3 to come out? How long till 4? Skymatter and Pixologic are/were tiny companies compared to the likes of Autodesk. Autodesk is able to put alot more money behind development (if they choose to) and you know the have yearly development cycles. You could very well see Mudbox 2010 before ZB4. Don't get me wrong I love ZB, but it will be interesting how things develope with Autodesk in the picture.

As for adding modeling and such to Mudbox, I hope not. I would rather see Mudbox strictly be sculpting/texturing. I would rather they focus on improvements to that (which looks like they are well on their way). Speed, efficiency, and stability are all I would want. Oh and a Linux port would be sweet!


This is exactly why my money will be going to mudbox if this release delivers. I have no faith in Pixologic release cycles. The promised mac version of zb3 is still nowhere to be seen. I don't mind paying for updates if it means the updates will come faster.

[PorkpieSamurai]

Im not sure but it seems to me the reason Pixologic takes a while to update its versions of Zbrush is because they spend a lot of time fine tuning the developement before it gets released. Heck seems like they nearly reinvented themselves with Z3.

[fgdf]

So is it possible to paint textures or not? This would be significant improvement. Who cares about wireframes.

[Sonk]

So is it possible to paint textures or not? This would be significant improvement. Who cares about wireframes.

Dave will show off more features as we get closer to Siggraph, texture painting is one of them.


"I know you were wanting more detailed blow out on texture painting and that information will come. The painting system is killer. Not to worry about that :)

Fastest, most easy to use high quality 3d painting system I have used.

Hold tight for more details."

[Gwot]

Guess I won't be needing to upgrade my modo license after all then. =]

[mortas may]

i think ZB might start losing out on new customers because autodesk can build smooth intergration of MB into Max, Maya and just about any of thier products, i like the idea of a one button export feature with uv maps, mat ids, maps the lot..."no pain lots of gain"
from what i've seen on ZB it looks like a bit of a headache
Look what adobe did with thier CS3 line the intergration workflow is great i hope all of autodesk products line are as smooth

MM6

[StefanA]

I have only one thing to say about all these sculpt applications... why the **** can't they make a linux version??

over and out

/stefan

[lovisx]

If they do this right, my zbrush 3 days are over... and not a moment too soon.

[Dank0]

Hey guys, there is a new update on the area website.

[Lone Deranger]

Or an OSX version! During the beta for version 1.0 I asked this question on their forums.
The answer was that Mudbox was designed to be multi platform. At the time I took that as a "yes, at some point in the future". Ofcourse now that Skymatter got bought out by autodesk I've pretty much lost hope of that ever happening. :shrug:
It's like AutoDesk and MicroSoft are in bed together.


I have only one thing to say about all these sculpt applications... why the **** can't they make a linux version??

over and out

/stefan

[vfx]

These texturing and speed improvements are great, but completely worthless unless they make huge updates to the exporting tools - just check the AREA mudbox forum and you'll see how many people have issues with exporting displacement maps that work in maya etc. Lets hope we get some info on such updates soon.

[inguatu]

If you look at the ZB3 release honestly. The "free" price tag to existing users very much biased the issue. :wise: "It's free and I don't have to relearn/unlearn a software from the ground up!? EPIC WIN!!"

My only hope is that the RT engine is a "real" RT renderer and not an engine based off of a gaming renderer. That and the price is "reasonable". :D

Wow... people still use epic win?

"Free to existing users" doesn't bring in any revenue. They have to rely on a heavy feature set and a workable UI. Feature set is good, despite the 2D thing. The UI still looks like someone threw up buttons and text on a screen. Not so good.

I don't think it really matters what RT stands for as long as it works in production, "gaming renderer" or not. The price will probably be competitive with ZB so it's a non-issue.

[inguatu]

It's like AutoDesk and MicroSoft are in bed together.

yeah that's why Maya and other Autodesk products are on OSX, Linux or both. *yawn*

[PaulAdams]

These texturing and speed improvements are great, but completely worthless unless they make huge updates to the exporting tools - just check the AREA mudbox forum and you'll see how many people have issues with exporting displacement maps that work in maya etc. Lets hope we get some info on such updates soon.

It's true but they have said now that Mudbox falls under the Autodesk umbrella it will make the users of Maya/Max lives easier in terms of compatibility and getting your model into them.

[ThomasMahler]

yeah that's why Maya and other Autodesk products are on OSX, Linux or both. *yawn*

You realize that Maya wasn't an Autodesk product before, right? They just decided not to piss on their users by canceling any OSX and Linux efforts.

Mudbox, so far, hasn't been available for Linux or OSX and I doubt that we're gonna see that now. I'd hope so, but this field is already pretty competitive and I don't think developers are going for something as amitious as multi-platform if people really just want better features to create better work in a shorter timeline.

[cresshead]

but combustion is and always was an autodesk product..and that's on osx

their other effects and finishing products are on linux so autodesk are not windows only...never have been..so why not mudbox on linux and osx?

[Walli]

I thought Discreet was bought by Autodesk, so Combustion probably hasn´t been developped by Autodesk.

[cresshead]

no, discreet logic was bought by autodesk...along with flame inferno and paint and effect..
once paint and effect were under autodesk with a new branch that was kinetix line up and the discreet logic line up they developed combustion under the new discreet banner...thoguh ALL the time these were part of autodesk.

note the 'discreet' brand name was created by autodesk..same as the kinetix brand name was created by autodesk.

autodesk develop apps for windows, linux and mac osx..they also developed for irix until they moved their apps from irix to linux.

[skycastle]

Here is a direct link

http://area.autodesk.com/mudbox_preview#render_performance_pt2

[ChewyPixels]

Looking very promising!

I'm a bit concerned about graphic card compatibility. I sure hope I don't have to buy a thousand dollar, pro-level graphics card to use this.

Now let's see Mudbox's texturing capabilities! :D

[Spin99]

I'm a bit concerned about graphic card compatibility. I sure hope I don't have to buy a thousand dollar, pro-level graphics card to use this.Same here.

Brushes look amazing and fast, and rt render quite impressive.
Specially with depth of field and all.

Only comment is maybe the viewport is a bit dark with the custom lighting, hope there's a "headlight" setting to make life easier when sculpting, and am assuming painting diffuse maps?

Grand I want it! :/

[Rod Seffen]

Here is a direct link

http://area.autodesk.com/mudbox_preview#render_performance_pt2

Looks like you'd better do the next demo with your 8800GTX just to allay these fears :D

[RockinAkin]

Looking good so far.

I agree that Pixologic has to change their tune a bit to respond to this release.
I hope the competition helps push both ZBrush and MudBox to develop new features agressively.

Whichever ends up being the victor, the artist wins.

[P_T]

Whichever ends up being the victor, the artist wins.I want one to win but I don't want any of them to fold coz then the innovation would stop.

The realtime render while nice, specially the DOF, feels more gimmicky than practical for some reason. You don't really need to display texture when you're sculpting and you don't sculpt a model that's already been textured now do you?

Same with the DOF, it only serves to give the illusion of size. What do you need it for when you're sculpting?

[Lone Deranger]

Indeed. While Mudbox 2 is shaping up very nicely by the looks of it, I do hope that come Siggraph they have bigger things to show and announce. Competition in the sculpting field is urgently needed.
ZB3 is great (if you run Windows), but Pixologic does need a bit of a kick in the behind as things stand.

The realtime render while nice, specially the DOF, feels more gimmicky than practical for some reason.

[skycastle]

"I'm a bit concerned about graphic card compatibility. I sure hope I don't have to buy a thousand dollar, pro-level graphics card to use this."

I already mentioned on the Area that I use my 8600m and 8800 gtx without issue. Those are not 1000 dollar gpus.

The realtime render while nice, specially the DOF, feels more gimmicky than practical for some reason. You don't really need to display texture when you're sculpting and you don't sculpt a model that's already been textured now do you?

Same with the DOF, it only serves to give the illusion of size. What do you need it for when you're sculpting?"


We have a real camera in Mudbox and it’s important for artists, art directors and directors to review assets in a target film/game like context. The viewport FX are not just for the guy doing the sculpt it’s for the person who needs to review and approve your work (which could be a multi-million dollar decision) in a proper context as they would for a model sculpted from clay and being reviewed in photos. Working in an on target context saves time creating final review renders. This gives you and the client more chances to iterate on a design thus potentially improving the design itself.

[gruhn]

> I want one to win but I don't want any of them to fold coz then the innovation would stop.

Can't think of a reason to want there to be a winner. Probably 'cause I'm daft.

> The realtime render while nice, specially the DOF, feels more gimmicky
> than practical for some reason.

The DoF I'm trying to figure out how to use it. The answer may be partly in /below/.

> Same with the DOF, it only serves to give the illusion of size

No, it does not. It gives a sense of depth. Absolute is not so important, but relative is. While futzing around on this area, DoF provides visual focus on the area of interest. "Don't mind the giant thorn covered wing behind the curtain." You could mask and turn off the parts you aren't interested in. But DoF might be a more dynamic, lower overhead way of getting similar effect. Other people may hate to work that way.

> What do you need it for when you're sculpting?

How about instead : What will people find they can use it for while sculpting?

> You don't really need to display texture when you're sculpting

And you don't really need to sculpt on the computer. And when you do, you don't really need to use fancy surface deforming brush tools.

> and you don't sculpt a model that's already been textured now do you?

_Now_ you don't. Next year everybody (else) sure will. I was once involved with an architecture school that had extreme disdain for questions of materiality. Everything was about the space. Pah, paint the room navy or yellow and the space is very different.

Form, physical texture are all part of how things look, not all. Developing textures at the same time as the sculpture may well be a way that some people work well. Paint some this and some that and decide that maybe a flaming red swash across here is needed, yeah, that looks good. Now, I need to give that swash some support in the physical. A good model shouldn't be "an excellent sculpture that somebody paints when I'm done with it."

I can well imagine places where the model people and the texture people are different. Now they can work better in concert. That strikes me as a good thing.

People haven't developed certain visualization skills because that's the best way to work but because that's the way we have had to work. If doing it the hard way were better/authentic/cool then we'd still be doing our modeling in a text editor with a two hour wait for the plot to be delivered. I think I'm going to vote for the new world and see what I can do with it; how it can help me. Worst case, I still know where Notepad is.

[ChewyPixels]

I already mentioned on the Area that I use my 8600m and 8800 gtx without issue. Those are not 1000 dollar gpus.

Sweet! No worries here! :)


We have a real camera in Mudbox and it’s important for artists, art directors and directors to review assets in a target film/game like context. The viewport FX are not just for the guy doing the sculpt it’s for the person who needs to review and approve your work (which could be a multi-million dollar decision) in a proper context as they would for a model sculpted from clay and being reviewed in photos. Working in an on target context saves time creating final review renders. This gives you and the client more chances to iterate on a design thus potentially improving the design itself.

Makes total sense to me! Why setup a preview render for the client when Mudbox's real-time rendering is more than enough? I can't wait to see what else Mudbox is capable of!

[kees]

Dave,

Can artists load in other CGFX shaders or just whatever comes with MudBox?


Take care,

[P_T]

But DoF might be a more dynamic, lower overhead way of getting similar effect. Other people may hate to work that way.

> You don't really need to display texture when you're sculpting

And you don't really need to sculpt on the computer. And when you do, you don't really need to use fancy surface deforming brush tools.

> and you don't sculpt a model that's already been textured now do you?

_Now_ you don't. Next year everybody (else) sure will.Not a very strong argument there. Why would I want to use DoF to focus on the area I'm sculpting, giving my PC something extra to process when I can just turn the layer visibility off or mask the part I don't want to see.

Displaying texture while sculpting implies that you have textured it. Now unless someone figured out a totally new way to texture a mesh that doesn't involve UVmapping, chances are you'll stretch those textures as you sculpt it.

If I understand Dave Cardwell correctly, I think he said the viewport FX is more useful for a quick review render of the finished sculpt than the sculpting process itself.

[gruhn]

> Not a very strong argument there.

I'm sorry you missed the attempted tone of my post.

> Why would I want to [...]

I have no idea why you would. I suspect you wouldn't.

> Displaying texture while sculpting implies that you have textured it.

Neither need be complete.

> more useful for a quick review render of the finished sculpt than the sculpting process itself.

Reviewing and working are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[MasonDoran]

DOF can obviously be turned off...so if it offends you then I am sure you can live without it.

Also, mudbox will have an automatic UV generation, so I see no reason why you cant texture, sculpt, bake texture to a new low poly model with new UVs.

Also, sometimes it is necessary to sculpt using textures as a guide -especially when using photos as textures.


Anyways, when sculpting at such hiresolutions your not going to get a lot of distortions.

[Nemoid]

I love how there's real competition between ZBrush and Mudbox. Every time one releases a version, the other is forced to up their game.

ZBrush 2 was the reigning champion until Mudbox took the ball away with their really impressive release. Pixologic countered with the phenomenal update of ZB3 (and 3.1.) and took back the title. But Looks like Autodesk is preparing to wipe the table with Mudbox 2009. Still, I doubt Pixologic was caught with their pants down. I'm sure ZBrush 4 is going to equally rock everyone's world. It has to, really.

Interesting times.
I completely agree ! good competition always takes to better products ! ZB was the first and despite its sometimes convolute workflow is a wonderful piece of software.

Mudbox, came later, but seems to be growing well, especially from these vids. It also has the cleanest UI i've ever seen.

Now , into the bunch we have also Modo, and 3D coat (I think this little app will make wonders soon)so.. more competition! :)

ZB 3.1 is very good, but Pixologic cannot live on allures. they'll probably shock us with their next release tho :) and if not, they'll be forced to make it better and streamline it a lot because of competition.

People needs tools to be able to completely design characters and at least make them ready for animation in traditional 3D packages all within the app, and , if possible with not so much effort in workflow; so while this is actually possible right now, it still requires a bit too much effort and understanding of ZB before becoming a reality for the common user.

The same could be valid for other apps as well. Efforts of the user should be put on creation more than on learning convolute workflows to obtain a result.

[ThirdEye]

Now , into the bunch we have also Modo

I don't understand why there's a few people still trying to compare apples (ZB and Mudbox) to oranges (Modo and Hexagon).

[ChewyPixels]

I don't understand why there's a few people still trying to compare apples (ZB and Mudbox) to oranges (Modo and Hexagon).

Agreed! Not even in the same league!

[P_T]

I have no idea why you would. I suspect you wouldn't.Your previous post suggested that DoF might be used as a substitute to masking parts of the object during sculping so when I said, "why would I...", I was trying to be not-so-subtle in saying that it's absurd. :banghead:

DOF can obviously be turned off...so if it offends you then I am sure you can live without it.

Also, mudbox will have an automatic UV generationHas anyone actually been happy with the result of an automatic UV?

Also, it's not a matter of being able to turn the DoF on and off. I merely questioned the usefulness of that feature during a sculpting process.

I would rather have seen something more useful to the sculpting workflow in the preview videos. Something like base mesh creation or texturing in MB2009.

All these real camera and viewport FX would've been more appropriate as the "icing on the cake", shown last after all the other more fundamental features.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gwot]

As far as painting on a high resolution mesh goes, the layout of an automatic UV really doesn't matter. It's not like you have to edit it ever. So long as you can't see seams or distortion while painting it is doing its job. Transferring color from the high rez to a low rez with a proper layout is the goal for game work. It'll be sweet to be able to do this right in mudbox instead of having to send both meshes over to a 3d app.

[MasonDoran]

exactly...for the people who dont want to bother with UVs because its a waste of time when you plan to retopo later...automatic UVs are just fine.

a 4k map is about 17 million pixels....a 2k map is 5 million, so if your geometry has more polygons then pixels ...Uvs wont really matter.


Also, the value of Dof is for presentation purposes, just as David has already stated. (without having to do render tests in another app)


I am not sure if you are aware of this PT, but the pipeline for brush modelling is actually the reverse of the traditional poly modelling workflow. Traditionally, we built the models up from scratch, vert by vert and then texture at the end. Now...its the exact opposite....just take a simple polygonal mesh....sculpt it to a hi res and even texture it...and then create the base mesh and transfer all of the needed textures. Even without texture painting in mudbox...a normal map and a ambient occlusion pass supplied enough information to create very accurate texture map.

[P_T]

I am not sure if you are aware of this PT, but the pipeline for brush modelling is actually the reverse of the traditional poly modelling workflow.No i'm not aware of that, but either way, I'd image you'd still texture it after you finished sculpting right? or at least with 90% or more of the sculpting done.

[Venkman]

All these real camera and viewport FX would've been more appropriate as the "icing on the cake", shown last after all the other more fundamental features.

We've only seen a taste, so I'd wait until we get all the info. or to use your analagy, we've only seen the icing, and have yet to cut into the cake! ;)


Mmmmmm..... cake....

[MasonDoran]

No i'm not aware of that, but either way, I'd image you'd still texture it after you finished sculpting right? or at least with 90% or more of the sculpting done.

what I am trying to say is that you dont even need to bother with texturing a mesh that is such hipoly because it is unusuable outside of the host app.

[DoodleThug]

Looks interesting. Still not totally sold on the new version yet, at least not enough to part with ZB. :)

[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.