zbrush 3.5 news from siggraph

[blenderhead]

Version 3.5 will be released in the fourth quarter of 2008.
ZBrush 3.5 will be a FREE upgrade to all registered users (PC and Mac).
This will be the first unified version of ZBrush. That means that it will be released concurrently for Windows and Mac (Intel).


All major jumps on Mudbox (also, Z-Brush actually works on laptops! egadz). Will be interesting to see what they do features wise.

[Venkman]

I can't wait to see what they turn out at Siggraph.

As usual, my Power Mac G5 continues to die a quiet death with no pre-intel support. I can't say I blame them.

[cheebamonkey]

All major jumps on Mudbox (also, Z-Brush actually works on laptops! egadz). Will be interesting to see what they do features wise.

I wouldn't say they're all major jumps. 1. Mudbox will be released first. 2. Upgrades mean nothing for new users. 3. it took them awhile to release Mac/PC at the same time, no? Granted, an existing ZB user should be happy... very happy. Pix has done a great job keeping their user base happy with new releases over the past 1-2 years. I've run Mudbox on my MBPro with no issues? Did ZB have issues in the past with stability on laptops?

[Phrenzy84]

More will be shared about this in the announcement after SIGGRAPH and in the upcoming months.

Happy ZBrushing!


You know alot of people right now are going wow mudbox looks amazing. :)

[notlongago]

I hope that this release will be mainly a major bug fixing release rather than bloated feature set.

[williamsburroughs]

Crossing fingers for the OSX version actually shipping when they say it will ship. :) Been using and hating rebooting into Vista to use it for over a year now.

Let's hope the news is real this time around.

Congrats if it is. :banghead:

[ThE_JacO]

I wouldn't say they're all major jumps. 1. Mudbox will be released first.
Nope, most likely not.
It (mudbox) was scheduled for 2009 and I doubt it's gonna change.
If Pixologic is promising a release before the end of the year I doubt MB will beat them at it. If they hasten the dev cycle mayeb match them.

2. Upgrades mean nothing for new users.
No, but mudbox prime target is ZB's clientèle first and foremost. If they give their current userbase one more reason (no additional expenses for the next features batch) to stick to ZB it is a jump on MB, although probably not that huge of a deal.
I think the people who want to drop ZB want to drop it for things that are inherent to it and unlikely to change in a .5 release.

I've run Mudbox on my MBPro with no issues? Did ZB have issues in the past with stability on laptops?
Is it an Intel MBPro?
A few people complained about the lack of support for non intel macs.
Personally I find it reasonable that nobody's bothering with an obsolete and underperforming architecture.

[chadtheartist]

Mudbox does look nice. I wasn't expecting it at all. It'll be interesting to see what Pixologic has up it's sleeve, since the competition seems to be heating up. The concurrent release will be music to a lot of Mac users ears I think.

[Layer01]

hohohohoho
so excited!!!

Mudbox shmudbox. pah! I'm a Zbrush fanboy through and through lol

:bowdown: Feed us with your goodies O mighty ones :bowdown:

Now now, nothing wrong with mb in all seriousness, it looks very cool too. we can all play together :arteest:

[Rhs_CG]

It does kind of bite for those waiting for the OS X version. It's been 4 years since 2.5 was promised as a free upgrade, and while most of that was waiting along with everyone else, version 3 then 3.1 were released, with the OS X version to be announced "soon" thereafter. I wonder if the only reason Windows users of ZBrush are getting 3.5 for free is because Pixologic hasn't fulfilled its promises to OS X users.

[DuttyFoot]

competition makes things ooh so much more interesting. zbrush on one hand and mudbox on the other. I hope it stays that way for a long time. too many companies being bought kills the thrill.

[sforsyth]

Man I'm just hoping they do texture layers well. The reason Mudbox is stealing users from Pixologic is purely because now there is an app dedicated to just sculpting and painting a 3D model and outputting all the relevant maps. That in a nutshell is why the majority of professional users wanted ZBrush in the first place. Not the 2D stuff, not the 2.5D stuff (fibre brush? in production? are you mad?!), but the taking in of a 3D model, sculpting it and painting it easily. Now that it's been shown you can do that without having to remember what seems like 17 fiddly buttons and menus just to get you started painting, I can see the appeal of a simple and familiar system. Pixologic is so close, and yet so far on every release. They always impress with the technology side of things, but fail miserably on the usability. I'll be selling my ZBrush license to move over to Mudbox if this new free release implements texture layers as poorly as the 3D layers (I mean, come on, delete a layer and it bakes the changes if it was turned On when deleted, what's that about? Any other app out there ever done that? No - so why make it confusing by not doing it like EVERY OTHER layer system!).

[Imhotep397]

...as poorly as the 3D layers (I mean, come on, delete a layer and it bakes the changes if it was turned On when deleted, what's that about? Any other app out there ever done that? No - so why make it confusing by not doing it like EVERY OTHER layer system!).

Now I think this is a pretty ridiculous statement. I mean with 3D layers you're not talking about moving around or just deleting some pixels all of the changes are are still connected to the geometry and mesh subdivision level so it's a little different.

[AJ]

Now I think this is a pretty ridiculous statement. I mean with 3D layers you're not talking about moving around or just deleting some pixels all of the changes are are still connected to the geometry and mesh subdivision level so it's a little different.
No, I agree - it's a bit rubbish in Zbrush.

You hit 'delete layer' and it applies any adjustments held in that layer to your object... Irreprably.

Can you imagine in Photoshop if you hit 'delete layer' and it flattened your image. It's like that.

That's not to say that you can't get used to ZBrushes unique way of working, but there are times when flying in the face of convention simply means 'look out - pigeons'.

[tonytrout]

Nope, most likely not.
It (mudbox) was scheduled for 2009 and I doubt it's gonna change.


Autodesk in their press release state they anticipate releasing in October. Are you privy to info that says they wont?

[ThE_JacO]

Autodesk in their press release state they anticipate releasing in October. Are you privy to info that says they wont?

If that's the case I take back what I said.
VERY surprised to hear it though, can't say more about why sorry.

[tonytrout]

Well I suppose we wait and see as allways. Neither application has been entirely reliable in meeting release dates before so I dont expect too much.

[DDS]

The more Zbrush moves, the less I like Pixologic. Wtf sense does this make? People is waiting for announcements and they just get a number 3.5 noone cares about and say "many announcements coming in the upcoming months" which seeing how 3.1 got delayed, it might even take until 2009 for the announcements and 2010 for the release.

I'm 100% with ZB but looks like some good smell is coming from Autodesk, and Pixo are screwing it up not announcing.

[Erklaerbar]

No, I agree - it's a bit rubbish in Zbrush.
You hit 'delete layer' and it applies any adjustments held in that layer to your object... Irreprably.


not true. you certainly already heard of the following quite popular shortcut: ctrl+z?:p

Edit: back to the topic: thats a very boring sig imho...(except xsi7 of course)

[kelgy]

Unless they have something really cool up their sleeves(HD geometry maps) or better UI I think I am going to have to switch over. I only use Zbrush for sculpting and texturing-but not painting--except with Projection master(polypainting maps seem pixelly).

I dont even use it to pose figures(except blend shapes).

Zspheres-never touch them.

And the retopology method, I just find it unfriendly.

I just hope there wont be any new issues with Zbrush displacement and Maya/Mental Ray (no more seam mysteries with Catmull Clark meshes). Extension 1 supposedly fixed it but I still have to use the Scott Spencer script.

[notlongago]

I thin k that this is very minor annoyance compared to ZBrush exploding mesh problem that shows up when one tries to bring an obj with new uvs. This problem is very well documented in Zbrush forum and they have done nothing about it in nearly one year.




No, I agree - it's a bit rubbish in Zbrush.

You hit 'delete layer' and it applies any adjustments held in that layer to your object... Irreprably.

Can you imagine in Photoshop if you hit 'delete layer' and it flattened your image. It's like that.

That's not to say that you can't get used to ZBrushes unique way of working, but there are times when flying in the face of convention simply means 'look out - pigeons'.

[r4inm4ker]

I thin k that this is very minor annoyance compared to ZBrush exploding mesh problem that shows up when one tries to bring an obj with new uvs. This problem is very well documented in Zbrush forum and they have done nothing about it in nearly one year.

as much as I hated Zbrush other bugs, this is not their problem though. It's your obj's vertex order that has been changed when you improperly import it into your preferred software for UVing. Zbrush count on vertex order when doing a lot of things such as change subd level and exporting maps, and this is reasonable. So if you import & export correctly, changing UV will not have any problem.

[cresshead]

I thin k that this is very minor annoyance compared to ZBrush exploding mesh problem that shows up when one tries to bring an obj with new uvs. This problem is very well documented in Zbrush forum and they have done nothing about it in nearly one year.

if your refering to using 3dsmax there's already a solve for that for max 2009 and max 2008..on the zbrush central forums....it's a max thing not a zbrush thing.

[notlongago]

It is neither a max thing nor a vertex order. As I said it is well documented in the forums, if you read the posts you will see that alot of people(from different software backgrounds) have this problem. And most of the solutions that are offered are not really related to vertex order since people use the same application that supposedly messes up vertex order to solve the problem.


In one instance I have imported one base mesh to my 3d application and did very quick uv work to test it out if ZBrush would explode the model. It did not explode the model. Then without closing my application(which is Modo) and .obj file, I kept working on the real uv and saved the model. At that point ZBrush exploded the model when I did final import. Puzzling. To be fair thou once in a while Zbrush behaves well and imports the object fine but this has been rare.


I also tried different applications with different options, ZBrush has most of the time exploded models. This particular .obj import problem has costed me over 100 straight hours during various projects. Because you just do not know when it will hit you.




Btw I have tried all those methods mentioned in Zbrush forums and none seemed to produce consistent results. Also I have read somewhere that this issue has been introduced in v3.1, before noone had any explosions. I do not remember having this in v2 for example.





as much as I hated Zbrush other bugs, this is not their problem though. It's your obj's vertex order that has been changed when you improperly import it into your preferred software for UVing. Zbrush count on vertex order when doing a lot of things such as change subd level and exporting maps, and this is reasonable. So if you import & export correctly, changing UV will not have any problem.

[DestroyerU]

Unless they have something really cool up their sleeves(HD geometry maps) or better UI I think I am going to have to switch over. I only use Zbrush for sculpting and texturing-but not painting--except with Projection master(polypainting maps seem pixelly).

I dont even use it to pose figures(except blend shapes).

Zspheres-never touch them.

And the retopology method, I just find it unfriendly.

I just hope there wont be any new issues with Zbrush displacement and Maya/Mental Ray (no more seam mysteries with Catmull Clark meshes). Extension 1 supposedly fixed it but I still have to use the Scott Spencer script.

Thanks for the laundry list of things you don't know or understand.

"(polypainting maps seem pixelly)" - It's per polygon painting. That means if you have a low rez model, it will seem "pixelly". Try giving it more subD's and increase your resolution. Go and complain on the photoshop forums about how when you create a 100 x 100 pixel image, it seems blocky. Then be mad when Adobe doesn't fix it for you ;)

The best part about the z-interface is that it gives lazy people an "out" when trying to learn it. It's the programs fault I'm inflexible - I'm done learnin d@mnits! CG peeps should be more fluid, things are going to change big time and being rigid at this point is the nail in innovation.

[Dark-Neo]

Sounds quite cool, looking forward to it :)

[kelgy]

"(polypainting maps seem pixelly)" - It's per polygon painting. That means if you have a low rez model, it will seem "pixelly". Try giving it more subD's and increase your resolution.

** I am pretty sure I did increase the res since I dont like painting at the lowest level. Too blocky and rough. :)
The trouble is when I save the map-and bring it out to photoshop, it looks pixelly. It didnt save at 2048 x 2048. Maybe 1024 x 1024? Anyway in Maya it didnt look so good.

As for being lazy with it?
Busted.
:p
But if Mudbox makes it easier then that's a good thing. Unless I cant be as lazy...

[r4inm4ker]

"(polypainting maps seem pixelly)" - It's per polygon painting. That means if you have a low rez model, it will seem "pixelly". Try giving it more subD's and increase your resolution. Go and complain on the photoshop forums about how when you create a 100 x 100 pixel image, it seems blocky. Then be mad when Adobe doesn't fix it for you ;)


Yes you can increase poly resolution to get texture resolution, but how many polys you need to get "good" result ? 10 million, 40 million ?

I'm doing a test to compare the result between using polypaint and projection master. The texture resolution is both 4K. Polygon density is 2.331 million. Here it is:

projection master:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2762140114_dccd862b2c.jpg


polypaint:
(edited, thanks to Albert Feliu for correcting me about the focal point)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2762507050_9d2534c8c5.jpg

The quality difference is very clear. Why do I need super poly resolution just for painting in Zbrush when other software like bodypaint can do "real" 3D painting and the brush is directly applied to texture?

So yeah, I think polypaint is really below par compared to 3Dpaint like BodyPaint and Mudbox2009 (at least from what I saw from the demo and their painting feature explanation).

[skello]

Why do I need super poly resolution just for painting...
Same reason you need a lot of ppi or dpi to paint a crisp image.;) consider polies = pixels.
You'll find zbrush really great if you take the time to explore the tools and workflows properly.
moreover there's 'zapplink' for texture painting as well.

[r4inm4ker]

Same reason you need a lot of ppi or dpi to paint a crisp image.;) consider polies = pixels.


But as shown by the result of projection master, I don't need "more polys" to get "crisp images" . The image quality should be determined by texture resolution, and not polygon resolution. 3D painting program can do it, so it's not the matter of "more resolution for better image".


moreover there's 'zapplink' for texture painting as well.

Yes but it is another topic.

[skello]

But as shown by the result of projection master, I don't need "more polys" to get "crisp images"

yes you do http://www.pixologic.com/docs/index.php/Polypainting

[DDS]

I would agree with you if you hadn't use an example where the focal point is fading the sides of the texture. If you prove something, do it properly next time :shrug:

Yes you can increase poly resolution to get texture resolution, but how many polys you need to get "good" result ? 10 million, 40 million ?

I'm doing a test to compare the result between using polypaint and projection master. The texture resolution is both 4K. Polygon density is 2.331 million. Here it is:

projection master:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2762140114_dccd862b2c.jpg


polypaint:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2762140110_666bab8d1e.jpg

The quality difference is very clear. Why do I need super poly resolution just for painting in Zbrush when other software like bodypaint can do "real" 3D painting and the brush is directly applied to texture?

So yeah, I think polypaint is really below par compared to 3Dpaint like BodyPaint and Mudbox2009 (at least from what I saw from the demo and their painting feature explanation).

[JackMcRip]

I love this News !!!
And I am very inquisitive about more Details ;-)

[MasonDoran]

Do the math:

For there to be lossless texture painting when doing the poly painting method you will need:

1 poly= 1 pixel

using 4k textures, that is 17 million polygons. As far as I know, Zbrush cannot effectively work at that resolution.

But to get crisp textures (anti aliasing) you need to work at double the resolution.


So in the end, your still going to need to go into Photoshop and polish.

[r4inm4ker]

I would agree with you if you hadn't use an example where the focal point is fading the sides of the texture. If you prove something, do it properly next time :shrug:

yeah, my bad for not giving proper example. But the zaggy edges aren't the effect of focal point, are they? :)

I'm going to end the discussion here, since it's off topic.

[Totyo]

It is neither a max thing nor a vertex order. As I said it is well documented in the forums, if you read the posts you will see that alot of people(from different software backgrounds) have this problem. And most of the solutions that are offered are not really related to vertex order since people use the same application that supposedly messes up vertex order to solve the problem.

In one instance I have imported one base mesh to my 3d application and did very quick uv work to test it out if ZBrush would explode the model. It did not explode the model. Then without closing my application(which is Modo) and .obj file, I kept working on the real uv and saved the model. At that point ZBrush exploded the model when I did final import. Puzzling. To be fair thou once in a while Zbrush behaves well and imports the object fine but this has been rare.
The answer is simple: modo unwrap put UV vertices strictly on 0 or 1 of the UV space. ZBrush handle UV spaces from 1 to 1 space, to have different texture groups. When and UV is on the seam on the UV space, it switch it to the "next" UV space (if you UV vertex is at 1 value, it may consider it to be on the 1,2 UV space).
Just scale a little bit down you UV to be strictely -between- 0 and 1
(I'm a modo user)
Going back to the other vertex order, it's not ZBrush fault if export options in software can change vertex order... I don't have these problems with modo, just in Max2009 and I have to trick to avoid that.

[metamesh]

It is neither a max thing nor a vertex order. As I said it is well documented in the forums, if you read the posts you will see that alot of people(from different software backgrounds) have this problem. And most of the solutions that are offered are not really related to vertex order since people use the same application that supposedly messes up vertex order to solve the problem.


In one instance I have imported one base mesh to my 3d application and did very quick uv work to test it out if ZBrush would explode the model. It did not explode the model. Then without closing my application(which is Modo) and .obj file, I kept working on the real uv and saved the model. At that point ZBrush exploded the model when I did final import. Puzzling. To be fair thou once in a while Zbrush behaves well and imports the object fine but this has been rare.


I also tried different applications with different options, ZBrush has most of the time exploded models. This particular .obj import problem has costed me over 100 straight hours during various projects. Because you just do not know when it will hit you.




Btw I have tried all those methods mentioned in Zbrush forums and none seemed to produce consistent results. Also I have read somewhere that this issue has been introduced in v3.1, before noone had any explosions. I do not remember having this in v2 for example.


yep that is a Zbrush issue, not a max one...problem is when you have a mesh with anything else than quads...it has been happening since v 2.0 at least...as long as you keep the mesh all quads will work fine and u can import without exploding meshes, but once you have a tri , u are screwed :) the " workaround that i've found is to export the 2nd level ( which is gonna be already all quads since it's a divison of the 1st... ) and make the uv's on that level, but is just shit to work the uv's on such amount of polys....anyway i hope that helps...

[AJ]

not true. you certainly already heard of the following quite popular shortcut: ctrl+z?:p
Ah - last time I did this I'm sure I couldn't undo... I definitely remember crying.

But my apologies if this is the case.

[mestela]

I think I'm gonna jump ship too; I've used zbrush for a very long time, and its lead to some amazing opportunities over the years, but I'm getting tired of jumping through hoops to do basic tasks. I always feel I'm one step away from disaster, its so order-of-operation dependent, and while undo works (somewhat) in 3.1 its also very slow, adding to the awkwardness.

What made zbrush unique and special is now holding it back; by using its own 2.5 technology and software rendering it could push into the millions of polys well before gfx cards could do that natively. However moores law always catches up, and in fact in terms of GPUs they're advancing at a rate _faster_ than moore's law. Now you have a situation where the GPU can handle millions of polys happily, and now with all sorts of realtime shading tricks.

So now that the tech as caught up, it comes down to workflow, and mudbox 2009 looks like its winning now. Texture painting? Yep. Paint diffuse/spec/bump? Yep. Preview shadows and interactive lights? Yep. Subdivide more times than I could ever want? Yep. Easy displacement and texture export? Yep. An interface that conforms to basic GUI conventions? Yep. A proper perspective camera? Yep.

But like others have said, competitition is good, I definitely wouldn't want zbrush or mudbox to disappear. I have no doubt zbrush 3.5 will have some amazing features, and when I'm feeling arty its what I'll always reach for first, but for production work I think we're gonna be using mudbox more and more.

[Lone Deranger]

ThE_JacO: All MacBook Pro's are Intel based. The procs they used before Intel were IBM's PowerPC CPU's. Hence the name Power in the Mac line up back then. (PowerBook, PowerMac, etc.)

Is it an Intel MBPro?

Regarding the announcement..... I am very disappointed in Pixologic's inability to get a Mac version out the door. Nigh on 4 years and counting.... terrible.

[bliip-n-bloop]

Oh well, we can keep whining that they promised a lot for OS X. Atleast they are going to release a version for the mac intel. I mean with systems such as a Mac Pro, ZBrush would run terrific. Now we want a decent character animation package such as XSI.

[Lone Deranger]

Well.. you know what they say.... The squeaky wheel gets the grease. ;)

Although it sounds like they have no plans for the moment, I did put in my request with the SoftImage guys. I suggest you do the same... the more the merrier. :)

In the mean time there's plenty of choice.. C4D, Maya, LightWave, Blender, Houdini... but yeah.. XSI would be awesome to have!

Oh well, we can keep whining that they promised a lot for OS X. Atleast they are going to release a version for the mac intel. I mean with systems such as a Mac Pro, ZBrush would run terrific. Now we want a decent character animation package such as XSI.

[cresshead]

ThE_JacO: All MacBook Pro's are Intel based. The procs they used before Intel were IBM's PowerPC CPU's. Hence the name Power in the Mac line up back then. (PowerBook, PowerMac, etc.)



Regarding the announcement..... I am very disappointed in Pixologic's inability to get a Mac version out the door. Nigh on 4 years and counting.... terrible.

i believe version 2 was released 4 years ago so it would be somewhat un-reasonable to expect 2.5 to be released the day after version 2 was released and then say it's been 4 years...

it has been a long time...and currently around a year behind the windows update...but has not been 4 years of waiting...some of that time you were surposed to be using version 2.

as for a descent character animation packege on osx your have maya, houdini and cinema4d to choose from without even thinking about 3dsmax or xsi

[P_T]

Now we want a decent character animation package such as XSI.Why? That's like asking for a coffee machine that also makes fruit juice. Let ZB and MB be sculpting softwares that they are and leave the animation bit for others. Something to pose the model with is more than enough.

[Lone Deranger]

I think he meant XSI on OSX.

Why? That's like asking for a coffee machine that also makes fruit juice. Let ZB and MB be sculpting softwares that they are and leave the animation bit for others. Something to pose the model with is more than enough.

[csutcliffe]

A lot of the same anti-Zbrush stuff came out when the first pre-release video's of Mudbox appeared. I think people should quit penning Zbrush's epitaph until we see what Mudbox 2009 and Zbrush 3.5 can do as if it's anything like MB1 vs Zbrush 3.0 I know which application I'll be sticking with - GUI quirks an all!

[ThE_JacO]

Why? That's like asking for a coffee machine that also makes fruit juice. Let ZB and MB be sculpting softwares that they are and leave the animation bit for others. Something to pose the model with is more than enough.

He probably meant "we" as in Mac users, so I guess he's wishing for xsi on os-x there, not ZB to become a fully featured modeling/rigging/animation/shading/rendering etc app.

[P_T]

Oh my mistake.

Anyway, what possible features do you think are going to be in 3.5? Care to speculate?

[subtlebluetones]

i believe version 2 was released 4 years ago so it would be somewhat un-reasonable to expect 2.5 to be released the day after version 2 was released and then say it's been 4 years...

it has been a long time...and currently around a year behind the windows update...but has not been 4 years of waiting...some of that time you were surposed to be using version 2.

as for a descent character animation packege on osx your have maya, houdini and cinema4d to choose from without even thinking about 3dsmax or xsi

is max on mac?! without bootcamp??

[cresshead]

the chap was looking for character animaton apps for osx..he listed xsi which is not on osx but didn't list maya, cinema or houdini or blender...or lightwave actually which are all on osx

3dsmax and xsi run on windows xp and vista
xsi also runs on linux

maya runs on osx, vista, xp and linux
blender runs on irix, linux, windows xp, windows vista, osx...and probably a casio wrist watch!

zbrush 3.1 runs on windows xp and vista [32bit and 64bit o/s]

zbrush 3.5 is due to run on windows vista, xp and osx[intel chipped cpu's]

[cresshead]

is max on mac?! without bootcamp??

yes you can run it with parallels in a window on osx...no need to reboot your apple mac into a windows session.


however we are going off topic here...so back to zbrush if possible!

[DDS]

Oh my mistake.

Anyway, what possible features do you think are going to be in 3.5? Care to speculate?

Yes. This is my top 10 list:

1. Adding all the add-ons like turntable plus, transpose master, subtool master
2. Fix the right click freeze bug
3. Something totally revolutionary that noone could even imagine.
4. Couple more interesting brushes
5. Keep same default alphas they've been having for last 4 years
6. Add autoback
7. Prompt for tool save on program close, not only document save (that's a workaround to the right click freeze bug)
8. Add stability when messing with rendering
9. Allow for more document resolution without program going ridiculously slow
10. Make extensive use of GPU, not only on ZMapper.

That would do it for me... :p

[Lone Deranger]

I'll add to that (in no particular order):

• True 64-bit version (with Cocoa code base on Mac side).
• Improved retopology tools. ie. Having the retopo-ed mesh stick to base sculpt while modifying mesh, ala modo's new poly tools.
• Solution to max zoom-in limitation. (The work arounds just don't cut it).
• Ability to lock in place centerline vertices. Preventing them from being displaced.
• Polygon-free "Voxel" sculpting with options to convert to conventional polygon mesh either via adaptive skinning or retopo-tools.
• Non-uniform scaling of zSpheres.
• Storing of masks.
• Re-introduction of old smooth tool (in addition to the new one that is).
• Fix bug that stops brushes from working after long strokes.
• Communication from the developers. As in... what's going on?

[bliip-n-bloop]

Why? That's like asking for a coffee machine that also makes fruit juice. Let ZB and MB be sculpting softwares that they are and leave the animation bit for others. Something to pose the model with is more than enough.
I think you misinterpreted me... I mean that it would be cool to have XSI as an animation package. Not that ZB or MB should offer CA tools. Yes there is Maya for OS X, but it's still Maya... I hope LW has fixed all their CA bugs and didn't try C4D yet, because of the studio's here in Belgium don't use C4D for animation.

[angel]

I agree that painting in ZB can be improved quite a bit. Like others have said, in order to get a decent texture you need a ridiculous amount of polies that you may or may not need. It would be a hell of a lot more flexible if it was like bodypaint; more dependent on a UV layout and texture resolution than amount of polies.

Anyway, Mudbox has grabbed my attention with all the advancement thay have done. Competition is a good thing.

[AJ]

3. Something totally revolutionary that noone could even imagine.
I want this to be in listed every feature list for every piece of software ever written from now on.

http://www.moonjam.com/CG/zb3.5.jpg

[ThomasMahler]

I agree that painting in ZB can be improved quite a bit. Like others have said, in order to get a decent texture you need a ridiculous amount of polies that you may or may not need. It would be a hell of a lot more flexible if it was like bodypaint; more dependent on a UV layout and texture resolution than amount of polies.

Uhm. You do realize that you can create a texture and use the texture space for painting instead of polypainting right? Polypainting is basically used for highPolys without UVs - But you can use textures and paint on them instead of storing the color data in the verts already.

[angel]

Uhm. You do realize that you can create a texture and use the texture space for painting instead of polypainting right? Polypainting is basically used for highPolys without UVs - But you can use textures and paint on them instead of storing the color data in the verts already.

yeap I do realize that, I just wish it behaved closer to bodypaint, that's all... not much to ask, is it? ;)

[ThomasMahler]

yeap I do realize that, I just wish it behaved closer to bodypaint, that's all... not much to ask, is it? ;)

You do realize that you can reimport UVs into the model or create auto UVs and bake the polypainting data back onto the UVs, right? You could then rebake the albedo to any model or UV set you'd like to use.

Polypainting is a really good feature for 3d concepts and as a starting point for organic models. The data doesn't have to stay in ZBrush, you can always bake the vertex color data (what polypainting esentially is) back to the UV space.

And yeah, the painting itself could definitely need a beef-up in features - especially layered painting, being able to not destruct the .psd's all the time, etc. - ZAppLink also has some artifacting problems with black splotches, etc. - all this could / should be fixed, but let's see how well Mudbox 2k9 implements all of this. The painting engine in Mud is really what'd sell the app for me - I'm not a big fan of BodyPaint thanks to its quirkiness, so if Mudbox delivers in that respect and if I'm able to work nicely with a Photoshop hook, I'd be happy.

[angel]

You do realize that you can reimport UVs into the model or create auto UVs and bake the polypainting data back onto the UVs, right? You could then rebake the albedo to any model or UV set you'd like to use.

Polypainting is a really good feature for 3d concepts and as a starting point for organic models. The data doesn't have to stay in ZBrush, you can always bake the vertex color data (what polypainting esentially is) back to the UV space.

And yeah, the painting itself could definitely need a beef-up in features - especially layered painting, being able to not destruct the .psd's all the time, etc. - ZAppLink also has some artifacting problems with black splotches, etc. - all this could / should be fixed, but let's see how well Mudbox 2k9 implements all of this. The painting engine in Mud is really what'd sell the app for me - I'm not a big fan of BodyPaint thanks to its quirkiness, so if Mudbox delivers in that respect and if I'm able to work nicely with a Photoshop hook, I'd be happy.

ugh yes I realize that... I've been using the damn thing since 2...is this a freaking test or what?:D don't get me started with Zapplink man... oh BTW I never, ever use auto UV in ZB... sometimes might sound like a good idea... but at the end it just comes back to bite you in the ass LOL

[cresshead]

what's zaplink?...drat i knew i should have crammed more for this darn test!

oh well back to sculpting then in zbrush 3.1 and waiting for some 3.5 vids to drool over.

[ThomasMahler]

Nah, but there are plenty of people out there thinking that polypainting is a zbrush exclusive feature and that you can't get the data to be baked to a texture.

Auto UV can be a good idea if you did a simple polypaint and just want some texture space without doing a UV pass so that you can rebake the texture from the hiPoly to the loPoly.

[notlongago]

You seem to understand the problem more than others :) Thanks for the second res tip.


Generally what I do is bring the new uv mesh, subdivide same amount as original mesh, put them in same tool as subgroups and use subtools projection to transfer the detail. This works ok for %95 of the model but if you have mouth, innerlooping polygons etc projection gets screwed up and needs manul labour.



yep that is a Zbrush issue, not a max one...problem is when you have a mesh with anything else than quads...it has been happening since v 2.0 at least...as long as you keep the mesh all quads will work fine and u can import without exploding meshes, but once you have a tri , u are screwed :) the " workaround that i've found is to export the 2nd level ( which is gonna be already all quads since it's a divison of the 1st... ) and make the uv's on that level, but is just shit to work the uv's on such amount of polys....anyway i hope that helps...

[elfufu]

and the news here is......?

[BigPixolin]

and the news here is......?

Good question this is more like pre-news.
I'll bet a copy of zbrush that they will miss the 4th quater all together.
As long as I have been a customer they have never released when they say they will.

[R10k]

Zbrush for me is like a madman with super powers. One minute it's extraordainary, the next it's flat-out bonkers, flailing all over the place and urinating on a wall.

I would welcome a more refined, consistent, and usable version of what it already is. When you have a program as powerful as Zbrush which can't export out something as simple as a png with alpha (without needing to export to another application) something is amiss.

[inverse catheter]

the whole next version thing makes me real nervous. excited. but nervous all the same. like. you can next to guarantee that when mudbox comes out. despite all the amazing stuff we've seen. it'll be missing some little thing vital to a streamlined workflow

in ZB's case my fear's even worse. similar to the analogy R10k just shared i've always viewed ZBv3 as this massive lumbering giant. hugely powerful but clumsy and lacking much finesse

since pixologic seem to be a company existing in their own little bubble without any apparent interest in the communities opinion or suggestions i sadly anticipate the next release to be stacked full of new features and no effort made to move beyond it's flawed paradigm

( we can argue to no logical end personal preference and subjective opinion but blatantly. objectively. zbrush is flawed in so much that it takes more steps to perform certain actions than is conceivably necessary. is flawed when one has to go looking for null space within which to navigate. is flawed when zoom ( scale ) and tumble ( rotation ) etc are locked out. etc. etc )

the list of ZB's shortcomings would soon become a small book. i have little faith in pixologic addressing those issues anytime soon

[tonytrout]

More like a dinosaur that doesnt know its time is nearly up. Evolve or die it is, but their cycle turnover is so long that they are going out of date. Remember what happened to the Mac when the PC and MSDOS came out. Remember beta video. Remember Silicon Graphics. Remember film cameras.. Failure to listen to new customers, and too loyal to their old ones, a surefire recipe for obsolescence. The writings on the wall and they are not listening.

[FRimasson]

I've seen a demo of Mud 2009 Beta 1 on the autodesk channel yerterday. (with 2 crashes in 10 minutes due to their new rendering )
Until i will be able to compare all the feature of Mud 2009 and the upcoming Zbrush 3.5 side by side, i will use my combo Zbrush (http://www.pixologic.com/) + 3D coat (http://www.3d-coat.com/).
I've got fantastic sculpting raw power and brushes,posing tools, from Zbrush (http://www.pixologic.com/), and a great painting app that support displacement, layered Psd and maybe the best retopo tools around from 3D coat (http://www.3d-coat.com/).

[R10k]

I don't think Zbrush needs to 'evolve or die'. It's a little quirky, and that often works in its favour. It's a super-flexible app which can pull off a whole range of party tricks nothing else can, because it approaches creating digital art in a way nothing else does. It might be a modelling tool in many people's eyes, comparable to Mudbox, but in reality there's nothing else like it out there.

The only reason it has all the modelling features it does are because Pixologic listened to their usebase (or at least, the pro members) and added in what they wanted- to focus on the modelling aspect of the program. In a way that's a shame, because the interface which works well to create the 2D/3D elements isn't well suited to the purely 3D ones. Perhaps Zbrush would be a stronger app if the 2.5D aspect had been focused on instead of the 3D ones? I'm sure people would argue it wouldn't, because it really did pave the way for high-res modelling apps, but... you have to wonder.

The issue now is for Pixologic to decide what Zbrush is, and focus the UI and feature set to match, instead of just lumping every idea they've had thus far into a contradictory mess of tools and 'feature by scripting' enhancements.

[Spin99]

Yeh never mind you get to use Alt to pan instead of rotating. That it may decide to crash on you without warning. That it takes ninja chops to do the clicking from hell and get it to zoom (try it with a tablet) That a lot of it's wonderful features are obscure or totally wacky (hey my sculpt is now a tool -- Wow!)

But it is not flawed. The workflow is complex and sometimes inintuitive maybe.
Nothing else that I've tried can do what ZB does. Or handle that many polys.
Try another app that'll give you drag brushes alphas + textures and masking at the same level and quality. You wont find one.

So Mudbox might be a great alternative to working in ZB but I'm still doubting you'll be able to achieve anything similar. It's the toolset and what it's been achieving from version 2.
The pixols. The brushes. I don't know I doubt any other software will ever catch up to it.
Wonder what new features are in waiting?

[csutcliffe]

I read somewhere that Zbrush is basically written by one guy! If so, I love the idea of one guy taking on Autodesk and maybe winning so I for one hope that Zbrush stays around forever. Call me nostalgic if you like but I think that Zbrush 'as a tool', has possibly contributed more to the increase in the quality of organic modelling than just about anything else out there. For that reason, I would like it to stay relevant for a long time to come. That being said, serious competition (which I still don't think it's had yet) should hopefully be a good thing for everybody.

Can somebody confirm that the above statement is true in that Zbrush is written by one guy?

[R10k]

I don't think Ofer Alon has written it all. Apparently the company was also started by Jack Rimokh, so it seems he had something to do with it as well. Either way, a number of guys have written scripted tools which are a large part of Zbrush, so you can't really say it's a one-man operation even if Ofer had coded everything.

[BitsAndBytes]

afaik, atleast up until the release of ZBrush 2.0 it was pretty much a one man show (ofer). I'm guessing they've added some more programmers since then but without doubt the guy is a genious. as for the old tired 'application X will die now when application Y just released a new version' tirade, that's either stupidity/wishful thinking or both. back when Mudbox 1.0 was released the same type of people started talking of ZBrush's demise, when ZBrush 3 was released the same type of people started talking about Mudbox's demise and here we go again... Neither of these packages are going away, they will continue to push eachother technically and thus push the entire field of digital sculpting forward. My personal preference is Mudbox, but it's a _preference_. insane art is being created in both Mudbox and ZBrush, some people prefer ZBrush, some people prefer Mudbox. no need for the fanboys to get their panties in a bunch. Currently ZBrush has an obvious market lead, but Mudbox 2009 will likely put quite a dent in that unless Zbrush 3.5 comes along with something really amazing. either way as end users we all win, no matter which our preference is.

[Trenox]

Zbrush for me is like a madman with super powers. One minute it's extraordainary, the next it's flat-out bonkers, flailing all over the place and urinating on a wall.


quoted for agreement :P

Can someone explain if there's a logical reason behind the need for "rigging" a tool to a zsphere in order to create new topology ? That just seems so damn unnessecary...

[vlad74]

afaik, atleast up until the release of ZBrush 2.0 it was pretty much a one man show (ofer). I'm guessing they've added some more programmers since then but without doubt the guy is a genious. .

Absolutely. Ofer Alon is a genius.

[DaddyMack]

lol... agree with the last two posts :D

[ambient-whisper]

quoted for agreement :P

Can someone explain if there's a logical reason behind the need for "rigging" a tool to a zsphere in order to create new topology ? That just seems so damn unnessecary...

you are constraining the zspheres to a template (tool ), so thats why you rig the tool up and then use zspheres on top of it. it makes perfect sense.

[Trenox]

you are constraining the zspheres to a template (tool ), so thats why you rig the tool up and then use zspheres on top of it. it makes perfect sense.

Thx for the reply. I knew there was some technical 'reasoning' behind, but to someone who is unfamiliar with these 'alien' concepts of zbrush and 'just want to sculpt' there are so many barriers to climb.

From my perspective it would be so much more straight forward to simply select "topology/edit toplogy" from the tool menu and then go ahead. Maybe thats not a technical viable solution, but i would never in my life have guessed i would have to rig my tool a zsphere until i read a tutorial. To me its just symptomatical of a piece of software thats so far away from my expections of useability and a huge turnoff for me to work with.

sorry if my ranting seems a bit ignorant to zb experts here, but i really 'just want to sculpt' :) and as a result mudbox seems more and more like a better solution.

[ambient-whisper]

luckly, there arent too many of those types of concepts to learn :) most of zbrush is actually very simple once you learn it. even the navigation, which IMO works much better than the way mudbox does it because of the fact that using the buttons on the pen while hovering over the wacom doesnt feel at all intuitive, and also because wacom tablets become less accurate as you hover away from the tablet.

but thats just me :).

i do agree though, i had to watch a video to figure out the topology stuff too. its not obvious until you see it and make sense of it, but its not hard at all once you learn it.

[blenderhead]

I wouldn't say they're all major jumps. 1. Mudbox will be released first.

No it won't, they've already said that. And Mudbox is notorious for not working properly with laptop cards, and the dev team don't really care. I searched for hours on the net for drivers, but no joy. Whenever I make a stroke, it actually deforms the surface that is about an inch higher than where I drew. This is the case in every trial I have downloaded...so I just hit uninstall immediately. I wonder if they will ever bother to resolve the issue, after all, Z-Brush don't have that problem, so it's certainly possible.

[JYoung]

It's typically up to the laptop manufacturers to release new video drivers, so you always end up with some sort of compromise. Not that it's an excuse, but the devs can't make everyone happy, and the bulk of users aren't going to be using laptops.

With that said, Dave Cardwell has said "As an example, I'm running Mudbox 2009 here on my laptop, a Dell 1520 Inspiron with an 8600 mobile graphics card and I can work with very, very high polygon counts at extremely interactive speeds. You will see a very noticeable improvement over Mudbox 1.0. " So, you may see better laptop support and performance.

I'd like to see pixologic take what they have and improve and streamline it. Feature-wise, it's got what it needs, but things like texture painting need an overhaul imo. I'd like to see some better topology tools as well as a better way to block out sculpts. Zspheres are cool and all, but lots of people want something akin to voxel modeling, and I really feel that'd take it to the next step.

[Spin99]

Zbrush for me is like a madman with super powers. One minute it's extraordainary, the next it's flat-out bonkers, flailing all over the place and urinating on a wall.You think Peter Parker would never pee on the wall? Not ever? Ever?

[aaraaf]

I've got a few Inspiron 1520s around the office, and I've never, ever thought of them as work horses.

That actually impresses me.

Although, I still get decent results on my Toshiba r15 Tablet PC with ZBrush. Not phenomenal, but decent.

[hakanpersson]

You hit 'delete layer' and it applies any adjustments held in that layer to your object... Irreprably.

Can you imagine in Photoshop if you hit 'delete layer' and it flattened your image. It's like that.

That's not to say that you can't get used to ZBrushes unique way of working, but there are times when flying in the face of convention simply means 'look out - pigeons'.


Did the pigeons ever tell you about hiding the layer before deleting it?



1. Adding all the add-ons like turntable plus, transpose master, subtool master
2. Fix the right click freeze bug
3. Something totally revolutionary that noone could even imagine.
4. Couple more interesting brushes
5. Keep same default alphas they've been having for last 4 years
6. Add autoback
7. Prompt for tool save on program close, not only document save (that's a workaround to the right click freeze bug)
8. Add stability when messing with rendering
9. Allow for more document resolution without program going ridiculously slow
10. Make extensive use of GPU, not only on ZMapper.




Switch place with 1 and 2. And also make sure it doesnt crash when you hit "save". (god I hate that).
Clarify 8? Never encountered any instability while rendering.

my 11th addition to the list:
Allow the camera to zoom closer when isolating EVEN in retopo.

Very humble list by the way, no new extensive features on it:thumbsup: Its almost as good as it can get except some evil bugs.

[cresshead]

for 3.5 >

1.basically a zbrush tool 'loader' for 3dsmax, xsi, lightwave etc etc would do it for me!

in the host app you'd get the option to dial up and down the res [detail] for the viewport
from the actual zbrush tool [not an obj] and have a render detail too...the impoted/linked tool would automatically create the displacement, normal map and bump from the tool loader.

hey i can dream can't i?

[flatulentFuzz]

my 11th addition to the list:
Allow the camera to zoom closer when isolating EVEN in retopo.

Yeah...thats one really big problem for me because I absolutely hate having to guess where my verts are gonna be placed when Im working on a complete model.

Other than that,there isnt much that I think needs to be fixed,but adding actual texture painting would definitely be an advantage.

[Wizdoc]

Apart from the ability to export HD sculpting into displacements/normal maps, I think ZBrush is pretty much feature complete.

What I want is increase in ease of usability. While ZB3 has come a long way from ZB2, the application still requires use of black magic and guesswork to get it play nice with other kids. Stuff like getting normal maps and displacements working in Max (or Maya, XSI or whatever) shouldn't require excessive experimentation or fiddling with settings. Even such simple thing as getting a high-resolution ZBrush render with Alphas into Photoshop requires more software gymnastics than it should.

I don't mind if ZBrush retains its 2.5D pixol approach if it keeps multi-million poly sculpting feasible even on laptops. I'd just like it to stop trying to be a different animal for the sake of being different when it comes to workflow. Keep the tech same under the hood, but bring the interface up to the 3D software conventions people are used to work with. Maybe separate the 2D/2.5D painting side from the 3D sculpting and texturing. Keep the current interface as a legacy feature for those don't mind it or are used to it, but include a rock-solid, easy to use, standard conforming UI for dedicated modeling, sculpting, texturing, importing/exporting and rendering.

I just want a painless to use software that meets the assumptions of other, normal 2D and 3D software and fits well into a bigger pipeline. Even if that pipeline is just ZBrush and a single 3D software or ZBrush and just Photoshop.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and paint layers and an ability to use Photoshop brushes in ZBrush would be nice too.

[Spin99]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3930/zransposefu2.jpg

Hey this transpose thing is funnnn!

[cresshead]

yup, transpose like many of the tools in zbrush are very cool...

simply adore zspheres!

..look what this chap does with 'em!


http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=62094

[subtlebluetones]

yup, transpose like many of the tools in zbrush are very cool...

simply adore zspheres!

..look what this chap does with 'em!


http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=62094

"Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the webmaster (http://forums.cgsociety.org/support@pixologic.com)"

[Cometsoft]

"Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the webmaster (http://forums.cgsociety.org/support@pixologic.com)"
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=062148

Appears to be the new url. The other one worked yesterday, at any rate impressive stuff.

Too bad about all of the runaround Pixologic wreaked on the Mac customers.

[AJ]

Did the pigeons ever tell you about hiding the layer before deleting it?
Yes - but we were discussing the UI quirks in Zbrush.

In every other application that has layers, hitting 'delete layer' removes the layer & all it's contents. In Zbrush, as you say you have to hide the layer first. Hence, a quirk.

[cresshead]

i'll live with the 'quirks' as there's nothing that's anywhere near zbrush as of yet and the price is really silly...they could/should charge $1000+ for it when you compare zbrush to say mudbox or modo and not $595...cheap as chips if you ask me!

[the_podman]

Whether you go with Zbrush 3.5 or Mudbox 2009, I believe the decision to switch will depend greatly on the hardware you are running. Since we are running Quadro 5600s with 1.5GB of vram, mudbox seems a better solution to fully get the most out of the GPU. I've been using Zbrush since 1.5beta and I totally dig it still, however, Zmapper is the only part of the app that's dependant on my Quadro. If you are running modest GPU card, maybe Zbrush is better?

The big issue that lots of folks have right now with Pixologic is the way they handle licensing. It's awkward to have to call them to change your license code every time you reimage a machine. We've never had an issue with Autodesk's site license system and it's great to not have to bug them about it.

[cresshead]

never had any real issues with licensing for zbrush other than a rather flaky windows pc that kept losing the license..since i moved zbrush to a new vista pc it's been really good.

plus pixologic allow you to have it installed on 2 pc's and to USE 1 pc at a time so if my pc dies or the license fails i still have zbrush up n running ready on a backup pc...

i have zbrush3.1 installed on my main desktop quadcore workstation with 8gig ram and using a wacom bamboo medium plus i have it installed on my h.p. tablet pc..as long as i only use one at a time [and there's only me using zbrush anyhow] i shoudl never get ANY downtime


which is the same with 3dsmax on subscription as autodesk allow you to install a @home and a @work installs for 3dsmax....so no downtime there either

not sure if autodesk have a similar thing for mudbox on subscription or not.

[beaker]

Anyone know if I will have to pay for the 3.5 upgrade to get the mac version? I bought it over a year ago and will be really annoyed if I have to pay more money just to use it on osx.

[womanonfire]

nope. its a free upgrade. ESPECIALLY for OSX users.... waiting still for version 2.5... :shrug:

[hakanpersson]

Off the record, It would almost be a dissapointment if mudbox isnt better than zbrush, considering they have had the pleasure of watching the development from first row, analyzing all the procs and cons.

Yes - but we were discussing the UI quirks in Zbrush.

In every other application that has layers, hitting 'delete layer' removes the layer & all it's contents. In Zbrush, as you say you have to hide the layer first. Hence, a quirk.

Oh well... One button and 2 clicks or 2 buttons and one click. Pixologic at least got the courage to do something different. If MMOs would be like software development we would still be playing games that looks like EQ1... What what? Crap we still are...:)

[beaker]

Off the record, It would almost be a dissapointment if mudbox isnt better than zbrush, considering they have had the pleasure of watching the development from first row, analyzing all the procs and cons.Competition is good. Hopefully they both one up each other with every release.

[ambient-whisper]

not sure if you will have to pay for the osx version.

i do know that they made a deal for osx users to get transfered over to a windows version for free when 3.0 came out. if you will be able to get transfered back to osx, i am not sure.
it would be best to ask them.

[williamsburroughs]

not sure if you will have to pay for the osx version.

i do know that they made a deal for osx users to get transfered over to a windows version for free when 3.0 came out. if you will be able to get transfered back to osx, i am not sure.
it would be best to ask them.

I believe that was the case when I bought into ZB 3.0 so long ago. :p

[beaker]

i do know that they made a deal for osx users to get transfered over to a windows version for free when 3.0 came out. if you will be able to get transfered back to osx, i am not sure.
it would be best to ask them.I bought the osx version with that deal last year. I'm was just hoping that they wouldn't screw us and say "oh btw, you have to pay for 3.5 to get the osx version that you originally paid for".

Luckily womanonfire confirmed that it is a free upgrade.

[frabec]

I bought the osx version with that deal last year. I'm was just hoping that they wouldn't screw us and say "oh btw, you have to pay for 3.5 to get the osx version that you originally paid for".

Luckily womanonfire confirmed that it is a free upgrade.
Well - I once noticed there was an issue about the free transfer but all I find is this: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?p=465036&highlight=license#post465036

So better ask the guys from Pixo :thumbsup:

[Spin99]

..look what this chap does with 'em!Yeh really incredible stuff on that thread. I specially love the pitbull.

I don't know if I'd be using ZSpheres a lot. I can see their usefulness if you want to do a model in ZB from start to finish. They're fast, fun and a great solution. They do have a tendency to go screwy though. And you probably have to retopo if you go that route.

Also there's transpose now. So no real need to model in pose. In the long run maybe there isn't much use for them outside of ZB. And you can always rig your model later. Or transpose it if you need to go fast and it's not an animation you're trying to work on. I think I'll stick to getting a couple base meshes ready and handy for importing and sculpting.

But ZB can only be a great addition to any CG would be sculptors workflow imho

[CKPinson]

I've used both ZB and MB and have to say that the GUI is much easier to naturally pickup- This in a nut shell is enough for me- all that 3d wannabe photoshop stuff is a waste of time to learn and attempt.

[cresshead]

I've used both ZB and MB and have to say that the GUI is much easier to naturally pickup- This in a nut shell is enough for me- all that 3d wannabe photoshop stuff is a waste of time to learn and attempt.

i'm rather unclear on what you like...that's the pitfalls of the english language...without actually refering to THE app..i'm non the wiser if you like mudbox or zbrush!

maybe your refering to modo or blender!

please say which!

[peteb]

For me the one thing I really want to see in 3.5 is the ability to output vector maps instead of just greyscale displacement maps. Like Modo can. So you can get ture depth information.

Pete B

[dude5487]

here is some new for you all!

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=062482

[metamesh]

i can´t seem to find any news on zb 3.5, did they announce the improvements/new tools on it? or they just said that they are working on 3.5?

[FRimasson]

I guess that Pixologic will showcase some of the Zbrush 3.5 new tool a couple of day just before Mudbox 2009 release.

this fall will be hot and very exiting.

[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.