View Full Version : ZBrush 1.5 Demo Released!!!

12 December 2002, 04:05 AM
Great news for those who would like to try out ZBrush's sexy ZSpheres, the demo is out now - check this link for more info:

Or get the demo direct at: (


12 December 2002, 05:48 AM
i'm gonna give it a try...
it seems so different to all other 3d apps.
:bounce: :bounce:

12 December 2002, 09:12 AM
ohh cool I want test it

12 December 2002, 09:29 AM
Could you say why?

12 December 2002, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by HellRender
this demo is pissing me off :annoyed:

I must say it is the best way if you can test the software first and then you can decide by your opinion. I remember times where I can't have any demo of what I was intrested... after buying the software I wasn't convinced although the people sayed it is the next generation tool... So what do you have against that ??

12 December 2002, 12:23 PM
Patience, HR, you must have patience!

Carl :beer:

12 December 2002, 01:14 PM
I'll tell you why it's pissing ME off. Their Mac version is "classic only"!

I wasted my time and bandwidth on a 9.7 MB download, surrendered my email address (albeit a junk one), for an application that I can't even use! Nowhere do they even let you know that it dosen't work with OS X.

12 December 2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by RormanKnockwell
I'll tell you why it's pissing ME off. Their Mac version is "classic only"!

I wasted my time and bandwidth on a 9.7 MB download, surrendered my email address (albeit a junk one), for an application that I can't even use! Nowhere do they even let you know that it dosen't work with OS X.

thats why I say I is cool when I can test it first and can decide if I take it. I don't work with OS X and so it don`t care me... but when you say it is pissing you off, imagine what you have done without a test try...:shame:
so I say it is the best what the developer do when they make a demo where I can decide.:bounce: :bounce:

12 December 2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Laptop
... but when you say it is pissing you off, imagine what you have done without a test try...

Amen to that, and thanks for pointing that out. I am grateful when anyone wants to come out with a demo of their product. The inconvenience of having the demo not work is certainly nothing compared to how I would feel if I had purchased the full product.

12 December 2002, 03:17 PM
been curious about this program for quite some time. will definitly dl it now and give it a go in a month after i finish college. it does seem so different from normal 3d programs. just wish i had time to try it now :hmm:

12 December 2002, 03:27 AM
Look I dont know about anyone else but im finding this program to be pretty frustratingly crap. The interface is horrible .. and the actually 3d modelling is awful .. as a 2.5 d painter it works ok .. as a 3d application its pretty much sub bryce and poser in its application to professional 3d animation and modelling community.

12 December 2002, 04:17 AM
Have a look at some few posts of Stevie-rae, you might change your mind... You have to be open-minded about these kind of things. Do not compare it with other 3D apps as the whole system is different. Just give it time and some patience. Heck, Steve has just spent 1 year with it and look at the stuff he's churning out of it!

Carl :beer:

12 December 2002, 05:18 AM
the interface certainly could do with a relayout and being brought into line with other more mainstream apps, it's navigation in the 3d world and general workflow aren't so easy to master. but i know some people can get some wonderful results with it.

i'm using os x and it is useable under classic mode, which means it must fly normally. (it's certainly no slouch in classic).

personally i just find the workflow to be tremendously frustrating, and i wish theyed "skin" it with a more normal interface, and maybe better keyboard shortcut system for viewport manipulation, less reliance on the same keys to do multiple things or rather clicking on different objects in the viewport to do multiple things, better selection tools for 3d work, less of the strange autotemplate/copy paste thing going on up there making it hard to tell what icon means what, the viewport cursor feedback is okish though, and z-spheres certainly are intruiging. i've seem some interesting work done with this package, i just wish a little more thought had gone into the interface (aside form adding bevels to the menu buttons since the last time i tried this).

every 3d app manufacturer has to realise this now, all the apps have pretty much the same capeabilities... that means the only thing that differentiates between them is the interface and how easy it is, how good the workflow is, how easy to make the workflow suit you. Even if you do have a great product or tool, if you wrap it up in an interface that's just not well thought out then people aren't going to spend the time getting to know/use it. i.e. 3d apps are used by artists, not programmers (mostly).

12 December 2002, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by mdme_sadie

every 3d app manufacturer has to realise this now, all the apps have pretty much the same capeabilities... that means the only thing that differentiates between them is the interface and how easy it is, how good the workflow is, how easy to make the workflow suit you. Even if you do have a great product or tool, if you wrap it up in an interface that's just not well thought out then people aren't going to spend the time getting to know/use it. i.e. 3d apps are used by artists, not programmers (mostly).

or perhaps it could be you...and the fact that your not used to it.?

the other thing you have to realise is that this is NOT a 3d app like maya/max/LW/xsi etc.

i dont remember the last time i seen stuff like this come out of 3d apps.

its only one user. but id say its not bad. :) each image has some 2d...some 3d..etc.

12 December 2002, 08:14 PM
i'm actually stated that the same things could be done with all of these apps... so showing me images of nice work done in base level packages proves nothing more than what i already said. however any ergonomics and interface design student would be able to point out a myriad of problems with the interface of z-brush. things that make it confusing to use and non-intuitive.

firstly standardisation. this is not something to be scared of. unless you have a really good solid reason to not go with a standard interface (i.e. your interface does something better than the standard) then there is little point other than to distinguish your app visually from the others around it. i don't think the artists using it will thank you for your time generally. let's look at maya, this is generally considered to be the most customiseable of all the 3d apps, and yet no matter how far you customise it, it stil remains within the standards set out in the operating system, this is a simple one really. when you have a whole new application to learn why force your users to relearn using a computer too?

next, dynamic interface. here we're talking the popdown/popup for the menus. it's fine for an interface to change to suit the current tool (to an extent), but the layout used here makes little sense, also, items that you're only going ot want once (i.e. one click items, such as save/load/new) involve multiple clicks and movements in the z-brush interface, click to bring in the file menu, move, click to load/save/new... then click to hide that menu again because you really don't want it open all the time. drop down menus were a neat solution developed earlier on in the 80's. here again the designers have developed something that is like stepping into the archaic past of computers. there's good reason why the interface has evolved like it has with computers.

next the layout of thse menus when you "activate" them. left and right sides of the screen, that's not great, if you're having similar information you want it clustered. then there's the logic behind what goes on which side, it's not 100% clear as some brush controls go to the left while others go to the right, agains clustering. this feels random.

next there's not only dynamic menus but dynamic tools (it seems to be aiming to confuse the unwary user beyond anything i ever met in any other package). the interface design harks back to the old unix tools, stuff for programmers, not for artists. clarity is vital in any interface. fuzzy logic isn't what people expect when using the move tool. using z-sphere... interesting that navigation is by clicking off the object... this is ok but what if your z-sphere occupies the whole viewport? also it means that navigating which is basically a fine tuning process has to invilve a large movement away from you object, then a shorter movement to rotate that tiny ammount, it also means that you cant have rotation around the cursor/centrescreen axis, everything has to rotate around the root z-sphere which is troublesome if you wanted to do some detail work at the extremity of the model. the large+small movement is something to be avoided in general, interfaces should keep flow of movement, this interface does not. also the rotation system could do with a little more thought being put into it. without reference for rotation (like even a temporary axis plane around the object) movement is going to feel random.

the icon based interface elements seem ok apart from the new brush/z-sphere/object palette. it mixes user defined brushes in with presets as you go throughout the package, sometimes adding in a new item where really you may not want one. adding/removing things such as icons from teh interface should be a qualified process. clutter (another big problem for z-brush) should be avoided at all costs.

however on the up-side. cursor feedback has been implemented to a degree, the fuel guage control over parameterisation works pretty well. the ogl implementation seems pretty solid, z-script is pretty robust and i'm sure with a little work using z-script it may be possible to remedy some of my faults wiht this interface. the painting tools are fairly good. z-spheres are a pretty cool way of modelling.

the thing is as i've said before. while the package isn't limiting in any particular way. the interface is. once again i think manufacturers need to spend more time thinking about the interface and workflow. there are good reasons why the interfaces of our various applications have evolved the way they have. it's taken 20 years to get where we are, people still make mistakes (the dock for OS X for instance... most apple users i know dump this and replace it with either a copy of the windows task bar or a menu based system). interface should be clean, clear, consise. the interface can influence how someone works, even if theyr'e going to get RSI or not. so movememnts should be smooth throught the interface, controlled, smaller movememnts, keep the controls close to the users hands (i.e. using all three buttons on a mouse is better than using lots of keyboard modifiers or seperate icons on screen (or worse screen hotspot areas... things have to at the very least be visually defined). workflow needs to be fast and clear. that means that if an interface isn't clear it's going to slow somoene down. looking through identical icons, having just to remember the position on screen.. it's just not a great idea in interface design. when an item is unlikely to be presed multiple times consecutively it probably shouldnt be constantly available, but when you want it it shouldnt be more than one click away. most of this stuff is common sense (i would have thought).

nothing innovates about z-brush' interface as far as i can tell, there's a lot of stuff that;s kinda like stuff produced 10,15 years ago, but then was dropped and replaced with better ideas and better workflow. the package is crippled by it's interface for most users. i see some great work coming from this app, but i don't see the volumes of work that would compare with any other 3d app, and yes that is because of a smaller user base i guess (though i don't know the figures) and i'm guessing that the interface has a lot to do with the smaller user base.

it's not that you can't go with a diferent interface... it's just got to be worth it. a great example of an interface that i think actually does work while being different is Bryce. I mean, it's not standard, but it keeps a lot of standard features, drop down menus etc. While the naviagtion tools were off the canvas they were at least logical and the icons represented something clearly. the interface never got cluttered. another great interface is shake, again non standard interface, but it remains clean, what you don't want to see is folded away while you work in each "area" of the app. that was what all of those crazy kais tools brought to interface design that was novel and worked, application areas. this bit of the app does this, the next bit does this, you don't see the bits that have no relevance to what you're currently doing... it actually makes for better workflow. z-brush gives you everything all the time, and it's jsut frustrating because you're given options that have no bearing on what you're currently doing. buttons that do nothing, and it's not 100% clear how to activate. context sensitive tools but not interface... arggh i could go on, but i've said enough already.

i agree i don't know the interface of z-brush. i respect those that can spend the time to learn it and get to grip it despite it's flaws. i've seen a few gems come out from this app, i wish they had spent more time on the interface, it really doesn't need to be the way it is, but while it is the way it is, i guess i'm more likely to use a more mainstream package for my needs... which is a real shame. the interface is the main thing that puts people off of z-brush it would seem (having read a fair few comments and crits of this app, so i know it's not just me). if that was changed... i think z-brush would be a killer app.

12 December 2002, 08:45 PM
damn you completely took what i said not the way i meant it. read again...

its not a bloody 3d app. so why would you expect the interface to be exactly like every app youve used before? standard interfaces are an extremely bad idea just because that way you cant really go off and experiment with new ideas/ different approaches.

if something doesnt work. then youve still taken that step to learn that it doesnt.

i still think you should learn it more before saying its got a bad interface.:) some people seem to love it. and some have been using other 2d and 3d apps for quite some time.

its kinda like mirai doesnt have a "standard interface" most people are lost in it without some guidance. but once they learn the basics of how it works the rest is soo damn easy that youll wonder how you were ever frustrated by it.

12 December 2002, 09:06 PM
the trouble with learning that it doesnt work in this manner is that this is ignoring history. it's like reinventing the wheel every time you make a new app. history has already shown that these interface ideas aren't optimal, so it seems off to try to use them again, nothings been learnt, and the users are the ones who have to suffer. it's fine to make a new interface if there's a damn good reason to do so. if it's just for the sake of making a new interface though, that's kinda silly.

i know that some people love it. but i also know that more people would like to love it, but can't get beyond the interface. when more people loave it than love it because of that one point then you have to question if something should be done about that one particular point.

i want to be able to use it, if it incorporates 3d then it should do so in a useable manner, otherwise what's the point? should just leave 3d out altogether and stay a 2d and 2.5d painting app. however i think that z-brush main value add comes from it's unique 3d tools, for natural and unnatural media i think painter has the market sewn up with at least something that traditional artists are able to get to grips with very fast. i'll put it this way. i can see a space in my toolset for z-brush, but with it's current method of working every advantage that it might give seems to have been taken away in some other area useability, the clumsiness... it's a shame. i wanna love it. but i just can't, even after following the tutorials. maybe it's just me, but so many other poeple seem to feel the same way.

12 December 2002, 12:53 AM
why is that? theyve released 1.5 a while ago.

they worked on new features since...but want to get a demo out so they do... they add new features to demo that / ( i guess you could call finalized or atleast ready for show )

and they havent finished enough that will end up going into they havent given their customers those features.

i dont see anything really backwards here. but maybe a minor patch would have been nice.

12 December 2002, 05:28 PM
They need:

better release management... I am an owner and I have yet to get an announcement about a new release.

better docs... the only manul that they have is so old that it's akin to having Maxon ship the v5 manual with v8.

better copy protection... theirs is quite simply broken.

01 January 2003, 04:07 PM
Okay.... I'm a hopeless newbie with this stuff... I have no idea what to say about the interface or the workflow, all I know is I hit a few buttons, made a few scribbles, tried a couple of tools..... watched rippling forms of color and shape stretch and wiggle and coil all over my screen.... and my jaw dropped right the heck off my face. I don't know what I'm doing... BUT I LIKE IT!!!!

01 January 2003, 05:27 AM
Ya, the colors this app produces are rich rich rich.... It is my opinion ( I have had a few opinions today :scream: ) that in the right hands ZBrush truly rocks... :thumbsup:

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 02:00 AM
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.