View Full Version : Using ZBrush or Mudbox instead...

04 April 2008, 12:05 PM
Hello there. I was wondering if adding more detail to a mesh is now done in ZBrush or Mudbox with displacement maps instead of the traditional high-resolution mesh with lots polygons. The problem that I am encountering here is that there are too many star junctions if you force the detail on the mesh without using displacements. By the way, will it animate well when you use displacement maps? In areas that bend a lot?

04 April 2008, 03:41 PM
The best way to solve stars is to cut a circle around the intersection and recut your edges.

Zbrush is probably more used than mudbox because it has been around longer and has a larger range of tools than mudbox. If you are texturing your model in an external app mudbox is fine.

Yes deformed meshes animate well and are more managable than high poly meshes because you can animate with deformation (displacement) off. The better your base mesh is the better it will preform. That hasnrt changed.

Cheerio Chris

04 April 2008, 07:06 PM
Thank you Kanga. So what you are saying is, if the topology of the mesh flows in correct anatomy although low-resolution, it will animate well with displacements?

So if I were to create a complex organic mesh that needs lots of detail, is the old method of adding detail by increasing polygon count obsolete?

Something like this, perhaps...

04 April 2008, 08:57 PM
Depending on what you want your mesh to do then yes, a lower poly mesh will perform well. Its best to have edgeloops around where you want things to move still. However now you can sculpt your mesh from a very basic shape without worrying about edgflow and then lay geometry over it afterwards and transfer the sculpt to the new mesh.

So if I were to create a complex organic mesh that needs lots of detail, is the old method of adding detail by increasing polygon count obsolete?

Well not completely. There may be pipelines where deformation is not supported. It is possible to animate a high poly model by using a low poly proxy mesh although I have never done it. Nothing really becomes obsolete. The greatest advantage of sculpting is that it is more intuative, mostly quicker and gives you a chance to experiment where everything is undoable. The ammount of detail that can be achived by a combination of lower frequency displacement maps and higher frequency normal or bump maps is staggering. Although I use zbrush people are getting great results with mudbox, silo, and modo and there may be more applications. Getting good displacement in an animation app can be tricky and require quite a bit of investment (time and effort) but it is really worth it I think.

Give some of the demos a try and see how you like it.
Hope this helps
Cheerio Chris.

04 April 2008, 04:35 AM
Thanks again Kanga. I guess I'll have to do the details in ZBrush now.

CGTalk Moderation
04 April 2008, 04:35 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.