Is Mudbox enough good ?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07 July 2012   #16
If you confuse to use mudbox or zbrush then there is no problem ....bcz mudbox is too easy
to learn .... I learned the whole tools and menus in mudbox during one day ..... believe me
so I advise you to start with mudbox bcz its easy to learn and then if you dont see it perfect
start learn zbrush...
The users of zbrush always use mudbox to texture bcz its better in texture...
 
Old 07 July 2012   #17
more lizard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKuIb1bFoEQ
__________________
...
 
Old 09 September 2012   #18
It has to be said that mudbox is coming along though. It's racing ahead on the texturing front and they seem to be working hand in glove with pixar. Which means they should implement the open subdivision before too long I should think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-3L9BOTEtw

and, they seem to have (finally) implemented drivers for 3d connexion mice (zbrush still hasn't, and doesn't seem inclined to do so)
If they copied some of the hard surface tools, like extractions, clips etc. It would be an increasingly hard decision.

One the other hand, it seems to me that Zbrush "just" needs to give some love to the texturing side of things to confirm it's position as top dog in my mind.

Plus when you take into account the price and pixologics excellent upgrade policy....

But, the improvements in mudbox are looking interesting...
__________________
Showreel 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHUU2Arr99k
 
Old 09 September 2012   #19
I ended up buying both. They each have strengths and weaknesses and there seemed no end in sight of one developing the features I liked from the other. Now I just need the time to do some more projects.
 
Old 09 September 2012   #20
We often use both in production at Framestore. Mudbox typically for final sculpt detail and map baking, zbrush if we are doing conceptual work and for detail transferring.

Everything gets retoplogised in Topogun, then back to Mudbox for detailing and sanity checking.


But, I do find the projection and transferring of detail in ZB to be cleaner and less prone to artefacts than MB transfer details, and so simply export my current MB model into there, transfer, and then send back to MB on a layer. Zbrush is used for 'creation ' ie concept work, kit bashing as its subtools, transpose and dynamesh is a good way to flesh out a model



Mudbox can handle a higher polycount for a single mesh, I'm currently sculpting detailing at 22 Million Polys. Zbrush's sculpt HD is limiting, you can't edit the base mesh or reproject any details at all and preserve HD detail.

Detailing work often requires artists to zoom in/out and sculpt with the same brush. A massive downside of zbrush is that it doesn't natively preserve the brush size, so ,maintaining brush size whilst sculpting and moving camera isn't possible (albeit with a script you can download)


The final biggest win for Mudbox is simply that is supports 32bit displacements and vector displacements. You can assess and check that the model will displace correctly with the baked displacement map interactively. Zbrush, although it bakes 32bit, cannot import it and offer any sort of preview of the map you just baked.
__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed
 
Old 09 September 2012   #21
What's "sanity checking"
__________________
Showreel 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHUU2Arr99k
 
Old 09 September 2012   #22
A buzzword that I use for just making sure everything you output from your dept works for the next. Usually a combination of manually checking normals, mesh construction, UVs present....and so on..... or in the case of Mudbox, previewing that your map has no spikes, equivalent resolution, all details present etc etc
__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed
 
Old 09 September 2012   #23
I never noticed this thread before now, but I wanted to comment on the Avatar thing...

It seems that pretty much every piece of software out there tried to lay claim to Avatar. Even Newtek tried to claim Lightwave was used on it in some useful capacity.

I'm not saying anything other than what it seems - that it's funny to read every software developer trying to use Avatar in hopes to get more sales.


As for Mudbox being "good enough"... yeah it sure is good enough, but it really could be better.
Autodesk realizes a package like Mudbox can be developed only so far before you can't do too much more to it, and so to insure sales well into the future years, they develop it slowly. Just enough to warrant maintaining a subscription or upgrading every year.

Personally I prefer ZBrush for high detail sculpting, but I'd rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of pliers than use ZBrush for painting. Mudbox, IMO, is far better for painting and map baking than Zbrush. Mudbox is also far more intuitive than Zbrush.

And of course, Mudbox is fully 64 bit and as such, can take advantage of as much RAM your system has in it, plus is OpenGL and GPU-accelerated... three things that ZBrush is not.

Like many people though, I use both, although I'd say overall I enjoy using Mudbox more than ZBrush, and often find myself using Mudbox to do something that I know I could do quicker in Zbrush.

Last edited by twosheds : 09 September 2012 at 01:47 AM.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #24
Not wanting to start anything, but some good reading TwoSheds on Avatar and Newtek.

https://www.lightwave3d.com/news/ar...art-department/

Can actually recomment to everyone to read through, is no less then enlightening. Interesting workflows.

Last edited by jburford : 10 October 2012 at 10:52 AM.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #25
Originally Posted by jburford: Not wanting to start anything, but some good reading TwoSheds on Avatar and Newtek.

https://www.lightwave3d.com/news/ar...art-department/

Can actually recomment to everyone to read through, is no less then enlightening. Interesting workflows.


I've read that article before. I know how LW was used. It was essentially pre-visualization.

However, I remember Newtek seeming to try to imply that LW was used in far more capacity than it actually was. Going for name recognition. That's what marketing people are supposed to do - to use any and every advantage possible to cause people to want to buy a product, and, IMO, the way they tried to associate LW with Avatar was borderline misrepresentation.

Anyway, this is the Mudbox forum. I insulted LW in another forum, so what - you've looked up all my posts and are following me around now?
If you want to argue about it some more with me, do it through private messages, although note that I'll likely ignore them since I'm too busy for this.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #26
Originally Posted by Secret_Chiefs: A buzzword that I use for just making sure everything you output from your dept works for the next. Usually a combination of manually checking normals, mesh construction, UVs present....and so on..... or in the case of Mudbox, previewing that your map has no spikes, equivalent resolution, all details present etc etc


oh thanks, btw, somehow missed your reply.
__________________
Showreel 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHUU2Arr99k
 
Old 10 October 2012   #27
Originally Posted by twosheds:
I'd rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of pliers than use ZBrush for painting. Mudbox, IMO, is far better for painting and map baking than Zbrush. Mudbox is also far more intuitive than Zbrush.

And of course, Mudbox is fully 64 bit and as such, can take advantage of as much RAM your system has in it, plus is OpenGL and GPU-accelerated... three things that ZBrush is not.



I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that the changes needed to bring the elements that are lacking in zbrush up to scratch, are simpler than those needed in mudbox.

So, it's maybe not simple, but converting a 32bit application to 64bit isn't necessarily a massive job. (possibly)

Also implementing some direct texture painting tools can't be that hard, (can it?).

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but, mark my words, zbrush 5 will be 64bit and will have a completely revamped set of texturing tools.
__________________
Showreel 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHUU2Arr99k
 
Old 10 October 2012   #28
Originally Posted by tmcthree: I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that the changes needed to bring the elements that are lacking in zbrush up to scratch, are simpler than those needed in mudbox.

So, it's maybe not simple, but converting a 32bit application to 64bit isn't necessarily a massive job. (possibly)

Also implementing some direct texture painting tools can't be that hard, (can it?).

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but, mark my words, zbrush 5 will be 64bit and will have a completely revamped set of texturing tools.


I love Mudbox and I'd really like to see Autodesk do some serious work on it. It seems though that they're not even really trying to compete with ZBrush.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #29
Originally Posted by twosheds: I've read that article before. I know how LW was used. It was essentially pre-visualization.

However, I remember Newtek seeming to try to imply that LW was used in far more capacity than it actually was. Going for name recognition. That's what marketing people are supposed to do - to use any and every advantage possible to cause people to want to buy a product, and, IMO, the way they tried to associate LW with Avatar was borderline misrepresentation.

Anyway, this is the Mudbox forum. I insulted LW in another forum, so what - you've looked up all my posts and are following me around now?
If you want to argue about it some more with me, do it through private messages, although note that I'll likely ignore them since I'm too busy for this.



TwoSheds,
I take part in various part of the Forum hier @ CG Society, be it in the Blender portion, CG News, Speed Modelling, Lighting, Rigging, Lightwave or whatever.

And as a user, as much as you, I reserve the right to take part in any thread that interests me, and pass on in a professional manor any message the same as you or anyone else reserves the right. Or do you see it any other way?

I do not have time to play in any games (except when I kick up mx X360), but feel free to look over your shoulder as you think you need to.

Would like to address you "view of things", but will simply leave it at that.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #30
Smile thanks for the insight

thanks for all the insight on mudbox. i myself have been struggling with which one to stick with... but it seems like mudbox integrates easily into a maya pipeline ( at least easier than zbrush) ( i do love zbrush though)

anyways if your characters/objects are modeled from sctratch in maya anyway so they can be distributed early on onto the pipeline.. then its just finalization/refinement/high frequency stuff on the sculpting part... and this sounds (from what ive heard) to be more streamlined mud and maya.

specially if you need corrective Blend Shapes no?.


Well thanks again for all the insight and links.
kudos
__________________
"yesterday's dream is today's hope, and tomorrow's reality"
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.