MudBox and ZBrush

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 03 March 2007   #1
MudBox and ZBrush

Hello,
I have both demos and I am foolin' around with each app. I am new to this technology so I am alittle confused. I posted here because I felt alot of people using MudBox have also used ZBrush so I could get some opinions. I am not looking for which app is better, because neither is, but what I don't understand is what can be done in MudBox that can't be done in ZBrush and vice-a-versa. I want an app to model in, texture/paint, and render with. Any preferences?

Thanks
 
Old 03 March 2007   #2
hi there, if you're going for texturing, painting, Zbrush is the option then because zbrush have the painting ability. wheareas mudbox i just modeling, i guess. Cheers
 
Old 03 March 2007   #3
Hi Pesto,

Both apps are really good at what they do.

The main difference (by public preference, not technical) is that Mudbox has a much
easier user interface and most people new to the program have come up with some
nice 'doodles' in the first 20 minnutes, tops! Me included

With ZBrush, the learning curve is steep. You really need someone to hold your hand with
that app. Of course, there are some who dont need the holding-hands, but on the majority, Mudbox wins hands down in the user interface war...

...BUT (and this is a big one!)

Comparing both the apps generally doesnt make sense. They do similar things when it comes to sculpting and detailing, but there are huge differences. One that comes to mind is that ZBrush is more than just a sculpting tool. You still need to texture and paint your models, no matter which app you use. And then there is this very huge community around ZBrush that Mudbox will take sometime to build. It will get there eventually, but that time is not now.

Depending on your render platform (Maya, XSI, 3DS MAX, etc.), you will find ZBrush has a complete pipeline guide available on their forums, and the whole industry knows about it (those who use it anyways). With Mudbox, there are still a lot of people trying get their maps into their preferred application for rendering, etc. Check on the Mudbox3d.com forums.

Like I said, its getting there. Just give it time.

Dont get me wrong here, I love both apps equally well for what they offer, and I look into the subject as more of a compliment than competition. They are worlds apart, and then some.

Keep trying the demos, and see what suits you best. I suggest you go with ZBrush if you have the patience and time. Once your done, you will already know Mudbox. Thats the beauty of the app.

Best,

KHURRUM
 
Old 03 March 2007   #4
Yeah, im in the same boat i use Zbrush to sculpt a rough mesh and send it to Mudbox to get this basic beige shader they use just to make it appear as if i used Mudbox all the way
 
Old 03 March 2007   #5
I dont even use ZBrush for texturing anymore, because I loathe projection master and having to rotate around an object a thousand times looking for every little nook that isn't covered. I switched to bodypaint for texturing a while back, that is until Z3 comes out

All of these points are irrelevant here in another month or so, so take it with a grain of salt, but here are the reasons I switched to Mudbox:

- Skymatter's attentive staff & evolving product. If it's missing a feature that slows down your workflow, chances are it will get implemented. Pixologic is very community-centric, in that they release tons of things pro bono, but when it comes down to the core of it all (bug fixing, regular updates for professionals) they're a little behind the curve. But not much!

- Lack of a *real* perspective camera in ZBrush. I find it incredibly aggrivating trying to sculpt in an orthographic viewport, and dropping the mesh to simulate perspective distortion is tedious.

- Mudbox has layers. Not much to say about this, other than the fact that their layers could still stand quite a bit of improvement in terms of workflow.

- Mudbox has a far superior local subdivision method. This may be a matter of opinion, but I see it as being a huge step ahead of ZBrush in terms of how it handles the division of local polygons. Instead of tesselating the border faces and creating a ton of unnecessary tri's, it locks the area outside of the subdivision and subdivides each face as if the entire mesh were subdivided. This makes for a very fluid workflow on high resolution meshes because you can work your mesh to a certain point, then start locally subdividing area by area without destroying your geometry.

- Mudbox allows you to work with multiple objects easilly, without resorting to plugins. Kudos to marcus_civis by the way, his marker master plugin single handedly brought Z2 to another level, but the functionality was limited due to things outside his control. I can't tell you how many times I forgot to mark an object before moving on and totally losing it

Now then, on the other side of the coin- ZBrush still reigns supreme in terms of 'bang for the buck'. It is packed full of features, and since it has been around for longer, there are a number of plugins, alpha and material packs available.

Zbrush is quite a bit more responsive with high poly meshes on average/below average machines.

ZBrush has projection master (oh, curse you projection master.. curse you and bless you). I was complaining about it earlier for various reasons, but it does have it's uses. For example- when you drop your mesh to projection master, you can add details to it essentially in real time, regardless of the poly count. The draw back is that when it's in projection master, you're in "2.5d" mode, and you'll find yourself rotating/dropping/smoothing/repeat/repeat/repeat.

If I had to make a decision, I would honestly buy both. Sounds lame, yes.. but that's what I did, and I don't regret either purchase. Now then, if you're limited on funding, I might recommend you buy ZBrush over Mudbox. As I mentioned, it's a better bang for the buck, especially since you will get ZBrush 3 for free (if history serves as an indicator, there will be a price increase on ZBrush when 3.0 is released). If Z3 weren't right around the corner, however, I would recommend Mudbox hands down. Although who knows what those guys at Skymatter have up their sleeves.

I hope this long post has been of some use to you in your decision making process
__________________

 
Old 03 March 2007   #6
Thank you ALL for your replies, especially Eldee and khurrum_j.It is kind of a tough decision with ZB 3 soon to be released. I think I will play with the demos some more to try to decide because I really cannot really afford to buy both at this point and time.

One more thing about modelling - which program provides a more versatile modeller in people's opinion?
 
Old 03 March 2007   #7
Quote: Thank you ALL for your replies, especially Eldee and khurrum_j.


You mean i wasn't helpful ?
 
Old 03 March 2007   #8
Thumbs up

FreeWaldo - well the other two did have more words in their replies but the quality (not quantity) of your reply was unsurpassed

Seriously thank you also...all replies were very helpful
 
Old 03 March 2007   #9
in my opinion i see mudbox as the best of the 2 if time was irrelivent.
mudbox just works nicer the only difrence is is that zbrush is inovetive as in it discovers new features and possebilaties.
I think Mudbox is always gona be behind Zbrush a step, but Mudbox is always gona be the nicer aplication to work with in terms of controll interface and creative expression.
 
Old 03 March 2007   #10
I must agree with the previous post that Mudbox is definitely the better product. ZBrush is way too complicated to use and there's really no reason for it to be as Mudbox has shown. The whole 2.5D thing in ZBrush is rather stupid if you ask me. Mudbox uses full 3D with a real perspective camera and has Maya controls for viewport navigation. The ZBrush interface is way too cluttered and complex.

As for comparing the two, I think it's an unfair comparison because ZBrush is on version 2 and mudbox is still on it's first version. I definitely see Mudbox adding a lot more features in the future such as paint tools which, I believe will really put it through the roof. Z3 looks good but I would still recommend Mudbox anyday of the week. It's easier to get into and learn. I tried to learn ZBrush on my own and I eventually gave up on it. I got into Mudbox immediately without problems and haven't looked back since.
 
Old 03 March 2007   #11
Mudbox or ZBrush?

In my opinion, it really depends on how motivated you are to make it through the learning curve.

I have seen some amazing tutorial videos for ZBrush that really show off many capabilities that Mudbox does not currently have, but you might have to spend a few days playing around with ZBrush before you can comfortably do that stuff....

I have tried out both, but I still am no expert on ZBrush. Whereas Mudbox maybe took me a few hours (at MOST) to fully learn every function and method. I mean, you can read through the documentation and learn all the shortcut keys very intuitively, particularly if you are familiar with Maya camera controls.

I love how holding down S and using your mouse (as if you were holding down ALT in Maya) can completely control your stencil size/position/rotation. And you don't have to worry about projection mode, you just treat it like Artisan in Maya - just rotate that camera around and keep sculpting.

Eldee really said it best. One has a very simple learning curve, has a good interface and layer support, but is limited to sculpting operations. The other can do some 2.5d painting and has way more features... but the UI badly needs a redesign, IMO.

Why wouldn't I go into the File menu to import something, for example?

ZBrush doesn't adhere to (unofficial) typical Windows menu specifications, but if you can handle watching some Zscript tutorials (which IS an awesome feature), and you have the motivation to work through it and teach yourself the software, ZBrush is right now the better buy. It will be interesting to see where Skymatter takes Mudbox in the next few years, though.

I guess a lot of this depends on what you prefer to paint/texture in. I love modeling in XSI, UVing in Maya, sculpting in Mudbox, painting in Deep Paint 3d and Photoshop, and bringing things back into Maya/XSI for normal map baking and rendering....but texturing in ZBrush while you're sculpting definitely has its advantages.
 
Old 03 March 2007   #12
i have tried zbrush from the first version and the interface is cluttered, and the learning curve is steep. i tried learning it but man it was a challenge. i basically gave up on it after a while. a few years later mudbox is here i tried it for the first time and i was in heaven. so easy to use, it made me wonder why zbrush couldn't be like this.
another thing, if you are strapped for cash like me, you can buy the cheaper version of mudbox and then eventually upgrade it to the professional version. check the FAQ section of the site for this info.
__________________
Heights of great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they while their companions slept were toiling upwards in the night.
 
Old 03 March 2007   #13
Zbrush is the more powerful tool overall....However it has way more facets and components than a typical production artists needs. Zbrush was initially intended as a illustration tool, Mudbox was designed as a high-fidelity modeling tool.

The Pixologic guys are talented and smart, hopefully they are taking the time to use thier tech effeciently, strip out un-needed functions, and make seperate version that can compete with Mudbox. As of right now...it has painting tools over Mudbox and a few other nice features, thats it ( as far as 3d production pipelines go/ illustration is a different matter). If they want a large stake in the 3d community they should do a major overhaul pretty soon...Especially if Mudbox adds painting tech to thier app, and Zbrush stays the same route - they will fall out of favor very fast.

Even the most basic parts of a 3d app are confusing in Zbrush. My geometry/mesh is a "tool"??? How confusing is that to someone coming from any other 3d app, I thought I used tools to modify/sculpt my object? Anywho, hopefully they are listenting to the community and make some very basic changes so they can compete down the road.

As far as what app to learn. If you want an illustration tool with some great 3d/2d tech - Zbrush. If you want to learn a 3d sculpting tool (and more likely to be in industry pipelines in a year) - Mudbox + (Bodypaint if you wish).
__________________
Badabing Badabang Badaboom!
 
Old 03 March 2007   #14
Imo, ZBrush is like a Swiss army knife. It can do about everything, but you have to find where what is hidden and you have the impression there's always something in the way.
Mudbox is a sculpting toolset. Nothing more, nothing less. And is pretty good at that.
I already have ZBrush, but I'll probably get Mudbox too. Because I don't need a Swiss army knife all the time.

This said: ZB3 looks pretty awesome. And is free for existing users... I do hope though that Skymatter follows the example , and does not start charging for updates/upgrades.
__________________
All you have to do is become who you were before you became who you are.
 
Old 03 March 2007   #15
Originally Posted by goldenarm: The Pixologic guys are talented and smart, hopefully they are taking the time to use thier tech effeciently, strip out un-needed functions, and make seperate version that can compete with Mudbox. If they want a large stake in the 3d community they should do a major overhaul pretty soon...Especially if Mudbox adds painting tech to thier app, and Zbrush stays the same route - they will fall out of favor very fast.

Even the most basic parts of a 3d app are confusing in Zbrush. My geometry/mesh is a "tool"??? How confusing is that to someone coming from any other 3d app, I thought I used tools to modify/sculpt my object? Anywho, hopefully they are listenting to the community and make some very basic changes so they can compete down the road.



Goldenarm,

I agree the way ZBrush does things confusing and is quite different to any application I've used. You said ZBrush needs to get a major overhaul pretty soon. I hope ZBrush 3 is the overhaul we've been waiting for. In ZB 2 you have to save the tool to save a 3D scene. I don't know if this has been changed in ZB 3 but I hope so.
 
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 07:39 AM.


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