New Mudbox so impressive...

#2

this is a duplicate of a post already made.

However, to answer your statement. Of course they will make a zbrush 4. The companies have roadmaps for software development longer than just the next version.

Each of the two contenders have very goals which will greatly effect their development process over the next few years. These will help develope strengths for their software over time.

Zbrush can go in any direction the company wants to take it (this is a very good thing!).
It will probably be ahead in innovation and tools for at least the next several software generations. People used-to complain over the GUI, thats because Pixologic is trying something new and different, good things can happen when companies try new and different things. They offer amazing plug-ins free which enhance the artists workflow. Zbrush is production proven. Their tools are complex, people just need to get used to the different setup. Zbrush also has a great foundation in the industry. A lot of people are using it and loving it. My guess is pixologic has some amazingly informative and helpful insight from industry vets.

Mudbox is Node based. This is a huge. This will be an incredible asset for years to come. This will give Mudbox some great speed, this could also help give users lots of options. Mudbox was designed and constructed by industry artists, for industry artists. Software that has had this at its roots has faired quite well, (I.E Shake). I’m not familiar with Pixologics background.

I would say, both are great, right now I think it will be like the last great years of Illustrator vs. Freehand. One person would say the other was way ahead, and someone else would say the other was way ahead.

Either way, we as the consumer win. I’m glad to be able to make a choice. For me, I’m just waiting for my Mac Z3 upgrade.

#3

Ive been runing Zbrush for almost three years but I switched to Mudbox 1.0.7 during an indie game production and Im very happy I did. The interface and functionality is just so much more straightforward and logical compared to zbrush. Mudbox 2 looks extremely promising but theres no reason not to try the current version today already.

#4

Since I only use Zbrush for Maya texturing switching to Mudbox would be practical(I really dislike the difference between interfaces).

Being able to add or remove edges, extrude polygons and texture at multiple subdivisions without complicated procedures would be nice. The closer it moves to real life modelling and painting, the better.

#5

Has anyone here seen luxology’s Modo. I think this ap blows away both ZBrush and Mudbox. Pixar has been using it, I know they used it for a few Robots on wall-e. It has amazing modling, sculpting, and rendering workflows. Also the viewport already handled this many poly’s with better textures and better results.

If Im not mistaken autodesk also tried to buy them out and when they idnt they tried to muscle them out by getting to their resellers.

http://www.luxology.com/

As long as this is around with the great support that is has. I will not be using either mudbox or ZBrush.

I found it wierd that Modo 3.02 was not mentiond along side of these apps though.

#6

I don’t know, I think MudBox had a lot of steam while Pixologic was languishing, but ZBrush 3 just smoked MudBox by all accounts when it was released. The good thing is that they don’t necessarily have to compete solely on features. It would help if MudBox was ported to OS X though, just more customers and potential customers.

#7

I use MODO for modelling and while it’s a nice tool it can’t even touch upon the sculpting mudbox offers! One day maybe but I can’t see it happening for a while as they try to concentrate on getting new disciplines in there.

Mudbox looks the dogs IMO, can’t wait to give it a test run…

#8

I ditched modo in favor of mudbox.
Zbrush is also VERY good but the interface in mudbox works much better for me.
Modo = die Scheiße

Mod Warning
don’t insult people, and ESPECIALLY not in a different language

#9

Got a link? My google cant find anything apart from a secret presentation that was supposed to have happened.

#10

http://area.autodesk.com/mudbox_preview

#11

you clearly have not used Zbrush or Mudbox… to put Modo the the same area is wrong…

I’m a Long time Modo user since 102 & have ZB and MB.

#12

Modo is a subD Modeler - Just as Silo. You an compare Modo and Silo if you want to.

Mudbox and ZBrush are digital sculpting applications. They’re not SubD Modelers, it’s not the same thing, even though you can do some basic sculpting now in Silo and Modo. But it’s not the same thing, they’re different tools used for different purposes.

Mudbox could be really neat for painting textures now - let’s see if it supports layered textures and how well the brush engine works. It’d be nice to have a non-destructible workflow and layered texture painting in a digital sculpting app.

#13

Sure, why not Hexagon then? Please let’s not start comparing apples and oranges here.

#14

Im not sure about the usefulness of that, Id rather have Bodypaint3D and Mudbox as two separate apps ach specialising in what they do best. Pixologic tried to squeeze it into Zbrush and they did it badly, IMO.

#15

may i ask how you are able to paint on a mesh with a few million polygons in bodypaint? :wink:

#16

A new update posted

http://area.autodesk.com/mudbox_preview#render_performance_pt2

#17

Ah thanx:)

#18

IMO, familiarity/ease of use will win out in the end. If the next Mudbox release has nice texturing capabilities (which has been hinted at!), Mudbox will definitely get my money!

#19

With my magic wacom pen, crafted by the nibelungen out of babies beards and giants breath? :smiley:

No, Ive never even tried painting on a hi-res mesh, never needed to. But I can imagine it being useful at times. I dislike zbrush’s texturing since its either planar projecting 2D(projection master) or a kind of vertex painting thats completely dependant on the density of the mesh. If Mudbox 2’s texturing is similar then it wont be of much use to me either :frowning:

#20

you can turn zbrush poly paint into a rtexture map you know?..did you read the 3dworld tutorial on the dinosaur?

so poly painting in mudbux will be great as long as you can also convert it into a map like you can in zbrush.

#21

Two things that keep me dangling on the zbrush power teet at this time: polypainting and zspheres for blocking out the polgyons SOO much faster than box modeling (I modeled the low poly duckbill head and body in my portfolio in five minutes with zspheres…no lie; it would have taken me hours and possibly days in Maya). If Mudbox can one up these two areas then I’ll easily switch, otherwise I’ll stay with zbrush for now.