Maxon acquires ZBrush!


Wow, the perpetual Indie license of quadremesher is a great price. Even the perpetual pro version which works with all supported platforms, including C4d, is reasonable.


I’ve no plans to do youtube tutorials, this forum has made it perfectly clear they’re not interested in learning simple maths so it’s no point discussing it further. I realise now why I see so many comments of C4D forums about the ‘difficulty’ in switching to Blender and Houdini it’s because they’re lacking in basic knowledge. H and B expect a level of proficiency that some C4D users have managed to do without, my advice would be to skill up because H and B are going to change the Mograph landscape for good.

Blender Foundation has employed full-time developers for the sculpting and retopo tools so these areas will be getting serious attention in the coming months. No plans have been released yet concerning retopo tools and whether that means a new remesher is planned but the developer has produced his own highly regarded retopo addon, retopoflow.

ZBrush users on the ZBrushCentral forum and reddit are venting their frustration and it’s not the end of free updates that really bothers them, it’s Maxon’s development and push towards SaaS. I thought this was quite spot on from a C4D user

When the dust settles Maxon will be further diversified from the lame duck C4D and yet another income stream will be flowing directly into the Nemetchek coffers and Maxon’s current record income levels will be increased to new all-time highs. It’s all about the Benjamins.


I would like to say, on behalf of many, it would really be a shame to see you go. Don’t let the rantings of @Infograph ruin your view on this once great community. We’re not all like that. That said, as a current Blender user of 12 year and former C4Der for about 10, all I can say is that trolls come from all communities and skill levels. Brush it off and remember what is essential to your happiness and who is not. Stand tall and don’t let others drag you down.

@Infograph: As somebody who went to college majoring in Physics and Computer Science, I have all sorts of experience in advanced mathematics such as vector calculus. However, as somebody who’s also been a CG artist for 33 years, nearly 29 of them in a professional capacity, I have never EVER needed said math experience in the service of my art or my clients. I can see how, if one were writing complex addons or shaders, one might. Most people - 99% - probably never will. It doesn’t make them newbies either. I can guarantee you that there are amazing artists out there with more experience than either one of us who can barely solve for x=2+2. I understand that you’re passionate. Just dial it back. Thanks…

In the hullabaloo of people arguing back and forth, I think that the narrative here has been lost. Let’s set it back on track with something that I don’t think has been noted here yet. (At least I think that it hasn’t. Lots of cross-talk. )


might be one or the other, since mesh sculpt maxon showed that they understand and want something in terms of a sculpting tool as an arsenal for its 3d adopters.

Now if they can figure out a way to bring part of zbrush engine to a more user friendly stand point, that would be a win win.

I always wanted to dive in to sculpting, but it always was the new ubrush updates, features, wondering if what I learned last year still applies to the last version. So yeah, if anyone could bring this and make it a bit more user friendly, take it out of the shadows of hunting tutorials to learn one thing, I think maxon is the one. Great job!!!


It’d be a rough retrofit though. ZBrush is as fast as it is because of how it represents the canvas. The pixol is, fundamentally a 2.5D element which contains X & Y data as well as depth, color, and orientation. It’s not strictly a 3D system. That’s why it’s so CPU dependent and doesn’t care all that much about your fancy $3k GPU.

I recall reviewing ZBrush v1.23b back in 2002 or so. It most certainly emphasized that 2.5D workflow much more. R3 was the real turning point for 3D in ZBrush. Still, even today, everything is built on top of that ultra fast pixol tech, a version of which Maxon could’ve likely implemented themselves without violating IP rights long, long ago if they really wanted to.

Nah. I don’t think that they’ll integrate any part of ZBrush into Cinema4D. Doesn’t really seem to be their style. If anything, I expect that they’ll follow a similar path to how they’ve handled working with Adobe products and tighten up the workflow between these two apps.

I also wouldnt be super shocked if they bundled ZBrush Core (or some version) with Adobe’s CC suite just like they have Cinema4D Lite. That seems to be their winning move since they’re so chummy chummy with Adobe these days.

If any of their own apps would stand to benefit then it would be the recently acquired Forger 3D. Maybe. Still the same sort of shoehorning issue.



I’m not going to go over old ground again but if you haven’t had any need for a modicum of vector maths you’ve probably never used Xpresso and won’t be using the new Scene Nodes or Blender’s Geometry Nodes.

Today’s Entagma tutorial is a perfect example of how understanding of vector maths is useful if not essential in production. I think you’re dead wrong in thinking 99% of people don’t need this knowledge, current C4D users maybe but not 99% of 3d artists. Maybe this is why the C4D showreel looks so lacklustre these days, everyone is using the same high level tools like Mograph and XP nothing is pushing the envelope anymore and why Houdini is the bleeding edge for Mograph now.

My clients want to see data represented in ways they’ve never seen before so wiping an effector through some clones just won’t cut the mustard, I have to create bespoke effects which are art directable, you can’t do this without going beyond the confines of high level tools. I’m sure many studios left C4D for Houdini for this exact reason unfortunately Scene Nodes arrived long after those horses bolted and those who are left simply aren’t interested.


Oh. Not true. Not at all. Use(d) both extensively… I don’t want to rehash this subject either. However, truth be told, there numerous instances where you can use XPresso or Geometry Nodes that don’t require you to know more than simple math. Of course, if you WANT to go deep to math town then that’s up to you. Still, it’s not an absolute necessity.

That’s the beauty of it. 30 years ago, yeah, you needed to have a whole “Beautiful Mind” thing going on to get anything of any note done. No other choice. Today’s apps, even at their deepest levels, are accessible enough to even the most mathematically challenged artists. As a more technically inclined artist, more elegant doors open for to you. You’re right. Most artists, for better or worse, will take the brute force path instead and still accomplish the same thing - albeit slower (usually). That’s perfectly valid too.

It reminds me of Tesla VS Edison. Edison was all about trial and error, doing things the hard way to get a result. Tesla was more about sitting down first, doing the math, and avoiding all of that excessive laboring. Not knowing complex math doesn’t make you inept or any less of a power user. It just means that you don’t know math well - or just don’t want to use it. It’s the difference between driving a straight line from destination A to B and taking some squirrely zig-zaggy route instead. You’ll get there all the same., but not as efficiently.

Your way works for you. That’s 100% fine. I get it. For a great many things, I would much rather work out the math first instead too. For some things, I would rather just jump in and take a more natural, holistic or common sense approach. Unless I’m absolutely concerned with performance, I don’t care if my node graph looks like a Rube Goldeberg device. Some times, I’m not concerned about blistering speed and more about just jumping in and getting done.

All told, I would have to imagine that you’re in the minority. Most artists probably aren’t mathematically inclined. THEN AGAIN… I could be wrong. Would make for an interesting poll, knowing how much mathematical experience each artist has. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the overwhelming majority stop at either basic algebra or geometry. Most high schools pretty much stop there and treat anything else after such as Calculus as electives. That doesn’t even factor in the great many CG artists who don’t even have college under their belt, much less college level math.

ANYWAY… This thread’s about ZBrush and Maxon. ZBrush users are f-ed. Good luck with that. :slight_smile:


I know what the thread is about but you’re missing the point I’m making or I’m not making it well enough!

Having the basics of vectors in your repertoire is just so useful it shouldn’t be ignored. None of the maths I do in my 3D work is anything like as complex as I did when I was a scientist. Knowing and being able to visualise normals, tangents, dot products and cross products etc is the most powerful free plugin you can get yourself for any 3D software. This isn’t beautiful mind level stuff it’s very simple maths than anyone with any ability can be taught. Once people understand a few key concepts they can be well on their way to making their own effectors or even particle systems from a handful of nodes.

Srek claimed earlier than Maxon had modest expectations about Scene Nodes usage, I simply don’t believe that. I have never used it but it appears far more complete than Blender’s geometry nodes yet the Blender community is creating unbelievably complex procedural examples while Scene Nodes appears largely ignored by the C4D community. If Maxon want to see a return on their investment in Scene Nodes they should seriously think about upskilling their userbase with foundational tutorials in simple vector concepts.

For the record my node trees always look like Heath Robinson contraptions…

Anyway back to ZBrush. There is a very similar level of disappointment from the ZBrush community as there was from the Redshift community when it was announced that Redshift would go onto subscriptions. Yes ZBrush users are fucked but will many actually do anything, will they jump to 3D Coat or Blender? I doubt many of the Redshift community who freaked out on their forum actually left for another renderer. Some may have left but most will have grudgingly signed up for subscriptions and the ZBrush users will be no different.

After all is said and done it’s easier to shafted in the wallet and stick with what you know than go through the effort of learning a new App, many here made that decision. So for companies like Maxon who are acquiring assets it’s a relatively safe bet, get a load of social media hate for a few weeks then sit back and watch the profits roll in. As night follows day another Maxon acquisition will follow the ZBrush one. This is one train that’s far from its destination.


Maxon needs to step up the tutorial game and start showing off. The quick tips from Jonas Pilz are nice, but we need more on scene nodes and all of the great features they don’t do a great job of hyping upon release.

I can’t turnaround without seeing a new 10 minute blender tutorial pop up where I can learn something cool.

The “ask the trainer” stuff is great, but 90 min presentations and discussions become a bit much to handle some days. Trim the fat, streamline it, get good microphones, and get a LOT more stuff out there.

Sorry, this is really off topic. Saw that zBrush free upgrades stopped. Expected. We’ll see how it goes in the next few months.


Reminds me also of writing code. Sometimes you write a whole function to do this special action, come back to the code later, having learned the language better now, and find that there is a single built-in method that will replace all 100+ lines of code. Both still get the job done, one is more elegant.

I myself never learned math beyond some basic algebra, and not much of that. Sure there are some things I could probably do much better and/or faster if I did, but I get by with what I know. To each his own.


Same here. Also, not all 3d jobs involve motion graphics, sims, or math. I do mostly look-dev frames, concept. Never needed one bit of math. The industry has enough options for different creative minds/applications.


Back when I had fewer grey hairs there was a vibrant C4D tutorial scene, notably with GSG, Simon from Man v Machine and Derya making regular useful production level tips n tricks. GSG seems to have dried up and the latter two are Houdini users but I haven’t seen their replacements come through. Chris from Rocket Lasso before his GSG days used to do more focussed tuts which were easier to consume than the sprawling Rocket Lasso podcasts.

Caveat, I don’t have access to cineversity so for all I know it could be littered with amazing content but from what I see on Vimeo and YT the C4D tutorial scene hasn’t moved on.

Noseman is Maxon’s greatest asset but his Scene Nodes tutorials were really rather boring and I don’t think they did a great job of exciting people to the prospect of using it. I have yet to see a Scene Nodes tutorial that makes me say, ‘fuck yeah that’s something I’ve got to learn.’ As Venkman notes users of Blender’s Geometry Nodes, which is far less complete than Scene Nodes, are spewing out amazing examples of procedural cities, road networks and complex motion graphics. Literally everything you’d expect the C4D community to be all over Scene Nodes with.

If Scene Nodes had been here 6 years ago I would still be a C4D user. I’d be pissed off about subs but Scene Nodes is what I craved for so long. I find astonishing that they aren’t a massive hit and YT is being littered with tutorials but it’s tumbleweeds instead.

I’m sure you’d agree that many of those cool examples require little building blocks of maths in their construction. Really good formats to copy are the Entagma guys Houdini/Blender tuts and Default Cube Blender Tuts. Easily consumed 10-20 mins of working through a problem. Both of these channels have a knack for explaining things really clearly and provide building blocks of knowledge for you to add onto. None of it is rocket science just really useful tips that you can bring into C4D Scene Nodes. There are plenty of similarities of workflow between node systems that the knowledge is transferrable.

Scene Nodes looks extremely powerful to me and a huge resource that is yet to find its audience but I’m at a loss to explain why? Maybe someone who hasn’t used Scene Nodes could comment why they haven’t been interested so far?


I haven’t needed to understand math concepts for the blender tuts I’ve been watching. Then again, I’m a VERY beginner Blender user so perhaps they just sailed right over my head. :man_shrugging:


Maybe we have completely different ideas about what is ‘cool’?

I can see no one is interested in exploring the topic of Scene Nodes. I guess it’s indicative of the changing make up of the C4D community and those of us who would’ve been all over Scene Nodes have picked up other software. This is no criticism and as @cookepuss said, ‘Your way works for you.’