Mudbox 2009 or BodyPaint and ZBrush

#1

I am a Max user that needs the modelling from ZBrush and paint from BodyPaint. However Mudbox 2009 looks very impressive and seems to be both ZBrush and Bodypaint in one easy to use package. What do you think? Pros and cons would help me make a good decision. Thanks in advance!

#2

I’ve been using ZBrush for several years now and I’ve spent a good bit of time with Mudbox and I’m probably going to stick to ZBrush. I am going to check out MB2009 but so far from what has been demo’d, I’m not entirely impressed with, it seems janky to say the least. And overall I like ZB much better as a package, for numerous reasons. I also hated my time and experience with Bodypaint.

Mudbox and Bodypaint both suffer from the same problem that Pixologic was smart enough to avoid when they took Zbrush into the 3D space, and that is camera navigation. Mudbox might have some workaround as I’ve seen non-standard options you can adjust for the camera, but naitively ZBrush is the only one of the 3 that lets you zoom, pan and rotate your model while using a Wacom Tablet and not needing to press the ackwardly placed click buttons on the pen shaft -and this is by far more important than anything else these two packages may offer over ZB in the interim time before Pixologic releases a solution for layered textures with shader channel and sub-tool support which now that Mudbox has forced their hand, will come sooner rather than later.

Texturing is best done in Photoshop anyways. I only use 3D Paint tools to initinally lay down a road map if the model is complicated and I need to see where things ought to go, and then at the very end to paint out seams on the final maps.

Honestly, I just wish Photoshop would take 3D a bit more seriously and start releasing an add-on to each release of PS that turned it into a full fledged 3D painting package. Because Body-Paint doesn’t hold a candle to the effects and painting ability of good old 2D Photoshop, and neither will Mudbox or ZBrush.

#3

wait until mud2 is released and give it a try…

#4

You should also have a look at 3d coat.
3d coat can import/export layered psd files, paint in symetry textures and dispalcement, has a great retopo and nice uv tools, and has a lot of unique tools.

#5

I have now installed and used demovesrion of all the packages for a couple of days. First I was very impressed by ZB, the UI looks nice, the getting started videos are super. However I still don´t understand the reason for making the workflow so odd. It just doesn´t make any sence to me. After installing MB I was sculpting in five minutes, and everything makes sence to me. Much much more straight forward to me anyway. If MB 2009 is what they say it is I going to go for that. much easier to have one package than two in addition to Max as well.

Could anybody please explain the logics behind ZB? I just don´t get the idea of having to drop tools (which is a object and not a tool) and then paint it in again, switching between 2,5D and 3D ,painting with a 3D-tool (object) in 2D and so on.

#6

Actually Jettatore, the camera controls of Zbrush are rubbish when you consider that when zooming close to the model, you are forced to click on a button in order to navigate the model.

Of all 3d Apps, Zbrush is the only one that doesnt have a keyboard control to freely navigate without any referance to the 3d object. It forces you to click on empty canvas space to rotate the model, because there is no real camera in Zbrush.

Naturally, this only presents a problem if you are accustomed to industry standard 3d software that allows you complete control of a True 3d camera. Zbrush just forces the user to forget 3d industry standards and to work the Zbrush way. Unfortunately, that can be a problem for a lot of artists who dont have time to learn new workflows.

Mudbox doesnt present this problem, in fact the UI is so basic that the only real learning curve is learning to model.

#7

I’ve been using zbrush for a couple of months now, and although I love the results I get with it, I hate the canvas/navigation. I don’t mind the UI, but the navigation is terrible… and very buggy. I’m waiting for the new mudbox to try it out.

#8

Totally agree with the above. ZBrush is brilliant but the workflow is just not there for me - even with the massive improvements in 3.1 (U.I is much improved)

I have been using the Mudbox 2009 demo today and I am REALLY impressed. Some awesome touches and really nice baking tools (at last)

I need to do some proper hard surface and soft body sculpting, 3D application (import/export) testing before I can give it an honest review but so far I am VERY impressed!

A REALLY good upgrade from Autodesk…bravo!

#9

Really want to go home and give mudbox 2009 a try.
I to found the zbrush UI and navigation too confusing and overcomplicated. I tried mudbox a while ago and love it! Found it so simple and easy. Zbrush just felt like a lot of work and hassle when I tried it.
Either way I knew that I needed to spend a decent amount of time using zbrush to really unlock its potenshal but I was waiting till mudbox 2009 comes out before I do that.

#10

As far as some differences. Some operations in Zbrush are faster, like moving between subdivisions and saving files. The painting in Mudbox works really well, and I like the navigation better (I think there’s ways to change it around). It is a little bit more buggy, but it has so much you can do now that it’s really usefull.

Plus–replacing geometry is easier, for instance I was working on a model in Zbrush before Mudbox 2009 came out and I wanted to move it into Mudbox, but mudbox subdivides the mesh differently so the vertex numbers aren’t the same after subdividing the mesh to the same level as Zbrush. But mudbox has a tool that looks at the UV’s and matches them that way. It’s not perfect, but it gets really close and the few little dots can easily be smoothed out in a few minutes.

#11

Another alternative is export you lv 0 mesh from zb along with a 32 bit displacement map (flipped vertically). Import the base mesh to mud2k9 and use the mesh displace wiht your disp map using settings of -1 and 1 and it’ll give you a near perfect result along with subD levels. you’l need ot enter the number of levels you wihs it to displace to (so if your zb sculpt went up to lv6, make it 7 in mud as much starts counting from ‘1’ and zbrush from ‘0’.)
Hope that helps.

Wayne…
PS watch out as Zb sometimes can flip the normals on your base mesh on export and you may need to reverse the normal in another app.

#12

Well, I think each of them has the unique tools and depend on what you want they will give you the best workflow.

For example texturing, ZBrush is a good tool but paint directly on multi-mesh (subtool) while you can rotate around them are impossible. I don’t know mudbox can paint on multi-mesh or not but 3Dbody paint does the job very well.

For sculpting, I have to agree that Mudbox is very simple that even me with an hour playing around I can make an awesome looking mesh (well, maybe just for me). Whereas, ZBrush can do the job but can go beyond with awesome tools such as transpose tool, blending multi-mesh (subtool) seamlessly. Plug-ins go along with ZBrush are awesome as well, such as ZApplink, Zmapper and so on.

So… what I mean is that base on what you need, each applications will give you the unique tools to work with.

IF… Mudbox can paint directly on multi-mesh without sub-D into high levels to keep detail, I will choose mudbox for sure. ZBrush requires users sub-D the mesh to keep detail, it’s impossible when you are working with low mesh for video game. I mean is for people who only have like 2GB RAM, how can they sub-D the mesh into high level? So yeah… that’s the only thing I wish Mudbox 2009 will have. 3Dbody paint can do it so why not Mudbox right?

#13

Not anymore. You can use the alt and cmd buttons with the pen button to scroll, rotate and zoom.

It’s pretty neat.

#14

I’ll agree with this 3DC is the best bet if you want sculpting in addition to painting on the model, not to mention the retopo tools that are really well done.

#15

The only limitation with 3d coat comes from your video card memory.You will neet 512Mb to handle multiple 4k textures.

#16

I have had no trouble with a couple of 4k textures and 350MB, but you’re right more than that causes trouble. Although who knows what’s happening within the next couple months. with multi-threading, CUDA support, volumetric sculpting and even a new professionally designed interface.

#17

Not really much of a problem, especially not for videogames, since meshes are often split into head, upper torso, lower torso etc. 2gb will do good, I work personally and professionally with that. All characters runs smooth. This should apply to mudbox too I presume. Polypaint is the way to go if you can, never any trouble with seams, and an actual highres mesh in front of you as you work. Plypaint in Mudbox 2 wins over zb though, (for only a while I hope:) )

Actually partially easier for games, as artist’s imaginary texture sizes only lasts until the optimization phase:p

However, texturing the actual lowpoly character, does not work at all in either of mb or zb, you really need to have bodypaint (or PS) to texture that. And bodypaint+photoshop was a dissapointment to me, considering bodypaint doesnt support all layer features from PS, which can be a huge problem.

My personal advice is Zbrush and Photoshop. But of course, MR/ZB doesnt really matter, its a question of taste. Bodypaint is nice, but you really can live without it.

#18

@hakanpersson: I’m not talking just about character ^.^ I mean everything and it includes hard surface models. For example, a spaceship with many details on it and they are on in one peice. So with 4GB, I cannot subD it to level 4 ~.~ I guess I can if I separate each piece into each subtool. In this case 3Dbody paint does the job. It can paint directly on multi-mesh with low polygon and still keep the detail of the brushes and textures I apply. So I like it. But overall, everyone has their own opinon :smiley:

#19

I won’t disagree, BP3d is capable of doing thing neither ZB or MB is capable of. But in the list of choices, BP3d is still the app I can live without, since photoshop can do the same, except without proper 3d.

Hard surface overall is pretty crappy in ZB/MB. Maya SubD works pretty nice, but nurbs and smoothpreview meshes are suicide quite often:)

#20

Just tried the Mudbox 2009, I find that it’s abit easy to use then Zbrush, I just bought the Zbrush book for learning last feel week, but find that the workflow is not that user friendly. I tried Mudbox & refer to my old Digital tutors video on the Mudbox v1 series, I pick up around 15min with some explore. :stuck_out_tongue:

Although, some changes had been made, but using Mudbox like abit using Maya as some of the control have the same feeling, e.g. keyboard shortcut.

Zbrush is good but the workflow is not my cup of tea. :hmm: