New Mudbox so impressive...

#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.

#22

Two strengths that Mudbox has for the long run.

  1. Designed by pro artists for pro artists. Similiar to Pixologic, they want the best. The other part is, these guys are industry vets. it was built to model amazingling well AND easily fit into a pipeline.

  2. Node based. MAYA-Node based, Shake-Node based…the list goes on. For optimal performance and expandability node based is where its at. I can see this being a huge benefit.
    I’m glad to be an artist in this day’n age.

As for Zbrush. It rocks. Pixologic is willing to be very experimental and try things others haven’t before them. They are willing to do things differently and it clearly pays off. I’ve never been able to get up and running so quickly with other software, because of the online demonstrations and tutorial videos picking up the differences from other software was a breeze.

The Mudbox developers are going to really do an amazing job I can tell.

The two companies have their own strength and will propel eachother in competition. As artists, we win having more choices because of competition.

#23

but it still depends on the polycount of your mesh, so you need a very very hires mesh to get the texture details, as opposed to softwares like bodypaint, where you can do 3d painting and the result is directly applied to texture, this is much more practical IMHO. Also Zbrush doesn’t support layered textures, and it’s a big disadvantages.

#24

whilst the mudbox previews have demo’d that on a good system you can crank up the polys, i’m still not feeling great with the viewport rendering look…it looks really harsh on the eye’s like it’s lit with a snap-on power torch…spending hours on end tweeking and sculpting in a high contrast shiny/specular model will drive me over to ‘spec savers’ for some tinted glasses to work with…

where’s the virtual clay or wax look to a model…?

more to come no doubt from autodesk re previews…we’ll see.

#25

whilst not perfect it seems good enough [along with zaplink to photoshop] for many hi profile creatures in films/games these days.

#26

Yes, but don’t you have to still go back and retop your model’s geometry to be able to animate it in another app? How long does that take, and how are the results? Sorry, if the questions sound uninformed, but being a mac user, I’m still just dreaming about Z3.

#27

This Toad Demo is pretty impressive… wait for the end … AND breathe…

I’ve spoken to Craig Barr, and apparently we’ll be able to plug in custom CGFX shaders too so you can literally sculpt to real-time target!! This is an amazing feature for game devs… can’t wait!
Oh, and Craig also mentioned that on his 64-bit worstation he’s had the toad king model sub’d at 68million quads! No idea of the level of interactivity though…

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

:slight_smile:

#28

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.