Where is Mudbox 2.0... ZBrush is too hard to use!

[Anonymous]

Hey, I've been using ZBrush for a few weeks now, even did video training... then I download MudBox 1.0. While it doesn't have all the same features it's like 10x easier to use. If Autodesk includes texture painting and a few more features they have me.

ZBrush is extremely hard to use! I had a displacement map out of MudBox in like 2 minutes and into Max... no such luck with ZBrush!

🙂

Dudes where is 2.0???

[Anonymous]

That is silly. You are going into semantics now. According to you nothing ever made inside computer can ever be considered 3D.
By 3D we mean anything thing that is rendered in either Direct3d or OpenGL NOT software rendered like Zbrush.
Mudbox, Maya, XSI, Max, Lightwave, etc are all either Direct3d or OpenGL application. This makes them true 3d. Do your homework!:)

In the end it's a 2d image...3d is faking reality in a 2d monitor, so saying that zbrush is not true 3d is false, Ok monkey boy? It's false like any other 3d app around.

Wikipedia:

"3D computer graphics (in contrast to 2D computer graphics) are graphics that utilize a three-dimensional representation of geometric data that is stored in the computer for the purposes of performing calculations and rendering 2D images.''

''3D computer graphics rely on many of the same algorithms as 2D computer vector graphics in the wire frame model and 2D computer raster graphics in the final rendered display. In computer graphics software, the distinction between 2D and 3D is occasionally blurred"

So zbrush is even closer to the purpose of 3d at this time, representing 3d objects in 2.5d format, the others are just wasting cpu cycles...

[#3]

Let me just finish this quote:

''3D computer graphics rely on many of the same algorithms as 2D computer vector graphics in the wire frame model and 2D computer raster graphics in the final rendered display. In computer graphics software, the distinction between 2D and 3D is occasionally blurred by morons wanting to start a flamewar"

If you need the difference between photoshop and maya explained to you, then you're too stupid to understand it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Let me just finish this quote:

''3D computer graphics rely on many of the same algorithms as 2D computer vector graphics in the wire frame model and 2D computer raster graphics in the final rendered display. In computer graphics software, the distinction between 2D and 3D is occasionally blurred by morons wanting to start a flamewar"

If you need the difference between photoshop and maya explained to you, then you're too stupid to understand it anyway.

I could scrub this piece of real 3d art in your face:

http://www.aeroplastics.net/John_Isaacs/2004/04_Isaacs_big_shit_R.jpg

When you sculpt somethig in real life i let you use the word: "Real 3d", now you are just a fake artist working in a 2d enviroment, using quotes of true masters.

[Anonymous]

and what if you got a 3d monitor ? Like one of those new fancy hologram prototypes that you can see on youtube and in science magazines ? It gets as real on them as it can get. I think that brakes your logic that everything made on pc is 2d ... ;/
Btw many of the wikipedia definitions were made by idiots, and have no sens, so dont try to use it as any kind of authority...

[nilx]

there's somewhat of a fair point being tossed around here though, despite the conflict. regardless of the method by which the calculations are made and the data is manipulated we're at this point still only interacting with a 3d representation in 2d space. which i'm sure we can all agree is obvious. seems to me that this is going to remain the standard too for the foreseeable future and as such i'll give my respect to pixologic for working the numbers ( however it's done ) to provide those millions of ' poly's ' at such high speeds. i mean, as it follows the limitations of other aspects of production we're generally only concerned with a means to create displacement and / or normal maps anyway, so, at the core of it, pixologic have created a pretty clever way to get that done

what they have failed at quite miserably is a way to present all that power to the user in an efficient manner. seems we'd all agree on this point. subjectively we might argue that, for example, the navigation scheme is ass. i have no trouble using it myself up and until you fill your canvas with the model and you're stuck with no null space to work with. this is, objectively, a serious flaw which leads me to reiterate my first point which is that i cannot see, logically, that these types of limitations are bound to the 2.5d scheme or whatever they're using to display a ' 3d ' image. nor would be the absolute bullshit object management, or any number of poorly implemented / integrated features

[Anonymous]

muddlers, you are fiddling with semantics. You are trying to be clever just to annoy everyone. You know better than this. Of course in the end everything ends up as a 2d image. The difference between a 2.5d app, and a 3d app is all in how the illusion of 3d is caculated. That is what everyone is talking about and you know that.

In most 3d apps, the points are caculated in 3d cartesian space. The origin of the scene is given an absolute value of 0,0,0. every point in the scene is calculated in relation to the origin of the scene. Although what you see on your monitor is a 2d representation, the computer is calculating all the points in a 3d environment regardless of whether you see it or not. The computer is actually creating an extremely accurate 3d mathematical environment behind the scenes. In real life if you give a point in your room the coordinates of 0,0,0, you know exactly where 3',4',4' is. This is an absolute coordinate and you can visualize it in your mind even if you don't have a picture of it. The relationhip between a real 3d app and the monitor is like a if you are looking at a real life scene through a camera lens. Even though what you are looking at through the eyepiece is a 2d representation, the scene behind the camera is real.


zbrush takes a different aproach. instead of being 3d cartesian points x,y,z with the origin of the scene being 0,0,0. Zbrush uses 2d xy cartesian coordinates with the xy plane being the canvas. 0,0 is the upper lefthand corner of the canvas, not the scene. Then the scene information is caculated in regards to the plane of the canvas not the origin of the scene. That is why you have to set a desired resolution first before you start modeling and why you can't have accurate measurements.

When you create a tool, zbrush temporarily creates a 3d object with temporary xyz coordinates with the temporary origin being the center of the object not the center of the scene.. Once you drop the object, those temporary coordinates are lost and the info is converted to xy points on the canvas with an apporximation of z depth based on the xy plane. The computer never caculates the complete scene in 3d cartesian space. It only does that for the tool you are working on and indepently of the scene. That is why you can have no accurate measurement system and things like perspective have to be hacks that only give the appearence of perspective but not mathematically precise calculations as in a real 3d app.
.
So to make a long story short, a "real 3d" app makes 3d caculations based on a virtual origin of the scene that may or may not be seen from the canvas and zbrush makes it's 3d calculations as the relate to the picture plane. This makes the calculations wrong and not based on nature. that is what every means.
But of course you know this, I think you are just trying to get a reaction. Everyone knows the difference between 2.5d and 3d. Even pixologic states that they aren't a 3d app.

[#8]

Not for Mud2 but maybe for mud 3 when the technology is mature, autodesk will give me a 20Kg bag of sculpy and an airbrush and paint kit, and then when I have finished sculpting and painting I will process it through a mudbox 3 scanner (darkley) and it pop out fully modelled and textured into Maya. Or is that going the wrong direction from reality to virtual? Personally I think scanning tech will become more and more, not only from real life objects but modelled stuff too when it is affordable, damn site quicker I suspect, and does away with all the viewport distortions. Maybe they market it as 3.5D :eek:

[Anonymous]

I find both ZBrush and Mudbox to be great software, my preference is definately Mudbox, but I could do with ZBrush if I had to. and even though I'm not interested in switching to ZBrush I think it's great that it exists, as Pixologic definately are innovative and continously brings new features to the table of digital sculpturing. features of which the best may be picked up and enhanced by Skymatter.

and although I practically prefer Mudbox towards ZBrush across the board when it comes down to actual 3d sculpturing, one thing that I actually prefer with ZBrush IS the navigation scheme. Sonk mentioned that it seemed to be made for people using pens (which I'm sure it is, and I am) but I can't see why it would be harder to use it with a mouse than a pen?

some things I'd like to comment on:

for example, the navigation scheme is ass. i have no trouble using it myself up and until you fill your canvas with the model and you're stuck with no null space to work with.

in ZBrush 3 there's a white frame that appears in edit mode, even if you have zoomed your model to fill the entire viewport you can navigate your model as usual if you place to cursor within that area.

The majority of the really cool features like zmapper, came from the community.

it was released as a free plugin, but it was released by Pixologic.


as for the 2.5d versus 'real' 3d debate, Mudbox and other OpenGL powered software gets '3d perspective' for free, as this is part of the hardware OpenGL functionality. ZBrush does not use 3d acceleration and instead implements it all in a software renderer. drawbacks are of course that they can't utilize all of the premade accelerated functionality of OpenGL, the advantage is that they can hone their software renderer to be otimized for 3d sculpturing and is able to use any possible trick to speed this up. this is very much unlike OpenGL which while hardware accelerated, is not optimized specifically for 3d sculpturing, nor can it take the same shortcuts that a specialized software renderer can since it has to offer a solution to a wider range of uses.

equal killer art is being made by users of Mudbox and ZBrush alike, so obviously none of the packages are a limiting factor.

I prefer Mudbox, I prefer the way the brushes interact with the mesh, I prefer the smoothness and look of the OpenGL viewport/shading, I prefer the way layers and object handling works, and I prefer the overall user interface. but again it's a preference. I have no doubt that alot of people prefer ZBrush. and their preference is no more right or wrong than mine.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why ILM use zbrush then, they must be dumb.

[rimasson]

I esaily understand that there could be frustration and anxiety waiting the release of Mud 2, but each of you should respect, discuss with and understand other people, without bashing each other

[Anonymous]

Very well said mookiemu.
And if you muddlers want some formulas, i can provide you those. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I realy mean it! Maybe you're not so convinced of what mookiemu said above, although he said it in a way that even a person who doesn't have a technical background can understand.

Peace!

p.s. interesting signature muddlers 😄 , i think you should remove it even if you don't agree with oddity. just my 50 cents.

[#13]

Don't even know why muddlers hangs around here. All he ever does is talk about how great zbrush is, advertise zbrush, and all his posts contain the sentence 'blah blah blah why can't mudbox have blah blah blah like zbrush'
I've never even seen him post anything he's made in mudbox, and he's been around here for a year.
I bet he spends all his time on the zbrush forums telling everyone that mudbox is shit.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why ILM use zbrush then, they must be dumb.

I asked it myself before, and I really want to know how do they use it.
Because Zbrush can be a real pain in production.

[Anonymous]

they use it because even though it's got serious problems, it's still one of the best tools out there for what it does. But it's still problematic in production. That is why the guys from weta created mudbox. Because the zbrush people wouldn't listen to their suggestions on how to improve it. Finally they gave up and found it easier to just create their own program instead of fighting zbrush. That's how skymatter was born.

And you can believe me if mud2 turns out to be as good as promised, the ILM guys will jump ship again as they began to do when mudbox came on the scene before zbrush 3 came out.

[Anonymous]

Very well said mookiemu.
And if you muddlers want some formulas, i can provide you those. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I realy mean it! Maybe you're not so convinced of what mookiemu said above, although he said it in a way that even a person who doesn't have a technical background can understand.

Peace!

p.s. interesting signature muddlers 😄 , i think you should remove it even if you don't agree with oddity. just my 50 cents.

I would buy second hand condoms from Mookiemu if he was selling, he's a true master in these forums, i have a great respect for him and for all he have to say.

Cheers.

[#17]

I asked it myself before, and I really want to know how do they use it.
Because Zbrush can be a real pain in production.

Well that's obvious, there really isn't any choice if you want very high poly sculpting apps. Before mudbox arrived a year ago, there was only zbrush, and mudbox is still basically at version 1 and lacks a lot of features that zbrush has.
It's not a matter of people 'choosing' to use zbrush, they've had it forced upon them as the only option, and they just had to get used to it's foibles.

[nilx]

in ZBrush 3 there's a white frame that appears in edit mode, even if you have zoomed your model to fill the entire viewport you can navigate your model as usual if you place to cursor within that area.

yeah. i'm aware of the ' gutter ', as i call it. made the suggestion on zbc that that should have a prefs option to edit it's dimensions ( which i'm sure will end up in the great zbc trash can of so many suggestions / feature requests ). to suit myself i'd bring it in a lot further than it is right now. but so far as an honest solution to the problem of navigation they're just looking to make the issue more convoluted there. you may as well just go use the icons since it's still a case of being broken out of your zone and going looking for space to navigate in / with

navigation should be absolutely transparent and by necessity exist on a level of interaction above the tools and workspace / viewport. there exists and has existed for years fair solutions to this problem ( a maya style scheme being amongst the most popular ). from the insane land deep down the rabbit hole where pixologic live they seem to be doing their stubborn best to avoid any of these solutions. there's no need to outright replace one with another. just offer some options and the ability to customize them to meet an individuals preference. hell, even silo has gone some way to include BOTH styles of nav all at once

in the end though. navigation sits a few tiers down on my list of the biggest workflow halting aspects of zb. but as oDDity quite rightly points out :

It's not a matter of people 'choosing' to use zbrush, they've had it forced upon them as the only option, and they just had to get used to it's foibles.

i can't see them listening to any voice in the community 'til someone presents a solid ( and sensible ) solution to compete with their market share in the coming years

[#19]

Is it just stubbornness? (wild speculation warning!!) I get the impression from some of the posts that the less than desirable navigation experience in Zbrush is limited by the one and the same technology that enables insane polycounts, and that maybe it could be fixed by a core rewrite or maybe not. Perhaps someone who actually knows the trute could enlighten me. The limit of my tech knowledge is being able to count up the number of hours spent reading trivial but highly entertaining posts on meaningless unanswerable questions when I should be modelling something. 🙂 Anyway it wont make any difference to me, Im using big bad ZB3.1 until The Borg releases MB2. Have tried MB1 and its just the best software to use, but wont put down money on it until I see MB2 deliver. In the meantime I have to confess heresy, ZB is growing on me daily, with constant use I can now navigate reasonable painlessly with mouse or tablet, even though I never could play the piano. So there, Hurry up MB2 or I might be turned

[Anonymous]

Well that's obvious, there really isn't any choice if you want very high poly sculpting apps. Before mudbox arrived a year ago, there was only zbrush, and mudbox is still basically at version 1 and lacks a lot of features that zbrush has.
It's not a matter of people 'choosing' to use zbrush, they've had it forced upon them as the only option, and they just had to get used to it's foibles.

Yes I know that, but I was not asking why do they use it, but how do they use it.
Because from my personnal experience Zbrush can produce unmanagable error.
Like I said before, it is impossible to sculpt long object, depending on the lenght/width ratio sometime you can't zoom in your object. So it prevent you to sculpt detail, it's like sculpting from 3meters away of your sculpture, you can't go in details.

This bug, and the fact that when you are hiding part of mesh the is distorted because of the weird perspective, make Zbrush, (at least for me) an unusable sculpting software.
Even if I am using everyday.

But I thought that ILM where using an other software to sculpt their primary shape, and then use Zbrush only for sculpting details.

I'm really curious to know their workflow with it, that could be interesting.

[2bytes]

regardless...

Zbrush is still capable and useable to create quality work, so try and keep the appWars out of this. Before mudbox, there simply was no alternative. That comfort zone of not having competition allowed them to remain as they are.

Now that Mudbox is owned by the behemoth Autodesk, I would expect Pixologic to invest some very serious changes that will address the very problems we have mentioned here.

Pixologic must still have the majority of the market, so I would expect them to do everything in their power to keep ahead as much as possible now that brush based modelling is becoming the standard. But most of you must already know that doing a complete re-write of an application is no simple matter. Such a thing may not even be realistic.