CGPersia Forums
Release Blog CGPeers IRC Chat Register FAQ
Go Back   CGPersia Forums > CGPersia Home > General CG Help & Support
Reload this Page mudbox or zbrush
General CG Help & Support Baffled by something? Ask for support here! NOT FOR SITE ISSUES OR REQUESTS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-2011   #101
Argasio
Argasio's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,002
Thanks (Given): 315
Thanks (Received): 497
The real battle is Zbrush vs 3d Coat

anyway back to zbrush vs mudbox

Mudbox pros:
+really easy to understand and noobproof interface
+Good performances overall
+Fluid workflow.
+Simple but effective modeling tools
+Very good texturing system

Zbrush:
+Billions of polygons
+Dozens of brushes
+Very in-depth control over each parameter.
+Spotlight
+Uv master
+Zspheres
+Paintstop
+Quicksketch
+Very customizable interface
+Best pipeline integration with GOZ
+Timeline (still not very useful,but pretty good)
+Hundreds of matcaps
+Decimation master
+Zapplink

Winner: zbrush.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by magallanes View Post
Jesus was the first "warez pirate", he decrypted the bread (and wine), duplicated it and distributed amongst their friends..
Quote:
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power.Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall set me FREE.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #102
Bug
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 145
Thanks (Given): 113
Thanks (Received): 102
Oh wait a minute, not fair enough!

Mudbox:
+...
+...
+...

Zbrush:
+...
+...

According to your logic, Now Mudbox is winner because have 3 plus!?

But according to my logic, there is no winner, both have pros and cons... so depend on job, workflow, hardware, price...
I preferred Mudbox because fit into my pipeline.
Regards
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #103
kamiano
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7
Thanks (Given): 1
Thanks (Received): 0
I tried and dumped Zbrush so often times I don`t even remember HOW often. Even artists with much more experience hate it`s UI which must be the most awful on this planet - maybe even the universe. I know that it has a background totally different from where it is now but despite all of their achievements and all of the great artists using it in order to produce the most stunning artworks there are way too much highly talented people who stumble over the UI and often times senseless technical steps you have to do in order to make something work - all of those "picking and dropping","tools instead of models" and whatever that means.

BTW - how in hell can one continue sculpting when the fucking model is dropped?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #104
Wall-e
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,063
Thanks (Given): 148
Thanks (Received): 773
Link(s):
 
clear the canvas ctrl+n then just drag the model back onto the canvas and press edit or T
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #105
Argasio
Argasio's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,002
Thanks (Given): 315
Thanks (Received): 497
Link(s):
 
My logic makes sense only if you fill those blank spaces

Anyway that's just my opinion and that's what i though when I had to choose between them after trying them both.
The topic is about a comparison between those two programs and I've just shared my point of view.
Did I do something wrong?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by magallanes View Post
Jesus was the first "warez pirate", he decrypted the bread (and wine), duplicated it and distributed amongst their friends..
Quote:
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power.Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall set me FREE.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Bug thanked for this post
Old 01-16-2011   #106
Bug
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 145
Thanks (Given): 113
Thanks (Received): 102
No Argasio don't get me wrong, I'm just kidding.
We are free to choose our favorite tools...
Regards

Last edited by Bug; 03-05-2011 at 07:15 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #107
DavyJones
DavyJones's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 436
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 49
I think where most people stumble on Zbrushes interface is that it's really meant to be used with a Wacom in one hand and the other for hotkeys
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #108
Strandli
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7
Thanks (Given): 2
Thanks (Received): 4
I just have to put my thoughts into this post...
What I can say for sure is that Pixologic is better at marketing their stuff, because it looks like some people are seriously biased, following it blindly only to shout "it's the best because of reasons!".

They both have their ups and downs, and I really admire Pixologic for what they've done. They continue to release free updates with really cool and innovative features. It's cheaper than the competition, and the support is great, that alone should be enough for most to seal the deal.

But that said, Zbrush isn't without it's problems. Most obvious is the interface, it's very messy and not user friendly. Sure, you have to learn it, and it's only a matter of time before it gets natural to use it, but that doesn't mean it isn't shitty. Even the most shitty interface can be learned if you spend enough time with it. When Pixologic release new features, they just add on top to the interface, and it gets even more messy every time, that's fact. Mudbox doesn't have a learning curve when it comes to the user interface, because it's so user friendly, and new features are logically placed and now just glued on top.

When you're counting the number of features, there is no way around it, Zbrush wins hands down. But if you're counting useful features in a proven workflow, things get a bit more complicated. UVMaster and Zspheres are both awesome and useful, but in a production workflow, you rarely see a product start and finish in Zbrush. You CAN, but you don't. There are still some quirks in ZB's workflow which stops it from being the tool for everything. You can use UVmaster to make a great UV map in the application, but if you can't paint directly to texture, it's kinda stupid. It's small things like that which annoy the hell out of me when using ZB, they push out innovative features, but they can't do a simple thing like painting to the map, and you have to subdivide the model to infinity for a high-resolution map.

As for performance, I would say Mudbox takes the victory. You don't need a super expensive computer to work in either of them, but Mudbox runs silky smooth even with a shit-ton of polys. I see people in posts above say Zbrush can handle more polys than Mudbox, but that's just not true. HDpoly (or what the hell it's called) is not very user friendly, and hides parts of the mesh to subdivide the rest, I am not right? I call that "cheating". On my home computer, I have subdivided a model up to 128million polys, and it was still easy to sculpt on. I had textures, reflection on shader, AO and all that good stuff, and it still pushed out a good FPS.
So you don't need to have a crazy expensive computer to run Mudbox as some claim.

I will say that the brushes in Zbrush feels better though, it feel a lot more like clay, and that is great.
I see people compare the two apps with a list of features, and many of them are inaccurate. You can't count features, but you should compare performance and useful features, and how they work in a production workflow. You don't say a car drives faster than the other, just because one plays music from your iPod and the other from a cassette mixtape, which people are essentially doing when comparing MB and ZB.

In the end of the day, it's not the app that matters. People can get the same results in both, it's the artist which makes the art, not the application. You won't get any gold stars for using one app over the other, it's what you use them for. Whatever application works best for you personally, and gets the job done, is the one you should choose. Not choose an app because random people shouting in a forum thread.
These discussions always ends up as a "My stick is bigger than your stick" argument, and please, just grow up and act like unbiased adults

Bottom line:
Zbrush has better sculpting tools, and it feels more like sculpting clay. It is cheaper, and you get fantastic free updates. The interface is shitty, but you get used to the shit eventually. It's not user friendly, and doesn't always work as good in a production workflow as you would want. Texturing is shitty.

Mudbox has a faster, more logical, user interface. The tools you have are good and streamlined. Texturing is super easy, and really fast. You have a lot of control, and don't need high poly count to paint high-res. Works really well in a production workflow. Vector displacement maps. More expensive, and updates aren't free, and it's owned by big-bad evil Autodesk which eats babies for breakfast, right?



Also, poly counts are almost always irrelevant. You should never have millions of polygons on a character. A 2k map can only capture 4 million polys, and that's only if the UVs cover the entire map (which it never does). So a great artist takes advantage of the topology and the polys he have to make good looking characters with great detail. Just saying, the "billions" of polygons argument is invalid
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - , gland thanked for this post
Old 01-16-2011   #109
mrthebig384
mrthebig384's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 407
Thanks (Given): 167
Thanks (Received): 115
Mudbox: an easy to use sculpting/texturing program with a wonderful interface like in photoshop and has the same hotkeys as Maya and Max and other 3D program; rapid, izi and simple.

Zbrush: the most used sculpting program, more featured than mudbox but unfortunately more complicated, his crapy interface is very embarrassing the user and his F****** hotkeys are different than any 3D program, to use Zbrush you Must see many tutorials, but when you understand it you'll never change it.
__________________
If you have the key of success...remember to make a copy of it. "3.8.4"

Last edited by mrthebig384; 01-16-2011 at 07:29 PM. Reason: Zbrush is not the most used texturing program
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #110
Bug
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 145
Thanks (Given): 113
Thanks (Received): 102
Link(s):
 
Yes Zbrush is the most powerful and the most used sculpting app ever, but No Zbrush is not the most used texturing program, not by any means!
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #111
Wall-e
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,063
Thanks (Given): 148
Thanks (Received): 773
zbrush is not a proper texturing package
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - , Bug thanked for this post
Old 01-16-2011   #112
DavyJones
DavyJones's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 436
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 49
it never ends
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #113
Argasio
Argasio's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,002
Thanks (Given): 315
Thanks (Received): 497
Zbrush polypaint sucks.
Even viewport canvas of 3d studio is waaay batter than it for texturing.

I use zbrush for sculpting,but now I am learning mudbox and 3d coat for texturing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by magallanes View Post
Jesus was the first "warez pirate", he decrypted the bread (and wine), duplicated it and distributed amongst their friends..
Quote:
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power.Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall set me FREE.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011   #114
Loudesbois
Loudesbois's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 479
Thanks (Given): 149
Thanks (Received): 116
Link(s):
 
Yes it does.
I think Pixologic went wrong on some aspects of Zbrush but they don't want to admit it.
They want to make it special by any ways but it has its own limitations.
Look at the layer management.
When they started to talk about it, everybody expected a smooth photoshop-like layer system, which works pretty well and is used by many softwares.
But no.
They had to do it their own way.
And look at the result...
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - thanked for this post
Old 01-16-2011   #115
mrthebig384
mrthebig384's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 407
Thanks (Given): 167
Thanks (Received): 115
Link(s):
 
Thank you for remainding me, it's now corrected.
__________________
If you have the key of success...remember to make a copy of it. "3.8.4"
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Bug thanked for this post
Old 01-22-2011   #116
iridescentFUZZ
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Thanks (Given): 20
Thanks (Received): 1
While I agree that Mudbox is better for texturing, and Zbrush better for sculpting and modeling, I prefer Zbrush because the interface seems far more smooth to me, but that's after a few months of getting used to the interface and little inconsistencies.

I've also noticed that people with a traditional art background find Zbrush much easier to learn and use if they've never touched a 3D app before, whereas with Mudbox they're always annoyed by the technicality of everything.
The great thing about Zbrush is that despite the fact that it has far too many features, you can focus on a certain set of features and do perfectly well using them.

I have slight problems with the development of Zbrush, and also have problems with Mudbox, for other reasons.
What a lot of Zbrush users want to see in new releases/updates is less content and features, and more streamlining of the UI, bugfixes and general improvements. Not to say that we don't like innovation or hate new features, but there's a point where you need to stop adding and start polishing.

My problem with Mudbox is actually more of a problem with Autodesk. The first 3D app I ever learned was Max, and I absolutely hated the interface, modeling, rigging and animating tools and features. The only thing about Max I like to this day is its render engine.
After using Max, I moved onto Zbrush and loved the UI and the way the program handled, in general.
Eventually, I started learning Maya, and was using Maya 7 for a few months before Autodesk bought over Alias. Allow me to say, those were the best few months I had learning to use a 3D app. The interface was intuitive, mouse gestures and shortcuts were great, and overall, I felt like my workflow was far more efficient than it was when using Max.

Then Autodesk bought over Alias, and since then, everything has gone down the drain. They stopped releasing the Personal Leraning Edition since then, the 'feel' that the program had has been lost completely, little things like selection seem far worse to me, and even though Maya remains my primary 3D app of choice, I'd still pick Maya 7 over Maya 2011 any day.

Coming back to Mudbox, I can't say the same has happened to it since the original Skymatter, but I just really dislike most Autodesk products, with the exception of Maya.
Even with Maya, I'd change in an instant if there was a program that gave me same flexibility, but with the feel of Maya 7.

As to my workflow, I use Zbrush, build up a sculpt from Zspheres, sculpt it and then retopo it in Topogun. I rarely ever bring in base meshes from Maya because it doesn't feel nearly as organic while working. As for texturing, I would use Mudbox, but I'm more than happy with Bodypaint.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011   #117
doody
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 430
Thanks (Given): 24
Thanks (Received): 45
Default Mudbox vs Zbrush

Hi all,

Before someone comments and says "Oh god, not another this vs that war" Let me clarify.

I used Zbrush before, and mudbox a while back.

My question is for my particular situation.

I used zbrush, and it's amazing and very powerful, love the zspheres! But zbrush is a bit of a pain to use, with hotkeys not close to any app I use with it like 3dsmax, and it's got quite the learning curve.

I mostly do environmental graphics and sets, and want something that I can do great details with, even on stuff like decorative shields hanging on walls or just ground or tree details.

Is mudbox good for that? Is it easier to use, or to learn? I don't have time, like the time you have to dedicate for learning zbrush.

whats your opinion on what I should choose for my needs, need to hear from some mudbox and zbrush users.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011   #118
Philly13
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 147
Thanks (Given): 6
Thanks (Received): 44
The general consensus is that Mudbox is much easier to learn than ZBrush, as the workflow is a lot more similar to that of a 3D app you'd work in and the relevant functions aren't so well hidden. I've actually used both, texturing in ZB can be a bit of a pain as your texture res is dependant on how subdivided your mesh is, e.g. if you're at level 0 or 1 your polypaints going to be uber blurry,) and I've found Mudbox a lot easier for low poly texturing. Hope that helps

EDIT: Doesn't matter if there's another thread open, he's allowed to ask a question
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011   #119
mr rayne
mr rayne's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 642
Thanks (Given): 245
Thanks (Received): 352
Zbrush is pretty much like anything else, once you've figured out how to do what it was you wanted to do in it in the first place - driving it's a piece of piss. Main advantage is there are many options - ways to go about doing a thing. You don't have to learn the entire programme inside out plus it integrates well with pretty much everything else knocking about - more importantly the tools are actually very, very good. Weird, but great.

Learning? It's about as taxing and exactly as time consuming as nabbing any tutorial on the subject y'choose from here and following it through - and there are lots available. Really all you actually need is one good one showing you how to do something along the kind of lines you're looking at using it for - and then you're away. And this doesn't have to be a whole DVD.

It's one of those things - daunting to know exactly where to start but - once you do - surprisingly easier to work with than you initially think.

My experience was, I tried Zbrush first - tried Mudbox. Simply put, I couldn't be arsed to have to learn two separate approaches. I found Zbrush was covered far more comprehensively than Mudbox but - for the kind of stuff you're describing doing - Zbrush is genius for it (modelling wise) and getting usable maps out of it couldn't be easier. Plus, the whole integration angle with Zbrush 4 (GoZ plugin) - hard work's done for you dropping the thing out into you're regular modelling application of choice.

Give yourself a week straight setting out to do something with it - 7 days, no more. You'll wonder why you was asking the question to begin with.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011   #120
Lambert Blinn
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Thanks (Given): 48
Thanks (Received): 22
Question

Now that Softimage 2012 can import vector displacement maps from Mudbox, can any of the ZB gurus on here explain how to export a high-res .exr vector displacement map out of Zbrush?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011   #121
bali4you
bali4you's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
Thanks (Given): 51
Thanks (Received): 27
In about a month we will see the AD 2012 products and the actual line is 2011.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011   #122
Lambert Blinn
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Thanks (Given): 48
Thanks (Received): 22
Exclamation

Thanks bali, but I wasn't asking for software release dates.

Vector Displacement Maps in Softimage:
Link(s):
 
Vector Displacement Maps in Mudbox:
Link(s):
 
Vector Displacement Maps in Zbrush:


?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011   #123
arvmetal
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 750
Thanks (Given): 718
Thanks (Received): 189
Zbrush has other and easy ways to have pretty much the same result as vector displacement, but both are excelent programs, the lacks of one is the strength of the other. Why don't use both?.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #124
Lambert Blinn
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Thanks (Given): 48
Thanks (Received): 22
Link(s):
 
We have a very tight timeframe, and must get up to speed on one app very quickly. Despite scouring all the ZBrush fora, I can see nothing in the docs or discussions which would allow the projecting of complex high-resolution details with appendages, folds, undercuts, cusps and bulges onto low-resolution geometry in the same way that Vector Displacement Maps accomplish this.
Also we do not need a do-everything app, but rather one that fits in with an established Softimage pipeline.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #125
sheeb
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 66
Thanks (Given): 12
Thanks (Received): 5
Link(s):
 
Best sculpting = Zbrush
Best painting = Mari

Mudbox is obsolete right now.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #126
Wall-e
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,063
Thanks (Given): 148
Thanks (Received): 773
Link(s):
 
that is the dumbest comment ever, you have no idea what your on about
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Lambert Blinn thanked for this post
Old 03-14-2011   #127
cailloux
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 9
Link(s):
 
Make a plane, divide him, sculpt, alpha->grab doc
This is not precise as vector displace but this is suffisant for production.



is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #128
Lambert Blinn
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Thanks (Given): 48
Thanks (Received): 22
Angry

Link(s):
 
Wrong! It does not take account of undercuts or cusps:
Link(s):
 
and
Link(s):
 
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #129
Lambert Blinn
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Thanks (Given): 48
Thanks (Received): 22
Link(s):
 
Oh dear. You really should get up to speed on your spec sheets.
Neither Mari nor Zbrush have PTEX, which I guess makes them both obsolete!
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #130
cailloux
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 9
Link(s):
 
yes, i know, this is not precise as vector displace.

Link(s):
 
But, maybe this is good for amateur, but professional can't use the power of vector displace to avoid creating a good topology. So, this feature is not so much better that the grab doc of Zbrush.

I don't think victor displace is a powerfull argument to justify the use of Mudbox with the aim of sculpting.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #131
Impactor
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 78
Thanks (Given): 5
Thanks (Received): 18
Link(s):
 
But Ptex is a powerfull argument as it allows for simple Texture map painting and the pixel displacement in x,y,z co'ordinates. - ie. overhangs etc...

The introduction of Ptex will alow me to speed up my painting workflow as i can ditch the need to create UVW maps.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #132
cailloux
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 9
Creating uvw is really easy and quick with software like headus uvlayout. what is the problem with UVW ?
And this is the only way to make some modification in photoshop, the tools of Mudbox for painting are not so good for now.

But yes, Mudbox is better than Zbrush fort painting, we all now that, but Mudbox is not the best 3d painting software.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #133
Impactor
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 78
Thanks (Given): 5
Thanks (Received): 18
Thats not really an argument, laying out UVW takes time no matter what software you use. Removing this process removes the time taken.

Its debateable whats software is best for painting, depending on the users needs..

ie. Ptex is better for film, where as, a good UVW layout is more important for games etc... (EXAMPLE)

Im a zbrush user myself and I think Zbrush has a better sculpting package behind it, but the Ptex element of mudbox is very usefull for saving time. I dont have to export my mesh unwrap it, export back and paint. i can just paint, hit render and im done.

Last edited by Impactor; 03-14-2011 at 05:00 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #134
Strandli
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7
Thanks (Given): 2
Thanks (Received): 4
Oh god... Not this shit again.

Mudbox and Zbrush are both good pieces of software, and they are able to create the same results.
There are different ways to get that result, and some things may be quicker in one app than in the other. When Mudbox lacks a feature to Zbrush, it makes up for it by having a feature Zbrush do not have. They have different strengths and weaknesses; Mudbox lacks features like Zspheres, UVMaster and such, but it does have VDM, better interface, better texture painting etc.

The thing is, nobody cares about which app you're using. No one is impressed by the choice you make, because it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters are the results you are getting, and that means you choose the app which feels right for you. Whatever app gets the job done is the best.

So if you're in doubt, download a trial for both of them and try them out. Use whatever app you feel the most comfortable in, and don't give a shit about what others might say about the apps you use. All the time you spend arguing should be used in the app itself, not just talk about it.

Also, those who defend Zbrush's UI: Just know that it's shit. Pixologic did a bad job on the interface, and now they're just stacking features on top of it and it looks cluttered. They sacrificed user friendliness to uniqueness. They could make it like a normal app with save and import, but instead they choose to call the objects Tools. The 2D functionality of ZB slows it down and makes it unnecessarily complicated. You can argue that it's easy to use once you've learned it, but that doesn't mean it's not shit. You can get used to sleeping on gravel, but that doesn't make it more comfortable. In contrast, Mudbox has no learning curve, and takes only minutes to pick up and use. That kinda thing gotta be applauded.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011   #135
Lambert Blinn
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Thanks (Given): 48
Thanks (Received): 22
Thumbs up

When ptex uvs are created, Mudbox looks at the shape and size of faces *at the highest level*. The reason for this is that, as you know, subdividing a mesh has an averaging affect on the positions of vertices that causes face sizes to even out and face shapes to square up. For example, in a situation where a large face is adjacent to a skinny face (as is common in hard surface objects), subdividing these faces will cause the skinny face to double or triple in width and the large face to shrink in width. So its important that the UV space allotted for these faces represent the shape and size of these faces at rendertime (ie. subdivided). So if a mesh is intended to be rendered as subd, the user should subdivide the mesh a few times before setting it up for ptex. One way in which Mudbox-3ds Max/Maya/Softimage interop is superior to GoZ is that the scene is updated with changes from Mudbox, not replaced with Mudbox data. So if your 3ds Max/Maya scene has hierarchies, layer assignments, custom attributes, any special scene setups, these are all retained through the roundtrip with Mudbox. Whereas roundtrip through GoZ, on the other hand, just blows all of that away your scene is reduced to just mesh data coming from Zbrush.

SOLD to this Softimage pipeline...
is Offline  
Reply With Quote