I'm completely stunned by all the improvements, I'm downloading the update and I just can't wait. I guess with this, Zbrush (alone) really can make a full on video game characters (excluding animation).
Thoughts on this? Maybe some Mudbox-ers are considering moving over, eheh?
Honestly, no reason to use Mudbox over Zbrush now. QRemesher and Dynamesh looks brilliant. Mudbox can't compete with that, its just too deep into the closed world that Autodesk carved for themselves.
Only downside of Zbrush right now is its interface. Once you get used to that its just annoying at worst, so its not even a real downside.
Last edited by RNG; 08-01-2012 at 06:55 AM.
Mudbox is still far better for texturing.
Zbrush has more features in the long run, Mudbox is just much much easier to use. And the texturing of course which Zbrush just doesn't have anything close to that
well, why do you say that? If i look a zbrush models that are textured inside zbrush and compare it to mudbox models textured inside mudbox, zbrush models just look better somehow in the end products (read: games).
Originally Posted by iniside
infact if i see the painting proces of both (through numerous vids) zbrush wins again. Both have stencil painting support (painting on the relief and/or color presentation of an image), both can paint colors on them the same way pick: a color, the thickness and the transparency and of you go.. with the new tools you can also use layers (which is new to zbrush as i understood).
I'm really curious to what makes mudbox so much better in the texturing/painting department compared to zbrush 4r4. Maybe you're right, don't know...
I'm thinking of buying zbrush 4r4 .. so any advice is welcome (to consider)
Last edited by saymoo; 08-01-2012 at 01:00 PM.
The two painting options for Zbrush are just too limited. With the polypaint it's fast and you can navigate while painting, but it depends on your polygon count and it's very limited in painting features. The other option--canvas, you can't rotate around, any time you want to change views you have to project it onto the model and then adjust your view and then go back to the canvas, but it has more features.
Mudbox on the other hand allows you to paint directly to your texture map and allow you full navigation, it also allows you to view your different texture maps at the same time as painting them (bump, specular, etc.) And you've got many more painting features, layers and brushes. Only disadvantage is that you can't paint while sculpting
Mudbox acts much like Photoshop. And most important you can paint over low poly model directly to UV map. While in zbrush you essentially paint high res model and than bake your colors to low poly uv map.
Originally Posted by saymoo
Mudbox is much more intuitive here and you see directly what will you get. With zbrush you have approximation of what will you get.
Also you can save mudbox layers as PSD files and quicly open them in photoshop make changes and preview in mudbox on model.
For me at least it's much more fluid and natural it's best if you try on your own.
Last edited by iniside; 08-01-2012 at 02:03 PM.
Ah ok, but isn't baking high paint maps to a low poly better (quality preserving wise?) since there is more detail in the original (Just like normal baking preserved the high detail information). Than painting directly on the low poly model?.
I'm a bit confused on this part. (polypaint vs uv painting)
Painting on a lower-polygon level won't make a texture lower quality. With polypaint you have to have a high number of polys to get the quality, which is why it's better to do the painting in Mudbox where the poly count doesn't matter for painting. Again though, polypaint just doesn't have as many painting features as the texture painting in mudbox