ZBrush or Mudbox for Architectural Details??

[Björn Radler]

I just want to start using on of the mentioned tools to add details in architecture and/or furniture. For example adding some nice wrinkels on a couchs cloth or adding some dirty details walls,building rocks etc.

Which tool would you recommend in case of flexebility, interoperabilty and use with vray.

Best regards

Björn

[rivoli]

I couldn't for the life of me get used to zbrush's gui, so I stuck to mudbox when it came out. but it was back in the day, things might have changed over the years..

[thablanch]

As mentionned, Mudbox is way easier to jump into if you did not work with zbrush before.. Zbrush learning curve is stepper ( was at least for me) But from what you want to do, mudbox could be your option.

[lukx]

I have ZBrush. So can talk only about this software. What I love about it is.... free updates and grate support. I bought it dirty cheap (look on zb forums sometimes guys are selling their license and you can get sweet deal). I bought it when it was version 3 now its 4 and soon 4.5 and still free updates ! So I would say you better give some money to the guys who really made awesome piece of software instead of greedy autodesk

[thablanch]

or Sculptris... it is free...

http://www.pixologic.com/sculptris/

Was taken by the people of Zbrush....

[lukx]

^^^ good idea ! I guess it can do basic stuff that you want for arch vis.

[AJ Jefferies]

Sculptris is absolutely fantastic - especially for free.

It's not the most stable of software, but the latest version has just been released & is meant to have many improvements.

In the right hands, it's incredibly capable - http://www.cgfeedback.com/cgfeedback...ight=sculptris

[MathTheRender]

and the GUI in sculptris is as simple as it gets

[Björn Radler]

I just downloades sculptris and tested it out, in fact its an extremly powerful tool in advanced sculpting.
Unfortunatly its not what i am looking for as it lacks in its variety of availabel brushes, stencils, export functions etc.

I started this script to compare zbrush vs mudbox and eventually list up some pros and cons.

[lukx]

MUDBOX - 850$ (greed)
ZBRUSH - 700$ (even less if buying form someone who's selling his license)

I'm sure that ZBRUSH is more powerful regarding texturing (UNWRAP plugin ease of wrapping).

I don't get it why people complain so much about GUI.
COMON! all stuff we have to know to produce CGI, just one more new thing to learn JUST DO IT

Also I found this:

"Mudbox works with "mud" and is therefore not so precise (it's really wet mud :P so to say)
and Zbrush works more with clay, which is a bit harder and more precise."


and

"MudBox was designed to work in a production pipeline smoothly. Where a 3D asset comes from another department, and then a displacement map is created by a different artist, and then past onto another artist for texturing, and shader work.

It's not designed for someone looking to create works of art on their own. Because your not even able to create your basic shapes very well in MudBox."


I would also try doing this:
google mudbox and zbrush as images:

mudbox:
http://www.google.com/search?q=mudbo...w=1396&bih=951


zbrush:
http://www.google.com/search?q=zbrus...w=1396&bih=951

For me it's no brainier that zbrush got more quality works (it's still about and artist not a tool... but...still

[thablanch]

Price factor is crazy.. Mudbox has less tools, should be cheaper..

[Neilg]

Zbrush's interface is horrible. As far as i'm concerned you shouldnt have to learn a sculpting program. Import. Export. Unwrap. Retopo. Bunch of brushes, stencils, painting, masks, overlays. whatever. None of those things should require more than a cursory glance to figure out how they work.
All this canvas and 2.5d nonsense is just horrific.

Zbrush has to be cheaper than mudbox, they'd never sell a new copy otherwise.

[rivoli]

mudbox has been designed to be intuitive and immediate, well before autodesk bought it. it was conceived to do a simple task in a simple manner, and from my point of view it succeeded perfectly.
I never felt comfortable working with zbrush, and I admit it may very well be a personal limitation, while I felt immediatly at home with mudbox.
during the years zbrush has developed into a very powerful piece of software, but honestly, if you need a sculpting software to fit into a typical arch viz workflow, mudbox is more than enough. actually I think that to detail a piece of furniture with wrinkles and all, you probably don't need anything more than sculptris and xnormal..
anyway, I have the utmost admiration for the guys over at pixologic, they make great software and give even back at the community for free. what independent, small, companies manage to do (insert chaos here), the quality they can achieve, the passion involved, really put to shame the big corporations.

[dmf-123]

Just recently, I picked Zbrush up (for the 3rd time) to try my hand at sculpting. And I had the same experience as the previous times: I got frustrated and gave up. I was so clumsy doing even simple navigation that I didn't really even get to the sculpting. Certainly this frustration is inevitable in the early stage of learning any new application, (and I probably just need to stick with it) but I can't help but share cubicalganster's sentiment, that Zbrush unnecessarily complicated...

But I wonder, are you guys able to be proficient in multiple 3d software packages that all have different shortcuts and interfaces? It almost seems like the more advanced you are in one package, the harder it is to break old habits and pick up new ones.

I'm wondering if when learning new packages I should learn them with their default shortcuts, or remap everything as close as Max as I can (since that's what I am fastest at and most used to). What do you guys do..?

[AJ Jefferies]

It took me a good few months to learn Zbrush's nuances, but it is an absolutely fantastic program. I know it may sound stupid, but because it's much less technically focussed than other 3d packages it actually feels much more creative/freeing.

That said, if you want accuracy, a more familiar workflow & you want to create textures I would definitely recommend Mudbox instead. Zbrush's poly-painting ties the quality of your texture to the number of subdivisions in your geometry, so if you want to paint a decal onto a wall for example, you will need to subdivide the hell out of it to get enough resolution in that region. Mudbox has an excellent layering/masking system and it is possible to paint bump & specular maps, plus its connection between other Autodesk packages is getting better with each release.

If you've never had any experience of using either, be aware that you aren't going to be able to jump in straight away - you are going to need to take time & learn the way they work. Both packages have trial versions so I would strongly recommend downloading these & working through some tutorials.