Mudbox
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /3/ - 3DCG
You are currently reading a thread in /3/ - 3DCG
I'm thinking of buying Mudbox Perpetual license before the deadline.
I'm not fully sure what will happen to Mudbox but if it does die in the coming storm will it be good to have it and not being stuck with zBrush?
To give an idea of use, i use zBrush to sculpt atm however my workflow consists of semi high detail base meshes to sculpted detail.
So i'm not creating base meshes in zBrush to give it an advantage.
Still on the fence, will buy it if /3/ decides for sure with some good pro/ con info.
Waste of $500 imo
>>508216
Mudbox is absolutely dead. It's being merged into Maya with better features. I'm not sure why you would choose Mudbox, which hasn't been updated in over 2 years, over ZBrush which is miles ahead in features at this point.
You should be learning a concepting workflow in ZBrush where you work from dynamesh and the n project the details to a retopo afterwards, to not restrict your design until it's ready to be base-meshed fully.
>>508216
>>508222
>>508223
Use zBrush for sculpting. It really is tons better and faster for that. However, zBrush isn't anywhere near as good as Mudbox when it comes to texture painting. That doesn't matter if you use Quixel or Substance Painter or something like that, so there's where your decision should be made. Figure out which 3d painting solution you like the best, and go that route.
Seriously though, zBrush for sculpting, hands down. It doesn't matter if you start from base meshes you box model or from dynamesh. It's just far, far ahead of anything else in terms of sculpting.
>>508225
mudbox doesnt even have a real layer system for painting. Even 3d coat is better and 3d coat is shit
I've been holding on switching over to Zbrush from Mudbox but when I saw the list of the new features for Mudbox 2016 I stopped hesitating anymore. Downloading 4R7 atm.
>>508226
In other words, you never figured out how to use Mudbox's layer system. Here's a hint:
>it works just like Photoshop's layer system, including blend modes
>>508226
I think you meant ZBrush. But you shouldn't be bother with Mudbox or ZBrush for serious texture painting work, that's what Quixel, Substance and to a lesser extent Mari are for, as their model painting abilities far exceed anything Mudbox or 3DCunt can do.
>>508232
lol Mudbox doesn't even have ADJUSTMENT layers you complete retard
>>508242
just so we know, what texture painting systems do?
>>508768
Photoshop's 3D painting capabilities (you've been able to import 3D models into Photoshop since CS4 Extended and now it is a part of all CC versions).
Substance Painter has adjustment layers and a node based workflow.
Quixel works through Photoshop and thus extends all of Photoshops capabilities.
Mari even has adjustment layers.
>>508777
>Photoshop's 3D painting capabilities
Are fucking joking? Photoshop without Quixel for 3d painting is complete ass.
Now that the criticism portion of this post has ended, does Substance Painter or Quixel let you do projection painting like Mudbox or ZBrush?
>>508780
I never said Photoshop 3D painting was good, the question was what programs supported adjustment layers, and that was merely one of them...
By projection, do you mean when you bring up a texture overlay and paint that onto the surface based on your camera angle? Like with zBrush Spotlight? Because technically any direct2texture painting is considered "projection painting" due to the way it works, and is what both Quixel and Substance do each time you make a stroke, it's not polypainting.
I don't think Quixel can do that, but I can't say for sure. I know Substance painter can though.
