![]() Shame that Mudbox is now EOL, I’ve heard this from the horses mouth, not going to name any names, but you can take is as written. And since you have to learn it, you may as well take that knowledge and leverage it to the hilt – use what you’ve learned to start sculpting in Mudbox almost instantly! Since Maya/Max are the industry standards, you’ll need to learn one or the other to work professionally. When this feature goes live, this will be a big game changer in terms of functionality for artists, taking away zBrush’s biggest advantage. In fact… Autodesk has also shown a working demo of a zSpheres-like tool in Maya. When that happens, you just have to learn a single package – Maya! It seems likely that at some point, you won’t ever have to leave Maya to sculpt. There is an added bonus to learning Mudbox: Mudbox’s sculpting tools are being integrated into Maya. This is yet another technical hurdle zBrush puts in the artist’s way. In comparison, zBrush requires more of a workaround to get to Maya or Max. The Send To feature makes transferring assets from one program to the other a snap. Mudbox works seamlessly with Maya, 3DS Max, or Softimage. But some people really love zSpheres! Difference 2: Autodesk integration And modeling means you focus on getting a better base mesh. If you know Maya, this isn’t a big deal – I prefer modeling to create my basic shapes. In Mudbox, you have to use one of the existing base meshes (like the human body or the dinosaur), or you have to create your base mesh in another package. Mudbox doesn’t have anything like this at all. The one bit of functionality zBrush has that Mudbox lacks is zSpheres – the ability to very quickly block out a mesh using sculpting tools. There are two big differences: zSpheres and Autodesk integration. zBrush has polypaint, however, and most artists can make it do what they need it to do. Similarly, Mudbox has much better texturing tools. A talented artist can accomplish anything they want in Mudbox. zBrush definitely has the edge in sculpting functionality – but it isn’t the hands down winner. Up to this point I haven’t even mentioned the different toolsets between the two packages. So why learn two totally different ways of thinking? Now, this is what we do when we learn Maya! And this would be perfectly fine – if zBrush’s UI was an industry standard. You’re not spending time being creative, you’re spending yet more time learning technical tools and workarounds. So you’re not learning sculpting at all – you’re just learning how to use zBrush. You can’t leverage anything else you know. Learning a program like Maya doesn’t help understand zBrush at all. zBrush’s user interface is non-intuitive and non-traditional. In fact, Mudbox is so easy to pick up, that it is actually the first CG software that I’ve had fun using! I can’t recommend it enough, just for that reason! The problem with learning zBrush That means no time is spent learning the software – just learning to sculpt! And those sculpting skills will transfer over to any other sculpting tasks – so learning zBrush later will be MUCH easier. ![]() It is basically the same as Maya/Max, just with sculpting tools bolted on. ![]() When learning to sculpt, we don’t want to wrestle with a completely new set of tools and UI. ![]() Maya is primarily a technical package, whereas sculpting is primarily an artistic discipline. Learning how to sculpt isn’t like learning Maya. Most students looking to learn sculpting already know a 3D package like Maya, or 3DS Max, or Blender.Īnd that’s why I tell them to learn Mudbox. In fact, most people are surprised that I teach Mudbox at all, and I get a lot of question about when I am going to do some zBrush tutorials.īut there is a very specific reason that I teach Mudbox. When it comes to sculpting, most people think zBrush. If you are new to sculpting, this is the big question that you want answered: should you learn Mudbox? or zBrush?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |