[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Untitled.jpg (89 KB, 1258x638)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
this guys makes sculpting in maya easy. why is it frowned upon here?

https://youtu.be/mF37uVgLjLM
>>
>>558547
It isn't "frowned upon". The guy knows the toolset inside and out so he could make it work anywhere. If you're less experienced than him and are looking for something to fuck around in, it just so happens that something like Mudbox might be better because of its cleaner interface and ease-of-access to macro-detail tools like stamps and stencils. Dynamesh might also be a more intuitive alternative for making hair if all you're doing is extruding planes and toggling the smooth preview on them. You will also note he imported a prefab bust which probably came from one of those programs in the first place, something Maya doesn't have by default, which you would have to sculpt yourself.

There are better avenues for doing something like this. But if you're used to Maya and you can make it work, then good for you.
>>
>>558549
so is maya not as good for sculpting solely due to how its UI works? is it possible to melscript dynamesh in?
>>
>>558897
>is it possible to melscript dynamesh in?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Maya/comments/4cakp7/dynamesh_in_maya_and_its_free/

Yes, but you apparently have to pay for it.

>so is maya not as good for sculpting solely due to how its UI works?

You can reduce most of Maya's UI to the point where it gets even more minimalistic than something like Mudbox, which in itself, isn't anything more than the sculpting tools, some specific sculpting shaders and retopology tools for meshes with lots of polygons.

The point is that, if you're going to go under the hood to get your Maya in that state, you may as well save yourself the trouble and download Mudbox. Maya can get fairly bloated with all the default plugins enabled and won't handle large meshes the way Mudbox can. zBrush will destroy both as long as you've got the RAM to feed it.
>>
>>558898
i have the ram im just trying to figure out why i need to use multiple programs if maya has them all under its hood.
>>
>>558899
>i have the ram im just trying to figure out why i need to use multiple programs if maya has them all under its hood.

Because it fucking doesn't, you dumb child. Zbrush has everything you need, everything you didn't know you need, already setup and ready to go.

Can you take the tools from zbrush and implement them in another program? Yes, and if you're really autistic about it you could do it in Blender and write your own tools in C++ instead of kludging something together with scripting

But is that practical? No, not at all, not unless reinventing zbrush is going to become your new job
>>
>>558899
>more sculpting features and materials out of the box
>prefab meshes to get started quickly
>better performance when manipulating more complex meshes
>less bloated UI

I've given you quite a few reasons as to why already. If you want to use Maya to sculpt, just fucking follow your heart and stop worrying about what big mean anon thinks about 「software」.

Though it's looking more and more like you came here to try and prove some sort of dumb point on how you can sculpt on Maya just as well as you can on any other sculpting suite, when that's only ever going to be the case for someone who really knows what he's doing in the first place.
>>
>>558902
you are kidding right? zbrush have the best performance
>more sculpting features
wew lad
>less bloated UI
ill give you this one
>>
>>558547
There's no surface detailing on there OP. It's a smooth low-poly mesh suitable for low-res interactive animation. The result is not even close to a finished sculpt that would be achieved in ZBrush or even Mudbox.
>>
>>558901
>Yes, and if you're really autistic about it you could do it in Blender and write your own tools in C++ instead of kludging something together with scripting
Blender is written in C my friendo. Checkmate :^)
>>
>>558902
Its not that. To me i just see it as im just trying to sculpt using simple brushes anyway, and it seems maya has the popular ones from zbrush given the video. Not only that but if you were to turn on pbr in the viewport? It just seems more robust is all. Im not trying to bias myself i simply want to approach tbis with as muchinsight as possible.
>>
>>558903
Yeah mate, I was referring to both softwares, not just zbrush, and not through some dumb zbrush vs mudbox comparison.

zbrush is obviously the more robust software, but both of them do have more sculpting features than Maya. In Maya, you have the basic tools mudbox offers and that's it.
>>
>>558955
yeah but, as a person who is beginning, do i need more than, say, "lift, smooth, cut,imprint," and so forth? i know zbrush has more, hell you can make your own, but are they vital for character modelling and building modelling if i have the fundamentals barely down?
>>
>>558918
>>558958
Anon you can spend literally one afternoon and learn enough zbrush to replicate the Maya sculpting toolkit. Everyone is telling you you should use zbrush and not Maya, you simply come back whining about how you don't want to try zbrush. Instead of wasting everyone's time how about you suck it up and give zbrush a shot.


Zbrush is so much better than Maya sculpting that you will kick yourself for waiting to try it.
>>
I'm not goonna say Zbrush.
But Zbrush.
>>
If you want to sculpt there's no reason not to use Zbrush. There is no actual alternative that doesn't involve cutting corners.
Years ago there was mudbox. Today you'd be retarded to use anything but Zbrush.
>>
we all know sculptris is the premium choice here. cmon guys.
>>
>>558979
did you even read my post?
>>
>>559053
Yep. But obviously you didn't read mine. Have fun wasting your time fumbling with MS paint when Photoshop exists. Come back and post your work and we can see how that Maya sculpt workflow is working out for you.
>>
>>559088
why are you even replying? i don't get it. you clearly didn't read the part where i was talking about fundamentals and you're just interested in starting a flame war between software choices. im merely trying to compare the functionality from a beginners perspective. if that's too difficult for you to understand then just go to a wip thread or something.
>>
>>558912
https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/FAQ

>Short Answer C/C++/Python.
>C - for Blender's [startup/main-loop/shutdown] and most internal functionality, tools, drawing, GUI and editors.
>C++ - physics, audio, game-engine and Cycles render engine.
>Python - The interface definitions, addons, most format import/export and some tools.

We're both right, get fucked, go kill yourself, you'll never recover from the shame of how hard you were just blown the fuck out, etc.

Point stands: You can reinvent Zbrush in Blender or any other open source 3d package, or write your own package from scratch, but that's probably not what you want to spend your time (unless it is, in which case please do)
>>
>>559098
you are a stupid, lying, and/or trolling faggot. the only one starting a flame ware is you. its already been explained, calmly and objectively, why mudbox is preferred. in the first fucking post: >>558549

that post answered the thread. and yet instead of moving along, you decide to keep being a whiney faggot, telling everyone else that they're wrong, sounding like you're some maya shill who is clearly biased and doesn't want to download mudbox or zbrush for some reason.

if you didn't come in to this thread ready to argue, you'd have already been convinced and wouldn't be still responding. its as simple and obvious as that.

I don't give a shit which programs you use, but goddamn you are an annoying faggot.
>>
>>559121
you sound incredibly mad. how about elaborate on what's "inside n out" dickwad? the tools are literally displayed even in the screenshot.
>>
>>559121
>calmly and objectively
>the interface sucks

lol 5/10
>>
>>559121
so let me get this straight. unless i blindly agree that zbrush is superior for sculpting than maya because the UI is objectively better, regardless of the fact you haven't actually given a comparison of the two, im a stupid lying and/or trolling faggot. gotcha.

> why mudbox is preferred. in the first fucking post: >>558549

you mean the post that goes "this guy knows how to use maya"? excuse me but how is that different from "this guy knows zbrush in n out"? inb4 zbrush is easier to sculpt in...no shit you are LEARNING IT. your argument for learning maya is that i have to learn maya. jesus christ.

>if you didn't come in to this thread ready to argue, you'd have already been convinced and wouldn't be still responding. its as simple and obvious as that.

nobody can be this conceited so i can only assume you are too stupid to realize that arguments don't split themselves into idiots and people that agree with you, otherwise that would be redundant.

>I don't give a shit which programs you use, but goddamn you are an annoying faggot.
>>
>>559142
OP, we've given you tons of reasons to at least try zBrush or Mudbox already. Instead, you're spending precious time here you could be getting your own first-hand impressions, trying to figure out the exact reason as to why a modeling software with a small sculpting module is just as good at sculpting as zBrush or Mudbox, out of what I can only assume at this point, is some sort of software indignation.

That first post I made had a point to invoke the "80% of the work is done with 20% of the tools." saying. If all you need to do your work, is that tiny sculpting shelf on Maya, then good for you. If all you plan on doing is what that guy on the video you linked did, then good for you.

There is, however, absolutely no other way to tell you that, for sculpting, those softwares are objectively better. They are better optimized for that task. They have more features to help you with that specific task. They have been made with the task of sculpting in mind.

At this point, I have to agree, with a very heavy heart, that you're being a bit of a fag, OP. It's time to get off of 4chan and download these programs to try yourself, because you are not changing any hearts or minds in here, so don't waste your time with that.
>>
>>559147
Im not against trying it i just want some scripture on what consitutes "all i need" here. Ok lets say i want wrinkles or small details. Im fucked? Nobody is clarifying anything with actual examples and just want me to hse the programs, which defeats the point of having a discussion board.
>>
>>559151
>Ok lets say i want wrinkles or small details. Im fucked?

We'll never be able to answer this question for you in a satisfactory way. The way people add minute details to their sculpts will always be different, it comes down to experience and personal preference more than software differences.

Which is why, you're the one who has to go into the software and see if you can do it your way.
>>
How does zbrush actually manage to handle high poly assets better than traditional modeling programs? I always thought it was some hybrid voxel/pixel type thing, but apparently that's only the 2.5d part no one uses and the 3d is just subd.
>>
>>559179
I'd love to know this as well. I've done some research and while people seem to have *some* idea of how it kinda works, nobody can give me a concrete answer and it mostly seems to revolve around "Well, you don't sculpt in an ortographic view, so you don't need an expensive GPU to render all that in real time, and at that point, all you need is a competent CPU and tons of RAM!".

I mean, it's a bit of a technical marvel, but a mystery nontheless.
>>
>>559224
>>559179
Im no expert but is it due to the geometry being subdivided as tris?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.