Any free/opensource alternatives to zbrush?
>>564402Blender but be prepared to be called retard and poorfag.
>>564402Sadly, there is currently no alternative to ZBrush, paid or free.
>>564404but I AM a poorfag!
>>564444Then learn to git gudhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTWs-jsoYpQ
>>564436sad but true
>>564402cracked one .,.
>>564436So, I guess the only possible solutions areA. Use Blender's dynamic topology sculpting system and be laughed at for being a poorfagB. Stop being a poorfag and save up over $800 for Zbrush
>>564523>blender dynamic topologynot even close to dynamesh. nothing beats zbrush. even hardsurface artists use it
>>564525How is it in any way better than dynamic topology or Sculptris' subdivision sculpting?
>>564575>How is it in any way better than dynamic topology or Sculptris' subdivision sculpting?it's not.
>>564575you can remesh your mesh instantly with a click of a button to all even quads.dynatopo doesn't remesh your model, it just creates new geometry and it completely destroys your basemesh.blender does have remesh modifier, but it can only achieve good results at very high resolutions which makes it useless
>>564523>A. Use Blender's dynamic topology sculpting system and be laughed at for being a poorfagThe problem with blenders sculpting engine is that its performance is shit once you go into the tiny details.
>>564577>but it can only achieve good results at very high resolutions which makes it uselessI've actually measured the faces count that are produced by Dynamesh and Remesher. The problem isn't the polycount the problem is that Zbrush is much much better at handling extremely dense meshes compared to traditional modeling programs like Blender and Maya.
>>564600blender can still work with high resolutions if you hide certain meshes while you work. but you cannot do stuff like very fine detail (pores,pimples etc) because blender wouldn't handle it
The biggest problem in making an open source alternative is no one seems to even know how zbrush works. I made a thread a while asking a while ago and all anyone could agree on is that it doesn't store data as traditional polygons.
>>564436What is Mudbox.
With GPU vram reaching 16gb+ soon would it be possible to make a gpu compute based sculpting program?As long as all the geometry fits in VRAM modern gpus would be ideal for moving around millions of polygons wouldn't they?
>>564616Wait, thats an actual sculpture it seems, wrong pic.
>>564436Hmm, 3d coat, mudbox?
>>564402to sculpt: sculptris, dilay, sculptgl or blender, but really is better too get zbrush core or if you can't just go to cgpeers or something like that and get zbrush from there
>>564616Worse than Zbrush core and basically a toy that Autodesk doesn't give two shits about
>>564523$800 isn't much for a piece of software that you will be basing your career aroundjust work some shifts at minimum wage and suck ti up
>>566223Or just pirate it, duh.
>>566223Core is 150http://store.pixologic.com/ZBrushCore-Single-User-License/
>>566268Core has none of the useful features that make zbrush usable for production and not just an art project program.
>>566223>$800 isn't much for a piece of software that you will be basing your career aroundThe cost isn't the issue, it's a big problem that they have a monopoly on high detail sculpting. For example many use Mari, Maya, Modo and others on linux, we have zero interest in running windows 10 in the future. Pixologic won't port it because they know there's no alternative and everyone will put up with running it in a VM.With no competition there's no incentive for them to make much effort to develop it further or even fix bugs. Even if it's basic and very incomplete there needs to be an open source option to keep them motivated.
>>566280Core have less brushes, work with less poligons and worst texturing options, if you are going to keep the sculpt under 20 millions poly core is ok, if you need more I think you can upgrade