Is mudbox really that bad? I saw some pretty nice things created in it and it seems fairly easy to use, it also helps that i have Maya already. Why do people hate on it? What exactly can't it do that Zbrush can? pic related was created in Mudbox (and maya) and 3/4 of 3D artist can't even create something remotely close. What gives, is it just Autodesk hate?
>>576829easy to use is really the main selling point, as well as the fact that you can do a decent job of both modeling and texturing in one program, but it just hasn't been updated much and I guess people are worried about support or being left behind in features.zbrush has a lot more tools and workflow enhancements for sculpting, which you notice doesn't compensate skill, but still nice to have. other soft like substance painter are also better than mudbox at texturing since you have procedural effects.so mudbox is like the jack of all trades option for people who just want to do light sculpting and painting, without being loaded by all the stuff you need to learn for these other programs. if you can use max and photoshop, you can already use mudbox.
>>576829I use MudBox regularly, every time I launch zBrush I just close it down again.Also link some good MudBox sculpts.
>>576829It's not about Mudbox being bad in of itself, it's the fact that ZBrush offers WAY better tools.Which is a real shame, I fucking hate ZBrush's viewport, UI and general control and I love Mudbox., but it's just not an alternative for most people because of ZBrush's tools.
>>577175Why not just do most of it in max,maya, mudboxThen use zbrush for the other tools
Zbrush is a total bitch to use. Mudbox is really easy, yet lacking in performans and the tools. Which is quite unfortunate.I recently was surprised to know that the guy who was involved in almost every Blizzard cinematic still uses Mubox to this day.
>>577176Because lots of the tools don't work well unless you've been working entirely with ZBrush. An entire finished sculpt in Mudbox isn't going to have all the proper poly groups on exactly the right areas and shit for things like ZRemeshing and such.
I mainly use sculpt software for fine detailing so mudbox fits me just fine. Cant fucking stand zbrush ui and the way it works. I believe that whoever created zb interface is autistic to some degree.
>>577275What even in the flying fuck are you talking about>Create base model in Maya >Add the details in Mudbox>If needed retopology in either Maya or Mudbox>Texture in whatever the fuck you wantFucking Zautists i swear
>>577334Just got into sculpting a couple days ago, so I'm still testing the waters with both programs, but so for the biggest difference to me seems to be that ZBrush doesn't give a fuck about what you give it, since you can sculpt and retopo the mesh ad-infinitum right within the program, like you're working with actual clay.MudBox can't dynamically remesh your topology as you work, requiring you to make sure the model is all quads before it leaves your main package, so it really does seem to be a "fine detailing" program where you're not expected to add significant additional geometry over what you imported. It also seems significantly easier to paint textures in MB, but also more crude over Substance Painter, so I think that neither package is really desirable for straight-up painting unless you have no other choice.As a side note, I noticed that it's possible to completely change the interface of ZBrush by dragging buttons and sliders to where you want, so if everyone is so anal about the interface being Satan incarnate, why not just create a new and better one that can be recommended for new users? I understand that some workflow concepts can't be changed, but at least make them visible right up front.