Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Sign in to follow this  
ozukaru

To compare 3DCoat sculpting with ZBrush

Recommended Posts

I get it, you are old by your own admission and feel your degree is some how relevant to this conversation. So what does that have to do with asking for specifics and on naming your terms regarding the use of the word "gimmicky"? I feel like you just rambled on without actually backing up or addressing what "gimmicky" means within the context of a sculpting application. Is that a reason to get bent out of shape over?

So far what you have given me is that you believe its full of hype and you are under the impression you click too much inside of it. Is this correct? Do you see that from an outside perspective, this starts looking more like a grudge rather than legitimate criticism?

So if you are unwilling to try and learn a specific piece of software, how then do you know how to evaluate it objectively? Why bother getting offended over it? Nearly every video regarding zbrush has them up and sculpting with very few "clicks" at all...especially since we are working with cintiqs and tablets here. This isnt a software war here, there shouldnt be any sides in this conversation... talk specifics if you are going to throw out sentiment based terms like gimmicky or hype because otherwise it just looks like a confirmation bias run wild.

I've already told you several times that I've been studying Zbrush since it first appeared.  I still am. For certain functions it's indispensable. But having said that I prefer 3D Coat overall. I suspect most of us here feel that way; that's why we're here even though the big party is over at Zbrush forum.

 

I've  never liked the sortware's ergonomic concessions to the 2.5D workflow in Zbrush, the Meats Miers style of working

WireHead-Meats-Meier.jpg

 

. It's a major pain in the ass. I want to scupt in 3D, Period. I don't want that 2.5D garbage. And I don't care if it can produce 3 Trillion pixols. I don't want pixols and I resent the interface concessions they continue to make to allow for the pixol workflow.

 

And as for clicking too much yeah I stand by that. 

 

Here's a test you can all run for yourselves;

 

You're making a figure; you have it roughed in. Now you want to add fingers and a thumb to its hand. Do this in Zbrush, then do it in 3D Coat

Doing this in 3D Coat is a hell of a lot easier and more fluid a task than the elaborate chore it is in Zbrush.

 

Prove me wrong; post a video of you doing it yourself and document all the buttons and commands you have to press in each program to fulfill the same function. 

 

Maybe I'm just not adept enough at ZBrush but I've discussed this very task with expert Zbrush pros and their steps for doing what should be a simple task are arcane and clumsy, hell, vexatious  compared to 3d Coat's simple clear workflow.

Edited by L'Ancien Regime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already told you several times that I've been studying Zbrush since it first appeared.  I still am. For certain functions it's indispensable. But having said that I prefer 3D Coat overall. I suspect most of us here feel that way; that's why we're here even though the big party is over at Zbrush forum.

 

I've  never liked the sortware's ergonomic concessions to the 2.5D workflow in Zbrush, the Meats Miers style of working

WireHead-Meats-Meier.jpg

 

. It's a major pain in the ass. I want to scupt in 3D, Period. I don't want that 2.5D garbage. And I don't care if it can produce 3 Trillion pixols. I don't want pixols and I resent the interface concessions they continue to make to allow for the pixol workflow.

 

And as for clicking too much yeah I stand by that. 

 

Here's a test you can all run for yourselves;

 

You're making a figure; you have it roughed in. Now you want to add fingers and a thumb to its hand. Do this in Zbrush, then do it in 3D Coat

Doing this in 3D Coat is a hell of a lot easier and more fluid a task than the elaborate chore it is in Zbrush.

 

Prove me wrong; post a video of you doing it yourself and document all the buttons and commands you have to press in each program to fulfill the same function. 

 

Maybe I'm just not adept enough at ZBrush but I've discussed this very task with expert Zbrush pros and their steps for doing what should be a simple task are arcane and clumsy, hell, vexatious  compared to 3d Coat's simple clear workflow.

love the render, absolute fantastic imagination!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just own both programs, and use them for specific parts of a workflow? In the large scheme of things, both of these packages offer more value in comparison to how much they cost. I've been using both 3dCoat and Zbrush for a few years now, and couldn't be happier with how much they've grown. Just imagine if Mudbox was the only game in town. Now that would make a great horror film. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The directness of working with 3dcoat is explemplified by Gavin Ball's posts on youtube - using a limited set of tools to superb effect.

 

I also like 3D Coat for testng out ideas and scene placements quickly before committing to polygons etc - explemlified here by Sándor Veres 'Allexr'

 

Use both Apps - love both Apps for what they both allow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1)

I've already told you several times that I've been studying Zbrush since it first appeared.  I still am. For certain functions it's indispensable. But having said that I prefer 3D Coat overall. I suspect most of us here feel that way; that's why we're here even though the big party is over at Zbrush forum.

(2)

I've  never liked the sortware's ergonomic concessions to the 2.5D workflow in Zbrush, the Meats Miers style of working

It's a major pain in the ass. I want to scupt in 3D, Period. I don't want that 2.5D garbage. And I don't care if it can produce 3 Trillion pixols. I don't want pixols and I resent the interface concessions they continue to make to allow for the pixol workflow.

(3)

And as for clicking too much yeah I stand by that. 

Here's a test you can all run for yourselves;

You're making a figure; you have it roughed in. Now you want to add fingers and a thumb to its hand.

 

(4)

Maybe I'm just not adept enough at ZBrush but I've discussed this very task with expert Zbrush pros and their steps for doing what should be a simple task are arcane and clumsy, hell, vexatious  compared to 3d Coat's simple clear workflow.

 

1) No you havent. List the times you have said something along the lines of "I've already told you several times that I've been studying Zbrush since it first appeared". Here let me do the work for you. The number of times you have said something similar to the above? 0

What you DID say, in two separate post is that you "work with it and its gimmicky" and that you are 62 and have a history degree. Neither count as suggesting you are constantly telling me several times that you are "studying zbrush since it first appeared". Additionally "studying" is far different than using. Its a silly word choice to use... nor can you call it an academic field of study.

I am not trying to be rude here but you either have no problem lying or are just imagining things. Neither of which helps your argument, and if you have a valid one and made a good case... chances are high I can/will agree with it.

2) Define "concessions to a 2.5d workflow". When I saw you try to make some distinction between 2.5d and 3D as being your primary argument... I suppose in response to constantly asking you to address what terms define "gimmicky"... I couldnt help but laugh. It sounds like you are just making stuff up at this point. Zbrush still has Zdepth (its in the name), it has a grid, you can transform in xyz... and the results on export are assets in 3D. So your whole basis on 2.5D being the problem is literally ABSURD.

You say you have been "studying it" constantly but clearly not based on that response. Looking at their documentation once a month doesnt count either, no more than I can flip through flight sim 2000's user manual and then tell everyone I "study planes". 

The reason for coming to this conclusion is that you seem to be basing it off of the 1999 zbrush which started (after a siggraph demo) as only a very limited 2d + 2.5d painting application. Zbrush has moved waaaaay past that point, long ago. On top of that you mock the "pixols", saying you dont want them. Why? For what good and specific reason? You cannot possibly have one. Funny thing, Pixols contain x,y and z information... guess what other name uses a similar technique? Voxels. Who uses Voxels? 3D Coat. My point is your dislike of "Pixols" seems a bit odd.

At the end of the day, both zbrush and 3d coat have the user working in what appears to them as a 3D space and it gives 3D results...thats is literally ALL THAT MATTERS.

3) "clicking too much"

Again what are you clicking? You have a tablet, and a pen... you can drop in a mesh item and start sculpting. With dynamesh, you dont worry about topology. Everything else you need is just tied to a modifier key. Sliders are part of the interface or via hotkey (S brings up a size slider under the tip of the pen, hold and drag left or right). To suggest this is all "clicky" seems at odds with how zbrush actually works. You will have to give specifics to make that a valid argument.

On creating "fingers"... simple, hold control and paint a circular mask(s). With control still selected, tap the empty space to invert (faster than doing it via ctrl+I) and then either use a tool that pulls out the form or easier just use the move widget, hotkey M. This lets you quickly pull out the shape for fingers. If you chose to have them as a separate poly group, they can be easy to select and isolate...or you can just tell zbrush with a click of the button to send it over as a separate subtool.  This is literally a quick and low step process. Again with dynamesh you are not worrying about topology. Additionally, a lot of artist just have tools (brushes) that automate fingers anyway and its easy to do... you make the finger once and convert it into a tool. You cannot tell me with a straight face this is some how "clicky".

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6C-cBuP60GjVmxXR1ZOZ1VwRXM/view?usp=sharing

I pulled this out of a sphere in a very short period of time, just using masks, quickly pulling out the shape with the move key, 2 brushes and dynamesh. Very little "clicking" required outside of sculpting on the mesh itself. I was able to get better results faster and the polygroups made it very easy to manage. If you need to see it in action though, go youtube anyone working with dynamesh and creating creatures or body parts. Perhaps you think the only approach is zspheres, which is a much older workflow.

4) Maybe you are not. But if not, why pretend to be? I don't see the logic in that. I question the "expert zbrush pros" you talk to in order to come to the conclusions you have... tbh it sounds like you just made that up but if for some reason you didnt then I would severely question the "pro" qualifications of the people you are talking to.

Conclusion, I get that zbrush seems alien at first to a lot of people.. and it rubs them the wrong way. But its really not alien at all... its very simple...just different in how the menus are laid out. I disagree with your assessment that 3D Coat is more direct, its not. They are about the same on the directness level. I do agree with the control preference and layout in 3D Coat... which I have been consistent on. The controls are great and mirror controls In Modo (with maya keymap) perfectly. When quality and time become important though, those will trump preferential controls and layout. That might be the difference in pro vs hobbyist mentality, who knows.

I think everyone here can agree that we want to see 3D Coat get better, but to do that we cant be suggesting that 3d coat and zbrush are on the same quality level with the sculpting workflow/results. Thankfully 3D Coat (as per original subject of this thread) isnt only picked up for the total sum of its features, but often the ones its really well known for and that is painting and retopology. Nothing wrong with that either, people used to pick up Modo just for its modeling tools, its taking them awhile to get everything else up to speed to compete with its rivals. Now retopo is great in Modo, UV editing is better than 3D coat imo with fewer "clicks". They wouldnt have gotten to that point though if the userbase kept telling them those features were already good or on par with specialty apps.

 

Edited by RabenWulf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so you're an expert in Zbrush but you've never heard of 2.5D workflow or Pixols.

 

baby%2527s+first+troll.jpg

 

  http://docs.pixologic.com/getting-started/basic-concepts/the-pixol/

 

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?5759-Difference-between-pixols-and-voxels

 

And you can see the confusion that the pixol continues to generate;

 

Senior MemberfollowSml.pngFollowUser Gallery Join Date Apr 2004 Location glendale, ca. Posts 311
 
icon0.gif

 as for technically, what exactly a PIXOL is, i've never heard anyone from pixologic address that definitively.

i always just assumed it was just a pixel (x + y + color) with extra attributes (normal + material) per pixel.

but the more i play with it, the less it seems to me that the depth effects i'm see is just a normal being mapped onto every pixel... though i think it COULD be....

there DOES seem to be a genuine Z component as opposed to just a normal vector.

----------------------------------------------------------------

my best guess would be that pixols ARE voxels but with a very limited/predefined voxel space. the back end of the voxel space is the canvas and the "top" (or "front", the one end extending from canvas towards us on z) of the voxel space is of limited height.

so the x and y of voxel space is determined by your canvas resolution and if i had to guess, i'd say the z is half one of those dimensions. and of course, all of this exists in a layout where the "camera" faces into voxel space (probably orthographically) and there is no provision for rotating the camera.

actually, come to think of it, i think that's a pretty good guess dontcha think? would also account for how you can doodle something as pixols and then convert that into a 3d mesh (marching cubes and all that).

but then i would wonder about what exactly is happening when you draw a pixol stroke and then use the manipulator to ROTATE that stroke... if you rotate on the y axis something really weird happens visually and i'm not sure what would account for it... maybe the "front" of the stroke extending past the "front" of the voxel space as it comes at you?

if that's the case, it should be pretty easy to convert that very strict voxel space into something more open to give us true voxel sculpting ala 3d coat.

jin

 

 

The entire interface of Zbrush is built to accomodate this stuff and nobody can actually figure out exactly what it is. Thus for me and a lot of other people from what I can gather, Zbrush is deeply compromised from being a pure and simple sculpting and painting program.  At it's heart the sculpting, particularly in the early years of its development is/was secondary to, accessory to its 2.5D Pixol workflow.

 

paGY1XG.jpg

 

I do not like that workflow. I don't like it from a technical POV; it's a crazy vexing clickfest.  I don't like it from an aesthetic POV.; it encourages a kind of annoying horror vacui in the compositions it produces, the kind you find in the demented paintings of Richard Dadd. 

 

When Zbrush 5 arrives I'd like it to get rid of that stuff but I bet they won't do that. It'll just be more of the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For better or worse I have a lot of my work posted here to show what I know. Let's see some of your work buddy.

 

PLOSTFU TROLL.

Edited by L'Ancien Regime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right... reading comprehension and following up on the topic (with specifics) isn't your strong point. Since you opted to stay vague and I assume attack me personally as a result, I'll give you some advice...Stop, because you are embarrassing yourself (and quite frankly this community, small as it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So hum. I did use zbrush since "it didn't yet appeared". (dev version 0.88 and it was only pixols back then...)

Do I win the game ? :D

 

Zb0.88b.png

Zb%20Prev1.png

 

(seriously guy that was a ridiculous argument)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×