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

To compare 3DCoat sculpting with ZBrush

Recommended Posts

he seems to use 3d-coat only for painting LOL 

 

I have had so hard times trying to explain to people that in 3d-coat you have it almost all (except for rigging and animation, I miss some basic pivot adjust too (and better rendering))

But seems that people that had invested so much time learning z-brush cumbersome interface is a little afraid of leave their 'comfort' zone... 

 

 

-----------

//admin note:

this topics were split from here

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he seems to use 3d-coat only for painting LOL 

 

I have had so hard times trying to explain to people that in 3d-coat you have it almost all (except for rigging and animation, I miss some basic pivot adjust too (and better rendering))

But seems that people that had invested so much time learning z-brush cumbersome interface is a little afraid of leave their 'comfort' zone... 

Why LOL at him for that?

 

Zbrush isnt that hard and neither is the interface...control scheme is different though. Right now the best things 3d coat has to offer is retopo and painting. The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation.

On that note, the only reason I purchased 3d Coat was for the painting, possibly retopo...since everything else wasnt better or even equal to what I had in Modo + Zbrush. I personally would love to work more in 3d coat, but the quality + time consumption (or lack there of) would suffer.

Edited by RabenWulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why LOL at him for that?

 

Zbrush isnt that hard and neither is the interface...control scheme is different though. Right now the best things 3d coat has to offer is retopo and painting. The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation.

On that note, the only reason I purchased 3d Coat was for the painting, possibly retopo...since everything else wasnt better or even equal to what I had in Modo + Zbrush. I personally would love to work more in 3d coat, but the quality + time consumption (or lack there of) would suffer.

When have you last tried to sculpt an entire model in 3D Coat? The reason I ask is a lot of people make assumptions about it, based on what someone else said, or maybe they dabbled with it a little bit years ago. But it has come a long, long way, and even surpasses ZBrush in certain area, ie. being able to localize the model's subdivision. In ZBrush, the entire mesh has to get  subdivided, whereas in 3D Coat, only the local areas you want need to be subdivided...when using LiveClay and other related tools. 

 

A lot of work went into improving the brush feel and feedback in 4.1, and there have been some improvements in that area since. There is a lot of control over brush behavior in Surface mode, that wasn't there prior to 4.1. The only major missing component I can see is the lack of Sculpt Layers (per object) in the Sculpt Room, and Andrew said that was high on the To Do list. There is sculpt layer functionality, in the mean time, in the Paint Room using image based sculpting...so it's only missing from the Sculpt Room. Even though ZB has sculpt layers, I hear it is a bit of a headache and not nearly as good as the implementation in Mudbox. Aside from that, I don't know that there is anything you can't sculpt in 3D Coat as equally detailed as you could in ZBrush, if you are proficient in both.

 

Again, people talk about small advantages here and there, ZB might have in a given brush that feels a bit better than the equivalent in 3D Coat, but then ignore the major advantage 3D Coat has with it's dynamic tessellation and the ability to vertex paint on the same model, with lots of paint layers, with different blending modes and still go back to sculpting on the same model relatively interchangeably. The ability to create booleans with extremely sharp and clean edges...the ability to sculpt/melt holes in your model, that ZB can't do without a major workaround.

 

I'm not trying to discount ZBrush's ability....there's a lot of amazing work done with it, but I do think many people wrongly underestimate 3D Coat as a viable alternative as a production level sculpting app. It will just take more and more skilled artists showing what it is really capable of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am up to date with 3D Coat's sculpting capability and I sculpt in it often enough for smaller things If I am too lazy to do the export import dance between modo, zbrush and 3d coat. Sure 3D Coat has come a long way, but its still not even close to the stroke quality and level of detail you get in zbrush. Its just not even up for debate. In return I can ask when was the last time you tried to seriously sculpt in zbrush? The difference is just night & day...  I personally would love to stay in 3d coat more often as I like the controls and layout a bit better, but the stroke quality, lighting, masking..ect is still pretty poor compared to zbrush.

Now I could turn this into a zbrush vs 3d coat debate, but its really not the point. I do disagree with your "isolated subdivision" comment as it can be done in zbrush too just different approaches and subtools vs layers. But going down that rabbit hole would just be off topic, since the extra features imo are not as important as the basics... and its the basics which I find fault with.

Regarding the production viability for sculpting in 3DC, that is really subjective as it depends on the expectations of the user/client. I have tried to use it numerous times for serious work but the quality always suffers + the time it takes to get it the way I want to look (expectation) is extended. This isnt due to knowing one app more than the other, since I actually prefer 3DC's controls and layer stack over zbrushes... its just simply the workflow (masking & transform are big ones), the detail from alphas/strokes and just general behavior of the brush isnt up to that level.

 

On sculpt layers. I honestly wouldnt put them as a high priority since they dont do much if the stroke/displacement quality is still low. Its one of those features that works really well when you have great results in the quality department, but if the quality is still not there then all you are doing is giving the option to layer sub par results. It doesnt address the original problem.
 

I believe for a lot of people, painting or retopo are the main reasons they pick up 3D Coat, not that they wont look into the other features but if they do its often found lacking.
At the end of the day its about results... painting is pretty good in 3DC and its Retopo made it a great addition for many artist just for that one singular feature alone.

Edited by RabenWulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am up to date with 3D Coat's sculpting capability and I sculpt in it often enough for smaller things If I am too lazy to do the export import dance between modo, zbrush and 3d coat. Sure 3D Coat has come a long way, but its still not even close to the stroke quality and level of detail you get in zbrush. Its just not even up for debate. In return I can ask when was the last time you tried to seriously sculpt in zbrush? The difference is just night & day...  I personally would love to stay in 3d coat more often as I like the controls and layout a bit better, but the stroke quality, lighting, masking..ect is still pretty poor compared to zbrush.

Now I could turn this into a zbrush vs 3d coat debate, but its really not the point. I do disagree with your "isolated subdivision" comment as it can be done in zbrush too just different approaches and subtools vs layers. But going down that rabbit hole would just be off topic, since the extra features imo are not as important as the basics... and its the basics which I find fault with.

Regarding the production viability for sculpting in 3DC, that is really subjective as it depends on the expectations of the user/client. I have tried to use it numerous times for serious work but the quality always suffers + the time it takes to get it the way I want to look (expectation) is extended. This isnt due to knowing one app more than the other, since I actually prefer 3DC's controls and layer stack over zbrushes... its just simply the workflow (masking & transform are big ones), the detail from alphas/strokes and just general behavior of the brush isnt up to that level.

 

On sculpt layers. I honestly wouldnt put them as a high priority since they dont do much if the stroke/displacement quality is still low. Its one of those features that works really well when you have great results in the quality department, but if the quality is still not there then all you are doing is giving the option to layer sub par results. It doesnt address the original problem.

 

I believe for a lot of people, painting or retopo are the main reasons they pick up 3D Coat, not that they wont look into the other features but if they do its often found lacking.

At the end of the day its about results... painting is pretty good in 3DC and its Retopo made it a great addition for many artist just for that one singular feature alone.

I have used/tested the trial versions of ZBrush at different times (decided to go with Mudbox instead for a while, and have used 3D Coat exclusively for the past 3yrs or so), and again I'm not trying to bring it down as much as I am saying that too many discount 3D Coat's ability. You claim ZBrush can locally subdivide as well...to me that answer shows ZB bias. Why? Because splitting meshes into different subtools is not the same thing as localized subdivision OF THE SAME MESH.You can do separate your parts in 3D Coat with the Split tool as well, but it's not the same thing.

 

As for 3D Coat seeming inferior in it's ability/quality, that's funny...I find no problem whatsoever sculpting skin pores, cracks and wrinkles, scales, etc. with LiveClay...none. As far as  masking goes, please be specific where 3D Coat fails to work properly?

 

It's been said many times, every app has it's own strengths and sure 3D Coat has plenty of room for improvement, but it's considerably better than many try to make it out to be. That is where I'm coming from. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sure 3D Coat isn't unfairly dissed just because you prefer some of it's brushes and such. As the old saying goes...."Things are never as good as they seem, nor as bad as they may seem." You could say that about both ZBrush and 3D Coat.

 

But if you like, feel free to record yourself sculpting something detailed in ZBrush...which you think 3D Coat will struggle doing, and I'll try to replicate it in 3D Coat while recorded. Fair enough?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of just playing around with a trial, learn it and force yourself to use it for a few weeks at the very least. Again its the difference of night and day. As for your claim of "ZB bias", that is utter rubbish. Its just a confirmation of your bias. I wasnt simply suggesting separate subtools are the only means but more that you are wrong in your understanding of zbrush. You just obviously do not know much about it. There are different approaches in zbrush that quite honestly give better results, whether you are using the geometry HD feature or just working in a highly optimized environment where polycount does not bottle neck right away. If the dynamic topology isnt giving more detail than the options in zbrush, then its not really a good feature to be arguing in favor of. I dont think you get that.

I already said I dont want to turn this into another 3d coat vs zbrush thread, so lets try to avoid repeating this again (yes we have had this conversation before though with you claiming zbrush copied 3d coat).

 

You cant spot the difference in sculpting surface detail and stroke quality so I don't see any reason to try and argue the case further other than to say go learn and use zbrush for a bit. I am not here to confirm your biases or get into a comparison contest...

The one thing we can agree on is that 3D Coat has a lot of room to grow and I am sure we would love for it to grow, but if you keep saying some implementations are better than they really are, that process might get slowed down a bit.

Edited by RabenWulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of just playing around with a trial, learn it and force yourself to use it for a few weeks at the very least. Again its the difference of night and day. As for your claim of "ZB bias", that is utter rubbish. Its just a confirmation of your bias. I wasnt simply suggesting separate subtools are the only means but more that you are wrong in your understanding of zbrush. You just obviously do not know much about it. There are different approaches in zbrush that quite honestly give better results, whether you are using the geometry HD feature or just working in a highly optimized environment where polycount does not bottle neck right away. If the dynamic topology isnt giving more detail than the options in zbrush, then its not really a good feature to be arguing in favor of. I dont think you get that.

I already said I dont want to turn this into another 3d coat vs zbrush thread, so lets try to avoid repeating this again (yes we have had this conversation before though with you claiming zbrush copied 3d coat).

 

You cant spot the difference in sculpting surface detail and stroke quality so I don't see any reason to try and argue the case further other than to say go learn and use zbrush for a bit. I am not here to confirm your biases or get into a comparison contest...

The one thing we can agree on is that 3D Coat has a lot of room to grow and I am sure we would love for it to grow, but if you keep saying some implementations are better than they really are, that process might get slowed down a bit.

My contention is that people who prefer ZBrush tend to write 3D Coat off as rubbish, and that simply isn't the case. Sure, it has several years head start and helped create this niche, so, they are going to have some natural advantages, but it's a lot like the ZB vs Mudbox comparisons. Just because ZB has some features and attributes MB doesn't have, it doesn't make MB rubbish as a production-level sculpting app. That weird interface has largely kept me away from ZB and the lack of 3DConnexion device support...which I think is a HUGE benefit to sculpting in 3D Coat, which is vastly overlooked.

 

As for whether or not features from 3D Coat were copied or not, it's a stretch to deny that features which were totally unique to 3D Coat in the industry, suddenly gets replicated in it's chief competitor. Deny it all you want, but the timing of it sort of speaks for itself. Nevertheless, it's something that goes on with practically every CG app. One comes up with some really brilliant features or ideas, and others will naturally attempt to follow suit...and that is largely because their userbase asks for it. It's also necessary to remain competitive. If ZB users asked them for an auto-retopo equivalent (among other features) in their own app, why shouldn't they accommodate them, if they can? The point isn't that they somehow cheated or anything of the sort, but the fact that Pixologic would copy tools they liked in 3D Coat and/or their users asked for, demonstrates that 3D Coat isn't just a low cost "we can do that, too" app. It's cutting it's own path for the most part.

 

So, the offer still stands. If you really think "3D Coat sucks" at sculpting, then let's prove whether there is some substance to that assessment. I'm game if you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim ZBrush can locally subdivide as well...to me that answer shows ZB bias.

 

As for your claim of "ZB bias", that is utter rubbish. Its just a confirmation of your bias.

sosf3.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think "3D Coat sucks" at sculpting....

 

I said and I quote "The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation."

To suggest that I said "3D Coat Sucks" is simply dishonest. Saying something sucks and saying it doesnt compare well with the leading sculpting software are two different things. Anyways, it seems like you are not willing to learn zbrush and come to conclusions off of actually working with the software. Owning both along with many other software packages and actually putting the effort into working with them gives me an objective outlook where things stand concerning this subject.

On the original topic, of which I was responding to, there is no need to "lol" at someone because they use 3D Coat for one specific feature, and the biggest pull (imo) for 3D Coat right now (especially with pro level artist) is a mixture of texturing and retopology tools. If a user has zbrush the chances are high they wouldnt be using 3d coat for sculpting over it since theres a night vs day difference in the workflow and result. I would love nothing more than for this difference to disappear with more development, but it is there and it is obvious to someone who uses both.

Ultimately this may just be another agree to disagree situation. I do think your responses border on the fanboy side though, or at least thats the impression it gives to the more software agnostic types like myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said and I quote "The sculpting just isnt good enough to compare with zbrush, so if someone has zbrush or can afford it, then its a no brainer to use it over 3d coat for sculpting at this point in time. I do hope 3d coat gets a serious sculpting improvement, but until then its hard to recommend anyone sculpt it in over zbrush if quality is part of the equation."

To suggest that I said "3D Coat Sucks" is simply dishonest. Saying something sucks and saying it doesnt compare well with the leading sculpting software are two different things. Anyways, it seems like you are not willing to learn zbrush and come to conclusions off of actually working with the software. Owning both along with many other software packages and actually putting the effort into working with them gives me an objective outlook where things stand concerning this subject.

On the original topic, of which I was responding to, there is no need to "lol" at someone because they use 3D Coat for one specific feature, and the biggest pull (imo) for 3D Coat right now (especially with pro level artist) is a mixture of texturing and retopology tools. If a user has zbrush the chances are high they wouldnt be using 3d coat for sculpting over it since theres a night vs day difference in the workflow and result. I would love nothing more than for this difference to disappear with more development, but it is there and it is obvious to someone who uses both.

Ultimately this may just be another agree to disagree situation. I do think your responses border on the fanboy side though, or at least thats the impression it gives to the more software agnostic types like myself.

There is every reason to use it, if the individual can't stand that odd interface, lack of 3D Connexion support, and a number of little things, like being able to scale your brush and intensity right over your model with RMB dragging. If that's what they prefer, then they have the tools to get the job done. You're the one coming across as a ZBrush fanboy, since you are trying to promote in ON A 3D COAT FORUM. Hello? I could use Mudbox at any point in time, but I prefer to work in 3D Coat. So, you prefer to work in ZBrush. Let's leave it at that, and stop trying to insist, dogamtically, as you have, that 3D Coat isn't comparable to ZBrush.If you continue to push that then again, you record yourself sculpting something highly detailed in ZB and I'll do my best to replicate it, trying to use equivalent/similar tools (when possible) in 3D Coat. THAT is the only way to prove whether your assertion is accurate or not. I'm simply tired of hearing the 3D Coat bashing on a 3D Coat forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

record yourself sculpting something highly detailed in ZB and I'll do my best to replicate it, trying to use equivalent/similar tools (when possible) in 3D Coat.

 

This could actually be quite interesting...assuming, that is, that the feature set for both apps was really pushed.

Edited by PolyHertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When have you last tried to sculpt an entire model in 3D Coat? The reason I ask is a lot of people make assumptions about it, based on what someone else said, or maybe they dabbled with it a little bit years ago. But it has come a long, long way, and even surpasses ZBrush in certain area, ie. being able to localize the model's subdivision. In ZBrush, the entire mesh has to get  subdivided, whereas in 3D Coat, only the local areas you want need to be subdivided...when using LiveClay and other related tools. 

 

A lot of work went into improving the brush feel and feedback in 4.1, and there have been some improvements in that area since. There is a lot of control over brush behavior in Surface mode, that wasn't there prior to 4.1. The only major missing component I can see is the lack of Sculpt Layers (per object) in the Sculpt Room, and Andrew said that was high on the To Do list. There is sculpt layer functionality, in the mean time, in the Paint Room using image based sculpting...so it's only missing from the Sculpt Room. Even though ZB has sculpt layers, I hear it is a bit of a headache and not nearly as good as the implementation in Mudbox. Aside from that, I don't know that there is anything you can't sculpt in 3D Coat as equally detailed as you could in ZBrush, if you are proficient in both.

 

Again, people talk about small advantages here and there, ZB might have in a given brush that feels a bit better than the equivalent in 3D Coat, but then ignore the major advantage 3D Coat has with it's dynamic tessellation and the ability to vertex paint on the same model, with lots of paint layers, with different blending modes and still go back to sculpting on the same model relatively interchangeably. The ability to create booleans with extremely sharp and clean edges...the ability to sculpt/melt holes in your model, that ZB can't do without a major workaround.

 

I'm not trying to discount ZBrush's ability....there's a lot of amazing work done with it, but I do think many people wrongly underestimate 3D Coat as a viable alternative as a production level sculpting app. It will just take more and more skilled artists showing what it is really capable of.

 

"When it works".

 

Zbrush.

Period.

 

Sorry AbnRanger, I was a believer, I tried it recently again... I just can't stand the uncertainty during a project. You don't label stable a release that has the same bug as it did 3 years ago. Nope, nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used/tested the trial versions of ZBrush at different times (decided to go with Mudbox instead for a while, and have used 3D Coat exclusively for the past 3yrs or so), and again I'm not trying to bring it down as much as I am saying that too many discount 3D Coat's ability. You claim ZBrush can locally subdivide as well...to me that answer shows ZB bias. Why? Because splitting meshes into different subtools is not the same thing as localized subdivision OF THE SAME MESH.You can do separate your parts in 3D Coat with the Split tool as well, but it's not the same thing.

 

...

 

Btw, its possible to mask an area (polygroup) in ZB and subdivide locally (in Layer), without  splitting in subtools.

But i guess you mean the dynamic tessalation in SF-Mode.

 

 

(Just to clearify. Im a fanboy of both,  ZB and 3DCoat as well,     ;) )

 

Just some lacking in 3DC in my personal opinion:

- Working on/with thin objects (in V and SF),

- Importing objects for melting (SF -> selfintersections - fail,  works only properly in Voxelmode,      ....but then: overall high res, here we go, pretty much damage the dynamic tesselation approach)

- Freeze/ Masking doesnt work as clean as in ZB (at least for me)

- Fibermesh, Nanomesh  - Equivalents

- Boxmodelling/Polymodelling  for hardsurface/ assets 

 

 

This btw can display also my lacking of deep  knowledge of some functions, and usually i dont use Voxelmode, because of the melting of near parts.

As long there is no ADF Voxel Sculpting i  will prefer Surface Mode. 

Edited by chingchong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D Coat > Zbrush  in

 

Sculpting both voxel and surface mode

UV mapping

Hand Retopo

texture painting.

 

Zbrush > 3D Coat in

autoremeshing

nanomesh

arraymesh

polygonal modeling.

fibermesh

 

Uncertain which is better;

fine texturing with alphas...is Zbrush better for this? Like putting fine pores on a woman's face for example?

Zspheres vs Curves Too. 

 

Generally I suspect the bias comes from what you have learned. if you know how to do something well in one you tend to think that program is better in that area but it's not necessarily.

 

 

 

Frankly you should have both if you're hardcore. 

 

 

They're both awesome programs and we're lucky to live in a time when we have access to both. Competition is a beautiful thing.

 

 

Overall, for me I came to 3d Coat late after struggling with Zbrush since it came out and frankly, 3d Coat is a much more creative clay like medium to me. Zbrush feels like I'm pushing a big plastic bag around trying to make it assume some form that I desire. 3D Coat feels like handling nice big slabs of fresh moist but firm clay that just responds to my desires and melds more fluidly. There's less little weird tricks that I have to learn and struggle with to do what needs to be done, unlike Zbrush which can drive me nuts trying to figure out how to do something that should be simple. 

 

In the end that's it; Zbrush is beautiful, glossy seductive like a reallly hot woman that drives you nucking futs because she's crazy. 3D Coat is like a very beautiful but down to earth lady that is always there for you.

Edited by L'Ancien Regime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@L'Ancien

 

Not sure when you last tried Zbrush but given the more sentiment based opinion of it... it looks like it has been a long time. Imagine if I described 3D Coat as missing PBR texture painting and lacking paint layers... thats how off your interpretation of Zbrush sounds. Though this could be in part due to not using a current build of it, just as someone might have an opinion of 3D Coat from long ago.

Objectively, its best to look at where the software stands now in its current form, the past versions or what was or wasnt there do not matter.

Regarding alpha quality, yes Zbrush's system gives far sharper and more detailed results. Zspheres are just one feature in zbrush, there are also curves in zbrush too. You can find them used in everything from specialty brushes to guides for autoretopo. Curves have a lot of uses in zbrush for select features.

When you mention clay... or the "clay feel" have you tried using the numerous clay brushes in zbrush? From Clay Buildup to Clay polish? There is even a wax shader, that when mixed with dynamesh and clay brushes gives it a very organic feel. It sounds odd when someone suggests zbrush doesnt feel very clay like... it really depends on the brushes used.

On the subject of struggling with it... I find that the hardest part people have trouble with when using zbrush is that they refuse to step back and look at it as something outside of the expectations tied to other software. For example, the file, edit, view menu items do not exist in the same way as they do in everything else. Its a kind of stubbornness from the user that makes it hard to adopt, I faced it myself at first. Step back and look at the application objectively, and what you see is a blank canvas with categories laid out on top. Each category, via menu, is just a collection of panels. These panels are just docked around on the interface but its really just a blank canvas with categories for the panels. Once you realize this it becomes one of the most easy to understand applications out there imo. Each panel is its own separate little UI and they make it easy to understand, especially with the help popups. Some of the best zbrush artist only use a fraction of the features, the simplicity is powerful in and of itself... trying to use everything can make it overwhelming. Same can be said with 3d coat.

There are really no weird tricks with zbrush that I can think of when it comes to the basics. Its pretty direct. Some of the extra features just require learning how to maximize their use, like shadowbox or the poly modeling features.

I highly recommend you give it another go and then look at each objectively to find out where the differences are in terms of one specific area... sculpting quality and time required to get best results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always working with it and it always comes off as gimmicky.

 

Gimmicky is an interesting word, again based on sentiment. What exactly feels gimmicky and define the terms/context to which that applies. If so can that be applied to 3D Coat features?

Once you start defining the terms and the context for which it is applied, such words either have real meaning or none at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course as a hobbyist user my requirements are much different than the pros.  Zbrush is way too expensive to even consider, hell it costs almost as much as my new system build.  3D-Coat is much better positioned in that aspect.  The other consideration is that there is no Linux version, might not be a big deal for a lot of people, but to me it's big.   In this day and age, especially with vfx software, there is no excuse for not having a Linux version.  Even Blender has a Linux version.  Just thought I would throw my 2 cents into the fray.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course as a hobbyist user my requirements are much different than the pros.  Zbrush is way too expensive to even consider, hell it costs almost as much as my new system build.  3D-Coat is much better positioned in that aspect.  The other consideration is that there is no Linux version, might not be a big deal for a lot of people, but to me it's big.   In this day and age, especially with vfx software, there is no excuse for not having a Linux version.  Even Blender has a Linux version.  Just thought I would throw my 2 cents into the fray.   :D

 

And that is a valid reason for not picking up zbrush. When working with a budget, 3d coat offers far more value in that regard...well technically so does Blender. Regarding vfx and linux... eh for sculpting its not really that important. Linux is more common for rendering out composited shots but the actual asset making is another story. I know of one VFX house personally, a big one, which has zbrush and maya for their PC machines and Mac for Nuke. The compositors get the elements created from the people who create them (2d/3d)(zbrush, maya, modo, after effects..ect) and then send it off to the in house render farm. If linux was so important in the element making process, we would see AE for it.

Linux is in an interesting position right now as well... windows 10 being an amazing release + Apple OS going with their own API really complicates things.

Edited by RabenWulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linux is in an interesting position right now as well... windows 10 being an amazing release + Apple OS going with their own API really complicates things.

 

 

I have noticed a lot more people moving to and having Linux questions lately.  I can't tell though, if you were being sarcastic with the Windows 10 comment?  :)  If Zbrush were more accessible I would definitely have tried it out.  Even though I'm a hobbyist and use Linux, I'm not adverse to spending some money on software I can use.  I have a education license for 3D-Coat and I have purchased Octane when it first came out.  I even spent way too much money on Pfhoe (matchmoving software), which doesn't exist anymore (it got rolled into Pftrack).  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimmicky is an interesting word, again based on sentiment. What exactly feels gimmicky and define the terms/context to which that applies. If so can that be applied to 3D Coat features?

Once you start defining the terms and the context for which it is applied, such words either have real meaning or none at all.

 

 

Look, I'm 62 years old. I have a  university degree in history from UBC (Times of London rated #32 in the world) 

 

I know exactly what I'm saying. Doing the simplest tasks when you're sculpting in Zbrush is a frustrating click fest. I don't want that. I want a straightfoward approach to sculpting and painting. 

 

Zbrush is getting maximum hype, and since it was first on the scene (actually it was second on the scene after Free Form Ghost)  and it has such a huge user base of professionals that it appears that it's superior mainly because of the sheer quantity of work that has had to be done on it. Ryan Kinglien, Zack Petroc and Scott Eaton have done fantastic things with Zbrush and that's great. 

 

But if you look closely you'll see that 3D Coat is creeping in to pro pipelines all over the place. The price is right and the workflow is very satisfying. The UI is vastly superior.

 

I can do stuff in 3d Coat that would take 3 or 4 times as much work in clicking and Google searching functions and workflows in Zbrush. 

 

I'll use 3d Coat thanks. Even in hair, it remains to be seen which is the best solution. I wish Andrew would produce a hair system that closely emulated Hair Farm (why oh why must Hair Farm be solely relegated to 3ds Max?) . That would be the best.

 

 

Right now I put 3d Coat in first place but in the long term the real competition is Blender. The EU is throwing 10 million a year at them in research development money.  And as Michaelgdrs has shown in his own work free Blender sculpting is a hot medium

 

Hot in the sense that a tiny Linux kernel with the tiny Blender kernel gives you  80 million polys to play with even on a mediocre desktop. 

 

If you forced me to quit 3d Coat, I'd go to blender thanks.

Edited by L'Ancien Regime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell though, if you were being sarcastic with the Windows 10 comment?   :)  If Zbrush were more accessible I would definitely have tried it out.  Even though I'm a hobbyist and use Linux, I'm not adverse to spending some money on software I can use.  I have a education license for 3D-Coat and I have purchased Octane when it first came out.  I even spent way too much money on Pfhoe (matchmoving software), which doesn't exist anymore (it got rolled into Pftrack).   :(

 

Not sarcastic at all regarding Windows 10. Its a great OS/update, easily the most significant since xp and 7. It certainly hinders the appeal of hopping on over to Linux at this point in time (imo). There is just not much to gain (software wise) by making such a move.The new CEO has been playing all the right cards so far, especially with the free update.

Regarding money and zbrush, well they do or at least did have an edu version, not sure if its still around. There's the trial too. Its value is really dependent upon the kind of work you do I suppose. Regarding tracking software, seems like Mocha has been playing their hand right as well as you can find Mocha lite bundled with apps like Hitfilm and I believe AE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm 62 years old. I have a  university degree in history from UBC (Times of London rated #32 in the world) 

 

I know exactly what I'm saying. Doing the simplest tasks when you're sculpting in Zbrush is a frustrating click fest. I don't want that. I want a straightfoward approach to sculpting and painting. 

 

Zbrush is getting maximum hype, and since it was first on the scene (actually it was second on the scene after Free Form Ghost)  and it has such a huge user base of professionals that it appears that it's superior mainly because of the sheer quantity of work that has had to be done on it. Ryan Kinglien, Zack Petroc and Scott Eaton have done fantastic things with Zbrush and that's great. 

 

.....snip

 

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.

Edited by RabenWulf

Share this post


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

×