Zbrush Vs Mudbox

For those of you experienced in both (I have only a couple of hours' experience in ZBrush), how capable is Mudbox in comparison?

I'd love to own ZBrush, but it's not in the cards at the moment. I may be able to get my hands on (legally) the entire Entertainment Creation Suite from Autodesk, which includes Mudbox.

Again, I'm sure ZBrush has many more features, but just how much of a step down is Mudbox from ZBrush, realistically?

I looked into it a little more, and Mudbox is available for $10/mo. That's 15 months of Mudbox for the cost of ZBrush Core, though ZBrush core is a permanent license.

What I don't see in Mudbox, which I think would be exceptionally useful, is hollowing models for 3d Printing, which is available in ZBrush Core, though Mudbox does not include several tools that are in ZBrush Core. Besides, I'd rather have the full ZBrush program than just Core.

What should I be looking for, in reality? I'm a modeler and not a sculptor, so I'm looking for accomplished sculptors' opinions.

Download them both and try.

Got it.

I just thought I'd see if anyone (experienced) might have had any suggestions for someone who has had as much as ten minutes' experience in sculpting programs and saved some double-work.

I'm pretty sure ZBrush is the winner (no mud on my shoes), and is critical to my 3D print workflow, but I suggest you use whatever you can and focus on design, being creative and rounding out your niche in the 'marketplace'. Hopefully you have a tablet. -S

Thank you.

Yup, though not a Cintiq.

Yeah, I figured ZBrush would be the clear winner, and if I had the extra cash right now, I'd pick it up in a heartbeat. I just didn't know how much lower Mudbox was on the totem pole, though now I do see that just getting used to sculpting is the goal right now. I've always been a pretty mechanical modeler in the past, but I'd love to do more organic forms and even get into figural sculpting, and I can see where a sculpting program would be more efficient than a modeling program for suck things.

My concern in this thread is mostly how both of those programs relate to their usefulness to 3d printing. I know that great art is created regardless of the tools. I saw that even the Core version of ZBrush has a shell function and I didn't see that mentioned in the Mudbox features, and it wasn't clear, other than the basic fact that it's for sculpting, if Mudbox had any features useful to 3d printing.

Thank you for your reply.

As you said, Zbrush has a lot more features, it also handles higher level of detail better than any other.
I don't think Mudbox has anything that helps printing, but there's a lot of free programs to help, and allow for more precision.
I love using mexhmixer to shell things, and then boolean exit holes in blender.
Meshmixer also has a function like zremesher, but definitely not as good.
Sculptris can help you get the hang of navigating in the meantime.

Psst. Unlimited 45-day ZBrush trial this way -> https://pixologic.com/zbrush/trial/. I'm told you can make a different email and basically have the trial indefinitely, if you're so inclined.

As for usability, ZBrush is a giant pain in the arse to learn, unlike Mudbox (from what I hear, I've never used the latter). The UI is unlike anything you see in other 3D tools, and you have to go through some seemingly meaningless motions in the course of regular workflows.

That said, it's extremely functional and useful once you get accustomed to it. Automated remeshing, alphas, ZModeler, the list stretches to the horizon. I'd argue that, if you have a tablet and lots of time (and/or enthusiasm), ZBrush is well worth your while to learn. It depends on how much you want to do sculpting versus low-poly, of course.

Thank you for your replies.

I've decided against Mudbox, as cheap as it is per month.

I'll go with the Trial of ZBrush for now, and with any luck, I'll be able to purchase it at the end of the trial.

At least they seem to have plenty of training materials available for those testing it.

Why is there so much debate around this topic. Anyway I think mudbox is better

because there is just way better support for mudbox than there is for z brush.
found this community which is crazy for mudbox. https://hackr.io/tutorials/learn-mudbox

Your last comment is dubious given the popularity of ZBrush over Mudbox, but I'm glad to hear that there is some sort of user support for Mudbox.

I guess at this point my only concern about getting a sculpting program is having the ability to add some skin texture as well as cracks and various fabric texture geometry to modeled objects.

HOWEVER, I hope there are other Mudbox user sites as I refuse to visit one with the domain hackr.io.

Thanks for the clarification. Even i am having same doubt to use either ZBrush or Mudbox. Now i decided to consider using ZBrush.

Did not use any of the mentioned program, but I'm quite happy with 3dCoat, its pretty cheap also.
But then again, i use it alongside with C4d and sometimes Rhino.

I would pick ZBrush.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along totally agree with what you have said! Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often

I can't stop playing Flappy Bird. It makes me happy. Thanks for this great game.

There isn't a process that is better than the other; it just comes down to your preferences. ZBrush and Mudbox each use their own method to obtain the optimized topology you require. Mudbox uses the Retopologize function, while ZBrush uses the ZRemesher tool to create its topology.