Skip to main content



Chat about problems or anything relating to game art creation here.


Anyone here using a touchscreen tablet to do their artwork? I'm sorta kicking myself since I bought a laptop a few months ago, and it didn't occur to me to get a touchscreen tablet so I can use it to draw as well. Apart from not detecting pressure sensitivities, it seems like a pretty cool alternative to a graphics tablet (if you're in the market for a laptop also). Plus, you'd be ready for Windows 7 which will have touchscreen functions.


I've been tryingto figure out why my UVW keeps on dying when I export my mesh out of zbrush and open it up in max, I did a simple test and I don't even have to touch the mesh to break it with zbrush.

my guess is that it could be max thats causing the problems when I'm exporting it, I just had a look at the .obj in blender and the uvw has been broken up into tris.

Submitted by Adromaw on Sun, 14/09/08 - 1:04 AM Permalink

Now that you mention it I recall you helping me with that Tej with the last character assignment. For some reason (we still don't know) it was the opposite method than we expected to export it as. I think in my case it was assumed to export as quads, but it ended up needing to be tris? I forget the exact details all I know it was contrary to what we thought and we went through it for a couple of hours. Remember me sending those black and rainbow tri checkered maps? heh.

Tristan, try using the other option to what you've been doing. I assume you are still using x-normal? (which I tried at the time, didn't like it personally)

and yes obj's have uvw's, the modding community would have little use for it if it didn't.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 19/09/08 - 12:14 PM Permalink

thanks but none of that is much help sadly :'( for the mean time I'll be finishing sculpting my landscpe in zbrush almost finished that, then I'll see if unwrappign it helps to fix the problem, I have an idea what my be causing it so I guess we shale find out, I know how to export correctly I even tested it out on tris, polys and quads none worked so I think the main source of the problem comes from I think the channels, or something allong the lines and is confusing my mesh and that I speak of it I seem to remember that obj's can some times be abit finiky with channels.

thanks for the help any ways ^^


I'm abit of a mudbox fan boy :P but has any one seen this yet on mudbox 2009 I was pretty impressed with what mudbox can do now ^^

Submitted by souri on Mon, 28/07/08 - 12:44 PM Permalink

What's the consensus with Mudbox vs Zbrush? Which is considered better?

Submitted by ScottS on Mon, 28/07/08 - 1:39 PM Permalink

tough question souri, but generally, mudbox 1.07 has a cleaner interface and is a lot easier to learn, you can get into sculpting right away with no fuss.
Zbrush3 has an overwhelming interface and when I started I found the workflow confusing, but it has many more features than mudbox and has better performance(You can get way more detail into your models), you can also paint textures, pose and render your models. I believe ZBrush is also cheaper. Zbrush also has many more sculpting tools than Mudbox.

So ZBrush3 is better in features and performance while Mudbox has a better workflow, IMO.

Submitted by tojo on Sun, 07/09/08 - 1:33 AM Permalink

zbrush is a 'greater' 'more encompassing' package.... heaps of very innovative and cool features.

you really have to take the time to kinda play with them all to understand how powerful it is..

mudbox is kinda awesome as an instant sculpt package..

if i had to choose one i would definitely choose zbrush, as an all in one 3d application to compliment your major 3d package and of course photoshop..

awsome for creating textures as well

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 19/09/08 - 12:17 PM Permalink

id have to agree with you on that, but I personally find that zbrush is a easier tool to use than mudbox and can do more in a fast time period, I do like the look of autodesks new release but I'm not really a huge fan of autodesk.


Hey all,

I'm looking to set up a website for myself in the next month or so. I don't have any probs using dreamweaver ect and my partner is a graphic designer, so making something wouldn't be a prob. However I really want something that looks good but is super easy to update. Right now im looking at adding significant amounts of work between now and the end of the year and I just don't any excuses (ie. my own laziness) for not uploading it straight away.

Are there any web gallery type set ups that you can use on your own site? Any help would be appreciated.

Submitted by Johnn on Sat, 19/04/08 - 11:59 AM Permalink

I regularly run into the same excuse for not uploading new content to my website. I think the ideal solution is to set up a CMS (content management system) so you can create new pages and/or upload content directly from a browser interface. It's not something that I know much about and can't recommend where to start researching it.

Another option is to use a blog and tailor it to suit your needs.

Submitted by souri on Sat, 19/04/08 - 1:46 PM Permalink

Try out Joomla. It's geared towards that kind of stuff. It's super easy to use and update, and it has tonnes of support as well as modules and templates to use. I'd recommend it for personal sites, blogs, or company websites, but if you're planning a big community site, I'd recommend something else.

Submitted by Mitch P on Sat, 19/04/08 - 6:28 PM Permalink

Thanks Souri, Ill take a proper a look at that. Seems a bit technical but maybe once I get it running it will be worth it in terms of keeping my portfolio up to date :)

Submitted by souri on Mon, 21/04/08 - 2:44 AM Permalink

Yeh, to be honest I've only really checked out Joomla and Drupal since they're the two most well known php cms's to do a big site. Either is good, but they're probably a bit overkill for a blog. You might want to check out Wordpress or something like that I guess (I haven't really mucked around with that though, and I have no idea how good it's with for galleries and images, but I would imagine that they have tonnes of modules for it).


Let's get this artist discussion going again shall we.

I'm trying to set up an animated scene in 3ds max for a preview animation for a 3d game concept. It's for a fps game and the scene is going to be seen through the eyes of the player.

What sort of field of view and lens length should i set the camera to, I have been playing around with quite a few settings but none of them feel 'right'.

Any help is greatly appreciated.


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 24/07/08 - 9:12 AM Permalink

Around 80 degrees horizontal FOV is a common first person shooter lens setting. That works out to being approximately a 24mm lens (35mm film equivalent)

It's a choice for practicality and gameplay reasons... people don't look good shot with such a wide lens, but you need that FOV so you can see around you.

That's why it's important, during cutscenes or whenever, to cut to a longer lens more typically used during portrait photography 20-40* (70-135mm lens) which makes people look more heroic.


2kgames has a BioShock artbook for download which has the amazing art and concepts for the game. It contains some spoilers though, but it's definitely a nice gesture from 2k / Irrational. I wish more companies did this!

Artbook here!

Submitted by Johnn on Wed, 15/08/07 - 3:00 AM Permalink

sweet - thanks for posting the link Souri.

Just had a quick look through, the book looks great. It is a very generous gesture from 2k/Irrational.


Hi forum! We haven't spoken in a while I know, uni = ben death (TM)

I was hoping someone could help me with this;

1. This is what the geometry looks like just in shaded view (ignore the image plane in the BG)

2. Here it is the second I hit 5 to toggle on shaded texture view, this is how it should look but it only stays like this until I do anything, bump the view port, select things, etc.

3. Here's what happens and what I'm hoping someone can help me with... I've had this happen on more then one occasion over the years. Does anyone know whats causing the shading to just completely disappear? I've checked the material attributes, its not that. Ive also had this happen to me on my PC at home and a Mac, two completely different machines. When I render it it appears shaded as expected but its still a nuisance to work with. Anyone?

Oh currently using 8.5 btw

Submitted by Malus on Mon, 13/08/07 - 5:31 PM Permalink

Possibly reasons:
- you turned on use all lighting (press 7) and the vertex colour is white.
- you turned on use no lights.
- I know you said the material was fine but you may have set the materials incandescence to white.

For a possible fix, look under lighting at the top left of view port and change to use default lighting.
If that doesn't work ctrl+A, find material, change incandescence to black.

Submitted by MoonUnit on Wed, 15/08/07 - 4:00 AM Permalink

Thanks for the help Malus. It appears I've found out what it was. If I change the render settings in the view port from default to highest it renders the shadows but moves a lot laggier. It seems its maya trying to compensate quality to run smoothly. No one else has ever seen this happen to them before though?


Ah, this blows. It's one of those stories you hate hearing about. I've never heard of this guy before, but Glen Angus worked at Raven Software as a senior artist, and he just recently passed away due to an aneurysm.

Here's his CGSociety gallery. He was a damn talented fellow.

Souri2007-07-24 08:44:58


Just after people's opinions on which is the better package for displacement/normal map generation?

I'd like to purchase one of these products, but I've heard mixed reviews. I've played briefly with a friend's copy of ZBrush and I found its interface confusing - until I figured out the relationship between the 2.5d canvas and working on a brush.

But ZBrush seems to be the industry standard, yes?

Alternatively I've been told that Mudbox has a more functional interface, and a more familiar work process, but lacks some of the capabilities of ZBrush - and moreso, it's not really used widely in this industry.

Anyway, any opinions you could share with me about these packages would be greatly appreciated!

<3 boon

Submitted by Malus on Tue, 24/07/07 - 2:21 PM Permalink

depends on what you are trying to accomplish and how often you use the product.

Yes Zbrush3 is still an unintuitive interface too those new too it but if you are too use it daily that will soon pass.

And Mudbox does have less features at this point in time but ask yourself, do you need those features?

I'd scour the MB and ZB forums, look at the features sets and if possible get some hands on experience before writing either of them off.

I find it hard to choose myself, I love just being able to get into MB and sculpt away but I do find myself drooling over some of the newer ZB3 features. Hell get em both.
Malus2007-07-24 04:25:40

Submitted by Killa Dee on Sat, 28/07/07 - 10:50 AM Permalink

i was going to post this the other day but the login and password had expired. It's working again now, not sure 4 how long. If you get a chance some of these zbrush3 tutes, may help u to evaluate zbrush3. Wacking mallet and lazy mouse FTW!

login: 3dtedu
password: 3dtedu

4 some weird reason firefox hates me, when i try the login WEIRD! use IE if joo have any problamos.

4 nomral map / ambient occlusion generation check out xnormal Killa Dee2007-07-31 04:02:20

Submitted by artofsw on Sun, 20/12/09 - 8:50 AM Permalink

At first glance, and try out. Mudbox was much easier to pickup than zbrush. Zbrush seems to do a lot more than mudbox. I would like to know more about the 2 programs and how they differ from each other. Would like to hear more from people who use it daily. Any tips on the best way to start a model and texture it and keep the high and low poly versions. process?

Submitted by Snacuum on Sun, 20/12/09 - 7:02 PM Permalink

For me it's Zbrush. I spent a good while l learning how to use mudbox and then when I brought my model in it had a spaz. Sure, I know I'm a royal noob and had triangles in my model, but zbrush ran with it while mudbox lost the plot.

But I agree that Zbrush is confusing, it would be nice if pixologic got over themselves and realized that a great deal of people picking up zbrush today use it just for sculpting and not the still finishing, and therefore make an interface that reflects our 3d not 2.5d mindset.

Submitted by Flash on Tue, 29/12/09 - 11:08 AM Permalink

I did a talk at GCAP09 which touched on this exact topic.

Basically, here's my thinking (as an industry employee):

Assume you speak to a driver who aims to race professionally with the Ferrari team. He's pretty damn awesome, and because of his skillset, he's been offered either a McLaren or a Ferrari to train in. What would you recommend?

Sure, they're both fast cars, and they both have 4 wheels. But it's the subtle differences that professionals are bound to master, and it's the mastery of those subtleties that make the professional.

In a nutshell: If the industry uses Zbrush, learn zbrush. Seriously, if you can learn maya, zBrush is a piece of cake.

In terms of generation: there's no right way of doing it. I use a multitude of tools to get the best result. xNormal, zbrush, crazybump, photoshop. Its all about using the strengths of each program :)

-Adam Rudd

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/02/10 - 8:38 AM Permalink

A vote for zbrush here.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/12/10 - 9:11 PM Permalink

Not used Mudbox yet. I have just started using Zbrush because of its popularity. Heard that it is way to ahead Mudbox. Mudbox might me much user friendly, but my vote goes to zbrush....

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 23/12/10 - 10:35 AM Permalink

Basically what it boils down to is features and cost. While Mudbox has the ease of use down pat, it is also owned by Autodesk, who's current obsession is to have a yearly subscription based model. zBrush is owned by a much smaller company pixologic, who not only love and are passionate about their product, they currently offer free upgrades to all license holders. Whether this will last forever, who knows, but for now the $500ish price point is fantastic value for money. It also has most every feature you could ask for. Advanced, customisable sculpting tools, retopology features (much better than max/maya and imo better than having to use a 3rd package like topogun). It does mesh painting, image planes, mesh project, has an optimise plugin so you aren't bringing in billion tri meshes into your 3d package of choice. Haven't really used any of the baking tools in zbrush though, I prefer a dedicated solution like xnormal to handle that.

tldr version: zBrush is well worth the money. Mudbox is too simple and is owned by Autodesk, who seem to want to monopolise the 3D industry.

Subscribe to Artists