Blendersculpt vs. Mudbox

:smiley: Since some time, some CG forums have been exposed to massive artworks “made by mudbox” and I must admit they are… well… impressive seems a weak word to describe some of these things…

:rolleyes: Did someone tried Mudbox AND Blendersculpt?

If yes, what are your impressions?

:smiley: I played a bit with mudbox because one friend of mine was in the beta… and I tried Blendersculpt… Both are very comfortable to use… and have a fast learning curve. Both do practically the same thing.
But Mudbox ask for a heavy duty PC because of all the subdivs… Blendersculpt too…

In fact, I am posting because I can’t see the differences between the two :slight_smile:

Maybe it’s a good sign (sculpt will be in Blender 2.43 right?)

:rolleyes: But I didn’t play long enough with both to be 100% affirmative. Maybe some advanced feature I know nothing about will make one shine upon the other…

:smiley: feel free to complete…

depends I guess on pc/mac power. I have’nt played with mudbox only zbrush demo and on my paltry machine (1.8 Ghz AMD, 768 Mb RAM, GF5600) I can subdivide to a comfortable level (800K to 1M polygons) and have been able to use the program without conking out the PC. Blendersculpt however max’s my PC at 400K polygons. Mudbox is supposed to be capable of 15M polygons…so time to buy that beastly machine I guess. Also mudbox like zbrush probable support masking whereas blendersculpt does not (that I know of).
So hopefully the community will improve the opensource blendersculpt to trully compete with mudbox/zbrush/modo/silo/hexagon. Must admit though its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay easier to use than zbrush and the learning curve is extremely “fat person on a bike moving really fast up a hill” friendly…

Policy here is to close these “vs.” threads.

BgDM