are maya sculpting tools sufficient for an organic modelling scrub?

>>557812
No the sculpting toolkit is horrible. Get an old copy of Mudbox if you really want to do this.

>>557816
what's the biggest distinction between maya and mudbox's toolset that wouldn't fly over my head?

File: maya_2017-03-26_04-25-44.png (60KB, 1018x192px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1018x192px

>>557817
The basic sculpting tools are pretty much the same now. The differences lie more in the interface and how the programs perform under stress.

First off, mudbox has access to stamps and stencils, which help to quickly add features to a mesh, and also to create different maps to use in other programs. It also has materials that are conducive to showing you more minute surface details under ideal lighting, an essential tool for real-life sculpting that naturally migrated over to sculpting software. These materials are quickly interchangeable with the press of a button, which is very convenient when you want to see how your mesh is turning out.

This is anecdotal to my experience with a pipeline between both softwares: Maya does not handle large poly counts as well as Mudbox does. A scene with anything more than 200k+ polygons can bring Maya to its knees, even on a 1080, while Mudbox will happily chug along past that.

Mudbox's interface is also much cleaner out of the box, more fitting for something you would have in real life: a lazy susan, a few tools and a light, though I think Maya handles image planes more elegantly.

In reality, you wouldn't sculpt anything in Maya. You would block out a base mesh there, take it to Mudbox, wrap up your mesh there and try to retopologize as much as you can, then bring that back to Maya at a sensible poly count. The sculpting tools in Maya are there for slight adjustments post-Mudbox.

Hope this helps you.

>>557819
thanks for the insight i really appreciate it. it's super rare to get such a thing on this board so i won't try to waste it. it's still a bit disconcerting that i'll invariably need another suite of tools for sculpting. i was hoping i could stick to an internal workflow without causing a detriment to my own productivity.

>>557819
Good answer anon. Also should mention that Maya and Mudbox have a nice 1-click exchange and also if you're comfortable with the Maya interface you can get up and running with Mudbox immediately.

>>557820
>it's super rare to get such a thing on this board so i won't try to waste it.

It was the Karen image. Cute animeshit always gets me in the end.

>it's still a bit disconcerting that i'll invariably need another suite of tools for sculpting. i was hoping i could stick to an internal workflow without causing a detriment to my own productivity.

Don't be scared of multi-software workflows. Like >>557821 touched on, the Maya-to-Mudbox pipeline is user-friendly in an almost Apple ecosystem-like way. Transferring meshes between programs is about as effortless as it gets, and if you can get used to Maya's interface, Mudbox's interface is seriously like, 10% of that.

It is a once-in-a-lifetime experience thing to sculpt something organic like a human body in Mudbox (though I imagine zbrush works just as well for this) and then turn on the marble material on the resulting mesh. You feel like Michelangelo on steroids once you see the light accumulating in all the nooks and crannies of your model.

>>557819
Does opensubdiv help with polycount issues?