Autodesk Decides to Reinvest in Mudbox

Autodesk Decides to Reinvest in Mudbox

Autodesk has decided to reinvest in its digital sculpting and retopology software after several years of minimal product updates.

Autodesk has decided to reinvest in its digital sculpting and retopology software called Mudbox after several years of minimal product updates. According to the company’s AREA forum and the messages of senior product manager Jill Ramsay, Autodesk is not done with the tool yet. 

Art by HJ Park

The official Mudbox blog was all about silence after the release of Mudbox 2015. Autodesk started to integrate Mudbox functionality into Maya and Maya LT, so the customers were wondering if the tool was due to be retired.

The Mudbox 2018.1 update doesn’t actually bring new features, but the release means that the company is not done with the tool. Jill Ramsay states that the release “fixed over 75 major bugs, including some that go back to Mudbox v1, like not being able to undo subdvision”.

I know things have been slow for the last couple of years (to put it mildly), and I understand your frustration, but we are getting back on track.

We added a lot of functionality to Maya from Mudbox, but Mudbox remains a very viable standalone option, and we decided to reinvest in it starting this summer.

The fact that we [chose] to address stability and quality first [indicates] that we are serious about keeping Mudbox viable. It would have been easier to spend the time we spent on bug fixing adding a couple of features, but in the long run, the team decided it wasn’t the right order to do things in.

Jill Ramsay 

Join discussion

Comments 6

  • Snipsnip

    One works with clay one works with mud, choose your poison.



    ·2 years ago·
  • Juggulator

    ZBrush is king of sculpting software. In my opinion Zbrush  is far more intuitive and gives a more robust system like drag/retract brushes.



    ·3 years ago·
  • Anmator

    Even without the recent updates - still prefer Mudbox simplicity and just works over zbrush backwards UI and workflows, and price can't be beat - sept blegh! blender.



    ·3 years ago·
  • Roman

    Cool beans, but why would the customers get back into it after such a treatment? I suppose, the majority of the industry is using Zbrush by now. There are also options like 3dCoat. These developers have been pushing out massive updates regularly. Why would the artists give up their current workflows and techniques going into a software, that could get discontinued at any moment. Autodesk will have pull out some real badass features if they want the artists to even look Mudbox's way.



    ·3 years ago·
  • Claydough

    That's fine!
    But I hope they continue and port those advancements over to Maya!

    Mudbox as a brush based sculpt engine that is stand alone...
    or integrated into their Entertainment & Media DCC.
    I am more empowered developing upon the years(nearly decades now!) I have invested in Maya.
    I was depending on leveraging Mudbox sculpt API's into my Maya pipeline where connections and attributes can be leveraged against 18 years of my own code library investment into Maya ( and as a replacement/improvement to Artisan artContexts )

    Everything is starting to suffer/show their age within their E&M stable?
    Hopefully something new from the ground up ( the way Maya and XSI delivered from such ground up architecture planning assuring longevity/relativity ) is in the works by now?

    In which case,
    Stingray assets leveraged as a realtime component? for not only realtime development but for general DCC viewport feed back? ( Viewport 3.0! )
    Art as Engine instead of art to engine for the next round of next gen. More DCC development is bound to migrate to the popular engines as long as realtime considerations in DCC are mere afterthought?

    3D coat is the only DCC app I know of where a hardcore sculpting paradigm ( except Artisan/PaintFX which merely aged behind the times ) wasn't added as an afterthought.
    A revolutionary ground up architecture would need to be served with IP like Mudbox integrated from the start at it's core in addition to that realtime engine emphasis!

    Indie Development would certainly be better served by such a new integrated realtime DCC stand-alone? Instead of a plethora of different environments/applications each necessitating re-inventing solving some of the same problems!

    ( A huge reason I keep eying the Fabric Engine's Unreal and Unity beta attempts! develop once! Sounds like a dream! )



    ·3 years ago·
  • Ivan




    ·3 years ago·

You might also like

We need your consent

We use cookies on this website to make your browsing experience better. By using the site you agree to our use of cookies.Learn more