Hi everybody,

I just signed on to the mudbox community. And I am overhelmed by the task of deciding what to download next :)

But I was wondering why there is no “reference” category?

Maybe the problem with this could be, that photographs of almost anything can be considered refrence in a given project. But I think the content on mudbox community shows that mudbox users are well abel to decide what can be considered useful, and there is the rating system too
- as is some content suited for the purpose on mudbox community allready. For instance some of the turtle photographs of ever great oglu provenance (words can’t be fancy enough to describe this guy :)

I’d also like to ask what you would generally consider as “good reference” (apart from beeing shot with a telephoto lens in light that brings out form well)? And more importantly whether You would be willig to share it; since good refrence usually doesn’t come cheap (well...same thing with good stencils, stamps and basemeshes).

What do you think?

as always...sorry for the bad English

All praise to Autodesk for the fairly priced Educational Suit!

you are right some of my images are ment for sculpting reference…
most of them are not useable for texture work…

vote also for a ref category..!

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christoph-schaedl/6/558/73b

This is a good suggestion.

A searchable scripts/plugins category would also be cool. This might encourage more people to delve into the SDK since no one (as far as im aware) aside from Wayne Robson has released anything of this nature to the community.

It would also be nice if there were a category for materials although materials are not easily exportable self contained files so Autodesk would need to give that some attention first :p.

oglu 27 September 2010 08:12 AM

most of them are not useable for texture work…

That is not something I wanted to imply!

As I am searching my hardrives for images to upload I was wondering what is better: Try to create a texture that is usable on every part of the image and hence cut away parts of texture pattern, or keep the pattern and let some parts of the image become unusable. I think the way texturing in mudbox works, the latter makes way more sense - especially for organic stuff.

(It is also a bit of a shame really. I mean, we have had several years of genetic engineering now, and what have those guys done to come up with square elephant legs? Nothing, absolutely nothing! ;)

as always...sorry for the bad English

All praise to Autodesk for the fairly priced Educational Suit!