You can do this right now, between Maya/Max/Soft and Mudbox, its only the single step interop isn't quite as tight as it is with Maya. But essentially its FBX underneath.
As for GoZ, that's really down to Pixologic, sure there's an SDK like there is with FBX, but as someone has said, why would Autodesk support that when, imo, we have a perfectly viable and production proven alternative to zBrush with Mudbox and also a tighter interop and data exchange then GoZ.

True, but Mudbox is just playing catch up with ZBrush at this point. Capabilities of ZBrush far outweight those in Mudbox. I do like the interoperability between Mudbox and Softimage (except if you send back to XSI it doesn't update the mesh you sent out ie: A rigged mesh's geo).

The interop Hub needs an SDK so we can help build pipeline tools to other apps. It'd be the considerate thing to do from AD as we're not just talking about other 3D apps that need to interact with the AD software but also our own custom apps and pipeline tools.

Actually when I said a GOZ for Mudbox I was referring exactly what it sounded like... from ZB directly into Mudbox to Paint or do some Morphs, if I wanted to import a 1 or 5 million poly's Object into Mud from ZB why would I want to go through Maya/Max/Soft first?

I know its completely unrealistic to even think about it, but...

In some areas yes, others no. It's only on the modelling that zBrush has the jump on Mudbox, but Mudbox isn't that far behind. I think many people forget how good Mudbox is, but many are just more familiar with zBrush and I can see why.

The Autodesk interop is obviously built with Autodesk apps in mind and there is some SDK capability for it, but its all around FBX. I have seen other studios build similar interop work flows with their own tools and formats, or they've taken the FBX SDK itself and done something else.

As for GoZ, well honestly I think the ball lays in Pixologics court and I'm surprised they don't do something. I think they're missing a few tricks, some of the recent previews and features do look very good indeed, but personally people seem to be easily sucked in. What would zBrush users rather have - hair or a much improved GoZ interop with their 3D package?

Third party developers not convinced xsi has a bright future under autodesk? Shocking news.




Would much rather have a good hair styling tool inside 3D package and a batter GoZ interop. Well, in our case a GoZ at all, but thats a different story (people, do bother pixologic when you've got time). They must have identified hair as a weakness they need to exploit. Im not surprised people got excited about it.

SolidAngle, Chaos Group and Exocortex don't seem to have a problem.




Well that's kinda my point, was hair really a weakness for zBrush? I'm not sure it was. And since they have added it, is it any better than the hair tools in the other 3D apps, well no, not really.

hey who needs GoZ when you can right-click to set a pivot in Softimage?

seriously though, everyone is using ZBrush already without problem, having GoZ is just gravy on top, that means it's low priority, just cool to have.

Apparently the GoZ SDK is free surely one of you guys could knock out an XSI. From what I can tell, I think you don't need any more services from XSI; your problem is hooking to the running Zbrush session, which I assume the GoZ SDK does. You don't need a Sent To SDK for Softimage, LW, Modo and other apps do not have one and they have GoZ.

So back to the topic of this thread "SI Technology Previews" you got anymore for us???

I have just returned from 2 weeks in the US on business, so haven't had the time. Not sure I will now to be honest, besides you guys are too hard to please.

SolidAngle should not be on your list as they don't sell their product to most artists, I've been trying to get them to sell me a license of Arnold for over a year