Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Np. I want to give a quick blender tip for you. Your background images aren't align correctly from the front and side view and that maybe causing some issues when your modeling. You may want to adjust the side profile with the x and y bars where you added the background image in Blender. If you look at the jaw, chin, eye or any other part of the face, the front profile does not align with the side profile.
Thanks, I will make this adjustments and restart and maybe my topology will be better.
If the OP has made a morph target in Hexagon, presumably they already have it. :)
I use Hexagon, but I've never tried Blender, because I could figure out Hexagon pretty quickly and didn't see a need to learn something else. (Not saying that Blender's extra features aren't worth learning, just that I'm not sure I'd actually use them)
So I'm going to second the "download them both and see which one clicks" crowd. Unless you think you're going to want the extra features of Blender. Then go with Blender. :)
...my point. When just finding one's way around a programme's interface also has about as steep a learning curve as the one for learning modelling, it can give one feeling that he/she is making little to no progress and thus lends to fostering discouragement with the entire process.
As to Hexagon's mapping. That most likely will be one feature which will see improvemnt in the upgrade.
If you want an easier time learning what you can't and can do, go with Hexagon. If you're willing to commit a substantial amount of time (and frustration) but have a lot more options available, go with Blender. Blender's a more "complete' package than Hexagon, but it's balls to get used to, even with all the improvements with the interface. Hexagon's more streamlined and natively works with DAZ and its products (particularly the Genesis lines), but isn't as feature heavy should you want to expand your repertoire.
....but it still is a good starting point to develop the basic foundation with less frustration.
...and again, there may be more in store for Hexagon in the updated version.
I agree with Kyoto Kid, Hexagon just feels right to me and Blender drives me nuts. Hexagon is supposed to get some updates and improvements, although I am still waiting for Cararra 9 which was supposed to be released a few years ago, so we will see if they actually happen. You should probably download Blender and see which you prefer. As far as tutorials for Hexagon, I like these on YouTube. They have a total of 26 videos on Hexagon.
Hey, just in case you never checked it out, go into the addons and enable pie menues I think it is called. It's a pretty decent option for more of a mouse centric workflow, worth checking out. Highly customizable as well.
Pie Menus are enabled by default in Blender 2.79
For me, Hex was super easy to learn. for some others it seems not so much. For me, Blender is more difficult to learn, for some others it seems not so much. Either one is capable of creating great models. Blender gives you more "growth" (i.e a full featured 3D softwware, it has sculpting, etc.), but if Hex fits your needs, and "clicks" with you, then that's a great place to start (most of the skills learned for making a 3D model are "transferable"). IIRC DzFire does all of his modeling in Hex, and he makes some amazing stuff.
...indeed, for non organic modelling (which is what I am into) Hexagon is perfect. Not into creating a character or critter from scratch as that is extremely complex process to get right.
For pure organic modelling, a programme like ZBrush is more appropriate as that is it's strength. A good number of the special character shapes and morphs we have here in the store have been created with it.
"Both are free..."
Has DAZ announced if renewed Hexagon will remain free? If it develops a significant price tag, that might be an issue for some* making this learning choice.
*(perhaps not the OP, who can afford ZBrush).
When I tried Blender years ago it struck me that it was made by geeks - in a committee. There was no way I was going to fit in with that. Perhaps I'll try again later when more time is available.
As I've tried Hexagon on and off over the years, it always reminds me it's another program purchased by DAZ. Rather charming at heart, old and dusty, half-working and three-quarters dead. So now DAZ is going to connect it to some electrodes as a lighting storm passes by, and shout "it's alive!". But will it, like Carrara and Bryce, open its eyes, wriggle for a while and then slump back onto the slab? You have to admit, there is a trend.
I'm more tempted to try something like Modo; a (non-insanely priced) pro package that has a good chance of continued development by a small team focused on a creative but efficient workflow for artist-techs who don't have time to prat about with a baroque UI or pick up the pieces after yet-another-crash-that's-never-fixed.
...I am hoping that those who already have Hexagon will at least be offered a special upgrade discount if the new version does have a price.
Modo used to be somewhat reasonable, but at 1,800$ for the full perpetual licence (plus 400$ yearly upgrade fee), that isn't an option any more unless I win a lotto.
To be honest, I bought zbrush when it was r3...it was too good of a price to ignore, given the upgrades for life! $250 i think...one day i will justify the purchase i hope!
Yeah, I bought in way early too, thankfully. As good as it is, no way am I paying 1000+ for the software.
I had to laugh when I read that. Probably the most accurate description of Blender, at least the early versions.
Writing code is an entirely different skillset from designing user interfaces. And clearly Blender suffered from some great coders who couldn't design a UI. I mean, deciding to use a right mouse click to select stuff? Possibly the only application in the universe where an RMB is used. Although clearly not in the same league as ZBrush when it comes to UI's. In fact, after trying the trial version of ZBrush, my computer will no longer allow me to install any version of ZBrush ever again. It's strange.
What actually is so bad about ZBrush UI? Besides being completely configurable including colors, something that not many applications have, everything is in pretty simple menus. The top menus are the same as the side menus, you simply dock them left or right as you please. Dead easy to configure shortcuts too. I can understand some of the alien feel coming from navigation and just the sheer amount of functionality, and perhaps some weird terminology. But purely from a UI point of view? Doesn't seem all that bad.
Likey, likey, likey!
Blender 2.8 is scheduled for release on July 1, 2018. I'll be glad. There is a page at Blender.org with all the new features and re-writes in Blender 2.8
I'll put in a plug for Blender as well. I use on every product. I have and use Zbrush, 3d Coat, Substance Painter, and Marvelous Designer, but Blender's where I started and I still go back to it for UV mapping, for many base models, for morphs up to SubD 2, and for workup and cleanup. I loathe Zbrush's polygon modeler, it's hideously counerintuitive to me (but don't get me wrong, not everyone feels that way - Slosh and Mec4D have both done great things with it to name two); I primarily use the program for sculpting normals and occasionally for painting creature skin through the Spotlight. 3d Coat I use when Substance Painter fails me on setting up a good diffuse with my brushes (less and less often now) or when I need to paint/stamp onto transparency (that Zbrush still won't do this after so many versions still annoys me).
Blender's UI is difficult. There's much more documentation now than when I started, but it can still be frustrating when you need to find out "where's the button that does X?" and it has a different name from every other program. I still and always have sort of a love/hate relationship with it. But exploring its various weird functionalities has only ever benefited me. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of the fluid and particle sims to name two, even occasionally the primitive hair and cloth sim. It is powerful and functional once you get to know it.
..so what is this Blender 101? So is it finally getting true pointer navigation in the viewport so one no longer has to use the clunky keybaord commands to move about the workspace?
Kind of looks like the Daz camer a cube in a way.
In my opinion at this time both Hexagon and DAZ Studio itself are pretty limited compared to Blender. Specially for animation and effects. I use Studio mainly to export DAZ assets to Blender.
That said, if your goal are still pictures and you like painting effects with GIMP or Photoshop, then Hexagon + Studio is a good choice anyway. The main weakness I see in Hexagon is the lack of a sculpting tool for displacement maps. But if you have Z-Brush I guess it's not an issue.
EDIT. As for the Blender interface, I come from Lightwave that's similar in the use of shortcuts to improve productivity. So I felt quite comfortable with Blender from the start. Apart the rmb that you can however customize in the preferences. And I feel shortcuts are really essential when you dig into actual production. I can't loose time to select menus or change widgets. I want a clear viewport and shortcuts to get the tools I need in zero time. I couldn't live without shortcuts.
Learning Blender was made dramatically easier for me when I went into User Settings and changed Blender to use the left mouse button for selection. That would be my #1 tip for people trying to learn Blender or testing both Hexagon and Blender to see which one they like.
It's not that right-click selection would be an insurmountable obstacle, but the problem is it's the default, and Blender isn't consistent: when right-click selection is enabled, you select things in the 3D view by right-clicking them, but in other windows such as the outliner, you must left-click. Changing that one setting makes Blender's UI consistent and more intuitive. IMO, the default setting is stupid, and it's the thing most likely to lead to a bad first impression when new users try out the program.
Now that I think about it, I think I may have taken so well to blender and ZB way of doing things because I am an old fashioned keyboard and mouse gamer lol. I am used to having one hand on KB and one hand on mouse, and hitting keys on instinct. I still get mad in DS soemtimes when I try to alt drag outside of the renderframe to rotate camera and it don't do nothing :P
No question that software is very personal, and it depends on what you're looking for and what you value in software.
Personally, I'm of the view that software is there to make my life as easy as possible, and do stuff for me and not make me always figure out its procedures and terminology. Most of us have used zillions of software apps over the years, and there tend to be some fairly standard procedures and terminology out there that we're used to.
For example, a "tool" is, in every thing we've ever been involved in, something that helps you work on some object. Obvious, right? Well, no. Only in ZBrush is a "tool" the object you're working on. Now clearly somebody decided to be hostile to users by using that terminology, since it applies nowhere else on the planet. And to import your "tool" into the scene so you can work on it requires you first start in 2.5D mode, which nobody cares about, and which causes total confusion. So you have to use 3 key clicks to get to where you can import and work on your object. The list goes on and on from there. Sure, there are those who have done it enough that it becomes intuitive, but that doesn't make it right.
I've seen those who have worked thru software apps that are arguably confusing and counter-intuitive, and after finally figuring it out (after months or years of banging their heads against the wall) they finally find the software to be easy to use because they've finally met the software on its terms. I fully understand that, because I'm a bit that way with Blender. Although I remember the pains I went thru to get there. And I fully realize that just because I overcame it, doesn't mean it's well designed.
Personally, I rate software on how easy it makes things, and whether it subscribes to the various common terms and procedures we're all familiar with so we're not always scratching our heads trying to remember or running to a tutorial video. Learning its ideosyncracies gives me no "added value", but rather just wastes my time.
That's why I rate ZBrush so very low. It seems to be at odds with just about any common, standard procedure and terminology we're familiar with. To me, that's the definition of a poorly designed UI.
Yeah, 2.5D is a historical thing from a time before it became a 3D scultping application. They should get rid of using that as the default, just like Blender oughta get rid of right-click select by default. The "tool" issue is so very minor though. It's just a name. Would have liked to hear that list that goes on and on because IMO after those things and navigation (which does make sense once you accept it was never made for mouse but for pen and tablet), I don't see much wrong with the UI. It's not great but at least everything isn't buried in tabs and submenus and context menus. It's all right there, all you need to do is scroll. Drag out the stuff you need frequently into the UI or set a shortcut.
Ok, I'll add hiding the taskbar as a personal gripe. If all software devs had that kind of arrogance then we wouldn't need to have a taskbar in the first place. It's there for a reason, give me an anti-taskbar mode by all means but make it optional. Don't force this nonesense on me.
2.5D mode is awesome for making alphas and brushes.
I tried ZBrush for the month (?) trial (or was it more than that...), and tried as hard as I could to learn it. I watched videos, and used it at least 3-4 times a week, and really wanted to buy it. Before going in I expected it was awesome, and I had cash in hand to buy it. But after the trial I got so fed up with trying to figure stuff out, and endless scrolling to find simple (and very commonly used) features that should have been front and center, that I totally gave up on it, vowing never to consider it. And I can't recall ever feeling that way about any software.
Oh, and the polygonal modeller that's hidden in there somewhere? And the terminology they use is so different from other 3D apps, so when you're scrolling and scrolling you'll see what you want but not recognize it's what you want. My memory is very fuzzy on the details since I purged it from my brain, but I don't think anyone can objectively call that a well designed UI.
And again, liking it doesn't mean it's well designed for the masses.