Maya LT
polycount sponsor
Does anyone have any more information on this? The only source I've found is on Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/autodesk-maya-lt-game-development,24010.html
It appears to be a lite version of Maya aimed at game development. Seems like it could be a decent option for freelancers, but a couple of limitations stick out like a sore thumb:
No MEL or plugin support
No SDK
25,000 poly limit per scene for FBX exports (WTF?)
$795 for a perpetual license, or subscription-based license at $50/month, $125/quarter, or $400/year.
Thoughts?
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/autodesk-maya-lt-game-development,24010.html
It appears to be a lite version of Maya aimed at game development. Seems like it could be a decent option for freelancers, but a couple of limitations stick out like a sore thumb:
No MEL or plugin support
No SDK
25,000 poly limit per scene for FBX exports (WTF?)
$795 for a perpetual license, or subscription-based license at $50/month, $125/quarter, or $400/year.
Thoughts?
Replies
And 25k polygons is just weird... It's also slightly too low for what I would consider not an issue in 95% of cases, 40-50k would've been better
im sure you are also able to rent the full maya version on a monthly basis...
But even for outsourcing you're just limiting the jobs you can accept by using this version of Maya. Not to mention you cannot use client supplied tools or implement script based QA checking. Gotta do everything manually at every delivery (YOUCH!). Specific versions with certain features disabled would be a better choice for outsourcers - i.e. if you only provide modeling services then you don't need certain animation or rendering features.
I'd be hard pressed to suggest a good use for this Maya version. Learning maybe or is Maya PLE still around?
With that being said, Tom's Hardware is not exactly known for their coverage of the CG Industry. Until we get an official announcement from Autodesk, I'm holding onto the faint glimmer of hope that there has been some sort of misunderstanding.
Autodesk does provide educational licenses of their software at no charge to anyone claiming to be a student - even those that are engaging in independant study. So it doesn't even make sense for that demographic.
http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/2013/08/27/Autodesk-finally-offer-cheaper-Maya-indie-edition.aspx
Yeah, no MEL, no plugins, no SDK, no rendering, and a 25k poly limit? For $795? Pricy and crippled. Lame.
Who at Autodesk thought this was a good idea?
No scripting is a bummer.
KEEP:
Modeling
Animation
Non-commercial plugins
MEL
LIMIT:
Rendering capabilities (stills and perhaps short clips only)
Non-poly modeling tools (curves, NURBS, etc)
Animation tools (the film-specific stuff, generally not needed)
REMOVE \ PROHIBIT:
Commercial plugins
Dynamics
Toon, Muscle, Fluids, Fur, etc
PaintEffects
I would make modeling / animation editions. And then throw out the "advanced" stuff: fur, dynamics, cloth, mental-ray, sub-divs, nurbs. Maybe even realtime shaders and compiled plugin support. But definitely no poly limit and Python/MEL must be enabled.
that scene itself has 850k triangles.
i am guessing that 25k limit is only the export limit per export, not per maya scene file.
also no MEL makes no sense, i believe it has a script editor and you will be able to customize scripts.
i am not sure what no plugin support mean, but i doubt it mean that you cant install any plugins because that would just be stupid.
also, agree with Jon's list or limitations.
Kinda off topic but any news on adding ShaderFX to Maya 2014 through an extension? Was fun to tinker with in the beta.
A question, if you can answer: What were the primary challenges you were dealing with when choosing features for this product? Curious.
That being said, no scripting support is kind of the dealbreaker here. The reason we chose to use Maya over other software is because of the wealth of community provided tools. I can't imagine using Maya without rigging toolbox or advanced skeleton. Or trying to animate a complex rig without a picker ui.
Imagine if Unity free didn't have scripting support. Would it be as popular as it is today?
I'm curious as to how closely LT is being developed alongside the full version. For example, Maya's made a number of advances in its modeling tools over the last two years, would LT get those as they come out as well, or would they be released later on?
I definitely agree that it needs a script editor. Also, by this time next year, the 25k limit may be too small when the next gen consoles are all the rage. The competition, which doesn't have any poly limits, is still cheaper than the full version of Maya by a wide margin.
IMO, in order to be successful, LT needs to not feel like an advertisement for the full version. It needs to feel like an effective tool that wedges neatly into a pipeline with my other packages. Do that and you've got my money.
It would be nice for a smaller indie studio where a tech artist can use the full suite to create custom tools for artists who just need the LT feature set.
Autodesk got arrogant to the point beyond any imagination. I'm eagrly await day that something kick them in the butt.
Why is Autodesk arrogant?
I believe most people at Autodesk are pretty aware we miss the mark sometimes and want to do better. I haven't met anybody there who was very arrogant and haven't found the company policies to inspire arrogance.
Unfortunately we cannot comment on any products that are not officially announced yet, but I do believe managers of said products are very eager to listen to community feedback.
It is a shame you use those words to describe the problem of Autodesk not meeting your needs because they are pretty poor taste descriptions of a problem I see differently.
I am sure Epic has had its share of customers who were unhappy with what Unreal provided and could call Epic arrogant or complacent, but in reality the problems are more complex than that.
I believe if a company wants to make a real effort to do better, arrogance is not the right way to describe it.
Hey, you asked. I'm just telling you how people in the field see things. I thought you said Autodesk was eager to listen to community feedback? It doesn't always come wrapped in a pretty bow.
That was no big talking point from the Autodesk side. As far i remember this was only a one-liner in the whats new section . People of course made a big deal out of it ... completely ignroing the fact that Max 2014 is one of the best releases since ages ....
Regarding Maya LT, well i think it's priced too steep and too limiting on it's features. Maybe indie studios will buy this en mass, but i really can't see this coming...
Perhaps I was hoping for a more mature description of what would make the product more appealing to people then using derogatory words to describe the company.
Like some others have done properly in the thread, such as stating to remove the poly cap or add script support or different pricing.
I understand some here have been let down by Autodesk's failure to meet their product needs. I have certainly been in that position before joining the company. But like I said, arrogance is not at all the atmosphere encouraged by the company.
:::
The arrogance comes from the monopoly of owning the top competing 3d programs. Then after gaining said programs raising the prices. Now releasing new versions every year that add new bits and pieces through mostly integrating plugins and break others, versus 2-3 years in the past that actually added to the program. Pushing for subscription basis so people will choose over sticking with one version which 10 months after release is no longer updated beyond only fbx support (versus again in past, where SP would continually come out and address major goof ups).
Thank God they don't have Zbrush or Modo, or we would totally be screwed.
I'm sorry but biggest updated I saw was adding ribbon to 3ds max. Compared to how fast modo or zbrush innovate 3ds max is parctially going backwards.
Not to mention it seems like with every update max is getting slower and slower. I though it should be opposite.
It's topic about maya so I won't be much commenting since I'm not using it for modeling anyway. I tried but it just doesn't work for me.
Really ? I haven't found anything that would be better for modeling than it was in 3ds max 2012.
I just wish, they would remove all that bloat from 3ds max, so it would start in 3s instead of 30 (and i'm running it from SSD!), and add some more modeling tools that work efficiently on high-polygon counts on more game-dev oriented hardware (yes we don't have Quadros or FireGL, we play games we are making)
When there will be Max LT gladly. But that probably would invovle rewritting max from scrtach (;.
Okay, so as of late, Autodesk hasn't had the greatest track record when it comes to updating our favorite software packages. But here in this thread, we have had several developers from the company personally listen and respond to our criticism. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen for development to be steered back into the right direction.
So rather than using this as an opportunity to dispense vitriol about all of the ways the Autodesk Corporation has disappointed us in the past, we should be having a thoughtful, positive dialogue about the direction the software should take in the future. The former solves nothing, the latter has the potential to benefit everyone.
Developers might talk here. I appreciate that. But they don't have decisive power. They might have best intentions, but they do not make decisions.
When feature X takes Z time to implement and it's not guaratnee of Y % more profit, then that feature is simply throwed away.
Simply speaking. If lack of improvments is not treat to our buisness we will not make improvments because they cost to much and benefit to little.
Why not make it 65,500 polys, like the 16 bit whaddayacallit limit for models (Unity will turn one mesh into 2 meshes if it's above that)?
It's a practical, somewhat relevant limit for exporting things, possibly enough for a reasonable sized scene, or a decent resolution vehicle (especially if you do the wheels in their own, different, file), or highish res character. Unless you're exporting everything in one big file to the game (useful for final builds maybe, but not a hassle for the design department), I don't think Developer Dave will have too much trouble running into the limit.
Actually the old XSI ModTool was more restrictive than people might of released.
Only DXFX and CGFX material types are supported; mental ray materials are not supported.
Supports polygonal mesh primitives only.
Exported geometry is limited to 64000 triangles.
Mental ray renderer is used only for Rendermap and Ultimapper; all other mental ray rendering is disabled.
Maximum resolution for Ultimapper maps is 512x512.
Images output using the hardware renderer are limited to a maximum resolution of 512x512.
Proprietary scene file format
No SDK/Scripting support (I think, struggling to remember, lol)
Pretty much all of XSI's features were there though, however the ModTool was exactly what is was, a pure asset creation tool for modding. It was also restricted for non-commercial use only.