Hardsurface artists: The world famous Maya vs 3ds max conflict in a diffrent way...
polycounter lvl 7
Hello everybody!
I am a fairly new artist, about a year or two into CG and I always had this internal conflict between 3ds max and Maya. Back then I decided to start out with Maya just because most of the digital tutors courses where held in Maya aswell and the gnomon courses. Now looking back I think this was a bad idea since I see about 98 % or all hardsurface and weapons/vehicles artist using 3ds max. I saw maybe two or three good Maya guns but the rest that made me make :OOOOOOOO was made in 3ds max mostly. Most of the CSS gamebanana community also uses 3ds max, most notably Racer 445 and Millenia and other people I saw on polycount, like the weapons artist from Mw3 and this guy http://polygoo.com/, and most of all the Gears of war Artists use MAX
It just really confuses me. On the other hand people always say to me: "NO no dude, it deosnt matter what program you use"
, but why then is most of the stunning hardsurface stuff made in max.
Right now i am in a little indie dev team, and i am the only one using Maya really. All the artist around me are using Max and make stunning art. I just always look at my art and I think it could be better and the costant bugs in Maya just fusturate me. Now you might say: "Well then just switch lol" Well the thing is that i actually know 3ds max, like the tools and everything, but I am jussstttt sooo slow in it. Everytime i start in Max i go right back to Maya because I dont have the luxury right now to experiment, cause I do have deadlines.
My fellow Artist are telling me to switch, but i dont know If I have the time to adjust myself to 3ds max and to become as good in it as I am in Maya. It took alot of work to get there where I am now (and i am not saying that I am a good artist or anything, but I am saying that studied alot to understand Maya and modeling in general, and I dont just want to throw my hardwork away)
Also I fairly enjoy to look through the portfolios that get posted in the reviews sections in this forum. It always kinda discourages me to see that most of the hardsuface artist there use 3ds max, and I am talking about the really amazing ones. Besides like one or two exceptions, I usually only see medicore work done in Maya, hardsurface wise, and then again those used a little bit of 3ds max here and there. Usually its their experimental project in Maya and their main program is 3ds max.
I know most of the replies to this post will be "It doesnt matter what program you use" I know that because i looked on millions of other forums before to find the answer to this question. BUt the fact is that the a majority of the jaw dropping hardusrface artist use MAx instead of Maya and my goal is to become one of them... I feel like Maya is holding me back. BUt then I see amazing work being done in Maya which brings me back into this cycle
I hope you can somewhat enlighten me on this topic and my concern.
Thank you so much in advance
PS: sorry for my grammer, I am not a native
I am a fairly new artist, about a year or two into CG and I always had this internal conflict between 3ds max and Maya. Back then I decided to start out with Maya just because most of the digital tutors courses where held in Maya aswell and the gnomon courses. Now looking back I think this was a bad idea since I see about 98 % or all hardsurface and weapons/vehicles artist using 3ds max. I saw maybe two or three good Maya guns but the rest that made me make :OOOOOOOO was made in 3ds max mostly. Most of the CSS gamebanana community also uses 3ds max, most notably Racer 445 and Millenia and other people I saw on polycount, like the weapons artist from Mw3 and this guy http://polygoo.com/, and most of all the Gears of war Artists use MAX
It just really confuses me. On the other hand people always say to me: "NO no dude, it deosnt matter what program you use"
, but why then is most of the stunning hardsurface stuff made in max.
Right now i am in a little indie dev team, and i am the only one using Maya really. All the artist around me are using Max and make stunning art. I just always look at my art and I think it could be better and the costant bugs in Maya just fusturate me. Now you might say: "Well then just switch lol" Well the thing is that i actually know 3ds max, like the tools and everything, but I am jussstttt sooo slow in it. Everytime i start in Max i go right back to Maya because I dont have the luxury right now to experiment, cause I do have deadlines.
My fellow Artist are telling me to switch, but i dont know If I have the time to adjust myself to 3ds max and to become as good in it as I am in Maya. It took alot of work to get there where I am now (and i am not saying that I am a good artist or anything, but I am saying that studied alot to understand Maya and modeling in general, and I dont just want to throw my hardwork away)
Also I fairly enjoy to look through the portfolios that get posted in the reviews sections in this forum. It always kinda discourages me to see that most of the hardsuface artist there use 3ds max, and I am talking about the really amazing ones. Besides like one or two exceptions, I usually only see medicore work done in Maya, hardsurface wise, and then again those used a little bit of 3ds max here and there. Usually its their experimental project in Maya and their main program is 3ds max.
I know most of the replies to this post will be "It doesnt matter what program you use" I know that because i looked on millions of other forums before to find the answer to this question. BUt the fact is that the a majority of the jaw dropping hardusrface artist use MAx instead of Maya and my goal is to become one of them... I feel like Maya is holding me back. BUt then I see amazing work being done in Maya which brings me back into this cycle
I hope you can somewhat enlighten me on this topic and my concern.
Thank you so much in advance
PS: sorry for my grammer, I am not a native
Replies
I could for example use Maya and create a gun, even make a tutorial out of it, but what is the point when at the end of the day, it's all about the polygons and map baking, which is exactly the same in both applications? Might as well watch some HD tutorials, and transfer the same 'idea' into my own app.
Also, many artists have been doing some really awesome HD work with ZBrush or 3DC, but that doesn't mean Max is suddenly obsolete.
Exploding models is a workflow almost everyone does because it easier and quicker to manage, and gives much cleaner results honestly. It's predictable on what you're going to get basically.
@Perna: Unless I missed something, you could very easily create, say a M16 rifle, in Maya as you can in Max, if a couple of tools are missing akin to Polyboost, you can easily get those from scripts for Maya, shortcuts and etc not withstanding.
Considering that many peeps won't even touch some of them more 'robust' tools which will help you with certain kind of modeling techniques, it honestly comes down to how much the traditional tools can do to pull their weight, and unless AD in the last few years (I haven't use Maya in a while) went out of their way to gimp certain aspects of the program (then again, they did with Max too), I don't think it's as dire as it's being put here.
I'm not saying don't learn Max, or that there are zero differences, but they're not as dire as many people in these kinds of threads make them out to be.
Also, about my ZB comment, maybe I worded it's in the wrong way, but what I meant to say is that even back when ZB was starting out, people still could push (with it's limits) HD work for a program that very specifically catered to the organic market. We got more savvy tools now in that respect, but people were still able to pull off some crazy stuff, and from there, I simply am saying no program is totally gimped in the creation of certain techniques.
Sure, maybe slower or more clunky, but never enough to leave you stranded.
Its just peer pressure and suggestibility
I've been a max user for almost 7 years now and the one thing that Maya has that I wish Max had was solid Nurbs and the ability to convert those Nurbs into quads, which you can do in Maya.
-B
That script looks pretty awesome, gonna have to give that a shot. I know about power nurbs, but I was really referring to Nurbs built in to the actual software, buying a 3rd party app, is not really an option at this point in time. But thanks for the script Perna, will have a look at that.
-B
U are also right in saying that max generally has much more support, script wise. I am totally jelous of the 3 point shader plugin for Max....
i'm not really convinced by your examples and argument but there is some history to what your saying that shoud be explained so new people know the history.
up until a few years ago games were almost 100% max and film was 100% maya. so anyone who wants to argue which has the better tool set or artists is a noob. experienced artist know that the great work in both industries was done in separate packages so there is obviously no solid argument for one package vs the other.
it was mostly cost. i don't have the numbers here but maya was over 40,000usd a seat and ran on SGI IRIX. game studios went for max on dos/pc. the cost and platform were the main things.
all that is history. but it would not be surprising to find pockets of very good game artists that all use max and vise versa for maya because it has been that way for years.
but for modeling at this point there is really no excuses or examples you can make to show one is superior to the other. its your personal work flow and taste that determine which tool set and style you like.
modeling uses a very simple tool set. its about 95% artistic ability which makes a good modeler imo. and sculpting is about the same.
I can achieve equally good results in both; only difference is really ease of use - depending really on which layout you prefer haha.
The only good option I prefer in Max rather then Maya is the ability to draw on my seams for my UVW Mapping. - Maya can probably achieve this with a plugin or 3rd party app like Roadkill.
- Oh and possibly the ease of rendering with a daylight time system;
but again... theres probably a 3rd party app I'm unaware of that does this - and yet I still prefer to use model in Maya and import into Max :P
You've clearly P-sed a few people off with your arrogance
I have to admit i am kinda "emotionally" bound(just like you said) to Maya which probably brought me into this situation.
Also one thing kinda made me think, somthing i wish yuo could clear up for me:
I dont quiet understand what u mean by basic fuctionallity.... Do you mean that opposed to the functionallity present in max or in general?
Anyways thanks alot, you all truly helped me
It doesn't really matter who uses what program, it all matters on YOU. Whatever really suits you and whatever you work with better. Test out the programs and see what is better in your own eyes, not ours. If you really want to model something specific in each other the program and see what tools you like and dislike in each other the software or what seemed to work better for it. A lot of good suggestions, just try um out for yourself.
hey slow down man!
i'm a modeler/sculptor. and it may seem odd to belittle modeling by saying that it uses a simple tool set. but looking at the whole pipeline from modeling to rigging, animation, effects, dynamics, rendering etc. imo at the technical level the tools that we use cutting and rearranging edges and faces and moving verts around of some winged edge polygon data structure are rather simple tools compared to a full blown IK animation system or skinning and deformation system, or participial and dynamic system, or a physically accurate ray trace renderer .
i suppose that has nothing to do with the work it self. and programming modeling tools is tricky to get right and have a good fast workflow.
also i have used max and maya in production for modeling and like them both. and would use either depending on the studio choice. altho i do use maya for my own work. the rigging and deformation tools for creatures are more robust imo, i have done some creature td work in that regard. so i guess that keeps me in maya for the most part.
--some more history...
i think that max had an edge for poly modeling for quite a while because maya and the film pipeline was based around nurbs for quite a few years. but once subdivision surfaces were invented by pixar for prman we cound use polygons to get a perfect limit surface for rendering then all hell broke louses and we could get rid of the nurbs YAY!!!! and model with the polygon goodness.
--end history
probably around maya8-9 they really started to beef up the poly tools in maya. and they have refined those tools over a few versions. the added a proper soft selection like max has. all the box modeling edge tools for a good box modeling work flow are there. and they work on fairly dense meshes. so it really is a matter of personal preference now. the tools work a bit different in both packages but do the same functions at about the same speed. so i think the time has passed when max had much better tools then maya.
as for the rope example its a nice technique. i'm not going argue whether its "simple" or not. that is to subjective to pin down. i suppose your point is that procedural modeling is not as simple as, say organic modeling with a box modeling style. which is true i will concede that. but its still rather simple compare to all the other tool sets and areas i mentioned. non linear deformed have been around for a long long time, sames with splines and latices. probably over 20 years for all that stuff.
if you want to look at procedural modeling complexity then we can look to the work that is done in houdini. i have seen extremely complicated stuff done in that package but i would not consider that modeling. thats sort of work does not come out of the modeling department. that sort of stuff usually includes particles systems, physics and lots of math and at the end you generate some procedural polygons that look like ivy vines or tress and stuff like that. making a procedural pile of rope is probably trivial in houdini . people who do that sort of procedural modeling in generally don't work in the models department.
Just switch to 3ds max if you think it'll give u an edge.
no worries mate/dude which ever they use in your part of the golobe.
honestly i don't want to argue about max vs maya vs xyz modeling tools. nor do i want to argue about procedural or hard surface or even organic modeling. or what is simple or not.
i think its great that your fired up about max modeling tools. it looks like your working on some scripts etc, doing some interesting hard surface work. thats good maybe you can post some of you techniques and process. id like to see it. i'm sure most people would rather read that then watch us flame this thread into a burnt pile of pig poop and burn down half the board and kill all the wildlife! :thumbup:
i care about modeling tools probably as much as you do. and at certain points i have gotten serious about my opinions. but not so much at the moment. i do stand by my posts but thats about as far as it goes for now. also i'm far more interested in organics and sculpting then hard surface ploy modeling. so we are essentially concerned with different aspects of the tool sets in general.
to the OP, @CyberGameArts
i think if there is one thing you can take from this thread you started is that people care very much about there personal overflows and software of choice. because of that fact you should rely on your own judgment and what you want to use and think is the best for your work flow as it develops. rather then take other peoples opinions as facts and fallow what they tell you. in the long run that will get you to the most productive tools for you and probably make you much happier also. i would take the time to learn both max and maya modeling tools if your serious about modeling. and honestly every modeling software you can try. that how you really learn whats what. by being able to compare the different tools in the different packages and know which tools are the best. most people are to lazy tot do all that tho!
I'm not entirely sure that's correct, Perna (not that I need to defend the guy) simply appears to be sticking to the topic of the thread, which is the preference in softwares for hard-surface modelling... with, a slight deviation I suppose into just general modelling techniques, I'd say he's 'argued' his case very well, to the point of banishing the notion of "personal preference" in reply to the OP. So unless someone with a deep knowledge of Maya can come along and provide a counter that stretches outside of "I like it because I know it" then I'd say we've got ourselves a clear winner.
Yeeee haw.
(good thread by the way)
If one package or tool gets you to the end with the same or better results quicker then it's probably a better tool for the job. Anyways, I think I'm going to give this thing a go tomorrow (later today) in ZBrush and see how fast I can do it.
unfortunately it only takes 2 for a flame war. anyone who wants to argue there tool set at this point is throwing a match into the can of petrol weather that is there intention or not. i don't want any part of that business. been there done that. and i hope no one else does that.
perna makes some good points and cares about his tools thats a good thing. modelers should be serious about there tools.
but it is entirely subjective and personal preference which is the "best". there is the highest level of work done in all these packages, all the artists that do that work get the right to tell you which is the "best" tool set and work flow. one might have a really cool tool. but so does the other one. etc. once you get use to a tool set you can really do some damage. but i have gone through that in a few packages. where you get to a point where you feel so fluid with the tools if feels like nothing could be better then your work flow and using other software feels like total garbage.
the best you can do is prove to yourself that for yourself you have found the best work flow and tool set. that is, unless you have derived a mathematical proof, in which case i would love to read it before you send it off to the science journals and do your presentation at SIGGRAPH.
Proficiency in softwares is of course going to play a big part for people who are already proficient, but since OP is likely not uber-pro in either, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to give him some info about why learning one over the other would be beneficial.
Perna's point (from what I assume) is that if OP is looking to get into hard-surface modelling, and has a choice between learning Max or Maya, it makes sense to go with Max, and he's explained why. The only way to provide a counter debate is to talk about why Maya would be a better choice, this isn't a flame war, it's not about opinion, it's about tools to get the job done with the least amount of effort and (ideally) allowance for iterations (non-destructive workflows)
Basically, this is the point that this thread has reached:
- Can Max and Maya both do this? Yes
- Can proficient users in either do this easily enough? Yes
- What would a noob be better off learning for this? Max
I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that the OP should try both, and decide for himself, but as it stands the argument for using Max is:
+ everything else Perna has taken the time to write up.
And the argument for using Maya is:
+ everyone else talking about personal preference.
Perna has provided examples and 'excuses' for why Max would be superior in this instance. I'd genuinely love to read more about why someone thinks Maya should take the biscuit, but nobody has yet to stretch beyond "personal preference" for the counter.
its great that your serious about this but i find the idea that the "best" modeling tool set can be determined through casual discussion and ad hock examples by a group of highly partial modelers on a polycount thread a bit silly. whos the judge ? essentially everyone defends there work flow and choice of tools regardless of there experience level, its all valid opinion, nothing gets proven and people disagree and eventually get nasty.
"The fact that you can have an opinion about a quality does not make that quality a matter of opinion"
essentially having an opinion about quality means that its precisely a matter of opinion and nothing more. which is the best the i-phone or android? whats the best renderer v-ray or mental ray? the fact that the criteria for your decision is simply your opinion almost by definition makes the proof your opinion. its simple circular logic. somewhat boring to listen to and definitely nothing approaching scientific or even analytic thinking. essentially you have 2 choices if you want to proceed and "try" to find some objective comparison between modeling tool sets.
one common way, which is as close as you can get to real data about peoples "opinion" is to simply do a survey. then you can determine based on you sample population what is the "best" etc. that is precisely why surveys are done because human opinions in themselves have no analytically measurable data in them.
the second way would be to devise some sort of study and benchmark of the tools themselves. in order to do that you would first have to develop a criteria with which you could measure and compare specific tools in various packages. you would also have to have a set of benchmarks which you could run across all the tools to collect your data. all of the parties involved would have to agree on the criteria and benchmarks. then you could plausibly get some analytic data for your study and have a basis to make objective comparisons based on the data.
the only other option i can think of that might be convincing would be to get together a few people who know all the tools extremely well have them do an informal review of the various tool sets. that would not really prove anything but it would be good information for people to have. they could use that to help them decide what the best was for them.
essentially my opinion is that max and maya are about equal now for poly modeling and i would not think twice about modeling hard surface or organics in either package. they both get the job done and have nice tool sets. there is no "best" modeling tool set. you can't really prove that sort of thing because there is no definitive proof that can be reached in matters of opinion. im not going to dick around in a thread and try to prove or disprove who has the best tools. its silly. if you want to post more examples of your work flow id love to see them but i don't take that as much proof of anything except that you possibly have a good work flow and have come up with some cool techniques.
if your really serious i would love to see some people do a detailed review of all the modeling tools and if there is any tools that one package has that really stand out they can be precisely noted. and hopeful coded for the other applications so everybody can have the best tool set available between the different developers.
@geedave
you do realize that i or anyone else can simply say that the modifier panel slows down there work flow and is a negative for the max tool set and that is a totally valid counter argument. and so on and so on.
these sort of threads are vigorous but unconvincing.
if you want to be analytical and objective possibly even productive comparing tools i gave you some ideas in my previous post.
im not going to get into any max vs maya sword fighting. i don't think anyone is much interested in that sort of thing. most of the posts have been to the effect that it is a personal preference and that is the reality for most and i think that should be respected.
so best of luck with this one. i hope its beneficial and productive for you. im quite happy i did not get into any of the silly tired old arguments or dog anyones software of choice or tools.
From what I can gather, your ideas for reaching an answer are what Perna is trying to achieve, he got the ball rolling and nobody has responded. Except for you I mean, on the personal preference train, and me, on the interested in a debate without really participating in it train.
Nobody is 'dogging' on software from what I can see, and that isn't what this thread is about. Where are you getting this from?
I've often splurted out the "It's the artists choice" in response to questions like these, but this time, on a specific modelling topic there has to be a more beneficial choice for a newcomer, and I commend Perna for breaking the mould and trying to actually get an answer, but it's all a bit pointless without topical opposition.
Which is the only reason I'm responding, as I'm not knowledgeable enough with Maya to provide a counter, but I really, really want someone around here to get back on topic.
i use the death to box modeling workflow
[ame="
UGHHHHHHH
Regarding the mechanical examples posted by Per earlier ... I'll troll a little by saying that some (not all) of them could be made in minutes or even less in MOI3D (awesome nurbs modelling program). I might just do one later haha.
Unfortunately not everybody understands the concept of a non-linear approach to modeling (ie the stack/"edit parameters later" approach). So maybe there is a need to clarify that ?
Also Per - I love you.
I actually not a total noob. I have done some hardsurface stuff in Maya before(maybe good compared to what u guys can do):
AS you see see there i have some what of expierience.... The reason why i made this post tho was that that when i look through the polycount post i rarly see amazing work done in Maya, whcih makes me think that i could achieve so much more using 3ds max. Like someone pointed out, Mayas tool arnt really innovative, whereas Max seems to finds new ways to make me say "i wish Maya had that." everytime. After reading all the helpful advice everybody has been giving me, I decided that i jump back into max and just try to get faster and more efficient in it. The main reason why i sticked to Maya production wise, was becuase i was was just faster in it (love the hotbox):D
Again thanks to everyone, you have all helped me alot
IDK if its just me or Maya but I am always scared to model complex things(this might sound extremly noobish and childish) but I think the root of the problem is that I feel like Maya restricts me in that way, and I kinda hope that 3ds max will kinda take that "fear" away from me (lol i feel like this is gonna turn into phsycology thread soon :P)
cool... would love to see some work from you soon using that techinque... I am sure itll be amazing
LOL LOL i am guessing that it was a joke then LOL Great that i made u laugh tho
Max will in most cases allow you to complete a common modelling task in less clicks/gestures/actions
some common modelling actions being...
eg. connecting some verts with an edge, separating a selection of faces from the body of a mesh, bridging the gap between a pair of edges, creating new polies by extending existing geometry and so on.
The above is quantifiable and is about the only way of comparing the two packages because everything else is entirely subjective.
But it's certainly is true that even simple modeling tasks (even the ones possible in both programs) generate less errors in Max than in Maya. If you ask any *honest* artist familiar with both apps and not caring about personal preference it becomes obvious that when it comes to modeling, Maya is overall glitchier, generates more stuff like double faces, freezes more and so on. Now you will always find people claiming that its the user fault. It obviously isn't the case - these are all problems coming from unrefined tool design on the Maya side.
Snefer bakes normal maps in Modo... crazy but he creates some sick stuff.
Everyone should try at least few apps and work in the one he likes best. If one day he stumbles upon something worth checking out in other app he should check that out! Modelling app isn't a religion and you can learn more than one.
I love messing with the tools but they are just tools.
I had to switch from Maya to Max at some point for a new job. To me, the longest part isn't to learn which button to push, it's to learn the weaknesses of your soft and all possible workarounds so that you aren't limited by technic.
In Max you can have a base shape and add an editpoly modifier on top and and a profiled shell on top. Then go back to the editpoly modifier, brige stuff and punch holes, then back up : the shell adjust accordingly. In Maya if you try to do that the vertex index changes (because one cannot add anything like an editpoly modifier in Maya, the concept doesnt exist) and the extrusion becomes a mess.
Now consider that and think of an art director asking you to make the hole wider or different in profile. In Max you can, in Maya you cannot. *This* is parametric, non linear modeling.
Now of course not everything is modeled that way. But that's an example.
^^ he has a point
Take this, I decide it needs more subdivisions, I could subdivide it and carry on, but I should be able to go back to the initial cylinder, increase it to 32, since it's 16 sides, and carry on.
Maya disagrees
It is not flawed... it's just my observation. It might be wrong but that is all
I'm just trying to say that messing with the tools is great but it is not the goal. If you are technical artist it might be your goal but if you want to make good art choose an app., customize it so it is comfortable for you and MAKE ART!!!
I just don't see a point in discussions which is better. I think discussions 'how to improve your workflow' or stuff like 'Pie Menu' for 3ds which Bryan made with your help are way more productive.
Most of the apps have trials... (I know that it doesn't show full capabilities but experience is better than discussion).
Can't wait for the write up. Sounds like something really interesting.
Like, you can't revert to a cylinder uh ?
But i do remember the sphere primitive had separate horizontal and radial subdivision parameters and that was great !
As for the stack, i'm used to collapse regularly. I haven't experienced funky mesh since. But maybe i'm more experienced too.
Still I don't think i would keep a 10 modifiers stack for too long... Limited confidence
Another issue related to the "soft weakness, you have to learn" is that is takes so much time and headaches, i don't think i could be arsed to learn another software just for fun, even if it was objectively better (modo?)
awesome, that is essentially one of the suggestions i made.
@GeeDave
if people want to compare tools and how long everybody tool is compared to the other guys tool then start a new thread on modeling tools and post some detailed pictures and info on your tool! lol
seriously tho,
that would be more informative to the experienced modelers who don't want to get into a pissing match. modelers who know that a lot of the work flow and speed stuff is just semantics. getting use to the flow of how the package does things and working with that in an efficient way.
i'd like to see a thread on specific tools and what they do. then you could compare which package has which tool. and if one package has a really nice tool for doing xyz you could see that. people would get something out of that. my guess is that most of the tools are about the same and the differences are just semantics.
so in short start a thread on modeling tools in general with details on specific tools. or post a review that goes through the tool set of one of the packages. the rest of it is just sword fighting on the internets.
Personally, its not much of an arguement to judge a 3D packages capability because you can't see much stunning work out there. That's hardly solid proof. The simple fact is that often studios don't announce or shout about which software they use and so many make assumptions, some true, some false.
From my experience, it very often comes down to technique the software that you feel most comfortable in. Also many get very entrenched into their packages that they won't look at another package. This can be both a good and bad thing. I always advise people to be open to new and different software's, as you never know when and where you might have to adapt. If you become a diehard, fight to the death Max guy, what do you do if your dream job comes up at a Maya studio (or vice versa)? It could be unlikely they would adapt to you.
Someone I know once said, that the best 3D package is the one you're paid to use, and there's certainly an element of truth to that.
When it comes to the packages though, well the main three - Max, Mays, and Softimage, are actually very evenly matched in modelling terms. Many might say Max has the edge but they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I certainly don't feel restricted when using Maya over Max.
I've never been much of a Max guy, I just couldn't get on with it. I find its modelling too clunky for me and not really intuitive. I certainly found Maya (and PowerAnimator before that) just easier and slicker to use. But then I could throw a curve ball in there and mention Softimage (nee XSI) which also has a very capable modelling toolset, with some features better than Maya and Max.
Reading some posts, I did notice some crossed and confused facts. Subdivision surfaces were not invented by Pixar for renderman. They were discovered in the late 70s by Edwin Catmull and Jim Clark (hence the Catmull-Clark algorithm), though Ed Catmull did go on to co-found Pixar with John Lasseter.
Also, Max has never 100% dominated the games market, though it was widely adopted often because of price. There's actually alot of Maya and Softimage used as well, with some studios even using all three. But as I said, some studios shout about it more than others. It can also depend on the geographical location, with some countries and places preferring to use one package over another. It's not always clear why, perhaps history and available talent pool play some part. For example, Japan has always been a big user of Softimage, with many of the studios using it, Metal Gear Solid being just one example.
As for other examples of Maya's modellng and hard surfaces, then look at the automotive industry and also architectural. Many of the car manufacturers use software like Alias Design and Maya in their pipeline and architects like Zaha Hadid (London 2012 Aquatics Center) use Maya in their concepttural design.
And not forgeting that Maya is often the backbone for many film VFX pipelines, with much of the actual asset creation being done in Maya. True there's many of packages used (including Max in some places), but Maya still does alot of the grunt work, and it's mostly been polys (for years) as well. Nurbs was used, but they were always tricky to use, so many avoided them altogether.
There are some very good examples posted here of models produced in Max, but honestly I'm not seeing anything that I couldn't do in Maya or Softimage. However having done production for many years, despite the pretty pictures, I'm always more interested in the pipeline, the asset and where it goes. When you produce a poly asset in games, it's often produced to a specification, it also has to go somewhere, be it for a level or to be rigged for a character. Plus there's very often the need to think about LODs as well.
Maybe I missed the point of the thread. And of course I don't object. I'm sorry you took it that way. It's probably because I wrote it that way :poly142:
I probably read too few posts and wrote a turd without thinking. I will fix this and read rest of the thread. Please disect those tools for common good.
thats totally correct and a nice clarification. i did not go into any detail on that because i did not think anyone cared to much about it. but your correct. although Pixar does hold all the patents on cc subdivision surfaces and had the first implementation in prman so the generally get the cred.