Alias Wavefront creates obj,obj becomes the most used standard exchange files between 3d apps, Autodesk buy Alias, Autodesk destroy obj in maya LT.
Fuck logic right ?
You are tin foil hat'ing here.
First, to correct you, the OBJ file format was created by Wavefront, not Alias Wavefront.
Next, it's a brutally simplistic format, which is why it is as popular as it had become ( much like 3ds and dxf ). That said, it's a brutally restricted format too... simply put, there isnt as much data captured.
Why the hell would Autodesk spend time supporting a format, when they instead support a (feature wise) superior format, that can be converted if required? Considering FBX supports 100% of the functionality of OBJ, not really getting where the issue is here.
Pretty fair example - is the FBX converter a viable option or is this just a simple case of "hey, put that plugin back please"? I have a feeling I know the answer but I just want confirmation
To me, it just seems like another arbitrary restriction. Its a needless bottleneck to one's workflow. I tend to move assets between ZBrush and my main modeling application (currently Blender) pretty frequently, and all of those extra clicks will add up. Maybe my workflow isn't ideal, but a restriction like this will definitely factor into my decision to give Maya LT a shot.
Also, while we're on the topic of exporting, add me to the list of artists calling for an increase in the poly limit for FBX exports. I understand that the software isn't aimed at AAA studios, and the intention is that the artists will break assets apart before export, but as a character artist, 25,000 triangles still seems a bit stingy. I think 50,000 - 100,000 would be generous enough to future-proof the software, while still keeping in-line with the target audience.
You guys are crazy or what? Half of the time, the FBX pipeline, which was supposed to unify things broke things down even further, half of the time I can't export a single file without it sending me a message error from an older version of Max to a newer one, or from Blender to Max.
Not to mention all the obsolete data I don't need, what good is FBX half of the time for me when it created gigantic selection boxes and requires me to break down my mesh again or destroy the heirechy of modifiers to fix this? I want to select a part of my mesh and press Z to Focus again, not be shot out into space due to some weird defined stretching issue that I don't see unless I Select All. Or because I have Vertex colors at one point?
To solve that, you need to use FBX Converter most of the time, which defeats the entire purpose of unified and iterative pipeline between different programs and versions, doesn't it? I'm not talking about something like Max 2009 vs Maya 2014, I'm talking more like 1 version difference at most.
I guess the only real good thing about it that most game engines support it natively...but that's the engine developers who made the effort in the first place, going as far as importing tangent data from it correctly without blowing up the mesh if it has a bone rigged an a slightly odd way.
There is a reason Autodesk decided to take the auto-import/export feature that they have now under their wing after Pixologic released their auto-import plugins for Max and Maya, or 3DC's direct integration of 3DConnexion, it's because most formats that we have currently don't work properly, period. I was so happy that they decided to just auto-transfer data through a function system directly from program to program, it seems like so far this is the only thing that even works properly.
In the mean time, OBJ is here to stay, and it will for a long time, just like 3DS format was for a long while. It has all the basic data one might need for a mesh, outside of bones, animations, etc not withstanding and it's functional, you guys might think it's old school and needs an update, but I honestly don't know if there anything else as reliable as OBJ as of now.
Maybe once Blender, Autodesk, Pixo or someone else comes up with a new file data that is essentially OBJ 2.0 on steroids, will we move on, in the mean time, non-animators and co. will stick with it.
@Ged
Yes MayaLT could certainly be a viable option for home use, especially for someone at an entry level.
So what is an entry level artist? I see quite a lot of graduate level people on polycount using udk or other engines, i dont normally see work being presented in unity free because of the lack of lighting and post processing.
on the plus side I could use maya lt fbx with marmoset toolbag and I hear there is some sort of fbx converter for cryengine I dont know how reliable it is?
Autodesk guys, it seems like the main defence against our criticism is that it's not for us higher-end devs, but rather for low-end mobile developers. A lot of people however, are expecting this to finally be a de-bloated version that keeps onlycore gamedev features, without limitations. We all know there's a big divide between Cg/film requirements and games, anyone will agree that havng a program that tries to please both is less than ideal, hence a solution would be welcome. People are disappointed this is not that solution.
And just to come back on the lack of scripting support: Maya, Max, any DCC program is always going to be lacking in features. Without sounding condescending I hope, the user experience of Maya can be called archaic and not always very friendly or efficient. Scripting offers a way to alleviate and fix these issues.
No scripting means facing working a lot slower and less efficient, in some cases pretty extreme differences are possible. The price difference between LT and regular is about 3000$, that's a single man-month worth of pay. I'm pretty sure an efficiently scripted pipeline can save a man-month worth of time over the course of a year...
There is a reason Autodesk decided to take the auto-import/export feature that they have now under their wing after Pixologic released their auto-import plugins for Max and Maya, or 3DC's direct integration of 3DConnexion, it's because most formats that we have currently don't work properly, period. I was so happy that they decided to just auto-transfer data through a function system directly from program to program, it seems like so far this is the only thing that even works properly.
Do you mean the "Send To Max/Maya" menu option? As far as I know that's still just FBX export/import.
@Joao Sapiro passerby
For the type of work and projects that you have worked on (nice work btw), and if you're already expanding upon the capabilities of the 3D software and plugins, then MayaLT probably isn't the solution for you. We're not saying it is, or a replacement either. MayaLT is option for small indie mobile devs.
@Ged
There are many guys who are at an entry level and many aren't artists, or they have limited game dev experience. With the way indie mobile development has been expanding, guys like programmers, designers and 2D graphic artists are starting to work in 3D.
Full blown packages like Maya, Max and Softimage can appear quiet daunting, so MayaLT might be something that appeals to them.
I'm curious what Autodesk's arguments would be to convince indies to use Maya LT versus let's say Blender, given that it's free and doesn't have certain restrictions?
I have to say I'm not an indie. I mostly work on AAA stuff. However if I'd make my own small game I would seriously consider blender, just because of the cost and the scriptability (I'm a tech artist so I love stuff that I can script )
Autodesk guys, it seems like the main defence against our criticism is that it's not for us higher-end devs, but rather for low-end mobile developers. A lot of people however, are expecting this to finally be a de-bloated version that keeps onlycore gamedev features, without limitations. We all know there's a big divide between Cg/film requirements and games, anyone will agree that havng a program that tries to please both is less than ideal, hence a solution would be welcome. People are disappointed this is not that solution.
Fair point, however I'm going to sound critical and defensive here and I don't mean to be, but if people have had a high and specific expectation for MayaLT, that hasn't been us, we haven't raised false hopes. We've been very clear (from the start, and sounding like a broken record ) in the various news releases and interviews about the intention of MayaLT.
I've read many comments on here and other forums about previous initiatives like gmax, or (if you're old enough like me to remember)Maya Builder and XSI Foundation, or ModTool, but these are kinda the past now and alot has changed since these products were launch. (Android and iOS devices weren't even around when gmax appeared.)
Personally, I see MayaLT has a kinda fresh start and I'm pleased to see Autodesk trying to do something here and be more flexible for things like licensing. I don't think we'd ever profess to getting things right or having all the answers, but if MayaLT was to evolve over time with peoples feedback, then that's a good thing, imo.
I often hear people wanting a 'de-bloated' version of software aimed at games as a whole, but it can a tricky thing to get right. Whilst the line between games and film can appear thin in some areas, it can also be chasmic in others. If we trimmed some unwanted features, they'd always be people who wanted them included, I think the discussion around LT has shown that
I can't comment on roadmaps though, so can't say if this would ever happen, but who knows?
I'm curious what Autodesk's arguments would be to convince indies to use Maya LT versus let's say Blender, given that it's free and doesn't have certain restrictions?
I think if somebody doesn't want to invest any money in tools, then there is absolutely nothing you can say or do to change their minds.
Some people will jump through any hoop as long as it is free.
I know plenty of people who own tablets or smart phones who even refuse to pay a $1-3 dollar for a game and will put endless effort into finding it for free online somewhere.
I worked as an Indie developer myself and we tried Blender.
It was not for us. But I did feel over $3k for Max/Maya was painful to cough up.
Certainly Maya LT's cost if far more reasonable.
I think the goal for Maya LT is that over time it offers a better toolset, UI, workflow, integration etc to justify a reasonable cost. I hope we can polish the feature list and problems pointed out in this thread to make that happen.
I worked as an Indie developer myself and we tried Blender.
It was not for us. But I did feel over $3k for Max/Maya was painful to cough up.
Certainly Maya LT's cost if far more reasonable.
I think the goal for Maya LT is that over time it offers a better toolset, UI, workflow, integration etc to justify a reasonable cost. I hope we can polish the feature list and problems pointed out in this thread to make that happen.
I don't think that's true - unless you have a very simplistic decision making process. Then again I doubt you'll be successful making games that way.
For a certain price tag a product should have some advantage over a free product. For example Blender got script support - score for Blender. Maya LT has shaderFX - point for LT. In the end I'd just want to know from AD what they think justifies the limitations and the price attached when comparing their own product with the competition. They certainly must have thought of this before deciding to develop LT.
On the other hand it's nice that there's a roadmap for LT, but why drop money on it right now? As a potential customer I wouldn't pay 700 dollars for possible future features. But without current customers LT won't see a future. But I'm sure AD has thought about this as well.
First, to correct you, the OBJ file format was created by Wavefront, not Alias Wavefront.
Next, it's a brutally simplistic format, which is why it is as popular as it had become ( much like 3ds and dxf ). That said, it's a brutally restricted format too... simply put, there isnt as much data captured.
Why the hell would Autodesk spend time supporting a format, when they instead support a (feature wise) superior format, that can be converted if required? Considering FBX supports 100% of the functionality of OBJ, not really getting where the issue is here.
Yes obj is simple, yes obj is limitated because IT'S A STANDARD created long ago.
Why do we still use it ? Because basicaly every software (even modest homemade engines you know the kind indies may actually build themselves...) can support it (and most do) with very little work because it's simple.
If I want a newer format like hte holy grail which is fbx with ultra messy normal support, version incompatibilities, and the fact than a shitload of apps don't support the same features of the format (making the extra infos contained in them useless) makes me wish for such an obsolete but SOLID standard as OBJ.
As for the alias/wavefront correction. Well good to know I tend to forgetthat from my sgi days
Maybe once Blender......or someone else comes up with a new file data that is essentially OBJ 2.0 on steroids, will we move on, in the mean time, non-animators and co. will stick with it.
That sounds like the ".Blend" file format. It's a pretty impressive format.
On another note, part of the issue (not file format related) seems to be the mid range market. It existed with XSI when they were charging $600 per seat I believe, but was destroyed with Autodesk bought them out. Now XSI is upwards of $3000, effectively destroying the mid range option.
With LT it seems like they are putting it back but in the most crippled way possible.
Where is the middle ground? Doesnt seem like Autodesk was going to allow one.
For a certain price tag a product should have some advantage over a free product. For example Blender got script support - score for Blender. Maya LT has shaderFX - point for LT. In the end I'd just want to know from AD what they think justifies the limitations and the price attached when comparing their own product with the competition. They certainly must have thought of this before deciding to develop LT.
I dont want this to sound like advertising, but based on what you have said its hard not to bring this up, especially as it relates to what Maya LT is supposed to cover:
A Blender developer is creating something called Polydrive, still in heavy testing but its essentially a visual scripting (procedural modeling) approach.
Additionally, seems their 2.7 roadmap includes everything from advanced HLSL shaders and updated openGL viewport rendering.
I actually love working in Maya, its what I learned when starting out but it just seems they are not very pro consumer in the long run. No trust between user and developer.
I wonder why there are export limitations at all. All this achieves is more headaches for people. As has been mentioned in this thread, nothing stops you from splitting a mesh into chunks and combining those in a 3rd party app. I think the LT initiative is great and even as a tech art guy I'd be interested in a version with an api lockout. But forcing the user to jump through extra hoops just makes it seem like they're being punished.
I remember how your work was essentially gone forever if you ever wanted to move from maya PLE to complete/unlimited (thanks to an incompatible format, .mp, which is what .mlt instantly reminded me off), and I'm worried the same is true for LT. That's ok for a learning edition, but in production, it's just not acceptable. I haven't given LT a test run yet, but I sincerely hope that there is some sort of upgrade path available, since PLE, gmax & XSI mod tool were all short lived projects.
On another note, part of the issue (not file format related) seems to be the mid range market. It existed with XSI when they were charging $600 per seat I believe, but was destroyed with Autodesk bought them out. Now XSI is upwards of $3000, effectively destroying the mid range option.
Just to step sideways and offer some backgound info....
You're referring to what was XSI Foundation, but it wasn't destroyed by the Autodesk acquisition of Softimage.
XSI Foundation probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Foundation was just a one off price ($500), download only, but no upgrades and no support. This has been debated over on the si-community forums many times, with some older ex-Softimage guys saying that in reality Foundation was a kinda loss leader. To quote one of the old sales guys - "all Foundation did was make selling of regular XSI seats very difficult, and made selling maintenance even harder ("I could just buy Foundation, you need to make us a deal"). It didn't lead to a flood of new users, because price is not the deciding factor in the professional market. You can be so expensive that nobody will touch you, but you can't be so cheap that everyone will use your product."
But that was over 5 years ago now and alot has changed since then, both industries and markets.
On another sidenote the Blender Polydrive stuff looks interesting, but I just wanted to point out that you've been able to do all that in Softimage ICE for some time, and that's visual programming, not scripting. reading the guys post, I saw that he'd experimented in Softimage ICE.
Ah, thanks for the clarification Bellsey. I agree and I think the market has changed since then, with more development being done outside of the "Big" studios. Consumers do like that middle ground though, a mid range so to speak as far as apps go. It doesnt seem that far fetched that accessible pricing and quality upgrades between versions goes a long way in selling seats and promoting the artist, not the revenue source.
For awhile now, Autodesk has helped create the image that in order to protect its revenue stream its willing to "ruin" the party so to speak, not join in.
I had my card out ready to order the LT until those restrictions came to light, and then you start reminding yourself that its Autodesk and the skepticism comes right back in full.
Speaking on the Blender front, its refreshing to see both artist and developers come out in the open and talk freely. Nothing is really hidden, there are no strings attached, its people who love the art form doing it for the sake of that interest. Creates a pretty stark contrast to AD dont you think?
"@Joao Sapiro passerby
For the type of work and projects that you have worked on (nice work btw), and if you're already expanding upon the capabilities of the 3D software and plugins, then MayaLT probably isn't the solution for you. We're not saying it is, or a replacement either. MayaLT is option for small indie mobile devs.
"
But thats what i mean, no indie in his right mind would pay for a crippled software without means to "fix" it. Its common logic. I hope you guys come to your senses and stop messing with 3ds max and maya in the updates and get rid of all the unecessary crap that keep piling on and on...If you guys search this forum you will see countless threads that mention this...
Want a good example of getting rid of crap ? check 3ds clean from 3pointstudios and youll get what i mean.
Not only does it comes out as very condescending towards smaller developers (someone somewhere at Autodesk seems to genuinely believe that indie = crappier content), it also clearly shows that Autodesk has absolutely no understanding of its user base ... and its own business model.
First, if Autodesk actually had taken the time to gather information from game developers before releasing such a crippled version of Maya, by openly discussing its features on forums like Polycount, they would have learned in no time that the arbitrary poly limit, lack of OBJ support and no mel scripting is exactly what an indie dev does NOT want, for all the reasons listed in previous posts. I wonder if they ever heard of the concept of saving tetxure memory (you know ... the big bottleneck for game devs) by using trimsheets and clever kitbashing like in Hawken which of course can generate assets over 25k very easily.
So claiming that MayaLT is good for indies, throwing out PR talk like We see indie game developers as a key part of the industry, driving innovative new production techniques and gameplay", but eventually releasing such a version of Maya boggles my mind. They should just be honest and call it what it really is, that is to say, a desperate attempt to try to squeeze money out of smaller budget teams.
Second, I'd like to ask : how bad would it be for Autodesk if an affordable budget version of Maya aimed at indies had NO limitation whatsoever ? What would they loose in the process ? Are they afraid that someone would use it to make a pre-rendered background for a skybox ? How would that be a bad thing ??
That's really the part I do not understand at all. Their whole business model is based on licences and subscriptions. Why not simply have one unique version of Maya, with all its features, but with 3 different license types ?
- Free for hobbyist projects and non-profit work.
- $500 for indies and freelancers.
- Full price for game and movie studios over a certain number of employees.
This would boost their user base like crazy, make the program very popular, and bring in a huge amount of cash. But instead of that, some clueless marketing team decides to cripple their product and service, offering it at an indecent price, while hoping to convince their power users that such bullshit is "just what they need".
someone somewhere at Autodesk seems to genuinely believe that indie = crappier content
Where are all these indies that would be effected by that polycount limit? I'm sure even most of the WoW team would hardly blink an eye at that. I'm not even arguing about the program anymore :P
That's the point really : even if there was no game out there actually needing that, such a limitation still would make zero sense. It's not up to the makers of a CG program to arbitrarily decide what users are going to do with it.
Creative game design means that a whole game could be based around manipulating a very detailled piece of terrain .... maybe a huge enemy to climb like in Shadow Of The Colossus ... or as stated above, creative modeling techniques saving texture memory can often mean higher polygon density than usual, and so on.
My opinion is that as soon as they claim that "some users sure don't need that ! Let's cripple that feature", they basically show that they have not a single clue about what it means to creatively solve technical problems within a game dev environment.
And also, Autodesk deciding to prevent OBJ export, basically means that they genuinely believe that an indie team would never have the need for texture baking in Xnormal or sculpting in Zbrush.
Similarly, disabling the renderer means that they didn't even consider that some small indies games might benefit from pre-rendered backgrounds or game content rendered as sprite sheets. The list goes on ...
it also clearly shows that Autodesk has absolutely no understanding of its user base ... and its own business model.
[...]
First, if Autodesk actually had taken the time to gather information from game developers before releasing such a crippled version of Maya,
Hi Pior,
I think that is overly harsh.
There are plenty of people on the Games Team at Autodesk that have worked in in various parts of the games industry.
I won't make this into a "pissing contest" and start listing everybodies resume's, but we definitely have an understanding of the user base.
We have to mix it inside a publicly traded company that has many other products and goals and that can certainly be a challenge. Maya LT version 1.0 is also our starting point, not our end destination of trying to align better with Indie/Small game developers.
If you don't like what you currently see, leave your feedback, go on with your daily life and take another look at the next version. It is a work in progress and I have heard nothing but commitment from the leadership to keep improving this rapidly.
Finally, Autodesk did take the time to talk to people inside and outside the company about our Maya LT plans.
The polycap and scripting limitations came up plenty. Both from user/beta feedback, but also from some of us internally. (I am personally in the "This poly-cap sucks camp" )
So the responses to those limitations are not unexpected and we have plans in place to adjust where it makes sense.
For some, these limitations are not at all a problem. They can start using Maya LT today.
Others, might choose to use only parts of Maya LT for now, or wait until our feature list aligns better with what they want. Or continue to use regular Max or Maya (or some other app).
After using Autodesk apps professionally for years, trying as best as I can to provide direct feedback using the reporting platforms in place as well as unofficial channels like here on Polycount, it's just a tad disappointing to see that there is still such a disconnect with the user base.
Going back to my previous point, I still don't understand why anyone at AD could think that limiting the program in any shape or form for an indie license could be a good idea to begin with. What is the point ? Just offer a cheaper license of the whole thing, and ... that's it really !
Hi all, I love all the feedback here. Its great to see and we have great plans for LT and its roadmap.
As for the poly cap, the goal of LT is to provide a low cost tool that can create many of the assets of a game, but we understand not all. Hero objects or games that may require more are reserved for tools like Max, Maya, Softimage, etc.. We tried to pick the best limit possible. We also have some great plans on the roadmap to help alleviate the issue. As for making a EULA to prevent AAA from using it is not something we can do at this scale, We cant police usage.
As for OBJ, sounds like a good suggestion, I will add it to the wishlist.
So keep the feedback coming, we will continue to work on striking the right balance.
We are already seeing some amazing results with new users \ beta customers. Lots more to share soon.
As for the poly cap, the goal of LT is to provide a low cost tool that can create many of the assets of a game, but we understand not all. Hero objects or games that may require more are reserved for tools like Max, Maya, Softimage, etc.. We tried to pick the best limit possible. We also have some great plans on the roadmap to help alleviate the issue. As for making a EULA to prevent AAA from using it is not something we can do at this scale, We cant police usage.
-Frank
But what's the point? If I can export objects out separately to UDK, Unity, etc and them recombine them, what is the point of having the limit in the first place? It seems like an arbitrarily assigned number and all it really does is throw a wrench into your customers workflow.
Telling someone they can't use mental ray rendering or spline hair or paint FX or any number of things that are used for pre-rendering is totally acceptable to say "Maybe you aren't the target audience for this package." Especially if you're targeting game devs. That makes sense. Telling people "You can't export this mesh which is acceptable by today' standards and surely by the next consoles because the poly limit is too high" just doesn't make any sense to me. Especially knowing that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are opening their systems up to indies, why would you limit someones ability to take advantage of that?
I believe this limitation actually hurt Autodesk's reputation and general first impression of Maya LT.
As for licensing, look at Adobe Creative Cloud pricing model. I believe they have a very progressive long term thinking WHILE being completely affordable. CC complete plan costs $50 per month, that make it $600 annual for all CC apps. so in 5 years they will have made $3000 from a single user, and over all they are making more profit while still being affordable. More people would get the subscription and in the long term there would be considerably lot more money coming in from the annual subscription.
Not only does it comes out as very condescending towards smaller developers (someone somewhere at Autodesk seems to genuinely believe that indie = crappier content), it also clearly shows that Autodesk has absolutely no understanding of its user base ... and its own business model.!
yes. I worked on couple few indie games, couple on unity and few on IOS on proprietary engine and so far my experience have been that textures are far more expensive than polygons. some of the characters i made were close to 30K given that they were cinematic LODs but still in-game models.
I'm not saying they are using 15K+ triangles, but long distance, few object games like racers and space fighters can allocate quite a large portion of total polygons to the main character/vehicle.
Though, If it were me, I'd rather have a polygon cap than no access to scripts.
Exporting your whole scene of multiple meshes into one fbx file can be very useful as it keeps everything neatly there and you can refer to specific meshes from this fbx.
So does all these meshes in one fbx add up on the per fbx limit?
Unity won over the whole indie crowd for giving developers a deal they just couldn't say no to, Maya LT seems to be all about trying find that magical point where it has just enough limitations.
How will this win over the maya veterans who are also professional artists already when all they see is a limited product, and how will this win over the people who are just starting with 3d and are just better off picking blender.
Just offer a cheaper license of the whole thing, and ... that's it really !
Exactly! It's sad they AD can't see the success of many other license shapes from other software companies ( unity for example).
Why not do an Indie license which is simply cheaper but only available to companies who have an annual gross revenue lower than 100k or something like that? If you think companies with a higher gross revenue would still secretly use Maya LT instead of the full license...well then they might have as well pirated it. Don't punish the honest indie developers by making Maya LT crippled. And if this suggestions sounds dumb, I'm sure there's many other creative ways of doing it without the silly polygon limitations.
No offense, I really like using Maya, but I really wish there was more matching competition for AD. It would improve Maya/Max much faster than it is improving now.
How will this win over the maya veterans who are also professional artists already
I dont think this is the goal with maya lt but maybe Im wrong.
I was thinking about it and these limitations do make sense from a business point of view even if they don't make much sense to a lot of us as artists. Maya currently has a large high end(AAA game and film) user base...so how do they make a cheap low end product that wont take away any sales at all from that high end user base?
If maya LT is capable of easily creating high end game assets they will loose a big portion of their current maya professional users to the LT version, this is obviously not their goal. So how do they stop this from happening?
Simply by putting limitations at the license level, but not at the feature level. Small indie studio, under a certain number of people, with limited budget ? Cheap license. Big AAA studio with unlimited cash flow : Expensive license.
The "high end user base" that you refer too is almost never an individual artist ; and offering cheap yet full featured license to individuals would allow single freelancers to actually afford the program as opposed to pirating it, like quite a few do.
As for making a EULA to prevent AAA from using it is not something we can do at this scale, We cant police usage.
This person, I assume is something to do with Maya LT / autodesk and they say they just cant police usage, so making different licences for different parts of the game industry would be hard to implement.
well if they want to stick with the current price point and limits I also woujder how they will compete with modo which is only a little more expensive for the full license.
well if they want to stick with the current price point and limits I also woujder how they will compete with modo which is only a little more expensive for the full license.
yup. that's why I'd love to hear their reasoning for determining the price and features for LT. Because I'm pretty sure they must have considered their competition.
Exactly - Big studios don't use pirated software (that is to say : a program that they do not have the proper license for) because it would be catastrophic economically if an audit was being performed and revealed such illegal use.
Similarly, even if AD does not "police" every use of Maya LT, no big studio would ever use it if the license of LT states that it is for indies or small studios only - because that would mean that they are using a program that they do not have the proper license for, which is exactly like pirating.
It depends on license. Because studio can be composed entirely of individual self-employed contractors, even if they work in the same building (;.
Then if I were AD I'd applaud them for going through so much trouble to just save money and let them be. Honestly, how often do you think that will happen? And is it worth it to punish the majority that is playing by the rules just because there MIGHT be someone finding a way to bypass the license terms?
Exactly - Big studios don't use pirated software (that is to say : a program that they do not have the proper license for) because it would be catastrophic economically if an audit is was being performed and revealed such illegal use.
There once (or even twice ?) was the case of a big, prominent triple AAA studio and engine manifactor around 2004, where exactly that happened But i guess nowadays thats a total different story
One of their main objectives is not to cannibalize existing seats of the full version, which is understandable. If the cheaper version does enough for mid-range studios to use it, then indies and contractors might follow, and no one pays 3.5k for Maya anymore. Autodesk's investors get ticked and the company takes a beating.
I think the real problem, at least in games, is that a lot of Autodesk users are there only because it's marketable to know their software. If Modo was the standard and Autodesk tried to sell at its current price point, they'd be laughed out of the room even with all of the additional features.
They've said they want LT to be a long term project, so maybe in a version or two they'll figure it out. I'm glad they're taking feedback and participating in the discussion though.
One of their main objectives is not to cannibalize existing seats of the full version, which is understandable. If the cheaper version does enough for mid-range studios to use it, then indies and contractors might follow, and no one pays 3.5k for Maya anymore. Autodesk's investors get ticked and the company takes a beating.
I think the real problem, at least in games, is that a lot of Autodesk users are there only because it's marketable to know their software. If Modo was the standard and Autodesk tried to sell at its current price point, they'd be laughed out of the room even with all of the additional features.
They've said they want LT to be a long term project, so maybe in a version or two they'll figure it out. I'm glad they're taking feedback and participating in the discussion though.
And I can totally understand this. I've been somewhat negative in my previous posts and I don't want to be too hard on you guys over at Autodesk. I can really appreciate what you guys are trying to do and having a solid package at an affordable price would be a great thing. I just don't feel that it is quite there yet with some of the current limitations. That being said, I hope you guys get this fixed up and I do hope you deliver a quality product.
One of their main objectives is not to cannibalize existing seats of the full version, which is understandable. If the cheaper version does enough for mid-range studios to use it, then indies and contractors might follow, and no one pays 3.5k for Maya anymore. Autodesk's investors get ticked and the company takes a beating.
But I think that ends up being the difference between selling 100 copies of a $700 version to maybe 10 of the $3500 version. In other words, the sheer accessibility of a fully functional, non crippled streamlined version of maya can generate much more revenue by sheer quantity due to accessibility. They would probably be able to make more with studios hiring more and having more seats than less, and with users, even hobbyist, picking up Maya for home use without taking a financial hit.
A lot of users wont even use Maya for half its features, but it would still need to be full featured with the ones it does have.
They've said they want LT to be a long term project, so maybe in a version or two they'll figure it out. I'm glad they're taking feedback and participating in the discussion though.
The question is then, if they make changes based on feedback, do existing users have to pay for that in the form of an upgrade fee? If so that sends the message that its best to not buy LT and wait to see what happens. If so, the low sales numbers might send the wrong message that its not wanted.
The question is then, if they make changes based on feedback, do existing users have to pay for that in the form of an upgrade fee? If so that sends the message that its best to not buy LT and wait to see what happens. If so, the low sales numbers might send the wrong message that its not wanted.
Maybe it would be worth getting the monthly subscription just to try it out and see if it meets your needs and hopefully in a few months there will be more clarity as to wether the needed support/features will be implemented?
Man this thread, at first autodesk was all like MAYA LT ITS COOL BRO!
And then polycount was like:
Every Maya centric project that I've worked on has relied on some form of mel script to prep a model for export.
Scripting in Maya is one of the biggest reasons why someone would use Maya over any other 3d app.
Maya without mel to me is like:
Max without the modifier stack
Modo without sub-d centric modeling tools
Zbrush without sculpting.
I would love to see a stripped down Maya that was more game focused, to me that would look something like:
A. good poly modeling tools, for lowpoly and high poly sub-d work (for baking normals)
B. good uvs tools
C. texture baking tools (normals, ao, displacement, etc)
D. vertex painting and baking tools, either for vertex lighting or for texture blending
E. game-centric rigging and animation tools
F. lightmap baking tools
G. scripting
There's really no way I can address this product without piling on the already huge list of gripes this community obviously has with this product. (Keep in mind, a majority of us are VERY passionate about our Autodesk products, which is why this backlash is as harsh as it's been).
The problem isn't the idea behind the product itself, the problem is the ENTIRE PARADIGM you guys at Autodesk are using to approach it.
As software developers ourselves, we WILL buy into concepts. We WILL buy into newer methods of doing things. We are totally on board with newer distribution models, streamlined tools, and less-bloated software. We simply need explanations as to what the benefits are.
The only caveat is if the answer is 'profitability', we likely won't be on board with it.
So with that frame of reference in mind:
When we read about a feature such as '25k' poly limit, we naturally think the absolute WORSE things about the rationale behind it.
Can you give us a reasonable explanation as to why that was put in? Because right now we see it as a completely unnecessary cash-grab. You mentioned you spoke to many developers. Was there a large list of developer that asked for that limit for any particular reason?
And this doesn't simply stop at this particular feature. The optics right now is that EVERYTHING (aside from the price cut) has absolutely nothing to do with helping artists/indies, and more about maximizing profitability.
A. good poly modeling tools, for lowpoly and high poly sub-d work (for baking normals)
B. good uvs tools
C. texture baking tools (normals, ao, displacement, etc)
D. vertex painting and baking tools, either for vertex lighting or for texture blending
E. game-centric rigging and animation tools
F. lightmap baking tools
G. scripting
I agree that is a good list.
I think we are on our way with Maya LT, but obviously it isn't completely right yet.
But you are missing something on your list:
Marmoset in the Maya LT viewport...
When is that coming? I would love to see something like that!
How about the lack of scripting? How did they feel about that?
Also, is part of the reason for no scripting because one could just write their own Exporter and circumvent the 25k limit?
Replies
You are tin foil hat'ing here.
First, to correct you, the OBJ file format was created by Wavefront, not Alias Wavefront.
Next, it's a brutally simplistic format, which is why it is as popular as it had become ( much like 3ds and dxf ). That said, it's a brutally restricted format too... simply put, there isnt as much data captured.
Why the hell would Autodesk spend time supporting a format, when they instead support a (feature wise) superior format, that can be converted if required? Considering FBX supports 100% of the functionality of OBJ, not really getting where the issue is here.
To me, it just seems like another arbitrary restriction. Its a needless bottleneck to one's workflow. I tend to move assets between ZBrush and my main modeling application (currently Blender) pretty frequently, and all of those extra clicks will add up. Maybe my workflow isn't ideal, but a restriction like this will definitely factor into my decision to give Maya LT a shot.
Also, while we're on the topic of exporting, add me to the list of artists calling for an increase in the poly limit for FBX exports. I understand that the software isn't aimed at AAA studios, and the intention is that the artists will break assets apart before export, but as a character artist, 25,000 triangles still seems a bit stingy. I think 50,000 - 100,000 would be generous enough to future-proof the software, while still keeping in-line with the target audience.
Not to mention all the obsolete data I don't need, what good is FBX half of the time for me when it created gigantic selection boxes and requires me to break down my mesh again or destroy the heirechy of modifiers to fix this? I want to select a part of my mesh and press Z to Focus again, not be shot out into space due to some weird defined stretching issue that I don't see unless I Select All. Or because I have Vertex colors at one point?
To solve that, you need to use FBX Converter most of the time, which defeats the entire purpose of unified and iterative pipeline between different programs and versions, doesn't it? I'm not talking about something like Max 2009 vs Maya 2014, I'm talking more like 1 version difference at most.
I guess the only real good thing about it that most game engines support it natively...but that's the engine developers who made the effort in the first place, going as far as importing tangent data from it correctly without blowing up the mesh if it has a bone rigged an a slightly odd way.
There is a reason Autodesk decided to take the auto-import/export feature that they have now under their wing after Pixologic released their auto-import plugins for Max and Maya, or 3DC's direct integration of 3DConnexion, it's because most formats that we have currently don't work properly, period. I was so happy that they decided to just auto-transfer data through a function system directly from program to program, it seems like so far this is the only thing that even works properly.
In the mean time, OBJ is here to stay, and it will for a long time, just like 3DS format was for a long while. It has all the basic data one might need for a mesh, outside of bones, animations, etc not withstanding and it's functional, you guys might think it's old school and needs an update, but I honestly don't know if there anything else as reliable as OBJ as of now.
Maybe once Blender, Autodesk, Pixo or someone else comes up with a new file data that is essentially OBJ 2.0 on steroids, will we move on, in the mean time, non-animators and co. will stick with it.
So what is an entry level artist? I see quite a lot of graduate level people on polycount using udk or other engines, i dont normally see work being presented in unity free because of the lack of lighting and post processing.
on the plus side I could use maya lt fbx with marmoset toolbag and I hear there is some sort of fbx converter for cryengine I dont know how reliable it is?
And just to come back on the lack of scripting support: Maya, Max, any DCC program is always going to be lacking in features. Without sounding condescending I hope, the user experience of Maya can be called archaic and not always very friendly or efficient. Scripting offers a way to alleviate and fix these issues.
No scripting means facing working a lot slower and less efficient, in some cases pretty extreme differences are possible. The price difference between LT and regular is about 3000$, that's a single man-month worth of pay. I'm pretty sure an efficiently scripted pipeline can save a man-month worth of time over the course of a year...
Do you mean the "Send To Max/Maya" menu option? As far as I know that's still just FBX export/import.
I agree about sciprting. Is not even about I will be writing plugins. It's about I won't be able to use plugins that others have wrote.
For the type of work and projects that you have worked on (nice work btw), and if you're already expanding upon the capabilities of the 3D software and plugins, then MayaLT probably isn't the solution for you. We're not saying it is, or a replacement either. MayaLT is option for small indie mobile devs.
@Ged
There are many guys who are at an entry level and many aren't artists, or they have limited game dev experience. With the way indie mobile development has been expanding, guys like programmers, designers and 2D graphic artists are starting to work in 3D.
Full blown packages like Maya, Max and Softimage can appear quiet daunting, so MayaLT might be something that appeals to them.
I have to say I'm not an indie. I mostly work on AAA stuff. However if I'd make my own small game I would seriously consider blender, just because of the cost and the scriptability (I'm a tech artist so I love stuff that I can script
Fair point, however I'm going to sound critical and defensive here and I don't mean to be, but if people have had a high and specific expectation for MayaLT, that hasn't been us, we haven't raised false hopes. We've been very clear (from the start, and sounding like a broken record
I've read many comments on here and other forums about previous initiatives like gmax, or (if you're old enough like me to remember)Maya Builder and XSI Foundation, or ModTool, but these are kinda the past now and alot has changed since these products were launch. (Android and iOS devices weren't even around when gmax appeared.)
Personally, I see MayaLT has a kinda fresh start and I'm pleased to see Autodesk trying to do something here and be more flexible for things like licensing. I don't think we'd ever profess to getting things right or having all the answers, but if MayaLT was to evolve over time with peoples feedback, then that's a good thing, imo.
I often hear people wanting a 'de-bloated' version of software aimed at games as a whole, but it can a tricky thing to get right. Whilst the line between games and film can appear thin in some areas, it can also be chasmic in others. If we trimmed some unwanted features, they'd always be people who wanted them included, I think the discussion around LT has shown that
I can't comment on roadmaps though, so can't say if this would ever happen, but who knows?
I think if somebody doesn't want to invest any money in tools, then there is absolutely nothing you can say or do to change their minds.
Some people will jump through any hoop as long as it is free.
I know plenty of people who own tablets or smart phones who even refuse to pay a $1-3 dollar for a game and will put endless effort into finding it for free online somewhere.
I worked as an Indie developer myself and we tried Blender.
It was not for us. But I did feel over $3k for Max/Maya was painful to cough up.
Certainly Maya LT's cost if far more reasonable.
I think the goal for Maya LT is that over time it offers a better toolset, UI, workflow, integration etc to justify a reasonable cost. I hope we can polish the feature list and problems pointed out in this thread to make that happen.
I don't think that's true - unless you have a very simplistic decision making process. Then again I doubt you'll be successful making games that way.
For a certain price tag a product should have some advantage over a free product. For example Blender got script support - score for Blender. Maya LT has shaderFX - point for LT. In the end I'd just want to know from AD what they think justifies the limitations and the price attached when comparing their own product with the competition. They certainly must have thought of this before deciding to develop LT.
On the other hand it's nice that there's a roadmap for LT, but why drop money on it right now? As a potential customer I wouldn't pay 700 dollars for possible future features. But without current customers LT won't see a future. But I'm sure AD has thought about this as well.
Yes obj is simple, yes obj is limitated because IT'S A STANDARD created long ago.
Why do we still use it ? Because basicaly every software (even modest homemade engines you know the kind indies may actually build themselves...) can support it (and most do) with very little work because it's simple.
If I want a newer format like hte holy grail which is fbx with ultra messy normal support, version incompatibilities, and the fact than a shitload of apps don't support the same features of the format (making the extra infos contained in them useless) makes me wish for such an obsolete but SOLID standard as OBJ.
As for the alias/wavefront correction. Well good to know I tend to forgetthat from my sgi days
That sounds like the ".Blend" file format. It's a pretty impressive format.
On another note, part of the issue (not file format related) seems to be the mid range market. It existed with XSI when they were charging $600 per seat I believe, but was destroyed with Autodesk bought them out. Now XSI is upwards of $3000, effectively destroying the mid range option.
With LT it seems like they are putting it back but in the most crippled way possible.
Where is the middle ground? Doesnt seem like Autodesk was going to allow one.
I dont want this to sound like advertising, but based on what you have said its hard not to bring this up, especially as it relates to what Maya LT is supposed to cover:
A Blender developer is creating something called Polydrive, still in heavy testing but its essentially a visual scripting (procedural modeling) approach.
Additionally, seems their 2.7 roadmap includes everything from advanced HLSL shaders and updated openGL viewport rendering.
http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and-beyond/
I actually love working in Maya, its what I learned when starting out but it just seems they are not very pro consumer in the long run. No trust between user and developer.
I remember how your work was essentially gone forever if you ever wanted to move from maya PLE to complete/unlimited (thanks to an incompatible format, .mp, which is what .mlt instantly reminded me off), and I'm worried the same is true for LT. That's ok for a learning edition, but in production, it's just not acceptable. I haven't given LT a test run yet, but I sincerely hope that there is some sort of upgrade path available, since PLE, gmax & XSI mod tool were all short lived projects.
Just to step sideways and offer some backgound info....
You're referring to what was XSI Foundation, but it wasn't destroyed by the Autodesk acquisition of Softimage.
XSI Foundation probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Foundation was just a one off price ($500), download only, but no upgrades and no support. This has been debated over on the si-community forums many times, with some older ex-Softimage guys saying that in reality Foundation was a kinda loss leader. To quote one of the old sales guys - "all Foundation did was make selling of regular XSI seats very difficult, and made selling maintenance even harder ("I could just buy Foundation, you need to make us a deal"). It didn't lead to a flood of new users, because price is not the deciding factor in the professional market. You can be so expensive that nobody will touch you, but you can't be so cheap that everyone will use your product."
But that was over 5 years ago now and alot has changed since then, both industries and markets.
On another sidenote the Blender Polydrive stuff looks interesting, but I just wanted to point out that you've been able to do all that in Softimage ICE for some time, and that's visual programming, not scripting. reading the guys post, I saw that he'd experimented in Softimage ICE.
Anyway, I've digressed enough.
For awhile now, Autodesk has helped create the image that in order to protect its revenue stream its willing to "ruin" the party so to speak, not join in.
I had my card out ready to order the LT until those restrictions came to light, and then you start reminding yourself that its Autodesk and the skepticism comes right back in full.
Speaking on the Blender front, its refreshing to see both artist and developers come out in the open and talk freely. Nothing is really hidden, there are no strings attached, its people who love the art form doing it for the sake of that interest. Creates a pretty stark contrast to AD dont you think?
For the type of work and projects that you have worked on (nice work btw), and if you're already expanding upon the capabilities of the 3D software and plugins, then MayaLT probably isn't the solution for you. We're not saying it is, or a replacement either. MayaLT is option for small indie mobile devs.
"
But thats what i mean, no indie in his right mind would pay for a crippled software without means to "fix" it. Its common logic. I hope you guys come to your senses and stop messing with 3ds max and maya in the updates and get rid of all the unecessary crap that keep piling on and on...If you guys search this forum you will see countless threads that mention this...
Want a good example of getting rid of crap ? check 3ds clean from 3pointstudios and youll get what i mean.
Good luck nontheless , i wish you guys well.
Not only does it comes out as very condescending towards smaller developers (someone somewhere at Autodesk seems to genuinely believe that indie = crappier content), it also clearly shows that Autodesk has absolutely no understanding of its user base ... and its own business model.
First, if Autodesk actually had taken the time to gather information from game developers before releasing such a crippled version of Maya, by openly discussing its features on forums like Polycount, they would have learned in no time that the arbitrary poly limit, lack of OBJ support and no mel scripting is exactly what an indie dev does NOT want, for all the reasons listed in previous posts. I wonder if they ever heard of the concept of saving tetxure memory (you know ... the big bottleneck for game devs) by using trimsheets and clever kitbashing like in Hawken which of course can generate assets over 25k very easily.
So claiming that MayaLT is good for indies, throwing out PR talk like We see indie game developers as a key part of the industry, driving innovative new production techniques and gameplay", but eventually releasing such a version of Maya boggles my mind. They should just be honest and call it what it really is, that is to say, a desperate attempt to try to squeeze money out of smaller budget teams.
Second, I'd like to ask : how bad would it be for Autodesk if an affordable budget version of Maya aimed at indies had NO limitation whatsoever ? What would they loose in the process ? Are they afraid that someone would use it to make a pre-rendered background for a skybox ? How would that be a bad thing ??
That's really the part I do not understand at all. Their whole business model is based on licences and subscriptions. Why not simply have one unique version of Maya, with all its features, but with 3 different license types ?
- Free for hobbyist projects and non-profit work.
- $500 for indies and freelancers.
- Full price for game and movie studios over a certain number of employees.
This would boost their user base like crazy, make the program very popular, and bring in a huge amount of cash. But instead of that, some clueless marketing team decides to cripple their product and service, offering it at an indecent price, while hoping to convince their power users that such bullshit is "just what they need".
Mind blowing !
Where are all these indies that would be effected by that polycount limit? I'm sure even most of the WoW team would hardly blink an eye at that. I'm not even arguing about the program anymore :P
Creative game design means that a whole game could be based around manipulating a very detailled piece of terrain .... maybe a huge enemy to climb like in Shadow Of The Colossus ... or as stated above, creative modeling techniques saving texture memory can often mean higher polygon density than usual, and so on.
My opinion is that as soon as they claim that "some users sure don't need that ! Let's cripple that feature", they basically show that they have not a single clue about what it means to creatively solve technical problems within a game dev environment.
And also, Autodesk deciding to prevent OBJ export, basically means that they genuinely believe that an indie team would never have the need for texture baking in Xnormal or sculpting in Zbrush.
Similarly, disabling the renderer means that they didn't even consider that some small indies games might benefit from pre-rendered backgrounds or game content rendered as sprite sheets. The list goes on ...
Hi Pior,
I think that is overly harsh.
There are plenty of people on the Games Team at Autodesk that have worked in in various parts of the games industry.
I won't make this into a "pissing contest" and start listing everybodies resume's, but we definitely have an understanding of the user base.
We have to mix it inside a publicly traded company that has many other products and goals and that can certainly be a challenge. Maya LT version 1.0 is also our starting point, not our end destination of trying to align better with Indie/Small game developers.
If you don't like what you currently see, leave your feedback, go on with your daily life and take another look at the next version. It is a work in progress and I have heard nothing but commitment from the leadership to keep improving this rapidly.
Finally, Autodesk did take the time to talk to people inside and outside the company about our Maya LT plans.
The polycap and scripting limitations came up plenty. Both from user/beta feedback, but also from some of us internally. (I am personally in the "This poly-cap sucks camp"
So the responses to those limitations are not unexpected and we have plans in place to adjust where it makes sense.
For some, these limitations are not at all a problem. They can start using Maya LT today.
Others, might choose to use only parts of Maya LT for now, or wait until our feature list aligns better with what they want. Or continue to use regular Max or Maya (or some other app).
After using Autodesk apps professionally for years, trying as best as I can to provide direct feedback using the reporting platforms in place as well as unofficial channels like here on Polycount, it's just a tad disappointing to see that there is still such a disconnect with the user base.
Going back to my previous point, I still don't understand why anyone at AD could think that limiting the program in any shape or form for an indie license could be a good idea to begin with. What is the point ? Just offer a cheaper license of the whole thing, and ... that's it really !
As for the poly cap, the goal of LT is to provide a low cost tool that can create many of the assets of a game, but we understand not all. Hero objects or games that may require more are reserved for tools like Max, Maya, Softimage, etc.. We tried to pick the best limit possible. We also have some great plans on the roadmap to help alleviate the issue. As for making a EULA to prevent AAA from using it is not something we can do at this scale, We cant police usage.
As for OBJ, sounds like a good suggestion, I will add it to the wishlist.
So keep the feedback coming, we will continue to work on striking the right balance.
We are already seeing some amazing results with new users \ beta customers. Lots more to share soon.
-Frank
But what's the point? If I can export objects out separately to UDK, Unity, etc and them recombine them, what is the point of having the limit in the first place? It seems like an arbitrarily assigned number and all it really does is throw a wrench into your customers workflow.
Telling someone they can't use mental ray rendering or spline hair or paint FX or any number of things that are used for pre-rendering is totally acceptable to say "Maybe you aren't the target audience for this package." Especially if you're targeting game devs. That makes sense. Telling people "You can't export this mesh which is acceptable by today' standards and surely by the next consoles because the poly limit is too high" just doesn't make any sense to me. Especially knowing that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are opening their systems up to indies, why would you limit someones ability to take advantage of that?
Good post Pior! agreed 100%
I believe this limitation actually hurt Autodesk's reputation and general first impression of Maya LT.
As for licensing, look at Adobe Creative Cloud pricing model. I believe they have a very progressive long term thinking WHILE being completely affordable. CC complete plan costs $50 per month, that make it $600 annual for all CC apps. so in 5 years they will have made $3000 from a single user, and over all they are making more profit while still being affordable. More people would get the subscription and in the long term there would be considerably lot more money coming in from the annual subscription.
yes. I worked on couple few indie games, couple on unity and few on IOS on proprietary engine and so far my experience have been that textures are far more expensive than polygons. some of the characters i made were close to 30K given that they were cinematic LODs but still in-game models.
[ame="
Made by a team of 4 people.
[ame="
by a team of 3,
[ame="
by a team of 4 people, and lastly
[ame="
by (if their site lists all the devs and not just heads) only 3 guys.
I'm not saying they are using 15K+ triangles, but long distance, few object games like racers and space fighters can allocate quite a large portion of total polygons to the main character/vehicle.
Though, If it were me, I'd rather have a polygon cap than no access to scripts.
Exporting your whole scene of multiple meshes into one fbx file can be very useful as it keeps everything neatly there and you can refer to specific meshes from this fbx.
So does all these meshes in one fbx add up on the per fbx limit?
Unity won over the whole indie crowd for giving developers a deal they just couldn't say no to, Maya LT seems to be all about trying find that magical point where it has just enough limitations.
How will this win over the maya veterans who are also professional artists already when all they see is a limited product, and how will this win over the people who are just starting with 3d and are just better off picking blender.
Exactly! It's sad they AD can't see the success of many other license shapes from other software companies ( unity for example).
Why not do an Indie license which is simply cheaper but only available to companies who have an annual gross revenue lower than 100k or something like that? If you think companies with a higher gross revenue would still secretly use Maya LT instead of the full license...well then they might have as well pirated it. Don't punish the honest indie developers by making Maya LT crippled. And if this suggestions sounds dumb, I'm sure there's many other creative ways of doing it without the silly polygon limitations.
No offense, I really like using Maya, but I really wish there was more matching competition for AD. It would improve Maya/Max much faster than it is improving now.
I dont think this is the goal with maya lt but maybe Im wrong.
I was thinking about it and these limitations do make sense from a business point of view even if they don't make much sense to a lot of us as artists. Maya currently has a large high end(AAA game and film) user base...so how do they make a cheap low end product that wont take away any sales at all from that high end user base?
If maya LT is capable of easily creating high end game assets they will loose a big portion of their current maya professional users to the LT version, this is obviously not their goal. So how do they stop this from happening?
The "high end user base" that you refer too is almost never an individual artist ; and offering cheap yet full featured license to individuals would allow single freelancers to actually afford the program as opposed to pirating it, like quite a few do.
This person, I assume is something to do with Maya LT / autodesk and they say they just cant police usage, so making different licences for different parts of the game industry would be hard to implement.
yup. that's why I'd love to hear their reasoning for determining the price and features for LT. Because I'm pretty sure they must have considered their competition.
Similarly, even if AD does not "police" every use of Maya LT, no big studio would ever use it if the license of LT states that it is for indies or small studios only - because that would mean that they are using a program that they do not have the proper license for, which is exactly like pirating.
Then if I were AD I'd applaud them for going through so much trouble to just save money and let them be. Honestly, how often do you think that will happen? And is it worth it to punish the majority that is playing by the rules just because there MIGHT be someone finding a way to bypass the license terms?
I think the real problem, at least in games, is that a lot of Autodesk users are there only because it's marketable to know their software. If Modo was the standard and Autodesk tried to sell at its current price point, they'd be laughed out of the room even with all of the additional features.
They've said they want LT to be a long term project, so maybe in a version or two they'll figure it out. I'm glad they're taking feedback and participating in the discussion though.
And I can totally understand this. I've been somewhat negative in my previous posts and I don't want to be too hard on you guys over at Autodesk. I can really appreciate what you guys are trying to do and having a solid package at an affordable price would be a great thing. I just don't feel that it is quite there yet with some of the current limitations. That being said, I hope you guys get this fixed up and I do hope you deliver a quality product.
But I think that ends up being the difference between selling 100 copies of a $700 version to maybe 10 of the $3500 version. In other words, the sheer accessibility of a fully functional, non crippled streamlined version of maya can generate much more revenue by sheer quantity due to accessibility. They would probably be able to make more with studios hiring more and having more seats than less, and with users, even hobbyist, picking up Maya for home use without taking a financial hit.
A lot of users wont even use Maya for half its features, but it would still need to be full featured with the ones it does have.
The question is then, if they make changes based on feedback, do existing users have to pay for that in the form of an upgrade fee? If so that sends the message that its best to not buy LT and wait to see what happens. If so, the low sales numbers might send the wrong message that its not wanted.
Maybe it would be worth getting the monthly subscription just to try it out and see if it meets your needs and hopefully in a few months there will be more clarity as to wether the needed support/features will be implemented?
And then polycount was like:
Every Maya centric project that I've worked on has relied on some form of mel script to prep a model for export.
Scripting in Maya is one of the biggest reasons why someone would use Maya over any other 3d app.
Maya without mel to me is like:
Max without the modifier stack
Modo without sub-d centric modeling tools
Zbrush without sculpting.
I would love to see a stripped down Maya that was more game focused, to me that would look something like:
A. good poly modeling tools, for lowpoly and high poly sub-d work (for baking normals)
B. good uvs tools
C. texture baking tools (normals, ao, displacement, etc)
D. vertex painting and baking tools, either for vertex lighting or for texture blending
E. game-centric rigging and animation tools
F. lightmap baking tools
G. scripting
The problem isn't the idea behind the product itself, the problem is the ENTIRE PARADIGM you guys at Autodesk are using to approach it.
As software developers ourselves, we WILL buy into concepts. We WILL buy into newer methods of doing things. We are totally on board with newer distribution models, streamlined tools, and less-bloated software. We simply need explanations as to what the benefits are.
The only caveat is if the answer is 'profitability', we likely won't be on board with it.
So with that frame of reference in mind:
When we read about a feature such as '25k' poly limit, we naturally think the absolute WORSE things about the rationale behind it.
Can you give us a reasonable explanation as to why that was put in? Because right now we see it as a completely unnecessary cash-grab. You mentioned you spoke to many developers. Was there a large list of developer that asked for that limit for any particular reason?
And this doesn't simply stop at this particular feature. The optics right now is that EVERYTHING (aside from the price cut) has absolutely nothing to do with helping artists/indies, and more about maximizing profitability.
I agree that is a good list.
I think we are on our way with Maya LT, but obviously it isn't completely right yet.
But you are missing something on your list:
Marmoset in the Maya LT viewport...
When is that coming? I would love to see something like that!
Also, is part of the reason for no scripting because one could just write their own Exporter and circumvent the 25k limit?