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
just curious what other than mel is not included in that list?
The development is an ongoing process, and the feedback here has certainly created some positive discussion on the beta forums.
Scripting was a tough call but the opinions were mixed and we ended up without scripting. I think given the feedback here it's evident that scripting is a necessity so we'll see what we can do. Actually you wouldn't be able to circumvent the 25k limit as it's part of the FBX plugin in LT so even if you used MEL to call into FBX to write the file to disk you'd hit the limitation.
cant you just export multiple <25k files from LT and combine them later elsewhere to form bigger files ?
Its a lot like having a small yard, one that wouldnt really make sense to house a horse in....and then you are told by some horse breeder named "Otto Deesk" that you can just get a Pony, its like a horse but much smaller and it wont break your bank. Great for small yards!
So lets say you go ahead and buy into it, you always wanted a horse but just couldnt do it with with a small yard and limited funds.
Otto brings over the pony and says "here it is, oh but first I got to prep her for sale". He then proceeds to grab a sledge hammer and smash it down on the pony's back leg. "That should do it". Now lets say at this point, like any rational human being you would be like "wtf dude! why? what is wrong with you"...
Well Otto has an answer for that, "well y'see here. I sell these here big horses for lots of money, and I cant have no one thinking you can get a small horse that cheap, espe'ssally one that can walk on 4 legs like them big horses. See if its limpin and cant be ridden the same way as them big horses over there, I wont have to be worried about losin them customers."
To Otto, it doesnt matter that a small pony cant have the same pulling power as a full fledged work horse, or that it cant run at the same speed, or cant be used in horse shows to win nice prize money, if it still looks and walks like a normal horse its a problem.
Lets just hope Otto gets the message that the sledge hammer approach isnt needed.
well then i am confused why the 25k native export limit is in there to begin with ?
the OBJ export limitation also seems to have a work around with FBX converter but most likely at the risk of messed up tangent space information as far as i seen.
so why these couple of limitations that have some sort of annoying work around ?
at the end of the day if they are not hardcore locks then why throw them in there at all ? it just adds more reason for someone to not buy Maya LT.
so why these couple of limitations that have some sort of annoying work around ?
I 'think' the goal was to say: "Hey, this is for Indies, so don't use it to create film assets", but I think the message has been heard loud and clear users want us to do this differently.
the OBJ export limitation also seems to have a work around with FBX converter but most likely at the risk of messed up tangent space information as far as i seen.
There is no tangent space information inside the OBJ format so I doubt the FBX converter will break it.
i thought we were not suppose to be install MEL scripts!
it seems that it is fairly easy to install a simple third party script like MJPoly Tools and it works.
there is no script editor but any commands can be made into buttons manually and put in custom shelves like shown here:
is this another fake limitation with the added botheration of no native MEL script editor...
Errr, this is interesting. I was wondering already, since so much in Maya is based around script commands.
If this is a bug: please don't fix it Autodesk, this is great. If it's not a bug, you should really communicate that "no scripting" means no authoring of scripts, but that you can still run them. This makes it a whole lot more interesting already: the average user doesn't author scripts himself anyway.
"no scripting" means no authoring of scripts, but that you can still run them. This makes it a whole lot more interesting already: the average user doesn't author scripts himself anyway
I would deem this acceptable and am ready to purchase about 6 copies over the next few months. If that is the case, and if it loads python modules. Our small art team will grow a little more from now until the end of the year.
I would deem this acceptable and am ready to purchase about 6 copies over the next few months. If that is the case, and if it loads python modules. Our small art team will grow a little more from now until the end of the year.
Yeah, I'd take that too, but the obj restriction still bothers me. I might might might even be able to live with the 25K thing, but I move back and forth between zbrush and Maya too much to add the file conversion step into the process.
Would really like to be able to use that shaderFX though, looks great.
It's too bad, because I get the feeling that in this thread you have a couple of ADesk employees who are trying to do the best they can by the devs, who realize that these decisions are maybe not the most dev-friendly, who are having to explain away these problems without actually blaming the people at the top who have made these decisions. Decisions based on something other than what is good for their product or for the devs.
In that case I'd make it a top-priority to communicate this well. This changes the perception of MayaLT quite a lot imo.
it would not be possible to remove the Mel from Maya all ui and keys run Mel or python commands, and the marking menus and tool uis are generated with all Mel.
In that case I'd make it a top-priority to communicate this well. This changes the perception of MayaLT quite a lot imo.
I agree.
I think the exact offering for scripting/poly caps and many other things are still being explored by management in order to find the right balance between the right solution for Indie developers, while not hurting the regular Maya market.
We cannot really say that Maya LT v1 has full scripting, because it simply has not at this time.
I think/hope we will get there. I really like the energy and momentum we have in the new Games Team at Autodesk, so I am hopeful we will find the right balance for the majority of people who Maya LT is for.
i am wondering, if a team of 5 devs get 4 MayaLT seats for regular devs and 1 Maya core seat for the inhouse tech/tools guy then will it be possible to implement the tools created in Maya core into those MayaLT seats ?
also please integrate shaderFX into Maya core because one should not have to buy both Maya core and Maya LT just to be able to use all Maya feature. Maya core should have everything Maya LT has.
if ADSK is worried about maya core market then they should really reconsider their subscription pricing/system. monthly sub like the adobe creative cloud model where you pay per month with annual commitment could be more profitable in the long term while being more affordable.Maya core could easily be $70-$100 a month (for single user) and that could be a steady $1200 annually forever. you would have to keep paying every month to keep using it like adobe CC does so this means a steady stream of revenue. right now one can just buy a single seat for $3675 and not upgrade for 5 years but with monthly pay it will be $6000 in 5 years and so on.
atm I just see things just stacking up against Maya LT, crippled fbx with the limit, no proper scripting or plugins, lack of obj and plugins makes it hard to have Maya lt play along with zbrush for making base meshes. The price point is just too similar to products such as modo which offer a lot more for just a little more money.
For the cost give me a reason to not spend a little more for modo?
all of the things im marking against it are artificial limits as well that are just there to cripple it.
if you wanted to remove parts of maya for indie game dev, it really should be things like mental ray, and maya dynamics and features more pointed to film.
the only real feature it has for indie dev is shader fx which really dosnt matter much unless there is a way to have shaders made in in carry over to game engines like unity.
think they might just make a little more offering maya with a new cheaper indie license, since poeple like me due to the large cost of maya dont upgrade often, example im on 2012 atm, and see no reason to jump to 2014 and unless 2015 when it comes out has a amazing feature set i still prolly wont upgrade due to it costing too much to do so.
so there loseing a lot from me since i stick with 1 version for 3 to 5 years at a time
well, according to ADSK it seems that opening up mel scripting, unlocking poly caps and plugin support will most likely hurt their core market because current core users might think they don't need to spend $3675 on core while they could just get by fine with MayaLT for $795
i can understand that could be a possibility, but i think they are also underestimating how the quantity of MayaLT sales would go up significantly with support for mel, plugins and no poly caps.
either way, i think the limitations are not as effective to maximize sales revenue compared to a perpetual monthly sub with no feature limitation.
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!
Hehe, that's actually a very interesting question. Do you guys have documentation on what it takes to author new content (I would assume we could make some custom nodes or something - but I'm not familiar with it at all) for shaderfx?
Hehe, that's actually a very interesting question. Do you guys have documentation on what it takes to author new content (I would assume we could make some custom nodes or something - but I'm not familiar with it at all) for shaderfx?
Would you mind emailing me so we can explore this idea?
I think we could do some really cool stuff there.
...
So Python itself is totally sandboxed and we do not allow the user to load or call into Python modules from within Maya LT. That also means that you are unable to load up .py plugin modules as well unfortunately.
...
For a saving of (6 * $3500) - (6 * $800) = $16,200 I can probably switch back to MEL. Our "indie" tools are mostly for content delivery. I guess I'll just have to see what works and what doesn't with a demo of LT.
To keep it in perspective, it wasnt that long ago that Luxology was offering a full license for Modo 601 for $800ish. Mix that with substance designer's modo price ($395) and you have a fully featured powerful app for indie work. Sure even with the full 701 price of $1500, it might end up being a better investment for the indie than Maya lt.
I'm pretty much ready to throw my money at Autodesk for maya lt, as long as it doesnt feel crippled or intentionally maimed to prevent competition with its own products. Otherwise, Modo/Blender are probably the most ideal indie packages.
Dataday have you given the trial a whirl? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts playing with the trial version. As I've said before we're very open to feedback and improving LT as much as we can.
Oh I'll cave in eventually (trying, not buying)... just dragging my feet over it. I actually like working in Maya, and thats why I'll probably be more critical of what I see (or do not see) in LT. Already the lack of export options mentioned, polygon limit, and scripting has gotten me close to the point where one starts spouting random German obscenities at the screen.
That said, do you know what kind of data is being collected when LT trial is run? Looking at the things you have to agree to just to get the LT downloader seem to imply the data collection might go beyond which features get used.
Give Blender a chance. Yes, regular Maya is far ahead of it, but Maya LT? Personally I'd love to see Blender succeed (same as I love to see open 3D and graphics formats to succeed). I think Blender is pretty close to be an alternative for some studios, so it wouldn't hurt if some people actually start using it.
Give Blender a chance. Yes, regular Maya is far ahead of it, but Maya LT? Personally I'd love to see Blender succeed (same as I love to see open 3D and graphics formats to succeed). I think Blender is pretty close to be an alternative for some studios, so it wouldn't hurt if some people actually start using it.
Oh no doubt. I never regret adding Blender to my pipeline. I was surprised to find out that its actually a better modeler than Maya, it has GoZ functionality as well so I can easily sent my zbrush mesh back and forth, they added a recent retopo tool called Contours which is pretty good. The sculpting feature allows for the easy manipulation of verts or just plain out zbrush like sculpting using the multi-rez modifier. My only qualms about Blender at the moment is its still tied down to opengl 1.0 and the viewport rendering (for real time) isnt the best, yet. Also its snapping functionality isnt nearly as good as Maya's in my opinion, though the 3d cursor makes it more dynamic. It just often means more steps involved.
Over all even if Blender cost $500 it would still be worth buying, which is an amazing accomplishment for such Open Source Software. Really, adds another level to the competitive market as far as 3d apps go.
I think the Trial still lets you opt out of CIP but I haven't run it in a while to verify. CIP just collects info on features/plugins used and no personal data as far as I am aware.
Some verification would probably help. Autodesk to user trust is pretty low. I did however download the trial exe, which is only about 8 mb. Guessing thats a downloader of sorts. If so it doesnt work, says cant connect to server.
I've sent an email to some of our CIP folks to ask what gets collected for you. Will let you know when I hear back. The trial should have either a streaming Downloader or just the regular browser downloader (my Mac defaults to browser download). Let me know what region you're in and I'll find out what's up with the server error.
I wont lie it feels a bit...weird with some stuff missing. Calling it a slimmed down version of Maya is an understatement. Having only viewport 2.0 was kind of an odd feeling, but its kind of nice not worrying about the viewport mode anymore. I was able to do a lot of the usual stuff I do in Maya, though without familiar plugins and limited export options it didnt feel right.
I am not sure the fbx polycount limitation is needed for such a slimmed down version of maya, too much is lost in the LT version for it to be a threat. If that was removed or greatly changed, obj exports as an option and a better pro-plugin approach, I would probably buy it. Cant justify it though in its current iteration based on experiences so far. The future seems questionable, and its telling potential buyers to wait and see rather than buy and hope for changes (that wont come at a cost).
I am what has been referred to as a home user in this thread. My question is; does anyone think the poly limit is in the core program or is it just a limiter in the export module? With the amount of feedback on the poly limit it would be great if this is something Autodesk could just increase with a new export update to the software.
Can you build high poly in this program at all? I'm not using the software commercially at all. It's strictly something I would like to learn. I have read that there is a 3 year limit on the student version of Maya (I took classes at the local community college). The reason LT is interesting to me is that I could afford $800 after the Maya student license expires. But $3600 is too high for someone not making a living with the application.
The limit is only in the FBX exporter, per object.
You can have as many polygons in the Maya LT scene as you want and you can export as many individual FBX files as you want.
What is preventing Autodesk from allowing multiple export types then? Some that might not be restricted by such a polycount?
As it stands now its arbitrary because the user will just have to export pieces and combine them together in another app, and there are tons of those that can be had for free, which will allow multiple export types. Basically its just making the end user go through one extra step. Is that worth losing sales over?
Just trying to understand the rational behind some of the more odd ball limitations.
That was discussed earlier in the thread. It is, indeed, confusing as to why it exists. It's an arbitrary hoop the user has to jump through that really doesn't do much of anything other than annoy the person using the app.
That was discussed earlier in the thread. It is, indeed, confusing as to why it exists. It's an arbitrary hoop the user has to jump through that really doesn't do much of anything other than annoy the person using the app.
to put out a version for smaller indie studios. If you're hampered by the 25k export, I doubt your budget is less than half a million dollars, that's when it's time to buy the full version rather than LT (which I'm certain means LITE).
A single high poly mesh can easily exceed 25K. If you're exporting to bake in xNormal, it's a problem. Any team could run into that limit and very quickly, big or small.
A single high poly mesh can easily exceed 25K. If you're exporting to bake in xNormal, it's a problem. Any team could run into that limit and very quickly, big or small.
Yes, but that's still a labor intensive process and time = money. I know people have started using the sculpt + bake for low poly diffuse only work but from what I've seen it's more for a consistent art style than any time saving.
A single high poly mesh can easily exceed 25K. If you're exporting to bake in xNormal, it's a problem. Any team could run into that limit and very quickly, big or small.
i guess you are suppose to bake inside MayaLT using Turtle which is included.
to use xNormal properly(with SBM format) you would need xnormal plugin support for MayaLT which is currently not possible.
Definitely let us know if the baking tools in Maya LT (e.g. Turtle) are not doing the job right.
We want that stuff to work properly so you do not need other baking tools.
Of course some may still prefer xNormal etc, that is fine.
But the reason should not be: "I have to use xNormal because Maya LT's baking tools are broken"
Isnt that sort of the problem here though.. its like telling the end user that they have to use AD's dictated workflow or else nothing else will work. It goes beyond just creating a tool. It starts to seem like the entire philosophy is messed up. The user can get around a 25k limit by exporting to free software such as blender, joining meshes or adding another subd level..or exporting as an obj for zbrush work. All this does is imply that they want to disrupt the end user, punish them, for going outside of the dictated pipeline. Maya users generally will export anyway just to get better UV unwraps.
I am more interested in what's preventing AD from just doing the right thing and allow the user to export to multiple formats without trying to control what they export, allow the user to have their own pipeline with a slimmed down toolset. Streamlining and/or slimming down feature sets doesnt mean crippling the software intentionally just to control the user. If sales are more important then they are losing potential buyers by not being pro-end user.
Some of the limitations are artificial, meant only to "pee on the parade" (control the pipeline) and to me that just doesnt make any sense, nor does it make people actually like AD.
is AO baking in Turtle faster than regular maya AO baking ?
xNormal is very fast compared to Maya native AO transfer.
Turtle is definitely faster than Maya's native AO transfer as I believe its still single threaded. Also I remember seeing/hearing Turtle being integrated into Maya 2013 and 2014. Dont have access to them unfortunately
In a way it doesn't really matter how fast Turtle is tho - Maya can be very slow at importing dense meshes, and even converting subdivided models to actual bake-friendly polygons can cause issues and crashes...
Limiting the number on polygons on export, effectively forcing the user to use Turtle or Transfer Maps, is another insult to the small developers and freelancers who are supposed to be the target audience of the program. These users rely on Xnormal a lot because it is free, extremely powerful, and is often the best solution in the case of projects not having their baking pipeline properly synced. Which is another hint at the fact that AD didn't really talk to their audience that much when making up the limitations of LT ...
Just thought I'd add that not being able to use plugins breaks the CryEngine pipeline for Maya LT (and maybe other engines with Maya exporters). If attracting indie devs are what AD is after it might do to have a list of plugins/scripts that are allowed and disable custom script support.
Cynically speaking, this just seems to be another Autodesk implementation of the whole Microsoftian 'embrace, extend, extinguish' model to stop small studios defecting to Blender or Modo. When compared with Blender and Modo the advantage you get using Maya is the ecosystem that has developed around it, the plugins, the tools, the pipelines. Having a crippled version that strips the user of that ecosystem isn't really a good business choice. I'm not sure anyone thinks that Maya's modeling tools are the top of the line without plugins, so LT is at a disadvantage to better modelers such as Modo and Blender already.
Anyhow, I'm not sure Maya LT will be relevant in a year anyway. The problems with Blender for the game art pipeline are rapidly being solved (smooth groups / vertex normal exporting was recently fixed). Why buy Maya LT when you can use that $795 for a Z-Brush license and use Blender for your base meshes?
Just thought I'd add that not being able to use plugins breaks the CryEngine pipeline for Maya LT (and maybe other engines with Maya exporters). If attracting indie devs are what AD is after it might do to have a list of plugins/scripts that are allowed and disable custom script support.
Cynically speaking, this just seems to be another Autodesk implementation of the whole Microsoftian 'embrace, extend, extenguish' model to stop small studios defecting to Blender or Modo. When compared with Blender and Modo the advantage you get using Maya is the ecosystem that has developed around it, the plugins, the tools, the pipelines. Having a crippled version that strips the user of that ecosystem isn't really a good business choice. I'm not sure anyone thinks that Maya's modeling tools are the top of the line without plugins, so LT is at a disadvantage to better modelers such as Modo and Blender already.
Anyhow, I'm not sure Maya LT will be relevant in a year anyway. The problems with Blender for the game art pipeline are rapidly being solved (smooth groups / vertex normal exporting was recently fixed). Why buy Maya LT when you can use that $795 for a Z-Brush license and use Blender for your base meshes?
This is basically what holds me off. When I first heard about LT I was quite exited as it's in my safe $ territory and technically it's everything I need. Then I started reading about all those little things that combined create a big mess with huge question mark in the end. I passed for now. See no point in adding extra work to my workflow,
Replies
just curious what other than mel is not included in that list?
The development is an ongoing process, and the feedback here has certainly created some positive discussion on the beta forums.
cant you just export multiple <25k files from LT and combine them later elsewhere to form bigger files ?
You can and are free to do this.
So lets say you go ahead and buy into it, you always wanted a horse but just couldnt do it with with a small yard and limited funds.
Otto brings over the pony and says "here it is, oh but first I got to prep her for sale". He then proceeds to grab a sledge hammer and smash it down on the pony's back leg. "That should do it". Now lets say at this point, like any rational human being you would be like "wtf dude! why? what is wrong with you"...
Well Otto has an answer for that, "well y'see here. I sell these here big horses for lots of money, and I cant have no one thinking you can get a small horse that cheap, espe'ssally one that can walk on 4 legs like them big horses. See if its limpin and cant be ridden the same way as them big horses over there, I wont have to be worried about losin them customers."
To Otto, it doesnt matter that a small pony cant have the same pulling power as a full fledged work horse, or that it cant run at the same speed, or cant be used in horse shows to win nice prize money, if it still looks and walks like a normal horse its a problem.
Lets just hope Otto gets the message that the sledge hammer approach isnt needed.
well then i am confused why the 25k native export limit is in there to begin with ?
the OBJ export limitation also seems to have a work around with FBX converter but most likely at the risk of messed up tangent space information as far as i seen.
so why these couple of limitations that have some sort of annoying work around ?
at the end of the day if they are not hardcore locks then why throw them in there at all ? it just adds more reason for someone to not buy Maya LT.
I 'think' the goal was to say: "Hey, this is for Indies, so don't use it to create film assets", but I think the message has been heard loud and clear users want us to do this differently.
it seems that it is fairly easy to install a simple third party script like MJPoly Tools and it works.
there is no script editor but any commands can be made into buttons manually and put in custom shelves like shown here:
is this another fake limitation with the added botheration of no native MEL script editor...
Errr, this is interesting. I was wondering already, since so much in Maya is based around script commands.
If this is a bug: please don't fix it Autodesk, this is great. If it's not a bug, you should really communicate that "no scripting" means no authoring of scripts, but that you can still run them. This makes it a whole lot more interesting already: the average user doesn't author scripts himself anyway.
I would deem this acceptable and am ready to purchase about 6 copies over the next few months. If that is the case, and if it loads python modules. Our small art team will grow a little more from now until the end of the year.
Yes exactly, Maya itself uses a LOT of mel everywhere so it needs to be able to run scripts or there would be not much left of a UI
Yeah, I'd take that too, but the obj restriction still bothers me. I might might might even be able to live with the 25K thing, but I move back and forth between zbrush and Maya too much to add the file conversion step into the process.
Would really like to be able to use that shaderFX though, looks great.
It's too bad, because I get the feeling that in this thread you have a couple of ADesk employees who are trying to do the best they can by the devs, who realize that these decisions are maybe not the most dev-friendly, who are having to explain away these problems without actually blaming the people at the top who have made these decisions. Decisions based on something other than what is good for their product or for the devs.
In that case I'd make it a top-priority to communicate this well. This changes the perception of MayaLT quite a lot imo.
it would not be possible to remove the Mel from Maya all ui and keys run Mel or python commands, and the marking menus and tool uis are generated with all Mel.
I agree.
I think the exact offering for scripting/poly caps and many other things are still being explored by management in order to find the right balance between the right solution for Indie developers, while not hurting the regular Maya market.
We cannot really say that Maya LT v1 has full scripting, because it simply has not at this time.
I think/hope we will get there. I really like the energy and momentum we have in the new Games Team at Autodesk, so I am hopeful we will find the right balance for the majority of people who Maya LT is for.
also please integrate shaderFX into Maya core because one should not have to buy both Maya core and Maya LT just to be able to use all Maya feature. Maya core should have everything Maya LT has.
if ADSK is worried about maya core market then they should really reconsider their subscription pricing/system. monthly sub like the adobe creative cloud model where you pay per month with annual commitment could be more profitable in the long term while being more affordable.Maya core could easily be $70-$100 a month (for single user) and that could be a steady $1200 annually forever. you would have to keep paying every month to keep using it like adobe CC does so this means a steady stream of revenue. right now one can just buy a single seat for $3675 and not upgrade for 5 years but with monthly pay it will be $6000 in 5 years and so on.
For the cost give me a reason to not spend a little more for modo?
all of the things im marking against it are artificial limits as well that are just there to cripple it.
if you wanted to remove parts of maya for indie game dev, it really should be things like mental ray, and maya dynamics and features more pointed to film.
the only real feature it has for indie dev is shader fx which really dosnt matter much unless there is a way to have shaders made in in carry over to game engines like unity.
think they might just make a little more offering maya with a new cheaper indie license, since poeple like me due to the large cost of maya dont upgrade often, example im on 2012 atm, and see no reason to jump to 2014 and unless 2015 when it comes out has a amazing feature set i still prolly wont upgrade due to it costing too much to do so.
so there loseing a lot from me since i stick with 1 version for 3 to 5 years at a time
i can understand that could be a possibility, but i think they are also underestimating how the quantity of MayaLT sales would go up significantly with support for mel, plugins and no poly caps.
either way, i think the limitations are not as effective to maximize sales revenue compared to a perpetual monthly sub with no feature limitation.
Hehe, that's actually a very interesting question. Do you guys have documentation on what it takes to author new content (I would assume we could make some custom nodes or something - but I'm not familiar with it at all) for shaderfx?
Would you mind emailing me so we can explore this idea?
I think we could do some really cool stuff there.
kees.rijnen@autodesk.com
Is there a monthly cloud membership so that I can pay in affordable installments? Otherwise its going to be a very long time before I can buy maya lt.
For a saving of (6 * $3500) - (6 * $800) = $16,200 I can probably switch back to MEL. Our "indie" tools are mostly for content delivery. I guess I'll just have to see what works and what doesn't with a demo of LT.
here is a comparison with Adobe
Photoshop CS6 full = ~$1000
Creative Cloud single app monthly = $20
2% of full price
______________________
MayaLT full (with subscription) = $915
monthly = $50
5% of full price
I'm pretty much ready to throw my money at Autodesk for maya lt, as long as it doesnt feel crippled or intentionally maimed to prevent competition with its own products. Otherwise, Modo/Blender are probably the most ideal indie packages.
Thank you !
For Basic Support
£45 / 50 Euro - monthly
£110 / 130 Euro - quarterly
£350 / 415 Euro - annually
For Advanced Support
£65 / 70 Euro - monthly
£165 / 190 Euro - quarterly
£490 / 580 Euro - annually
Oh I'll cave in eventually (trying, not buying)... just dragging my feet over it. I actually like working in Maya, and thats why I'll probably be more critical of what I see (or do not see) in LT. Already the lack of export options mentioned, polygon limit, and scripting has gotten me close to the point where one starts spouting random German obscenities at the screen.
That said, do you know what kind of data is being collected when LT trial is run? Looking at the things you have to agree to just to get the LT downloader seem to imply the data collection might go beyond which features get used.
Oh no doubt. I never regret adding Blender to my pipeline. I was surprised to find out that its actually a better modeler than Maya, it has GoZ functionality as well so I can easily sent my zbrush mesh back and forth, they added a recent retopo tool called Contours which is pretty good. The sculpting feature allows for the easy manipulation of verts or just plain out zbrush like sculpting using the multi-rez modifier. My only qualms about Blender at the moment is its still tied down to opengl 1.0 and the viewport rendering (for real time) isnt the best, yet. Also its snapping functionality isnt nearly as good as Maya's in my opinion, though the 3d cursor makes it more dynamic. It just often means more steps involved.
Over all even if Blender cost $500 it would still be worth buying, which is an amazing accomplishment for such Open Source Software. Really, adds another level to the competitive market as far as 3d apps go.
Some verification would probably help. Autodesk to user trust is pretty low. I did however download the trial exe, which is only about 8 mb. Guessing thats a downloader of sorts. If so it doesnt work, says cant connect to server.
Shelf with script which is opening window for running other scripts (it's basic - concept):
global proc runScript() { string $script = `scrollField -q -text scriptField`; eval $script; } global proc LTMel() { if (`window -exists LTMelWin`) deleteUI LTMelWin; window -title "Micro Mel Editor" -s true -rtf true LTMelWin; columnLayout -adj true; scrollField -wordWrap true -w 800 -text "Paste your script here" scriptField; button -l "Run" -command ("runScript()"); setParent ..; showWindow LTMelWin; } global proc shelf_Mel () { global string $gBuffStr; global string $gBuffStr0; global string $gBuffStr1; shelfButton -enableCommandRepeat 1 -enable 1 -width 35 -height 35 -manage 1 -visible 1 -preventOverride 0 -annotation "MEL" -enableBackground 0 -align "center" -label "Mel" -labelOffset 0 -font "plainLabelFont" -imageOverlayLabel "Mel" -overlayLabelColor 0.8 0.8 0.8 -overlayLabelBackColor 0 0 0 0.2 -image "commandButton.png" -image1 "commandButton.png" -style "iconOnly" -marginWidth 1 -marginHeight 1 -command "LTMel();" -sourceType "mel" -commandRepeatable 1 -flat 1 ; }So community could write new Lite version of script editor.
I hope it's not against licence or something...
Thanks for the info. I got it to work.
I wont lie it feels a bit...weird with some stuff missing. Calling it a slimmed down version of Maya is an understatement. Having only viewport 2.0 was kind of an odd feeling, but its kind of nice not worrying about the viewport mode anymore. I was able to do a lot of the usual stuff I do in Maya, though without familiar plugins and limited export options it didnt feel right.
I am not sure the fbx polycount limitation is needed for such a slimmed down version of maya, too much is lost in the LT version for it to be a threat. If that was removed or greatly changed, obj exports as an option and a better pro-plugin approach, I would probably buy it. Cant justify it though in its current iteration based on experiences so far. The future seems questionable, and its telling potential buyers to wait and see rather than buy and hope for changes (that wont come at a cost).
Can you build high poly in this program at all? I'm not using the software commercially at all. It's strictly something I would like to learn. I have read that there is a 3 year limit on the student version of Maya (I took classes at the local community college). The reason LT is interesting to me is that I could afford $800 after the Maya student license expires. But $3600 is too high for someone not making a living with the application.
The limit is only in the FBX exporter, per object.
You can have as many polygons in the Maya LT scene as you want and you can export as many individual FBX files as you want.
What is preventing Autodesk from allowing multiple export types then? Some that might not be restricted by such a polycount?
As it stands now its arbitrary because the user will just have to export pieces and combine them together in another app, and there are tons of those that can be had for free, which will allow multiple export types. Basically its just making the end user go through one extra step. Is that worth losing sales over?
Just trying to understand the rational behind some of the more odd ball limitations.
to put out a version for smaller indie studios. If you're hampered by the 25k export, I doubt your budget is less than half a million dollars, that's when it's time to buy the full version rather than LT (which I'm certain means LITE).
Yes, but that's still a labor intensive process and time = money. I know people have started using the sculpt + bake for low poly diffuse only work but from what I've seen it's more for a consistent art style than any time saving.
i guess you are suppose to bake inside MayaLT using Turtle which is included.
to use xNormal properly(with SBM format) you would need xnormal plugin support for MayaLT which is currently not possible.
We want that stuff to work properly so you do not need other baking tools.
Of course some may still prefer xNormal etc, that is fine.
But the reason should not be: "I have to use xNormal because Maya LT's baking tools are broken"
xNormal is very fast compared to Maya native AO transfer.
I am more interested in what's preventing AD from just doing the right thing and allow the user to export to multiple formats without trying to control what they export, allow the user to have their own pipeline with a slimmed down toolset. Streamlining and/or slimming down feature sets doesnt mean crippling the software intentionally just to control the user. If sales are more important then they are losing potential buyers by not being pro-end user.
Some of the limitations are artificial, meant only to "pee on the parade" (control the pipeline) and to me that just doesnt make any sense, nor does it make people actually like AD.
Turtle is definitely faster than Maya's native AO transfer as I believe its still single threaded. Also I remember seeing/hearing Turtle being integrated into Maya 2013 and 2014. Dont have access to them unfortunately
Limiting the number on polygons on export, effectively forcing the user to use Turtle or Transfer Maps, is another insult to the small developers and freelancers who are supposed to be the target audience of the program. These users rely on Xnormal a lot because it is free, extremely powerful, and is often the best solution in the case of projects not having their baking pipeline properly synced. Which is another hint at the fact that AD didn't really talk to their audience that much when making up the limitations of LT ...
Cynically speaking, this just seems to be another Autodesk implementation of the whole Microsoftian 'embrace, extend, extinguish' model to stop small studios defecting to Blender or Modo. When compared with Blender and Modo the advantage you get using Maya is the ecosystem that has developed around it, the plugins, the tools, the pipelines. Having a crippled version that strips the user of that ecosystem isn't really a good business choice. I'm not sure anyone thinks that Maya's modeling tools are the top of the line without plugins, so LT is at a disadvantage to better modelers such as Modo and Blender already.
Anyhow, I'm not sure Maya LT will be relevant in a year anyway. The problems with Blender for the game art pipeline are rapidly being solved (smooth groups / vertex normal exporting was recently fixed). Why buy Maya LT when you can use that $795 for a Z-Brush license and use Blender for your base meshes?
This is basically what holds me off. When I first heard about LT I was quite exited as it's in my safe $ territory and technically it's everything I need. Then I started reading about all those little things that combined create a big mess with huge question mark in the end. I passed for now. See no point in adding extra work to my workflow,