3ds Max vs. Maya nowadays and in the future
Hey guys!
I've been using Blender for about 2,5 years now, basically from about my age of 12. 3D art catched my interest and I decided few years later I want to do it as a job. I picked a high school for 3D art.
blah blah, history aside, I'm trying to learn an industry standart software now. I was browsing through few studios. And since I want to do modeling (and I'm bad at creating characters :<), most of Environment artist positions had 3ds Max in requirements.. just Max, not Maya or Modo.. that kinda surprised me..
That encouraged me into finally starting learning Max, so I downloaded a student version. The first experience was horrible, and nothing is like in Blender >:C That brings me to another question.. Why is interface so unfriendly? It's the worst of all 3D applications in my opinion.
So I went through few forums again, and found out that I'm actually not the only one who doesn't like Max's first impressions. Some people even said that Max is kinda dying and there's no point learning it.
I thought Maya's mostly used for animation and Max has modeling power, but seeing those Maya updates and watching Max staying behind (imo)...
Well, guys, what do you think? Do you recommend me learning Max even tho it seems Autodesk likes Maya more? I mean, I'm aware I'll spend sooo much time on it and it might all come for nothing.
I know you guys can't predict the future, I'm just asking for your opinion.
btw. I personaly like Modo most for it's modeling tools, but it seems not many studios share my opinion 
Thanks for your time and answers!
Replies
hmm, I agree on that.. I don't quite understand why some of the studios force you into their software.. like, "you have to use Maya/Max (whatever) only, otherwise you can't work here"
thanks for the help, tho.. I'll spend some time in Max thanks to you
one reason that you can't use your preferred software at some studios is that they use in house scripts and tools etc, and if you need help it's easier if you use the same software as everyone else. Also if you are in a team of people doing the same kind of work, like a big environment team it might be preferable to have the same workflow and tools. easier to get away with using modo etc if you are a weapon team of 1 or 2 people.
if you find your self confortable stay stick on blender, like I do, I never had any problem with that.
Ofcourse some times you have to provide maya files or 3dsmax files, but in that case I simply export an obj or fbx and every thing goes fine.
If you want to learn other softwares, well, spernd time on maya, is the real industry standard.
cheers.
My personal impression is that traditionally Maya was dominant in film, whereas Max was dominant in Games (and many other fields). And nowadays they're both heavily used. At the same time studios seem a bit more open to what software their artists use as exchanging files has become easier while engines are also supporting more file formats.
It's like calling the apocalypse over and over xd
Ok, thanks for the answer.
If you have the time and resources to learn it now, then learn it. Otherwise concentrate on your art, bearing in mind you might have to learn one of the main packages on the job in the future.
You're right, thanks.
I see, thanks for the answer.
I hope I'll find Max easy to use soon too
I literally had 0 experience with 3ds Max before my first job at Hi-Rez. You know what I did a month before I started? I learned enough 3ds Max to equal my skill with Maya and never had a problem.
I think people get too caught up with pleasing certain studios with modelling packages. If your work is badass I don't think they're going to be like "Oh, he only uses so-and-so package, definitely can't hire him. We should hire the guy who knows all these packages and has a average folio".
At the end of the day you're just modelling in the package. I've said this before. It's not rigging/animation/scripting/lighting/rendering. It's just modelling. Once you're proficient in making awesome stuff in blender it shouldn't be too hard to apply those fundamentals to other software.
In my experience, as long as you show a willingness in your phone / on-site interview to adopt to the packages that the studio requires you're fine.
too late
but it's not just 3d art, it's for an art overall (multimedia), so I guess it can give me valuable experience
you work/ed at Hi-Rez? wow, I like their games, they have innvovative ideas
also thanks for the answer
http://www.sidefx.com/news/sidefx-releases-houdini-155/
Companies besides autodesk are working hard to move the industry forward in modeling tools. Autodesk can't move this quick because they're too big. It doesn't make sense for them to dump resources into revolutionizing modeling because all the major vfx and game studios will still buy their software. So they have to invest in big systems like bi frost and MASH to sell more licenses of maya and things like tighter integration with architectural software for 3ds max. (max 2017 has a plug-in that lets you test windflow and structural integrity of your building based on windspeed and other factors !)
Last month I finally made the decision that where possible all my work would be done in Modo now, I can't think of a thing except maybe as a dedicated sculpting app it doesn't do better then every other application out there, I would even say its 3d texture painting is entirely on par with mudbox.
yea, I'm waiting for the Steam sale on Modo Indie and I might grab it there...
For animation it's the reverse. Modo still has quite a ways to go for animation but it's made a lot of great leaps in the last few releases. I hope they continue to focus on animation tools and not just catch up but leap frog ahead of the competition and do to animation what they've done for modeling.
3dsmax isn't going anywhere, way too many people use it, too many studios have built entire pipelines around it and anyone who thinks its dying, is probably just hoping it dies because they are frustrated due to unfamiliarity with it, heh. With certain jobs early in the pipeline like modeling static props and what not, the pipeline is pretty open and almost all software "could be" accommodated.
Once you get deeper into the pipeline, like others have said, custom tools are created and workflows established that almost everyone needs to be on the same software. But still it's best if all of the working files are from the same program, that way it's easier to track down problems and maintain a cohesive look. If the studio is baking normal maps 7 different ways it makes it hard to track down issues and fix them, which gets even more of a pain if you have to find someone who knows a particular program to troubleshoot it. They might not be there or they might not be available which just adds to the problem and makes it a headache for someone else to fix.
As for Blender, it's ok. I come from 3dsmax and Maya so I've kind of always butted heads with Blender's UI and workflow, whenever I try to use it. It seems like everything takes a few more clicks or has just a few more layers of bureaucracy and friction. Maybe that's because I haven't gotten into customizing it but most of the time when I look to see if someone has innovated a faster way I run into "that's just how you do it in blender". Seriously there are faster ways, the blender community just doesn't know about them or is very defensive and doesn't push to make things better like they should.
Blender has made some nice advancements, but I don't think a studio using Maya or Max will want to invest time in training someone who has only used Blender, especially if they aren't very open to leaning 3dsmax or maya.
Maya and Max are similar enough that most people can cross over with minimal downtime. With Blender there seems to be more of a hurdle and the persons art would have to be so amazing to make that leap worthwhile. Which is tough when there are probably 10-20 well qualified candidates that already know the studios package of choice, ready to hit the ground running, adding to work being done instead of draining resources as they get up to speed. If they drag their feet and complain the whole time it can be a real moral killer for people who have to train them.
I got your point, thanks for the answer
Well, you should definitely give it a try, it has 30-days trial and Foundry is even considering giving a non-commercial version for free now.
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/modo/
If you're a total beginner and want a studio job, i recommend learning Max, Zbrush exclusively. You cant rely on Human Resources people from big studios to know what's best in software other than brand recognition.
You should only branch out to Modo if you already have work experience with Max or Maya and want a non-rental secondary tool for the indie or freelance studio. Or, you're rich anyway and can buy or rent whatever software that suits your fancy.
Maya, if you want to specialize as an animator or rigger. Even if you're just good animating in Maya you should still have a good chance getting hired at an exclusive Max studio.
Smartest decision? Blender. You can have a decent portfolio with it for either studio work applications or indie gigs, especially when you use add ons like hardops and boxcutter ($15 each on gumroad), I don't think it's hard to transition to either max or maya coming from Blender.
I'm only exclusive on Modo since I've already invested a lot on using it for freelance work and Blender wasn't good yet when I was searching for a relatively cheap non-Autodesk tool.
Modo is a great tool, but many of it's functions are already be covered by Max and Maya. Therefore it's a lower priority than investing on real game-changer tools, like MD (which beats the shit out of nCloth), Substance or even Houdini. That's how buying decisions made - you look what your current tools cover and what not. Then you add follow-up costs: training, adapting existing infrastructure, initial loss of productivity due to a new tool's learning curve.
Just because they aren't advertising that they are using it doesn't mean that they are not. I mean how many studios advertise using xnormal?
Obviously, you can't just tell your artists: "You all buy modo and pay it out of your own pocket!". Neither can you tell them "those of you who don't have it - we will buy it for you! Those who already paid it yourself - sorry!". So eventually your studio will have to buy licenses for everyone unless you want to piss some people off.
So the license question is important. My company has lone Modo users, but until it is feasible to roll mode out to more people, they're on their own. And they will still need an extra license of Max or Maya for final exports. So for us as studio there's very little we win - a possible productivity gain of a a small handful of artists (but then again, they could just be as slow in Modo as in any other software / there are no numbers if they are really faster because with different assets it's just hard to measure).
Introducing new tools on an artist level is fairly easy, but once you go studio wide, things become more complicated.
[1] Because we assume we will have newcomers/juniors joining the company, or new hires who "grew up" with a different SW. and of course there are always some technical problems to solve.
[2] Because not everyone has time or inclination to learn by themselves.
[3] I work for an outsourcer - we use whatever software our client wants us to use. We got a dozen of high end packages and 3 to 4 different Maya and Max versions in production. A standardized and homogenous environment is something you really, really, really want in production to make it all smooth and easy. The fewer packages, the better. Especially if you can remove interoperability problems (e.g. how do I get my stuff from application X to application Y easily without losing my construction history and all the finely tweaked settings? How can I pass my asset down the pipe to users who use application Z instead?)
* Support from IT & TA. Knowing every package out there deeply and offering top notch support isn't feasible. Most people prefer their TAs having deep knowledge - it's easier if we focus on a few packages.
* Training. The more packages, the more expensive it gets to buy training materials. When everyone uses different packages it is not possible any more to effectively share knowledge and to optimize workflows across the board.
* Integration. With asset management, automation (baking, QA, Houdini), export / import to engine. It takes time to develop and support this. The fewer packages involved, the better.
* Tools. If we know 30 Max users benefit from a tool it's something different than developing a tool for the lone Modo or Blender user.
* Purchase: we get better conditions when we buy software in bulk and when we buy a certain number of seats.
* Interoperability: We select software on the basis how well we can make it work together. The more packages in the mix, the more difficult it gets.
* Division of work: multiple artists and teams may share, re-use and work on the same assets. This is much easier if everyone uses the same software and data formats.
As a result we want to standardize and limit the use of software packages. We have to find a compromise that works best for the artists, but also for the people who support them. Hence we tell you what we want you to use. And when we introduce new tools, we have to consider all these issues as well. Hence adaption can sometimes be slower on a studio level than on an individual level.
Also, we want to prevent you from blaming us if we cannot support your strange exotic package, for the reasons mentioned above.
honestly, i do not think that it matters at all for you right now. you're probably about 8-10 years away from even entering the field proper (!). as you've had plenty of evidence in this thread already: the industry standards are just a compromise one-size-fits-all solution and not necessarily the 'better' choice. and by the time all this becomes relevant for you, what is now the preferred software may well be just a footnote of cg history.
just pick something that is fun to play and don't narrow yourself down too much for some future job just yet.
yea, that's probably a good point..
not thinking too much about the future as 3d industry tends too change very fast..
I still recommend at least looking into other software though. Being able to learn and problem solve new software is a skill in itself. Jumping around software, at least periodically, can help you learn how to learn new software. I hope that makes sense haha.
And to be honest, with the free learning licences of max and maya available to anyone for non commercial use, and the tons of useful gnomon/digital tutors/gumroads on how to use those programs availaible for 5-50 dollars, there isn't really an excuse to be familiar with one of them. being able to hit the ground running is a valuable asset to any company. compare your skillset to the competition in your area of interest and improve where lacking.
Well ... on the game design and animation front, I would agree that not much has changed as the GTAs from back then are quite mechanically similar to the GTAs of today. But from the perspective of character artists (and modelers in general), we're talking moving from spending a mere few days on a full hero character model + textures, to ... about a month worth of man hours. The workload increase has been pretty damn huge, and steadily so. From what I am observing the curve is juuuust about to stabilize now that we've reach movie quality.
Just thought I'd clarify that
Your entire pipeline is dictated by the choice of a hub software. And the needs most impacted by this choice are rigging and animation. This is the main reason why not very many studios are adopting modo or blender. Maya has a huge ability for customization in these areas and that's why every major film studio uses it. 3ds max has this to a lesser extent but there are still entire studios built around it. 3ds max isn't going anywhere for awhile but I will say it's totally dead in film. (it doesn't support alembic caches!)
I see more houdini based studios popping up these days (boutique shops for vfx) but all rigging and animation are still done in maya. In fact that is the case every studio that I've been at. Maya is always used for rigging/animation (some places are dragging their feet to get out of soft image... which I understand because it was really great in a lot of ways!)
But all this points back to say that TD's generally are used to working with the big name packages... all the scripts and power of python already written for maya.... who wants to re-do all of that work? Just to give you a little look into how powerful the tools are at some AAA game studios... At sledgehammer we had a studio of 200 + people working on CoD: Advanced warfare. Of those people.... 2 of them were riggers/TDs. Thats all we really needed. For the most part everything was automated and the 2 wizzards of the rigging department powered through tons of assets with realitive ease. The same is the case at MPC LA... 1 rigger for the whole building. And he's epic!!! This isn't to say that they don't get extra help on occasion but the bulk of the work can be handled by powerful tools written by top notch technical directors.
No one is going to walk away from that without being shown that everyone can benefit from including other software and not just the modeling department. (which honestly is already the most free department. Literally every place I've been at has said... do whatever you want in whatever program you want, just deliver the final asset in maya or 3ds max.)
"However, just because you can put a billion polygons on screen doesn't mean that you have to put a billion polygons on screen. And that's something that game studios, I expect, will learn to better manage in years to come."
the last 20+ years didn't count?
Do you mean original GoW 1 or the remastered GoW 1? Look at all the "how do I do PBR" threads on Polycount. But this is derailing, I'll just continue to facepalm at all your posts silently from now on.
uhh.... yes it is quite different. I mean sure it's still the same in the sense that we make a high poly and a low poly and bake/texture our assets but you're entirely missing the point if you stop the comparison there. in 2007 you could only have 1 joint influence per vertex. in 2007 no one was making photo real characters for use in realtime AAA games. in 2007 you weren't expected to make facial blendshapes for characters. in 2007 you still needed to explode your mesh for baking. Need I go on?
I mean I could say that art hasn't changed for humanity in thousands of years. We're just making stuff up out of our heads and putting it into some form that we can share with other humans right?
that's an excellent point...
No matter how desirable one might feel a toolset might be for another package I have always refused to develop on a software that is ultimately going to hamstring my time and resources. Not that there aren't a cult of developers building up blender but I don't see any exciting threads at TAO or even on the stickied tech threads here for MODO and Blender tools. I don't see a close knit community sharing new exciting knowledge on a scale that is even close to being comparable! ( and that is really priceless )
No exciting extended game dev-centric network comraderie sharing tools and resources that has as much weight and a foundation like you find at creative crash and scriptspot. ( esprit de corps that is an investment over 17+ years )
You would have more luck getting me to change forums from polycount to gameartisans than you would convincing me to leave a software platform that is built on top of a folder of scripts that exposes everything under the hood in realtime echoed line by line...
a more powerful dev manual than the actual docs.
That's actually a bit of a misconception... Imagine a studio relying on Max or Maya, with a whole bunch of TA time dedicated not only to create export tools but also modeling aids for the artists.
If all of a sudden a new guy is hired and wants to use Blender or any other app for highpoly work, he/she will pretty much never request any modeling tool or script since the whole point is to use a software that is completely familiar and totally tweaked to one's need already.
As far as character and prop modeling positions are concerned, the only real argument can be the price of the license. Arguing otherwise would like asking sculptors to sculpt in Maya instead of Zbrush/Mudbox/3DCoat because "we're using a Maya pipeline", which would makes no sense
unless u know something interesting about how aggressively they are going to continue to fold mudbox and sculpting performance in future versions of Maya or MayaLT?
As for installing software, indeed, it goes without saying that there are IT protocols to respect.
more like "I haven't seen any." lol