The character in GTA 3 had a single 256x256 texture. I'm guessing you didn't do any modeling and texturing 15 years ago so you don't really recognize the gigantic changes in game art workflow.
"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?
It's a game designer mentality. I had multiple teachers like that. They don't take account visual progress or advancements in game, even knowing how we are freed from a lot fo grpahical constraints.
They'd rather prefer we spend the new power acquired on more advanced AI for the characters than just adding bigger textures and more polygon.
I asked my AD if i could use Modo at work. I had to show him that I could get a fbx from modo to maya&unity without any issues and then it was fine. But we are also a very small studio. It has caused issues in some cases, but proved to be beneficial in others.
Max is not dying. People have been saying this for a decade and it's still not happening.
It's like calling the apocalypse over and over xd
Ok, thanks for the answer.
My 2 cents in talk ) Could anyone imagine 10 years ago that the most powerful package of that time - XSI - will be discontinued for no specific reason? I'm sure, no. What happened to it? After buying it, at first, Autodesk got a competitor to Max and Maya. Second, they just couldn't spend enought money on supporting 3 almost identical packages - for market diversification 2 packages were enought for them. How does it relate to Max? As you all know, the complexity and the total cost of software development increases from year to year. While the computers get more and more powerful, the programmers aren't! There's a limited number of human resources AD possesses, and the complex (and copywrited!) software development can be hardly outsourced, anyway, even outsourcing can barely decrease the cost of development. At the same time AD can't infinitely increase the price of the licence. So, there will be one day, when AD will consider retiring Max or Maya. This will happen for sure... Another important reason, why AD closed XSI, not Maya or Max. XSI was pretty self-contained package, with small userbase and wasn't architecturally flexible enough to be quickly improved or modified. So they decided to rely on Maya as most strong in terms of architecture and extendability as a package to transplant key features from XSI. It's quite another matter - Max. AD doesn't improve it actually, only extends - more and more badly integrated features from release to release. Many bugs live in Max for decades - and they're still not fixed. I'm not wondering why. They're just squeezing all they can out of Max, I'd do the same if I were AD. Max brings them a lot of money, but its support costs a lot too. One AD guy shared info, that AD actually already staked on Maya, because it's cheaper to improve and support it, it's api isn't that messy as Max's. That's why they put so much efforts on improving Maya - not just adding new features but to decrease the number of old bugs, very old bugs. They understand, that in the end only one 3d package will stay. It will happen not tomorrow, but in 5-10 years. It's the way business works.
Such flamebait but all the vitriol directed at Max is seriously upsetting me. You can think what you want about Autodesk as a company but Max is still a very robust package for modelling. I've given a fair shot to a lot of other packages including C4D, Modo, Lightwave, recently Maya, and I've used exclusively Blender for about a year. But I always come back to Max because I've learned modelling by looking at what Dave Lesperance does and I built my own workflow around his techniques. All apps have particularities and distinctive advantages - Max is the best for spline modeling, Blender keyboard shortcuts for every operation you can think off and completely customizable, Maya and its pie menus that let you model on a tablet, C4D has the best bevel algorythm, etc. - but ultimately if you built an efficient workflow around an app and you get the result you want, why even bother starting a discussion about the superiority of one polygonal modeling package over another?
I've said this a couple of times around here in some other threads, but I think it's safe to use any 3D modeling software you want, as long as you can import your models to Max or Maya and set up a scene with materials before passing files for the next person in the pipeline.
I'm mainly using Blender for modeling high and low polies, retopology and UV unwrapping. ZBrush for sculpting, and xNormal + Ps + GIMP for baking & texturing. Will be using Substance products in future though.
Such flamebait but all the vitriol directed at Max is seriously upsetting me. ... why even bother starting a discussion about the superiority of one polygonal modeling package over another?
May be my words sounded aggressively to Max, but actually they weren't. I'm not talking about the superiority or so, but only the possible future of the development Max along with Maya - and it's my own opinion you may not share. I have my own reasons to think so, but not to raise a kind of holywar. Just sharing opinion with respect to the topic of this thread. Sorry for any inconvenience in my post, but I don't say that in Max you can't get the same modeling speed or quality like in other packages. You can for sure.
Such flamebait but all the vitriol directed at Max is seriously upsetting me. ... why even bother starting a discussion about the superiority of one polygonal modeling package over another?
May be my words sounded aggressively to Max, but actually they weren't. I'm not talking about the superiority or so, but only the possible future of the development Max along with Maya - and it's my own opinion you may not share. I have my own reasons to think so, but not to raise a kind of holywar. Just sharing opinion with respect to the topic of this thread. Sorry for any inconvenience in my post, but I don't say that in Max you can't get the same modeling speed or quality like in other packages. You can for sure.
but to decrease the number of old bugs, very old bugs.
I submit a lot of bug reports, a few years ago I notice I got a lot of the same familiar names messaging me back but nowadays it seems like their QA is based in China. AD are pretty serious about fixing these old bugs because the feedback is really good from these QA devs in China these days than what it was 5 years ago when AD was practically radio silence.
Max is not dying. People have been saying this for a decade and it's still not happening.
It's like calling the apocalypse over and over xd
Ok, thanks for the answer.
It's quite another matter - Max. AD doesn't improve it actually, only extends - more and more badly integrated features from release to release. Many bugs live in Max for decades - and they're still not fixed. I'm not wondering why. They're just squeezing all they can out of Max, I'd do the same if I were AD. Max brings them a lot of money, but its support costs a lot too. One AD guy shared info, that AD actually already staked on Maya, because it's cheaper to improve and support it, it's api isn't that messy as Max's. That's why they put so much efforts on improving Maya - not just adding new features but to decrease the number of old bugs, very old bugs. They understand, that in the end only one 3d package will stay. It will happen not tomorrow, but in 5-10 years. It's the way business works.
1) 3dsMax brings more money than Maya while Maya costs a lot more money to develope.
3) Maya need to support and maintain 3 platform. Cost more for same feature.
3) Extensibility? 3dsMax started as a hub of plugin. Even a lot of own funcionality is a form of plugin. Maya never even had full SDK exposure for 3rd party. They only have API.
4) Bug? Ask what happen to Maya 2017. 3dsMax 2018 was feature-light. But, it has 455 fixes.
5) What have Maya team developed last few released? Almost all of them were bought from 3rd party. Modeling tool, Xgen, Shape Maganer, MASH, Arnold, BiFrost, UV tool...
Your approach to this is incorrect imo. Becoming experienced in a field means you have knowledge in all the peripheral things to make your own conclusion. You cannot just jump straight into the solution that most people choose because in the end you will not maximize its potential. Maya has alot of issues with modeling algorythms, which can be solved but its time consuming. It creates unwanted triangles whereas 3ds max doesnt. Also max has alot of tools to cover complex surface modeling, and once you learn the graphite tools you dont even need the interface to be in sight. You can do everything with shortcuts, which maximizes your workflow sooooooooooo much, which of me is the best aspect. Your problem with the interface is because you started off with blender, which is VERY different. I had the same problem when i tried to learn some basics in blender to help out my girlfriend. I just cant think blender is user friendly at all. I know it is tedious but stick with it and you will see its potential.
the maya team bought all the tech to jumpstart the development... if you would develop something like xgen from the ground you would need 5 years or more... and all the smaller tools are rewritten from the ground with help from the original dev team... and in case of mash they grabbed also the developers... they still work on mash... in such a short time its impossible to do all inhouse...
Other than Zbrush, it didn't really change all that much in 15 years.
15 years ago was the PS2 generation. A LOT has changed since then.
It's going to be a matter of perspective to some degree, I can understand that. But let's take a look at the end result.
2001
2016
If the addition of a normal map and PBR texturing is ''a lot has changed'', then yes a lot has changed. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same. We don't actually have to create high poly models either to get a normal map with tricks such as vertex normals, rounded edge shader or using zbrush dynamesh, etc. And if we were to compare hand painted games, there would be even less changes.
Just a few years ago, mobile games looked just like GTA 3 and it was no big deal to go from mobile to AAA.
What a titanic pile of cherry picking crap. How can you say "not much has changed"? You show a "recent title" that is running on 12+ year old hardware and try to pretend like it's the best anyone can do. Lets look at the same game running on hardware that is from this decade.
GTA5
Lets look at some other games from this decade. Horizon Zero Dawn
Witcher3
"Oh but animations haven't changed" What the f*ck? Do you even animate? So much has changed in animation. Additive animation systems are revolutionizing how we animate. Bone counts have ballooned and the morphs are being used more and more.
"But materials, PBR = overrated, right?" No. We're now doing dynamic materials that react and change. Welcome to this decade. http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023488/Texturing-Uncharted-4-a-matter We're also using wrinkle maps, animated normals on characters and animated corrective morphs.
Hair cloth and dynamics have taken huge leaps forward.
"Oh but facial animation has barely..." Nope, wrong again. https://youtu.be/60gbiYdpqRY?t=2m35s It still has a long way to go but game developers are starting to get the hang of it.
It would be interesting if everyone arguing so passionately on this thread actually had a link to their portfolio
Perhaps you're thinking of fat blokes in the pub arguing over what professional athletes should or shouldn't have done in the football match they're watching on the telly.....
Replies
It's a game designer mentality. I had multiple teachers like that. They don't take account visual progress or advancements in game, even knowing how we are freed from a lot fo grpahical constraints.
They'd rather prefer we spend the new power acquired on more advanced AI for the characters than just adding bigger textures and more polygon.
Not essentially a bad thing.
Another important reason, why AD closed XSI, not Maya or Max. XSI was pretty self-contained package, with small userbase and wasn't architecturally flexible enough to be quickly improved or modified. So they decided to rely on Maya as most strong in terms of architecture and extendability as a package to transplant key features from XSI.
It's quite another matter - Max. AD doesn't improve it actually, only extends - more and more badly integrated features from release to release. Many bugs live in Max for decades - and they're still not fixed. I'm not wondering why. They're just squeezing all they can out of Max, I'd do the same if I were AD. Max brings them a lot of money, but its support costs a lot too. One AD guy shared info, that AD actually already staked on Maya, because it's cheaper to improve and support it, it's api isn't that messy as Max's. That's why they put so much efforts on improving Maya - not just adding new features but to decrease the number of old bugs, very old bugs. They understand, that in the end only one 3d package will stay. It will happen not tomorrow, but in 5-10 years. It's the way business works.
I'm mainly using Blender for modeling high and low polies, retopology and UV unwrapping. ZBrush for sculpting, and xNormal + Ps + GIMP for baking & texturing. Will be using Substance products in future though.
May be my words sounded aggressively to Max, but actually they weren't. I'm not talking about the superiority or so, but only the possible future of the development Max along with Maya - and it's my own opinion you may not share. I have my own reasons to think so, but not to raise a kind of holywar. Just sharing opinion with respect to the topic of this thread. Sorry for any inconvenience in my post, but I don't say that in Max you can't get the same modeling speed or quality like in other packages. You can for sure.
Spot on, concise and right to the point.
3) Maya need to support and maintain 3 platform. Cost more for same feature.
3) Extensibility? 3dsMax started as a hub of plugin. Even a lot of own funcionality is a form of plugin.
Maya never even had full SDK exposure for 3rd party. They only have API.
4) Bug? Ask what happen to Maya 2017. 3dsMax 2018 was feature-light. But, it has 455 fixes.
5) What have Maya team developed last few released? Almost all of them were bought from 3rd party.
Modeling tool, Xgen, Shape Maganer, MASH, Arnold, BiFrost, UV tool...
What a titanic pile of cherry picking crap. How can you say "not much has changed"? You show a "recent title" that is running on 12+ year old hardware and try to pretend like it's the best anyone can do. Lets look at the same game running on hardware that is from this decade.
GTA5
Lets look at some other games from this decade.
Horizon Zero Dawn
Witcher3
"Oh but animations haven't changed"
What the f*ck? Do you even animate? So much has changed in animation. Additive animation systems are revolutionizing how we animate. Bone counts have ballooned and the morphs are being used more and more.
This was pipedream stuff 10 years ago.
GTA5 and Euphoria
"But materials, PBR = overrated, right?"
No. We're now doing dynamic materials that react and change. Welcome to this decade.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023488/Texturing-Uncharted-4-a-matter
We're also using wrinkle maps, animated normals on characters and animated corrective morphs.
Hair cloth and dynamics have taken huge leaps forward.
"Oh but facial animation has barely..."
Nope, wrong again.
It still has a long way to go but game developers are starting to get the hang of it.
Facial rigging has taken a few steps forward and moved more toward FACS.
Maybe you need to actually keep current?
Perhaps you're thinking of fat blokes in the pub arguing over what professional athletes should or shouldn't have done in the football match they're watching on the telly.....