Max/Maya users VS. Autodesk
polycounter lvl 19
This is really a thread for anyone who uses a 3D modeling application and not just the two mentioned in the title.
We all bitch about Max/Maya but do you ever actually send in these requests to Autodesk? Or do we expect them to just troll forums and hope for improvement suggestions? A good friend of mine who posts here once brought this to my attention months ago and it's not until now that I've wanted to bring this up.
With our industry, the videogame industry, being as small as it is and an even smaller number being artists who use Max/Maya, we have a very small voice. Autodesk's majority of funds do NOT come from 3D model applications they own like Max and/or Maya, they come from their "industry/drafting" tools like CAD. It's no wonder they 'don't give a shit' about our requests when they hardly make a buck from us in comparison AND we don't tell them the adjustments we need to do our job more efficiently.
I'd really like to see a MASSIVE group effort to make Max/Maya 2010 or future iterations something we can all use happily rather than see "LOL MAX!" threads in 3D art forums pop up every time theres a new release. We -need- to collect our thoughts & opinions on the application and pass them along to the proper outlets. Simply bitching amongst ourselves makes us nothing more than whiners and I really think its high-time we, AS AN INDUSTRY, need to become proactive about this.
We're professionals. This is the TOOL we use to do our job.
The squeaky door gets the oil...
Thoughts?
We all bitch about Max/Maya but do you ever actually send in these requests to Autodesk? Or do we expect them to just troll forums and hope for improvement suggestions? A good friend of mine who posts here once brought this to my attention months ago and it's not until now that I've wanted to bring this up.
With our industry, the videogame industry, being as small as it is and an even smaller number being artists who use Max/Maya, we have a very small voice. Autodesk's majority of funds do NOT come from 3D model applications they own like Max and/or Maya, they come from their "industry/drafting" tools like CAD. It's no wonder they 'don't give a shit' about our requests when they hardly make a buck from us in comparison AND we don't tell them the adjustments we need to do our job more efficiently.
I'd really like to see a MASSIVE group effort to make Max/Maya 2010 or future iterations something we can all use happily rather than see "LOL MAX!" threads in 3D art forums pop up every time theres a new release. We -need- to collect our thoughts & opinions on the application and pass them along to the proper outlets. Simply bitching amongst ourselves makes us nothing more than whiners and I really think its high-time we, AS AN INDUSTRY, need to become proactive about this.
We're professionals. This is the TOOL we use to do our job.
The squeaky door gets the oil...
Thoughts?
Replies
I'm going to play the skeptical here and say I think Autodesk is a bit of the old dinosaur on the block. Like Microsoft they don't really care about their end users' experiences (see Vista), as long as they make the money. I don't think Autodesk will listen to our suggestions, and they won't open their eyes unless their revenue start to go down.
And since, if what you say is correct, we're not part of that revenue, then we shouldn't hold our breath.
Wouldn't it be better to spend the energy supporting smaller, more dedicated developers that still have a clear and visual passion for their work? Developers like Luxology that aren't the size of huge tankers, but is more like a smaller nimble yacht.
[ QUOTE ]
We're professionals.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not, so take my thoughts with that in mind
[EDIT] Ah, and I do think they should troll forums looking for suggestions. Perhaps not suggestions per se, but any business that knows what it's doing should keep a finger on the pulse of its userbase. This doesn't mean just watching their own forums, since this would give them too narrow of a view since people may feel intimidated to speak freely there.
That said, sending in a well written and atleast semi-formal proposal with the names of many professional artists does sound like a great idea. If e can convey to Autodesk exactly what we want and need from their software in a clear and concise format, we are more likely to get better results. So I'm all in for this, sounds like a good idea.
One last thought on the subject; I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the problems in these programs arise because they are all built upon older versions which are quickly iterated. Basically, rather than rewriting problems in the engine they get fixed with the cheapest hacks possible so that the version can be released next year again. I think that more than anything Autodesk needs to take the time to really take a step back and clean these programs up. Of course, I'm no programmer, so I may be out to lunch on that one.
Anyways, yeah, sounds like a great idea.
http://area.autodesk.com/index.php/blogs_ken/blog_detail/what_do_3ds_max_users_want/
Have you checked out Ken Pimentel's blog? He is a senior product manager and pretty much the man that makes the decisions about what will and won't go in. He also checks and posts in the "what do users want threads" at CGTalk.
For the most part we do have a small voice, we're viewed as the retarded cousin to CG and film. I think that mostly comes from the thousands of people not really trained to use the software, using it, then complaining because they don't know how to use it. Those same users like to assume they are masters of the universe and know more about the software then the people who made it, often talking out their ass while using caps and much vitriol.
With that said, I strongly believe in what you're trying to accomplish. Its just going to be hard to get your voice heard when the rest of the industry isn't sure what it wants, how to get it, or can't even articulate itself in a way that doesn't come off as hostile, immature and uninformed.
Well, first, before it was Autodesk it was Discreet and Alias, and I don't recall it being any better then (maybe I just don't remember correctly?), so I don't think it has to do with the size of the company or where their revenues come from.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you don't remember correctly. Compare max versions up to 6 or so, Maya all the way up to 7, and you had generally good software with solid new releases and features. Perhaps, in Max's case because of the way it is built and designed, the current problems have been building and were doomed to happen, or maybe it is Autodesk. Regardless, they need to be fixed.
To anyone that doubts Max has problems, one only needs to hang around the Maxscript forums. The Maxscript Editor for Autodesk, Borislav (Bobo), often mentions Max's numerous archaic and ancient problems. Specifically off the top of my head:
When Max added the Gizmo (ala Maya's), they broke the selection, so now we have had the same broken Max selection for how many versions?
Snap tools haven't been updated since 1998 or 1999. You can't possibly compare their use with that of Maya's.
The way texture and colors are stored for vertices is a mess. Why? Because that is how things needed to be done in 3dsmax R1 and they never bothered updating how it is done.
Many areas of Max are a "black box," in that the people that coded them are long gone and thus the code will never be exposed to maxscript, too difficult to update it, and to replace it is not possible because no one knows what it will break.
[ QUOTE ]
I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the problems in these programs arise because they are all built upon older versions which are quickly iterated.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is entirely correct. Looking back to reviews from Max 7 or so, reviewers are already talking about how Max is starting to feel bloated... and what has happened since then? It has been eating chewing gum at the Wonka factory.
As for fixing Max, call me a cynic but it isn't going to happen from any threads or requests we send in. Autodesk is quite aware of what is broken in their software and what the users want. But why should they bother fixing these? They just bought out their biggest competitor, which is a much more flexible solution for games, especially with what Autodesk has added to it. And they make it easier and easier to switch to Maya with every iteration. Meanwhile, what have they added to Max? Interoperability, and archi-viz features. Autodesk won't fix Max because they have no reason to fix Max. Some of those who get fed up will go to Maya, a smaller portion to XSI, but you know what most will do? Stay with Max, because, as has been stated:
[ QUOTE ]
if studios have a problem with their software, the quickest and most efficient way seems to have their engineers fix it themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
Studios are so deeply involved with Max already that switching is a scary idea. It takes training time for a new software, and they have a talent base for the scripting and powerusers amongst senior artists and a proven pipeline using Max. As long as Max stays functional, studios will continue to use it, nor can I entirely blame them, for the aforementioned reasons.
Better to take the time to learn another program in your own time, so you aren't restricted to look for a Max studio. Learn Python if you know Maxscript so you can have at least a foot in Maya and XSI if you need to take the leap. For me, Max being fixed is a pipe dream. Let me complain and make jokes without being called a hypocrite, because it is how I cope with a software I have to use in the technical arts every day. In the meantime, I learn Python and encourage new artists to steer away from Max.
Thanks though man, some great information in there.
From what I can tell, they check the wish list and pick the recurrent requests that people beg for, and research how hard it would be to add functionality. If it's not that hard, a coder will be put on it, and we end up with improvements.
Now I understand that in the overall scheme of Autodesk, we are probably not a high priority. But there is some manager in charge of the 3d/FX department, and his job is on the line. If he thinks some features will be added that will boost sales, then he'll do the pushing for us.
Within the 3d/FX division, we as game artists probably have the most influence over the development of the software. We simply make a hell of a lot more 3d content for games than goes into films or architecture. I mean, think about it. How many game companies are in your area? How many people do they employ? How many seats of Max/Maya/Motionbuilder do they have?
Contrast this with the number of seats that are for film and architecture. Unless you're in LA, Vancouver, or NY, there are probably a hell of a lot more game artists using 3d apps than film/TV/architecture folks. Even in those locations I bet it's closer to even in games vs. all other industries than you would think.
Maybe I'm just optimistic due to one pet wish making it into the product, but we as professional game artists really can influence the development of the products we use. I know that King of Daveness was working as a consultant to Autodesk for awhile when he was more active on this board, and would go to bat for us when we were all bitching about something. We just need to make our voices heard. Get on their wish list threads, and speak up. If something really bugs you, rally the Polycount troops over here so we can all storm their board together and get them to take us seriously.
Autodesk
Revenue by Division
(in millions): 2008 YTD
Design Solutions
Segment $1,372
Platform Solutions
and Emerging
Business Division $734
Architecture,
Engineering and
Construction
Division $343
Manufacturing
Solutions Division $295
Media and Entertainment
Segment $188
Now remember the media and entertainment division consists of all these products:
Maya, Max, Vis, Motionbuilder, Mudbox, human ik, gmax, mental ray,sketchbook pro, FBX, Backdraft, Burn, Stone Direct, Wire, Wiretap, Cleaner Xl, Fire, Smoke, Inferno, Flame, Flint, Toxik, Combustion
source:
http://www.directionsmag.com/press.releases/?duty=Show&id=19927
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=2774123
i'm learning C++ and some scripting myself.
If the whole games industry sided with a decent underdog, you'd get decent software.
Then again, for what it does regarding the games industry, max is by no means broken and there's little incentive for studios to upgrade.
Not saying it isn't a GOOD idea, it's just not feasible in most cases, unless you're a large enough studio to take the hit. If you're a 10-15 dude studio who's been using max for years, you're not going to suddenly dump it and move wholeheartedly, to Modo.
At IGT, we have a very tight relationship with Newtek. About 50% of the features in each Lightwave release are things that our company asks for. We constantly get beta updates from them, which in turn gives us the features we love. Granted I think Lightwave sucks, but it's what we use.
While I fear any one studio having that much influence over a product's features, it's at least a start. Listening to the users and implementing what they need is key to success.
Autodesk is certainly the big fish in the modeling pond. But that doesn't excuse them for ignoring the public. Max is getting bloated pretty quickly, and it really does need to go on a diet. Eventually it's just going to collapse under it's weight
At our studio we are looking at switching over to XSI and Silo and keeping max around only as a mill for the assets to go from DCC app to engine. Granted we are still in preproduction, but it's a start.
Damn max's surprisingly useful splines, Cryptic AR, and viewport renderer, I would've left it completely long ago if it weren't for those.
What I am saying is that theres no need to change plus theres no need for new max versions, in the eyes of your employers.
but lots of other programs cut the mustard just as well, and liste to their customers. Hell evn I got a feature into silo2 and I don't even use it!
Speed, Stability, New Features.
After releasing 8 they hit the road and knocked on doors asking what users wanted we answered back, 1st speed, 2nd stablitity and then in a distant 3rd was a long wish list of very specific, very bazaar new features that help a very small minority inside of what is already a minority. They got back a different list of weird features from every studio. They connected the dots and not too many features crossed over, at that time. So they came to the conclusion that we have what we need to do our job and we just need it to work faster and not crash.
What good are new features if they take too long to use or if it crashes, or if it only helps a handful of studios improve their specific pipeline? They've worked on speed and stability they could be gearing up to start listening for new features.
So instead of the standard crying for a rebuild/redesign like everyone typically does or the standard "I'dunno just give me something that turns the industry on its ear and makes my job easier, whatever it is". Why not start brain storming features so we can at least present a united front. We stand a better chance of actually getting things included if they are improvements everyone can use. It happened with normal maps and RTT, it can happen again if we speak with one coherent voice. Ryno and Dave King are living examples that they listen, but we can't be a dozen fractured voices babbling incoherently.
Heres my list, considering I've been doing animation for the last 6mo I doubt much of this will make it on any other list here =/
Modeling:
- Buy Silo and replace Edit Poly with a link to Silo.
- Low poly cage creation based on a high poly mesh.
- Smart retopo akin to ZBrush.
- Optimization modifiers that work on quads, and won't effect UV's.
Scene Management:
- Actually make XRef usable. Something that references objects saved in other files, and the ability to have the changes made in the master scene effect the objects file, create a new iteration if you have to, just give it some flexibility and don't have the master scene freak out if a change is made to the object.
Materials/Textures:
- Better material searching capabilities, search for maps and materials instead of just Material name.
- Material preview with scene lighting and viewport settings.
Animation:
- Load tracks into motion mixer by drag/drop, not just from reservoir after tracks have been loaded.
- Rework IK blending and biped linking.
- Mirror Paste Biped Pose, in addition to paste opposite. Mirror paste would mirror the same pose without rotating reversing the COM's rotation. Example, hip swinging side to side, Mirror paste wouldn't rotate the COM 360 and reverse its position.
- The ablity to switch biped hands and feet to Euler, so we can forget Quaternion ever existed.
- Save custom Biped objects as presets. Such as I choose to make a different head for biped, I should be able to save it as a preset right along side male/female/skeleton and create any new biped with that new preset.
- Any objects linked or parented to the biped can access the copy/paste pose snap shots.
- Copy paste poses for non biped objects.
- Improved save/load animation mapping to objects. Instead of having to set up the mapping manually, create a suggested default list based on common parameters besides name. Bone length, position, rotation, relationship to other bones.
- Integrated biped selection tools that include hands, toes, tails and any other object attached to a biped. See David Humpherys Biped Worker script or Dennis Roche's Worker of Biped script for a start.
- Control board primitives, see Walter Osborn's Rig Tools script.
- You know what, just scrap biped and switch to Puppet Shop.
Rendering:
- Select multiple views in batch render and be able to make changes to all the views selected.
- Move views up and down in batch render.
- The ability to sort views should be a basic feature. The buttons and columns are there, why don't they sort?
Sound:
The ability to load multiple sounds, much like SoundTracks or Foley Studio.
MaxScript:
Fix 100% of what Bobo has been crying about for the last 10 years.
They also just need to buy polyboost out and make it a permanent part of the edit poly toolset.
Material Editor needs an overhaul. I mean, I know Max much better than your average artist, and yet there's still some shit hidden in that interface that I almost never use even though it might be worthwhile. For straight-forward materials, it is fast which is good. But can anyone tell me quickly off the top of their head how to set up a masked multisub that calls one global grime mask and a tiling grime texture that repeats at different intervals than the base texture maps?
In UnrealEd or a similar node-based editor this is a snap, but it took quite a bit of fiddling to get it figured out in Max. And even then, you can't see the whole masked multi-map in viewport. This is functionality that as an environment artist is pretty crucial.
Next point stemming from last one. Proper display of masked materials that call 2 or more different material channels. Tiling brick on channel one, masked grime on channel 2. Show me that in viewport. Maybe it's even wet grime, so the spec should be affected as well. In viewport.
Set Material IDs in Unwrap. On more complex building models and such, it's easy to mis-asign an ID which I notice when unwrapping. So what do I have to do? Collapse, select the face, scroll down, change the ID, apply another Unwrap, filter by material ID, then navigate back to the area that I was working on. This sucks. I mean, if I have the face selected in Unwrap, why can't I just switch it from ID 2 to 3 and keep working?
Fast GI lighting solution that takes opacity into account when casting shadows. Right now Skylight with cast shadows on is the only option that I know of. I bake AO maps all of the time, and damn if it doesn't suck for some trees, fences, and the ground beneath them. Even with samples decreased, it takes a long time. Hit render, go to lunch, come back, realize I fucked something up, render again, afternoon is shot.