They all have huge glaring drawbacks that leave me scratching my head.
If both can't be supported then its a weak tech/dev department. You're tying down the art dept in a useless way and limiting the talent pool they can fish in.
i think in the end max is a better for modeling, maya is better for animation. btw ive only used maya for few months only. so i havent found all the good stuff that maya has to offer.
Except you can model in just about anything and it won't affect your pipeline much so you're free to choose whatever you want from all the much nicer specialized modeling apps :P
Except you can model in just about anything and it won't affect your pipeline much so you're free to choose whatever you want from all the much nicer specialized modeling apps :P
Um, what?
This might be true if you're working with an unreal-style engine, where you have a highly polished level editor and your 3d package just needs to pass vert position, color, and uv data via a specific format. Then worst case is writing an exporter for whatever package your artist wants to use.
However if you work with a pipeline which is much more centered on your 3d package, then you need to pick one package studio-wide purely for support reasons (otherwise you need twice the tech artists to support and duplicate tools across to your various other packages).
This second pipeline style is the true strength of maya IMO. Since mel is so deeply embedded, good tech artists and scripters can conjure up what can look like a total conversion of the app, giving the artists the tools they need to use it as a level builder, pass the custom parameters they need to, etc.
While I agree that artist should use the tools they are comfortable with and get the fastest and best results, they also need to be a bit demanding about that and have the skill to back up their request.
It can create a bit of a headache even at the modeling phase. Lets say someone comes up with a Mel script that automates some repetitive modeling task, that tool now needs to be replicated for the other software or the models need to be fed into Maya so it can be run. Either way its a bit more work for someone.
If a place is looking to hire two seemingly equal artists and one is asking them to buy extra software and duplicate tools and one that is not, who might get the nod?
If you let one group "use whatever app you want" you could end up supporting "whatever app" deeper in the pipeline which could cause issues. Or it might lead to people wanting to experiment with a new app and time gets wasted supporting the experiment with tool development.
While I personally think all that is worth it and in most cases necessary, the company needs the technical prowls to pull all that off. To assume that all will invest their time and resources and to craft your skill set in a specific way around that belief, could be a bit of a mistake.
One of the things i agree on, the modelling tools of Maya do suck no secret nothing new. But if it comes to workflow Maya always suited my taste best and i think it has one of the coolest UIs out there even though its a bit cluttered here and there. Anyway bla bla bla im gonna stick with it, even though i think of getting Silo at least for modelling.
Never used Maya, but I think everything takes time to learn and feels awkward at first. Tried Blender and that felt awkward and I stopped using it, although I think with time it would as easy to use as Max. Customisation is the key, I have all of the main tools I use inside the quad toolbar. If you can't fully customise the way you work then it becomes a problem.
I can model faster in Max, and manage complex scenes more easily. Layer management is nicer, and there are better tools for intricate arrangements of highpoly objects. The UI is very "artist friendly", usually the default settings of tools generally do the stuff you want first time, but are often less flexible for more uncommon uses.
I can script faster in Maya, and set up complex custom rigs (when needed) more easily. The interface is faster once you're used to it (marking menus are awesome, way nicer than Max's Quad menus) but the lack of easy customisation is a pain.
The UI seems like it was made by a programmer on his night off, and you really need to have a bit of scripting knowledge if you want to customise it nicely (which is a bit ridiculous to assume of most artists). Definitely more flexible and powerful in this way though. One of the things I'm constantly surprised about Maya is how all the default settings seem to be the worst possible for stuff people tend to want to do most often. Like you click a button and it does something that nobody will ever want to do. You have to fiddle around with settings to get stuff working right. Doesn't make sense! However these settings allow you more powerful options in some cases.
In conclusion: Both programs are sucky in some ways and good in others. I choose to try and extend or build on the weaknesses as I come across them, but appreciate that it's not ideal for people who just want to get some nice work done without getting their hands dirty.
Also, Maya, get a damn stack already. Everyone is living in the past.
try using fucking maya 7 at work..yea. then complain. im not a fan of maya, but omg im so looking forward to upgrading to the newest maya (compared to 7)
This might be true if you're working with an unreal-style engine, where you have a highly polished level editor and your 3d package just needs to pass vert position, color, and uv data via a specific format. Then worst case is writing an exporter for whatever package your artist wants to use.
Or you could just import an .obj into whatever major package your pipeline is built on. Who loads a model directly into the game without some sort of bakes or rigging first anyway? :P Granted, on the off chance you find something during rigging or UVing that you need to fix, you're not gonna have the luxury of going back to whatever you made it in, but that's fine. I'm not condoning ignorance of your main app or suggesting a whole other major application anyway; I specifically said small, cheap, dedicated modeling apps.
Or you could just import an .obj into whatever major package your pipeline is built on. Who loads a model directly into the game without some sort of bakes or rigging first anyway? :P Granted, on the off chance you find something during rigging or UVing that you need to fix, you're not gonna have the luxury of going back to whatever you made it in, but that's fine. I'm not condoning ignorance of your main app or suggesting a whole other major application anyway; I specifically said small, cheap, dedicated modeling apps.
Okay, so say you do your initial modelling in your other package of choice, then bring an obj across to the main package your studio is using and building tools for. You then add extra attributes, shader specifics, place props using a proprietary system, export it through a custom maya tool that integrates into the rest of your pipeline, and build the game. You realize you forgot to weld a few verts, and some of the uvs are skewed. Do you return to your original package, fix these issues, export again, then redo the process?
If you introduced no one-off bugs (ie. bugs that only you have because of your workflow) and kept pace with all the other artists, and your other package of choice wasn't too expensive, I could see this MAYBE happening. But most TAD's would tell you to just suck it up and use the main package. Most artists will complain for about a month about having to switch, then they'll be comfortable, in another month or two they'll probably be up to full speed and working away (with occasional gripes, but that's probably true about their old 3d package too).
In a studio the TAD+TD+pipeline scripters should determine the 3d package, not artists' preferences.
It can create a bit of a headache even at the modeling phase. Lets say someone comes up with a Mel script that automates some repetitive modeling task, that tool now needs to be replicated for the other software or the models need to be fed into Maya so it can be run. Either way its a bit more work for someone.
If you let one group "use whatever app you want" you could end up supporting "whatever app" deeper in the pipeline which could cause issues. Or it might lead to people wanting to experiment with a new app and time gets wasted supporting the experiment with tool development.
If this first idea were to be the case. I'd tell the company I wouldn't need their tools (with the exception of an exporter/importer). Any artist trying to demand as much as the next artist is given for that different application. Goes beyond me why on earth they cannot use the exisiting toolset for their desired application in the first place.
For this second one, I see only bad management at the company in example as you describe. No one at any company should be experimenting with an application if it's not regularly supported. Other than to provide the benefit of those who would be better in need from their own taste. This is where we have off work hours at home to experiment with these tools.
For this second one, I see only bad management at the company in example as you describe. No one at any company should be experimenting with an application if it's not regularly supported. Other than to provide the benefit of those who would be better in need from their own taste. This is where we have off work hours at home to experiment with these tools.
You mean our freetime, what little there is?
I would argue oppositely in that good management should allow a little time for artist whom are interested to "try" new products. If they see something that might benefit the production pipeline, bring it the art leads, and so forth.
I do believe the day is coming soon where it wont matter the package you use, just as long as you have the correct exporter.
I can only speak for myself, but really, how much time is wasted learning a new package, when the package you had and were already up and running was working? Or the confusion when you have to go from it to another and back again while attempting remember all the damn shortcuts and menus? Ever start out and application and wonder why non of your keyboard shortcuts are working, only to realize that was for a different program? I do it now, even just between max and ps.
We all are going to end up with Dementia when we get older because we would have run out of good brain cells remembering all these differences! I mean, if I am going to have to retain things, can't they be making good art principles than remembering 20 different tools that end up doing the same thing?
For this second one, I see only bad management at the company in example as you describe. No one at any company should be experimenting with an application if it's not regularly supported. Other than to provide the benefit of those who would be better in need from their own taste. This is where we have off work hours at home to experiment with these tools.
Any company worth the game it makes, makes time for R&D on the clock and does not relay on its employee's off the clock time to help improve its pipeline and its games. I might leave work and still think about my job because I love it, but they shouldn't bank on me clocking out, heading home and clocking back in.
Tool support goes beyond exporters. Each studio comes up with a bunch of tools that help their artists, supporting those can be hard the more apps you toss in. So you would be fine with manually repositioning hundreds of pivot points and renaming objects to fit a new naming convention when the rest of the art dept was handed a tool that did it automatically? You may be willing to waste the companies time doing all that instead of making art but they may not want to.
"Don't worry about making my life easier just give me a job" is a silly position to take and will only jade you 3mo after the "woa I got a job" wears off.
Tool support goes beyond exporters. Each studio comes up with a bunch of tools that help their artists, supporting those can be hard the more apps you toss in. So you would be fine with manually repositioning hundreds of pivot points and renaming objects to fit a new naming convention when the rest of the art dept was handed a tool that did it automatically? You may be willing to waste the companies time doing all that instead of making art but they may not want to..
That's an easy answer, take into the program that does rename it, let it do its thing. Export back out to the shared file format. Open in preferred. That or make such tools work on the shared mesh format like from colladra versus relying on individual programs. IE standalone. Or if they need some 3d code already. Use blender as a base for the auto standalone tool. (forget how the GPL works in that case if only for internal use?)
There are ways around, but they take a bit more thinking through for the tool maker. I wont deny its more efficient to use one program.. period. But there are ways to allow for multiple program use with only slightly less efficiency, but the pay off is the artists working with the tools they know right off the bat.
Edit:
So the company can hire talent first over trying to balance "do they know the program we use already in a super efficient manner?". It shouldnt be the tools, it should be the artist. But then, Im a dreamer...
Or you could just import an .obj into whatever major package your pipeline is built on. Who loads a model directly into the game without some sort of bakes or rigging first anyway? :P Granted, on the off chance you find something during rigging or UVing that you need to fix, you're not gonna have the luxury of going back to whatever you made it in, but that's fine. I'm not condoning ignorance of your main app or suggesting a whole other major application anyway; I specifically said small, cheap, dedicated modeling apps.
OBJ doesn't support vertex colour.
Also, I am a big advocate of single-app pipelines wherever possible. Not only is it cheaper (since usually if you're in a multi-app environment then some artists need both apps purely for conversion purposes), but it leaves your pipeline more contained, portable and "safe". Nothing worse than trying to find someone with the right version of <insert app here> just to open a file from 12 months ago that you need again all of a sudden.
Thing that pisses me of most about Maya is the way the tools work, its like you have to go looking around switching from the channel box/attribute ed/tool settings every time you add something like a bevel. It's more like preform a command and then editing its history, there not really interactive like in Max or XSI.
Another thing is the smooth preview, it doesn't really turn the model into a sud-d surface, just a preview for the viewport. Really annoying.
Lastly is the viewport performance, it's terrible when you have heavy scenes. I swear XSI is smoother with 4 million polies, than Maya is with 1 million.
Im really into XSI at the moment, has great modeling, selection and management tools.
Sud-d's are really well integrated, as is MR. Handles relatively heavy scenes with ease and thats set to increase with new release.
I really hope XSI takes off more now that the devil (Autodesk) as acquired it.
If the outside "fix" app hasn't been created it needs to be. The more apps it has to import and correctly export back into the more time it takes to maintain.
That also means getting things back into each of those apps the way people expect it. I choose renaming and pivots because those are the most generic tasks that could pop up it can easily get more complex and convoluted the deeper in the pipeline you go.
Just because a bunch of apps could have an elaborate set of helper apps and file checkers put in place doesn't mean they'll all be ready and working at the same time. You can bog down the TD with updating all those apps and exporters or they can focus on improving the artists experience. They can probably do more to make the art departments lives easier if they aren't running all over the place duplicating work.
I'm all for untying artists hands and letting them run free but its not as simple as "pfft just buy the extra software and export".
If you had the chance to hire an equally amazing artist who worked in the studios native app, the job will probably go to them. We can get caught up in the unfairness of app discrimination and make phone calls to the ACLU but really companies (and the people doing the work) want it done with the least effort and time taken. Tying up the people who are meant to set artists free can be counter productive to that goal. But then again it can be worth it in some cases, but its not a simple answer and there is a lot that goes into weighing the options.
I really hope XSI takes off more now that the devil (Autodesk) as acquired it.
What? No. I mean. I haven't been paying attention. But.. No.. Your lying. You have to be. XSI was the best I ever used, but I had to go with a more industrial standard.
Autodesk? No. God no. XSI 2010 now? Release every year? The super price points that gave Autodesk the finger? Where is the monopoly breakups when you need them? Whats next? Them trying to purchase Blender somehow? Or laying on wacky lawsuits since they will have sooo many patents now.
Clunky Clunky Clunky, that's Maya's interface in a nut shell.
XSI is great, good tools for modeling, rigging and animation. Rendering in it takes getting used to, but is quite powerful. It also has the best support for Game mod and indie work with free and reduced fees for commercial works (mod tool only).
XSI Explorer Tool- Extremely powerful, with full access to each mesh, its history (includes the ability to delete/freeze separate operations or stacks of ops) and materials and textures and render options all in one sub-window. Also allows access to render passes, layers and a full material listing for a scene.
Rigging- easier and more intuitive and flexible in XSI.
Nice smooth uncluttered UI
Even works well on old computers alot better then maya. So anyone with an old system that worries about not being able to work on high poly will have little or no problems with how it handles 50k-2mil scenes (single-core+ integrated GFX).
I will mention this regardless if people here have a hard on for Maya (which seems odd to me).
Is why on earth do studios resort to a package that goes beyond what game hardware can handle if the tools aren't all that advantageous for their visual departments to append to with easy plugin installation, and bridge tool utilities to other packages?
I mean Maya ranges from $5-7 some odd thousand bucks. While 3ds Max and XSI are much cheaper and have a wider range of tools, and with the two..can eat a program like Maya for a snack. When infact money can be less spent on large amounts for license's for a package that truth be told isn't that useful and well liked by it's bare-end-self (with exception to the film industry crowd & FX artists). When alot of that money could be used to spend on cheaper & better software and to hiring more artists.
CrazyMatt, you're out of date both packages cost the same. $3,495 you can check the autodesk website if you like. I'll have to agree with mop supporting more than one art package is fucking retarded. I feel sorry for any art team which goes this route, it is endless headaches from start to finish especially if you are using the 3d app as the world creation tool. I've seen amazing art come out of both packages, and I've seen amazing frustration come out of artists that are not in their native package. Not really a solvable problem, if you trained in one package you are not going to like switching to a new package so I would really think it through before joining a team that does not use your native art package. I got the mandatory switch last year for one game and it was unpleasant. Now I'm back in my native package and everything's back to normal.
Maya is also the preferred package for most engineers. It's easier to write a plugin for Maya than it is to write a plugin for Max. Ask an engineer which package he prefers to develop tools for.
Wow, I guess that's what I get for implying something is better than Max. I don't think glib for one is even reading my posts :P Lemme see if I can set things straight:
Except you can model in just about anything and it won't affect your pipeline much so you're free to choose whatever you want from all the much nicer specialized modeling apps :P
You can model in anything. Modeling is not rigging, it's not vertex coloring, it isn't even UVing. There are no pipeline-specific tools, plugins or exports needed for moving vertices around and yes it can be done much faster if Silo or ZBrush is your thing which we might see more of with the new ZSpheres. No you cannot get away with lack of knowledge and competence in the pipeline app yes you should be able to build a whole character in it if needed no I never said you should use XSI or Modo when everyone else is using Max and certainly not for things that are: A) pipeline-integrated or NOT MODELING.
Yes it's good when someone can just log into your station and get something without needing to futz around with shit they don't understand no that shouldn't stop you from binding ctrl+z to 'Zoom' regardless of the program. Yes you probably will lose your vertex normals on export depending on formats but that's probably still better than having to use Max's retarded "smoothing groups" system the entire time instead of just re-grouping them on import. Yes anyone who subjects their pipeline to Blender should probably be shot and no I don't claim to be objective or right in everything I do.
Now that Autodesk owns everything they need to just converge it all into one so that we don't have to worry about converting files and getting things to work in one program as it would in the other and students can learn easier and we can stop paying for multiple programs and we can stop having this same fucking debate once every three months.
MattQ86 I believe .fbx is what Autodesk is trying to do to unify the applications. I don't think it would be financially sound for autodesk to merge the apps, 3 pay cheques are better than one.
I'm learning max right now. Damn. Somebody shoot me. Seriously, who designed this ... this...gah, don't even know what to call it! Max 2008 btw. I feel raped and molested. I'm gonna crawl into a corner and let modo comfort me with its smooth smooth interface. :P
I don't care what folks say I love max, been working on it since version 1 and still love it.
maya is ok, but has a few extra glitches which i don't like, but pretty similar.
Maya is also the preferred package for most engineers. It's easier to write a plugin for Maya than it is to write a plugin for Max. Ask an engineer which package he prefers to develop tools for.
Do we see more maya or max plugins? lol...
after watching siggraph 2009 vid over the area, max2010 graphite modeling tools really drool me over switching from maya.. Although I have been using it for 7 years. sigh.. another wasted time to learn this package. There's nex but I feel like most of the features are already built in maya ( I guess the same thing happened to polyboost with max2010 release, do you guys still need it? )
Thing that pisses me of most about Maya is the way the tools work, its like you have to go looking around switching from the channel box/attribute ed/tool settings every time you add something like a bevel. It's more like preform a command and then editing its history, there not really interactive like in Max or XSI.
I have to agree on this one.
I spent most of the time modeling, texturing, etc and not so into dynamics and simulation stuffs and lately Maya's upgrade has been about nucleus, muscle and now toxik and matchmover.. I guess AD is focusing max into games industry and maya into VFX industry.
Replies
If both can't be supported then its a weak tech/dev department. You're tying down the art dept in a useless way and limiting the talent pool they can fish in.
cough cough
Um, what?
This might be true if you're working with an unreal-style engine, where you have a highly polished level editor and your 3d package just needs to pass vert position, color, and uv data via a specific format. Then worst case is writing an exporter for whatever package your artist wants to use.
However if you work with a pipeline which is much more centered on your 3d package, then you need to pick one package studio-wide purely for support reasons (otherwise you need twice the tech artists to support and duplicate tools across to your various other packages).
This second pipeline style is the true strength of maya IMO. Since mel is so deeply embedded, good tech artists and scripters can conjure up what can look like a total conversion of the app, giving the artists the tools they need to use it as a level builder, pass the custom parameters they need to, etc.
It can create a bit of a headache even at the modeling phase. Lets say someone comes up with a Mel script that automates some repetitive modeling task, that tool now needs to be replicated for the other software or the models need to be fed into Maya so it can be run. Either way its a bit more work for someone.
If a place is looking to hire two seemingly equal artists and one is asking them to buy extra software and duplicate tools and one that is not, who might get the nod?
If you let one group "use whatever app you want" you could end up supporting "whatever app" deeper in the pipeline which could cause issues. Or it might lead to people wanting to experiment with a new app and time gets wasted supporting the experiment with tool development.
While I personally think all that is worth it and in most cases necessary, the company needs the technical prowls to pull all that off. To assume that all will invest their time and resources and to craft your skill set in a specific way around that belief, could be a bit of a mistake.
I can model faster in Max, and manage complex scenes more easily. Layer management is nicer, and there are better tools for intricate arrangements of highpoly objects. The UI is very "artist friendly", usually the default settings of tools generally do the stuff you want first time, but are often less flexible for more uncommon uses.
I can script faster in Maya, and set up complex custom rigs (when needed) more easily. The interface is faster once you're used to it (marking menus are awesome, way nicer than Max's Quad menus) but the lack of easy customisation is a pain.
The UI seems like it was made by a programmer on his night off, and you really need to have a bit of scripting knowledge if you want to customise it nicely (which is a bit ridiculous to assume of most artists). Definitely more flexible and powerful in this way though. One of the things I'm constantly surprised about Maya is how all the default settings seem to be the worst possible for stuff people tend to want to do most often. Like you click a button and it does something that nobody will ever want to do. You have to fiddle around with settings to get stuff working right. Doesn't make sense! However these settings allow you more powerful options in some cases.
In conclusion: Both programs are sucky in some ways and good in others. I choose to try and extend or build on the weaknesses as I come across them, but appreciate that it's not ideal for people who just want to get some nice work done without getting their hands dirty.
Also, Maya, get a damn stack already. Everyone is living in the past.
whichever one randomly creates art first wins.
Blender, by default, starts up with a cube in the scene. Winner?
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day we'll all throw off our Autodesk shackles!
Okay, so say you do your initial modelling in your other package of choice, then bring an obj across to the main package your studio is using and building tools for. You then add extra attributes, shader specifics, place props using a proprietary system, export it through a custom maya tool that integrates into the rest of your pipeline, and build the game. You realize you forgot to weld a few verts, and some of the uvs are skewed. Do you return to your original package, fix these issues, export again, then redo the process?
If you introduced no one-off bugs (ie. bugs that only you have because of your workflow) and kept pace with all the other artists, and your other package of choice wasn't too expensive, I could see this MAYBE happening. But most TAD's would tell you to just suck it up and use the main package. Most artists will complain for about a month about having to switch, then they'll be comfortable, in another month or two they'll probably be up to full speed and working away (with occasional gripes, but that's probably true about their old 3d package too).
In a studio the TAD+TD+pipeline scripters should determine the 3d package, not artists' preferences.
pros:
- teapot primitive
- file menu is now a giant icon
- can summon demons
cons:
- half-baked release candidates
- cannot change hotkeys
maya 2009 (8.5)
pros:
- hypershade connects stuff with lines
- comes with help files
- x-ray vision
cons:
- exact same red icon as maya 2008
- bought out by autodesk
If this first idea were to be the case. I'd tell the company I wouldn't need their tools (with the exception of an exporter/importer). Any artist trying to demand as much as the next artist is given for that different application. Goes beyond me why on earth they cannot use the exisiting toolset for their desired application in the first place.
For this second one, I see only bad management at the company in example as you describe. No one at any company should be experimenting with an application if it's not regularly supported. Other than to provide the benefit of those who would be better in need from their own taste. This is where we have off work hours at home to experiment with these tools.
You mean our freetime, what little there is?
I would argue oppositely in that good management should allow a little time for artist whom are interested to "try" new products. If they see something that might benefit the production pipeline, bring it the art leads, and so forth.
I do believe the day is coming soon where it wont matter the package you use, just as long as you have the correct exporter.
I can only speak for myself, but really, how much time is wasted learning a new package, when the package you had and were already up and running was working? Or the confusion when you have to go from it to another and back again while attempting remember all the damn shortcuts and menus? Ever start out and application and wonder why non of your keyboard shortcuts are working, only to realize that was for a different program? I do it now, even just between max and ps.
We all are going to end up with Dementia when we get older because we would have run out of good brain cells remembering all these differences!
Tool support goes beyond exporters. Each studio comes up with a bunch of tools that help their artists, supporting those can be hard the more apps you toss in. So you would be fine with manually repositioning hundreds of pivot points and renaming objects to fit a new naming convention when the rest of the art dept was handed a tool that did it automatically? You may be willing to waste the companies time doing all that instead of making art but they may not want to.
"Don't worry about making my life easier just give me a job" is a silly position to take and will only jade you 3mo after the "woa I got a job" wears off.
That's an easy answer, take into the program that does rename it, let it do its thing. Export back out to the shared file format. Open in preferred. That or make such tools work on the shared mesh format like from colladra versus relying on individual programs. IE standalone. Or if they need some 3d code already. Use blender as a base for the auto standalone tool. (forget how the GPL works in that case if only for internal use?)
There are ways around, but they take a bit more thinking through for the tool maker. I wont deny its more efficient to use one program.. period. But there are ways to allow for multiple program use with only slightly less efficiency, but the pay off is the artists working with the tools they know right off the bat.
Edit:
So the company can hire talent first over trying to balance "do they know the program we use already in a super efficient manner?". It shouldnt be the tools, it should be the artist. But then, Im a dreamer...
[ame]
OBJ doesn't support vertex colour.
Also, I am a big advocate of single-app pipelines wherever possible. Not only is it cheaper (since usually if you're in a multi-app environment then some artists need both apps purely for conversion purposes), but it leaves your pipeline more contained, portable and "safe". Nothing worse than trying to find someone with the right version of <insert app here> just to open a file from 12 months ago that you need again all of a sudden.
Another thing is the smooth preview, it doesn't really turn the model into a sud-d surface, just a preview for the viewport. Really annoying.
Lastly is the viewport performance, it's terrible when you have heavy scenes. I swear XSI is smoother with 4 million polies, than Maya is with 1 million.
Im really into XSI at the moment, has great modeling, selection and management tools.
Sud-d's are really well integrated, as is MR. Handles relatively heavy scenes with ease and thats set to increase with new release.
I really hope XSI takes off more now that the devil (Autodesk) as acquired it.
That also means getting things back into each of those apps the way people expect it. I choose renaming and pivots because those are the most generic tasks that could pop up it can easily get more complex and convoluted the deeper in the pipeline you go.
Just because a bunch of apps could have an elaborate set of helper apps and file checkers put in place doesn't mean they'll all be ready and working at the same time. You can bog down the TD with updating all those apps and exporters or they can focus on improving the artists experience. They can probably do more to make the art departments lives easier if they aren't running all over the place duplicating work.
I'm all for untying artists hands and letting them run free but its not as simple as "pfft just buy the extra software and export".
If you had the chance to hire an equally amazing artist who worked in the studios native app, the job will probably go to them. We can get caught up in the unfairness of app discrimination and make phone calls to the ACLU but really companies (and the people doing the work) want it done with the least effort and time taken. Tying up the people who are meant to set artists free can be counter productive to that goal. But then again it can be worth it in some cases, but its not a simple answer and there is a lot that goes into weighing the options.
What? No. I mean. I haven't been paying attention. But.. No.. Your lying. You have to be. XSI was the best I ever used, but I had to go with a more industrial standard.
Autodesk? No. God no. XSI 2010 now? Release every year? The super price points that gave Autodesk the finger? Where is the monopoly breakups when you need them? Whats next? Them trying to purchase Blender somehow? Or laying on wacky lawsuits since they will have sooo many patents now.
XSI is great, good tools for modeling, rigging and animation. Rendering in it takes getting used to, but is quite powerful. It also has the best support for Game mod and indie work with free and reduced fees for commercial works (mod tool only).
XSI Explorer Tool- Extremely powerful, with full access to each mesh, its history (includes the ability to delete/freeze separate operations or stacks of ops) and materials and textures and render options all in one sub-window. Also allows access to render passes, layers and a full material listing for a scene.
Rigging- easier and more intuitive and flexible in XSI.
Nice smooth uncluttered UI
Even works well on old computers alot better then maya. So anyone with an old system that worries about not being able to work on high poly will have little or no problems with how it handles 50k-2mil scenes (single-core+ integrated GFX).
So, um yeah. XSI>>>Maya.
And yet, I'm sitting here staring at a maya interface. there's something to be said for 3rd party support hehe.
Is why on earth do studios resort to a package that goes beyond what game hardware can handle if the tools aren't all that advantageous for their visual departments to append to with easy plugin installation, and bridge tool utilities to other packages?
I mean Maya ranges from $5-7 some odd thousand bucks. While 3ds Max and XSI are much cheaper and have a wider range of tools, and with the two..can eat a program like Maya for a snack. When infact money can be less spent on large amounts for license's for a package that truth be told isn't that useful and well liked by it's bare-end-self (with exception to the film industry crowd & FX artists). When alot of that money could be used to spend on cheaper & better software and to hiring more artists.
Nevertheless, Maya is too damn expensive for a 3d package alone! :P
You can model in anything. Modeling is not rigging, it's not vertex coloring, it isn't even UVing. There are no pipeline-specific tools, plugins or exports needed for moving vertices around and yes it can be done much faster if Silo or ZBrush is your thing which we might see more of with the new ZSpheres. No you cannot get away with lack of knowledge and competence in the pipeline app yes you should be able to build a whole character in it if needed no I never said you should use XSI or Modo when everyone else is using Max and certainly not for things that are: A) pipeline-integrated or
Yes it's good when someone can just log into your station and get something without needing to futz around with shit they don't understand no that shouldn't stop you from binding ctrl+z to 'Zoom' regardless of the program. Yes you probably will lose your vertex normals on export depending on formats but that's probably still better than having to use Max's retarded "smoothing groups" system the entire time instead of just re-grouping them on import. Yes anyone who subjects their pipeline to Blender should probably be shot and no I don't claim to be objective or right in everything I do.
We still have that and modo to look forward to as they progress.
Old. Golden though!
maya is ok, but has a few extra glitches which i don't like, but pretty similar.
after watching siggraph 2009 vid over the area, max2010 graphite modeling tools really drool me over switching from maya.. Although I have been using it for 7 years. sigh.. another wasted time to learn this package. There's nex but I feel like most of the features are already built in maya ( I guess the same thing happened to polyboost with max2010 release, do you guys still need it? )
I have to agree on this one.
I spent most of the time modeling, texturing, etc and not so into dynamics and simulation stuffs and lately Maya's upgrade has been about nucleus, muscle and now toxik and matchmover.. I guess AD is focusing max into games industry and maya into VFX industry.
Time to switch I believe...