Community voice survey: 3ds Max
Let's hear the community voice
We've been working with a group of users over on the AREA to build a survey that will give the community a stronger voice in our direction setting. The survey is now live.
We've been working with a group of users over on the AREA to build a survey that will give the community a stronger voice in our direction setting. The survey is now live.
Replies
thx for the effort. I surely will make use of this offer.
However, like most surveys I took part in, it's kind of restricted and most of what I'd like to say would go in the extra comments, while Autodesk will probably mostly rely on the figures that are derived from the checkboxes. But that's the nature of the beast I guess. What if I'd like to complain about 2011 but still use 2009 mostly?
I'll add it as a comment of course, but the figures will stand for themselves, I'm afraid.
What is really kind of teadious, though, is the 20$ thing. It would be much more comfortable if you had a little box with the sum you can spend amd spinners for each cause. If you spend one dollar it would get automatically deducted from the sum and vice versa. Shouldn't be too hard to do and it would make it a lot easier to do the survey and probably more people would take part in it. Also with 22 fields and 20 dollars you hardly can set a priority between fields if you want to cover many of them.
Unfortunately my biggest annoyance with 2011 wasn't mentioned. Startup times. I made sure to put this in the comment box at the end. For the most part 2011 has been fantastic for me, I skipped 2010, but settled into 2011 pretty quick and I actually find myself making use of a lot of the new tools which I didn't think I would. Startup times are still a little excessive though. Even on a close/reopen it takes ages to fire up, even on my work machine which is certainly no slouch.
Good to see you're taking community feedback though.
re: start up times
Thanks for the good vibes around 2011. If you saw our XBR presentation, then you know we have something called XBR:Diet. We're serious about it. Our research has already shown positive results internally.
thanks,
ken
http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/ken/let_s_hear_the_community_voice
The two big things that stand out for me, is that I'd like Viewport Canvas to be more well-rounded, and general interface clutter.
With Viewport Canvas, I was hoping it'd be a replacement for bodypaint so I can keep everything in one program when doing hand-painted models. An inclusion of real-time projection painting and better support for PSDs and photoshop brushes would do the trick.
And for the interface... it's just all over the place. There are menus and buttons pretty much everywhere. So many different types of them too. Dropdown menus, right-click menus, buttons, panels, ribbon, etc.
http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/ken/happy_holidays_a_new_iray_video_to_share_along_with_some_thoughts
you say you're trying to get as much feedback from everywhere as possible. but that means you'll have film makers, animators, game artists, etc. all giving mixed feedback. and your end result will probably be an almost flat-lined graph because of that, with no clear reprisentation of what people want to see improved.
why not divert the energies of each, and have (and this is only an example)
3ds max - game art
softimage - film art
maya - animation
make them all completely integral with each other, by all means. but make each package superb at ONE thing. instead of mediocre at lots of things.
the reason i make this statement, is that quite simply maya does some things better than max and softimage for games design, max does other things better, and softimage does some things better. just consolodate your packages into one super powerful package in each field. i don't know why it hasn't already been done to be honest.
100% agree. Can't speak for Softimage since I've barely used it but I've been using Max/Maya for a good 5 years or so and a Max/Maya powerhouse app would be plain awesome. So awesome in fact that even if Autodesk added the two RRP's together and made it cost like $10k, I'd still buy it (probably only once, and never upgrade... but I'd buy it once nonetheless
Could you perhaps shed any light on why this isn't something that's likely to happen, Ken? As Gir says, both apps (or all 3) have their strengths, and all have their weaknesses, it seems completely pointless to have them as separate entities.
I know Max and Softimage have been acquired by Autodesk, but that's not really any reason to keep them separate. And I would say it's because studios have already integrated them into their pipeline for so many years that you can't change them, but then again you slowly remove any kind of backwards compatibility with each new release anyway, so oftentimes it's like a whole new app.
I dunno, I'm kinda thinking out loud, which has probably come across as a load of rubbish, but hands down the biggest frustration with any AD app, is not performance, not interoperability, not missing features or a slow renderer, it's just that I have to choose between two different pieces of the same genre of software depending on which tools I want to use.
Not to mention we'd never see a 'Max vs. Maya' thread on any forum ever again, which will improve the world immeasurably.
At work we dont use Max even though it has far better modeling tools then Maya. The game industry isnt just making pretty art. Its also Animation, Cinematics, FX, Characters/Rigging and a whole bunch of other junk. If we used a program that was only super amazing at 1 thing then our games would be very lousy.
Exactly! Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. So why not just combine them. At no point did I suggest killing one of them off, which would indeed be stupid...I was simply supporting Gir's suggestion to just merge Maya / Max / Softimage into one big package.
If not... what is the reasoning behind keep them separate? I know they are evolving in different ways etc... but all that's gonna do is complicate things even more.
I'm not trying to be a jackass here, I'm just trying to get a straight answer as to why Max and Maya don't just become one.
Also, 3ds's UI could be a bit better, like this for example,
but surely you can see the sense of having:
1 amazingly strong sculpting/projection painting app
1 amazingly strong animation app
1 amazingly strong games 3d app (ie: faster/more efficient viewport with better use of realtime shaders etc.)
1 amazingly strong movie 3d app
whereas right now you've got :
1 decent sculpting/projection painting app (mudbox)
3 half baked apps which perform a veriety of actions.
it's not a case of saying "this one is it". it's a case of saying "ok, this one has a stronger toolset here, so we'll focus on that, and try to integrate what's left into a more appropriate package".
with the right inter-app management and pricepoint, that would be insanely successful.
1. While the initiative behind this survey is amazing, u'r doing half the job if u'r stating u acknowladge the flaws in the mechanics behind it (survey monkey) and not doing anything about it. If u really wonna collect the data right, get a good survey. Program it if u must, u just can't say "oh well it's their fault".
2. What has been said here about application focus is 10000% correct, for Photoshop as well. U've got a program from the stone-age that did everything cuz nothing else did. Times have changed. There's no need to keep stuffing it with features while u've got competitive apps that handle things so elegantly, even if they r limited in toolsets. U've got the resources and the know-how to do the same, break up the app, lighten it, design it specifically and optimally to deliver the best possible toolset in its specifically intended category, and u've got a winner. Don't go head-in-the-wall and insist on cramming more stuff into max, have a vision and take it to the next level.
Maya is SO much nicer in those regards.
But the biggest thing (which I don't think is fixable) is the entire 'frankenstein' nature of the program.
Like 'polyboost' was bought, then added, rather than completely integrated into 'Editable Poly'. When 'Editable Poly' was made, why not just remove 'Editable Mesh'.
There's absolutely no integration with any of the newly acquired tools. They're just lumped on.
Even when Mental Ray was added, all of the sudden there's a gamut of Mental Ray shaders to play around with... Don't even get me started about the mess that is Character Studio.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I feel the addition of the Node Based Shader editor pretty much removes the need for the drag-and-drop material editor.
There's a laundry list of things that bug me about Max, but I do love it more than any other modelling program.
^_^
First of all, thank you for the heads up about the survey. I am sorry I missed it, but I am glad to see that you recognize this community as valuable. I cannot even imagine how tricky it is to please everybody with something like Max hehe. The app is so big, and there are so many different user profiles.
Around these parts the focus is mostly lowpoly and highpoly modeling, and realtime preview in the viewport. I would strongly encourage you to gather specific feedback on these subjects here on PC - I think youll be able to gather fantastic suggestions that way.
Just like Jacque, I would love to see more attention given to the development of the editable Poly tools. They are at the core of the strength of Max but they require quiet a few scripts and extra tools to make full use of them. Being able to pass feedback to the person in charge of that chunk of the app would be great.
Let us know!
So then wouldn't it make sense to separate them all out into distinct products (animation package, mesh-creation package, sculpting package etc), rather than combine them all into 1 big one?
This has been a bad idea in the past and will probably be so in the future (gmax anyone?). The line between games, film and animation is so blurred right now that it's just not feasable for a games company to buy 3 licenses just to develop games. I have not been involved in one single game pipeline that didn't utilize film and animation workflows.
Also, market wise it makes no sense to do this. You simply can't redesign and rebrand a recognized software these days without major market share decline.
We probably lack the perspective, sales and usability statistics to be able to make this judgement.
-Ability to save as 2009 format. Everybody I know is running 2009 since it's the cleanest and most stable version.
-Better integration of Graphite tools. I rarely ever use the Polyboost tools because they are so blatantly tacked on. The current interface for them is atrocious and if it was better integrated into the editable poly toolset, I'd love it.
-Color management of some sort. Currently there's only gamma control and ANYTHING is better than just this.
-Caddies are the worst, they jump all over the screen and are not as simple as the old style menus. I was doing research on them and I have not found anyone who actually likes these. It's unnecessary bling and any official way to get the old menus without breaking things would be great.
-I'm more than OK with the current Max UV editor, but the ability to work with UVs as if they were meshes similar to other Autodesk-owned packages would be a great feature, especially if you can use modifiers etc.
-Ability to use the Maya viewport navigation style would finally synchronize navigation between almost all programs without having to PAY FOR A THIRD PARTY TOOL which seems absurd for something so basic. It'd also calm down a lot of the Maya fanboys.
-The last thing I can think of is include a good viewport shader with the program. All the included ones are super basic or demos, so something like the 3 Point Shader or Xoliul's shader would be great.
Again as I have said separating them out into there own programs only hurts the game industry as MODELING is only a small part of the game industry. If you have noticed in the current trended (of good games at least) Animation is playing a MUCH bigger role then it ever has in the past. Studios are using Animation in tandem with amazingly created worlds to draw the player into a much more rich, deep and meaningfully story.
I know this is going to come off super dickish so I am sorry but saying things like having Max be the game art package because it should be faster at modeling/have better viewports is such a narrow minded/student/hobbyist/lack of industry experience type view.
As I said for the current generation of games if you want to have an AMAZING game you cant just focus on modeling alone. You have to incorporate animation, fx, characters and so on.
Also at both Bungie and Naughty Dog we never used Max or Maya to view models with there shaders on them. That is something you do for portfolio projects/fun projects. We would always apply our shaders in Max and check them in engine on the PS3/Xbox. Why would you ever base anything off your modeling app viewport when it is not a true representation of what it will look in your game engine? Having them for personal work would be amamzing but in reality you wont be using it in the industry as you will be checking how things look based off your game engine.
Why dont you just have your animation team use the animation package and the modelers use the modeling package? This would also be terrible as then that would require pretty much twice the amount of the work for scripters/coders to make tools for both apps that you could not share between them, make exporters for both apps to the game engine, maintain both toolsets/scripts/problems. I use tools daily that were made for the animators actually because I find it useful in my modeling workflow. Had they been separate apps, both with different code structure I would not be able to use that tool bringing down efficiency.
Sorry for derailing things Ken
I would have to echo most of what Racer said. And super echo the fact that you need to give us the option to remove that awful new caddie system as it just takes so much more time to do things. Remember just because a UI is pretty dosnt mean its efficient. The old system was far beyond better then what were stuck with now.
The suggestion has never been to separate the apps, kill any off, force people to choose one app or anything of the sort.
The suggestion is to create one 'Super App' which combines the features of all three (Max/Maya/XSI). So production teams could have scripts/plugins for modeling/animation/fx/anything else all for one app. All staff would be using the same app, so you'd get the great features of both Max/Maya, and not have that 'Oh I wish Maya did that thing Max does' or 'Damn, Maya does this so much better than Max', because you'd have the best tools from both rolled into one.
Sure, it'd be a monstrous task to decide which bits stay and which bits go, and it would likely rile people if certain features went missing and some stayed, but overall, if it was done well then I think it would actually be very good.
When you think about it, it doesn't seem to make sense to have software packages which, let's be honest, are effectively the same thing. Of course all 3 packages are very different, but at their core, they are 3D packages which do modeling, animation, rendering and FX (amongst other things). Why would one company offer 3 pieces of software which are essentially the same?
The only real answer I can think of is that the 3 packages were of course separate entities at one point, owned by different parties, and AD have kept them separate because different companies have been using one of the 3 for years. I would love to be a typical cynic and say 'Well it's for financial gain', but I can't see that it is. All companies I know/have worked for (admittedly Architecture/Advertising studios and not games) use one app, and would never license half the studio on Maya, and then the other half on Max, or have a few people on XSI and the rest on Maya for example, everyone uses the same package, for obvious reasons.
It becomes so complex that often its not until a system failure, do i realize exactly how much shit i need to install in order to do what most people here do on a daily basis.
So my thoughts are it would be extremely helpful for Autodesk and everyone reading this thread if we could list out what software, plugins and even scripts you use on a regular basis.
I would love to get the ball rolling on this one but it'll have to wait a few days until i can get back to my work PC.
The whole one super app idea is something that will never happen. For 2 large reasons.
1. Money - Autodesk makes a ton of money on having different software packages available. It might not seem like it to you since you have only done arch viz work which really is only done in Max seeing as how they have an Arch Viz package but at a lot of company's, they use multiple.
Just quick examples, Bungie used Max and Maya, Maya was only used by animators and like 1 or 2 character artists. Insomniac has both Max and Maya from what I have been told by a friend who works there. Naughty Dog uses both Mudbox and Zbrush. Sony Online Entertainment uses both Max and Maya. A good friend of mine started at High Moon recently and he was offered Max or Maya. I have a few friends at various film studios who model things in Max but then use Maya for everything else.
2. Diversity - which is not an old wooden ship like some might believe
There isnt even one super texturing app anymore. It use to be Photoshop but with the addition of the ability to polypaint right in things like zbrush/mudbox and now even Max/Maya, Photoshop is no longer the only thing to use. You are given choice which people love. They can pick the best way for them and there workflow to complete a task. Heck some of our texture artists do 90% of all texture work in zbrush and just some touch up work in photoshop/exporting it to the engine.
To me, it would make sense to break each of the packages even further, so that people could choose. Use Max's modeling tools, but Maya's animation. But sounds like you're against that. The other thing would be to combine them all into one super-app. But sounds like you're against that too, as am I. Max and Maya's current bloat-level is more than enough, let alone combined.
So that leaves us with what then?
And even if you could, it still leaves open the issue of all the stuff around it. Like tools and exporters, and modeling in one package, then giving that to an animator who will work in another package and so on and so forth.