Hardsurface artists: The world famous Maya vs 3ds max conflict in a diffrent way...

2

Replies

  • pior
    Offline / Send Message
    pior insane polycounter
    Yup, except it doesn't work at all like what we are talking about here. The functionality is here on paper but no, it's nowhere near equivalent. Simple test is to show a smooth, non destructive stack setup to pro technical artist versed in Maya and see their face and look of disbelief. I mean, really, I'm not making this up, I heard things like "Oh but that's cheating!" from guys like that. Of course the guy was trying to make a joke out of it but you see my point :)

    In Max you can have a base shape and add an editpoly modifier on top and and a profiled shell on top. Then go back to the editpoly modifier, brige stuff and punch holes, then back up : the shell adjust accordingly. In Maya if you try to do that the vertex index changes (because one cannot add anything like an editpoly modifier in Maya, the concept doesnt exist) and the extrusion becomes a mess.

    Now consider that and think of an art director asking you to make the hole wider or different in profile. In Max you can, in Maya you cannot. *This* is parametric, non linear modeling.

    Now of course not everything is modeled that way. But that's an example.
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    Noors wrote: »
    From memory, Maya has an historic, kinda like the modifier pile, no ? + everything nodal. I don't see where max is less linear.

    Completely different things entirely. See the Bobo quote here.
    Noors wrote: »
    I could also argue that the more you stack modifiers, the more chance you get that your model gets corrupted.
    If you are talking about the issue covered in somewhat regular "help, my mesh exploded" topics on these boards, those stem from improper use of modifiers, not any flaw in the modifier system.
    Noors wrote: »
    To me, the longest part isn't to learn which button to push, it's to learn the weaknesses of your soft and all possible workarounds so that you aren't limited by technic

    Good point. Learning an all new app can often bring with it a great deal of frustration until you start avoiding the common pitfalls without having to think about it.
  • CyberGameArts
    Offline / Send Message
    CyberGameArts polycounter lvl 6
    I think its funny how throughout all the replys, max stands out to be more production efficient in terms of modeling. And I am not saying to start another flame war but to rather laydown the facts.... Since i want to go into the games industry i guess i need to learn Max a bit better and focus on it a bit more.
    Now consider that and think of an art director asking you to make the hole wider or different in profile. In Max you can, in Maya you cannot. *This* is parametric, non linear modeling.

    ^^ he has a point
  • Marine
    Offline / Send Message
    Marine polycounter lvl 14
    Use Maya mostly out of habit, but it's like a retarded puppy, I just can't put it down.

    Take this, I decide it needs more subdivisions, I could subdivide it and carry on, but I should be able to go back to the initial cylinder, increase it to 32, since it's 16 sides, and carry on.
    7YGAt.jpg

    Maya disagrees
    8eFMN.jpg
  • MrOneTwo
    Offline / Send Message
    MrOneTwo polycounter lvl 8
    perna wrote: »
    poopie, I generally think that's one of the weaker aspects of Max. Silo and XSI have some cool stuff in that regard, but overall I don't know of an app that stands out as nailing this.Luckily it's relatively easy to script such things: Relevant thread (keyword search smartfunctions)


    Poly-editing apps are, as a whole, shamefully underdeveloped. I have a writeup coming, analyzing all the major (and some smaller) 3d apps using a simple test with one of the most basic functions there are, and the results will most likely surprise you.




    That premise is entirely flawed.
    • Potential for great-looking art relies primarily on the person's artistic capabilities.
    • Potential for efficiency and quality of technical construction relies primarily on the tools.

    It is not flawed... it's just my observation. It might be wrong but that is all :D

    I'm just trying to say that messing with the tools is great but it is not the goal. If you are technical artist it might be your goal but if you want to make good art choose an app., customize it so it is comfortable for you and MAKE ART!!!

    I just don't see a point in discussions which is better. I think discussions 'how to improve your workflow' or stuff like 'Pie Menu' for 3ds which Bryan made with your help are way more productive.

    Most of the apps have trials... (I know that it doesn't show full capabilities but experience is better than discussion).

    Can't wait for the write up. Sounds like something really interesting.
  • Noors
    Offline / Send Message
    Noors polycounter lvl 10
    Alrite, I thought the system was more robust. Tbh i hadn't much modeling knowledge back then so i've never pushed it far. I would probably be deconcerted modeling wise if i had to switch back.
    Like, you can't revert to a cylinder uh ?
    But i do remember the sphere primitive had separate horizontal and radial subdivision parameters and that was great !

    As for the stack, i'm used to collapse regularly. I haven't experienced funky mesh since. But maybe i'm more experienced too.
    Still I don't think i would keep a 10 modifiers stack for too long... Limited confidence

    Another issue related to the "soft weakness, you have to learn" is that is takes so much time and headaches, i don't think i could be arsed to learn another software just for fun, even if it was objectively better (modo?)
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    I'm just trying to say that messing with the tools is great but it is not the goal.
    The goal we have in this thread is to determine pros and cons of tools, something that would prove difficult without "messing with the tools".
    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    If you are technical artist it might be your goal but if you want to make good art choose an app., customize it so it is comfortable for you and MAKE ART!!!

    This thread is not about making art, it's not about design (go to conceptart.org for that), it's about the technical aspect of hard-surface 3D modeling. The name of this board is "Technical talk". But, nice inspirational speech, however misplaced.
    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    I just don't see a point in discussions which is better.
    Nobody is discussing "which is better". Personally I don't see the point in you replying to a thread you think is pointless.
    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    I think discussions 'how to improve your workflow' [...] are way more productive.
    That is exactly what's being discussed. Now you've made me confused.

    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    experience is better than discussion
    Why are you and the one other individual objecting to the rest of us engaging in a fruitful discussion? Are you against the sharing of information? Why, if you object so much to this thread, do you not just ignore it? It's a calm and educational discussion that's picking up momentum, what could possibly offend you about that? Could we discuss without people telling us to stop because they personally don't see the point, as if we have to live our lives according to what pleases them? These are all rhetorical questions.

    Noors wrote: »
    As for the stack, i'm used to collapse regularly. I haven't experienced funky mesh since. But maybe i'm more experienced too.
    Still I don't think i would keep a 10 modifiers stack for too long... Limited confidence

    If you can make a 10-modifier stack (don't know why you would want to in the first place, but anyway) which corrupts the mesh, you should upload it somewhere and send a bug report to Autodesk. The number of modifiers should have no bearing on mesh stability.
  • gray
    perna wrote: »
    Poly-editing apps are, as a whole, shamefully underdeveloped. I have a writeup coming, analyzing all the major (and some smaller) 3d apps using a simple test with one of the most basic functions there are, and the results will most likely surprise you.

    awesome, that is essentially one of the suggestions i made.


    @GeeDave
    if people want to compare tools and how long everybody tool is compared to the other guys tool then start a new thread on modeling tools and post some detailed pictures and info on your tool! lol

    seriously tho,

    that would be more informative to the experienced modelers who don't want to get into a pissing match. modelers who know that a lot of the work flow and speed stuff is just semantics. getting use to the flow of how the package does things and working with that in an efficient way.

    i'd like to see a thread on specific tools and what they do. then you could compare which package has which tool. and if one package has a really nice tool for doing xyz you could see that. people would get something out of that. my guess is that most of the tools are about the same and the differences are just semantics.

    so in short start a thread on modeling tools in general with details on specific tools. or post a review that goes through the tool set of one of the packages. the rest of it is just sword fighting on the internets.
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    interesting that every now and then this type of thread and debate comes up.

    Personally, its not much of an arguement to judge a 3D packages capability because you can't see much stunning work out there. That's hardly solid proof. The simple fact is that often studios don't announce or shout about which software they use and so many make assumptions, some true, some false.

    From my experience, it very often comes down to technique the software that you feel most comfortable in. Also many get very entrenched into their packages that they won't look at another package. This can be both a good and bad thing. I always advise people to be open to new and different software's, as you never know when and where you might have to adapt. If you become a diehard, fight to the death Max guy, what do you do if your dream job comes up at a Maya studio (or vice versa)? It could be unlikely they would adapt to you.
    Someone I know once said, that the best 3D package is the one you're paid to use, and there's certainly an element of truth to that.

    When it comes to the packages though, well the main three - Max, Mays, and Softimage, are actually very evenly matched in modelling terms. Many might say Max has the edge but they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I certainly don't feel restricted when using Maya over Max.

    I've never been much of a Max guy, I just couldn't get on with it. I find its modelling too clunky for me and not really intuitive. I certainly found Maya (and PowerAnimator before that) just easier and slicker to use. But then I could throw a curve ball in there and mention Softimage (nee XSI) which also has a very capable modelling toolset, with some features better than Maya and Max.

    Reading some posts, I did notice some crossed and confused facts. Subdivision surfaces were not invented by Pixar for renderman. They were discovered in the late 70s by Edwin Catmull and Jim Clark (hence the Catmull-Clark algorithm), though Ed Catmull did go on to co-found Pixar with John Lasseter.

    Also, Max has never 100% dominated the games market, though it was widely adopted often because of price. There's actually alot of Maya and Softimage used as well, with some studios even using all three. But as I said, some studios shout about it more than others. It can also depend on the geographical location, with some countries and places preferring to use one package over another. It's not always clear why, perhaps history and available talent pool play some part. For example, Japan has always been a big user of Softimage, with many of the studios using it, Metal Gear Solid being just one example.

    As for other examples of Maya's modellng and hard surfaces, then look at the automotive industry and also architectural. Many of the car manufacturers use software like Alias Design and Maya in their pipeline and architects like Zaha Hadid (London 2012 Aquatics Center) use Maya in their concepttural design.

    And not forgeting that Maya is often the backbone for many film VFX pipelines, with much of the actual asset creation being done in Maya. True there's many of packages used (including Max in some places), but Maya still does alot of the grunt work, and it's mostly been polys (for years) as well. Nurbs was used, but they were always tricky to use, so many avoided them altogether.

    There are some very good examples posted here of models produced in Max, but honestly I'm not seeing anything that I couldn't do in Maya or Softimage. However having done production for many years, despite the pretty pictures, I'm always more interested in the pipeline, the asset and where it goes. When you produce a poly asset in games, it's often produced to a specification, it also has to go somewhere, be it for a level or to be rigged for a character. Plus there's very often the need to think about LODs as well.
  • MrOneTwo
    Offline / Send Message
    MrOneTwo polycounter lvl 8
    perna wrote: »
    The goal we have in this thread is to determine pros and cons of tools, something that would prove difficult without "messing with the tools".



    This thread is not about making art, it's not about design (go to conceptart.org for that), it's about the technical aspect of hard-surface 3D modeling. The name of this board is "Technical talk". But, nice inspirational speech, however misplaced.


    Nobody is discussing "which is better". Personally I don't see the point in you replying to a thread you think is pointless.


    That is exactly what's being discussed. Now you've made me confused.



    Why are you and the one other individual objecting to the rest of us engaging in a fruitful discussion? Are you against the sharing of information? Why, if you object so much to this thread, do you not just ignore it? It's a calm and educational discussion that's picking up momentum, what could possibly offend you about that? Could we discuss without people telling us to stop because they personally don't see the point, as if we have to live our lives according to what pleases them? These are all rhetorical questions.




    If you can make a 10-modifier stack (don't know why you would want to in the first place, but anyway) which corrupts the mesh, you should upload it somewhere and send a bug report to Autodesk. The number of modifiers should have no bearing on mesh stability.

    Maybe I missed the point of the thread. And of course I don't object. I'm sorry you took it that way. It's probably because I wrote it that way :poly142:

    I probably read too few posts and wrote a turd without thinking. I will fix this and read rest of the thread. Please disect those tools for common good.
  • gray
    Bellsey wrote: »
    Subdivision surfaces were not invented by Pixar for renderman. They were discovered in the late 70s by Edwin Catmull and Jim Clark (hence the Catmull-Clark algorithm), though Ed Catmull did go on to co-found Pixar with John Lasseter.

    thats totally correct and a nice clarification. i did not go into any detail on that because i did not think anyone cared to much about it. but your correct. although Pixar does hold all the patents on cc subdivision surfaces and had the first implementation in prman so the generally get the cred.
  • GeeDave
    i'd like to see a thread on specific tools and what they do. then you could compare which package has which tool. and if one package has a really nice tool for doing xyz you could see that

    Yeah, welcome to the thread! This is what perna is attempting to instigate. The whole "pissing contest" only exists in your head. Also, if you had been paying attention:
    perna wrote:
    I have a writeup coming, analyzing all the major (and some smaller) 3d apps using a simple test with one of the most basic functions there are

    There's been some interesting posts already so I'm really not sure why you still think this is just people swinging willies.
    my guess is that most of the tools are about the same and the differences are just semantics.

    That sounds like an incredibly ignorant guess. I mean, I'm a sinking ship without 3ds Max and I can't think of much that I would struggle to complete within it, it is my primary tool and I would shed a (manly) tear if forced to move onto something else, but I'm still eager to learn about how other programs would handle certain tasks differently, without spending years learning each of them to maximise their potential. The premise? Get people who have been using them, to talk about them. It's just... well it's just interesting, and it's very weird to see someone loudly oppose the idea of such a discussion.
  • WarrenM
    Offline / Send Message
    WarrenM Polycount Sponsor
    Does anyone really leave their Max modifier stack intact? Whenever I use Max I'm constantly collapsing it so I can continue working. I'm sure it's because I have no idea what I'm doing but ... I dunno, the example of someone coming and asking for a hole to be wider and the modifier stack saves the day seems dubious at best. IMO.
  • Marine
    Offline / Send Message
    Marine polycounter lvl 14
    Bellsey wrote: »
    but honestly I'm not seeing anything that I couldn't do in Maya or Softimage.

    true, but how quickly you can do something should be taken in to account
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    Does anyone really leave their Max modifier stack intact? Whenever I use Max I'm constantly collapsing it so I can continue working.

    Non-destructive workflow doesn't mean leaving loads of random modifiers on the stack, it means planning your construction in advance, CAD-style. I'll post some image examples of the basic functionality of the modifier stack.
    I'm sure it's because I have no idea what I'm doing but ... I dunno, the example of someone coming and asking for a hole to be wider and the modifier stack saves the day seems dubious at best. IMO.

    Look at it like this: If you know an element may change, you can greatly benefit from making that element using a non-destructive workflow. It's that simple.

    And of course, designs change all the time. Maybe not so much for benches and bushes, but for major mechanical models like a robot head or a weapon, you'll have your art director making change requests.

    Modifiers have saved my glutes so many times. It's infinitely satisfying to be able to change the width or chamfer shapes of all the metal plates on an entire hipoly spaceship just by moving a couple of sliders.

    If you model out and pose a chain or a rope, a non-destructive workflow will let you quickly and easily re-pose it, whereas a destructive workflow requires that you must manage two objects, the posed and straight shape, cluttering your data. And, when asked to change the chain shape, you need to do it with bother versions, doubling your work. The advantages of non-destructive workflow are pretty obvious once you start thinking about it, and these are just very basic examples.
  • gray
    GeeDave wrote: »
    Yeah, welcome to the thread! This is what perna is attempting to instigate. The whole "pissing contest" only exists in your head. Also, if you had been paying attention


    the title of this thread is "The world famous Maya vs 3ds max conflict in a diffrent way... "

    and essentially that is what a lot of the posting has been, not much to do with modeling tools, and some cheap shot package cheer leading. despite stated intentions to the contrary. which is predictable and boring.

    so if you want to start a thread on "modeling tools" then do that. but don't name it "The world famous Maya vs 3ds max conflict in a diffrent way... " and fill it with max vs maya 1990s nonsense and expect anyone to take it seriously.

    edit:
    "I would shed a (manly) tear if forced to move onto something else"

    actually i think we are all going to learn a new package in a few years. because the logical next step for Autodesk is th consolidate all of the technology from all the applications they own, and own them all at this point. and release a new single application that leverages all the advances that have been made. with a single architecture for all there programmers to work with. that is going to save them a lot of money and resources on development. im sure that have something like that cooking. so i suppose that bogyman under the bed is much bigger then having to switch from max to maya at this point.
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    gray: With respect, please take that discussion elsewhere. Some of us want to talk about software pros and cons and the whole debate about whether or not that is a worthy purpose is really just cluttering up the thread and not positively contributing. Please stop telling people what they can and can not say and what they should name their threads, it's not going to lead anywhere good. If you wish to reply to this message, start another thread for it as it doesn't belong here.
  • WarrenM
    Offline / Send Message
    WarrenM Polycount Sponsor
    perna

    I'll just chalk it up to my lack of experience then. It clearly works for you.

    I find that I'm constantly collapsing the stack because one thing or another is acting weird, or I had to reset the XForm, or whatever and I can never keep a stack around very long. I've come to treat the stack as a transient scratch pad for a specific task - like, I'm going to do X to part Y. Once that's done, I collapse. And so on.

    As I said ... the odds are excellent that I have no idea what I'm doing so don't think too hard about a reply. If at all. :)

    BTW, your participation in threads like this is very informative so thanks for that.
  • metalliandy
  • gray
    perna wrote: »
    Please stop telling people what they can and can not say.

    i think you should take your own advice on that one.

    where is the mountain of evidence and examples you feel so strongly about which prove max is such a superior modeling tool set. surely that would be more productive to post then meticulously quoting and dissecting everyones posts that you disagree with and trying to refute everyones oppinion with your own opinion. that does far more to derail your stated objective then anything anyone else could ever do.

    i don't think that is the objective tho. dissecting other peoples opinions and shooting them down seems to be more entertaining. again, predictable and boring .
  • Kon Artist
    Offline / Send Message
    Kon Artist polycounter lvl 6
    perna wrote: »
    Kon: Awesome man, really appreciate the contribution. The key though is to show the steps involved as opposed to the completion time, to demonstrate the tool rather than the person using it. I'll see about taking time after work to model out that same shape in Max and record the process.

    At least for the purpose of this thread, and most game-art, sculpted hard-surface won't be very relevant. The moment your art director or client asks you to make modifications on a sculpted model, you're screwed.

    It would be nice to see a few other people make this same thing in Maya, Max, or some other software or combo (blender, Z, etc.) and compare work flows and times.

    I have a pretty good command of Maya (IMO) and it took me an hour to make this. I don't really use any fancy tricks or 3 party plug-ins. My modeling process is pretty simple. Look at the object and brake it down into it simplest forms. This is how I look at things in any software package. I personally feel to be successful and effective in Maya you must have a plan. Not sure if this make sense, but Maya is kind of like working in stone and Z is more like clay. If you mess up in Maya you can always glue it back together:)

    With this one I started with 2 cylinders, one for the base and one for the crescent shape. The circle insets were created with boolean(s)... Maybe this is the only trick I use in Maya. As most people know, boolean operations typically leave you with bad faces (if they work in the first place). So after using a boolean I delete the faces and re-extrude from the new shape.

    What I'm interested in: What is the most effective pipelines for hard surface modeling for games. Meaning, a high poly model and a low poly model. If this means learning Max, then I will. Based on what I know, I don't think using Maya only is the fastest way. I think Making the high poly in Z will be much quicker... but, there's only one way to find out:) I'm going to give this thing a go in Z.
  • metalliandy
    Offline / Send Message
    metalliandy greentooth
    gray wrote: »
    i think you should take your own advice on that one.

    Just so you know, it's really not cool to cut peoples quotes and add a full stop where there wasn't one in the actual comment. This leads to people drawing the wrong conclusions because people have been misquoted.
    Per isn't being aggressive or insulting you, he is merely asking polity that you refrain from derailing the thread. Please treat the request in the manner which it was intended, rather than getting snippy. It doesn't improve anyone's day.
    gray wrote: »
    where is mountain of evidence and examples you feel so strongly about which prove max is such a superior modeling tool set. surely that would be more productive to post then meticulously quoting and dissecting everyones posts that you disagree with and trying to refute everyones oppinion with your own opinion. that does far more to derail your stated objective then anything anyone else could ever do.

    i don't think that is the objective tho. dissecting other peoples opinions and shooting them down seems to be more entertaining. again, predictable and boring .
    Mate, maybe it would be an idea to check around the forums a little more before posting this stuff? I don't think anyone could say that Per pulls all this information out of his ass and is giving false advice for shits 'n giggles. Do some research, man. :P
  • throttlekitty
    Offline / Send Message
    throttlekitty Polycount Sponsor
    pior wrote: »
    In Max you can have a base shape and add an editpoly modifier on top and and a profiled shell on top. Then go back to the editpoly modifier, brige stuff and punch holes, then back up : the shell adjust accordingly. In Maya if you try to do that the vertex index changes (because one cannot add anything like an editpoly modifier in Maya, the concept doesnt exist) and the extrusion becomes a mess.

    Now consider that and think of an art director asking you to make the hole wider or different in profile. In Max you can, in Maya you cannot. *This* is parametric, non linear modeling.

    Now of course not everything is modeled that way. But that's an example.

    Thanks for this. I've always wondered *why* the modifiers in max are so good, I've never seen discussion on them other than the fact that they are good.
    I'll try and do that round hubcap whatever thing as well, and mark my steps in Maya.
  • gray
    @metalliandy

    i think you need to re-read the thread and take account of all the cheap shots that deraild the thread into the old max vs maya nonsense. that thoroughly took any wind out of this turning into a productive exchange by people who know there tools and want to share information.

    perna admittedly made a "cheap shot" and the same for a number of the other posts. and its 100% shots at maya. so if the old school max zealots want to do this whole thread by themselves then they can have it but no one is getting any serious info or comparison of tool sets form this. and to those that have experience in both packages and don't think max is superior it looks like the max zealots might be insecure they don't have an edge anyone in ploy tools and need to bash on maya again.

    so lame.
  • ceebee
    Offline / Send Message
    ceebee polycounter lvl 9
    I've used Maya for almost 6 years now and to this day I miss Max's modeling tools. It definitely has the upper hand against Maya as far as hard surface modeling goes straight out of the box. I've had some pretty bad luck with Maya's tools and often times they don't work as intended. This thread is straight up stupid though. It shouldn't be about what piece of software you're using it should be about your technique and process, because when it comes down to the wire they both do the same damn thing.
  • Scruples
    Offline / Send Message
    Scruples polycounter lvl 7
    Keep swinging that rusty axe, apparently time doesn't matter to some people.

    Maya's modeling with symmetry method is a cruel joke.
    You either get a massive seam across the symmetrical edge (instance with a negative transform) or you can't edit topology (model with reflection turned on). This makes modeling something where the seam is important, (like a face) a little harder than it should be.

    In Max you add a single modifier (2-3 clicks) you can then adjust the plane of symmetry on the fly, you can push points through the plane of symmetry or pull it out to re-include them while the model updates, all with or without that hard edge.
  • Benton
    You can use Blender to make the exact same thing as in 3DS Max or Maya. Or Modo. Or Lightwave...
  • Kon Artist
    Offline / Send Message
    Kon Artist polycounter lvl 6
    Anyways I've been experimenting and comparing hard surface pipelines. So I created the same thing all in Z. This took me about 35 minutes; about half the time it took to do the same thing in all Maya. I think with some more practice I could have done this in Z in about 15 minutes (right now I'm a little rusty).

    Work flow in Z: Shadow box for basic shape. Clipping brushes to add large scale height variation. DynaMesh for boolean operations. Deformation/ polish. Make poly 3D mesh. Add one sub level. Used alpha drag dot for slight bevels on holes.

    thing_z.jpg

    ZBrush only

    With this one I started with 2 cylinders, one for the base and one for the crescent shape. The circle insets were created with boolean(s)... Maybe this is the only trick I use in Maya. As most people know, boolean operations typically leave you with bad faces (if they work in the first place). So after using a boolean I delete the faces and re-extrude from the new shape.

    hard_ex_01.jpg

    Maya only
  • monster
    Offline / Send Message
    monster Polycount Sponsor
    @CyberGameArts,

    I really wanted to think out my response before chiming in.

    If the rest of your team is using 3ds Max, whether you are on a small indie team or a large studio, then now is the best time try it out. You have co-workers to fill in your questions quickly. It'll make your team a little more tight nit if everyone is using the same software.

    Keep Perna's advice in mind. If you are going to try Max, but not use the graphite tools or the modifier stack then you are missing out. Because that's what Max brings to the table. That would be like me animating in Maya and not using the channel box. (Which you will miss even when modeling because 3ds Max doesn't have that.)

    I have my own advice as well. No software is perfect. You'll find frustrations in Max. Today I was typing out a script, and in the backgorund Max autosaved the file and crashed taking my script with it. It's good to not develop a grass is always greener mindset. If something looks nifty try it. Everything has at least a free trial. It seems like you put a lot of time into learning Maya, but most of the skills will translate to any 3D package.
  • pior
    Offline / Send Message
    pior insane polycounter
    Kon : it's a matter of quality standards then. Let's say : "Highpoly mechanical piece that can be used to create a hero normalmap asset with surface qualities comparable to a rifle scope in a first person shooter".

    By that standard I would never ever want to see something like that Zbrush piece being even considered as a possible candidate for baking :)It might have taken half an hour, but it doesn't have a fraction of the qualities shown in the Maya one posted earlier.

    Don't take it as an attack or anything like that - a Zbrush workflow like the one you showed can be extremely valuable in a pipeline. But if you have to redo the whole piece because it does not reach the standards asked by your lead, then you basically wasted time :)

    Imagine if Epic Games contracted 3Point and the guys delivered assets baked from mushy Zbrush sources like that. That wouldn't go very well, would it! Hehe.
  • Kon Artist
    Offline / Send Message
    Kon Artist polycounter lvl 6
    @ pior. I wouldn't considered myself as skilled in Z as I am in Maya for Hard surfaces. What I'm saying is, with more practice with the hard surfaces tools in Z, I think I could get the same results in Z faster.

    My normal work flow doesn't just use one or the other. I usually start in Maya then go to Z then end up in Maya/ Photoshop/ Mudbox. Anyways, I am still interested in seeing some else make the same thing and post their work flow.
  • Noors
    Offline / Send Message
    Noors polycounter lvl 10
    perna wrote: »
    It's infinitely satisfying to be able to change the width or chamfer shapes of all the metal plates on an entire hipoly spaceship just by moving a couple of sliders.

    Ah, did i miss a chamfer modifier ? To me, most actions are done inside the edit poly, thus you could stack edit poly modifiers for each change but the back and forth actions are limited. Max reorders vertices too. Actually if i want to make larger chamfer, i have to remake it.
    While it may be better than Maya, it isn't as "non linear" as wished. Every poly tool should be a modifier and everything should stand in a nodal view like a compositing software. Actually you can instanciate modifiers, make references, and that's great, but the connections are not that clear.
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    Marine wrote: »
    true, but how quickly you can do something should be taken in to account

    I'm not so sure that's as important as people might think. Sure there will be schedules to keep, but the overriding issue will probably always be quality. Studio won't hire someone solely on the fact that they can create assets quickly. They will also want to ensure that the level of quality is maintained as well.

    Also, as I said, much of asset creation for games is about working to a specific spec, so this would be another factor to consider.
    Ultimately though, I believe it often comes down to technique and the fact that Max, Maya and Softimage may appear the same, but they actually have slightly different approaches and methods. You can't make a direct comparison, which is why these types of threads end up just going round in circles.
  • MrOneTwo
    Offline / Send Message
    MrOneTwo polycounter lvl 8
    Bellsey, I think speed sometimes is even more important than quality. Today game industry is driven by the cash of huge corporations. For them most important thing is profit. They want to spend as small amount of time on project as they possibly can (time = money). There are lots of titles that lack final polish because publishers wanted to push the title in specific time frame. I'm not saying quality isn't important but speed IS really important factor.


    In 3ds max I sometimes created highpoly model. Added support loops on different edit poly modifier. By doing so I could create low poly from high poly without wasting time on removing support loops (I just removed the edit poly modifier with support loops). The modifier stack is great concept but I feel I just can't use it well enough in my workflow.

    I recently started modelling in Modo and I really don't miss non destructive modelling. Sometimes I copy my mesh to another object and hide it. By doing so I have some base I can get back to if I screw up. I also find modelling in Modo so convinient I'm not afraid to screw something up. Yeah in production I would waste time by doing so but I feel I can still have control over my workflow without modifiers.

    I always loved modifier stack as a concept. I think it's great but it's just another way of doing things. People usually just jump into doing without thinking. They don't plan ahead with modifier stack in mind. I think every artist could benefit from proper usage of modifiers but it requires discipline and some planning.
  • boyluya
    Offline / Send Message
    boyluya polycounter lvl 9
    Just curious.. In Max there's this modeling technique called "double smooth" (learned it from Racer445) that I often use cause it saves me a lot of time from adding support loops. Is there any equivalent of this in other traditional 3d apps?
  • MrOneTwo
    Offline / Send Message
    MrOneTwo polycounter lvl 8
    boyluya wrote: »
    Just curious.. In Max there's this modeling technique called "double smooth" (learned it from Racer445) that I often use cause it saves me a lot of time from adding support loops. Is there any equivalent of this in other traditional 3d apps?

    You mean adding Turbosmooth with smooth groups 'on' and then normal Turbosmooth ?

    If so I don't think you can replicate it without modifier stack.
  • boyluya
    Offline / Send Message
    boyluya polycounter lvl 9
    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    You mean adding Turbosmooth with smooth groups 'on' and then normal Turbosmooth ?

    If so I don't think you can replicate it without modifier stack.

    Yep it is. :poly142:
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    MrOneTwo wrote: »
    Bellsey, I think speed sometimes is even more important than quality. Today game industry is driven by the cash of huge corporations. For them most important thing is profit. They want to spend as small amount of time on project as they possibly can (time = money). There are lots of titles that lack final polish because publishers wanted to push the title in specific time frame. I'm not saying quality isn't important but speed IS really important factor.

    I've yet to meet any studio who puts speed over quality. And working fast is not the driving force for profit. The end consumer isn't really bothered whether or not the game was done in 5mins or 5months, what they look for is quality and value for money.

    Sure, projects must be completed on time, but if there isn't enough time, it very often has nothing to do with people not working fast enough. Often the main cause is an over ambitious vision and design for the time required, this is why some games will lack polish.

    If you are working do a deadline then finishing on time is crucial, even ahead of time, but not at the sake of the integrity of the asset. Whether you're a freelancer, outsourcer, or in-house artist, the asset you create is part of a food chain and need to go into the pipeline. If you work quickly then that's often when mistakes get made, and the last thing you want is for your asset to break the build.
    I knew a guy on my team once who would work fast, great guy and very good artist, but he had this idea that you had to work quickly. His assets were solid but they created more art bugs than anyone else, which in turn only cost us more time overall anyway.
  • MrOneTwo
    Offline / Send Message
    MrOneTwo polycounter lvl 8
    Bellsey wrote: »
    I've yet to meet any studio who puts speed over quality. And working fast is not the driving force for profit. The end consumer isn't really bothered whether or not the game was done in 5mins or 5months, what they look for is quality and value for money.

    Sure, projects must be completed on time, but if there isn't enough time, it very often has nothing to do with people not working fast enough. Often the main cause is an over ambitious vision and design for the time required, this is why some games will lack polish.

    If you are working do a deadline then finishing on time is crucial, even ahead of time, but not at the sake of the integrity of the asset. Whether you're a freelancer, outsourcer, or in-house artist, the asset you create is part of a food chain and need to go into the pipeline. If you work quickly then that's often when mistakes get made, and the last thing you want is for your asset to break the build.
    I knew a guy on my team once who would work fast, great guy and very good artist, but he had this idea that you had to work quickly. His assets were solid but they created more art bugs than anyone else, which in turn only cost us more time overall anyway.

    I think both are important and usually it's compromise between those two (end user isn't concern with time but for investor time = money, since you have to pay for 5 minutes or 5 months of work). I won't elaborate because we are derailing the thread.
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    No opportunity to add much now, will later. Just one thing:

    The quality-speed balance discussion is unnecessary and, frankly, oblivious of fact to the point of absurdity. All but a couple studios put time over quality, because:

    Time = Cost.

    End of discussion*



    *anyone who wants to stubbornly drag it out it better be well armed with facts and statistics rather than unsubstantiated personal notions, because I am.
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    perhaps the subject is worthy of its own thread. I won't go on, though please bare in mind I see alot of studios.
  • McGreed
    Offline / Send Message
    McGreed Polycount Sponsor
    Noors wrote: »
    Ah, did i miss a chamfer modifier ?

    Actually Obliviboy has made a really nice modifier for this, if you missed it, something that really helps with modelling imo, and helps with the whole non-destructive workflow.
    http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1585088
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    Noors wrote: »
    Ah, did i miss a chamfer modifier ? To me, most actions are done inside the edit poly, thus you could stack edit poly modifiers for each change but the back and forth actions are limited. Max reorders vertices too. Actually if i want to make larger chamfer, i have to remake it.
    While it may be better than Maya, it isn't as "non linear" as wished. Every poly tool should be a modifier and everything should stand in a nodal view like a compositing software. Actually you can instanciate modifiers, make references, and that's great, but the connections are not that clear.

    Tbh, Maya and Max weren't built that way. Maya has the dependency graph and Max the modifier stack, and whilst both offer some degree of non-linear/destructive workflow, its not really how it works. Both have their limits and there have been various workarounds and tools created. The best for non-destructive workflow is Softimage, the package was built with it in mind, but even then it doesn't allow for a whole history of commands. You can however literally break meshes apart at pretty much any stage and change them, even if they're skinned messhes on rigs.

    If you want fully procedural based modelling with a node based workflow, then Houdini is probably the package of choice. Not for the faint hearted, lol, but very powerful, and technical.
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    Bellsey wrote: »
    perhaps the subject is worthy of its own thread. I won't go on, though please bare in mind I see alot of studios.

    You see a lot of studios; I work for a lot of studios. Either fact is irrelevant.

    One does not need to be a mathematical genius to understand how reduction in production time corresponds to reduction in production costs.

    One does not need to be a business genius to understand that games have a limited production budget.

    One does not need to be a statistical genius to see that art budgets make up a significant and ever-growing portion of the complete budget, causing studios to struggle and collapse, all of which can be verified by registered fact as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

    One does not simply neglect a deadline.

    3r0hy5.jpg
  • iniside
    Offline / Send Message
    iniside polycounter lvl 6
    As for time. I'm sure people using things to procedurally genrate content just for fun.
    SpeedTree, World Machine, Procedural rock genrator, walls, wood, texture all things you can possibly think off.
    /sarcasm off.

    Does procedural generator make up great quality ? No. Does they produce enough quality in resonable amount of time ? Hell yes.
  • CyberGameArts
    Offline / Send Message
    CyberGameArts polycounter lvl 6
    Oh SHIT this thread exploded LOL!!!
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    perna wrote: »
    You see a lot of studios; I work for a lot of studios. Either fact is irrelevant.

    One does not need to be a mathematical genius to understand how reduction in production time corresponds to reduction in production costs.

    One does not need to be a business genius to understand that games have a limited production budget.

    One does not need to be a statistical genius to see that art budgets make up a significant and ever-growing portion of the complete budget, causing studios to struggle and collapse, all of which can be verified by registered fact as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

    One does not simply neglect a deadline.

    As I said, a topic perhaps worthy of its own thread.
  • marks
    Offline / Send Message
    marks polycounter lvl 11
    I find it funny when people try to argue with perna. :D
  • Jarmade
    Offline / Send Message
    Jarmade polycounter lvl 5
    Maya does have an "edit poly" type workflow, but its not very obvious and awkward to set up

    maya creates "polyTweak" nodes each time you edit your mesh, say you extrude a face, move the some vertices, then extrude another face.. your history will look like this:

    polyExtrudeFace1
    polyTweak1
    polyExtrudeFace2

    if you then delete that polyTweak node, the vertices you moved will go back. and if you delete the extrude nodes the faces extrudes will be undone.

    You can force maya to create the polyTweak nodes by just extruding a face and deleting the extrude node, which i do with a script.
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 5
    everyone is entitled to their opinions
2
Sign In or Register to comment.