Home Technical Talk

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

2

Replies

  • GeeDave
    Offline / Send Message
    GeeDave polycounter lvl 11
    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
    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 18
    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
  • 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.
  • WarrenM
    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
    Offline / Send Message
    metalliandy interpolator
    Cool thread, guys. Bookmarked.
  • 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 8
    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 interpolator
    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
    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 14
    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 10
    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 8
    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 polycounter
    @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
    Online / Send Message
    pior grand marshal 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 8
    @ 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 greentooth
    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 8
    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 12
    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 10
    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 12
    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 10
    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 8
    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 12
    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.
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 8
    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 polycounter lvl 15
    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 8
    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.
  • 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 7
    Oh SHIT this thread exploded LOL!!!
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 8
    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 greentooth
    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 8
    everyone is entitled to their opinions
  • Frankie
    Offline / Send Message
    Frankie polycounter lvl 19
    Why would slow = better quality? It's the opposite for me, the faster I can do something the better it turns out because I can then spend more time on iterations.
  • Bellsey
    Offline / Send Message
    Bellsey polycounter lvl 8
    I don't recall saying slow meant better quality, lol.
  • Scruples
    Offline / Send Message
    Scruples polycounter lvl 10
    Someone suggested at some point that speed and quality were somehow exclusive of each other. This is beside the point because we are already going under the ideal that the end result has to be the same for any shortcuts to be viable. ie "Look at all the time I saved not chamfering anything", this really isn't a shortcut at all because the final destination isn't the same.

    What we are discussing is whether or not 3ds max provides more of these shortcuts than Maya or vice-versa, not the validity of the discussion itself or our roles as an artist.
  • warxsnake
    Offline / Send Message
    warxsnake polycounter lvl 8
    Cut Connect collapse chamfer extrude swiftloop Bridge Cap Boolean/sub/insert/union vertex cleaner

    Those are the only things I use, and I'm sure you can bind those or something similar to whatever major modeling program

    (weapons modeler @ ubi montreal, 3dsmax)
  • Skillmister
    Offline / Send Message
    Skillmister polycounter lvl 11
    I actually not a total noob. I have done some hardsurface stuff in Maya before(maybe good compared to what u guys can do):
    Also as u might see by my models..... they are not very complex.... I truly think Maya isnt layout for super detailed work such as this (made in max):

    z7AyT.gif

    Comparing some guns to a model that took someone 3 years to make and trying to make a point out of it. oh lawd.
  • metalliandy
    Offline / Send Message
    metalliandy interpolator
    Real pros model in notepad.
  • Froyok
    Offline / Send Message
    Froyok greentooth
    Real pros model in notepad.
    1344606673-4p3Ac.gif
  • WarrenM
    That's how some guys did the original Quake fan maps. Notepad. I didn't have the sack for that and waited for the editors to come out...
  • CyberGameArts
    Offline / Send Message
    CyberGameArts polycounter lvl 7
    I thought I'll yeet ya'll know:D but i jumped into Max and just started creating something. I guess thats really just the best thing to see how the program operates:
    very early WIP, still alot of work in need to do.
    I had some of my 3ds max buddies help me with the rendering :D

    Officially my first ever max hardsurface model(i know its fairly simple, but i guess a start) :
    26608064887-orig.jpg
  • onionhead_o
    Offline / Send Message
    onionhead_o polycounter lvl 16
    Scruples wrote: »
    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.

    Yes Maya is really behind in new modeling tools. But they have added tools that have been overlooked by many Maya Users. Such as Connect components, Split mesh with projected Curve, that are really useful for Hard-surface modeling. For more Complicated models I still go with Max.

    Just thought Maya Users might be interested. I have found a way to get nondestructive Symmetry to work in Maya that mimics 3dsmaxs symmetry modifier.

    for the method to work best have your mesh at 0,0,0 or at least 0 on one axis.

    1)Select the mesh, Shift + right click > Choose mirror cut options, make sure merge with original is off.

    2)Then go back to your original mesh and do any edits and it will transfer over to the mirror side.

    3)Combine and Merge

    Advantages using this method:

    - no need to delete half of your model.
    - no negative transform

    Disadvantages

    - shading might be messed up on the mirror side.
    - few steps more then max's symmetry
    - have to delete the mirror cut plane
2
Sign In or Register to comment.