[Lunatique]

Is it just me, or are Maya's polygon tools a lot less intuitive than Max's?

I've been trying to build a high-poly head in Maya and the whole time I keep thinking, "Man, I could do this a lot faster/easier in Max."

Maybe it's because I really don't know Maya, and am trying to wing it by learning as I go.

Oh well, I'll keep consulting the online reference library and keep trying.

What's it been like for the rest of you guys who made the switch from Max to Maya?

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[James Bradford]

I am a big Max user, but my school pefers to teach only Maya over all other packages. From my experience, Max's modeling tools are far better than Maya's; It stems from the interface layout, but maybe it's just me. For Rigging, UV unwrapping, etc. I tend to lean towards Maya.

[Frog]

Ever tried Nendo? That will beat both of them hands down for polygon modelling Meshtools for Max is based on Nendo's functionality: Meshtools website.

[Frog]

If it makes you feel any better Steven Stahlbergh uses Maya's poly tools to create his amazing models, see this thread on Spiraloid's forum.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Frog ]

[Anthony]

LW and the Nendo/Mirai proggies are probably the top polygon modelers around. I'm sure individual users would argue that topic to death though.

[Frog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anthony:
LW and the Nendo/Mirai proggies are probably the top polygon modelers around. I'm sure individual users would argue that topic to death though.

---

I would genuinely be amazed if anyone who's actually tried Nendo or Mirai said that they thought Max or Maya (or even Lightwave) were better for polygon modelling. Having said that I'm the one who's gone OT and started a separate discussion here

[Danny]

Lunatique,

I get that "Man, I could do this a lot faster in Max" feeling quite often when using Maya here at work. I generally find Maya a lot less intuitive as a whole rather than just the poly tools. Maya is known to be somewhat weak in the polygon area. It's main strengths rests with Nurbs. A type of geometry I've never liked.
The only reason I've made the decision to learn Maya was because it is so widely used in the Special FX biz. Max is frowned upon in this community (to put it mildly). Knowing Maya well as opposed to Max will increase your market value for sure.

[Frog]

Danny that is sooo true. In many circles Max is frowned upon as being second-rate, be it Maya users, SI users and even LW users. Some people get really hung up on this. I've had people openly patronise me for preferring Max.

I find that Max is adequate for most things and Maya really only beats it for animation (but the interface is a bitch to learn). The renderer isn't great in either but in some ways you can use that to your advantage by being forced to learn about lighting and then not having to wait for ever for a GI scene to render.

At the end of the day any software/platform snobbery is just that, snobbery. If you had learnt to model in Maya before trying Max you would experience a similar feeling of frustration because of having to do things differently.

Except in the case of Nendo that is A genuinely revolutionary workflow. Makes modelling easy, now there's an idea.

[edraket]

What I have seen from Maya is that it is a bit less inutitive.
But I thought the same about Max when I switched to it from SI.
I think it's mainly just about being used to it.
I've heard that Max4 combined with the new (free) meshtools script models very much like Nendo.
I haven't gotten around to trying it myself though.

Oh about people liking the package they work in best...
I did a poll on my companies intranet about how much people like Max.
The results were pretty conclusive. Most people would gladly throw it out of the window.

It just sucks how bigger scenes always seem to fuck themselves up so you have to do all sorts of weird shit to finish off your product.
I am just hoping that the high end packages wouldn't do shit like that.

[Lunatique]

I've heard all kinds of debates about why a certain package is better. I think I'd be rich by now if I got a dollar every time that debate came up.

It seems the people who actually used all the programs extensively can name something he/she likes about any program, and they all have at least ONE thing that is better than other programs.

So, in other words, none of them are 100% better than others?

[sand]

Hey there ..
Im a pretty new Maya user and 3D ind general
but i discovered a plugin to Maya call Connect polyshape..that maked is must must easier to model with ..
the models on my site are created use connect polyshape..
maybe it could be a help to some of you too

[Sumaleth]

I used Maya on commercial projects for many years, but any time I had to model a polygon object I'd load up Lightwave Modeler. Maya is still new in the polygon field so it cant really compete with the fine-tuned polygon modelers that are out there.

But if you;re good with the Maya customization you can actually get it working a lot like the other programs around.

Row.

[cryingfoot]

All those software are for NASA technicians!
I have learn pretty much of them all.
For us artist the only answer is lightwave!!!!!!!! this is the only software that are made for the artist! the only ,, and trust me i know what i m saying.
i dont know why all the earth use max or maya? lightwave is SO MORE EASY!!!
And can do well as maya! maya,max,softimage is a curse for humain artist.
sorry but i can t be a real good 2d man and create with maya or max, my brain just want to explode.
the only mix for great 2D artist and really good 3d artist is lightwave.

For the other software; make your choice lady s and gentlement . your are doing 3D or 2D?
Good luck if u make the both.
u will loose your girlfriend,friends,healt... like i do back in 98...... not a good choice!

[MadSamoan]

Yes, Maya's workflow for polygon editing is retarded compared to Max, which is retarded compared to Lightwave. They all have their strengths and limitations that make them justifiable on the marketplace or they wouldn't exist for as long as they have.

Steven Stahlberg uses the more advanced modeling elements that are Maya's strengths like splines, nurbs, spline patches, etc..

[Frog]

Not anymore, check the link I posted above.

[fuel_99]

quote

Quote:

For us artist the only answer is lightwave!!!!!!!! this is the only software that are made for the artist! the only ,, and trust me i know what i m saying.

your spelling makes me doubt that..

[Lunatique]

Dude, it's obvious English is not his first language, so he's allowed to have spelling errors.

[Ztiev]

I think it boils down to style. I've used Max since it's inception, I've used Maya every day since it's inception, I've occasionally used Lightwave. Nendo or Nichiman I can't speak for. I used Max first, so when I went over to Maya, I hated its workflow, I hated it's tools, I hated its philosophy. (And in 1.0 the poly tools were pretty much useless.)

There is a reason Maya is preferred by practically every high end studio in the world. You can argue that it's animation, but they use it for modelling, too. And something were faster or better, they'd use it for modelling, then animate in Maya. Modelling only shops, such as Viewpoint, use Maya.

I found that once I got used to the way it worked, I was tons faster in Maya. The workflow is less than intuative at first, it has so much more of an open feel, it's easy to get lost. But, much of that is that there are way too many tools to make buttons for.

But, there is much to be said for what you already know. If you know Lightwave, Maya won't make sense, and you'll be akward and slow. From my experience, Max is easiest to learn, most intuative. But, once you get to a certain point, it's limiting.

And since many high-end models are made first in NURBs, then converted to polys, you shouldn't scoff at NURBs. They're weird and tricky, sure, but they can make for some clean, fast modelling.

So, I guess that was a long-winded way of saying: Go with what works for you. I like Maya.

[James Bradford]

God, it's nothing this complex. Flip a coin, they are all the same.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: JamesBradford ]

[Manik Monkei]

Yeah when it really comes down to it, it doesn't seem to matter what program you're using. For the most part, every program can get to the same end result, they just have different ways of getting there. It seems to come down to learning how the program you're using works.

For example, I started here in school learning 3DSMax, modelling with basic poly tools and booleans. It was slow but that's the only way I knew to do it.

Then I moved to Lightwave, and I was blown away by its modelling tools. I vowed never to use Max again.

Then I learned Maya, and the same thing happened: "Wow, this is so much more powerful and so much easier than all the other ones." And I dropped Lightwave for Maya. (noticing a trend here?)

Then, I got my hands on Softimage XSI. And all other programs were suddenly insignificant. XSI had the best poly tools, hands down, that I had ever touched. Everything felt so intuitive. Say goodbye to Maya. haha.

Now this semester I'm taking a game design class, where I am forced to use 3DSMax again due to the workflow of the project. I dreaded it, and for about 2 weeks I was bitching about how counterintuitive it was and how much of a pain it was to work in. After those 2 weeks, I settled in to the way Max works, and now I can model just as fast as any other program I've touched. It was just a matter of learning the workarounds, the limitations, etc.

I don't know if that made any sense. I guess what I'm saying is it's all about the fundamentals. You can honestly model the same head in (almost) the same amount of time. You know what you want to do to that geometry.. you just have to know how to achieve that effect in the program you're using.

Now, on a weekly, or sometimes daily, basis, my roommate will see an incredible image or animation done in [insert low end program here] and immediately exclaim "Whoa, how could that have been done in [low end program]? I thought only [high end program] could do that!!" I used to explain it over and over. Now I just smile and nod my head.

It's all the same. blah blah blah I've typed enough. I hope some of this made sense and wasn't just a waste of space

[::nox|silicon::]

Generally I think it's a matter of what you are used to.
However, from a technical Point of View Max just plainly sucks and no - it's not a problem of me liking max or preferring maya or whatever... just pay a close look at what max does to normals and compare similar object's polycount in Maya and Max and you'll notice 3 things:

* Max tends to mess up normals like crazy, Maya doesn't
* Max produces 10 times as many polygons as Maya
* Max tends to mess up polygonal structures by producing PAYLOADS of illegal polygons (manifold, unconnected and thelike)

furthermore I think Max's Interface is not intuitive at all and it sucks to scroll down 20 screens to get some points in the bar to the right. If you're experienced in Maya you can however switch EVERYTHING off and just leave the Port (i.e. persp) on screen and do EVERYTHING via Space and Shortcuts...

By talking about "intuitive" - Alias|Wavefront put a lot of research into making Maya as intuitive as can be (just check out the paint-stuff etc.) and I actually think they do quite a good job with that.

However - I used 3D Studio since 1.4 (and later on Max), Lightwave, Softimage, Houdini and Maya and in my opinion Maya beats them all... still it's a matter of personal taste.

And I agree to Danny, that knowing Maya seriously increases your Market-Value. But there's one more point in this: do you guys really think, that almost EVERY company in the 3d/FX Biz would use Maya if Max/Lightwave/Softimage/etc. were better? Do you really think that the people in the biz are so "stupid" to use Maya which (in your eyes) sucks ass compared to Max and even costs quite a bunch more? guess not...

regards,
nox

[ambient-whisper]

::nox|silicon::
have you been in this biz for a while? if only you knew what alias marketing has done.
offer discounts to starting facilities. if they use other software. they cant mention them because of the contract that they have to sign in order to get those discounted copies. a friend of mine got approached by them because he is working on a short. what did alias tell him? it cant be done with other software. tell that to enough people...for long enough and people will start to believe that.
every single software has its downfalls. and pretty much every software offers workarounds.

alias did a few bad moves. they were that ..maya was made with character animation in mind. to make it a lot more powerful...and..EASY. but once version 1 came out. they left that, and moved onto dynamics, paintfx..etc.etc..etc..and so..cits character animation tools are getting rather weak. ( or not growing, like they should be. ) for example. try making a skeleton ,bind a character... set its flexors and what not., degrees of freedom, then change the topology of the skeleton.( cut a bone in 1/2..or into a few pieces, offset a bone )...and not have lost your bind state. in mirai this has never been an issue. how about setting up the ik for a skeleton. and having to switch between Ik and FK. in mirai. again. you dont have to switch, and you dont even have to setup your IK. because its all sone for you.
need a flexor. flick a switch. need to switch that flexor from lattice to a soft deformer ? flick a switch.
how about changing the mesh by bone orientation? in mirai . rotate a bone. move a few verticies. and save the state. your done....and also if need be. you can use those states for orientation....but without actually having to rotate/more/scale the bones.) ( useful for times when a character picks up a heavy item. your arms will flex...but your arm isnt necesseraly rotating. )

its this kind of thought out workflow that maya is missing. you have to go around linking useless parameters..making copies of your mesh..etc..etc..useless steps that the software could do for you if they only worked more on those areas.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: ambient-whisper ]

[::nox|silicon::]

@ambient-whisper: yes, a while (not long enough for me to be sick of it and not short enough to say no ). Hm, can't say yes or no about that alias-marketing-thing... maybe it's something about Alias US - I've only been in touch with A|W Germany up to now and they're quite cool and there are no contracts such as the ones you mentioned here. The Companies I worked for up to now all used Maya along with Houdini, Custom Software and so on and also mentioned that and never had any trouble about this (and almost all got some discounts from a|w, i.e. free licenses for purchasing a certain amount etc.).

The thing about "it can't be done with other software" - well - tell me one company that does not tell that to potential customers...

I fully agree with you that every software has it's downfalls and good sides and as far as I saw Mirai does a very good job (unfortunately don't have enough experience with it) - however - most of the things you described can be achieved in Maya (4) by just unbinding the skin (keeping history), modifying the skeleton and then rebinding the skin, which actually works quite well as long as you don't rename the bones in the time the skin is not bound...
The trouble I see in packages that provide those "it's all done for you" features (i.e. Mirai as you mentioned, Character Studio etc.) is, that it's nice for sure, but it also mostly narrows your freedom of things to do in 2 ways: what if it does those things automatically and you just plainly don't want them the way it does them automatically? I'd rather construct the whole skeleton along with all bells and whistles myself than having to modify one that doesn't fit my needs. The second thing is that stuff tends to look alike then... what is the difference between the automatically set-up skeleton you use and the automatically set-up skeleton joe-x uses? none, which makes your character's movement eventually look quite the same as joe-x's as long as you don't tweak the hell out of it and before I spend hours and hours on tweaking these kind'a things I prefer to make 'em from scratch.

I also agree that a|w puts a lot of effort in "useless" bells and whistles while a lot of things could benefit of better development, on the other hand, they try to give 3D a new face with those bells and whistles (painting parameters/deformations etc. onto objects) which is - in my eyes - quite a good approach, since they try to orient on classic arts (i.e. clay modelling) rather than pushing the "techie-level" higher...

however - I still think it's all about personal taste and really every package has it's pros and cons and the discussion about these points is quite endless...

featurewise Houdini is one of the coolest packages I ever came across, but it unfortunately really sucks big time display/interface-wise.

And I also don't think that a package should be judged by the way it's marketed...


edit: typ'o

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: ::nox|silicon:: ]

[ambient-whisper]

k. im not sure im getting the message accross correctly.

what im saying is not about the tools not giving you the freedom because its all done for you. but..rather that all the monkeywork that is required for setups is done for you. so you can use right away.

like i said before. a flexor. how many uses does it have? you bend a bone. and the flexor is used to average out the points on a mesh in a certain way. thats it. so why should you have to set the actual flexor to the bone up. when you could just flick a switch and enable it. there are no other uses for them. so since they arent applied to other areas in 3d. why make me do monkey work?

another thing i mentioned before. you want to fix geometry when a bone rotates. or create a bulge. you rotate a bone. fix the geometry. save the state. and thats it.
why should you do the monkeywork for things that only have one use?

i mean. what else do you want to do with that?

character studio is very different than the stuff in mirai. because character studio is a premade setup for bipeds/quadrapeds.+ other tools.
mirai isnt like that. its just setup in a way that just does a lot of the monkeywork for ya. but you still have to build your stuff. ( there is no automatic "cool " character button. so. for building skeletons you just make the bones. split them. offset em, but IK handles are done for ya. from every bone. to every bone that are in a chain. in a chain. you just grab a joint and move it. for FK moves you select the bone instead of the joint and you rotate but there is no setup time for any of it.
no need to setup look at locators. because you can use them anytime you want. and get rid of them. i mean ..you only need them at certain times. need pins only for certain poses. apply them when you need em...and dispose when you dont. how about rotating the skeleton upstream? instead of downstream? but making it all quick to access and easy to use? ( eg. you have a character jumping over a fence and hes using his hand as support. so ou have the arm pushing the whole body that is up in the air. select the shoulder..or the hand and rotate upstream. so the hand stays on the fence. but the rest of the body rotates.
see where im going at.?
why make a special setup for that one rotation ? when you could just lock that bone,rotate upstream. and unlock. and go onto next step.

your saying that you want to make your skeleton from the ground up,and add all the bells and whistles etc..etc..but is called assembling, which is technical. meaning you often need a technical director in order to make a good character setup for you.
the way i see it though. is that maya promotes these people.

what if maya already had that information for your bones. so you could just use when you need it. wouldnt it be that much faster.?
but still have access to that lower level of details?

im more about doing it all myself. and doing it quickly and easily. while maintaining that same level of control when i need it.

a pencil. a simple tool. many uses. only the theory stuff is technical. but anyone can do it. thats what a lot of 3d apps still fail at. because they make the simple procedures go through many technical steps, that could be majorly simplified.

sorry if im having my go at maya. but i just dont see how its as artistic as you call it. because it requires assembly before you can really use it..( how many scripts do i need to add/write for some of the simplest things that the developers should have made for it a while ago? ).and a team of artists to drive it efficiently. not exactly what i would call. artist friendly. ( though i must admit. it is better than it was a few years back.

mirai has its share of problems too.
but mainly cuz it hasnt been updated in sooo bloody long...and is still at 1.1 ( meaning. the 1.0 disease that all apps share...is still there )

sorry for going offtopic here.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: ambient-whisper ]