[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/


Well?
>>
Max is being killed off and almost entirely only getting features that Maya got the year or years before. Pretty easy decision.
>>
>>502088
I mean its a good idea to merge the programs
>>
>>502087
>dragon vs snake
>having doubts
>>
>>502088

The last I head, they were were moving Max more toward archvis rather than killing it off. Maya is planned to take center stage in entertainment though.
>>
>>502087
max
>>
Max is faster and easier
>To me
>Y u kill it off ;_;
>>
>>502226
It used to be faster, but it's not anymore. Maya has gotten so many improvements over the last few years that it's miles ahead of Max now. And they are working on a voxel-based sculpting feature for Maya that will be better than what Mudbox had (Mudbox has been killed off, no new updates past 2 years, $10 a month price).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3biu7r_future-of-modeling-in-maya-andrew-camenisch-autodesk-vision-series_creation
>>
Autojew have bought out every major 3D software package and have harvested the best bets from each to merge into one. XSI is dead. Mudbox is dead. Max lost the coin toss with Maya and is next.
>>
>>502252
To be somewhat fair... Autodesk developed Mudbox themselves, they didn't buy it out and kill it off. When you consider how much software Autodesk has, very few of them were bought up, and even less were bought and then killed off. XSI is one of the few notable examples.
>>
>>502087
So is 3DS for modeling and Maya for animation just a meme?

I guess it makes sense Autodesk would try to get people to buy both.
>>
>>502255
It used to have some truth in it, like 5 years ago. But not anymore. Now it's just a meme.
>>
>>502254
try again
>>
Personal opinion here, but I prefer Max for modeling, while I prefer Maya for UV mapping as well as skinning/rigging/animating.
>>
>>502255
maya is better for big pipelines, max for smaller scaled projects
you can achieve the same results with both
>>
max with a bunch of scripts is better than any other software out there. by itself it's a piece of shit since 2010. people have been asking for really simple scripts like this one: http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/loop-regularizer to be implemented since forever. but autodesk has completely shifted their focus to the rest of their crappy bloatware. they're killing it off piece by piece, introducing really embarrassing and half-assed updates i could code by myself in less than a couple of weeks.
>>
>>502315
Maya's MEL and Python scripting is more powerful than Max's, it's one of the primary reason's Maya has been so popular in large production pipelines.
>>
>>502120
>>502103
>>502088
About a year ago, I talked with the head programmer that does maya and he said that there aren't plans to kill off max because it still can do many things that maya can't.

Another reason is that it is used by a great deal of architecture firms and is still required in that field.

Interesting enough, when i approach him on the subject of merging the two programs he said that wouldn't happen but he did say that alot of the features from max will be ported to maya.
>>
>>502319
>there aren't plans to kill off max because it still can do many things that maya can't.


lemme rephrase: there aren't plans to kill off max until we've ported all the necessary features of max to maya
>>
>>502320>>502319

more like, there are people still attached to the max pipeline for some projects, and so we have to kill it off slowly and allow them to shift over to maya without too much disruption.
>>
>>502319
>thinks an Autodesk programmer on payroll is going to be divulging plans about killing off Max
>3dskek
>>
>>502319
> but he did say that alot of the features from max will be ported to maya.

This had better fucking happen. Maya is shit and could benefit a great deal from getting a bunch of Max's UI design. In max you can type-in world-space coordinates for a vertex. In maya you can't. It's dumb.
>>
> uhh should I pick an axe or a shovel
they are both used for different purposes cumbag
>>
>>502319

>because it still can do many things that maya can't.

Im curious, like what?
>>
>>502327

Why would you need that?
>>
>>502327
Being able to type in world-space coordinates for a vert isn't UI design, dumbass. As far as UI design goes, Maya is miles ahead of Max, everyone except for the very blind few acknowledge that.

But please, enlighten me to a scenario where you would need to type in a world space value for a vertex. I am very curious.
>>
>>502330
In this situation, would blender be a swiss army knife?
>>
>>502342
Lmfao, no. Maya is the swiss army knife of 3D softwares. Blender is like the rusty old toolbox found in a barn. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.
>>
>>502335
>>502332
> Being able to type in world-space coordinates for a vert isn't UI design, dumbass.

Uh, yes it is. How you let the user manipulate the data within your program is precisely UI.

> As far as UI design goes, Maya is miles ahead of Max, everyone except for the very blind few acknowledge that.

Yeah, no. Maya can't even decide on a consistent design language for it's UI. Some values use spinners. Other's don't. In max when you need to enter data for an operation in a specific order, it takes those one-by-one and gives you on-screen feedback about what it wants next. With Maya and using deformers, it expects you to just throw a list of objects at it and it will figure out what to do with them, and you get to hope and pray that the operation order is what the program wants. It's worse - there are many operations that you'd want to tweak variables on and get real-time feedback like chamfers and extrusions. But Maya doesn't update the viewport with those because it doesn't actually create the modifier until you hit the 'commit' button. They flood the attributes menu window with tons of superfluous information that is hardly ever relevant, making finding the values you want unecessarily difficult. All because the dev team was lazy as fuck and wanted to do a single 'serialize and forget' inspector, because actually crafting special case inspectors is haaaard, waaah.

I program UI and do UX for a living fuckstick, don't you tell me that Maya has a better UI.

As for why you would need this: Aligning a third vertex to two others and ensuring the lines connecting them are perfectly straight. Copy the x position from one vertex, copy the y position from the other. Easy to do with type in windows. Or literally any other time having precise control over the layout of whatever it is you're modeling.
>>
File: yourOnlyValidPoint.jpg (376.52 KB, 1379x881)
376.52 KB
376.52 KB JPG
>>502363
> it expects you to just throw a list of objects at it and it will figure out what to do with them, and you get to hope and pray that the operation order is what the program wants.

this is absolutely, 100% wrong. Every modifier/deformer has a tool tip that explicitly says in what order to perform the operation.

>there are many operations that you'd want to tweak variables on and get real-time feedback like chamfers and extrusions. But Maya doesn't update the viewport with those because it doesn't actually create the modifier until you hit the 'commit' button.

this, again, is just 100% false. I don't know what version of Maya you're using, but in 2014,15,16, if you bevel,chamfer,extrude anything, teak an attribute, either at the creation tooltip, or in the attribute editor, you will get real-time feedback.

>They flood the attributes menu window with tons of superfluous information that is hardly ever relevant, making finding the values you want unecessarily difficult

So far this is your only valid point.
>>
>>502363
>I program UI and do UX for a living fuckstick, don't you tell me that Maya has a better UI.
So you make some babby tier iphone UIs. Give me a break you sandnigger
>>
Maya isn't about whats on the surface, its about what's under the hood. If you're complaining about Maya not being able to do something, you're really just making it obvious that you're not that good.

The thing is if you rely on a feature, and it's important to you, then spending a little bit of time making that tool is worth it.

If you're a modeler then you want your own set of modeling tools that fits your type of modeling; if you're a rigger, you want your own rigging tools to do thing your way; likewise for texture artists, lighters, renderers...

Maya isnt bloatware, it's enablewear, and that's why it's awesome; that's why studios can make anything with it, and why people tend to migrate to it as they get better at 3d and require more ability, and not the other way around.
>>
>>502327
>>502335

If I needed to input world space coordinates at any time for anything, I can make Maya do it, and quite easily.
I think that's what really matters.
>>
>>502363
The Maya UI is written in MEL and is fully open for editing. You could add unicorns to it if you want. You can make it look like MAx and work like max if you were inclined..

All the panels, menus, boxes, windows, everything is available in MEL and Python for you to create a whole new interface for anything you want.

This sounds quite superior actually.
>>
>>502363
>As for why you would need this: Aligning a third vertex to two others and ensuring the lines connecting them are perfectly straight. Copy the x position from one vertex, copy the y position from the other. Easy to do with type in windows. Or literally any other time having precise control over the layout of whatever it is you're modeling.

actually, in that case, you should probably learn to use the snap tool; it's a quicker and easier approach than pasting x,y values.
>>
>>502363
>As for why you would need this: Aligning a third vertex to two others and ensuring the lines connecting them are perfectly straight. Copy the x position from one vertex, copy the y position from the other. Easy to do with type in windows. Or literally any other time having precise control over the layout of whatever it is you're modeling

actually, in that case, you should probably learn now to snap. holding down the "v" key and snapping to a vertex for X and another for Y is quicker and easier than pasting x,y values. You've been doing it wrong.
>>
File: 1436567553146.gif (593.70 KB, 200x200)
593.70 KB
593.70 KB GIF
>>502363
>As for why you would need this: Aligning a third vertex to two others and ensuring the lines connecting them are perfectly straight. Copy the x position from one vertex, copy the y position from the other. Easy to do with type in windows. Or literally any other time having precise control over the layout of whatever it is you're modeling.


OMG fucking newfagget
>>
>>502372
Not to mention you can also hold down

>>502363
Holy fuck you're retarded, when's the last time you even used Maya? 2005? Try out 2016 and shut your dirty scrub mouth. Unlike Max, Maya has actually been getting useful and unique updates for the past many versions.

>Some values use spinners. Other's don't
Maya doesn't use spinners anywhere you twat. It's either a simple input box or an input box with a slider, no spinners. When there is a slider, it's because the value has a generally accepted range that will most commonly be used, and thus a slider is handy, or has a range that should be enforced for ease of use (but can always be overridden regardless.).
Also, since you clearly never really learned Maya, you probably aren't aware that you can hold CTRL and middle-click drag left-right in any input box to adjust the value with fine control. That's called good UI design.

>blah blah modifiers and order of operations that is actually false, showing you haven't truly used Maya, especially a more recent version.
Guess what, software changes dude, Maya isn't the same as the last time you used it.

>They flood the attributes menu window with tons of superfluous information that is hardly ever relevant
The channel box, which is what you're clearly talking about, shows all modifiable base attributes for the selected object... If you want more organized control, stop fucking using the outdated Channel Box and use the Attribute Editor, everything is in its own neatly organized categories of values to change.

>I program UI and do UX for a living fuckstick, don't you tell me that Maya has a better UI.
Completely ignores the new bullshit Ribbon in 3DS Max that takes up a bunch of space is literally useless.
Completely ignores the UI that looks like it's still from 1995 and has very poor attribute separation/organization. And nevermind how just about everything is simply an arbitrary icon you have to learn instead of having text to go along with it.
>>
>>502367
>Maya isn't about whats on the surface, its about what's under the hood. If you're complaining about Maya not being able to do something, you're really just making it obvious that you're not that good.
but that's true of any soft
as a max rigger i've yet to find something maya does that max can't
>>
>>502392
No doubt. I'm not denying what Max is capable of. I've actually used it for a while and only stopped because of stability issues. It seemed common to crash about 10 times a day.

What I mean by Maya being under the hood software is that from day one, everything could be accessed with mel, and scripting was essential; and it has always been developed with that philosophy, whereas other software can be just as capable, but maybe geared more towards relying on 3rd party plugins to extend its abilities.
>>
>>502346
But swiss army knives have a shitload of tools, but they're not a good way to get things done.
>>
File: wenn21443975_600.jpg (120.42 KB, 600x600)
120.42 KB
120.42 KB JPG
>>502087
While Maya is probably more "production" friendly and 3dsmax "user" friendly, both have ups and downs and are simply TOOLS to execute your vision or task. It's the fucking Xbox-vs-PS or Microsoft-vs-Apple debate all over again.

In the end, it doesn't even matter.
>>
>>502657
this guy just cant look badass no matter how hard he tries
>>
File: 1389749608453.jpg (13.89 KB, 279x229)
13.89 KB
13.89 KB JPG
>>502660
finally some agreement!
>>
>>502657
>3DS Max
>User friendly
Choose one.
>>
CINEMA4D MASTER RACE
>>
>>502677
>>
>>502331
Question seconded.
>>
File: 1423016336189.jpg (71.96 KB, 445x469)
71.96 KB
71.96 KB JPG
>>502331
>>502758
goddamn modifiers
>>
>>502929
>Clearly knows nothing about Maya
>Doesn't realize every operation creates a NODE that can have its properties changed at any time and even be deleted from the tree or reconnected in a new spot, as well be able to hook up other nodes to it to create more dynamic effects.
Why the hell do you think Maya is so popular for VFX and large production studios? Max's modifier stack is child's play compared to Maya's history system.
>>
how about Modo compared with 3dsMax and Maya?
>>
>>502960
Its a good modelling tool, but not a complete Suite like M & M.
>>
Maya: better animation tools than Max
Max: Better modeling tools than Maya

But that happends with every program at the end, every different one has a better tool than the other, but anyways, both programs are awesome, but if you want it more for animation, go for Maya instead.
>>
>>502254

Lol.
I loved Mudbox (by Skymatter) before AD bought it and then fucked everything up with Mudbox 2009.
>>
>>503414
You act as though Autodesk fired the developers after buying it, except they didn't. They bought the rights to it and kept the developers on. Andrew Camenisch, who was the main developer behind it at Skymatter, has been with Autodesk ever since, and is now working on making actually competitive sculpting tools within Maya instead.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3biu7r_future-of-modeling-in-maya-andrew-camenisch-autodesk-vision-series_creation
>>
>>502316

MEL isn't really more powerful, it's just way more consistent then Maxscript, and thus easier to use. The Python integration though is way better in Maya then Max.

>>502939
Mayas history system is obtuse and unwieldy compared to Maxs modifiers. You can do a lot with it, but not quickly/easily.
>>
>>503416
You can now that the node editor has been revamped into a Softimage style system.
>>
>>502657
I had to use Max in university and I kind of just wanted to kill myself.
>>
>>503415
This is cool.

When can I use this?
>>
>>503429
Judging by the state it's in and the fact that they even showed it off, I'd say the next Maya version around March/April, or in the Extension that comes in the fall next year.

They already implemented sculpting tools in Maya 2016 that handle multi-million poly meshes really well. It's mainly just the voxel based stuff they're showing off that's missing, the brushes are already implemented.
>>
>>502246
Thats fucking amazing actually.
>>
>>502246
How's the mac version of maya going on? :^)
>>
>>503715
>Implying there's a reason to even use a Mac over a PC if you're not completely computer illiterate
>Least Maya even has a Mac version, Max doesn't.
>Mac OS, RedHat, CentOS
>>
>>503715
>>503750

macs used to be better for 3d and graphic design, like a long ass time ago, back when they designed their own processors. they were actually worth the money you spent on them, but when they switched to intel, because they needed to save money after almost going bankrupt, the amount macs are faster due to a slicker OS became so minimal you would have to be a mental patient to spend your money on a mac nowadays.

they didnt even build OSX from the ground up, its linux. Im pretty sure this was due to the whole almost going bankrupt thing i mentioned eairler.
>>
>>503751
>its linux
It's not Linux, It's Unix, quite different.
I doubt Apple would have been able to keep up with Intel even if they hadn't gone bankrupt. And they lost the software war by being so restrictive with their gated community approach.
>>
>>503753
but isnt linux, Unix?
>>
>>503754
I just said it's not...
Linux is simply based on the same design principles and thus shares a lot of similarities. It's considered "Unix-like", but it is not Unix based.
>>
>>503754
>>but isn’t linux, Unix?

It literally means ‘Linux Is Not UniX’

So no, not really. Most commands are similar on the back end, the directory structures are mostly the same, and from a design philosophy they are similar, but no.
>>
>>503771
>Patreon
One could argue linux is in fact better than Apples rip off of the BSD kernel. It all depends heavily on GNU and X is the same either way so what the hell is your point? if there is one
>>
File: 1334703691858.jpg (72.75 KB, 237x344)
72.75 KB
72.75 KB JPG
>>502246
I have max and mudbox but
pic related
>>
You want to animate and render? Use Maya
You want to model? Use Max
You want to sculpt? Use Zbrush
>>
>>504353
Meh, I would argue that rendering is equally good in Max than Maya, maybe only less industry pipeline oriented



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.