Can someone explain to me the actual differences between these programs? Like, what distinctive purpose does each one serve, even through they're all modeling suites? Is there an information source that goes into detail on this?For the record, I'm not asking which is the best. I'm a Blender user and don't plan on using anything else, because I'm comfortable and efficient with it. That being said, I'm curious as to how the market sustains itself with this many programs + the ones not included in this image.
they all do the same thing, when companies compete with eachother they tend to add similar features maya should have better animation toolsmodo with good modeling toolsc4d is for small scale vfxnot sure about 3ds,softimage and lightwaveblender is like jack of all trades, but master of nonei hear softimage is very good, but they stopped supporting it years ago
>>613341Modo started out strictly as a poly modeler, so its modeling toolset is quite robust, but I'm not sure how "complete" it is in respect to the others, it seems to me that most people still use it mainly for modeling. Modo has some of the best tools relating to booleans outside of NURBS, if that's a thing you want to try.Blender has the advantages of being an open and free platform for anyone to enhance and develop for, and as a result it has arguably the widest breadth of features of any program out there; you can start and finish entire projects from within it.The same advantage is also a double-edged blade, as indi software engineers typically have no sense for UX, or obligations to the end user. A lot of the Blender stigma was born from the pre-2.0 era when it was nigh-unusable except by diehards.C4D is an interesting bit of software as it was intended for motion graphics and camera tracking for TV/film purposes (hence 'cinema'), but a lot of people find it very simple to use for general 3D as well.3DS Max is by far the most popular editor, and as such has the most plugins, add-on content, and refrence material available. Usually whenever some new version of a plugin comes out, it's always updated for Max first. The downside is that Max is a little archaic under the hood, the whole animation system is outdated, and it uses APIs that lock it into the Windows platform. Never the less, it has an extremely solid modeling toolset, and taking popular scripts and plugs into account, it's hard to beat for an easy workflow that's adaptable to your needs.Maya has been Max's rival counterpart for the longest time, so they often went blow for blow with regards to features, and now they're even developed under the same roof. If Max is like a fancy HAM radio setup, Maya is like being at an airport control tower. It's largely the same tools, but Maya throws the whole kitchen sink factory at you, making it tougher to learn, but also more capable.
>>613348Softimage (XSi) and Lightwave were considered the poor-man's Max and Maya, and were usually used by smaller studios, particularly in Europe and Japan. These were the times when a license for the big guys was over $6000 per seat, so sub-$2k was considered "budget". Nevertheless, Softimage was, in its prime, utilized for blockbuster game titles like MGS4.>That being said, I'm curious as to how the market sustains itself with this many programs + the ones not included in this image.Survival of the fittest; the programs you can get now that are still in active development is significantly reduced compared to when I got started, there were 2~3x as many options 10 years ago, and what you have now is just what managed to fill out enough of a niche to not get axed. Anyone remember trueSpace? Probably not, the only things it had going for it was a funky UI and that it cost just $600.
You can't compare Blender with proper software.
>>613356You can compare it unfavorably, Anon.
>>613356>>613364Blender is better than your "proper" software depending on your workflow and preferences.
>>613348Modo is a competent modeller but not much more. >>613350You are right about Lightwave being poor, but dead wrong about XSI. XSI could easily hold up or even outperform Maya or Max.It was used for many blockbuster movies and games. The ICE platform is still unbeaten in some regards.
>>613341Basically blender does everything these programs can.
>>613348>If Max is like a fancy HAM radio setup, Maya is like being at an airport control tower.I would argue that this depends a lot on what you are actually working on. For more engineering related tasks, 3ds Max blows Maya out of the water. It's got a lot more tools and flexibility for dealing with CAD data and crappy files in general, and managing large scenes seems a lot easier as well. I work in Archviz and I'm using Max, while a few others are using Maya. When it comes to modeling assets or baking, Mays wins, but it has problems more often than Max and simply can't handle some of the files we get.
>>613341Blender is Gimp. But for 3 D.
>>613495No it isn't. Gimp is trash and not even close to Photoshop's level, whereas Blender is one of, if not the best polymodeling software.
>>613341go watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQ7lxph72I&t=625s
>>613342You don't fucking know shit. Maya is made for animation you stupid retard. Just go back to facebook and stay there.
>>613350For some reason Softimage was always very popular in Japan.
>>613495I'd compare it to Krita, not shitty gimp.
>>613639Probably because SOFTIMAGE|3D was the only software to have a manual in Japanese?
>>613649>mind status: blown
>>613649Simply not true. I have a printed 3D Studio MAX manual and several Lightwave manuals in Japanese.
is their a way to get a torrent for 3ds max? also how serious are they about downloading it for free?
>>613595so Blender is bad just cause the industry doesn't use it?
>>613682CGpeers or Rutracker. They don't give a shit if you're pirating it.
>>613691Fucking thanks doctor
I use Sculptris for modeling and Blender for animating and rendering
>>613683No, the industry doesn't use it because its often not good enough and it doesn't play well with the other tools.
>>613341Blender 3D can do everything those other programs can do, except better, and here's the best part: it's free.
>>613746so what doesn't Blender do that the other things can do?
>>613746so why there aren't any case examples of studious dropping blender in favor of maya?
>>614037Because no studio uses Blender in the first place.
>>613638>maya has better animation tools>no you dumb fuck it was made for animation??
>>614035Get you a low-paid, crunch-based job.
>>613341The best way to answer that would be to list what is common between the listed programs. Essentially, all 3d programs export in universally standardized formats which contain basic 3d information (vertex position, normals, uv coords, etc.)Each application's proprietary formats will, however, vary greatly even though some of those features will be similar or more advanced in another program. (Splines in 3ds comparing to curves or Nurbs in Blender or Maya.)I'd say the differences are quite nominal, provided you understand the export format's contents.
I wish you dumb fucks would stop arguing about Blender vs Maya. The reason that Maya is used in studios and will continue to be used is that they provide incredible API support. https://help.autodesk.com/view/MAYAUL/2018/ENU/?guid=__files_API_Introduction_htmMoreover, blender plugins are required to be GPL, which is a huge burden for commercial plugin developers. This is NOT a question of which software is the easiest and most comfortable for a hobbyist to use. That award probably goes to Blender. If you don't understand how important API support is, you shouldn't be talking about Blender vs Maya.
>>614592>Moreover, blender plugins are required to be GPLStop spreading misinformation. You only have to GPL the code IF you alter the original code. If its just a plugin then you can license it any way you want. How the fuck do you think they do binaries with the Linux kernel eh?
>>614592>>614825Read at least beginning of the GPL license. You're both wrong.
>>614825Blender add-ons rely on its Python API. This API is provided from within the Blender process, and therefore it is covered by the terms of the GPL license. As a consequence, any application that has functionality built upon Blender's Python API (and, thus, upon Blender's own functionality) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. This is why add-ons must be GPL, or else they are in violation of Blender's license.It would be different if the functionality afforded by the Python API were made available with a dynamically linked library, and its license was LGPL. You could have proprietary add-ons that way, by dynamically linking them to Blender's API.