[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 / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / 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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 24422424.jpg (283 KB, 1005x633)
283 KB
283 KB JPG
What went so horribly wrong with this software?
>>
>>634085
Literally nothing.

as in - literally nothing was done with this program from the moment Autodesk bought it, and it fell behind the competition.
>>
>>634085
>literally nothing was done with this program from the moment Autodesk bought it
The story of all Autodesk acquisitions. What the hell, Autodesk?
>>
>>634104
Thats getting rid of competition for you
>>
>>634104

Same happened with Sculptris when bought by Faggologic
>>
>>634170
Didn't that become scuplt gl or something?
>>
>>634085
More like Muttbox, according to the picture
>>
>>634085
Autodesk has no clue what they're doing. They buy what they perceive to be possible competition for their products, then proceed to attempt to transplant good features from them into their existing software (e.g. Maya), which never works and just bloats the fuck out of the recipient with a shitty half assed implementation. Once that is done, they simply stop supporting the original program and move onto the next.

Thankfully better software is gaining traction, NOBODY would use Autodesk shit if it weren't industry standard. As other software starts gaining a foothold, Autodesk's stuff will crumble.
>>
File: ohnononono.jpg (50 KB, 782x691)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>634255
>>
>>634275
They know perfectly well what they are doing, they are doing this >>634160

Its what pixologic did here>>634170
And what Autodesk has been doing for decades.

Buy out any sign of competition, attach your own brand name to it, if it does fine make sure your brand is in the front, if not really just nuke it, you got monopoly anyway.
>>
>>634351
The problem is that their ageing software won't remain a monopoly for long. Node based, procedural programs are the future, and Autodesk will be stuck with no talent or base to follow that trend. Software like Houdini is already penetrating into animation quite heavily, and starting to enter the modelling market too, a lot of people are seeing the benefits of that system over Maya's ancient code and static workflows.

Autodesk won't really have anything to counter in 5 years, nobody would use their programs if they weren't industry standard.
>>
>>634352
>The problem is that their ageing software won't remain a monopoly for long.
And who will stop them?
Maya is bigger every year, blender is blender, without new people in charge of the project it will never be big enough.

What else there is ???
.
.
.
Modo?As a purely modeling package.
Cinema 4d? Wait is it alive still even?

No competition means you win by the default no matter the quality of your product.
Mark my words, if you are into 3d in 10 years, Maya will be bigger than ever and Zbrush will be introducing "brand new" gpu acceleration to shitty dated software.
>>
File: harry.jpg (111 KB, 1200x1200)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>634353
>And who will stop them?
>>
>>634170
The sculptris dev said he was abandoning the project anyway. Instead of that occurring, Pixologic bought out sculptris and hired the dev.
>>
>>634353
>without new people in charge of the project it will never be big enough.

2.80 is going to be a revolutionary update.
A. they actually hired cmpetent people to develop a whole new GUI with buttons, icons and windows.
B. A whole new realtime rendering engine for viewport that supports cycles materials

The release cant come soon enough, I'm telling you this will be BIG, Blender no longer will be an obscure and esoteric little application that looks lik shit but is secretely powerful. Now it's gonna look and feel powerful too.
>>
>>634925
Oh my god, I always have trouble believing you people actually exist hahaha
>>
>>634353

Well there's Houdini, cheaper package with more possibilities than Maya.

It's not so much about competition, main issue is that lot of studios and their pipelines are heavily Maya invested, it's not something you can easily change.

I like Maya, but it needs some modernization and streamlining, you can see that it has layers and layers of hacked up code and solutions, some stuff inside still feels like mid 90's.
>>
>>634353
>And who will stop them?
Houdini. Alternatively some other node based procedural modelling program, but at the moment Houdini is leading that charge.

No, Autodesk won't "just make Maya node based procedural", it would require a complete rework of the entire software and we all know how inept they are.
>>
>>634936
They also own inventor and could in theory frankenstein one on top of the other.
>>
>>634925
>2.80 is going to be a revolutionary update.
>"muh pretty viewport"
>"muh new UI"
>still can't do basic shit
>>
>>634966
Name your basic shit.
>>
>>634971
Face-weighted normals.
>>
>>634971
UDIM & Ptex support.
>>
>>634971
Color-managed shading workflow.
>>
Not in defense of Blender, just want to educate myself a little more.
>>634977
Technically is possible, requires the Blend4Web addon though, so I guess it doesn't really count since it isn't part of base Blender.
>>634979
I find this one to be very interesting for two things. One, Cycles was built with animation in mind. So the fact that it doesn't support texturing methods built primarily for prerendered animating is mildly boggling. Two, Ptex is open-source, Blender is open-source, make the connection (that there is no connection).
>>634984
Do you mind elaborating? Do you mean that Blender doesn't support proper color management?
>>
>>634986
>Do you mean that Blender doesn't support proper color management?
Not fully. There are parts missing, like e.g. color value input, which is not managed.

The author of Filmic has a couple of pages about these issues. Notably, a list of what's missing towards 2.8: https://en.blender.org/index.php/User:Sobotka/Color_Management/Path_To_Colour_Aware
>>
>>634936
The problem with reworking Maya is not that Autodesk can't do it, it's that so many organizations have infrastructure built on top of Maya's jankiness that they can't touch anything without breaking things for paying customers.
>>
>>634085
failed integration into maya.
>>
File: sculptris.jpg (31 KB, 958x496)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
Anyone know of any good alternative to sculptris? I loved its simplicity but its dated and buggy. I heard of SculptGL in browser but it doesnt seem to have paint texture exporting.
>>
What went wrong?

Sounds like apples and oranges are being compared here.

Still use mudbox for all my sculpting.

Sure it doesnt have all the cool bells and whistles that Zbrush has. But its still a powerfull tool raw sculpting.

I agree that progress has been slow with Mudbox. but it seems like Autodesk is trying to gain back customers. Their support forums and what not suggests they are actively looking into developing it again.

However. You got to keep in mind that Maya plays a huge role in Autodesks tools. Mudbox should be seen as a complimentary tool.

Whereas Zbrush is an all in one package. With Mudbox you need to do the base and finishing touches in Maya/other 3rd party tools.

Your base meshes, your UVs (if you are not using ptex), hair and fur and all that stuff you gotta do in Maya.

Good luck trying to win over Zbrush users with how many years they have invested in that program.

The attempted implementation of Mudbox brushes into Maya makes sense if you keep in mind that Mudbox is a complimentary tool.

However 'pure' mudbox users wouldnt probably switch ovrr to maya just to get access to the sculpting tools. If they discontinued mudbox.

Anyway mudbox will never be Zbrush and if you go into Mudbox expecting Zbrush youre expectations are way off.
>>
>>634922
It was Dr.Petter. He would have released the source code as he "abandoned" it - Pixologic couldn't have that.
>>
>>635172
There's only Blender and Zbrush 2018.
Sculptris is still my go-to for small things, though. There's a patch which extends the program to allow it to use more memory, despite being 32bit, which will allow you to use a lot more polygons - but still nothing like Zbrush or even Blender.
>>
>>634085
Maybe if Zbrush wasn't such a horrid mess, I'd stop using mudbox, but so far it gets the job done.
>>
>>635553

damn, you would think that there were some more alternatives since blender is still a pain
>>
>>635682
How is Blender a pain? It can't handle as many million polygons as Zbrush, but in terms of general use it's very nice.
>>
>>635682
blender is a pain yeah, but you have to force yourself to use all hotkeys for sculpting
>>
>>635686
u wot m8
>>
>>635685
>it can't handle what anything higher than medium/low level sculpting requires, it's totally usable for sculpting.
Yeah, maybe for your mlp porn.
And I honestly never understood the gripe people have with zbrush. Is it the camera controls? Because you are aware that you're supposed to use a pen tablet with it, right? And that with a pen the camera controls are actually very comfortable on default settings?
>>
>>635710
>And I honestly never understood the gripe Blendlets have with zbrush.
FTFY.
>>
>>635710
You have trouble with Blender and think that translates to Blenderfags having trouble with Zbrush?
Are you mentally handicapped?
>>
Maya with Xfrog plug-in is pretty bad ass for making vegetation.
>>
>>634085
I unironcally use it. I never learned z brush and I feel like it would be to much effort now
>>
File: 1471570298174.jpg (130 KB, 1280x1440)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
>>634938
That sounds fucking horrible




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.