[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: serveimage(2).png (139 KB, 1280x720)
139 KB
139 KB PNG
Ok I know we have 17 threads on maya (or maya vs blender) but none of them actually answer the question?

why is it that maya is better, an industy stanard and blender is literally never ever software?
why is the streamline into game engines so easy with maya?
why do blender models always look so cheap in comparison to maya?
>>
>>663034
Well lad:
Maya is used by big studios.
Maya is taught in the academic world.
Maya has better animation tools.
Autodesk owns fbx
The Blender license fuck any developer that want to monetize his shit.
>>
>>663034
fucking /3/
>generals
>threads that should have gone in the generals
>software wars threads
>these are pretty much the only threads you ever see
I love this place
Also
Autodesk pretty much owns the market due to paying learning institutions to use their software. The people at the college go on to work and because they literally only learn in maya its the only software really supported by the industry. Also autodesk owns fbx and fucks with it every year.
Slowly companies are realizing that they don't want to be owned by a software company like autodesk though and we are seeing a push towards blender, as well as the barrier to entry into the 3d world and industry was considerably lowered in recent years where uneducated people have the same level of skill as educated ones or have an education less focused on 3d.
>>
>>663037
>we are seeing a push towards blender
YouTube doesn't count as the industry.
>>
File: 1547405067017.png (14 KB, 203x209)
14 KB
14 KB PNG
>>663034
>we have 17 threads but none of them actually answer the question

what makes you think this one will be any different
>>
>>663039
What about amazon?
>>
>>663037
yeah also autodesk owns all you make if you make it on education license
>>
>>663042
enjoy your fake information stupid blendlet
>>
>>663045
Let's just get full autodesk representative
>anything you make with blender has to be released under GPL2
>no I'm not intruding it's in the license agreement you have to let us in so we know you're only using maya
>>
>>663042
What is the source of that?
>>
>>663049
>anything you make with blender has to be released under GPL2
Any code you produce based on Blender has to be released under GPL. Not applicable to content. So, kinda true, but the difference is very important to artists.

>no I'm not intruding it's in the license agreement you have to let us in so we know you're only using maya
Another load of bullshit.
>>
Just call Autodesk and ask them.
>>
>>663034
>why is it that maya is better, an industy stanard and blender is literally never ever software?
Simple: Maya was first. Blender on the other hand, it came out later, and as a FOSS project, took forever to reach any kind of maturity that a studio would need of its software (arguable: Blender isn't even mature yet).
Now, in the industry, it's all about pipelines and how short and quick you can get them. The industry typically doesn't use Maya, they use "Maya", versions of the program that have been frankensteined to fuck with each studio's brew of plugins. So a studio can't just switch to Blender even if it was at the same state without completely fucking up its pipeline. Even coming from barebones Maya, getting all your artists accustomed to Blender would waste some amount of time that could have otherwise saved your asses from the deadline.
"Industry Standard" has two parts to it. 1 being that it's mature and reliable, 2 being that it's what the industry has gotten used to. Because of 2, you can't just swap products in and out willy-nilly.

>why is the streamline into game engines so easy with maya?
FBX. Arguably the most flexible of 3D file formats.
Blender can't properly (keyword: properly) support FBX due to the GPL it functions under. If it were to incorporate the FBX SDK and have proper FBX tools, that violates the GPL in every way since the SDK isn't under the GPL but everything released under the GPL has to also be the GPL. fbx gpl sdk skjngksbf
>>
>>663086
>why do blender models always look so cheap in comparison to maya?
Let's talk about something wonderful known as: the barrier of entry.
Blender, being gratis, means the barrier of entry is virtually non-existent. Anyone can use the program. And what do you get with "anyone"? People who don't know shit about 3D and don't bother to learn the fundamentals of 3D.
It's like cooking without a recipe or playing a piano without the technique. It's people clamoring their way to making something taste/sound/look good without actually knowing how. You see Unity suffering from this, ever since it went free the massive amount of indie games that it powers has such a low quality standard simply because these people don't know how to properly use the program at all.
I can assure you that if Maya was free or at a similar ease of access it'd have plenty of shitty models too. It's an issue of oversaturation dulling down quality, not that quality is inherently poor.
>>
>>663086
>Simple: Maya was first. Blender on the other hand, it came out later, and as a FOSS project, took forever to reach any kind of maturity that a studio would need of its software (arguable: Blender isn't even mature yet).
Blender, initial release: January, 1998.
Maya, initial release: February, 1998.
>>
>>663095
I'll retract my point about it having came out later then. My bad, should have looked into it slightly more.
Doesn't detract from the fact that Maya still was first to be adopted by the industry. In fact, Disney Animation worked pretty closely with Wavefront (Maya's devs at the time) to make Maya the industry standard. Blender on the other hand would remain some Dutch's pet project for quite a while (and it still is). And it also doesn't change the fact that Blender's development moved (and still moves) at a snail's pace.
>>
>>663099
>Wavefront (Maya's devs at the time)
Correction: should be Alias|Wavefront. The two companies were merged at the time.

Since you made me look into it more, on the technical level Maya still came first, though under a different name: PowerAnimator. Development started in the early 80s and by the time the 90s rolled around it was already an industry favourite. PowerAnimator was merged with Wavefront's TAV stuff, I believe, and then repackaged as Maya in '98. So, Maya was well into maturity and development at the time of its release.
Blender wouldn't start until around '89, when Ton started on Traces and would later start on Blender in '95. Just some additional history for the other side.
>>
>>663099
i mean did 2.8 actually do anything? everytging seems the same
>>
>>663110
Does Eevee seem to you like nothing?
>>
>>663095
but you do realize autodesk is a lot older than blender right?
>>
File: Capture2.jpg (17 KB, 301x259)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>663095
>>
>>663119
>>663120
Autodesk didn't own Maya until 2005.
>>
>>663121
then thats why it took off and why blender did't /thread
>>
>>663121
Whoops, been shitposting on /see gays/. Didn't mean to samefag. Autodesk being older isn't relevant in this argument since we're talking about Maya itself.
>>
>>663123
but autodesk implemented a lot of their shit into maya especially shortcuts and workflow, something that blender is garbage at.
>>
>>663123
>samefag
Namefag, fuck this.

>>663124
I posted all of the Maya history stuff above, by the way, not the anon that pointed out the difference in release dates. Like I posted above, Maya has been an industry standard since the 90s (as PowerAnimator obviously). Just saying that it didn't "take off" due to Autodesk or whatever.
>>
>>663088
Maya has a lot of shitty models. Ever been on Turbosquid?

Hell, even professionally made movies can look like absolute shit even though Maya is used.
>>
>>663127
I never said Maya didn't have its fair share of shitty models. It definitely does, as with any program. That post was just talking about why you see low-quality Blender models so often.
>>
i think the differences between maya and blender (on a technical level) are so deep that its really hard to explain. because you literally have to use both programs for an extended period of time to provide a proper explanation.

by in large, blender TRIES to provide tools for indie devs, both in game and movie.
the question that rattles everyone is, can blender be used in a professional capacity? well,maybe. but it depends. it will be HARDER- because the number of people that push blender to the absolute limit is very little. there isn't an agreed pipeline/method on how to make anything with blender.
>>
>>663135
i think what a lot of people dont realize is that blender tried way too hard to be a big boy by making their software a game engine and never actually going anywhere with it. so they wasted time and resources into that when they could have fixed other problems.
>>
>>663034
>why do blender models always look so cheap in comparison to maya?

Because they are all zbrush models in reality..
>>
>>663036
>The Blender license fuck any developer that want to monetize his shit.
False

GCC is also GPL. Any software you make with it does not have to be GPL and can be sold for profit. You just not allowed to sell modified copies of the compiler itself.
>>
>>663101
true but Power Animator never worked on Windooze, only in expensive SGI IRIX Workstations. Also Softimage 3|D only came to NT because M$ bought it and converted the IRIX version to Windows.
>>
>>663034
Bros, let`s make the definitive maya vs blender thread for this year (it could change in 2020)
1st question is half solved and 2nd is the hardest
>>
Maya is superior software
>>
I learned blender back in high school. That was before zbrush was even a thing. I think it's a valuable way for schools to introduce 3d modeling considering the licensing costs they have to account for. Imagine buying Maya for each computer.
>>
>>663173
adesk have educational licensing
>>
>>663167
*make this
>>
>>663173
my 3d teacher told us to use maya at home, taught us maya for most of the lesson but showed us how to do stuff in blender as well
>>
>>663169
so is there any new 'Killer feature' in Maya 2019 or is again only bits and pieces
Arnold anyway still doesn't have GPU support
>>
>>663178
blender does have any killer features that make people flock to it
>>
>>663182
>blender killer features
let's see
- atrocious UI and workflow
- no integration with pro apps
- community of 14 year old clueless fuckwits
+ it's free
>>
File: 1455471942662.jpg (114 KB, 1210x680)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
>>663167
i can answer that question.

its basically related to the FBX exporter. maya fbx exporter writes world coordinates properly when exporting a file, so it allows you to export animations without rigs which is good in some cases.
with blender you can't do that because the world coordinates within the FBX file are fucked up. so every single animation you do have to be connected to a rig, not linked but connected.

this is why so many blender animations comes out fucked up in UE4 and Unity. you can solve this issue by simply rigging everything which takes a bit more time.
this is why so many people complain about the FBX exporter, and i finally discovered the issue when working with a a russian animator on a project.

t. lowercase blendie
>>
>>663184
>>663182

*doesnt. when i started using unity i stopped using blender
>>
File: u wot mate.jpg (6 KB, 250x203)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>663185
>allows you to export animations without rigs
what
>>
>>663191
let me give you 2 examples

1.lets say you parented 2 cubes together and you want one cube to follow the other in unity

2.lets say you keyed a cube to move 30 units to the x axis, and you want unity to display this properly

use cases are doors and various mechanical objects (usually done by animating groups of objects)
>>
>>663198
non-issues
>1.lets say you parented 2 cubes together and you want one cube to follow the other in unity
put one cube transform under another cube transform in unity, problem solved
>2.lets say you keyed a cube to move 30 units to the x axis, and you want unity to display this properly
key a cube to move 30 units to the x axis in unity, problem solved
or just add a fucking bone\null\whatever and do the same thing in blender then export the animation, problem solved
>>
>>663199
okay so what about more complex objects big boy
>>
>>663199
in unity you can do anything you want, obviously.
im just talking about how things look when you export them from a different software.
>>
>>663040
I love the mokocchi
>>
>>663185
I agree. Hopefully with the development of glTF as a standard we can see a level playing field, where Autodesk isn't able to gimp blender by not providing the specifications needed to write a proper FBX exporter.

Everyone can benefit from this.
>>
>>663250
glTF is not an FBX replacement. And Blender devs could rely on the FBX SDK to have proper support of the format, just like all other developers do.
>>
>>663250
Ideally yes. gITF would be the future.
>Autodesk isn't able to gimp blender
Not Autodesk's fault.
>providing the specifications needed to write a proper FBX exporter
The SDK exists.

>>663273
>Blender devs could rely on the FBX SDK to have proper support of the format
Impossible.

Once more, the Blender Foundation shot themselves in the foot in regards to proprietary file formats, due to Blender being licensed under the GPL. They simply cannot incorporate other technologies due to all the licensing they would break.
The GPL requires all parts of a software (and derivatives of it) to be licensed under the same GPL. Meaning if you threw an SDK into Blender, it would have to be GPL in order to be fully compliant with licensing terms. And you can't just force a proprietary standard to go GPL, especially when it's such a flawed open-source license.
Like we discussed in one of the previous threads, the only way around this is to create a standalone middleman software with the SDK that would communicate with Blender to handle FBX conversions.
>>
>>663276
>Like we discussed in one of the previous threads, the only way around this is to create a standalone middleman software with the SDK that would communicate with Blender to handle FBX conversions.
I'm aware of this. So, yes, Blenders devs could rely on the SDK, at the expense of some work. Such effort would be much more economic and effective than reverse-engineering a non-standardized format, which, to make it worse, is subject to arbitrary changes.

The way I see it, it's not an issue with licenses. It's a ideological/political issue.
>>
The answer is much simpler.

Both are great pieces of software, but Maya has the advantage of having a much easier to use and navigate interface.

Blender is all hotkey based, which most people hate. But the developers of Blender are stubborn and refuse to make a branch of Blender that has an easier to learn interface, like Maya and almost every other piece of modelling software has.

They think it makes them somehow "better", but it's only hurting them.

The objective is to get people to want to use the software, not make it harder for them.

That's why Maya is currently the most used, it's just easier to learn and navigate.
>>
>>663088
>Let's talk about something wonderful known as: the barrier of entry.
>Blender, being gratis, means the barrier of entry is virtually non-existent.

Except for the hard to navigate, hot-key based interface.
>>
>>663285
Irrelevant. Barrier of entry simply refers to how easy it is to get the product. Not how easy it is to use it.
>>
>>663284
If you think the biggest difference between Blender and Maya is the use of hotkeys, or if you think Blender changing its UI would help it at all in trying to make inroads in the professional world, you are truly a clueless monkey.
>>
>>663285
That's deliberate. It keeps low-IQ individuals from using Blender.
>>
>>663041
YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, none of that counts. It's Hollywood and Hollywood only. That's right, all you other countries can get fucked alongside the internet!

In all seriousness, it's just simple: Maya was developed with Disney, and it reached a more widespread consumer base first. Blender was always meant more as the Hobbyist's software that just wound up being used in stuff like Hardcore Henry, Secret of Kells, Wonder Woman, Next Gen, and Supermansion among other titles through sheer dumb luck.
>>
>>663279
Which makes it all the more nonsensical that no one, let alone here on /3/, has actually tried to make said middleman software, unless that violates that license.
>>
>>663454
There is an attempt, but sadly it appears to be abandoned: http://blenderfbx.render.jp/

From that page:
> (detail): GPL[script+pyd] <==> own format file <==> umconv(exe, including fbx, Not GPL)
>>
>>663273
>>663276
>And Blender devs could rely on the FBX SDK to have proper support of the format, just like all other developers do.
FBX SDK license is a custom license specifically tailored to not be compatible with the opensource license blender uses _without being incompatible with other OSS licenses_. Technically Blender could add an exception GPL clause to make it compatible with the FBX license, but the FBX license twist would still severely hurt blenders ability to spread. So yes. This is entirely about Autodesk gimping blender.

https://en.blender.org/index.php/User:Ton/Autodesk_FBX_EULA

>>663273
glTF can be used as an FBX replacement for gamedev, but not for VFX unfortunately. Perhaps USD will be the solution to that.
>>
>>663547
>so this is how the average proprietary license works
>t-they're out to get us!!!
Uh, no, it's just Autodesk protecting their property. In a fair manner, mind you.

>not be compatible with the opensource license blender uses _without being incompatible with other OSS licenses_.
You want to know why Blender's OSS license is incompatible unlike the other OSS licenses? Copyleft. The GPL is a copyleft, meaning all derivatives of it HAVE to be GPL too. It's unlike the other common OSS licenses, MIT, Apache, BSD, etc.

And look, the FBX license has zero twists to it. Read it yourself. Here's the pertinent section for SDK 2019:
>2.1.5 Use of Open Source Software by Licensee. If Licensee uses any third party software (including free or Open Source Software), whether or not in conjunction with the Software, Licensee shall ensure that its use does not: (i) create, or purport to create, obligations of Autodesk or any of its affiliates with respect to the Software; (ii) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Autodesk’s or any of its affiliates intellectual property rights; or (iii) cause the Software to be subject to any licensing terms other than those set forth in this Agreement.

Now look at (iii):
>cause the Software to be subject to any licensing terms other than those set forth in this Agreement.

In simpler terms: Just don't change the license.
Which, due to how the GPL is, you have to.
>>
>>663562
Here's that exact same section in the license as linked in your little post by Ton:
>2.1.4 Use of Open Source Software by Licensee. If Licensee uses any third party software (including free or Open Source Software), whether or not in conjunction with the Software, Licensee shall ensure that its use does not: (i) create, or purport to create, obligations of Autodesk or any of its affiliates with respect to the Software; (ii) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Autodesk’s or any of its affiliates intellectual property rights; or (iii) cause the Software to be subject to any licensing terms other than those set forth in this Agreement.
It's identical. Ton's just complaining about proprietary software and how it works in that post. It's nothing specific to Autodesk doing this to Blender, he's just being mad that the world's selfish.
>>
>>663547
>>663562
>In simpler terms: Just don't change the license.
>Which, due to how the GPL is, you have to.
Not if you separate the GPL part from the SDK, which is as simple as creating a bridge program which translates between Blenderian and FBXerian. Like UmConverter, with a Blender plug-in, does, as mentioned in >>663457.

From gnu.org:
"[...] you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program."

There is nothing in the Autodesk FBX SDK licensing terms that forbids its use to improve Blender's support of FBX.
>>
>>663571
PS. If using proprietary software with Blender were impossible due to the viral nature of GPL, we wouldn't have RenderMan or Octane for it. They take the approach of keeping the proprietary and the GPL parts separate -- that is, running as different processes, only sending data between them.
>>
>>663571
>>663574
Which is entirely the solution that's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread and previous ones before it.

That was me simply explaining that Autodesk isn't doing fucking anything to Blender. It's this really weird paranoia some people have that "the bige companie is No Good and Big Ebil >:(" when it's just people trying to protect their product. Sure, call it selfish, but I think that's entirely within reasonable bounds when the SDK is completely free of charge for you to modify, redistribute and even profit off of as long as you merely acknowledge that it's Autodesk property.

Now the reasons why a middleman doesn't already exist is where we can start to blame Autodesk. Since it is their own standard that they have full control over, by all means Autodesk should be the one making this middleman. Other software with plugins do the same thing, with their bridges to Blender handled by small dev teams of their own.
The FBX standard evolves fairly quickly after all. Blender devs wouldn't have the manpower for it, a hobbyist developer would probably burn out (that attempt linked above is a good example), so it really just falls on Autodesk.
This is where you can give Autodesk all the shit for being "ungrateful to OSS", "selfish", etc. etc. but still, they don't really have an obligation to make one either.
>>
>>663562

>In simpler terms: Just don't change the license.
>Which, due to how the GPL is, you have to.

Read the bottom line of the post i linked.
>Even when we would add a GPL exception clause to link with the FBX SDK, the restrictions on FBX itself would still impose an unacceptable limitation on spreading Blender.
>>
>>663643
cont.

I mean, why wouldn't they make things hard for Blender? It's business and blender sticks out as the perfect target because it's a competitor and it has an easy-to-fuck-with license.
>>
>>663647
>why wouldn't they make things hard for Blender?
I understand they shouldn't, after all, it's the Blender Foundations and Blender is th... Ah, you are talking about Autodesk. Well, you know, Autodesk doesn't give a fuck about Blender. The Blender Foundation is the one responsible for not going down the easy path and relying on the FBX SDK, which would avoid any problems with updates to the format. Instead, they choose to do things the hard way, reverse-engineering everything, and coming up with excuses based on "licensing issues" that simply are untrue.

I suspect the real reason is just personal animosity towards Autodesk from Ton and co.
>>
>>663656
Please read just a little before commenting.
>>
>>663585
FBX is pretty good but it doesn't mean that there aren't any formats that rival it.

just when it comes to game engine support, most game engines lean towards FBX and less towards other formats
>>
>>663659
Please refrain from posting if you don't have anything to say.
>>
File: 1506743297515.jpg (189 KB, 719x899)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
>>663643
>>In simpler terms: Just don't change the license.
>>Which, due to how the GPL is, you have to.

lol.. i remember i dumped maya because instead to enjoying my work and create something i had to collect money for a fucking render software watching carefully if all my licenses are legit and so on. i lost 4000$ before i even started to do anything. sigh.. as soon they did blender cycles i went there. i would rather waste my time to think out how to cheat the cycles into new effects and ways to render than to study accounting and license rights of some Chinese/Singaporean/USA software producer..
>>
>>663690
If managing licenses and knowing what you can and cannot do with them is too complex for you, then yes, you made the right choice by picking Blender.
>>
>>663695
>If managing licenses and knowing what you can and cannot do with them

its not only that. you just cant do some stuff because you are literally crossing the license border. i remember people wanted to create library where you had a computer farm with all licenses for few places and they just rent you that place so you can finish your work legit way. it did not work out because of the costs..
>>
Well, there you have your answer, OP.
There is no other reason to use Maya over Blender other than that "the industry uses it, so that must mean it's better".
The Autocucks literally can't come up with a single legitimate argument (most likely because they never even tried Blender).

In my own experience, I think Blender is way better at most things (especially modeling), but the curve editor is much simpler in Maya. I don't know how to edit animation curves in Blender in any comprehensive way because there's always a couple of million threads.
Maya also has support for Redshift, which is a nice and fast renderer. Eevee is cool, but it's not very accurate and not really an alternative to raytracing (and Cylces and Arnold are slow as fuck).
>>
>>663748
LOL 3/10 trolling or Blendlet delusion of then 3rd order
>>
>>663827
Nice comeback, Autocuck.
>>
>>663888

How was your day working at McDonalds blendie?
>>
>>663894
lol he's probably so tired he fell asleep already. without even cleaning the grease out of his hands.
>>
>>663901
>>663894
Just samefagging forever, still without a single argument. What happened to make you be this way, Anon?
Does it hurt so much to see free software overtake the program you've invested so much time and money into?
>>
>>663915
>What happened to make you be this way, Anon?
I began my journey into 3D with Blender. Many months after, I kept coming across the same problems, again and again. Because of ((the industry)) meme, I grew curious and decided to shop around. I tested some other software: Maya, 3ds, C4D, Houdini...

That was when I realized how much time I lost with Blender, never to be recovered. Since then, I have been using professional software, the older problems I had are gone (they were not actual problems, but limitations in Blender), and I couldn't be happier. But my past with Blender still stings. This is why I unironically shitpost: to hopefully do some stranger well, by keeping them away from the Blender pitfall.
>>
>>663938
>I kept coming across the same problems, again and again.
Such as?
Why do you fail to mention your "problems" or any real arguments at all whenever you spam your shitposts?
It just sounds like you've never touched Blender. If you had used Blender (properly), you would know it's extremely much faster to work with than Maya (especially for modeling).
My main question is really: Why just go and lie on the internet?
>>
>>663938
you literally had to tour through every single 3D package to find one you like?
that's insane dude, and i don't come here to mock you or anything but that's not a typical experience that everyone goes through.

what i think happened- you simply blamed the software everytime you didn't like it, and autodesk was the final stop when you couldn't blame software anymore.
>>
>>663915

I'm not even samefagging you delusional blendlet. I'm not mad because Blender is not taking over anything. All studios worth their salt, including small/medium sized ones, still use Maya. Hundreds of thousands of students across the world are currently learning Maya too. In the meantime, you blendies assume the whole industry is moving towards blender just because you want to believe so. I almost feel bad for you guys sometimes.
>>
>>663952
>muh industry, muh industry, muh industry
Still not a SINGLE argument. You literally haven't even tried Blender?
I know both Maya and Blender, so I don't have any trouble in "muh industry", but when given the choice I always choose to work in Blender, because it's just vastly superiour when it comes to speed and reliability. I sometimes use Maya for rendering with Redshift or for animating something that has a Maya-rig, but that's about it.
Maya is fucking shit and ought to be put out of its misery.
>>
itt: rabid blendlets and autocucks back at it again
when will this horror end ?
>>
>>663940

I use both, and Blender isn't faster than Maya at all. Pie menus are faster than shorcuts and don't distract you from the screen. :et's give you an exemple of how slow blender is. Let's say you combine many objects into a single one, and quickly want to select an element from this newly combined object. In Maya, you just double click the element and that's it. In blender, you have to click a face, and then press L. And it won't work if you have UV seams because it will only select the island that includes that face.

Same for vertex merging. In blender you select one vertex, then the other, then you press alt+m and select merge. In maya, you select both vertices and you simple do a quick mouse sweep with the pie menu.

I could give you tons of exemples like this. Blender isn't faster than Maya, or Modo. It's awkward,bare bones and crude.
>>
>>663955

Oh but I gave you an argument. You said Blender was taking over commercial tools, and I said you were wrong because virtually all small/medium/larges sized teams still heavily rely on Maya and nothing is changing at all.
>>
>>663095
What are you on about? Maya goes back all the way to The Advanced Visualizer, TDI Explore and Alias, stuff that existed a decade before blender was released.
>>
>>663958
>Pie menus are faster than shorcuts and don't distract you from the screen
Factually wrong, and Blender also has pie menus (default for brainlets like you from 2.8, even).
>In Maya, you just double click the element and that's it. In blender, you have to click a face, and then press L.
That's just because Blender operates with strictly separated objects, as something different than just separate meshes.
>And it won't work if you have UV seams because it will only select the island that includes that face.
Only if you're in edge-select mode. This distinction obviously serves a purpose, Anon.
>Same for vertex merging. In blender you select one vertex, then the other, then you press alt+m and select merge. In maya, you select both vertices and you simple do a quick mouse sweep with the pie menu.
There are many ways to do this in Blender. You could for example select the edge between to vertices and hit X->Collapse edge. Or you could do it the Maya way and select your first vertex, snap it to the next vertex and hit W->Remove doubles. Or you could select both vertices, hit Alt+M (or W->Merge) and select if it should merge at first, last or center.
You also have pie menus, like I mentioned.
Those two complaints show that you're not actually familiar with Blender
Even if vertex merging was an issue (which it isn't), it wouldn't make up for a percentage of the time lost to digging through shelled pie menus in Maya, or having to manually click the retarded gizmo every time you want to move something, or failing to select something because the retarded gizmo gets in the way, or having to enter one of many, many dropdown lists just to bridge something or do some other mundane operation, or the retarded system where you have to delete history regularly to avoid slowdowns and crashes. Maya is just filled to the brim with bad design, bugs and "quirks".
>>
>>663938
Same here, I use Blender occasionally but what turned me hateful toward it was spending a week trying to rig a character like I do in Maya and running into the hard ceiling of Blender's limitations. Blender is plenty capable in many ways but fuck that if you want to rig and animate. Exploring Blender's rigging toolkit is like opening a can of botulism.


t. Maya rigger anon
>>
File: thonkeng.png (26 KB, 800x600)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
what will happen if a cute animator girl(girl(seriously girl) hypothetically will express interest in blender and starts making youtube videos about blender
how long until a cult following eclipsing donutmaker guru forms
>>
>>663967
the fuck is this sob story, sounds like a letter to congress.

suck it up and use whatever that fits you
>>
>>663948
I had a quick tour of some, yes. Got some basic tutorials and tried their workflow. The one that stuck, and I enjoyed the most, was Houdini. You could say it was love at first sight with the procedural workflow.

I was frustrated with the limited UV tools in Blender (even with TexTools, maybe it's better now but I haven't looked into it since), the perpetual lack of support for UDIMs, the limited choice of third-party render engines, the bad viewport performance in edit mode, the really old sims tech, and the non-standard FBX implementation.
>>
>>663979
personally, iv only used better, but my uv mapping is miles better than what it was 5 years ago. i can unwrap anything with it.
i don't know what im missing but i don't need anything else now.
>>
>>663981
blender*
>>
>>663970
BOST FEET
>>
>>663128
Because Blender is free and so every teenager downloads it, fucks around with it and is so proud of his tutorial donut that he HAS to show it online.
Blender is superior to Maya regarding both modeling and animations. Literally the only reason why I even use Maya is that we have in-house tools that convert to a special format which isn't there for Blender.
>>
>>663958
>In blender, you have to click a face, and then press L. And it won't work if you have UV seams because it will only select the island that includes that face.
You're not even in a position to evaluate modeling speed if you don't know that
1. hovering above the piece and pressing L is enough, you don't have to click anything
and
2. Blender deliberately does this in face mode to enable you to select UV shells in 3D view. Switch to Edge or Vert mode and press L to ignore UV seams.
This is the problem with shortcuts. Retards don't know them and bitch about their modeling speed. Modeling in Blender is a _lot_ faster than modeling in Maya.
>>
>>663979
>I was frustrated with the limited UV tools in Blender
Not sure when you used it, but current Blender has much better UV tools than Maya.
>>
>>663970
Ask Nekomata or Cherylynn Lima
Post armpits + wire
>>
>>664025
>current Blender has much better UV tools than Maya.

When was the last time you used Maya, in 2012?
Maya absolutely wipes the floor with Blender when it comes to UV tools. And not only Maya, Max and Modo too run circles around Blender in this discipline. Only Cinema 4d is as bad as Blender.
>>
>>664025

You really don't know what you're talking about don't you. I use both Maya and Blender (I mostly use Blender for modeling), and Blender's UV tools are the WORST out of any 3d package.
>>
>>664061
post renders
>>
>>664050
we can do unwrap contest if you want
>>
>>663040
Should we make another one? I don't think it answers the question
>>
File: 1540077150-eeeee.png (21 KB, 136x102)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>664078

Good UV tools != good unwrap algorithm. UV mapping is not just about unwraping.
>>
>>664154
yes but it also shows that you fully understand the tools that your'e using
>>
>>664068
>>664061
exactly what i thought
>>
>>664154
Yeah, there's also IR mapping and visible spectrum mapping. UV mapping is only a small part of the work.
>>
>>664197
>Become a freelance 3D surfacing artist and get a perfect tan without leaving your home!
>>
>>663036
>Maya has better animation tools.
The only relevant item.
>>
I like to open this job recruitment website that lists current positions and required software knowledge.
1400 results for maya
80 results for blender
Theres nothing wrong with knowing other software. Its actually very respectable but I urge anyone here to invest their time wisely or atleast be able to carry over the same concepts from eachother.
>>
>>664345
why do you assume that people only learn 3D to get a job?
we need to put this in a sticky - IF YOU WANT TO GET A JOB USE AUTODESK SOFTWARE IF YOUR'E A HOBBYIST YOU CAN USE ANYTHING YOU WANT.

absolutely obsessed
>>
>>664348
Not him, BUT:
>why do you assume that people only learn 3D to get a job?
Why do you assume that hobbyists don't want to use the most professional and efficient tools available? My time is as valuable as the time of a professional.
If tons of companies use a specific tool over another and they get their jobs done and are still in business, than that means what about the quality of the tool?

Why are you not able to see through this one level of abstraction?
>>
>>664388
>If tons of companies use a specific tool over another and they get their jobs done and are still in business, than that means what about the quality of the tool?
If other companies use the other tool and are as successful as the other (if by success you mean still in business) then what does that mean about the quality of the other tool?
>>
>>664400
Tell me of one company that is successful in the market and only uses Blender for their entire production pipeline. I'm open to being gladly surprised.
>>
File: 1525714868981.jpg (241 KB, 1920x1080)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>664402
Tangent Animation
They used a bit of houdini for sims because no other software can do what houdini can. And also nuke for compositing IIRC. Everything else is blender & cycles.
I recommend watching their presentation at the blender conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZn3kCsw5D8

There's also a ton of smaller studios and independents which have used a 100% blender workflow for years.
>>
>>664412
NVM I was wrong, they composited in blender. Also they used zbrush for some of the sculpting but the retopology was made in blender with retopoflow.
>>
>>664418
you forgot sidefx.
so basically most vfx was done externally. still very good considering the whole thing was baked and rendered in blender
>>
>>664061
How are they "worst"??
What the hell are you struggling with? I'm 99% sure you just don't know how to use the tools properly.
>>
>>664402
for sure, none of them do. this is what my animation II teacher told me a while ago. he also said "if a company you work for uses nothing but blender, gtfo. quick." now idk why blender seems fine to me but MAX and Maya are industry standard for now and prob will be for a while.
>>
>>663453
Hollywood is a pedophile cult and will only be relevant to chinks in 10 years.
>>
>>664050
>Maya absolutely wipes the floor with Blender when it comes to UV tools
Can Maya do this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMX9DZz5KsA
>>
>>664676
Are you being serious?
>>
bump
>>
>>664674
Everywhere is a pedophile cult when you think about it.



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.