Maya vs. 3DS, Light Wave, Rhino ino ect...
 

I have been browsing alot of CGI cites just recently and I really don't see very many people using Maya. I see more people using 3DS and 3DS Max more than any thing else. I also see quite a few use Light Wave and Rhino, all with stunning results.

For those who have worked with these other CGI programs, are they easier to use then Maya is? The more I get into maya, the harder it gets. Im seeing some really amazing stuff with these other programs ( very life like ) but don't get me wrong, I see amazing stuff with maya aswell, and from the very talented people here at this website. It's just that I seeing more cool stuff from the competition as opposed to Maya. I see more Medicore stuff from Maya than anything else.

The single most dissipointment from maya so far ( that I have noticed ) is the lack of sci-fi modeling being displayed "anywhere". Hardly any Starwars models or Star trek models. No Blade Runner models, no Alien or Aliens models. Most everything I see in Maya is common everyday stuff, with the exception of dragons and LOTR models. I do know that Maya is the most expensive package around, and not very many people can acquire it, but as a member of this website, and as a Maya user, I would very much like to see more dedicated movie/sci-fi models displayed on this site. I think perhaps that would generate more traffic to this site and more members that may or may not have Maya at this time.

well I think that it may take a while for maya to catch on after its price drop, but it will soon take over 3d max.

It is by far superior (IMO)

give it time...things will change

I think that Maya is the best too. I mean why do big time stuios choose it? And also has any other program won an oscar?

Don't get me wrong. I know Max is a great games package but Maya can do that also and som much more. Plus I think that it is much more friendlier.

Just my thoughts.

Alex

Hello!

I used Max and Rhino and must say:

I started to hate max, they never rebuilded it from zero, what i mean is, the menu´s are in no order, the whole program has no structure ...

rhino is quite good - but hasn´t got polygons, only nurbs (it is rather for CAD - users anyway)

maya - great! When i first came to maya - it was amazing - from the first secound on i felt familiar with the menu´s the structure and the whole program ... maya is like a sailing boat (if you have ever been to one) ... it all makes scence ;)

but anyway, everybody has to find his own 3D-Proggie, and in no Studio maya looks like mine or your maya, my maya looks (and is) different because of my personal scripts, settings and interfaces ...

so everybody needs to find and build his own WorkingArea

lol i too noticed the lack of sci fi...asked about it to my "professional working in molinare" professor and he looked me like "youre young, grasshopper, and that saved your life..." i think that has to do with the lack of hi quality sci-fi... :D at least he cant get rid of metal logos... *muahahahahaaa* he has to try to get the moving but ending on "exactly the same on the paper" airbrushed reflections for a crazy creative every then and now

one of the reasons for lack of Star Wars -like models is, that it was waaaay overdone and now, for people looking for jobs, it's a general rule to NOT have any space ship looking things in a portfolio.

Wow, I never actually thought this thread would catch on. fantastic replies to all of you. I wonder why people would actually preffer a CGI program that doesn't have a very well designed user structure. I now beileve it's better for me to use maya instead of the others.

Mike, you really have valid point about not having any spaceship looking things in a portfolio, and it makes sence, but since this site is for all Maya users ( and soon to be ) to get together and show off their work, how about some sci-fi models for fun. One doesn't have to include them in a portfolio, just do some for the love of it. I personally get tired of seeing common everday things being modeled and displayed most of the time. I think it would liven up things from a certain perspective to see more really cool stuff . The A.M.Y robot dog ( I think that was it's name ) from the movie "Red Planet" that was submitted on this site in the gallery was very refreshing to see.

Sure, no problem with doing stuff for fun. These kinds of things take a lot of time, though, and usually, if something is done really well, the artist normally would want to add it to their personal gallery, and usually, such galleries are for employment purposes.

Re: Maya vs. 3DS, Light Wave, Rhino ino ect...
 

There the same software.

hey i can remember a time when there was no maya but alias power animator and 3ds was just that, no 3dsmax... not that i actually used 3ds but at the time i knew what it was...:)(what was that 8/9 years ago?)

Many people seem to think that you need a super expensive program to do great work, it's just a tool. Stick with what you like, do great stuff with it, if youre hired you will have to use whatever they use. I've seen amazing things done in all of the major 3d packages.

dragonfx: the joy of 3D Studio R4 for DOS :)

z1mmnd14, it seems like 3DS and 3DSMax are different from each other. When I browse sites that are CGI based that quote 3DS and 3DSMax, it makes you think that they are different packages.

fredriksson, you are correct. I see amazing stuff from the other packages. Thats what had lead me to believe that those programs ( far less expensive than Maya ) were easier to use, and yet yeilded the same results that maya offers. Thats was my only concern about maya vs. the others. I have researched maya quite a bit, and yes many of industry pros do preffer maya because of the flexibility and power. I heard one guy quote that with Maya, if some one had to correct a mistake, all he had to do was pop the hood and fix it. Does the competition offer this kind of flexability?

They are the same, people just use different terms when talking about them.

In terms of packages it depends what you find the easiest to use, but none of them are 'easy' as such. I've seen great stuff done with free programmes and rubbish done with Maya. The cost of the package isn't related to the art it can produce - that's in your hands. Conversely you see things in Maya that knock your socks off and things in free packages that even I can do - it's the user that makes the art, not the package.

Maya has a great toolset, loads of features and I think it is is great, but it is, like most things, easy to open, bloody hard to master. The more features something gives you the worse it can be to figure them all out. But having tried quite a few 3d packages I'd say nothing works in quite such a jolly intuitive way - I think it suits people with a certain way of working. But I don't think there are short cuts to brilliant work with any package, be it free or £6k.

"Easy to open, Bloody hard to master" You couldn't have said that any better Witchy! Yeah, the more into Maya I get, the more difficult it becomes, but practice makes perfect I think.

I think one of the main reasons you see more 3DS Max work instead of Maya work is because Maya costs a lot more. Individuals who want a 3D program usually don't want to spend big bucks, so the main consumers for Alias are companies like Squaresoft, LucasArts, and Rare Ltd. Most big companies do use Maya. This is because they can afford it.

Maya is, in my opinion, better than any other software because of its flexibility and workflow style.

How would you describe ( in your opinion ) the Maya workflow style? Does it vary between the user, or is it a constant with every user? I appologise if the question doesn't make any sence as I find it difficult to ask.

it varies, (its a flow remember?:))specially between those who have mastered mel:) and those who dont:( (i need more time, knowledge and money...)

In maya you have lots of ways to skin the same cat, specially if youre tryng something that is not on the books (or you found no tutorial wich helps you not burning your brain triyng to do it...)

When Mike spoke about too many spaceships he is dead right (as always). I was told many a time - take out the spaceships - the industry is bored stiff of sci-fi stuff, they are probably getting bored with dinosaurs by now...

As for 3DS or 3DMax or whatever (same program), it has been dominant in the games industry for ages. As Kevin said this might change, reason being most game development cycles are about 2-3 years. Now you're not gonna change package half way through a development cycle to Maya Complete (you don't need Unlimited) just cos it's got cheaper and is better to use. So, perhaps as games developers finish their games they might adopt Maya instead of Max. But then again they would have to train staff to use Maya which would be time consuming and not cost-effective.

Put yourselves in the shoes of a developer you wana create something that is gonna sell and produce it as cheaply as possible...

BTW
Talking of SciFi it might make a bit of a come back. I mean I still think 'The Forbidden Planet' was an excellent film, better than some of the stuff you get today...

Yeah, Maya Complete is perfectly viable and guess what? Cheaper. The only reason my current studio is using Max is because, at the time, the special shaders and stuff we're using were only available for Max. Now that's changed, and it's very possible a switch could happen. My art director is a huge Maya guy, and can't stand Max almost more than I can't. lol

Not only that, we recieved lots of assets from a canceled game and they were all Maya files. Maya is gaining a hold in the game industry and it can only get bigger. :)

Another thing I just thought of is that game companies don't really need to purchase Maya Unlimited because games only use polygons. Subdivisions, clothe effects, fluid effects, etc aren't really needed for games. Eveything they need is in Complete. I know you may need an Unlimited copy for an intro animation scene (like the FF series for instance) and cool renders for magizines and the box cover, but that only requires a few Unlimited copies.

Many studios out-source cinematic work. :)

So Mike do you use 3D Studio Max for work then?

Out-source? How can game studios out source cinematic work. Isn't the game industry a different realm of a sort compared to cinema? I mean games are interactive, movies are not. Are you saying that games use many CG packages while movies only use one or two?

DgAPc - I use both Maya and Max at work.

THX - There are studios out there that just do game cinematics. Depending on the developer, sometimes there isn't time in the schedule for the same team making the game art to also do high-res cinematics, so they hire another studio to do it.

I'm not sure what you mean about the number of CG packages used. Studios will use whatever they feel is necessary.

EDIT: Oh, I believe you thought I meant that the game studio also works as an out-source for cinematic work? That's not what I meant.

I meant Gaming studios using a variety of CG packages to produce a product, and movie only studios usually use one CG package to produce a product besides the editing program. I hope im not going in the wrong direction here with my reply.

Going back to the maya vs, i've always said maya was the easiest to use and now if i go into gmax (a free version of 3DS Max for game moding) i'm like "arrrgh, how do i model a cube" but this week i tried a free version of Cinema 4D and found it really easy to use. However i still say maya is by far the most powerful.

There has to be something up with 3DSMax other wise there wouldn't be so much material out in the market ( no matter how unorganized the interface is ). One thing I do find difficult with Maya is the texturing . How is the texturing with the other CGI packages compared to Maya?

Compared to Max, I find Maya's UV manipulation much easier.

I think it's all to do with what you are used to most people here are used to maya so we'll say maya is easier but if you go to a 3ds max site they would say max is easier. If you know what you're doing you can produce industry standard work with allmost any 3d software.

aaaaahhhh... when, lord, when well see texture weapons/deep uv/photoshop quality tools to paint the 3d INSIDE maya? Ive seen two versions of maya and only the mapping has gone a bit better... this should be a prioritary research in Alias...(which not so long ago were the ones who launched a feature and then everyone else copied...)
huumm ipr for mr would be cool too, but i gues well have to wait 3/5 years of power growth to realtime mr...


--------------------------------------------------------------
presets, gimme more, lots of them....

that doesn't make any sense to me. Photoshop is an industry standard that everyone in this industry uses to great effect. I see no reason for Maya or most any other 3D app to try to incorporate such a thing.

I wouldn't imagen studios use like ILM using just one software package. I know that Weta used Maya and Massive, plus probably others.

I could see small sudios sticking to one package.

Well its alrready incorporated, but its not good/useful enough to displace the other workflow... what i really mean is the ability to: hit automap forget the uvs, dont care a shit how they are cutted(which now is an issue even if youre not trying to paint over the uvmap but directly on the model with paint effects), and just paint over it interactively and nice in 3d with the whole array of tools of photoshop and texture weapons in the 3d view of maya(with tools like *line* drawing over a complex surface with seams and uv seams, mask selections, the ability to put /adjustment layers/filters/you name it...) (maybe including new tools like true 3d airbrush tool?).

Im not talking about displacing photoshop in general, but painting in 3d already exists, just that needs to be improved a lot. Yep everyone does use uv mapping/then export/then paint in photoshop/then reimport/further tweak/render workflow but thats only cause right now is the best workflow. That is not written on stone, it can be changed, eventually it will be changed...

drgonfx, I wish 3d paint could use all the tools of photoshop aswell. I don't care for uvs either. I to would like to see a much better way of texturing objects in maya instead of importing and exporting to and from photoshop.

z1mmnd14, yeah I would guess that ILM would use more than one package aswell, lol. They can do anything. I was reffering to the smaller studios ( I should have said that ) when I quoted movie studios using one package.

How is UV mapping in Max (and others) compared to Maya?

Massive was a plugin they made themselves i think.... just for crouds.. but its not true that they used just maya either.. bay raitt is a mirai finatic so it wouldnt surprised me if he used that for some sections.. Just wondering people.. alot of talk about how much u guys hate 3ds here, what are your thoughts on XSI, houdini, and lightwave??

Does anyone here know how to use lightwave, i tried but but gave up after a week.

Ahh, welcome to the club. :)

Is Lightwave that hard? I have seen some fantastic renders from Lightwave. Some very photo realistic renders at that. Can someone put up a screengrab from Lightwave?

No 3d programme is 'easy' imho, and to be honest I don't think those great images you have seen were created because the programme was any easier than Maya. They were done by people with good skills who worked hard on mastering their programme of choice.

It seems people search for an easy app that creates great images as a shortcut to learning things and I don't think there is anything out there that does stuff automatically - some programmes have more useable things, others have a workflow that suits each individual but I think to make it sound like Lightwave must be easy because great things are produced does down the people producing those images.

3d is like anything else - hard work and application is needed for great results.

wow me too!