I can not adapt to other software

General discussion about 3D DCC and other topics
User avatar
Mathaeus
Posts: 1778
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 21:11
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Mathaeus » 27 Nov 2016, 02:42

nodeway wrote:
luchifer wrote:
Understanding the Maya data flow, this is by all means harder than creating a few little scripts - so.... no way to work with this software, without a basic scripting knowledge, or, without TD in room.
But it is easy once you understand a workflow. It works with Zbrush, Cinema and all the programs we know.
For years I thought that there is something wrong with me, because I couldn't get Maya.
But then I learned Houdini, Max, Modo, UE4, Unity, Fusion and couple others. In many I know how to script and their C++/C# API.
After that I stopped thinking that there is something wrong with me.

Maya is THE problem, not me.
There is no 'workflow' in Maya, comparable to something like Max or SI. There is a really really tiny layer of scripted procedures over DAG, sometimes unbelievably limited and inconsistent, definitively not enough to provide the maneuverability for 3d generalist's work. Every now and then, someone has to dive into nodes, let's say even for plain adjusting of polygon primitive, once deformer is applied. Now, if only that node editor behaves like ICE tree or Houdini network, precisely focused on carrier object. Instead, once you're in Maya Node Editor, whole mind of Borg Queen is opened, asking for new work, just to (more or less manually) organize the data.

To say again, it's not something I can't 'get', it's just that I don't know where to 'sell' this, today. Ten years ago, I'd like that complexity, hoping to get 'more'. But today, it's just unhappy ratio of two, three times more work, for possible few percents of 'more', or not even that.
Also, with global influence of things like Microsoft Kinect and game engines, it's questionable, is it possible for traditional rigging and animation to survive.

Anyway, Maya always been that complicated Borg Queen, basically OS for 3d. Don't know why someone is even thinking about Maya for single users (except some occasional half hobbyist). Sounds like some corporate idea, someone on corporate meeting just wanted to be innovative, or such.

User avatar
myara
Posts: 403
Joined: 28 Sep 2011, 10:33

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by myara » 27 Nov 2016, 02:55

Thanks jonmoore, interesting insight.

I'm a Softimage user but I always had to use Maya to certain extent because of my clients. I also used Max in a couple of projects, only because of the Pencil plugin that is very used in anime. See the pattern here? Max's big strength are 3rd party plugins.

I don't know why do you guys like it but Mas would be my last option. It's slow and it's workflow is really messy. I wouldn't recommend it.

I didn't like Maya, and don't like it now either but the newer versions are way more usable. Do you struggle with Maya 2016? 2017? try Maya 6 or 7... Oh that was a really pita. Coming from XSI 4, Maya was a huge regression in workflow. It's unbelievable that it was "the standard" back then. I still remember I couldn't believe the mighty Maya was that bad. And I didn't just "tried" Maya, I used it a lot, so much that I had to change my XSI keyboard layout to qwerty (Maya). I went back to XSI as soon as I could.

Even now with all these Maya improvements, I still need to do more clicks, more work, more workarounds to achieve the same result I would easily have in Softimage.

Maya's Python (open maya, pymel and cmds) has been a blessing though, I've been scripting a lot and now my Maya life isn't that bad (I only do modeling and rigging in Maya now, I know nothing about particles or simulations). I can't imagine to write all my tools in Mel ! Damn I hate mel. BTW I'm not a technical artist either (or should I say I wasn't?), I'm a game modeler and animator that learnt to script because he wanted to do more with less effort in both Softimage and Maya. And after my experience, I really recommend to learn basic scripting no matter what software you use.
M.Yara
Character Modeler | Softimage Generalist (sort of)

User avatar
myara
Posts: 403
Joined: 28 Sep 2011, 10:33

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by myara » 27 Nov 2016, 06:00

Mathaeus wrote: There is no 'workflow' in Maya, comparable to something like Max or SI. There is a really really tiny layer of scripted procedures over DAG, sometimes unbelievably limited and inconsistent, definitively not enough to provide the maneuverability for 3d generalist's work. Every now and then, someone has to dive into nodes, let's say even for plain adjusting of polygon primitive, once deformer is applied.
True.
If you rely a lot in having your deformers or operators alive and stacked, then you are, more often than not, screwed in Maya. I didn't quite understand what the "non destructive workflow" Softimage feature meant until I used Maya.
M.Yara
Character Modeler | Softimage Generalist (sort of)

User avatar
Mathaeus
Posts: 1778
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 21:11
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Mathaeus » 27 Nov 2016, 06:52

myara wrote: I don't know why do you guys like it but Mas would be my last option. It's slow and it's workflow is really messy. I wouldn't recommend it.
Last time I've tried it was Max and Maya 2016, yes Max was slower in playback of deformed geometry, no Maya parallel Open CL an that... but it was a way stronger with huge static scenes, also it was stronger with direct modeling of high-res meshes. They also improved variances of conform modifier to work in similar way as Maya live.

Max has usable modifier stack, with all controls available on one place. It has *live* operator for skin transfer, it is able to change topology before and after skin. While ago, one fellow used Shell (modeling) modifier on top of skin, just to get better geo for subsurface scattering. Another guy used 6-7 stacked bend modifiers to model wing of airplane. First is perhaps impossible in Maya, second will create around 20 attributes in Maya AE, or 30 nodes in Node Editor. In Max, that is exactly 6-7 modifiers in stack, and *nothing else* all around.

Max has MCG, which is not interactive as ICE, but provides everything you need to build custom deformer. So, no need for plugin if I need a procedural Psyop style waves or such.

Built in PFlow is not strong solver as nParticle, but it is controlled by nodes, allowing to get quickly and really easy, things like events, particles emitted from particles, so on.

Max Explorer is usable tool for scene organizing, it displays what user need, no need to play with filters to get transform or shape, shading group (wtf, shading group). By the way only that unhappy transform-shape node dispersion, imho alone it is enough to kill Maya as tool for generalist, forever.

Regarding workflow, my friend Maya user who had to learn Max because of new job, described Max as 'well organized'. He is still Max user. Max has *one* method for playing with inputs-sliders, instead of four. Max constantly displays data like position of selected object, or transform axis, no need to go with obscure shortcuts and faked radial menus.

Max quads (RMB menu) are completely customizable, you can build your own by drag and drop. As they are not 'contextual', no need for keyboard to activate them. Custom toolbar could be vertical, horizontal, could be more than one. As with many other things in Max, they went with simpler, but robust solution : Max component selection is limited only to selected object(s), but this makes it totally predictable, against 'legendary' Maya doMenuCompenentSelection from object marking menu which actually is object mode plus component, so user has to press f8 toggle twice to go out. After all, it's possible to use Max without any keyboard - of course one will use shortcuts, but novices or people in hurry can even work without any.

Now about bad points, there is no built in liquid or smoke simulator. However last offers of Real Flow, bellow 1k$ are encouraging. Rigging is traditionally 'canned', even building of angle reader is complicated.

As it is probably noticeable, I'm on 'Max side'.... Perhaps all I mentioned doesn't worth that much for large teams, after all Max does not exist on Linux and such.

nodeway

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by nodeway » 27 Nov 2016, 17:40

Bellsey wrote: We trained chimps and put them into space, so learning software shouldn't really be that much of a problem. :-)
Now I know why I can't get Maya. I'm not a chimp. I'm a human and I use software for humans. And Maya is for chimps. :-)

User avatar
SamHowell
Posts: 364
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 14:09
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by SamHowell » 28 Nov 2016, 11:59

I've been using Houdini progressively more and more over the past 3 years. I'm at the point where I use Houdini 90% of the time these days and a bit of Softimage for a bit of very quick modelling.
Max,Maya and C4D are similar enough to Softimage that they are initially easier to pick up but can be frustrating because they do similar things to Softimage in what seems a strange way. The motivation to re-learn something you already know in a different way can feel very draining.

This may sound strange, but I found Houdini easier to learn and transition to, precisely because it is so different to all the other DCC applications. It required almost a complete reset on how I worked. It gave me a real push because at first it took so much longer to understand. Once that initial very steep hill is climbed you begin to realise that Houdini was actually the true generalist package all along rather than Softimage. It still has some serious shortcomings but Sidefx have been plugging a lot of the gaps in the last few versions. V16 is going to be a very big improvement. If you tried it a few years ago and gave up I would seriously recommend giving the new version a look when it comes out.

jonmoore
Posts: 153
Joined: 30 Jul 2016, 18:18

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by jonmoore » 28 Nov 2016, 14:46

SamHowell wrote: V16 is going to be a very big improvement. If you tried it a few years ago and gave up I would seriously recommend giving the new version a look when it comes out.
Are you beta testing v16 Sam?

I usually stay out of Houdini beta tests but am tempted to have a peek as the stuff previewed earlier in the year looked very promising (other than the playschool icons in the network editor).

User avatar
SamHowell
Posts: 364
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 14:09
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by SamHowell » 28 Nov 2016, 15:23

jonmoore wrote:
SamHowell wrote: V16 is going to be a very big improvement. If you tried it a few years ago and gave up I would seriously recommend giving the new version a look when it comes out.
Are you beta testing v16 Sam?

I usually stay out of Houdini beta tests but am tempted to have a peek as the stuff previewed earlier in the year looked very promising (other than the playschool icons in the network editor).
I'm not testing the Beta but I managed to see some of the new stuff at a client presentation by SideFX. I'm not sure what was covered by NDA so i'll be as vague as I dare. There are significant changes and improvements to the network view. It's cleaner, customizable and looks to be a lot more user friendly. As we know, the network view is where a lot of the action happens in Houdini and I guess it's old utilitarian look might be one of the first things that puts people off.

There are signigicant improvements to the rigging toolset. Maybe even a complete refresh. Sidefx have been working alongside SHED animation (a Softimage studio) to get these working as well as they can.

Here are the results:

https://vimeo.com/167542179

And also a load of other sexy FX stuff that we have come to expect as standard anyway.

Mantra is on a par with Arnold. For that reason alone I think the high license cost is worth it.

I think it's out late December early January time.

CafeNight
Posts: 22
Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 09:10

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by CafeNight » 06 Dec 2016, 23:03

SamHowell wrote:I've been using Houdini progressively more and more over the past 3 years. I'm at the point where I use Houdini 90% of the time these days and a bit of Softimage for a bit of very quick modelling.
Max,Maya and C4D are similar enough to Softimage that they are initially easier to pick up but can be frustrating because they do similar things to Softimage in what seems a strange way. The motivation to re-learn something you already know in a different way can feel very draining.

This may sound strange, but I found Houdini easier to learn and transition to, precisely because it is so different to all the other DCC applications. It required almost a complete reset on how I worked. It gave me a real push because at first it took so much longer to understand. Once that initial very steep hill is climbed you begin to realise that Houdini was actually the true generalist package all along rather than Softimage. It still has some serious shortcomings but Sidefx have been plugging a lot of the gaps in the last few versions. V16 is going to be a very big improvement. If you tried it a few years ago and gave up I would seriously recommend giving the new version a look when it comes out.
This!
Houdini! last build can do everything even make circle, Which Maya 3ds max for long long time expect scripts cant. -)

nodeway

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by nodeway » 06 Dec 2016, 23:10

CafeNight wrote: Houdini! last build can do everything even make circle, Which Maya 3ds max for long long time expect scripts cant. -)
They had to add this functionality. In 2015 I showed couple videos. One was Perfect Circle node and second Straignten node. Both ended up implemented as options in Houdini after couple months :D

User avatar
Mathaeus
Posts: 1778
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 21:11
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Mathaeus » 13 Dec 2016, 10:52

Regarding Houdini,
just noticed that they finally added support for exporting blend shapes to FBX, now I should only hope there's option to... import in-between blend shapes from FBX. To avoid long stories here, everything related to view port interaction, like direct animation, modeling, scene assembly, it's going really really slow, sometimes going backwards, and same story is for years....
If there is some equivalent of standard tools in other apps, let's say Deform SOP/ Skin/Envelope, it is canned and done really without invention. For example, for now it's possible to create a small system in H for making a procedural skin weighting.... for use in Maya... ;) ( as Maya can import weight maps as plain bitmaps), but not to utilize that for H Deform SOP. While access to Skin weighting attributes with VOPs, available in Softimage ICE from first day, still belongs to science fiction in H.

I mean, even if they will add wonders to Houdini direct-anything in V17, I wouldn't consider it as an replacement for Maya or Max, for many practical reasons. Anyway, real pain is to see their trials to compete directly in that direct-anything area, instead of trying to make their procedural part stronger, let's say mentioned Skin weighing attributes directly available for VOPs, stronger support for arrays in VOPs, streamlined connections between deformations and transforms, and finally... real nodes. In many ways, Houdini is not nodal app, it's more a bunch of flying text boxes, full of not-connectable attributes.
Maya is to hell annoying in many ways, but it is complete, nodal 3d app.

Will see what they will have to offer....

User avatar
Mathaeus
Posts: 1778
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 21:11
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Mathaeus » 13 Dec 2016, 23:59

Mathaeus wrote:Regarding Houdini,
just noticed that they finally added support for exporting blend shapes to FBX, now I should only hope there's option to... import in-between blend shapes from FBX.
Nope, still no in between blend shape to H. But, it was a great and mercyfull Autodesk :D (couldn't resist) who allowed to go over export limits of Maya LT when it comes to even plain blend shape targets, so... my home arsenal :D of Maya LT and Houdini Indie allows to render animated things from Maya LT. Yet another year of lovely ^@_^%#$ unixoid stuff....
By the way don't know which one is more mad, total flat context of Maya with constant hiding and revealing, or constant diving through VOP DOP COP whatever....

User avatar
Shredder565
Posts: 1102
Joined: 02 Jan 2012, 20:04

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Shredder565 » 29 Dec 2016, 00:21

i really wish there was a way autodesk can do the Adobe Route.

Make it so we don't have to worry about reformating and serial activation.


Maybe give us a special serial number that would always work, so long as we prove that we have one that we bought.


there is no reason why we should be forced to move on to other software simply because one company usurped another to kill the competition.

sigh..Softimage really has become a way of life..and in some cases, a life saver, saving me from complete and utter boredom. it's been so much a part of my life for the last 10 years, not sure what i'd substitute it with

Bullit
Moderator
Posts: 2621
Joined: 24 May 2012, 09:44

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Bullit » 29 Dec 2016, 01:58

You should try C4D.

User avatar
myara
Posts: 403
Joined: 28 Sep 2011, 10:33

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by myara » 29 Dec 2016, 13:22

Shredder565 wrote:i really wish there was a way autodesk can do the Adobe Route.

Make it so we don't have to worry about reformating and serial activation.

Maybe give us a special serial number that would always work, so long as we prove that we have one that we bought.
I don't quite understand your problem. If you have bought a Softimage license and activated it, then you should be able to use it like forever.
M.Yara
Character Modeler | Softimage Generalist (sort of)

User avatar
Shredder565
Posts: 1102
Joined: 02 Jan 2012, 20:04

Re: I can not adapt to other software

Post by Shredder565 » 29 Dec 2016, 15:40

myara wrote:
Shredder565 wrote:i really wish there was a way autodesk can do the Adobe Route.

Make it so we don't have to worry about reformating and serial activation.

Maybe give us a special serial number that would always work, so long as we prove that we have one that we bought.
I don't quite understand your problem. If you have bought a Softimage license and activated it, then you should be able to use it like forever.
yep, but if they ever take down the activation software on their end like adobe did for their older programs, and you reformat the system, you're stuck out of luck.

With Adobe's new way, and I'll give them major credit for this, they basically made their older software free to use. although technically i think you only should use it if you previously bought it like i did with adobe 3.0. I never plan to upgrgade to cloud service. and 3.0 does what i need it to do.so i can now thankfully stick with it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brandwatch [Bot] and 30 guests