Maya Vs Anything Else

[freman]

As I said in my other post, I just got maya. and I have since then surfed the WWW looking at models and other stuff.

And here come the Q, Is there anything better?

I find tons of models and stuff for 3D Studio max and Lightwave, but very few for Maya. is maya less used then anything else or is everything else better? altho I doubt that.

Senserly thanks

Freman

[puppiesam]

My take on this topic is that every software is good for its own needs. Maya would be a great package to combine modeling, animation, dynamics, and rendering. Maya is also better than most programs, ( i believe ) in hair and cloth simulations. It could also be that 3D studio max can beat maya with its animation. And that LightWave can beat them both in rendering.

It also depends on the User, I for one love and prefar maya over everything else but other friends of mine ask me how i can use that and to start with 3D studio max. I think it all comes down to yourself and how you like it. If you enjoy maya than excellent, and if some other people who post models on the internet prefer something else, so be it. Every Package has its goods and weaknesses over the others.

-Shmulik

[joojaa]

id say thet maya and max are the most used packages, with lightwave and xsi trailing a bit behind.

Ligtwave appears to be big amongst people who are just mainly intersted in modelling, and rendering, Max is a prettygood good allarounder but suffers a bit from its general design, whereas XSI and maya clearly are animation packages, that are geared towards generating complex moton first and foremoist (note thet in a movie 80-90% of the work is animation, rest is shading or other tech considerations, modelling amounts to allmost nothing).

Also XSI and maya are about controll over all else, mayas maybe a bit extreme on thisside. Id say that mayas more like houdini in the sense that it carters the technological apect of thinsg very much, but mayas a abit of aunique combination of this in thet its carters for both a artist and the tech guy. Now this can be inportant in production since theres a lot of different jobs taht need to be done.

maybe the best pckages in my view are maya, houdini and zbrush... Now as for modelling theres a lot of new modelling packages taht are appearing, thets beacsue modelling is the technology thets probably teh easiest to do, animation/rigging eingenes are much harder to design.

[pogg]

It can largley depend on what area of the industry you're in.

Maya and Max seem to be favoured by the games industry, XSI can be good for games but seems to be less used (in th Uk anyway).

XSI is gaining some ground at the moment, as it's a fraction of the price of Maya but with many of the funtions, like Mental Ray. XSI's subdivision is much easier to use than Maya's as are the rigging functions. I haven't seen Maya 7.0 though, and I've heard there have been some improvements.

To be honest I prefer XSI over Maya for modelling and becasue of the price, but I use Maya at work becasue it's so widely used in the industry from games to high end TV graphics.

[puppiesam]

I would also like to add the SideFX Houdini is best for Particle systems and Dynamics. If you consider going into FX learn Houdini.

[safarisister]

QUOTE(Freman @ 01/02/06, 04:40 PM)
As I said in my other post, I just got maya. and I have since then surfed the WWW looking at models and other stuff.

And here come the Q, Is there anything better?

I find tons of models and stuff for 3D Studio max and Lightwave, but very few for Maya. is maya less used then anything else or is everything else better? altho I doubt that.

Senserly thanks

Freman
[snapback]223774[/snapback]

my 2 cents

Cost is a big factor...as an independent artist i used 3DS for many years because it was the most robust tool for the money. I came in the back door via engineering visualization so the geometry many times was built in AutoCAD or other standard CAD apps...3DS was afordable. (I believe Autodesk is selling the majority of their software (including the Discreet products to the engineering visualization industries and not the entertainment industry - - just read that in an interview around Autodesk aquiring Alias).

Now that i work for a large company that uses Maya I have access to the hardware, the software and training that i previously found it difficult to afford. Now, working for a larger company i have also signed a non-disclosure meaning that i cannot share my work with anyone outside the company.

The art assetts, file sets, are the IP...companies spend alot of money to support this higherend production so sharing filesets unless it's a selling product, or collaborative exploration or a newbie, isn't very practical....in essence one would be giving away "trade secrets".

So i'm thinking that the lower cost tools may be used by the masses - more experimentation, more sharing of files, more hobbiest...where as the more costly tools may be being used by companies or artist that are less likely to share free stuff as it would be their professional death???

I have to agree with some of the others here..actually all the 3D products mentioned would produce results as good as your ideas, your dedication to your art.

Kind of like the difference between a talented musician playing a beatup old flea market guitar and a mint condition gibson...its not the guitar (the tool) its the musician (the talent, artistry, emotion, originally, the years of building a unique vocabulary...etc.)

oops! the girl is going bla-bla

best regards,
safarisister

[safarisister]

QUOTE(safarisister @ 01/12/06, 06:45 PM)
my 2 cents

Cost is a big factor...as an independent artist i used 3DS for many years because it was the most robust tool for the money. I came in the back door via engineering visualization so the geometry many times was built in AutoCAD or other standard CAD apps...3DS was afordable. (I believe Autodesk is selling the majority of their software (including the Discreet products to the engineering visualization industries and not the entertainment industry - - just read that in an interview around Autodesk aquiring Alias).

Now that i work for a large company that uses Maya I have access to the hardware, the software and training that i previously found it difficult to afford. Now, working for a larger company i have also signed a non-disclosure meaning that i cannot share my work with anyone outside the company.

The art assetts, file sets, are the IP...companies spend alot of money to support this higherend production so sharing filesets unless it's a selling product, or collaborative exploration or a newbie, isn't very practical....in essence one would be giving away "trade secrets".

So i'm thinking that the lower cost tools may be used by the masses - more experimentation, more sharing of files, more hobbiest...where as the more costly tools may be being used by companies or artist that are less likely to share free stuff as it would be their professional death???

I have to agree with some of the others here..actually all the 3D products mentioned would produce results as good as your ideas, your dedication to your art.

Kind of like the difference between a talented musician playing a beatup old flea market guitar and a mint condition gibson...its not the guitar (the tool) its the musician (the talent, artistry, emotion, originally, the years of building a unique vocabulary...etc.)

Ok, so now having gone "bla-bla" I found that i ramped up much quicker with Maya then originally with 3DS. But.....i was doing more architectural-mechanical motion graphics with 3DS and now with Maya i'm doing characters and more organic shaped GUI's...i'm also learning ZBrush...moving even closer to working in a more sculpting mode.

best regards,
safarisister
[snapback]224762[/snapback]