Maya is the 'VHS of 3D'.
It's not that it was the best application for the job, but the fact is
was just everywhere.
Than it became the 'standard'.
After 3 weeks of doing a project in Maya, I'm ready (again) to throw
myself in front of a bus.
My last experiences were with Maya 7/8 and most, if not all annoyances,
gotchas and bugs are still there.
Rendering is still a confusing mess, but luckily we don't have to touch MR.
Unless you have to use XGen, and you find out it needs to be installed
for XGen to work. Guess what? It's not in the default Maya installer
anymore...
etc. etc. etc.
It will need at least 3-4 big updates to get it working more user
friendly, or to not blow up in your face.
We already had a ton of issues with reference files and non rendering
scenes.
And this wasn't even a complex project.
Oh..... Always save the scene in .ma format. So at least you can open
them up to fix some issues.
And.... there's always a script... somewhere....
Yup... long day... ;-)
Rob
\/-------------\/----------------\/
On 24-11-2015 11:26, Mirko Jankovic wrote:
well taht was / IS strongest point of Softimage for me as well.
With Maya I felt always on glass legs waiting when whole thing will go
down crumbling and breaking.
With SI I sometimes even do dirty fast work get things done more then
half way then tweak and polish all the way back without much problems.
With low budget and low time at hand it is hard to get things properly
so going dirty fast way then polishing as much as time and budget
allows works perfectly.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Gerbrand Nel <nagv...@gmail.com
<mailto:nagv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1 on what Matt said
I spent a year in maya, and a year in houdini.
For me it personally comes down to the following.
Almost all things will initially happen quicker in maya,..... and
then you start praying!
You pray the client doesn't change anything!
You pray you didn't forget anything in step 4 of your 15 step
pipeline.
AND ABOVE ALL YOU PRAY THE BASTARD DOESN'T BREAK.
In Houdini on the other hand, I feel relaxed. I know I can
probably change anything at any time without destroying anything,
or re-doing too much work.
This is the most important aspect of houdini most people overlook
when they try it.
I've seen a few people leave houdini after a few days, because
they feel they can get the same thing done quicker in maya..
They then see me leave... every day... at 5pm, cause my client
changes took 2 hours while theirs will take the whole night.
I know you said you mostly do animation and gaming. Houdini is not
famous for animation, but to be honest with you, this is probably
because most people who use houdini overlook the awesomeness of chops.
Just look at this for a quick intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiaNyYnzEQM
G
On 24/11/2015 02:14, Matt Lind wrote:
This really depends on how you fit into the game development
side of the equation.
I've worked on games in most genres and formats. In my
experience, game assets are typically very iteration heavy
because they must remain live at all times (compare to
Film/video assets which are mostly locked down once images
have been rendered because you can't continually re-render the
entire film). It takes people time to make those revisions,
which is the most valuable resource and also the most mismanaged.
I steer towards iteration friendly workflows as iteration
tends to be the #1 time/money loss in game development art
pipelines.
It's almost a guarantee any game asset will be revised, and
revised many times - especially if the engine and other
underlying components of the game are not settled. Iteration
is often overlooked as a factor when evaluating software and
making schedules. Too often people focus on trivial details
such as number of mouse clicks or creating asset version 1,
when instead they should be focused on the 500+ revisions that
come later. If iteration is heavy in your pipeline, consider
Houdini. What you give up in playback speed or other things
you take for granted, you can earn back on the reduced
iteration factor.
Don't worry too much about who has plugins for getting stuff
into an engine as all the major players have that capability.
And even so, many studios opt to write their own exporters
because they need support for features not included in the
plugins. Instead, focus on reliability over the life of the
product, not just the current version being demo'd by the
sales guy. Remember, you'll have to update your DCC at some
point. If it must rely on multiple service packs every
release to get right (or merely usable), what message does
that send? Think about how that affects production during
crunch time. Also think about the opposite - do you have the
option of riding a particular version without being forced to
update? It would really suck to be forced to update into a
regression of an important feature.
Matt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:31:20 +0100
From: Daniel Kim <danielki...@gmail.com
<mailto:danielki...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Have a question an alternative tool
To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com>"
Hey guys.
I just like to ask if you guys found 3D software as
alternative tool.
I am also looking for a software, but it is hard to decide
one. What I am
doing is mostly animation and game works, not motion graphic
or simulation
stuff.
So far MODO seems nice, but many colleagues suggest me
Cinema4D. I also
like to know what you guys chose. If you guys also can put
short comment
what is good about that software, that will be thankful.
Cheers
Daniel
.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4460/11053 - Release Date: 11/23/15
