PDA

View Full Version : Maya Head Hurts!



Digital Hermit
03-09-2007, 11:57 PM
I am taking a college animation course and I have to say... GOD I LOVE LIGHTWAVE! :D

I am not denying Maya's reason for existence. I know it is a powerful app.

"But man alive!" it is as if you are do everything from the atomic level up. Some tasks in Maya take three or four steps to Lightwaves one.
All I could think of is, that I needed a pre-flight check list to get the thing properly started and I still have not got to a decent render...yet. Lightwave is instant gratification esp. when it comes to rendering.

I know that one has to be multi-3D-platformed in this business and it is unavoidable. Also, I know there are some heavy benefits in learning Maya.

A student friend of mine, who is also taking the course, has also worked with Lightwave.

I laughed at his comparison.

How do you make “bread” in Lightwave? You get some flower, yeast, water, etc.

How do you make “bread” in Maya? First you have to get some wheat, then you grind it.... then comes the proper growing of the yeast culture... etc.

So, thanx, Lightwave. I still luv ya!

DH

DiedonD
03-10-2007, 02:20 AM
Nice comparisson hermit. Im glad it was only because oh her lousy name "Maya" that I got into LW instead. Who knows what heart attack I would get in learning all that. And they say that Maya can't be self taught like LW, you just gotta have a course for it.

But why is it so well known for hobysts and proffesionals alike?

I understand that since its profeessional, it has to be difficult, so as It may appear like its a "forbiden unreachable gold" for hobysts. But then, you have hobysts getting into it too!

Its all in the advs. All you hear is MaxnMaya. Come to think of it it looks like its a good pair. Max is this black guy with glasses, bold hair, and Maya is this old Maya culture woman, with red hair of course. I so blooody hate them! And even XSI sounds cool up to the point you see that its done by a "softy".

Anyhow enough of that. What I want to say is that you have a course even in here in my country, about Maya. I was stunned to hear it. I mean piracy runs here so its not a problem of getting one. But there you go, you have a Maya course, and you DONT have an LW course.

So why has Newtek decided to take the downfall by not promoting itself? Why? Must it fall until its too late?

It wont fall for me, but Ive already bought it. Nobody has ever heard of LW, now you can ask any teenager and they just might now the above pair, who I dont want even to mention anymore.

And by the way nice signature Hermit, I havent noticed its meaning up till now.

meshpig
03-10-2007, 03:06 AM
DH

With you there man!

M

meshpig
03-10-2007, 03:13 AM
NK

True, but Maya doesn't grab you like LW does at the outset.

Some aspects of modo s**t all over LW but I still don't call it home.

M

jin choung
03-10-2007, 03:26 AM
DH,

i'm not exactly sure where you are in learning maya but that is certainly NOT the case in regards to every area of comparison.

i would say that the primary advantage of lw is still that it is completely accessible from balls to bones by a single person. basically, what that means is that it's not that complex.

and i would agree that polygonal modeling is much faster and more accessible than in maya. it's also true that lw has far more tools out of the box (we have an entire application devoted to modeling whereas maya has a few tabs).

but boning, skinning, rigging and basically anything and everything having to do with ANIMATION IN GENERAL and character animation in particular, maya beats lw down so much that it is almost the exact inverse of your comparison. MUUUUUUUUUCH LESS TEDIOUS.

and from a software design standpoint, maya is very ELEGANT. it is consistent throughout and there is an actual and evident DESIGN. admittedly, lw is SLAPPED TOGETHER and is kind of a frankenstein's monster of kit bashed parts without a unifying design. i don't say that without affection of course but this is a fact.

just the idea that maya is essentially MEL, that just like DOS 3.0, everything is just text commands and the UI rides on top as a shorthand to those text commands just like windows 1.0.... brilliant.

anyhoo, i use both constantly and frequently going back and forth and most people and studios do as well. not many studios left that use a single app anymore for anything.

so i suggest you learn it and learn it well. you're gonna need it.

jin

DiedonD
03-10-2007, 04:05 AM
... so i suggest you learn it and learn it well. you're gonna need it.

jin

Its that good in CA huh? I keep hearing that. Is there a different app that has better CA than LW, appart from the two. For instance is it Gumble Lock free? And appart from XSI and Rhino. Their names are just not right for me. When I do a movie and I say I did it with Maya, I dont want people in here to go like " HUUUUH! Who is she! And I thought you did it on your own, whos this Maya girl that you say helped you now?". And when you say LightWave its a completely different matter.

How about Shocwave? Is that a 3D app with a good enough CA tools? Thanks.

jin choung
03-10-2007, 04:16 AM
shockwave? errrr... that's an authoring app so i would imagine it's character animation sucks... as in - doesn't exist.

ummmm... i would say of all the "big apps" (xsi, max, maya and lw [houdini doesn't really count yet]), EVERY APP is better than lw's CA.

they will address it in the future. but the way lw's CA tools are set up, it just feels like it was never addressed by anyone who actually cared about it.

heck, even the COMPLETELY FREE blender has many excellent workflows for CA. especially when it comes to enveloping, they implemented "old style" "hot dog" shaped force fields in a VERY intelligent way. you can set them up easily as in lw with a GUI that shows you which verts are getting assigned to what bone and then, you can BAKE IT INTO A VERTEX MAP. since so many things (including interoperability) relies on baking down to lowest common denominator, that is just so far thinking and smart.

anyhoo, really excellent CA work can be done in lw. that's not in doubt. but it's relatively painful as f.

jin

Nemoid
03-10-2007, 06:33 AM
when comparing softwares a good attitude is also understand what their targeted at.
i mean :

Maya is a software well suited for large pipelines, huge groups of people working together where everyone is indeed a specialist. this is an advantage when you have a large studio, with TDs, modelers, animators, riggers, lighters, and more. and, its particularly good for movie or great 3D toons, like Pixar and other studios do(even if they adopt proprietary tools as well)

Lw aimed at the TV market since the start. there, you have lower budget, and no time . so you have to be able to model rapidly, to texture well and rapidly, and to have a good rendering, and possibly to build up a small renderfarm for no huge amounts of money, especially if you're into a local TV. you pay this approach with less flexibility and tools mostly suited for starships, sfx, simple toons, and more, but with not the same level of refinement and control you can reach with Maya (after along work, indeed)
so that's why Lw goes more towards the single artist or small team of generalists, compared to maya.

BTW, time passed. things evolved. TV market become more and more complex, with more need for sfx in time. also, Lw grew up, being used for some movies too.
and, vice versa, Maya continued to exist and evolved as well, becoming disposable to more users, who could become also more generalists in Maya (way more difficult with a software like that, but surely possible)

so the mark line between TV/movieproduction/toon production is thinnner now.

this is why Lw has to evolve even more, and jump in the CA /complex animation market more and more .

sure, there are uge markets out there, beyond Movies etc :

there's archiviz which is huge, there's illustration with stills, there's matte painting wth 3d object included, and there's game market which is also very huge as a market.

but, 3d is mainly an animation art. so the better a 3d software is good in rigging/animation part, the better it is, currently.

so.. we now have a quite good modelling toolset. could be enhanced of corse yes, buts not that you can't do fantastic works with Lw.
we have a fantastic render engine.
we have a god nodal and layered shading/texturing system.

so next, IMO is to work in CA and dynamics.

but, Nt is doing a great work, right now so i'm optimistic for future rerleases
I trust they will do it and do it well. :jam:

Digital Hermit
03-10-2007, 08:37 PM
I have said this in another post, “When I come to the LW forum I look for progress in the areas of CA, VFX (namely dynamics, particles and easy/convincing ways to burn/destroy things - heh), Fur/Hair and Cloth.” As for rendering, layered nodal/shading texturing, and static modeling… LW is tops with me!

Nemoid, I agree with you. In fact, I ran into a gent who does animation work for NASA here in Houston. He said about the same thing, that you find professionals specializing in an certain areas of Maya, and that its perfectly understood that one does so, i.e. modeling, rigging, lighting, animation, etc. I do also think that the TV and Movie CG/VFX requirements are becoming more blurred. One does see that each platform has to adjust to meet the needs of both industries.

Jin and neverko, I have to admit that was kind of a blanket statement from me... you are correct when it comes to ease of some Maya solutions (as in CA, dynamics, texture paint, etc.) are, sadly, a godsend compared to LW.

However, as meshpig said, LW “grabs” ya from the start. (At least it did for me, from an artist standpoint.) Although, when getting into 3DCG (IMHO) one has to be competent in both areas of art and/or programming.

diedond, thank you for your comments. I do agree that LW may have rested on its “laurels” somewhat. I do see however, with the latest versions they are “seeing the writing on the wall” and are really kickin’ butt by showing they are serious about it! Not only is LW catching up, but is also surpassing some 3D solutions that are currently out there. I think we will hear the name of Lightwave (again in our 3D circles) more often in the near future. ;)

Regards,

jin choung
03-10-2007, 11:10 PM
lw does grab you. that's why all of us are here.

be it features, price, community, philosophy or ease of understanding (if not "using" in all disciplines)and the possibility of mastering, we are here cuz we love it and wish for its healthy and continued growth.

we've already seen a lot of growth in modeling with edges and catmull clark (though that needs further refinement) and rendering and evidently, a radical revision of the infrastructure. hopefully, that will lend itself to speedy implementation of further revisions.

so don't get us wrong. like parents, we criticize mercilessly because we love.

:)

jin

Largemedium
03-11-2007, 01:47 AM
Its that good in CA huh? I keep hearing that. Is there a different app that has better CA than LW, appart from the two. For instance is it Gumble Lock free? And appart from XSI and Rhino. Their names are just not right for me. When I do a movie and I say I did it with Maya, I dont want people in here to go like " HUUUUH! Who is she! And I thought you did it on your own, whos this Maya girl that you say helped you now?". And when you say LightWave its a completely different matter.

How about Shocwave? Is that a 3D app with a good enough CA tools? Thanks.

Uh... Maya 3d is not named after a girl or meant to represent any kind of gender. Ever hear of the "Mayan" civilization? I believe it's named after the ancient city of Maya? I might be wrong... but it's better than thinking it's named after a girl (not that there is anything wrong with that). Now it sounds cool eh? Check out the Maya logo and it sort of has the Mayan style. If you aren't buying this discription, then according to wikipedia, Maya was the the original code name for the application and is Sanscrit for "illusion". I like that description too! Oh, and by the way... why should the name of any software be an issue? I would think you would be more interested in how it performs as a tool... not as a status symbol.

Digital Hermit
03-11-2007, 02:04 PM
Uh... Maya 3d is not named after a girl or meant to represent any kind of gender. Ever hear of the "Mayan" civilization? I believe it's named after the ancient city of Maya? I might be wrong... but it's better than thinking it's named after a girl (not that there is anything wrong with that). Now it sounds cool eh? Check out the Maya logo and it sort of has the Mayan style. If you aren't buying this discription, then according to wikipedia, Maya was the the original code name for the application and is Sanscrit for "illusion". I like that description too! Oh, and by the way... why should the name of any software be an issue? I would think you would be more interested in how it performs as a tool... not as a status symbol.


I think diadond was joking a bit. I think that (he or she? - sorry diadond - heh) meant that Maya is somewhat unheard of in Kosovo compared to Lightwave. Therefore, when you say “I did this with Maya…”, some there may think you are talking about a female. (Explaining a joke; sigh -you always lose the funny) But, my explanation could be wrong. (and usually is. :p )


Hvala lepo "or" falemenderit, diadond. Your English is better than my Serbian or Albanain. ;)

toby
03-11-2007, 04:09 PM
I definitely agree with DH on this one, but with a full understanding of Maya's power. Most people I know who know Maya says what Jin says, and these are people I trust, but I've been trying to learn it in my spare time for a while now and there's still nothing that's intuitive much less enjoyable about it. There's so much sh*t you have to remember to do for every step that you're actually thinking about the interface 10 times more than the 3D you're trying to make.

Perfect example:
Try to move or rotate a light while you're looking through it. You can't see any handles so no luck there, drag in the viewport and your light just gets de-selected. So I go to the channel box to adjust the values, select one of the channels and middle-mouse drag; this interactively adjusts the values when you drag - usually - but not this time. Why the h*ll not? Oh, now I notice my Cone Angle value is gone... and in it's place there's CAMERA properties - wtf?? Oh yea, Maya is too powerful to see anything unless there's a camera pointed at it. So my Light has become half-CAMERA since I'm looking through it. Press spacebar to switch from single view to quad, so I can both see through the light and rotate it at the same time (I know, pretty hardcore eh?), and now *none* of the viewports are looking through the light. I have to re-set one to 'look through selected'.

So the answer is to *remember* that 1. lights turn into 'half-cameras' when you look through them, 2. the channel box becomes useless for rotating interactively, 3. to use Camera controls to rotate, 4. keep the Attribute editor open if you think you might want to change any light-specific values... in which case you need to remember if you want to edit the "spotLight1", "spotLighthape1" or "defaultLightSet", because every object in the scene is *at least* 2 objects in the interface.

Imagine, you have a light on a characters' face and the angle is a little bit off, you want the light to fall off across the face to bring out it's shape - well, stop thinking about that and remember everything in that paragraph above. And there's still no reason I can think of for the channel box to lose it's interactivity - except that Maya has a sh***y interface.

Now I want to move an object around on the ground plane, so I cntrl-click on the Y handle to exclude it, so I can middle-mouse drag to move on the X & Z. Dandy. Now I want to scale it down on the X&Z to make it skinny, so I choose the scale tool, cntrl-click the Y handle, middle-mouse drag... why the F*** is the Y scaling and not X or Z?? Cntrl-click has excluded what I didn't click on, this time. Why?? Oh yea, sh***y interface.

Just in terms of being intuitive, this is CRAP. It may as well behave differently on different days of the week - then someone will tell you "all you have to do is remember today is Tuesday, that's easy, isn't it"? You have to deal with this sh*t all day long in Maya. I may appreciate other things in Maya, I know dynamics are ten times better, I hate LW particles, and I may get used to this "workflow" (work-battle is more like it), but I will always despise and deride it.

Nicolas Jordan
03-11-2007, 04:15 PM
"But man alive!" it is as if you are do everything from the atomic level up. Some tasks in Maya take three or four steps to Lightwaves one.


DH

Amen Brother! Yep I know all to well what you are talking about. I took a 1 year course to learn Maya and for most of it all I could do was think how much more easily and faster some things could be done in Lightwave. I really liked Mayas layer system compared to Lightwave so where you lose in one area you gain in others I guess. Towards the end of the course I came to appreciate Lightwave and Maya for thier differences and unique strengths.

Dodgy
03-12-2007, 04:16 AM
Just in terms of being intuitive, this is CRAP. It may as well behave differently on different days of the week - then someone will tell you "all you have to do is remember today is Tuesday, that's easy, isn't it"? You have to deal with this sh*t all day long in Maya. I may appreciate other things in Maya, I know dynamics are ten times better, I hate LW particles, and I may get used to this "workflow" (work-battle is more like it), but I will always despise and deride it.

I agree, while maya have more raw power, so many things are badly set out or thought through, you'd never guess it was a complete rewrite from scratch, and these problems were in from day one.

jin choung
03-12-2007, 04:37 AM
hey toby,

the middle-mouse drag for interactively adjusting the camera view rotation DOES work... you just can't do it in the window representing your camera view. if you have a quad view up, you can MM drag in any other window and it'll work.

also, the ALT-clickdrag that you use to adjust the camera angle of any view does indeed still work on the "lightcamera". this is consistent too... if you try to just CLICKDRAG (instead of alt-clickdrag) in any window, you don't rotate or anything... you DO deselect or start drawing a selection box.

the thing of it is, if you expect it to behave a certain way or like lightwave, the interface WILL disappoint. it is different. and i completely agree that some interfaces are superior or inferior to others. but in this case, it is not clear to me that we're talking about better or worse instead of just different.

i do agree with you that the light becoming a "half camera" is kinda annoying... but it is at least consistent and explicit whereas in lw, such things are hidden from you.

in maya, even the orthographic views are actual camera objects. so it makes sense that EVERY ITEM that you would end up looking through would "become" a camera.

toby
03-18-2007, 06:03 PM
Thanks for trying to explain Jin, I don't expect it to behave like LW, but I do expect it to behave in a certain way, and that is *somewhat* predictable - so I am definitely talking about a *worse* interface rather than different - imho (since LW is known for a good, intuitive interface, this shouldn't be surprising). The idea that all translate tools will just stop working because of a change in the viewport, (after following a tutorial, single view seemed the way to go, especially since there seems to be no way to stop the other cameras from rendering accidently.) or that selecting a node in the hypershade will de-select any objects you had selected in the scene, is not what I call predictable or intuitive. From every indication, Alias cares f***-all about anyone who hasn't memorized their interface, which doesn't seem to have ever been integrated together.

As I mentioned before, I'm sure there's some reason that my friends say it's great to work with (but many of them are talking about studio-modified versions, with improved workflows), so I can't make final judgements with what little experience I have, but I can tell from knowing myself, no matter how great everything else is, I'll never *like* the interface, and probably continue to bad-mouth it.

Come to think of it, the things I do like about it would probably have been enough for me to drop LW by now, if the interface didn't suck so bad!

Stooch
03-18-2007, 08:32 PM
here we go with another pointless thread comparing apples to oranges. maya might be harder to accomplish certain things in due to its complexity, but for the same reason it also makes other things far easier to do then LW due to flexibility and a rich toolset. Just because your stomach cant handle rich bread, doesnt make the bread itself bad. Its just right in certain recipes, as long as the tool serves its purpose at the end of the day without wading through too many hoops and workarounds. There are many times where i had the very same notion about maya where i sat back and thought, wow maya made this so easy! i wouldnt even want to attempt something like that in LW. so its a two way street...

toby
03-18-2007, 09:08 PM
so its a two way street...
Yea we've all said that. My point is that it's not proportional, and not neccessary. All but one or two of the things I mentioned don't add to Maya's usefullness at all.

t4d
03-19-2007, 02:07 AM
it depend on what you working toward

YES simple things are easy But how many 3D jobs are simple ?

the more complex the job, the more control and more detail you want your hand in.

Maya may be more then what you want or need
But sooner or later you'll need that control and be stuck with what you have.

Use the right tool for the jobs you are given.
if your only have simple jobs. uses the simplest tool for that job.

jin choung
03-19-2007, 02:28 AM
yah yah... no problems here. everyone's certainly entitled to their opinion so no problems.

jin

js33
03-19-2007, 11:05 PM
Toby,

I hear ya about Maya. That is the way I felt when I tried to learn it. It really has a very awkward way of working. After 10 years of using LW I felt like a complete noob when I was using Maya. It was frustrating as hell compared to LW and I don't use it anymore. If we could just take Maya's CA tools, dynamics, cloth and paint effects and put them in Lightwave along with the new FPrime 3 and some of Modo's abilities then LW would be really kickass.


I definitely agree with DH on this one, but with a full understanding of Maya's power. Most people I know who know Maya says what Jin says, and these are people I trust, but I've been trying to learn it in my spare time for a while now and there's still nothing that's intuitive much less enjoyable about it. There's so much sh*t you have to remember to do for every step that you're actually thinking about the interface 10 times more than the 3D you're trying to make.

Perfect example:
Try to move or rotate a light while you're looking through it. You can't see any handles so no luck there, drag in the viewport and your light just gets de-selected. So I go to the channel box to adjust the values, select one of the channels and middle-mouse drag; this interactively adjusts the values when you drag - usually - but not this time. Why the h*ll not? Oh, now I notice my Cone Angle value is gone... and in it's place there's CAMERA properties - wtf?? Oh yea, Maya is too powerful to see anything unless there's a camera pointed at it. So my Light has become half-CAMERA since I'm looking through it. Press spacebar to switch from single view to quad, so I can both see through the light and rotate it at the same time (I know, pretty hardcore eh?), and now *none* of the viewports are looking through the light. I have to re-set one to 'look through selected'.

So the answer is to *remember* that 1. lights turn into 'half-cameras' when you look through them, 2. the channel box becomes useless for rotating interactively, 3. to use Camera controls to rotate, 4. keep the Attribute editor open if you think you might want to change any light-specific values... in which case you need to remember if you want to edit the "spotLight1", "spotLighthape1" or "defaultLightSet", because every object in the scene is *at least* 2 objects in the interface.

Imagine, you have a light on a characters' face and the angle is a little bit off, you want the light to fall off across the face to bring out it's shape - well, stop thinking about that and remember everything in that paragraph above. And there's still no reason I can think of for the channel box to lose it's interactivity - except that Maya has a sh***y interface.

Now I want to move an object around on the ground plane, so I cntrl-click on the Y handle to exclude it, so I can middle-mouse drag to move on the X & Z. Dandy. Now I want to scale it down on the X&Z to make it skinny, so I choose the scale tool, cntrl-click the Y handle, middle-mouse drag... why the F*** is the Y scaling and not X or Z?? Cntrl-click has excluded what I didn't click on, this time. Why?? Oh yea, sh***y interface.

Just in terms of being intuitive, this is CRAP. It may as well behave differently on different days of the week - then someone will tell you "all you have to do is remember today is Tuesday, that's easy, isn't it"? You have to deal with this sh*t all day long in Maya. I may appreciate other things in Maya, I know dynamics are ten times better, I hate LW particles, and I may get used to this "workflow" (work-battle is more like it), but I will always despise and deride it.

Stooch
03-20-2007, 01:46 AM
Perfect example:
Try to move or rotate a light while you're looking through it. You can't see any handles so no luck there, drag in the viewport and your light just gets de-selected. So I go to the channel box to adjust the values, select one of the channels and middle-mouse drag; this interactively adjusts the values when you drag - usually - but not this time. Why the h*ll not? Oh, now I notice my Cone Angle value is gone... and in it's place there's CAMERA properties - wtf?? Oh yea, Maya is too powerful to see anything unless there's a camera pointed at it. So my Light has become half-CAMERA since I'm looking through it. Press spacebar to switch from single view to quad, so I can both see through the light and rotate it at the same time (I know, pretty hardcore eh?), and now *none* of the viewports are looking through the light. I have to re-set one to 'look through selected'.

So the answer is to *remember* that 1. lights turn into 'half-cameras' when you look through them, 2. the channel box becomes useless for rotating interactively, 3. to use Camera controls to rotate, 4. keep the Attribute editor open if you think you might want to change any light-specific values... in which case you need to remember if you want to edit the "spotLight1", "spotLighthape1" or "defaultLightSet", because every object in the scene is *at least* 2 objects in the interface.

Imagine, you have a light on a characters' face and the angle is a little bit off, you want the light to fall off across the face to bring out it's shape - well, stop thinking about that and remember everything in that paragraph above. And there's still no reason I can think of for the channel box to lose it's interactivity - except that Maya has a sh***y interface.

Now I want to move an object around on the ground plane, so I cntrl-click on the Y handle to exclude it, so I can middle-mouse drag to move on the X & Z. Dandy. Now I want to scale it down on the X&Z to make it skinny, so I choose the scale tool, cntrl-click the Y handle, middle-mouse drag... why the F*** is the Y scaling and not X or Z?? Cntrl-click has excluded what I didn't click on, this time. Why?? Oh yea, sh***y interface.

Just in terms of being intuitive, this is CRAP. It may as well behave differently on different days of the week - then someone will tell you "all you have to do is remember today is Tuesday, that's easy, isn't it"? You have to deal with this sh*t all day long in Maya. I may appreciate other things in Maya, I know dynamics are ten times better, I hate LW particles, and I may get used to this "workflow" (work-battle is more like it), but I will always despise and deride it.

the lights being controlled like cameras is one of my favorite features actually. its simple, to position a light, look through it and focus on your goal just like you do it through normal navigation..makes perfect sense... i Like to look through a camera/light and hit A or F to center on a selected element instantly. no need to drag handles at all!

But if you want a better way to aim then, just hit the letter T. It will generate a quick aim constraint based rig for any such item and allow you to target items without looking through it. you can also hold x,c or v to snap to grid, curves or vertices. That way you can aim things instantly.



Also you dont use the attribute editor interactively. Its usually for numerical input, but you can select multiple fields and any value you type in will get applied to all. if you want to use the mmb key, you click on the edit sphere on a particular axis constraint and the mmb will now constrain to that axis regardless of where you click. it works across all tools like this and is a huge time saver.

overall it seems like you are trying to use maya like its lightwave and getting upset when its not acting like you expect it to.. im sure a maya user will bring forth similar complaints about lightwave as well.

as far as the interface, you are correct, each item has a transform node. Maya is a series of inter-dependent nodes. So what you see is the actual transformation coordinate system and another "shape descriptor" attached to it. Thats what gives maya the tremendous power of history.

You also might want to check out www.highend3d.com for the crapload of scripts and helpers to help you do some of the things you mention. Like i said, give it a chance, actually complete a project from start to finish and you will find that it just clicks, just dont expect it to behave like LW because its not :)

toby
03-20-2007, 02:55 AM
just dont expect it to behave like LW because its not :)
Obviously I can't expect it to behave like anything I've ever seen before, software or otherwise. I'd never expect objects to change or tools to disappear when I change the viewport display.

G3D
03-20-2007, 02:02 PM
Decided to take a ZBrush project into Maya to get the micropoly displacements.
At higher res, i.e. 2k and up there is noticeably better detail in Maya than in Lightwave, so I moved the project over to Maya. Got great results, reallly happy , its going on my reel, etc. But ... I'm doing it at dvd res, so the extra detail I would get at 2k is moot.
Mental Ray renders a bit faster than LW, but the setup time in LW is much, much shorter. And network rendering is much easier in LW. Now that I'm almost done, I'm glad I revisited Maya having not used it in a a while, but I could done the same job much faster with LW.

Maya = $7,500.00 government hammer.
Lightwave = $800.00 hammer off the shelf at the hardware store.

G3D
03-20-2007, 02:03 PM
Sorry about the double post.

adamredwoods
03-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Haha I love Maya bashing, but honestly, it's a workhorse.

As a producer in a vfx house, I was open to any software platform. In most studios you have many apps. In ours we had Maya and Cinema 4D. Maya was great in a large workflow environment, but when it came to simple, quick tasks, Cinema 4D excelled.

In the right hands (four- handed folks), Maya is great.
But for the one-man bands, Lightwave and Cinema4D rock.

And, honestly, Blender will eventually take over everything, so just give up now and get used to that interface! :p (joke)

G3D
03-20-2007, 02:44 PM
And, honestly, Blender will eventually take over everything, so just give up now and get used to that interface! :p (joke)

I know you were joking, but seriously, I've heard Blender mentioned more times in the past month than ever before. I'll probably check it out.