PDA

View Full Version : Maya #1 on Mac



Johnny
06-27-2003, 12:22 PM
according to this article:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/27/maya/


Not bad, considering the Mac is a dead platform.







(Please note: tongue in cheek, here..)

js33
06-27-2003, 03:54 PM
But how come Maya Unlimited isn't available for the Mac?

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
06-27-2003, 05:50 PM
Alias has been crowing that 25% of all Maya users are on OS X. Actually, it was exactly this time last year when they quoted the same figure... 25% Mac.

Newtek doesn't normally quote exact platform figures (maybe they should... it gains headlines). You'd expect it to be at least 25% Mac, considering Newtek had ported Lightwave to OS X long before Alias got into it. Otherwise a bit of promotion would be in order.

The Mac is going to gain in the 3D field. The previously perceived negatives about the Mac in 3D have been addressed...

*Slower machines... G5 has answered this.
*Graphics cards... Panther has answered this.

Other factors that will favor the Mac:
*Ease of porting from other UNIX operating systems.
*Shear dominance of the Mac in other creative fields (eg video and 2D graphics)... many of these people will move into 3D and choose Mac.

Newtek has a great product in Lightwave, however their Mac evangelism has fallen completely flat. A bit of enthusiasm in this area would go a long way.

Johnny
06-27-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
The Mac is going to gain in the 3D field. The previously perceived negatives about the Mac in 3D have been addressed...

*Graphics cards... Panther has answered this.

Now, just how has Panther answered the graphics card issues? by being 64-bit and enabling Macs to use higher-powered cards??

J

toby
06-27-2003, 06:42 PM
"Alias/Wavefront has reported that 25 percent of all commercial units of Maya are now sold for the Mac OS X platform in North America and 20 percent globally. The company says this shows that Maya is the leading 3D animation software package on the Mac."

uh.. how so when LW sales are 50% Mac? and have been selling to Mac for 5 years compared to Maya's 1 year?

see, every company indulges in pr bull.

Beamtracer
06-27-2003, 06:49 PM
It was when LW 7.0 was released that someone from Newtek said that for the first time Mac sales have overtaken Windows sales.

Nobody outside Newtek knows if this is still the case. It should be, and shows the potential of the Mac platform

re: Panther.. comes with drivers for pro cards.

fxgeek
06-29-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer


re: Panther.. comes with drivers for pro cards.

Is this true for definate? Which cards?

Karl Hansson
06-30-2003, 12:41 AM
I was just over at the maya homepage to se what features it had and what plugins was avialable. It seems that only about 1 out of 10 plugins support mac (I havent counted but its something like that). Plus these plugins are much more expencive than their LW counterparts. So I guess I'll stick with LW.

DoF
06-30-2003, 05:04 AM
There is no argument as to which app is better value out-of-the-box.
There is no argument as to which app has the better renderer - at the end of the day, this is the final product, and the only thing that matters.

However, it would be nice if Newtek would proactively support the Mac more enthusiastically, and maybe divert a few engineers to porting some plug-ins unavailable on the Mac platform..:(

fxgeek
06-30-2003, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by DoF
There is no argument as to which app is better value out-of-the-box.
There is no argument as to which app has the better renderer - at the end of the day, this is the final product, and the only thing that matters.
(


Sorry to disagree, but mental ray is just as good as LW's renderer and far more flexable, and Maya has many features that you need to add as plugins in Lightwave. The only thing LW has over Maya in the value stakes is a more flexible license arrangement

toby
06-30-2003, 06:24 AM
Did you read Karls post? We are talking about Maya on the Mac specifically, and it seems pretty pathetic.

fxgeek
06-30-2003, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by toby
Did you read Karls post? We are talking about Maya on the Mac specifically, and it seems pretty pathetic.

Have used it, and seen some pretty intensive high end stuff done on it and there's nothing wrong with it. It does have a strict set of system requirements though, but it runs fine for most people.

toby
06-30-2003, 02:51 PM
I'm sure it works good but is just missing a ton of stuff

Beamtracer
06-30-2003, 06:35 PM
When I said Maya's renderer is not very good, I meant it. Same with 3DS Max. Mediocre renderer. I think Maya got its claim to fame from being early to market with good character tools, but not rendering.

Lightwave's renderer is vastly superior to Maya's or Max's.

There are some decent renderers on the market. Lightwave, XSI, plus render-only applications like Renderman, Mental Ray, Brazil and others.

Now, Max and Maya (Discreet/Alias) must admit that their own renderers don't cut it. That's why they have to do deals or bundles with other third party render-only applications.

Look at those poor Max users. They can go out and get Brazil, Mental Ray or Renderman if they want decent renders. I'm sure some of them do. The trouble is, all the professional Max users I've known have only been using Max's inbuilt renderer. Then they comment on the nice "look" of the renders I get out of Lightwave.

lord
06-30-2003, 07:00 PM
I was under the impression that Maya ships with Mental Ray which is supposed to be one of the best renderers, albiet a little slow.
I was also of the understanding that the latest release of Maya included better integration with said renderer.

As I understand it, your not paying any more to have mental ray, neither is it a "limited time only" bundled third party deal, but actually AW's adiquate answer to the rendering issue.

Lord

toby
06-30-2003, 08:45 PM
Yea, it ships with Maya, even (In)Complete, at no extra cost.

It's displacement mapping subdivides polys for you, optimally, not evenly. Pretty sweet

DoF
07-01-2003, 05:20 AM
If we could stick to the original subject, ie Maya vs LW on the MAC:
I agree with Beamtracer. I was incredibly disappointed with the quality of Maya renders - [understatement] after all the hype from Jobs & co...
I stand by my earlier post:D

fxgeek
07-01-2003, 05:36 AM
Rendered in Maya with mental ray:

http://www.thomas-fitzgerald.net/quiesence.html

I don't see anytrhing so vastly inferior about the quality of this rendering, but I get the feeling that your mind is already made up.

And just to clear up any confusion, Mental Ray is now a standard part of Maya, and many would consider it the default renderer.

Chuck
07-01-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by fxgeek
Sorry to disagree, but mental ray is just as good as LW's renderer and far more flexable, and Maya has many features that you need to add as plugins in Lightwave. The only thing LW has over Maya in the value stakes is a more flexible license arrangement

Mental Ray does not include 999 render node licenses per seat, nor are the render nodes for cross-platform rendering available at no extra cost to the user (including Linux), so on that subject LightWave's Renderer certainly offers more flexibility to the end user. LightWave also has many features that are not standard in Maya Complete for the Mac. In terms of other features, which one offers more value may depend on the particular uses the artist intends, but that's debatable in the light of the fact that LW has proven itself in production situations where both quality and speed are required. The folks producing the VES television series VFX award-winner, Firefly, had to abandon a Maya pipeline in favor of a LightWave pipeline in order to get the work done to the quality and within the timeframe required. In terms of the licensing arrangements and the economy of the render nodes LightWave takes a clear lead as well.

LightWave on the Mac has proven itself also on the motion picture front - Luminetik produced the FX for "Two Weeks Notice" with Mac LW as the 3D application in the pipeline, and are at work on other theatrical productions with their Mac-based CGI pipeline. a number of other commercial and FX production houses use Mac pipelines with LW as well, and have done so for years.

I'm positive that we have overwhelmingly more Mac LW seats in place than does Maya, and I'm also extremely skeptical that they are selling more Mac LW seats per month than we are.

eblu
07-01-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Chuck
Mental Ray does not include 999 render node licenses per seat, nor are the render nodes for cross-platform rendering available at no extra cost to the user (including Linux), so on that subject LightWave's Renderer certainly offers more flexibility to the end user.

Chuck I agree with you for the most part, Lightwave is undoubtedly has more market penetration than Maya on the mac. Since mac Maya accounts for 25 % (or whatever) of Maya sales, it does not indicate that Mac Maya is selling more than anything except perhaps PC Maya, Linux Maya, or Unix Maya.

Here is where i have to take issue with ya chuck. "LightWave's Renderer certainly offers more flexibility to the end user. "
Its true for the most part, Lightwave is very liberal with their licenses, and LightWave has a better quality render. But the Network Rendering software that comes from Newtek is of extremely poor quality. Setup of Screamernet, for instance, is a dark mixture of science and alchemy, what works for some does not in fact work for others. The documentation is silent on this subject and suggests getting help from users who have bravely tackled Screamernet. Users which I might add, don't agree on the best approach to screamernet. Many say that once its setup, Screamernet works fine, and I challenge that opinion, screamernet is a house of cards, if anything changes, the os, the network, or the version of Lightwave, it falls apart. Image sequences, quicktime movies, threads, motion designer, hyper voxels, all of these things can hobble Screamernet, which means that It is severly limited in its usefullness. And one of my biggest personal pet peeves in order to quit screamernet, you have to force quit it, this is Not Appropriate behavior of an application.

Its true that Newtek issues a very fair and progressive license for screamernet. Lightwave has a very high quality renderer. The synergy of the two is crippled by a seriously flawed Network rendering system.

I've never used Maya's network rendering system. I'm not comparing Maya to lightwave. It galled me that this thread was started here, and i thought that if I ignored it, it would go away. But the misinformation/misinterpretation is piling higher. Chuck I think you do a great service to Newtek, and I think you are for the most part right. I dont want you to think that I harbor any ill will towards you, you simply gave me a platform from which to voice my opinion to other users. Newtek is intelligent about every detail in network rendering except the software.


peace,
eblu

Johnny
07-01-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by eblu
I'm not comparing Maya to lightwave. It galled me that this thread was started here, and i thought that if I ignored it, it would go away. But the misinformation/misinterpretation is piling higher.


OK..I have to take responsibility for originally posting on this. My intention was not to embarass NewTek or to make them look bad, inadequate, or less than a top-level software producer.

My point was - and I could have worded this more clearly - was about the Mac as a prominent platform in the 3D world, accounting for a large percentage of (Maya in this case) sales.

I'm sorry if I started something negative..

J

Ade
07-01-2003, 11:08 AM
We'll see when Lightwave 8 comes out with g4/5 optimisations...
It will make the competition rethink their ways and seem old!




Chuck make us hungry and tell us something good in lightwave 8 maya dreams of, make me salivate!

Chuck
07-01-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by eblu
Here is where i have to take issue with ya chuck. "LightWave's Renderer certainly offers more flexibility to the end user. "
Its true for the most part, Lightwave is very liberal with their licenses...

You're taking issue with something I didn't say. You quoted less than half the sentence, and the meaning is very much in the whole:

Mental Ray does not include 999 render node licenses per seat, nor are the render nodes for cross-platform rendering available at no extra cost to the user (including Linux), so on that subject LightWave's Renderer certainly offers more flexibility to the end user.

I've bolded the clause that very clearly indicates that I'm limiting my comment to the render node licensing issue. This was not a blanket statement of superiority, just identifying a point of greater flexibility and economy for LightWave.

As for your comments about SNet, there's most certainly food for thought, and we are looking carefully at how to improve the implementation of network rendering. I'm not sure why you would presume to tell folks who say Screamernet is working for them that it couldn't possibly be working - that isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of observed fact. Where we have work to do is in determining where things go wrong for folks who don't have success, and addressing that in terms of both documentation and development.

eblu
07-01-2003, 01:18 PM
Johnny,
to my mind, this thread does not belong in a Newtek forum, however, I bow to the wisdom of the admin. if they leave it in, and even participate, then so be it. I agree with you that the mac is quickly grabbing up marketshare in 3d, and I can easily see things that Maya can learn from Lightwave, as well as vice versa.

Looking forward for the mac hardware platform, its beginning to look better for 3d... better floating point support, better graphics, better/faster overall design, faster IO, cheaper/more standard design (hypertransport), and a clear path for increasing the platform's power, leading to better 3d boxes for the foreseeable future.
As for software, with renderman on its way, we are starting to see more options open up. Hopefully that is just the beginning. Who knows, perhaps instead of Ports, some companies will develop unique and mac-only 3d solutions.

tallscot
07-01-2003, 01:46 PM
Video cards have to have a Mac-specific firmware to run on the Mac. It's not a Panther/driver issue, it's the firmware on the card.

I have a driver for a GeForce 4 Ti in OS X right now, but I can't buy a PC GeForce 4 and have it work on my Mac because it has a PC firmware.

So ATI will need to release a Mac version of the FireGL X1, and Apple will have to create an nVidia Quadro-based card, since nVidia doesn't sell cards.

I think the issue with the Mac was it didn't have the bandwidth to use these pro cards, correct me if I'm wrong. Now we have the bandwidth, so there is no excuse other than there might not be enough Mac users who would buy an $800 3D card to make it worth their while.

I think everyone should go read about Maya 5. Maya Complete 5 for Mac has full parity with the other platforms. Mental Ray is included and integrated with Maya now - you just choose it as a renderer, along with Maya Software, Maya Hardware, and Vector.

It seems to me I read a lot of complaining about the Mac version of LW on this forum. I don't see complaints about AW's Mac support on Maya forums. I don't see AW releasing a bug fix then taking it back then releasing another one that still doesn't work, etc.

Use what you like, but we should all hold back our criticisms about products we don't use or know much about. An opinion on version 3.5 of a product is useless when discussing version 5.

policarpo
07-01-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
When I said Maya's renderer is not very good, I meant it. Same with 3DS Max. Mediocre renderer. I think Maya got its claim to fame from being early to market with good character tools, but not rendering.

Lightwave's renderer is vastly superior to Maya's or Max's.

There are some decent renderers on the market. Lightwave, XSI, plus render-only applications like Renderman, Mental Ray, Brazil and others.

Now, Max and Maya (Discreet/Alias) must admit that their own renderers don't cut it. That's why they have to do deals or bundles with other third party render-only applications.

Look at those poor Max users. They can go out and get Brazil, Mental Ray or Renderman if they want decent renders. I'm sure some of them do. The trouble is, all the professional Max users I've known have only been using Max's inbuilt renderer. Then they comment on the nice "look" of the renders I get out of Lightwave.

for what it's worth, having been a 3dsmax user, I can honestly say that the 3dsmax rendering engine is just fine for non GI work. I learned to exploit the renderer to give me superior results.

the big difference between the LW renderer and the 3dsmax/maya default rendering engines is ease of use. LW just looks good with a few expertly positioned lights.

Once you learn how to push 3dsmax and Maya for that matter, you can get stellar renderings out of those particular pieces of software.

The real limitation of 3dsmax and Maya in regards to their respective rendering engines is the user.

NT/LW really needs to push it's rendering technology to the next level, with focus on speed, quality, and advanced rendering features, since excellent "free" rendering engines are popping up all over the place. It's also high time that the take advantage of Altivec on OSX in LW...rendering raytrace transparency on a Mac is very laborious.

If the Altivec instruction set doesn't support raytrace rendering then I apologize...but if it does, LW for OSX should fully exploit it to the fullest.

:)

toby
07-01-2003, 04:08 PM
"Johnny,
to my mind, this thread does not belong in a Newtek forum"

You just gave us food for thought, Johnny, there's nothing wrong with discussing / comparing a competing product here, as long as we're not bad-mouthing either one, which I'm very glad to see that we haven't.

And just to clarify for some that didn't notice, when someone says Maya's renderer is inferior, they are talking about the default renderer, not Mental Ray.

But now I'm curious, Picarpo, what kind of "pushing" would you do the renderer to get better results? Adjustment to your lighting or render settings?

policarpo
07-01-2003, 04:23 PM
i was talking about the default Maya renderiing engine that was in version 4 and earlier...

And as far as pushing...i meant just knowing what the limits were/are and knowing how to exploit them. That basically means becoming very familiar with what the tool can and cannot do, and building from there.

eblu
07-02-2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Chuck
You're taking issue with something I didn't say. You quoted less than half the sentence, and the meaning is very much in the whole:

Mental Ray does not include 999 render node licenses per seat, nor are the render nodes for cross-platform rendering available at no extra cost to the user (including Linux), so on that subject LightWave's Renderer certainly offers more flexibility to the end user.

I've bolded the clause that very clearly indicates that I'm limiting my comment to the render node licensing issue. This was not a blanket statement of superiority, just identifying a point of greater flexibility and economy for LightWave.



Chuck,
theres a reason why I did quote the whole sentence at the beginning of my post. I certainly didnt want you taken out of context. And I understand that you were making a statement specific to Newtek's licensing poilicies, but You see, my point was that the usability (or lack thereof) of the software is undermining the value of said licensing, or even a superior renderer. So the greater value/economy is nice, but its only useful to few, and under constrained conditions.
I really want Netek to hear this because it happens very often in Lightwave. A nice, new and aggresive feature is added, only to be crippled by serious "gotchas". And the "gotchas" are never fixed.

claw
07-02-2003, 05:59 AM
policarpo, I thought Lightwave already had support for altivec in it's rendering engine.

policarpo
07-02-2003, 08:26 AM
If it does I apologize...I just recently switch back to the Mac platform under OSX, so i'm learning things all over again in a way.

:)

eblu
07-02-2003, 08:42 AM
altivec is supported in some portions of the rendering process, but there is some debate as to how much it is supported, and how effective such support really is. check out the old forum, bc there are several threads on the subject, and they shed some light on the situation.

claw
07-02-2003, 09:05 AM
In 7.0b Newtek made some major improvements to the render-engine. I remember Newtek showed us some benchmarks that was really astonishing. And yes, it was G4 optimized.

DoF
07-03-2003, 09:15 AM
Hey Chuck, good to see your input on this thread, but....

Ok, we all seem to agree that LW has the best renderer: Since this is the final product of all your [Newtek] and our hard work in LW, I wouldn't trade this quality for a free version of any software, but hey, Screamernet III is well overdue: it *is* a precarious House of Cards and needs to be completely rewritten from the floor up. It needs to be a plug & play app which is transparent to the user, with cross-platform nodes joining and leaving when CPUs become available or CPUs crash, respectively. If Infini-D could do this since version 4.5 n years ago, it should not be that much of a problem... Am I wrong?:confused:

tallscot
07-03-2003, 11:45 AM
Just hook up to Rendezvous, which would make it an OS X-only application on the Mac.