All things 3D.

A place to discuss non-Moho software for use in animation. Video editors, audio editors, 3D modelers, etc.

Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger

Post Reply
chucky
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:24 am

All things 3D.

Post by chucky »

Hello everybody.
Ok I thought I'd start a thread for all those who dabble in in full scale 3d apps, which I figure is many of you, AS having so much in common and includes the much under used .obj import. I believe HeyVern is rather the guru in Animation master a great little app by Martin Hash.

The Lost Marble forum is such a great place of discussion, and many of the other forums are 'virtual' ghost towns- ie the AREA although high end is quite lively.
This thread was actually suggested by Durand a talented animator who asked about Maya which I am still a relative noobie to, so I will start by answering his question.
So without further ado .... or is that undo? Let's find out. :wink:
chucky
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:24 am

Post by chucky »

Durand said:
Oh Maya, I,ve only toyed with the learning edition briefly a long while back, looked kind of slick but bulky. Chucky, Tell me a little of what you think of Maya , perhaps in comparison with 3d S Max? Where can I get this software?. Is it worth it?
Hi Durand, I bought an educational licence for Maya 2009 Ultimate which allows for self teaching- so no proof of course was necessary- I paid under $600.00 for the full kit, including subscription so that was freaking magic.
I am only just starting with Maya, so I'm hoping some experts might pop out of the woodwork here, I have run into some issues with subsurface scattering (back scattering in particular) already so hopefully someone might help me out on that one.

My initial reaction is that it is really great for modelling and a dream to animate, texturing is effective but clutzy.
It is undoubtedly a very powerful and somewhat daunting application, I can compare it to Animation Master (AM or Hash for short), Lightwave(LW) which I know a enough about the old and limited hobby prog called Raydream (RD) a little of CD4, Vue Poser, not much on XSI, Zbrush, mudbox, Bodypaint, and painter 3D, I have never really spent any great deal of time with Max so I really can't comment on that.

To be honest I would have preferred CD4 for it's slick interface and friendly demeanour towards small studios and one man outfits, but over here in OZ very few use it so I've gone for the industry standard Maya.



The first thing that struck me about Maya are it's cons, which are what us noobs always seem to find first, most obviously the crappy and overcomplicated interface and lack of manual.
Yes , I know the UI is completely customisable " apparently" but that doesn't change some rather strange approaches especially in the texture department and the fact that it is as ugly as sin, which is often a clue to software being angled more toward programmers than artists.

The hypershade editor put me off Maya for years after having really good experiences with RD and LW, these apps where and are like playgrounds for texture building in that they are so easy to use, admittedly RD is very limited and left the scene long before subsurface scattering and had no fresnel- AM is very good but such a slow render I just had to move on.
The thing with hypershade that allows for such flexibility is the ability to plug textures and materials through over and around so many variables that the mind boggles. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to default to any really sensible first option and you have to plug things called shading groups and light maps into materials to get them to render. This can be pretty confounding and support for noobs on this is pretty thin on the ground so full education could be the only way to get through these issues painlessly.
Even the hardware renderer does not render some materials at all with default settings giving black or red surfaces instead of an approximation of the real surface, you have to play with obscure settings to get joy from that.

I will post an example here.
This model is my first attempt with Maya so apology for topology, it was very quick- maya is AWESOME for modelling- 5 thumbs up for that, much easier than AM.
We all know that Maya can give dazzling results , unfortunately my back scattering isn't working here so the skin is a bit plastic and lacks that jelly like glow in the cartilage which gives the realism which I want to achieve.here is Maya interface and render.
Here is the UI and an actual render.
Image...Image

Image......Image
Here is the interface render as displayed in my ancient copy of painter 3D, which is actually much better realtime render than maya even at highest settings and I can paint directly on the model and notice I even managed to fake the subsurface scattering (translucency - ears) by using a glow map.
If you can get a copy of that, it works great on vista- not xp , if you as I can't afford z-brush or bodypaint ATM.
Anyway I am still a full stick noob so apologies for the quality, I'll post some actual animation with a new model in the near future.
Conclusion even with the annoyances that are plaguing me, Maya is definitely WORTH IT.
User avatar
Durand
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Maya

Post by Durand »

Thanks chucky. I'll keep watching this thread/forum page. I think my general opinion of 3D is that if I can't afford, or don't have the technical skill to do it properly, it could be a waste of time. The difference between bad 3D, when things have that stupid glowing from within look, and high end good looking things, that Weta produce. I'm sort of afraid that what ever I tried to do, with my limited means, would end up looking naff. Am I justified in this attitude ?
chucky
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:24 am

Post by chucky »

You could always do a toon render Durand.
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 6257
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger »

Well, I think the trick is not to get fooled into believing that "photorealistic" is the only thing to be done in 3D. This is similar to get away from the "cel painting" style paradigm in 2D animation. Luckily I was brought up with a healthy diet of experimental and underground animation, so I always knew there were many more styles available to the artist.

3D in general still has to overcome this point where those in charge can only think of one style. I have seen nice examples of underground/punk/experimental 3D animation, and some styles already have leaked over into mainstream: "South Park" and the like, means everything 2D done in 3D; rendering wireframes only, like in many music videos; no soft tweening, like in MTV intersticials; and so on.
Post Reply