Question for the old-timers

seanr

I think it is safe to say that anyone who has been around on this forum for more then five or six years is fairly familiar with my work (though the last 3D project I ever completed is more than seven years ol, I still get an email a month about it at a minimum). Amazingly, the computer I built that stuff on all those years ago is less powerful than the phone I now carry around in my pocket. ;-),
As some of you may recall, I used to use Caligari trueSpace back in those days, but that company got bought out by Microsoft, and, like so many of their acquisitions, was promptly shut down (**** Paul Allen and BG). I have recently gotten interested in resurrecting that old hobby and am now in the market for a good replacement for my old stand-by.

The key requirements for me at this stage are that it be very well adapted to inorganic modeling (NURBS is a plus in some cases, but a lesser concern for me), it needs to have a very visual interface (I recall Lightwave being very shortcut driven back in the day), it needs to have good procedural textures and be fairly flexible with regards to lighting (remember, I spent nearly a decade faking radiosity), and most importantly, it needs to me cross-platform (I still use a PC at home, but now use a Mac at work). Of, and the cheaper the better - if there's a free learning edition like Maya used to (and may still) have, all the better.

I still get crazy reactions from people even here in NYC when I show them that old stuff, so maybe there's an opportunity for me to tackle it again (and reduce my expenses in this city at the same time). So, for those who have know me for the last 10+ years and have seen my style, I put this out there as an open question. I am not looking for a software war, but merely a set of well thought-out arguments based on your knowledge of my prior work which program would be the best investment of my time, energy, and money.

Winner gets a bridge set. :-P

evil_genius_180

Yeah, the Caligari/Microsoft deal and eventual killing of trueSpace was a huge blow to me too, man. I'm still trying to find a replacement. I've tried loads of freeware and open source programs, nothing is really that close to how things work in trueSpace. (though, what program is?) Personally, I'm going to try Lightwave next, so I voted for that. Have you considered trying some free trials and freeware to see if anything grabs your interest? All 3 programs you listed have 30-day trials. Also, all 3 have both Windows and Mac versions available. (Max and Maya supposedly work with Linux too, but it's hard to say)

Chris2005

seanr wrote: »

I think it is safe to say that anyone who has been around on this forum for more then five or six years is fairly familiar with my work (though the last 3D project I ever completed is more than seven years ol, I still get an email a month about it at a minimum). Amazingly, the computer I built that stuff on all those years ago is less powerful than the phone I now carry around in my pocket. ;-)

As some of you may recall, I used to use Caligari trueSpace back in those days, but that company got bought out by Microsoft, and, like so many of their acquisitions, was promptly shut down (**** Paul Allen and BG). I have recently gotten interested in resurrecting that old hobby and am now in the market for a good replacement for my old stand-by.

The key requirements for me at this stage are that it be very well adapted to inorganic modeling (NURBS is a plus in some cases, but a lesser concern for me), it needs to have a very visual interface (I recall Lightwave being very shortcut driven back in the day), it needs to have good procedural textures and be fairly flexible with regards to lighting (remember, I spent nearly a decade faking radiosity), and most importantly, it needs to me cross-platform (I still use a PC at home, but now use a Mac at work). Of, and the cheaper the better - if there's a free learning edition like Maya used to (and may still) have, all the better.

I still get crazy reactions from people even here in NYC when I show them that old stuff, so maybe there's an opportunity for me to tackle it again (and reduce my expenses in this city at the same time). So, for those who have know me for the last 10+ years and have seen my style, I put this out there as an open question. I am not looking for a software war, but merely a set of well thought-out arguments based on your knowledge of my prior work which program would be the best investment of my time, energy, and money.

Winner gets a bridge set. :-P

When I started 3D stuff, back in 2004-2005, I was a freshman in high school, long before I had a YouTube account, not even sure if YT existed in 2004-2005, and was a member here, I used TrueSpace for a while, but it wasn't good for me, didn't care much for the UI... so I think the first version of Max I used was 3dsmax 7 or 8...

Not sure why your post is appearing as 2 quotes... I've edited my post twice to remove the second code for quoting, but it comes back when I hit save.

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Yeah, the Caligari/Microsoft deal and eventual killing of trueSpace was a huge blow to me too, man. I'm still trying to find a replacement. I've tried loads of freeware and open source programs, nothing is really that close to how things work in trueSpace. (though, what program is?) Personally, I'm going to try Lightwave next, so I voted for that. Have you considered trying some free trials and freeware to see if anything grabs your interest? All 3 programs you listed have 30-day trials. Also, all 3 have both Windows and Mac versions available. (Max and Maya supposedly work with Linux too, but it's hard to say)

Last I knew, Max was a Windows only application, at least running it natively... not via virtualization...

MadKoiFish

Well cross platform I think leaves you with lightwave. I do not remember if maya or max have mac versions that are not bootcamp etc.
Based on truespace and my experience of going from a early EARLY version of that max was the easiest of the other apps for me to pick up. Maya of what I seen is too everything in the wind as a UI. Max you just gotta learn where it all is. Lightwave you gotta love hotkeys. But again all of this is my narrow opinion lol. I still love lightwave renders they have something max doesn't.

HOWEVER instead of a pay for package how about give blender a go? I have seen some really good things from it and cannot hurt to give it a go. I personally cannot get past the gesture stuff, and last time there was no way to disable it but many use it to build fantastic models and produce some great films.

evil_genius_180

Chris2005 wrote: »

Last I knew, Max was a Windows only application, at least running it natively... not via virtualization...

Hm, I must have been thinking of something else (it happens.)

IRML

an industry heavyweight like maya would surely be mac compatible

sean if you want to try out lightwave you can download the full program from the newtek website and run it in a trial mode

I've used both max and lightwave and for me max just doesn't make any sense, lightwave isn't really shortcut driven, people just use them to speed up their work, for me lightwave has the best interface as it's text based instead of random icons that someone thought looked good

also lightwave's nodal surfacing is better than anything max has to offer

I don't know how truespace is set up but I imagine for most users coming from a different app that the difficulty with using lightwave will be the separation of the modeler and renderer

(also don't count out blender, it's freeware after all)

Dannage

I don't really have any decent credentials to my name, but I am an old timer, so I will have to come in with a pithy cop-out and say the tool won't really matter if you have the eye and the skill set to know what looks good. I've seen people make total poop on professional applications and I've seen people make photo real models (for the layman's eyes) out of sketchup and other freeware. Given the work you were doing ten years ago Sean, I think you'll make it look good in whatever you do. I like Max 8 but I'm keenly aware of several shotcomings. All you can do really is troll through millions of forums to find out what the whole community says, though as I found out when recently researching a character package (trying to figure the best buy out of Poser or Daz Studio) the community is largely split.

I agree with your approach though, regards talking to the veterans. The more professional the users are, the more they will have a good opinion and likely to have experience in multiple systems.

Chris2005

IRML wrote: »

I've used both max and lightwave and for me max just doesn't make any sense, lightwave isn't really shortcut driven, people just use them to speed up their work, for me lightwave has the best interface as it's text based instead of random icons that someone thought looked good

I'm the exact opposite, lol. I picked up Max's UI faster than when I tried LW 10's trial...

IRML wrote: »

also lightwave's nodal surfacing is better than anything max has to offer

Looking at the feature in LW, via screen captures, it looks almost identical to Max's Slate Material Editor, in it's general idea... however, I don't care for node based workflow's... I still use the classic compact material editor...

But each to their own.

Pagrin

seanr wrote: »

The key requirements for me at this stage are that it be very well adapted to inorganic modeling (NURBS is a plus in some cases, but a lesser concern for me), it needs to have a very visual interface (I recall Lightwave being very shortcut driven back in the day), it needs to have good procedural textures and be fairly flexible with regards to lighting (remember, I spent nearly a decade faking radiosity), and most importantly, it needs to me cross-platform (I still use a PC at home, but now use a Mac at work).

While I grant I am a one-eyed LW supporter, I think in this case it's valid. Your description of requirements, is a good description of lightwave, in many ways.
you could look around galleries for all the different software out there, but they will always be the best pics being shown off. If you want to see how stuff performs look at what noobs can produce with it.

IRML

Chris2005 wrote: »

Looking at the feature in LW, via screen captures, it looks almost identical to Max's Slate Material Editor, in it's general idea...

"in its general idea"? you mean like the fact they are both nodal makes them the same? pretty pointless comment because 'in their general idea' max and lw are almost identical aren't they, I mean they both make renders at the end of the day

LW's nodes are much more powerful, max's nodes don't really do that much more than you could before

Chris2005

IRML wrote: »

"in its general idea"? you mean like the fact they are both nodal makes them the same? pretty pointless comment because 'in their general idea' max and lw are almost identical aren't they, I mean they both make renders at the end of the day

LW's nodes are much more powerful, max's nodes don't really do anything that you couldn't do before

I'm talking about the appearance of the system itself... not functionality, of course, looking at pictures of LW's nodal system, I see pretty much the same slots, some shots have custom slots for different materials, but in general, they look practically identical, but I don't use the nodes in Max, so I can't comment on anything that's changed since the Slate editor was first added to Max... which was like in the 2011 version, I believe, so it's not exactly an old feature to Max... so I don't expect it to change drastically... from 2011 to 2012 or 2013...

What advantages or power does LW's nodal editor offer over Max's?

IRML

so you've seen screencaps of lightwave's nodal editor, and you're using those to compare it to max's nodal editor that you don't really use either?

sean started this thread because he's trying to make an informed decision, you can't just talk ****e about stuff you don't understand, he wants proper opinions

max's slate editor is basically just a different way of visualising the old surfacing, this doesn't allow it to do much more than it could do already, lw's nodes are totally independent which allows you to do much more than lw could before or than max can do now

Chris2005

IRML wrote: »

so you've seen screencaps of lightwave's nodal editor, and you're using those to compare it to max's nodal editor that you don't really use either?

sean started this thread because he's trying to make an informed decision, you can't just talk ****e about stuff you don't understand, he wants proper opinions

I'm looking at the 2 from a superficial perspective, I never said I was experienced in the intricacies of each... which is why I asked a legitimate question... on subject, asking why one is more powerful over the other... and it's hardly talking bad about it... talking bad would be holding contempt for something from the start, with no rational basis...

seanr

One thing I will say about Lightwave is I found the UI to be quite bewildering. I'm an extremely visual person and all of those text buttons really didn't help me very much. Blender also feels similar to me, almost like an open source copy from a cursory glance at the UI. trueSpace was very much icon based, but you could assign shortcuts to anything you wanted.

BTW, people wonder why I hate Microsoft? This is a fantastic example. They just f*cking killed off a perfectly good program for no reason other than their own stupid greed!

evil_genius_180

One thing I'll say about Blender, the interface isn't as bad as it seems at first. I'm sure it's probably true for Lightwave too, but I haven't really done much more with it than open the program and look at it (yet.) However, one thing you get with Blender is an awesome community. There are literally hundreds of free tutorials out there for Blender. There are free tutorials for Lightwave, but a lot of tutorial makers seem to think that, just because you can afford $1500 software, you can also afford to shell out even more cash for some tutorials. And, of course, both programs have published books with which you can learn.

Either way, you're going to have to completely re-learn what you've learned for working (effectively) in trueSpace. No program in the world that I've found does things quite the same as trueSpace, and I'm talking about more than just the interface. I was actually making decent headway with Blender 2.49 about a year and a half ago, but I had to drop it to work on a project. However, it's a very nice program. There are just a few things that it does (or doesn't do) that aren't at all what I want them to be, so I haven't been in a big hurry to pick it back up.

NanoGator

I cannot speak for Max, the last time I used it I still had a dial up connection and I could make it crash just by moving a light. I know it has come a looong way since then so I cannot really give you anything interesting to talk about there.

Lightwave is very simple which is both its blessing and its curse. It's a blessing in that if you want radiosity to come on, you turn on a switch that says 'radiosity'. I never found Maya to be that simple. In fact, I think the way you learn how to use Maya is every function it has has a dumb**** default setting, so when it does the wrong thing you end up doing a little research project to find out why it acted so screwy. It's frustrating and ... grr... an effective way to teach you how to use it.

Personally, I'd nudge you towards Lightwave unless you intended to expand to a much broader toolset. I'll give you an example of what I mean by that: On Boardwalk Empire, the studio would send me a 3D model of a simplified version of Atlantic City, complete with camera move etc. I'd bring that in to Lightwave, render the background plate, and send that off to the matte painter. Then, once my changes were in, I'd put the geometry for the projections back into Maya and send it back to them. The key point of this story is I was able to use the app *I* wanted to use because Maya's so versatile. Then I was able to deliver that file back to the studio because Maya's what they use. It's sort of the universal format in movie/TV production. If I were to go a little further with Maya and master using Mental-Ray for rendering, I could probably speed up my productivity quite a bit and still have an easy time trading files with clients. Maya is an awesome app in the sense that it has a LOT it can do, it's just the mastery of it is time-consuming and frustrating.

None of what I said should count against Max.


Actually I would like to offer one more alternative: Cinema4D. It's sort of like being smack in the middle between Maya and Lightwave. Its layout tools seem better than Lightwave's, but it's also passes the "hey, I want Radiosity on, oh here's the button" test. That's one of those apps I really would like to dig a little deeper into. It could be more of what you're looking for.

NanoGator

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

One thing I'll say about Blender, the interface isn't as bad as it seems at first. I'm sure it's probably true for Lightwave too, but I haven't really done much more with it than open the program and look at it (yet.) However, one thing you get with Blender is an awesome community. There are literally hundreds of free tutorials out there for Blender. There are free tutorials for Lightwave, but a lot of tutorial makers seem to think that, just because you can afford $1500 software, you can also afford to shell out even more cash for some tutorials. And, of course, both programs have published books with which you can learn.

Either way, you're going to have to completely re-learn what you've learned for working (effectively) in trueSpace. No program in the world that I've found does things quite the same as trueSpace, and I'm talking about more than just the interface. I was actually making decent headway with Blender 2.49 about a year and a half ago, but I had to drop it to work on a project. However, it's a very nice program. There are just a few things that it does (or doesn't do) that aren't at all what I want them to be, so I haven't been in a big hurry to pick it back up.

I could be talking out of my hinder, here, but I vaguely recall a recent version of Blender had a significant UI overhaul. I just know I have a mental note to pick it up and give it another shot some time.

evil_genius_180

You're correct, they completely redid the UI with the 2.5X series in preparation for the 2.6X series (2.5X was essentially a series of development releases.) Ironically, I used to mod the interface for 2.49 to something that looks very similar to what they did for the newest versions. So, I actually like the UI changes.

JMoney

I'm a max user (always will be at this point), but over the past 10 years I've modeled in Maya, animated in Lightwave, etc.. Basically I've had the chance to learn the basics from each app (lighting, texturing, animating). I've read books for each program, followed tutorials, etc (it has been a while now since I've done so).

All of these programs (including XSI, Houdini, etc..) are more then capable of doing what you want, but two main factors that you mentioned come into play:

1) PC / Mac compatibility: I'd have to give the nod to Lightwave (especially if you are used to using 1 mouse button). Maya is compatible as well, but Max is only compatible on "Windows on Mac"

2) Price: I believe Lightwave wins in that category.

Final Thoughts: Even though I'm a max user, Lightwave does have a user friendly interface. The buttons are self explanatory. If I knew nothing of any 3D app, and had to learn from scratch at this point I'd probably start with Lightwave. Maya is nice once you learn to set it up the way you want, but even that requires a bit of knowledge. Max can do anything, but the interface is a mess as they keep on adding but don't take anything away. There's about five ways to do the same thing in Max which makes it a bit clunky. As far as functionality, they can all do what you want, but once again, based on your two factors Lightwave is the way to go.

If you had said fluid dynamics, rigging, or particle systems then my answer might be different.

That's my opinion. Hope it helps.

JMoney

lennier1

As much as I like Max, the antiquated material editor system and the half-assed integration of mental ray are really holding it back. The slate editor is a first step on the interface side, but beneath the hood, the new Substance system for LW-like procedural maps is still in its infancy, while the classic material system is basically stuck in 2006/2007.

And as much as I'm at odds with LightWave's UI, it currently seems nearly unbeatable at the things you'll probably be looking for.

You should really have an in-depth chat with IRML about the things he had to deal with when he built his Sovereign interiors. Combined with the experience of our very own Smurfogator (@Brian: ) that'll probably be the best crash course on the current state of LightWave you'll be able to get around here.

NanoGator

Wait... are you making fun of me for working on Avatar or Smurfs?

lennier1

Well, you went from working on "Smurfs in Space" to a movie about actual Smurfs and you'll probably be working on "Smurfs in Space: Reloaded" once a certain someone is done playing around at the bottom of the sea..

Guerrilla

Pretty long time Max user (at least in theory. Not a whole lot of 3d going on these days), and I very much appreciate the modifier stack and the non destructive workflow it offers and generally know my way around pretty well, but honestly, if I was on the market for a 3d software right now, I would probably go for Modo 601.

Ridiculously powerful polymodeling tools, nice renderer and cross-platform.