Anyone using Maya 5 yet?

[VintageTone]

Anyone using Maya 5 yet? I was thinking of purchasing the Complete version.

[VintageTone]

Right, sorry I was early with this question. The new Maya is supposed to enable import and export of DXF and other file formats, as well as improved workflow etc, etc. I was wondering if Max still had more relavance for overall CAD use, or if Maya 5 looked like it was now more accessable to other uses? I realize that with both Max and Autocad owned by the same comapanies (is that correct?) there must be a lot of synergy between the two applications. I'd appretiate your comments, as I have not a lot of spare change at the moment (job market being slow this year). Thanks!

[John Dollus]

You are jumping the gun a bit. Maya 5 is not shipping yet to customers. They just announced it at NAB. Give them about 4 weeks.

If you don't own any 3d package yet, I would suggest you consider Max instead of Maya. You will find more support for architecture and there are quite a few nifty addons that you can grow into....

[Andy]

Dollus is right that Max is probably still more accessible for CAD and architectural. Maya actually for the past 2 or 3 versions has been able to import .dxf files (and export I believe). In my opinion here's a little list of what I think are appropriate comparisons for both packages:

 

Mathmatical Modeling - Max (You can model mathmatically of course in Maya but its workflow is not as easy as Max.)

 

Texturing - I still believe Max's material editor is a little buggy but its gotten better. My fav. is Maya's Hypershade

 

Lighting - Max's radiosity engine and support for 3rd party plugins blows away Maya.

 

Misc. - Lightscape is a commonly used render package for architectural and from Max to Lightscape is much easier. Going from Maya to Lightscape you would have to use Deep Exploration to convert the geometry which may not turn out the greatest at times.

- Max doesn't support quad modeling (important for LS), only triangles, but once you master the modeling then LS shouldn't have a problem with it.

 

Although I love Maya, Max may be the way to go. Where I work we use Maya just because we haven't mastered a workflow to LS from Maya and we haven't mastered Max and LS. My boss's images I think are really good www.imaginarc.com and I just graduated from college www.coroflot.com/andrew_lemus

But LS is astounding compared to the above images from Maya.

 

Hope it helps some and hopefully in the future Maya will have an equivalent Render Engine to LS.

[John Dollus]

The new version of Maya supports OpenDWG format too which should make things easier.

Alias has also added some vertex color information that could be used to bake the Lightscape diffuse colors onto the geometry just like Max.

[VintageTone]

Good input, thanks folks. Here is another angle (or vertex) on this question. To get the usable features in Maya, you really need to by the $7000 Unlimited version. Max is $2000 more than Maya Complete (Max is, I believe about $4000, while Maya Complete is about $2000). My fist project may well involve ocean wave and fog effects. Dose one get that in Max at the $4000 price, or is that extra to the same degree that Maya Unlimited costs?

Thanks!

[John Dollus]

Depends on the swell of the ocean wave. If you get Max and add Afterburn 3 for the mist and add Dreamscape 2 for the ocean, you should have some stellar images! If it is a calm ocean, you can do what you want with regular Max and regular Maya. Either way, you better count on lots of time for getting the look you want. If you have an active user group for either package in your area, that can make all the difference. Fog can be tricky. Does anything have to interact with the fog? If so, I would definitely recommend getting something other than the base package of either

[VintageTone]

Ok, looks like I will go with Max unless anyone knows that Maya Complete 5 is going to be a better idea.

[ferox]

porting to lightscape? interesting comparison at this link:

http://rmp.kiam.ru/articles/pals/index.htm

 

simulating real ocean waves?

dload free ocean plugin for maya 4 at highend3d

 

construction accuracy?

check whether your proposed app has floating point accuraccy or not.

example, viz does not have the same floating point accuracy as autocad, problematic in terms of importing gis-accurate models or terrains from cad (eg acad map 4 etc) into viz.

does max use floating point?

 

i would suggest that you consider the value of the visual assets you are trying to produce.

maya, max, houdini, softimage provide rendering choices in terms of simulating environmental effects/phenomena. Apropos the modeling brief only requiring models that use simple euclidean solids, not complex ik models such as characters. so rendering, visual fx and compositing workflow(s)are the primary contributors to the visual asset. particularly if you are going to be showing/animating effects/phenomena over time.

 

so would recommend modeling discrete objects as far as possible in cad, then export the model as .obj file to maya environment for rendering (keep okino polytrans in mind, for ensuring safe transition of geometry, esp. large terrain meshes), camera mapping with video, animating, and rendering natural phenomena. if you are adventurous, or a landscape architect or environmental engineer, consider using houdini for more complex environmental modeling of effects. then composite animation footage with wider (urban, rural, wilderness) context. why "polygonize" nature when compositing video footage or real settings would suffice?

 

simulating fluids? rendering? i wouldnt consider max at all. max is so euclidean,so 'textured' ....

 

for quality work, you need to consider a better procedural shader envirorment/render pipeline.

 

alternatively, visit ed harriss' web site (softimage) re the added value obtained from quality rendering.