zamalkawy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Hi everybody , I've been working 3d about 10 years ago, starting with 3d studio for dos ending with Max 6.0. Now i'm wondering why max is more expensive than maya and XSI "about double the price" ?.Am i stupid enough to see that they are written so smooth ,so itellegent ,so stable ?.Am i stupid enough to see that Max is exhausting me day after day?.Am i stupid enough to see that Max is just runnig after them with out thinking of the user . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpico Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 You shouldn't think you're stupid, that's just wrong. I've used Maya 4 & 5 before and now I use Max6 b/c my background is in AutoCAD. The mouse controls are similar and easier for me to work with than Maya. I got hooked on Maya b/c my cousin worked at EA and introduced it to me. Now he's at Rockstar and uses 3ds max6, but doesn't like it. But he's speaking from a background that only uses 1 app all day. I use at least 3 differrent apps to accomplish my goals, AutoCAD ADT, 3ds max6 and Photoshop. Yes it does cost more as you said, but for me it's worth the time I save due to the similar controls in AutoCAD and file compatibility when exporting out of AutoCAD. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamalkawy Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Thank you for your reply , as you said it's compatability with cad and i add polygon based modelling is powerfull than maya and xsi. so i have to continue mthe rest of my life with that MAX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Also, you gotta have in mind Max comes with its own radiosity engine, Mental Ray, Reactor, photometric info support...Not sure, but XSI and Maya do not have all these, and that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Johnson Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Snaps is where it's At baby... I don't know of any other app with the amount of intelligent snaps (save Rhino) as Max. Also max has interactive object creation. You can create primitives where and WHEN you want them. In Maya, you can create a primitive ONLY at the origin, then you have to move it, and push and pull vertices, and move it again to get the object where you want. Now that too me is dumb. No wonder Maya is cheap!!!! Chris J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muzzy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 You can find advantages and disadvantages from different software. For me, usage of software in the industry is more important than capabilities of software. It is for sure that Autodesk and Discreet controls the big portion of the architectural CAD market. I started with LW but no one uses that around 1998. Eventhough I didn't want it, I switched to 3ds max line.I have to go with those, if I want to get a job in the market. They put the rules of the market not us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamalkawy Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Hi all , i know that max has it's own rendering engine ,ok..let's try it with high detailed scene and hi quality settings...it is a dummy. i know that max has it's particle systems , ok ....try it with large number of particles and see what max will do with your machine. Sirs , maya and xsi realy help you see your imaginations .Mx has all of their features but never think of using them at a high end outpout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckytohaveher Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Yes... Or so it seems... Frustration is the underlying theme of rendering no matter what the tool. I have dealt with many different tools and versions of this and that. In the end, you are trying to simulate reality with a 2D piece of silicon -- difficult at best. Do you want the red pill or the blue pill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Mann Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Am i stupid Err, if your think that other programs are not only better but cheaper too and yet you are still using Max then maybe you can answer that one yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpico Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Yes... Or so it seems... Frustration is the underlying theme of rendering no matter what the tool. I have dealt with many different tools and versions of this and that. In the end, you are trying to simulate reality with a 2D piece of silicon -- difficult at best. Do you want the red pill or the blue pill? Is rendering speed then, dependent on better software or hardware or both? Is it possible to have the fastest PC and any of these software packages to help rendering speed? Or are we still aways away from our expectations on speed? Will 64bit computing help us when software has been updated to utilize this new technology? This question is for everyone but I thought I would use this quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfirkins Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Is it possible to have the fastest PC and any of these software packages to help rendering speed? Or are we still aways away from our expectations on speed? You will always max out your available hardware/software based on the length of time you can stand to wait for your renderings. I still spend about as much time waiting for renderings as I did 10 years ago. Quality is the variable in the equation, and the quality expected just keeps notching up as the tools get better... Until I can see every leaf on a tree, every brick in a wall (modeled, not textured,) and can adjust 100 photon-mapped lights in real-time, waiting will be part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfirkins Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Is rendering speed then, dependent on better software or hardware or both? Is it possible to have the fastest PC and any of these software packages to help rendering speed? On a more realistic note, there have been examples of fine coding through the years that made for very speedy rendering when compared against other tools available at the time. ElectricImage, for example, and I believe Cinema4D was highly regarded when it came out. (I speak from a Mac background.) I think the core of many 3D apps has been neglected over the years; the goal is to cram in as many features as possible. "Now twice as efficient" doesn't sell a lot of upgrades. (well, realistically, it should, but the marketing department wouldn't have much fun working with that.) It's like the laundry detergent that now gets clothes 50% cleaner - why, because it wasn't that great in the first place? I think now it is more about tuning your scene to be manageable with the available resources. I see so many examples of people in our office waiting hours for renderings because they are raytracing things that don't need to be, excessive reflections, refractions, etc. Beyond that, hardware is so cheap that adding another render box will likely result in more significant gains than switching software. Granted there are diminishing returns to that, and I would certainly pay good $ for a renderer that was proven to be significantly faster than any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpico Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Thanks for the response. I agree that hardware prices are so cheap, why not create a homegrown renderfarm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckytohaveher Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Is it possible to have the fastest PC and any of these software packages to help rendering speed? Or are we still aways away from our expectations on speed? You have hit the nail on the head. Years ago, when systems we slow you didn't render everything with bumps, shadows, textures, RPC's, and GI, and..., and... There is a theory, of which the name escapes me, that every time the software and hardware get better we just demand more. When the current challenge of rendering is solved we will want it real time, or with reflections, or precalculated, or something. In the end, we aggregate to what the technology can deliver for a give time and cost structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 You have hit the nail on the head. Years ago, when systems we slow you didn't render everything with bumps, shadows, textures, RPC's, and GI, and..., and... This is a well know "theory." Rendering times never go down, quality just keeps going up. Pretty much at film res people want to stick to 2 hours a frame. They will push as much quality as they can until they get to that 2 hours a frame for a 2k image. If they are below 2 hours they are lucky, if they are above it, it is considered a luxury, and therefore very expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now