Max Vs. Maya - 2009

[corrosion]

It seems this always is an interesting debate... but most on the web are from around 2002-2005. I wonder what the state of this debate is nowadays. I personally prefer max, and the reasons are quite few and simple.

-Lack of the "multi-sub object" material.

I do environments and its very good to have numbers assigned to faces in the geometry. That way you don't need to keep dragging the material over to each face that uses it. Also, you can have 1 object that uses many different textures, and all you have to do is keep it in order with ID numbers.

-Annoying blue square to select faces.

Why is this even a feature?? In max all you do is select the face, with the precise pointer. It seemed awfully clunky to me to keep selecting faces by touching that blue square inside.

-Lack of "User" viewport mode

When I used maya there didn't seem to be a way to have a simple isometric, zero perspective mode where you could rotate the view around. It was front, left, right, top, bottom, etc & perspective. For big scenes having "user" mode is priceless.

Overall, Max just seemed more organized and precise to me. And now that character artists have Zbrush or Mudbox at their disposal, the argument that Maya is good for 'organic' modelling is obsolete (IMHO).

If you're an animator, most likely you're biased towards Maya. So I'm more interested in modeler's opinion.

[Wynn]

I think these arguments are interesting and a waste at the same time because the only thing they prove is that each artist has their own particular tastes and preferences for the software they use.

Personally I prefer modeling in 3ds Max... but that may be because that's what I learned 3D with. I've used Maya for work before but I can't seem to get the same results in Maya as I do Max in the same amount of time... it takes me a tad longer. I can't really say though that Max is better than Maya and that's because I see people create amazing things with Maya all the time. That and it's hard for me to knock a program that is so widely used in film production.

In my opinion, each program is better than the other depending on what the artist is used to and has expertise in... that's really it.

I must say though, I am very excited about Max 2010 with it's integration of Polyboost as the new Graphite toolset and some of the real-time viewport additions like GI. I'm curious to see what they have in store for Maya and if their next update will compare at all with Max's or not.

[dudecles]

I've only used Maya, so I can't really give a good weigh-in on which is better, but I just wanted to mention something about your second and third point.

You can get rid of the blue square face selection by (someone correct me if i'm wrong here, i've only done it once and don't have access to Maya right now to check) hold down right-click on the object to pull up the spider-web, and then hold ctrl + click on "faces" -- it should get rid of the blue squares and allow you to click anywhere on the face to select it. I believe 2009 also has camera-based selection so it will not select hidden faces behind the one you clicked.

I'm pretty sure there are camera settings to get a perspective/ortho camera, if I understand wha you meant here. I gather that you want a camera that isn't locked to "side", "top", "front" that you can move around like a persp camera, but has NO perspective distortion. I'm pretty sure you can bring (i think focal length, i'd have to check when i see Maya again) down to 0.

Hope that helped on those 2 points.

Although that face ID for material application sounds pretty nice.

[JacqueChoi]

I use both.


I prefer Max for modelling by a pretty substantial margin.

I prefer Unwrapping in Maya.

I like the Material Editor in Max (but that has more to do with the history of it). Maya has the option for node-based shader creation, which IMO makes it a better option (Max however is a WORLD easire to understand).

AO and Normal Map baking just comes out a LOT nicer in Max for some reason. Heck, Maya can't even import an OBJ larger than 500k (program limitation), where max can easily import millions, and seems limited only by your hardware.

Maya sucks for transparencies (aka it CAN'T do them).



Overall, I prefer Max.

[corrosion]

I think these arguments are interesting and a waste at the same time because the only thing they prove is that each artist has their own particular tastes and preferences for the software they use.

Well, they might be a waste of time, but the opinions expressed here to me are very interesting. And thanx to all that have replied!!! I think they're all great points! And many thanx to Dudecles for pointing that out on the blue squares. I am not a 3ds Max Nazi. I do like Maya for some things, so when people have a solution that make the program more like the one of your preference, I think its very valuable. Not all studios use the program of our preference, and opportunities are limited; so being able to move freely in both worlds is definitely a skill to strive for.
And yes, the whole texture baking thing.. SO important in todays game development. I've also heard before that Maya isn't as great when it comes to texture baking. I'd love to hear solutions for Texture baking coming from Maya people.

[slipgatecentral]

-Lack of the "multi-sub object" material.

I do environments and its very good to have numbers assigned to faces in the geometry. That way you don't need to keep dragging the material over to each face that uses it. Also, you can have 1 object that uses many different textures, and all you have to do is keep it in order with ID numbers.

That was never an issue for me, or there's something I missed in your description. Hypershade is very flexible tool for those kind of manipulations, mat/face selection etc.


-Annoying blue square to select faces.

Why is this even a feature?? In max all you do is select the face, with the precise pointer. It seemed awfully clunky to me to keep selecting faces by touching that blue square inside.


Sometimes very helpful feature, but can be turned off in settings menu, you can select face by clicking anywhere over it.

-Lack of "User" viewport mode

When I used maya there didn't seem to be a way to have a simple isometric, zero perspective mode where you could rotate the view around. It was front, left, right, top, bottom, etc & perspective. For big scenes having "user" mode is priceless.

This can be adjusted in camera settings, field of view, focal length etc.



Overall, Max just seemed more organized and precise to me. And now that character artists have Zbrush or Mudbox at their disposal, the argument that Maya is good for 'organic' modelling is obsolete (IMHO).

In Maya2009 they finally added few key modelling features, like soft selection tweaking, better polysmooth workflow, and much more.

But If you ask me, both packages are good and have everything an average 3d artist needs.

[complx-]

I am an animator, and i prefer Max! :o

This is mainly because that the software i learned in school and have spend the most time with, i have done some animation in Maya, and it is not at all bad! I just prefer Max...

Max has Biped, and the character studio, wich are priceless to me! And being into game-aspect rather then everything else i know its widly used in the game industry and i can mentions tons of games who use the Biped for rigging the game models.

I know u didnt wanna hear from me, but i like 3ds max! :D

[cookepuss]

I am an animator, and i prefer Max!
My focus has switched to CA over the past several years. For me, I prefer Cinema4D. I've been using C4D since 2002. In the new v11, the CA tools are especially superb. Production/film ready to be sure. I think that Maya/Max users would be surprised. (I have a friend who animates in Maya and nearly cried when I showed him certain C4D features. :p)

Max Vs. Maya - 2009
I started doing CG when some of you were still breast feeding. :) In those 20 years, I've actually bought or been forced to use a LOT of apps. Some, I stayed with for many years. Some, for only one version. Let's just say that, if there's an CG app, I've probably owned it or had to use it extensively. I've definitely worked with all of the high end apps at various points.

It gives you some perspective.

Basically... Discussions like this may be fun, but they're not too productive anymore.

Clear industry specific winner might have been predictable at the dawn of Windows95. You could have easily drawn certain lines in the sand back then.

However, out of the box, in 2009, all of the high end apps are very evenly matched.

I mean, there are small differences which shake up your workflow a bit and change HOW you accomplish your tasks. However, all of the high end apps are on such even ground that WHAT you can accomplish with them is pretty much the same.

I'm sure we'd all love one feature that another app has or hate one quirk that ours has. That's just par for the course though. The grass is always greener on the other side. :)

I'm in a different position, seeing as how I'm a Cinema4D Studio v11 user. I often encounter many Maya & 3dsmax users who only know C4D from that free v6.0 that was given away on magazine CDs 6 or 7 years ago. Because of that, some Autodesk users still (unfortunately) see it as a $4k "junior league" app.

So for those of you are curious why I would ally myself "the rebel alliance" :lol: .... Here are some of the cool things about C4D v11 that users of the v6 might no know.

Cinema4D Studio v11 has....

... full support for 3rd party renderers like Final Render, Maxwell, VRay, Indigo, & Pixar Renderman
... BodyPaint3D fully integrated into every C4D version. A major plus if you're in a film studio.
... pelt mapping in BP3D's UVW editor
... non-linear animation complete with animation layers
... a morphing system which is deeper than even Maya's
... production ready rigging and character animation tools (some stuff that Maya doesn't have)
... node-based XPRESSO scripting (similar to XSI Ice in certain regards) - I've actually used it to create full crowd simulations
... integrated muscle simulation
... integrated hair/fur that's easier to groom/setup and faster to render than 3rd party solutions like Shave
... integrated cloth dynamics - very Syflex-like. You can even use it to simulate rag-doll physics, crumpled metal (like car crashes), exploding/tearing objects, etc. Super cool.
... integrated Thinking Particles (totally node scriptable, btw)
... a totally rewritten built-in renderer that includes normal mapping, micropoly displacement, ambient occlusion, baking, subsurface scattering, cache-able QMC/Irradiance GI, etc.. (makes for easy ZB integration)
... interactive (near) real-time scene preview
... an amazingly deep non-photorealistic rendering engine
... multi-platform support. C4D is available in Windows, OSX, & Linux flavors.
... an old school serial number licensing scheme. No activation servers. No dongles. Nothing is machine locked. Best of all the same serials that work on the PC version works on the Mac one, which ships on the same CD.
... projection painting, designed specifically for Sony Pictures for their matte creation.
... file support for Collada, FBX, and tons of other practical object formats.
... super tight integration with Adobe After Effects. Support also for Shake & Combustion
... nearly every parameter can be keyframed (including material properties)
... XRefs rock. :) :)
... integrated online bug reporting system and updater (getting a free update or bug automatically is like X-Mas in June.)

Cinema4D Studio v11 is still missing or needs fixing....
... The material system, like 3dsmax's, is channel based instead of node-based. C4D users craving node-based materials have to add-on Final Render. Grrrr.
... The rigid body dynamics system is old and needs updating. It's designed more for TDs instead of the average animator.
... Great poly/SDS tools, but still no true NURBS tools. Not bad per se, but not great if you're into manufacturing. However, Max/Maya-like spline modeling is available as an inexpensive 3rd party plugin.
... The volumetric pyroclastics system is cool, but too slow. Needs updating.
... Even though it can be worked around, the lack of dual transforms is annoying.
... Internal support for GLSL shaders, but no way to actually implement them manually.


ANYWAY.......

It's a shame that C4D is much more prominent in every industry except for games. :p It's a great app if you're working in the film, mograph, or archvis industries though.

(You've probably seen C4D work and don't even realize. It has been used in movies such as Iron Man, Speed Racer, Open Season, Starship Troopers 3, Beowulf, all 3 Spider-Man flicks, all of the Star Wars prequels, etc.. Way too many movies to count.)

For those of you who haven't used it or haven't used any version other than v6, v11 is a powerhouse. (Spectacular character animation tools. Really.)

In my OPINION..... Maxon is Autodesk's only real multi-industry competition left, as LightWave and Houdini cater to much smaller user bases. Maxon's user base is huge in Germany and is rumored to have even tripled in recent years here in the USA. (Just look at the C4D post/thread count over on CG Talk. Near Maya/3dsmax like in size.)



That's just my input to this whole "why I use which app" debate. It's all good. Everybody has his own personal favorite.

[corrosion]

I started doing CG when some of you were still breast feeding. :)

LOL!

I trust your opinion on Cinema 4d... me not being an animator or anyone that deals with high-end stuff, I might never come to use it. But if I ever were to need that power I would consider it very much.

Thanx to slipgatecentral (was that a quake level??) for again, pointing out that all you need is to know where those things can be turned on or off to make the program you need to use more like the one you like to use. If I ever use Maya, these would definetely help.

Would it be possible to write a Mel script for something like a multi-sub material? I hear Mel scripting is quite powerful.

[Mrpearlzildjian]

Whatever happened to "whatever gets the job done?"

I use Maya and ZBrush. Some use a thousand other combos who can do the exact same work!

[Ritorian]

Maya sucks for transparencies (aka it CAN'T do them).





lol Ya there's a lil trick u gotta do to get them to work properly.

[shadowmonkey]

-Lack of "User" viewport mode


NEVER EVER USE THIS MODE FOR IT SUCKS FOR 2 ITS NOT GIVING YOU A TRUE REPESENTAION OF ACTUAL MODEL AND CAN CONFUSE THE HELL OUT OF YOU.

ooops caps were on for that sorry.

In my last place of work we refered to user mode as pervert mode and was told never use it.

I have found only one use for this mode, Max has the worst snap function in the world,I know this when building an entire level all units were vertex snapped and then in the game engine there were bloody white gaps,I was told off for not using snap,,I said I did so I zoomed right into each part and hey what do you know vetex was not snapped right.Now the trouble with perspective mode is this,,,if you zoom as far as you can in max the display goes all pish,even if you mess with the niew port clipping you cant get right in there,,, if you use user mode then for some reson you can zoom right in there.

[Supernova87]

Just wondering will Max 2010 be more compatible with ATi cards with regards to realtime shadows using shaders?

Max 2009 and my ATi radeon HD card seems to have a problem with creating shadows whenever i use different shaders.

But just curious about this.

[shadowmonkey]

Supernova87 I had the same problem using max8 and radeon 9200 card.I have to use open gl which is a shame.

you could try using this ,i havnt had a chance to look at it yet

http://www.lumonix.net/shaderfx.html

[shadowmonkey]

I started doing CG when some of you were still breast feeding. :) In those 20 years,


wow a long time ago in far off place :) that is old school,,,my first package was
lol remeber 3DS Studio .Dos?

[TrooperDon]

LOL to some of the great one-liners in here! I've used them both, like them both and find that it's usually only one or two things that I prefer in one or the other.

I find Maya's UV unwrapping (stitching especially) really nice, and I totally miss having the ability for select by material to show just the faces. Max selects the entire object that has the material even if it's a multi-subobject material.

For modelilng, I'm just plain faster in Max since I started using it when the Yost Group was still writing LISP routines for AutoCAD! We were sooo stoked with the first DOS version of 3DS...

All in all, I like them both and enojy learning other apps, too. Hence my trying to do a sculpting mini in Silo... not such a great idea, but I learned a lot.

[shadowmonkey]

TrooperDon what you dont like max`s UV unwrapping? lol I dont blame you, I find it frustrating because it never tiles right even if you define its UV exactly at 0 or 1 you get a nasty looking line through you textureHas anyone used Modo?now thats looking a sexy little number to learn.

Supernova87 going back to the Radeon thing I downloaded shader fx to have a play and as soon as I place a basic texture on a reapot it becomes see through,,,Not sure but I think my card can use dx9 but does not support directx 9 shaders:(

Im guessing I should get a geforce

[plunq]

I've used both Max and Maya in production (CG television series and television commercials).

Straight out of the box I'd prefer modeling in Max. However, with a bunch of custom hotkeys and melscripts Maya was just as fast for me. I haven't used Maya since version 6 and Max version 8 though. Lately I've been using alternative modeling apps. I've used Silo on a few jobs, it's a very cheap and streamlined modeling package. I've also tried the demo of Modo and have to say that I'm in love with it and it's render engine! Gotta save my pennies for the next version which should be out soonish.

Rigging on the other hand... Max has some nifty stuff you can do with list controllers and exposed transform nodes but crashes ALL the F***ing time when you have a deadline. Maya on the other hand was fantastic for rigging and has the added bonus of being able to use referencing on rigs.

Just my 2 cents

[shadowmonkey]

plunq yeh the render in modo is sweet a few of the chaps I was working with, during downtime they were playing around,its simple and quick ,boy its quick and the results you get are fab.I use vray for rendering and it far to complex for its own good,the other thing I love about modo from what I have seen is its mapping ,there are so many more option to get around awkward shapes.

I think max is a great tool for modeling but I realy should get up and start learning modo.

[MM]

I use both.


I prefer Max for modelling by a pretty substantial margin.

I prefer Unwrapping in Maya.

I like the Material Editor in Max (but that has more to do with the history of it). Maya has the option for node-based shader creation, which IMO makes it a better option (Max however is a WORLD easire to understand).

AO and Normal Map baking just comes out a LOT nicer in Max for some reason. Heck, Maya can't even import an OBJ larger than 500k (program limitation), where max can easily import millions, and seems limited only by your hardware.

Maya sucks for transparencies (aka it CAN'T do them).



Overall, I prefer Max.


these software comparisions are really pointless because the people who prefer max most likely dont know how to use Maya properly which is why they dont know the power of maya and vise verse.

fyi, i have imported meshes up 20 MILLION in maya AND baked a normal+AO in it. i have not been able to do that in Max in my same machine (max 2009 and maya 2009).

it is funny that some of our Max artists in our studio end up baking their vehicle/weapons normal maps in Maya because max has a hard time baking good hard surface normal maps.

bottom line is, if you are not expert in both software then DONT compare them. both of them can get the job done just fine.