You'll be a better more versatile 3D artist for knowing both. I've used both back and forth over the years, more Softimage than Maya but am coming to the realization its about doing 3D not applications. General knowledge of your profession executed with the tools each package offers. Though I'm never going to touch Max. Even with a 10 foot pole.
-------------------------------------------- Eric Thivierge http://www.ethivierge.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Kiril Aronofski <[email protected]>wrote: > This discussion has been led repeatedly over the past several years and, > frankly, nothing indicates it will ever change. The outlook of Softimage > has even deteriorated quite a lot... > > I am one of the students who made the leap of faith a few years ago and > jumped into Softimage on account of being very impressed with its animation > capabilities and general enthusiasm surrounding ICE. While the learning has > been nothing but a pleasantry, I am sad to say, I can only see it as a huge > mistake now. Prior to this, I have, rather unwisely, not contacted studios > in my area - or tried in any other way - to find out which software they > require the knowledge of. Now, getting closer to graduation, I have kept an > eye out for the past few months and the situation is depressingly bleak. > Job offerings that involve XSI in any way come so rarely, I have already > started retraining myself for Maya (which I have some previous experience > with). > > Don't mean to come off as some kind of a whiner, but I'll make a point > that saying AD is trying to get Softimage needed exposure by getting more > studios on the suites is naive and fundamentally wrong because this is > actually the ONLY way they are exposing it. While Max and Maya are getting > into peoples hands left and right, Softimage is limited to an odd mention > on the side and even than just to let you know you can fly some particles > around in ICE. > > I cannot possibly see how demoting a full-fledged package to a simple > helper tool can encourage any one individual, let alone a studio, to base > their long term plans on it. > > ... > > I thought about what Serguei Kalentchouk said and I would trust someone > from DreamWorks to know what he's talking about. My question is, is XSI now > worse than Maya was 6, 8, 10 years ago when these studios started building > their pipelines? I have no illusions soft will not be radically changing a > decade old institution, but does it mean that can't stand on the same > footing when offered fresh and off the shelf? > > > Kiril > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Simon Reeves <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Pete's point about about having more licences knocking around because of >> the suite has already come to light in the small studio I'm working at... >> They Had a good offer to upgrade to the suites, useful to have a licence of >> maya and xsi for the odd thing ...and I think they're tired of max, some >> not so great experience with maya, and me in the corner yapping on about >> soft. They're used to vray so that's a bonus, interested in Arnold, and >> whatever ICE may be. >> That AD image is mostly funny because of how max hangs on in the middle, >> never mind where soft is.. And maybe it's good it has a separate role, not >> being one of the two apps that do the same job (according to the image) >> >> >> >> On 10 Sep 2012, at 23:55, Steven Caron <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> indeed, API wise i will always admit Maya's is more open and in that way >> better. i have no delusions about my choice being anything more than >> 'personal preference'. >> >> s >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Serguei Kalentchouk < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I know we all like XSI on this list but I always feel in these >>> discussions that the the perceived benefit of XSI over Maya is greatly >>> exaggerated due to personal preference. >>> >>> >> >
