Agreed, like an sculptor used different tools if is carving wood or working with stone the truth is that it is not just a tool, specially when these tools force you to do things in a certain way.
My guess is that anyone may find themselves at him after years of work on any package, it is a different thing how efficient that is for the individual and even more important for the team. A good example of this would be the use or render passes in XSI vs the ones in Maya, it is not the same at all and workflow wise is a mess in Maya which ends up being a huge issue for the team and has a net result of the XSI artists being far more efficient. The same goes with rigging unless muscles are involved and then the huge amount of extra effort XSI artists need to do to get these effects make Maya an interesting proposition, the problem then is that you have to accept that you may want to cache things in/out which is a big ask for the team and company, from coordination/communication to disk space and network stress this decision has huge implications. Would you model in Maya? The same goes with Houdini, are you going to animate characters in houdini? well, you certainly can but the fact is that it way less efficient and as you don't have a higher level view of the animation process (it is too granular to jump back and forth to Chops to do the animation layering for example) the tool simply gets on the way. hope it clarifies my thinking a bit. Jordi Bares [email protected] On 7 Jan 2014, at 10:13, Mirko Jankovic <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry but I strongly disagree. > Topic is a bit wide and all but software vs software is real deal not just > fan wars. > > As one example.. character animation inside Max compared to ANY other > software... > Most of animators I know unless then don;t know anything else but max will > say big NO to character animation in Max. That is the pain! :) > > So yes everything else probably is better for character animation then Max. > Then same goes for bunch of other topics.. some things are simply better made > and better workflow then others.. > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Michal Doniec <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't find Maya and XSI that different when it comes to rigging. I have > cross trained juniors back and forth too many times to remember, all I had to > explain is that xsi chains are IK by default, most of the time they don't > have to bother with bone orientation and that simple pose based deformers are > in the box. Do the opposite from Xsi to Maya. As long as the person can rig > (meaning creating simple and useful rigs), the software is not an issue. > > I've switched myself many times as well (I don't do any hands on rigging > these days, but I do follow the changes in Maya) and never had any big issues > or traumas. > I didn't really read the article, there was too many inconsistencies at the > beginning. > TBH I don't really get all of this software is better than another > discussions. Fundamental methods which form the base of skill are all the > same pretty much in every application (maybe not in Houdini ;) ). > > > On 7 January 2014 09:38, <[email protected]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- From: Luc-Eric Rousseau > ... I have two side projects that need diaper changes. > > Oooh, does your wife know? ;-) > > > > > -- > ---------- > Michal > http://uk.linkedin.com/in/mdoniec >
