thank you! thank you! thank you!... i knew i wasn't crazy thinking rigging in maya is a PITA!
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, David Gallagher < [email protected]> wrote: > > I rigged on quite a few characters in Maya at Blue Sky Studios and now > (Softimage) AnimSchool. We offer the well-known "Malcolm" rig for free. > > There is no comparison to rigging in Softimage and Maya--not the kind of > rigging I do. I often assume by now they have better workflows in Maya, but > I'm often surprised to find how convoluted and limiting the workflows are > to this day. Most Maya people must not know there are better ways of > working or aren't doing the kinds of things I am, because the difference is > profound. > > -At any point in the rigging process, you can make edits in the model > stack to change the shape and topology of the model. After experimenting, > you can freeze that part of the stack and continue on with that new shape, > retaining almost every bit of work you've done. > YOU CAN CHANGE THE TOPOLOGY. YOU CAN CHANGE THE SHAPE FREELY. > This difference is huge. You can work toward completion without fear of > losing work. You can experiment freely--knowing it's fine if you want to > make a major change. I'm never afraid of losing blendshape work. > And if the changes are really significant, you can always Gator you're way > out of a jam. > > -You can do blendshape edits directly on the geometry, modelessly, instead > of on a separate blendshape object. > > -There is no comparison with corrective blendshapes. In Softimage, you go > to Secondary Shape mode and drag a few points. > In Maya, I wish you luck. You can install one of several plug-ins and > scripts and HOPE that it works. If the scenario is simple enough, it might. > Several people here tried to help a student make a single corrective > blendshape on an elbow -- and we're all experienced Maya riggers. After > hours of attempting, we threw up our hands. There was something in that > object's history that was making the blendshape plug-in fail. The answer is > what it often is: just start over. > -EDITING corrective blendshapes. In Maya, heaven help you if you want to > edit that blendshape later. Start the process again and make a new one. In > Softimage, drag a few points and you're done in seconds. > > -For facial work, being able to make face shapes in conjunction with the > mixer, working directly on the main geo. To see other shapes muted, soloed > as you're working. This allows you to craft shapes that work for different > scenarios, with just the right falloff. You can make correctives for shape > combinations quickly. In face work, it's all about how the functions > combine to make the range of expressive results. > > -The envelope weighting is far superior. The smoothing is just better, and > more reliable. Negative weight painting actually works. > Being able to make sophisticated weighting allows you to make lighter > rigs, because fewer nodes and calculations are needed. > I can't believe someone actually compared Maya's Component Editor to > Softimage's Weight Editor. I'm stunned. > Sometimes, demoing Maya's envelope weighting, it just stops working for no > reason -- I have no idea why. (Mind you, I've been rigging in Maya since > 1999.) > > -You can envelope/skin null objects, not just joints. (Yes, Maya will let > you add other objects as deformers but it is limiting and causes problems.) > > -The tweak tool. You can grab anywhere and it will just get the nearest > point/edge/poly and transform it precisely. Add the proportional editing > and it's very sculptural without giving up precise transform control. I far > prefer this workflow to the Zbrush approach geared toward paintstrokes. > > -In Softimage, you can change the wireframe on shaded opacity. You can > change the point sizes. These mean I can visualize and work with the shape, > not get visually stuck on the tech clutter like in Maya. > > -LinkWithOrientation. Does Maya have anything built-in yet? I know there > are pose readers out there, but they are slow and 3rd party. > > -The "smooth preview" Geometry Approximation is better, faster, and more > stable in Softimage. > > -Even with the army of tools and plug-ins we had at Blue Sky Studios, I > would still much rather use off-the-shelf Softimage. > > -You can select controls without selecting (and highlighting) all its > children. This makes it easier to animate the rig -- just drag selecting > will get you the selectable controls. In Maya, drag-selecting gets a > mixture of heirarchy parts. > > All this means that I can focus on the ART, the shaping of the rig, not > jump through hoops all day. > As a result, our characters are more flexible and expressive. > >
