Haha. Maybe because Maya needs it, so you can dig in there and get it working properly. While in Softimage not....
;) Just fueling the fire! 2014/1/8 Eric Thivierge <[email protected]> > Just because I want to fuel the fire, I'll toss in that while the workflow > in Maya is quite flawed out of the box, you can get to more internals of > the scene graph and manipulate it than we have in Softimage. > > > On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:15:04 PM, Alan Fregtman wrote: > >> Bravo! Bravo!! :) I echo your exact sentiments, David (though my own >> credentials are puny by comparison.) >> >> The operator stack should be permanently on the box as a "hot >> feature". We all take it for granted all the time, but seriously it's >> one of the best features in Soft. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Steven Caron <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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] >> <mailto:[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. >> >> >> >
