That's a great post Jason, and I think it sums up the differences between Maya and Soft incredibly well.
I'm sorry Graham, but I'm with Alastair on this. A On 19 March 2014 at 19:54 Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 19 March 2014 15:26, Alastair Hearsum > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >wrote: > > Graham > > > > Would I be wrong in rephrasing your sentence to be: > > ".....Maya's UI and workflow is crap but not totally" > > Alastair ___________ > > > > > Here is a notable (& comprehensive) post on rigging from David Gallagher > > > in response to the super long and (seemingly purposefully) diluted > > > article comparing SI / Maya rigging (concerning rigging workflow -alone-) > > > weighing pro & cons, while overweighing pros, underweighing cons, and > > > identifying things like the ability to use "locators" as rig components > > > as a "con" So how long will it take to get there? > > > > David Gallagher > > > > > > Jan 8 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 your > > 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. > > (1 baby step now solved in Maya) > > > > 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 hierarchy 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. > > > > > > .. how long will it take (??) >
