Again, I know I’m not the only one to agree with your point of view
and feedback, so thank you for sharing this in detail.
Regards,
Yang-hai
Autodesk Designer
*From:* David Gallagher
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:34 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com>,
davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com <mailto:davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com>
Thanks for posting that Jason.
I'll keep using Softimage for AnimSchool's rigs.
Over the next few years, I'll be looking for some software that
allows me to do those things.
On 3/19/2014 3:01 PM, Jason S wrote:
(previously posted, yet I think it's worth a new thread with alink to
the original Maya / XSI article)
Here is a notable(&_comprehensive_) post on rigging from David
Gallagher
in response to the super long and(seemingly purposefully) diluted article <http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html>
comparing SI / Maya rigging (concerning rigging workflow -alone-)
weighing pro & cons, while overweighing pros, underweighing cons,
overlooking a bunch of things(most of which outlined below)
identifying things like the ability to use "locators" as rig components as a
"con"
and ending with ;
/"The time that Maya saves with its rigging technology and superior
workflow, outweighs the additional cost."/
/So how long will it take to get there?/
*David Gallagher*
<image001.gif>
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 (??)
