I've been rigging in Modo for over a year now, after years of doing it in 3ds max, Maya, and Softimage. I can tell you that Modo has been a joy to use, although it still has some way to go. Workflow-wise, I'd say Modo is closer to Maya than anything else. I LOVE Modo's schematic environment. It's really comfortable to work in (in spite of its complete lack of grouping or layout features... which I'm guessing will be addressed soon), and it has a lot of really useful nodes (I wished 3ds max had this for many years). It's not as deep as ICE (yet), but I can already replicate pretty much all my ICE Kinematics setups in Modo. The schematic can also be used to create/manage particle systems and (Bullet) dynamics, but I can't compare those to ICE, since I didn't really explore that side of it in my brief time with Soft. Modo still lacks some bread-n-butter tools, and in some parts, the workflow is rather rough. However, where it really stands apart is in the way deformations are treated. It's a very open-ended system, that can achieve very complex setups with ease, using something commonly referred to as the OOO stack (or Order Of Operations). I've been able to do some very interesting things with it. Modo is not a very procedural application, but when it comes to rigging, it does accomplish pretty much anything you could think of. It still needs to better support some data types (such as matrices), but I think that it's headed in the right direction, and having ICE-like workflows is just a matter of time. Yes, Modo still doesn't have the performance Soft or Maya provide. It's something that's known. I really hope this gets solved, because it's one of the most pressing factors I've seen that stop people from using it for animation. If you're doing bipedal characters, you definitely want to take a look at ACS. It's a Kit (add-on) for Modo that provides some really nice rigging/animation features. The downside to it is that's currently limited to bipeds. I'm looking forward to this becoming a more Gear-like system, although it already excels in several areas.
I guess I'd sum it up in that Modo does not yet provide the depth of Maya or the polished workflows of Softimage. But my hopes for it are high. If The Foundry continue to invest in the animation side of things, I think it could become a serious viable alternative. For those also interested in scripting (lots of riggers I know are), be prepared to go through some headaches. Modo has the most unorthodox Python implementation I've used so far. I understand it's mainly due to the architecture of the application (it was written in C, not C++, so there's not an object model the way you'd be used to find in other applications or languages). TF is working on making this a lot more Pythonic by wrapping parts of the Python API in user classes, which do provide a much more "OO" approach at scripting, but these classes are still WIP, so some areas are still not there, and you'll have to deal with the raw Python API (or the legacy services, which once you wrap your head around, are actually quite useful). Anyway, I'm not gonna turn this into a long thread. If anyone has any specific questions, do shoot. We'll do our best to answer. I not have enough Modo rigs to update my demo reel. If I post anything soon, I'll let you guys know. Jason... we should get a Montreal Modo User Group going! I know there are a few Modo users over here... maybe something could be done ;-). Cheers all! ---- Sergio Mucino On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > Performance and/or stability issues, or not rattling over 40mph, seems > to be what keeps either of them from being more widely used as main > pipeline apps. > > Currently, at least in my part of the woods > (in Montreal.. being not exactly in the middle of the woods except > physically :p ) > > .. virtually no studio runs with either of them, and even worldwide, job > posts seem to be scarce to say the least. > > And would be delighted to see one, or even more *BOTH* overcome their > relative limitations enough for them to be more seriously considered, > otherwise not at-all lacking in really great things. > > > > > On 08/22/14 10:25, Tim Crowson wrote: > > I can tell you that voices are pretty loud on this topic (i.e. everyone > agrees with you vehemently), and The Foundry can't help but hear us. There > are performance issues that need to be dealt with, and I sure hope they get > them resolved. > > -Tim > > On 8/22/2014 9:05 AM, Eric Thivierge wrote: > > However, in my opinion and from my perspective rigs need to be fast and > able to load high resolution geometries with full deformations. If that > isn't a super high priority for companies in the next 2 years, you're > missing the boat. > > Eric T. > > > > > >
