> On 19 Feb 2017, at 18:09, Graham Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > See for yourself... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYNWzQWeHU&spfreload=10 > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYNWzQWeHU&spfreload=10> > And you will find hundreds of examples that showcase how good Zbrush is on > the hard surface modelling. > I’m still not completely convinced tbh. It’s great what people do, but for > automotive you wouldn’t really do that. We couldn’t work like that and it’s > actually easier to retopo from the CAD anyway.
I had so many troubles with CAD data I really can’t say it is easier at all… From complex file formats from various vendors, standards like STEP that produces humongous files and the end result of advanced NURBS it is really not fun to deal with. I ended up using Rhino to have an export but I don’t understand how does not come as standard tool in 3D packages (and specially Maya given its connection with AD product line). - Again, may be I am missing something here regarding CAD data.. > True, Retopo has been improved a lot with the addition of the new tools but > UV work in Maya was broken last time we used it… > ...that was 6 months ago so there wasn’t a lot to celebrate on my corner. > I may be missing something… what I have seen so far is small improvements > over old toolsets but I would love to see advanced bevelling, complex boleans > and in Maya that prove me wrong. > > - I would say the improvements have been significant, but might depend on the > benchmark they’re marked against. NEX was implemented, then build upon, then > old legacy removed. Broken is a strong word and not 100% true, but I agree > UVs still need work, but the nips and tucks they’ve done have been good. > Feedback from Maya users was generally positive. I haven’t fully looked at > Maya 2017 yet, but comments haven’t been great. From what I saw with NEX, seemed to my naked eye (correct me if I am wrong) like little more than the same tools we had for years in XSI (then Softimage) so I was certainly not impressed. Regarding the UV layout, it was bad Graham, very bad… the UVs were unusable with bad padding all over, non-coherent results from every iteration of the unfold… artifacts on the edges… > Different context, AD has made sure we have to choose. > For the studios using Softimage the burden is unavoidable and the costs are > now with H16 not too dissimilar so I can see a good scenario unfolding. > For those using Maya I am not sure, I am inclined to think it would probably > depend on the work they do vs the costs to produce that work, that will be > the trigger. > Said that, the costs of freelancers, training and adaptation are different so > as long as there is talent available, this things in on. > > I agree in terms of Soft users and studios, your hand was forced. For others, > the factors you mention do have a baring and the biggest influence. We use > mainly Max, which I Ioathe, but it gets the job done and does what we ask of > it for what we do. In our context, Houdini unfortunately offers us little or > nothing. I’d gladly take Fabric as a tools framework though. I am sure any package has an audience and if it works for you, great… if you can make money out of it… well, that is the trick right? My reasoning is that the things we were doing 6 years ago with Softimage (and still today), you can’t do today with Maya, Max or anything other than Houdini… and that is hard thing to swallow. Cheers Jb
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
