Spotlight > Videos
Shame it isn’t in Max.
Isn’t it time AD share this technology into MAX?
Yes, but it will never show up there.
In the near future in CG all new best tools will be available only for Inhouse and biggest Studios.
For ordinary people – standard tools. It’s a rivalry.
Nowadays Max is mostly dedicated to modelling. They want to keep it like this, as a powerful modelling tool with previzualisation capabilities (for architects, interior designers). Perhaps the biggest update in years was Max Creation Graph for procedural modelling. It still exists in VFX pipelines only because of some excellent plugins, as a host application. I don’t think that they are even going to create a proper importer for Bifrost simulations to Max.
Without a large dedicated effort by some devs (and contractors $$$$$) I doubt Bifrost will ever in a million years come to max.
It will come….and people will still complain
You make it sound like a complaint shouldn’t be made. AD seemly puts in much more development effort and care with their baby Maya, and far less with Max while demanding the same subscription costs for both. AD refuses to tell how large the development teams are for Maya and Max – tellingly.
Point is there’s so much negativity despite the team’s efforts .
With recent releases they’ve managed to include features that were once exclusive to Maya – Opensubdiv, Alembic support,various skinning methods- dual quaternion, Geodesic Voxel & Heatmap and recently, Arnold for Max.
Bifrost will come and there’ll still be something to complain about.
Arnold for Max as a good thing? you should read the small print then.
Because you have much less rendering power available.
*facepalm* You just buttressed my point. Imagine the reaction from the community if Arnold was only released for Maya.The usual ,”they’re killing Max” , “they don’t want Max for VFX”.
Now they managed to integrate Arnold, understandably not fully-featured given the short period they had to this. Yet you somehow don’t see Arnold for Max as a good thing?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying don’t complain at all, but it needs to be done with less passion and more in the form of constructive feedback.
Did you read what i wrote? It is the license not if it is fully featured or not.
You could put several PC’s rendering with Mentalray you can’t do that with Arnold unless you pay render nodes.
Whether the complaint is about lack of features or the license model, I was pointing out some of the negativity despite the Max team’s recent efforts which includes bringing Arnold to Max. Immediately I get the response “Arnold for Max as a good thing?” Really??
Besides, your complaint has more to do with a business decision from AD’s management. It’s the same deal you get using Maya and not specific to Max
But Max always had more render licenses of Mental Ray than Maya.
“Each Maya multi-user network subscription license supports interactive rendering on one machine and batch rendering on five machines. You can therefore perform mental ray for Maya rendering on up to 6 machines.”
Again, a business decision from AD’s management. Unlimited render licenses for Arnold for Max would be great, just as with mentalray (how this didn’t incite a riot from Maya users though). This,however, is a different topic,though it still illustrates my point on how the focus shifts to the negatives regardless what the devs do.
Can we at least agree there is a positive to Arnold for Max.
I can’t say for the others, but my problems are never about the devs and only about Autodesk management decisions.
the devs could produce the most amazing thing, but it could be completely hobbled by decisions from higher ups.
Industry is filled with complainers. Give them free and still complain.
Make your points specific like I did. I mentioned Bifrost specifically. Do you have any inside information that Bifrost is indeed coming to Max?
Just a general note – AD need their feet putting to the fire, as I and many others feel they’ve been half-hearted towards MAX development, and taking the easy route out by pigeon-holing it as a visualisation tool, instead of a multi-purpose 3D application.
What was “visualisation” features from last few releases?
MCG? Alembic? OSD? Voxel Skinning? New UV Editor? Python? Arnold? Improved Track View? Stringray integration? ShaderFX? Nitrous?
It looks like max team didn’t care much about visualization.
I agree that 3ds Max have been improving a LOT. Congrats to the Max devs as they are kicking ass!!!!
Let’s see There’s going to be some crossover – I could quite see Stingray being used as a realtime visualisation tool, same with Nitrous – initial benefits were for static mesh/large datasets, animated meshes, not so much – some attempt to address it with gpoly, but that appears to be a dead-end now. Likewise MCG can be used for either. Anyway… The re-integration of Max Design Revit interop, populate (can’t use custom meshes, very closed), simulation data (CFD) import, ART renderer (Autodesk’s own features page “ideal for design visualization workflows used in Revit®, Inventor®, Fusion 360™, and other Autodesk applications.… Read more »
“initial benefits were for static mesh/large datasets, animated meshes, not so much – some attempt to address it with gpoly, but that appears to be a dead-end now.”
Sorry I didn’t make it clear – gpoly is a dead end since they’ve found another way of obtaining better performance with deforming meshes. It took a while to get Nitrous to that stage though, introduced in 2012(?), that’s 6 releases to get to the state of the flex video. That’s a fair amount of time for the ‘Max is aimed at arch vis’ line of thinking to build – and TBF, I remember being at a Max London event, where an Autodesk rep was dismissing Alembic etc. Add on the particle flow (special subs only) debacle, merging back of… Read more »
See All Events | Add Your Event