CGPress uses technology like cookies to analyse the number of visitors to our site and how it is navigated. We DO NOT sell or profit from your data beyond displaying inconspicuous adverts relevant to CG artists. It'd really help us out if you could accept the cookies, but of course we appreciate your choice not to share data.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Pretty amazing, and they will almost certainly follow through on this roadmap. I’ve been using Blender on a project for over a year now and its absolutely brilliant. Our team love it. Compare to the 3ds Max roadmap which has cool demos for new animation, kitbashing and scatting etc., but these tools have been on there since early 2019. and nothing, not even in the beta. Wtf are they doing?! I love Max but its getting lapped by Blender development.
The only bright spot in Max development is Tyflow, which is one guy who does not work for Autodesk.
https://makeanything.autodesk.com/3dsmax/public-roadmap–dynamic-25B1-2288V1.html#animation-future
Please havet som respekt. You’r kicking on a dead person.
“but these tools have been on there since early 2019”
Really? Guess what, Animation 2020 project is still on the backburner.
Just to correct the record, not wanting to get into this is better than that…
animation 2020 is ongoing and has already provided quite a bit of features, I think the latest one is actually coming next month with the pose library.
At least their updates work. Not like blender’s …crappy manifold extrude, crappy edit poly performance, jagged wireframes, crappy open subdiv implementation, crappy UV editing, but lots of cool anime girls renders for teen fans…
1. Crappy Manifold Extrude: totally true, it’s a badly executed tool, and it has been recognized internally
2. Edit Mode (not Edit poly…): it’s on continuous improvement, and will continue, so far it reached a point where it’s already better than Maya, not yet at Max point, but we’ll get there for sure
3. Open Subdiv: The difference was that the Blender implementation was as proposed and expected following the Open Subdiv paper, and changes the limit surface compared to how Maya works, an option to work as in any other software was implemented already, and it’s already working with the GPU for higher performance on characters
4. UV: the auto uv and the packing algos can be improved for sure, but crappy? Not at all, also some things have been improved related to UDIM management
5. Jagged Wireframes: do you know how to enable Antialiasing? It’s fairly easy if you want to so this assumption makes little sense TBH
You know what’s the better feature of Blender? That in general it’s created FOR users, and they listen users of all kinds, from small studios to bigger ones 🙂
But… not good enough for you? Don’t use it 🙂
You are totally welcome to make a critic, but could be better for you to properly inform yourself before making bold assumptions 🙂
Regarding #1 – Really? I’ve seen lots of users complain about it, but I’ve never seen any official acknowledgement from the Blender dev team that it’s crappy and needs improvement. Do you have any link to any resource where they show clear intent to fix it? Because what I’ve seen has been the exact opposite. Total silence, lack of any acknowledgement and pretending like the feature doesn’t exist.
Yes, there has been an acknowledgement of the limitations of the tool and the users have been heard, here is the task for the new tool design:
https://developer.blender.org/T75913
Of course you won’t hear from the developers mouth “this tool is crap” hehehe but they know it’s not working as expected and that’s why they created that task, however the final design is not made, and I think some changes are planned to the current status of the patch due to the changes being done to edit mode, here is the patch, you cna test it if you know how to build a blender version based of a patch, but it’s not in good shape yet:
https://developer.blender.org/D12421
Do they listen , really? What should I inform myself on? All I wrote was right:D. How is UV crappy? Crappy compared to better UV tools, like Maya, Max, Rizom, enough for You? Max or maya not good enough for You? Dont use it. Should be even simplier than with blender, these cost money to use. And, yet, Autodesk obsessed blender fanboys c…p on other software everywhere….
lol, chill dude.
not coming off as eloquent as you may think 😉
Eloquent enough for my 4th language. Can You? 😛
indeed, it is one of four for me too, it’s just that I’m not all heated up.
kudos on the 4 langs btw
As I said if they are not enough for you, don’t use them.
Now I have been directing my own studio since 2005, we were Max/Maya based, not a single problem with paying for our licenses, I always defend that you MUST NOT PIRATE, not even when I profoundly disagree with Autodesk, so not a problem with the tools being a paid option.
Now you mention some tools like Rizom, why should you use Rizom if Maya UV tools are so awesome?
I know Maya UV tools, and they are not bad, but they are not very different from Blender’s ones, except it has some better packing algos, in any case in my message I already said that UV tools need improvements and they will receive impromentes, for 3.0 there are quite some improvements, but not in the direction I would like to, that is a more profound improvement in auto UV algo and packing algo.
Max UV tools have just been improved with the UV Layout old algo, I prefer Rizom by far anyways XD
And yes, they listen, but things don’t happen from day to night, the Blender development team is limited, they development efforts have to be distributed with equilibrium and some things are not easy to do, and with that I mean not easy to reach because it affects several aspects.
You may not understand that, and that’s ok.
If you really want to learn if they hear you have to go where development is done and not ASK for things like you would normally do to Autodesk: I ask and autodesk ignores me because it goes against their general interests (AKA: serious animation and rigging improvements for max… use Maya the Autodesk selling people say)
If you really want to learn if they hear you have to go where development is done and collaborate, propose, make tool designes, look for a developer that can do it or wait until an internal developer is available to taclke the task, because they are not waiting for you to come and say “I want this!” obviously.
And I will put a recent example: we have our custom Blender build, and I am the one responsible for maintaining it. we had several patches that were not production ready at the time, however they were useful for us, mainly for cycles, some feature that were very important like Light Groups (or Light Mix) were there.
Now for 3.0 practically EVERY improvement we had is in 3.0, however LIght Groups did not make into the release, there was no developer available to tackle it, so I though it was a loss because my C++ capabilities, that are limited, were not enough to translate the patch to the new Cycles version and way of rendering.
But thanks to a friend I discovered that a BIG production company in the VFX industry was using Blender for all their Pre-Viz work, and they were using OUR version of Blender (which is free and public) because of the Light Groups, and they asked me if we could find a developer to port Light Groups over 3.0, they would pay the cost.
I decided to look for a developer then, knowing that I would have money to back the request and I found one developer, he told me that he didn’t want to charge a penny for it, he had his daily work, and he didn’t want money in exchange, he just wanted to do it because he liked Cycles and he wanted to collaborate (touching Cycles internally is not a simple thing, it can’t be done by anyone without studying the code and it’s structure).
And now we have Light Groups in Blender 3.0, still in our studio build because it’s not finished and 3.0 is already in BCon3 (Beta) where no new features can be accepted, but it will land 3.1 because it has been created in collaboration with the development team.
So if you want to pay for the software and just ask for features and let your words dissappear in the wind if they don’t align with the company target, good, pay for it 🙂
If you want something to really happen in Blender, be patient, if it’s good enough for everyone and it’s well designed, it will get there.
If you want something to really happen in Blender NOW, work for it, create it yourself or find a developer that can do it for you, it’s in your hand.
I’m looking for a developer (not very actively right now to be hones, I have other things to do that worries me a bit more XD ) to create a new Auto UV algo, if I find it, awesome, if I don’t find it… we will get it anyways because it’s known that is something needed.
BTW If you are curious, here you have our Blender version of 3.0 Beta with Light Groups:
https://blender.community/c/graphicall/bk8x/
And if you know a bit of Spanish you can learn how to use it in this video (or wait until we do the English version soon):
https://youtu.be/DuRwPCCYF9I
Nope, it was not, and I explained it to you in the previous message and in this one, but if you want to keep thinking that way, go ahead, no need to use Blender, be happy with the software you use right now 🙂
Have a nice day and use whatever you want and like the most 🙂
I’ve never used Blender, I’m a Max user. But if Blender is in this conversation over features with Max, that’s a win for Blender. A few months [years?] back there was no competition now it looks like the gap is closing.
I saw an auto facial rig program for Blender and I’m still waiting for a good one for Max. I think BonyFace dropped out with Max 2016.
Someone mentioned a pose animation program for Max but it better be better than ActorCore because they got poses and animations or DeepMotion which can turn a mpeg into mocap data faster than you can say “Holy Snap!”
My point is pose files are sort of like so yesterday. But we’ll see what Autodesk comes up with.
And here is a Max user taking over a Blender column. Used to be the other way around. Another win for Blender but I’m still riding with Max.
Im not a max user. Working mainly in Maya and zbrush.
haha this Gav3d seems like someone who just wants to complain and be negative. You could easily just say the things you like about Blender. No need to knock and make it sound like 3ds Max has done nothing. The sweeping statements you’ve made clearly just confirms you have no idea what you are talking about as you are not informed or aware of all the new content and features that 3ds Max has added over the recent years.
Hi John,
Trust me, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve been using Max since v2.5. Don’t get me wrong. Max is awesome. I love Max. I’m a Max defender. I use it every day. There are a lot of tasks I’m much more familiar and faster doing in Max. I love Tyflow. Best plug-in for Max ever.
But, what I will say (Please, no trolling accusations of being a Blender fanboy and all that immature nonsense) is that after using Blender for just over a year now is what a great package it is. To try and sum up without getting into describing individual features is the quality and efficiency of the data-block architecture. The interface is clean and modern and completely customizable and easy to organize. It also feels like it’s future-proofed. New tools/features are integrated into the tab system with the sense that they are all following the same logic. It’s just good design. Look at the stuff people are doing with geometry nodes in Blender. Procedural building for example. It can’t be done with native Max tools. Maybe in MCG, maybe, but MCG was released for Max 2016 (I think) but it feels completely unsupported like so many previously new features, and now no one uses it. Containers is another one.
I have been hearing for years now about a new scattering system based on Bi-Frost that was coming to Max. WFT is all this stuff? In the last year alone Geometry nodes has been added and a new asset browser is being added to Blender 3.0.
I don’t expect Max to change its development pace. I will probably always use it but no one can deny that its development is stuck in the mud.
p.s. John A Martini – We know each other. I own some of your plugins.
I know, I just get frustrated when people always come onto cgpress and slam 3ds max over and over. I personally know how hard the developers are working and I would imagine it’s disheartening for them to have to read and see this stuff time and time again. I’m not saying i don’t agree with you in some areas, but 3ds Max has made a ton of improvements in the past 3 years. It might not be in the areas you want it to be but they span a much wide number of industries that i can guarantee Blender does not.
I believe MCG was one of the biggest mistakes that the 3ds max team took on, i think if there were statistics on who uses it and the frequency it’s used it. I would guess it’s 10% of what they had hoped.
I had high hopes for MCG, but it ended up being more of a pain than anything, I could never get the render on the nodes to see them without installing each MCG on them. Supposedly they were supposed to be transferred when submitted after an update, but it just didn’t work.
There just wasn’t enough showcasing of what it could do, especially to those of us that were trying to learn how to use it. They did a couple batches of MCG freebies for the first couple years, but never really dived in to how they were created. I gave up trying to learn how to use it. The only useful MCG I have, I modified from someone else. And turns out it was easier to create in Data Channel and that actually gets sent to the farm when submitted.
In 5 years at this pace, that will be a good tool for production 🙂
Yeah… or even now!
Have you seen “Maya and the Three” on Netflix? I assume that’s a “production” 🙂
Do you know if “maya and the three” was one of the productions where they tried to change the pipeline to AD maya and USD? I know for sure they did it in one of them, and that this caused part of the chaos that ended with the company…