Software > 3DS Max | Software > 3DS Max > Plugin News
Radial Symmetry plugin for 3ds Max
May 29, 2020 by CGPress Staff
29
|
PolyDesign3D has released Radial Symmetry, a new C++ plugin for 3ds Max that allows the user to parametrically clone and slice and objects by rotating and mirroring them around a single point. Features include the ability to animate the gizmo, preserving UVs and other face properties, option to add planar symmetry for matching seams, slicing along mirror planes, the ability to weld seams, mirror axis options and more. The plugin is compatible with Max 2016 and above and costs $29. Find out more on CGTrader.
Nice to have competition but there is already radial symmetry plugin available for Max. I’ve been using it for years. What developer could do is make one for Blender. 😉 https://mariussilaghi.com/products/radial-symmetry
Or just use multiple symmetry modifiers, it literally takes a minute or two to do, I don’t see anything that useful in these to be paid plugins.
You can’t use multiple symmetry modifiers in the same efficient way that Radial symmetry plugin does. People that actually tried using it in production know how beneficial it is to have radial symmetry modifier.
This is a ripoff of a plugin that’s been available for at least 9 years. The original radial symmetry plugin was produced by the same person who developed the quad chamfer modifier plugin that Autodesk copied. It seems both those plugins have now been blatantly copied. The original versions of radial symmetry and quad chamfer are fantastic, and the support and value are amazing. I paid less than $30 each for them 9 years ago, and have gotten free updates ever since for every new release of Max without fail. Marius Salaghi has provided an exemplary level of innovation to 3ds Max. Support a real innovator and purchase the original here: https://mariussilaghi.com/
It is interesting, I posted something similar on his youtube channel and he literally deleted my comment. I agree, set of those plugins that Marius created are amazing, I still use most of them today!
Didn’t the guy write his own code for the plugin? there are more features compared to the original one, I wouldn’t say it’s a ripoff, it’s an improvement.
He probably did write his own cone, but I still don’t see what is better about this new plugin. There are no new features that would make me purchase it again. If you have exactly same copy paste features that already exist in other plugin, then you can consider it a ripoff.
Then, you should be upset about Marius coping Quad Chamfer. Quad Chamfer was not his original idea.
Oh! I can’t wait to learn who created the first quad chamfer modifier for Max, or any other app–please tell us!
Exactly, before buying Quad Chamfer modifier there was nothing similar for 3DS Max!
Not impressed with this at all – CGPRESS I question the wisdom of promoting this when its a rip off plug in based on Marius Silahgi work.
Support Marius work here – https://mariussilaghi.com/
Also When tyflow is free we arent going to be paying a days wages to make a spiral from a software plugin that like many for max will dissapear in a years time with no trace.
Boring complaints. Plugin looks nice.
Nobody owns a certain pipeline. If he codes it himself he can make his script and sell it. When does a plugin become unique enough in your mind to not be considered a ‘ripoff’. Marius Salaghi did do it 9 years ago and his scripts are amazing, but anyone can produce there own version if they want to and might even improve on it, now or in the future.
Yeah, welcome to cancel culture. Even in the micro-realm of CG scripting…
Glad you said it, I have no idea what’s going on with people here, it’s like the only perspective that matters is their own and they seem to derive pleasure in bashing other people’s work, Marius is amazing and if you like his plugin better, go and buy it, at the end of the day even 3d packages are very similar and still people seem to like the diversity, if this guy used this project to learn C++ and then sold it, so what, If he set out to make a specific plugin and sell it, so what, you don’t know where he is coming from.
If you want, discuss something that furthers the conversation, but if you don’t realize that somebody’s motivation to do something is not something that should concern you then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s just sad that in such a small community there’s people that feel that their voice is so important that they have to weight in whenever they can even if they have nothing constructive to say.
And that is exactly why intellectual copyright laws exist. Somebody, in this case Marius, who invested a lot of his time to figure out how to functionally build his plugin deserves more respect. He did all the groundwork so somebody else can do exactly the same thing he did… sorry, but that is a form of theft and it doesn’t matter how small your community is because it is a question of moral behavior. If somebody sells a model that I invested time in designing it, and other person comes and copies exactly the same design and starts selling it, it is not a right thing to do. What’s going on with people here? … maybe ask what is wrong with your argument first. Supporting community means that everybody has a equal chance and there is mutual respect withing community. Copying other people stuff will not lead to any progress and innovation.
Wow man, you are really smart, I better let your rhetorical might guard this thread, seems like a super productive use of your time 🙂
Just try to be a bit less aggressive in your pursuit of justice
What to do with Blender? It is basically 90% copy&paste of functionalities from 20 other 3D commercial applications.
Or AffinityPhoto? It is evident that AP is copycat from Photoshop.
And new Houdini Modeling tools smell like if they come from 3dsMax? and so on and so on.
Should we condemn, sue and ban them all, what is the plan?
Blender is free. That’s an innovation in itself. Folks who can’t afford to spend $1000’s a year for a 3d app subscription get to be productive. And, they’re innovating and driving Autodesk to innovate. It’s win-win for all. Competition among large companies is healthy and productive. Copying a handful of features from one package to the next, within apps that have tens of thousands of features is nothing like making an almost exact clone of a modifier plugin written by one person.
ok, i knew the “free” argument will come.
What is with other examples, what to do about it?
Just wondering what other parallels can you do with 3DS Max and Blender? I’ve been using Blender for over a year and I am still getting used to the ways of Blender. Many tools, for example, cut/knife, although they perform same function behave in a very different way and have many different options. It is not 1 to 1 copy as it is the case with this Radial symmetry tool that started this discussion. If I don’t need any time to switch from tool A to tool B, then it must be exact copy, otherwise it would take me some time to adapt. Affinity is another product you mentioned and I am still getting used to it after months of actively using it. What I primarily reacted against, and I was very polite, is that when I commented on his youtube video that since there is already a tool that does exactly the same thing in Max, and creator obviously can code, if it would be possible to make similar tool for Blender. His response was deleting my comment.
Hi,
well, to the question “parallels can you do with 3DS Max and Blender” – i have not written that Blender has copied from Max but, if you read carefully: “from different 3d applications”. So i do not want to answer to your questions, since the question is wrong. (i mean i could start with Modifiers, concept or render engines, UI as it self, since 3dsMax was in 1999 the first affordable commercial application with clear, uniformed UI system etc, but this is not the theme of my post)
“Many tools, for example, cut/knife, although they perform same function behave in a very different way and have many different options.”
As someone who is working since 25 years with Lightwave, Cut/Knife come evidently from there (or modo if you like the more modern version). And they have exactly the same functionality. I could even point you to the date when it was released in LW and when (many years later) it appeared in Blender; the log files are available, you just need to read them.
If you have more questions about origins of tools, please write them here. I have spent the most part of my academic life researching and studying UI concepts, as well as researching Tods work on Blender. It was even my Phd i spent on more then a year.
There is hierarchical, documented build-up of Blender features which illustrates what was when inspired by other applications and what was the unique application design. Your Cut/Knife is unfortunately not Blender “invention”. Some other things are, you have just picked the wrong one.
Back to the root:
You did not answer to my question about what to do with AffinityPhoto, which is, i repeat, copycat of Photoshop. I have never heard Adobe complained about “idea stealing”, or going to their Youtube channel and rebelling?
About your issue with author on Youtube:
YouTube is 8Chan mixed with MadMax. Everybody does there whatever they want, it is a sanitarium. Do not get upset by his reaction, you have more important things to do. Let him do his stuff, who knows what comes out of it 😉
see you later 🙂
The first version of Max was released in early 1996, not 1999. Max was an evolution of 3ds Studio, which was released in late 1990. Before that, the original designer worked on various 3d apps for Atari computers.
You are not answering my question. For the third time. And you are again not reading my text:
I was writing about unified GUI and API which came in 1999. The version you are referring to has had different (remember the old, blue one?) interface. And again, nothing i was writing concerns you, save trying to find a correct dates in Wikipedia.
It seems there is no dialog here, i am not getting answers i was hoping for.
It looks for me as if you tactic is to flood the zone with shit. This is too stupid for me, I am out.
I don’t understand that patronizing attitude Igor, that is not a way to continue respectful discussion. I’ve been also in industry for 25 years or so, professionally more than 17, and I’ve used LW since the Amiga days. Knife tool in Blender is not the same tool that you have in LW, and I went back today to confirm that since I wanted to double check my memory serves me well. Concept is the same, but tool is not.
Sorry but having Ph.D. doesn’t make you more experienced, through my career I met many self taught people that are more inventive and knowledgeable than people that came from well known schools. So, let’s not go into that domain because it is irrelevant and patronizing.
You are also trying to distort this conversation to your benefit by going very broad and bringing in Photoshop and Affinity into this. I don’t care about those tools in this thread, going wide on the theme doesn’t help keep the focus, and I bet Adobe has an army of lawyers looking into that. What we are talking here, and you still didn’t give any rational answer, is a plugin that is being copy pasted, even on UI level. This is product that stands on its own and should be evaluated and compared as a whole, to product that is doing the same thing. It is not about concepts and principles only.
Many tools were build, thought evolution of CG industry, on the ideas and concepts of others, but people and companies usually try evolve it in one or another way. This is not the case, period! Having rational discussion doesn’t make one upset, but deleting comments obviously does.
Your question is rambling and off topic. It’s answered in my other responses in this thread. I’ll summarize it for you again: roughly copying vague functionality from large corporations that exist in various forms in many packages is very different than releasing a nearly 100% clone of a unique plugin written by one person, and selling it for profit at the same price point. This developer is stealing market share from a fellow developer and he contributed nothing to the community. Maybe it’s cool in Russia or China, but in the US I believe there is more respect for innovation and intellectual property. It’s disrespectful and immoral behavior in my opinion.
Another point of differentiation is that Blender is free–that in itself is a major innovation. If this guy would’ve released the clone of radial symmetry for free, I wouldn’t have an issue. As for Photoshop, it’s not the first paint program, maybe you’re too young to know that. Adobe copied, borrowed, and built on top of the functionality that existed in all the other paint programs that came before it.
Max was released in 1996, with the same interface as today, not the “old blue one” which was 3d Studio. And, I didn’t need to look it up on wikipedia to know that you were wrong because I’ve been a professional 3ds studio user before Max was released.
What’s motivation got to do with it? Maybe the person who’s product was cloned, maybe their mother has cancer, and they rely on the income from the sales of the original product they created. So what? You know neither of the motivations or history of either of these people.
Also, we can understand by looking at the developers store that this isn’t their only, or first product. So it’s unlikely that your speculative, sympathy story about learning c++ is remotely accurate. Fabricating a cover story suggests you take a dim view of what’s happened, and are attempting to justify the behavior in some way.
What we know is this person took a shortcut by copying another product, added nothing substantial to it, and is selling it at nearly the exact same price. The only conclusion to draw, is that their intent was to undercut the original developer, dilute their market share and divert sales revenue, for their own benefit, at the expense of the other party. There is zero benefit for the consumer, as there was no innovation in product or price. However, in this case, the true innovator takes a hit and may exit the market, leaving us with a developer who copies rather than innovates.
Maybe this person is deliberately copying scripts, maybe he isn’t. In 3D animation there are always a hundred ways of doing things, claiming a certain principle or idea as your own seems strange to me. Can Railclone claim copying objects on a spline? Can someone claim selecting edge-loops? Can you claim the use of layers in photo editing software? I’m sure someone tried, but I would be against it.
The plugin is the product. Over time people will catch on to your innovation and what once was unique, will become common place. Nobody improves by trying to hold on to a 9 year old plugin and trying to prevent others from developing there own.
Sure, no law was broken; it’s not theft. It’s shady practice and certainly disrespectful to a fellow developer. It makes zero sense for a developer like Marius to obtain a patent or to enforce it even if he had one. Who’s got the time and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to deal with that over a $30 plugin? It’s just a lame, low blow to copy a product and sell it for the same price, undercutting someone who did all of the innovation. Especially given the size of the market we’re talking about. It’s not like Marius is some juggernaught corporation where competition is healthy for all involved. At the scale we’re talking about, if someone was copying my plugins and grabbing half the market share, I’d have to evaluate if it’s worth the trouble anymore. How do you think this developer would feel if Marius started producing replicas of their plugins? I noticed they had quite a few other products. This new plugin has done zero for the world–to have two versions of the same Max plugin at the exact same price. And, it has the potential to do harm. Not only to Marius financially, but the customers and community he serves, if he decides it’s not practical to develop, market, and maintain innovative products which are likely to be cloned. Marius is an innovator and Max has been is short supply of innovation for many years. Sales of his ground braking quad chamfer plugin have probably tanked now that, after years of trying to get it right, Autodesk has copied that too. It’s unfortunate to see others piling on, rather than doing their own innovation and hard work.
Radial Symmetry is “innovation”???
Now no one should make any clone modifier?
What???