PRESS RELEASE (Excerpts): New features in Maya LT Extension 2
MEL Scripting
Simplify repetitive or complex tasks and seamlessly facilitate sharing with team members: a built-in script editor removes the need to manually write scripts and displays corresponding commands in MEL script. Scripts can be saved and turned into customized parts of the Maya LT UI through Shelf Buttons, Hotkeys or Marking Menus.
Human IK and IK Handle Animation A new IK handle, a Pole Vector constraint, Human IK Mirroring and an animation re-targeting tool accelerate the animation, rigging and transfer of information between characters.
New Export Options Export Maya LT 3D assets in an OBJ file format to expand compatibility with other industry standard tools and game engines.
RIP blender/modo in small studios
I am of course joking. Blender is still better for character modelling and has an edge with some things .
But seriously, Autodesk is killing it with this. It seems that they are getting serious about competition on smaller markets. Maya LT offers maya’s powerful animation tools, combined with the new modelling toolkit, shaderFX node based real time shader authoring with import export of glsl/hlsl/cgfx and other shader types and HumanIK (making it the choice for biped motion capture data)
Indeed, I would rather model in Blender any day of the week, but offering all of those animation tools at such a low price is pretty great. Our animation tools in Blender are lacking to say the least (fingers crossed for some upgrades after depsgraph!) and our complete lack of an acceptable retargeting tool is a very sore point for me personally. The MoCap addon just doesn’t cut it most of the time, and is nearly unusable with the metarig, at least in my experience. I’d love to be proven wrong.
It is still not opensource and I dont trust Autodesk + for work decently with Maya you need TONS of custom scripts also for do small operations like move correctly UVs or brush hairs.
I’ve tried Maya semi-recently. It was a horrible experience. Seemed like the UI paradigm was mostly tradition layered on custom, with a pinch of ridiculous naming. When I first opened the window, I couldn’t select anything, the select button just opened some kind of ugly flower-menu. When I finally managed to select something, I invoked the extrude command, but moving the mouse didn’t do anything! At that point I was fed up and closed the application. Maybe I’ll try it again in a few years when it gets better!
Whatever will be maya price is, in any cases, more than blender. Also considering release 2015 will be the last one, the new will be like Adobe Cloud, if you like rent model, ok, personally I don’t want rent a bug (maya is famous for its bugs and instability issue).
Maya is an alternative to blender? No, at all… Blender is a complete suite, Maya no, and Maya LT is a worse, castrated version of Maya, the only reason for learning Maya is find a job into a big studio, use Maya for freelance work is, in most cases, a very bad, expensive idea. Also I think that anyone who bought Maya outright without the subscription really got screwed. These extensions are not available to anyone outside of the subscription service. First, remove essential features from package. Second, offer them back if user pays you more money and joins your subscription plan. This is how ADSK care his customers…
However, I think Maya LT is a good marketing move from ADSK. They want maximize Maya usersbase and don’t lost the one used it when was student (and had the software free). The direct rivals is Modo, Cinema studio and LW. Actually Modo move on steam. Modo is IMHO the most direct rival of Maya LT, but Foundry is big as or more ADSK DCC division so I’ll expect some big response in Modo 801 release. I’m pretty curios what they will invent when Blender will be more mature during 2.7 cycles.
Still has too many artificial limitations imposed on it. Like the FBX poly limit, no Substance shaders, no Alembic etc. I get the exclusion of the renderer and other VFX features but its too limited for $795 in my opinion.
yeah right cos i want to pay $600 a year just to have access to tools that should be part of a package especially if i paid $795 for it. stupid mayans.
I think that Maya’s true business/financial model will always be pointing at “the very large studios,” who (in effect) subscribe to it, and who in so doing provide the continuous revenue-stream that is required to continuously serve the needs of a “very large studio.”
If you dream of becoming both “a grinder in or in the service of a very large studio,” or a truly unknown thing, namely “a grind who does not live in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia or some other place with cheap labor costs” :rolleyes:, then Maya might be just the thing for you to learn. Otherwise, I’d say that you should pay a lot more attention to Blender, and to Open Source Software in general.
Blender is quite unique for providing “soup-to-nuts production capability,” to every PC-class platform, with rapidly ever-growing enhancements to that capability … and doing all of it for free. (Be sure to make your donations to the Blender Foundation!)
Obviously, if you have a contract with someone who is using a particular tool, “you will damn-well use that tool, and that prescribed version of it, or you won’t get the contract, period.” (That’s Economics-101.) But if you want to learn and to do, “3D graphics” in the way that I believe it is obviously and rapidly going … pay attention to: specifically, Blender. “If this tool doesn’t have what you’re looking for, wait a month.” :yes:
“If this tool doesn’t have what you’re looking for, wait a month.” :yes:
Sorry to disturb the Maya bashing party. But i wait since years. And still, Blender lacks of the most basic things for polygon modeling. Like numeric scale for a selection. Like SDS for selection. Or such simple things like a useful Bevel. For me polygon modeling is the really weak side of Blender. I still have to use other software because Blender is not capable of several simple tasks.
Blender is not bad. I like it too. And it is amazing for a open source software. But theres a reason why Max, Maya, Cine etc. is the leading industry standard. And Blender a hobbyists tool. Its quite a bit behind here and there. And always will be by design. It is open source.
Can’t say i’m very impressed with Autodesk’s new bait and switch version of Maya for “just 795$”… Did they move to a “service as a software substitute” platform for their products yet?
ADSK did something similar for 3dsmax v4 called gmax. That lasted for what, a year?
They also did the “LT” thing for ACAD back around '97, offering a limited toolset of full ACAD for around $200.
The same program is now $1200.
I so love the argument that ADSK products are the industry standard for a reason…
that reason, of course, is nearly 2 decades of experience in people working and scripting around the limitations of the software.
I just came back from the Autodesk University in Las Vegas this year - I was an invited VIP user for a new 3D product they are working on and they mentioned few times the new subscription model and their intention with it - similar to Adobe.
In my field sometimes your design time for the project can quickly grow and once the project is done the time will be disbanded.
For such an environment purchasing full licenses is a financial problem first having the money to buy and second return of investment.
So it seems AD tries to provide also apps which only provide tools that are needed like Maya LT with a strong focus on game design without the full render module.
Is it about profit for sure but maybe you don’t need the full Maya version.
Hmm seems like theres a bit of misinformation and biases running wild in this thread.
There are some pros and cons with LT. The pros being its much more streamlined for game development, which is nice. The cons are the usual limitation of polycount limit and lack of plugin support.
That said, the immediate problem with all this is, is that all these “updates” addressing all the complaints and feedback users have given them are not available to the normal Maya LT license holder. You only have access to these updates to the software if you pay for a subscription on top of your license. I believe its $150 a year tacked onto whatever you payed for the stand alone license.
On the other hand, one of their developers did inform me that these changes will be present most likely in any 2015 version that would be released.
The other big pull for Maya LT that even the original version of Maya doesnt have, is Shader FX. Maya LT still has a ways to go and with Modo for steam possibly competing in the say arena (with substance designer support) it probably wont be so one sided.
Its not for rendering outside of the real time viewport and play blasting. Their target audience is indy game studios and game artist. They dont need rendering or mental ray. However, they do say that if you want to render then you can just export your scenes to something else (say keyshot) and render there, or even Blender. Rendering in the full version of maya is powerful but hardly user friendly. Most just end up using an external render (via plugin) or stand alone anyways.
Maya LT you can focus on game assets and level design, exports directly into Unity with no poly limit. Shader FX allows for complex game shaders to be made.
You dont pay $600 a year. Dont know where this is coming from. There are no upgrades with Maya LT, only a subscription you can tack onto it. Its a one time license cost of $795. Once you buy a seat for it, its yours unless autodesk has some loop hole in their EULA to cancel it.
Look its fine to bash ADSK, they deserve it. Maya on its own is a good application though, and Maya LT isnt bad in its approach. Their fears of it cannibalizing the full version of maya keep them from making it worth buying at the moment, but that can change.
The developers have said that the ancient depsgraph code is indeed a major factor (possibly the major factor) in what’s preventing Blender’s animation tools from going to the next level. I haven’t really heard of the whereabouts of the final recode by Aligorith, but I have not heard of any indication of it being a failed project (leaving me wondering if the work is being done in a branch separate from what’s visible in the commit logs).
From what I’ve read, the portion that makes the depsgraph multithreaded may be in Blender fairly early in the 2.7x series (or even committed for 2.7).
As for Tiles highlighting the idea that Blender is still lacking in many areas despite a 50+ percent increase in dev. funding, an expanded core team, and an increased rate of functionality upgrades. Perhaps it’s then time to just completely write off the idea of attracting commercial software users and just make a Blender for Blender users then, because if its candidacy for adoption by professionals stayed in neutral all this time, perhaps it really is an actual impossibility to get it there?
We are a small games studio formed by veterans with +15 years experience with Max and Maya and we are seriously considering moving to Blender. I’ve just finished editing a video mostly rendered with cycles, and it’s been a wonderful learning journey. Big studios don’t have the time to invest in new tools even if they are free (I’ve been there…) but they would be truly impressed with the toolset in Blender. We are small and for us it could bs an easier change.
The only thing that is holding us from moving to Blender is a better FBX exporter, something not even Maya LT can offer with the poly limits.
That should never happen. Regardless of what sentiment is tied to the idea of attracting professionals or those using other commercial apps, the fact remains that even the hobbyist and blender only user, can benefit from adopting an approach tied to those working in the industry with a wide range of both expensive and cheap applications. If at any time the hobbyist wants to get a job or talk shop, they are already building up the expectation and skill set to get that job by using Blender, additionally if Blender begins to get adopted into bigger studios and on a more wide spread basis, the skillset of knowing blender becomes far more valuable. Doing the opposite and “just making blender for blender users” (brain dead rhetoric) does nothing for the user. Making sure theres a bit of competition between apps helps set the bar for expectations and innovations.
That said, a lot is posed to change for Blender. Its the environment around it thats also changing. Moving to GIT, changing up the development process, the whole shift towards open source and even some very prominent figures saying open source is the future, the demand even for content and indy development from gaming to interactive media… its all moving forward and Blender, instead of being the odd one out starts fitting into that change in “climate” better than even some of the other apps.
This is why you see Modo coming out with steam version, its why you see autodesk respond to the market with the Maya LT. Its why we see so many other 2d and 3d applications emerge outside of the usual big corporate names (adobe and autodesk). The market is calling for it.
Blender just has to be smart, a big part of it is usability. Accomplish that and you can snow ball in a better direction. Steam alone and the revenue garnered from it can result in far more developers being hired. I think we are seeing that change in development, its becoming smarter, Brecht and others seem to be taking a bigger role, Jonathan Williamson is getting more involved (and he comes in with a well rounded perspective from my pov), and theres actually structure… smart structure. As long as that competitive drive, no matter how small, is not dropped, it will move forward. The worst thing that can happen is the Blender for Blender users rhetoric to become a literal interpretation.
Its important to point out that even Modo is struggling with getting current animation tools, they just added a bunch of stuff in the last version. They are still lacking in many areas. Maya and even 3ds max have the unique perspective of having years of development to add and perfect core pipelines needed to make content. They rely just as much on plug-ins as they do with core development. IN fact Autodesk is notorious for just buying out plug-ins and other technology to cannibalize them rather than use their own R&D department.
Modo doesnt have that plug-in rich environment the same way as some autodesk products do. IN fact Blender probably has a more rich plugin arena than even Modo…but the problem is with the licensing and version breakage. Address that and things can only get better for Blender. If plugins become a source of revenue for developers rather than selling the actual 3d suite, then you will see vast improvements. Just have to find a way around the licensing issues that can come up.
I agree with your sentiment entirely. In fact we kind of tore autodesk a new one when they posted Maya LT on polycount and made it seem like the best thing since sliced bread. What were they thinking? It just boggles the mind.
On the other hand, given the price and a few “good” things, it might not make it the primary app of choice but one of many in a bigger pipeline. I could even seen working in Maya lt and them exporting to Blender to finish the rest. Maya LT does bring with it the chance of getting more 3rd party support, whether its Substance Designer or direct to unity tools (which it already has, no poly limit when going into unity). Shader FX is amazing. It has the best 3d viewport out there for real time rendering, has great baking tools…and its pretty consistent.
That said, with Blender you have the power to actually see the code, contribute and build your own plug-ins…especially if you are planning on using it for the long haul. No worries about seats or licensing. The weaknesses can be offset by having a multi-app pipeline with Marmoset toolbag showing off a better real time render than the maya viewport, you will probably need another app for texture painting, xnormal for baking, another for sculpting and tolology…ect I would say the biggest downside is not having many 3rd party apps play along with Blender, from subtances to the game engines themselves. Then again, thats where development comes in, the contribution to patch up its weaknesses. You get more freedom at the cost of more uncertainty and a bit more multi-app juggling, at least until more development happens with Blender.
I hope you guys stick with Blender and contribute to it in the long run because thats what it really needs.
Also, there’s been a major discussion regarding this proposed patch by Bastion that might answer at least part of Tiles’ complaint about the use of units in transform operations.
There is work being done on usability and functionality, but is it going fast enough to give Blender a chance with widespread adoption among game professionals?
