Thing is, unlike Autodesk product’s… Modo (like Blender) isnt going to be on a requirement list to get an industry job (broadly speaking). So if you already have a 3D application you are happy with, that fulfills most of the needs without too many annoyances then yes it would make little sense to go and learn another application, especially if its just for the hell of it.
Then again, in order to evolve ones workflow and expectations, learning and doing projects within different applications can actually help an artist grow. It also helps provide better feedback as far as Blender development is concerned (not that its always taken into consideration).
THe parts that I have worked is better in blender (sculpting, UVs, textures, retopo) and the few problems that blender have are solved thanks to some plugins that I think that make better tools than modo (YAVNE for example). Other parts like materials for me are less important because the pipeline that I’m using actually is substance painter and pick all the maps from this software and put all in unreal, unity or any other.
(Playing a bit of devil’s advocate here)
Its hard to claim the plugin tools will be better than Modo’s, though that depends on on the plugin in question. However major detractor for Blender plugins vs native Modo integration is the long standing problem of Blender plugins depreciating over time…whether through incompatibility and breakage, or through the fact the authors go missing. The result is that users had to juggle multiple versions of Blender just to keep that “pipeline” intact. Additionally, Modo also has plugins that are pretty damn good, however I generally do not include those as part of reviewing software. Some examples of these plugins within Modo are Seneca Scripts (Seneca is a developer who worked at Id Soft (Doom 3, Rage…ect)).
The vertex normal toolkit which found its way into Modo’s native toolset was created by a developer at Rockstar games. Mix that Modo’s native smooth shader feature and the results/workflow will at least be on par if not better than something like YAVNE, with the added perk that its part of the native feature set…and therefor will be maintained over time. You could say there is a sense of security in knowing that features are more reliable than plugins due to one being 1st part and the other being 3rd.
UV editing is also vastly superior in Modo. That part isnt even up for debate. I wish that were not the case, but it is. Aside from the vast amount of features and near effortless UV management/editing found in Modo… it tightly mirrors, rather almost acts as though it is an extension of the 3D Viewport. One of Blender’s biggest cons in my opinion is that the UV editor is almost a separate entity altogether, the workflow is not necessarily consistent nor is the design intuitive. This isnt to say you cant get great results out of Blender, because you can… and its certainly does the job it sets out to do… but the level of development and integration between the two is pretty big. Hell if I didnt have a Modo license, I’d be tempted to pick up Modo Indie just for the UV tools on their own.
If blender developers could pick one thing to take from Modo, the UV editing features and implementation would be one of the top contenders.
On the subject of Sculpting. It is a tough one because on one hand Modo gives you the auto-retopology features, which can be used as a kind of poor mans Zremesher/Dynamesh (Zbrush). Additionally the brush controls are better (mirror’s 3D Coats approach). On the other hand, Blender’s brush strokes and displacement feel closer to Zbrush… thus giving a better sense of stroke control. The dynamic topology, via tris, mirrors 3D Coat’s live clay a bit. The result is that despite the better brush system (resize, strength…ect) in Modo, Blender’s sculpts will be much better with the final result. In short Modo really doesnt have much pull at the end of the day for sculpting.
Still it would be better served to not sculpt in either application, but instead opt for a dedicated sculpting program such as Zbrush or 3D Coat, assuming you have the funds.
Retopology on its own, objectively I still think it is better integrated into Modo. The retopo pen tool and the retopo layout with proper ghosting… as well as the background constraint system just make it faster in my opinion. When mixed with the UVs, many which are not broken by using such tools, the process is better. Between the two, Modo would have the edge on retopo. Again though, better to use a specialized application if one wants the best workflow. 3D Coat and Topogun take the cake with that one.
Thankfully, both applications will be covering the necessary workflow. Even if one is perceived to do a better job at something, there is a definite benefit for staying in one application for most of the pipeline. Blender and Modo will be covering all bases. If you know one well enough, the pull to learn the other is diminished.
I’ll end with one observation worth noting. You mention making use of Substance Painter (substances) and target game engines like Unreal/Unity. Blender is GPL, Modo is not. This means while Blender probably can’t get certain support for Allegorithimic’s Substances, Modo can.
Thus Modo has Substance support. Meaning you can use substances for rendering, baking and general texturing purposes within Modo. So if you have designer, you can make custom substances and work with them inside of the DCC application. This is also true for other primary players (Maya, C4D…ect). In Modo, these now work with its new PBR viewport as well, though apparently it still needs some adjusting for full compatibility.
See:
On top of that, Modo did integrate Unreal and Unity materials into Modo itself, thus creating parity between what you get in the game engine and what you can see in the viewport. With this parity, they added plugins in both Unity and Unreal in order to send stuff directly out of Modo and into the game engine.
See:
These are a few of the kinds of developments I would love to see happen with Blender. The challenges however, at least as far as substances, are in part limited by the licensing type. Whether or not Modo is worth the cost for those features is up to the artist.
This is more food for thought than a recommendation to switch or learn Modo. Rather, if anything it helps shed light on the subject so that users can have a more informed perspective regarding the two. A good artist will do fine in either application.