An Autodesk partner website apparently made an article comparing Maya to Blender

I don’t think drag-and-drop macros is the extent of Maya’s extensibility. I only said it was easier. You’re asserting that extending Maya is easier thus more extensible. I was conceding that in some ways it is true that extending Maya is easier, but being easier doesn’t mean it’s more extensible.

1 Like

Exactly. I think what’s going on here is really a discussion about extensible vs accessible. MEL is certainly accessible (as in easily approachable to get stuff up and running by anyone with basic scripting knowledge). However, no matter which way you twist it, having access to the actual source code means you can extend it… From the actual source. Fully. Infinately. 100 percenterino! :slight_smile:

Hmm… Isn’t there plugins that mix C and Python in blender too though? I mean, flip fluids is one example, and i thought that the UVPackmaster 2 PRO addon also had c going… at least that is what the description is saying on gumroad.

UVPackmaster 2 is an efficient UV packing engine available as a command line tool. Its robustness comes from the fact that it was written in C++ and runs as a multi-threaded application.

Sooo… I guess it’s possible to make addons that uses c too then? Or at least a mix. UVPackmaster is blazingly fast packing those UV’s though…

Yeah, but that’s the thing. As far as scripting is concerned, Blender certainly doesn’t hold a candle to Maya. BPY is great, but very lacking once you dig deeper, speaking comparatively. Some things you just can’t do, some require awkward workarounds, some are stuck in what looks like a perpetual TODO. So in that regard Blender trails behind. Of course, if a studio has good programmers, having access to source alleviates that. But nonetheless that narrows the scope of extensibility, quite substantially.

I.e. as regards to what @cgCody said above, the fact that you “can” extend it isn’t all that representative: you need people that are actually able to do it. Which, for a given studio, just may not be the case.


I’ll refer back to my last post in which I pointed out the distinction between extensible vs accessible. As a refresher, the article makes the blanket claim that “Blender isn’t as extensible as Maya”. It says “as extensible”, not “as easily extensible”. Just because source programming might not be an option for a given studio doesn’t make this any less if a false statement.

That’d be like saying European cars are less fixable than American cars, because I personally only know how to work on American cars.

However, making the claim that “Extending Blender is not as accessible as extending Maya.” would be a more fitting argument. And I can agree with that. I’ve done some basic stuff with MEL years ago, and it was easy enough to pick up with no programming knowledge and only basic scripting knowledge. :slight_smile:

That’s just semantics. It’s pretty clear the article wasn’t written by anyone actually knowing what they’re talking about. For a layman (which seems to be the target demographic of that article), this distinction does not exist.

For anyone serious enough to consider shelling out the money for Maya, it absolutely exists. And it absolutely exists for many of the people in this discussion.

EDIT: Not to mention any programmers looking to break into this industry. They deserve a fair comparison for the section of the article that pertains to them just as much as the design side.

1 Like

Anyone in the “considering” camp would also consider whether they would need to hire (or outsource to) expensive C/C++ programmers. Anyway, again, semantics. You’re taking that lousy BS sales pitch way too literally.

Ahh. I wasn’t aware I was supposed to read the article with a side of whimsy. At any rate, I don’t want to keep going in circles. I already tried to meet you in the middle by agreeing with your side of distinction I made, but you seem set to dismiss it all the same. :slight_smile:

No, I don’t. Perhaps I’m just not expressing myself clearly. Need a break, probably.


It’s all good, dude. Go have a smoke and a pancake. :smile:

1 Like

Are you spying on me?! :grinning:


Anyone considering extending anything is going to look at that.

To be fair, I think Maya has a legacy of being more extensible because of Mel. I am not a programmer but I understand from a more laymen’s view that Mel had its limitations. And that Python was added a while back to Maya to be more flexible as well as add a more universal language to the process of extending features.

Beyond that, it is a given if you are extending, you are doing it with a team or with your time.

Is Maya more extensible today than Blender? To be honest, I am not even close to being qualified to answer that. But if the article is speaking to Maya’s legacy, I’d say it is accurate. This has been a fairly universally understood and agreed advantage to Maya from the beginning and was a major selling point to studios.

I don’t exactly know if the article is biased or not. Hypothetically in my mind I would agree, one software is for pros and other is for hobbyists. But for someone who knows about technical details and how things work in productions, can easily nail down the entire notion of special effects to rendering vertices and post processing the results. In that sense both software do exactly the same stuff.

Go ahead and show this image to your friends or family, preferably if they don’t know about CG and movies the better your experiment will be. Tell them that one image is made by a simple person and another image is a screenshot from a movie made by a professional studio. Changes are that they would simply flip a coin with a 50-50 chance, or perhaps judge by subjective reasons, such as one robot is painted, the other has rust, one has simpler design, other looks more cool.

But talking in real technical terms the final question if is with that software you get from point A to point B. Either you walk, or you hitchhike, or you drive, or you fly by plane. The real meaning is to go straight to the result without guesswork.

1 Like

But in the claim extensibility doesn’t just mean access to the source or scripting. It also means extensibility as in I can buy a plugin to extend the application and in that respect Blender doesn’t hold a candle to Maya. That’s actually the first point in the Extensibility section of that article and it’s accurate.

Not that that there aren’t some 3rd party add-ons you can buy for Blender but the sheer number of 3rd party developers for Maya is huge. You can buy a tool for everything. Some award winning tools that you can’t really find anywhere else.

Right now that’s not happening in Blender, either due to the licensing or lack of developer interest. That may change but the licensing won’t and I can’t see a way around it for commercial plugin developers.

1 Like

You have a point there, though until now, our discussion has been about the ability to extend, not the availability of extensions.

I knows Maya very well - and if there is one are it beats Blender than it is the access to pro plug-ins. Isn’t that the same with 3DMax? The base app is good but the add-one is what makes it so great.

Back in 2003 I loved working in maya with poly sub-d and nurbs. But nurbs like other modeling tools hardly got updates.

And to my view blenders eevee defeats mayas view port.

If you work in a large studio, legal will veto blender because of the Infectious nature of the GPL. I’m not well versed in the law so I can’t speak to the exact reasons, but thats what happens. Generally speaking its quite hard to get free software approved for usage unless its MIT, or Apache

This is too broad of a statement, I should have originally stated that If you intend to modify the source things become complicated when you wish to interact with third parties.

Eh, I’m skeptical about that assertion. Linux is GPL and seems to be pretty common in studios for example. The viral nature only applies if they redistribute Blender, which studios probably aren’t going to do anyway. Internally, they can do what they want with it.

For an example, this recent article on the Netflix Film “I Lost My Body” mentions modifying Blender to suit their needs. They didn’t need to open source all their other stuff just because they used Blender.


Right, I’m not buying that any studio’s legal team is turning down Blender due to the GPL, unless they have plans to distribute/sell software, or the decision is based on a misunderstanding of the license.

There are plenty of studios that use Blender, and that number is increasing. Ubisoft Animation studios, for example, wouldn’t have switched to Blender if the GPL would limit their internal freedom. Tangent Animations is another studio that has made changes to Blender (for Next Gen), which they’ve stated they may share at some point. “May…”, as in; They aren’t required to do so.