impressive software for the year it came out.
Now I am not impressed at all at current studio max, but I got very curious about maya after I saw their node editor for making rigging.
3d studio max instead is something I would not touch with a pole given that I still have to approach houdini and maya and seems its completely useless for what I have to do.
Still remember messing around with 3ds R4 for MS-Dos. I didnāt have the slightest clue. When they released max for Windows I was super stoked. I remember it being pretty accessible and my plans were to make Terminator 3 on my 90 mhz pentium. When that didnāt work, I recreated my room in 3D and filled it with terrible box-modeled creatures. Happy times. Blender is cooler though.
Started in 3d from 3ds Max. Got fed with constant crashes (maximum up to three modifiers on a lowpoly game style object, mind you) and file corruptions in 8-9, and switched to Blender. No regrets even if I miss few gimmicks.
The problem with Max is that its features are impressive on their own, they don"t work well together. Probably because Autodesk was just buying plugins from 3rd party without ever bothering to integrate. Love Physique modifier for setting up character, for example? Forget about weight transfer using Skin Wrap. Individual modifierās UI and logic might as well come from different programs. A bunch of black boxes that falls apart when you dig deeper
You get the idea, that is easy to port all of these effects and tutorials on Blender, because there is an equivalent approach to each software.
But in this case is that you have the feature out of the box, you follow a few directions and you are able to have the same result.
If for example you think that in 2000 everybody would use Dial-Up modems to connect to internet, and there were no free streaming websites with tutorials. Obviously you would have to use very closed and streamlined workflows that they would be easy to recreate with only a page of reading.
Now you might see 20 geometry node tutorials, spend many days to follow them all. Then then combine features from all tutorials to create your own customized version, etcā¦ You see that now there is too much study and too much effort for everything.
BSMax completely rocks.
This was one of the first things I tried to do in blenderā¦ WTF, you canāt edit primitive parameters?! (Beyond the initial f9 moment.) Donāt even remember how I found that addon, but I regularly recommend it to people.
Allow me to explain then, because it has been just a bit more than a year since I was an average new user in Blender, and I documented much of my progress.
First one has to know what to look for. Which might be the case if buying a car, but itās hardly the case for a random hobbyist curious about 3D, and thatās Blenderās average new user. Though possibly this isnāt even true when buying your first car ever, if you know nothing about cars and what will matter to you about yours. But at least with a car the major features are relatively few and you can use a buyerās guide.
Iāll do some initial evaluation of software to find out whether the software overall suits my purpose. Overall, not in fine detail (I canāt even imagine doing it in detail; how long would that take even if I knew exactly what I am looking for? Iād pick my main concerns). I wanted to create Steam Workshop game assets for a specific game. I knew from other people doing it that Blender could do that, and export in a form that Unity could handle. There were some basic instructions for how to get an object from Blender into Unity. Since nobody talked about using any other software for it, I figured it might be easiest if I used Blender, at least to get started, so I could draw on community knowledge.
As regards extensions I knew that Blender could be extended via a Python API, and that there were already many add-ons, but I had no idea of any specifics; none seemed to be needed to do what I wanted to do. I knew nothing about GN.
When I first jump in to try out new software I expect basic functionality to be simple and obvious, even if the software is complex. It doesnāt get much more simple than primitives in 3D; Blender even dumps one of them into its default startup scene. It felt somewhat cumbersome to get any initial primitive into the form I wanted it to be in (the fact that the ALO panel is collapsed by default also didnāt help). I decided pretty much right away I needed tutorials.
In comparison some years ago I spent a couple of hours exploring in SketchUp before feeling I needed help. Yet now that I know Blender better, I prefer it, a lot. So this isnāt a plug for SketchUp. Just that it was simple and obvious to use for a new user and made me feel comfortable right away. Under certain circumstances that can matter quite a lot ā back then I rejected Blender out of hand because I found its user interface hideous (pre-2.8).
Even now, as a new Blender user I wasnāt gonna download an add-on or venture into GN; The UI is much better now, but Blender is still quite overwhelming without any of that. I do think that oneās first basic experience with software ought to be somewhat friendly for people who donāt have much if any knowledge. And therefore I agree with @Format64, you cannot expect an average new user to get into add-ons/GN/scripting right off the bat.
This is directed at other comments in the thread: I appreciate nostalgia for other software (we all have our memories; theyāre fun). But I donāt really care for arguments of the type ā30 years ago X had what Blender still doesnāt haveā that dismiss suggestions about alternative ways of doing the same thing. 
People knowing two sets of software can make long lists of where one is better than the other, and theyāre often subjective; what of it? Hereās your workaround, and feel free to request the devs implement your favourite feature in the appropriate channels. If you overall prefer X, go use X and be happy with it, why harangue users of other software?
I totally understand the situation and what you sayā¦ but one the other hand itās the reaction iām bewildered fromā¦ also:
So someone knew alreadyā¦
So you expect simplicity on a comlpex topicā¦
A cooker / stove is the most used/known kitchen utilityā¦ nevertheless itās no guarantee that someone is able to make nice meal or will burn everthing to deathā¦
So this:
But you canāt expect new usersā¦
ā¦ just does not make sense to meā¦ maybe i should use another metaphor:
Can someone make a good novel just by using the most used (?) word(processor) ā¦and all itās āfeaturesā just because it has those ? And can an new user can handle all this without asking some sometimes arkward questions ?
Q: My text disappeared after i switched my computer on againā¦
R: Where did you saved it ? On the desktop ?
Q: No i wrote it on the computer not at my desktop on paper.
R:
So i donāt undwerstand why people when beginning something start to learn thisā¦ but on the computer the complain about the overhelming features and functionality a software do offerā¦ i mean thatās the reason why someone is able to do those complex things in the first placeā¦
Nothing is ever easy.
Somebody? I generally know what my goal is. That doesnāt mean I know every detail of how I can achieve that goal.
Thatās not quite what I said.
Read carefully: basic functionality. I am dropping a primitive into my scene in order to create a simple low poly table, I am not producing a AAA game with cinematic cut scenes.
Of course not. In order to make a nice meal one has to know a lot more than how to use a stove. But I expect that Iāll be able to boil some water the very first time I use a new stove. And indeed, Iāve never yet had to read the instruction manual for a stove to do that ā if I had to, Iād probably consider it badly designed. Itās not the best metaphor because weāre all pretty much familiar with the core design of stoves from when we were children (Iām old, I actually grew up with a coal stove which was a lot less intuitive), while weāre not similarly familiar with 3D software, but hey, itās your metaphor.
Same thing. Basic functionality should be simple, so I can quickly type, save, and print a shopping list for example. The word processor I use right now is minimalist, and I didnāt need to read the manual to use it for such simple tasks. And again, to write a novel requires skills that are way outside of word processing. Itās not all that hard to type up a novel either though, a better example would be a mathematical textbook ā that definitely requires reading the manual, and not all word processors can even handle that task.
You are consistently conflating basic functionality for creating oneās first simple object with the full capabilities of the software that one would need to produce a complex work of art. The former should be simple IMO. The latter will take a lot of dedicated learning and practice, plus it will require skills that lie outside of the domain of the software.
I disagree. Lots of things are simple and easy. And complex things are often built from simple components. Good design can even make some complex things easy, or at least easier. But I think I can spare us further metaphors.
A really interesting book about design, good and bad, is Don Normanās The Design of Everyday Things; I read the original many years ago and learned a lot from it even though I was designing software, not real world objects.
But blender has all this basic functionalityā¦ it comes already with the standard cube and to add some more objectsā¦ there is Add ā Whatever while under Object it starts with Transform etc. and if someone look closely and select *Render ā Render Imageā¦ what do you get ? And other 3D apps do whatā¦?
Some new users arenāt able to select Help ā Manual and others does expect it to work like another specialised app. But didnāt those users had to learn the other app tooā¦ ? And didnāt change those other apps also over the years?
So why are so many people blaming blender to beā¦ so bad in whateverā¦ or wrongā¦ orā¦ i donāt know what elseā¦ And why canāt the blender devs expect a new user to study this area of 3D computer generated imagery before and while using it ? ( And stillā¦ there is the default sceneā¦ and the manualā¦)
Soā¦ for me some āargumentsāā¦ are justā¦ not the initial problem.
Argueing about what any app has to beā¦ just hinders one to make any kind of workā¦
And thenā¦ like Wikipedia says:
Nostalgia is a sentimentality for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.
Soā¦ nothing more to say.
If Blizzard could make all their games and cinematics with Max at that time, Iām sure Max was not a problem.
Easy to get started is fine, the issue is figuring out a way to make things friendly to beginners without the cost of obfuscating and/or hiding the more advanced tools behind stacks of buttons, windows, and menus. For instance, beginners will probably not use Geometry Nodes much, but by now it is way too useful in its non-destructive capabilities to potentially make it a pain to access.
Total beginners now have MS Paint 3D for basic doodles, so we still want to ensure that Blenderās advanced functionality is easy to access for cases when they are needed.
Max certainly was a problem. No other 3d software I used at the same time, including doing similar or more complex tasks in Blender, or relatively heavy sculpts in Zbrush or Mudbox, was so unstable. Blizzard mustāve been exclusively hiring masochistsXD
Maybe Blizzard know to use it. 
Even tho it were a problem as you claimed, thatās almost 20 years ago, Max has been probably the most stable DCC on the market in recent days. At least it is far more stable than Blender for sure. Also, Max can just churns through hundreds millions of polygon while Blender canāt. So, you canāt even do fair comparison.
To play devilās advocate, when I first hit Render Image, I kept wondering what the heck I was looking at. It sure wasnāt matching the view.
Oh, it only renders from the camera view, and you must have a camera. So the cube isnāt required, but the camera is. Ok, cute. But Iāll play along.
Wait, how do I ROTATE/MOVE the camera? The view keeps jumping out of camera view, and back to some other place.
Like - now, itās second nature. But on Day One? It felt sort of crazyā¦ like, WTH does this program WANT from me!?
It is quite common for large enterprises like Blizzard to have an entire suite of tools written by their own developers to help them in the production process. A lot of software vendors also provide hugely expensive enterprise licensing that gives the company the ability to possess the source code.
There are simply not a lot of large studios that will produce anything major with just the features and tools that come in the box.
Blender has gotten a lot better with sizable data amounts since 2.79 (for starters, a lot of optimization commits now mention datasets of millions of polygons), but I do agree we are not there yet.
3d studio max is what put me off 3d for over a decade. In that period I was quite effecient in Autocad but mesh modeling was just alien to me.
I do not blame Max, I was just overwhelmed by learning the workflow. I am not saying Blender is easier for beginners what I am saying is that mesh modeling and 3d in general is hard for beginners + materials + rendering + nodes + everything!
There are so many things to learn in any 3D software that it is a big barrier for first time casual users. (lets not mention Houdini)
Max (any version) can stumble at mere thousands of polys in the scene, if you want to edit something and it randomly ādoes not like itā. So comparison is completely fair
Iāve been using various 3D software since the mid 90ās, depending on the software it either was really difficult to learn or real easy to use but lacked features. My first 3D software was LogoMotion made by the same company as Infini-D, Specular International. They didnāt last long but this is what I learned for basic 3D fundamentals. I also had Bryce, which I loved creating terrain renders. Then I tried Blender back in the NaN days when it first was ported over to Windows, the layout of the UI was different and I couldnāt grasp it at the time, I guess I didnāt give it a chance. I then had access to Lightwave 7.0 in the early 2000ās and that propelled me to really learn this stuff. But I kept coming back to Blender and for a couple of decades really spent the time exploring, experimenting and creating with it. I use Houdini and OMG it is so different from Blender, I still have trouble with it but again itās something to learn and valuable to know as well I guess.
TLDR. Iāve used quite a few 90ās 3D software and Iām old lolā¦
Shure. Maybe Iām using a special version,
Where ??
The un-funny think is: if someone looks into some other forumsā¦ then there are also questions, experience of weird behavior and everthing else alsoā¦ so āthisā is not a blender-thing at allā¦
Like for example:
