Maya 8.5 universal binary at last! March '07

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
link



Product Announcement



* Autodesk Maya 8.5 Unveiled At GDC 2007

Autodesk® Maya® 8.5 software gives artists enhanced creative control, enabling faster completion of complex animation and simulation tasks. Creative control is achieved through innovative new technologies such as Nucleus, Autodesk?s next-generation unified dynamics simulation framework. Python integration further extends this creative control. Maya 8.5 is also optimized for Intel-based Macs.



8)

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,408moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikethomson


    Python integration further extends this creative control.



    This kind of thing makes me laugh. The open source 3D package Blender has a lot of stuff that only comes into Maya later on. Blender has been on Intel Macs for a while now and is pretty sufficient for most 3D stuff.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikethomson


    Maya 8.5 is also optimized for Intel-based Macs.



    They better mean it this time. I'm sick of hearing them say optimized for G5, optimized for OS X etc when it's pretty obvious they haven't done a damn thing. Maya is fine on Windows but it runs like crap on the Mac platform.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    Wow, I just sorta assumed they'd kill Maya off completely. This is really good news.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    This kind of thing makes me laugh. The open source 3D package Blender has a lot of stuff that only comes into Maya later on. Blender has been on Intel Macs for a while now and is pretty sufficient for most 3D stuff.



    No offense, but have you serious USED Blender? For actual work? The interface is horrendous.



    I've ranted about how shitty Maya is from time to time, but Blender is absolutely appalling.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    Wow, I just sorta assumed they'd kill Maya off completely. This is really good news.



    Yeah, I think a lot of folks see Autodesk as either Mac-indifferent or Mac-hostile - plus the fact that they refuse to say anything concrete on the matter doesn't help any.



    I hope this information is trustworthy; it's from the GDC site and AFAIK they're not in the habit of just inventing stuff, but it's still not an official confirmation from Autodesk.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,408moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    No offense, but have you serious USED Blender? For actual work? The interface is horrendous.



    I've ranted about how shitty Maya is from time to time, but Blender is absolutely appalling.



    It just takes getting used to. I guess it's down to what you prefer but I used Maya for nearly a year and one reason I switched was the interface - mainly the modelling though. Maya just seems to throw tools into huge menus, which are a nuisance to scroll through. Blender's workflow heavily depends on shortcuts which are set up beforehand and it makes for very fast productivity.



    I'm not saying Blender will satisfy a Maya user's needs because it is lacking in a few key areas and I'm looking more towards Cinema 4D now but the amount of features that are available in the software is incredible considering it is free. Plus if you are into scripting like me, you can get round a lot of shortfalls.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikethomson


    link



    Product Announcement



    * Autodesk Maya 8.5 Unveiled At GDC 2007

    Autodesk® Maya® 8.5 software gives artists enhanced creative control, enabling faster completion of complex animation and simulation tasks. Creative control is achieved through innovative new technologies such as Nucleus, Autodesk’s next-generation unified dynamics simulation framework. Python integration further extends this creative control. Maya 8.5 is also optimized for Intel-based Macs.



    8)



    Windows Vista only....That would serve Apple right for killing all the Windows apps they buy...(ducks)
  • Reply 7 of 16
    Looks like it's been taken down.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    Marvin, Maya rules. More than XSI. More than Max (which is why Autodesk bought it).



    Blender is a niche 3D app for exploring 3D with no cost, it's not on the same level as, nor anywhere near, Maya.



    BTW, there are keyboard shortcuts for just about everything in Maya, too.



    Maya rules for modeling, RULES for texturing, lighting, animation, fur, hair, dynamics, fluid effects, particles, ease of use (as compared to other industrial-grade 3D apps) etc.



    AFAICT, Blender doesn't rule at anything besides cost. I'm not bashing Blender, I think it's a great idea, but comparing it to Maya is comparing a bicycle to a Lamborghini.



    A few things I've made/am making with Maya.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,408moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post


    Marvin, Maya rules. More than XSI. More than Max (which is why Autodesk bought it).



    Blender is a niche 3D app for exploring 3D with no cost, it's not on the same level as, nor anywhere near, Maya.



    BTW, there are keyboard shortcuts for just about everything in Maya, too.



    Maya rules for modeling, RULES for texturing, lighting, animation, fur, hair, dynamics, fluid effects, particles, ease of use (as compared to other industrial-grade 3D apps) etc.



    AFAICT, Blender doesn't rule at anything besides cost. I'm not bashing Blender, I think it's a great idea, but comparing it to Maya is comparing a bicycle to a Lamborghini.



    A few things I've made/am making with Maya.



    You can do most of that in Blender and seriously Maya does not rule for modelling. UV mapping in Blender is more powerful than Maya - so much so they ported the code from Blender into it recently as a plugin. Animation, fur, hair, fluids, particles, Maya is more powerful but most people won't have powerful enough machines for those things. The Maya internal renderer didn't even have GI nor micropolygon rendering the last time I checked so most of the output quality depends on external rendering software, which you can interface using Blender.



    Have you seen some of the gallery work?



    http://www.blender.org/cms/Gallery.55.0.html



    I agree that Maya is more powerful but ultimately it's down to the artist controlling the tool. Photoshop may be more powerful than a paintbrush but I can bet that Michaelangelo would do more with a paintbrush than most Photoshop artists.



    It depends what you use the tools for too of course but Blender was used for previz on Spiderman.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    You can do most of that in Blender and seriously Maya does not rule for modelling. UV mapping in Blender is more powerful than Maya - so much so they ported the code from Blender into it recently as a plugin. Animation, fur, hair, fluids, particles, Maya is more powerful but most people won't have powerful enough machines for those things. The Maya internal renderer didn't even have GI nor micropolygon rendering the last time I checked so most of the output quality depends on external rendering software, which you can interface using Blender.



    Have you seen some of the gallery work?



    http://www.blender.org/cms/Gallery.55.0.html



    I agree that Maya is more powerful but ultimately it's down to the artist controlling the tool. Photoshop may be more powerful than a paintbrush but I can bet that Michaelangelo would do more with a paintbrush than most Photoshop artists.



    It depends what you use the tools for too of course but Blender was used for previz on Spiderman.





    I'll admit that Blender is capable of producing work as good as Maya is, but that's not really the point. It's the workflow and interface that determine a product's usability and acceptance, and that's where Blender breaks down. I've used both Maya and Blender fairly extensively, and I can tell you that Blender's interface is simply more arcane. Just as powerful, but more arcane. Kind of like the differences between the command line and the GUI: in most cases, they can both accomplish the same things, but one is terrifically easier to learn than the other, which makes its survival as a "species" more tenable, as there's less intimidation to beginners, who revitalize the field with their interest and presence.



    In this way, Blender is just like the command line: foreign at first, frustrating for a long time, but eventually, you get it, and feel at home in the new environment. The difference between that and Maya is that with Maya, there's much less of that kind of interface learning curve; sure, the tools and technique may be new and bizarre, but at least you know that buttons are buttons and checkboxes are checkboxes. Though it has its own interface failings, Maya tries and usually succeeds in adhering to basic, standard UI guidelines. Blender does not, because it doesn't even try. As a result it's fundamentally harder to learn, and therefore less appealing to beginners. This is the kind of thing that leads to the death or fundamental redesign of a product. It happened to DOS, it happened to UNIX, it's happening to the command-line wing of Linux, and it would have already happened to Blender if it wasn't free.



    To reiterate: Blender is capable of producing output just as gorgeous as anything Maya is capable of, but its byzantine interface is so foreign and offputting to new users that it will slowly become irrelevant as commercial packages come down in price and free competitors improve. I sure know that I'm willing to pay for a comfortable interface; that's why I bought Maya. Many others make the same decision. If you don't, hats off to you, but understand that you're in the minority; most people don't have time to learn completely new interfaces, no matter how much they appreciate the price tag or want to break into the field.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,408moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sladuuch View Post


    I've used both Maya and Blender fairly extensively, and I can tell you that Blender's interface is simply more arcane. Just as powerful, but more arcane. Kind of like the differences between the command line and the GUI: in most cases, they can both accomplish the same things, but one is terrifically easier to learn than the other, which makes its survival as a "species" more tenable, as there's less intimidation to beginners, who revitalize the field with their interest and presence.



    I don't know if Maya is easier for beginners. The reason I stopped using Maya was partly because of the interface. The traditional menus and things work ok but they're not fast in a workflow. If you have to scroll through a menu with 20 items and submenus to get to a tool then it kills your workflow.You can set up toolboxes and things, which make it quite flexible but that doesn't help beginners. They also didn't have zooming with the scroll wheel and pan, rotate etc setup to use the 3-button mouse by default when I first used it at version 3.5. I don't they set it up like that until version 6. It had terrible bugs in it too, like version 5 would crash every time you manually set the CV positions on curves and Maya was always susceptible to gimbal lock whereas Blender uses quaternion calculations internallly so it avoids that. The good thing about open source software is that bugs can get fixed pretty quickly and the developers tend to be much more approachable. The community aspect of Blender is awesome. When I went to the user forum for maya, people were lost because nobody answered their questions about some bugs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sladuuch View Post


    it will slowly become irrelevant as commercial packages come down in price and free competitors improve. I sure know that I'm willing to pay for a comfortable interface; that's why I bought Maya. Many others make the same decision. If you don't, hats off to you, but understand that you're in the minority; most people don't have time to learn completely new interfaces, no matter how much they appreciate the price tag or want to break into the field.



    I agree on many points and some parts annoy me about Blender including elements in the interface but when I use some of the competing products to see if they are better, I always feel less comfortable with them. They all have pretty funky interfaces. Houdini has one bitch of an interface that I couldn't make head nor tail of. The Blender interface is like Shake, which I also love. I'd say the only flaw in the Blender one is not using vertically scrolling panels like Maya but I don't think that's enough to put people off.



    I feel that you may be right and Blender may become irrelevant as commercial products become cheaper simply because they are in use by major studios and are partly developed by them but I think the open source nature of it still gives it an edge and as I said above, they've already made some pretty smart design decisions that major companies are only now coming round to implementing. Maya should've had Python support from the start. MEL is ok but it's another syntax to learn.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I don't know if Maya is easier for beginners. The reason I stopped using Maya was partly because of the interface. The traditional menus and things work ok but they're not fast in a workflow. If you have to scroll through a menu with 20 items and submenus to get to a tool then it kills your workflow. You can set up toolboxes and things, which make it quite flexible but that doesn't help beginners. They also didn't have zooming with the scroll wheel and pan, rotate etc setup to use the 3-button mouse by default when I first used it at version 3.5. I don't they set it up like that until version 6. It had terrible bugs in it too, like version 5 would crash every time you manually set the CV positions on curves and Maya was always susceptible to gimbal lock whereas Blender uses quaternion calculations internallly so it avoids that. The good thing about open source software is that bugs can get fixed pretty quickly and the developers tend to be much more approachable. The community aspect of Blender is awesome. When I went to the user forum for maya, people were lost because nobody answered their questions about some bugs.



    Oh, I could point to some terrible bugs in Maya! You're right that the closed-source nature means that problems don't get resolved as quickly. Right now, I've been waiting a year and a half for a universal binary of Maya. It's also true that support is often sub-par, but support shouldn't have to replace a decent visible interface. About your menu example, I'll take a tool that's accessed via a huge, deeply nested menu over one that you can only get to via a keyboard command any day. The difference is that I'm likely to find the menu command, whereas the keyboard one will remain buried forever unless I hit it by mistake, regardless of how much more efficient it is. And once I find the Maya one, I can assign a keyboard shortcut to it myself if I really value efficiency. A visible interface (e.g. menus) that allows you to assign invisible qualities to it (e.g. keyboard shortcuts) is always better than a purely invisible one (e.g. most of Blender's interface).



    Also, I don't think it's fair to fault Maya today for bugs it had years ago. I'm sure the Blender of 2002 was far less functional than today's Blender, too.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I agree on many points and some parts annoy me about Blender including elements in the interface but when I use some of the competing products to see if they are better, I always feel less comfortable with them. They all have pretty funky interfaces. Houdini has one bitch of an interface that I couldn't make head nor tail of. The Blender interface is like Shake, which I also love. I'd say the only flaw in the Blender one is not using vertically scrolling panels like Maya but I don't think that's enough to put people off.



    I feel that you may be right and Blender may become irrelevant as commercial products become cheaper simply because they are in use by major studios and are partly developed by them but I think the open source nature of it still gives it an edge and as I said above, they've already made some pretty smart design decisions that major companies are only now coming round to implementing. Maya should've had Python support from the start. MEL is ok but it's another syntax to learn.



    Python scripting is indeed a positive feature of Blender, and I sorely missed it when I made the switch. MEL scrpting is, as you say, okay, but you do gain a stupid amount of customizability with it.

    As for other packages' UIs, yeah, there really doesn't seem to be any kind of "standard" interface for 3D software, which is a shame. Maya is probably one of the closest adherents to the standard desktop interface we're used to, which is why I prefer it. There are many concepts that they try to shoehorn into it that maybe would be better served by a less standard interface, but that's the exception, not the rule, and I think the familiarity afforded by a familiar standard-esque desktop interface outweighs the possible workflow improvements that could be obtained by doing what Blender did.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lancaster View Post


    Looks like it's been taken down.



    Yet it's true:



    http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.c...e.jsp?id=96659



    32-bit now on the Mac; 64-bit maybe a little down the road.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    Heh, if it wasn't for counterstrike, I could dump my Boot Camp partition...
  • Reply 15 of 16
    Looks like folks will need to update some graphics cards:



    http://www.alias.com/eng/support/may...ya_85_osx.html
  • Reply 16 of 16
    haha here we go again with the "this program is better then that one". You hear this a lot in the audio industry as well, Pro Tools VS Cubase or Pro Tools VS Logic. The key is none of these programs are better then the other. Sure some of them have more options, or make the work flow a little easier, but when it comes to end product, they can all produce the same quality. It all depends on the person and how well you know the program. If you know Blender real well, you can come out with some stunning images, same with Maya. I don't like either, I use Cinema 4D, but I can't say it's the best, the program just works for me. The work flow, the layout, the shortcuts, it all makes sence to me. 3D Max is another (I think they are both very close, almost the same layout and everything thats why I can navigate both without a problem). If I open Maya I'll have a heart attack. To me, you really need to KNOW Maya to use it, it's really not user friendly at first, I can't say one is better then the other though, because I know the end result can be the same in 3D Max, Cinema 4D, Maya, and Blender along with most of the others.
Sign In or Register to comment.