Has anyone drawn up a chart describing the strengths and weaknesses of the different software packages? As in, this program is good for evironment creation but weak on modeling, this one is good for modeling but does not work well with other programs, this one has a good conversion capability but that's about all its good for, etc., etc., etc.

The kind of thing Consumer Reports might do. I'm just trying to decide what my next major (amateur level) purchase will be, and I need to know what's out there and how much of it will work with what I've already got.

Excellent idea but of course the bias of the author would also come into play on some strengths and weaknesses...

For example, if I was writing a Consumer Report on cars, I would favor the Chevys over Fords or Toyotas... LOL...

Well, Consumer's Union (the lovely people who print Consuper Reports) work fairly hard at trying to be neutral, but on the other hand they often stress the usefullness of one feature over another and your particular needs might involve the reverse. (They might go nuts over a carrying handle when you intend to use the product in one place, ever.) Individual biases I can live with, as long as the effort to be honest and fair is made.

If I knew how to code I might try whipping something up myself, Because I have a fairly clear idea of what I want to see on such a product comparison... Maybe I'll dig up my HTML software and see what I can come up with. ^_^

Yeah it would be difficult to be objective because it reflects the kind of work the user likes to do. Personal preferance in interfaces etc. If you go to different sites that are geared tword different kinds of modeling you will find a Bias twords certain programs. So it changes with the type of modeling you do. I'll give you soem examples. Subdivisionmodeling.com has a lot of organic modelers charater modelers etc. Silo is a very popular app there. At miliaterymeshes.com you are considered substandard if you use anything other than 3DSMAX. Scifimeshes.com has a lot of lightwave users there. I have my own biases I perfer organic stuff mostly and I like text interfaces nto icon interfaces.

Maybe "strengths and weaknesses" was too loaded a term for objectivity. When I was writing that, I was thinking along the lines of things like "Good for Amateurs", "Pros Only", "Better for Modeling", "Better for Set Design", "Imports and Exports Easily", "Detailed User's Manual", "Supported Well by Publisher and Community", etc. There's judgement values, yes, but a lot of it is fairly easy to agree on, within a statistical margin.

You could HATE Daz3D, for example, but still say that it's a good starter program for beginners, not so good for building original models in, and is well supported by the company.  (Assuming you're not so curmudgeonly that you can't say nice things about anything. ^_~)

3D World mag has quick comparison charts of modeling/texturing/animating/rendering apps.  But watch out for misleading high scores given to programs like Hexagon 2.1.  Such software reviews are actually advertorials.

          Yeah one of the things about things like that is that of course they will go where the money is. I don't see in the near future anyone giving Wings and Blender top marks. I think a good review should have the reviewer stating what kind of things they like to do with a program and what they like and dislike in an interface before they even do the review this will give the reader an idea of where the reviewer is coming from.
    
    The reason I say that I could see a reviewer reviewing a program like Silo. The review is really bad they don't like it. Well what you don't know is that the reviewer only makes airplane pictures and he foudn it was not that good for making airplanes. Most Silo users use if for character creation. You need to knwo the context of the reviewer before you even can read the review objectivly.

     If you read the same reviewer over and over you get a feel for that they like and dislike and you can be more objetcive.

Well, I agree with Dann that you have to understand the reviewer, I honestly don't think there's any advertorial i.e. paid for grades in the 3dworld chart at Schonner suggests, but if you think of that chart with Dann's idea setting the context. 3D World to me do try to be fairly unbiased as a whole, I've seen tuts in there for just about any app you can think of.

Personal bias in a review is something you just can't help, for example, I've foudn modelling in many packages transfers well, I can model to a similar ability in max, maya, c4d, wings, XSI and hopefully soon blender and to some extent change my behaviour according to application. However when it comes to UV mapping max and maya are ahead of the others in my current world - I say current because I haven't even tried in blender or XSI yet, I'm on a try out with those two. As fr creating materials, I find Max the best of all and c4d the worst (I'm ignoring wings and blender) trying to make clever composites or blends of material I find a nightmare in c4d, but a dream in Max - plain and simple because before I used max I'd used truspace and bryce, max was a completely different class of application to the others when I first got given it 6 years ago and I spent hours learning everything I could. Now I'm used to it, what was daunting is now familiar, it's all those other things which are confusing now.

So demo over, any review I do would probably show my inability to use the mat editor of the package compared to the one in max rather then what someone with a different experience may think.

I started 3d modelling in the late 80's. I have tried almost every program there is. But my current weapon of choice is WINGS 3D. Why?? Because it suits my style of modelling.

Programs 2 decades ago lacked the bells and whistles of todays. By the time the current style of program arrived I had a way I liked to do things. Wings suits it.

Of the top line programs MAX is my personal favorite. It has the ability to get things done the way I like them. Maya is a dogs breakfast. Too many steps to achieve the simplest task. A lot of other are the same. I am not saying they are bad. They just don't suit me. And that is the problem.

Maya is the current flavour of the month but I will never give it a 10. My personal preferences make me biased. I am prepared to bet most reviewers are the same. Their preferences will bias their review.

depending what the budget is of you're next purchase you may be able to discard some progs from any comparrison...unless you can afford maya or max then of course they have to be included. i was exceptionally luck to have had max 8 bought for me by my family......though i wanted it with all my heart it's not something i would have personally spent so much on. an old sports car would have been my choice lmao.

whilst some 3d house make wild claims in their write ups, most (high end apps) have video clips of their diffent features. most list what formats they can import and export. most have tutorials whith tips and tweaks. even a lot of the low end apps have something similar barring the video shorts. i think your best bet would be to print off the blurbs for each one. have a google round to see what tutorials support the product......things like lynda.com, cg, 3d total etc. see what tuts are free and which have to be payed for and what the cost is. look for communities that support the packages...are they free or subscription based. always use the trial version first in tandom with a few of the tuts you dug up. at least you can get some idea if the learning curve is too great and how much patience and time any given app needs. looking at some of the free apps is a must.  as you get your information folderise it then eventually you can make an informed judgement on what your wants and needs are......i love max lol i'm crap with it but if i had a choice while i was doing all that i wrote about doing above i would pick max everytime.

billy