Quote - ...My question in general about the stand-alone modelers was: why do people use them if there is great modeling onboard the main application?...

The stand-alone might be easier to use.
The stand-alone might be faster.
The stand-alone might have a better modelling interface.
The stand-alone might be better overall.
The stand-alone might be more well suited for a particular job.
Maybe you are just more comfortable with the stand-alone (very very important one).

There are many reasons for stand-alone modellers. Personal taste is a big factor for a modelling app. More important, IMO, than a feature list.

Fascinating discussion.  This is giving me plenty of food for thought.

Quote - 3DS Max, Maya...well there is a reason why 3-4yr degree courses are designed around these apps ;0)

Opera -- perhaps you should consider signing up as a student at the same school that your son is going to...........

Speaking for myself, getting into highend 3D (of the type that is being discussed here) represents a considerable career change for me.  It's funny -- if you mention AutoCAD to an engineer: of course the engineer will know precisely what you are talking about, and normally they'll know about it in great detail.  But if you mention 3DS Max to them, the average engineer might (maybe) recall having heard the name somewhere..........if you mention Lightwave, Cinema 4D, Maya, XSI, Modo (or Carrara or Poser) to them -- the near-universal response from engineering types is: *"Huh?" 

*I work with engineers who are so single-minded (and so lacking in imagination or in any artistic bent whatsoever) -- that they can't comprehend much beyond programming DCS systems or discussing chemical batch processes.  Or installing a certain number of lumens worth of light fixtures per square foot.  Engineers are boring people.

Heh, heh.............:biggrin:

When it comes to top-end 3D, I believe that I'll need to graduate from high school (figuratively speaking), before I attempt to go on to grad school.  I'm a quick study -- but in my experience: there's no substitute for experience.

The more that I learn about 3D: the more that I am enjoying it.  I"ve never been able to get where I wanted to go based upon enthusiasm alone -- but it helps.

Thanks for posting in here, pros.  Y'all have some great information to offer.

Ok, why do I model with Modo and not Maya - Basically I can get the same job done much quicker in Modo than I can Maya. I've used Maya for a number of years, have learnt Mel scripting to achieve better workflow, but only after a solid day modelling with the Modo demo, I purchased it. It took less clicks to achieve the same result in Modo than it did in Maya.

See, this is the thing....I would always recommend anybody to try all the demos first, for some length of time. Yes, we have Max, Maya, XSI, Lightwave, C4D, Mirai, Houdini etc, etc,...but we also have Silo, Wings, Modo, Carrara, Hexagon etc....and if there is one thing I have learnt is that you can have the best all singing, all dancing app, but if you don't get on with it, you're not going to create squat. Because somebody has an app with hair and fur, fluid dynamics, cloth etc, it doesn't mean that they are going to create great dynamics. It's the same as animation features, it's no good somebody having a great character animation toolset available if they can't string a walk cycle together.

Now the Poser ---->> [insert particular app here]...well, I will stand by the C4D or Vue combination with Poser, depending on what final result u would like to achieve...also there is a nice circle of compatability when all those 3 apps are put together - Poser into Vue, Vue into C4D via Xstream.

I'd rather master Modo (or C4D or Lightwave or whatever) prior to tackling XSI or Maya.  But that's just me.  Others might prefer to take a different approach.

Vue -- in its current form -- is top-notch.

Quote -> Quote - ...My question in general about the stand-alone modelers was: why do people use them if there is great modeling onboard the main application?...

The stand-alone might be easier to use.
The stand-alone might be faster.
The stand-alone might have a better modelling interface.
The stand-alone might be better overall.
The stand-alone might be more well suited for a particular job.
Maybe you are just more comfortable with the stand-alone (very very important one).

There are many reasons for stand-alone modellers. Personal taste is a big factor for a modelling app. More important, IMO, than a feature list.

Yup Yup! Thos are all good reasons why I ended up doing most of my modelling in Hexagon - in spite of having Max. There are just some polylooping that is qucker to do in hex, and would have had to spend few hundred dollars im plugins to get Max to behave the same.. while I was able to get Hex for just a few bucks. And Hex, IMO, plays well with Max.

Big apps are great, but sometimes little apps are great for quick projects. I tend to use what helps me get the project done easiest and fastest.

Ok, good answers about the modelling aps..

But it thus inspires me to ask another question.

Devil'sReject had a very potent answer about Zbrush and displacement maps and fine detail painted on....etc.

Would the proponents of Modo and/or Hexagon say they can be used the same way? Because right now if a separate modelling app is in my future, it will probably be ZBrush, since my son is all over it and I have a clear conception of how it can be put to use. 

To clarify: my useage would be more for creating facial morphs and skin, not modelling the human form or any creatures or cars etc.

::::: Opera :::::

Modo 301 will have sculpting, and I have always seen and looked at ZBrush as an add on to a polygon modeller (ZBrush is a 2.5D app, not  3D vertex pushing app)...and don't forget that you can only use morphs created outside Poser within Poser that have the same amount as vertices as the group it is replacing. There for you can't just create a new morph or add polygons to an existing group and expect it to work).
Of course you can export a base mesh out, add detail and then render it in the app of your choice....if that is the case, then in theory you would not really need Poser as you could just extract the base OBJ file from purchased content then import it to sculpt.

NB...ZBrush isn't the only sculpting app....there is also Mudbox (to be aquired by Autodesk in the next couple of months), but really for sculpting Mudbox looked short of the mark after ZBrush 3 was released (only my personal opinion).

Quote - Modo 301 will have sculpting, and I have always seen and looked at ZBrush as an add on to a polygon modeller (ZBrush is a 2.5D app, not  3D vertex pushing app)...and don't forget that you can only use morphs created outside Poser within Poser that have the same amount as vertices as the group it is replacing.

I hope you don't mind if I clarify this a bit.  zBrush started out as a layer based paint program.  The chief difference between its layers and something like photoshop's is that these layers store depth information.  This would allow you to add a true 3d mesh to a 2D canvas, and while you'd lose the ability to look at the model from any angle, the preservation of depth in the canvas would allow you to relight the scene as you would in a normal 3D program, though in near real-time.  Also it would be possible to clone a very detailed object many times across the canvas without the overhead a true 3D space would require.  Pixologic coined the term "pixols" to refer to the "enhanced" pixels their canvas used, and "2.5" is their term for this technique that combines elements of 2D and 3D without being true 3D.  Most of their paint tools at that time were designed to just work on these canvas layers.  Next  came the ability to import meshes and snap them (remove back faces etc., a non-reversable process only affecting the mesh that is snapped) to the canvas.  With this came the ability to store a mesh as a tool, and to use the paint modes to texture the mesh for export.  Version 2 added zSperes, a powerful way to model organic models and various methods for adding higher levels of detail as well as to transfer (via normal maps) higher levels of detail to lower level meshes.  zBrush's strength is not in architecture or mechanical forms though it is now a true 3D program.  Most users find that if they are not creating an organic mesh from scratch using zSpheres they often get better results working with meshes imported in from programs such as Wings or Hex (or Max or Maya).  This is mostly due to weaknesses in zBrush's handling of things like edge loops and creases, which become especially apparent with models that aren't the characters and cartoon objects zBrush is strongest with.  There are several threads discussing ways to use zBrush's sculpt tools to create non-organic models using box-modeling techniques, but most agree that it is not zBrush's true strength and there are many other programs which can do this job quicker and more effectively.  Also, zBrush doesn't have a standard UV unwrapper, and instead uses a technique called Adaptive UV tiling.  Meshes imported from other programs can still be textured with their previous UV coords preserved, though zBrush seems to prefer that those UVs do not overlap.

Dang it, now I have to clarify my own post.  Snapping a mesh to the canvas was one of the most confusing things to new users.  Your mesh is a "tool", and is stored in the "tool palette" as a fully 3D object.  When you select it you can then use it like a traditional brush.  You can stamp it down anywhere on the canvas, as many times as you like, and because it's a 3D object, you can change its orientation and scale.  However, you cannot retrieve the original mesh from the canvas.  Early users were often confused by this process as it was possible to begin painting the mesh without realising it had been snapped to the canvas and all unseen detail had been lost.  You can go from 3d to 2.5d, but not the other way.  You can paint on a mesh that is active in the tool palette for export to another program, you just can't recover it from the canvas in the event that it is accidentally or deliberately painted there.

I don't mind at all moogal - you clarified it a lot better then I could and with less words...and a great description of the idea behind ZBrush to boot!

I would like to add that blender allready has a sculpting tool in its feature list... Don't knkow with the other oacakeges but blender seems to be the one with the fullest feature list.

Quote - I would like to add that blender allready has a sculpting tool in its feature list... Don't knkow with the other oacakeges but blender seems to be the one with the fullest feature list.

Without a doubt, blender's feature set is quite full.  Game engine, physics, GLSL shaders, hair, softbodies, fluids, node editor, sculpting, etc.  If someone could replace the UI with one that was even slightly intuitive, I'd be all over it.  I've tried several times to learn it, but it seems too keyboard/shortcut based while I prefer instead icons and widgets.

Blender was my first real 3d application. Being low on funds and wanted something open source i went for the best option I found answering my criteria. Had only worked with terragen before and it took me a better half a month to get to know blender. The shortcut perspective I feel is very good. Since it doesn't make the GUI all cluttered with buttons and things. and the workspace you can configure to your liking. resizing and splitting and joining different windows. All non overlapping. And not to note that the development is great for that app. Now the foundation that supports the blender development (blender foundation) is making its second movie to speed up development and to show of blender ability. See more at blender.org.

Blender, i keep hearing great things...and then the subject of the interface. Can you answer one thing....

to "pose" a model, do you do so by grabbing an element directly with the mouse and moving it? Or is it move-by-dials/sliders?

:: og ::

To pose is not in the poser sense of posing. It is more like manipulating the mesh. If you not have armature involved in the thing. That i belive you have to add yourself to the poser mesh.

But manipulating the mesh is done by scaling, moving and rotating. Also extruding the mesh is important... It is realivly easy to find the shortcuts on the keyboard for those things. as the first letter indicates which key to press. exsept moving. that is "g" for grab. And there is no need to manipulate the mesh by dialers. and sliders there is not any. THere are many modifers to use....

To say it like this. Blender is very different from poser. But is able to import poser objects.

Attached Link: Blender newbies

www.wegehenkel.com/tutorial-blender-shortcuts.html This site lists all the shortcuts in blender and what they do.

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro This site have lots and lots off tutorials and stuff about blender. This was the first thing i started with. making a basic man as a newbie. it explains lots and got lots of pages to go through.

If that isn't enough. Check out blenderartists.org/cms/index.php A lot of artists and blender users go there and post stuff. it got many sections and don't be afraid of asking... There are lots of nice folks there.

Quote - Blender was my first real 3d application. Being low on funds and wanted something open source i went for the best option I found answering my criteria. Had only worked with terragen before and it took me a better half a month to get to know blender. The shortcut perspective I feel is very good. Since it doesn't make the GUI all cluttered with buttons and things. and the workspace you can configure to your liking. resizing and splitting and joining different windows. All non overlapping. And not to note that the development is great for that app. Now the foundation that supports the blender development (blender foundation) is making its second movie to speed up development and to show of blender ability. See more at blender.org.

I don't really consider them shortcuts as there's no getting around them as far as I can tell.  I've used only a handful of programs that didn't require one or both hands near the keyboard at all times, but found those programs to be easiest for me to use.  Early versions of truespace, and Wings (except shift and ctrl) are good examples.  The Carrara interface seems really nice to me also.  I keep saying one day I will learn blender, as the interface obviously works judging from many of the excellent works I see blender users making.  That you hadn't used another 3D package before blender may be part of why it was easy for you to pick up.  Many blender users seem to have begun 3D with blender and don't understand why people coming from other programs find it so hard to get used to.

There is menues that you can go in with your mouse and pick them. The keyboard shortcuts is optional. But you do work a lot faster using them. It is allways some getting used to. Every program is different. I belive max, maya, c4d and all those packages has their own setups and different quirks that can make it hard to transist between them. So why are everyone bashing the blender gui? Is it so "special" in comparison to other programs? Or could it have to do with that it is open source and free so many more download it and don't take the time to learn the interface. Blender is a complex program and folks need to sit down and use time to learn it. Nothing comes for free. Except blender that is. but to learn it demands work.

You mean the Blender knowledge base isn't implanted directly into the brain on download?
What is wrong with these software designers?.:rolleyes:

I would go so far that none of the software out there has inituitive lay out of their gui.. everythiong has to be learned

I agree in the most important principles of what you are saying, Tobak. I really do. Just forget about the people complaining about the interface.

....but also, since I have never booted up Blender....

I am just asking....you get a viewport, right? You can see your models in the viewport. Can you take the mouse, select the hand (for instance) and move/scale/rotate it by dragging with the mouse?

Thank you,

::::: Opera :::::

Mostly yes. But as most of the other 3d modelling packages out there there is no direct posing of the caracters in that program as it is in poser. So you cant import a poser figure in ad pose it as in poser. It is harder than that. But to make stuff it is limitless. You can do so much more in blender than in poser. Just try out blender. Go to www.blender.org and download blender. It is about 14 mb and tottaly free. So it is no money invested and follow a couple of the tutorials to get to know the app better and then the olnly stopping you is your creativity. Every time you are stuck in the program you can allways check out the problem on the internet since it is a whole lot of documentation out there or just ask at blenderartists.org.

Quote - There is menues that you can go in with your mouse and pick them. The keyboard shortcuts is optional. But you do work a lot faster using them. It is allways some getting used to. Every program is different. I belive max, maya, c4d and all those packages has their own setups and different quirks that can make it hard to transist between them. So why are everyone bashing the blender gui? Is it so "special" in comparison to other programs? Or could it have to do with that it is open source and free so many more download it and don't take the time to learn the interface. Blender is a complex program and folks need to sit down and use time to learn it. Nothing comes for free. Except blender that is. but to learn it demands work.

No, most everyone loves that it's free.  That is how so many people are able to try it and find that they do not like the GUI in the first place.  People would love for it to be something stupid like that, but it's sadly not the case.  In the early days, every program had a tri-view, borrowed from drafting/mechanical drawing.  Caligari was one of the first desktop programs to incorporate the modeling tools into a perspective 3D view.  Within a few years, most programs had added or switched to that.  With Truespace they added the navigation widget, and it also exists unchanged in several programs today.  Over the years there have been a few different ways of working that are distinct enough to probably stay in use for a while.  Blender seems to have its own way of doing so many things.  On the PC/Mac, even the Amiga, the earliest 3D programs all dated back to the confusing times when no one really had a standard way of doing most things.  Those programs all competed with each other, borrowing when necessary the best of their competitors' innovations when it was obvious they were improvements.  Blender seems to have gotten where it is by being the only modern 3D application on Linux which, let's be realistic, has historically been much more popular among CS and IT people than among designers.  It was only a matter of time before one of the open source 3D programs matured and became dominant, and with little real competition on Linux, blender could be as unique as Ton wanted it to be.  Now, between Microsoft's Vista debacle and the great improvements to the Linux desktop experience, many people are trying Linux and discovering blender.  It generally seems to me that they are attracted to its features and put off by its interface, as was my experience, even after spending $50 on a book to make sense of it.

What i meant with open and free is that it is so easy to get it. And when it is easy to get it maybe folks also think its an easy program. But it is not. I belive also that max and maya etc. have a steep learning curve. but as folks use money to get the programs they also use time to get to know the program since itwould be harder to basically throw money out of the window.

I cut myself off before saying that there is rumoured to be alot of UI changes in the upcoming 2.5 release, and that I plan to try a little harder to learn it if that is the case.  That is planned to be a major release, and things that are changed in it will probably remain for some time.  I think blender has a very bright future, and given how much I've spent on 3D over the years, it's only going to get more tempting.

Quote - What i meant with open and free is that it is so easy to get it. And when it is easy to get it maybe folks also think its an easy program. But it is not. I belive also that max and maya etc. have a steep learning curve. but as folks use money to get the programs they also use time to get to know the program since itwould be harder to basically throw money out of the window.

No doubt.  I'm sure alot of people have downloaded it that wouldn' t spend $35 let alone $3500 on a 3D package.  That said, Anim8or is free for Windows, and I've never heard a complaint about it being hard to use.  I've heard complaints about lack of features or slow renders, but it's got a very intuitive interface for the most part.  Blender is great for beginners who don't know what to expect of it, harder for people coming from other popular programs.  Nendo was the quickest program I ever learned (so I'm a fan of Wings), Aladdin 4D on the Amiga was the one that made the least sense to me.  Blender isn't nearly that bad, just cumbersome enough that I always go back to something I'm used to.  Some programs suck you in immediately, and make you wonder how you ever got along without them.  Sometimes something as simple as reversing up and down will make the program unusable for half of the people trying the program.  You know what they say about first impressions!

i am not sure what is meant by not being able to pose in most 3d apps the way you can in poser.

I am finding just the opposite. I have now put three applications on trial:

1. 3DSMax
2. Carrara
3. Cinema 4D

and in all of them, I find it easier to pose human characters than in Poser.

Why? Because you can SELECT actors (as they are called in Poser) more easily, and as soon as you do translation and rotation manipulators become active. And in all three of these apps, the manipulation of actors is powerful.

::::: Opera :::::

For the upcoming release of blender 2.50 there will be something called rafractor.. the whole core will be redesiged so it is easier to get build in stuff and change stuff. I think the setup and gui will remain the same. But it will be made more customable. By changing hot keys and stuff like that. And there is also work to gather all physics under one place in blender so its easier to do. ++++ a lot more. Check out the forum at blenderartists.org for more info. Or at blender.org

Quote - For the upcoming release of blender 2.50 there will be something called rafractor.. the whole core will be redesiged so it is easier to get build in stuff and change stuff. I think the setup and gui will remain the same. But it will be made more customable. By changing hot keys and stuff like that. And there is also work to gather all physics under one place in blender so its easier to do. ++++ a lot more. Check out the forum at blenderartists.org for more info. Or at blender.org

I think eventually you will be able to choose which major app the blender interface most resembles, or at least change nav and controls ot be more familiar.

Quote -

I think eventually you will be able to choose which major app the blender interface most resembles, or at least change nav and controls ot be more familiar.

Shure thing. I use the standard user interface. But i got a pal that have changed it to look like 3dsmax since he used it before. The only difference is the key layout and that some things are on different places. So the looks you can do something with. but the other things is more difficult at this moment.