/3/ - 3DCG

I have never used blender in my life, Only maya and Zbrush for sculpting.

Is blender really that bad? and why?

>>650568
>>650572

>>650578

>>650568
These software baiting threads are low quality and retarded. I wish there were stricter rules in what is allowed to be posted.

If it weren't for Maya we'd never have Colin's Bear Animation

>>650568
>Posts stuff made in Zbrush as Maya

I have 3 hidden threads right now and chances are they were trash like this one, so why didn't you just post this in one of them and not push a thread that was definitely better no matter what it was off the page?

>>650593
>cinematic rendering
>hard-surface product/marketing showcase
>organic mid-res topology
not zbrush you fucking mongoloid

A thread died for this.
RIP little one. The hardest sacrifices require the strongest of wills.

>>650579
imported from DAZ or what

>>650588
Bingo (Chris Landreth, 1998), Maya 1.0 - 1998
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M&t=110s
what shit could BLunder do in 1998?

>>650617
>1998
It's 2018, you hemorrhoid

>>650614
no its a whole character

My own creation

>>650572
It isn't. It's the richfags that cry about a free program being as good as one that they put money into

>>650654
Nice work man. Probably one of the best blender models i've ever seen.

>>650655
> richfags
> never spent a dollar for maya

>>650656
Thanks

>>650657

I use and master both, and I only use Maya when I'm forced to. Modeling in Maya isn't fun, dealing with Maya crashes and bugs isn't fun, Maya's lack of innovation isn't fun. The only thing I enjoy using Maya for is Retopo and the animating/rigging part. Aside from that it's a fucking piece of crap, and that's not because of the half-blendlet in me but something many long time Maya users think.

>>650655
>as good as one that they put money into
(You)

>>650655

>>650650
>It's 2018,
yeah and Blunder is still the worthless amateur crap it was back then fuckhead

Never used Blender, but one thing I've noticed is there's quite a few time lapse videos showing people finishing a complete project entirely in Blender, except for compositing. I've been looking for the same thing in Maya, and I'm not finding it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl-f5p0GdP0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOr_WRFtVlE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfebPwr0gx4&t=211s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqak2bFkpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwbo4jxY0Hs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb35-SwDH74

I get that these examples are not perfect, but they aren't donut tier either.

>>650578
I can't really believe this was made in Blender. He probably used Zbrush and just created the hair and materials in Blender.

>>650734
I mean, Blender has sculpting tools too, just sayin'.

>>650735
Yeah but you can't make anything of real top quality with them.

>>650737
Yeah but something like that is still achievable with Blender's tools, even if its more inefficient than using a dedicated sculpting program.

>>650738
I will believe it when I actually see it.

>>650575
It's actually why I still come here, I love seeing everyone shitpost.

>>650739
You should take a look at CG Cookie. So many quality blender projects there.

>>650722
see, nobody replied to you because they know Blender is the superior software ;)

What is the point to use Blender instead of Maya? You can easily pirate Maya and use it without any problems. And with Maya knowledge you can get a job in the industry. Anyway if you want to produce high quality stuff you need to use different programms such as maya+zbrush+substance. Ofc you can do all of that in BLENDA but i don't think that blender can provide the same quality and amount of time spent on the project. The main reason why people tell to use blender it's because it free, but who cares?

>>650568
What is the point of these threads? You'll push people away and clog the board, in addition to breeding a toxic community.

To the newbies, use what you like or what you can afford. If you need help, ask.

I get the software wars is a big ol' meme. So maybe having like a single thread for this.. if that would even be possible. I know these threads are for provoking, but they'll kill the board.

>>650685

Sticks and stones, anon

>>650737
That's not a high-detail sculpt, however. Most of the detail comes from the textures and Cycles can certainly handle that. The textures themselves don't seem like the kind you could paint in Blender without going nuts.

>>650734
he used only blender man, i know its hard to believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZTT990opaQ

>>650775
Most of the details in a 'high detail' sculpt wind up as texture anyway.

>>650757
Seems like Maya is the kind of software where you need an entire pipeline of specialists and specialized applications if you want to do something similiar to those examples. It's workflow must be absolute garbage if a single artist cannot produce blender tier work on their own in it.

>>650779
>Most of the details in a 'high detail' sculpt wind up as texture anyway.
Yes, but the point is that they likely were not made in Blender. It's just the textures that bring the detail into Cycles. Blender is more than capable of sculpting the mesh as shown, and to a degree the detail too, but for painting/higher detail it's more common to rely on Substance/Mari and ZBrush.

I've always been kind of skeptical towards blender because it's got kind of a bad name professionally but i think it's starting to come around, especially with 2.8 it might be a fine tool for game assets, and even real productions, go see the blender conference about next gen by the cofounder of tangent, who said the film was made 90% in blender, compositing too, shit's really starting to get impressive, however most productions will still linger on autodesk products for a long time most likely, so if you wanna be employable you'll have a far easier time working on those.

>>650783
We don't know what they were made in. Given how common it is to take pre-existing textures and project them onto a model I don't see why it matters if the texture was made in Blender or not. Projection happens in Mari, Substance and Zbrush all the time and nobody thinks twice about it.

>>650785
Same. I've been around for awhile. I remember when Blender first showed up. Lots of people were excited about open source 3d and then horribly dissapointed at the reality of it. Things have changed though, only a complete fool would say other wise. Blender is showing up more and more. It is unwise to ignore it at this point.

>>650779
>Seems like Maya is the kind of software where you need an entire pipeline of specialists and specialized applications if you want to do something similiar to those examples. It's workflow must be absolute garbage if a single artist cannot produce blender tier work on their own in it.
One-package-rules-it-all approach is real garbage and betrayal of unixway here. I get that ton wanted to have everything covered to provide alternative to everything and I appreciate it and it is why I donate to blender foundation regularly, to keep the boys running, to keep alternative afloat, but that reasoning is largely the reason why blender is still regarded as inferior amongst lots of folks.
Trying to cover it all instead of focusing on their real strength(modelling) is a marathon you can't win because you are trying to compete with several people running in different directions.
Blender could EASILY throw max and modo from their pedestal into garbage bin they belong already today. Then they can focus on something else.

>>650823
i have my own theory about this.

after watching a few blendercon videos iv come to the conclusion that the community want options to render and produce rather than improve the basic tools.
the reason cycles and evee were pushed so hard is because the community wanted blender to be used a production suite like maya. the push for grease pencil is related to this as well. the community want the foundation to develop tools that will help push more TV related content and VFX stuff into the mainstream. far as im concerned blender shouldn't even compete with other programs, it should provide basic tools for independent developers (like it always did). there is a shift from small indie games and small-scale production into the world of mainstream media.
is it good or bad? not for us to decide. but along the way the stuff like sculpting and texture painting have fallen off to make way for the render engines compositing.

>>650827
cont. (sorry for grammar and punctuation)

the stuff made in BI is equally impressive as the stuff made in cycles (production wise) it really shows how powerful BI is (or was) when you push it to the limit.
to me it shows we never needed cycles, because we could do amazing stuff with BI as well.

Theres a noticeable thing where if someone spends more money on something they believe the results will be equal to the amount they spent over the other option, or if they have previously spent money on something it has to be better than cheaper or free alternatives.
Similar results can be found using different pipelines.
Personally I hate the yearly release model of software nowadays, either the paying to use the software in a rent model or getting the same software with slight updates for stability and other nonsense they withheld from the previous release to use as a small stat to show how 15 hundred dollar software 2019 is better than 15 hundred dollar software 2018.

>>650823
>One-package-rules-it-all approach is real garbage and betrayal of unixway here.

Not necessarily. Houdini's Unix roots and inspiration are clearly evident in every part of the package, from the individual nodes to the shelf tools that are just python scripts that assemble a network based on user input. Even hip files are just zipped directories that can be expanded and operated on from the command line. Maya on the other hand is an absolute betrayal of Unix philosophy.

I really don't know how Blender stacks up philosophically, I need to look into it. I am finding the work produced by single artists in Blender to be very compelling. Well at least it to me, someone who is tired of being a cog in wheel.

Blender is fun, making your own things is fun. You will lose your passion for 3D when you become the designated art monkey and you fucking know it. I want to make characters and tanks or whatever, but I would be making trashcans and background buildings, for years and years. Is """the industry""" really worth it? Sell it to me.

>>650835
>join big studio
>make trash cans and fire hydrants
>higher ups confront you about
>your trashcans look too good you have to work harder to make them look more boring
>they let you make one thing thats more complicated and cool
>they decide to cut it
or
>the keep it and fire you immediately after
3d sucks beyond being a hobby, its not as seen as an art, its seen as an asset.

I think we can all agree that Paint 3d is the superior 3d software out of all of them. Blows 3ds, Maya, Blender and all others out of the water.
Let's close the thread here.

>>650607
>Implying Zbrush can't do any of those things
You're the retarded one here fucko.

Put zbrush on the left and everything else on the right and it would be more accurate at depicting this board's technical skill level since nobody here actually can poly edit.

>>650792
i wonder if the pricing choices of most 3d suites influenced the boost of blender's popularity, softwares used to be a single fee buy, now they're monthly/yearly investments, this affects productions, but amateurs and freelancers even more, i can see why they'd invest into a free and solid alternative for a complete package and not have to spend 2k a year on maya, 300 on vray, and around another 2k for nuke, for the normal person it's much better to have blender that might have to make you use free shitty plugins or slightly subpar tools, but once you put the time and experience in it, becomes just more time consuming but much lighter on the economic side

>>650792
Its unwise to ignore the fact that if you work in the industry or with people in a team, or for customers you mostly can't choose what software to work with.
And it isn't Blender in 99,5% of all cases.
>>650979
Adobe and Pirates had more influence than Blender. Blenders popularity means nothing, because in the industry it isn't popular (actually the opposite).
>i can see why they'd invest into a free and solid alternative
But it isn't always a solid alternative. What does "free" offer you when you can't complete the job, or have to spend a week more on the work. A week of solid work is the cost for a x amount of licenses.
>just more time consuming
time is money. If you're half as fast with Blender as the average Z-Brush cowboy, that means he earns 2 times as much as you. He can afford the license AND still has the same amount or more money than you, more experience since he does more work and eventually more job opportunities.
>lighter on the economic side
That's a misconception, its lighter on investment, but you pay for it one way or another.

>>650988
Not him, but the "industry" meme is fucking stupid at this point. In the industry everyone uses x so x must be leagues better than y. x costs more than y so x must be much much better than y. This is a fallacy. It is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. The "industry" has been using x for so many years they actively see a cost of 0 dollars as a loss because it would invalidate the cost of their "professional" software suite. When you add in the fact that the "industry" writes off software purchases as business expenses, rightfully, the cost is comparable to blender, so it would be even more of a "loss".

Its risk aversion and humans unwillingness to change. You bring up, without any source,
>That's a misconception, its lighter on investment, but you pay for it one way or another.
bringing up 100% that your brain is trying to rationalize the greater risk that spending less money may bring you. Our brains are hard wired to look for risk over reward so we avoid risk at all costs. You fell for marketing, friend. You're not alone though the whole industry did.

Also to point out something stupid you said.
>If you're half as fast with Blender as the average Z-Brush cowboy, that means he earns 2 times as much as you.
This is fucking mindbogglingly retarded to be used as an argument.
>If you're half as fast with Z-Brush as the average Blender cowboy, that means he earns 2 times as much as you. He could afford the license if he wanted AND still has more money than you, because he didn't have to pay for a license, more experience since he does more work and eventually more job opportunities
>If you're as fast with Blender as the average Z-Brush cowboy, that means he earns the same amount as you, but he doesn't have as much money as you because he spent the money on a license.
(taxes for businesses work differently for individuals and don't assume that something is worse because its cheaper)

>>650988
>Blenders popularity means nothing, because in the industry it isn't popular (actually the opposite).
wasn't arguing on the opposite at all, in the industry blender's presence was 0% afaik before next gen came in, but now we have proof an entire feature film is possible, i don't see why its presence wouldn't get bigger in the future, and i'm not talking about dethroning other programs but at least it'd put it on the map professionally as well

the rest of your arguments revolve around blender taking double the time, but that is a serious accusation imo, blender's got sculpting and dyntopo which is not as good as zbrush i think but functional, and plugins that cost like 30 bucks at most like boxcutter and hardops give incredible power for doing concepts, a zbrush artist wouldn't be much advantaged in that, if you put subd workflow with proper topology for production-ready assets the disparity would obviously grow, but say a 100% increase of work i think is exaggerated

>>650988
>>650991
To add there was a study done in 1985 where two options where given to people, go on to ski location a for 100 dollars or ski location 2 for 50 dollars. The majority of the people chose the more expensive option, because it has to be better than the cheaper one, right?
Heres a whole paper on it. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e456/4b88ca2349962a707b76be4c75076ad6bd43.pdf

>>650991
>The "industry" has been using x for so many years they actively see a cost of 0 dollars as a loss because it would invalidate the cost of their "professional" software suite. When you add in the fact that the "industry" writes off software purchases as business expenses, rightfully, the cost is comparable to blender, so it would be even more of a "loss".
Let's take maya for example. Do you know why "industry" uses it in the first place?
Because it's simple to modify and most studios already have their OWN versions of maya that drastically differ from vanilla.
That's fuckton of money spent on software developers, it's an investment well spent though. Now let's take a route into business owner's mind. Why would he discard something that he invested so much money in and something that already works and brings money in favour of inferior free version that they would STILL need to modify(a.k.a. waste more money) just to get all they had on their own version of maya back?
License costs are NOTHING compared to this potential loss.
Successful businesses are successful because they know how to count money and that's why they keep using maya.
The only way for blender to actually get into industry is if budding studios choose it from the beginning. This actually happens, albeit unfortunately not quite as often as I would like them to.

>>650988
I'm not talking about the fucking (((industry))) I am talking about making the kind of art we all got into this to do. From what I am seeing independent artists are more likely to succeed using a tool like Blender than a tool like Maya. License cost has dick all to do with it.

>>650979
It's not the money so much as it's the stagnation of the software. Autodesk has 0 incentive to make an individual artist more productive, that would hurt sales. However if you now need 3 'artists' to do what used to take 1, well that's the kind of innovation a publicly traded, share holder focused company can get behind!

>>650988
>time is money. If you're half as fast with Blender as the average Z-Brush cowboy, that means he earns 2 times as much as you. He can afford the license AND still has the same amount or more money than you, more experience since he does more work and eventually more job opportunities.

Zbrush cowboys aren't texturing, rigging, animating, lighting, rendering or compositing. They're making statues and stills. Zbrush is starting to cause some real grumbles in (((the industry))) and it's not because of how awesome it is.

>>650999
>Let's take maya for example. Do you know why "industry" uses it in the first place?
>Because it's simple to modify and most studios already have their OWN versions of maya that drastically differ from vanilla.

That's fucking hilarious. You've never had to deal with writing a context tool or anything else have you? It's not a plus that a production needs an army of TD's to get off the ground with Maya.
You are right that studios are not eager to flush an existing pipeline, however pipelines do deprecate and studios do go out of business. When firing up a new pipeline people always look to avoid the mistakes of the past. While Maya dominates now, but nothing lasts forever, and with Margins in VFX evaporating, change is coming.

>>650999
This is still the sunk cost fallacy friend.
>To terminate a project in which $1.1 billion has been invested represents an unconscionable
mishandling of taxpayers’ dollars.
Senator Denton, November 4, 1981

This is one of the largest known examples of this fallacy and you pretty much just said it but replacing a few details.

However its far fucking easier to modify an open source project to your needs than to secure a specialized license to modify a version of maya and keep this up every year. Don't argue using fallacies, and then back up the argument with the same fallacy.

>>651003
Fabric getting gobbled up really opened peoples eyes to the need for open source, not just non-autodesk.

Special cuts of Maya are total bullshit. Anyone who advocates for them has either never had to deal with them or works for Autodesk. It sounds like a good idea till you realize you are now out of the normal maintenance schedule, the API is also often different enough to force re-compiling of all plug ins at best.

>>651002
>Zbrush is starting to cause some real grumbles in (((the industry))) and it's not because of how awesome it is.

Why are you making stuff up? Blendlets have no notion of how the industry works. Zbrush is an essential tool.


>Maya dominates now, but nothing lasts forever, and with Margins in VFX evaporating, change is coming.

No change is coming at all, studios will keep using Maya as long as it exists. That's the hard truth but hey. at least you blendlets can still make donuts at home.

>>651005
>Why are you making stuff up? Blendlets have no notion of how the industry works. Zbrush is an essential tool.

Zbrush does one thing really well. Everything else is half assed at best. Pray you never have to fix a sculpt for a couple of shots because the director or vfx sup doesn't like the way it looks. Zbrush is not a pipeline friendly tool.

>>651005
>No change is coming at all, studios will keep using Maya as long as it exists. That's the hard truth but hey. at least you blendlets can still make donuts at home.

Some will, others won't. Blender users are getting far more done on their own than a Maya user on their own will. I wouldn't be making fun of them. I have never used Blender btw, but I will start once 2.8 is official. I'll still use Maya too, but only when being paid, that software is not worth wasting my valuable personal time with.

>>650991
go suck a dick with your sunken cost fallacy.
Fact is Maya is doing tripple AAEEE movies since 2001 and Blender isn't. Not even in 2018.
Also not once in my life did i pay for my Maya licenses. It was
a) the company
b) the customers
c) or the guy with the bird on his shoulder and the wooden leg.

I also know for a fact that if i for example have to do volumetrics i can sim in Houdini and import into any Render available in Maya.
Name me one fucking renderer on Blender which can do that. Just an example of where using Blender gets you nowhere.
You can't compromise by putting more time in. Blender simply sucks for VFX.


>This is fucking mindbogglingly retarded to be used as an argument.
No its not. I brought an example to what the other anon was saying.
Also how many 100 million poly models did you sculpt in Blender?
>>650993
>the rest of your arguments revolve around blender taking double the time, but that is a serious accusation imo
Read what i wrote, i was creating an example. There sure are cases where Blender is 200% faster than Zbrush or Maya or whatever.
Free + but takes more time is not more economically than paying for a license and get shit done fast.
Would you rather sculpt cloth all day long or use Marvelous Designer and get shit done in 10% of the time?
Proper pipeline tools can give you much more efficiency than a meager 100% increase.

>>651005
>studios will keep using Maya as long as it exists.
The actual number of paid licenses is only a few hundred thousand (you can work backwards from autodesk's public financials) even with corporate discounts and they have at most 20 people working on the software at any one time, so I think its longevity is doubtful. All it'll take is someone to innovate in the same way Allegorithmic did.

>>651035
>Fact is Maya is doing tripple AAEEE movies since 2001 and Blender isn't. Not even in 2018.
HOOBLA fucking Renderman has been used in tripple AAEEE movies since 2001 too and is available for comercial use. I guess your company in the "industry" uses that too?
>this is how it was and this is how it will always be forever!
I'm pretty sure you can do volumetrics 100% in blender? If you're trying to use "I have to buy extra software in order to work with maya" as a major reason its not going away any time soon in the "industry" then you're not very good at arguing.
Your example was literally "z-brush is so much faster than blender" which is one of those impossible to prove things that really doesn't have any weight on the conversation. Especially if you don't provide anything to back it up.
>Also how many 100 million poly models did you sculpt in Blender?
>I am going to use this completely arbitrary set of rules to show how I am superior to you
You don't really know what you're talking about here do you?

>>651039
>"z-brush is so much faster than blender" which is one of those impossible to prove things
...dude I love blender and all but
current ZBrush HD mode standard is _billions_ of polygons.

>>651039
Renderman on Blender is the worst port of all, it makes the program as unstable as an old Maya version and it doesn't render OpenVDB from external sources. Its also one of the slowest Renderer available.

Volumetrics in Blender suck ass. The simulation tools are disgustingly bad (and with it the end results).
There is no way to do professional fire, explosions, smoke and water sims in Blender with the exception of very small scale stuff.
Forget going full Michael Bay with Blender.
Any other tool which does simulations wipes the floor with Blender in that regard.

>Your example was literally "z-brush is so much faster than blender"
No, it wasn't. Stop using Straw mans you filthy subhuman. You willfully ignore my Marvelous Designer vs Sculpting (Z-Brush) argument.
>You don't really know what you're talking about here do you?
You obviously never tried to sculpt on a extra dense mesh (20 million+ poly's) in Blender. Only an idiot would dispute ZBrush superiority in this regard.

>>651056
But heres a big question for you. What does what you can do in Z-brush mean anything for the discussion about the industry using maya or blender?

>>651054
Nah I was just pointing out that he was trying to use z-brush as an example of why maya is better than blender. He was the first in the reply chain to bring it up. So thats why I don't think he knows what hes talking about anymore.

>>651059
Because in an discussion about Blender you can't leave out the core conflict, that is generalist vs a specialist approach.
Blendlets always argue that Blender can do so much more (editing videos, compositing, 2d animation etc.) than Maya for example.
While this is factually true, its also completely irrelevant, since in the industry everything is heavily specialized.
Either you are a specialist working only in your area and the rest is done by other specialists, or/and you use a lot of specialized software.
So the comparison becomes Blender vs Maya, ZBrush, Mari for an Character Artist. Or Blender vs Maya, Houdini, Nuke for an VFX artist.
You might argue that this is unfair, but its not, you essentially compare production pipelines.
I am not arguing primarily that ZBrush makes Maya better (it does, also Blender), i am arguing that no matter what specialized product Blender has to go up against, it will always loose because of its fundamental design philosophy, and the sheer amount of manpower working against Blender since every competing product only has to be the best in its niche while Blender has to compete with all of them because it wants to do all of it.
Blender is trapped in its own niche, that is a "jack of all trades master of none".

But neither you nor anybody else actually took the time to address my core argument that is: using cheaper (free) and less efficient tools over more expensive but also more efficient tools is not necessarily an feasible economic solution. It might be in some cases, no doubt about it, but not always.

>>651067
I did address the core of your argument and you told me to "go suck a dick" Then said some hoobla. I told you that is a fallacy and that its normal to think that X costs more than Y so X must be better, or I have spent thousands on X so stopping now would be a terrible move with my money.
This is the most entertained I have been for a while on /3/

>>651072
Yeah you did address my point with basically an adhominem against the whole industry.
I don't deny that the fallacy you are speaking off exists. But that the majority of 3D professionals in all kinds of business are falling for it???
And you think YOU know it better than all these professionals?
>They don't know the true value and efficiency of the software, they just fell for the marketing.
GTFO you idiot.

>>651073
>devolved from its more expensive so its better to all the pros do it so it must be correct
I love this. For once I feel like I know anything about debate. I think you're using appeal to authority here in your claim. I'm not saying you're wrong here based on your argument. I'm saying you really can't argue at all.

My counter to your core argument is just the simple "human brains are hard wired to think that if something is more expensive it must be better". I linked a paper even to support this. Being really good at 3d modeling does not negate this. There was a study back in 2014 where people were given the exact same quality food and tasted both samples, the majority said that the one they were told was more expensive tasted better than the cheaper one. Or when "professional" wine tasters sampled two wines, both being the same wine, one taste they were told was 90 dollars (the actual retail price) and the other 10 dollars. Their brains were scanned during the tasting and subjects reacted much greater to the taste of what they believed to be more expensive. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050

>>651074
I've heard your argument, but i simply reject it.
You might argue that what i did is an appeal to authority or appeal to majority, but i prefer to see it simply as Occam's Razor.
What is more likely, that all these people who work successfully in an highly competitive environment are wrong, or some Blendlets and you are wrong with your judgement?

I don't think that Maya is better because it is expensive, i believe it is better because it has constantly proven its usefulness, while Blender is making its first steps to prove that.
You watch ANY movie with lots of character animation and you are essentially observing the end result of stuff done in Maya.
I don't think that Mari for example is better then Blender in surfacing because it costs money, its better because it was designed by Weta for Avatar.
I've seen the movie, and I've never seen anything like it produced by Blender. Blender doesn't even support UDIM's.
You can cite papers all you want, we both know what Maya is capable off, we've seen the movies.
If you insist that Blender is as good as Maya or better you gotta prove it.
What has Blender to show for?
Some set extensions and vehicles rendered for Man in the high castle.
Some VFX in that Russian First person movie which name i forgot.
2 fully featured animation movies which cannot hold up to the standard of Pixar/Disney/whatever.
Compare that to the ten thousand movie made with Maya. See a pattern?
Where is the basis for your argument that the whole industry is judging the value of their tools wrongly?
All i can see is that they made the right decision. Not to mention the fact that a lot of tools and formats come DIRECTLY from the industry itself, being actively developed to fill a need. (see Mari, UDIM's, Katana, Cryptomatte, USD, OpenVDB, ...)
Yet most of these modern FOSS VFX formats are not even supported by Blender.
Even on their FOSS home turf Blender gets beaten by a bunch of proprietary tool makers.

>>651080
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Give those artists another tool capable of near or the same level of art and see what happens. Is it more likely that all these people who professionally taste wine all day are wrong on a level that they can't even control or basic human nature is to blame.
Agent 327 and Next Gen look fine. They look as good as other much higher budget animated films. Avatar is not a very good example because how dated it already looks with everything except the hard surface. You bring up counter evidence to your own points when you mention that companies like Netflix and Amazon are starting to use blender in their workflows.

>>651084
You arguing like an post modern feminist against competence hierarchies.
>and see what happens.
What makes you think we are not already seeing it?
Blender gets more market share because it gets better, but Maya and Max are still sitting at the top of the pyramid totally unfazed (despite their age and faults). They fear the magician, but they still laugh about the peasant(s).

>>650568
both are good but no matter what op uses his shit will always be bad

>>651080
you are mixing cause and effect.
in your world, maya is used because it produces good results - not because artists are 'forced' to work with it.
executives of companies are simply business people. they can't tell maya and blender apart (and i assume most even haven't heard of blender). its just something that is a requirement.
if VFX in blender is so shite like you say. then how come several movies used blender exclusively for VFX/camera tracking purposes?
most of the cartoon shows made in blender use BI which is very outdated (and still looks great)

Caminandes Llamigos is one of the few blender movies that is on the level of maya's. and it uses a fairly outdated version of blender

>>651103
I think you aren't addressing the main points against your claims, namely that Blender is lacking much functionality that is absolutely necessary for today's production demands. A glaring example, already mentioned, is the lack of UDIM support. But there's also non-standard FBX integration, no forthcoming support for USD, lack of OpenVDB tools, bad viewport performance, difficult integration with many commonly used render engines... the list can go on.

Currently, I think Blender has at best a marginal place in a production pipeline, as a competent modeling software. But even that's a bit of a stretch, since it can't talk easily with the rest of the pipeline.

>>651134
these are none-issues if you use blender exclusively in your pipeline.

the downsides are that you won't use the latest texture compressor or the latest effects mixer but the upside is that have a free problem that does (roughly) anything.
some people here actually think the industry would drop dead without zbrush and houdini, your'e fucking delusional. they are just good tools and that's pretty much the bottom line.

>>651133
>in your world, maya is used because it produces good results - not because artists are 'forced' to work with it.
Does not compute, what are you trying to say?
>they can't tell maya and blender apart
that's a serious accusation, even if true you think NOBODY in the company knows what they are doing?
Hello, Dunning, hello Krueger.
>if VFX in blender is so shite like you say. then how come....
Its shit for particle and fluid effects. There are no great mass destruction scenes, explosions and floodings done in Blender because it can't do it. Even the little fire fx in Agent237 looked like shit compared to what other programs do.

Again you are comparing small scale stuff with huge scale stuff and don't even see that this does not work.
>>651134
I did address all of that.
>>651142
There we have the stupid generalist vs specialists argument again.
The downside is that you can't even do some of the things in Blender in 2018 what Weta did in 2002 in Maya.

YOU are fucking delusional .

>>651151
like i said, short films like "Caminandes Llamigos" proves that you don't need a 32k textures to make a good character. 'the man in the high castle' proves you don't need megascans or advanced image processing to get high quality composition.
its not even generalist vs. specialist argument. its the fact that you think a pipeline only works if you build it a certain way. a pipeline can work in very different ways. its just that industry people are not used to working outside the accepted pipeline

>>651154
>'the man in the high castle' proves you don't need megascans or advanced image processing to get high quality composition.
They painted with Substance and composited with Nuke. Some effects were done in Houdini IIRC. They used Blender mostly for modeling, some assembly, and rendering with Cycles.

>>651142
>these are none-issues if you use blender exclusively in your pipeline.
Yes, but then, as you yourself said, you
>have a free problem
that will end up costing you loads.

>makes claim that the industry won't change any time soon
>when provided any counter point he just reiterates his claim as if saying it again negates the counter point
>most of the argument is that cheaper means its worse
>then uses stats from other programs to say his program is better
>then brings up evidence himself showing major studios moving towards blender
>then goes back to his claim that cheaper is worse

Its like we're trying to play chess and he thinks its shoots and ladders.

Let me put down some stuff real fast.
>maya is used to heavily because thats the way its always been so companies assume thats the only way
>if they are aware of the competition they assume that they will lose a lot more due to how long they have been invested in the other product
>a noticeable change is happening in the industry with studios moving towards blender

You also claim that Amazon and Netflix are small scale. I am convinced you are either a troll or you work for autodesk at this point. How can someone keep going so long on the same points without any change otherwise?

>>651220
>>most of the argument is that cheaper means its worse
Where was this point made?

>>651151
>Does not compute, what are you trying to say?
using maya is an executive decision above all. its not like the artist can play 'mad scientist' and do his 'own thing' at the studio.
>Yes, but then, as you yourself said, you
you didn't refute any point i made. if blender is such putrid shit then how come professionals still use it at 'some' capacity?

>>651230
You are thinking that I mean that you are arguing that Maya is more expensive therefore better. This is not my argument, my argument here is saying you claimed that the lower cost of entry to blender will likely lead to more problems.
>>650988
>>650999 (in this one he says its worse because they've already spent loads of money elsewhere)
Generally anywhere that was responded to with the sunk cost fallacy answer.
It was a reiteration of the claim that the industry suffers from sunk cost.

Interesting that that was the point you didn't like, me just trying to sum up everything in a greentext. Not the claims made directed at you. You'll probably say something stupid like repeating that nobody will ever use blender professionally and all studios from now on will use maya because its so much better than the competition and will always have supremacy.
>inb4 you decide to take one of these lines and word for word ask where you said that exact thing and disregard any assumptions of implication
At least you didn't fall into the stupid "show me the best thing you've ever made in blender blendlet" notion.

>autokeks and blendlets argue with each other
>meanwhile this man just walks in and takes the throne

>>651236
>You are thinking that I mean that you are arguing that Maya is more expensive therefore better.
That's the converse of "most of the argument is that cheaper means it's worse". So, yeah, you are saying other people here made that argument. Point where, please.

>my argument here is saying you claimed that the lower cost of entry to blender will likely lead to more problems.
Where was this point made?

>>651236
>sunk cost fallacy
It's not fallacious. When a business has invested in a pipeline for years, changing it may turn out to be more expensive than keeping the one they already have. Because it means slowing or halting production while people adapt to the new pipeline, which has to be created, tested, and perfected to the previous production levels. This can be lethal to a business.

Anyway, that's a moot point if there's no sensible replacement for the pipeline, which *is* the point being made in this thread. It makes no sense to switch to Blender for the simple reason that an established business cannot reach their production standards without essentially writing Blender 3.0 themselves, or, even worse, having to rewrite good chunks of Blender's core architecture.

>>651239
Holy shit dude
>What does "free" offer you when you can't complete the job, or have to spend a week more on the work. A week of solid work is the cost for a x amount of licenses.
this statement is made to imply that the free solution is not as viable as the premium solution without evidence, this implies that it is lowed in quality just by being the free alternative. The claim you replied to uses the word "just" which means barely and you claimed that the slight increase in time means probably either you won't finish the job or it could take at least a week extra.

>>651243
see >>651003
Also it is brought up that existing studios use blender in their pipeline now. There is a change.

>>651220
its like you are talking to multiple persons, right?
>You also claim that Amazon and Netflix are small scale.
No, i claim that you can do small scale smoke and fluid simulation VFX with Blender, but not more.
You could also use it for relatively easy stuff as Set extensions in Man in the high Castle. Also that animated movie "Caminandes Llamigos".
But nothing of that is proof that Blender can handle something of the scale Weta (or anybody else) did or does with Maya.
>>651233
It is an executive decision based on facts like efficiency, costs and ability. Business people tend to obsess over these things, i wonder why?
>>651236
Its getting confusing. You imply that he said something i said, also claiming i said something he said, and i am not even sure if its the same guy, same with you and what points you made.
>At least you didn't fall into the stupid "show me the best thing you've ever made in blender blendlet" notion.

How about this:
I tell you that I use Blender (professionally and not) AND Maya, and i am still convinced that for the majority of the industry proprietary tools are a perfect match while Blender is still kinda unproven and not competitive enough.

Also just to make sure we are actually able to make an informed statement about what we are talking, I show you something i did in Blender (and Maya) and you show me something you did in Maya.
Here is my stuff:
>>650870
>>649916
>>649923

>>651249
>It is an executive decision based on facts like efficiency, costs and ability. Business people tend to obsess over these things, i wonder why?

Business people don't know the inside and out of a graphics API, they only use track-record to determine performance in certain areas.
the track-record of maya is excellent, but the problem is it only competes with itself.

>>651249
>No, i claim that you can do small scale smoke and fluid simulation VFX with Blender, but not more.
>You could also use it for relatively easy stuff as Set extensions in Man in the high Castle. Also that animated movie "Caminandes Llamigos".
>But nothing of that is proof that Blender can handle something of the scale Weta (or anybody else) did or does with Maya.

again, you based on things like 'track-record' and not actual quality assessment.
like i said, the track-record of maya is excellent but its only because no one really uses anything but autodesk products for fucking 40 years now. so making that comparison from your point of view is fucking annoying.

>>651249
>he really decided a show of individual skill was appropriate in response to my poking fun at the fact that he didn't yet decide to do that
Thats not how it works and it makes you look like a petty asshole.
Also theres only like 3 people in this thread so I assumed I was only talking to one guy, aside from the randos who jump in with nonsense.

Are you retarded? I need to all caps this so it will through your head
IF I DIDN'T REPLY TO YOU AND THE POST ISN'T ABOUT YOU DON'T REPLY TO THAT POST ASKING WHERE YOU SAID THAT. I WILL ASSUME YOU ARE THE GUY I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Also theres a simple way to differentiate yourself in a conversation here. "not him but"

I DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHICH ANON YOU ARE BECAUSE YOU NEVER FUCKING SAID SO. You make me want to bash my fucking head against my keyboard. How are you employed?

>>651254
yeah, sure, blame me for the shit other anons do.

>>651251
>the problem is it only competes with itself.
Why would that be? Maybe we should (((subsidize))) studios using alternative tools so they can compete on a (((level))) floor with the big boys?

>>651254
>I DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHICH ANON YOU ARE BECAUSE YOU NEVER FUCKING SAID SO. You make me want to bash my fucking head against my keyboard.
By all means!

>>651267
what the fuck is your problem?
i just said autodesk has a monopoly over 3D in general, even CAD. there is no point jacking off to a tool that everyone uses, you're not cool for doing that.

>>651267
(((Big Studios))) are being subsidized already since we live in an age of corporate socialism. Gibs for jobs.
These (((studios))) keep pushing their neo-marxist agenda down the throat of gamers.

>>651237
This, let Blendlets and Autocucks eat eachother, Houdini is massively increasing in usage eating away from both of them. It already owns the FX sector, by now it's the mainstay when it comes to large objects (terrains, cities, you name it), and it's making large gains in animation and modelling.

Non-node based non-procedural cucks are going the way of the dodo.

>>650568
>Frog poster
Back to your containment website

>>651373

>>651220
well honestly a lot of studios have heavily invested in custom tools for autodesk programs and their coders are accustomed to its structure and artists to its workflows so it's gonna be some years before they have to change to a newer version of maya and therefore even have a chance to change to blender and at that point the only thing that would favour the change is if the coding infrastructure and tools were close enough to what they already had so the loss in skill and quality would be minimal, so i think either very new studios that already had non standard workflows may switch to it, and just straight up new ones like tangent, but who knows, maybe these gaps blender has from autodesk workflows will tighten even more with time, if they put UDIM, FBX support and more VFX oriented features it could seriously become an alternative, and blender's already come so far i think it's just a matter of time

>>651395
I agree with what you said but holy crap, please break sentences where you would normally breathe during speak.

>>651395
FBX is despised as a data exchange format. It's literally last resort. Already there are alternatives to it rising, Alembic, gfltf, usd. Soon nobody will need fbx support, not even autodesk.

>>651371
>>651237

shoosh! you aren't supposed to tell anyone!

>Bla bla, Studios aren't use Blender becouse
it sucks and it's better to spend money once and get best result.
>Wasteland 3. Budget is about 10 million
dollars.
Is it a poor little studio that have no money to buy Maya?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvReb40k1V8

>>651413
>spend money once
anon... I

>>651414
I mean that you spend money to buy Maya and if you do so once a year it's even worse

>>650914
Maya does those things too, and a lot better
Good luck with your cinematic rendering in fucking Zbrush, fucktard. Gotta use softwares for what they're best for...

>>651271
>even CAD
well that's what they started with desu
I remember doing AutoCad in highschool in like.. 2000. Shit was retarded but hey, got things done. Good ol days

>>651283
Back to your safe space, nigga

>>651413
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvReb40k1V8
Aside from being shit aesthetically, it renders like a PS1 cinematic character.

>>651426
It's not a final render and you can't deny the fact that they've got a 3.1 million bucks using this model for project presentation. Maybe lots of people don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9SvLO27K7g

>>651426
Not to be that guy, but
>probably better than anything you've ever made
>the style classic post apocalyptic arpg
I know its a little bit hard to believe, but some people like the weird look of 90s cg, and for the software to be used on a high budget project shows a lot. I'm tired of this whole "everything has to be either photorealistic or muh low poly" that so many "artists" have a mindset of nowadays.

>>651429
And i'm one of these people. I do enjoy this old style with simple materials. This models looks like they are made using plasticine. But this Autocucks are just want to do Fortnite skins and other AAA shit that is soulless.

>>651426
Yet they've done more with free software than you have with paid. Why are you laughing?

>>651426
i like how you take the worst examples of 'something' and present it as 'facts'.
here is a random render from the blender showcase, enjoy your tears

>>651435
another one 2/3

>>651436
one of my favorite blender renders 3/3

>>651430
Holy fuck nostalfags are the worst. Let everyone enjoy the shit they grew up in you're not special, your taste is not special

>>651435
Hey, i posted this vid becouse it proves that middle studios with 10 million $ budget are using Blender.

>>651439
It's not nostalgia actually cuz i was born later but i like the style and plasticine feeling.

>>651439
stay mad, assblasted fgt

>>651429
>>651431
>My opinion should be discarded because they're better and more successful than me
>I'm actually a senior 3d artist with 10 years of experience
pick one while I laugh

>some people like the weird look of 90s cg
That I can agree on, but that doesn't excuse the total lack of interesting style. Even with technical limitations, people always found a way to be creative. The character in the video is just.. so bland and awkward..

>>651435
The DOF sucks, but the other stuff is really awesome.

Long story short, I wasn't bitching Blender as much as I was pointing out that >>651413
is a shit looking character on many aspects

>>651658
>bragging about qualifications and experience on 4chan
I know this is bait, but I'll nibble it a little.

I'm Eugénie von Tunzelmann, I think I know a thing or two more about this than you.

>lack of interesting style
>the character is so bland and awkward
Its literally a recreation of classic ARPG style you mouth breathing retard. Holy shit anon, do you know fucking nothing of themes and stylistic choices? I mean come the fuck on, theres a difference between being bad and uncreative and intentionally making something look a certain way. I'm not even really mad that you don't like the character, just say that you don't like the character don't make up a fucking story about yourself to prove you know what you're talking about.
>inb4 you try and prove your credentials and youre barely a fucking intern at some eastern european unity asset farm
Either way you'll look like an attention whore fishing for (you)s.

Long story short, fuck you for being such a self felating ape on a chinese ad clicking bot farm that you pretend to be something you aren't to prove your superiority.

>>651669
>being this butthurt and self-advocating over an opinion on a subjective matter

>>651670
>70% of the post was about how you are the biggest retard in the thread for declaring fake qualifications for an opinion
>30% of it is about how you used this just to say the phrase "i don't like the character"

Obviously the post was just about how I'm unhappy that you don't like the character.

Long story short, I wasn't bitching your opinions as much as I was pointing out that >>651658
is a fart sniffing imbecile on many aspects

>>651658
>>I'm actually a senior 3d artist with 10 years of experience

Larp. If you were what you claim you are, you would have enough experience to know how budget dictates production. You would know there isn't enough money for everything to get the attention the artists working on it want to give. By 10 years you would have produced a mountain of work that will never see your reel because it doesn't meet your personal standards, but hey budget is king in production and the show must go on. But no you are just larping faggot that likes to feel smug and superior to others over something as minor as what software they use. Enjoy your world of make believe.

>>651671
>declaring fake qualifications
You just decided that about me in your own little bubble. What you choose to think about other people isn't an argument for anything, especially when you're incorrect. You just assume. It doesn't elevate your own opinion in any way.

>inb4 you try and prove your credentials
You'll bitch about it whether i do or not. It'd be a more constructive exchange to talk to a brick wall.

>>651675
Experience is also knowing that for equal budget, there's a way to make the best out of things and a way to burn cash quickly with little to show for in the end. My comments were never about software, more about quality. But hey, insults aside, I get what you're saying.

>>651678
so much of it depends on the project and the talents of the individuals working on it. For all we know that could literally be the best that could be done for the money and the people they have. Unless you actually working on wasteland 3 there is no way to know. There is definitely no reason to mock them. I've been on enough productions where I have spent months making the best of a bad situation that I sure as hell didn't need outsiders mocking the efforts of myself and those I worked with.

>>651676
I don't know why you decided to post this? This isn't helping you, it really makes you look more stupid.
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

You are the brick wall, get this though, even if anything you claimed was true, it wouldn't matter at all.

Just fucking say "I don't like the model." thats it. Drop the false claims or back them up and say that. If you were part of the industry you make them all look bad right now.

>>651684
>inb4 you try and prove your credentials / you'll look like an attention whore fishing for (you)s
>Drop the false claims or back them up
so which is it? make up your mind already

>>651685
I'm making fun of you. Do you not understand the whole burden of proof belongs on the person making the claims and realize because of you're stupidity your choices are
>bend over and proving your claim
which makes you look really fucking weak and like a little bitch for letting some guy on 4chan push you around or you become a guy who lied about himself on 4chan and put his name to the lie
>keep pretending like you don't have to prove it and skirting around it
which makes you look like a liar, which is arguably better because at least you'll be anonymous.

Also learn to read.
>inb4 you try and prove your credentials and youre barely a fucking intern at some eastern european unity asset farm
was the inb4. you can't just take half the statement out of context when anyone can read it by scrolling up slightly.

So come on little bitch. Put your money where your mouth is.

Console war threads are cringe.

>>650734
I'm online friends with this dude. He uses Blender and Marvelous designer. Also recently announced he's switching to Zbrush and other premium programs.

>>653073
>he's switching to Zbrush and other premium programs
IMPOSSIBLE!