help me choose a good hard surface modelling program

[Anonymous No.633344]

i've been modelling on a casual basis for about 2 years or so, and i want to get into more industrial / hard surface modelling, for games.

i currently use maya, but looking around, most hard surface tutorials seem to be for fusion 360. i've also seen people recommending modo because of it's modelling tools.

i'd appreciate some input on this / get converted to another software. is fusion 360 or modo common in the game industry?

[Anonymous No.633347]

>>633344
>common in the game industry?
Maya or 3dsmax; these 2 are the most dominant ones.
Blender and Modo to a lesser extent.

[Anonymous No.633348]

>>633347
but do people use maya and 3ds max for hard surface? i can barely find any tutorials for them compared to modo and fusion 360

[Anonymous No.633350]

>>633348
>i can barely find any tutorials
This is because they know that people are willing to pay money for maya/3dsmax tutorials. Those are the industry standards after all.

Personally I think Modo is the better hard surface modeller but unfortunately there are only a few studios that are using it.

[Anonymous No.633351]

Max have the more complete tutorials for 3D modeling.

just so you know, most programs are capable (as of of now)

[Anonymous No.633352]

>>633344
There's no one answer to this anon. The truth is, like me, you have to learn a bunch of stuff - now, I know - that is precisely the answer you don't want. And it sounds fucking daunting. 'How the fuck am I supposed to learn 5 major 3D packages when just Maya is frying my brain?'

I know. I've been there. But I slogged through it, got over the hump, and the truth is: once you've learned the core concepts of one of the major hub-applications (Maya or Max) everything else kinda falls into place and it's no big deal. You'll pick up another suite and find your way round in a day or two and that'll be it - boom, you're now a Modo guy, or a Fusion360 guy or whatever. The big dirty secret to this whole game is that anyone only ever needs to know about 10-20 features of any given application to do anything.

Anyway - more specific answers. And before you ask, yes I use all this shit and I'm pretty good with most of it so...

1. I 'learned' on Maya, and it almost made me quit. I hated it. It is SO unfriendly and buggy and just not suited to heavy modelling projects. I know this because I switched to Max, and have never looked back. For literally any modeller - Max is the better hub application. I could give a list of reasons why but it'd take too long. Ditch Maya, learn Max.
2. Fusion360 is not what you'd call a core application. Like Zbrush, it's one of the things you use for a specific task in conjunction with your hub application(s) - Max / Maya / Modo. Fusion is not an alternative to those tools.
3. If you're gonna start incorporating things like Fusion into your workflow, you will also need to know Zbrush. Forget about sculpting etc. for the moment - Zbrush is an essential tool for bringing together all of your hi-poly stuff that you've made in various things and allowing you to finalise it all and get it polished up, ready to be a bake source. It sorts out so much shit for you. Again - Zbrush isn't really optional.

So tl:dr - learn Max, then everything else.

[Anonymous No.633356]

>>633344
>for games
Stay as far away for game industry as possible

[Anonymous No.633362]

>>633352
thanks! i'll download the student edition of max and slowly work through learning it. the modifier tools are quite powerful, right?

>>633356
why? something to do with shitty working conditions?

[Anonymous No.633363]

>>633362
Western industry is currently imploding, there's only few studios left which do something big. Indie shitters struggle to sell few thousand copies because of the oversupply of cheap thrash. Working conditions in big studios are historically bad, crunching is expected from employee. Also publishers now took the habit of hiring freaks and mental ward patients who basically work for food and chance to spread their political agenda. So you can enjoy the smell of unwashed asses, sweaty balls and dilated dissected crotches in your open office.
There is also absolutely no correlation in video game industry between number of sales and quality of the game. Like, Overwatch struggles to stay afloat while some meme-tier unity asset-flip thrash like PUBG is massively popular. Overall, job in video game industry is extremely disappointing experience which doesn't even get paid well.

[Anonymous No.633371]

>>633362
>>thanks!
My pleasure

>>the modifier tools are quite powerful, right?
Yes mate. The modifier stack is, for me (and probably a great many other Max heads) the killer feature. Many other suites have something that *kinda* functions like the Max modifier stack... but absolutely none of them are as robust, reliable and transparent as Max's. You know the layer pallette in Photoshop? It's that - but with all your modelling actions. Absolutely cannot live without it.

[Anonymous No.633374]

>>633371
>Many other suites have something that *kinda* functions like the Max modifier stack... but absolutely none of them are as robust, reliable and transparent as Max's
That's quite a strong claim.

[Anonymous No.633376]

>>633352
I'm a different anon posting here. I really enjoy surface modeling and building up props and environments. I've thought about 3DS Max and have even practiced it (and I really enjoyed the capabilities of the modifier stack) but Maya just seems so much more popular and I fear that studying 3DS Max would be specializing in something that is comparatively niche.
Is this a valid fear and what do you think makes Max so much better suited for modeling?

[Anonymous No.633382]

>>633376
honestly, there's not a huge difference anymore. yes, in some ways, max is more capable, but for 99% of the time, there's no difference between the programs.

let's take modifier stacks, for instance. it's not as robust and reliable as you might think. for instance, say you want to add divisions to a primitive. if you already have a bunch of bevels, extrudes and whatnot on the model, it won't end well. and it's the same in maya.

honestly, really honestly, just use the one you're most comfortable with. every software will have it's own problems and advantages. it's hard deciding, though, because you can't tell whether a program works with your own workflow or you're just inexperienced with it in a small amount of time.

[Anonymous No.633385]

>>633382
Yeah the only way that would work is in Houdini, but even there you have to build it in a way that it stays truly procedural.

[Anonymous No.633391]

>>633374
another pretentious houdinifag

[Anonymous No.633394]

Really? theres a bunch of them, and a good free one that specializes in hard surface for max is here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSLLdTBwLMfTKWS56tOiQpw

Also Grant Warwick is also good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaUzfqZFWBA

[Anonymous No.633435]

>>633391
I don't use Houdini, actually. I'm just pointing out that 3ds Max, as good as it can be with stack modifiers, is not comparable to a fully node-based program.

[Anonymous No.633491]

>>633344
F360 and Zbrush are used in hard surface nowadays because many workflows focus on creating detailed geometry first, and building an optimized variant later. Traditional modeling methods typically have you juggle having to create a required shape while ensuring the topology is good, while if you just sculpt the object out with no regard for topology, you can get the needed result faster, and worry about the low-poly later.

Even if you'll be using one of these tools, you'll want some sort of traditional 3D editor for building the low-poly meshes, which can be something like Max, and of course it's pretty good on its own even without them. Modo is used largely for mesh fusion, which is a really fancy boolean tool that lets you create various types of edge chamfers at bool intersections, but its value has gone down a bit since you can just import models from any other package into Zbrush and remesh them to get similar result.

>>633435
That's kind of irrelevant to the question at hand, though, which is game art. Houdini can be pretty bonkers at hard surface if your goal is making ultra-complex structures out of millions of pieces of geometry that would be impossible to place by hand, but making an optimized variant would still require you to build something more optimized by hand. Houdini can still be somewhat useful for games, as shown with Houdini Engine, but it's main use seems mostly for producing procedural structures that you probably would have wanted to build procedurally anyway. You're just leaving the duties to Houdini instead of Blueprints inside of UE4.

[Anonymous No.633496]

>>633491
>That's kind of irrelevant to the question at hand, though, which is game art.
True. But the post was a response to a Max user claiming it's the best program for working in a programmatic/parametric way -- which is the core of what the stack modifier does.

[Anonymous No.633503]

>>633435
>>I don't use Houdini, actually. I'm just pointing out that 3ds Max, as good as it can be with stack modifiers, is not comparable to a fully node-based program.

Exactly - so why did you compare them? Max strikes the balance of having: i) a non-destructive workflow and ii) still being pretty concrete (as opposed to abstract, which is what a node workflow is).
Yes there are limitations to 1 dimensional vertical hierarchy like the modifier stack - but the benefit of is it's fucking straightforward and the truth is; its perfectly adequate for 99% of your tasks.

Comparing Max with Houdini is literally like comparing Photoshop with Nuke; yes one is more versatile than the other but.... holy shit, there's a limit son.

Also... guess what - Max does have a node-based procedural workflow if you want it. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.633504]

>>633491
Everything said in this post is correct. All of it.

[Anonymous No.633508]

>>633376
I have absolutely no idea where you got the impression that Max is somehow 'niche'. It's a major, central hub application used by literally millions of 3D artworkers all over the world in just about every field you can name.

>>Is this a valid fear
...no. Not remotely.

>>what do you think makes Max so much better suited for modeling?
The modifier stack, the general stability and the quality of the tools... But really my answer is 'around 8 years experience of both Max and Maya'. And as I said previously, it'd take too long to give you a full answer.

But... as a point of comparison, watch a Maya modelling tutorial and see how many times the tutor says something like the following:
'...and at this point you should delete your history...'
'...always remember before going too far into your project - delete your history regularly'
'...if you notice something strange happen here - delete your history and try again...'

You will hear Maya users say that a *lot*. The construction history is Maya's attempt at a linear non-destructive workflow, like the modifier stack - but it SUCKS. No-one really uses it and it ends up just being a liability - it's just a bunch of corruptions waiting to happen. Modelling in Maya is to all intents and purposes a completely irreversible, destructive process and it is BALLS.

But hey, some people like that so.... heyho.

[Anonymous No.633534]

>>633344
Any CAD modeller is excellent for hard surface work. F360 is popular now because it's easy to learn and fairly intuitive. There is a cg artist whose name escapes me atm that uses moi3d, which having used a variety of cad programs myself, would probably be what I would recommend to someone looking to use it for game asset creation like yourself.

However one important detail to keep in mind is that, as you are aware, you need a polygon mesh to use with game engines, and every one one of these applications support polygon model exports of some type, BUT you are basically at the mercy of some sliders and checkboxes when choosing resolution and detail when exporting.

If you are using it as a basemesh or retopologizing it, then perfect, but if using as a high poly model then expect to do some editing and cleanup work because the algorithm isn't efficient or fool-proof

[Anonymous No.633538]

>>633534
nah mate just nah. he wants to do game modeling, he needs to start in polygon environment first.
coming from someone whose uses moi.

[Anonymous No.633542]

>>633538
Yea I agree that op should stick to polygons for games. I guess the point I tried to make was that any time saved in the beginning catches up with you later , so maybe stick to your guns op.

[Anonymous No.633555]

op here. i’m gonna use maya because honestly, 3ds max just scares me. it’s too weird

probably making the wrong choice. maybe a modeler who uses maya could make me feel confident with my choice

[Anonymous No.633557]

>>633555
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qmimcB3wgF0
also, this video is convincing me otherwise. specifically, “no one software is better. just different workflows”

[Anonymous No.633572]

>>633555
Just remember to delete your history, center pivot and freeze transforms.... every 30 seconds.

[Anonymous No.633667]

>>633555
Try using both for like a week each, then come back and tell us how you really feel.

[Anonymous No.633690]

>>633667
i've been modeling for 2 years now, in Maya and Cinema 4d.

>>633572
fuck off. 3ds max doesn't even have image planes

[Anonymous No.634253]

Blender with HardOps addon is great! Look it up!

[Anonymous No.634271]

>>634253
This, but even without it, it's the best modeling tool for me. Modo is close second, then max.

[Anonymous No.634274]

>>633344
Nowadays you can model in any program, they are all more or less capable. I used to model in Blender then I switched to Modo and now I am doing mostly all of the hard modeling stuff directly in Zbrush&Topogun. In between those I tried pretty much all modeling softs out there. As long as your workflow gets you clean results and you're fast enough to be competitive , it doesn't matter. Also 3ds is slow as fuck
pic related, done in less than a day in Zbrush

[Anonymous No.634291]

>>634274
Y-you can you that in ZBrush? Holy shit, I need to up my ZBrush knowledge.

[Anonymous No.634294]

>>634291
Yeah, Zmodeler has come a long way and if you use it with polygroups, slice/clip tools, dynamic subdiv and all the other stuff that is native to zbrush you can do all kinds of stuff and is super fast. I think there is only 1 or 2 things that I did in modo in all of that stuff

[Anonymous No.634297]

>>634294
any tuts you can recommend

[Anonymous No.634322]

>>634294
Well, the skill are pretty much interchangeable so any modeling tutorial will work on pretty much any software. But for zbrush specifically try Michael Pavlovich's "Intro to Zbrush" series and from Uartsy "Everything You Want To Know ... with a side of mech"

[Anonymous No.634884]

>>634322
ty, but those turoials seem a bit old. will i be missing on any new features if i follow those?

[Anonymous No.634997]

>>633491
>That's kind of irrelevant to the question at hand, though, which is game art. Houdini can be pretty bonkers at hard surface if your goal is making ultra-complex structures out of millions of pieces of geometry that would be impossible to place by hand, but making an optimized variant would still require you to build something more optimized by hand. Houdini can still be somewhat useful for games, as shown with Houdini Engine, but it's main use seems mostly for producing procedural structures that you probably would have wanted to build procedurally anyway. You're just leaving the duties to Houdini instead of Blueprints inside of UE4.

Not as much as you seem to think. Making variants is one of the many things Houdini excels at. That includes low resolution versions of high resolution geometry.

[Anonymous No.634999]

are fusion and moi basically the equivalent of zbrush for hardsurface these days?

in the sense that they're useful as concepting tools where it's easier to get the result you want relatively quickly, without thinking about topology etc. but the resulting mesh is unusable in a production environment unless it's a static secondary prop or it's completely repotopologised.

[Anonymous No.635020]

>>634999

Fusion and moi are Cad modelers meant for creating precise models for manufacturing.
Using it to create futuristic pew pew rifles is fucking stupid and speaking for myself, I'm getting real tired of seeing all these flavor of the month fags using this shit to make their boring sci fi crates. I swear all it takes is some of these fags to start using some obscure shit like Microsoft outlook to make a laser gun and then the wannabe echo chamber is flooded with this shit.

Unless your an engineer(or industrial designer) don't fucking bother m8

[Anonymous No.635025]

>>635020
i know what the programs were originally designed for and i do get why you'd be frustrated seeing this shit.

I'm sure there's plenty of people using fusion and moi who're the equivalent of zbrush cowboys, but like zbrush, if they're tools that get out of the way and allow competent artists to focus on the art then imo there's a place for them.

[Anonymous No.635120]

>>635025
Yea I mean if it gets them there great. I see zbrush as a bit different though, it's filled a need in the industry and people use it for that. Very rarely do I see engineers using zbrush for manufacturing, in that area i don't think I've ever seen it used for anything else than jewelry design honestly.

But to me anyway, it's like learning to drive a Formula 1 car to get groceries....but w/e

I see it as a fad, but who knows maybe I'll be surprised

[Anonymous No.635730]

>>635020
holy shit I couldn't agree more man, it's a design program not fucking art.

[Anonymous No.635754]

>>634274
>Did that in ZBrush

Holy fuck. What guides did you use? Please don't say "self taught lmao"

[Anonymous No.635807]

>>635730
>fusion 360
Shhhhh, don't let the reddit know

[Anonymous No.635810]

>>633363
>Overwatch struggles to stay afloat.

LOL wow, /3/ retardation knows no bounds.

[Anonymous No.635857]

>>635754
What guides? As in teachers or mentors? Nah man, I learned it all by myself. I did watch pretty much all the tuts I could get my hands on tho

[Anonymous No.635900]

>>635857
I meant tuts, yeah. Any good channels to look at?

[Anonymous No.635933]

>>635900
If you want to learn how Zbrush works, Pavlovich's channel is the shit. If you want to lean to model hard surface, any tutorial on any package will do, the skills and knowledge are transferable.