[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/3/ - 3DCG

View post   

File: 79 KB, 763x417, Nulqetqeq1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
973343 No.973343 [Reply] [Original]

Is he right?

>> No.973349

No. He has no idea what he's talking about.

>> No.973351

Yeah I agree with most of what he said. Especially the part about working on skills instead of being hung up on tools.

If you're a good artist in blender you are still a better artist in maya than a worse artist than you who's already using maya.
Focus on building real skills with anything you have available.

If you went back in time and pulled the best guys from 20 years ago into the here and now and gave them modern tools
after a familiarization period of a few weeks they'd be running circles around artist who's not already at the top of the field today.
The skills we need to operate the tools we have available is art skills; shape/form/composition, hand-eye coordination the ability
to make judgements about the exact distance between elements in a reference and capture it correctly, things of that nature.

These skills that exist separate from the tools and is used whether we use stick on the beach to draw boobs in the sand
or sculpt them titties in Z-brush while wearing a VR helmet or Apples goon-visor.

>> No.973352


>> No.973353

That's wishful thinking.

The whole reason why software like AutoCAD still exists is not because it's particularly good software. It's because skill are not tranferable between software packages.
If you've learned in AutoCAD, you're always going to use AutoCAD, if you've learned in Maya, you're always going to be using Maya, if you've learned in Blender you're hosed and I'm sure you'll find employment in some other sector.

>> No.973355
File: 210 KB, 960x877, adqy92e7s9g41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>20 years ago - AutoCAD

Anon. Do you think these games where made in AutoCAD?

>> No.973356

No, but they weren't made in Blender either.
Also, you may not know this but AutoCAD is still huge between those who are able to make a living with computers.

>> No.973357

>20 years ago
3dsMax was the main tool to do that crap thill the mid-late 00s

>> No.973358

>AutoCAD is still huge

Ofc but you made it sound like 20 years ago people'd be restricted to CAD software if they wished to do 3D art.

That's be like going back to the early-mid 80's.

I go back to the first version of max I operated, R3 from -99, knowing what I know today I could still make serious assets
using that version of max if I absolutely had to.

>> No.973359

should i start with blender?

>> No.973361


>> No.973362

2nd point is irrelevant. If you're already paying for Maya, you can also afford the measly additional cost to pay for a renderer that fits your needs, much better than cycles or eevee. No one, and no studio I've worked with uses Arnold, despite using Maya. I agree with the other points though.

>> No.973363

what does it mean to pay for a render

>> No.973367
File: 572 KB, 685x1182, les songes drolatiques de pantagruel048.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

My dude, as an engineer with 10 years of AutoCAD experience, i tell you this: you are going to design in a tool, that your boss(or dude who pay) tell you to. It's kinda retarded to switch between CADs, but i worked in ~8 kinda similar programms, because of implications. Itslike a programming language, "best tool for a job", you can design PCB in AutoCAD "Electical", but industry standard is Altium, You can draw decent 3D in AutoCAD, but thats what SolidWorks is for. Etc. Also by learning different tools you can expand your CV and get to work with more people on a bigger projects.

>> No.973371

I have used Arnold and cycles for years and Arnold is superior in every way, >>973363
I don't pay for Arnold, but the company I worked with did and it's nigh and day compared to cycles, even vray sucks compared to Arnold

>> No.973373

Zbrush is better than blender for sculpting
Arnold is better than cycles

blender or Maya it's just personal preference, both are the best 3d packages to choose
Max and cinema 4d are dead

>> No.973376

Too bad that 3dsmax it's dead

>> No.973378

Is there any downside of using a pirated version of Maya?

I mean if it's so good then why would you use Blender when you can just pirate it

>> No.973380

Renderer, not render. As in a rendering engine. Arnold, Redshift, Vray, Corona, Renderman, Octane, and so on. There's no need to stick with just Arnold, if you're using Maya. You can pick the one that best fits your needs. For me Arnold is not viable for example, since I need fast render times, so my animations don't take years to render. For that, unless you have a massive farm at your disposal, your best option is a GPU renderer. While Arnold has some GPU support, it's still extremely limited. Personally I use Redshift. The only thing I use Arnold for, is for previewing my bifrost graphs before caching them to use with RS. Of course, you can buy a lot of those for Blender as well, although some of them are lacking features that they have in other packages.

>> No.973381

didnt understand a thing you just said

>> No.973383

i thought arnold gpu had made major gains recently. i'm kinda tempted to try it out again.
i've switched to karma for personal projects though.

>> No.973388

20 years ago it was restricted, ps2 had limited hardware ability and the best anyone can do is something like in God of War.

>> No.973390

You where way more limited in what you could do mainly because of target hardware.
You could easily do assets for contemporary games using even 25 year old software and hardware, no problem.

Biggest difference would be lack of texture baking tools and native support for normalmaps but those are not used or necessary for everything.
You could still render them tho using falloff materials and assemble the channels yourself in an external image editor.
Admittedly laying out UV's pre pelt-mapping did and would suck absolute ass but hey; we did it then and we still could today.

>> No.973391

I would hate using R3 but I could make do. Give me max 9 onward and I'd be close to full capacity for anything I needed to do.

That's -06 so to me a software that's now 18 years old is nearly as good as the one I use today.
I'm sure there are niceties I would miss going back that far but all the core functionality I use everyday I know very well to be there.
One of the biggest projects I ever did was on max 9 why I remember it's precise capabilities so vividly.

>> No.973393

You can make CGI with 25 year old software so yeah. Sticking assets from say 'The Spirits Within' into a contemporary game engine would tank performance to single digit frames on monster systems. You can't render those production assets in realtime to this day.

Arguably you can render better looking stuff realtime today but that's all advancements in shaders and lighting and more effective authoring of assets.
The poly bound for what you could output as high-end assets meant for offline rendering in the early 00's is still higher than what anyone uses for games as of today.

>> No.973481

Yes, except I would recommend learning ZBrush instead of trying to sculpt in Blender. If you're going to work at a studio, you won't have to pay for the software anyhow. Even if you use multires modifer in Blender, it's going to be slow and cumbersome to sculpt in it.

>> No.973504

why are pajeets giving advice?
poop addicted nonces, be gone