Blender Compared To the Major 3D Applications

LetterRip writes "Recently TDT 3D published a comparison of the major 3D digital content creation applications such as Maya, 3DS Max, and XSI, and of course Blender. Blender came out surprisingly well, although it definitely still has some weaknesses."

Comments

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[bky1701]

I thought the same when I started using it. Actually, you can read my complaints on their forum. The thing is, after I made the commitment that I was *going* to learn it, and after I stopped trying to do things the old 3ds ways, it started to come naturally. Now I can do far more impressive work than in 3ds, much faster.

It's painful to LEARN, not use (though there are a few UI annoyances, like the non-standard save/load menu). I'd suggest if you really want to learn it, throw the tutorials (they often offer irrational, hard or just bad ways of doing things) and old knowledge out the window and learn it. Once you know it, you may understand why they kept the interface.

It's all bunk

[QuantumG]

pushing polygons is wrong. It's a short term solution to a long term problem. Keeping to a poly budget is grunt work that should be done by the tool not by the artist. Programmers who think bitrot is bad should have a look at the "asset rot" of 3d models. The deprecation of graphics assets is so fast that it's a stretch to use the word "asset" to refer to them at all. A character model from a AAA title from six months ago has some value, to B quality games, but mostly none of them are reused.

For 3d models to earn their name as "assets" they need to be created with infinite resolution. This is not hard. Constructive Solid Geometry is a well understood technique for modeling and is typically used in CAD applications. An object described even at what would be considered a course level of detail of typical CSG modeling is orders of magnitude higher resolution than the typical game model. What's more, they can be incrementally improved, whereas the b-rep that is typical for a game model today is a one shot affair.

Today, the vast majority of CSG models are created for raytracing architectures which, although they give stunning results, are too slow for realtime applications such as games. Even the attempts to create realtime raytracing systems are aimed at rendering b-reps because of the opportunity to perform an acceleration stage which greatly reduces the scene complexity. B-reps are a win for realtime applications, but just because your application requires a b-rep doesn't mean artists need to get their hands dirty pushing polygons.

Two solutions exist which can render CSG models in realtime.

The image-based rendering algorithms with implementations (such as OpenCSG) which take advantage of z-buffer and stencil-buffer hardware in popular GPU cards. The image-based systems are more compatible than raytracing with the current 3d graphics rendering state of the art, but still require intricacies to integrate that have prevented them from appearing on the market.

The other option is the automatic generation of a b-rep from a CSG model. This has the advantage that it requires no change to the 3d graphics rendering in games and the algorithm can be parametrically tuned to produce b-reps that are fast for different applications. For example, the same CSG model can be used to generate b-reps of different Level Of Detail for when the object is close up vs far away, or for pre-rendered applications such as cut scenes or trailers.

It just happens to be really hard.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are a lot of people who start with the closed source ones and a closed mind and from there on in the open source UIs are always "wrong". Having learning the GIMP without becoming indoctrinated into photoshop and hearing all the catatonic whinging about the GIMP UI, I somehow think that I will be fine with Blender. Sure, photoshop has more high end features, but as people say, unless you need the print colour range, there isn't actually that much difference other than the price and amount of whinging.

Also, not only are these programs 4 stars to the industry leader 5s (and often beating them in many features), for people starting out with the blender or GIMP in highschool, 15 yrs old say, they have to factor in that blender will undergo 5 or more years of development before they hit the job market after uni. They'd be insane to learn a closed source one, which might go bust in that time, as opposed to coming into the market with 5 years of Blender and GIMP under their belt (and blender and gimp with all those new features).

So basically if you are already in the game, keep using the industry standards photoshop and maya etc. Remember they only got the blender sourcecode in late 2002, so as much as it's improved since the first open source release it will improve again in 5 yrs. And with a larger user base and more devs, it will likely move even faster.

Spend $30 on a good book for blender another $30 on the gimp, maybe another $30 on a python book to script both apps way further than your peers using close source stuff - go to the forums and make some good friends above and at your skill level for other advice. Then with the $1000s you were going to spend on close source edu versions and expensive manuals for them, don't forget you have to upgrade when you graduate, into something else maybe an investment account. You'll end up with better skills, better software, more friends and more money.

Industry people your calculation is simple, to stick with your software till you feel the open source stuff is good enough for you to make a move. Simple as that. But one thing you should do is shut the fuck up discouraging other people from using it like there is a chosen way.

It's the future ppl. kthxbye.

Re:It's the UI that makes it

[Aladrin]

I have never been a professional, but this exactly matches my experience.

I wrote a program that converts TheSims models to OBJ format and back again. As part of that, I had to 'learn' a modeller and chose MilkShape3D. I say 'learn' because it took only a few minutes. I've also played with a few other modellers and they all had the same concepts, and the basic functions were all easy to find. (Add polys, move vertexes, apply textures, etc.)

I picked up Blender because I'd heard such good things about it. I spent 2 hours trying to figure out how to apply a texture to a model, another half an hour searching the web for the info, and another hour following a tutorial step by step to figure it out. I tried again without the tut and had lost it already.

Blender's UI is so completely anti-intuitive that it's impossible to just use, you MUST be trained. (Or self-trained.) This may be acceptable for those who never use computers and only want to use Blender, but the rest of us expect to be able to figure it out without a printed manual.

I wonder if it's just chance that the Gimp also has tons of interface complaints?

Re:It's the UI that makes it

[ozmanjusri]

Background: My very first job, in the late 70's, was as a Draftsman.

We have very similar backgrounds. I was a Surveyor in about the same era, and got into 3D modelling via mine design and surveying software (Surpac, DataMine). I started my own 3D software collection with Imagine, then Lightwave on the Amiga. I used Truespace from a coverdisk, tried C4D, and a few other packages.

I still haven't settled into using a single tool. My collection includes Hexagon modeller, Sketchup Pro, Bryce, Cinema 4D, and yes, Blender.

Each has their strengths. For some people, the time cost of learning the tool is higher than it's worth. It sound like that's the case for you. For me, I like being able to be productive anywhere and on any computer, and Blender on a thumb drive does that for me.

In any case, now that I'm used to it, I find there's things I can do quicker in Blender than with the other tools