max9 needs a parametric history like xsi has

[thatoneguy]

Maya also has the same functionality. Having used XSI and Maya extensively, I personally usually turn off history. The drawback to such a system (as used in Maya and XSI) is you periodically have to manually collapse the "stack" or your system will slow to a halt. Also going back several layers and changing one thing, would for me almost inevitably screw up everthing after it, making me redo the rest of the changes done, putting me in the exact same situation as having just undone several layers.

I don't think it would be too difficult to write a max script that creates a new "Edit Poly" operator for each action, if you really want one now.

[KRZ9000]

oh ok i have not enough experience to know about that.
but the sexy thing is that i can change parameters and not just enable/disable them like with an "auto-add-edit-poly".

the screwup thing ok this is not going to be solved anytime soon but i would love to have a parametric-history mainly to prepare my mesh for turbosmooth...and i can imagine that srewups would be minimal since i dont cut polys or add new ones on that stage of modelling.

[Media]

Hay KRZ!

I agree 100% with your thougts. In fact i have brought it up once or twice before in other threads (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=292612). I think that max 8 has some nice new modelling tools that are very interesting and has changed my workflow quite a bit. Just to mention a few ´tips n´ tricks´; chamfer open edge - convert to outline and bridge to create a parametrical bevel option. Second . use extrude edge - set extrusion to 0 and extend base with to get a solid chamfer. among others. Great new powerfull tools. However they lack, as you have very accurate pointed out, history! Beeing able to go back and adjusting a loop, a bevel or an extrusion. MAX´s method is very linear. Once you have done the operation it is set in stone. (you can undo but that is it). XSI has a great advantage that it is that you can always go back to any operation and adjust and refine any action. To illustrate how extremely bad max is at this is to create any object, convert it to a poly and add a epoly modifier. Extrude a poly or move a vertex. Go back to ground level of your stack and move any vertex slightly and go back to toplevel. Your model is messed up. it seems that max somehow assigns new id´s to all the vertexes almost randomly whenever you do any translation or operation to them. This makes it impossible to have a logical history.

I really hope they fix this as this kind of a fluid workflow is very powerfull and would make the modeling process much better. XSI really has an advantage on MAX at this point.

That beeing said - Max is starting to get really good at the basics of modelling. i am very comfortable when modeling in MAX. It is just such a shame that i have to turn to polyboost or orionflame to be able to adjust my model. Polyboost and orionflame are really powerfull and great tools but i think that Rivendale and Light wouldnt have to go through alot of trouble if Autodesk had recognised the fact that having a history and beeing able to manipulate your topology parametrically at all stages of your modelling process are very powerfull and userfirendly tools.

Enough ranting :)

[Rens]

Maya also has the same functionality. Having used XSI and Maya extensively, I personally usually turn off history. The drawback to such a system (as used in Maya and XSI) is you periodically have to manually collapse the "stack" or your system will slow to a halt. Also going back several layers and changing one thing, would for me almost inevitably screw up everthing after it, making me redo the rest of the changes done, putting me in the exact same situation as having just undone several layers.

I don't think it would be too difficult to write a max script that creates a new "Edit Poly" operator for each action, if you really want one now.
I'm using XSI most of the time now but I also turn off the history, at least for modeling. I don't know if it's from being used to max but all it does is slow me down. I don't really see the advantage of it when you're doing basic modeling, as in poly or box modeling, not using procedural operators or anything to shape your mesh.
When you've found the right plugins max is great for modeling. It does needs plugins though to get the most out of it which you can see as an advantage or a drawback. Personally I see it as an advantage as you have more choice. It's another thing for companies though as they have to deal with multiple parties for their support, compatibility and whatnot.


the screwup thing ok this is not going to be solved anytime soon but i would love to have a parametric-history mainly to prepare my mesh for turbosmooth...
What do you mean by "to prepare my mesh for turbosmooth"?

[Gräck]

I don't see your problems with the meshes messed up after changing previous modifications.

For example, when I create a box, add an edit poly, chamfer the four top edges, add an edit poly modifier, insert and extrude the top poly, then go back and turn off the previous modifier, it is all fine. The top poly is still extruded properly. Max does not randomly define the vertex numbering for every new modifier. It tries to keep the original structure as far as possible.

Well, of course, when I change significant properties in previous modifiers, for example change the segments of the box, the modifiers do not know which of the new polys to select in order to have a mesh looking similar to the one before. I cannot expect that and I would be very surprised if XSI or Maya could do that.

I am very satisfied with the way Max is handling that issue. You can be very flexible with the modifier stack. It does not save the hole history, but lets you choose which modifications will be stored in specific modifiers. This is more clear and saves memory.

[Media]

I might have jumped the gun a bit on my example. However i find that max does rearange the id´s quite often and also when i do some very insignifigant changes to the base.
But i think it is strange that now that there is slide and pinch in the connect modifier you can only slide and pinch when the dialouge box is open. After applying you cannot go back and ajust the loops with a similar parametrical slider. Just to round off - MAX´modifier and stack is very powerfull and i like it alot and i think it has some very nice advantages.

[Gräck]

If Max is rearranging the ID's too much, it wouldn't be possible to modify the mesh that extensively without having a broken Skin Modifier for example. And your suppostion Max is rearranging the ID's even when translating a vertex is kind of nonsense, sorry.

Well, you're right that you cannot change the chamfer amount afterwards for example, but when you store your edge selection in a modifier, you can delete your modifier containing the chamfer procedure, add a new modifier and redo the chamfering with the new value.

[Media]

And your suppostion Max is rearranging the ID's even when translating a vertex is kind of nonsense, sorry

Hey dude. Im not making this up. I have several years of modeling experience and quite often i find that doing minor adjustments in the stack (adjustments that does not affect the topolgy/polycount) can have major effects in the stack hiarchy. It might not be the vertexID that gets messed up but the model can get severe damages. If we are going to have a constructive debate around MAX and how to make it better (by exchanging tips, workflow issues etc.) bloating out that other peoples experience is noncence is extremely arrogant and quite honestly the oposite of what this forum is all about. We are not slagging MAX, we are trying to make it better by looking at what other software packages might be better at and applying those princeples to MAX.

[Gräck]

You are overplaying a little bit. I do not ignore your experience with Max, nor did I say there are absolutely no problems when modifiying something in the stack for other modifiers. I did just say that your statement about the vertex translation does not have any reason, and this is the case.

[KRZ9000]

quote:

"Well, you're right that you cannot change the chamfer amount afterwards for example, but when you store your edge selection in a modifier, you can delete your modifier containing the chamfer procedure, add a new modifier and redo the chamfering with the new value."

yes it can be done but its not practical. xsi solves that need elegant because they know there is a use for it. max has lots of possibilities but to me it often looks like they prefer to deliver as much as they can and dont worry too much about smooth workflow and slick integration.

e.g. max chamfer is no doubt a mess compared to xsis edge-bevel (chamfer does the job...but edge-bevel does it in a usefull way).

a parametric approach to modelling is in my view a modern one...because we have the memory and cpu speed now that it can be usefull. if it can be collapsed - even better cuz i think i would need it only in a few occasions as well.

with "preparing for turbosmooth...i mainly ment edge-hardening (+"quading") via chamfering since the crease and weight tools of meshsmooth work not the way its usefull to me.

[Gräck]

I have a complete different view about that. I think the way Max is working offers a very comfortable workflow, since you are modeling straight forward, not with dozens of extra menus and history modifications. This is one reason why Max is so popular in game development.

Of course it would be nice to have such a great history and detailed tool options like in XSI (I have just tried it out, really great edge bevel tool etc.), but personally, I don't miss them at present.

Maybe I have tuned my Max workflow so much that any other system doesn't make sense for me any more. I see some great advantages of other 3d applications, but also miss some major features Max offers.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.