Maya vs C4D subdivision surfaces

[castroman]

you can subdivide indiviidual polys if that is what you want. choose a poly or a group of polys and select subdivide from the functions menu. then choose hypernurbs

not exactly what is in maya, but still a solution

[rareseu]

not suer if it's the same thing but i've seen a feature in a digital tutors car modelling tut that was used to add details , the feature was the abilty to subdivide the mesh several times and interact with the resulted points to add detail, and then go back to a lower subd level while keeping the added detail ( in c4d this would be like making a hn surface editable adding details, and then turn back to the original hn surface while still keeping the detail )

[ThirdEye]

It depends. Are you talking about Maya's subdivision surfaces or smooth proxy?

[bunter]

I *think* I am talking about the subdivision surfaces - ie you make a poly cube, convert to subdiv and then you can refine areas and directly edit the subdivided mesh. As I am very new to maya I could be getting mixed up...

[ThirdEye]

Yeah that's subdivision surfaces then, not smooth proxy. If you want the equivalent (but much more clunky) of C4D's HN you'll have to use smooth proxy. Keep in mind subdivision surfaces in Maya are sloooooooooow, so slow everyone uses polys and then at the end of the process converts them to subdivision surfaces.

[bunter]

Ah! Now this is the kind of reply I was hoping for - how (if at all) is this feature used in real life? The subdiv tutorial that comes with Maya PLE makes out that their subdivs are totally great and then shows you how to use it to make a clunky mesh full of tris and n-gons (and bad creases) that makes me cringe.

thanks for all replies

bunter

[NWoolridge]

Maya's sub-ds are much more sophisticated than HyperNURBs, with the multi-level modeleing history as you describe. But, in my limited experience with them, that complexity comes with a cost in speed and usability. With hypernurbs, there is just the base mesh, and its relationship to the smoothed mesh is direct and easy to understand (like Maya's smooth proxy). With sub-ds, its much easier to become confused about what is making the final mesh look the way it does. I'm sure that there are some advantages, but I prefer the simpler approach.

And most people in the industry seem to use smooth proxy, anyway...

Nick

[AdamT]

Can't speak to Maya but I find multilevel SDS to be a huge advantage in ZBrush. Of course that's primarily tied to the sort of modeling one does in programs like ZB and Mudbox.

[brammelo]

There is no equivalent to Maya's Sub-D in any other package I know. If you're looking for a way to model complex organic things, then it's not the right path to walk. But if you're looking for a way to model relatively simple organic things that you want to convert to NURBS-patches (without loss of precision), then Sub-D is your thing. It's something that Form-Z, Rhino and the likes still haven't been able to mimick.

[AdamT]

There is no equivalent to Maya's Sub-D in any other package I know. If you're looking for a way to model complex organic things, then it's not the right path to walk. But if you're looking for a way to model relatively simple organic things that you want to convert to NURBS-patches (without loss of precision), then Sub-D is your thing. It's something that Form-Z, Rhino and the likes still haven't been able to mimick.
Actually you can get the T-Splines plugin for Rhino and other apps that will convert a HN cage to a real nurbs object, and v.v.

[Thalaxis]

Can't speak to Maya but I find multilevel SDS to be a huge advantage in ZBrush. Of course that's primarily tied to the sort of modeling one does in programs like ZB and Mudbox.

What Maya has is called hierarchical subdivision surfaces; it allows you to do what is essentially local subdivisions, so you can just leave large parts of the mesh somewhat coarse, and finely subdivide local areas as if they were plain old subdivision meshes.

N-gons largely get around the need for that IMO, and the difference in responsiveness makes it pretty obvious why no one elses uses hierarchical sub-d's :)

[danb]

Yes i agree with Thalaxis. If you're a careful modeller you can acheive the same results anywyas with a non hierarchy subdivision modeller, like c4d.

I don't like to toot my own horn, but i get a lot of complements on my organic modelling for speed and quality from maya artists. At first this excited me and then when i tried using maya's modelling tools i understood they're enthusiasm.

I cannot comment on hard surface modelling though. HSM in c4d is not the freindliest, but not impossible.

[tonfarben]

In my experiences with maya I also have let the subdivs in where they were hiding and did not touch them.
As Thalaxis said, N-Gons can replace the need of hierarchical sub-Ds when you are modelling with care.

I don´t know and correct me if I am wrong, but what about skinning with subD´s? Is it possible to apply smooth skin or only rigid skin? If only rigid skinning is possible you can almost forget that whole subDs thingy... :-)

[grrinc]

Skinning with Mayas SubDs is a nightmare. The only success I had was using the SubD base level as a rigged polygonal wrap deformer for the SubD model. Even then it was only to see if it could be done. I never found a need to use Mayas SubD ever again. In fact I have never used Maya again either.

[danb]

Skinning with Mayas SubDs is a nightmare. The only success I had was using the SubD base level as a rigged polygonal wrap deformer for the SubD model. Even then it was only to see if it could be done. I never found a need to use Mayas SubD ever again. In fact I have never used Maya again either.

I think this is the reason alias made this feature, because the animators could go to work before the final version was done. Very helpful in blockbuster movie settings but not for everyday use.

[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.