Maya 2012

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  11 November 2010
So is maya hotfix nr. 3 on OSX the same as sp1 on windows or something? I had a hard time with 2011 at first but after installing hotfix 3 it runs pretty good. I'm really loving the viewport 2.0 for animating high poly scenes!

I'm running 2011 on imac 27 inch 2.8 Ghz intel core i5 quad core OSX machine.
 
  11 November 2010
Service Pack 1 is for Macs as well as windows. It has what was in hotfix 3 plus some more fixes.
Looking at the bug fix list, I am not surprised you had trouble with 2011 on a Mac, because so many were Mac-specific bugs.
__________________
i7 2.8ghz w7pro 8gb quadro 4000 w/270.51 driver, 600 GB SSD C: Drive
 
  11 November 2010
Originally Posted by gramulho: I know that Autodesk developers should do their job right, and I guess they get paid very well for doing so. But I would love a CG person *edited*to at least have an graps on how difficult is to*edited* develop on a software as huge as maya and not code a buggy or non working piece of code.

Guess it will always be easier to complain.

By no means I do take out the responsibility of Autodesk of charging more then 3,000 us dollars for a software that from time to time don't deliver what we want. I just think that people overcome the fact that Maya is huge and new features are slow to brought in and old bugs are hard to take it out without breaking everything apart.

Guess that when you manage to make your work and everything goes smoothly (or at least working) you dont say, I love you Maya! But when the shit hits the fan, you probably blame the software and the software developers right away.

I still think we would be better off with just Alias. But that just me.

I know they're doing a very difficult job and I'm in no way blaming the coders for anything. I'm blaming everything on whoever makes the decisions to keep adding a whole load of new features instead of making the ones that exist usable and stable. take for example the bevel function. it's been there for ages. in my opinion it is one of the most basic and important functions in the program. how well does it work you think? it's complete and utter shite, that's how well it works. what about mental ray then? how well does that work? I think you all know the answer to that.
start fixing the vital stuff before you start adding new functions that maybe 5% of the users are ever going to use. That's what I say.
__________________
"No, the movement is good, it just has to travel faster from spot A to spot B in the same amount of time."
 
  11 November 2010
amen! the bevel tool is indeed a very good example of a shitty functioning tool in maya. Also if you compare the boolean functionality of cinema 4D with Maya, it's laughable. Maya's boolean tool is total crap! LOL In Cinema 4D you can animatie the hell out of boolean operations and get really cool results from it. Autodesk should open a wishlist, where ALL users, including people who are "borrowing" the software, can post complaints about current tools. Maybe they'll learn something..
 
  11 November 2010
Originally Posted by lostparanoia: I know they're doing a very difficult job and I'm in no way blaming the coders for anything. I'm blaming everything on whoever makes the decisions to keep adding a whole load of new features instead of making the ones that exist usable and stable. take for example the bevel function...


Agree. Maya should also get rid of balast like the old software renderer.
Hopefully v2012 blesses its users with an unlimited Turtle renderer licence.

And I hope ADSK isn't done with the UI. While it looks & feels nicer
it has become a little bit slow and still wastes too much screen space.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
  11 November 2010
I use the software renderer all the time, for example when rendering out geometry masks.. Why should Autodesk get rid of that?
 
  11 November 2010
I knew somebody would bite

As long as you don't want to mask out pfx strokes in their native mode, all other available software/hardware renderers could render geometry masks via render passes or render layers.

The only reason you'd still want the maya software renderer nowdays is the slightly different look of fluids rendered with it. IMO.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
  11 November 2010
I've never used the bevel tool in Maya, could someone tell me what's wrong with it? I just had a brief go with it and it seems to bevel edges and faces like I'd expect it to - is there something I'm missing?
 
  11 November 2010
The software renderer renders the geometry masks way faster then for example mental ray right?



Originally Posted by mustique: I knew somebody would bite

As long as you don't want to mask out pfx strokes in their native mode, all other available software/hardware renderers could render geometry masks via render passes or render layers.

The only reason you'd still want the maya software renderer nowdays is the slightly different look of fluids rendered with it. IMO.


@earlyworm The bevel tool does kinda what it is supposed to do, but when you try and bevel more complex models, it totally screwes up the edges
 
  11 November 2010
Originally Posted by gherat: amen! the bevel tool is indeed a very good example of a shitty functioning tool in maya. Also if you compare the boolean functionality of cinema 4D with Maya, it's laughable. Maya's boolean tool is total crap! LOL In Cinema 4D you can animatie the hell out of boolean operations and get really cool results from it.

whoa! don't even get me started on the boolean tools. if you're feeling lucky you can try to use it on 2 cubes and it just might work, as long as you don't plan to modify any of those cubes in any way afterwards.
__________________
"No, the movement is good, it just has to travel faster from spot A to spot B in the same amount of time."
 
  11 November 2010
Originally Posted by gherat: The software renderer renders the geometry masks way faster then for example mental ray right?..


Depends on how fast the computer is and how complex your scenes are. Most of the time the hardware renderer is the fastest choice. If you have displacement maps or motion blur, dof etc, your main renderer (rman/mray/vray etc) is the only way to go anyway.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
  11 November 2010
WISH LIST:\

some more nodes similar to ICE nodes

soup to be integrated

an actual working LWF

a beefed up viewport 2.

an awesome splash screen.

a new puppy.
 
  11 November 2010
Originally Posted by earlyworm: I've never used the bevel tool in Maya, could someone tell me what's wrong with it? I just had a brief go with it and it seems to bevel edges and faces like I'd expect it to - is there something I'm missing?


Well, apart from crashing maya around 20% of the times you try to bevel anything more complex than a cube.
It's screws up your UV:s and in many cases your normals.
The math is incorrect for many shapes making your bevels skewed.
In order to maintain normals for your flat surfaces you would need 2 extra edge loops, one on either side of your bevel. sometimes you can solve this with your insert edge loop tool but in most cases you will have to add edges by hand.
__________________
"No, the movement is good, it just has to travel faster from spot A to spot B in the same amount of time."
 
  11 November 2010
Quote: The software renderer renders the geometry masks way faster then for example mental ray right?


That is incorrect. In mental ray/vray, the matte passes happen alongside the main render, concurrently, and thus take precisely 0 extra time. While this is also possible in Maya Software, your result would still be 0 vs. 0.
__________________
Commodore 64 @ 1MHz
64KB RAM
1541 Floppy Drive


"Like stone we battle the wind... Beat down and strangle the rains..."
 
  11 November 2010
Originally Posted by gherat: The bevel tool does kinda what it is supposed to do, but when you try and bevel more complex models, it totally screws up the edges


Okay I see what you mean. I did this simple little mel test to demonstrate (using M2009 - sorry I don't have ability to screengrab at the moment). Could you confirm this is the weirdness your talking about?

polyPlane -w 1 -h 1 -sx 10 -sy 10 -ax 0 1 0 -cuv 2 -ch 1;
 // Result: pPlane1 polyPlane1 // 
 select -r pPlane1.f[43:45] pPlane1.f[53:55] pPlane1.f[63:65] ;
 polyBevel -offset 0.5 -offsetAsFraction 1 -autoFit 1 -segments 1 -worldSpace 1 -uvAssignment 0 -fillNgons 1 -mergeVertices 1 -mergeVertexTolerance 0.0001 -smoothingAngle 30 -miteringAngle 180 -angleTolerance 180 -ch 1 pPlane1.f[43:45] pPlane1.f[53:55] pPlane1.f[63:65];
 // Result: polyBevel1 // 
 setAttr "polyBevel1.segments" 2;


It could deal with the corners of the face selection better - instead of creating a triangle on the corners keeping things quad. And in some parts where it's tried to fill in the ngons it's filled the ngon in but left the face there - odd how it's only affecting some of the ngons.

Edit: I've also noticed it does mess up the UVs on the object, creating border seams where it probably doesn't need to.

Note: For doing what I've done here I'd probably use extrude instead of bevel.

Last edited by earlyworm : 11 November 2010 at 07:38 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.