It is a shame… Autodesk lost it…

As I mentioned earlier, I’m a 3d Studio Max user. I was part of the subscription plan for a while, what offered me yearly upgrades for an affordable price. Today I got a call from the reseller/distributor that Autodesk changes its upgrade policy.
There is no problem with that, the whole world goes to cloud, so why not?
With the Adobe Cloud even freelancers got opportunity to use the latest apps with almost affordable pricing, so I expected something like this – emotionally. I say ‘ emotionally’, because with rational thinking I had to admit that  Autodesk never – NEVER – did anything for their customers to make their life easier.

I checked their monthly subscription prices a few months ago…. they were like a bad joke. So, the reseller told me that I should upgrade to Max 2015, then pay yearly the double of the last subscription price I payed before. Also told me that I should be happy, because it is a great offer.

Well, I told that Autodesk just lost a customer and they will loose even more. And I also told Autodesk should take a look on Adobe Cloud when they guess their pricing. Or take a look on Modo (which is more and more close to be my new package near Blender).

Of course I will use Max in the future. My existing license will be useful for years; I changed my plans for the future, so I can live with an earlier version.

I think in a few years Autodesk will have serious problems with their competitors, so they will be forced to reduce prices.

I miss Blender

I’m working on a project in Max and I miss Blender (I used it for organic modeling before this project started). Unfortunately the internal architecture of Blender cannot handle a heavy scene like the one I work on, but I miss the speed of the polygon editing tools.
In Max I feel as an engineer.
In Blender I feel as an artist.

Revelations

I had to spend the last few weeks with 3D Max.
It was interesting after having so much time in Blender; I had to get used to the different, less hot-key oriented work-flow. It was easy, because I was able to use my personalized GUI with all the necessary stuff I needed.

Today I came back to Blender and I realized that 2.68 is out; I downloaded and installed it.
It was really cool that I had the opportunity to switch to my previous settings (GUI, hot-keys) immediately; very well done, developers!

On the other hand I had to realize that I forgot at least half of the hot-keys during the last month, what makes me sad and proves the rightness of my formerly guessed suggestions.

10 reasons why NOT to use Blender for paid architectural visualisation – 7/10.

The lack of a quick and efficient UVW mapping tool

On most of the Blender forums the visitors could read that Blender built-in UVW mapping  features are among the best.
Well, that could be true in the field of custom modeling when someone have to unwrap a special and unique model, but it is definitely not true for archviz mapping.

Why?

In an archviz scene a 3d modeler have to deal with hundreds, thousands of ‘simple’ models. A good tool would offer the opportunity to assign the same UVW coordinates for multiple models at the same time, but with high level of customizing  later; the opportunity to give exact  UVW coordinates with resizing (numeric), positioning, rotating, scaling, tiling, etc.
Although Blender offers ‘texture space’ mapping (SHIFT+T), it has very limited functionality, compared to the UVW modifier in 3ds Max (and even those limited functions are not working properly in Cycles).

I tried to make some workarounds like transferring UVW layouts, but it is just not there yet (unfortunately).
Blender should offer an UVW modifier what is capable to offer all the necessary ‘simple’ UVW  mapping ways (planar, box, cylindrical, sphere, etc.) with the support of texture channels, tile sizes, mapping gizmos, etc.

 

2 in 1: Particle tree in Blender + NeatVideo noise removal test

Some month ago I played with particle-based trees in Max and Unity for a more identical output result (using different vegetation for classic renders and real-time engines is not so ‘nice’).
At the end I went with another method, but it was interesting, so I decided to give a try for particle trees in Blender.
As you see, it is possible.

Continue reading

1 month self-exam – What did I learn until now II.

OK, so let’s see my experiences.

First of all about the model:

I didn’t have any ‘real’ plans without copyright, so I ‘designed’ the corridor, but I’m not an architect (so – of course – I will not count the design mistakes I made and my laziness like to draw legs for the sofa:).
I didn’t want to reuse any materials, objects, plants, so everything was made in Blender from zero.
I wanted to use Cycles for lighting, but I made a Vray version, too (not from the final model), just to test rendering speed.
Continue reading

Prologue to ‘The Big Issues’ – What we are doing wrong (Part I.)

For example this survey, at least partially.
And – just because I like irony-  my opinion is mostly based on this survey.
It shows significant matches to the mistakes of the development of Blender: a wonderful conception with unclear goals, not proper questions and sometimes the ‘result’ is not explained correctly.
I know, I’m evil again.
Well, someone has to be.

I suggest to read it, if you didn’t do that yet.
Then think about it: what was wrong with it?

Then read this post below plus the others. They are coming soon.

Continue reading