Trouble exporting AC 3D view to MAYA for OSX

[rm]

Inspired by Ivan's spectacular photo realistic renderings, and disapointed with Art-lantis 4.5.6 lack of radiosity abilities, I downloaded Maya PLE for OSX and C4D to demos to try out their rendering abilities, and ease of use, or lack there of.

I installed both demo programs and they launch just fine in OSX 10.3.4.

So I exported a model that I have recentlly completed in AC 8.1 the latest build, and exported a 3D view using the default settings for both 3Dstudio ( which C4D just fine ) and Maya.

The .3ds file took about 3 minutes to process as this is a fairly complex model, same for saving as an Artlantis 4.5.6. file.

The Maya export simply hangs after creating about 3 different AC scratch files. I tried the same file on three different G4s same problem. It just seems to get stuck in processing hell. I get the little colored spinnig ball.....and nothing.

Is this a bug with the export plugin for MAYA in AC....or is there an obvious technique I am missing.

BTW, I saved from a 3d perspective view with the Open GL shaded mode.

Using OSX 10.3.4 on G4s...........any tips or help would be appreciated.

TIA,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.


Robert Mariani

[rm]

Burginger wrote:
Robert, I would sincerely encourage you to explore C4D fully. You mention that you think the interface is difficult to use, maybe if everything is showing, you can quickly customize it to your personal options. There are example models to play with also in the ArchiCAD-C4D Workflow thread.

Mark

Mark,

Thanks for the reply. I generally evaluate software in a very primitive manner, one that I'm guessing many on this board don't subscribe to, but I guess thats partially why I use Macs instead of PC. My technique is simple and is as follows: One: Install software for evaluation ( usually only involves a couple mouse clicks on the Mac ), Two: Launch program, and start playing with it, be it a graphics, word processing, or photo software. Three: If I don't have to fumble with it to get it to work on a very basic level, and I don't have to open a manual for the first few times I use the program, then I use it and buy it.

OK, I know this is a really simplistic approach, but I believe well written software IS intuitive. I would put AC, Photoshop, Artlantis, and from what I can see MAYA in that group. Trouble with Maya is I can't get it to read output from AC.

Saving output as an .obj file from AC in my models brought AC to its knees..........have to talk to tech support on that one.

But in C4D, I couldn't even figure out how to zoom in and out of a view. And moving a camera seemed to have no correlation to my mouse movements. BUT, I loved the fact that my .3ds file (and it was complex) came in just fine. IF it is ok with you, why don't you PM your phone number to me, and I will call you to discuss.

Also, attached is an image of the model I want to bring into Maya or C4D to improve on the lighting. The image original is actually 400dpi for printing on our new Canon i9900 photo printer ( which makes stunning prints ) but the attached sample is very low res. I think the image is OK for most purposes, but I must say IvanG has raised my offices' bar for renderings.

Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd



Robert Mariani, AIA

[Anonymous]

First of all. PDF is not good container for renderings, pictures etc. Use some of lossless formats (tiff, tga, bmp) or loss with high quality (jpg). It is much easier to control it (brightness, contrast, crop etc.) or retouch. I must say this the quality of rendering is the sum of software possibilities and your experience.

Here is something I made in 1997 without fancy rendering engine, just 3dsmax scanline renderer, nor radiosity, GI or so. I know it is not perfect but even today I like it.



Here some tests from max+Vray, The benefit was the time in setting up this stuff, but time consumption goes up. Of course in near future it will be no problem but today it still is.




Consider also Blender. It takes time to learn it, but ones you get familiar with interface it is really easy to use. And effects ?

And this is only scanline with raytrace. I'm still learning blender.

You also can fake GI - like here (no GI engine - just scanline)

[Anonymous]

Robert,

I am following your post.. I too am on a Mac (G5 Dual 2.0 GhZ) and have downloaded Maya, CD4, I have ArtLantis and even have a beta of Shade 7 Pro.. Then a couple of months ago I bought LightWave 8.. wow! Great program, stable and rivals the big boys in every feature. Take a look at LightWave, you may not be a couple of mouse clicks away from doing your favorite thing, since the GUI is not based on Windows or OSX, but it is powerful and if you use a "light dome", it can be really powerful.

What I liked about Maya though, is it's presence on the web and in the whole 3D community. I think that is worth something. That is why I think Steve Jobs is interested in it so much. Keep us posted on your progress!

+pablo

[rm]

Pablo wrote:
Robert,
....but it is powerful and if you use a "light dome", it can be really powerful.

What I liked about Maya though, is it's presence on the web and in the whole 3D community. I think that is worth something. That is why I think Steve Jobs is interested in it so much. Keep us posted on your progress!

+pablo

Pablo,

Thanks for your input. Do you have a link for LightWave that you can point to? Also, I'm waiting for GS to get back to me, so far I really like what I see in the Maya interface......now if I could only get it to "play nice" with AC

Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.


Robert Mariani, AIA

[Anonymous]

www.lightwave3d.com

It has a plugin that came free with rel.8 called UV-Mapping Pro, which allows you to "skin" surfaces with photorealistic imagery..(see gallery images) I'm sure Maya has an equivalent.. there is a gap between low-end rendering apps and Maya, 3D Max, SoftImage and LightWave.

Watchout for Shade7... some of the images on the website are incredible.

http://shade.e-frontier.co.jp/en/

+pablo

[Anonymous]

OX Maya, 3D Max, SoftImage and LightWave=LOW END softwers and renders

Please say as what is HI END softwers and renders PLZ open my eyes

[stefan]

IvanG wrote:
OX Maya, 3D Max, SoftImage and LightWave=LOW END softwers and renders
Please say as what is HI END softwers and renders PLZ open my eyes

It depends on your definition of "high end" 😉

The "big boys" to me are clearly (not in a particular order):
* Maya Unlimited (and Complete to a certain extent)
* 3ds max and Autodesk VIZ
* Lightwave
* Softimage XSI
* Houdini
* Cinema4D XL or Studio

And to me it seems that these are the high-end tools: they are expensive, they have lots of features, they are open-ended (you can script & program), they have plugins to extend the features and they support lots of formats (import & export).
Most of them are around for a while and have proven themselves in production environments: still rendering and animation. There is no clear winner, but each has strong points:
* Maya: hypershade, MEL, animation
* 3ds max: plugins, gametools, DWG-compatibility
* Lightwave: price, polygonal modelling, rendering quality
* Softimage: non-linear animation, workflow, compositing, Mental ray
* Houdini: procedural approach for technical tasks (FX, animation)
* Cinema4D: price, rendering, stability

rm wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I generally evaluate software in a very primitive manner, one that I'm guessing many on this board don't subscribe to, but I guess thats partially why I use Macs instead of PC. My technique is simple and is as follows: One: Install software for evaluation ( usually only involves a couple mouse clicks on the Mac ), Two: Launch program, and start playing with it, be it a graphics, word processing, or photo software. Three: If I don't have to fumble with it to get it to work on a very basic level, and I don't have to open a manual for the first few times I use the program, then I use it and buy it.

I don't follow the reasoning that a good software should be usable without any look at the manuals or helpfiles. Sure, this goes for simple programs or utilities that you don't use 24/7, like e-mail, compression, anti-virus, games etc... but it doesn't work for production tools.
You can play with ArchiCAD, but you need to learn about it to get productive. And that also applies to 3D-animation, video-editing, music-sequensing, programming etc... I use all of these and most of them are not easy to use, but once you learn about them, you appreciate their power and customizability and (most importantly) you understand that the 'tool' in itself is not the limitation to what you can do with it. To me that defines HIGH-end !

Miki wrote:
[example renderings]

I like the exterior shot. Very good photomatch. Now add a littly blurring on the house and you would not be able to see which parts are the photo and which is the rendering. But as you might have noticed, I tend to dislike sharp images...

[Anonymous]

IvanG, I think you misunderstand me. I AM saying that Maya, 3D Max, Lightwave and those +$2000 apps are HIGH-END .. oh and just to be more clear since this is primarily an architectural forum, I am talking about applications for Macs and PCs. I don't want to get flamed by those workstation guys running Softimage or some Pixar animator to think I am looking past their interface. I am thinkinng primarily those programs that can reasonably be used in an architectural office on the type of budgets afforded to these type of uses (still renderings and aerial animations of architectonic subjects) vs. charactor animations and special effects.

+pablo

[rm]

stefan wrote:

rm wrote:
..... Three: If I don't have to fumble with it to get it to work on a very basic level, and I don't have to open a manual for the first few times I use the program, then I use it and buy it.

I don't follow the reasoning that a good software should be usable without any look at the manuals or helpfiles.........

Stefan, thanks for your input, but please reread my quote. I never reasoned that the definition of good software was software that could be used without a manual at all. Further, I wrote that this was my method and understood many would not agree with it.

That said, I don't pretend to own this forum, but I would like to have this thread stick to the subject that I started it with. This thread was to solicit help with Maya, and C4D in concert with AC on Macs.

Several people have offered their opinion here and in PMs to me concerning this thread.

Anyone one who wants to continue the debate one which software is the best can do it in a seperate thread.....thanks for your understanding.


Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.


Robert Mariani

[Anonymous]

rm wrote:
That said, I don't pretend to own this forum, but I would like to have this thread stick to the subject that I started it with. This thread was to solicit help with Maya, and C4D in concert with AC on Macs.

Returning to the subject (more or less). I have found that while C4D is a bit difficult at first (just different mostly - its interface has sort of a UNIX feel to it), once you get over the initial difficulty it is remarkably easy to use considering its sophistication. It reminds me of AllPlan in this way, which I guess is not surprising since Maxon is owned by Nemetschek.