In studio we're doing a parametric design project... a small loft, minimally programmed. Anyway, we're being pushed hard to use 3DS Max, because it's "parametric," but I just can't stand the interface. It seems like a powerful program, but I'm still convinced that a truly great piece of software will be easy to use even for a new user, and then will gradually reveal its true strengths as one becomes more accostommed to it.... unfortunately (like formz), 3ds max is just frustrating me right now, so I moved over to Rhino, which i can use "out of the box" since the commands are so similar to autocad.
in the interest of keeping it "parametric" i decided to jump into rhinoscripting, and i managed to get a script to do exactly what i wanted cobbled together in a few hours, much less time that it would have taken in Max, plus I feel that I have a lot more control over the program's operation, on a deeper level.
So, does anyone have a convincing argument as to why I should bother learning the intricacies of 3Ds max? It seems to me that if anything Max will move towards a more AutoCAD-like interface, since being purchased, but what do I know? Plus, if I can learn vbscript by way of rhinoscript, that's another bullet point for the resume, and knowing how to script won't go obsolete as fast as specific software versions.
max is so much more powerful than rhino on so many different levels. Materials [especially on max9] are fantastic, lighting has become very sophisticated with the mental ray 3.5 usage of final gather and global illumination and you can create very complex animations which can really help to describe a space [no flythroughs!!!!]. Many video games are made in Max, so you can see how powerful the program is. One you learn the interface and can model in max instead of making shitty, slow models in CAD and then importing them, you will be amazed at what you can do.
oh yeah, and while i don't know it personally, i have friends who know maxscript and it is f'ing badass, i'd imagine it would blow rhino out of the water.
problem is that max is overkill for most architectural situations, especially if you are just making a model for a client to just look at and pan around [my current situation]. however, if you are in school, make use of max and make some crazy animations; you can really make your space come to life...for instance, here are a couple of films a friend of mine did in studio, all done in max: architectural animations
1. about the materials... yeah yeah... plug maxwell into rhino and you have the problem solved. maxwell materials pretty much leave max materials eating dust, and if you don't believe me, go see for urself at http://www.maxwellrender.com
i'll agree though, max is cheaper when it comes to the academic version. i was just stuck cause i had already bought rhino for school.
2. those films. im just gonna shut up.
3. shitty slow models in cad? dude. models are not slow unless they have extra data on them and i dont think that's warranted when it comes to cad, but maybe im wrong.
4. maxscript? rhinoscript? the reality is this.. these are half-crippled toolsets if you really wanna learn something amazing go with Maya's MEL (which i'm planning on learning as soon/if maya goes UB).
People seem to forget that it comes down to how well someone knows the software and how talented they are.
If we are arguing which is more powerful, which is better for arch, etc., then you need some criteria to judge by.
Those animations, no offense, are pretty bad. Max is an incredibly powerful program and in a different league than Rhino (and they were made that way, not as competition to each other).
As for scripting, unless you truly know the limits and potential, I think it's pretty naive to declare on far superior to the other.
Fact is, there is great stuff out there utilizing free programs and crap made on Max/Maya/Softimage. Far more of the latter, of course.
As for Maxwell, it had potential but most dropped it as it simply was far too slow, development was soso at best, etc.
Materials are also up to the artist. There are some great premade materials, but most of the time it comes to the skills of the artist, not the program. We have to make the majority of our materials specific for each project.
in defense of myself, i will say this: those films were made by an undergraduate student who had known max for about a year. i think that for architectural design students (who aren't spending all day attempting to make the most realistic models possible) max is great because you can get great results while still having time to design, create drawings, and create physical models. sure, if you really want complete freedom and cutting edge technology then step up to maya, but i know that many people don't have the time or money or desire to learn maya(myself included) and are more concerned in using these programs as a tool for enhanced architectural critique than as an end-all be-all to design.
actually, it would be a sideways step to Maya, not a step up. They are comparable programs, each having specific strengths and weaknesses.
I like Max, and use it daily with several plugins. Almost every 3D package is pretty damn good these days. I believe your priorities are correct, that design is the far more important than learning the software, however, I also know too many arch students (myself, included, at one point) that never took a few days to learn a little more of the program. Kinda like modeling but never using anything but chip board.
I would say to any student, learn how to do a decent fake-iosity (that's where you use standard lights to simulate, or fake GI/radiosity. They are too slow for general design work, unless you know what you are going, but the fake way is lightnigh fast and can look pretty good). All it takes is a day of going through a few tutorials.
Nov 19, 06 8:55 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
3Ds Max: Why Bother? (I heart Rhinoscript)
In studio we're doing a parametric design project... a small loft, minimally programmed. Anyway, we're being pushed hard to use 3DS Max, because it's "parametric," but I just can't stand the interface. It seems like a powerful program, but I'm still convinced that a truly great piece of software will be easy to use even for a new user, and then will gradually reveal its true strengths as one becomes more accostommed to it.... unfortunately (like formz), 3ds max is just frustrating me right now, so I moved over to Rhino, which i can use "out of the box" since the commands are so similar to autocad.
in the interest of keeping it "parametric" i decided to jump into rhinoscripting, and i managed to get a script to do exactly what i wanted cobbled together in a few hours, much less time that it would have taken in Max, plus I feel that I have a lot more control over the program's operation, on a deeper level.
(here's the project, with script, that I'm talking about: http://chakroff.blogspot.com/2006/11/rhinoscript.html)
So, does anyone have a convincing argument as to why I should bother learning the intricacies of 3Ds max? It seems to me that if anything Max will move towards a more AutoCAD-like interface, since being purchased, but what do I know? Plus, if I can learn vbscript by way of rhinoscript, that's another bullet point for the resume, and knowing how to script won't go obsolete as fast as specific software versions.
any thoughts?
max is wonderful, very easy...learn the panel...history of design actions is a great asset.
i would rather script in rhino though
interesting.
i've become more less of a rhino convert as of lately.
maxwell gets a lot of the credit for that.
it's a good app.
3ds... i totally hate the interface too, lol. to the point where i couldn't even stand to use viz for too long because of the similarities.
oh, btw.. go blue.
max is so much more powerful than rhino on so many different levels. Materials [especially on max9] are fantastic, lighting has become very sophisticated with the mental ray 3.5 usage of final gather and global illumination and you can create very complex animations which can really help to describe a space [no flythroughs!!!!]. Many video games are made in Max, so you can see how powerful the program is. One you learn the interface and can model in max instead of making shitty, slow models in CAD and then importing them, you will be amazed at what you can do.
oh yeah, and while i don't know it personally, i have friends who know maxscript and it is f'ing badass, i'd imagine it would blow rhino out of the water.
problem is that max is overkill for most architectural situations, especially if you are just making a model for a client to just look at and pan around [my current situation]. however, if you are in school, make use of max and make some crazy animations; you can really make your space come to life...for instance, here are a couple of films a friend of mine did in studio, all done in max: architectural animations
1. about the materials... yeah yeah... plug maxwell into rhino and you have the problem solved. maxwell materials pretty much leave max materials eating dust, and if you don't believe me, go see for urself at http://www.maxwellrender.com
i'll agree though, max is cheaper when it comes to the academic version. i was just stuck cause i had already bought rhino for school.
2. those films. im just gonna shut up.
3. shitty slow models in cad? dude. models are not slow unless they have extra data on them and i dont think that's warranted when it comes to cad, but maybe im wrong.
4. maxscript? rhinoscript? the reality is this.. these are half-crippled toolsets if you really wanna learn something amazing go with Maya's MEL (which i'm planning on learning as soon/if maya goes UB).
People seem to forget that it comes down to how well someone knows the software and how talented they are.
If we are arguing which is more powerful, which is better for arch, etc., then you need some criteria to judge by.
Those animations, no offense, are pretty bad. Max is an incredibly powerful program and in a different league than Rhino (and they were made that way, not as competition to each other).
As for scripting, unless you truly know the limits and potential, I think it's pretty naive to declare on far superior to the other.
Fact is, there is great stuff out there utilizing free programs and crap made on Max/Maya/Softimage. Far more of the latter, of course.
As for Maxwell, it had potential but most dropped it as it simply was far too slow, development was soso at best, etc.
Materials are also up to the artist. There are some great premade materials, but most of the time it comes to the skills of the artist, not the program. We have to make the majority of our materials specific for each project.
in defense of myself, i will say this: those films were made by an undergraduate student who had known max for about a year. i think that for architectural design students (who aren't spending all day attempting to make the most realistic models possible) max is great because you can get great results while still having time to design, create drawings, and create physical models. sure, if you really want complete freedom and cutting edge technology then step up to maya, but i know that many people don't have the time or money or desire to learn maya(myself included) and are more concerned in using these programs as a tool for enhanced architectural critique than as an end-all be-all to design.
actually, it would be a sideways step to Maya, not a step up. They are comparable programs, each having specific strengths and weaknesses.
I like Max, and use it daily with several plugins. Almost every 3D package is pretty damn good these days. I believe your priorities are correct, that design is the far more important than learning the software, however, I also know too many arch students (myself, included, at one point) that never took a few days to learn a little more of the program. Kinda like modeling but never using anything but chip board.
I would say to any student, learn how to do a decent fake-iosity (that's where you use standard lights to simulate, or fake GI/radiosity. They are too slow for general design work, unless you know what you are going, but the fake way is lightnigh fast and can look pretty good). All it takes is a day of going through a few tutorials.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.