Limited modelling programs

[Avator]

I've checked out several modelling programs, because I want to check out if it would be something I could do for my maps. The problem is: The only programs discussed in the Modelling & Animation and 3D Modelling Tutorial section are Magos, Autodesk 3Ds Max and Autodesk Maya. I've checked out Autodesk and found several other programs with a description of being used for game modelling and animating.

Why aren't these programs ever mentioned here? The programs on the matter are Autodesk MotionBuilder, mudbox (only has 2 threads in the Modelling & Animation section, which only say that the creator uses that program, nothing more) and VIZ. These are all by Autodesk, so you can expect professional quality from those programs. I wonder why only 3Ds Max and Maya are only mentioned. Is there something the other program lack? And if so: What's the difference?

 

[Mechanical Man]

You mean modeling for warcraft or in general?

 

[Avator]

Yes. In the entire Hive Workshop there's only being talked about Autodesk's 3Ds Max and Maya. I want to know why the other modelling/animating programs of Autodesk are never talked about. Are they thát bad compared to 3Ds Max & Maya?

 

[TheBlooddancer]

Perhaps they don't support Wc3 models, or they use to many polygons.

Besides, MilkShape is good too.

 

[Avator]

Isn't the amount of polygon decided by the modeller? I'm still a modeller of 0.00, so I'm probably confused with something else, but aren't polygons the triangle shaped sides of the model?

 

[Devine]

... it's like ...
low-poly modelling in Z-brush.
No.

 

[Mechanical Man]

I don't know where you saw the tutorial about maya. There are tutorials only for 3dsmax5, milkshape, gmax and oinkerwinkle tools.

 

[Avator]

And magos. There are a bunch of Maya related threads, like you can see here.

 

[LiOneSS]

You can't export to mdx from maya
and you can do ANYTHING with 3ds max.

 

[Avator]

Actually, so far I've tried out Milkshape and 3Ds Max. 3Ds Max needed a lot of personalising in order to make it nicely work for me. Milkshape only required a bit of browsing and I got setting which I can work well with, so I prefer Milkshape so far. Haven't tried Maya yet, but I'll check that one out too soon.

 

[Devine]

Actually, so far I've tried out Milkshape and 3Ds Max. 3Ds Max needed a lot of personalising in order to make it nicely work for me. Milkshape only required a bit of browsing and I got setting which I can work well with, so I prefer Milkshape so far. Haven't tried Maya yet, but I'll check that one out too soon.

I also prefer MS3D for that reason
I now declare Milkshape for the best wc3 related modelling tool ever.

 

[Avator]

I haven't tested Magos yet though...


EDIT: I just checked out magos quickly, but it seems I'm able to start a new model, but I can't find out where the hell I'm supposed to create vertexes and faces... Even if there is this option, it's too annoying to find anyway, so I still prefer Milkshape 3D.

 

[Kimbo]

Most people prefer zbrush, I myself prefer mudbox. Its a matter of preference and popularity and whatever. That whole dealeo.

I also prefer MS3D for that reason
I now declare Milkshape for the best wc3 related modelling tool ever.

I laugh at your opinion. Milkshape is sooo restricted, its not really a modelling tool to be direct, its more of a bridge for exporting and editing models for quake and such based games. It doesnt have the cut too last time i checked and many other features, its unwrapping side is very restricted and clunky.

 

[Avator]

I laugh at your opinion. Milkshape is sooo restricted, its not really a modelling tool to be direct, its more of a bridge for exporting and editing models for quake and such based games. It doesnt have the cut too last time i checked and many other features, its unwrapping side is very restricted and clunky.

Well I don't know about you, but I'm a newb modeller using Milkshape right now and this program has the exact features I expect and need to make a model. Right now I'm perfectionating the boots of my model and it goes very nice. So Milkshape is definitely a proper modelling program.

 

[Kimbo]

Milkshape was my first boat, and one i left to rot in the ocean for a big cruise ship so to speak.
If you like that boat, sure, thats fine, but it if you want a real mans toolbox 3dmax is always there to wait for you, you just gotta figure out how to work it.

 

[Avator]

Yes, exactly. And just like all Autodesk products: It's a program that takes ages to figure out how to use it's features good and how to set it up to your preferences. Ofcourse, they nearly all come with a tutorial too that results in a waste of time of an hour and still not getting it...

 

[wugiboy]

I also prefer MS3D for that reason
I now declare Milkshape for the best wc3 related modelling tool ever.

I quit milkshape 6 days ago, I did not realize how good 3dsmax was, so 2 years of modelling is wasted on that tool..

but seriously milkshape is actually pretty good, especially for those who are just starting
_________________________________________________________________________
now seriously, getting on topic, warcraft is a game that isn't really very high end, and won't require high polies, actually too much high-polygon models would fuck the game up, so the best stuff to use for this game are 3dsmax, Milkshape, and Gmax, and the thing is, its actually just those modelling tools that we have support on, so it all depends, you may think its limited, but one of those three tools are good enough to fill in the gap..

 

[Kimbo]

It was very hard at first, but when i found out a good and simple tut (5 pictures at most) I easily expanded and sped my learning process with 3dmax, same with mudbox (which i didnt use any tuts for though). You just gotta find the right path and you will get it.

 

[Avator]

So you say that a newbie like me would be better off with a 5-picture tutorial and 3Ds Max then with Milkshap which I'm fairly familiar with now?

 

[Kimbo]

No. Im saying its a matter of what finding a tutorial that is clear, simple and easy to understand FOR YOU to help you be introduced to any program, one being 3dmax.

 

[BlinkBoy]

the tutorials that 3dsmax brings are all you need, the rest is knowing which feutures .mdx accepts and what it doesn't accept.

 

[Devine]

Milkshape was my first boat, and one i left to rot in the ocean for a big cruise ship so to speak.
If you like that boat, sure, thats fine, but it if you want a real mans toolbox 3dmax is always there to wait for you, you just gotta figure out how to work it.

Ms3D is the perfect WC3 modelling tool. 3DSmax would be better for the new games like SC2 .
And don't laugh at my oppinion because else, i'll smileyspam.

 

[BlinkBoy]

Ms3D is the perfect WC3 modelling tool. 3DSmax would be better for the new games like SC2 .
And don't laugh at my oppinion because else, i'll smileyspam.

I dare you to spam smiles! .

and no you are wrong. Reasons:

*Mesh scratching in Milkshape is terrible, it's all about extrude, mirror and collapse, there's no "weld target", chanfer, cut, bevel or many other poly editing tools which max offers and are very important for low poly modeling.

*In milkshape, you cannot configure normals or do a single normal mapping, so you must life with bad shaded models if bad shading occurs.

*Unwraping in milkshape is a joke, the big lack of tools and not being able to render the unwrap to a texture makes it quite unuseful.

*Animating in Milkshape is worst than in gmax, it not even supports IK or curve editing programs. All the interpolations are linear and it has no support for visibility or parameter animations.

*Milkshape doesn't support most MDL Objects like: Lights, Event Objects, Attachments, Particle Emitters, Ribbon Emitters, Colission Shapes and Cameras.

*Milkshape does not support it's own programming language like 3dsmax (maxscript) which allows the creation of new plugins and tools that could easilly help extend the wc3 compatibility.

*Milkshape doesn't export Extents and, in that way, most milkshape exported models are not selectable or almost unclickable.