(Warning, this is a long post...I'm trying to be as helpful as I can here, 'cause this has been on my mind a lot recently.)
I voted Lightwave, but school has made me use 3DSMax and begin to learn Maya. I don't really have a strong sense of brand loyalty when it comes to software--I've seen some incredible stuff come out of every package I've heard of. But, I will say it's frustrating as hell to go back and forth. Some may laugh at this. Allow me to explain:
3D software, in any form I've worked with, is simply not very intuitive. When you learn a piece of software, you're learning how its programmers decided to approach tricky areas of simulation. Once you understand how, for example, radiosity and volumetric lighting works in Lightwave, it doesn't make clear and simple sense as though it were obvious. It's more like "oh, so that's how I do it." While the concept is similar, knowing how to do these things in Lightwave doesn't inform you on even where to start with, say, Maya. The coders tackled the simulation of photon reflection in different ways, and that's just how it is. This follows on down the line to nearly every aspect of what 3D software does, even to basic interface choices (more on this later).
If you use one package a lot, you get used to it. In a sense, you start to think about 3D stuff in the same way the programmers did. The more you get used to it, the harder it is to think about it any other way. You may find you hit brick walls in trying to switch, especially when one program has something which another completely lacks (example: selectable/editabe poly edges aren't in Lightwave). This isn't so bad when you use different programs for different parts of production, though, as most FX houses do. For most of us, though, we're talking small budgets and limited time. In my opinion, as far as EV is concerned, you're better off just sticking to one package.
There are exceptions, though. Specialized, focused programs, like landscape-generators, have a polish and ease about them that all-around ones (Maya, Lightwave, XSI, 3DS, C4D) lack. Some people might prefer a free modeling program, and do their rendering in a free rendering program made by someone else. Whatever works is whatever works--I'm not really promoting the expensive all-around-wonder. In terms of each program's strengths , though, it's clear that focused programs will probably be easier to use for their intended purpose. All-arounds do have the advantage of flexibility, though, and can ultimately do a better job than the focused apps if you really put your mind to it. It depends on what you want to do, and how much time you want to spend doing it.
As far as which competing product you choose, I don't really think it matters much. They all push their features as selling points, and it can be hard to see around this, especially since the "loyal followers" use these as trump cards against those who use competing products. What it boils down to for me is not the high-level frills, but the interface. If I have to heavily customize the default setup of something to get comfortable using it, this is usually not a good sign. This just tells me I will have a hard time agreeing with the programmers as to how things should be approached, and I will be routinely looking for things in the wrong places. I don't like working with software I'm constantly angry at.
For me, what works best in terms of interface is Lightwave. The lack of icons leaves it nice and clean, and the seperation of modeling from animation and rendering further saves it from being cluttered and cumbersome. Now, I know a lot of people think exactly the opposite about it, so understand I'm not trying to say it's better , just that it works for me. Can you tell I hate "a vs. b" flame wars?
So, getting right down to it, judging the programs by their respective strengths and shortcomings is a little misleading, because it leads us down the same path the marketing departments devised. They want you to rank products, and on the terms they define. You can be told Maya is the best thing since the dawn of time, but be unendingly frustrated by it, and then what? Did the person who talked you into it really do you any favors? For that matter, when people ask what is the best 3D program and we link them to a previous discussion, are we really helping them out? If they're looking for a quick and simple answer, wading through the myriad threads the search function dredges up might just put them off, or leave them misinformed. The only answer I feel good giving is this: Download demos. See what works for you. Try not to get blinded by flame wars or advertisements--make your own decision.
Okay, one thing I will shamelessly promote: You'll be better off if you can get Photoshop as your 2D workhorse. Adobe really has the market cornered in this area, like it or not. Supposedly, alternatives like the GIMP are getting better all the time, but Photoshop truly is the de facto industry standard. I know we all want to stick it to the man and not support big evil corporations, but you'll be limiting yourself by avoiding the big, red "A". Seriously. I wish it weren't true.
Once again, repeated and emboldened for emphasis, it all depends on what you want to do, and how much time you want to spend doing it. It's all about the relationship you have between your creativity and your technical artistic knowledge. You can be really creative and not have an effective way to put it to use, and you can be very technically skilled and not make anything original. Somewhere in the middle, cool things occur. Without either, cool things are much more rare. That's what we all want to do, right? Make things that are cool?
dang, that is a lot of text. even though i edited it a lot.
This post has been edited by Onyx : 26 November 2004 - 05:54 AM
