Why would you choose A:M over Blender?

[Manuel]

Hi to everyone. All my respect and admiration for you and your work in here.

 

I'm new in CG and I'm looking for a tool to work with. But discarding the big ones (Maya, 3dsmax... etc) for their price and their "made for big teams" philosophy remain Blender and Animation Master for the common people, then I want to decide between them to get devoted to one.

 

So it is what I'm asking in the title of this post : Why would you choose A:M over Blender? I would like to know which would be your reasons to choose A:M instead of Blender.

 

I have seen good works made in both programs, But the question is who spent more time and energy to get the same results. I don't want spend all my life time doing processes to get in years a little work done. I want to make things the fastest as possible , but at the same time, I want to have enough power to don't put a top to my imagination and works.

 

I think that after Toy Story and Final Fantasy Cg animation has been almost the same. Could A:M handle with projects like that, Can Blender...? which one could do it better, faster, enjoyable.?

 

Is it Blender meant to be used by a single user and short projects or it is more to be used by a team, and It would be exhausting for a single user? .

 

Hash Spline modeling is as fast as polygon modeling, or it is easier but slower, or it is even faster?

 

A:M Landscapes and backgrounds possibilities, are the same as Blender?

 

 

Thank you.

[robcat2075]

I believe A:M to be more accessible and has a fundamentally better and more unified pipeline from start to finish.

 

I can't speak to much more detail about other programs because i don't use them. A:M does what I need.

 

Blender's most notable advantage is that it is free. Absent that, I'm not sure how much attention it would get.

 

But either program presents almost infinite possibilities and the fatal temptation in 3D animation is to aim for something so large that, while software can certainly do it, the human legwork side of it is not mathematically possible in one lifetime. The limiting factor in all animation is the time for human tasks rather than the computer time.

 

 

This thread has some brief quickstart videos in it you might watch to see some small tasks in practice:

 

http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38864

 

 

There are quite a few videos you could watch in the "Tutorials and Demonstrations" sub forum where you can see someone going through the steps and explaining as they go along.

[higginsdj]

Having used both and bounced between both for some years (and now back with A:M) my perspective is bourne out of usibility.

 

1. A:M is far easier to use - Far, Far. Far, Far easier

2. Blender has more features - Far, Far, Far, Far more features

3. Blender, more times than not, is not backward compatible - even within big versions. ie a Model and rig built in one version does not work with the next because some bright spark has coded something completely differently - because 'its better'.

4. A:M has few boundaries. That is, it is coded to allow settings that can, and often does cause things to stop working or crash BUT at times it also allows things to happen that no-one ever thought possible. This can be both annoying and a boon.

5. Features are more stable in Blender (generally) but I assume only because there is a larger developer base but if you have patience AND correctly report defects those defects are fixed relatively quickly in A:M.

6. Unless you intend to spend an inordinate amount of time working with Blender, you will eventually struggle with it - trying to keep up with the changes in the way all of it's features (other than the very basic) work and behave.

7. Blender has Far, Far, Far, Far more resources available including training material (I mean high quality training material - books, DVD's etc). There is something to cover almost anying in A:M but you have to go looking for it (ie it's not at your finger tips of offered in a structured way - other than the very basics - ie TAOAM)

8. Blender can do the lot, A:M sort of can but it's not as intuitive ie AM does things it's own way which is different to how other apps work. ie Blender offers a one stop shop pipeline in the one project where the eventual render out of an animation project will also include all the compositing and effects you want.

9. Blender handles real time rendering a lot better than A:M. ie in Blender you can animate in a full set comprising billions of poly's in real time. A:M starts to chug and splutter with small sets and just a few characters.

 

If you want to do things on a small scale and quick then A:M is the tool. If you want to do a full feature, feature film then it's hard to go past Blender. Its not that A:M can't do a full feature film it's just that Blender has been designed and built for the purpose of doing everything in the one package.

 

I should point out that Point 3 was the biggest factor for me. I lost count of the number of times I was working on something (say v2.53) only to update to the next version (bug fix - v2.54) to find that my model and rig just didn't work anymore or a feature I was using (say particles) now worked completely differently so you either had to forgo the bug fixes you needed or start from scratch again. Blenders "continuous improvement" is not all it is cracked up to be and although it sounds like it has everything you could possibly want at a given point in time, it's defect count per version is so high that oftne times things will be re-written rather than "fixed". You very quickly get sick of this and if you were working on a big production - I think it's a deal breaker.

 

Remember that the Blender foundation is what controls Belnder development. Their projects effectively use full time Blender users so decisions they make are based on their needs and not the needs of the average user. Think of it like a studio like Pixar offering their software to anyone for free but they make changes solely on thier needs and their timelines. How useful is that software going to be to the average joe?

 

To answer your specific questions:

I think that after Toy Story and Final Fantasy Cg animation has been almost the same. Could A:M handle with projects like that, Can Blender...? which one could do it better, faster, enjoyable.?

Both can do it - but the project and resource management and the method (how the user would do it) will be different. See comments above.

 

Is it Blender meant to be used by a single user and short projects or it is more to be used by a team, and It would be exhausting for a single user?

Blender is built to do anything - both a good and bad thing. Being built to do anything means that it has an almost infinite number of features and settings - do you think you could remember how to use/set an infinite number of settings?

 

Hash Spline modeling is as fast as polygon modeling, or it is easier but slower, or it is even faster?

Yes and no - depends how you want to model in Blender. Blender will poly model with quads in the same way as Hash Splines, or you can do the old fashioned extrude and subdivide or you can sculpt by carving your model out of a very high density primitive.

 

A:M Landscapes and backgrounds possibilities, are the same as Blender?

A:M would need to use alphas and matts to achive the same level of 'detail' that you could acheive in Blender with models and matts (see my comment about resource handling above). So yes, you can achieve the same look but using different mehtods.

 

Cheers

[Rodney]

In the Blender forum you are likely to get people stating you should use Blender.

Here you are likely to have people say you can use A:M to fulfill your needs.

 

This is an interesting distinction.

 

This is like back in the day when the Army was trying to recruit me. They were trying entirely too hard so I joined the Air Force (for whom it didn't seem to matter if I joined or not) instead.

 

A:M isn't right for everyone but we are confident that whatever you want to accomplish with A:M we can help you get from here to there.

 

I am rather amazed that we don't have a A:M/Blender user group yet.

Blender would make the ultimate 'plugin' for A:M.

[higginsdj]

Rodney, I would agree. There are some very nice pipeline features in Blender that AM should be able to reuse - the Node Editor/Compositor and Video Editing suite come to mind

[robcat2075]

I'll note that if Blender is built for making animated features they haven't made one with it yet, while we've made two animated features with A:M on this forum.

 

But I don't think the software is a significant factor in making an animated feature possible. The must-have is a team of people capable of doing all the tasks and a proper organization for them. We learned that making our forum movies. A:M was the least of our difficulties.

[higginsdj]

I'll note that if Blender is built for making animated features they haven't made one with it yet, while we've made two animated features with A:M on this forum.

 

But I don't think the software is a significant factor in making an animated feature possible. The must-have is a team of people capable of doing all the tasks and a proper organization for them. We learned that making our forum movies. A:M was the least of our difficulties.

 

Only because they (Blender foundation) only want to do shorts - to make money to continue to develop Blender and showcase features. But to be fair - the production quality of all the Blender shorts does exceed that of the 2 AM films.

[Fuchur]

I'll note that if Blender is built for making animated features they haven't made one with it yet, while we've made two animated features with A:M on this forum.

 

But I don't think the software is a significant factor in making an animated feature possible. The must-have is a team of people capable of doing all the tasks and a proper organization for them. We learned that making our forum movies. A:M was the least of our difficulties.

 

Only because they (Blender foundation) only want to do shorts - to make money to continue to develop Blender and showcase features. But to be fair - the production quality of all the Blender shorts does exceed that of the 2 AM films.

 

But you would have to tell the whole story:

They are paying professionals to use blender for the shorts (which ironically are often using other software when they are not forced to use blender), while in A:M every user who wanted to could join in. This is something you should keep in mind.

And getting the same quality constantly with a hybrid group of users like that for 70-90 minutes is something different than doing it with professionals for 3-5 minutes of animation... and I am not sure why they are not doing a full featured film... maybe it would be too expensive or it would just need to much time to be done...

 

But to come back to the questions: A:M is much more fun...

I did not use blender in a more serious production but i used 3ds and XSI in a more serious manner and played with blender for a while...

none of them had such a nice workflow with such a high fun-factor like A:M. A:M is much more straight forward and you just dont need to know 50 shortcuts on your keyboard or have to learn 50 different tools to do what you want to...

A:M has one feature to handle that, but it does it in a very nice and clear way and like that it is easier to use and just more fun to do it...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[higginsdj]

I'll note that if Blender is built for making animated features they haven't made one with it yet, while we've made two animated features with A:M on this forum.

 

But I don't think the software is a significant factor in making an animated feature possible. The must-have is a team of people capable of doing all the tasks and a proper organization for them. We learned that making our forum movies. A:M was the least of our difficulties.

 

Only because they (Blender foundation) only want to do shorts - to make money to continue to develop Blender and showcase features. But to be fair - the production quality of all the Blender shorts does exceed that of the 2 AM films.

 

But you would have to tell the whole story:

They are paying professionals to use blender for the shorts (which ironically are often using other software when they are not forced to use blender), while in A:M every user who wanted to could join in. This is something you should keep in mind. And I think it would just be too expensive to do a full featured movie when having to pay the professional users to do that...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

 

I'd rephrase that - they are paying "pro" users of Blender to work on the shorts. These people are actually taken from the Blender community with the exception of the actor talent and some of the production design people.

 

Cheers

[robcat2075]

Paid staff in a real physical studio is such a vast advantage. It's not a tiny detail it is a total game changer for what sort of production you can do.

 

If you did that with hand-drawn 2D and no software you'd still get a fine looking product. The software is not the enabling thing.

 

Once you have people on a payroll, all questions of who gets to make decisions end. That is a huge organizational advantage.

 

That said, i haven't seen any shot in a Blender production that couldn't be done with A:M if you put eqivalent talent on it.

[ypoissant]

I agree with Robcat in that the most important aspect that you will want to consider is the scale of your animated project. If you are alone in doing an animated feature, you will not succeed in any 3D app. You project needs to be smal enough that you can reasonably finish it. Your expectation as to the quality of the finished project needs to be low enough too. No matter the 3D application you choose, there are just a certain number of hours in a day.

 

I used both softwares long enough to be proficient in both. Given what I just advised concerning the project expectations, I'd recommand you go with A:M because the features in A:M are so well integrated and all rely on a very small set of concepts that once you get it, you can be productive very quickly in all the aspects of an animation project. This is not the case with Blender which is basically a large collection of features that were assembled through time by disparate developers with no master design. So every time you come to use a different feature of Blender, it feels lile you have to learn a whole new software yet again. You will end up spending more time figuring how each feature work and then how to make different features work together, then actual creative work.

[Vertexspline]

I think considering you are asking in a AM forum you have received very fair and objective feedback and really very good advice and comments.I would add one thing. Spline modeling in AM is different than polygonal in Blender. So that may be a deciding factor too if you are working alone most of time.

 

Rich

[largento]

Comparing the tools by what has been created by the tools ignores the single most important piece of the creation process: the creator. No tool will make up for lack of creative talent, nor will any tool completely block talent from shining through.

 

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that A:M is the easier of the tools to use. It's certainly the biggest factor in my decision to use A:M.

 

I think the more correct way of choosing is to figure out what're the most important factor for you, and decide which app fits that.

[pixelplucker]

AM and Blender are very different. The Animation tools in AM are better and the learning curve is far far shorter.

AM is a spline based modeler which is much different than a poly modeler with sub division surfaces.

Spline modeling behaves a little more like Nurbs.

 

Once your used to the do's and dont's of splines you can have more control on the surfaces since your editing directly with a few control points rather than a control shape as in the case of sub-d surfaces.

 

Characters that use the same skeleton can use the same actions so you can re-use much of your work.

 

If you need to incorporate models from outside you can use props. You can use textured models exported out as obj's and bring them into AM.

 

I ran into one instance that discouraged me from Blender and from open source in general where things that worked one time may or may not be available or work in the next version. Blend is Python version Dependant for most of it's plug ins creating a major issue with functionality between versions. Because of this I would not recommend it for any kind of commercial work.

 

There is a ton of support for AM both with software updates as well as the forums. So far just about all of my questions were answered the same day.

 

Try the demo they have out.

[robcat2075]

and I am not sure why they are not doing a full featured film...

 

 

Distribution. There is no profitable way to distribute such a thing such that it would make sense to fund such a thing. They have no access to theatrical distribution and internet distribution would never bring in enough money.

 

They could make a great looking animated feature but the theaters already have about as many of those as people want to see and those are by established brands (Pixar, Dreamworks...) that are easier to sell.

 

They pay for the shorts by pre-selling DVDs, but that market is basically all the people who have Blender. That market won't expand because they do a longer, more expensive production.

[Manuel]

Thank you all, It is helpful and great to read your opinions... I think in this doubt (A:M or Blender) , nowadays, is where for someone new in computer animation, as I am, is the biggest decision.

 

But yeah, I like A:M philosophy, It's cool to know that you are using exactly what you really need to get good results, and that you are not wasting yourself doing a lot of extra works in processes, that perhaps give you a little bit more quality in this or that but not worth the pain.

 

Or that you have to set too much things that you seem more a programmer than an artist animator, (as I listened Ken Baer said in an interview).

 

Do you think this is what stand out between A:M and Blender or It is not completely what highlight between them, and Blender is not that hard and "unmasterable"?

 

Thank you

[Fuchur]

"unmasterable"

 

It is not unmasterable, but it is harder... (by a factor of 3 for me )

A:Ms biggest selling-point is its workflow, this forum and the community (I have never heard something like "shut up and read all the other posts we already had about that..." here in all the years now...)

and of course A:Ms character-tools are one of the or even the best on the market...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Rodney]

Manuel,

There is an easy way to find out which software is best for you:

 

Download Blender and try it out.

I predict you'll be glad to move on to A:M very soon.

 

But your initial premise is a bit off... you don't want to devote yourself to one tool.

Master Animation with A:M, then with a little effort, you can use any tool.

[robcat2075]

I'm sure you've been to sites where people are doing fine stuff with Blender, so someone must be able to figure it out. It can't be impossible!

 

A:M isn't "easy" but it's "easier" because it's designed better.

 

Animation has always been a lot of work and computers haven't changed that very much. It's just that the work is different than it used to be.

[jakerupert]

Blender would be perhaps a good choice, if you plan to break in the industrie somehow for compabilityreasons

because they all use polgonbased apps.

Also it has a very fast developmentpace at the moment still gaining momentum.

A:M is mostly taken care of by Yoda and a very mature app by now and a very good choice for an independent artist

or small team.

It would be great to have a renderconnection from A:M to cycles to get the best from both worlds.

[TheSpleen]

AM is best for me

[Darkwing]

For me there's two really simple factors which keep me coming back to AM. One is that it makes sense to me. Everything from the pipeline to the layout just makes sense. I've mucked about Blender before and that's definitely a key factor that goes against it. It doesn't matter if it has all the features in the universe, if you can't figure it out, you probably won't ever want to use it or be able to use it.

 

The second (which is a biggy for me) is the community. Everyone is so approachable and there's a wide and creative user base here. Creative thinkers and problem solvers who are incredibly receptive to new and inexperienced users and put up with all of their questions and frustrations. I've been mucking about in Maya some and I know there's forums and things for maya too, but something just doesn't click. I've had a great many instances where I've been "if only this was AM and it was the AM community!" In short, I really like AM!

[pixelplucker]

If your breaking into the inudstry, Blender is probably not a good choice because the workflow and interface is way different than the majority of other programs use. I have used many programs for close to 25 years now and found Blender the most awkward. I am sure it is a powerful program but as I get older I like to click less and do more. AM has a nice clean interface with the minimal tools needed to do the most. It is highly refined and it is easy to dig deep to object properties without hidden pop up menus that get buried in contextual ui's.

 

Methods leaned in AM can be applied to bigger programs and visa versa.

[robcat2075]

I've been mucking about in Maya some ...

 

I got Maya when I was doing AnimationMentor and it comes with a really appealing intro manual with tutorials and I very dutifully plowed through it, but geez... just about everything you do in Maya takes twice as many clicks or buttons or settings as the same thing in A:M would. I'd say nine out of ten things we do in CG animation are easier in A:M and the tenth one isn't a deal-breaker because there's probably a good way to do it in A:M anyway.

[Darkwing]

I've been mucking about in Maya some ...

 

I got Maya when I was doing AnimationMentor and it comes with a really appealing intro manual with tutorials and I very dutifully plowed through it, but geez... just about everything you do in Maya takes twice as many clicks or buttons or settings as the same thing in A:M would. I'd say nine out of ten things we do in CG animation are easier in A:M and the tenth one isn't a deal-breaker because there's probably a good way to do it in A:M anyway.

 

Mine was the student download so all I've had are web resources which are there, but tricky to find exactly what you're looking for sometime. But I completely agree. Like I was doing a very straightforward animation (object move from point A to point B ) and AM does it much it quicker. I have no idea how or who came up with the AM interface, but for as long as I've been using it, it's just made so much sense that I've wished many other programs (both 3D and others) used the same thought process as AM.

[Dpendleton77]

I think A:M is a great program,the only gripe I have is that it does not have the amount of tutorials out there that Blender has. I lost my copy of A:M when my pc died so I have to buy it again.

[Rodney]

the only gripe I have is that it does not have the amount of tutorials out there that Blender has

 

If that is your only gripe then we are in good shape!

 

We have a tutorials forum and we build custom tutorials daily so make your wishes known.

With limited amount of resources we, as a community, can't build every tutorial that will ever be possible so we have to operate on the needs of those who are active here in the A:M Forum. These are the ones whose needs have been communicated so we tend to focus fully and immediately on those topics. With the exception of experimental and artistic demonstrations and Research and Development we don't tend to spend a lot of time creating tutorials nobody wants.

 

I'd start a 'Request a tutorial' topic but that's kind of the long way around communicating what is specifically wanted.

It's like requesting a library when one or two particular books on a subject will suffice.

 

The old way of doing business is 'is there a tutorial on that?'

The new way is communicating the current problem and getting a multiplicity of solutions for that.

It's difficult to document... and to create tutorials... for every possible variable or problem.

But if there is a known problem... a custom tutorial can be designed for it.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. There are tutorials and then there are demonstrations.

Perhaps it is more demonstrations that you want... where new adventures in computer graphics can be started, previously uncharted territories experienced and explorations into worlds not yet imagined begun.

[Dpendleton77]

the only gripe I have is that it does not have the amount of tutorials out there that Blender has

 

If that is your only gripe then we are in good shape!

 

We have a tutorials forum and we build custom tutorials daily so make your wishes known.

With limited amount of resources we, as a community, can't build every tutorial that will ever be possible so we have to operate on the needs of those who are active here in the A:M Forum. These are the ones whose needs have been communicated so we tend to focus fully and immediately on those topics. With the exception of experimental and artistic demonstrations and Research and Development we don't tend to spend a lot of time creating tutorials nobody wants.

 

I'd start a 'Request a tutorial' topic but that's kind of the long way around communicating what is specifically wanted.

It's like requesting a library when one or two particular books on a subject will suffice.

 

The old way of doing business is 'is there a tutorial on that?'

The new way is communicating the current problem and getting a multiplicity of solutions for that.

It's difficult to document... and to create tutorials... for every possible variable or problem.

But if there is a known problem... a custom tutorial can be designed for it.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. There are tutorials and then there are demonstrations.

Perhaps it is more demonstrations that you want... where new adventures in computer graphics can be started, previously uncharted territories experienced and explorations into worlds not yet imagined begun.

Well I plan on re-buying the program soon. Then I will go from there to check out some demos.

[Tralfaz]

I think I can be bias free here as I am using Cinema 4D now, but was a long time A:M user before.

 

I've tried Blender before and the one thing against it for me was that if you accidentally close your window, it doesn't give you the option of saving or cancelling the close. Just bang, and everything is gone. And its interface is something to give you nightmares. As I mentioned, I was a long time A:M user and the reason for that is how easy and affordable it is. Take a look around the gallery and you will see some pretty amazing work in there. You can do organic and mechanical modeling with ease. I keep coming back here every now and then just to keep up with what's going on.

 

Even using Cinema 4D, which is an expensive and full featured program, there are things from A:M that I wish it had. I loved (and I am going from memory right now, so correct me if I am wrong) how you had a modeling interface where you could build and keep all your models and assets. A:M by the way, has a very large library of assets to get you up and running very quickly. Then you have the interface where you would build repeatable actions such as walk or run cycles, etc. Next, you had the scene interface where you would place your assets and models and create your animated works of art! There was a 4th interface, but can't for the life of me remember what it is right now.

 

You know the old saying that a 6 year old can do it? Well with A:M they most certainly could. Blender is an entirely different beast where a 57 year old still couldn't make it work.

 

And, now for my own interest because I can't remember. Can A:M bake textures, lights, etc? And can you render out in passes such as lights, shadows, ambient occlusion, global illumination, etc?

 

Thanks in advance and good to see how many of the old gang are still hanging out here...

Al

[robcat2075]

And, now for my own interest because I can't remember. Can A:M bake textures, lights, etc?

 

Textures, yes. Lighting , no.

 

And can you render out in passes such as lights, shadows, ambient occlusion, global illumination, etc?

 

Yes, rendering to OpenEXR supports that.

[Fuchur]

And, now for my own interest because I can't remember. Can A:M bake textures, lights, etc?

 

Textures, yes. Lighting , no.

 

And can you render out in passes such as lights, shadows, ambient occlusion, global illumination, etc?

 

Yes, rendering to OpenEXR supports that.

 

And you can output passes in TGAs or PNGs now too.

Bake lightening is theoretically possible too... (there is an option to do it and it works, but I am not sure how to use the resulting textures afterwards...)

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[robcat2075]

Bake lightening is theoretically possible too... (there is an option to do it and it works, but I am not sure how to use the resulting textures afterwards...)

 

I think this was a custom feature for the Avalanche studio and only they had the means to use it.

 

It produces something but in the parts I can identify there seem to be no shadows where some should have been baked