Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Jonstark, this may sound odd coming from me, but if you are proficient in neither Hexagon nor Carrara's vertex modeler, I would recommend learning Hexagon before Carrara if you are going to do some vertex modeling. I hope that I am not misleading anyone. My point is that once I had gained familiarity with Carrara's tools, including the support tools (setting shading domains, uvmapping,...), Hexagon was not much of a marginal improvement for me. But, if starting from scratch (or close to it), learn the program with more bells and whistles first. If people check my posts for a theme in multiple threads, I have regularly suggested that people who are already familiar with another modeling program will likely continue vertex modeling with that program (or it would be convenient at least). Carrara will fully support the objects that result, so don't reinvent the wheel. What some folks don't seem to appreciate in return, is that given some level of practice with Carrara's modeler, some of these other suggested programs are only marginal improvements, and I could have put that time to learning a different improved function like rendering in lux or octane or sculpting in zbrush or...
I hope I don't come across as anti-hex. Not at all. People who know Hex (or any other modeler that works for them) should not switc to Carrara, and new people might like Hex or whatever. My point is just that for me the marginal gain to spending time with Hex has been very small relative to the time I put in, and the $hitt1ng on Carrara's vertex modeler seems out of proportion to its actual deficiencies. Kixum, Mmoir and others do a pretty good job with Carrara's modelers.
Many people tend to take things as a My Software vs. Your Software, and which is better.
Personally, I don't care. No software is perfect, no software is unusable. Well, generally. :) :)
IMO, a lot of things about Carrara modeller suck, and some things about Hex modeller suck. And like I've said many times, you can build ANYTHING with any modelling software on the planet. It just depends on how much effort and frustration you have to expend, and how easy it is to get what you want, with the quality you want.
So to say that any software is great solely because others have made good stuff in it seems a bit irrelevant. I can also build a wooden chair using just a hammer, but wow, for me that's a lot of work and a lot of time and frustration that's unnecessary. :) :) :) But someone who is a master chair builder using only a hammer might think it's the only way to work.
And much of it comes down to personal work habits and methods and preferences. If you're used to the fact that Carrara's UV scaling tool is so sensitive, or have figured a way to make it more usable, then obviously it's not a big deal. But if someone else comes along with a certain mindset, perhaps the result of using many other tools out there, trying to use something that seems to use a different and maybe more frustrating design can be difficult. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that different strokes for different folks. All you can do is point out the pros and cons from your perspective, and everyone has to make up their own mind.
That's why a battle of software vs. software is extremely subjective, and ultimately futile, IMO :) :)
It's good advice Diomede, but I actually do have some small level of functionality within Carrara already. I am by no means an expert but I can now roughly box model the shapes I want, so I may already be ruined for going to Hex :) On the other hand, I've never been so traumatized by any software as I was when I tried Hex. Seriously almost quit this hobby altogether, and it was at least a week before I came back to it, swearing off all modeling in any form as being bad for my health (I don't have high blood pressure or a heart condition or a susceptibility to strokes, but I was convinced at the time I would develop all of these and more if I continued trying to do even a very simple project in Hex, lol). It was literally years before I tried doing any sort of modeling again, this time in Carrara, and this time a much better experience.
I know there is wisdom to the idea of 'getting back up on that horse!' but I'm not sure the risk/reward ratio is worth it to me, since Carrara already works for my (admittedly pretty basic) needs and I'm ok with it as is. I very well might eventually bump up against it's limitations at some point, but since I'm don't really have a modeler's soul and the burning drive to model... maybe not :)
Joe, on the other hand there is some truth to the idea that different tools can be perfect for different people too. To stretch the analogy, if a worker is so adept with a hammer that he can hammer screws perfectly into place more quickly and efficiently then using a drill, then why quibble? I say this having watched Mike Moir's tutorials on modeling in Carrara. That dude is so fast it's like Carrara is an extension of his body. He consciously has to slow himself down to try to explain what he's doing, and the tutorials have a special window to show you what hotkeys he's pressing as he goes along - they fly by so fast you can't really register them all. It's very difficult for me to imagine anyone able to model faster than Mike does with Carrara (it's one of the few quibblesI have with the tutorials; it's nearly impossible to keep up. fortunately I can re watch and pause, etc).
If someone knows one modeling software that well, and is as comfortable with it as Mike obviously is, sure I have no doubt he could pick up any other modelling software fairly quickly, but would there be any reason for him to do so? Maybe for some super fine machine-precise modeling detail that can't be done in Carrara (if there is something that can only be done in a different modeler) but otherwise switching apps will likely just slow him down. I doubt very very seriously I will ever gain that kind of modeling mastery in any app, but just seeing on the screen what's possible makes me think I want to stick with Carrara, as I already have some level of comfort there.
Absolutely !! And that was my point. Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't make any software good or bad, or right or wrong. If it works great for you then that's all that matters. And if others find it frustrating, then no need to take that as a personal attack or dumping on your software choice. It is what it is...different people prefer different things. Absolutely.
Edited to remove because this post does not belong in this thread or to follow a specific comment.
The title of the thread is Hexagon vs Carrara, so comparisons are well in order :)
But taking up on the problem solving - how would you go about making a picture frame in Carrara?
The one on the left was done in Hex, the other in Carrara, both using path sweep
One way would be to insert a grid, cut a hole from the center, add thickness and extrude to get the shape of the indented frame. There are other ways, of course, but that came to mind.
So, no one-click solution, as in Hexagon?
Right - second question - how would you go about modelling something like this, consisting of over 100 parts, which have to fit together, but be one object so it can be rigged?
one click solution?
You don't have a one click solution. You have to model the shape to be swept. You can't generalize the sweep issue because Carrara has working sweeps for other shapes, with four pipeline settings.
Yes, I can make objects with fitting parts. Again, multiple methods. Most obvious is Boolean cut with 6 different settings. 100 parts just means 100 times as much patience.
hmm, the Carrara sweep might not be as far off as I thought. A little more experimenting. But I would probably still use grid and extrude.
OK, to use the sweep to make the picture frame (not that I would necessarily do it this way.
- insert a vertex object
- create a 2 dimensional outline of the cross section (I inserted a 3x3 grid, deleted one square from side and then dissolved to get an empty n-gon wih a wedge top.
- in left camera view, use the polyline tool to draw a rectangle
- select the polyline square (counterintuitive)
- use construct : sweep and choose the 4th sweep preset.
- click on the cross section
RE:fitting things together
- my preferred method is to model the first part, then select the polygons where the parts are supposed to fit together.
- then I either use duplicate (if in same vertex object) or copy and then paste to a new vertex object if grouping different meshes
- then use extrude and other box modeling to create the second part, and so on.
- that is what I did to create the spokes of the wheel-shaped forest space stations. I had used the sweep tool to make the wheel from the oval, then selected polygons on opposite side, copied ad pasted to a new vertex object (so same location), then extruded for spokes.
Alternatively, you could use Boolean cut. There are 6 settings. For this, I suppose you want the option to split the volumes (each half will have the hole filled so that it is water tight.
- You could model a more general total shape of much of the item.
- you could then use Boolean cuts to separate the individual parts within the same vertex object
- highlight the side of the working box that you want to draw the polyline cut shape t make sure the line is in a single plane
- select Boolean cut, then select the volume to be cut and the polyline
- I think split volume is third choice from the left
By the way, the robot warrior looks fantastic. Nice job, Roy.
Thanks for the compliment, diomede :)
The point i'm trying to make is not whether something can be done, or not, in Carrara, or any other modeler, but how fast and efficiently it can be done. The inescapable fact is that Hexagon and most other modelers have certain automated functions, which speed up the process, which Carrara simply does not have.
Not to say that whatever functions these have are absolutely essential to achieving the final result, but that they do make life more pleasant and, when you are on a deadline and time is money, these automated functions are very important.
I don't want to go into great detail and get into a heated discussion; suffice to say that folk who admit to knowing very little about modelling and do not have an intimate knowledge of each of the applications are not qualified to pass an opinion and give judgement.
The attached picture shows four very simple models using just a few of Hex's automated functions -none of which is available in Carrara - each took but a few seconds to do. Someone who is really into modelling would recognise these for what they are and the compexity involved in making them.
Doubtless, one could eventually do these in Carrara, but at what cost in time and effort? It just happens that I do know how to do do any of these in Carrara, but not in an automated, time- efficient manner.
3dage, probably the most proficient user of Carrara and a great proponent of the VM to have graced these pages, accepted that the sweep line is not very good at sharp corners and proposed a very roundabout method of making this very simple picture frame. From what I can make out, possibly because of perspective, the one you made is pretty squinched in the corners. I would rather have used ruled surfaces, which is more involved, but would give a very satisfactory result.
What I do find quite astounding is that people who admit to not knowing much about either Hexagon or Carrara modelling can make the sort of statement that "Well, Carrara is pretty amazing, I don't know how to do this, but I'm sure that if we keep trying, we will find a method." The fact of the matter is that Carrara VM simply does not have these automated functions.
These sort of blind faith pronouncements are of very little help to the OP, who is asking a very simple question - Hexagon or Carrara as a modeler?
Let us rather be honest in our comments and say that, "Of course Carrara VM is very capable in the right hands, but it does lack a lot of the functions that dedicated modelers have, so it really depends on what you want to achieve and how much work your are prepared to put into it."
How would I make a picture frame in Carrara? With the vertex modeler of course. If I took a bit more time (and planed it a bit more) it would be much better. I took a cube, deleted two sides, then used the add thickness command with the remaining edges several times with varying values to get the skeleton geometry I wanted, then selected the edges I wanted to move forward/backward (select one, then use the loop selection to get the others). On the one curved surface I used smooth edges. I don't think it was as fast/easy as what Roy did with Hex, but pretty simple, and only took a couple of minutes.
I won't weigh in on which one is better, since I'm not a big modeler. I use both, and was actually one of the poor slobs that bought Hex 1.0 for about $300 from Eovia (just kidding, was a great new modeler, and well worth the $$$). It's a great modeler, and is my preferred modeler due to it's ease of use and nice feature set, but Carrara's modeler is pretty good as well, and often it's just easier to model the needed item in Carrara.
For anyone interested, Kixum has some pretty awesome stuff modeled in Carrara in his gallery at Rendo (http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=41015&page=1)
I'm curious Roy...what's the answer to your question about the Star Wars battle thing ?? How would you model it for rigging?
I've done a bit of pondering, and I think I have to respectively disagree with you on this Roy.
I admit after reading your post, my first thought was 'hmm, I'm self-admitted not to be any kind of expert modeler, perhaps I should just keep quiet on this thread, certainly my opinions on the subject would only have limited value at best'.
But here's the thing: On the surface the idea that only those with a minimum expertise and mastery should be qualified to render an opinion might seem logical, but I'm not sure that approach is practical or attainable. Where is that invisible line drawn, for example? Are Kixum and Mike Moir the only ones whose opinions would be valid on Carrara's modeling capabilities? And if they only use Carrara (not saying that's true, but as a for instance) are their opinions on Hex then invalidated too? Should only those who make their professional living creating and selling models for use be the only ones who are qualified to comment? If we draw the line that only an absolute expert should render an opinion, I think we might have a lot of unanswered posts in this forum :)
I was very careful to stipulate in my comments that I am an inexperienced/beginner modeler at best. This should allow the reader or OP to 'weight' my opinions, I think. Does not mean that my experiences on the subject lack any value though. In fact, my experiences may be of good value to someone else who is a beginning modeler (similar use and background) and who is trying to judge ease of use/stability and comes from a similar mindset.
I had a truly horrible experience with Hex. I had a much better experience with Carrara. It's a personal subjective story, not an objective value judgment on the capabilities of either program, and relating it does not mean Hex is somehow inferior to Carrara (in fact I think I've taken great pains to relate that most of the expert modelers who use both programs seem to prefer Hex and have stated Hex has a wider and more useful toolset). My very first post related to the OP's question was that I think he should stick with Hex, if that's what he's comfortable and expert in, as I do not believe Carrara will give an expanded toolset to what is provided in Hex.
On the other hand, I also don't want to contribute to the 'everyone knows' urban-legend mindset, and perhaps I am unconsciously doing so by relating my personal story (I believe one of the most prolific urban legends about Hex is 'everyone knows' that it crashes all the time). It's hard for me to believe it may have been user error causing the crashes, as my own experience that it would crash even before I had a chance to do more than insert a primitive, or even any clicks at all, but it's within the realm of possibility. I am hopeful that the fact I pointed out I was a first-time beginner user of Hex when I encountered those horrible and repeated crashes will be weighed in the balance by the reader, and perhaps offset some of the 'urban legend' of the 'Hex always crashes'. It's quite possible that an uninstall and re install may help make Hex more functional for me, or maybe there's something inherent in my computer configuration that Hex doesn't like.
I really don't like the 'urban legend' mindset that I know floats out there. I've seen it too many times misapplied to Carrara. 'Everyone knows that Carrara can't use Genesis2', for example, and never mind the tons of people who use Genesis2 in Carrara all the time. Or closer to this topic: 'everyone knows that Carrara is an unusable joke for modeling' which is one that I picked up on unconsciously for years right from these very forums, and it wasn't until I finally ventured into the modeling room that I realized it was stable and at least capable enough for my (admittedly very amateur) needs.
I do think more expert opinions should (and likely will) be weighed as more valuable by those who read through the responses, but I don't think less experienced opinions hold no value at all. Well, unless there are 'no' experience opinions, ie: 'I've never so much as opened Hexagon/Carrara, but I can tell at a glance from the promo art that it's garbage, and people who use it are automatic losers'. I think it's safe to disregard those sorts of opinions as valueless ego trips from trolls :)
I thought you'd never ask! :)
That was a trick question, which no-one ventured to answer :) Could this be because no-one builds such complex models in Carrara?
What I need is to have it bend at the joints, without any deformation. I import it as a single object and rig. Then in the VM, weightpainting mode, instead of using the brush, I select a couple of polys on, say, the shin, hit the plus sign to keep selecting - because Hex kept each mesh discrete, the selection stops when that particular mesh is fully selected - it does not go on to adjoining meshes. I then assign it 100% to the shin bone and set any other influence Carrara tries to give it to 0.
Very simple, but horribly tedious! :)
@jonstark - of course I don't mean that only experts are entitled to pass opinions. Anyone passing a comparison opinion should at least have some reasonable reasonable grounds for passing such opinion and this can only be gained by having reasonable experience in each to have formed a valid opinion.
Of course, anyone who has experience in one or the other, but not both, is qualified to pass an opinion on that which they have experience in, but not a comparative opinion.
I'm more referring to those staunch defenders of the faith, who have little experience in modelling in Carrara and none in Hex, who hold forth that Carrara is so great that there must be a way of doing such and such, although they don't know what it is, just yet, but someone will find a way.
Why do you need to rig it? Since there's no deformations...
Roy,
What I'm thinking, though I have no clue what your goals are for this robot/creature/Star Wars thing, is that you might be able to simply use a combination of parenting, constraints and some expressions or whatever Carrara calls them to have robot motion without all the bones rigging.
Here's a stupid thing I did long ago to respond to someone who wanted to do a machine contraption. No bones involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWyh8sxkBL4
I have tried importing as a grouped .obj and doing animation by setting pivot points at the rotation points, constraining rotations - can even use IK.
The problem with that method is that there is no option to "reset to default" when things go wrong, which they invariably do:)
Of course, I could always start the animation a few frames in, then rewind to start to get the default position back, but a rig is the better option.
I apologize Roy, I obviously misunderstood your meaning, and did not mean to take you out of context.
@ joemamma - and here's one I did 5 years ago for my lawn bowling club - no bones:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yp0QjlFXaQ
Rigging is the better option for me.
@jonstark - no apology needed, friend :)
Does this refer to me? If you check the first reply in this thread, I told the OP to stick to Hex if the OP was already familiar with Hex. In other threads, I've told people to stick to other modeling programs rather than switch to Carrara. Later in this thread, I said that if a person knew neither Hex nor Carrara, then to learn Hex. If that is a staunch defender of the Carrara faith, it is a strange religion indeed.
I merely stated my experience that the marginal gain from learning Hex was exaggerated to me. I did not question Hex superiority in general. Your sweep tool post reinforces my view, rather than dispels it. Was the example designed to demonstrate that Carrara does not have an effective sweep tool? Or, that Carrara would have trouble modeling a picture frame? The focus was on the sweep tool. And how was it demonstrated? By depicting a tangled mesh in Carrara, but those results were from using the wrong sweep setting. That was an exaggeration. I showed the correct sweep setting, and the mesh is not tangled (you'd have to rescale one axis to address pinching, not a lot of clicks). But given this discussion, the OP might want to know if Carrara's sweep tool is useless. Check this month's challenge WIP thread. I used the sweep tool in my space station forests. It is an exaggeration to imply that Carrara does not have an effective sweep tool.
I will repeat my theme song. Carrara is a jack of all trades, master of none. Hex is a more efficient modeler. Bryce has more precise terrain editing tools. Etc., etc., etc.
Warning: snarky comment coming - As for serious modelers, I thought Maya was the only option. (sorry, couldn't resist).
No, it was not directed specifically at you, but at those who, over the years and in many discussions on the subject and even in a different current thread, make those sorts of statements.
When you mention that your Hex experience showed a marginal advantage, I can only assume that you have not fully explored the capabilities of Hex, or any other of the many modelers which have the same functionality and more, that Hex does and Carrara doesn't.
The picture frame was a demonstration that Hex's path sweep deals well a rectangular shape and Carrara's doesn't, regardless of what settings you use. This was accepted by someone far more adept than myself. To do the same in Carrara takes more than a single click. Carrara's path sweep is fine on smooth curves, but that is not the point.
The point is that Hex has many time-saving, automated functions, which are common in other modelers, but not in Carrara.
Please don't take anything I write personally - I deal in facts and play the ball, not the man:)
diomede: Thanks for a comment. I totally agree with you: Carrara is a valuable set of tools for this amount of money. I use it mainly for setting up my ideas. Below is a hotel render of a model I set up with Architools within 3 hours including render, with very complicated rooms arrangements on every level. Should I ask for more?
I can model in Carrara but for some magical reason I model in Hex much faster and it is much easer to me. Perhaps my mind is set on Hex better than on Carrara! Live is too short to fight all odds around all the time. To avoid uncomfortable UV mapping in Hex or Carrara I've got a UV mapping paradise in 3Dcoat cheap edu version together with a lot of other features. Indie Bitmaps2Materials produces all necessary maps for PBR materials in minutes. For final renderings it is hard to find better render studio than Thea, IMHO very affordable indeed. Below is an urban scene designed by architects O. Przedecka and K. Matuszewska, all rights reserved. Rendered in Thea in 1 hour and 15 minutes at 3000x1500 px with biased engine working with CPU only. I didn't even thought on rendering it in Carrara at all because when I tried to render an architecture scene with some trees I had to render the buildings and the trees separately over night. Why waiting for Carrara render for hours if I can get what I want in minutes? Learning free Fusion 7 makes my post production a lot of fun. With this set at hand the only shortage is time, my knowledge and imagination.
I am happy with my set of tools. They are all really affordable for every beginner and freelancer. Of course, it would be a paradise to have it all at one piece. Probably there are this kind of applications, maybe Maya, but they are well beyond my financial power.
IMHO the gap between Carrara and modern applications is to big to make any solid investment a reasonable one that will paying off soon. So I think that Carrara for a year or two will get a status of Hexagon. Not bad at all considering that there are many who need good robust affordable application to learn core skills of 3D graphics. There are also many solo artist like myself that don't work under the pressure of time and just enjoy the time of creation we have at our disposal. So I think that you are right saying that a battle of software versus software is a kind of mind trap. I don't find that any discussion of the future of Carrara makes any sense too. For a year I have Thea Studio there was many minor upgrades and one really huge. 3DCoat new beta PBR version is upgrading almost every week. That is an evidence of serious engagement of developers into their products future. Quite opposite to Carrara.
Carrara is what it is. Love it and use it or hate it and don't use it. I can say the same on Hexagon.
Let's enjoy the life and our talents without wasting our precious time for frustrations on the applications lack of features. There are alternatives to choose from.
Greetings,
Marek
Don't worry, I too was addressing only the ball, not the man. When I said "I hope you are not referring to me...", I didn't mean for personal reasons of the being offended type. I meant only because I don't believe my comments in this thread could reasonably be interpreted as someone who was a defender of the Carrara faith. I am not offended.
But I didn't say I never use Hex. I said that if I want to add something to a scene, I don't find myself often switching from Carrara to Hex because much of the time Carrara does have the same tools, or if different, I think of an alternative way of achieving something in Carrara fast enough that I still don't find myself switching to Hex. I attributed that to my familiarity with Carrara.
I did not say that that made Carrara as good as Hex or that people should search for Carrara solutions in the hope they will appear in the future. I said the marginal benefit to me of modeling in Hex has been less than what I expected based on discussions just like this. Someone looking at the picture frame example could reasonably be led to believe that Carrara's sweep tool is ineffective in general, and the time cost in fixing it includes reworking a tangled mesh. However, in actuality, Carrara users do use the sweep tool effectively for many tasks (like my space station forests),and if a Carrara user was bound and determined to use the sweep tool for a 90 degree angle, the time cost in fixing it is rescaling along one axis, not untangling a fractured mesh.
I really do think it is good to illustrate the many ways Hex has more efficient tools than Carrara. If someone could please find the thread in which 50 or so Hex advantages over the Carrara vertex modeler were listed, that would be a good information to have.
I'm sure many forum participants are aware of the quirky reliance of the author of Game of Thrones on old software that does not have as many time saving features as new wordprocessing software.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/14/george_r_r_martin_writes_on_dos_based_wordstar_4_0_software_from_the_1980s.html
Avoid the George Martin syndrome! If you are considering different modelers, learn Hex before Carrara.
As the original poster of this thread, Maybe I shouldn't have used the word, 'vs'. I want to say I respect all of your opinions, that is why I posted this topic here. But maybe I should have posted it in the software section. The purpose of why I posted it was because it seems everywhere I read, Hexagon is dead (no version 3 or above). I know that I can still use it but for how long? As technology advances and Daz Studio,my preferred software for what I do, continues to get updated, When is it going to be where Hexagon will no longer work on a windows system? Windows 10, 11, 12? What happens when my preferred modeler is no longer supported or works? It is already at a point that it cannot handle ultra high polygon counts and lacks modeling features newer modeling programs have.
I was curious about the Carrara modeler and what people who model in Carrara thought about it's modelling component because Carrara was just given an update and I bought it at a great price.
I was curious about the learning curve between Carrara, as a modeler, and Blender, as a modeler, because Blender is flooded with support and updates and is not going away anytime soon.
I have always liked the idea of Software Suites: Autodesk, Microsoft Office, Adobe, etc.
I always thought Daz's Suite was:
Daz Studio: People , small scene capability
Hexagon: modeler
Bryce: Landscapes
Carrara: handling large Scenes and animation
I don't mind moving between programs to do specific things. I like paying for a product to do what it is suppose to do. I don't like paying for a product to do many things because if it does all of them well, then I probably can't afford it or it only does half as good at the job at hand. My most expensive purchase was Marvelous Designer 3 on sale. And it only does clothes, but it is the best program to do clothes, period, And I love it!
return to subject-
I love Carrara for the time I have spent on it so far.
I love Hexagon because it was the first modeler that everything clicked. Sadly, no support.
Is Carrara's modeling capabilities, with active support, a better replacement for Hexagon, without support?
Where do Carrara's modeling capabilities fit in with other modeling apps?
Thanks!
Garrett
January 2015 New User Contest Honorable Mention 2 Winner!
(Sorry, I had to add that!)
Just curious - what sorts of ultra high polygon count are wanting your modeler to be able to handle?
I won't pass any comment regarding the future of Hex, Carrara or Bryce because I get into trouble when I do. Suffice to say I'm learning Blender and have found that there are some features in Hex which Blender does not have :)