-----

#1 I am a coder and not an artist, but for what I've heard from some modellers I know, XSI is miles ahead of GameSpace. Simply, it can compete with Max and Maya. I guess it all depends on if you have the money, and if you are willing to spend it.

#2 Just as a side note, there is currently no working XSI exporter for Torque. A solution is being worked on but there is no ETA on when it will be available nor its cost.

Logan

#3 I have worked with Lightwave, Max, and Maya in school and liked Max the most. This summer I am transferring to a new school that uses XSI and Maya though, so I decided to try out XSI. All I can say is that I find it to be an amazing product and have not looked back at Max since. Many say that Max has great modeling tools, but I like XSI's polygon and SubD modeling better. It also has great animation tools, as good or better than Maya's. Lightwave users like its renderer, but XSI has the much faster high quality Mental Ray renderer completely integrated into it. Max and Maya have only implemented Mental Ray as an add-on. XSI also has nodes like Maya, a modification stack like Max, and can be scripted with VBScript, Javascript and Python. Of course it also supports all of the high end game development features you might want, like Normal Mapping.

I have not tried GameSpace, but I really do not see how it could compare in any way, even at half the price. As you can see above I think only high-end packages compare to XSI. For $250 more than Gamespace you will get tools that only multi-thousand dollar packages can compete with, as well as an extremely high level of refinement which shows through in its design, workflow, and user interface.

For game development the Foundation package should be plenty. This entry-level package used to be $1999, but did not have any additional features removed after Avid/Softimage reduced the price points of all their packages. For the higher end packages you are mostly paying for more Mental Ray Licenses anyway, which are per CPU, as well as tools which would mostly be used for film. I have been learning this package for two weeks now and am still constantly being amazed by the new features I am discovering. There is a free version you can try out, as well as the free Mod Tool. You can use the Mod Tool to create content for the Half-Life 2 and Unreal engines.

#4 ----

#5 Hello Jim,

The XSI exporter is comming and allthough I cant yet give a definate time frame on its release we have the support of both SoftImage and Garage Games for its creation. I can also tell you that I do have a mostly working version of the XSI exporter That Im using to write the GUI for the exporter.

the only thing holding us back is time. We are working on several projects at the same time and working full time to boot, but its comming and thats about as specific that I can be. :o)

As far as cost? It was be very affordable, include good docs, example files and a private support forum of some kind.

Comparing gameSpace to XSI is like comparing any generic automobile to a BMW. The both have 4 wheels, 2 doors, an engine etc. but theres no real comparison when you look at the actual implementation of the feature checklist.

I'm guessing that price is an issue since you a asking for a comparison of basically the 2 cheapest 3d tools (besides milkshape). Right now the 3 best options are Max, Maya and lightwave (probably in that order) they have the best feature support and are professional 3d tools.

When the XSI exporter is finished XSI will be the tool that I reccomend to anyone new to 3d tools that wants to make content for Torque. With such a powerful 3d tool available for $500 it will be pretty much a no brainer for anyone who doesn't have the $1500+ to drop for the other pro 3d tools.

Keep in mind that theres also something to be said for using the tool that works best for you. I would suggest that you download the free or demo versions of Max, Maya, XSI, gameSpace etc and see which one you like best. They all have their quirks and tell you first hand that there are many things that really irritate me about each one. :o)

#6 -----

#7 Actually, you should use what you're comfortable with. Max, Maya, Lightwave, XSI, Blender, Eova, etc, are all excellent packages. But they are tailored to a certain workflow. And you need to find your workflow. Use all of them an evaluate the best of them.

But also be realistic in your measure. I'm a long-time Lightwave fan, but that's because it hits my workflow. Max or Milkshape or Blender or Maya may hit yours. It depends on you more than the application.

Matt pointed out some excellent points on his workflow. You need to find yours.

#8 GameSpace is an alright tool, it works and there are some nice things about its tool set once you get used to the interface. I can also say that all 3d apps take "getting used to their interface" as everyone seems to say those words only about using caligari's products and not about the pro apps when the same is true for all 3d apps.

There is not a single person on the planet who can just install Max, Maya or XSI haveing never used them before and instantly start using them like they were born knowing how to use them. All 3d apps have a "getting used to their interface" period so dont let that stop you from trying something non mainstream. It wasnt very long ago that people were mocking trueSpace becase it had realtime 3d display (software and OGL) saying that real 3d apps only used wireframe view. Now look, all the pro 3d apps have OGL realtime display as standard and its on by default.

I tend to practice "3d Tool objectivity", meaning that I use tools long enough to figure out both their strengths and weaknesses are before I say that they are good or bad. Just because a tools is more expensive or more mainstream doesnt mean its better.

gameSpace's strength is modeling and its weakness is everything else, but its biggest weakness by far is animation. there are still too many bugs in the animation system and many missing animation features that have been the major 3d apps since 1.0.

If someone from Caligari reads this, please for the love of god, scrap your silly bones system and just do it the way everyone else does! geez...

(For anyone reading this that doesnt know I'm on the team the wrote the DTS exporter for gameSpace and trueSpace so Ive earned the right the rant :o)

To me XSI has 2 things in its favor. Price and Power. Thats a pretty good combo in my book, but I still recomend learning what tool(s) work best for you.

#9 If you want a modeling software you should check out [uri=http://www.nevercenter.com/]Silo[/url], it's a great software
for modeling only you can't animate or render with it. It cost only $109
there is no DTS exporter and I don't think someone is planing to make one but
you use Milkshape3D so you can just transfer the models to milshape and then convert to DTS.

#10 After having purchased GameSpace and struggled with it's Bones and Skinning schema for some time now; I recommend looking towards XSI for the future...I know I will be when Matt's work is released, and a general system upgrade is achieved. I do like the way the interface[gS] is configed and it has many good modeling features for rigid object animation. When it comes to skinned meshes[ahem, which are most definitely needed for the most important model, imo, the 'player'], the system falls flat with no hope of future improvement; regardless of what may be articulated thru the parent site. I have no fear or trepidation moving into yet another package and it's curve. Heck, life is one long learning curve, best to accept it and begin to move forward, ;).

#11 @David Blake: Well put. That's what I am always telling people.

#12 Glad to see Matt ranting in favor of XSI :-) and can't wait for the XSI exporter to go beta.

A couple of things that Truespace has that I am missing is XSI are: geometry paint (paint 1 object onto another), magnet tool, and the ability to "explode" an object with the similation environment in Truespace.

I actually like the XSI modeling tools better- they are more consistent somehow, and rigging, animation and texturing of course is superior in XSI.

#13 XSi exporter to Torque...
XSi exporter to Torque...
XSi exporter to Torque...

sorry, just using the 'force' to make one! :)

#14 @Jim, yeah the school I am transferring to this summer uses XSI as well. Previously they used Maya, but now that Virtools supports XSI they highly recommend it. They use Virtools for teaching game , environment, and character design. XSI support in Source and Unreal is also great for students since both engines are frequently used to produce content and mods to demonstrate abilities to potential employers.

#15 ----

#16

Quote:If you want a modeling software you should check out Silo, it's a great software
for modeling only you can't animate or render with it. It cost only $109
there is no DTS exporter and I don't think someone is planing to make one but
you use Milkshape3D so you can just transfer the models to milshape and then convert to DTS.

Not completely true. Silo can export to .obj, and then you can easily convert to .dts with this resource...


Obj2DTS

#17 XSI Foundation for $395 (plus $29.95 CG society membership)

http://www.cgnetworks.com/story.php?story_id=2954

#18 I am an xsi user and I use max and other programs once in while when Im required, For me xsi is simply the most robust program right now, the way its design I like it very much. And it may sound biased but In my opinion out of the 4 most popular apps: max, maya, lightwave and xsi,
xsi is the one who has a better future, because of the way its design. I see many studios even gaming ones switching to xsi lately.

#19 >>I see many studios even gaming ones switching to xsi lately.

After looking into it, I'm finding this also. Seeing Valve's HL2 images all over XSI ads does something to me also :-P But, I must say, after using Maya for 5 years, it will be incredibly diffiicult to drop it (only reason I would is the price).

Great thread guys, thanks for replies. Seeing an XSI exporter would be sweet.

#20 I use GameSpace to prototype stuff (a real artist does the final stuff) and it works fine for Torque with .dts and .map exporters. Overall, it's a decent tool. If XSI had all the Torque tools for it I'd probably have picked it up ... well except for the fact that I feel like if I'm going for one of the big packages I'd like to have 3DS Max since that's what my partner uses. It'd be nice to be on the same page as the rest of the team if you know what I mean.