Any one using Maya LT????

Hi all

hope you have a great day. and have some fun.

I came across the thread
If you could offer one piece of advice to new UE4 Users…

for those how use Maya LT. does it work any better than before? (with the newer unreal and Maya LT?)
I would think that the Cloth and Hair issue would be a killer.


is there a work around or can you use NVIDIA GameWorks for It Now???

What are the Best things about using Maya LT with unreal?

and What are the worst thinks about using Maya LT unreal?

do you think it’s worth Learning and getting started with Maya Lt Now that they have there own game engine. (Will they even care if Maya LT works with unreal in 1 to 3 years from now.)

this is another vote for UE4. if you can use Maya LT. you can’t use Maya Lt with cryengine. Maya Lt has no plug-ins.

cents Maya Lt has no Plug-ins I’m assuming you use FBX export and import for unreal. or does it have the Export to unreal as Maya does. Never use Maya LT.

Thanks everyone.

Maya LT has an Export to Unreal feature.

We use Maya LT for our game mostly because we don’t need the Full Maya features. Some of the missing dynamics stuff is definitely a huge killer for some users; that require more advanced features in their game.

I cant think of anything bad other than the limited rigging features.

nCloth, nHair, and the dynamics stuff can’t be imported into Unreal anyway even if you have the full version, so if the only thing you’re doing with Maya is Unreal related, then you won’t really miss them(*).

If, on the other hand, you’re building pre-rendered scenes to play as cutscenes, then yeah, those things will be sorely missed.

Also, that chart is out of date. Maya LT now has integration with NVidia PhysX.

    • If you like to use rigid body dynamics to scatter stuff about a scene, then bake that to a final fbx, then I could see you missing the rigid body stuff.

Thanks TheAgent and kirk.clawson

sounds like a push pull. give up this for that.
that’s what I was worried about.

I’m glad to hear that Maya LT now has integration with NVidia PhysX. and has Export to Unreal. That is a help.

thanks again a big help but still scathing my head.
Thing I’ll down load the trail version of Maya LT and then sign up for a month or two Run them side by side. (Yes I will have some pre-rendered scenes to play as cutscenes) But
I have been thinking about making the cut scenes (not pre-rendered them in an other program) just do them in unreal it’s self, I think that unreal graphics is getting that good. and will be by the time my game comes out.

Yeah, Maya LT is a great tool and very good for indies, soooo much more affordable than completee Maya. For me (and most people probably) it is only lacking better integration with Unreal rigging system. Or, better saying, Unreal has to simplify its skeleton system, it’s outdated and a bit overcomplicated.

How do you mean that Harry? How would you like UE4 skeleton system to be like?

Dealing with rigging in Unreal is simple if the skeleton matches UE4 Skeleton system. Maybe most models will not follow the skeleton and will need to be retargeted, which is not a supercomplicated process, but it is a bit outdated. Other tools like Unity have a much simpler process to match skeletons as long as they are humanoid. Standard Maya version has access to ART tools (Epic solution for rigging and animation), which is awesome, but Maya LT lacks support to Python and ART is coded in it with no intentions from Epic to turn it into MEL script (the one Maya LT supports).

So, a lot of possible solutions:

  • Maya LT could support Python
  • Unreal could simplify retargeting system (which I think is in Epic’s plans)
  • You could always make your skeletons in the same hierarchy to Unreal’s

I think given time, Epic will simplify retargeting process. But overall it’s not currently that complicated, just a bit more laboring.

Can you elaborate how it’s outdated?
As a programmer, I don’t know 3D modelling very much.

For example, Unreal will only recognize your skeleton for proper retargeting if it has the same hierarchy and name convention as Unreal’s main Skeleton. The system should be able to recognize different bone names (for example, it will accept “shoulder_l” but not “LeftShoulder”) and also if one skeleton has 3, 4 or 5 spine bones, that shouldn’t be a problem, but as far as I know it is. Humanoid skeletons are so similar to each other, but Unreal will only fit if it is exactly as it wants. If it’s not, for every retargeting you have to manually set every bone correspondence. In comparison, this is very different than Unity’s checkbox “use Humanoid Skeleton” -> and it’s done, you may just adjust two or three bones if they are very odd positioned.

Again, it’s not THAT big deal, but many things in Unreal still get me thinking “man, this should be simpler by now”, you know?

I get it. I have the same gripe. Unity is top notch in THAT department.
Everything else? not so much.

I think one day Epic will add this feature, but not soon.

I believe I saw it in Unreal’s Roadmap. Hope to see some updates soon =)

Regarding Unity, I think it is pretty awesome. People argue and such, and that’s reasonable, but we must not forget how rapidly Unity has grown, got better, and now has true capabilities to challenge engines like Unreal. Unreal is still more robust, but Unity a couple years ago? Amateur engine. Today? Basically it HAS triple A capabilities, with flaws, but it does.

Besides, I love them because they reshaped the entire industry, they truly democratized game development. Games industry should be forever in dept with them. And with Unreal as well for sure, such a great engine with so huge contributions to the market. I like to pay my respects for both of them and be glad they are competing and not monopolyzing the market, right? =)

Also, as a designer, I’m forever fascinated because Unreal for SO LONG has bet on Visual Scripting and Blueprints is the best tool ever for that. But they had Kismet before, and that’s insane (insanely good), they bet on that since the early days, while I left Unity because I believe Visual Scripting is much better for designers and Unity lacks native VS.

This is one of the reasons why I stopped using MayaLT and switched to Blender. I gave MayaLT a chance and it did it’s work. I would not say it’s a bad software. Spacebar menu is ok. But it did not feel amazing to me. If I pay a monthly fee I would not feel like an unwanted stepchild (missing pyhton / ART).

Yeah, well, Maya LT is definetely not bad software. It’s Maya, arguably the best or one of the best softwares on the market. We usually should not expect such complex and outstanding softwares to be free. Blender is great, open source and such, but in my vision that shouldn’t be the norm… or nobody would get paid, only receive donations. Maya LT’s pricing is already very affordable even for small studios. But it’s great that we have so many options at different price points! Use what suits you best! =)

Though lacking Python, there are many ways to work around that, and besides, some people may not even like to use ART and prefer other methods. Well… payoffs.

I never said it should be free. I was willing to pay for MayaLT and even invested time for it to step through tutorials (as I did with Blender too). I thought, hey Maya is the industry standard it must be awesome. However I never felt loved by MayaLT. Pro MayaLT: Rigging a human skeleton was very easy (I was surpised). Import and export of FBX worked like a charm (as expected). Spacebar menu is better than using Word (as I said: it’s not bad). I thought somebody used it’s brain to create it. But - Pro Blender: All the rest that you might expect of a 3d program… and that’s a lot (I hate the spacebar menu if I compare it to shortcuts that makes sense). I’ve got 10 fingers… I could use it… if a program allows me to do so. Spacebar only requires one finger.

Yes, yes… thanks, but no thanks. If I pay I would not search workarounds that limit me to a second class user of a software that could do more. It could do more but it would not do more if I don’t pay more. I understand that.

I’m not sure if I have a vision regarding that. I’m a softwaredeveloper and would get paid for that… right. But that does not mean that I don’t support or use open-source or that I automatically think paid is better. I even code server-parts for windows (if I must)… but I hate to create a windows-server. And I don’t have a vision of a perfect world that includes an FBX standard that merges maya and max into one format.

Yes. But if I pay money I would feel better afterwards not worse. I would not pay for an abo of pay-tv if few of the movies are better, some are equal and lots are worse than free-tv. I would feel like they support me not I support them with some “they shall not use phyton because capitalism”.

Well, that’s perfectly fine, each one has preferences. From where I stand, Maya LT offers a TON for the price, I was so glad when they changed the pricing model. The spacebar is a huge feature for me, and not only spacebar, but also right click + many options, easy access to most usable tools. Besides, Maya already has many hotkeys and you can configure any command as you like as well. I prefer hitting spacebar or right click and have most tools available at a glance. But again… just a matter of preference.

And about Python, yeah, I’d really want Autodesk to put it in LT.

That probably aint gonna happen, because when they do that, they will need to open the python api and that will open doors to develop all sorts of crazy plugins thatll basically just give you a full maya version for 1/10th of the price.
It makes sense to have python not be in LT as it gives you unlimited control over maya.

Makes sense.