Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Extremely powerful and relatively cheap for what it can do. This is way better than Mesh Fusion in my opinion albeit the UI is not as pretty / fancy looking.
Power up your modeling workflow and extend Autodesk® Maya®'s boolean operations with Mainframe's Bool.
Non destructive workflow.
Interactively adjust multiple boolean operations.
Intuitive drag and drop UI.
Fast C++ integration.
And it seems that there is a considerable less efforts put in the mash tool, which could make wonders if rehashed with pfx tools etc. Also the fact that people don't know about existence of this tool is not great.
I have hardmesh and no it isn't as good as meshfusion.
I saw a Plugin for 3ds max that seems to be more promising.
That said, yes complex, multilevel Booleans are a must for modeling.
Straight on booleans are really robust in Houdini. It can handle really dense meshes ( Multi million) . It has several options to output selections, groups after a boolean operation.
Eh? Hardmesh is always better than meshfusion because meshfusion doesn't exist for Maya. So what's your point?
Also whats better about meshfusion except for presentation? It can't bool single surface meshes which means it requires solids which in itself is a complete awkward loser for any serious modeling that has deadlines. It takes you out of the modelling workflow because its basically its own sub module with its own rules in general not even close to seamlessly integrated like everything else in modo which appears to live on its own island with its own logic. That said both tools are far from perfect and Maya is pretty **** to start with. Considering this Modo isn't really outshining that duo which is actually a rather low bar to jump over. Else I could just use Alias to get it over with if budget and time isn't a concern which is the real deal for proper surfacing and now has a hybrid workflow to boot.
Eh? Hardmesh is always better than meshfusion because meshfusion doesn't exist for Maya. So what's your point?
What ? Because x feature doesnt exists in Maya doesnt make an alternative "better". What is the logic behind this ? what is your point ?
Mesh fusion cannot boolean surfaces. If I understand correctly, neither can Hardmesh.
Also, I am unsure what you mean when you say that meshfusion's inability to work on surfaces is a hindrance to your deadlines.
Hardmesh is also its own module. Again.. what is your point ?
why are you injecting a nurbs based surface modeler into this discussion. If you are happy with alias and its nurbs surface workflow + new Subd features, why are you trying to do the same in Maya ?
