Maya: which version?

Uh, no, they're not "a load of bunk". I'll explain why by responding to each of your points.


If you want to dwell on semantics, fine. "Developed using Maya" is accurate. I'm equally comfortable with "invented for Maya", though, because that's exactly what Qarl said he had done at the time. He left it to others to bring sculpties to other programs. His own work was specifically for Maya users.

As for who "invented" meshes and 3D displacement, that's got nothing to do with it. Henry Ford didn't invent the wheel or the gasoline engine, but he did invent the Model-T. Edison didn't invent light or electricity, but he did invent the light bulb. And Qarl Linden didn't invent any of the principles behind sculpties, but he did invent sculpties themselves.



Sure. None of that is in dispute.


And who said there was? There's also nothing Blender-like or Wings-like or any other programX-like you'd care to come up with. And that was pretty much my point all along, in my debate with Ponk. Maya may not be superior for modeling sculpties, but it's not inferior either. That's all I was saying. Why you're apparently trying to read more into it than that, I have no idea.


Sure. Again, that was never in question. I don't know why you're acting like it was.


My turn on the semantics. Careful. It's not that Maya and/or Max couldn't do it for you. It's that you weren't able to get them to do what you wanted. There's nothing either program wouldn't be able to do, in the hands of the right user.


Right. Remember I said sculpties were intended to exhibit NURBS-like behavior? That's one example of what I was talking about.

Another, directly related, way they're NURBS-like is in how they tesselate on the fly. Their LOD culling system works very similarly to that of NURBS surfaces. The intention was for a small set of control points to be constant, preserving the basic shape of the surface, while the points in between could be added or removed in accordance with environmental factors, like camera distance.

Want another? Their UV space is always perfect, just like that of NURBS surfaces.

How about another? They're entirely contiguous. They can't be extruded, appended, cut, separated, etc. Every sculpty is nothing more than a flat plane, bent in 3D space. And that's exactly what every single NURBS model is.

I don't know about you, but that all sounds pretty NURBS-like to me.

Note, I didn't say sculpties were actually NURBS, as you seem to be trying to imply I did. I said only that their behavior is somewhat NURBS-like. There's a big difference, there.


First, even the NURBS surfaces you see in programs that fully support NURBS, like Maya, Rhino, etc. are meshes by the time they appear on your screen. Graphics cards don't know how to draw anything 3-dimensional besides polygons. All NURBS surfaces, subdiv surfaces, etc., are tesselated to a polygonal mesh before they're rendered.

Second, you've grossly misunderstood what I meant by "NURBS-like". See my expanation above.


I didn't. Now how about you don't make the mistake of assuming you know what I'm talking about, even when your interpretation flies in the face of what I actually said?

If I thought for one instant that sculpties were actually NURBS surfaces, I wouldn't have said "NURBS-like behavior". I just would have said "NURBS". I'd also be clinically insane because, as one who's not without just a wee bit of experience in these matters (I do do this for a living, you know), I'm fully aware that no real-time engine on this planet utilizes NURBS surface modeling. The math is just too inefficient. That's why polygons exist.


Sure. The same can be said of any NURBS surface. Once again, remember I said "NURBS-like behavior"?


How many times would you like me to repeat what I said above? There are lots and lots of ways in which sculpties are similar to NURBS. That's precisely why Qarl chose NURBS as the original analog for sculpties in the first place. Otherwise, he would have gone with polygons, and made the whole thing a lot easier, right from the start.

If you don't believe that, then what reason would you care to invent for why his sculpty exporter is designed for NURBS?


It's both. A sculpty is a mesh that has certain NURBS-like qualities. Why is that so hard for you to accept?


Huh? Of course it does.




Now you're just making stuff up. I never ever said that, or even implied it. All I said was sculpties were originally intended as a way to bring a bit of NURBS-like functionality into SL. What clever residents have evolved them into since then has been amazing. I'm as big a fan of Domino and the other "pixel-pushers" as anyone, and I've said as much publicly a great many times. My hat goes off to those guys, really.

I've also said on many an occasion, including once in this very thread, that I really wish someone would augment the Maya sculpty exporter to add the kind of vertex precision that is possible with the polygon-based exporters from other programs.

If you choose to ignore all that just because you feel that to do so somehow better suits whatever point you're trying to make in your argument now, well, that's up to you. The truth is the truth, though, and you're looking the other way doesn't change that.



Let's keep the discussion realistic, OK? As I see it, the only "disservice" done so far in this entire thread was by you, when you went seemingly to great lengths to try to change the meaning of my words. I can't tell whether it's deliberate or not, but you do seem to be giving it quite the old college try. I hope you just legitimately misunderstood me, and that my response has now cleared things up. I'd hate to think you're acting with deliberate malice here.


Dogma? You've got to be kidding. How many times in this thread did I talk about how so much of what we've been discussing boils down to personal preference? It's been in almost every response I've given.



No argument there.


Absolutely true. I'm not sure "niche" is the right word, though. NURBS modeling is used pretty extensively in manufacturing. It's still prevalent in film, although not as much as it used to be, since the advent of subdivs.



I'm very glad as well, which is why I've said that hundreds of times in these forums, and three times now in this thread (including twice in this post). I'd take issue with the word "heresy" though. You seem to be trying to cram this "Chosen things NURBS are the one true light" theory down everyone's throats. As I've said many, many, many times, the ONLY reason I make NURBS-based sculpties is because Maya is my program of choice, and the only sculpty exporter that exists for it happens to be optimized for NURBS. Were the "pixel-pusher" options available for Maya, I'd certainly use them.

I also take issue with the word "imprecise", as it's easy to misinterpret. NURBS-based sculpties are actually very precise, in that the replication from source model to in-world sculpty is a nearly flawless copy. (I say "nearly flawless" only because there is a slight displacement at the poles, due to a bug in the original beta implementation. It was determined by the powers that be at LL that it was better to leave the bug unfixed than to break any existing content. I disagree with that decision, for what it's worth. Most people would never notice the discrepancy, in any case.) If you're a good NURBS modeler, you can create just about any shape you want, of course. It just requires some different technique than poly modeling.

Where "imprecise" comes into play is simply that you don't have exact per-vertex manipluation ability in any NURBS-based system, the same way you would in any polygon-based system. In some ways, this is actualy a boon, as it can make for much faster modeling of organic (and even certain inorganic) shapes. It also makes for arguably easier LOD-proofing where sculpties are concerned. The downside is it's much harder to do the kind of complex folding and whanot that is necessary for creating things like 1-prim trees, 1-prim gears, etc.

Chosen, really, your heavy bias towards Maya is clouding your common sense.

Believe me when I say I've tried them all and I use Maya in my work and at college. Yes, I know about snapping, but that's a liability when working with a complex mesh, the selection difference I mentioned was due to shift dragging a selection box unselects previously selected verts.

In SL, for all but the most pedestrian sculpties like a small part of a leg or a cushion, it's a pain in the butt. Doable certainly, but not with any degree of ease unless you've been at it for years as you keep making a point of.

It is not and never should be a striving point for people who want to develop sculpties. It's something that you could use if you have it, it's, and let me be clear here. Not. The. Best. - For this task. I know I keep adding that caveat, but it's absolutely true. This is a discussion about sculpties. Would you be arguing against SoftImageXSI or Cinema 4D? Both are arguably better than Maya in various ways.

I'd love to have a cook off and see who can make the best in the fastest time, that would be very entertaining. Although it's not a great spectator sport watching two people go afk for 5+ minutes before rezzing a crumpled piece of vertex vomit. There might be a good idea waiting to emerge in there someplace, though.

Until then, here's a challenge for you - tell me one functional advantage Maya has over Blender for sculpties, which if I'm not mistaken is what Milla is already using.

Ponk, really, why do you seemingly have such a problem with the fact that I like the way the program works? You're not the only one who's used a lot of different ones. I happen to like Maya's modeling tools far better than those of any other program I've tried, which is why I continue to use it. What, you think I get some sort of silly kick out of recommending something I don't believe in? Come on. If I felt something else worked better, I'd use something else. I've got no particular loyalty to Maya (not that it's even possible to feel loyalty towards a piece of software in the first place).

To me, the way Maya is set up is good. Clearly, to you it's not. Why can't we just agree to disagree? Why do I have to have "clouded common sense" or a "heavy bias" or anything of the kind, just because our opinions differ?

You want to come at me with something factual that we can sink our teeth into, such as "Maya absolutely positively can't do _________" or "ProgramX has an indisputably more efficient way of accomplishing __________ than Maya does. Here are the exact steps to the same thing in both.", then fine. But so far all you seem to keep repeating is "I don't like it just because I don't like it, and you're wrong if you do, because I said so."

Look, until now I had thought we were having a healthy discussion. You did raise some points initially that were well worth talking about. But if you're going to resort to what can at best be described as "name calling" just because I'm not about to agree with your opinion, what's the point in continuing?

I really hope this most recent post of yours was just a fluke, and that we can now steer this thread back to something more meaningful.


How so? I've never ever had it get in my way, no matter how complex or simple the model. Again, it's a question of comfort level and experience. You either adopt a work style that jives with the tool in your hand, or you don't. I really don't see why we need to argue about that.

In any case, would you care to explain how using the scale tool doesn't get in the way, where using the move tool does? That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Either way, you're selecting a bunch of vertices, and snapping them to a single point. What does it matter if the manipulator happens to be labled "scale" or "translate"? The end result is exactly the same.

You really mean to tell me you're going to discount Maya as a top notch modeling program, simply because its component scale tool doesn't have stops? That's a little extreme, don't you think?


That's exactly the behavior one would expect, isn't it? After all, if you shift-click any previously selected item in just about any other program, including Windows itself, the item will deselect. In any case, if you don't want that to happen, simply hold down ctrl and shift at the same time. Now, the selection will be entirely additive. And if you want it to be entirely subtractive, hold down just ctrl, without shift.

As I said, all the options are there, and they're almost always just a mouse click or a keystroke away. It's simply a matter of learning them.


No, the point I'm making is it takes a few weeks, not years. I've taught a great many people to make good sculpties with relative ease, using Maya. I could do the same for you, if you'd just open your mind a little. It's not "pain in the butt" at all.


I'm not sure how you're defining "striving point" in this context. I've said repeatedly that sculpties should not be any sort of goal when approaching Maya. One should learn Maya itself, and then one will already possess the requisite knowledge for making all kinds of things, sculpties included.

That process takes anywhere from a few days to a few months, depending on the person. For most people, it's a matter of weeks, as I keep repeating. Why you won't accept that is beyond me.



I don't think we'd learn anything we don't already know. And yes, it would be awfully boring for any observers, but whatever. If you feel it necessary, I'm sure we could work out a time that fits both our schedules.

First, let me make it absolutely clear that I have no problem with your choice of program! Anything that works for the individual is alright in my book. I too am enjoying this discussion, no offense was intended - my bugbear is that advising someone to get Maya without looking at other, more practical and common sense options or really looking into what it is they are buying is misleading, although to be fair, you have retracted the point of getting it just for sculpties is a good idea. Especially when the program that is already being used runs rings around Maya for this purpose.

Laymen often ask "Oh, did you use maya?" when seeing things I've made, My answer is always "you're kidding right?".

Oh, And thanks for the shift, ctrl tip, I really didn't know that and have been using maya for about 4 years now.

Ponk, I've offered simple solutions for every one of your perceived shortcomings of Maya so far. All evidence at this point would seem to suggest that you've simply been unaware of certain options, and you're under-practiced at others.

Tell me how, in quantifiable terms, any other program "runs rings" around Maya as a modeler, and then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, all you're doing is spouting your personal dislike, which is hardly the same thing.



As for the subject of advising someone to buy Maya without first looking into it, I completely agree that that would be potentially misleading. But show me where I did that. Did I not advise the OP to download PLE for free, specifically so that she could spend as much time as she might require with the program, to make an educated decision as to whether or not it's her best option? Did I not then further suggest that she download the free 30-day trial after that, so she could export sculpt maps (one of the few things PLE can't do), so that she could be absolutely 100% certain? And on top of all that, did I not also suggest that she likewise try out 3DS Max (and by implication, any other programs she might be interested in) in the same way? The answer is yes, yes, and yes. I did suggest all of that. Sorry you missed it, although I can't imagine how you did.

How many times do I have to agree with you on this one point before you get it through your head that that's what I'm doing?


ETA: You're welcome for the tip. Looks like you were editing while I was writing this post.

Hey, I asked first - What does maya have that blender doesn't?

The main advantage of Blender are the LOD options that Domino's scripts afford, which are useful to everyone who makes sculpties, not just the few who hammer a shape out of every available pixel in a sculpty map.

I'm a little worried that Maya's convertor is a bit imprecise now as well. It still seems perfect for regular meshes, but it's all over the place for oblongs with 1D connecting lines.

I'll agree Domino's scripts are highly useful. What I wouldn't give to have someone of his caliber on the MEL team...

However, just to be thorough, those LOD options aren't really necessary if your source model is NURBS, and you've built it well. To create any kind of hard edge with NURBS requires having your ducks in a row in the first place, and if you're working with all soft edges, then the point is moot anyway. It's only for poly-sourced sculpties that such things become a really big concern.

As for oblong sculpts, I can't really comment intelligently. As much as I'd like to use them, I don't, and won't, until such time as LL mandates a viewer that supports them. I don't have time to create objects half my audience won't be able to see correctly.

Not really sure what you're talking about there, oblongs have only been a problem in a couple of iterations of the RC viewer, the most recent version has once again fixed them. I understand where you're coming from far better now that you mention NURBS and have a clearer idea of the types of things you make so your comments make a lot more sense.

I exclusively use polys so hopefully mine do too.

I'm glad we're starting to understand each other better.

What I meant about oblongs is that they're only visible in relatively recent viewers. Older ones end up squishing the format back to square, which needless to say, totally borks the appearance of the sculpted shape.

Unfortunately, there is a significant portion of the SL population who insist on using viewers that are too old, for a variety of reasons. I'll refrain from offering an opinion on the usual arguments about that because I don't want to spark a drawn out debate on the subject right now. It wouldn't be appropriate for this particular thread.

The bottom line is until LL prevents those old viewers from connecting with the grid, people will keep using them. As long as that's the case, oblong sculpts (and mirrored sculpts) are not something I'm comfortable investing too much effort into using.

For what it's worth, I'm gonna go ahead with my original plan, i.e. to do the Maya course with the RL teacher and then make the final decision.

I have to say that at this point I'm leaning heavily towards Maya; the discussions in this thread have given me great reading and an opportunity to see different sides of the issue. I like that Maya is the industry benchmark, which makes me feel "safe" in my choice. Also, a very important point, there is a plethora of tutorials, courses and material available on Maya (including local courses) which is absolutely key for a self-taught creator like myself. I have a hard time finding the same resources for any other program.

A huge thank you to all of you for taking time to join this discussion, and especially to Chosen for such clear and solid advice that even a non-techy amateur like me can understand.

Good luck, Milla, you'll love it.

Having used Maya, 3D Studio Max, Softimage, Lightwave...... I gotta say its a toss up between Maya & Max. LOVE both of them!! But Maya beats MAX for rendering. MAX beats Maya for Character rigging. Gotta love Character Studio! Frickin' Sweet!!

Enjoy the class, Milla. That really is the best thing to do.

You might be pleasantly surprised to learn that the academic pricing for Maya is super low. You can get a one year license for $199 or a perpetual license for $399. The offer is extended to part time students, so even if you're taking just the one class, you should qualify.

That's for Unlimited, by the way. There's no student licensing for Complete (because they want students to be able to learn as much as possible). Don't worry, it's the same program. Unlimited just has a few more tabs on the shelf, and a few more menus up top. The parts that are common to both versions are identical in every way in both.

Heh. This is why discussing 3d applications is such a subjective thing. I would have said the completely opposite thing if you asked me which was good for which. Character Studio is great for animating something out of the box, but for custom rigs Maya wins out IMO. With the latest mental ray Architectural Materials for Max you can get some amazing renders pretty quick.

@Chosen: Yes, I get where you are coming from. Thanks for taking that time you spent explaining to me how NURBS work. I guess I didn't know that stuff!

NP at all, Pygora. You and I have our share of disagreements, and sometimes I think we both let our emotions show a little more than we should when we get into our back-and-forth, but I'm always glad when you contribute to a thread. In the end, there's always a lot more good information on the table after you've arrived than before.

Chosen, I didn't mean for my post to sound as bad as you seemed to have taken it. I was getting a "one true way" vibe there and I was trying to have some fun with that using some analogous terms. I figured it would be easiest for the readers if I just said thanks and move on. You feel very strongly about this and I don't think I can change it. If you thought I was twisting your words then you were just responding in kind.

I will say this: A lot of what you seem to feel makes things "NURBSy" I (and the literature I've read, the classes I've attended, other 3d artists I've interacted with) view as a quality of parametric 3d objects in general. Meshes can exist in this class. SL prims are an example. Further features you elaborate are found in the class of patch type topologies of which NURBS is a subset. You seem to be using a different classification scheme to make your arguments.

Being able to manipulate a surface by grabbing a vertex and directly effecting surface topology change on a per vertex basis IS NOT a property of NURBS. The designer's vision that this wouldn't be how sculpties are used and your work flow doesn't change that they can indeed be used that way. If you can't see how this places a 3d topology into a polymodeling/mesh scheme rather than NURBS, there's not much I can discuss with you I guess. Apparently there is a huge paradigm divide between us and therefore the crux of my point can't be seen in yours. Such is life.

Like I said, thanks for spending the time explaining NURBS. It gave me the insight I needed on how you view your point to be true. It's too bad you can't seem to gain insight from my point. Hopefully others might be able to.

Oh, and OP have fun with learning Maya, and 3d in general. It's a long fun ride

Let me offer this Maya user's 2 cents by taking a step back in this partially heated, but very informative discussion (thanks to all participants!).

1.) Define your goals.
Tools are tools, not more, not less. They are subject to personal preferences and the actual goal you have in your SL modeling work. If you want to do some single sculpties and texture them, tools like both Maya and 3DSMax are a bit of an overkill. However, if you want to assemble complex scenes of multiple sculpties and bake them with lights and shadows, then you're playing in a different league and high end tools become more and more necessary.
For example, for the longest while only the Maya exporter supported the assembly of a whole scene file consisting out of as many sculpties as you like. The stuff that I wanted to do was next to impossible to do with any other tool then, so I learned Maya. Define your goals, if possible, and then ask what tool is best suited for the specific things you want to do.

2.) It's all in the LOD.
In my PERSONAL opinion, the discussion of sculpty use "as intended" (organic shapes) vs. "mesh substitute" boils down to one simple thing: LOD. *)

I love and admire the work that many of you do by bending a single sculpt into fantastic shapes like chains, trees and long, detailed fences. I'm a big fan of tricking a limited system into doing stuff that pushes it beyond it's boundaries. However, many of these objects fall apart in the distance because SL's LOD algorithms are not designed to preserve these shapes. This has a major impact on the general visual appeal of SL and should be considered. Again, I'm all for using this sculpty modeling technique, but it's VERY hard to make these objects LOD proof and some creators don't seem to care all that much for this.
That's where I can understand if Qarl and Chosen often hint at the "intended" use of sculpts: "regular" sculpties behave like they should in the distance (mostly )

Now let me sort of contradict my own point by returning to Maya and continue to bust my ass on trying to model 2 animated eyelids with spiky eyelashes out of 1 prim. Let me tell you, it's not a pretty process with NURBS. Wish I had a 3DSMax or Blender workflow set up. But as long as there seems to be no way to animate several objects in perfect sync in SL, I gotta bite this particular bullet.

In my opinion, it's all about the specific goal, not about a general "best" modeling approach or 3D tool.

-L


*) For the innocent bystanders: LOD = Level Of Detail, the automatic degradation of geometry in the distance that SL does).

Excellent post, Leban.

Different league for sl sculpties? Rendering complex scenes with unprecise nurbs that deforms zooming out 10 meters? Are you talking about SL sculpties?

Yes, I do. Look here:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1537618/

These heads are very LOD proof, partly because the detailed baked textures fill in the gaps for the missing geometry in the distance. I couldn't have assembled these heads by hand, since they use aligned textures that span over multiple sculpts. Also, Maya (with Turtle, a plug-in) is very powerful for baking textures (as is 3DSMax and, I believe, Blender).

Yes, reconstructing entire scenes in high quality is quite a different animal from creating just a single sculpty. Leban's description of "a different league" is quite accurate. I'll explain further in a minute.


From that comment, I can only assume one of two possible things. Either you've never made NURBS-source sculpties before, or you have but you royally screwed it up. Either way, your assumptions are wildly inaccurate.

I can promise you there's nothing "unprecise" (word?) about NURBS-based sculpties. As I said earlier, as long as you create your source model properly, the sculpty version will appear in SL as a flawless recreation of the source. To be absolutely thorough, if you know exactly what to look for, you can find some very minor artifacting in wireframe view, but again, as I said earlier, that's not anything the average person would ever notice.

As for "zooming out 10 meters", or any other distance you'd like, as long as your source model is made properly, most NURBS-based sculpties are actually far more robust than most polygon-based ones. It's almost impossible for them not to be, due to the natural vertex reinforcement techniques one has to employ as an inherent part of the NURBS modleing process.

That's not to say poly-based sculpties can't be LOD-proofed, of course. They certainly can. It's just that NURBS modeling technique naturally includes that kind of process, while it's more sort of an add-on to the mindset of most traditional poly modeling technique.



Here's an example I often use to demonstrate just how precise NURBS-based sculpties can be. Take a look at this Cylon I made in Maya, completely out of deformed NURBS spheres:



And now take a look at it in SL, as a collecton of sculpties:



As you can see, with the exception of some minor wrinkling on three of the prims, which I can easily fix, the duplication of the geometry from source model to sculpty is pretty much flawless. From complex curves to sharp corners, all details are preserved. Further, because appropriate attention was given to sculpty LOD considerations throughout the source-modeling process, the model looks just as good from 50 meters away as it does from 5. And I haven't even textured the thing yet.

I like the Cylon as a teaching example, because it incoprorates a wide mix of organic and inorganic forms. As such it demonstrates that NURBS and precision are not mutually exclusive terms. As I've said before in this forum many times, there's nothing imprecise about NURBS-based sculpties.

That's not a slight against polygon-based sculpties in any way, just so you realize. Were the Maya sculpty exporter optimized for polygons instead of for NURBS, I would have made the same model out of polys, and it would have looked exactly the same. My point, once again, is simply that NURBS-sourced sculpties should not be described as "imprecise".


Models of this complexity and caliber, by the way, are what I would consider to be as close to film-quality as can be had in SL, absolutely in "a different league" than the interlocked chain links, or plane-based trees, or blimps, that are typically seen demonstrated in tutorials for single sculpties.

For the Cylon, The modeling itself took about 30 hours. Were it to have needed assembly by hand in SL, it easily would have been twice that. But since the Maya exporter is set up for automated re-assembly, the total time spent in-world on it was about 20 minutes, including the time it took to upload all the sculpt maps.

I have yet to create proper textures for it, but when I do, I'm anticipating about 16 hours for rendering (image based lighting + highly reflective material + bake + NURBS = long render times), maybe 4 hours touch-up work in post, and then about another 20-30 minutes or so to upload the textures and apply them each to their respective surfaces.

That puts the total time at around 50 hours outside of SL, and maybe one hour in-world. I don't know about you, but I most certainly would not want to approach a project like this without top notch tools at my disposal.



ETA: By the way, Leban, nice job on those heads. They look really good. Realistic fur and hair on sculpties is something I've long struggled with. If those heads are any indication, your technique is far more developed than mine. Perhaps we can talk some time about how you do it.

Sure, Chosen! I'll drop you an IM in-world so that we can hook up and shoptalk a bit.

Woah Chosen! Nice job on the robot.

Though your question was Maya specific, have you considered giving Cinema4D a try?

It's not quite as well known as Maya or 3D Studio Max, but it is gaining rapidly in popularity. It is a European application and as such, it has only begun to penetrate the North American market on a wide scale.

It is a full featured application that has a reputation for being extremely intuitive. Essentially, it is a program that has adopted the best features found in various 3D software and assembled them into one easy to use package. For an example, it has borrowed the HotBox from Maya and some animation (timeline) functionality from XSI Softimage.

Because the framework of Cinema4D is relatively new, it has a lot of room to evolve. For instance, the paradigm of "tagging" 3D objects to apply special properties is quite revolutionary.

The developers, Maxon, offers the program in different variants with the option to purchase modules separately. The commercial core package of Cinema4D is $1000 and has everything you need to create sculpties (as well as model and animate). If you find that you need more beyond what the core package offers, such as FUR, you can buy just that specific add-on. Essentially, you only pay for the features you actually need and the full bundle will run you about close to half the price of Maya Unlimited.

At the moment, I use both Maya and Cinema4D, but where possible, I prefer working in Cinema4D as the interface is complimentary to my own workflow such that I'm able to get work done in as quick as twice the speed on certain tasks.

Currently, C4D has the best learning curve compared to the other big three. Highly recommended if you're just starting out.

nice models both leden and chosen very good work and detailed. I'm in the process of learning so far i've been getting a headache with my creations makes me wanna break something lol. I am pretty new to the maya scene and I like what i've been learning so far. Went and purchased me some good tutorial videos on how to use maya and all. The thing thats giving me a headache is trying export what i have to second life. I've tested making a sv curve cone type of deal and revolved it 360 degrees and when i export it into sl it looks nothing like it does in maya though I have a assumption of why, I think its cause the cone isn't closed up in the bottom. its more of a V shape can one of you experts clearify that and sorry this is kinda off topic.

Btw with the cylon model you made chosen, I assume you've built it with multiple nurb shapes/objects. Did you snap the objects together to make it look seamless?