Blender 3D or MilkShape 3D
by Chris · in Artist Corner · 05/07/2007 (2:31 pm) · 11 replies
Which do you recommend?
#3
I prefer Blender better, because Blender has the ability to bake light information along with yafray which enable me to create a more realistic scene.
05/07/2007 (4:02 pm)
I like both Milkshape has great interface, at a cost and Blender has puzzling interface but free. I prefer Blender better, because Blender has the ability to bake light information along with yafray which enable me to create a more realistic scene.
#4
It is a bit more confusing but it has much more features.
Although Milkshape does get confusing once in a while too.
05/07/2007 (5:38 pm)
Blender all the way!It is a bit more confusing but it has much more features.
Although Milkshape does get confusing once in a while too.
#5
05/07/2007 (6:34 pm)
LightRay3d all the way. It not free but worth every penny. I have tested it with Torque and everything work outstanding, from player to simple box model. It is very easy to use and have outstanding feature. Blender is to puzzling and LightRay3d is very easy. Milkshape is good for low price modeling software. There alot tutorials out there. I like the book "Modeling a Character in 3DSMAX" by Paul Steed. It for 3ds max but very easy to apply to LightRay3d. Oh did I say LightRay3d has Torque export.
#6
05/07/2007 (6:58 pm)
Lightwave3D all the way! But for free blender takes all. Milkshape is limited in some ways but excells in others. 
#7
For me, I would rather spend $25 dollars on Milkshape than to use Blender for free. Blender may have more abilities than Milkshape, but Milkshape is way easier to learn. And for low poly game modeling, Milkshape is hard to beat for the price. Milkshape now supports vertex weighing, and there is an excellent exporter for it. I'm not crazy about Milkshape's ability to work with animations, so I use Pacemaker, that costs about $50. For UV mapping I use Ultimate Unwrap 3D, which costs $50. So for all these, it costs $125 which is way cheaper than most 3D packages. Of course Blender is free, unless you count the time it takes to learn it. ;)
05/07/2007 (8:33 pm)
There are a lot of tutorials for both on the net, just google them. You can try Milkshape for like 30 days, and of course Blender is free. Try them both and see which one appeals to you more.For me, I would rather spend $25 dollars on Milkshape than to use Blender for free. Blender may have more abilities than Milkshape, but Milkshape is way easier to learn. And for low poly game modeling, Milkshape is hard to beat for the price. Milkshape now supports vertex weighing, and there is an excellent exporter for it. I'm not crazy about Milkshape's ability to work with animations, so I use Pacemaker, that costs about $50. For UV mapping I use Ultimate Unwrap 3D, which costs $50. So for all these, it costs $125 which is way cheaper than most 3D packages. Of course Blender is free, unless you count the time it takes to learn it. ;)
#8
05/07/2007 (8:33 pm)
Milkshape is easier but for no real reason other then the interface makes a lot more sense. Blender has a pretty crazy learning curve if your used to most programs in general. Blender being a unix app pretty much say it all. Both integrate with torque quite well though. Milkshape will definitely not give you any high res output like blender can, it's pretty much a low poly program. 
#10
The interface isn't that hard.
Seriously. It boild down to this: windows do not overlap, you can customize windows, and not all hotkeys require use of the ALT or CTRL keys. . .
also NUM PAD is your friend.
05/20/2007 (7:25 pm)
Blender. The interface isn't that hard.
Seriously. It boild down to this: windows do not overlap, you can customize windows, and not all hotkeys require use of the ALT or CTRL keys. . .
also NUM PAD is your friend.
Torque Owner Fucifer