Carrara vs Hexagon - Polyloop

bostone737 · 30th March 2006, 21:35

I have carrara 5 pro and it seems pretty complete (although i am not an expert yet by any means), but now I'm curious about hexagon (and amapi for that matter). What are the main advantages in modeling with hexagon (or amapi) that carrara can't do? From what Ive read online it seems that hexagon is similar to the vertex modeler in carrara. Please excuse my ignorance or inexperience on the topic, I am a dial up internet connection so i really cant download any of the videos on hexagon.

thanks for any insight on the topic, and any input would be appreciated!! thanks again

AlexGg · 30th March 2006, 21:41

My answer(b/c I have had such question too) is Hexagon is pretty much modelling tools, but Carrara is pretty much assembling/rendering/compositing/texturing/animation tools.

Grendel · 30th March 2006, 22:12

This is a common question for alot of people. The vertex modeler in C5pro is fairly capable. Some of the tools and selection capabilities of Hexagon are the same in the vertex room. Right now you can model the same things with Carrara that you can with Hexagon, Hexagon just makes it a little easier and faster. But the end result can be the same. This is to be expected from a modeling specific program like Hexagon or Amapi. Hexagon 2 has new tools not found in Carrara though like displacement and texture painting.

Naes3d · 30th March 2006, 23:33

It also depends on what you are modelling, Carrara's Vertex Modeler can do a couple of tricks that Hexagon doesn't do. My personal opinion, if Carrara would add symmetry modelling to its tool set, I would like it better than Hex. Of course, the displacement and texture painting make Hex a very useful tool to have along side Carrara.

bostone737 · 31st March 2006, 12:44

thanks for respondng guys.. Carrara really rocks! i'm making characters (mostly faces) with it right now, and i agree with Naes3d symmetry modeling would be a nice addition to carrara, but theres ways to make up for that. Hexagon seems cool too but for now i think i can get by with carrara.. Just one more question, are the tools named the same in hexagon as carrara? thanks again guys

AlainK · 31st March 2006, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by bostone737

I have carrara 5 pro and it seems pretty complete (although i am not an expert yet by any means), but now I'm curious about hexagon (and amapi for that matter). What are the main advantages in modeling with hexagon (or amapi) that carrara can't do? From what Ive read online it seems that hexagon is similar to the vertex modeler in carrara. Please excuse my ignorance or inexperience on the topic, I am a dial up internet connection so i really cant download any of the videos on hexagon.

thanks for any insight on the topic, and any input would be appreciated!! thanks again

This is the wrong impression that most newcomers usually have when they start looking at Eovia products. I, myself, had the same first impression when I was tinkering with Amapi and Cararra years ago. I thought since Amapi and Carrara come from the same company, they must have lots of commonalities.

First, I have to admit that I have barely scratched Carrara's surface so I can't give a detailed assessment on the differences between the two programs' modeling features. However, one thing is clear to me: One was coded separately without any sort of coordination with the other, the fact that Hexagon/Amapi is France-based and Carrara is US-based.

I was hoping that since Hexagon had gained a significant ground much more than Amapi did, C6 and Hex will have improved compatibility this time around. I don't see the logic, for example, of being able to save to a CAR file in Hexagon, and can't do the same thing as saving to a HXN file in Carrara. It just doesn't make sense. Or being able to open both types of files on both programs. The different coordinate systems in both programs is another example.

In any case, this is the time to discuss C6, imho. Like I said, Hexagon 2's features are more than enough for my modeling needs. I hope that's the same for a lot of users out there. Carrara's next version should now be the main focus, if you ask me. Hexagon is doing just fine.

Naes3d · 31st March 2006, 18:44

Carrara and Amapi are lightyears apart in terms of workflow (to me). I still want to reinstall my Amapi Designer 7 because I refuse to believe that I can't learn that program. I don't seem so lost in Hex (as far as I can tell from the demo) and I know it is based on Amapi logic.

I agree with AlainK tho. It is time to inject some synergy in Eovia products. Currently, Amapi has more synergy with Carrara than Hex and Hex is supposed to be the go to modeller.

Carrara is a very capable, perhaps underestimated, modeler. But I think the 3D World review was dead on on when it said the VM was not as good as it should be. The only thing that can disappoint me about C6 is if it doesn't include symmetry.

AlainK · 31st March 2006, 19:13

C5 has one of the most beautifully-executed UI's I've seen. It's pleasing to the eye, much more so than Hexagon's. The resolution seems just right, the icons are neither big nor small... Other companies spend years just trying to brush up the "look and feel". In Carrara's case, at least C5, coders can actually leave this aspect alone and spend more of their time adding new, essential features found in high-end ones.

BTW, I don't hear Carrara representatives in these forums. I wonder why.

Thomas · 1st April 2006, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naes3d

It also depends on what you are modelling, Carrara's Vertex Modeler can do a couple of tricks that Hexagon doesn't do.

What Carrara can do that Hexagon can't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlainK

C5 has one of the most beautifully-executed UI's I've seen. It's pleasing to the eye, much more so than Hexagon's. The resolution seems just right, the icons are neither big nor small... Other companies spend years just trying to brush up the "look and feel".

It's the same team (Manu and I (ell, more Manu than me) who are behind the Carrara 5 UI revamping
We are also both behind Hexagon UI too. In fact, changing a UI is not an easy task. It's not only changing a color or an icon at all...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlainK

BTW, I don't hear Carrara representatives in these forums. I wonder why.

Because this is not an official forum... But most of them is reading and some of them anwers too (Billox, Charles, BobStockwell, Emmanuel and I (well, it's my forum..)

AlainK · 1st April 2006, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's the same team (Manu and I (ell, more Manu than me) who are behind the Carrara 5 UI revamping. We are also both behind Hexagon UI too. In fact, changing a UI is not an easy task. It's not only changing a color or an icon at all...

Because this is not an official forum... But most of them is reading and some of them anwers too (Billox, Charles, BobStockwell, Emmanuel and I (well, it's my forum..)

There is coordination after all even if only for the UI. Let's just hope the coordination will go beyond "look and feel" in Carrara's next version.

Yes, I believe working on the UI and trying to make it work is not an easy task. So, great job, Thomas and Manu for making both programs look professional. I'm wondering why Hexagon 1 is a bit rough-looking. Any chance you can import C5's UI best features to Hex's, such as the icons and resolution? Hmm.. probably not as important as the speed and other more essential considerations.

Come on, guys, this is the best time to take on the big guys out there such as 3ds max, Maya, XSI, Lightwave and now Modo 201. GO HIGHEND! Make the Carrara/Amapi/Hexagon community even happier by making Carrara's next version the DREAM 3D PACKAGE. Give us more good news before the year ends.

Naes3d · 2nd April 2006, 05:10

Thomas, I was trying to be careful with the way I phrased that sentence. I said there are a few things that Carrara can do that hexagon doesn't, not can't.

For example, I like the way that in Carrara I can place vertices at the 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 positions between two edges. It may just be a personal aesthetic I enjoy, but I think my models look 'cleaner' because of it.

I want to use Carrara and Hexagon like others use Maya and Zbrush. I build my base mesh in Carrara then bring that into Hex for modificaions then back into C5 for finalization. I am fairly good at getting around in the VM, I don't want to replace it with Hex when I am just getting the hang of it.

I want Hex mainly for the Displacement/Bump/Geometry Paint features. I want to take the low poly cage and rig it and pose it in Carrara, then drop the displacement and texture maps made in Hex on the objects I create. That is one of the reasons I am so adamant about seeing symmetry modelling in Carrara. Symmetry is a basic tool. So there is no reason that Carrara shouldnt have it.

I think that Everybody working on the Eovia products is doing an excellent job, and excellent may not be strong enough of a word to describe your efforts. But in the case of Carrara, it just seems like Eovia is withholding some standard features from it in order to increase the value of Hexagon. Perhaps I am being unfair, but with all the great features in Carrara, symmetry modelling seems to be a glaring ommission. I can see why it might be left out of the standard version (although I don't agree with that either), but to be left out of the Pro version is just ... wrong.

AlainK · 3rd April 2006, 01:08

Naes3d, I don't think "Eovia is withholding some standard features from it in order to increase the value of Hexagon", as you put it. To me, at least, Hexagon's and Carrara VM's workflows are different. Even if C5 coders wanted to adapt many of Hex's features, it probably would have taken them a lot of time to do it because C5's workflow just doesn't jibe with Hex's. My guess is that Eovia, up to C5, concentrated more on adding features and a few UI as well as workflow enhancements specifically in the materials area rather than "changing the engine" such as adding symmetry modeling in the VM room itself as well as better and sophisticated animation tools. No doubt, in its current state, Carrara is already a very capable package.

Still, I am hoping that with C6, developers would sit back and look at Carrara in a wider perspective, sort of a bird's eye view; assess carefully where they want the package to take it next. Right now, Carrara is still categorized in the mid-end level. Personally, it would be nice to know if one of these days the app turned out to become a player in the highend field actively engaged in games creation, films and tv. I hope it doesn't have to take a couple more versions to see that happening. With Hex's success, seems everything is possible and is within reach in just the next version, C6...

Naes3d · 3rd April 2006, 01:33

I agree with you AlainK, like I said I was probably being unfair. But I still believe in the case of symmetry, it's been withheld or at least put off. It would seem to be one of the easier requests to pull off since almost everything is already in place (but then I am not a programmer). I am about 98.99% satisfied with Carrara the rest being the missing live symmetry feature.

Like I said, I am no programmer-and like you said, Carrara is a very capable package - but I don't think that the symmetry modelling would require changing the engine.

AlainK · 3rd April 2006, 02:29

Really not defending Eovia here as I'm not an employee or rep. But I have a theory, though, or call it a guess if you like: Hexagon began as an experiment started out by some Amapi coders who have been playing with it in their free time. They could have defected, started their own company and survived just by promoting Hexagon 1 without Eovia having anything to do with them. The financial side such as funding the 'experiment' and the risk factor involved probably took a role in it. I had this wild guess because when I started playing with the Hexagon 1 Demo, I thought it wasn't yet finished. I could see that there are detectable bugs in there such as when adjusting sizes and coordinates in the Properties panel. Still, you could see the potential. I guess my point is, there is very little coordination between Carrara and Hexagon coders. In other words, the decision of one has no bearing with the other. Sort of do whatever one group wants without any consultation with the other. In addition (this is probably irrelevant), Hexagon could have been owned by a different company other than Eovia. Point is, similarities between Hex and Carrara are very little and the effort of integration is virtually nil.

Naes3d · 3rd April 2006, 03:34

Actually, that kind of makes sense. But if that is the case, then the lack of live symmetry puzzles me even more as I can see no other reason for the lack of symmetry tools. The direction that Eovia is taking with Carrara is courting people who you might classify as character modelers. Pretty much every book on the subject covers symmetry modelling in the first chapter of instruction/introduction.

The thing is, Carrara has symmetry modelling. Just not live. Updates take place in the Assembly room instead of the Modelling room where it would be more efficient. It also lacks the ability to automatically weld the halves. Make the symmetrical duplicate show in the VM. Write a script that welds the halves automatically without triangulating the model. Done.

Personally, I don't want Carrara to be a clone of Hexagon. I just want it to have certain features I feel are essential.

bwtr · 3rd April 2006, 03:46

AlainK. If you look at the info of the two programmes, it seems they are mostly the same people making Carrara and Hexagon. I think they are very interlaced and various "priorities" of work loads relate to what is/is not happening to each of the programmes.

AlainK · 3rd April 2006, 03:55

Personally, Carrara's VM is probably more useful to me if only it got some of Wings3d's functionalities such as efficient selection, edge cutting, virtual mirror, right-click context-sensitivity, better navigation tools, etc. Stuff that is standard in most sub-d modeling. It doesn't have to resemble Hexagon, if you ask me. Right now, I have to go back and forth between programs just to fix something small.

Naes3d · 3rd April 2006, 04:01

Well, I will be getting Hex 2 but I really want to see live symmetry in Carrara 6 (actually I want to see it in 5.1 but I don't think that is their priority right now).

ronjurman · 3rd April 2006, 06:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naes3d

For example, I like the way that in Carrara I can place vertices at the 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 positions between two edges. It may just be a personal aesthetic I enjoy, but I think my models look 'cleaner' because of it.

I've somehow overlooked that (but then I've put a lot more of my modeling focus on Hexagon). How to do?

rj

Naes3d · 3rd April 2006, 06:29

rj, when you select the 'Add' tool in Carrara and hover the pointer over an edge, Carrara immediately displays where it will snap the vertice you are about to add. The pointer will turn into the numeric 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4.

30th March 2006, 21:35	#1 (permalink)
bostone737 Vertex Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 10	Carrara vs Hexagon I have carrara 5 pro and it seems pretty complete (although i am not an expert yet by any means), but now I'm curious about hexagon (and amapi for that matter). What are the main advantages in modeling with hexagon (or amapi) that carrara can't do? From what Ive read online it seems that hexagon is similar to the vertex modeler in carrara. Please excuse my ignorance or inexperience on the topic, I am a dial up internet connection so i really cant download any of the videos on hexagon. thanks for any insight on the topic, and any input would be appreciated!! thanks again

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30th March 2006, 21:41	#2 (permalink)
AlexGg NURBS Booleans are your friend Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 107	My answer(b/c I have had such question too) is Hexagon is pretty much modelling tools, but Carrara is pretty much assembling/rendering/compositing/texturing/animation tools.

30th March 2006, 22:12	#3 (permalink)
Grendel Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 1,249	This is a common question for alot of people. The vertex modeler in C5pro is fairly capable. Some of the tools and selection capabilities of Hexagon are the same in the vertex room. Right now you can model the same things with Carrara that you can with Hexagon, Hexagon just makes it a little easier and faster. But the end result can be the same. This is to be expected from a modeling specific program like Hexagon or Amapi. Hexagon 2 has new tools not found in Carrara though like displacement and texture painting.

30th March 2006, 23:33	#4 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	It also depends on what you are modelling, Carrara's Vertex Modeler can do a couple of tricks that Hexagon doesn't do. My personal opinion, if Carrara would add symmetry modelling to its tool set, I would like it better than Hex. Of course, the displacement and texture painting make Hex a very useful tool to have along side Carrara.

31st March 2006, 12:44	#5 (permalink)
bostone737 Vertex Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 10	thanks for respondng guys.. Carrara really rocks! i'm making characters (mostly faces) with it right now, and i agree with Naes3d symmetry modeling would be a nice addition to carrara, but theres ways to make up for that. Hexagon seems cool too but for now i think i can get by with carrara.. Just one more question, are the tools named the same in hexagon as carrara? thanks again guys

31st March 2006, 18:44	#7 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	Carrara and Amapi are lightyears apart in terms of workflow (to me). I still want to reinstall my Amapi Designer 7 because I refuse to believe that I can't learn that program. I don't seem so lost in Hex (as far as I can tell from the demo) and I know it is based on Amapi logic. I agree with AlainK tho. It is time to inject some synergy in Eovia products. Currently, Amapi has more synergy with Carrara than Hex and Hex is supposed to be the go to modeller. Carrara is a very capable, perhaps underestimated, modeler. But I think the 3D World review was dead on on when it said the VM was not as good as it should be. The only thing that can disappoint me about C6 is if it doesn't include symmetry.

31st March 2006, 19:13	#8 (permalink)
AlainK Extrusion Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 178	C5 has one of the most beautifully-executed UI's I've seen. It's pleasing to the eye, much more so than Hexagon's. The resolution seems just right, the icons are neither big nor small... Other companies spend years just trying to brush up the "look and feel". In Carrara's case, at least C5, coders can actually leave this aspect alone and spend more of their time adding new, essential features found in high-end ones. BTW, I don't hear Carrara representatives in these forums. I wonder why.

2nd April 2006, 05:10	#11 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	Thomas, I was trying to be careful with the way I phrased that sentence. I said there are a few things that Carrara can do that hexagon doesn't, not can't. For example, I like the way that in Carrara I can place vertices at the 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 positions between two edges. It may just be a personal aesthetic I enjoy, but I think my models look 'cleaner' because of it. I want to use Carrara and Hexagon like others use Maya and Zbrush. I build my base mesh in Carrara then bring that into Hex for modificaions then back into C5 for finalization. I am fairly good at getting around in the VM, I don't want to replace it with Hex when I am just getting the hang of it. I want Hex mainly for the Displacement/Bump/Geometry Paint features. I want to take the low poly cage and rig it and pose it in Carrara, then drop the displacement and texture maps made in Hex on the objects I create. That is one of the reasons I am so adamant about seeing symmetry modelling in Carrara. Symmetry is a basic tool. So there is no reason that Carrara shouldnt have it. I think that Everybody working on the Eovia products is doing an excellent job, and excellent may not be strong enough of a word to describe your efforts. But in the case of Carrara, it just seems like Eovia is withholding some standard features from it in order to increase the value of Hexagon. Perhaps I am being unfair, but with all the great features in Carrara, symmetry modelling seems to be a glaring ommission. I can see why it might be left out of the standard version (although I don't agree with that either), but to be left out of the Pro version is just ... wrong.

3rd April 2006, 01:08	#12 (permalink)
AlainK Extrusion Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 178	Naes3d, I don't think "Eovia is withholding some standard features from it in order to increase the value of Hexagon", as you put it. To me, at least, Hexagon's and Carrara VM's workflows are different. Even if C5 coders wanted to adapt many of Hex's features, it probably would have taken them a lot of time to do it because C5's workflow just doesn't jibe with Hex's. My guess is that Eovia, up to C5, concentrated more on adding features and a few UI as well as workflow enhancements specifically in the materials area rather than "changing the engine" such as adding symmetry modeling in the VM room itself as well as better and sophisticated animation tools. No doubt, in its current state, Carrara is already a very capable package. Still, I am hoping that with C6, developers would sit back and look at Carrara in a wider perspective, sort of a bird's eye view; assess carefully where they want the package to take it next. Right now, Carrara is still categorized in the mid-end level. Personally, it would be nice to know if one of these days the app turned out to become a player in the highend field actively engaged in games creation, films and tv. I hope it doesn't have to take a couple more versions to see that happening. With Hex's success, seems everything is possible and is within reach in just the next version, C6...

3rd April 2006, 01:33	#13 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	I agree with you AlainK, like I said I was probably being unfair. But I still believe in the case of symmetry, it's been withheld or at least put off. It would seem to be one of the easier requests to pull off since almost everything is already in place (but then I am not a programmer). I am about 98.99% satisfied with Carrara the rest being the missing live symmetry feature. Like I said, I am no programmer-and like you said, Carrara is a very capable package - but I don't think that the symmetry modelling would require changing the engine.

3rd April 2006, 02:29	#14 (permalink)
AlainK Extrusion Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 178	Really not defending Eovia here as I'm not an employee or rep. But I have a theory, though, or call it a guess if you like: Hexagon began as an experiment started out by some Amapi coders who have been playing with it in their free time. They could have defected, started their own company and survived just by promoting Hexagon 1 without Eovia having anything to do with them. The financial side such as funding the 'experiment' and the risk factor involved probably took a role in it. I had this wild guess because when I started playing with the Hexagon 1 Demo, I thought it wasn't yet finished. I could see that there are detectable bugs in there such as when adjusting sizes and coordinates in the Properties panel. Still, you could see the potential. I guess my point is, there is very little coordination between Carrara and Hexagon coders. In other words, the decision of one has no bearing with the other. Sort of do whatever one group wants without any consultation with the other. In addition (this is probably irrelevant), Hexagon could have been owned by a different company other than Eovia. Point is, similarities between Hex and Carrara are very little and the effort of integration is virtually nil.

3rd April 2006, 03:34	#15 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	Actually, that kind of makes sense. But if that is the case, then the lack of live symmetry puzzles me even more as I can see no other reason for the lack of symmetry tools. The direction that Eovia is taking with Carrara is courting people who you might classify as character modelers. Pretty much every book on the subject covers symmetry modelling in the first chapter of instruction/introduction. The thing is, Carrara has symmetry modelling. Just not live. Updates take place in the Assembly room instead of the Modelling room where it would be more efficient. It also lacks the ability to automatically weld the halves. Make the symmetrical duplicate show in the VM. Write a script that welds the halves automatically without triangulating the model. Done. Personally, I don't want Carrara to be a clone of Hexagon. I just want it to have certain features I feel are essential.

3rd April 2006, 03:46	#16 (permalink)
bwtr Brian Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: South Australia Posts: 2,089	AlainK. If you look at the info of the two programmes, it seems they are mostly the same people making Carrara and Hexagon. I think they are very interlaced and various "priorities" of work loads relate to what is/is not happening to each of the programmes.

3rd April 2006, 03:55	#17 (permalink)
AlainK Extrusion Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 178	Personally, Carrara's VM is probably more useful to me if only it got some of Wings3d's functionalities such as efficient selection, edge cutting, virtual mirror, right-click context-sensitivity, better navigation tools, etc. Stuff that is standard in most sub-d modeling. It doesn't have to resemble Hexagon, if you ask me. Right now, I have to go back and forth between programs just to fix something small.

3rd April 2006, 04:01	#18 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	Well, I will be getting Hex 2 but I really want to see live symmetry in Carrara 6 (actually I want to see it in 5.1 but I don't think that is their priority right now).

3rd April 2006, 06:29	#20 (permalink)
Naes3d Box modeling Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 231	rj, when you select the 'Add' tool in Carrara and hover the pointer over an edge, Carrara immediately displays where it will snap the vertice you are about to add. The pointer will turn into the numeric 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4.