3D Animation Tools — Roundup 2018
Another Siggraph has come and gone, and it’s time to write something up about what we saw. Usually articles like this will cover new features, opinions, and technical details, all in an attempt to help you make a soup-to-nuts feature-by-feature comparison.
I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’m going to give you the state of 3D animation by objective. Whether you want to be a game artist, matte painter, technical director, or character animator, here’s the breakdown of the current best choices.
But before I get into that, here are the factors that weigh on my recommendations:
- Pipeline and market share: you’re going to be part of a team, and that team has tooling that you need to fit with.
- Track record: you need to focus on tools that are proven to deliver the kind of work you aspire to creating.
- Suitability: a case-by-case assessment that combines ease of use, features, and industry presence.
In other words, whether or not something is capable depends on what you are trying to achieve, not on the software itself.
On to the breakdown!
Game Assets (Hard Surface, Props, and Environments)
Maya: Inescapable in almost all categories, Maya (or MayaLT) provides very good interoperability with most popular game engines. I’ve tried MayaLT on a couple of Unity projects and found it to be seamless. Exports out of Maya just work, even with auto-rigged characters.
- Pros: MayaLT is reasonably priced, has a very good toolset, and fits in to any pipline.
- Cons: Maya is complicated, and even though MayaLT is stripped down, it’s DNA means sometimes things are harder than they need to be.
3ds Max: 3ds Max, along with Maya, dominates the gaming market. Game Engines have a simple, reliable I/O, allowing quick updates and iterative workflow. In addition, Max is tied in to other pipeline tools for versioning and asset management. It also has very good modeling and UV mapping, and while it’s overkill in terms of features, Max is an industry standard.
- Pros: Has been the top 3D tool in game development since the beginning of time.
- Cons: Really expensive, no ‘indie’ version, and far more than most people need.
Honourables
You have options for game assets. Sure some studios will enforce tool compliance, but others only care if you deliver good work. Modo (and Modo Indie) offer great modeling tools at a reasonable price.
And Blender is always a choice given its excellent toolset and unbeatable freeness. It also has strong adoption in the indie game market. The big negative? Blender’s esoteric approach makes it more challenging to switch to other apps if needed.
Bottom line: for the extra money, stick with the standards and get Maya LT. If you have a good track record and reputation you can start to choose your own tools.
Game Assets (Organic/Characters)
There is only one choice here, and it is:
ZBrush: Now, personally, I don’t like ZBrush. I find the navigation a nightmare, the interface and workflow are completely weird. It’s a constant feeling that I’m working with the wrong hand or something. But in terms of sculpting there is nothing close. And here’s the rub: the strange interface means that you have to focus on it and it alone — learning to sculpt with Mudbox or 3DCoat will not help you in a ZBrush world. Make it an extension of your imagination and there’s nothing you can’t do.
Honourables: If you hate ZBrush so much that you’re willing to risk your career just to spite it than you can pretty much pick anything you want. Just make sure you do awesome work and you should be fine.
Bottom line: if you want to be a sculptor get ZBrush.
Matte Paintings/Environments
This is sometimes two things, and sometimes one thing. I’m making it one thing.
Here’s the thing: depending on where you are and what you are doing you can use anything for this. Photoshop, Maya, Modo, physical panes of glass. Whatever you like. Still, number one on the list is probably:
Maya: Yep. Most matte painters I know use Maya to build out geometry and do projections. Environment artists too. Matte painters that comp their own shots use Nuke as well, and it’s a decision of personal comfort what happens where.
Modo: Waaaaay back in the day Lightwave was a popular application among television visual effects artists, and Modo has retained some of those talented people. It’s a very good tool for this kind of work, and plays well with others.
Honourables: Cinema 4D has a pretty nice matte painting toolset, and some use in film and television.
Bottom line: Maya is everywhere in film, but environments are their own department. Focus on the art, study the masters, and you can adapt to the tools.
Motion Graphics
Motion design usually involved two apps — one 3D, one compositing. There are clear winners and losers in this space, and you’d be wise to stick with the incumbents even though there are better options in terms of performance and features.
Cinema 4D: C4D pretty much owns the motion graphics space. It’s incredibly well thought out, easy to use, and flexible for this kind of work. C4D has a nice ‘arty’ feel that encourages experimentation in a way that no other 3D application has captured. Rendering is getting better, and they’re making improvements to core performance.
- Pros: The standard for 3D mograph, every studio in the space is built around C4D. Excellent community, great plugins, easy to learn.
- Cons: Really, really expensive for what it offers.
After Effects: After Effects and C4D are brothers from different mothers. Over the years they’ve developed a symbiotic relationship that has cemented their place as the leading tools for motion graphics and commercial animation. After Effects even comes with a stripped down version of Cinema 4D, and can give you a start in 3D with a few choice plugins.
- Pros: The standard for motion graphics.
- Cons: 3D is limited.
Honourables: Maya has a really strong motion graphics toolset, with much better rendering and more flexibility than Cinema 4D. That said, it’s more complicated, and doesn’t have anywhere near the market presence.
Similarly, Fusion is a far more capable motion graphics tool than After Effects. It’s actually far more capable in every respect, and it’s free. Resolve now has a lot of the same tools along with an editing timeline, making it even more suitable. As of yet, it’s not the standard, but keep an eye on it.
Houdini is also worth a look, and is gaining ground in the motion graphics space with Houdini Engine and excellent simulation tools.
Bottom line: For now Cinema 4D and After Effects are the tools of choice, and that’s the first set of tools for your toolkit.
FX
If you like blowing things up there are only two options.
Houdini: Houdini has long been targeted at Effects TDs, but over the last few years has focused itself more towards usability. It’s simulation tools are as good as it gets.
- Pros: Great toolset. Affordable options for learning. Best of breed tools. Growing market.
- Cons: Steep learning curve.
Maya: Maya, like Canada, is second or third best at everything. And that’s what makes it so great. You can do everything in Maya, and it gives you a lot of options.
- Pros: Excellent tools. Industry standard workflow. Used everywhere from film to commercials to games.
- Cons: Expensive.
Bottom line: artists create effects with all kinds of tools, but if I’m honest there are only two good choices if you’re focused on a career.
ArchViz
ArchViz combines CAD and matte painting. Budgets have enormous range, and output can involve everything from video to print to VR.
Unreal: Right now, there is zero doubt that Unreal is the future of ArchViz. The visual quality and flexibility mean that you can produce for any medium. They’re even working on compositing. You need something else for asset creation, but you have options there.
- Pros: the future of visualization. Output to print, video, AR and VR from one application. Incredible quality.
- Cons: You need something else for modeling.
3ds Max: The longstanding champion in ArchViz is 3ds Max. A lot of that has to do with VRay, the renderer of choice for visualization, but these days there are a number of good options.
- Pros: the standard for 20 years. Good I/O, great rendering, and relatively easy to get started,
- Cons: Expensive, more than you need, no interactive.
Honourables: Of course you can use Maya for anything, but in this case the other options are Cinema 4D and Unity. C4D offers 3D tracking, I/O from CAD apps, and good rendering. And while Unity takes a bit more effort, it’s very flexible, and capable of great results.
Tip — this look like a great resource: https://www.learnarchviz.com/
There is a common argument that the tool doesn’t define the artist, and that’s true to a great extant. But in a lot of fields, from design to film post to sound design, picking the wrong tools creates unnecessary problems. It’s not that you can’t accomplish the same things using different tools, it’s that those that are hiring want to hire people that require the least amount of training for any particular job. Learning the tools of the trade doesn’t give you a leg up, but it doesn’t put you at a disadvantage either.

