Will academic versions of:
3DS Max [?]
Maya [?]
Cinema4D [?]
Lightwave [×]
work as well with Unity as the commercial version?
(It just occurred to me that my wife is a professor… /bonk self.)
I believe that the academic versions of 3DS Max and Maya are borked such that they cannot share files with the commercial versions, and possibly cannot export to FBX.
i’d bet not. i don’t know about c4d but the others are pretty restricted in what you can get out of them afaik. even if you can, i’m sure it’s against the license to do anything commercial. but for just playing around you might be alright.
[edit: i’m thinking learning editions more than academic as far as capable but license-wise i’d bet you’re not supposed to with either]
If you are referring to the academic versions you can buy from an online retailer or your university bookstore, then yes they will work fine with Unity. They are the full versions of the software with all the features. The license, however, prohibits commercial use of the software (no selling a game, contract work, etc.).
There are also “free” versions of some of those programs available for download, such as Maya Personal Learning Edition which do not support saving/exporting in a usable format.
Just to chime in, pretty much all my software are academic versions (lots of people go to college for 10 years :)). In any case they all work fine w/ Unity. I use Lightwave Photoshop, both are the full retail version, they’re just cheaper and have “Academic” somewhere on the splash screen.
Jeff
So short answer so far is Lightwave is fine.
It’s almost impossible to get vendors to disclose (academic or other) license conditions until you buy the software. In general, this makes most license agreement restrictions beyond “no unauthorized copies” unenforceable in court.
You can’t tell someone “I’ll sell you this product but you may be restricted from using it in perfectly reasonable ways you can’t find out until you have paid me and opened the box, breaking a seal that subjects you to the license terms you haven’t read.” It’s not like academics don’t engage in commercial activity (writing textbooks, doing R&D for commercial grants or for eventual commercial products).
The only real restrictions on the use of legally purchased software are (a) piracy, and (b) the limitations built into the software itself.
Contrast the commercial limitations on Unity indie (which you’re warned about explicitly before buying the program) and those on most academic packages… I challenge you to find out what they are.
Aside
The funny thing about “free” versions is that by disabling save and export they completely obviate “try before you buy” since you can’t test workflows.
I used the Academic versions of 3dsmax and Maya up until versions 7.0 on each. Neither has any feature restrictions that I ever encountered.
However, both have licensing restrictions that prohibit you from using them commercially.
On a related note, what you describe in red text is what is legally refered to as an “adhesion contract”. Generally, to avoid this, the manufacturer must provide a return remedy if you chose not to accept the terms of such a contract once you are made aware of them. To avoid this dilema, it usually falls to the academic software resellers to make potential buyers aware of any use limitations before purchase. In practice, most of such resellers will even require that buyers show proof of academic status prior to purchase.
Adhesion Contracts
http://www.lex2k.org/sfc/us.html
But I think you mean:
Shrinkwrap Contracts
http://www.lex2k.org/shrinkwrap/introduction.html
The US legal system, based (except in Louisiana) on the English Common Law, is founded on the concept of the “reasonable man”. It has been amply demonstrated that “reasonable people” do not read EULAs. I expect one could neatly demonstrate this at trial by quizzing the judge on Microsoft Word’s EULA.
From the linked articles:
“In general, a user is not obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc.”
P.S.
I’m not asking you how to get Academic software. I know how to do that. I don’t need your advice on whether using it is legal or moral, that’s my problem. (Heck, I can get perfectly functional pirate versions of anything I want.) I just want to know whether the academic versions of various products will work with Unity.
P.P.S.
Can Lightwave 9 (commercial or otherwise) output character animation to Unity yet?
This situation can actually fall under the adhesion doctrine, paritcularly with academic software. Not to spend too much time on this, but where I taught we actually had this circumstance arise when:
Our students were required to use the software in a class, thus making their entry into the contract somewhat adhesive.
The licenses for the software were available for them to review ahead of time both at our campus bookstore and online, thus making them not tyical “shrinkwrap licenses”.
Because of these conditions, constructively speaking, students/teachers will not tend to fall so neatly into the shrinkwrap license catagory.
As for software operability, as I said before, unless things have changed since versions 7, you should be able to use academic software with Unity technically. Just not necessarily legally.
I find this stuff fascinating. It all comes down to a fundamental problem of software development, which is that they try to sell it as a product, but treat it legally as a license – and switch tack from one side to the other as best conveniences them. One day it will all come tumbling down 
But the summary version is this:
Standard Form Contract: (“Adhesion”) boilerplate contract which is “take it or leave it”.
Shrinkwrap Contract: a standard form contract you don’t see until you’ve purchased the product, similar to a “Pay Now Terms Later” contract, such as you might get with a hotel room or airline ticket.
Note that court decisions on the validity of shrinkwrap contracts have gone in both directions, hinging chiefly on the means by which the purchaser is supposed to have agreed to its terms. Clicking an “I agree” button is more binding than ignoring a “Click here to read license terms” button.
IANAL
i haven’t upgraded to lightwave 9 yet. i’ve heard of others getting fbx files out of 9 with the 8.5 exporter. since the academic version is strictly a license and price deal, i don’t see why not you wouldn’t be able to. you might post that q on the newtek forum to be sure the exporter works with 9.
It really is fascinating, isn’t it.
Back when I was in law school in the early 90’s, we were already debating it. My thought then, and as you can probably tell now, is that shirnkwrap license issues are a red herring since they primarily deal with how a contract is presented - an easily resolved legal issue. Adhesion contract issues, on the other hand, deal with the actual facial terms of a contract and whether or not it is even conscionable.
This is important because even back in the early 90’s, and even moreso today, software purchases are more and more adhesive themselves in nature. I mean, do you really “choose” to use an Adobe Photoshop? Or a Discreet 3dsmax? or a Microsoft Windows? The absolute necessity of their use in the profession makes the purchase of these titles, and accompanying acceptance of their license terms, arguably, inherently, unilateral.
Good thing all the lawyers, judges and legislators who will sort all of this out for us are so smart and tech-savvy!
Woah, that’s a lot of non-Unity posting - I’d better stop there.
Anyway, good luck with your software selection!
Actually, I don’t know how well Max exports to Unity either… and I don’t fancy paying a ton of money to find out.
In terms of usability, I like Max, but it’s PC-only and (these days) the most expensive of the contenders. So I guess I’m going to have to learn Cinema4D or Maya :-/.
Just for the record, I know of many people using 3DSMax and having a good time of it. 3DSMax exports FBX, which is very well supported by Unity.
d.
The first test I did with Unity is to export a whole variety of animated models from Max, they all worked perfectly, including bone-based animations and transform-based, and they came in with the right Axis (sometimes Max models come in with their Y and Z mixed up, not an issue with FBX and Unity).
3dsMax had a fully functional 30 day trial last time I checked
Cinema 4D has great new animation tools, Bodypaint 3D built in and the academic version is identical to the full version. I bought it specifically for this (and because the price was good- oh, and BodyPaint).
I haven’t used it much with Unity yet but it’s fully supported according to the powers that be.
As fully supported as Maxon’s FBX exporter. One has to jump through hoops to get animation out and there are some internal features that really could use an external pathway, like multiple UV sets.
Well, we’d better speak to the boys at Unity, then, huh?
I’m a serious novice (unashamedly so).
So what do you think willl not work well in using C4D? Are there any C4D users out there to chime in?
I’ve done my share of complaining here, but it’s really in Maxon’s court. The fact remains that C4D is still really powerful once you get the hang of it (I guess I’ve heard the same thing about every 3D modeler out there :P) and that it has as an inexpensive and unrestricting academic version.
The crux is this. C4d 9.6 fbx exporter worked perfectly fine. In C4D 10 they introduced some bugs in the exporter. Eg. sometimes uv coordinates are exported wrong if you dont triangulate. And you have to use some special conversion tool to export animations.
Maxon promised an update which fixes those issues.