Who is thinking of stopping there Autodesk subscriptions

[Letterbox]

Not everyone has the skill or ability, maybe they need a little help to 'write their own', are you saying it's not worth 2 hours of dev time to put something in the SDK examples folder?

In my opinion:
a) if you need that feature and aren't a big enough company to afford someone to write it for you I'm not sure you should be looking to do that type of work.
b) Please let them spend 2 hours fixing bugs / developing features that were actually requested.
c) If you want that feature, request it for the next release so there is proof that it is needed.

Depending on the development strategy, you don't implement features unless they are explicitly asked for by your customers. Don't put in a feature if no one is going to use it. Waste of time and money.

First Eric you have a bad habit of making assumptions saying things like this "Don't put in a feature if no one is going to use it." et al, Now can you actually point to ANY FACTS that back up that statement that no-one will use it? Any?

Second, consider that it's in MAYA, so if that's true why then does not the same logic hold, or are you saying that Softimage is a plug-in for maya so thus does not need it?

Third, consider that Autodesk made over 2 BILLION, now you're saying that can't afford to shell out a few hundred for a bit of overtime, please.

Maybe you'd rather do away with all other sdk examples, because you're logic would dictate that again no-one should need them.

Or are you saying that if you dont have the skills, dump the program and look else where, because Eric, I think you too have looked at a tutorial and have needed some help along the way..... I think I'd be right in saying that yes?


Sorry to be so hard on you particularly, but you need to really think things though a bit before making these blanket aggressive statements, that don't actually encourage users to develop si BEYOND what currently exists.

[EricTRocks]

First Eric you have a bad habit of making assumptions saying things like this "Don't put in a feature if no one is going to use it." et al, Now can you actually point to ANY FACTS that back up that statement that no-one will use it? Any?

I don't have a bad assumption, that is what you do developing software in some dev strategies to keep yourself agile. If the feature isn't requested by the customer why would you put it in? If you are creating a painting program for texture artists why would you put in the ability to import 3d models initially? You wouldn't, you'd ship the first version without (maybe having the idea that it could be done) but you don't waste your time on it until someone asks for it.

Second, consider that it's in MAYA, so if that's true why then does not the same logic hold, or are you saying that Softimage is a plug-in for maya so thus does not need it?

Not sure where out of left field you're able to construe that I implied Soft was plug-in... ? It may be in Maya but the sequencer in Softimage wasn't requested by a film studio and had very specific requirements which apparently didn't require EDL support.

Third, consider that Autodesk made over 2 BILLION, now you're saying that can't afford to shell out a few hundred for a bit of overtime, please.

So you're saying the Softimage dev team has a $2 billion budget! Awesome, things are surely changing. (Please note the extreme sarcasm)

Or are you saying that if you dont have the skills, dump the program and look else where, because Eric, I think you too have looked at a tutorial and have needed some help along the way..... I think I'd be right in saying that yes?

Where are you pulling this from? Please pay attention to what I have said and not make things up and put words in my mouth. I said if you can't AFFORD to pay someone to create that EDL plug-in, then maybe that is an aspect of this business you can't be in right now. I have looked at many tutorials yes glad you're keeping track.

Sorry to be so hard on you particularly, but you need to really think things though a bit before making these blanket aggressive statements, that don't actually encourage users to develop si BEYOND what currently exists.

Aggressive? No. It's my opinion and I gave a valid way to get what you want. Actually request the damn feature if it isn't present. Your above statement should be something you consider doing as well as you've mixed words and put words in my mouth.

[bottleofram]

Luc-Eric brought into an argument the information we cannot possibly have access to, so that's where discussion ends for me. Although, someone should tell Adam Sale about all this...

00:20 - 00:25
"This is very useful for previsualization as well as for final outputs of animations in general."



Moderator edit: Removed double post...
FYI removing double posts can be easily done by users themselves,
("delete post" in the edit-or, or by pressing the little "x" icon below the post)
as long as there have been no new posts made afterwards - HB

[Letterbox]

[quote="EricTRocks"][/quote]

I wont reply to your comments point by point, because there is no point.

You clearly have not worked in a major software development environment and so don't understand that perspective, nor in any management role in such companies, so don't understand that perspective either.

Which only leave's me to say - have a happy Easter.

[talent103]

"In the meantime, Maya gets the Render Tree from Softimage..."

Good!

[angus_davidson]

"In the meantime, Maya gets the Render Tree from Softimage..."

Good!

Must admit its a massive step up.

[luceric]

Not everyone has the skill or ability, maybe they need a little help to 'write their own', are you saying it's not worth 2 hours of dev time to put something in the SDK examples folder?

In my opinion:
a) if you need that feature and aren't a big enough company to afford someone to write it for you I'm not sure you should be looking to do that type of work.[...]

First Eric you have a bad habit of making assumptions saying things like this "Don't put in a feature if no one is going to use it." et al, Now can you actually point to ANY FACTS that back up that statement that no-one will use it? Any?

Second, consider that it's in MAYA, so if that's true why then does not the same logic hold, or are you saying that Softimage is a plug-in for maya so thus does not need it?

Eric is correct, because that feature in Maya didn't come up for freelancers on a single machine. It's a thing that's used in a pipeline that's going to require other preperation to use. Let me explain if I can:

someone using this in production context is building a pipeline where some pre-editing is done on the 3D side, and then proxy clips are rendered for each camera (not the global camera result) and dumped on some media tracking server, and then the timeline (the edl/aaf) is exported. Then on the NLE some totally different person will take it from there and do more editing. (If can't do more editing in the NLE, like elongating the cuts, there was no point in exporting the timeline) Maya supports that, creating quicktime proxies with audio and it also support re-importing the changes from editorial. But there is still a lot of setup to do get that workflow (and it's a little bit of a minefield what works and doesn't). It's a workflow jungle to get into. However, having switching camera in XSI? Makes total sense, the designers of the animation mixer always have wanted to have a camera track there. I'd say the missing feature is a command to render (with mental ray) each camera cut individually with preroll/postroll (to get the proper motion blur), I know maya doesn't have it and I *think* softimage doesn't have it either. (In Maya, all the stuff is related to rendering playblasts -- i.e. viewport captures -- not mental ray renders)It is indeed just a script to write that should be in the box. Rendering from the sequencer output camera is not something you'd use in final production where you need motion blur to be correct(*)Note that often time if anything is multi shot and multipass, it isn't just one .scn. So.. that's why that stuff is more useful for animatics rather than for rendering ray tracing results anyway and the reason the maya people haven't cared up to now to provide that script themselves. But users have asked

---
* the motion blur is incorrect because at the frame where there is a cut, the sequencer's output camera moves instantly from one position to another in space, and so that frame is completely blurred.

[Bullit]

Depending on the development strategy, you don't implement features unless they are explicitly asked for by your customers. Don't put in a feature if no one is going to use it. Waste of time and money.

Development is or should be an iterative process. The clients can't and shouldn't drive all development - most don't have the knowledge nor the vision because they don't even know the technology and trends from developer perspective- Neither can the company can rely only in their visionaries in their ivory towers.

That said i think if the camera sequencer can't render with motion blur something that i suspected, then it should have been possible to choose the frames of camera sequencer to render with motion blur using the respective cameras in one go.

[El Burritoh]

Eric is such a meanie.

[ActionArt]

In a way, I'm glad I didn't renew my sub. This is exactly what I expected but hoped wouldn't happen. Basically, this is a service pack. Looks like lots of bugs fixed (a great thing) but really nothing new at all. To be fair, we couldn't really expect much more from a new team. It's the Autodesk subscription model that's infuriating. Rather than waiting until something useful is produced, we're expected to pay for the new team's learning process. If they need 2 or 3 years to get up to speed, that's understandable but I don't want to pay for it. I'm hoping they didn't fix one bug and create two more like the LW team did when they switched over. I'll wait to see.

Areas that people were begging for updates in:

Mental Ray integration: nothing
Viewport Updates: minimal
Modeling Tools: nothing
UV tools update: nothing

Crowd effects? wtf, who want's that?

It seems the new team is way under-powered, either in experience or numbers or both.

The problem is Autodesk:

We want the most we can get for our money. Audodesk wants to give us as little as possible for our money, plain and simple (like any big corporation).

The conversation at Autodesk went something like this I'm guessing:

"That SI team is too expensive. Get rid of them and get some new cheap guys in. Move a couple of the good SI guys to our flagship program Maya. Most of the SI users won't cancel anyway, at least not yet. If they do, they'll move to Maya so that's good, that's what we want anyway. If SI does OK, fine, if not, scrap it, make it a free extra like we did with composite and let it rot. We don't need 3 or these packages anyway!

Don't worry, if anything competitive comes along we'll just buy them out. This whole DCC department is a pain in the ass. How's our CAD department doing? If they get one new button a year they're happy! Now how can we move some of these good coders over there..."

To be honest, I look forward to rray's update far more than AD's. I'm glad the SI team had the chance to create ICE and open up the SDK so that 3rd parties can develop which has been extremely valuable. AD can pay for their own training and I'll update at a later time IF it's worth it. Right now I'd rather support Mootzoid or Redshift, that's real entrepreneurial spirit rather than corporate shafting.

I don't feel like giving AD more money at this point

[Bullit]

I don't think the problem is the crew per se, but the management vision which was/is? lacking, the new Softimage: Animation and Visual effects is an welcome coming if it means something and not just Power Point PR.
We just have to see that the product went from someone , to Cory and now to Daniel in a short period of time.

[Letterbox]

...But ....users have asked

He isn't and neither are you, but I'll give you a clearer answer. Because all of the technical issues aside, which are and can be easily addressed, what neither of you are seeing is more than 90% of ALL the software that you use or can buy, was NOT ask for by users.

Maybe you need an example, was Twitter ask for? Was Facebook? Pinterest? Hell was the mac/windows GUI asked for?

If Autodesk is applying that philosophy that we'll only developed something, if a) users ask for it, or b) pay for it, via consulting.

Then everyone can pretty much kiss any innovation goodbye.

Further if you don't innovate, and 'define the market', ask yourself where is your competitive advantage in a few years? Literally down the toilet. Look again at those names above, they 'define' the market. They are the ones that survive.

You must be aware that others are developing at a rapid rate, see modo and houdini - even lightwave and blender for that matter. You don't really think they are -only- doing things because users asked for it do you?

Or maybe the ad management strategy is to play the game of fear, fear if you dont upgrade, fear of higher costs if you rejoin. Fear of re-training. Well it's been proven time and again that that strategy will only work for a short time and will NOT enhance the product, nor enamor the company in the minds of users. AD are the ones giving users multiple reasons once they have a choice to opt out.

And before you tell me to go and join them, I'd like to point out that I don't get emotional about software, just like the people at SR, it's a box, that either sells or not, that lives or dies -- "Because of the innovation inside."

Not to realize that a few hours, hell even a few days of sdk work can externalize development, just as ice has done, and not to realize the implication (cb analysis anyone?) of such - is plain dumb, That's not just for this feature set, it's for any, it's for all.

You too luc, have a happy Easter

[luceric]

Not to realize that a few hours, hell even a few days of sdk work can externalize development, just as ice has done, and not to realize the implication (cb analysis anyone?) of such - is plain dumb, That's not just for this feature set, it's for any, it's for all.

Looks like I'be been trolled with these Classic Internet Trolling techniques:
1) present false statements as true to use as an argument against the poster. (There is plenty of SDK support for the camera sequencer, it HAS to have SDK support, it's made to develop tools around it. It's all about a platform to do other things, as I've explained in the genesis of how it came to be in XSI.)
2) changing the subject of a discussion 180 degrees whenever trouble arise ("this update has features nobody asked for!" to "this dumb company only makes feature people ask for!")

I'd like to point out that I don't get emotional about software

Anyone who feels they have to write this, always is, imho.

[Pooby]

One of the oft used 'put downs' is implying that another user might treat his software like a religion or get emotionally attached to it.
I cant speak for anyone else, but i know that I can get angry and sad or frustrated or I can get excited about advances in software and I don't see anything to be ashamed of in that.
It's the specifics of the r and d that I have done using a toolset, that enable me to progress the work I am doing and I never want to sit still and use the same workflows. The work I did 4 years ago in a month, say on my greg mutt avatar review I can now do in a week. This is directly due to my gained knowledge of ICE and softimage in general.
That cant just be swapped over to anything else that doesn't have an equivalent ability, or one that does, but with a vastly slower workflow.
So yes, I am passionate about my work, and the speed that I can do my work Surely, it would be stranger if I didn't get 'emotional' about anything that might either halt or speed up my progress.
I would love something to exist right now that can kick softimage's ass in all the areas I'd like regarding the speed of workflow to power ratio, factoring 'fun' in ( which in all probability is directly related to that ratio); But that's not the case, based upon the research I've done, so objectively speaking, for me. I'm still overjoyed with what I have, even though i have to supress the fact I'm pissed off with not having what I feel could have had if progress had continued at the same rate it was going a few years back.

Im already excited about the progression of Fabric Engine and their Creation platform, even though I can't use it yet, because It gives me visions of what it may enable me to do in the next decade.

[Bellsey]

There's alot of interesting views on this thread, so I agree with, others maybe not.

When it comes to Autodesk Subscription, is that it will mean different value for different people and people appraise the benefits in different ways. If people want to drop off Subs, then that's their choice, Autodesk are not forcing you, and I can understand the reasons. But what people have to do is really step back and review the situation objectively and not emotionally. The outcome might still be the same, but you have to weigh up both sides. t4D may well be ranting in this thread (which he's entitled to do), but even he admits that they don't write the cheques and that person could have a different view of the situation.

Being/Staying on Subs has various benefits, one of which is staying current and up to date with the software. New releases may or may not have the features you desire, but there will also hopefully be a substantial amount of enhancements and bug fixes, that will ultimately go towards making the software more efficient and perhaps importantly reliable when in production. And things like efficiency and reliability that people always want because he goes a big way in helping them remain competitive as well.
As Angus said in this thread (or another?), it's still tough out there for people, individuals, small, meduim or large studios. Budgets are tight and people are having to watch their costs. To some that might be a good reason to drop of Subs, to save money. However, the other side to that is that having a predictable cost each year to maintain your software can help people manage their costs. That also applies just as much to other vendors like SideFX, Adobe, Maxxon, Foundry, etc, as they all have similar 'maintenance' schemes.

[lard]

Autodesk is forcing the subscription model.

By having 2-3 sub-par releases, many studios (on or off subs) remain with version 2012sp1. Under the Autodesk licensing policy, any new seats or upgraded seats must be on subs to use version 2012sp1. Softimage also has a large freelance pool, and those freelancers are essentially forced to be under subs to work with studios using various versions of Softimage. When the Softimage product was not under Autodesk, these strict license policies didn't exist. Softimage .scn and .emdl files are not backward compatible, so a freelance artist must work with a version equal to, or greater than, the studio. In addition, there is no path to upgrade to a specific version of Softimage; I can't upgrade to Softimage 2012sp1 from a previous version without being on subs.

So let's stop the "Autodesk are no forcing you" chatter. No one has a gun to anyone's head... but clearly these are forceful policies, not free market (features, quality, competitiveness, and innovation) sales policies.

I also feel that in general, all 3d content tools under Autodesk have extreme fragmentation within the user (studio) base. Previous to Autodesk ownership, it seemed that all users and studios would update to (or pass on) the same update. Quality updates were definitive, because the community as a whole would move at once.