Another 3dsmax sneak peak

[origin]

They complain because it's archviz tool, and another feature proving that max is heading towards archviz tool only.
I used it on one big project (visualization of course), it's very simple and easy but offers ZERO control/customizing, contrary to CrowdFX which is not limited in any way but it's hard to get into it.
You can probably script crowdfx into Geppetto archviz people 6-button preset anyways, if you're in architectural business.

[Chris_TC]

In typical 3ds max fashion they've slapped another feature on top of its pile of disjointed features.

With Crowd FX we were given a system that anybody who knows ICE can control and extend. It uses a system that was already there to begin with, that people are familiar with.

That 3ds max feature may be useful if it happens to have all the knobs and buttons you need. But I'm 100% sure that I would be longing for two or three buttons it doesn't have.

[Chris_TC]

I have no problem with nodes. But they need to make sense and not hit some context idiocy every time. Users should only need a node/attribute called lets say "polygon operations" to make every operation at polygon level.
Context issues are a waste of time , money and brain power that instead should be used creatively.

ICE Topology should indeed be a lot more intuitive.
There should exist a node for every modeling operator that can be applied in SI. ICE should be able to automatically convert between certain contexts (e.g. per-polygon to per-point). It should be able to visualize the modeling output of only a selected portion of the tree. It should have a way of applying modeling operations using standard Softimage modeling tools and sliders but add an ICE node instead of a modeling operator.

HOWEVER, your criticism about context doesn't really hold water regarding ICE particles and crowds. Under normal circumstances the only context trouble you might run into there is whether something is per-point or per-object. Points have no trouble working with per-object. And if you need per-object but have per-point, there's a conversion node (Build Array From Set).

[jamination]

I tried to use crowdFx last year sometime, and when I netrendered it, the characters were all black. So I wound up using plain old ice particles. I wish the materials weren't convoluted and that we could use any characters (with their materials as is and with multiple parts if need be).

[talent103]

I Second that Janimation!

[bottleofram]

Yup, i delved into crowdFX last year as well... It wasn't walk in the park - not by long shot.

In typical 3ds max fashion they've slapped another feature on top of its pile of disjointed features.

Last time someone tried tight integration and planning far ahead was ICE and look what that lead to.

What i used to think when they introduced 6 months release cycles is that they added more people/resources to teams. What probably happened is they just organized themselves a bit differently.

[Chris_TC]

Last time someone tried tight integration and planning far ahead was ICE and look what that lead to.

It lead to a unified system that's extendable, makes sense and could eventually branch out into every corner of the software. I've never even touched Crowd FX - but I know the basics of ICE, so I'm certain that I could quickly get going with it if the need arises.

3ds max has particle flow. Why does the new crowd system not build on top of that? Maybe particle flow is not up to the task (I have no idea). But most likely the new crowd tool was built for a very specific market and a very specific purpose: to help with architectural visualization. And Autodesk doesn't want to scare arch viz people by requiring them to come in touch with nodes. So they've built a lot of pretty new icons and buttons instead. Which is a missed opportunity for all those whose needs don't match the specifics.

[bottleofram]

Last time someone tried tight integration and planning far ahead was ICE and look what that lead to.

It lead to a unified system that's extendable, makes sense and could eventually branch out into every corner of the software.

That branching out went perfectly so far



My point was, while users bitch about disjointedness of these features developed at Autodesk, it doesnt really hurt their business - in fact, it might even help. I dont know anything about Geppetto but it looks like archviz guys will love it. Could they have made an elaborate crowds system, fully modifiable, fully nodal and expandable to every need? Orks running at kentaurs, marching ants, rush hours in Tokyo, people running for exits in case of fire, all the psychological aspects taken into account and so on... Yeah, im sure they could. Meanwhile their pockets would dry out and we wouldn't be sitting here talking about max. Something else would fill the headlines.

[druitre]

yes, that graph is a blatant lie regarding Softimage. The people that published it would be sued silly, if they weren't the owners themselves.

[grahamef]

It's been mentioned before, but that chart was part of a campaign to get standalone Max and Maya users to upgrade to the suites, by showing what the suites can add to what they already have -- if you're already fluent modelling in Max or Maya, then getting another app capable of modelling, even an app as excellent as Softimage (I'm biased), isn't a very compelling deal.

The main problem with the chart is that it didn't make that context clear enough.

[druitre]

So what you do then is lie to them? They think Max and Maya users are dumb?

I think that with all the context in the world there is still a problem with that graph because motionbuilder and mudbox are represented for their actual capabilities and Softimage isn't.

(not intended as criticism towards you, grahamef, this is AD idiocy)

[bottleofram]

It's been mentioned before, but that chart was part of a campaign to get standalone Max and Maya users to upgrade to the suites [...]

Did it work? Im half-hoping AD threw tons of money on this campaign and virtually nobody upgraded.

The chart is obviously rubbish but it does point out an important truth about where Soft stands in our little DCC applications world. ICE did not propel Soft to excel in as many areas as most people here have maybe hoped it would. Some of it is down to AD itself - for example developing Skyline instead of furthering ICE into character toolset. But the fact that AD is now in position to make those decisions is Softs own fault. If it was more profitable for Avid, they wouldn't sell it.

It's often said that the time of "big features" is behind us. I dare say, someone at AD is rubbing his hands right now with a devilish little smirk on his face that says "just as planed", because a business model they run right now is much more rewarding and secure.

[Bullit]

Im half-hoping AD threw tons of money on this campaign and virtually nobody upgraded.

So you want less people to know Softimage and that they remained in their Max and Maya worlds...?

[bottleofram]

Im half-hoping AD threw tons of money on this campaign and virtually nobody upgraded.

So you want less people to know Softimage and that they remained in their Max and Maya worlds...?

As a person who have voiced his opinion strongly against the suites from day one, i'd be a hypocrite to change my tune once it suits me (excuse the pun). I dont even have to explain myself - you just need to look back at last year's controversy around max and its "2-tier system". It enraged quite a few people.

As far as luring them into Softimage goes, it kind of crossed my mind that the traffic might also flow in opposite direction... Suites are convenient that way.

I also firmly believe a percentage of bundles bought with an intention to utilize Soft alongside of one of the other two packages is insignificant. Rather, the value for Maya/Max houses/individuals is driven by Mudbox and Motionbuilder. Having talked to, and worked with, lots of Maya and Max users, they, without exception, have no intention whatsoever to see, open or know a single thing about Softimage. If they get impressed by ICE occasionally, they will happily wait for AD to get fed up and start working on similar systems for the package they already use.

[McNistor]

I'm McNistor and I approve bottleofram's comment.

[Bellsey]

I also firmly believe a percentage of bundles bought with an intention to utilize Soft alongside of one of the other two packages is insignificant. Rather, the value for Maya/Max houses/individuals is driven by Mudbox and Motionbuilder. Having talked to, and worked with, lots of Maya and Max users, they, without exception, have no intention whatsoever to see, open or know a single thing about Softimage. If they get impressed by ICE occasionally, they will happily wait for AD to get fed up and start working on similar systems for the package they already use.

There's some truth to this, but as always its not always black and white. Much can depend on the customers/studios, and the type of work they're doing, combined with the skillsets in that studio. Suites aren't for everyone, they're just an option to consider. And some studios have done exactly that, they've kept their normal standard seats and then had some Suites as well.

There are Maya/Max users who have no intention to look at Softimage, but that's often a mixture of software ignorance and/or also just not being relevant to their work. Ignorance can be common, and that can be the same for Max, Maya and Softimage users, it cuts both ways. People can get very entrenched in their package of choice to a point where they're stubborn to any change (no matter how small).
From the people I've seen (and I see alot), some are 'don't care' and that's fair enough, others know about Softimage but just haven't kept up with it and/or their knowledge of ICE is particular is limited, or they know alot. From their view, they often like what they see, but in order to adopt and use the package they need to think about how they implement the software into their pipeline, based on the type of work they use.

edit by gustavoeb: deleted one of your postos, since it got duplicated somehow