What if Softimage died?

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

It's already dead I love it but lets be honest.

...that is not dead which can eternal lie yet with strange aeons even death may die:)
H.p. Lovecraft

"What is dead may never die."
George R. R. Martin

"Not growing is not dying."
L. F. Voldemort

[MauricioPC]

I like the idea of selling Soft as: 'casual, entry-level, general purpose 3D' (knowing of course this is an understatement).

AD would have to show real dedication to continue Soft, though, because how inviting would it be to learn an application which is close to discontinuity.

You said some good stuff here! I've played with all 3-AD apps. And I like Softimage the most. The only reason I'm not continuing to study it is that the course I'm taking teaches Maya (good luck in finding a course of Softimage) and that we don't know if Softimage will be discontinued.

But if it was clear, than I would only study Softimage as probably in my life (and I mean probably because we never know) I'll be a freelancer all the way.

[luceric]

I like the idea of selling Soft as: 'casual, entry-level, general purpose 3D' (knowing of course this is an understatement).

If the big studios are going Maya now anyway, that leaves the small folks/freelancers. They are a relevant userbase, too, aren't they.

I would have liked that future for Softimage. In fact I'm pretty sure I suggested someting like that (i.e. target XSI to the Modo/lightwave crowd, forget the rest) (not that I matter in the grand scheme of things) to managers a many years ago, or perhaps just to Chinny who was looking for niche for Softimage as well.

but the problem with this is that there isn't a bit difference between a high end film app and that so called "mid level" or even "entry level 3D" (assuming we don't mean consumer). High end becomes the mid level a few years later. Case in point: Softimage itself. It *is* a studio/pipeline application. Lots of threads here have been made about the features being targeted to TDs and pipeline and forgetting the freelancers. And small studios do not want to be told that they have "simpler needs" than film studios.

Unfortunately it doesn't make sense of a company to develop two applications on two different code base and architecture that are going to need 95% the same things except for some workflows. If you know nothing about Maya, you may think that "you need a TD" to use it, which of course ridiculous since the majority of user base are generalists. You model in it the same way you would in Softimage, rig, put some nHair on top and brush it, add some shaders and hit render. It's the same damn thing, but the user interface for some stuff (ex: shading/rendering) can be quite a bit primitive and dated. So what's the solution to that, develop two distinct apps, split your brightest developers in two, or rather share the core and feature work but work on that interface? You can split that product into two different skins as necessary. Softimage did it for Avid 3D and we had two interfaces for mod tool.

[Bullit]

While I disagree with pezetko's view on the matter at hand, I think his contribution is valid and certainly not based on too much emotion or deliberate negativity... As for the whole thread: a bit of emotion and negativity can't be avoided, given the subject matter.

I disagree with your view, pezetko words are what i call a romantic mass murder.
He is free to use any other application but he wants to kill it : taking it from others.
Why he wants to affect the live of others?

I like the idea of selling Soft as: 'casual, entry-level, general purpose 3D' (knowing of course this is an understatement).

Now it is even more mistaken...there is no such thing as casual for an application that does everything. A casual application is light, opens in half a second, it can be used in tablets, phones, web etc...

Unfortunately it doesn't make sense of a company to develop two applications on two different code base and architecture that are going to need 95% the same things except for some workflows.

Really? why Volkswagen has Audi A1, VW Golf and Skoda Octavia? Because people like different things, doing different ways.
By that argument only one 3d application would be made, we will be dressing all the same, all buildings would be grey and we would live in a soviet nightmare.

And stagnation would ensue. If Autodesk will have only one 3D application their fall would be much faster.
Right now and next years Autodesk would be milking the different paths Maya, Softimage took. It would not happen after that.

[Helli]

Luckily Houdini is getting more and more popular.
It's for sure not gonna be any Autodesk product anymore.

[Bullit]

Softimage like 3dsmax if they are killed by Autodesk will remain like Windows XP with a lot of users. They are good enough and in many cases better than what Autodesk saying is investing on.

[MauricioPC]

Softimage like 3dsmax if they are killed by Autodesk will remain like Windows XP with a lot of users. They are good enough and in many cases better than what Autodesk saying is investing on.

One of the things I like most about Softimage is really the community. And the software, of course. But I guess it doesn't make sense to terminate a software that has a considerable user base. That would probably mean loosing money as an unsatisfied customer could go to another company 3D software. Just look at the great work being done with it on the London Creatives User Group.

I guess Softimage should still be developed. As probably will 3dsMax. How many people use Max just for the plugins? If the developers start taking those plugins to say, Cinema 4D or Modo, I think AD would loose a lot of seats. Not everyone would want to jump to Maya. The example of a car company suits well ... why have only on car on each segment and let the customer buy a different one from another company if you can have 2/3 cars in the same segment? If that was stupid, I guess a Ford, Fiat, etc, would have done something about it a long time ago.

[Bellsey]

Really? why Volkswagen has Audi A1, VW Golf and Skoda Octavia? Because people like different things, doing different ways.
By that argument only one 3d application would be made, we will be dressing all the same, all buildings would be grey and we would live in a soviet nightmare.

And stagnation would ensue. If Autodesk will have only one 3D application their fall would be much faster.
Right now and next years Autodesk would be milking the different paths Maya, Softimage took. It would not happen after that.

Interesting comparison there regarding car companies. The VW group actually contains the following brands - Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Skoda and Volkswagen, and even though these brands are different and have a different appeal, they actually share alot. In some cases over 40% of the components are shared amongst the group.

If you own a VW Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 or Seat Leon, you're actually essentially alldriving the same car. Of course they all look different, handle differently and of course perhaps more importantly have a different price to match the brand, but underneath the badge and body work, they all share the same VW platform for that class.

[MauricioPC]

Interesting comparison there regarding car companies. The VW group actually contains the following brands - Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Skoda and Volkswagen, and even though these brands are different and have a different appeal, they actually share alot. In some cases over 40% of the components are shared amongst the group.

If you own a VW Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 or Seat Leon, you're actually essentially alldriving the same car. Of course they all look different, handle differently and of course perhaps more importantly have a different price to match the brand, but underneath the badge and body work, they all share the same VW platform for that class.

Yes ... but since the seats may be different, the driving wheel, the clutch, tires, etc, the driving experience is different. It's the same with Maya, Max and Softimage. They all do the same thing ... but the way you do it is different. And yes, different from cars, they don't share the same platform (from what I understand).

[mirkoj]

luceric wrote: "You model in it the same way you would in Softimage, rig, put some nHair on top and brush it, add some shaders and hit render. "


Ooooh man... how wrong and blind you are....
this is closest to comment like you just push couple buttons and move/game/aniamtion is done....
I mean really???

[pezetko]

Question was asked, I posted my opinion. I invested a lot of time and money to learn XSI (since v3).

I'm currently working in studio that is still on version v2012.5 and I don't see to much differences from v7.
Now, when SPs are out we are probably going to upgrade to v2014 just becouse of Maya and probably also becouse of some bugfixis and to maintain Send To Maya compatibility.

When Combustion and Matchmover was killed it became packed with other softwares. I suppose something similar could happen to XSI.

[McNistor]

Voted Houdini but only because I'm lazy to give a serious thought regarding the options. One thing I know for sure though: I would not choose an Autodesk product again.
Whomever voted "Maya" is either brain-dead or luceric.

[luceric]

luceric wrote: "You model in it the same way you would in Softimage, rig, put some nHair on top and brush it, add some shaders and hit render. "Ooooh man... how wrong and blind you are....
this is closest to comment like you just push couple buttons and move/game/aniamtion is done....
I mean really???

Dude, those are list of areas where a freelancer can do the work in both apps without a TD setting things up for him, as per the point of the conveniently trimmed quoted paragraph.

[Falam]

Who really knows what Autodesk thinks about Softimage, no one. Is Softimage hurting their overhead, who knows. I'd like to see 2010-2012 sales numbers of Softimage, Maya & Max, that would probably explain the fate. I'm sure Softimage users have had to tinker with Maya some point or another.

How stable is Softimage 2014 compared to Maya 2014 are they the same, does one have a slight advantage ?

Does Softimage have a muscle system, no. What if you need to whip up a muscle system on a character, you have a few choices, I did say whip, so chances of 'whipping' a muscle system in ICE, is highly unlikely, if there is no 'whipping' involved, then you spend all the time in ICE creating one.

What can you make a income from faster Maya or Max or Softimage ? Softimage is a great 3D package, but we all need to survive, eat, wear clothes, car payments, whatever it is these are some of the things, some say you can get TD help more quicker with Maya then with Softimage. What if you need some nice hair effects and some dazzle.

Ironic the poll shows Houdini, I never would have guessed it has that much support. I can visit the Houdini office, yet again, I can visit the Maya office as well where I live, unfortunately it's not as easy for me to visit the Softimage office.

What is easy for a TD to work in Softimage or Maya ?

There has got to be up to eight people who proclaim as religiously Softimage users who I have yet to see their input, those are mostly on the mailing list and probably the only ones who have driven bug reports, maybe that is one of the issues ?

How big is the Singapore team ?

Which Autodesk software has the biggest team ? The biggest team will squash issues faster then the smallest team, this is common logic, unless one or two people on the smallest team are drinking coffee by the keg.

[luceric]

Yes ... but since the seats may be different, the driving wheel, the clutch, tires, etc, the driving experience is different. It's the same with Maya, Max and Softimage. They all do the same thing ... but the way you do it is different. And yes, different from cars, they don't share the same platform (from what I understand).

Sorry, the seats or the tires may be different? Is the manual vs automatic version of a car is a totally different car made separately by two teams who won't share the same base car? People also like different things with their software and that's why 3D software is highly customizable.

Car analogies are dangerous things. See below:

Unfortunately it doesn't make sense of a company to develop two applications on two different code base and architecture that are going to need 95% the same things except for some workflows

Really? why Volkswagen has Audi A1, VW Golf and Skoda Octavia? Because people like different things, doing different ways.

Yeah... Volkswagen! good example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Volkswagen_platforms Group A: shared among compact and mid-size cars, Group B: mid-size, etc.
Someone should let them know they're doing it wrong and should instead make 50 unique cars by separate teams and drop this platform thing.

By that argument only one 3d application would be made, we will be dressing all the same, all buildings would be grey and we would live in a soviet nightmare.

And stagnation would ensue. If Autodesk will have only one 3D application their fall would be much faster.

Is Luxology splitting their resources making Modo, plus another 3D app for people who hate Modo? Or are they just trying to make Modo the best they can, instead? Is Modo a soviet nightmare?

What about addressing different parts of the market with different workflows (i.e. my point, as quoted above)? Is Adobe making Photoshop and Photoshop Element on a totally different architecture, or just changing the UI? Is Microsoft Windows 8 Home and Windows 2012 Server not sharing 95% of windows's source code? Someone please email them immediately and inform them as well that they're doing it wrong.

[luceric]

I'm currently working in studio that is still on version v2012.5 and I don't see to much differences from v7.

Check out the Feature History here for each version:
http://softimage.wiki.softimage.com/ind ... re_History