100 things Maya should have

[McNistor]

Wow, this thread has gone bonkers!

If one checks my posting history one sees that I'm very passionate when it comes to XSI therefore this thread was not intended to convince people that Maya is a good alternative to XSI (or that it isn't), but merely that it could be if Maya would get the # features. You can opt to not talk about it but I hope you know that this will have no effect on what will Autodesk do in the future.

I'm not sure how this works, but from what I remember, the OP can request the said thread to be closed.
Since people are not interested to contribute to this thread in the way I've intended it, I request this thread be closed.
If this is possible, I have to thank Hirazi (or the admin/mod in service) in advance.

[FXDude]

#1 ICE like system
#2 Explorer like feature (the current solution is very poor compared to XSI's explorer)
#3 solid, predictable and stable selections of objects (in XSI if I enter point mode, there's no way I get out of it unintentionally)

How about :

- More Overall intuitiveness/reduced overcomplicatedness

- generally less headacheativity.. (at the end of the day)
.. or have less "things you have to know for it to be okay"
need less necessary extras such as various scripts,
or on the rendering side, 300$ plugins specifically addressing dependability.

- and as you said: More solid, predictable and stable (but period.)


Still the usual AFAIK, even with the numerous new Maya features added over time (some of which of course can be pretty cool)



Now I wonder why SI is/was downplayed so much, or what originally motivated the acquisition hum..

__________________________
Quote from a user worried about Maya Future just prior to the Softimage buyoff

<<.. with programs like Houdini and XSI 7 (with ICE) gaining a lot of ground in the development arena,
is Autodesk actually taking a hard look at Maya and making it more stable while providing new features?

The underlying theme I get from people on forums is if Maya 2009 doesn't deliver
or Autodesk doesn't lay out some sort of roadmap worthy of sticking around, people will in fact jump to XSI or Houdini. >>

I guess absorbing one of the most reliable solutions out there is one way of adressing Maya stability.



_______________
From Q & A press release

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/p ... timage.pdf

Q8: How does the acquisition benefit Softimage customers?

A: We expect Softimage customers to benefit from more complete and efficient end-to-end games, film and television pipelines. [to switch to Maya]

The Softimage product line will benefit from [ to a certain extent be choked under ] Autodesk's scale and research and development (R&D) investment capabilities,
providing new opportunities for [Maya] innovation and [SI] interoperability.

_______________________
From Aquisition press release
http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/p ... timage.pdf

Gary Greenfield, CEO and chairman of Avid Technology, added:

"We are excited about what this transaction means for customers of Softimage. ... Autodesk will provide a great home for the business."

right..


Guess good things can be proportionately intimidating.

Apart from SI's continuing and very much persisting lead on many fronts,
notably in terms of general, end to end, start to finish, production (& problem solving) performance
(and not necessarily in terms of things like viewport interactivity with many objects)
I personally would have a hard time at "biting the bullet"
without getting an overwhelming impression of sleeping with the devil (big industry) or of selling my soul.


I'm just glad they really made SI as good (or as future proof) as they did
that development really hasn't been all that bad,
and that everything seems to point that it will at least be maintained if not well maintained.
(while keeping an eye on both Foundry Modo and Fabric Engine's consistent and huge steps forward)

anyway, my 2c

[NNois]

@luceric
Can you think than Maya could have in the future a more unified tool for visualizing the entire scene and all the datas like the explorer in XSI ? One tool where we can go deep and deep under the scene, shaders etc in a texte mode fashion.
I have fear to loose that in maya...
Also the attribute editor need some love i think.. like grouping all the differents "editors" into that one that can do all, one intelligent box who is adapting on the data we provide, where we can do all sort of things.
I've alway thought XSI can do more, you made his UI evolved to v5-6 but not after, there was always room for improvements and for example softimage PPGs was to candidate to i think ;-)

In theses days we have saw so many great things on new UIs. If maya is the candidate for the 3d app of the next decade could we expect a better foundation, like what XSI brings 10 years ago but in a 2015 manner ?

In fact i would love to ear "Yeah maya is the main DCC product at Autodesk and we are retinking the way to do things, the UI etc so the app is a really great candidate for the next decade". At the XSI team switched to maya we hear "MayaFX" and these name throw so hope as we can expect a sort of new software, and i liked this. but soon after we heard no there is no mayafx just maya ;-(

Thanks for keeping a look at XSI, thanks you for the way you (and your team) had designed XSI, the UI is awersome ! I have recently done a demo to some people of the way in which XSI handles things, its consistency, etc. and as always they hallucinate.
So is the xsi team on maya can do great things or is maya is so advanced than you can just sprinkle some things ici et là ??

[Rork]

Seriously????

This is where we're going now for new threads in general??

[NNois]

Seriously????

This is where we're going now for new threads in general??

well... I use Softimage and I still think for a few years but, we need to stay competitive and "if" softimage is on a slow death, i think (as i can't see a real softimage candidate replacement for now, and as we spend 20 hours a day on it) i can write here what i would expect for a replacement software.

[Rork]

pointless exercise, as no app will ever fit all the needs. So many people, so many wishes.

it might be nice in a philosophical way, but that's all it is.

[luceric]

@luceric
Can you think than Maya could have in the future a more unified tool for visualizing the entire scene and all the datas like the explorer in XSI ? One tool where we can go deep and deep under the scene, shaders etc in a texte mode fashion.I have fear to loose that in maya...

I'll make a note of it, although data is structured differently in XSI than just about anything else, so no other app will ever, imho, have a complete copy of the Scene Explorer. XSI is stack based (as opposed to node-based), and everything is nested under other things. There is a lot of uses of "nested properties", and just generally the early XSI designers were obsessed with putting everything in an Explorer view.

The only one flaw I can think about this in XSI is that it made object hierarchy made for transforms and object hierarchy made just for organization the same. The guys were attempting to break one part of that link with ICE Kinematics, but generally it remained an open issue. There is not really other drawback.. it's just Softimage design and how people work with it. The effort put in the SE has a lot to do with the fact that there wasn't a shared material management working (outside the schematic view) or operator node editor, so the SE is *everything*.

There is a plug-in out the called "Outliner Plus" that demonstrates showing materials and other "scopes" in Maya's outliner, but as far as I know it doesn't show materials nested under shapes.

Also the attribute editor need some love i think.. like grouping all the differents "editors" into that one that can do all, one intelligent box who is adapting on the data we provide, where we can do all sort of things.

Can you give an example of this.. it's not obvious to "guess" what the user wants to see. For example, it's not because you selected a mesh that you want to see a vertex editor. Sometimes it's best to not second-guess.

In fact i would love to ear "Yeah maya is the main DCC product at Autodesk and we are retinking the way to do things, the UI etc so the app is a really great candidate for the next decade". At the XSI team switched to maya we hear "MayaFX" and these name throw so hope as we can expect a sort of new software, and i liked this. but soon after we heard no there is no mayafx just maya ;-(

It's a good thing if we removed references to "maya fx team" if that led people to fantasize about a new app, because that's not what it means. It's just a name of a team, like modeling, animation, rendering, etc. There are softimage alumni working in different teams.

[FXDude]

Hypothetically, if say for instance..

the decision was made in '95 (or earlier?) to put more priority on Sumatra,
and managed to lead the teams to finish in '98

( for the sake of argument, roughly at the same time as Maya,
and pehaps with subdivision surfaces in that very first version )

And ( hypothetically yet probably ) then having pretty good success, with it's exceptionally streamlined workflow,
while introducing a number of paradigms such as Passes
thus becoming a considerable ( enough ) source of revenue for Micro$oft ( all about moula )
enough to not sell ( the 3D part ) to Avid

( Avid being pretty BIG, and looking to absorb any potentially considerable
and any intimidatingly innovative competitor, also for greater control over { the inflation of } it's prices )



While Maya's own release ( hypothetically yet probably ) also having very good success,
being more like an open blank slate to which shops could build-up their own stuff on top,
with many unique features and an unparalleled particle system.

Yet ( hypothetically ) due with the demise of SGI, and SI's then very sizable market share,
Maya consequently also got aquired by Micro$oft ( while already owning one of the main market leaders )

( M$ being very BIG, and looking to absorb any potentially considerable competitor, also for greater control over { the inflation of } it's prices)

( and not unlike how wild predators would )



Then, after a few years of lingering development on Maya's side under M$,
and after some time, the complete reassignment of it's core developers,
and a virtually extinguished presence in most or all media channels...


--- I'm quite certain that some people ( if not a majority of SI employees and users )
would then wish that Maya could then just finally die.


Feeling that it was just taking up space for the few, then much reduced user base,
essentially taking the position of Micro$oft ( like guys going with the flow ).

Pointing out how SI's was just so much better, mostly referencing it's bigness (however inflated)
how much easier it was to get hired with it, the possible coolness of extra widgets added over time,
and/or otherwise awed or mesmerized by the comparative effervescence around SI and M$.

( however that "bigness" was acheived, business is business,
& despite SI's own relative arrested development under M$, essentially then owning most of everything )


While some ( probably fewer ) others not necessarily falling for all that.. lets say fluff, glitter, or hype.

I for one as many others,
( probably more so if I was a Maya employee or user, but EVEN as an SI employee or user )

* would absolutely not wish for, or support Maya's demise
( believing to believe in fairplay and healthy competition ),

* would totally understand some rather justified appallment, and quite possible resentment from Maya users,
( without systematically dismissing them as frevent fanboys unwilling to "see the light" )

* would not have approved of it's dismanteling,

* and would have found M$ actions to be quite unwarranted/unjustified, & you know.. essentially just very wrong.


Knowing of Mayas own core strenghts and value in various contexts, and actually having people in mind at least as a factor,
would absolutely voice my concerns/dissapovals to that effect,
and would at least try to adhere to decisionmakers conscience.

While knowing that my own disssaproval along with many others would have at least *some* bearing or weight
to or with people that can understand and/or share certain sentiments, and/or are able to take criticism.

And while being equally positive that voicing those concerns would NOT be in vain,
**EVEN IF** Maya eventually DID ultimately face it's demise. (hypo-theoretically)

But my god.. how it can sometimes feel like we were living in primordial times, driven by mindless hunger for power,
and covered in layerrs of endless rethorical bull*...

.