jamination wrote:the less they add the less likely there will be any showstopping problems:)
This is one of the real crux's for me. The landscape and environment in which 3D/CG work is produced and created now has changed alot in a relatively short space of time. Some packages have changed or lost their ground, but at the same time, there's been some new ones emerge or mature into proper solutions. Also people's views have changed now based on the work that they have to do and they look for different things from their packages. There's also many who still judge their software by how may new features it has each year, which although initially sounds ok, it does muddy the waters on what are the real issues for people. Imo, the days of feature counting are gone but many (vendors and consumers) still have this mindset.Clagman wrote:The intergration stuff is good for all even if you only ever use Softimage simply because if you are freelancing for a studio you might have to submit your work to a strickly Maya production house and the better the integration the less likely they are to ask you to create everything in Maya (forcing you to purchase another app). Besides all that now that AD is doing the whole "suite" thing, you really have to expect interchange tools. Truly, how crappy would it be if AD software didn't speak to each other. I have a pretty diverse software environment here and it does come in handy on a regular basis even if I myself don't use Maya much.
Yeah, this sounds like AD strategy. Unfortunately this might be good only for larger studios. For freelancers or small studios this is just too expensive way, both money and time. What I dislike with this appraoch is that it will force development of just specific part of app and for other it will be expected to use another app from Suite...Bellsey wrote:This is one of the real crux's for me. The landscape and environment in which 3D/CG work is produced and created now has changed alot in a relatively short space of time. Some packages have changed or lost their ground, but at the same time, there's been some new ones emerge or mature into proper solutions. Also people's views have changed now based on the work that they have to do and they look for different things from their packages. There's also many who still judge their software by how may new features it has each year, which although initially sounds ok, it does muddy the waters on what are the real issues for people. Imo, the days of feature counting are gone but many (vendors and consumers) still have this mindset.Clagman wrote:The intergration stuff is good for all even if you only ever use Softimage simply because if you are freelancing for a studio you might have to submit your work to a strickly Maya production house and the better the integration the less likely they are to ask you to create everything in Maya (forcing you to purchase another app). Besides all that now that AD is doing the whole "suite" thing, you really have to expect interchange tools. Truly, how crappy would it be if AD software didn't speak to each other. I have a pretty diverse software environment here and it does come in handy on a regular basis even if I myself don't use Maya much.
Many people might say they're not bothered about the ADSK interop stuff especially for Maya and Max, but the chances are that many are already using multiple apps (ADSK or not) in their studios and/or workflows. Interop and the ability to exchange data will always be important issue so when you consider the packages that ADSK has to offer, it really should make sense that at the very least they can play nice together. But at the same time, its important to remember there's other stuff out there, the problem is getting the various vendors to all agree on some kind of standard. There's still no 'jpg for 3D' as I like to call it. Softimage gave it a good shot with the dotXSI/Collada format, and what would become Crosswalk, but its hard getting people on board.
That's what I like about initiatives like Alembic, as there are multiple vendors on board, but ultimately its not their format.
This might be ADSK strategy but they're also responding to various trends in the market and productions. I also don't quite agree that this only play to larger studios, in fact I would say its more the opposite. Larger studios will often have more technical resource for developing their own tools, whereas the freelancer and small/meduim studios don't always have this luxury. Some will resource for tools, but it perhaps has to be more focused in specifics. However many studios, large or small will happily dip in and out of various packages to get their work done, but obviously data and pipeline integrity always remains important. Personally I don't see much difference between ADSK interoping between their products and then someone trying to interop between, for example Modo, Cinema4D, Houdini, Zbrush, 3Dcoat, Topogun, Nuke and so on. And people are already doing this right now.SreckoM wrote:Yeah, this sounds like AD strategy. Unfortunately this might be good only for larger studios. For freelancers or small studios this is just too expensive way, both money and time. What I dislike with this appraoch is that it will force development of just specific part of app and for other it will be expected to use another app from Suite...Bellsey wrote:This is one of the real crux's for me. The landscape and environment in which 3D/CG work is produced and created now has changed alot in a relatively short space of time. Some packages have changed or lost their ground, but at the same time, there's been some new ones emerge or mature into proper solutions. Also people's views have changed now based on the work that they have to do and they look for different things from their packages. There's also many who still judge their software by how may new features it has each year, which although initially sounds ok, it does muddy the waters on what are the real issues for people. Imo, the days of feature counting are gone but many (vendors and consumers) still have this mindset.Clagman wrote:The intergration stuff is good for all even if you only ever use Softimage simply because if you are freelancing for a studio you might have to submit your work to a strickly Maya production house and the better the integration the less likely they are to ask you to create everything in Maya (forcing you to purchase another app). Besides all that now that AD is doing the whole "suite" thing, you really have to expect interchange tools. Truly, how crappy would it be if AD software didn't speak to each other. I have a pretty diverse software environment here and it does come in handy on a regular basis even if I myself don't use Maya much.
Many people might say they're not bothered about the ADSK interop stuff especially for Maya and Max, but the chances are that many are already using multiple apps (ADSK or not) in their studios and/or workflows. Interop and the ability to exchange data will always be important issue so when you consider the packages that ADSK has to offer, it really should make sense that at the very least they can play nice together. But at the same time, its important to remember there's other stuff out there, the problem is getting the various vendors to all agree on some kind of standard. There's still no 'jpg for 3D' as I like to call it. Softimage gave it a good shot with the dotXSI/Collada format, and what would become Crosswalk, but its hard getting people on board.
That's what I like about initiatives like Alembic, as there are multiple vendors on board, but ultimately its not their format.
Speechless.Senior SW Engineer
Autodesk
Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; ADSK; Computer Software industry
March 2012 – Present (2 months) Montreal, Canada Area
Working in the Maya team on a new technology for the VFX industry
Going.gustavoeb wrote:wow, for real!
so ICE is definetly comming to Maya then
