What if Softimage died?

[Bellsey]

Bellsey - What would you choose Maya or Softimage ?

Ok, well that's pretty much put me on the spot.

If I was setting up a studio right now for film, tv, or games work, I would go with both Maya and Softimage, but Maya would be my main core 3D software though, however it might depend on what type of work I was doing to which I would mainly use. I've been using Maya since v1.0, so I know it very well and it is very good software, but there are some areas where I feel Soft is better or maybe more flexible, so that's why I would have them both.

I certainly wouldn't choose Max. IMHO, it's never seemed to quite fit in the M&E space. That isn't to say that people don't use it, or do good work with it, etc, etc. And in some situations, Max could be the right choice and if it was right for a customer, I would happily recommend it. But I've never liked the package and I make no secret of that. Strange coming from an Autodesk guy, but I prefer to be up front and honest instead of (frankly) lying.

[MauricioPC]

Ok, well that's pretty much put me on the spot.

If I was setting up a studio right now for film, tv, or games work, I would go with both Maya and Softimage, but Maya would be my main core 3D software though, however it might depend on what type of work I was doing to which I would mainly use. I've been using Maya since v1.0, so I know it very well and it is very good software, but there are some areas where I feel Soft is better or maybe more flexible, so that's why I would have them both.

I certainly wouldn't choose Max. IMHO, it's never seemed to quite fit in the M&E space. That isn't to say that people don't use it, or do good work with it, etc, etc. And in some situations, Max could be the right choice and if it was right for a customer, I would happily recommend it. But I've never liked the package and I make no secret of that. Strange coming from an Autodesk guy, but I prefer to be up front and honest instead of (frankly) lying.

Since you was up-front on your answers ... if you were setting up a studio, wouldn't you consider Houdini or even C4D? I mean ... for TV C4D could be really important and Houdini is a powerhouse for film and games (now with Houdini Engine) and it plays nice with Maya. And I guess even for TV Houdini could be a nice player as there's some cool mograph stuff made by it.

I'm just curious as you said Maya and Softimage (and even though you are an Autodesk employee), I guess you could put other software in the mix.

P.S.: I'm not trying to put anybody in the spot, I'm just curious.

[El Burritoh]

You know what this thread needs? Cookies.

Hold on, I'll go bake a quick batch....

...

While the cookies are baking, I'll just chime in and say that I opted for the second option (continue to use Soft as-is). This is simply because the end of 'future' development on a product has no bearing at all on what it's capabilities are in the present. We were just having that discussion at work recently. In the long-run, we would probably move to Maya, but we would do it slowly. Facilities stay on the same version of an app for years, despite the release of later versions. That's because you find something that works and you get in a groove. As we say in English "If it' ain't broke, don't fix it!" I feel that way about our workflow and pipeline. Softimage has NOT ONCE let us down in any serious manner. If Soft were to be EOL'ed today, it would be seriously unsound to jump ship right away. I mean why would we? We have a pipeline that works, that has worked for years, and which would continue to work for years to come. I don't understand why some folks seem to think that by killing the product's future, that somehow changes the product you have in your hands now.

And the funny part to me is this.... as awesome as ICE is, it's not the main reason we use Softimage! We use it because it does all these other things so well (passes, models, etc.). And here I pause to say this: before someone goes harping on how these features (passes, models, etc.) need work... that's not my point. My point is that the reasons we use Softimage are for its legacy strengths that predate the Autodesk acquisition. Our pipeline is built on strengths in Softimage that have been untouched for years already. In a sense, that part of Softimage has been 'dead' for a long time now. But the word 'dead' isn't really accurate, because people kick ass with this 'dead' stuff every day. So in this sense, what difference would ending Softimage development make? There are so many feature sets in Soft that are the reason we chose it, and which AD stopped working on years ago already...

Ding! Oh the cookies are done... sweet!

As for Graham's question about Softimage being made into a 'focused' toolset... as long as existing functionality remains at least intact (if not improved), that sounds fine to me. I think that would be enough to keep 3rd party developers working in it. And with power players like Eric Mootz and Fabric Engine and others, and newcomers like Redshift, Softimage might even enjoy a kind of rebirth.

...

Okay, cookies anyone?

[Hirazi Blue]

I'll have one, thank you...
And an earnest thank you for your post as well!!! ;)

[Bellsey]

Since you was up-front on your answers ... if you were setting up a studio, wouldn't you consider Houdini or even C4D? I mean ... for TV C4D could be really important and Houdini is a powerhouse for film and games (now with Houdini Engine) and it plays nice with Maya. And I guess even for TV Houdini could be a nice player as there's some cool mograph stuff made by it.

I'm just curious as you said Maya and Softimage (and even though you are an Autodesk employee), I guess you could put other software in the mix.

P.S.: I'm not trying to put anybody in the spot, I'm just curious.

Yes, I would consider Houdini, it's a very package, but alot would depend on the type of work I might be doing, and the technical resource I might have. I would try and use as much Maya/Soft as possible before then looking at Houdini, if I felt it necessary. Same for C4D, I know it's Mograph toolset is very good and many regard it as perhaps the 'standard' for motion graphics, but with Soft, I think I could probably get by without it, or I would try to anyway.

[NNois]

...As for ShaderFX, we haven't just dropped a plugin in there. For those who didn't know, ShaderFX was a Max plugin developed by Kees Rijnen. Kee's has since joined Autodesk and been working on some new stuff. ShaderFX in MayaLT is the just the first stage of hopefully more stuff to come.

Hi, i just saw Shaderfx/Bitfrost videos ...

I'm totally disapointed, don't know very well maya but how can autodesk could sell us maya as a softimage replacement with a stuff like shaderfx/bitfrost presented like external modules.
Even if it's apparently very good piece of software they seems not interfaced in a single core interface ! even the design is not consistent !!

Common, we are in 2013, and all that apears like just a layer on another, this is JUST why i never used 3dsmax from now 18 years.
And this just why i choose at first lightwave then softimage for their consistancy because they seems build by smart people.

So if I misunderstood, thank you for telling me.
PLEASE say me in maya this multi node editor things (hypershade/node editor/bitfrost/shaderfx and wathever) could be managed from a single elegant interface in a short futur, using math operators etc, just what ice/rendertree could be now 6 years later...
For me it's totally disgusting, autodesk devs employee needs to try reinventing the wheel each time, because if not they stuck us in StoneAge.

(Yes i'm upset, sorry for that, and my english)

[Eugen]

As for Graham's question about Softimage being made into a 'focused' toolset... as long as existing functionality remains at least intact (if not improved), that sounds fine to me. I think that would be enough to keep 3rd party developers working in it. And with power players like Eric Mootz and Fabric Engine and others, and newcomers like Redshift, Softimage might even enjoy a kind of rebirth.
Okay, cookies anyone?

Sure, smells good!

Soft became so good in the meantime, you can go on with it for a long good while. Until finally something better shows up in the years to come.
Might be Creation Platform with an artist-friendly Frontend, even Maya if the continue to make it usable like Softimage (no sarcasm), whatever.

3rd party devs... that's been my point all the time. SDK improvements as requested please, and the community can help itself.

[MauricioPC]

Yes, I would consider Houdini, it's a very package, but alot would depend on the type of work I might be doing, and the technical resource I might have. I would try and use as much Maya/Soft as possible before then looking at Houdini, if I felt it necessary. Same for C4D, I know it's Mograph toolset is very good and many regard it as perhaps the 'standard' for motion graphics, but with Soft, I think I could probably get by without it, or I would try to anyway.

Thanks for the answer Bellsey. Cheers.

[angus_davidson]

Part of my job each year is to evaluate the current options available in the market. Match them up against what we currently use (Softimage) and see their strengths and weakness and how they apply to the way we currently and the way we plan on teaching our courses in the future. For a very long time nothing has come close to just how intuitive Softimage is. We have both a 3D animation Masters level course (10 years) and now a new games design course(currently into our second year).

The game design course uses Unity as its 3D editor and as such when they get to the point of needing to learn how to create assets and characters in 3D it is currently very tempting to get them to start using Maya LT. The viewport corresponds much closer to what they will see in unity and the shader FX is a really nice visual tool (we have an equal number of arts and engineering students)

It is of course also tempting to start right away with Softimage so that they are used to the package if they go into the 3D Masters program. Alternatively as most of our future 3D animation students will come out of the games design course, its also not a stretch to see a path from Maya LT to the full version of Maya.

So this means we will most likely use Softimage for at least another two years at the 3D Masters course (it will take that long for the first game students to finish their 4 year degree).

The big question though is do we start our Game design students on Soft as well, or do we go Maya LT or even Modo which has a very good offering at the moment for what we specifically need (very good modeling and texturing and the new animation tools are really nice). Maya and Modo also have the added benefit of Both Mac and Linux support which is useful to us as we have a lot of non windows machines. Maya and Modo also have the ability to use substance textures which work really nicely in Unity as well.

This years decisions are going to be a lot harder then usual.

[Rez007]

ok, interesting poll, but let me throw a couple of possible hypothetical curve balls in there.

What if Softimage continued as normal, but it was channelled and focused into being a more specialised package for something. Kinda in the same light as something like a Mudbox or Motionbuilder, which are good at doing particular things.

And before people start saying - 'yes but Softimage can do loads of stuff, etc, etc'.......we know that, but lets just say that you're faced with two stark choices, either the product has to die, or it continues but with this particular focus. I'm not saying what the focus might be and it might not be to everyone's liking, but it would suit Softimage and it would mean the product lived on.

Btw, just to be clear here, I'm not trying to conduct a secret poll/survey for Autodesk, I'm just throwing something out there in the light of this thread.

I would not be opposed to this, if this were indeed to happen. If it did, I think Softimage needs to focus on Games. Games is where the technology leaps are quite substantial, and those new advances are the "driving force" to new games. It is the most logical field to focus on as game quality tries to match film. If Softimage focuses on that, the other technology/aspects of Softimage would follow suit. Unfortunately, the release of MayaLT throws a wrench into the mix.

If Softimage were to only become ICE and focuses solely on that, I feel that it would eventually be swallowed up by the competition. You need to focus on a broader market that has constant advances in its field - and that is GAMES.

I'm hoping Autodesk reads this thread, from my understanding Autodesk only listens to Subscription members, if there is not enough ranting from Subscription members, they simply ignore it. Other subscription members maybe ranting about bugs, or what have you, viewport enhancements they may not even be complaining about, they may not even be making a chirp. If you want viewport enhancements, we hope Autodesk is reading this, or the latter.

I am on Subs and I don't feel they listen to me anymore than anyone else for that matter. I contacted Jenni via the email she gave during the Max Underground debacle, and she actually did respond, which was quite refreshing since that rarely ever happens with AD, unless it is a technical support matter. (I have contacted AD for non-technical issues multiple times via their "normal" email methods). She is very nice and she did say she was passing my message around the office to help get some answers for me. I have now followed up multiple times, and have heard only silence back (been about a month). I don't know if she just got really busy or the email she gave was temporary and is now closed, but it would be nice if heard something back.

[Falam]

Bellsey - What would you choose Maya or Softimage ?

Ok, well that's pretty much put me on the spot.

If I was setting up a studio right now for film, tv, or games work, I would go with both Maya and Softimage, but Maya would be my main core 3D software though, however it might depend on what type of work I was doing to which I would mainly use. I've been using Maya since v1.0, so I know it very well and it is very good software, but there are some areas where I feel Soft is better or maybe more flexible, so that's why I would have them both.

I certainly wouldn't choose Max. IMHO, it's never seemed to quite fit in the M&E space. That isn't to say that people don't use it, or do good work with it, etc, etc. And in some situations, Max could be the right choice and if it was right for a customer, I would happily recommend it. But I've never liked the package and I make no secret of that. Strange coming from an Autodesk guy, but I prefer to be up front and honest instead of (frankly) lying.

Thanks for the input

[MauricioPC]

While the cookies are baking, I'll just chime in and say that I opted for the second option (continue to use Soft as-is). This is simply because the end of 'future' development on a product has no bearing at all on what it's capabilities are in the present. We were just having that discussion at work recently. In the long-run, we would probably move to Maya, but we would do it slowly. Facilities stay on the same version of an app for years, despite the release of later versions. That's because you find something that works and you get in a groove. As we say in English "If it' ain't broke, don't fix it!" I feel that way about our workflow and pipeline. Softimage has NOT ONCE let us down in any serious manner. If Soft were to be EOL'ed today, it would be seriously unsound to jump ship right away. I mean why would we? We have a pipeline that works, that has worked for years, and which would continue to work for years to come. I don't understand why some folks seem to think that by killing the product's future, that somehow changes the product you have in your hands now.

That's a very good post. Thanks.

I think the only problem for people that are starting out (like me and others), is that we "have" to study two software almost. Because we prefer Softimage and we study it, but we might also study Maya or something else because in the end, we want to get jobs in the industry and all jobs postings go towards Maya.

That's what troubles people who are in the first steps in this field.

[El Burritoh]

While the cookies are baking, I'll just chime in and say that I opted for the second option (continue to use Soft as-is). This is simply because the end of 'future' development on a product has no bearing at all on what it's capabilities are in the present. We were just having that discussion at work recently. In the long-run, we would probably move to Maya, but we would do it slowly. Facilities stay on the same version of an app for years, despite the release of later versions. That's because you find something that works and you get in a groove. As we say in English "If it' ain't broke, don't fix it!" I feel that way about our workflow and pipeline. Softimage has NOT ONCE let us down in any serious manner. If Soft were to be EOL'ed today, it would be seriously unsound to jump ship right away. I mean why would we? We have a pipeline that works, that has worked for years, and which would continue to work for years to come. I don't understand why some folks seem to think that by killing the product's future, that somehow changes the product you have in your hands now.

That's a very good post. Thanks.

I think the only problem for people that are starting out (like me and others), is that we "have" to study two software almost. Because we prefer Softimage and we study it, but we might also study Maya or something else because in the end, we want to get jobs in the industry and all jobs postings go towards Maya.

That's what troubles people who are in the first steps in this field.

I've only been doing this professionally for about 5 years now, but in my experience, learning multiple packages is just part of the deal anyway, not to make you marketable per se, but just because productions so often require you to jump between toolsets. It's unlikely that any single package will do 100% of what a project requires. And I don't mean just Topogun or Mudbox. Could be that 3dsMax gives you the best FX options for your needs, or that Maya nCloth gives you the best cloth within a certain budget. I dunno... it all depends on the project. Anyone coming into this industry needs to be prepared to learn all kinds of toolsets, not just concepts.

[MauricioPC]

I've only been doing this professionally for about 5 years now, but in my experience, learning multiple packages is just part of the deal anyway, not to make you marketable per se, but just because productions so often require you to jump between toolsets. It's unlikely that any single package will do 100% of what a project requires. And I don't mean just Topogun or Mudbox. Could be that 3dsMax gives you the best FX options for your needs, or that Maya nCloth gives you the best cloth within a certain budget. I dunno... it all depends on the project. Anyone coming into this industry needs to be prepared to learn all kinds of toolsets, not just concepts.

I kind of know that. But Mudbox or ZBrush are really more simple than Maya or Softimage. I already know the compositing side of things. But for 3D, both software are vast. But I guess learning them should be good.

If I feel more comfortable in Softimage, I should continue studying it and the FX course I'm taking is in Maya, so I'll probably, hopefully, have two software in the brain-shelf.

[luceric]

Hi, i just saw Shaderfx/Bitfrost videos ...

I'm totally disapointed, don't know very well maya but how can autodesk could sell us maya as a softimage replacement with a stuff like shaderfx/bitfrost presented like external modules.
Even if it's apparently very good piece of software they seems not interfaced in a single core interface ! even the design is not consistent !!

Common, we are in 2013, and all that apears like just a layer on another, this is JUST why i never used 3dsmax from now 18 years.
And this just why i choose at first lightwave then softimage for their consistancy because they seems build by smart people.

So if I misunderstood, thank you for telling me.
PLEASE say me in maya this multi node editor things (hypershade/node editor/bitfrost/shaderfx and wathever) could be managed from a single elegant interface in a short futur, using math operators etc, just what ice/rendertree could be now 6 years later...
For me it's totally disgusting, autodesk devs employee needs to try reinventing the wheel each time, because if not they stuck us in StoneAge.

Well, in XSI, you cannot use ICE nodes in the render tree. It's two different trees that happen to share the same UI widget for node, but the features (ex: shaderballs, visual debugging stuff, compound formats) are different, because one is mental ray shader tree editor and other one is ICE. Softimage also has a different graph called the Schematic - and let's ignore the FxTree since that one is my fault.

Bifrost, of course, is no where near finished and its "UI design" is merely a prototype to get things running internally. ShaderFX's UI is pretty much the new maya node editor workflow with additional workflow-specific buttons. Everything new will be consistent with the new Node Editor, and hypershade (i.e. the material editor) will move to use the new Node Editor once everyone is satisfied with it.

Workflow-wise you don't want one general node editor window that does not understand what context you are working in and therefore only has the lowest-common dominator tools that are applicable to all workflows. It's not like that in softimage either, with rendertree vs ICE tree, it's two different graph using the same UI node look. If you're opened the ICE Tree View, it so happens you might do both tasks, so it'll switch between them depending on selection. That's good but it's not quite that UI design utopia that I think you mean. In maya you've actually always been able to use shader nodes to do rigging (ex: using a ramp), it was way ahead of the pack for that utopia. That's become quite cumbersome though - for shaderfx you want to be guided to use nodes that are going to generate great GPU code, and not necessarily some super general node that was designed for offline rendering.

[NNois]

Hi, i just saw Shaderfx/Bitfrost videos ...

I'm totally disapointed, don't know very well maya but how can autodesk could sell us maya as a softimage replacement with a stuff like shaderfx/bitfrost presented like external modules.
Even if it's apparently very good piece of software they seems not interfaced in a single core interface ! even the design is not consistent !!

Common, we are in 2013, and all that apears like just a layer on another, this is JUST why i never used 3dsmax from now 18 years.
And this just why i choose at first lightwave then softimage for their consistancy because they seems build by smart people.

So if I misunderstood, thank you for telling me.
PLEASE say me in maya this multi node editor things (hypershade/node editor/bitfrost/shaderfx and wathever) could be managed from a single elegant interface in a short futur, using math operators etc, just what ice/rendertree could be now 6 years later...
For me it's totally disgusting, autodesk devs employee needs to try reinventing the wheel each time, because if not they stuck us in StoneAge.

Well, in XSI, you cannot use ICE nodes in the render tree. It's two different trees that happen to share the same UI widget for node, but the features (ex: shaderballs, visual debugging stuff, compound formats) are different, because one is mental ray shader tree editor and other one is ICE. Softimage also has a different graph called the Schematic - and let's ignore the FxTree since that one is my fault.

Bifrost, of course, is no where near finished and its "UI design" is merely a prototype to get things running internally. ShaderFX's UI is pretty much the new maya node editor workflow with additional workflow-specific buttons. Everything new will be consistent with the new Node Editor, and hypershade (i.e. the material editor) will move to use the new Node Editor once everyone is satisfied with it.

Workflow-wise you don't want one general node editor window that does not understand what context you are working in and therefore only has the lowest-common dominator tools that are applicable to all workflows. It's not like that in softimage either, with rendertree vs ICE tree, it's two different graph using the same UI node look. If you're opened the ICE Tree View, it so happens you might do both tasks, so it'll switch between them depending on selection. That's good but it's not quite that UI design utopia that I think you mean. In maya you've actually always been able to use shader nodes to do rigging (ex: using a ramp), it was way ahead of the pack for that utopia. That's become quite cumbersome though - for shaderfx you want to be guided to use nodes that are going to generate great GPU code, and not necessarily some super general node that was designed for offline rendering.

Well luc, i'll keep thinking there is space to improvement and a "general node editor" would be a great step forward. because everybody benefits when things can comunicate each others
For me is just about inventing how it could be done. As an example in XSI if develloppment continued are you saying you couldn't improve the relation between the shadertree and the icetree ?

I'll keep thinking there is always room for redisigning thing (I know i know you have to deal with toons of constraints), improving and yes I think i need to keep in my mind this "Utopia" to go further and produce good work ;-)

EDIT: Just looking at an example, Yeti from peregrine in maya, integrated in another node editor.... why is it not integrated in the maya node editor ? is it because maya don't permits that ? (I point here why it's not just like Melena on softimage...)