SPOILER ALERT - general Softimage 2013 description

[Kzin]

I say down with Mental Ray! I want Arnold as a choice for standard renderer!

you can get arnold, dont know whats the problem here.
and i dont want a arnold version where you have to go to ad to get one. this would mean the same thing for arnold like the current mr implementation, you have to wait for current mr feature until ad is kind enough to implement them. and short term bugfixing like its happen for arnold now are also not possible, like current mr situation (dont know why people wants something like this, the current way is the best for arnold also for the future).

[EricTRocks]

I say down with Mental Ray! I want Arnold as a choice for standard renderer!

you can get arnold, dont know whats the problem here.
and i dont want a arnold version where you have to go to ad to get one. this would mean the same thing for arnold like the current mr implementation, you have to wait for current mr feature until ad is kind enough to implement them. and short term bugfixing like its happen for arnold now are also not possible, like current mr situation (dont know why people wants something like this, the current way is the best for arnold also for the future).

Well, sell me a Softimage license that doesn't include Mental Ray (hopefully lower cost) and either find some reseller licensing agreement where you buy Arnold through AD but have an actual license from SolidAngle so you get all the latest and greatest upgrades OR I'll take that money saved and put it towards an Arnold license. AD isn't developing any part of Arnold or the plug-in or integration so no need to wait on them for anything.

[Kzin]

I say down with Mental Ray! I want Arnold as a choice for standard renderer!

you can get arnold, dont know whats the problem here.
and i dont want a arnold version where you have to go to ad to get one. this would mean the same thing for arnold like the current mr implementation, you have to wait for current mr feature until ad is kind enough to implement them. and short term bugfixing like its happen for arnold now are also not possible, like current mr situation (dont know why people wants something like this, the current way is the best for arnold also for the future).

Well, sell me a Softimage license that doesn't include Mental Ray (hopefully lower cost) and either find some reseller licensing agreement where you buy Arnold through AD but have an actual license from SolidAngle so you get all the latest and greatest upgrades OR I'll take that money saved and put it towards an Arnold license. AD isn't developing any part of Arnold or the plug-in or integration so no need to wait on them for anything.

right, i am with you. take out mr, let mi do the work and lower the price for a mr free si version.
but most users wants to buy a bundle of si and arnold like the current si/mr bundle. with this you would by it from ad and this would mean all the problems of the current mr implementation because you have to go to ad if you have problems.
besides this, i am pretty sure that si/arnold bundled version would cost alot more and you would only have one renderlicense.

[Hirazi Blue]

right, i am with you. take out mr, let mi do the work and lower the price for a mr free si version.

But wouldn't that basically mean letting Autodesk off the hook way too easily? There are already parts of Softimage that haven't gotten attention since day 1 (or 2), that won't see anymore updates as there are so many third party solutions. XSI Hair seems to be a valid example (but quite obviously of a totally different magnitude, but "just" as an example). We've got good ICE Hair (and luckily its still free, but that's beside the point), so our own little "Shave" doesn't seem to get any love anymore. And before you ask: no, this is not about the money. This is about giving Autodesk too many reasons to potentially (permanently) neglect part of their product.
;)

[Kzin]

right, i am with you. take out mr, let mi do the work and lower the price for a mr free si version.

But wouldn't that basically mean letting Autodesk off the hook way too easily? There are already parts of Softimage that haven't gotten attention since day 1 (or 2), that won't see anymore updates as there are so many third party solutions. XSI Hair seems to be a valid example (but quite obviously of a totally different magnitude, but "just" as an example). We've got good ICE Hair (and luckily its still free, but that's beside the point), so our own little "Shave" doesn't seem to get any love anymore. And before you ask: no, this is not about the money. This is about giving Autodesk too many reasons to potentially (permanently) neglect part of their product.
;)

the question is what are ad's plans for the future.
a modul like mr version with ability to use bugfixes directly from mi for better support?
or a modul version of mr but bugfixes only 2 times a year?
i have to say that i dont trust ad in terms of mr anymore. to many mr features are not in xsi over years, bugfixes comes to late.

[Maximus]

On the other side regarding rendering i see other 3d packages arent really doing well too, people are complaining to death about mental ray integration on both max and maya.
I seriously dont understand why after all this years this engine is just overlooked and left to rot in a corner.

look at this:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.ph ... stcount=86

People already disappointed cause no new features added in 3ds max, probably neither in maya.
This is what i was sayin before, bugfixes are something we already payed for that should work, its not something that should be considered as an update or exposed as a new feature.
But since with AD we are all used to this now, it became normal, which shouldnt be.

First year i see so many complaints on all AD 3d packages, mudbox included. Maya thread on cgtalk is funny to read (disappointing a lot if you are a customer and maya user).
Big problem with AD is no one knows where they are heading with software developments and what they are gonna do, so everyone is clueless and angry and you cant really blame them, since people pay for something they dont know. And they get disappointed periodically.

[Bellsey]

reading the recent posts, as an ADSK guy, I think you guys need to take a step back and really think about what the real issues are. The reason I say that is that I think its easy to loose sight of things. There's some very interesting points being made, but at the same time, they don't make our lives any easier in try to develop and deliver a product that tries to meet peoples demands.

Its already been said about trying to satisfy everyone and many even ADSK to not do any new features for one release cycle and just bug fix. That sounds like a great idea, however if they did actually do that, all honest and upfront, then I'd bet that people would still complain about the lack of new features. Dammned if you do and dammned if you don't. The idea of taking MR out and shipping without a renderer sounds great on paper, but again if ADSK did that, people would then complain there's no built in renderer, lol.

I'm surprisd about the comments around Max 2013 though, as even though I hate the package (seriously I do, lol), I think the new UI stuff alone looks very good and frankly long overdue.

When it comes to rendering, regardless of whatever software (ADSK or not), or whatever renderer, well there will always be issues. It's frankly never ending.
Talking MR though, I agree with what many have said, I myself wish there were more fixes, but ultimately it does come down to the fact that its not our renderer, so we don't control it. How our relationship works I don't know, but I don't believe that the product guys are sitting back and just not bothering to deal with any MR issues. There's no doubt that we would like to get any MR issues and bugs dealt with and shipped into the products, but at the same time we also have to ensure that they don't compromise the rest of our product. Unless corrected for 2013, I believe Maya/Max/Soft are shipping with the same MR version.

As for 3rd Party renderers, like Arnold, Vray, et al. Personally I think the more that we can do to help and facilitate peoples needs on choosing the renderer they want to use, the better. Having the choice is surely a good thing, no?

[EricTRocks]

The idea of taking MR out and shipping without a renderer sounds great on paper, but again if ADSK did that, people would then complain there's no built in renderer, lol.

Well, I meant as one option for purchasing Softimage without mental ray while keeping another option to have it. Granted the option without MR would include an Arnold license to replace it.

[gustavoeb]

The idea of taking MR out and shipping without a renderer sounds great on paper, but again if ADSK did that, people would then complain there's no built in renderer, lol.

Maybe, but if it were a option... how would people complain, just buy the bundled version. I dont think it will ever happend anyways...

Going off-topic here back to when people were talking about MetaSL I wonder about this... In theory one could write a MetaSL converter for its own hardware/software renderer. Quote from http://www.metasl.org:

Part 3, “Implementation,” will provide system programmers and managers with the information they need to customize MetaSL programs for specific hardware and software platforms, preserving the beneficial abstraction that MetaSL provides while making the most effective use of their production resources.

So now that all Softimage, Maya, MR shaders are MetalSL wouldnt it be easier for 3rd party renderers to waste a bit of time upfront and then get all native shaders converted for free from now on? Probably one of those easier said than done situation I guess...

[SreckoM]

About Maya 2013 and MR, in this version MR is fully plugin now, so it can be unloaded, maybe updated sooner than standard AD updates, maybe one day shipped without Maya

Talking MR though, I agree with what many have said, I myself wish there were more fixes, but ultimately it does come down to the fact that its not our renderer, so we don't control it. How our relationship works I don't know, but I don't believe that the product guys are sitting back and just not bothering to deal with any MR issues. There's no doubt that we would like to get any MR issues and bugs dealt with and shipped into the products, but at the same time we also have to ensure that they don't compromise the rest of our product. Unless corrected for 2013, I believe Maya/Max/Soft are shipping with the same MR version.

If you go to Nvidia Mental Ray forum you will hear same excuse, but saying that these are not their programs and they can not force AD to change fixes faster, and implement new features .... This is why I invested money into 3rdparty solutions, ridiculous to even try to change something, just going into circle.

[Bellsey]

About Maya 2013 and MR, in this version MR is fully plugin now, so it can be unloaded, maybe updated sooner than standard AD updates, maybe one day shipped without Maya

Well that was the intention, to essentially make it easier for ADSK and MR to hopefully address any issues, etc.

[Firebird]

I can understand the argument that you can´t just implement any feature right away because its always a risk.
But like Kzin pointed out there are features which exist since (i think) 3.7 and we still don't have access to them in 3.10... lets take progressive refinement as an example (I think its called like that).
And this feature alone would be a huge time saver.

And then you hear we only want to expose features when we know they are stable and working, which I always liked and think its the right way.
But as the years are going by it seems nobody does care about that anymore and it will never happen. Or does it mean that this feature is still not working correctly after 3 new versions of mr?

I don´t always need the newest thing right away and love it when maya/max users are then betatesters for things which don´t work like they should but like I said after 2 -3 new versions you start to wonder, what happened to this feature?

[Bellsey]

I can understand the argument that you can´t just implement any feature right away because its always a risk.
But like Kzin pointed out there are features which exist since (i think) 3.7 and we still don't have access to them in 3.10... lets take progressive refinement as an example (I think its called like that).
And this feature alone would be a huge time saver.

And then you hear we only want to expose features when we know they are stable and working, which I always liked and think its the right way.
But as the years are going by it seems nobody does care about that anymore and it will never happen. Or does it mean that this feature is still not working correctly after 3 new versions of mr?

I don´t always need the newest thing right away and love it when maya/max users are then betatesters for things which don´t work like they should but like I said after 2 -3 new versions you start to wonder, what happened to this feature?

I agree, unfortunately I don't have an answer. Not because I'm not allowed, tbh I simply don't know.

[ActionArt]

Well, sell me a Softimage license that doesn't include Mental Ray (hopefully lower cost) and either find some reseller licensing agreement where you buy Arnold through AD but have an actual license from SolidAngle so you get all the latest and greatest upgrades OR I'll take that money saved and put it towards an Arnold license.

While this sounds like a very good idea, I think in practice it might not be as good as we think. I assume AD pays a VERY reduced price for MR because of the huge volume. MR is comparable cost to the other renderers when purchased separately. AD probably pays far less than half of that. So just a wild guess, maybe $300 goes to MR from each SI seat (remember, just a guess). Take it out and you get $300 off SI. Is that really worth it? Then you'd have to pay the $1200 to $1600 or so for a new render engine. They don't sell the same volume so they won't give the same deal. Is it that important to save just a few bucks and not have MR?

I've done a fair bit of testing (and watching other people test) other rendering systems. I won't name specific software but they all have plenty of problems too! Some of those problems, if they were in MR people would hit the roof! People like to complain about MR but it really does provide a pretty complete solution and also people have used it for years and have scenes and assets developed for it. If it suddenly wasn't in SI that might be a major hassle for many.

As much as I'd like to see this sort of sales model, I'm not sure it would be as great as it sounds.

[Hirazi Blue]

I always thought Autodesk should do what Autodesk does best: BUY a company that produces a renderer and then integrate it in other apps. In the long run it probably even wouldn't be such a good idea, but in the here and now that might be quite helpful...

[SreckoM]

You are right it would probably be wrong move, especially for people that use MR.
But there are two important things, first, less and less people are using it, and to be precise less studios are using it. So it means less feedback, and that means less features implemented and bugfixes.
Second, also you are right that there are tons of problems with alternatives, but difference is that with other render engines bugfixes are fast. For example, I found bug with Vray, reported it, and 5 days later I can download build with fixed bug. With MR you need to wait Nvidai to fix it, which is usually fast, but when that will be implemented by AD you can not know, a year at least.