What if Softimage died?

[Falam]

More Autodesk Job Cuts & some are hinting at a program to be removed from it's line-up, just a rumor at this time.

[Hirazi Blue]

some are hinting at a program to be removed from it's line-up, just a rumor at this time.

We've been hinting at this for years, but Maya's still around...

[Superpositivo]

We've been hinting at this for years, but Maya's still around...

Lol... good one.

[Falam]

^ What is your avatar, Maya attacking Softimage ?

[Superpositivo]

Autodesk invaders... Softimage vs all.

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

More Autodesk Job Cuts & some are hinting at a program to be removed from it's line-up, just a rumor at this time.

Must be a lot of fun to work there at the moment..... ;)

[Dwindleflip]

This is a mess.

[myara]

If you want to do anything extremely beyond what the program can do, you usually have to script, whether it's Python, Mel or JS. I don't get the train of thought that you need a R&D department if you use Maya, like I said anything extreme requires scripting, including Softimage. The only bonus Softimage has is, ICE. Then again, one could argue that you have to spend the time to do the R&D in ICE too, except for it's visual programming rather then scripting. The differences are not big between a Softmage, Maya or Houdini !

The fact that Maya and SI have an SDK, scripting support it doesn't mean they are in the same level of customizability. They are not. And you picture it like you can do anything by coding. Well, you can't.

Maya has always had a robust SDK, even if working with Mel is a pain in the ass and didn't have Python support years ago, but it always lacked the "easy to use out of the box" tools SI had. That's why it's always been said that you need a large R&D department behind you with Maya, because you need to code by yourself tools that you can find by default in SI (but you wouldn't be able to to the same with the poor SDK xsi had. Truth is, Maya is getting better, emulating SI tools, buying plugins and improving a few things here and there but it is still behind SI in that out of the box aspect.

SI SDK is also getting better (slowly) but it isn't at Maya level.

ICE is the only really strong point (for now) that SI has so it is logical to choose that path if you want SI to survive. The non destructive procedural workflow that we all like about SI isn't that important when you have in house tools to emulate that workflow. So the only real card SI has is ICE. Just make it easy to use, make SI-Maya transport data more viable and you have the best plugin Maya can have. A plugin that costs as much or even more than Maya depending where you live though. Hilarious.

I think SI is great for games though, we use it a lot here in Japan, but the viewer doesn't help, not even the hq thing.

Pushing SI to the small/medium houses and freelancers as the generalist option would have been interesting and fair to SI capabilities. SI may be difficult for large productions but it is the best option, by far, for small companies and freelancers. I wish AD would take this path, but it may not seem very logical from a marketing and economic or management point of view, in comparison to the ICE specialization path. I would take the "generalist" path but I think I'm heavily biased.

[Hirazi Blue]

ICE is the only really strong point (for now) that SI has so it is logical to choose that path if you want SI to survive.

Sometimes I really do wonder if ICE has as much relevance as Softimage users tend to believe. It was a great idea at the time. but after its apparently final kick (ICE Modeling) it seems as if the framework itself all but reached the end of the line... But I'm gladly proven wrong (yet again).

[Falam]

Both SI and Maya have strengths and weaknesses. I have seen some great tools being created from individuals in Maya, most are going to take that last sentence the wrong way, nothing I can do about it. The amount of time it can take to create a workable ICE tree can take as long as scripting.

[csaez]

Sometimes I really do wonder if ICE has as much relevance as Softimage users tend to believe.

ICE is quite relevant on rigging-land, it has never been so fast/easy prototype a custom deformer/operator and there's no similar alternative in most DCCs out there (it can be done writting c++ plugins but that's not the point).

I've used ICE as an intermediate layer for scripted tools too, it has been really usefull to speed up init of per-point data (anything computable in a parallel fashion really) and as opengl log tool to draw quick previews (rigging guide systems, readers for PSDs, color code on polystretching and so on).

For me ICE is the main thing that keeps me wanting to use Softimage instead of X. Perhaps it's not that usefull on artistic tasks, but for techies ICE is a huge time saver

[Mathaeus]

Sometimes I really do wonder if ICE has as much relevance as Softimage users tend to believe.

Yeah it is overrated sometimes. For me, especially it's funny to read posts, where any nodal/visual system is identified like 'their ICE' Someone with a bit different mind, could say, 'they follow Soviet's solution' - as one of early visual programming language is developed for development of Soviet Buran space project. It's nice to find word 'friendly' in name. Or any other analogy is valid, to about hundred of similar solutions.

Anyway, equivalents, Cinema 4d xpresso or Rhino 3d Grasshopper, both are valued in appropriate communities. Both stays pretty much the same for years, but still desirable solution. So story again goes back to 'not enough users', as main problem of Softimage, all the time. When it comes to C4d, personally I'm really not a fan of huge list, of what can not be connected between Mograph, xPresso, simulations - but, well, I know enough of people who want me to do these setups.

Also, procedural creation, somehow it always been subject for overrating, mystification, what not. Since good old PoV-Ray, which btw, had no nodes, but lot of procedural approach in it. People liked to say how it can do 'everything', forgetting how it can. I always believed the truth is somewhere in middle.

[Hirazi Blue]

@csaez - Maybe my previous post was badly worded, so let me try again. As a highly usable set of tools you can employ to solve problems with, ICE obviously hasn't yet lost its relevance, as there are numerous people using it and preferring it to what's on offer at product X. What I was talking about was the idea of ICE as a "framework", of which we seem to have already seen the final installment in ICE Modeling. I'm sure the practical side of things can and will be extended (if only by third-party devs) but this core "framework" seems to be reaching its inevitable end rather quickly (if it hasn't done so already).

[Mathaeus]

I'm sure the practical side of things can and will be extended (if only by third-party devs) but this core "framework" seems to be reaching its inevitable end rather quickly (if it hasn't done so already).

Occasionally or not, both Maya and SI were acquired a few months after the first successful implementation of new technology. In Maya case, it was Nucleus thing. First iteration, nCloth was great. Then, at least for people for me ( did not been even close to Maya for literally ten years) - hard to remember even name of other "n". Today there is another, acquired solution for liquids. So, if I'm correct, Nucleus is "dry" too.
I'd say, these 'ends' really belongs to policy of corporation. Buy it, ride it until it dies. Don't feed it.

[luceric]

Occasionally or not, both Maya and SI were acquired a few months after the first successful implementation of new technology. In Maya case, it was Nucleus thing. First iteration, nCloth was great. Then, at least for people for me ( did not been even close to Maya for literally ten years) - hard to remember even name of other "n". Today there is another, acquired solution for liquids. So, if I'm correct, Nucleus is "dry" too.

Actually, there were updates to nCloth and nHair (developed during Autodesk years), and a new nConstraints module in maya 2014, and XGen in maya 2014 SAP works with nHair.

Maya Fluid is not part of Nucleus (i.e. there is no nFluid).
Maya's fuild is grid-based, Naiad's fluid is voxel and particle mix, it's two different approach

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

ICE is the only really strong point (for now) that SI has so it is logical to choose that path if you want SI to survive.

Sometimes I really do wonder if ICE has as much relevance as Softimage users tend to believe. It was a great idea at the time. but after its apparently final kick (ICE Modeling) it seems as if the framework itself all but reached the end of the line... But I'm gladly proven wrong (yet again).

I chose SI over Maya when it was only v4 and no-one dreamed of something like ICE. It's simply the speed of use that makes it superior. Dragging and dropping one parameter on another and adding a quick expression ist a matter 3 seconds whereas browsing through all the parameters in the connection editor alone takes half a minute sometimes. And if you want to connect with an expression you have to exactly know what to type and write it. Just an example. When switching passes I have immediately the right camera for my cam viewport whereas in maya you have to select in manually every bloody time you switch the layout. And most important: the "keep the manipulator visible in viewport" function is the most timesaving invention in the history of 3d Production! And only Si has it. Those are the little things that make SI superior, not ICE or some SDK. The faster you can work, the more money you earn. As simple as that.