What if Softimage died?

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

Now oddly, and people here might contest this, Autodesk haven't stopped talking about Softimage, we continue to produce marketing materials and include it (along with our other solutions) when doing events for industry or channel. So there is actually alot of information out there from us, together with all the other sources such as Facebook, twitter, Youtube, Vimeo, etc.

There is a lot of information on any software. But that's not how you control perception or create an image of a product. If you advertise something as a companion to another software, don't give it its own suite or no extension, that creates the perception of a product. Because it also creates a reaction. Either AD continues to fail to understand that or they just don't want to change anything about it. If there was only another SP along with the extensions of the others, it would have at least looked as if Si isn't last in line.
And it is not about companies changing pipelines but acquiring new customers who will otherwise go to the foundry or maxon.
You know only doing what is absolutely unavoidable is not how you sell anything. You are aware that by law, AD isn't even obligated to release new versions at all every year? If you stick to what is only necessary you'll never be successful with any product. Either AD's marketing is incompetent or they don't see the need to act. Which is both equally stupid.

They have a product that has the potential to sell every one will agree, and the only explanation why the don't push it is for most people that it is "dead", no matter how much information you distribute. If you don't promote and advertise you will not sell.

[SreckoM]

So still beating dead horse here ....

Guys realize, nothing will change how AD behaves about SI. It is pure economy, SI is type of product that can get only this level of investment, if you did not realize this after all these years, well I do not know what to say.

If you want better releases, more marketing etc. just switch the application. Crossgrade to another AD product (Maya), or buy something else. If Japanese studios are switching to Maya, well, I guess one freelancer can do it too.

It is best to stop with treads like this, as it is always about same things, over and over again. Users are complaining about weak releases, high prices, non existing marketing etc. and AD employees are saying how they listen, how future is bright (in mean time most of them leaved AD or SI department), talking about some laws that restricts them etc.. I mean really what is the point anymore?

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

So still beating dead horse here ....

Guys realize, nothing will change how AD behaves about SI. It is pure economy, SI is type of product that can get only this level of investment, if you did not realize this after all these years, well I do not know what to say.

If you want better releases, more marketing etc. just switch the application. Crossgrade to another AD product (Maya), or buy something else. If Japanese studios are switching to Maya, well, I guess one freelancer can do it too.

It is best to stop with treads like this, as it is always about same things, over and over again. Users are complaining about weak releases, high prices, non existing marketing etc. and AD employees are saying how they listen, how future is bright (in mean time most of them leaved AD or SI department), talking about some laws that restricts them etc.. I mean really what is the point anymore?

That exactly is my point, actually ;)

[Bellsey]

Now oddly, and people here might contest this, Autodesk haven't stopped talking about Softimage, we continue to produce marketing materials and include it (along with our other solutions) when doing events for industry or channel. So there is actually alot of information out there from us, together with all the other sources such as Facebook, twitter, Youtube, Vimeo, etc.

There is a lot of information on any software. But that's not how you control perception or create an image of a product. If you advertise something as a companion to another software, don't give it its own suite or no extension, that creates the perception of a product. Because it also creates a reaction. Either AD continues to fail to understand that or they just don't want to change anything about it. If there was only another SP along with the extensions of the others, it would have at least looked as if Si isn't last in line.
And it is not about companies changing pipelines but acquiring new customers who will otherwise go to the foundry or maxon.
You know only doing what is absolutely unavoidable is not how you sell anything. You are aware that by law, AD isn't even obligated to release new versions at all every year? If you stick to what is only necessary you'll never be successful with any product. Either AD's marketing is incompetent or they don't see the need to act. Which is both equally stupid.

They have a product that has the potential to sell every one will agree, and the only explanation why the don't push it is for most people that it is "dead", no matter how much information you distribute. If you don't promote and advertise you will not sell.

The point I've been trying to make is that we actually do alot to push various products and alot of those activities aren't perhaps obvious to people and many just judge us purely on whether a software has an extension release, or they don't see a print ad in some magazine.
Also, you can spend all the effort and sometimes have to accept that people might not be interested. They might appreciate the product you're selling, and 'get it' so to speak and see the value, but they won't buy for whatever reason. As I said, you can lead the horse to water, but can't always make it drink.

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

The point I've been trying to make is that we actually do alot to push various products and alot of those activities aren't perhaps obvious to people and many just judge us purely on whether a software has an extension release, or they don't see a print ad in some magazine.
Also, you can spend all the effort and sometimes have to accept that people might not be interested. They might appreciate the product you're selling, and 'get it' so to speak and see the value, but they won't buy for whatever reason. As I said, you can lead the horse to water, but can't always make it drink.

What I'm trying to say is: yes exactly. People judge you by your actions. And that is "do they release an extension", "do they fix bugs" and so on. Your intentions, if they are not obvious to everyone, count nothing. "I mean well" doesn't help anyone, if there are no actions for everyone to see to prove it. You could only by marketing make a better product of softimage, without changing any other investment in the software. That is what marketing means. Creating a demand where none has been before. Then you sell, and then you get the cashflow to make the product better. You are not really telling me, that your marketing guys do not understand this principle?

[Bellsey]

I'm not confirming or denying anything, only that I think you're not maybe seeing where I'm coming from, or maybe I haven't explained it clearly, so I won't go on.

[Hirazi Blue]

Just read on the Mailing List that Chris Chia left Softimage or even Autodesk...
Is this part of a larger "exodus"?
Will he be replaced?

[mattmos]

Its unfortunate timing but I got the impression its his decision, and I believe there is a replacement.

[luceric]

What I'm trying to say is: yes exactly. People judge you by your actions. And that is "do they release an extension", "do they fix bugs" and so on. Your intentions, if they are not obvious to everyone, count nothing. "I mean well" doesn't help anyone, if there are no actions for everyone to see to prove it. You could only by marketing make a better product of softimage, without changing any other investment in the software. That is what marketing means. Creating a demand where none has been before. Then you sell, and then you get the cashflow to make the product better. You are not really telling me, that your marketing guys do not understand this principle?

I think you're not rational and misinformed about the potential revenue of "autodesk-hating" seats Autodesk could make by marketing softimage. The potential of softimage, perhaps even of 3D apps in general (good luck, Clarisse), is pretty well-known: there was a 3 years experiment during which XSI was available for only 450$, and it didn't make much of a dent in the market; people still bought other products, including modo, cinema 4d, max and maya. Softimage had its own web site, siggraph booth, lots of marketing, free DVDs on magazines, etc. That experiment ended 5 years ago, it's not that long ago and not much has fundamentally changed. Nowadays, IMHO it's an even tougher sell because everyone know they would be buying into the little product in a portfolio of products that covers 80% of the market with other two. There is nothing here that can be marketed away like magic, it's all facts. People are not stupid, and they can tell the main efforts are around Maya and Maya LT, because that's true. They don't want to buy second place.

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

What I'm trying to say is: yes exactly. People judge you by your actions. And that is "do they release an extension", "do they fix bugs" and so on. Your intentions, if they are not obvious to everyone, count nothing. "I mean well" doesn't help anyone, if there are no actions for everyone to see to prove it. You could only by marketing make a better product of softimage, without changing any other investment in the software. That is what marketing means. Creating a demand where none has been before. Then you sell, and then you get the cashflow to make the product better. You are not really telling me, that your marketing guys do not understand this principle?

I think you're not rational and misinformed about the potential revenue of "autodesk-hating" seats Autodesk could make by marketing softimage. The potential of softimage, perhaps even of 3D apps in general (good luck, Clarisse), is pretty well-known: there was a 3 years experiment during which XSI was available for only 450$, and it didn't make much of a dent in the market; people still bought other products, including modo, cinema 4d, max and maya. Softimage had its own web site, siggraph booth, lots of marketing, free DVDs on magazines, etc. That experiment ended 5 years ago, it's not that long ago and not much has fundamentally changed. Nowadays, IMHO it's an even tougher sell because everyone know they would be buying into the little product in a portfolio of products that covers 80% of the market with other two. There is nothing here that can be marketed away like magic, it's all facts. People are not stupid, and they can tell the main efforts are around Maya and Maya LT, because that's true. They don't want to buy second place.

I'm talking about basic principles, not how much money you can make with SI in particular. And making Maya first place, wasn't that a marketing decision?
So all in all the baseline is, as I said before, AD doesn't want to change anything about Si. This is why all the discussions about features and specialisations and future of Si is futile. That is the perception. That is why people think Si is dead. Period.

Oh, by the way if it wasn't for the 450$ experiment, I wouldn't be an XSI user today.

PS: Marketing is also responsible if people hate a brand or a company loses customers.
And one more thing: Why did AD buy XSI? Only to end that experiment?

[MauricioPC]

And one more thing: Why did AD buy XSI? Only to end that experiment?

I guess it was to gain access to the technologies developed there, as ICE, etc, and the great programmers of the SI team. In that, it's a smart move. Look at the new features of Maya.

I for one am only playing with 3ds Max and Maya now ... and probably will only focus on Maya to get better. I could go to the competition, but I prefer AD offering in comparison with Houdini. And Cinema 4D, in my view, looses to 3ds Max.

P.S.: Krakatoa and FumeFX looks to cool and I want to learn to use it. And there's a wealth of amazing Particle Flow tutorials that's so cool. I just wish there's something similar for Maya.

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

And one more thing: Why did AD buy XSI? Only to end that experiment?

I guess it was to gain access to the technologies developed there, as ICE, etc, and the great programmers of the SI team. In that, it's a smart move. Look at the new features of Maya.

I for one am only playing with 3ds Max and Maya now ... and probably will only focus on Maya to get better. I could go to the competition, but I prefer AD offering in comparison with Houdini. And Cinema 4D, in my view, looses to 3ds Max.

P.S.: Krakatoa and FumeFX looks to cool and I want to learn to use it. And there's a wealth of amazing Particle Flow tutorials that's so cool. I just wish there's something similar for Maya.

Yeah, alot of bodies line the path of Autodesk. Gee, I wonder why people don't love this company....

But what new features of maya? Modelling toolkit? Xgen? Nothing from Si here. Not even a dockable outliner.

[redmotion]

The best 3d software that has yet to exist would consist of the following:

1. An ICEy core - essentially a completely extensible 3d visual programming platform. Everything from menu items to geometric primatives to artificial intelligence would be generated from ICE trees. You could then use this base to customise the engine for use with completely different applications like engineering, flood simulation, etc.
2. Then you have a polygon mantle that can utilise the GPU to push billions of polys with ease - as well as running ICE tree simulations and mesh generation off either GPU or CPU or both (using a codebase which has it's lower-level communication with the different hardware types unified in the code layer immediately above - eg: 1 programming node works for all 3 cases without any tweaking).
3. A totally customisable UI overlay - overlaying the ICE core and super-fast 3d mantle, would be the UI crust which could be easily tweaked to resemble exactly whatever software you're used to using as well as allowing UI designers to experiment with new technologies like AR, the leapmotion and occulus rift.
4. Finally, it would be free. Universities could use it as a playground for 3d mathematical advances, new algorithms could just be uploaded for others to use and tweak. No more waiting for big cos to adopt new technologies.

I'm calling it "PlanetCG".

Guess I'm saying there isn't anything out there close to an alternative to SI. If there was - I'd be there already.

Anyways, I'll keep using SI even if it goes away - don't make enough money using it to justify an upgrade, let alone a switch.

And one more thing: Why did AD buy XSI? Only to end that experiment?

To remove another major competitor - better to take even a small loss from a takeover than face the (admittedly) unlikely (but still possible) danger of it becoming much more powerful (via another companies investment) and affecting ADs own sales.

They have no reason to ditch it anyway. It still sells and they can't control where disgruntled SI users go either - without some VERY tasty discounts - obviously...

[Bullit]

there was a 3 years experiment during which XSI was available for only 450$, and it didn't make much of a dent in the market;

Consistency beat gymnics every time, i don't know how can you still be surprised by the results, even if i think that Foundation got more users that wouldn't went Softimage otherwise, i am another example of that . Just before what was the behavior/perception about Softimage?
: elitist, expensive, almost no Softimage culture available on the net, closed, a subpar integration of rendering engine when everyone was going GI with Vray, Finalrender, Brazil , the the despising of architectural and visualization markets which is where many kids start at school - this bizarrely continued with Foundation, we just have to look that only later CTRL shaders were needed to make anything comparable to Vray.
Foundation was a disjointed release because the cheap market is the render market and Foundation had no competitive render for that. It would have succeed and taken a big chunk of Max with Vray or something comparable. To sell Foundation Avid needed great rendering images: houses exterior/ interiors, cars, etc..

Earlier than Foundation i helped start a small studio, software considered were: Maya, 3dsMax, Cinema4d, and in last place Lighwave. Softimage didn't even registered because it was too distant, we know it existed but none of us had touched it and the 3d sites we visited had almost nothing about it . Maya was dropped because it was too expensive, Cinema4d wasn't at same level to 3dsMax with its plugin and GI rendering of Finalrender and we had worked with 3dsMax in school even if none of us liked it much. So 3dsMax was the choice.

No one can make a dent on a market without consistency and with a search of ease of use in some part of software that makes it superior to others. Modo is a good example of a consistent development based on a core part that is easy to start for beginners and it has broad appeal from product designers to pure vfx: 3D modeling.
This from start gave them a potential broad base of users. Concurrently they developed obviously the rendering engine. In the end images is what matter and that give an emotional reward.

[luceric]

there was a 3 years experiment during which XSI was available for only 450$, and it didn't make much of a dent in the market;

Consistency beat gymnics every time, i don't know how can you still be surprised by the results, even if i think that Foundation got more users that wouldn't went Softimage otherwise, i am another example of that . Just before what was the behavior/perception about Softimage?
: elitist, expensive, almost no Softimage culture available on the net, closed, a subpar integration of rendering engine when everyone was going GI with Vray, Finalrender, Brazil , the the despising of architectural and visualization markets which is where many kids start at school - this bizarrely continued with Foundation, we just have to look that only later CTRL shaders were needed to make anything comparable to Vray.

Ho so now Softimage is "gimmicky" and inconsistent. wow.

I think you're re-writing history with your own obsession about some features of mental ray not being exposed in recent years. XSI Foundation 4.0 and 5.0 had a brilliant Mental ray implementation. And yes, it had global illumination. XSI has had global illumination (phototon maps and final gathering) since version 1.0, way before VRay was ever released. There is nobody that thought at the time that rendering in Softimage XSI was terrible, it's always been highly regarded as a great implementation.

Foundation was a disjointed release because the cheap market is the render market and Foundation had no competitive render for that. It would have succeed and taken a big chunk of Max with Vray or something comparable. To sell Foundation Avid needed great rendering images: houses exterior/ interiors, cars, etc..

VRay for Max was only at version 1.0 when Foundation came out. Mental Ray was renown as the high end renderer and the whole package was cheaper than any render license. There was nobody that doubted mental ray in those years. And mental ray has consistently been used in architecture.

[Bullit]

Ho so now Softimage is "gimmicky" and inconsistent. wow.

I think it was clear that i was talking about Foundation. That was the gymnick i was talking about. It had shock value not product of consistency and nurturing.

XSI Foundation 4.0 and 5.0 had a brilliant Mental ray implementation. And yes, it had global illumination. XSI has had global illumination (phototon maps and final gathering) since version 1.0, way before VRay was ever released. There is nobody that thought at the time that rendering in Softimage XSI was terrible, it's always been highly regarded as a great implementation.

Maybe you can show me the "brilliant" GI(FG+GI) rendering scene from Mental ray that came with Softimage V4, you haven't one. There was a lame scene and that was it. I remember it well since was the first thing i searched.
Also if i am reminding right the so called Mental ray GI wasn't even usable as it was too slow.
Mental ray wasn't terrible, i didn't use that word, for that title i would probably call the Max scanline. It just was generally inferior in quality for realistic images, it was more complex to use and it was much slower rendering something looking good that today in age of many cores people tend to forget how much a getting a rendering feedback cost.

VRay for Max was only at version 1.0 when Foundation came out.

So? it was already promising much. At that time was a 3 way race: Finalrender, Vray and Brazil.

There was nobody that doubted mental ray in those years. And mental ray has consistently been used in architecture.

Except thousands that flocked to Vray and others. Unless you tell me they went to 3dsMax due to scanline render...
Vray, Finalrender,Brazil were the engines that made possible to replicate lets call it mythical rendering that Daniel Martinez Lara made with Arnold at begin of the century. And everyone went after it. This was GI.