No 2013 Advantage Pack

[Nizar]

This is the first time I seen a polemical post by the great Pooby.

Three 3d apps with their own strengths, being bundled.

It's not hard to see the strong parts of each app are extended/updated, so you still want to have all three apps.

Sometimes Blender starts to look really interesting.....

Blender is interesting too! I play with it in these days and... impressed, it is a professional tool. I think anyone must take a look at it, without prejudice, is a complete full capable package, and development is constant with many new nice additions every two months, blender progress in a year are impressive (especially from an AD user point of view... The strong points is "complete" (have all in the single package and can use what you want seamless) and fast (no frills, no too complicate unnecessary setting, all done in few clicks). This one can be interesting: http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product ... cts_id=151

I like to see a better implementation of FX tree, update mental ray and some basic sculpt tools directly into softimage. I understood it cannot match with mudbox or zbrush, but as we can see on Cinema, blender and modo, the workflow is improved dramatically.

[ActionArt]

I always wished they would integrate Mudbox completely with SI. That would be useful.

[Nizar]

I always wished they would integrate Mudbox completely with SI. That would be useful.

That would be great! But I don't think never happen , in any case will remain a separate application, not merged into SI workflow like is blender, cinema and modo sculpt.

[bottleofram]

Simple push/pull/smooth/move would be useful, definitely, but integrating the whole sculpting solution... Why? Cant just shove it in, in the end it wont be any good and you'd end up buying standalone anyway. So another mental ray situation - paying for something you never use. At least not willingly.

If not for Autodesk's tendency to rise the prices of standalones with intention to make bundles more marketable, i would be quite happy keeping a few things separated from Softimage.


P.S. The thread about no features has became a wishful thread about new features. Bit of irony there to be appreciated...

[ActionArt]

Simple push/pull/smooth/move would be useful

Doesn't that already exist? There's the regular solution in the manual and this nice ICE solution.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1934

[bottleofram]

Simple push/pull/smooth/move would be useful

Doesn't that already exist? There's the regular solution in the manual and this nice ICE solution.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1934

Didn't know about this so thanks for pointing it out. But, that is still just push and pull with smoothing displaced points. A far cry even from mayas ridiculously primitive sculpting tools.

[jamination]

Simple push/pull/smooth/move would be useful

Doesn't that already exist? There's the regular solution in the manual and this nice ICE solution.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1934

with all due respect to the creator of that tool, it ain't the same. I would prefer it built in and more options.
plus you can't really make any mesh edits without adding another on top, it is nice but clumsy.

[myara]

- Stright UV Island In On Click , if Island has the same amount of u and v row (Like Headus uv layout).

Meanwhile you could use this:
UVNetAlign
http://www.xsibase.com/forum/index.php? ... adid=46282
You can download the original script from http://rray.de/xsi/
Search for UV NetAlign.

Or download my modified version from here if you're not brave enough to go to XSI Base:
https://dc355.4shared.com/download/dDWw ... talign.vbs
I also want better UV tools. I love Softimage, but in UV Tools it could learn a thing or two from Maya, Headus UV Layout, and other software. BTW, the latest unreleased Piotrek's UV prototype plugin also looks very sexy.
https://vimeo.com/46540432

Moderator edit - URL tags (and tags in general) do not like any "carriage returns" between them - HB

[Hirazi Blue]

The thread about no features has became a wishful thread about new features. Bit of irony there to be appreciated...

The irony wasn't lost on me either...
My main wish for Softimage 2014 ATM isn't so much any specific feature,
but basically that they will actually release it.

[Nizar]

About sculpt deformer: didn't knot this, I will try to day

Simple push/pull/smooth/move would be useful, definitely, but integrating the whole sculpting solution... Why? Cant just shove it in, in the end it wont be any good and you'd end up buying standalone anyway. So another mental ray situation - paying for something you never use. At least not willingly.

Sure, and are aware about modo, cinema and blender developers, but a sculpt (basic or not) brushes inside a classical modelling application is great for many reason:
can sculpt and add an edge loop where I need without the necessity of remesh, or modelling poly by poly and fast adjust my shape using a push brush, all without leave my application (and have the usual issue in compatibility e.g. zbrush ngons unsupported), also, sculpt is useful in animation, take a look at blender anisculpt, is present also in modo, during your animation process can adjust your shape using sculpt brush (adding volume or extra deformation).

Seems is this the new trend: luxology will integrated a compositor in their next release and, if I understood correctly, Maxom will do the some (either have just integrated sculpt). Why? They cannot dream to match Nuke or even After Effects power. IMHO the key is blender:
The power of blender is: do not excel in nothing (zbrush sculpt better, bodypaint paint better, modo rendering is better etc. etc. ) but all the different fields inside the software are connect and interact perfectly, so modelling is not the best (but is damn fast) but can be used in conjunct with sculpt seamless, some for the rendering, is very poor but is full integrated inside internal node compositor and the old internal Blender Render Engine can mixed with the new unbiased GPU Cycles render, all seamless, with a very smooth workflow (this series of tutorial is very helpful about: http://cgcookie.com/blender/2012/07/02/creating-a-realistic-head-in-blender-part-05-skin-shader/

My main wish for Softimage 2014 ATM isn't so much any specific feature,
but basically that they will actually release it.

why? there is no risk about. My only concern is about the quality, and entity, of the new features. All around I see all the other not AD software run fast adding many features and trying to innovate (more or less) in some field.

[ChrB]

P.S. The thread about no features has became a wishful thread about new features. Bit of irony there to be appreciated...

[j3st3r]

Sculpt deformer is nowhere to Maya's artisan. The main reason is that sculpt deformer is weightmap based. You paint the weightmap, and it's modulate the strength of the sculpt deformer. The strength is the boundary of the maximum deformation available. You have to apply almost every stroke with a new deformer if you want to sculpt with it like in maya...

An the idea of integrating mudbox into SI terrifying me...I don't like mudbox....for texturing it's OK, but for modeling...anyway, I think more interaction on the viewport (painting, brush based geometry editing (smooth, sculpt on a better level)) would be really useful...

[Bellsey]

It's too easy to look around at other software packages and see them, seemingly making huge steps forward compared to Autodesk, especially right now as it's Siggraph time. Siggraph is often the biggest show of the year for some people, so they naturally announce and/or launch new versions of their software, or bring new stuff to the show. It wasn't that long ago Autodesk did the same, but seeing as they appear to have moved their software launches to other times of year, then its natural that they look to be lacking and kinda out of of sync.

As for incorporating Mudbox into Soft, I'm not sure that's the way to go either, nor for Maya or max for that matter. The landscape for 3D software is changing and the way people use them is changing as well. Personally, the days of having that really big uber app are gone. People want more flexible tools and will happily jump to another app, because its the best at what it does, for what they want to do. It might be possible to incorporate some elements of a particular app into another, but the whole toolset? I'm not sure thats what people really want, so then the issue comes down to interop and making it easier for people to move there data.
I too would like some improvements to the brushes in Soft, but I would really like a far better and tighter interop with Mudbox generally, so I can transfer data to and from, better than it is now.

As for Mudbox itself, I think it still suffers abit from being underrated. Many forget it's a true 3D sculpt and painting package, which Zbrush and MARI aren't. Mudbox's painting is awesome (MARI's isn't shabby either) and though zBrush does have some very good features and is well regarded, Mudbox's modelling does hold its own, if you know how to use it properly (but the same can be said for any package), and it does get use alot more for modelling than people might think, for example, Weta primarily used Mudbox on Avatar.

[Maximus]

I agree on everything you said Bellsay. Now there is one simple thing that occurs and repeats itself over and over with Autodesk, and is really simple.
Why Mudbox is underrated? What part has Autodesk in this?
Because to me the thing is really simple, the performance of Autodesk softwares are simply horrible compared to competitors, and here is where the whole "underrated" thing starts.

When an user download a trial of mudbox and a trial of zbrush and with the same machine observe that with zbrush he/she can subdivide the model to 30mil poly and still sculpting/movin viewport/painting flawlessly, then try the same in mudbox and has terrific slowdowns, made impossible to work, its really quick where he/she goes with.

Its pointless now here to say "depends on what hardware you have" because with the same hardware the other software works. So its Autodesk fault to not improve and optimize softwares for everyone. How comes the other software works?
Also you have a wide range of sculpting brushes in zbrush while mudbox has like 10? Another annoying thing in mudbox is the scale of the model, if the model is small you simply cant sculpt on it, the whole brush strenght/size is completely off.
Same goes for normal sculpting/painting, if you increase your brush size a lot, it'll simply slow down everything.

Those are basic stuff that make people drift away, there is no excuse for those things not to work. Performance always been an autodesk problem and its not going to change.
I took a look at the maya directx 11 viewport in the area, that Monster textured with dof in viewport... then you see in the bottom right corner "1.5 fps" in the viewport.. i mean what?

I'm happy Weta used an Autodesk product instead of a Pixologic (well i dont really care that much to be honest) but that doesnt solve my problems. So might as well put couple of lines in the box product that says "This product only works for big giant studios, not suited for freelancers and average machines".

I admit i've been a little harsh but, it never surprised me why mudbox is underrated. Any forums i've read people complain about lack of 3d brushes, and performance. Since day 1. and Autodesk didnt do anything about it. So yeah not surprised.
This applies to 3d softwares too, Softimage in particular.

The whole suite thing was a big mistake, it is cool for larger studios, but its killer for small/frelancers. So again you might as well put those 2 lines when u ship Softimage or the creative suite "its not suited for freelancers/average studios".
In my opinion is depressing, because it takes so few for Autodesk to please both small and big, but they just dont care. We're here once again with "lets see what 2014 will bring" yeah.
Looking to other softwares and switching is not that easy for small studios and freelancers, especially because of the time/money you invested in it, so telling people "just switch software" wont work either.

Its a dead situation, no software is perfect, but overall Autodesk isnt doing a good job at all, its choking its userbase with pricing system, subscription and the damn Suite that forces you to learn and buy another software for a task you should be able to do with the current software you own.

Then one morning you wake up and you find out how Autodesk changes things like this:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread. ... &t=1064055

This is Autodesk style.
But hey, untill people keep paying, we cant really complain right?

[bottleofram]

The days of really big uber apps may be gone, but the days of really big uber suites are yet to come.

[Nizar]

When an user download a trial of mudbox and a trial of zbrush and with the same machine observe that with zbrush he/she can subdivide the model to 30mil poly and still sculpting/movin viewport/painting flawlessly, then try the same in mudbox and has terrific slowdowns, made impossible to work, its really quick where he/she goes with.

And zbrush don't have a 64bit version, so work only with 4 gb...

I admit i've been a little harsh but, it never surprised me why mudbox is underrated. Any forums i've read people complain about lack of 3d brushes, and performance. Since day 1. and Autodesk didnt do anything about it. So yeah not surprised.
This applies to 3d softwares too, Softimage in particular.

Agree. if excluding Bellsey and others people like him, AD customer care don't shines

is clear, IMHO, AD don't care about little studio or freelancers, giving practical free opportunities to software like modo, cinema, lightwave and blender. I think they are sure large studio "dictate fashion" and Little studio/freelance/hobbyist follow the big.