A more open + crowd funded extra, community driven Softimage

[Nolan]

What if Autodesk made Softimages partly crowd funded and or partly source available, open? For example people still paid to purchase the application and subscriptions and there could be on going normal development from Autodesk but also development funded by the user base via crowd funding. Perhaps using outside contractors. Maybe those that have a long history with the application such as ex employees. Recent comments suggest that the price of DCC apps is now too low to support their continued development. Give irrevocable license to continue publishing the application should Autodesk chose to abandon it, to a third party (The trick would be determining this ). This would give the option of adding features for demanding customers and those that would be new demanding customers. All users receive the developed features. They could also optionally make some source code available for developer contributions that Autodesk would require copyright assignment for. Optionally ICE compounds and Add-ons from the community could be incorporated or bundled with a cross license to create derived works. This would make Softimage open in a different way to the way Maya is considered open.

I believe this would:
• Allow Autodesk to experiment with new development/business models
• Once and for all resolve the question of abandonment
• Lessen Autodesks costs yet increase development
• Make Softimage more OPEN
• Demanding users could have any feature achievable they can pay for
• Open Source initiatives could be incorporated by their developers or the community
• Funds could be raised by the community for popular Add-ons to be bundled
• Increase the pace of development


Partly source available could mean anything along the continuum of Autodesk past employees, CGI companies that want to add Autodesk approved features and agree to gift it to the community or a more open model such as making part of the source code available publicly. The whole source code does not need to be provided as long as enough is provided to implement the required feature and link against the .obj or .dll's. Licensing would still function so the application couldn't be illegally distributed.

Make Softimage:
1) Un-abandonable
2) Partly source available
3) Partly crowd funded and hence more community driven

Development pace would improve because some have a great demand for certain extra features. The user base would increase as Softimage would be more open and its future secure, Autodesk would receive more revenue and the community would thrive. Wouldn't you pay extra to have your favorite features at http://www.softimage.uservoice.com implemented by crowd funding an ex XSI developer? And then wouldn't Autodesk benefit from that with other customers?

http://crowdfundingsite.net/ appears to be a site for creating niche crowd funding sites? http://www.GitHub.com could be used for private or mostly private distributed development. There so many people with high end Softimage development skills from its ex developers to TD's at companies who know the SDK.

There is a lot of talk on CGSociety threads from users that prefer Softimage and/or would like to adopt it!

[Hirazi Blue]

If you leave Autodesk out of this and would merely propose crowd-funding third-party development, your otherwise very interesting idea would actually have a fair chance. Expecting anything from Autodesk at this point, sadly, would seem to be the slight flaw in your proposal.
;)

[SamHowell]

It's a nice idea but Hirazi Blue is right. Autodesk will not participate with anything like this.

I would happily pay towards some crowd funded 3rd party stuff for Softimage though.

[Nolan]

As posted at CGTalk.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread. ... &t=1133194

For Autodesks its about their profit. Upfront Softimage purchase costs and subscriptions would continue. Provide what the community want such as fast pace of development progress and offer a bright future and the user base I believe will increase rapidly. There is incredible work being done with Softimage Softimage.TV . Many more people would add XSI into their pipelines. Along the continuum of what I’m suggesting it would also be more or less community based with crowd funding. This is not open source. This is partly available commercial source. This is not about making a Softimage non profit foundation. This is about Autodesks profit through satisfied users and providing something new such as extra demand driven and funded development which benefits everyone. All this just by overcoming the inertia of a new legal situation. But Autodesk could try this incrementally via involving ex developers under contract first (maybe existing contracts could work ), then maybe extend that to selected CGI production companies developing approved features and then they would have the option of making some of the source more publicly available if they chose.

Because of the quality/usability/power of Softimage and this development model, it would become very interesting especially to those with big dollars to spend! Buy what features you want. For others, get them bundled with your subscription in a future release.

If existing contracts with ex employees would work, all they may need to do to start is set up a crowd funding website, perhaps via http://crowdfundingsite.net/

I believe there is cash demand and excess developers. Let them match up by opening development.

Next time you talk to Autodesk or a reseller about Softimage, discuss this and point them to this thread.

I suggest rereading the original post if this is applicable/appeals to you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 21 Apr 2012 here: http://www.si-community.com/communi...?p=18544#p18544

When the Softimage developers were reorganized, I wrote:
“What Autodesk should have done with Maya & Softimage:

Softimage has most of what Maya users want except in the SDK and SDK compatibility. So Autodesk should have created a Softimage meta SDK underneath SDK's for Maya and perhaps Max so that those teams could implement their SDK’s on top of it. This way studios get to keep all their custom development and Softimage gets an even better SDK. They get one app with the very latest in modern SDK's, without a complete rewrite. Convert the Softimage GUI to QT and modernise the OS calls so it runs across all main OS platforms. To make the largest crowd happy, change the look and call the app Maya and see how happy they are with: New modern modeling workflow, symmetry, ICE, mental ray integration, rendering workflow, less workarounds, overrides, supra keys, multiple attribute editors open at once, etc
”

Sometime later we got Fabric Engine Splice and Houdini Engine. Apparently when a meta SDK comes from a third party its called an Engine.

Forgive the Maya disrespect and inacuracies. It wasn't intended to be posted here but on Softimage forum. Although I should have written it up more professionally and posted it here.

Autodesk, you could be rolled again with another idea! This time its easy!

[Hirazi Blue]

Please don't get me wrong: your idea is good and your reasoning is sound. That's one. Will Autodesk go for it? No, not in a million years. Softimage is a "dead horse" development-wise. We can prolong its life by crowd-funding third-party development to get every inch of what's possible out of the current SDK. But unless Solid Angle or a company with similar influence asks for some rewrite, SP4 or anything, nothing much will happen anymore, I'm afraid.

[luceric]

the reasoning is actually not all that sound.

you can already pay for your own arbitrary feature development by paying Autodesk consulting to do it, that's what it's for, so that part of the question is solved.

Whether you do that, or you could hire your own developer, 10,000$ would only buy you one developer for one month (and where is qa and doc). One guy can do very little in 20 days of development. Fixing a bug takes anything from 2 to 5 days. You probably couldn't even get something like ptex in and fully tested in that time, time flies. Expect 4-6 months for something like alembic. I don't think one could get the "crowd" to agree on what feature to use that precious money on. everyone has different interest/priorities, and wildly wrong estimates of how much development costs. But if you can indeed raise a few hundred thousand dollars from crowd funding, sure why go ahead and get a consulting to do the work. Kickstarter works because there are milions of people looking at that stuff, I don't think this is the case here.

You poll doesn't ask the relevant question; you should be asking how much money people would be willing to give. If you have no money, it's the end of the subject. A couple of hundred people giving 50$ will buy you a few bug fixes, no more. People can be willing to pay more but only for the exact feature they want, that's where it gets complicated.

[angus_davidson]

I have to agree With both HB and Luceric.

Its both a) not likely that ADSK will ever open up their software
b) People have very little idea on developement costs.

That being said

you can already pay for your own arbitrary feature development by paying Autodesk consulting to do it, that's what it's for, so that part of the question is solved.

I can only assume one of the game companies paid money for the camera sequencer ;)

Jokes aside would we as a community be able to say ask for a quote on getting a DX 11 viewport or even heaven forbid a mac port from Autodesk Consultancy ?

Assuming we could get people to agree on mini projects. Allembic, Ptex etc are good examples you might stand a chance to get people to raise the money on a per project basis. Somewhat similar to how Blender gets various features coded for them

[Maximus]

Ok so I have a question. You (as luceric) say you need like 5-6 days for a bug fix, and one person can do very little in 20 days of development.
I cannot help myself by looking at this:

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option= ... Itemid=390

How comes a company like SideFX (which is well known to be smaller than AD), every damn release pulls out so many stuff? Do you think they have 300 people working on Houdini?
I'm lazy to post you the link from Luxology Modo and Cinema 4D. But they are on the same line of Houdini in terms of NEW features / bufixes.

How many NEW features we got in 4 years since softimage 7.5? So you just telling us that the Softimage team is made by 2 people? In that case, how the future is bright?
Way to go Autodesk.

[Lord Futzi Voldemort]

A couple of hundred people giving 50$ will buy you a few bug fixes, no more.

Well, that would be a huge step for Si, wouldn't it?
Many of us are paying much more right now and get neither useable new features nor bug fixes.

[luceric]

Ok so I have a question. You (as luceric) say you need like 5-6 days for a bug fix, and one person can do very little in 20 days of development.
I cannot help myself by looking at this:

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option= ... Itemid=390

How comes a company like SideFX (which is well known to be smaller than AD), every damn release pulls out so many stuff? Do you think they have 300 people working on Houdini?
I'm lazy to post you the link from Luxology Modo and Cinema 4D. But they are on the same line of Houdini in terms of NEW features / bufixes.

How many NEW features we got in 4 years since softimage 7.5? So you just telling us that the Softimage team is made by 2 people? In that case, how the future is bright?
Way to go Autodesk.

go on the softimage wiki in "feature history" and look at the features in 2010 to 2014, there are tons of stuff, it goes on for pages. there wasnt that much in 2014, for sure, but since 7.5 the development was quite rapid. And on that sidefx page, there is a lot of padding: for example, "enhanced bullet" is just a bug fix, the "open standard" bit is not new development. other items it's not clear as well how much is new. we worked three years on ICE v1.0 btw.

[Letterbox]

1st While the idea maybe sound to a degree, the OP forgets the most important question... What's in it for Autodesk. And not being unduly cruel from a business point of view, the answer is nothing.

2nd. For the community to fund a project and then as suggested use Ad Consulting, would be a very unwise choice. AD use consultants to make money too. Many of the big 5 consulting companies start at 100% of the cost of the consultants is paid as profit. Which means for the community, 1/2 the number of people working on it, or 1/2 the time - for any monies paid. Let alone the consulting motivation to drag the project out to generate income.

3rd. While the community might eventually agree on a particular function, it may not be possible, due to sdk access, or if one is forced to use AD Consulting, it also may not be achievable as it may directly conflict with their other products goals and their market position and marketing plans for such products. (sorry angus)

4th. While Houdini, may well have a list that appears long it isn't a long as one first sees. But still they obviously have a management that has clear goals, who have the ability to talk turkey (and at code level) to the development team. This is, in any organization is critical, yet often vastly overlooked. Just knowing key words like "agile", "swat", and how to operate "ms project", is and never will be enough, let alone hiring cheap people, who are a few years out of university, and have written the odd c++ program, as so many are inclined to do. Conversely when you have the right development staff, and a motivational management staff, who support and understand the teams - believe me a great deal is achievable. But teams like that are not built in a day, they require significant investment in the person, not just see them an id# in human resources.

5th. To say a bug can take 2-5 days to fix, is a mistake of biblical proportions, a bug can take as little as two minutes to fix, or many months. It all depends on context and infrastructure impact. I would never quote any time frame - unless much more specific information was available, if only it gives non-technical people a reference that may never be met. That is where senior staff with in-depth knowledge of building infrastructures that are stable and extensible are invaluable, they are able to see the consequences of impact, of even the smallest of bugs, and cascading implications, as well as the time that it may need to fix them - all. (ie no more regression bugs)

6th. While the OP obviously would like to see SI improved, as many of us would, and has taken some time to think about it, that thought is from a personal and community point of view, he unfortunately has not taken into account that autodesk take an alternative position. Namely "profits". You think the rental program, and the recent 'no more upgrades' are intended for anything else than that?

7th To end this on a positive note, as it surely deserves one, a cheer has to be given to those community members who've personally spent their time keeping softimage relevant even through these unsure times, which includes many independent developers, people who post how-to vimeos, who simply answer questions, or who just add to the vast array of possibilities and functionality that softimage can still offer a new or experienced user - as one example of that one only look at rray.de/xsi. And all developed for free. Long may it continue.

[Nolan]

More developers and market forces would diminish the costs of development of the crowd funded aspect. Company in house development could take up VFX business slack where Autodesk allowed. Crowd funding would increase purchasing leverage of smaller users and allow companies to share costs and co-ordinate.


Luc Eric
The problem is that Autodesk want us to have faith first. But given certainty and adding an appealing development model would be a very powerful approach.
I think you'll get a pitiful response by asking for amounts without giving certainty and commitment first.

Luc Eric
I don't think one could get the "crowd" to agree on what feature to use that precious money on.

If I understand you correctly then the process of successful crowd funding determines the features. Perhaps you are saying collectively we couldn't raise enough because we couldn't agree? Crowd funders would bid on features needed and if that option failed move their commitment to another feature. Until one or more was selected.

You know the details of the market better than I. But I believe you fail to see the appeal of the business model and Autodesk making a commitment.

I think the user base would grow rapidly. Where else could one get one hell of a 3D CGI application partly collectively crowd developed and partly source available.

Letterbox
unfortunately has not taken into account that autodesk take an alternative position. Namely "profits".

Please reread the thread. This is also about increasing Autodesk profits by adding extra features at little cost to Autodesk that create greater appeal, both the product features and business model, that drives more sales.

Letterbox, you said it, Thanks to the community for all they have done.

[luceric]

5th. To say a bug can take 2-5 days to fix, is a mistake of biblical proportions, a bug can take as little as two minutes to fix, or many months. It all depends on context and infrastructure impact. I would never quote any time frame - unless much more specific information was available, if only it gives non-technical people a reference that may never be met. That is where senior staff with in-depth knowledge of building infrastructures that are stable and extensible are invaluable, they are able to see the consequences of impact, of even the smallest of bugs, and cascading implications, as well as the time that it may need to fix them - all. (ie no more regression bugs)

I was a developer on Softimage for 14 years, a team leader for a decade, and the development manager for the whole product as well for many years as well. I know how to estimate tasks and what's the velocity of a development team. 2 to day 5 days is an excellent average and there is really nothing that takes a few minutes, with the overhead of getting and understanding the bug, integration, code review and testing. If there is something that takes weeks (nevermind months!!), it is not a bug. A bug is a defect in something that's already written. But it's true that many people call everything they dislike and would like to see changed a "bug", but that's not what a developer calls it.

[Letterbox]

5th. To say a bug can take 2-5 days to fix, is a mistake of biblical proportions, a bug can take as little as two minutes to fix, or many months. It all depends on context and infrastructure impact. I would never quote any time frame - unless much more specific information was available, if only it gives non-technical people a reference that may never be met. That is where senior staff with in-depth knowledge of building infrastructures that are stable and extensible are invaluable, they are able to see the consequences of impact, of even the smallest of bugs, and cascading implications, as well as the time that it may need to fix them - all. (ie no more regression bugs)

I was a developer on Softimage for 14 years, a team leader for a decade, and the development manager for the whole product as well for many years as well. I know how to estimate tasks and what's the velocity of a development team. 2 to day 5 days is an excellent average and there is really nothing that takes a few minutes, with the overhead of getting and understanding the bug, integration, code review and testing. If there is something that takes weeks (nevermind months!!), it is not a bug. A bug is a defect in something that's already written. But it's true that many people call everything they dislike and would like to see changed a "bug", but that's not what a developer calls it.

Wrong. See regression bugs.

If there is something that takes weeks (nevermind months!!), it is not a bug."

That's not only amusing, it simultaneously explains a lot, such as why things have never been addressed, not least to those of us those that know better. But honestly haven't most, if not all, of the best already left, I think so, and you know so. I might even include you in that list too

[luceric]

Luc Eric
I don't think one could get the "crowd" to agree on what feature to use that precious money on.

If I understand you correctly then the process of successful crowd funding determines the features. Perhaps you are saying collectively we couldn't raise enough because we couldn't agree? We could bid on what we needed and if that option failed move our commitment to another feature. Until one was selected.

ho you're saying that you would crowd fund individual features rather than a create one big genera pool of money to keep the development going. OK, I had not understood it that way.

I think the user base would grow rapidly. Where else could one get one hell of a 3D CGI app partly collectively crowd developed.

I don't know, Blender maybe? ;) I guess what I'm saying is that I think the user ends up paying a lot with this model and I think you should try to see how many users and how much money they'd be willing to pay. My theory is that the user base is small and it's a small subset of those who want to pay even more money on Softimage. And the smaller the number of people, the more each of them need to pay. But this is just my personal opinion, I can be proven wrong, of course.

If everyone would get the funded features in the general advantage pack later, IMHO that could worsens the "game theory" dynamics since most people can just wait for other people to pay. I'm sure many people would pay 20$ to encourage a project to get alembic in XSI, but that's not how it's going to cost and it surrrrrely is going to get tiresome for people to pay here and there for things they think they should get for free. Pay both subscription AND crowd funded features? I'm not sure the would make the "user base would grow rapidly". I think that would fizzle out quickly. I assume these people want autodesk to continue XSI, not pay an external makeup artist to put shiny makeup on a zombie.

[Letterbox]

Letterbox
unfortunately has not taken into account that autodesk take an alternative position. Namely "profits".

Please reread the thread. This is also about increasing Autodesk profits by adding extra features at little cost to Autodesk that create greater appeal, both the product features and business model, that drives more sales.

Letterbox, you said it, Thanks to the community for all they have done.

I'd point you to #3, while the answer was subtle, it is never the less valid. Angus asked for dx11, but if that is a major selling point of Maya, and it may drive many a game studio to Maya, due to the demands of next-gen titles, do you really think they'll incorporate it into SI (unless the whole japanese market demands it)? That's an example of not doing something to indirectly make people migrate to a preferred product line. ie Inbuilt and ongoing obsolescence.

Accounting wise moving from one product to another, while staying in the "ad family" is not regarded as a loss just a transition, and with the recent move of forcing subs on people, accounting wise it levels the playing field for a company facing that transition, I'm sure deals may well be cut for those that move preemptively. It could, if they wanted it to be so, a mechanism to lower development costs, as when/if the si does fade away due to it being unable to meet certain production demands, less developers/doc/managers etc will be needed.

And realistically I believe that SI was purchased as nothing more than a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

If those items are correct, and dont assume AD will verify, then no matter how well intentioned your comments are, it's not in AD's interest to even look at them. Unfortunately, and while I admire you verve in thinking and writing this, I cant see anything coming from your efforts.

Which is why the user community mootzoid, fabric engine, rray.de/xsi et al, is an existing solution right now, and one that clearly needs to be supported, equally just as Softimage.tv needs content to showcase SI work, to increase visibility and again sustain longevity.