On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Stefan Kubicek <s...@tidbit-images.com> wrote: > Scalability is a good buzzword, but what does it actually mean?
In the specific context of FX, scalability means very large number of objects, billions of particles, huge fluid grids, etc. Stuff that may not even fit in RAM at once. Juhani's mention of Katana is a good one; it doesn't just everything in RAM at once and process it the way traditional apps do, it creates a receipe that will run in the renderer as needed. For very large data sets, different tools and approach are required other than just adding more RAM to a single PC and doing things the old way. It's also difficult to reference, track, change all those assets if the system isn't thought for that. Again, truck vs family car. > Does it mean you can "process" more "data" in the same amount of time > compared to another app? And > what kind of data? Procedural geometry? Rendered Images? Does it mean you > can load more assets into the same amount of available RAM on a machine > compared to another app? > > How would the automation of such processes need to look like to scale well? > Scripted? C++? Node-based like ICE? > Multithreading across the board? Or is it a question of architecture rather > than which programming language was used to implement it (scripted vs C++)? > What does Maya offer in this regard, or where does it differ, to scale > well/better than Soft or app X in your opinion? > > In my experience Softimage offers pretty much the same mechanisms to > automate processes and handle scene complexity as Maya does, + ICE on top, > and I found it can load a good chunk more data simultaneously than Maya can > fit into the same amount of memory, especially when it comes to working with > textures and realtime shaders. That was up until two versions ago, maybe > that has changed? > > If all that doesn't mean it scales well, what exactly does it mean then? > > Note: I'm not a Softimage fanboy or Maya hater (ok, just a little, but not > enough to not use it if it offers something that helps me to do my work), I > just try to understand what scalability means by your (or anyones) standards > compared to how I understand it.
