>From what I read I suspect you share a frustration many of us feel, that the people making decisions at some high level of AD don't recognize the worth of softimage as a product, judging it soley on sales figures which given the rather convoluted path this application has taken to date fails to reflect the true promise of the software.
Many of us have tried in various ways to encourage (or coerce, sorry AD) autodesk into giving the product equal weight to the other DCCs, which they clearly do not do (softimage is a particle system?) With varying results, good things have happened but the overall large-scale trend seems to be ominous to those of us who would like to see AD court new users for softimage including encouraging max and maya users to seriously learn about the product. From the upper executives perspective (who may not have even spent any serious time getting to understand what softimage is) the main point of evaluation is going to be sales and user adoption, which paints a pretty clear case for putting their main focus and energy into maya. Most of us here know better, and know personally just how much value softimage brings to a production. After beating on this drum for a while I've concluded actions speak louder than words. It's easy to dismiss the arguments of any one of us as a zealot or fanboy. But it's hard to ignore companies like the Mill and Psyop which do fantastic work by playing to the strengths of multiple Autodesk toolsets. And it's difficult to ignore amazing work like the Framestore Audi commercials, the creation of Lagoa, the gorgeous work of Polynoid etc. Thats what keeps AD investing in softimage. And since verbal pleadings and suggestions fail to reach the ivory tower of AD executive decision making, really the only choice we have is to assist and encourage fellow artists exploring the software, and to encourage wherever possible fantastic work. That means sharing what we know, what we've built, even the "good" stuff a maya community might consider trade secrets. And not concerning ourselves with who is a CGI badass and who isn't, each and every softimage user has a lot they can contribute regardless of their skill level. That's pretty much my conclusion anyway as to the best way we as a community can go about ensuring a positive future for softimage. Sorry for the long post. :) On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Fx Person <fxper...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > Ok.. > so what was my message? > > Suggesting publicly making some kind of "show of commitment" > that may address some of the lingering uncertainty.. > (which is currently essentially acting like a "cancer") > > Highlighting each packages strengths & weaknesses > to see how each package can be complimentary, > and how they can be best suited for different contexts... > ** or how each can have a reson of being ** (considering SI's continuing > decline) > > So those strengths (many or most of which are non-ice centric) > may be recognized and possibly leveraged upon > .. to the advantage of the parent company itself.. > > and to reiterate.. > << > I would find it rather silly and *quite unnecessary* if it somewhat > got (further) compromised due to fear (or childishness) > or from Autodesk never getting-over seeing it as competition that it now > owns, > .. as opposed to actually seeing it as **one of it's own**. > >> > > ____________________ > Now what do you find depressing in the preceding.. > > I do put some efforts at making it "realistic" > (which often goes along with "depressing" doesn't it?) > > But If you are referring to my highlighting of the current Softimage path > trajectory to oblivion.. > (and what seems to be the reasons for that direction) > ** I totally agree that it can be quite depressing!! ** > > (While believing doing so for a reason) > > > I know this is all for just "silly software". > But like some music, some software do seem to have quite a bit of soul, > and SI definately strikes me as having lots of just that. > > Reffering to ;; tons of subtleties that can't easily be bullet-pointed as > "features" > > such as ;; complexity/simplicity proportions, > and complexity representation itself, essentially simplifying most of the > complexity.. > .. easily going back and forth for viewing/tweaking ... generally workflow > fluidity, .. > .. everything (abstract artist friendly tools) working with everything, > essentially (quite visually/intuitively) making your own "features" as > needed as you go along.. > .. .. .. > but who on this list do I have to convince about that lol :) > > > But things of which you only notice when switching back from anything else > (to date) > (including for people that were originally use to other packages) > (and this, despite SI also having it's own sets of issues/drawbacks.. > and that other solutions may be better suited for different tasks) > > For me personally, It's not about not wanting to re readapt, > (not that I would particularly like that either but..) > Moving from Shake to Nuke was 0 problem, > (notwithstanding how 2D can be simpler than 3D) > and I constantly learn new tools everyday. > > But if SI's (continuing) decline was due to something drastically more > efficient coming along, > I would understand, and identify the change as "evolution" (and would even > be welcome) > (as opposed to the current situation which strikes me as rather unfair and > quite unnecessary gradual "smother-ation" > by mere lack of attention .. and perhaps some self-absorption) > > Otherwise, I admit that I may sometimes be somewhat a "complicated" > person. > and sorry if I put some gloom in your holidays, it was not the intention. > > But anyways, Back to Work for me! :) > thanks > F* > > * > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chris Chia <chris.c...@autodesk.com> > ** > Hi Fx Person, > I still believe that you should at least be yourself when voicing out > these concern and not use such an alias. > > Your posts are really quite depressing especially the ones you posted > just before the holidays. > > Do let us know what you wish everyone here to do for you... > > Chris > > >
