Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Marten Blumen
Probably not that the solution you want but there is a '1st Seat Payment Plan' that includes the initial maintenance/'tax'. In the end an Indie version is still missing. On 2 August 2016 at 11:02, Feli di Giorgio wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Nathan Dunsworth

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Feli di Giorgio
> On Aug 1, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Nathan Dunsworth > wrote: > > Please turn in your nuke card for giving them the idea Adlm like services is > cool. > > The way everyone has gone about it is utter fail. When somebody can make a > flex like server talk to a

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Howard Jones
Yes I'd like that Howard > On 1 Aug 2016, at 9:02 pm, Feli di Giorgio wrote: > > Still hoping for a subscription version of Nuke like Flame or Creative Cloud. > > Feli > > > > www.felidigiorgio.com

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Nathan Dunsworth
Please turn in your nuke card for giving them the idea Adlm like services is cool. The way everyone has gone about it is utter fail. When somebody can make a flex like server talk to a monthership and not have it be per artist workstation that does the sign in and negotiations then we can talk.

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Feli di Giorgio
Still hoping for a subscription version of Nuke like Flame or Creative Cloud. Feli www.felidigiorgio.comfe...@earthlink.net > On Aug 1, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Marten Blumen wrote: > > Maybe 'maintenance' should be

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Marten Blumen
Maybe 'maintenance' should be called a 'compositing tax'. On 2 August 2016 at 06:02, Howard Jones wrote: > I agree with Simon, the emphasis has been one sided and maintenance isn’t > cheap. 10 does feel like a 9.5 though as far as Nuke goes. > > > On 1 Aug 2016, at 18:57,

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Howard Jones
I agree with Simon, the emphasis has been one sided and maintenance isn’t cheap. 10 does feel like a 9.5 though as far as Nuke goes. > On 1 Aug 2016, at 18:57, Deke Kincaid wrote: > > The perception may be that because of Foundry marketing was all about Nuke > Studio.

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Deke Kincaid
The perception may be that because of Foundry marketing was all about Nuke Studio. When you drill down to the feature list there were plenty in 9.0. Also lots of invisible changes to the surface around aggressively trying to speed it up. Then 10.0 is really like a 9.5 as it was just fixing the

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Howard Jones
One thing I think would be useful is if the Foundry went back to issueing beta licences. Then they would widen out the product for better testing. I am not buying NS until it proves itself useful but that shouldn’t mean I can’t beta test it. I don’t know why they changed the set up but they

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Marten Blumen
Yup - but it's just a phase IMO, like Flame/Inferno was in the 2000's. It was a really well supported product for many years before then, then went bad for approximately 10 years, as corporate made as much money as possible without many updates, then went back to being good as the executives were

Re: [Nuke-users] Nuke 10 Reviews?

2016-08-01 Thread Simon Björk
Great, thanks for bringing that up that bug-fix Deke :)! One thing with this thread that really worries me is that all focus seems to be on Nuke Studio. Personally I don't use Nuke Studio. From what I understand there's a huge amount of problems with it and they should definitely be fixed. But