Am 29.01.2013 08:57, schrieb jo benayoun:
/.. and these projects often die often because argument like this,
which IMHO is a false dichotomy around core development vs the very
nebulous "more SDK access". It ignores the fact that core development
is done in a fraction of the time and benefit everyone plus the long
term viability of the product, and don't necessarily exclude SDK
support./
It sounds to me to be always the same arguments at the end (front-end
tools vs SDK extensibility).
We are already capable of writing a custom exporter but suffer from
inaccessible stuff. Why would I like the team
to provide me an ascii file format while opening more the SDK would
allow me to write my own + bring many other benefits in different
areas other than IE?
Following this idea, why did you guys exposed the ToolSDK and not just
provided user-friendly tools once a year (...)?
Considering the time it takes also to get updates or maintenance done
on some parts of the software, I wouldn't like depending on the softimage
team to see what I am looking for implemented.
--jon
Front-end-tools and SDK access shouldn't be mutually exclusive by all means.
The dev team is under time/budget restrictions, which is the main reason
an SDK exists. Otherwise we would would just need to snap our fingers
and the next needed tool would pop up with the next release.
What remains nebulous, for the usual stupid NDA reasons (investment
fraud), is the internal priority list. If we knew what to expect, there
wouldn't be double-tracking, and everybody would win. But sadly, this
seems not to be realistic with a closed source application. The usual
dilemma.
