Yeah, let's hear that story! =}
One basic question, for the spirit:
would you say that "anything is possible", or are there things (on the
known wishlist) that probably will never get fixed, simply because it
would mean too many changes of the "core architecture"? Like no surgery
on the open heart?
Or is there still enough room for any kind of improvement (counting out
starting "from scratch")?
The difference between being unwilling or unable...
Looking at 3ds max, you get the impression that this is the reason for
it's more or less stalled development. Hopeless kludge beyond repair...
Am 29.01.2013 11:13, schrieb Brent McPherson:
There is no central priority list from which we pull projects. As devs we
obviously have our own ideas what should be done but there are many other
business interests and opinions that go into deciding what gets done each
release. You just hope that as a team you are striking the right overall
balance for each release.
I know in the in the past we visited a number of you guys with our $100 test
where we give you 100 virtual dollars to spend on features and you tell us what
you would spend it on. It is fun because depending on who is in the room you
can get wildly different opinions and the final result usually ends up looking
quite different than what it was at the beginning of the test. I'm sure those
of you who have participated can confirm that it is a harder exercise than you
might have initially expected. ;-)
In the case of the tool SDK I think you would be surprised to know the history
of that project and how it got developed... ;-)
--
Brent
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugen Sares
Sent: 29 January 2013 8:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: softimage and it's binary format
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.
