Could not agree more on all you said Matt. To add my voice,
always improving the SDK is the most important feature for two reasons: - There are much more developers with the ability to create new Softimage plugins outside of Autodesk. - You must be connected to production world to create the right tool. When I say connected, I don't mean signing a partnership with a studio to help in the development of the new product. I mean being part of the studio. This is the only way to answer production needs at the right time with the right tool ! SDK development is the big point :). Guillaume On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Matt Lind <[email protected]> wrote: > All of the above. **** > > ** ** > > There are parts of the core that are archaic and need to be updated. > Other areas perfectly fine but need somebody to step in and finish an > implementation of an existing feature.**** > > ** ** > > In my opinion, the biggest problem is politics of getting the issues > identified to be addressed. Many of those making the decisions are not > well tuned into the real problems as experienced in the field and therefore > trust a database of reports, or a voting contest among users who will tend > to vote for whatever the trendy new thing is rather than the bigger picture > of what makes the software better overall. This puts the decision on the > product manager and the last few haven’t exactly been tuned to the market, > which further distorts the decision making process. To further complicate > matters, there are programs like media and consulting which can pull a > developer off a task to address a client’s need. Clients throwing dollars > at autodesk can skew the application’s development path off course if their > needs don’t align with the rest of the user base.**** > > ** ** > > When a bug is reported and others are able to chime in whether it’s > important or not, the items that often get the most votes tend to be things > that treat the symptoms instead of the problem. This is partly because end > users are primarily artists and do not understand the technical aspects, > and therefore will vote for what they know which is often a subset of the > issues on the table. This skews voting to favor things which are familiar > instead of things which need to be addressed. The item that could really > deliver positive impact often gets ignored because only one person in the > lot understands it and can see the big picture.**** > > ** ** > > When planning development of an application, you need to answer questions > such as who’s going to use the product, what should the application do > best, does it need to be more portable or more performance friendly, how > much manpower is available to develop and maintain the product, etc… Many > of the criteria are opposing, which means somebody must make tough > decisions, lay down boundaries and choose which criteria deserve more > weight. Those early critical decisions can have a long lasting impact on > the product for the rest of its useful life. For example, Softimage was > designed to favor animation first. That implies geometry data structures > for modeling and other operations may have to be designed to be lean and > efficient instead of robust as the overhead for maintaining complex > geometry is considerable and works against performance which is needed to > maintain frame rates. 3DSMax, on the other hand, chose a different > approach which favors plugin development. It encouraged 3rd parties to > contribute by making an open SDK, but it came at the cost of a decent > animation toolset….which is partly why animation tool development has been > discontinued on the product. In short, no application can do everything > equally well. Some sacrifices need to be made.**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, the product known as Autodesk Softimage was designed in a > different era with vast resources available under Microsoft rule. Today’s > landscape pales in comparison which can make the product more difficult to > maintain as it can require resources that are no longer available. That > combined with the needs of the market steering more towards modeling, > rendering, and special FX make it difficult to rework an animation minded > software to those needs. It can be done, but it has to be made a priority > – which is the whole problem as noted above. There’s also a lot more to > maintain today than there was 10 years ago. Changing direction gets more > difficult with each release from the increased inertia. **** > > ** ** > > In my opinion, the next release should be spent improving the modeling > core, operator construction history capabilities and management, openGL > view performance (OpenGL, HQV, and standard views), data management > (handling large quantities of objects), access to user interface so users/3 > rd party developers can get better information what’s going on within the > application (events, callbacks, mouse/keyboard feedback, communicating with > external apps, …), and better ability to customize the user interface > (access to modify existing views, make our own views, etc..). A > multithreaded UI and SDK wouldn’t hurt either.**** > > ** ** > > Sure, there are very long laundry lists of other things that can be done, > but many of them are dependent on what I just advised. Want a better > 3rdparty renderer? The developer of that renderer probably needs better > access to the internal guts of Softimage to do that for you, as well as > better UI elements to present the renderer’s features to you such as icons > for manipulating lights and camera features unique to that renderer, or > creating nodes for use in the rendertree, etc…**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Matt**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sebastien Sterling > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 09, 2013 5:40 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Softimage 2014**** > > ** ** > > If these things are to hard to accomplish for third party people, then > what realistic chance is there that they will ever be implemented ? is what > i want to know, Autodesk don't exactly have a good track record of treating > there customers as a valid source of input... is there some secret ballot > where this stuff gets decided ?**** > > Also, is the problem that the SDK is just too archaic ? does it need a > complete rewrite ? or are aspects of the code unavailable or illegal to be > changed to/by scripters ? if so does Autodesk have the ability to make the > code available ?**** > > ** ** > > On 9 April 2013 09:27, Eugen Sares <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Oil on my fire. > That cluster SDK restriction really really sucks. It is the reason why > there never were any good topology/modelling addons from 3rd parties, which > leads to stagantion if there aren't any new "factory" modelling tools > brought also. > In 3ds max or Maya, all kinds of plugins are available, completely > natural. Not so in Softimage. > The few ICE modelling tools like Cap are nice, but slow. Native code is > nice and fast. > > Luc-Eric mentioned once, ICE was meant to be the "new SDK", that's why > this cluster update mechanism has been implemented for ICE already. > Imho that's an excuse. ICE complements the SDK, it is NOT a replacement! > Cluster updates should be supported by the SDK as well, even if it is > complicated, and thus somewhat of a challenge for a 3rd party dev. > Try us! Provide a good code example alongside, and we'll do fine. > > Be wise and do it. Please. > > > > Am 09.04.2013 09:08, schrieb Piotrek Marczak:**** > > Just give us proper SDK and let community do the rest. **** > > ** ** > > "**** > > Softimage currently does not fully support custom topology operators. The > problem is that any cluster or cluster property will not properly update > when a topology operator adds or removes points that belong to the cluster. > In the worst case Softimage may crash. Hence custom topology operators > should only be used in the more limited scenario of objects that do not > have any clusters. Once the geometry is ready it would be possible to > freeze the object to remove the custom topology operators (but leave the > result of their evaluation), then to add the clusters and other operators. > **** > > "**** > > ??**** > > ** ** > > 2013/4/8 olivier jeannel <[email protected]>**** > > They do modo for birds ? > > Le 08/04/2013 20:27, [email protected] a écrit :**** > > I’m pretty sure there’s neither gentlemen nor ladies on this list.**** > > **** > > as for Modo vs SI – a little bird tells me there’s more important issues > at stake than selection.**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Rob Chapman <[email protected]> **** > > *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 3:35 PM**** > > *To:* [email protected] ; [email protected] **** > > *Subject:* Re: Softimage 2014**** > > **** > > now now gentlemen, there are ladies present on the list too! **** > > **** > > lets just say , when it comes to apps and selection methods, leave the > race courses for the race horses..!**** > > **** > > :)**** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > On 8 April 2013 15:32, Toonafish <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > ...but I prefer brunettes with bigger boobs. If you get the idea J > > That's prolly because bigger boobs aren't obstructed so much, so they are > much easier to select in shaded mode ;-) > > - Ronald**** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
