Hello Paul, i have in fact seen the demo for the hair module, and in general the fabric engine looks amazing, up until now i was under the impression it was going to be some external application that would instance things back into softimage or maya, i was not aware that you intended to integrate it into both applications, i'm curious and very eager to see what this might look like :)
the thing i like with yeti after having seen it in action is the interaction model is really solid, you have a node based editor to build your simulation tree where your setting live like ice, but you can also come in and comb and tweek the guides manually, its also really cleaver about instancing. more to the point its very specifically built for "artists" to create production quality hair. On 20 April 2013 18:15, Paul Doyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to clarify - the Creation > modules<http://fabricengine.com/creation-modules/>are designed to be much > more 'out of the box' than the Creation Platform > itself (which, as you rightly say, is a tool for building tools). Right now > we're focused on modules for locomotion/crowds (Horde), scene assembly > (Stage) and vegetation (Flora). > > Tufty (the hair module) is on hold at the moment but we'll pick it up > again later this year (sooner if someone wants us to build them a hair > system). When it's made available it will provide out of the box > functionality, and run standalone as well as inside Maya and Softimage > (which I think is a pretty good attempt at " its nice to have a > production ready out of the box solution identical and compatible > everywhere in the world"). The preview video <https://vimeo.com/51762811>that > we released last year already showed a viable workflow - we just want > to do a lot more with it before we release anything. > > > > > On 20 April 2013 11:54, Sebastien Sterling > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> i would have thought the more third party willing to develop on softimage >> platform the better, yes the fabric engine looks really promising, but its >> still not a "solution" its a tool designed to create other tools, as >> powerful a tool it is to a TD or coder, in this instance its like replacing >> ice with something even more sophisticated and specialised, >> >> To give you another example, i don't know if any of you have seen the >> Psyop ruffle feather engine, that is ice based and amazing, but i can't >> create somthing like that, we can't all go away for a year or 2 and become >> TD's in order to build our own little feather systems in ice, sometimes its >> nice to have a production ready out of the box solution identical and >> compatible everywhere in the world. >> >> >> On 20 April 2013 12:48, Nick Angus <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Have you had a look at fabric engines vimeo page? They have started a >>> fur package probably more as a tech demo at this stage, but they may be >>> planning to complete it as a full package. >>> >>> It would of course be maya/soft compatible, and you know its good if >>> Helge Mathee had anything to do with it! >>> >>> N >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Sebastien Sterling <[email protected]> >>> Sent: 19/04/2013 7:26 PM >>> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Yeti for Softimage >>> >>> Hello List. >>> >>> I just wanted to perform a quick survey of what solutions people are >>> using for hair/fur/feathers in softimage these days. >>> >>> recently a new tool has become available on the market, its a >>> production ready all in one hair/feather solution. it's called Yeti >>> >>> http://peregrinelabs.com/yeti/ >>> >>> >>> The hair module in softimage doesn't seem to have aged well, and i know >>> what a lot of you are thinking, ice already gives us a multitude of ways to >>> develop hair solutions... However, there doesn't seem to be any universal >>> go to hair solution for softimage. this can be a problem for numerous >>> reasons. and as good as ice is, it's short comings can't be ignored (ex: >>> styling tools?) >>> >>> I wrote an email to Peregrine asking if there where any plans for a >>> port to XSI, they responded as follows: >>> >>> Hi Sebastien, >>> >>> Thank you for the great feedback - we have investigated Yeti integration >>> for rendering preview which may be available in a later version but at this >>> time we're not planning an XSI version of the editing tools. Adding in >>> support for a whole new 3D application is a large task and we haven't had >>> enough demand for an XSI version at this stage. If at some point that >>> changes and it looks like a studio may commit to a large number of licenses >>> we could afford to do this. >>> >>> So yes, i guess I'm asking who would like Yeti to come to softimage, >>> and if Not, why? >>> >>> good day :) >>> >>> >> >
