Guillaume next time you are invited round AD headquarters for an event say you are going to the toilette and steal the deeds back for softimage.
THE SPICE MUST FLOW ! On 14 February 2014 05:15, Emilio Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry to jump into this masters discution, but don't we have PyQT in > Softimage also? > > And now that Luc-Eric jumped in... > > Ok, Maya is more customizable, and better for Devs to integrate it into a > pipeline and bla, bla, bla. Because out of the box sorry but... pffff.... > > I am a novel in Maya and I am using it because I need to, not because I am > convinced of using it. And the more I use it, the more I love Softimage. > > I couldn't find a way to transfer a simple UV from one mesh to another. > So I went and dug into Creative Crash to find a script... > > A script for this, a script for that. The only thing I want to thank Maya > is that I started scripting again... Thank god I have two monitors to have > the script editor open with I don't know how many tabs. Or why not. I can > have a lot of buttons clogging more my workspace with nice Maya icons. I > don't have time to start getting "creative" to draw an icon for each > additional script I write to do a simple task... > > And speaking of constrains. To constrain to a point on a mesh in Maya, > you need to have UV's!!!!! and watch out. If you constrain to a point > that in the UV is in two different coordinates... ciao... > > So yes maybe when you have an army of Devs scripting and scripting. You > can have awsome custom tools... > > But when you have a small studio or you are freelance, for me Maya is "no > go". > > So instead of spreading the word on how "good is Maya" compared to > "Softimage" to try to convince us to switch platforms, because Maya is > "more customizable". We want a descent upgrade of Softimage. Not only a > "super camera switcher". > > What is the fear of Autodesk? > > That if you guys start making real improvements on Softimage the Maya > "industry standard" farce will fall? > > Sorry but I am really pissed off of how Autodesk is handling Softimage. > The best thing you can do is put it on sale so that people who really > cares, will take Softimage to the next level instead of burying it in Asia. > > But this will hardly happen. Softimage in some other hands will be a very > strong contender to Maya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-13 20:49 GMT-06:00 Guillaume Laforge < > [email protected]>: > > Btw, would love to see how to build such asteroid belt in Modo ;) >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matt Lind <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Below: >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Luc-Eric Rousseau >>> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:26 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Survey - how would you do this? >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Matt Lind <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Allows us to define our own primitives, data structures, and >>> treats those data structures as first class citizens in the API. >>> >>> >yeah, with only experience with Softimage's SDK one might think that's >>> >something special. But it's a common thing to do with Maya. >>> >>> [Matt] >>> I was paraphrasing a comment made by one of our engineers. Although I >>> have run into the issue myself more than once. >>> >>> >>> >sure, Fabric requires no work at all to make it usable for artist.. >>> >it's magical. (Does not really answer the questions about your uv >>> editing, retopology, and reduction problems, though) >>> >>> [Matt] >>> Never claimed it did. Only said it's closer in paradigm to what we >>> need, and it still needs to mature for us to give it a serious look. What >>> it does offer is the ability to take control of the situation and develop >>> what we need without re-inventing the wheel from scratch every time. >>> >>> >>> >>> >About authoring stuff that would not be obviously better authored >>> directly in the game engine: >>> >there are a lot of custom authoring tools out there where the tool is >>> actually the Maya running in library mode. >>> >You have no way of knowing this if all you see is a video of it on the >>> >web, the maya UI is not there at all, >>> >it looks like it was a custom tool written from scratch. Maya in >>> library mode takes no licenses. All of this is simply >>> > inconceivable from a Softimage point of view, and it was a factor in >>> getting kicked out of the bigger places. >>> >>> [Matt] >>> The point of editing in the game engine is changes to the engine are >>> immediately available to the artist creating content. What they see is >>> what they get, and with real time feedback. A large portion of any >>> artists' day is spent waiting for files to export from the DCC and collate >>> into the engine. In some cases many minutes per export/collate. That is >>> not iteration friendly and problematic for engineers as they have another >>> set of code to maintain and keep in sync. Having a Maya backend in >>> library mode doesn't solve this problem. >>> >>> One problem we continually face is the ability to see an asset in the >>> context of the game with proper lighting, fx, and other game specific data >>> in the authoring stages. An artist needs to see how a reflective surface >>> will look in a particular zone of a world. You cannot easily replicate >>> that in a commercial DCC. Likewise, it's not simple to recreate the DCC's >>> editing power for creating raw assets. The process of moving towards the >>> engine has to start somewhere. Right now many games have level editors, >>> texture paging editors, and so on. Those tools need to come together and >>> start incorporating raw 3D data into the mix where it can be more easily >>> edited. That's the next generation of tools. Most engines already define >>> how animation works and exposing transform manipulators and FCurve editors >>> wouldn't be too much of a stretch beyond what's already in the system (in >>> comparison to doing the same for modeling, texturing, etc...). The DCC >>> shouldn't be dismissed, but the commercial vendors have to stop working >>> like a cable company and forcing customers to choose off their menus to get >>> any signal at all. >>> >>> >There are other stuff at Autodesk that is moving away from putting >>> everything directly in the DCC when >>> >it makes sense. For example, shaderfx is a realtime shader editor that >>> runs also out of Maya. >>> >The Bifrost and xgen engines are also separate from Maya. >>> >>> [Matt] >>> Does not apply to our situation. Make sense for small to mid sized >>> studios that work with commercial engines where they're limited in what >>> they can modify. Commercial tools tend to develop towards a spec, and is >>> only useful for consumers of the spec. Once you move out of the spec, the >>> tool is less useful because it cannot always accommodate. We built our >>> engine from scratch and in some cases don't follow the same standards as >>> the rest of the industry because we needed to do certain things more >>> efficiently whether it be how we pack data or crunch the numbers. >>> >>> >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >> >
