Blender has some really nice approaches and tools, and the fact that its open source makes it extremely interesting when loaded with some strong technical skills. Its a shame the interaction model is so un-intuitive, but a platform as open as that could benefit massively from a large amount of input from developers within the industry.
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:21:50 -0800 Subject: Re: successor animation software From: [email protected] To: [email protected] I think a small fleet if TDs is inevitable either way. If you break it all down, 3D at it core is data and the relationships between those data points. What this list is upset about is losing the ability to manipulate that data in a fluid and efficient way. I feel ya brothers and sisters. I was practically incubated in XSI. I'm quite ready to get behind a platform that can offer a strong core. A core that can handle large datasets efficiently, and then the rest, I'm willing to start from scratch. I really do believe we've acclimated to some non-ideal workflows only because the current one weren't horrific enough for us to do anything about them. And I do believe at this point, our industry has a good idea of what we'd like to have and what legacy concepts we can let die. A concept I've been thinking is finding an engine that we can alter and change to tackle the problems we deal with. Be cool if we could reskin something like a Blender which is open and rather non-volatile and make it feel like whatever we wanted. I'm sure there are other technologies to look at like Fabric Engine, and who knows, maybe even not too far a stretch to leverage Unity as a platform. Just food for thought, -Lu On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Angus Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: While its very impressive you would need a small fleet of TD's to keep it shipshape;) From: Vladimir Jankijevic [[email protected]] Sent: 28 February 2014 07:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: successor animation software I don't think they would want to support that beast for untrained people. Or if they would, it would cost a tremendous pile of money. Who's up for that? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Ed Manning <[email protected]> wrote: rather than thinking about Maya (which is no more the future than Softimage, maybe less), why don't we think about what might be needed in a worthy successor to both? This might be a good place to start: http://rhythm.com/labs/ Maybe someone could get R&H's new owners to commercialize this. Or sell to the Foundry? This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.
