Hi Everyone lots of change is going on, never did i imagine that i will see the end of softimage, really sad but am happy that every one is still positive and looking for smart alternatives and really great discussions are going on, I haven't tried Fabric Engine yet i don't know if my poor scripting skills will be any good to develop things myself but sure if there are enough tool shared by the community for it i will and more less technical people will do also. from what i understand that tools developed inside of Fabric Engine will work inside it regardless of the host DCC, that will be a great way to develop tools to help xsi stay alive for a while and also to fill short comings in other softwares like Modo till its more mature. I thinks Fabric Engine should support more and more DCC packages to give the ultimate freedom for every one to chose.
it is really a great effort by everyone there at Fabric Engine and i think we should all support it. for me i will keep using soft till it dies completely but i will start giving modo a chance and use it along side till it matures more i have faith in The Foundry they have done only good things with the softwares they acquired. on another note i haven't been active in the softimage community for couple of years now as most of my work is supervision now and running my own small shop that heavily relay on out sourcing and handling freelancers so it is a bit hectic, but i want to thank every one here specially the people that i got the pleasure of meeting, for the effort they did to support this community and make it the best community any software had. Regards Ahmed Barakat On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Stefan Kubicek <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > Stefan, re-reading my post, I'm not sure I was totally clear about > modeling. I'm not sure if this puts us back in agreement or not, but to > clarify, what I meant was just that most pipelines have a reasonable degree > of choice in which package they use for modeling. I don't spend much time > modeling personally so I'm not qualified to comment on the capabilities of > the different packages. From what I do know I fully agree that losing XSI > is a hit in this area. For me, it's a hit in every area, just due to how I > can make use of ICE pretty much across the board. Not to mention the rest > of the tools and the operator stack. I think part of why I glossed over > modeling is that I think users who want to will be able to stick with XSI > for modelling a little longer in that area than in, say, lighting, where > things have to be more consistent across the studio. > > > I just re-read your first post as well and I misunderstood the point you > were trying to make, and to which I agree: As far as modeling goes there is > a broad range of options to go with (both commercial and non-commercial) > > I would also say, I think my comments don't really at all capture the > needs of game studios. We're all more alike than we are different, and I > consider us one user community, but as far as my personal experience, I'm > definitely coming at this from a primarily commercials/features point of > view. Not sure if your a games guy or not, but I'm just realizing that's a > broad category of people who are likely not as antsy as me about getting a > new scene assembly tool :) > > > I used to be in games for several years. Most studios I've seen are > running some sort of home-grown editor to assemble their game worlds, along > the lines of the Cryteks Sandbox, Unity, etc..I doubt they would find a > scene assembly tool geared towards shading/rendering useful out of the box, > unless it was some emerging games company with awareness of what FE could > bring to the game development table and the will to build on it with the > goal to transform it into their game editing environment. As for FE used in > games, I'm quite surprised seemingly nobody has picked that up yet. > I wonder how complicated it would be to get it to run on current consoles > and even mobile devices. > > > Now I'm truly going on a tangent, but I would also imagine that a scene > assembly tool that exports to Arnold would also serve as a good framework > for collecting, prepping, optimizing, and exporting game assets :) You're > basically exporting things to a "renderer" after all. > > > Like above, to a certain extent. It might be cool for texture > baking/lighting, but the general tendency is to go real-time with as much > of the lighting pipeline as possible - It's just so much more flexible and > cheaper in the end, and I'm sure we'll see more of that happening in the > near future (on faster hardware). > Here's a nice example of what's already possible: > http://molecularmusings.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/real-time-radiosity/#more-298 > > > > @Andy J.:Thanks for summing it up so nicely and comprehensively. I need to >> disagree on the modeling part though. Even in XSI I miss a lot, especially >> in terms of symmetrical modeling and sculpting. There is huge potential for >> improvement in any existing application out there. >> >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------- > Stefan Kubicek > ------------------------------------------- > keyvis digital imagery > Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3 > A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien > Phone: +43/699/12614231 > www.keyvis.at [email protected] > -- This email and its attachments are -- > --confidential and for the recipient only-- >
