Cristobal, anyone that tell's you that he knows 100% of any 3d software he is plain lying. Same goes with multiple software as well. So yes if you are in industry you will keep learning different packages, unless you have your own shop, stick to what you choose as client doesn't care what tools you use. Unless someone kills your software completely ;) But back to your question, you really think it is that much harder to learn 3 different packages, for modeling, texturing, animation that are separated or learning all of that in single package? Especially if every single one of those specialized are totally focused at making life easier at specific task? To me it seems that near is end of 1 application to rule them all... even if AD is trying to push that mentality...
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Cristobal Infante <cgc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Adding to my point, 3D is already a difficult > skill to learn, you probably know this better > than many of us. > > If somebody learns Maya from scratch none of this will matter since they > won't know any better.. > > > > On Saturday, 8 March 2014, Angus Davidson <angus.david...@wits.ac.za> > wrote: > >> Forgot to add the more important thing is that what AD didnt expect >> with this shitstorm is that all of the other communities are now talking, >> there are knowledge transfers and people are understanding that their >> perceptions of other packages may have been wrong. Things are moving a lot >> faster now as very skilled Softimage users are looking at other options. >> That leads to them writing tools etc that makes the other packages better >> and will pull more people away from AD. >> >> I think they now realise that pissing off these types of people is not >> a wise decision. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Angus Davidson [angus.david...@wits.ac.za] >> *Sent:* 08 March 2014 02:14 PM >> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> *Subject:* RE: Good point well put >> >> I disagree >> >> 5 Years from now, Modo / Houdini / Fabric Engine will be the standard. >> I say this because they are agile, they listen to what their users want and >> they actively develop and have a coherent roadmap. >> >> With the rate that the industry is developing Maya will not be able to >> keep up. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Cristobal Infante [cgc...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 08 March 2014 02:05 PM >> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> *Subject:* Re: Good point well put >> >> They have messed up really badly with us by the way the've handled >> this. But I don't really consider this a storm, a few guys ranting on a >> mailing list. CGsociety haven't even bothered to make this news. >> >> Why did they keep softimage for all this years? well simple, they were >> investing in a relationship with costumers. Now that the Foundry had >> started to gain ground it was time to act and think about this >> bright future. >> >> We are just too involved in the mess to see the whole picture. Think 5 >> years from now, all I can see is Maya. >> >> >> >> On Saturday, 8 March 2014, Daniel Kim <danielki...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I hope there is a company or someone else who can hire all SI developers >> and make another next generation 3D software. I remember when Lightwave >> shut down years ago, and they are back in industry and shows great stuff, >> and even Modo. I really hope there is a company or someone hires SI dev >> members... >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Daniel Kim >> Animation Director & Professional 3D Generalist >> http://www.danielkim3d.com >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jordi Bares <jordiba...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> Softimage, like SideEffect, 3DSMax and the rest are small teams of very >> clever developers, 8-12 is the normal number of developers for any app... >> that is a very small cost compared with the cost of advertising and PR, >> believe me. >> >> Regarding this implied direct relationship between pace of development >> and resources, it is so so obscene it is insulting to say that. By that >> rule all the software portfolio Autodesk manages hinders everything they >> do, let's face it, they have lots of products. >> >> If the case is pace of development just hire a few more good guys and >> make sure the effort does not go to waste by not promoting it well. >> >> The issue I have is that something does not add up... I still don't >> understand the decision and the more I think about it, the more suspicious >> it becomes.. .does not even seem a coordinated well put plan that is >> causing all this storm (all the handling has been awful and big companies >> tend to handle these things with utmost care as it casts a horrible light >> to the brand itself) >> >> Just look at how Apple handled Shake, they discontinued it but offer >> the possibility of buying the source code and carry on using it, it was bad >> but at least was a clean exit. Also helps that nuke was ready for prime >> time so felt like moving forward instead of moving back to the 80s with >> Maya. >> >> Jordi Bares >> jordiba...@gmail.com >> >> On 8 Mar 2014, at 11:05, Cristobal Infante <cgc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> it's a bad decision in the eyes of who? >> >> They didn't really buy softimage because they thought is a software >> they could improve any further, they were actually really buying US the >> users. Some peopl >> >> 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. >> >>
