Sweet, thanks Paul!
On 12 March 2014 11:36, Paul Doyle <[email protected]> wrote: > I just pinged Brad to ask him - I'll let you know if he gets back to me > (or he may contact you directly) > > > On 12 March 2014 12:33, Christopher Crouzet <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> I didn't manage to contact the author yet to check if it was a HOAX or >> not but check out the comment #2 by Brad Hielbert: >> "[...] Since their bankruptcy, the new owners are going to be taking R&Hs >> in house software and making it availbe to the public. IT is brilliant >> software that FAR out paces the capabilities of Maya or Max. [...]" >> >> Maybe there's hope? Someone here knows the guy to check if he's the >> actual author of that comment? >> >> >> >> On 7 March 2014 17:30, Christopher Crouzet <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hey Stefan! >>> >>> A quickie before I bail on week-end. >>> >>> I think that there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to say >>> that, I was referring to Autodesk not wanting to maintain Softimage because >>> it's being costly and they'd rather focus on Maya to the detriment of each >>> Softimage user. I've updated the line to reflect this, let me know if it's >>> beter. >>> >>> I totally agree with you when you say that all-rounded packages are not >>> necessarily a bad thing for the smaller shops and the individuals. >>> >>> Got to go now, cheers and thank for the comments! >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 March 2014 17:09, Stefan Kubicek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Christopher, >>>> >>>> cice blog post. I can't entirely agree on the allround >>>> software inevitably being shut down sooner or later because it's hard to >>>> maintain part though. >>>> I too feel like it's worth investing into proprietary software to >>>> minimize the risk of exposure to third party technology, but there are so >>>> many people >>>> that do not write code, hence their own tools, either because they >>>> can't for time or monetary reasons, or simply because they don't know how >>>> to. >>>> These are mainly the single user shows and small shops. They deserve a >>>> cost-effective solution to their production problems too, and that is >>>> usually catered for by big, all-in-one CG applications like Max, Maya, >>>> Softimage, C4D. Yes, there are special-purpose applications like Marvelous >>>> Designer, RealFlow, SpeedTree,etc, but they cover rarely-encountered niche >>>> cases, compared to the vast amount of other stuff that is produced >>>> everywhere every day. Imagine you'd have to use one app for modeling, >>>> another for animation, another for simulation, one for hair & fur, etc..on >>>> a daily basis and concurrently. And each one had a different interface and >>>> required a different way of thinking. >>>> If you were working in a department and working with one of those, that >>>> would be a different thing, but constantly jumping between those apps, and >>>> having to transfer data between them, would soon drive you crazy. It's for >>>> this reason everybody I have ever met in this industry was searching for >>>> the one tool to rule them all. Even Lightwave, that consists of only two >>>> parts (modeler and layout), can drive you nuts. >>>> Modern software is modular, I think it's well possible to maintain and >>>> improve it, even change the paradigms it's built on, it just needs a bit of >>>> forward thinking and the will to do it. I remember stories about whole >>>> parts of Soft having been rewritten when the old one turned out to be >>>> insufficiently designed (the animation mixer in particular), I'm not sure >>>> in how far this is really true, or if it was only marketing blurb. >>>> >>>> What I can imagine is a Fabric-based host application which others can >>>> interface with to form a consistent application as demand arises, >>>> the hard part will be to draw the line between Fabric Engine, this base >>>> application (done by somebody else?), and the actual modules, yet done by >>>> others, and agreeing on a standard that those developers are willing to >>>> agree on and don't feel hindered by, as it's frequently the case with >>>> complex APIs that are lacking the one but crucial feature X for which you >>>> have to wait a full year until the next release to have it implemented >>>> after kindly asking the developers several times. I'm not saying it's not >>>> doable, just not entirely easy. I'm not saying small standalone apps are >>>> not desirable either, I just think they make more sense for special >>>> purposes rather than for standard stuff, unless the standard stuff they do >>>> is done in a true, outstandingly nice new way. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Your 2 cents will worth a few bitcoins quickly Christopher. I'm in. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Christopher Crouzet < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My 2 cents on this: >>>>> http://christophercrouzet.com/blog/post/2014/03/07/Softimage-Has-Been-Killed%2C-the-Future-of-CG-Softwares-Is-Now-in-TD-s-Hands >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking forward to the future, how about you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher Crouzet >>>>> *http://christophercrouzet.com* <http://christophercrouzet.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> 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-- >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher Crouzet >>> *http://christophercrouzet.com* <http://christophercrouzet.com> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Christopher Crouzet >> *http://christophercrouzet.com* <http://christophercrouzet.com> >> >> > -- Christopher Crouzet *http://christophercrouzet.com* <http://christophercrouzet.com>
