Hi Emilio .. to be (able to be more) fair, you have to put (practice
putting) your own emotions aside ;)
On 03/13/14 4:38, Emilio Hernandez wrote:
Hello again Maurice.
I am sorry to say that killing Softimage is the worst decision ever
made by Autodesk, as Autodesk does not have a true alternative for a
better software than Softimage. Maybe Maya is stronger than Softimage
in other aspects, but the ones that we care as artists/users Maya is not.
People like me and others that since Autodesk acquired Softimage gave
Maya a chance to prove it is a better tool. Unfortunatley Maya failed.
People that all his life used Maya and never care to give Softimage a
real try, because they thought it was not worth it, will never know
what they have been missing. So for them it is easy to stick to an
intrincate workflow as they are used to.
To be honest with you, after carefully analyzing the reasons Autodesk
is telling us of why they decided to terminate Softimage, none of then
makes sense at full.
If I were to end a product line that recently started to be more
recognized and sucessfull, it is only because I have a better product
to offer. And that is not the case here. Again, sorry to say so, but
Maya or MAX in anyway are better products than Softimage.
Until now you only have some "experiments" going down the line.
Without something real to offer us.
That is why most of the people are looking for even some combo options
from other manufacturers.
Again, I will say reconsider this "strategic decision"
Keep fixing the bugs, and open the SDK.
Cheers!
-------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Hernández VFX & 3D animation.
2014-03-13 2:20 GMT-06:00 Tim Leydecker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Comparing Maya and Softimage jobs/projects I worked on for the
last 10-15 yrs,
I would come to the conclusion that I worked on many "almost
vanilla install"
Softimage projects while the Maya projects involved a
significantly higher amount
of using scripted extensions and plug-in functionality.
That may boil down to the Softimage projects I was involved in
being more from
the commercials side of jobs while the Maya projects where often
incorporating
bigger teams or bigger promises made in advance.
Currently, I惴 on a Maya centric project, myself doing all the
modeling in
Softimage, creating assets and handing them off into the Maya
pipeline.
The reason I惴 modeling in Softimage today is the 3D Love Tour and
the home access
to XSI Foundation this gave me back then. I will miss modeling in
Softimage (2014sp2).
Maya is not on par with Softimage in terms of fluidly modeling in
my opinion.
A co-worker is biased heavily towards C4D and I惴 impressed with
it愀 potential.
Personally, I haven愒 decided where to lean to but am grateful for
the heads-up
and license conversion options offered by Autodesk.
As a freelancer, I have learned not to expect being treated as
part of the family,
moving on is part of the job and am transfering this to the choice
of my tools.
I惻l see what愀 out there and what comes next.
All the best,
tim
On 13.03.2014 08:56, Mirko Jankovic wrote:
There is a bit of perspective of view issue here.
To developers Maya sounds like god given tol to work on.
On the other hand to artists Softimage is god given tool to
work on.
Now at the end what is more important - developers to have
smooth day developing or artists to have smooth workflow? :)
Ideally it would be both bur right now artists are loosing
battle.. with heavy losses :)
Point is, why killing when instead by developing Maya, making
it better, really better, people would naturally move to
better tool.
This right now is shoving it to Softimage users in the face
saying that we will like it and it is for our own good.
All this issue could be handled way better with much lesser
resistance if AD actual paid attention to customersand tried
to eas in and help with transition instead of killing years
of dedication and experiences and turning a LOT of Softimage
veterans into Maya juniors...
Btw most of those now to be juniors are 30+,40+ ...
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Maurice Patel
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
