Agree with Bradley, +1
2014-03-15 16:55 GMT-03:00 Mirko Jankovic <[email protected]>: > Bradley you nailed it with this one, and also points out what really AD > system does look like.. bunch of bullet points of separate marketing ready > features that looks nice on list when you showing it to sales. > The matter that those separate features have little to non meaningful > communications one with other... communication that actually makes > workflow.. that doesn't mean much I guess. > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Bradley Gabe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is what concerns me about the future for where Autodesk takes their >> DCC flagships. Bullet-point thinking. >> >> It's not any specific list of ICE nodes that make it so powerful and >> useful, rather it's how well it plays within the data structures of the >> rest of the application. >> >> Everyone who ever looked at ICE from the outside, without ever going into >> the daily battle that is production, simply saw it as a particle system >> (and maybe tipped their hat to it's clever ability to multiprocesses). And >> despite the SI community's repeated insistence ICE was far more important >> than that, a particle system is precisely how it was marketed by Autodesk, >> providing continuing evidence that Autodesk didn't know what they actually >> had, didn't want to listen to the people who were actually using it... or >> didn't care. >> >> In real estate, they say the most important things are location, >> location, location. In CG production, the most important things are >> workarounds, workarounds, workarounds. ICE has provided SI users with a >> highly potent, splendidly integrated, reasonably artist friendly, visual >> node based toolkit for discovering and developing production workarounds, >> without having to resort to coding for every little thing. Particle effects >> are merely a byproduct of the system. >> >> It was through interacting with ICE that I developed a much more profound >> understanding of CG data structures, an intuitive sense of how the linear >> algebra drives transforms, of how I could influence operators to do the >> things I could only imagine in times past. Every day in production is a day >> of experiment and discovery using ICE. Do you have any idea how empowering >> that feels after years of waiting for technical help from developers that >> never arrived? >> >> Furthermore, after years of tech experimenting and workarounds with ICE, >> my ability to develop non-ICE tools for animation, deformation, etc, had >> increased drastically. Tools that used to require a week for me to work out >> the math, I could develop in less than a day, because ICE had both provided >> me with enough practice to greatly enhance my thinking, but also because I >> could use it as a prototype laboratory to quickly hash out more difficult >> concepts, prior to sitting down to write out the code. >> >> If you're wondering why people are concerned about life without XSI, >> these are some pretty major reasons. You're going to have to convince us >> the future of node-based work in Maya/Max isn't a bullet point list of >> nodes for creating particle or fluid sim effects. Rather, that it's a fully >> developed, operator development kit, from which particles, fluids, >> simulations, and all kinds of production workarounds, workarounds, >> workarounds are possible! >> >> -Bradley >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Andy Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Chris Vienneau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Do you guys think there is a top list of nodes in ICE and compounds you >>> all use that cover 80% of what you do with the toolset? >>> >> >> Nope >> >> >
