Yang, let me chime in here. I too appreciate you being present and asking these questions here. It goes to show that the Maya Humanize project might actually lead somewhere, and very importantly, that a significant change in Autodesk policy on user/dev interaction has taken place just recently.
One thing that has me worried is the willingness of Autodesk to try and educate the 50x more Maya users and move them to adopt a more userfriendly interface like we know it from Soft. I believe you see the value of incorporating the good parts of Softimage in Maya, but as it might alienate a large portion of existing Maya users, I could fear you will not dare go all the way and make Maya as userfriendly as we would prefer. Can you, or perhaps Maurice elaborate on your thoughts in this respect? This is a very important point for me, and I suspect, most Softimage users. God it seems silly to even discuss the need for a userfriendly yet powerful interface here in 2014... Morten Den 20. marts 2014 kl. 20:40 skrev Yang-hai Eakes <[email protected]>: > Hi Perry, > Honestly, your voice is more important than any internal user, and that's the main reason. > What I'm really trying to understand is what "you" want/need as a user, as a workflow from Softimage, and that's why I found this thread so helpful. > Yes, we have internal people that are helping us understand and will be helping implement some of these feature/workflows, but we also want to make sure we are listening the user, you. > > Thanks for not beating me up! > Yang-hai > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Perry Harovas > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: How long will it take (?) > > Yang-hai, > > While I appreciate that you are all listening (honestly, I really do), it is really annoying that the Softimage team was supposedly moved to > Maya, yet Autodesk seems to have no clue how to implement a Softimage workflow or feature into Maya. > > Look, don't get me wrong, it is better to have you guys ask us than to not ask, but if you truly have that many people > from Softimage working on Maya, wouldn't THEY know better how to do this than we would? > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Yang-hai Eakes <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hello David Gallagher, > I would first like to thank you for sharing all this. As many of us at Autodesk, I honestly think you have some very strong points here and please rest assured that we are listening. I will be discussing these points in detail internally to see what could be done, sooner rather than later. > > Animation workflows, which for me includes rigging, is very important and will be an area of focus for Maya over the up-coming releases. The out-of-the-box workflows and the artist friendly mentality that Softimage has, are definitely areas that Maya would benefit from. We do want to bring some of these workflows into Maya. We simply need to make sure we properly understand, design and implement them, that is... in a meaningful/useful manner... basically respecting the workflows. This will be part of our thought process and plans for Maya moving forward. This is why this feedback is so important, so again, thank you. > > We are also getting a lot of similar feedback from many channels and need to respectfully take the time to listen, understand and compile that feedback. I "will" follow-up to this thread in a more detailed manner, but please do expect the detailed feedback to take some time, as I want to be confident about what can or cannot be addressed in a timely manner. > > Again, I know I'm not the only one to agree with your point of view and feedback, so thank you for sharing this in detail. > > Regards, > Yang-hai > Autodesk Designer > > From: David Gallagher > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:34 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Thanks for posting that Jason. > > I'll keep using Softimage for AnimSchool's rigs. > Over the next few years, I'll be looking for some software that allows me to do those things. > > > On 3/19/2014 3:01 PM, Jason S wrote: > > (previously posted, yet I think it's worth a new thread with alink to the original Maya / XSI article) > > > > Here is a notable (& comprehensive) post on rigging from David Gallagher > in response to the super long and (seemingly purposefully) diluted article<http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html> > > comparing SI / Maya rigging (concerning rigging workflow -alone-) > > weighing pro & cons, while overweighing pros, underweighing cons, > > overlooking a bunch of things (most of which outlined below) > > identifying things like the ability to use "locators" as rig components as a "con" > > > > and ending with ; > > "The time that Maya saves with its rigging technology and superior workflow, outweighs the additional cost. " > > > > > > So how long will it take to get there? > David Gallagher > <image001.gif> > Jan 8 > > > I rigged on quite a few characters in Maya at Blue Sky Studios and now (Softimage) AnimSchool. > We offer the well-known "Malcolm" rig for free. > > There is no comparison to rigging in Softimage and Maya--not the kind of rigging I do. > > I often assume by now they have better workflows in Maya, > but I'm often surprised to find how convoluted and limiting the workflows are to this day. > > Most Maya people must not know there are better ways of working > or aren't doing the kinds of things I am, because the difference is profound. > > - At any point in the rigging process, you can make edits in the model stack to change the shape and topology of the model. > > After experimenting, you can freeze that part of the stack and continue on with that new shape, > retaining almost every bit of work you've done. > > YOU CAN CHANGE THE TOPOLOGY. YOU CAN CHANGE THE SHAPE FREELY. > > This difference is huge. You can work toward completion without fear of losing work. > > You can experiment freely--knowing it's fine if you want to make a major change. > > I'm never afraid of losing blendshape work. > > And if the changes are really significant, you can always Gator your way out of a jam. > > - You can do blendshape edits directly on the geometry, modelessly, instead of on a separate blendshape object. > > - There is no comparison with corrective blendshapes. > In Softimage, you go to Secondary Shape mode and drag a few points. > In Maya, I wish you luck. You can install one of several plug-ins and scripts and HOPE that it works. > If the scenario is simple enough, it might. > > > Several people here tried to help a student make a single corrective blendshape on an elbow > -- and we're all experienced Maya riggers--, after hours of attempting, we threw up our hands. > > There was something in that object's history that was making the blendshape plug-in fail. > The answer is what it often is: just start over. > > - EDITING corrective blendshapes. > In Maya, heaven help you if you want to edit that blendshape later. > Start the process again and make a new one. > In Softimage, drag a few points and you're done in seconds. > > - For facial work, being able to make face shapes in conjunction with the mixer, > working directly on the main geo. > > To see other shapes muted, soloed as you're working. > > This allows you to craft shapes that work for different scenarios, with just the right falloff. > > You can make correctives for shape combinations quickly. > > In face work, it's all about how the functions combine to make the range of expressive results. > > - The envelope weighting is far superior. > > The smoothing is just better, and more reliable. > > Negative weight painting actually works. > > Being able to make sophisticated weighting allows you to make lighter rigs, > because fewer nodes and calculations are needed. > > I can't believe someone actually compared Maya's Component Editor to Softimage's Weight Editor. I'm stunned. > > Sometimes, demoing Maya's envelope weighting, > it just stops working for no reason -- I have no idea why. > (Mind you, I've been rigging in Maya since 1999.) > > - You can envelope/skin null objects, not just joints. > (Yes, Maya will let you add other objects as deformers but it is limiting and causes problems.) > > - The tweak tool. > You can grab anywhere and it will just get the nearest point/edge/poly and transform it precisely. > (1 baby step now solved in Maya) > > Add the proportional editing and it's very sculptural without giving up precise transform control. > I far prefer this workflow to the Zbrush approach geared toward paintstrokes. > > - In Softimage, you can change the wireframe on shaded opacity. > You can change the point sizes. These mean I can visualize and work with the shape, > not get visually stuck on the tech clutter like in Maya. > > - LinkWithOrientation. Does Maya have anything built-in yet? > I know there are pose readers out there, but they are slow and 3rd party. > > - The "smooth preview" Geometry Approximation is better, faster, and more stable in Softimage. > > - Even with the army of tools and plug-ins we had at Blue Sky Studios, > I would still much rather use off-the-shelf Softimage. > > - You can select controls without selecting (and highlighting) all its children. > This makes it easier to animate the rig -- just drag selecting will get you the selectable controls. > > In Maya, drag-selecting gets a mixture of hierarchy parts. > > All this means that I can focus on the ART, the shaping of the rig, not jump through hoops all day. > As a result, our characters are more flexible and expressive. > > > .. how long will it take (??) > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Perry Harovas > Animation and Visual Effects > > http://www.TheAfterImage.com<http://www.theafterimage.com/>
