I apologize that not talking about maya. let's recall the old article. http://frenchdog.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/ice-vs-vop/
2014-03-21 17:52 GMT+04:00 Chris Marshall <[email protected]>: > I think we can see there's some reason to look into Bifrost, but I also > have a nagging feeling it's simply never going to achieve the same level of > functionality as ICE, for the very reason ICE is essentially being shut > down. ICE does what it does and is so much more than a particle system, > because it is built into the very core of Softimage. To attempt to make > Bifrost 'future proof' they are deliberately *not* building it into the > core of Maya, thus allowing for the potential for it to be standalone and / > or plugged into other software / platforms at a later date. But by > approaching it in this way, it'll only ever be a bolt on, that surely can > never achieve that level of flexibility that we have with ICE at the heart > of Softimage. It feels that the very thing that makes ICE such an amazing > tool is actually causing it's downfall, and is the reason Bifrost can never > replace it. And that totally sucks! > > > > > > On 21 March 2014 10:29, Juan Brockhaus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hey Adrian, >> >> this is some great info here. and makes me suddenly feel spmehow better >> ;-) >> maybe in two/three years time, when Soft slowly falls back (just due to >> no further development) BiFrost will be in a state where it can take >> over...? (wishful thinking) >> >> If I read between the lines I feel there is hope that BiFrost is not >> 'just' a fluid simulation system and can be used for far more. >> >> Exactly what I personally (and many others) love about ICE. It is >> (contrary to past Autodesk-PR) NOT just a particle-simulation-system, but a >> swiss army tool which can manipulate almost every aspect of data in my >> scene/objects and build, create, deform, etc... >> >> ie at the moment I build shapes/objects made out of dominos. All >> procedurally build in ICE. I made different compounds to stack and pile >> dominoes in different ways and methods. And if the objects I have to create >> (and even the domino) change (as usual in commercials..) it is all >> instantly updated. >> Only right at the end I add a Sim node and the whole things collapses... >> (obviously controlled with nulls, forces, etc...) The Sim is basically the >> last 5% of what I use ICE for. >> >> If I can do stuff like this in BiFrost in the future I'm a happy camper. >> Right now the only other software capable of that would be Houdini... >> >> I'll keep an eye on BiFrost ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Juan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:09 AM, joshxsi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Part of what made ICE so successful (in my mind) was the large amount of >>> built in nodes and compounds that were included as part of the base system >>> that were used in mostly non-simulated contexts (raycasting, geometry >>> locations, etc). >>> >>> From the sound of the development stages, the first two releases will be >>> fluid focused, do you expect that the final release will include the non >>> particle functionality that ICE became so useful for? >>> >>> It sounds like you're expecting the users to build a more generic set of >>> functionality using the API? (mesh deforms, curve based flow tools, IK >>> solvers etc) >>> >>> Thanks again for the information as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, David Gallagher < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Yes, definitely giving them a chance! If they turn Maya/Bifrost into >>>> something great that can give me back what I just lost, believe me I will >>>> be one happy guy. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/20/2014 6:29 PM, Raffaele Fragapane wrote: >>>> >>>> The product will be released within the quarter. To be fair, that info >>>> if you were on beta has been consistent and available for quite a while >>>> now, so it's not some last minute stunt. >>>> >>>> Marcus, Adrian and the rest of the team are nice guys, give them a >>>> chance. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:17 AM, David Gallagher < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This email was fascinating. I'm curious though; we've been told we >>>>> can't hear roadmaps because they run afoul of SEC rules. And yet, here we >>>>> get a somewhat detailed roadmap. >>>>> >>>>> Dave G >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > > Chris Marshall > Mint Motion Limited > 029 20 37 27 57 > 07730 533 115 > www.mintmotion.co.uk > > -- Евграфов Максим.(Summatr) https://vimeo.com/user3098735/videos ------------------------------------------------------- Хорошего Вам настроения !!! :-)
