+1. Well spoken :)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:46 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Well said, Nancy. > > I have no illusions about how much corporations (especially this one) care > for the individual artist. > > You have developed your own, very individual workflow - it might well be > impossible to translate to another software. Unfamiliarity with a new tool > is a huge hindrance to any really creative work. Then again, challenging > yourself with a new tool could be stimulating and enriching in itself. (no, > I don't think M#%& is going to be either) > > Remember, you are free, more than most, to choose your tool - cutting > edge or outdated, simple or advanced, high or low tech. > While your art supplier can suspend that range of papers or paints you > grew so attached to, crippling you in the process, they can't suspend this > tool. You can keep it alive for as long as you choose to use it. I refuse > to call it the Demise of SI at this point. That will be somewhere in the > future, when I retire my last computer with Softimage on and don't even > bother installing it on a new one. > > I have done my share of artistic projects, making imagery for theatrical > and performance arts, individually and in teams - from volunteering work up > to a million dollar budget. This is the part of my activities that I > believe will be the least affected by AD's decision. Clients often hardly > understand what it is I do, let alone which software I run. For team work > they have mostly been asking me to decide on the tools to use, and I've > always opted for mixed software - providing the individuals with their > software of choice. It has invariably been the results the individual could > achieve which have been crucial - not what software they ran it on. > That being said, there is no denying that Softimage is very well adapted > for these projects - truly generalist and multidisciplinary, freestyle, > unpredictable, radical changes, fast turnaround. The core qualities of > Softimage - especially the non-linear non destructive bit - really make a > difference here. > > It is often on artistic projects that I first use new tools and features, > especially (surprising or not?) ICE - up to the point where ICE is used one > way or other - often crucial - on every single project. Without considering > myself to even know it all that well. > As long as I have not outgrown this software (which I don't expect to do > anywhere soon) what AD decides to do with it does not matter. And if I ever > do - well, then it will be natural leaving it behind. > So whatever you do, keep using it or go elsewhere - but make sure it's > your decision - not AD's. > > > > *From:* Nancy Jacobs <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:30 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Demise of SI and what it means for fine arts work > > When I bought XSI years ago, I compared it with Maya, and the 3d > software packages i had been using since the dawn of the phenomenon, and > made my decision. I never looked back. I have been extremely happy with XSI > -- the workflow, the interface, everything was geared toward ease of use > and learning, and visualization of a project from beginning to end. It has > been the one piece of software that I find myself saying, every time I use > it, what a fantastic piece of software! A joy to learn and use. And I've > barely delved into ICE. > > When Autodesk purchased XSI, I was crushed. People speak of AD acquiring > XSI to use its technology, and Maurice Patel has stated, "We also acquire > tech, redesign and re-engineer it, even rewrite it entirely, to fit into > our products and workflows and yes, if it is more efficient to do so, we > just integrate it." So that is obviously one reason for them to acquire > XSI....right after ICE was introduced..... > > But what I thought then, and sadly seems to be coming true... Is that AD > acquired XSI in order to acquire and 'integrate' XSI's USER BASE. What > better way for a company to dominate the user base of a software genre than > to acquire software products in that genre, kill them, and then offer the > stunned user base a cost-efficient (in the short term) entree into their > preferred product. Plus they get to cannibalize the dead software and use > it to pump up their 'chosen one'. But we are not seeing that latter tech > application effect so much as we are seeing the hijacking of the user base > of Softimage. And, as so many have pointed out, bringing Maya into a state > where SI users will find their workflow and features emulated is only a > vague promise for future application. Not likely to be realized, > considering the track record of Autodesk. > > Does this remind anyone of the infamous corporate takeover mentality...? > Applied to software, of course. Same principle. Only here, it is the user > base which is the prize, the economic draw of an expanded user base over > the years. Especially as Maya, and the expensive plugins and expansions > needed to do comparable work that XSI does out of the box... is > significantly more expensive than XSI. > > I am a one-person fine artist, primarily a painter, using SI as a tool for > video installation work. This is a grey area of use, not completely > non-commercial, as art shows have some commerce involved, still the return > on investment in the area of 3D work is always likely to be a loss. Still, > I reluctantly went for the SI maintenance agreement with AD when it bought > XSI, stretching my budget as far as it will go. Maya is not an artist tool > like SI is, and not agreeable to a small artist's budget. Very few options > remain, in that regard. I left Lightwave because of its lack of non-linear > workflow, and cumbersome animation. XSI was light years ahead in these > areas. I made my choice, but now it seems that people like me are being > squeezed out of any chance of developing our interests and contributions to > an alternate aspect of 3D work. > > I very much admire the work of all of you who work in the industry, and > the truly amazing things you do with SI, or any software. Incredible, what > you accomplish. (And i often find myself wishing i had the great teams you > have to be able to accomplish more of what I envision.) But there has to be > a place for small artists who choose to use 3D software for other purposes, > and take it in a somewhat different direction. We may not be a large user > base which will be economically significant to a company like Autodesk, but > this (fine arts) aspect of 3D work needs to be able to exist. And that is > becoming increasingly doubtful, with the big sharks gobbling up our > accessible software package and leaving us behind with little chance to > develop our work. > > Nancy Jacobs > http://www.childofillusion.net/ > > On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Paul Griswold < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Maurice, > > So the information I have today is - most of my work is done with > Softimage and there is 0% chance it will be continued. > > Autodesk has a 99% failure rate internally with creating innovative > products. (your words) > > Autodesk wants me to move to Maya, an old, outdated package that cannot do > what I need now, requires significant work (scripts, plugins, etc.) to make > usable, is not conducive to small shops or freelancers, and there is no > promise that it will ever be able to do what Softimage can do right now. > Making that move not only moves me back to the junior level, but reduces my > pay, lowers the quality of my work, and significantly hampers my ability to > compete. > > Bifrost is being developed at a company with a 99% failure rate with > creating innovative products. Bifrost is not an ICE replacement and may > never be one. > > And, apparently in this industry you should not have all your eggs in one > basket. Unfortunately Autodesk bought the goose laying the golden eggs and > wrung it's neck. Now there's no more eggs. I also find it ironic that > someone from ADSK just said we shouldn't have all our eggs in one basket, > yet they want everyone to buy suites and are trying to emulate the Adobe > model.... Or was that just something you say because there's really no > answer for what Autodesk has done? > > Yes, I think I can make a decision based on that information. > > > -Paul > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Maurice Patel <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Hi Paul, Adam >> We do understand that people build their livelihoods on our software. >> This is something we take seriously, although (with good reason) you might >> find it hard to believe right now. Every year we spend significant >> resources maintaining legacy code so that the new features we add to our >> products don't radically disrupt customers workflows. We really do try not >> to take unnecessary risks with our software. And we have an incredibly long >> track record of developing software for the long term - one can just look >> at AutoCAD and 3ds Max. Even acquisitions like Flame and Maya have >> continued to be extensively developed at Autodesk as have other product >> acquisitions. >> >> We have stated and are committed both to developing our core products and >> to innovating. Our decision to focus on 3ds max and Maya was so we could >> continue to do both adequately (not one or the other). We are a high tech >> company so it wouldn't be realistic to expect us not to try to innovate >> even if the risks are high. That does not mean that is all we do. >> >> I am not denying that Softimage customers are now facing some challenging >> decisions. But several have said on the forum, and I would personally agree >> with them, that in this industry - as in any high-tech industry - it can be >> risky to have all your eggs in one basket, even if that means looking >> outside of Autodesk (and there are some very interesting solutions out >> there). Giants fall (look at SGI). We are not immune to that either. >> Personally, I do not think that will happen, but no one at Autodesk will >> ever make any explicit guarantees about the future. All I can say is make >> your software decisions based on what you see today - anything else would >> be, to a certain extent, vaporware and speculation, especially the farther >> out you look. >> >> maurice >> >> >> Maurice Patel >> Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 <514%20954-7134> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold >> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:15 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Autodesk webinar >> >> In Softimage we have a production-proven, solid tool. ICE works TODAY, >> not 2 years from today, not in a dream of a product called Bifrost, but >> right NOW. >> >> Are you telling everyone here who has based their ENTIRE business around >> Softimage, we should trust Autodesk to have a fully functioning tool ready >> that will do EVERYTHING Softimage can do TODAY by the time Softimage hits >> the end? We should believe that after you've just admitted that Skyline >> was a failure? >> >> These aren't a bunch of ideas or concepts here, these are our >> businesses! We feed our families, we pay our bills, we survive based on >> Softimage and now we have to hope that somehow Bifrost is not in the 99% >> failure, but 1% innovation? >> >> Do you seriously want us to bet our future on that? Would you go home >> and tell your significant other that rather than focusing on a tool that >> works for you, makes money for you right now, you're betting everything on >> a promise from Autodesk?? >> >> Who on earth does business like that?? Is Autodesk going to pay our >> mortgages or feed our families when Bifrost falls apart? Because unless >> that's the plan, I can't think of a single sane person who would go along >> with this Maya-only plan. >> >> This is absolutely a terrible way to do business and everyone at Autodesk >> knows it. They've just dug in their heels to avoid looking like they've >> made a colossal mistake. >> >> -Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Adam Sale <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Maurice, in all of this talk the one glaring omission is this. You guys >> are always trying to innovate. You have said success is often 99 percent >> failure to one percent success. Well, in the event bifrost falls by the >> wayside like skyline did, all of a sudden autodesk will have zero node >> based solutions to do the type of ice work we expect of a dcc product. How >> is that a wise move as a company? Its like throwing out the baby with the >> bath water and seems incredibly short sighted. So as we move to bifrost to >> begin our transition away from ICE, we may be in this same mess a couple >> years down the road if it doesnt pan out. Imagine the fallout then.. people >> will go absolutely nuclear on AD. >> >> Adam >> >> > >
