In terms of development initiative, leaving the phasing out of softimage aside,
i see indications for the opposite.

It "feels" like there´s a new leap forward in the industry.

Even if many of these leaps may not have their origin at Autodesk, they are
embracing those developments and put them into their line of products.

*fbx
*Alembic, and what it means for a pipeline
*GPU rendering, either speeding up the viewport or even making the viewport the 
finaloutput
*massive data sets, like scan data and how to handle or make best use of it
*opensubdiv
*3d to comp (see alembic/fbx and vray for nuke)
*game development for next gen
*bifrost/and it´s the nucleus framework 2.0 potential


cheers,

tim


P.S: In terms of license options and entry level fees, I´m no fan of the 
foundry.
I can´t justify having a nuke or even nukeX license just for dabbling with it on
my home/dev/tests machine.




On 31.08.2014 14:44, Sebastien Sterling wrote:
i feel the only reason AD has to use this model is that they where too greedy, 
they bought up all the software in the industry hoping to create a monopoly and 
only found out later
what a fucking stupid idea that is dev cost wise. The cost of developing all 
these packages is unsustainable. So now there screwing their clients, the 
additional strain probably
causes them to put out an inferiorly tested product with lest time afforded to 
each demographics needs. i reckon places like pixologic luxologic and maxxon 
don't really have these
kinds of problems, pertaining to the fact they only have one package to 
support, meaning they have an incentive to tailor it to there clients and make 
it the best package out
there. a much healthier approach all things considered.


On 31 August 2014 11:35, Tim Leydecker <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Brooding about this thing more.


    I had mentioned before how I like the Unreal Engine license model
    approach which let´s you postpone investment if you are willing to
    freeze yourself temporarily to the last built you had access to before
    "putting your version updates on hold", stepping out of your subscription.

    That´s basically like buying once, then once more every other new release
    or just when there is a justifiable neccessity, e.g.just buying updates.

    The Unreal model gives you a lot of freedom. It doesn´t force you to
    constantly commit money.

    At work, I see the same thing. Major version iterations are 2012 and 2014 
packages.
    Most likely 2016 will be the next step. Even while on support, it isn´t 
always
    practical to push everything and everyone through releases constantly.

    Unless of course the software you plan to commit to has a defect that will 
only
    be adressed in an update...

    The time it takes to get the workenvironment in place, including plug-ins 
and
    workflows is enough with every other version already.

    That may change, with release circles and software getting more reliable and
    less buggy but then the need to constantly update/subscribe gets even less 
pressing.

    In a nutshell, going the forced to subscription customers only way reduces 
the
    useability of the software, as it can easily lead to even faster update 
cycles
    if only to give a reason to subscribe but then get less reliable milestones 
as
    everything is constantly changing anyway and the next release is around the 
corner.

    It´s flashing, blinking, screaming new in your face while making your 
progress look dated...

    It might be worth finding out how much time people loose already per day on
    windows updates, general software updates, login procedures, update 
downloads,
    the overhead to just keeping everything in sync. The stuff you have to do 
before
    you start working really.

    Personally, I don´t mind paying subscription, I might even find a benefit in
    opting in and out, for example with the 3DS Max version i have lying around
    and rarely use at the moment but might need at a short notice.

    But still, the releases I commit to for work aren´t neccessarily the 
lastest built only.


    Cheers,

    tim













    On 31.08.2014 07 <tel:31.08.2014%2007>:47, Angus Davidson wrote:

        I might be wrong but i was getting a very much force people onto the 
latest version vibe from that interview. Which may very well work for Autocad, 
but it sure as hell isnt
        going to work for Max and Maya.

        That model isn't working very well for Adobe as any user of After 
Effects will tell you. Its causing a world of hurt as far as bugs and 
instability goes.

        =
        <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" 
style="width:100%;">
        <tr>
        <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><__font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" 
color="#999999"><span style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the
        addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original 
message. You may not copy or
        disseminate this communication without the permission of the 
University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements 
on behalf of the University and
        recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be 
legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and 
opinions of the author,
        which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of 
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and 
outsiders are subject to
        South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. 
</span></font></td>
        </tr>
        </table>




Reply via email to