Cause n’ effect, Chris. First, we use Unfold within Softimage. The support structure is to contact Autodesk for the issues and they in turn relay the info to the Unfold developer, if necessary. That’s why we customers pay support dollars to Autodesk. It’s not the customer’s job to investigate and locate the indy developer who did all this work and nag him to fix it.
I submitted a very long detailed list of improvements, suggestions, and bug reports over many releases much like I have done for the better part of the last 20+ years. I spent a great deal of time after hours of work, many times working past midnight, to go over the details with a fine toothed comb to cover all the bases providing examples, reproduction steps, and so on. In turn, all that work was tossed into the trash without 2nd thought with the message that all was irrelevant. Now tell me about respect. 2nd of all, I’m not a Maya user. I have used Maya in the past, I may be a Maya user in the future, but I am not one now. Therefore it’s not my responsibility to report these issues to Autodesk, especially since they’ve already been given the information. It’s their job to put things right and ensure really basic stuff like the aforementioned works out of the box before it gets into customer hands even in beta testing. That has nothing to do with being an artist. It has everything to do with good business practices of development and basic quality control. Both of which have been failures with regards to Unfold in softimage. So far the experience of trying to be a Maya user has been fruitless. I have contacted Autodesk more than once about their roadmap when it was advertised for such a preview months ago and I have received zero response. Now again, tell me about respect. Matt From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher Crouzet Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:00 PM To: Softimage Mailing List Subject: Re: maya uv tool broken? Look, I don't know shit in UV unfolding but I don't need to be an expert to see that being a bit more respectful towards the devs wouldn't hurt you. They might not be awesome everyday artists like you, they might not experience their tool in the same way than you do, and they're not perfect neither, but they've had the lucidity to implement a crazy complex algorithm to help out people like you to not spend days unfolding a single complex mesh and to save your ass from crazy deadlines. If such a “small” problem blinds you from seeing all the benefits that you're gaining from using that tool, then it's really a shame. The Softimage databse isn't the Unfold3D database, so just try contacting them directly to see how it goes. I'm sure that if you kindly explain them, they could help. On 8 September 2014 15:30, Matt Lind <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Something that basic should not require me contacting the dev. It should be a standard benchmark in testing the product for release as this feature is a staple in games production. If the devs are not checking this, then they clearly have not done their homework in understanding the problem(s) that need to be solved with such a tool. It’s kind of like designing and building a space shuttle that takes off, lands, maneuvers well in orbit, is serviceable, economical and meets all other bullet points on the spec sheet except account for the fact the astronauts need to be able to survive the flight. And yes, I’ve made the issues known along with many others, but if memory serves, somebody had the brilliant idea of deleting all those reports from the Softimage database. Matt From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Christopher Crouzet Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:21 AM To: Softimage Mailing List Subject: Re: maya uv tool broken? If you haven't done it yet, you could forward this kind of request directly to the dev: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> He's really friendly and has even been on this list for some times now. On 8 September 2014 15:13, Matt Lind <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: If Maya is using the same Unfold3D as Softimage, then artists will still need to go to another software for UV layout because Unfold3D lacks very basic functionality required for certain types of work. For example, unfolding a symmetrical object an having the resulting UVs laid out symmetrically to reflect the geometry's shape. Unfold3D is very poor with that. Matt -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Luc-Eric Rousseau Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 10:59 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: maya uv tool broken? Hello, Unfold3d is build directly in Maya 2015 and accessible directly from the UV Editor menu. Then, there is a Bonus Tools which is a mel script that takes you step-by-step into setting up things and then call unfold. That's not a new tool, but it's been updated to use the new Unfold3d. I figured that if you knew how to use Softimage's Unfold3D you may not need the Bonus Tools. It's worth checking out all the changes in UV Editor and unfolding in the two separate sections here: http://help.autodesk.com/view/MAYAUL/2015/ENU/?guid=New_in_Modeling The team has studied UVLayout; going to it shouldn't be necessary for anything. On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Manuel Huertas Marchena <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > "I don't know The bonus tool predates 2015 and the new workflows ." what > do you mean? sorry it might be obvious but usually I use uvlayout for > this type of task, so I am trying to find the "best" way to approach > uvs inside maya to rely less in uvlayout for simple geo. > My approach in xsi was usually do all ("simple geo") uvs in xsi and > complex geo unwrap, uvs packing, uv islands ratio inside uvlayout. I > am now replacing xsi for maya and will like to keep the same workflow. > So if the "uvtool" is supposed to be "the new way" of unwrapping > meshes in maya 2015, I was asking why is not included by default? but > again being a bit new, I am surely missing something obvious :) -- Christopher Crouzet http://christophercrouzet.com -- Christopher Crouzet http://christophercrouzet.com
