What is the point of proclaiming, "BUT GUYS ! IT'S SO OPEN :)" should artists care ?
On 9 September 2014 21:41, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09/09/14 13:11, Graham Bell wrote: > > Actually that wasn’t the tone (or the point) of the training at all, quote > the opposite in fact. > > > May not have been the point of the training, (highlighting key > differences) > but it seems to put in a nutshell Softimage's basic reason for existing. > > > Here is an overview some of the highlighted pros/cons > > FX (**) > Motion Builder tools (*) > > Modeling (*=) > Tracks (=) > UV (~=) > IK (~) > Hypershade (~) > > > Rigging and weighting (X) > Interface (XX) > render passes, layers, partitions and overrides (XXX) > *'Workflow'* (XXXX) > > Which of course leaves out many (many!) things .. > > like TONS of (mostly interaction model) sublteties that you only know are > there when experiencing say '*less streamlined*' packages. > > and some BIGger things such as general non-destuctivity, > or the all encompassing reach and power of ICE, > to which unmatched (and more or less contained) Naiad FX despite being > great, > has nothing to do with what ICE can do (anything). > > (etc.. ...) > > Overall, at the end of the day, things that make your life easier and get > things *done* very-very fast, with little or no compromize on 'power'. > > _____________ > > There is a method in the madness, [didn't call it 'madness' for nothing] even > if that method needs some rethinking... [all over] > it’s all about unlearning then re-learning [relearning the complicated > way to do almost anything] > > _____________ > > General consensus about the rendering of layers and passes in Maya was > 'what a mess!' > > Which could very-much describe the large majority of Maya workflows. > (coming from SI) > > _____________ > > > And I think that summary similarly puts into focus why people that know > Softimage, need Softimage > (or something much (MUCH!) more like it) > > To summarise, Maya is extremely powerful, as is Softimage. > > Maya does not have the eloquence or the innovative interface [which > Softmage has] > and *is overly complex**, **but it has been designed to be entirely > open. * > > Maybe too open [or too overly complex] for this week’s class. > > This has perplexed a lot of the broadcast/commercials participants this > week who want to turn a job round quickly [...] > > 'Perplexing' indeed... > > > > > On 09/09/14 13:11, Graham Bell wrote: > > Actually that wasn’t the tone (or the point) of the training at all, quote > the opposite in fact. > > > G > > > >
