Artists should care, but they only deal with what’s in front of them, not what’s behind the curtains (buttons/UI). Therefore to hear ‘its more open’ is like hearing a foreign language. It doesn’t register.
Those proclaiming the openness need to do a better job of illustrating what it means and how it’s beneficial – on the artist’s level. Artists, in turn, need to do a better job of learning and understanding the tool they are using to create their work – the computer. Matt From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sebastien Sterling Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 1:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SoftImage Artists take on Maya @ Escape Studios 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]<mailto:[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
