I think this gesture is cute, but insipid. Are you planning on giving a weeks worth refresher course to EVERYONE ? or do you think everyone can come around to Maya in one week?
This is once again about trying to sweeten the larger studios that might have had an affinity with XSI, looks good as a PR story, fundamentally yet another way of throwing the blame back on the user, instead of owning up to Maya's inherent weaknesses and trying to fix them. Yet again OUR fault for just not "GETTING" the Maya philosophy. You seem to be forgetting, no one uses maya out of the box. It would be nice to see the software grow to reflect peoples needs, instead of making excuses about why Maya skinning needs to be shit, or why Maya doesn't need a pass editor, or why the simple concept of show/hide polygons eludes the dev's to this day ? i mean anyone have any imminent use for a half baked Flip solver ? I mean I'm sure it's a nice half baked flip solver... On 10 September 2014 21:36, Jordi Bares <[email protected]> wrote: > I keep thinking about this sentence… > > what do they mean by Maya being "entirely open"? > > Do they mean open source software? clearly that is not the case. > > Do they mean customisable? because this is not open in my book. > > Do they mean open architecture? Because although you can add components > (plugins) you can't substitute the pre-existing ones (unless I am wrong > here) > > > So… what do Autodesk mean by saying it is "designed to be entirely open"?? > > > And by the way… why is the Escape studio page now down???? > http://www.escapestudios.com/softimage-artists-take-on-maya-escape-studios/ > > :-/// > > > Jordi Bares > [email protected] > > On 9 Sep 2014, at 21:41, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. * > > >
