Then why do I have to provoke you in order to get an answer after having
said you are not going to go into this topic any further ? A classic.
It's painful to have a discussion with someone who presses his finger
where it hurts, I admit that.
But frankly I don't care much about how my comments are perceived, or
what peoples think about me for that matter, as I'm dead serious about
what I wrote and I know I am dead right.
Ask around, re-read this mailing-list archives, I was dead right about
the Softimage future when Autodesk bought it - and even before - while
most peoples were smiling and naively swallowing Autodesk, Marc Petit
and Marc Stevens statements and reinsurance.
Today, I know I'm dead right about the future of Fabric Engine if its
business model stays that way, despite it is my business or not, despite
you like my comments or not, despite you like me or not, despite it is
painful to hear it or not.
I hope to be proven wrong this time though.
RDV here in a few years. Good Luck.
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder | raa.tel
On 12/12/14 21:02, Paul Doyle wrote:
Guy - we actually did some research into the matter when making our
decision - including talking to software companies that had
successfully built businesses around OSS. Dual-licensing was
considered and we decided that it wouldn't work. I am not going to get
into the details of it, because frankly it's painful to have a
discussion with someone that defaults to 'see? I'm right not to trust
you' at every opportunity, along with various snarky comments.
Thanks,
Paul
On 12 December 2014 at 14:08, Guy Rabiller <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
No stress here.
Your reasoning is biased by the false assumption (tunnel-vision?)
open-source == free, and your are not even listening to the
arguments that show otherwise.
That's fine with me, and confirms my trust-level.
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder |raa.tel <http://raa.tel>
On 12/12/14 19:49, Paul Doyle wrote:
I explained the reasoning, I'm not going to go into this topic
any further.
On 12 December 2014 at 13:47, Guy Rabiller
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But I have the feeling you think open-source automatically
means 'free'.
Your business is not selling software (I hope), your business
is selling licenses.
Using a dual-licenses approach, it would be free to use for
non-commercial open-sourced projects, but studios would still
have to pay licenses for proprietary development. So no
change here in terms of business, this could even be
transparent for your existing customers. Nothing would change
for them and you would get the same amount of money from them.
Yet, instead allowing them to distribute free Fabric tools if
they choose to, this could perhaps allow them to sell Fabric
tools too. Better business model for everyone.
While being open-sourced and free for non commercial
developments, trust is back and open-sourced communities
developments could start.
ps: a contract means nothing if a company disappear, I
believe I'm not the only one who has experienced that.
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder |raa.tel <http://raa.tel>
On 12/12/14 19:01, Paul Doyle wrote:
The fact is there are no successful open-source companies in
our industry because the numbers don't work. The companies
that do open-source in our industry are doing something else
as their main business. Our main business is selling
software. Typically a software company open-sources if they
see an opportunity to build a services business/premium
support model around their software - the conversion
percentages here are typically <5% of the user base and
often much lower. Simply put - our industry is too technical
("we don't need no stinking support") and too small (how
many studios are there globally above 10 employees?) for
that to be viable, we would die.
As for trust - that was really my point in my last email.
Fabric makes guarantees through our licensing agreements
with customers - they don't have to trust what I tell them,
they have a contract that gives them what they need.
I get that many people feel burned and why that makes a very
compelling argument for OSS alternatives. If we felt that we
could be successful doing that, then we'd be doing it. There
is no moral opposition to the notion of open-sourcing, it's
a matter of doing such a thing if and when it makes sense.
Right now that's not our position.
On 12 December 2014 at 12:33, Guy Rabiller
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Yeah well, with all the lies Autodesk gave us, how come
can you expect to be trusted ?
Nothing personal though, you are not responsible.
But the trust is lost, broken, irreversibly. They did a
pretty good job at it. Blame them.
The only projects and products that deserve trust are
open sourced projects. Period.
Yet I still don't understand why you are so afraid to
open source the core using a dual license. Take Berkeley
DB from Oracle for instance. Open sourced, dual
licensed. I don't think Oracle stakes holders are less
business oriented than Autodesk ones. Wiser perhaps ?
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder |raa.tel <http://raa.tel>
On 12/12/14 18:10, Paul Doyle wrote:
Our customers all have agreements that protect them,
and next year we'll be pushing on the 3rd party
licensing model which will also allow people to
distribute free Fabric tools if they choose to. If
someone wanted to build a full-on DCC then we'd have a
license agreement that would protect them as well.
There are more approaches to this than just 'open
source all the things!'.
On 12 December 2014 at 11:27, Guy Rabiller
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Create a whole dcc on top of a proprietary closed
source product that can disappear or be trashed at
any time ? Are you kidding ? Will you ever learn ?
I guess loosing Softimage was not enough for you ?
Or you simply don't care ?
I still do. For a long time.
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder |raa.tel <http://raa.tel>
On 12/12/14 14:39, Ahmidou Lyazidi wrote:
Il don't see the need to expose the core either,
you can already create a whole dcc by yourself.
You can extend the Splice standalone and add as
many feature as you want. You can
add/derive/modify all the KL objects. You can draw
whatever you want in modern opengl and interact
with the objects in the viewport. Integrate. c++
libraries and finally customize the ui with QT.
What would you like to do by changing the core?
Le 12 déc. 2014 06:00, "Thomas Mansencal"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
Excellent! I'm not a rigger but my friends
rigger are now aware :)
On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:31:36 AM Sebastien
Sterling <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hot shit this stuff looks cool, just make
a DCC already :P
Na i get why that can't be a priority
right now, still all this awsome...
We are hungry for more i'm sure :) so
congrats to all and to you Paul.
On 12 December 2014 at 08:23, Nicolas
Esposito <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Great job guys!
I'm very interested especially
regarding the DeltaMush modifier,
looks fantastic!
Very interesting is the Blendshapes
rig...about that I'm thinking that the
debugging of the blendshape could be
used for realtime deformation (
displacement or wrinkle maps ) that
triggers automatically ( ala Facerobot
but much quicker ).
I'm still not familiar with Fabric
Engine so pardon my questions but:
- Regarding the captain atom rig, if I
understood correctly you are able via
Alembic to bake all the deformation
you setup with the Rigging Toolbox and
then via script apply those
deformation on the source mesh itself,
right? so, after I did all the
deformations I want I can simply bake
those deformations with a script and
then export the rig itself in FBX and
those deformations are baked in, right?
- Same question, but related to tge
blendshape rig...at 22.10 the locator
is described as a container which
holds the geometry, but there's no
actual geometry in the scene...in this
case how the export in FBX would work?
Cheers guys, this looks awesome!
2014-12-12 3:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Doyle
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi Guy - no, we're not planning to
open-source the core. Thanks for
the analysis of our client base
and users ;)
Paul
On 11 December 2014 at 21:28, Guy
Rabiller <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hi Paul,
Still no plan to make the Core
open sourced (perhaps dual
licensed ala Oracle) and
available to open sourced
projects ?
I see you are now in need for
more users/clients, perhaps
this could be the right time ?
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder |raa.tel
<http://raa.tel>
On 11/12/14 22:48, Paul Doyle
wrote:
(X-Post from 3DPro)
Hi everyone - something that
has come up a few times with
customers has been 'can you
give us some sample deformers
written in KL for us to get
started?'. The Rigging
Toolbox is our pass at doing
just that: a public repo
where people can see how
we've approached things like
delta mush (is it too late to
be considered part of the DM
hype train?) and contribute
back their own work if they
want to.
video here:
https://vimeo.com/114272905
website + link to repo:
http://fabricengine.com/rigging-toolbox/
"The Rigging Toolbox provides
a collection of production
relevant tools that can be
used when building character
pipelines using Fabric
Engine. These tools can be
used as is, or purely as
reference as you build your
own implementations. Recently
we have added a suite of
deformers and are now working
on leveraging our GPU compute
capabilities with these
deformers."
The rigging toolbox works in
Maya, Max and Softimage with
our Splice plugin, so this
all has the usual Fabric
benefits of encapsulation and
portability. As we move to
visual programming next year,
this work will all be
compatible there as well.
Last infomercial piece:
http://fabricengine.com/get-fabric/ Fabric
is free for individuals and
we're giving 50 free licenses
to studios, which helps when
you're hoping people will
contribute to a project like
this.
Thanks,
Paul
