Some of us don't have the luxury of changing anytime soon -----Original Message----- From: "Cristobal Infante" <[email protected]> Sent: 12/26/2014 2:14 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: How do you guys make sure XSI files and Softimage 7.5+ files will open in 2016?
who in their right mind will keep developing for softimage? wake up guys, 1-2 years from now it will all be finished... On Friday, 26 December 2014, Leoung O'Young <[email protected]> wrote: > Hopefully those guys at Redshift will continue to develop for Soft. > It is still a fair bit of an investment to make the shift. > But definitely we can render out images that is not possible in MR within > the time > > On 26/12/2014 3:29 AM, Mirko Jankovic wrote: > > If there was something faster I would go to that right now :) > So far SI is fastest. > If there is better tool ofc will take it :) > > Just it doesn't seems that way and if you loo at situation over the past > 5 years.. not really changing in the market actually. > > For me personally BIGGEST change was introduction of Redshift and GPU > rendering finally fully usable in SI :) > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Angus Davidson <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> Currently no one can argue that SI is anything but the best from a >> workflow point of view. What I am saying is that there will come a time >> where that will not be enough. It will then be faster to simply get things >> done on current software wether that be Maya , Modo or Houdini or something >> totally new altogether. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Mirko Jankovic [[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] >> *Sent:* 26 December 2014 10:06 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> *Subject:* Re: How do you guys make sure XSI files and Softimage 7.5+ >> files will open in 2016? >> >> keep in mind that all the tech improvement and power that comes along >> is nothing if you don;t have streamlined and smooth way of controlling it. >> >> even tho someone would say that right Maya is "more powerful", all the >> fancy things they keep adding and such,a nd true they do have couple nice >> things I would love too have in SI, but it still falls behind in every day >> work where while you truly to go around maya issues and workflow problems >> with SI it is just pure straight work. >> >> no one can argue with that really >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Angus Davidson < >> [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> The main problem is purely technology doesnt sleep. >>> >>> As new leap forwards in both operating systems and hardware there will >>> come a tipping point that no matter how good Softimage is, It will just not >>> be able to run on , or the more likely will be so outperformed by the newer >>> software that it no longer makes financial sense to keep using it. This is >>> especially true now that GPU processing seems to be coming into its own. >>> Wether that be cloud based or a rack of Titans. >>> >>> So the question will become not wether you can run it , but whether >>> its worthwhile to run it. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Jason S [[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] >>> *Sent:* 26 December 2014 03:00 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>> *Subject:* Re: How do you guys make sure XSI files and Softimage 7.5+ >>> files will open in 2016? >>> >>> On 12/23/14 12:15, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote: >>> >>> * I don't have a library of softimage assets worth keeping,... >>> >>> * I have Softimage 2010 at home and it is already broken; >>> every workflow that prompts for a file browser just hangs, >>> and I can't fix it user-side, ... >>> >>> * I've tried everything already short of re-installing the OS, which I >>> won't do. >>> ... >>> >>> * The file format is binary and practically encrypted, >>> so only the app can load those files ... >>> >>> * Worse, there is a design flaw whereby the app >>> can crash if a required plugin is not installed or has a problem while >>> loading a scene, then there is no way to load the scene... >>> >>> * Safe keeping the installers is no security, >>> they may not run at all in the future, >>> being tangled in microsoft "MSI" installer tech and other things... >>> >>> * Older 32-bit Softmage installers already don't run because >>> they have a 16-bit component which won't run on 64-bit Windows... >>> >>> >>> Whew! By the sound of that, Softimage won't be running next year! >>> >>> And why does Soft so often needs to be picked-up and dusted-off from >>> the floor (?) ;-] >>> >>> >>> But sure "at some point in the future", Soft would inevitably start >>> having issues on newer setups, >>> when Virtual Machines would come into play. >>> >>> *Yet*.. when do you think would that be? >>> Soft was certified compatibility on win8 at a very early stage of the os >>> release, >>> and would surely still run fine on the next OS which is itself for some >>> time down the line. >>> >>> if not also the OS after that. >>> (os ver. coming out every couple of years, quite consitantly with 3 >>> versions back compatibility modes) >>> >>> So we're looking at at least 8, if not 12+ years. >>> >>> On top of the fact that people rarely switch to new OS'es very rapidely, >>> like so many are on still on Win7 which many perfer to win8 >>> (new, absolutely is not always necessarily better) >>> >>> And there will also be the advantage of anything made to work with 2015 >>> will work as long as XSI works. >>> (no previous version incompatability issues) >>> >>> And at some point, Exocortex, Mootz, and other plugins would not >>> surprisingly become either more accessible if not free... >>> Which would make it yet more "killer" than it already is. >>> >>> And if for any reason there would eventually be licensing fails, it >>> would by then be quite legitimate to just use cracks. >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> >>> But similarly otherwise, concerning the Future, (concerning those that >>> can choose what they use) >>> when would you think something will surpass SI's general strengths? >>> >>> And/or rather -what- will it be... >>> >>> If Maya could have potentially been a closer replacement overall, it >>> would have involved making quite a few changes >>> in areas that hasn't been touched since even before the last FXTree >>> Update, >>> and it would be quite unrealistic to think that such changes would ever >>> happen. >>> >>> >>> *So that leaves the introduction of new players*. >>> >>> May it be releases of production studio software, >>> Pixar Premo?, .. Dreamworks Apollo? >>> Buf's own is suppose to come at any time early this year.. >>> (any/all of which, "*production/artist friendliness*" seemed to have >>> come -first- from the very start) >>> >>> >>> Or... that some new thing comes out of the blue >>> (not unlike the new FlowBox Comp package) >>> >>> Also look at Exocortex Clara.io, who made a basic yet more than just >>> functional online DCC all within a really short time, with usability that >>> feels alot like a hybrid or "the best of" Softimage and Max . >>> >>> >>> ... it might even be a 3rd party making a DCC out of Fabric (since >>> Fabric won't (.. ever want to compete with Maya)) >>> >>> So who (the heck) knows.. but if you ask me, it would be pretty >>> astonishing if some (far) more comparable options wouldn't be coming >>> (way-way!) before Soft would actually stop running just fine, >>> especially with just 1 (one) non-specialized/general-purpose (and rental >>> only) DCC considered to be "HighEnd", the void is just screaming to be >>> filled. >>> >>> ____________________________ >>> >>> *But until then,* concerning longevity, we recently spoke of Eddie, but >>> this all SO reminds me of exactly EDDIE. >>> >>> Where we only realized how good it was until... well at least Windows >>> is unlikely to go bottom-up anytime soon. >>> >>> With a feature-set and/or subtle qualities that made it YEARS before >>> it's time. >>> >>> Enough to make me say.. >>> << Would love to use it on a box with more than 500mb of ram :) >>> (and higher than 8 bit depth) >> >>> >>> Well, it seems that it did have 16bit depth.. >>> >>> >>> Also, >>> Softimage Eddie supports network batch rendering, 32- and 64-bit >>> multi-processing, and an open plug-in architecture for custom tools. >>> >>> So on a fast machine with not even that much ram, (after all this time) >>> I would have choosen Eddie as it was, >>> *definitely* over Shake, AfterEffects (then -OR- now), >>> and .. also over Nuke today? >>> Well it would actually be a hard decision(!) only because of floating >>> point. >>> (only for when dealing with values going over "1", in which simple >>> tricks can be used to easily go without, similar to using Photoshop in 16 >>> bit mode) >>> >>> Meaning, it would not be by nostalgia that would make the decision hard, >>> it would be because it was really quite exceptionally Streamlined, >>> Efficient, Straight-Forward and very advanced. >>> >>> ________________ >>> >>> Apart from the things previously mentioned, it also had color matching >>> tools that with a few clicks, >>> whatever you were integrating simply fit with your backbgound. >>> >>> An NLE timeline (3.5) where you could sequence comp trees together,which >>> is another thing that Nuke only very recently finally had. >>> >>> Nuke now has a pretty good Vector paint, but Eddie's paint would still >>> be way(!) more sophisticated hands down, it was an entire program on it's >>> own. >>> >>> And memory management was remarkable (by sheer necessity back then) >>> >>> You would work with 2k plates with trees spanning several pages, and it >>> would constantly save caches, flush, and go-on with a couple other nodes.. [The entire original message is not included.]
