> You are 100% right, but remember the title is "Future". Ok ;) Future then.
> Import export is sometimes faster than switching mode in Maya or > in Houdini. Maybe sometimes, I don't know, I never worked with Houdini. But if you have to change just some small things, I think it's easier to do in one application than to switch. > It is faster to edit UV in UV mapper pro than in Realsoft. Sure. > Learning Houdini is as long as learning 20 other applications. > Mastering a software like XSI, Maya, Houdini is almost impossible. Why? Do you think to learn 20 small applications with their own workflow and own thoughts of logic is faster than learning one more complex software with one workflow? I'm really unsure in this point. > In a studio no one use the software entirely ony 1 or 2 modules > per artist : > texture, material, modeling, animation, lightening, rendering, > compositing. Besides the fact that there are often 3D allrounders also, I think most people know a least roughly about the other features, because they have to work hand in hand. The modeling must fit the animation purpose and so on. > Why would someone need to master renderman when there is plenty > of software > that connect to that renderer? That is really not your argument, or? The one thing that makes renderman outstandig and used in so much productions is it's flexibility. When you have ever worked with it you will know that most studios have their own development team just around it and have developed their own pipeline. There are very few converters at least when it comes to the shading language (the really important part of this renderer). You don't use it because it's there, but because you can modify it to your purpose. > You are right, I never worked for a studio. > But I work with a team of 3 other people with all different tools. I also worked this way a few times and it works fine. The only thing I want to mention that this is not in all circumstances the best way. Sometimes you have to work closer together, in particular when there are a lot of fast changes. > Ok, but admit that for the price and feature : buying many > dedicated app is > better. > > For 500$ of many small applications, you get more power than a full > software. And if you are not happy, you are less dependent on the software > maker, you can change easely the current app that is lagging. And have to learn it. > By dividing your problems into smaller other problems you are more > independent. I mean you don't like the renderer, you change it. You don't > like the modeler you change it. You don't have to wait 3 years for the > company to implement it. You don't change that easily a renderer if you a) have a deadline b) must know the tool 100% in production. It sounds to me like people say: Where is the GI button? Where is the make beautyful button? If it isn't there simply take another renderer. I personally prefer it to search for a solution first before simply changing the renderer. If I really need a special feature I will do it, no question. But often there is allready a way to solve the problem. > By forcing your workflow to use many software you may access things that > will never be done in a full package : tree/plant editor, terrain > generator, > character generator, motion for character. That's why I said 'no studio uses only one tool'. Special tasks require special tools. > In my experience it is better to master a limited software than not > mastering a much more powerfull software. I think it's surely good to have an eye on all kinds of tools. You have to be flexible, that's no question. But if you can handle a tool which can be used for the whole project, where is the problem? > Knowing a software 100% aloud you to think about the solution right in the > beginning of the project. And that's exactly the reason why you have to know the tools (one big software, or 5 small ones). And I personly think it's easier to learn one workflow instead of 5 different which will maybe change within the next project. Don't get me wrong I'm the last one who believes in one software. There were rarely a project in the past where I only use one software. But in most cases one was the main application and the others were only for special tasks. > Ok, you are right but le me win on the price : it is a cheaper and more > powerful solution to buy many dedicated 3D app than buying a one that > pretend to do everything. Even if it may be difficulte to go from one > another. Ok, cheaper for you but maybe not cheaper for a big studio. As I mentioned in most studios is a slowly grown production proofed pipeline. Anyway, I think we both know our agruments now. Let's do something creative again :) Best Tim
