date:20140106

Same here, every time I use maya I hate the experience and wonder myself his is 
it possible that it is still being used?

The workflow is f@cked up you become miserable. 

I use Houdini mainly now although we will get Softimage very soon, wasting too 
much time for things Houdini is not good at.

Jb

Sent from my iPhone

 On 6 Jan 2014, at 08:52, Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com wrote:
 
 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
 USED IN PRODUCTION?
  
 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but 
 seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage almost 
 everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the easiest 
 task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, 
 Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a 
 big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage is way 
 better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for 
 example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, 
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come 
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread the 
 Word of Softimage
  
  
 Cheers
  
 Szabolcs
  
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Henry Katz
 Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year
  
 Good thing I asked.
 
 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x
  
  
 
 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:
 Steve,
 
 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the 
 bleeding edge?
 
 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:
 really?
  
 install pyqt
 set softimage to use system python, uncheck... filepreferencesscriptinguse 
 python installed with softimage
 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import 
 PyQt4'
  
 s
  
 
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za 
 wrote:
 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools 
 are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to work.

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread James De Colling

we use Maya primarily at our studio, but recently there has been a few
artists talking about modo and testing it out. they were very impressed,
however, most of the stuff they were showing me, or thought was impressive
was already standard workflow in softimage.

but softimage isnt and never was on their radar. they had no idea. that's
marketing for you.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jordi Bares jordiba...@gmail.com wrote:

 Same here, every time I use maya I hate the experience and wonder myself
 his is it possible that it is still being used?

 The workflow is f@cked up you become miserable.

 I use Houdini mainly now although we will get Softimage very soon, wasting
 too much time for things Houdini is not good at.

 Jb

 Sent from my iPhone

 On 6 Jan 2014, at 08:52, Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com wrote:

 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS
 USED IN PRODUCTION?



 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but
 seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage
 almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the
 easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing
 UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I
 take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage
 is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but
 for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster,
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread
 the Word of Softimage





 Cheers



 Szabolcs



 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Henry Katz
 *Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year



 Good thing I asked.

 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x





 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:

 Steve,

 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the
 bleeding edge?

 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:

 really?



 install pyqt

 set softimage to use system python, uncheck...
 filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage

 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import
 PyQt4'



 s



 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za
 wrote:

 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great
 tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install
 to work.

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Or lack of

Sent from my iPhone

 On 6 Jan 2014, at 09:08, James De Colling james.decoll...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 we use Maya primarily at our studio, but recently there has been a few 
 artists talking about modo and testing it out. they were very impressed, 
 however, most of the stuff they were showing me, or thought was impressive 
 was already standard workflow in softimage.
 
 but softimage isnt and never was on their radar. they had no idea. that's 
 marketing for you.
 
 
 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jordi Bares jordiba...@gmail.com wrote:
 Same here, every time I use maya I hate the experience and wonder myself his 
 is it possible that it is still being used?
 
 The workflow is f@cked up you become miserable. 
 
 I use Houdini mainly now although we will get Softimage very soon, wasting 
 too much time for things Houdini is not good at.
 
 Jb
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On 6 Jan 2014, at 08:52, Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com wrote:
 
 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
 USED IN PRODUCTION?
 
  
 
 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but 
 seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage 
 almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the 
 easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing 
 UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I 
 take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage 
 is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but 
 for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, 
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come 
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread 
 the Word of Softimage
 
  
 
  
 
 Cheers
 
  
 
 Szabolcs
 
  
 
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Henry Katz
 Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year
 
  
 
 Good thing I asked.
 
 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
 
 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x
 
  
 
  
 
 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:
 
 Steve,
 
 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the 
 bleeding edge?
 
 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:
 
 really?
 
  
 
 install pyqt
 
 set softimage to use system python, uncheck... 
 filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage
 
 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import 
 PyQt4'
 
  
 
 s
 
  
 
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za 
 wrote:
 
 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools 
 are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to 
 work.

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Stefan Kubicek


Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I still smell a pattern there.I always felt that the number of users on Softimage is directly related to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence.Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try it.So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?
This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when required... and Maya being the "Industry Standard" makes you understand so many things about the industry standards...

2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com
So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?
Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread the Word of Softimage

Cheers
Szabolcs
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Henry Katz
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PMTo: softimage@listproc.autodesk.comSubject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year
Good thing I asked.On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x 
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:Steve,No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the bleeding edge?
Cheers,HenryOn 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:really? 
install pyqtset softimage to use system python, uncheck... filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage
run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import PyQt4'
sOn Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote:
A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to work.


-- ---   Stefan Kubicek---   keyvis digital imagery  Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3   A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien Phone:+43/699/12614231  www.keyvis.at  ste...@keyvis.at--  This email and its attachments are   confidential and for the recipient only--

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Mirko Jankovic

*those who use Softimage, and those who have never tried*

S true :)
It is really impossible to anyone that actually put any effort in SI to try
it out longer then 5 minutes and to see him after that going back to that
other dinosaur.. I mean really as you mentioned how anyone can do anything
in Maya :)
But if you don't know for better... ;)

On the other hand put your self in shoes of someone just starting to learn
and wanna break into industry. Visit couple forums, see thousands of post
and activity in Maya, Max, Cinema4d even forums and really small numbers in
SI...
THey can only judge how SI is small and not used. They don;t know why just
that there are no users.. they based decisions on that.
It really seems a bit harder to get new fresh people start learning SI, and
also hard to get old horses to try something new as well :)
So where to hit hehe
Well I know where.. I'm lucky enough to mange studio here right now and
pushing SI all the way and with good contacts in some private schools here
there are talks of new animation courses, and guess what software will I
push :)
So getting bunch of edu licences for SI for one, then making bunch of my
own SI ready artists... that is the way I guess :)
Offer them job, offer them how and where to learn and you have yourself new
SI army ;)

Let's be serious it is hard in any other way to get people to go to SI..
they see all things done say nice and keep hitting their had with problems
in Maya :)
 As one example, I'm not gonna name studio or details, but I saw them
trying to figure out in Maya something for 2 weeks, that is done in 15
minutes inside SI.
Finally I as SI guy found solution inside Maya for their problem which also
kinda shows mentality behind Maya users... Keep hitting wall with
head until it breaks,, head or wall :)
Sorry don;t wanna be too judgmental but you have to see that there is
certain mentality behind choice of software :)
Don;t let me start about Max guys they ar breed for them self hahaha
Kidding, no need to go we and them way but there is something behind it ;)



On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.comwrote:

  Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed
 for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but
 I still smell a pattern there.

 I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related
 to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in
 the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that
 happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence.
 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use
 Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously
 try it.






 *So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS
 USED IN PRODUCTION?*


 This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when
 required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so
 many things about the industry standards...




 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com

 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM
 IS USED IN PRODUCTION?



 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya,
 but seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage
 almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the
 easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing
 UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I
 take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage
 is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but
 for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster,
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread
 the Word of Softimage





 Cheers



 Szabolcs



 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Henry Katz
 *Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year



 Good thing I asked.

 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x





 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:

 Steve,

 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the
 bleeding edge?

 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:

 really?



 install pyqt

 set softimage to use system python, uncheck...
 filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage

 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import
 PyQt4'



 s



 On Thu, Jan

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread wavo


Am 1/6/2014 10:08 AM, schrieb James De Colling:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jordi Bares jordiba...@gmail.com 
mailto:jordiba...@gmail.com wrote:


Same here, every time I use maya I hate the experience and wonder
myself his is it possible that it is still being used?




like this:

Video2000 - VHS
Amiga - Macintosh
Unix- Windows
HD-dvd   - BlueRay
T-850 Modell 101 - T-X (terminator 3)
softimage   - Maya

:-)
--


*Walter Volbers*
Senior Animator

*FIFTYEIGHT*3D
Animation  Digital Effects GmbH

Kontorhaus Osthafen
Lindleystraße 12
60314 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

Telefon +49 (0) 69.48 000 55.50
Telefax +49 (0) 69.48 000 55.15

_mailto:w...@fiftyeight.com
http://www.fiftyeight.com
_


ESC*58*
Eine Kooperation der escape GmbH und der FIFTYEIGHT3D GmbH

_http://www.ESC58.de
_

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Dan Yargici

Softimage is the Dreamcast of DCC apps.

Playstation had the slick marketing, Dreamcast had the tech but got chewed
to pieces by the Playstation hype machine and Playstation won.  When Sega
finally gave up on the console business every man and his dog came out
singing the praises of the Dreamcast.





On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.comwrote:

  Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed
 for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but
 I still smell a pattern there.

 I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related
 to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in
 the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that
 happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence.
 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use
 Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously
 try it.






 *So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS
 USED IN PRODUCTION?*


 This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when
 required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so
 many things about the industry standards...




 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com

 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM
 IS USED IN PRODUCTION?



 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya,
 but seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage
 almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the
 easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing
 UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I
 take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage
 is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but
 for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster,
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread
 the Word of Softimage





 Cheers



 Szabolcs



 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Henry Katz
 *Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year



 Good thing I asked.

 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x





 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:

 Steve,

 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the
 bleeding edge?

 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:

 really?



 install pyqt

 set softimage to use system python, uncheck...
 filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage

 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import
 PyQt4'



 s



 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson 
 angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote:

 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great
 tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install
 to work.













 --
 ---
 Stefan Kubicek
 ---
 keyvis digital imagery
 Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3
 A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien
 Phone: +43/699/12614231
 www.keyvis.at ste...@keyvis.at
 -- This email and its attachments are --
 --confidential and for the recipient only--

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Eric Mootz

[..] working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?? 
[..]

He, he, I can only agree. It is the most buggy and unusable application I have 
ever had the displeasure to use.
How anybody can seriously work with Maya is frankly beyond me.

Hats off to all those pour souls who have to use it on a daily basis ;)

Cheers,
Eric

PS: for the sake of fairness it must be mentioned that the Maya SDK is really 
quite good. It is easy to understand, well documented, has tons of examples, 
etc.

RE: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Szabolcs Matefy

Actually Stefan you’re just right. I converted many hardcore Max and Maya 
artists to Softimage, and they would never ever look back. However industry 
might force them (like me)…

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Kubicek
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 10:21 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
still smell a pattern there.

I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related to 
marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the 
early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening for 
Softimage at any time of it's existence.
Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, 
and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try it.

So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED 
IN PRODUCTION?

This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when required... 
 and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so many things 
about the industry standards...

[http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg]

2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.commailto:szabol...@crytek.com
So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED 
IN PRODUCTION?

Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but 
seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage almost 
everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the easiest 
task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, 
Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a 
big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage is way 
better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for 
example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, 
modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come that 
Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread the Word 
of Softimage

Cheers

Szabolcs

From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com

[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Henry Katz
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Good thing I asked.

On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz 
hk-v...@iscs-i.commailto:hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:
Steve,

No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the bleeding 
edge?

Cheers,
Henry
On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:
really?

install pyqt
set softimage to use system python, uncheck... filepreferencesscriptinguse 
python installed with softimage
run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import PyQt4'

s

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson 
angus.david...@wits.ac.zamailto:angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote:
A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools are 
never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to work.

--
---
Stefan Kubicek
---
keyvis digital imagery
Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3
A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien
Phone: +43/699/12614231
www.keyvis.athttp://www.keyvis.at ste...@keyvis.atmailto:ste...@keyvis.at
-- This email and its attachments are --
--confidential and for the recipient only--

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Martin Yara

SI is way more artist friendly than Maya, but that doesn't make a company
choose it, specially when the big ones have their propietary tools that can
make Maya almost as good as Softimage. (I haven't worked for a big company
so I can only imagine how good Maya with steroids can be)

Maya out of the box, without your own RD staff creating tools for you, can
be really clumsy and slow to work with. Simple things in SI can be easily,
x10 more clicks in Maya.

To be fair, it is much better than 8 years ago, when Softimage workflow was
already awesome, it just hasn't evolved too much after that. Softimage
feels obsolete, but Maya workflow feels prehistoric (with a gorgeous
viewport and some fancy tools).

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:

 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use
 Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously
 try it.


True. 90% of the guys I convinced to give SI a try had stayed with SI. The
rest just dropped it before getting too involved with it because they
couldn't stand the viewport limitations and I can't blame them.

Martin

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Martin Contel

I'm one of those poor souls using Maya on a daily basis. The experience is
even more miserable considering I've been happily using XSI since v3.0 till
last year. I think a lot of times how good XSI already was ten years ago,
when Maya 4.0 was just a big pile of sh!t. XSI had already nailed the
modeling tools, the rendertree, the passes system, the scene explorer, the
render-on-viewport, the workflow, things that Maya still only dreams
of. Future looked brighter when v7.0 brought us ICE.

The industry chose Maya as the de facto standard. During my time
freelancing I dodged it but on the recent years it's been more difficult to
find Softimage jobs or Softimage artists.

If I had the money, I would buy Maya from Autodesk and bury it in the
dessert together with those E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial Atari video-game
cartridges, making the world a better place. :)

Cheers,



--
Martin Contel
Square Enix (Visual Works)


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.comwrote:

 Actually Stefan you’re just right. I converted many hardcore Max and Maya
 artists to Softimage, and they would never ever look back. However industry
 might force them (like me)…



 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Kubicek
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 10:21 AM

 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year



 Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed
 for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?

 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but
 I still smell a pattern there.



 I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related
 to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in
 the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that
 happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence.

 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use
 Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously
 try it.













 *So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS
 USED IN PRODUCTION?*


 This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when
 required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so
 many things about the industry standards...




 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com

 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS
 USED IN PRODUCTION?



 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but
 seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage
 almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the
 easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing
 UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I
 take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage
 is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but
 for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster,
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread
 the Word of Softimage





 Cheers



 Szabolcs



 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Henry Katz
 *Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year



 Good thing I asked.

 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x





 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:

 Steve,

 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the
 bleeding edge?

 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:

 really?



 install pyqt

 set softimage to use system python, uncheck...
 filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage

 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import
 PyQt4'



 s



 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za
 wrote:

 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great
 tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install
 to work.













 --

 ---
 Stefan Kubicek
 ---
 keyvis digital imagery
 Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3
 A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien
 Phone: +43/699/12614231
 www.keyvis.at ste...@keyvis.at
 -- This email and its attachments are --
 --confidential and for the recipient only--

RE: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Nick Angus

In my humble opinion the secret to getting Soft into studios is the suites, 
it’s how I got Soft into the building.  We needed Maya as that’s what we were 
all using before we started our new company and we really needed to hit the 
ground running, and we also needed Mudbox.  The nice thing was that the 
combined price of these two was slightly less than the suite price, which comes 
with Soft!

So I managed to get Soft in the door at no perceived cost, then over the next 
year as I familiarised myself with it (and learned ICE also) Vray was released 
and we had a good renderer too.  Then I discovered Exocortex Crate and hopped 
on board as an early adopter, now we had a reliable way to get all the cached 
animation from Maya.  Then we finally invested in Arnold and things started to 
get really good, now with a bit of clever scripting from the great Chris 
Gardner and some nice in house scene management tools we have a button to 
export Alembic to Soft.

We use the initial Alembic export as the asset and package it into an .emdl 
file, we then do the shading/fur/look dev/whatever to the asset and when it is 
imported into a shot we can right click on the model node and apply the 
animation cache from Maya.

It is that simple!, also now with open VDB we will be able to bring all the 
cool volumetric smoke/fire from Houdini or Maya plus fluid sims etc in at 
rendertime.  I have resigned myself to the fact it would be hard for Soft to 
make a major comeback into the rigging/animation realm as there are just so 
many people using Maya now.  Soft was in development/marketing limbo while Maya 
got a foothold, the fact Soft came out the other side as by far the better app 
was sadly of little consequence in the end.

I too have been considering the Houdini route, just to future proof us a bit 
more, but I am keeping a close eye on Fabric Engine too as that just blows me 
away with possibilities.  I am enjoying doing large projects without any major 
hitches where with Maya as the backbone I was a quivering mess at the end of 
every job.

Right now my relationship with Softimage has never been better!

Cheers, Nick

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Mootz
Sent: Monday, 6 January 2014 7:45 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

[..] working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?? 
[..]

He, he, I can only agree. It is the most buggy and unusable application I have 
ever had the displeasure to use.
How anybody can seriously work with Maya is frankly beyond me.

Hats off to all those pour souls who have to use it on a daily basis ;)

Cheers,
Eric

PS: for the sake of fairness it must be mentioned that the Maya SDK is really 
quite good. It is easy to understand, well documented, has tons of examples, 
etc.

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread olivier jeannel


In teenager point of view, working on dead software is wy cooler.


Le 06/01/2014 11:38, Graham Bell a écrit :

Ah, the Dreamcast, a fine console but flawed form the beginning. The tech was 
ok, but really just a pc and essentially the predecessor to the Xbox.
The problem with the Dreamcast was that it launched right in the middle of when 
a lot of developers were looking to retool for the PS2. People were caught in 
the middle of whether to go short for the Dreamcast, or go long for the PS2. 
Most went with the PS2 and then eventually the Xbox.

On the Soft and Maya usability front, personally I don't mind both, but then 
I've always been used to jumping between the two, even back in the Power 
Animator and Soft3d days.
I've often heard that Maya is hard to learn, or its UI is tricky, but I think 
this is one of those myths. It's really no better, or worse than any other 
package to learn really. The one thing to remember about Maya, is that it's 
very open, it was designed that way. So there can be different (some would say 
to many) ways to do the same thing. Also, Maya has a lot of preferences, so you 
can actually change many things, including the UI. It's mastering those things, 
that can often be the trick. I still see people now, some experienced Maya 
vets, who aren't using the hotbox or marking menus correctly and they can be 
key to Maya's UI and usability.

However I'd still like some Softimage fairy dust sprinkled on some of Maya's UI 
though. Now when it comes to Max, don't get me started...:-)



From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yargici
Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Softimage is the Dreamcast of DCC apps.

Playstation had the slick marketing, Dreamcast had the tech but got chewed to 
pieces by the Playstation hype machine and Playstation won.  When Sega finally 
gave up on the console business every man and his dog came out singing the 
praises of the Dreamcast.




On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek 
s...@tidbit-images.commailto:s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:
Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
still smell a pattern there.

I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related to 
marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the 
early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening for 
Softimage at any time of it's existence.
Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, and 
those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try it.






So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
USED IN PRODUCTION?


This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when required...  and Maya 
being the Industry Standard makes you understand so many things about the 
industry standards...

[http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg]

2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.commailto:szabol...@crytek.com
So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
USED IN PRODUCTION?

Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but 
seriously guys...It's so overcomplicated, and brainkilling...In Softimage 
almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the 
easiest task takes quite long compared to SI...Finally I found myself fixing 
UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage...Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I 
take a big breath, and continue working with Maya...But seriously, Softimage is 
way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for 
example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, 
modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don't understand, how come that 
Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I'll spread the Word 
of Softimage


Cheers

Szabolcs

From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Henry Katz
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Good thing I asked.

On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x


On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz 
hk-v...@iscs-i.commailto:hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:
Steve,

No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the bleeding 
edge?

Cheers,
Henry
On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Sorry to hear that Martin, make sure you convert them though.

;-)

Jordi Bares
jordiba...@gmail.com

On 6 Jan 2014, at 10:23, Martin Contel martin3d...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm one of those poor souls using Maya on a daily basis. The experience is 
 even more miserable considering I've been happily using XSI since v3.0 till 
 last year. I think a lot of times how good XSI already was ten years ago, 
 when Maya 4.0 was just a big pile of sh!t. XSI had already nailed the 
 modeling tools, the rendertree, the passes system, the scene explorer, the 
 render-on-viewport, the workflow, things that Maya still only dreams of. 
 Future looked brighter when v7.0 brought us ICE.
 
 The industry chose Maya as the de facto standard. During my time 
 freelancing I dodged it but on the recent years it's been more difficult to 
 find Softimage jobs or Softimage artists.
 
 If I had the money, I would buy Maya from Autodesk and bury it in the dessert 
 together with those E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial Atari video-game cartridges, 
 making the world a better place. :)
 
 Cheers,
 
 
 
 --
 Martin Contel
 Square Enix (Visual Works)
 
 
 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com wrote:
 Actually Stefan you’re just right. I converted many hardcore Max and Maya 
 artists to Softimage, and they would never ever look back. However industry 
 might force them (like me)…
 
  
 
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Kubicek
 Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 10:21 AM
 
 
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year
 
  
 
 Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
 bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
 still smell a pattern there.
 
  
 
 I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related to 
 marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the 
 early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening 
 for Softimage at any time of it's existence. 
 
 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, 
 and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try it.
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
 USED IN PRODUCTION?
 
 
 This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when 
 required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so 
 many things about the industry standards...
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com
 
 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
 USED IN PRODUCTION?
 
  
 
 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but 
 seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage almost 
 everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the easiest 
 task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, 
 Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a 
 big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage is way 
 better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for 
 example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, 
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come 
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread the 
 Word of Softimage
 
  
 
  
 
 Cheers
 
  
 
 Szabolcs
 
  
 
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Henry Katz
 Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year
 
  
 
 Good thing I asked.
 
 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
 
 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x
 
  
 
  
 
 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:
 
 Steve,
 
 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the 
 bleeding edge?
 
 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:
 
 really?
 
  
 
 install pyqt
 
 set softimage to use system python, uncheck... filepreferencesscriptinguse 
 python installed with softimage
 
 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import 
 PyQt4'
 
  
 
 s
 
  
 
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za 
 wrote:
 
 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools 
 are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to work.
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 --
 
 ---
 Stefan Kubicek

Re: Gear EyeRig error

2014-01-06 Thread Nicolas Esposito

Hi Emilio,
Actually the pythonlibs are stored under C:\modules\pythonlibs, if I
remember correctly I found this solution on si-community

I'm able to build the rig for the mouth properly without any error, but not
the one for the eye :(


2014/1/5 Emilio Hernandez emi...@e-roja.com

 Have you added the workgroup pythonpath in the Enviroment settings of
 windows?

 Should be something like this

 Variable: PYTHONPATH

 Value:  G:\Software OK\Softimage\Softimage
 plugins\Gear\Gear_MC\GEAR_mc-1.0.15\pythonlibs




 2014/1/5 Nicolas Esposito 3dv...@gmail.com

 Hi guys,
 I'm using Gear for my facial rig and I'm having some python errors and
 honestly I don't know how to solve this issue

 I already had some problems due to the installation, but I created the
 pythonpath and I solved everything, main problem is that right now I'm not
 able to create the rig when I hit Build rig from selection

 I'm following the TD survival tutorial step by step

 I notice that the main error is the missing root but I already have a
 root ( as shown in the video )

 This is what is shown in the script editor:

 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()
 # WARNING : Object missing : root
 # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
 #   File Script Block 2, line 100, in gear_BuildFromSelection_Execute
 # rig.buildFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\__init__.py, line 99, in
 buildFromSelection
 # self.guide.setFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 568, in
 setFromSelection
 # self.setFromHierarchy(item, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 618, in
 setFromHierarchy
 # self.findComponentRecursive(root, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 650, in
 findComponentRecursive
 # comp_guide.setFromHierarchy(obj)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 304, in setFromHierarchy
 # self.size = self.getSize()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 825, in getSize
 # d = vec.getDistance(self.pos[root], pos)
 # KeyError: 'root'
 #  - [line 99 in
 C:\Users\Nicolas\Autodesk\Softimage_2013\Application\Plugins\Workgroup\Addons\gear\Application\Plugins\gear_riggingSystem.py]
 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()
 # WARNING : Object missing : root
 # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
 #   File Script Block 2, line 100, in gear_BuildFromSelection_Execute
 # rig.buildFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\__init__.py, line 99, in
 buildFromSelection
 # self.guide.setFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 568, in
 setFromSelection
 # self.setFromHierarchy(item, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 618, in
 setFromHierarchy
 # self.findComponentRecursive(root, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 650, in
 findComponentRecursive
 # comp_guide.setFromHierarchy(obj)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 304, in setFromHierarchy
 # self.size = self.getSize()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 825, in getSize
 # d = vec.getDistance(self.pos[root], pos)
 # KeyError: 'root'
 #  - [line 99 in
 C:\Users\Nicolas\Autodesk\Softimage_2013\Application\Plugins\Workgroup\Addons\gear\Application\Plugins\gear_riggingSystem.py]
 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()


 Any help please?

RE: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Sven Constable

Maybe true but one thing to keep in mind is you don't have to spend extra money 
for mental ray (at least no significant amount). For one man shows like me mr 
is still useful. I use it on a small farm with 8 nodes plus the workstation. 
Switching to arnold will cost me 9000€ . Thats roughly the same cost that my 
whole DCC apps are about. I see mr like I see the FXTree...it's does not 
compete to nuke but it's integrated in soft and already there.  I agree that 
there aren't any reasons to stay with mr except the the expense factor and 
legacy things.

sven

-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Now while we are at it.

I´m currently preparing assets that need to be free of 3rd party functionality.

This means I have to set them up with a mR shading network to start folks off 
with.

mental ray. The common thing between 3DSMax, Maya and Softimage.

Please.

Kill it.

It´s not getting anyone anywhere anymore. I don´t want to discuss details or 
legacy reasons.

Kill it. It´s over. It won´t come back.

Selling three different DCC apps that actually share the fact that you will 
first have to invest in a 3rd party renderer to get something looking half way 
decent out of them can´t be the most ideal situation but a pretty nice way of 
creating an industry standard of wasting people´s life with forcing them in 
personal overtime.

What a crap.

Really.

Provide a renderer that actually works as advertised. Or don´t make me pay for 
that mR crap.


tim












On 06.01.2014 11:38, Graham Bell wrote:
 Ah, the Dreamcast, a fine console but flawed form the beginning. The tech was 
 ok, but really just a pc and essentially the predecessor to the Xbox.
 The problem with the Dreamcast was that it launched right in the middle of 
 when a lot of developers were looking to retool for the PS2. People were 
 caught in the middle of whether to go short for the Dreamcast, or go long for 
 the PS2. Most went with the PS2 and then eventually the Xbox.

 On the Soft and Maya usability front, personally I don't mind both, but then 
 I've always been used to jumping between the two, even back in the Power 
 Animator and Soft3d days.
 I've often heard that Maya is hard to learn, or its UI is tricky, but I think 
 this is one of those myths. It's really no better, or worse than any other 
 package to learn really. The one thing to remember about Maya, is that it's 
 very open, it was designed that way. So there can be different (some would 
 say to many) ways to do the same thing. Also, Maya has a lot of preferences, 
 so you can actually change many things, including the UI. It's mastering 
 those things, that can often be the trick. I still see people now, some 
 experienced Maya vets, who aren't using the hotbox or marking menus correctly 
 and they can be key to Maya's UI and usability.

 However I'd still like some Softimage fairy dust sprinkled on some of 
 Maya's UI though. Now when it comes to Max, don't get me 
 started...:-)



 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Dan 
 Yargici
 Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

 Softimage is the Dreamcast of DCC apps.

 Playstation had the slick marketing, Dreamcast had the tech but got chewed to 
 pieces by the Playstation hype machine and Playstation won.  When Sega 
 finally gave up on the console business every man and his dog came out 
 singing the praises of the Dreamcast.




 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek 
 s...@tidbit-images.commailto:s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:
 Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
 bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
 still smell a pattern there.

 I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related to 
 marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the 
 early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening 
 for Softimage at any time of it's existence.
 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, 
 and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try it.






 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS 
 USED IN PRODUCTION?


 This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when 
 required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so 
 many things about the industry standards...

 [http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg]

 2014/1/6

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year


It would be nice to see the next-gen Softmayahybrid leaning towards something 
like VRay.

It is also mature and available for all 3 DCC apps, too.

Pretty much all jobs I had the last two, three years were VRay based.

Maybe a random Arnold job but really, regardless of DCC app, usually VRay as 
the renderer.

Here at home, I am very happy with Redshift3D and would love to see them prosper
but they aren´t in a 3DSMax branch of development, yet.

For the sake of this rant, I can´t therefore suggest Arnold or Redshift3d as 
alternatives.
One would want to differ a lot between those two anyway, in my personal 
preference
I´d lean towards Redshift3D but that´s because I also like those guys and the 
renderer fits
my needs perfectly. I don´t do a FX TD kind of stuff. I model things and paint 
them until
they start to look nice in let´s say a turntable. Arnold would suit me just as 
fine. As would Vray.

It´s just that mR costs me so much time getting a half decent results. 
Vray/Redshift3D pay for themselves...

I´m only using mR because I need versatile, accessible stand-alone assets with 
their maps in place.

I wouldn´t want to touch mR with a stick anymore otherwise.

tim




On 06.01.2014 13:34, Sven Constable wrote:

Maybe true but one thing to keep in mind is you don't have to spend extra money 
for mental ray (at least no significant amount). For one man shows like me mr 
is still useful. I use it on a small farm with 8 nodes plus the workstation. 
Switching to arnold will cost me 9000€ . Thats roughly the same cost that my 
whole DCC apps are about. I see mr like I see the FXTree...it's does not 
compete to nuke but it's integrated in soft and already there.  I agree that 
there aren't any reasons to stay with mr except the the expense factor and 
legacy things.

sven

-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Now while we are at it.

I´m currently preparing assets that need to be free of 3rd party functionality.

This means I have to set them up with a mR shading network to start folks off 
with.

mental ray. The common thing between 3DSMax, Maya and Softimage.

Please.

Kill it.

It´s not getting anyone anywhere anymore. I don´t want to discuss details or 
legacy reasons.

Kill it. It´s over. It won´t come back.

Selling three different DCC apps that actually share the fact that you will 
first have to invest in a 3rd party renderer to get something looking half way 
decent out of them can´t be the most ideal situation but a pretty nice way of 
creating an industry standard of wasting people´s life with forcing them in 
personal overtime.

What a crap.

Really.

Provide a renderer that actually works as advertised. Or don´t make me pay for 
that mR crap.


tim












On 06.01.2014 11:38, Graham Bell wrote:

Ah, the Dreamcast, a fine console but flawed form the beginning. The tech was 
ok, but really just a pc and essentially the predecessor to the Xbox.
The problem with the Dreamcast was that it launched right in the middle of when 
a lot of developers were looking to retool for the PS2. People were caught in 
the middle of whether to go short for the Dreamcast, or go long for the PS2. 
Most went with the PS2 and then eventually the Xbox.

On the Soft and Maya usability front, personally I don't mind both, but then 
I've always been used to jumping between the two, even back in the Power 
Animator and Soft3d days.
I've often heard that Maya is hard to learn, or its UI is tricky, but I think 
this is one of those myths. It's really no better, or worse than any other 
package to learn really. The one thing to remember about Maya, is that it's 
very open, it was designed that way. So there can be different (some would say 
to many) ways to do the same thing. Also, Maya has a lot of preferences, so you 
can actually change many things, including the UI. It's mastering those things, 
that can often be the trick. I still see people now, some experienced Maya 
vets, who aren't using the hotbox or marking menus correctly and they can be 
key to Maya's UI and usability.

However I'd still like some Softimage fairy dust sprinkled on some of
Maya's UI though. Now when it comes to Max, don't get me
started...:-)



From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Yargici
Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Softimage is the Dreamcast of DCC apps.

Playstation had the slick marketing, Dreamcast had the tech but got chewed to 
pieces by the Playstation hype machine and Playstation won.  When Sega finally 
gave up on the console business every man and his dog came out singing the 
praises of the Dreamcast.




On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at

Re: Gear EyeRig error

2014-01-06 Thread Nicolas Esposito

ehmdumb error :D
Basically I didn't setup the Root under the Rig Part Settings, that was
the error, now the rig works :)


2014/1/6 Nicolas Esposito 3dv...@gmail.com

 Hi Emilio,
 Actually the pythonlibs are stored under C:\modules\pythonlibs, if I
 remember correctly I found this solution on si-community

 I'm able to build the rig for the mouth properly without any error, but
 not the one for the eye :(


 2014/1/5 Emilio Hernandez emi...@e-roja.com

 Have you added the workgroup pythonpath in the Enviroment settings of
 windows?

 Should be something like this

 Variable: PYTHONPATH

 Value:  G:\Software OK\Softimage\Softimage
 plugins\Gear\Gear_MC\GEAR_mc-1.0.15\pythonlibs




 2014/1/5 Nicolas Esposito 3dv...@gmail.com

 Hi guys,
 I'm using Gear for my facial rig and I'm having some python errors and
 honestly I don't know how to solve this issue

 I already had some problems due to the installation, but I created the
 pythonpath and I solved everything, main problem is that right now I'm not
 able to create the rig when I hit Build rig from selection

 I'm following the TD survival tutorial step by step

 I notice that the main error is the missing root but I already have a
 root ( as shown in the video )

 This is what is shown in the script editor:

 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()
 # WARNING : Object missing : root
 # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
 #   File Script Block 2, line 100, in gear_BuildFromSelection_Execute
 # rig.buildFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\__init__.py, line 99, in
 buildFromSelection
 # self.guide.setFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 568, in
 setFromSelection
 # self.setFromHierarchy(item, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 618, in
 setFromHierarchy
 # self.findComponentRecursive(root, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 650, in
 findComponentRecursive
 # comp_guide.setFromHierarchy(obj)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 304, in setFromHierarchy
 # self.size = self.getSize()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 825, in getSize
 # d = vec.getDistance(self.pos[root], pos)
 # KeyError: 'root'
 #  - [line 99 in
 C:\Users\Nicolas\Autodesk\Softimage_2013\Application\Plugins\Workgroup\Addons\gear\Application\Plugins\gear_riggingSystem.py]
 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()
 # WARNING : Object missing : root
 # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
 #   File Script Block 2, line 100, in gear_BuildFromSelection_Execute
 # rig.buildFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\__init__.py, line 99, in
 buildFromSelection
 # self.guide.setFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 568, in
 setFromSelection
 # self.setFromHierarchy(item, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 618, in
 setFromHierarchy
 # self.findComponentRecursive(root, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 650, in
 findComponentRecursive
 # comp_guide.setFromHierarchy(obj)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 304, in setFromHierarchy
 # self.size = self.getSize()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 825, in getSize
 # d = vec.getDistance(self.pos[root], pos)
 # KeyError: 'root'
 #  - [line 99 in
 C:\Users\Nicolas\Autodesk\Softimage_2013\Application\Plugins\Workgroup\Addons\gear\Application\Plugins\gear_riggingSystem.py]
 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()


 Any help please?

Re: Gear EyeRig error

2014-01-06 Thread Emilio Hernandez

Cool you got it working.  You can actually take the libs out of the python
folder.  I prefer to do so because if you upgrade python or something else
you will need to move everything again, and personally I don't like to mess
around to much when something is working.

So you can leave your lib on the original folder and just add the
environment variable  PYTHONPATH and point it to your Gear lib, or other
python libraries you are using.






2014/1/6 Nicolas Esposito 3dv...@gmail.com

 ehmdumb error :D
 Basically I didn't setup the Root under the Rig Part Settings, that was
 the error, now the rig works :)


 2014/1/6 Nicolas Esposito 3dv...@gmail.com

 Hi Emilio,
 Actually the pythonlibs are stored under C:\modules\pythonlibs, if I
 remember correctly I found this solution on si-community

 I'm able to build the rig for the mouth properly without any error, but
 not the one for the eye :(


 2014/1/5 Emilio Hernandez emi...@e-roja.com

 Have you added the workgroup pythonpath in the Enviroment settings of
 windows?

 Should be something like this

 Variable: PYTHONPATH

 Value:  G:\Software OK\Softimage\Softimage
 plugins\Gear\Gear_MC\GEAR_mc-1.0.15\pythonlibs




 2014/1/5 Nicolas Esposito 3dv...@gmail.com

 Hi guys,
 I'm using Gear for my facial rig and I'm having some python errors and
 honestly I don't know how to solve this issue

 I already had some problems due to the installation, but I created the
 pythonpath and I solved everything, main problem is that right now I'm not
 able to create the rig when I hit Build rig from selection

 I'm following the TD survival tutorial step by step

 I notice that the main error is the missing root but I already have a
 root ( as shown in the video )

 This is what is shown in the script editor:

 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()
 # WARNING : Object missing : root
 # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
 #   File Script Block 2, line 100, in
 gear_BuildFromSelection_Execute
 # rig.buildFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\__init__.py, line 99, in
 buildFromSelection
 # self.guide.setFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 568, in
 setFromSelection
 # self.setFromHierarchy(item, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 618, in
 setFromHierarchy
 # self.findComponentRecursive(root, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 650, in
 findComponentRecursive
 # comp_guide.setFromHierarchy(obj)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 304, in setFromHierarchy
 # self.size = self.getSize()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 825, in getSize
 # d = vec.getDistance(self.pos[root], pos)
 # KeyError: 'root'
 #  - [line 99 in
 C:\Users\Nicolas\Autodesk\Softimage_2013\Application\Plugins\Workgroup\Addons\gear\Application\Plugins\gear_riggingSystem.py]
 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()
 # WARNING : Object missing : root
 # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
 #   File Script Block 2, line 100, in
 gear_BuildFromSelection_Execute
 # rig.buildFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\__init__.py, line 99, in
 buildFromSelection
 # self.guide.setFromSelection()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 568, in
 setFromSelection
 # self.setFromHierarchy(item, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 618, in
 setFromHierarchy
 # self.findComponentRecursive(root, branch)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\guide.py, line 650, in
 findComponentRecursive
 # comp_guide.setFromHierarchy(obj)
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 304, in setFromHierarchy
 # self.size = self.getSize()
 #   File C:\modules\pythonlibs\gear\xsi\rig\component\guide.py, line
 825, in getSize
 # d = vec.getDistance(self.pos[root], pos)
 # KeyError: 'root'
 #  - [line 99 in
 C:\Users\Nicolas\Autodesk\Softimage_2013\Application\Plugins\Workgroup\Addons\gear\Application\Plugins\gear_riggingSystem.py]
 Application.gear_BuildFromSelection()


 Any help please?

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Mirko Jankovic

Investing 9k EUR right now, how many hours would actually be saved when
moving from mray? :)
It is big investment but down the road from what I saw so far.. Arnold
gives back soon everything invested and then so more. Same on Redshift
field... Rendering for SI was pretty much nightmare and now with Arnold and
Redshift it is completely different feeling.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Tim Leydecker bauero...@gmx.de wrote:

 It would be nice to see the next-gen Softmayahybrid leaning towards
 something like VRay.

 It is also mature and available for all 3 DCC apps, too.

 Pretty much all jobs I had the last two, three years were VRay based.

 Maybe a random Arnold job but really, regardless of DCC app, usually VRay
 as the renderer.

 Here at home, I am very happy with Redshift3D and would love to see them
 prosper
 but they aren´t in a 3DSMax branch of development, yet.

 For the sake of this rant, I can´t therefore suggest Arnold or Redshift3d
 as alternatives.
 One would want to differ a lot between those two anyway, in my personal
 preference
 I´d lean towards Redshift3D but that´s because I also like those guys and
 the renderer fits
 my needs perfectly. I don´t do a FX TD kind of stuff. I model things and
 paint them until
 they start to look nice in let´s say a turntable. Arnold would suit me
 just as fine. As would Vray.

 It´s just that mR costs me so much time getting a half decent results.
 Vray/Redshift3D pay for themselves...

 I´m only using mR because I need versatile, accessible stand-alone assets
 with their maps in place.

 I wouldn´t want to touch mR with a stick anymore otherwise.

 tim





 On 06.01.2014 13:34, Sven Constable wrote:

 Maybe true but one thing to keep in mind is you don't have to spend extra
 money for mental ray (at least no significant amount). For one man shows
 like me mr is still useful. I use it on a small farm with 8 nodes plus the
 workstation. Switching to arnold will cost me 9000€ . Thats roughly the
 same cost that my whole DCC apps are about. I see mr like I see the
 FXTree...it's does not compete to nuke but it's integrated in soft and
 already there.  I agree that there aren't any reasons to stay with mr
 except the the expense factor and legacy things.

 sven

 -Original Message-
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-bounces@
 listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
 Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

 Now while we are at it.

 I´m currently preparing assets that need to be free of 3rd party
 functionality.

 This means I have to set them up with a mR shading network to start folks
 off with.

 mental ray. The common thing between 3DSMax, Maya and Softimage.

 Please.

 Kill it.

 It´s not getting anyone anywhere anymore. I don´t want to discuss details
 or legacy reasons.

 Kill it. It´s over. It won´t come back.

 Selling three different DCC apps that actually share the fact that you
 will first have to invest in a 3rd party renderer to get something looking
 half way decent out of them can´t be the most ideal situation but a pretty
 nice way of creating an industry standard of wasting people´s life with
 forcing them in personal overtime.

 What a crap.

 Really.

 Provide a renderer that actually works as advertised. Or don´t make me
 pay for that mR crap.


 tim












 On 06.01.2014 11:38, Graham Bell wrote:

 Ah, the Dreamcast, a fine console but flawed form the beginning. The
 tech was ok, but really just a pc and essentially the predecessor to the
 Xbox.
 The problem with the Dreamcast was that it launched right in the middle
 of when a lot of developers were looking to retool for the PS2. People were
 caught in the middle of whether to go short for the Dreamcast, or go long
 for the PS2. Most went with the PS2 and then eventually the Xbox.

 On the Soft and Maya usability front, personally I don't mind both, but
 then I've always been used to jumping between the two, even back in the
 Power Animator and Soft3d days.
 I've often heard that Maya is hard to learn, or its UI is tricky, but I
 think this is one of those myths. It's really no better, or worse than any
 other package to learn really. The one thing to remember about Maya, is
 that it's very open, it was designed that way. So there can be different
 (some would say to many) ways to do the same thing. Also, Maya has a lot of
 preferences, so you can actually change many things, including the UI. It's
 mastering those things, that can often be the trick. I still see people
 now, some experienced Maya vets, who aren't using the hotbox or marking
 menus correctly and they can be key to Maya's UI and usability.

 However I'd still like some Softimage fairy dust sprinkled on some of
 Maya's UI though. Now when it comes to Max, don't get me
 started...:-)



 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Eric Lampi

First place I worked at I saw a young woman creative from an agency come
into the 3D area. She was squinting at the monitor and I couldn't tell what
she was looking at, then she says Oh thank God, they're SGI!.


Eric

Freelance 3D and VFX animator

http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.netwrote:

 Well said Stefan, marketing also convinces studios that it's the software,
 and not the artist,
 that does all the cool stuff. A misconception that I have been battling
 for over a quarter of
 a century, now. Software is only a tool. Softimage is a great tool.

 When I freelanced at studios, I would often hear the studio salesperson
 talk about the software
 and equipment, that they use, with prospective clients. They would not
 mention the people,
 which in my opinion is their biggest asset.

 I haven't worked at a studio for almost 9 years. I never get asked what
 software I use.
 My clients just ask how much, and how fast. Softimage continues to help me
 give them the answers
 they want to hear.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.comwrote:

  Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or
 filed for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but
 I still smell a pattern there.

 I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related
 to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in
 the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that
 happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence.
 Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use
 Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously
 try it.






 *So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM
 IS USED IN PRODUCTION?*


 This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when
 required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so
 many things about the industry standards...




 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com

 So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM
 IS USED IN PRODUCTION?



 Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya,
 but seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage
 almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the
 easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing
 UVs, Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I
 take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage
 is way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but
 for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster,
 modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come
 that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread
 the Word of Softimage





 Cheers



 Szabolcs



 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Henry Katz
 *Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year



 Good thing I asked.

 On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

 Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x





 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:

 Steve,

 No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the
 bleeding edge?

 Cheers,
 Henry
 On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:

 really?



 install pyqt

 set softimage to use system python, uncheck...
 filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage

 run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just
 'import PyQt4'



 s



 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson 
 angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote:

 A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great
 tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install
 to work.













 --
 ---
 Stefan Kubicek
 ---
 keyvis digital imagery
 Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3
 A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien
 Phone: +43/699/12614231
 www.keyvis.at ste...@keyvis.at
 -- This email and its attachments are --
 --confidential and for the recipient only--




 --

 Best Regards,
 *  Stephen P. Davidson*

 *(954) 552-7956 %28954%29%20552-7956 *sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com

 *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic*


- Arthur C. Clarke

 http://www.3danimationmagic.com

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Rob Wuijster

wasn't there a nice thread on this a while ago, funny comments from 
agency people? ;-)



Rob

\/-\/\/

On 6-1-2014 16:25, Eric Lampi wrote:
First place I worked at I saw a young woman creative from an agency 
come into the 3D area. She was squinting at the monitor and I couldn't 
tell what she was looking at, then she says Oh thank God, they're SGI!.



Eric

Freelance 3D and VFX animator

http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Davidson 
magic...@bellsouth.net mailto:magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:


Well said Stefan, marketing also convinces studios that it's the
software, and not the artist,
that does all the cool stuff. A misconception that I have been
battling for over a quarter of
a century, now. Software is only a tool. Softimage is a great tool.

When I freelanced at studios, I would often hear the studio
salesperson talk about the software
and equipment, that they use, with prospective clients. They would
not mention the people,
which in my opinion is their biggest asset.

I haven't worked at a studio for almost 9 years. I never get asked
what software I use.
My clients just ask how much, and how fast. Softimage continues to
help me give them the answers
they want to hear.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek
s...@tidbit-images.com mailto:s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:

Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that
closed or filed for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios
closing than Softimage based ones simply because there are
more Maya based studios, but I still smell a pattern there.

I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is
directly related to marketing efforts. I remember
Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the early days of
Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening
for Softimage at any time of it's existence.
Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who
use Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more
prople to seriously try it.






*So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK
THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?*


This is the same question I always ask myself after using
Maya when required... and Maya being the Industry
Standard makes you understand so many things about the
industry standards...




2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com
mailto:szabol...@crytek.com

So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE
F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?

Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background
working with Maya, but seriously guys…It’s so
overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage almost
everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but
in Maya, the easiest task takes quite long compared to
SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, Unfolding, etc.
in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I
take a big breath, and continue working with Maya…But
seriously, Softimage is way better in many point of
view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for
example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading
setup is way faster, modeling is lot faster, and so
on. So I really don’t understand, how come that
Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys,
that I’ll spread the Word of Softimage

Cheers

Szabolcs

*From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On
Behalf Of *Henry Katz
*Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Good thing I asked.

On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz
hk-v...@iscs-i.com mailto:hk-v...@iscs-i.com
wrote:

Steve,

No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise
my knuckles on the bleeding edge?

Cheers,
Henry

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:

 Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
 bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
 still smell a pattern there.


Ho that's not all.  Almost 100% of cars involved in accidents last
year had tires. Therefore, tires are killing people.

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Stefan Kubicek

It's the drivers who choose what cars to drive.

Written with my thumbs...

On Jan 6, 2014, at 17:00, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:

 Like!! hahaha
 
 Blame the driver not the car for those closures...
 
 On 1/6/2014 10:49 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.com 
 wrote:
 Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed 
 for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
 It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
 Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but 
 I still smell a pattern there.
 
 Ho that's not all.  Almost 100% of cars involved in accidents last
 year had tires. Therefore, tires are killing people.

RE: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

The irony of course is that Autodesk is doing to Softimage what SGI did to 
themselves ;)

Kudos to the creative for knowing SGI  existed

From: Eric Lampi [ericla...@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 January 2014 05:25 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

First place I worked at I saw a young woman creative from an agency come into 
the 3D area. She was squinting at the monitor and I couldn't tell what she was 
looking at, then she says Oh thank God, they're SGI!.

Eric

Freelance 3D and VFX animator

http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Davidson 
magic...@bellsouth.netmailto:magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Well said Stefan, marketing also convinces studios that it's the software, and 
not the artist,
that does all the cool stuff. A misconception that I have been battling for 
over a quarter of
a century, now. Software is only a tool. Softimage is a great tool.

When I freelanced at studios, I would often hear the studio salesperson talk 
about the software
and equipment, that they use, with prospective clients. They would not mention 
the people,
which in my opinion is their biggest asset.

I haven't worked at a studio for almost 9 years. I never get asked what 
software I use.
My clients just ask how much, and how fast. Softimage continues to help me give 
them the answers
they want to hear.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek 
s...@tidbit-images.commailto:s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:
Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
still smell a pattern there.

I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly related to 
marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the 
early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening for 
Softimage at any time of it's existence.
Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, 
and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try it.

So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED 
IN PRODUCTION?

This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when required... 
 and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so many things 
about the industry standards...

[http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg]

2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.commailto:szabol...@crytek.com
So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED 
IN PRODUCTION?

Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, but 
seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In Softimage almost 
everything is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the easiest 
task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, 
Unfolding, etc. in Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a 
big breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage is way 
better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for 
example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, 
modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don’t understand, how come that 
Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread the Word 
of Softimage

Cheers

Szabolcs

From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com

[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Henry Katz
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Good thing I asked.

On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:
Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz 
hk-v...@iscs-i.commailto:hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:
Steve,

No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the bleeding 
edge?

Cheers,
Henry
On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:
really?

install pyqt
set softimage to use system python, uncheck... filepreferencesscriptinguse 
python installed with softimage
run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import PyQt4'

s

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson 
angus.david...@wits.ac.zamailto:angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote:
A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools are 
never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to work.

--
---
Stefan Kubicek
---
keyvis digital imagery
Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3
A-2380

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

2014-01-06 Thread Martin Yara

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Graham Bell graham.b...@autodesk.comwrote:

 I still see people now, some experienced Maya vets, who aren't using the
 hotbox or marking menus correctly and they can be key to Maya's UI and
 usability.


Agree. I find Maya much slower than SI workflow wise, but learning to
correctly use it's UI, create your custom shelfs, and customize your
preferences and/or hotkeys and menus a little is a must. Basic mel level is
also recommended.

Trying to use Maya the exact same way you use SI, like relying on hotkeys,
may be one of the biggest problems. Maya's default hotkeys are a little
difficult to reach (like F10, F11s), you need to use the hotbox and slide
your mouse to have a fast workflow. Once you get it, it isn't that bad.

Martin

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year


Like!! hahaha

Blame the driver not the car for those closures...

On 1/6/2014 10:49 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:

Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for 
bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than 
Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I 
still smell a pattern there.


Ho that's not all.  Almost 100% of cars involved in accidents last
year had tires. Therefore, tires are killing people.

Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

2014-01-06 Thread Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]


Hey all,

I'm able to export nurbs curves from Softimage to Maya using FBX but am 
unable to go the other way. Any ideas on how to go about it?


Thanks,
Eric T.

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

2014-01-06 Thread Ben Houston

If you can switch to using Alembic instead of FBX, you can use
Exocortex Crate to go back and forth I believe.
-ben

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:
 Hey all,

 I'm able to export nurbs curves from Softimage to Maya using FBX but am
 unable to go the other way. Any ideas on how to go about it?

 Thanks,
 Eric T.




-- 
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
http://Clara.io - Professional-Grade WebGL-based 3D Content Creation

RE: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

In Soft, select the objects you want to send to Maya, then execute 

Send To maya-Send as new Maya Scene

Does that work?


If you don't select all the objects, I've seen it randomly select the objects 
it will send. Its kind of strange though, some primitives do not always go to 
maya as expected, while others do. 

--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
__
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not 
represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.


-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ben Houston
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:21 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

If you can switch to using Alembic instead of FBX, you can use Exocortex Crate 
to go back and forth I believe.
-ben

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:
 Hey all,

 I'm able to export nurbs curves from Softimage to Maya using FBX but 
 am unable to go the other way. Any ideas on how to go about it?

 Thanks,
 Eric T.




--
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom http://Clara.io 
- Professional-Grade WebGL-based 3D Content Creation

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

Yeah I'll check that out. Don't have Maya setup to load the create 
suite right now.


Thanks Ben,
Eric T.

On Monday, January 06, 2014 12:21:28 PM, Ben Houston wrote:

If you can switch to using Alembic instead of FBX, you can use
Exocortex Crate to go back and forth I believe.
-ben

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:

Hey all,

I'm able to export nurbs curves from Softimage to Maya using FBX but am
unable to go the other way. Any ideas on how to go about it?

Thanks,
Eric T.

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

2014-01-06 Thread Rob Wuijster


HI Eric,

Be sure to have both apps open before using 'send to'.
There's a glitch opening the FBX on the other side when you don't have 
both apps open.

It's a known 'issue'


Rob

\/-\/\/

On 6-1-2014 18:45, Eric Thivierge wrote:

Hey Joey,

Yeah I tried that but for some reason the Send To it's not working 
correctly or is misconfigured. Another things I need to check out.


On 1/6/2014 12:43 PM, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] wrote:

In Soft, select the objects you want to send to Maya, then execute

Send To maya-Send as new Maya Scene

Does that work?


If you don't select all the objects, I've seen it randomly select the 
objects it will send. Its kind of strange though, some primitives do 
not always go to maya as expected, while others do.


--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
__
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.


-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ben 
Houston

Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:21 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

If you can switch to using Alembic instead of FBX, you can use 
Exocortex Crate to go back and forth I believe.

-ben

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Eric Thivierge 
ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:

Hey all,

I'm able to export nurbs curves from Softimage to Maya using FBX but
am unable to go the other way. Any ideas on how to go about it?

Thanks,
Eric T.




--
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom 
http://Clara.io - Professional-Grade WebGL-based 3D Content Creation





-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6980 - Release Date: 01/06/14

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

Thanks. I have both open and then for some reason it launches two new 
Softimage instances... not sure what the deal is...  will continue to 
tinker.


On Monday, January 06, 2014 12:54:16 PM, Rob Wuijster wrote:

HI Eric,

Be sure to have both apps open before using 'send to'.
There's a glitch opening the FBX on the other side when you don't have
both apps open.
It's a known 'issue'

Rob

\/-\/\/
On 6-1-2014 18:45, Eric Thivierge wrote:

Hey Joey,

Yeah I tried that but for some reason the Send To it's not working
correctly or is misconfigured. Another things I need to check out.

On 1/6/2014 12:43 PM, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] wrote:

In Soft, select the objects you want to send to Maya, then execute

Send To maya-Send as new Maya Scene

Does that work?


If you don't select all the objects, I've seen it randomly select
the objects it will send. Its kind of strange though, some
primitives do not always go to maya as expected, while others do.

--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
__
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.


-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Houston
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:21 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

If you can switch to using Alembic instead of FBX, you can use
Exocortex Crate to go back and forth I believe.
-ben

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Eric Thivierge
ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:

Hey all,

I'm able to export nurbs curves from Softimage to Maya using FBX but
am unable to go the other way. Any ideas on how to go about it?

Thanks,
Eric T.




--
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
http://Clara.io - Professional-Grade WebGL-based 3D Content Creation





-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6980 - Release Date:
01/06/14

RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

It's a simple question of what is the expected result.  

Should the tangents and bitangents stay oriented relative to the mesh, or 
should they stay put in world space and acknowledge the transformation of the 
object?  My code is working under the assumption of the former, ultimapper is 
giving me the latter.

See example scene I provided in my previous message.


Matt



-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:22 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

Have you tried other solutions? Try it with xNormal to check your results. In 
my opinion Ultimapper is quite useless without cage. Since we left Ultimapper 
out of the formula, we have no issues at all. 

Back to your problem. As far as I know, there are three normal mapping type, 
world, object and tangent space normal maps. World space is the best for static 
object, that have no transformation at all. Object space normal maps allows 
object transformation, while tangent space normal maps allow deformation as 
well. If tangent normal map changes when you transform the object, it might be 
a bug. I'm not into the math of tangent space normal maping, but as I 
mentioned, without cage Ultimapper is aquite useless, so we dropped it. 
Consider moving onto xNormal it's quite reliable tool

Cheers

Szabolcs
-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:13 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

It's not a normalization issue as the normal vectors are normalized in Euler 
space before being converted to RGB color space.  If it were a post process 
problem, there would be differences in all cases.  So far I only see the 
difference when one or both meshes are transformed indicating it's a coordinate 
space computation issue.

There is no issue with a cage either.  See my previous reply to the this thread 
with example scene.  The cage is only relevant when there are many layers of 
overlapping surfaces.  In my example it's a simple cube and sphere, so no need 
for a cage.



Matt





-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:11 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

Hi Matt,

A shift in the final intensity could come from a per channel normalisation.

You´d get different results if you don´t have such normalisation/levels 
operation as a postprocess of your saving calculations to file.

But it should be easy enough to test if suc a normalisation would give you 
similar results to XSI. In the dirtiestcheapest way, in PhotoshopAuto Levels.

Since Szabolcs already pointed out that there is no cage option in Ultimapper, 
e.g. no manual control of a min and max searchdistance for calculations, I´d 
guess the min and max is fixedly determined by the maximum distance between 
highrez and lowrez mesh and the results are smoothed out by remapping to 0-1 
per channel for best use of the file´s available intensity steps.

I could be completely wrong, thought.

In general, I will most likely use ZBrush and CrazyBump to create and modify 
Normals in a let´s say, artsy partsy mashed potato kind of way that gives me 
the look I want without knowing much more than Greenlight from Ground, 
Redlight from Right to work in Cryengine/UDK/3DSMax.

Cheers,

tim



On 03.01.2014 07:51, Szabolcs Matefy wrote:
 Hey Matt,

 Your result might be different because of the tangent space 
 calculation. I suppose that the normal map calculation might be done in 
 object space, then Ultimapper converts it into tangent space. Ultimapper 
 could be quite good, but lacks a very important feature, the cage. So finally 
 we dropped in favor of xNormal.

 You might check few things (I'm not a programmer, so I may be wrong). 
 Check the transforms. In my experience transforms has effect how vertex 
 normals are calculated. Certain distance from the origin might result 
 imprecision (is this the right word?), and the farther the object is from the 
 origin, the bigger this imprecision is.

 There are discrepancies, for sure, because these tools have different 
 approach to derive tangent space. For example, Softimage uses the 
 vertex color to store the tangents, and binormal is calculated from 
 this. But, if your smoothing on the geo and on the tangent space 
 property differs, you won't get any usable normal map. For example the 
 smoothing on tangents made Ultimapper quite useless for us, so I wrote an 
 exporter for xNormal, and since then we have no issue at all. As our 
 technical chief explained, a

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

In some version of the suite, it will fail on its ass if both apps are
not installed on the C: drive.
try also .iges

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:
 Thanks. I have both open and then for some reason it launches two new
 Softimage instances... not sure what the deal is...  will continue to
 tinker.

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya


Yeah they are on our D drives... blah.

Doesn't the Send To functions just use the FBX format anyway?

On Monday, January 06, 2014 1:40:13 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:

In some version of the suite, it will fail on its ass if both apps are
not installed on the C: drive.
try also .iges

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote:

Thanks. I have both open and then for some reason it launches two new
Softimage instances... not sure what the deal is...  will continue to
tinker.

Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps


What does xnormal do for two meshes with non-zero transforms?

Out of a gut feeling, I would say that a tangent space normal map should
be independent of an object´s world space transformation, because if it
where dependent on that worldspace position, it would degrade the tangent
space map into an incorrectly created object space normal map.

It doesn´t make sense to take worldorientation of an object into account
for a tangent space map. Here the mother of all is one and she is perpendicular 
to the face.

Nobody else has binormals anyway, sort of.

In terms of using empathy, I would guess that the code for Ultimapper was tested
against two objects in the origin and this resulted in the vertexpositions being
used as in (my pseudologic) worldspace=objectspace.

I would opt to have the tagentspace map created solely based on the distance
between two closest points (e.g. closest distance between in highrez and the 
lowrez).

This way, the map will work, regardly of where it is or at what orientation to 
the origin
it was created.

tim




On 06.01.2014 19:34, Matt Lind wrote:

It's a simple question of what is the expected result.

Should the tangents and bitangents stay oriented relative to the mesh, or 
should they stay put in world space and acknowledge the transformation of the 
object?  My code is working under the assumption of the former, ultimapper is 
giving me the latter.

See example scene I provided in my previous message.


Matt



-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:22 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

Have you tried other solutions? Try it with xNormal to check your results. In 
my opinion Ultimapper is quite useless without cage. Since we left Ultimapper 
out of the formula, we have no issues at all.

Back to your problem. As far as I know, there are three normal mapping type, 
world, object and tangent space normal maps. World space is the best for static 
object, that have no transformation at all. Object space normal maps allows 
object transformation, while tangent space normal maps allow deformation as 
well. If tangent normal map changes when you transform the object, it might be 
a bug. I'm not into the math of tangent space normal maping, but as I 
mentioned, without cage Ultimapper is aquite useless, so we dropped it. 
Consider moving onto xNormal it's quite reliable tool

Cheers

Szabolcs
-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:13 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

It's not a normalization issue as the normal vectors are normalized in Euler 
space before being converted to RGB color space.  If it were a post process 
problem, there would be differences in all cases.  So far I only see the 
difference when one or both meshes are transformed indicating it's a coordinate 
space computation issue.

There is no issue with a cage either.  See my previous reply to the this thread 
with example scene.  The cage is only relevant when there are many layers of 
overlapping surfaces.  In my example it's a simple cube and sphere, so no need 
for a cage.



Matt





-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:11 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

Hi Matt,

A shift in the final intensity could come from a per channel normalisation.

You´d get different results if you don´t have such normalisation/levels 
operation as a postprocess of your saving calculations to file.

But it should be easy enough to test if suc a normalisation would give you similar 
results to XSI. In the dirtiestcheapest way, in PhotoshopAuto Levels.

Since Szabolcs already pointed out that there is no cage option in Ultimapper, e.g. no 
manual control of a min and max searchdistance for calculations, I´d guess the min and 
max is fixedly determined by the maximum distance between highrez and lowrez mesh and the 
results are smoothed out by remapping to 0-1 per channel for best use of the 
file´s available intensity steps.

I could be completely wrong, thought.

In general, I will most likely use ZBrush and CrazyBump to create and modify Normals 
in a let´s say, artsy partsy mashed potato kind of way that gives me the look I want 
without knowing much more than Greenlight from Ground, Redlight from Right to 
work in Cryengine/UDK/3DSMax.

Cheers,

tim



On 03.01.2014 07:51, Szabolcs Matefy wrote:

Hey Matt,

Your result might be different because of the tangent space
calculation. I suppose that the normal map

RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

OK, so what I'm hearing is we both agree ultimapper is wrong.  That's what I 
needed to know.

I'll file a bug on ultimapper and proceed under the assumption my code is 
correct.

Thanks.

As for looking up a normal on a high res mesh from a low res mesh, ultimapper 
is using raycast along the low res mesh's normal to find the appropriate 
location on the high res mesh.  If the ray shoots off into outer space without 
hitting anything, a 2nd ray is cast in the opposite direction.  If that ray 
hits nothing, the normal is recorded as (0.5, 0.5, 1) indicating the tangent 
normal map stores the geometry normal as is.

If you do a closest location search as you suggest, the results are often quite 
different.  Using the example scene I provided in a previous message, the 
raycast method as described above results in a circle being drawn on each face 
of the cube.  If you do a closest location search, the entire cube will be 
filled with normals and that map will have heavy amounts of distortion.  In 
some cases that may be desireable or more appropriate than raycasting.  In 
either case, I don't think there's a blanket solution to that problem.  The 
search method has to be tailored to the specific case.


Matt




-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 11:20 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

What does xnormal do for two meshes with non-zero transforms?

Out of a gut feeling, I would say that a tangent space normal map should be 
independent of an object´s world space transformation, because if it where 
dependent on that worldspace position, it would degrade the tangent space map 
into an incorrectly created object space normal map.

It doesn´t make sense to take worldorientation of an object into account for a 
tangent space map. Here the mother of all is one and she is perpendicular to 
the face.

Nobody else has binormals anyway, sort of.

In terms of using empathy, I would guess that the code for Ultimapper was 
tested against two objects in the origin and this resulted in the 
vertexpositions being used as in (my pseudologic) worldspace=objectspace.

I would opt to have the tagentspace map created solely based on the distance 
between two closest points (e.g. closest distance between in highrez and the 
lowrez).

This way, the map will work, regardly of where it is or at what orientation to 
the origin it was created.

tim




On 06.01.2014 19:34, Matt Lind wrote:
 It's a simple question of what is the expected result.

 Should the tangents and bitangents stay oriented relative to the mesh, or 
 should they stay put in world space and acknowledge the transformation of the 
 object?  My code is working under the assumption of the former, ultimapper is 
 giving me the latter.

 See example scene I provided in my previous message.


 Matt



 -Original Message-
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs 
 Matefy
 Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:22 AM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

 Have you tried other solutions? Try it with xNormal to check your results. In 
 my opinion Ultimapper is quite useless without cage. Since we left Ultimapper 
 out of the formula, we have no issues at all.

 Back to your problem. As far as I know, there are three normal mapping 
 type, world, object and tangent space normal maps. World space is the 
 best for static object, that have no transformation at all. Object 
 space normal maps allows object transformation, while tangent space 
 normal maps allow deformation as well. If tangent normal map changes 
 when you transform the object, it might be a bug. I'm not into the 
 math of tangent space normal maping, but as I mentioned, without cage 
 Ultimapper is aquite useless, so we dropped it. Consider moving onto 
 xNormal it's quite reliable tool

 Cheers

 Szabolcs
 -Original Message-
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt 
 Lind
 Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:13 AM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

 It's not a normalization issue as the normal vectors are normalized in Euler 
 space before being converted to RGB color space.  If it were a post process 
 problem, there would be differences in all cases.  So far I only see the 
 difference when one or both meshes are transformed indicating it's a 
 coordinate space computation issue.

 There is no issue with a cage either.  See my previous reply to the this 
 thread with example scene.  The cage is only relevant when there are many 
 layers of overlapping surfaces.  In my example it's a simple cube and sphere, 
 so no need

rigging in xsi vs maya

what do you guys think about this blog post:

http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote:

 what do you guys think about this blog post:

 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

I saw that a long time ago (its from 2011) and was very upset when it 
was sent around as it is obviously not done by someone who really 
understands both systems. It's a shame it's even posted for public 
consumption. I'm a hater on the general workflow clunkiness of Maya but 
giving it a fair shot and having used it over the years off and on, 
rigging is very similar in both and most of the times the knowledge and 
methods can be translated over to the other app without too much hassle.


Eric T.

On Monday, January 06, 2014 3:13:20 PM, Steven Caron wrote:

oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau
luceri...@gmail.com mailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

what do you guys think about this blog post:

http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

It is so embarrassing to read I can't pass the third paragraph, but that is 
what happens when you see someone that knows so little about one piece of 
software and feels has the the authority to throw his opinion on the internet.

ahhh… now I am going to have to answer him.

Jordi Bares
jordiba...@gmail.com

On 6 Jan 2014, at 20:10, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

 what do you guys think about this blog post:
 
 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Rob Wuijster


Simon says.. What?? ;-)


Rob

\/-\/\/

On 6-1-2014 21:13, Steven Caron wrote:

oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau 
luceri...@gmail.com mailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote:


what do you guys think about this blog post:

http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6980 - Release Date: 01/06/14

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

i have only skimmed this but he has arbitrary decisions when to give one
app a 'point' and when to 'dock a point'.

he docks a point because he doesn't like the floating property pages then
adds a point later because he likes it (two explorers to drag and drop).

@luc-eric, please please don't tell me anyone at autodesk is taking this
serious?

s


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote:

 what do you guys think about this blog post:

 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Mirko Jankovic

*The time that Maya saves with its rigging technology and superior
workflow, outweighs the additional cost.*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I saw this a long ago and not then not now it makes any sense at all..


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 i have only skimmed this but he has arbitrary decisions when to give one
 app a 'point' and when to 'dock a point'.

 he docks a point because he doesn't like the floating property pages then
 adds a point later because he likes it (two explorers to drag and drop).

 @luc-eric, please please don't tell me anyone at autodesk is taking this
 serious?

 s


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau 
 luceri...@gmail.comwrote:

 what do you guys think about this blog post:

 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

 What I find highly offensive is that the author left out any of their
 qualifications or contact information...

I think it's Simon Payne.
you can read his bio at the bottom right here (scroll all the way down)
http://cmivfx.com/store/495-Creature+Creators+Handbook+Volume+01

i have only skimmed this but he has arbitrary decisions when to give one app a 
'point' and when to 'dock a point'.

everyone would do this, imho, everyone has their thing they like here or there.
About the IK chains in Softimage, when all you did in 10 years is rig
like Softimage, it's second nature and you accept the way it works as
how things work (with nulls, etc)  I think the discussion in general
is deep and interesting, although those first 3 paragraphs seem  way
too harsh.  I've read some of these comments from client reports.

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Sven Constable

It reads like a maya evangelist tried XSI/Softimage for a first time and
beeing disappointed because it's different in getting thing done.

[Quote]: ...If [Maya] costs 40% more,... you can do more advanced
characters, with less bugs, in half the time, then choosing XSI for
Characters is in fact a choice for the more expensive outlay, and the lower
level of results...[End of quote]

I don't think so. Not even in 2011. :)

-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Luc-Eric
Rousseau
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 9:10 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: rigging in xsi vs maya

what do you guys think about this blog post:

http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Meng-Yang Lu

Over the years I've stopped looking at rigging as just a collection of
joints, iks, and constraints.  There's an overarching support toolset that
needs to be in place to manage rigs and animation data that needs to be
part of the equation too.  From the maya side, I miss stuff like the Mixer
and GATOR.  I would give body parts for XSI's operators stacks and ICE
integration.  The blog is missing a lot.

These days, I think rigging has gotten so sophisticated that the stuff he's
comparing only accounts for about 40 percent of the rigging process.
 There's a hefty 70 percent regarding muscles, collisions, and deformer
creation that is still handled via custom tools.  That right bitches.
 Rigging is 110% effort.  At least that's how it feels to me these days.

-Lu





On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote:

 what do you guys think about this blog post:

 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Alan Fregtman

For flexibility and workflow, Maya wins the blendshape *point* by quite a
distance.

I call shenanigans. lol -- Last time I tried to make a corrective shape in
Maya *while in the same pose* using what's in the box, I wanted to shoot
myself in the foot.



On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mirko Jankovic mirkoj.anima...@gmail.comwrote:

 *The time that Maya saves with its rigging technology and superior
 workflow, outweighs the additional cost.*

 HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
 I saw this a long ago and not then not now it makes any sense at all..


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 i have only skimmed this but he has arbitrary decisions when to give one
 app a 'point' and when to 'dock a point'.

 he docks a point because he doesn't like the floating property pages then
 adds a point later because he likes it (two explorers to drag and drop).

 @luc-eric, please please don't tell me anyone at autodesk is taking this
 serious?

 s


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau 
 luceri...@gmail.comwrote:

 what do you guys think about this blog post:

 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya


Last paragraph needs to be framed and hung on the wall. :P

On Monday, January 06, 2014 3:47:41 PM, Meng-Yang Lu wrote:

These days, I think rigging has gotten so sophisticated that the stuff
he's comparing only accounts for about 40 percent of the rigging
process.  There's a hefty 70 percent regarding muscles, collisions,
and deformer creation that is still handled via custom tools.  That
right bitches.  Rigging is 110% effort.  At least that's how it feels
to me these days.

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

I would say 1% got discussed and very badly discussed.

Regarding rigging I remember once a very senior rigger throwing tons of cr@p in 
the rig and I had to sit down and re-rig it in front of him and actually 
_prove_ him you could do the same with just a tenth of the bones and controls.

The same with topology and the paranoia riggers have with loops being in 
certain way, I ended up putting the same mesh thru the same rig only with 
different loops to _prove_ him it was actually worst to use regular topology 
than stress based topology.

My issue really is that there are too many people that read posts and training 
videos like these and believe it hands down without even trying for themselves 
in a real way.

Jordi Bares
jordiba...@gmail.com

On 6 Jan 2014, at 20:47, Meng-Yang Lu ntmon...@gmail.com wrote:

 Over the years I've stopped looking at rigging as just a collection of 
 joints, iks, and constraints.  There's an overarching support toolset that 
 needs to be in place to manage rigs and animation data that needs to be part 
 of the equation too.  From the maya side, I miss stuff like the Mixer and 
 GATOR.  I would give body parts for XSI's operators stacks and ICE 
 integration.  The blog is missing a lot.  
 
 These days, I think rigging has gotten so sophisticated that the stuff he's 
 comparing only accounts for about 40 percent of the rigging process.  There's 
 a hefty 70 percent regarding muscles, collisions, and deformer creation that 
 is still handled via custom tools.  That right bitches.  Rigging is 110% 
 effort.  At least that's how it feels to me these days.  
 
 -Lu
 
 
 
 
 
 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 what do you guys think about this blog post:
 
 http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

Very much so on framing that quote.  I think its most telling that out of all 
of the maya vs xsi pieces he created (7) he only posted one.

We no longer teach rigging in our animation course as it has just become too 
time consuming to get people new to 3D to understand it decently (our course is 
only a year) and quite frankly very few animation students are going to end up 
as riggers. (I think we have had two in 10 years). In the short time we have we 
would rather teach them to animate properly using a supplied rig (and getting 
to understand how to use controls better). In the case of getting the rare  
student who was interested in rigging we have always accommodated them.

Rigging has become such a specialized field that its both very scary for new 
people , and I can only hope also very rewarding for those people who have the 
dedication and drive to master it. 


From: Eric Thivierge [ethivie...@hybride.com]
Sent: 06 January 2014 10:58 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

Last paragraph needs to be framed and hung on the wall. :P

On Monday, January 06, 2014 3:47:41 PM, Meng-Yang Lu wrote:
 These days, I think rigging has gotten so sophisticated that the stuff
 he's comparing only accounts for about 40 percent of the rigging
 process.  There's a hefty 70 percent regarding muscles, collisions,
 and deformer creation that is still handled via custom tools.  That
 right bitches.  Rigging is 110% effort.  At least that's how it feels
 to me these days.

=
table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 
style=width:100%; 
tr
td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif 
size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is 
intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original 
message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the 
permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to 
enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus 
advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the 
University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which 
are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the 
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and 
outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in 
writing to the contrary. /span/font/td
/tr
/table

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya


Depends how many Animators I have to deal with...  :P

On Monday, January 06, 2014 4:24:39 PM, Angus Davidson wrote:

Rigging has become such a specialized field that its both very scary for new 
people , and I can only hope also very rewarding for those people who have the 
dedication and drive to master it.

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread David Gallagher



HAHAHAHAHA!

What a farce.


On 1/6/2014 1:46 PM, Alan Fregtman wrote:


For flexibility and workflow, Maya wins the blendshape *point* by 
quite a distance.


I call shenanigans. lol -- Last time I tried to make a corrective 
shape in Maya *while in the same pose* using what's in the box, I 
wanted to shoot myself in the foot.




On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mirko Jankovic 
mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com mailto:mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com wrote:


*The time that Maya saves with its rigging technology and superior
workflow, outweighs the additional cost.*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I saw this a long ago and not then not now it makes any sense at all..


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com
mailto:car...@gmail.com wrote:

i have only skimmed this but he has arbitrary decisions when
to give one app a 'point' and when to 'dock a point'.

he docks a point because he doesn't like the floating property
pages then adds a point later because he likes it (two
explorers to drag and drop).

@luc-eric, please please don't tell me anyone at autodesk is
taking this serious?

s


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Steven Caron
car...@gmail.com mailto:car...@gmail.com wrote:

oh my god, get ready for every 'point' being argued.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau
luceri...@gmail.com mailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

what do you guys think about this blog post:

http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html

Envelopes, Weights, Deformers and setting them up.

2014-01-06 Thread pedro santos

Hi
We use Species here for ease and speed. So the head and jaw have their
deformers, and the facial expressions are done through Shapes on a FaceRig
panel. For some time now the animator wants some additional Facial controls
so he isn't restricted by the range of the shapes. And he wants something
that does not turn into a cumbersome task given the revisions/iterations
over an asset. I'm fairly new to Softimage and these were the approaches I
went about:

Doritos
I had it setup, just one thing that is dragging the process; Envelopes are
generated by distance but there's always normalization. So if I want them
to just have a straight spherical falloff into black I can't. Or even to
falloff into another dummy null weight, I can't. So I had to paint, around
the ears, on the top of the head and sides, neck, etc. I was trying to
minimize paitings so iterations on a model's rig can be faster.
I could put an inplicit per Derformer set on Bounding Volume Limit. But
it's an abrupt cut off.

Deform by Spine
Creates the falloff I want from the curve. I like the drawn deformations
it does on mouth and eyes. I do an operator per curve, since the combined
weights of several curves seems wonky. The downside seems to be that I
can't transfer them with GATOR. How would you come about to transfer Deform
by Spine between objects to save time?

General Concerns.
I come from Lightwave and Envelopes to me seem to be like a box of weights
that are usually normalized. I see that deformers like Cage, Spine also
generate such box of weights, but they don't seem to be handled as
envelopes.
How flexible and manipulated can be weights and the underlying connections
of Softimage between the mesh object, the weight, the control null and the
deforming operator?? Seems to me that such weights don't exist without the
deformers.

This
Imagehttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/143766132/Forums/SI-Community/WeightMapsDeform.pngillustrates
what I'me trying to do.

Cheers
probiner

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Sergio Mucino


  
  
That's funny. A few months ago, when I started rigging in Soft, I
was googling a lot of information and pestering this list (trying to
keep the hair loss to a minimum, you know...), and I landed on this
article. I read it through and through and thought some things were
missed.
Honestly, it's really hard to come through a real expert on several
applications, even if for a single purpose. I don't blame this guys
for missing solutions to different problems in his article.
My own personal experience is that there are things I love in Soft
that I wish Maya had, and there are things in Maya that I definitely
miss in Soft (to different degrees of "needing"... from "it'd be
nice if", to "Are you f***ing kidding me???!")  :-) . All in all, I
believe I could deliver any kind of rig in any application (and I'll
include Max and Modo in the list), but there would be definitely be
pain involved (and brain-picking). And the use of 3rd-party scripts
and tools, for sure. There is no greener grass. Live fast, die
young. There is no rest for the wicked. Eat fruits and vegetables.
Peace!


On 06/01/2014 3:10 PM, Luc-Eric
  Rousseau wrote:


  what do you guys think about this blog post:

http://mayavxsi.blogspot.com/2011/09/rigging-m-22-x-15.html




--

Facerobot - wrinkle maps and mouth smooth doesn't work

2014-01-06 Thread Nicolas Esposito

Hi having a strange issue with Facerobot

I'm rigging the same face with both Gear and Facerobot to see which one is
the best solution for my needs, I'm following the videotutorials on youtube
from SoftimageHowsTo and I would like to paint the wrinkle maps

As soon as I choose to do wrinkle paint or mouth paint basically the paint
tool doesn't work at all

On the Mouth paint option basically it doesn't affect the painted region (
nor delete or smooth, nor add )

On the wrinkle paint I cannot see at all the classic yellow lines that
defines the wrinkle themselfat first I tought that was a graphic
glitch, but even if I paint without seeing what I'm painting and I test the
rig the wrinkle paint is not there at all

The strangest thing is that the wrinkle paint and the mouth smoothing works
with the other already supplied meshes ( RockFalcon, Mister Fitness ) but
not with my mesh

Did anyone had my same problem?

Solution?

Cheers

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn't that makes a 
significant difference at the end of the day?

Matt





From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 1:58 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

of course everyone would do this, which is why it seems silly to attempt and 
quantify it at all. i know i have bias and i know trained maya talent do too... 
i love to squabble about this stuff in my work environment but it is half fun 
these days. i know there are issues on both sides... but i am not going to post 
a blog dedicated to it.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau 
luceri...@gmail.commailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

everyone would do this, imho, everyone has their thing they like here or there.
About the IK chains in Softimage, when all you did in 10 years is rig
like Softimage, it's second nature and you accept the way it works as
how things work (with nulls, etc)  I think the discussion in general
is deep and interesting, although those first 3 paragraphs seem  way
too harsh.  I've read some of these comments from client reports.

RE: Facerobot - wrinkle maps and mouth smooth doesn't work

2014-01-06 Thread Manny Papamanos

I think I had the same issue once.
It may have been due to topo edits combined with a 'freeze/freezeM I may have 
done.
I realized the problem  and reverted to a previous scene.


Manny Papamanos
Product Support Specialist
Americas Frontline Technical Support



From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nicolas Esposito
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 4:51 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Facerobot - wrinkle maps and mouth smooth doesn't work

Hi having a strange issue with Facerobot

I'm rigging the same face with both Gear and Facerobot to see which one is the 
best solution for my needs, I'm following the videotutorials on youtube from 
SoftimageHowsTo and I would like to paint the wrinkle maps

As soon as I choose to do wrinkle paint or mouth paint basically the paint tool 
doesn't work at all

On the Mouth paint option basically it doesn't affect the painted region ( nor 
delete or smooth, nor add )

On the wrinkle paint I cannot see at all the classic yellow lines that defines 
the wrinkle themselfat first I tought that was a graphic glitch, but even 
if I paint without seeing what I'm painting and I test the rig the wrinkle 
paint is not there at all

The strangest thing is that the wrinkle paint and the mouth smoothing works 
with the other already supplied meshes ( RockFalcon, Mister Fitness ) but not 
with my mesh

Did anyone had my same problem?

Solution?

Cheers
attachment: winmail.dat

RE: Envelopes, Weights, Deformers and setting them up.

2014-01-06 Thread Manny Papamanos

Perhaps deform by volume?
This doesn't deal with weight though but can be flexible since you can 
interactively mod the radius on the volume deformers.


Manny Papamanos
Product Support Specialist
Americas Frontline Technical Support


From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of pedro santos
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 4:45 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Envelopes, Weights, Deformers and setting them up.

Hi
We use Species here for ease and speed. So the head and jaw have their 
deformers, and the facial expressions are done through Shapes on a FaceRig 
panel. For some time now the animator wants some additional Facial controls so 
he isn't restricted by the range of the shapes. And he wants something that 
does not turn into a cumbersome task given the revisions/iterations over an 
asset. I'm fairly new to Softimage and these were the approaches I went about:


Doritos
I had it setup, just one thing that is dragging the process; Envelopes are 
generated by distance but there's always normalization. So if I want them to 
just have a straight spherical falloff into black I can't. Or even to falloff 
into another dummy null weight, I can't. So I had to paint, around the ears, on 
the top of the head and sides, neck, etc. I was trying to minimize paitings so 
iterations on a model's rig can be faster.
I could put an inplicit per Derformer set on Bounding Volume  Limit. But it's 
an abrupt cut off.


Deform by Spine
Creates the falloff I want from the curve. I like the drawn deformations it 
does on mouth and eyes. I do an operator per curve, since the combined weights 
of several curves seems wonky. The downside seems to be that I can't transfer 
them with GATOR. How would you come about to transfer Deform by Spine between 
objects to save time?


General Concerns.
I come from Lightwave and Envelopes to me seem to be like a box of weights that 
are usually normalized. I see that deformers like Cage, Spine also generate 
such box of weights, but they don't seem to be handled as envelopes.
How flexible and manipulated can be weights and the underlying connections of 
Softimage between the mesh object, the weight, the control null and the 
deforming operator?? Seems to me that such weights don't exist without the 
deformers.


This 
Imagehttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/143766132/Forums/SI-Community/WeightMapsDeform.png
 illustrates what I'me trying to do.

Cheers
probiner
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

In my opinion the only thing I would love to have from maya is the ability to 
get deformation from objects vertices rather than object centres so you can 
build pseudo-muscles easily.

The whole muscle system would be nice but it is not critical imho given that I 
am of the opinion that the animator has to see the silhouette to take an 
informed decision and simulating muscles goes against that. therefore I rather 
do it by hand.

The rest I believe is simply a matter of taste.

hope it helps

Jordi Bares
jordiba...@gmail.com

On 6 Jan 2014, at 22:03, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a 
 significant difference at the end of the day?
  
 Matt
  
  
  
  
  
 From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
 Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 1:58 PM
 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya
  
 of course everyone would do this, which is why it seems silly to attempt and 
 quantify it at all. i know i have bias and i know trained maya talent do 
 too... i love to squabble about this stuff in my work environment but it is 
 half fun these days. i know there are issues on both sides... but i am not 
 going to post a blog dedicated to it.
  
 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
  
 everyone would do this, imho, everyone has their thing they like here or 
 there.
 About the IK chains in Softimage, when all you did in 10 years is rig
 like Softimage, it's second nature and you accept the way it works as
 how things work (with nulls, etc)  I think the discussion in general
 is deep and interesting, although those first 3 paragraphs seem  way
 too harsh.  I've read some of these comments from client reports.

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

are you asking me personally?

i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya for
custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.

s

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Meng-Yang Lu

What does XSI users use for skin simulation these days?  All custom stuff
in ICE?  We've been leveraging nCloth quite a bit lately and arguably, it's
the only piece of tech that 3D peeps here regardless of app preference can
unanimously agree that it is indeed pretty good.  Maybe not significant for
games, but plays a big part of what we do day to day.

The other thing is speed.  This is subjective, but not without me observing
over the years that if you get rigs of similar complexity, however you get
there, animating a handful in Maya is usually no problem while doing the
same in XSI feels a bit slow.

Not trying to argue, Matt.  If forced to pick A or B, I'd find a way
regardless.  Just trying to be objective and see what bounces back because
we're always looking for faster and better ways of doing stuff.

-Lu




On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt











 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 1:58 PM

 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 of course everyone would do this, which is why it seems silly to attempt
 and quantify it at all. i know i have bias and i know trained maya talent
 do too... i love to squabble about this stuff in my work environment but it
 is half fun these days. i know there are issues on both sides... but i am
 not going to post a blog dedicated to it.



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 everyone would do this, imho, everyone has their thing they like here or
 there.
 About the IK chains in Softimage, when all you did in 10 years is rig
 like Softimage, it's second nature and you accept the way it works as
 how things work (with nulls, etc)  I think the discussion in general
 is deep and interesting, although those first 3 paragraphs seem  way
 too harsh.  I've read some of these comments from client reports.

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage and maya.

I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty soon.  
Having this discussion now is convenience for me.

Matt




From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

are you asking me personally?

i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya for 
custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better initially 
organized softimage environment which lacks some customization options that 
maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance is because of 
timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.

s

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind 
ml...@carbinestudios.commailto:ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:
So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn't that makes a 
significant difference at the end of the day?

Matt

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Ben Barker

I found that the biggest problems in rigging are management issues:
listening and weighing input, absorbing unexpected changes gracefully, and
finding solutions that fit into a much larger pipeline over which you have
limited control. Rarely are you even in a position to dictate the software,
it's simply another variable to consider. Often there are overarching
political issues that you must absorb and translate into production. Like
all things, it always comes back to people. Really, moving vertices is the
easiest part of the job.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 are you asking me personally?

 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.

 s


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Juhani Karlsson

Well.. I really hope that Fabric Engine will be our fixing solution.
I think both SI and Maya way of handling solvers/gizmos ect are bit sloppy
compaired to Fabric... n slow.. : )


On 7 January 2014 00:30, Ben Barker ben.bar...@gmail.com wrote:

 I found that the biggest problems in rigging are management issues:
 listening and weighing input, absorbing unexpected changes gracefully, and
 finding solutions that fit into a much larger pipeline over which you have
 limited control. Rarely are you even in a position to dictate the software,
 it's simply another variable to consider. Often there are overarching
 political issues that you must absorb and translate into production. Like
 all things, it always comes back to people. Really, moving vertices is the
 easiest part of the job.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 are you asking me personally?

 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.

 s


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt







-- 
-- 
Juhani Karlsson
3D Artist/TD

Talvi Digital Oy
Pursimiehenkatu 29-31 b 2krs.
00150 Helsinki
+358 443443088
juhani.karls...@talvi.fi
www.vimeo.com/talvi

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an envelope or 
weighting/re-weighting an envelope.


Matt




From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage and maya.

I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty soon.  
Having this discussion now is convenience for me.

Matt




From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

are you asking me personally?

i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya for 
custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better initially 
organized softimage environment which lacks some customization options that 
maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance is because of 
timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.

s

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind 
ml...@carbinestudios.commailto:ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:
So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn't that makes a 
significant difference at the end of the day?

Matt

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

agreed...

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Ben Barker ben.bar...@gmail.com wrote:

  Like all things, it always comes back to people.

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

Arguments are good.  That's where the truth comes out from having to prove a 
point one way or another.

We need to do simulation too, but mostly for clothing or tapestries.  The hard 
part for us is getting the motion to look natural and meaningful, but also loop 
seamlessly over a short duration and blend with other actions doing the same.

Example:

Our main avatar has over 700 unique actions (walk, run, jump, roll left, roll 
right, die, etc...).  The longest action I can find is about 200 frames long 
and the average case about 45-60 frames (animating at 30 fps).   If a piece of 
cloth is animated, it needs to start and end in the same position for all 
actions that move that cloth because any action can transition into almost any 
other action at runtime.  The hard part is finding cloth poses that look 
natural and flow nicely in those transitions while being able to loop without 
looking stupid.  Another difficult part is getting the cloth to animate 
correctly because all the avatar performs his actions in place a the world 
origin on a pedastal.  He doesn't travel around as seen in the runtime 
environment.  So far we've been doing it all manually via keying the envelope 
deformers.


Matt




From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Meng-Yang Lu
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

What does XSI users use for skin simulation these days?  All custom stuff in 
ICE?  We've been leveraging nCloth quite a bit lately and arguably, it's the 
only piece of tech that 3D peeps here regardless of app preference can 
unanimously agree that it is indeed pretty good.  Maybe not significant for 
games, but plays a big part of what we do day to day.

The other thing is speed.  This is subjective, but not without me observing 
over the years that if you get rigs of similar complexity, however you get 
there, animating a handful in Maya is usually no problem while doing the same 
in XSI feels a bit slow.

Not trying to argue, Matt.  If forced to pick A or B, I'd find a way 
regardless.  Just trying to be objective and see what bounces back because 
we're always looking for faster and better ways of doing stuff.

-Lu



On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind 
ml...@carbinestudios.commailto:ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:
So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn't that makes a 
significant difference at the end of the day?

Matt





From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 1:58 PM

To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

of course everyone would do this, which is why it seems silly to attempt and 
quantify it at all. i know i have bias and i know trained maya talent do too... 
i love to squabble about this stuff in my work environment but it is half fun 
these days. i know there are issues on both sides... but i am not going to post 
a blog dedicated to it.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau 
luceri...@gmail.commailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

everyone would do this, imho, everyone has their thing they like here or there.
About the IK chains in Softimage, when all you did in 10 years is rig
like Softimage, it's second nature and you accept the way it works as
how things work (with nulls, etc)  I think the discussion in general
is deep and interesting, although those first 3 paragraphs seem  way
too harsh.  I've read some of these comments from client reports.

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Sergio Mucino


  
  
I'll definitely get back to you on this one tomorrow.

On 06/01/2014 5:36 PM, Matt Lind wrote:


  
  
  
  
Let
me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying
an envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.


Matt





  
From:
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On
  Behalf Of Matt Lind
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: rigging in xsi vs maya
  


Open
question to anybody with significant experience in both
Softimage and maya.

I
have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally
pretty soon. Having this discussion now is convenience for
me.

Matt




From:
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: rigging in xsi vs maya


  are you asking me personally?
  

  
  
i think some studios might favor the
  dependency graph structure of maya for custom nodes and
  behaviors. they would choose that over the better
  initially organized softimage environment which lacks some
  customization options that maya has. a topic discussed to
  death already, maya's dominance is because of timing (of
  their release years ago) and it's extensibility.
  
  

  
  
s

  
  
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM,
  Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
  wrote:

  
So
what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage
doesnt that makes a significant difference at
the end of the day?

Matt

  

  

  

  


--

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the highest
hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting point
but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one I saw
a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our current
option of the default influence calculations.

Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume I
think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating a
cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and cluster.
I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The weight
editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have (Admitting my
ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've missed it, unlike
some blog posters out there).


Eric Thivierge
http://www.ethivierge.com


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage and
 maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty soon.
 Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Eric Turman

You mean like the one that inspired the Maya tool? ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=f7bmBOcLjGg

available at http://rray.de/xsi/  scroll to bottom and search for Draw
Bones Inside Mesh


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the
 highest hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting
 point but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one
 I saw a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our
 current option of the default influence calculations.

 Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume I
 think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating a
 cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and cluster.
 I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The weight
 editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have (Admitting my
 ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've missed it, unlike
 some blog posters out there).

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage
 and maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty
 soon.  Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt







-- 




-=T=-

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Meng-Yang Lu

It's called the Component Editor.  Does the same thing.  However, XSI lets
you slide the weights around until it feels right.  Beats typing it in.

I just remembered a pretty silly conversation involving a rigging supe and
an XSI developer regarding locking weights.  It was like the only crutch to
hang onto for a Maya user.  Then afterward it was implemented and I think
the weighting system in XSI has been far superior since then.

I really do thing volumetric ideas like OpenVDB is something to explore.
 Not only would you have your classic joint/influence relationship, but
also add in psuedo collision evalualtion around those nasty parts like
armpits, elbow crooks, and the backs of legs.

-Lu




On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the
 highest hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting
 point but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one
 I saw a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our
 current option of the default influence calculations.

 Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume I
 think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating a
 cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and cluster.
 I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The weight
 editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have (Admitting my
 ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've missed it, unlike
 some blog posters out there).

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage
 and maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty
 soon.  Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Rob Chapman

quoted from the blog

I hope you can tell from the above thorough comparisons and analysis, why
it is the case however, that Maya reigns dominant in this subject. As you
can see by the detail I have provided here, it is academic, and nothing to
do with personal preference

so there you go then! :)
sdfdf

so




On 6 January 2014 23:41, Eric Turman i.anima...@gmail.com wrote:

 You mean like the one that inspired the Maya tool? ;)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=f7bmBOcLjGg

 available at http://rray.de/xsi/  scroll to bottom and search for Draw
 Bones Inside Mesh


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the
 highest hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting
 point but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one
 I saw a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our
 current option of the default influence calculations.

 Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume I
 think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating a
 cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and cluster.
 I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The weight
 editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have (Admitting my
 ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've missed it, unlike
 some blog posters out there).

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage
 and maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty
 soon.  Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt







 --




 -=T=-

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

All well and good but I'd prefer it to be built in and supported by the dev
team. Less reliability on 3rd party to fix things when production needs a
fix. (Yeah I know I'm one to talk about 3rd party tools...). Lots of these
nice tools have been made by individuals who drop off the face of the earth
or are too busy to support them.


Eric Thivierge
http://www.ethivierge.com


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Eric Turman i.anima...@gmail.com wrote:

 You mean like the one that inspired the Maya tool? ;)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=f7bmBOcLjGg

 available at http://rray.de/xsi/  scroll to bottom and search for Draw
 Bones Inside Mesh


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the
 highest hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting
 point but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one
 I saw a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our
 current option of the default influence calculations.

 Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume I
 think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating a
 cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and cluster.
 I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The weight
 editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have (Admitting my
 ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've missed it, unlike
 some blog posters out there).

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage
 and maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty
 soon.  Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes a
 significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt







 --




 -=T=-

Re: Nurbs Curves into Soft from Maya

2014-01-06 Thread Oscar Juarez

Have you tried the old but sometimes workable IGES?


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.comwrote:

 Yeah they are on our D drives... blah.

 Doesn't the Send To functions just use the FBX format anyway?


 On Monday, January 06, 2014 1:40:13 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:

 In some version of the suite, it will fail on its ass if both apps are
 not installed on the C: drive.
 try also .iges

 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com
 wrote:

 Thanks. I have both open and then for some reason it launches two new
 Softimage instances... not sure what the deal is...  will continue to
 tinker.

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Eric Turman

True, too true...but I was a bit cheesed off to hear Maya touting it as a
new feature when Soft had it as a 3rd party tool before hand.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com wrote:

 All well and good but I'd prefer it to be built in and supported by the
 dev team. Less reliability on 3rd party to fix things when production needs
 a fix. (Yeah I know I'm one to talk about 3rd party tools...). Lots of
 these nice tools have been made by individuals who drop off the face of the
 earth or are too busy to support them.

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Eric Turman i.anima...@gmail.com wrote:

 You mean like the one that inspired the Maya tool? ;)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=f7bmBOcLjGg

 available at http://rray.de/xsi/  scroll to bottom and search for Draw
 Bones Inside Mesh


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the
 highest hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting
 point but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one
 I saw a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our
 current option of the default influence calculations.

 Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume
 I think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating
 a cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and
 cluster. I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The
 weight editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have
 (Admitting my ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've
 missed it, unlike some blog posters out there).

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage
 and maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty
 soon.  Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of maya
 for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes
 a significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt







 --




 -=T=-





-- 




-=T=-

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

Even if not an original feature, it is new to the application... typically
what I think they mean by new feature. :)


Eric Thivierge
http://www.ethivierge.com


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Eric Turman i.anima...@gmail.com wrote:

 True, too true...but I was a bit cheesed off to hear Maya touting it as a
 new feature when Soft had it as a 3rd party tool before hand.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.comwrote:

 All well and good but I'd prefer it to be built in and supported by the
 dev team. Less reliability on 3rd party to fix things when production needs
 a fix. (Yeah I know I'm one to talk about 3rd party tools...). Lots of
 these nice tools have been made by individuals who drop off the face of the
 earth or are too busy to support them.

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Eric Turman i.anima...@gmail.com wrote:

 You mean like the one that inspired the Maya tool? ;)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=f7bmBOcLjGg

 available at http://rray.de/xsi/  scroll to bottom and search for Draw
 Bones Inside Mesh


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think different ways of calculating the influence is probably the
 highest hurdle right now. The default calculations get you a good starting
 point but there are the other heat map methods and another voxel based one
 I saw a vimeo video on that are going to get you much closer than our
 current option of the default influence calculations.

 Having the new feature in Maya to place bones in the middle of a volume
 I think would help a bit as well. Right now we're just stuck with creating
 a cluster, null  cluster constraint. Snap to null. Delete null and
 cluster. I find weight painting much better in Softimage than Maya. The
 weight editor is a really good feature that I think Maya should have
 (Admitting my ignorance on the topic if there is such editor and I've
 missed it, unlike some blog posters out there).

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.comwrote:

 Let me narrow down the question to the specific task of applying an
 envelope or weighting/re-weighting an envelope.





 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
 softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Lind
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* RE: rigging in xsi vs maya



 Open question to anybody with significant experience in both Softimage
 and maya.



 I have to address some envelope and rigging tools internally pretty
 soon.  Having this discussion now is convenience for me.



 Matt









 *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
 mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:21 PM
 *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
 *Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya



 are you asking me personally?



 i think some studios might favor the dependency graph structure of
 maya for custom nodes and behaviors. they would choose that over the 
 better
 initially organized softimage environment which lacks some customization
 options that maya has. a topic discussed to death already, maya's 
 dominance
 is because of timing (of their release years ago) and it's extensibility.



 s



 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com
 wrote:

 So what does maya rigging tools have that Softimage doesn’t that makes
 a significant difference at the end of the day?



 Matt







 --




 -=T=-





 --




 -=T=-

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

 All well and good but I'd prefer it to be built in and supported by the dev
 team. Less reliability on 3rd party to fix things when production needs a
 fix. (Yeah I know I'm one to talk about 3rd party tools...). Lots of these
 nice tools have been made by individuals who drop off the face of the earth
 or are too busy to support them.

I just looked up that draw bones inside mesh tool and si-community
says doesn't work with recent version of softimage and the author has
given up supporting it and programming in general!

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

Interested in getting back into Softimage as a small side project there
Luc-Eric and getting us a draw bone inside mesh tool? :D


Eric Thivierge
http://www.ethivierge.com


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote:

  All well and good but I'd prefer it to be built in and supported by the
 dev
  team. Less reliability on 3rd party to fix things when production needs a
  fix. (Yeah I know I'm one to talk about 3rd party tools...). Lots of
 these
  nice tools have been made by individuals who drop off the face of the
 earth
  or are too busy to support them.

 I just looked up that draw bones inside mesh tool and si-community
 says doesn't work with recent version of softimage and the author has
 given up supporting it and programming in general!

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.
I have two side projects that need diaper changes.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com wrote:
 Interested in getting back into Softimage as a small side project there
 Luc-Eric and getting us a draw bone inside mesh tool? :D

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

it was just a script... just crack it open and have your way with it

this also sounds like a job for the Custom Tool API... it sounds like you
just want someone else to maintain it ;P


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com wrote:

 Interested in getting back into Softimage as a small side project there
 Luc-Eric and getting us a draw bone inside mesh tool? :D

 
 Eric Thivierge
 http://www.ethivierge.com

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

Truer words have never been spoken. I have enough to maintain. Also I know
not of the C++ and Custom Tool API. :(


Eric Thivierge
http://www.ethivierge.com


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote:

 it sounds like you just want someone else to maintain it ;P

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Cesar Saez

I did something similar https://vimeo.com/6792010 in 2009 inspired by
Blender's etch-a-ton.
https://vimeo.com/album/39155

Just saying :-)


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Eric Turman i.anima...@gmail.com wrote:

 You mean like the one that inspired the Maya tool? ;)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=f7bmBOcLjGg

 available at http://rray.de/xsi/  scroll to bottom and search for Draw
 Bones Inside Mesh

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Simon Pickard

heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.

Great stuff! Just port XSI over to OSX then.
Thanks.


On 7 January 2014 11:44, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

 heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.
 I have two side projects that need diaper changes.

 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Interested in getting back into Softimage as a small side project there
  Luc-Eric and getting us a draw bone inside mesh tool? :D

Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps


It is great to have flexibility in the search methods.

I´m familiarizing with xNormal at the moment and just went through the
Normalmap sampling options, e.g. 3x3,5x5 etc. I can´t say I am sure
I have a favourite search method for a specific task or know why, yet.

From my artistic standpoint, I have a good idea what I want a specific Normalmap
to look like, it´s just a bumpmap with additional info about it´s orientation to
lightsources. Easy enough to read in 2D and translate into a guestimate what 
it´s going
to give me for details (in the specs) in an otherwise boringly flat surface.

I would likely favour a clean version over the one with artifacts from scaling.

This includes avoiding edgespill, harsh contrast and overly pushing intensity 
to start me with.

To a developer implementing a Normalmap feature, it´s probably blasphemy but if 
you look into
ndo/ndo2 and what options it´s giving an artist to influence/suggest surface 
detail, it´s just cool.

ndo/ndo2 or crazybump or xnormal start to hurt when you do normals from 
heightmap/photos) or
from a painted diffuse map and look at what consequently happens to the edges 
of your uvshells.

It´s difficult to judge how much clean edgespill is going to be needed, I try 
16x at 4K but that
already takes away a lot of map space just for making sure downscaling to 1K 
may work.

Why I´m saying this?

It would be nice if you make sure edgespill around your UV shells is first of 
all there and
ideally not maxed out into rainbow colors as in, let´s say Mudbox. Adding 
layers to such an area afterwards
is really difficult otherwise and may give you artifacts creeping in on your 
map area fron the seams.

Cheers,

tim




On 06.01.2014 21:06, Matt Lind wrote:

OK, so what I'm hearing is we both agree ultimapper is wrong.  That's what I 
needed to know.

I'll file a bug on ultimapper and proceed under the assumption my code is 
correct.

Thanks.

As for looking up a normal on a high res mesh from a low res mesh, ultimapper 
is using raycast along the low res mesh's normal to find the appropriate 
location on the high res mesh.  If the ray shoots off into outer space without 
hitting anything, a 2nd ray is cast in the opposite direction.  If that ray 
hits nothing, the normal is recorded as (0.5, 0.5, 1) indicating the tangent 
normal map stores the geometry normal as is.

If you do a closest location search as you suggest, the results are often quite 
different.  Using the example scene I provided in a previous message, the 
raycast method as described above results in a circle being drawn on each face 
of the cube.  If you do a closest location search, the entire cube will be 
filled with normals and that map will have heavy amounts of distortion.  In 
some cases that may be desireable or more appropriate than raycasting.  In 
either case, I don't think there's a blanket solution to that problem.  The 
search method has to be tailored to the specific case.


Matt




-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 11:20 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

What does xnormal do for two meshes with non-zero transforms?

Out of a gut feeling, I would say that a tangent space normal map should be 
independent of an object´s world space transformation, because if it where 
dependent on that worldspace position, it would degrade the tangent space map 
into an incorrectly created object space normal map.

It doesn´t make sense to take worldorientation of an object into account for a 
tangent space map. Here the mother of all is one and she is perpendicular to 
the face.

Nobody else has binormals anyway, sort of.

In terms of using empathy, I would guess that the code for Ultimapper was 
tested against two objects in the origin and this resulted in the 
vertexpositions being used as in (my pseudologic) worldspace=objectspace.

I would opt to have the tagentspace map created solely based on the distance 
between two closest points (e.g. closest distance between in highrez and the 
lowrez).

This way, the map will work, regardly of where it is or at what orientation to 
the origin it was created.

tim




On 06.01.2014 19:34, Matt Lind wrote:

It's a simple question of what is the expected result.

Should the tangents and bitangents stay oriented relative to the mesh, or 
should they stay put in world space and acknowledge the transformation of the 
object?  My code is working under the assumption of the former, ultimapper is 
giving me the latter.

See example scene I provided in my previous message.


Matt



-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs
Matefy
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:22 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya


---

I really suck at the technical side of rigging, which is why I never get to
the point of showing my own characters in motion and I would welcome anything
hat helps me get closer to such a point. From that biased view, I think all
the 3D DCC apps suck in the way they let you create control over a mesh and
animate it.

project pinochio from autodesk is really cool because it provides top notch
wheighted meshes with a rig that fits the human ik Maya way of suggesting 
control.

That said, when you just take it and go and animate that in Maya, Human Ik may
jump around and gives you a middle finger the moment you scrub the timeline,
simply because there´s IK and FK and the pose you set may not have been the
pose you keyed because there may have been constraint/rig blend presets you
may need to adjust first. For me, that´s typical Maya. Still, I am happy there
is project pinochio and at least such rigs to learn from.

Rigging is so complicated, it´s become a very specialised field but that 
shouldn´t
be the excuse to not go there and see if there´s a way to improve things for 
everyone...



This is for Matt Lind:

In Maya 2008, I had to animate a super special fleece of a new and improved
sanitary pad in a tight deadline with an Agency girl present.

It´s a similar scenario, you want nice, believable motions but have to hit
keyposes and keyframes exactly, the whole shot was some 76 frames.

I´m not an Animator and was a Junior at that company but had a trusting Lead
and we decided we would risk using a rigged cloth sim, I think it was the first
incarnation of nCloth in Maya. On top we had the option to impose blendshapes 
and
use cached frames to blend into or out of.

I struggled a lot with the tools and that job but would still resort to a 
similar
approach, maybe looking for simplification and improvements.

Regarding cloth for games, you probably know the nVidia toolkit (for udk) for 
Maya.

It´s really nice but runtime sim. I would prefer a vertex cache, just because I 
don´t want *surprise*.

In terms of simulation, I´m looking into the UDK versus the CRYENGINE way of 
creating
and storing animation data, CRYENGINE has the character translate around, UDK is
expecting the pedestal. Not easy to come up with a solution that works for both.

Out of naivity (in terms of animation and rigging) I would think restricting the
character´s world space translation to the top node for animation and preview
and then just ignore/freeze/mute/delete those keys might work for 
cache/bake/export.

I´m stupid and romantically optimistic, I know.

Cheers,

tim





On 06.01.2014 23:52, Matt Lind wrote:

Arguments are good.  That’s where the truth comes out from having to prove a 
point one way or another.

We need to do simulation too, but mostly for clothing or tapestries.  The hard 
part for us is getting the motion to look natural and meaningful, but also loop 
seamlessly over a
short duration and blend with other actions doing the same.

Example:

Our main avatar has over 700 unique actions (walk, run, jump, roll left, roll 
right, die, etc…).  The longest action I can find is about 200 frames long and 
the average case about
45-60 frames (animating at 30 fps).   If a piece of cloth is animated, it needs 
to start and end in the same position for all actions that move that cloth 
because any action can
transition into almost any other action at runtime.  The hard part is finding 
cloth poses that look natural and flow nicely in those transitions while being 
able to loop without
looking stupid.  Another difficult part is getting the cloth to animate 
correctly because all the avatar performs his actions in place a the world 
origin on a pedastal.  He doesn’t
travel around as seen in the runtime environment.  So far we’ve been doing it 
all manually via keying the envelope deformers.

Matt

*From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Meng-Yang Lu
*Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 2:27 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

What does XSI users use for skin simulation these days?  All custom stuff in 
ICE?  We've been leveraging nCloth quite a bit lately and arguably, it's the 
only piece of tech that 3D
peeps here regardless of app preference can unanimously agree that it is indeed 
pretty good.  Maybe not significant for games, but plays a big part of what we 
do day to day.

The other thing is speed.  This is subjective, but not without me observing 
over the years that if you get rigs of similar complexity, however you get 
there, animating a handful in
Maya is usually no problem while doing the same in XSI feels a bit slow.

Not trying to argue, Matt.  If forced to pick A or B, I'd find a way 
regardless.  Just trying to be objective and see what bounces back because 
we're always looking for faster and
better ways of doing stuff.

-Lu

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com

Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year


On 06.01.2014 16:25, Eric Lampi wrote:

First place I worked at I saw a young woman creative from an agency come into 
the 3D area. She was squinting at the monitor and I couldn't tell what she was 
looking at, then she
says Oh thank God, they're SGI!.


Eric



I think she liked you.

She checked you out and gave you a compliment without obvious flattery.

Well, maybe she just wanted you to like her, thought.

Who can really tell with women?



tim







Freelance 3D and VFX animator

http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net 
mailto:magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:

Well said Stefan, marketing also convinces studios that it's the software, 
and not the artist,
that does all the cool stuff. A misconception that I have been battling 
for over a quarter of
a century, now. Software is only a tool. Softimage is a great tool.

When I freelanced at studios, I would often hear the studio salesperson 
talk about the software
and equipment, that they use, with prospective clients. They would not 
mention the people,
which in my opinion is their biggest asset.

I haven't worked at a studio for almost 9 years. I never get asked what 
software I use.
My clients just ask how much, and how fast. Softimage continues to help me 
give them the answers
they want to hear.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek s...@tidbit-images.com 
mailto:s...@tidbit-images.com wrote:

__
Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or 
filed for bancruptcy last year were Maya based?
It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing 
than Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but 
I still smell a pattern
there.

I always felt that the number of  users on Softimage is directly 
related to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job 
in the early days of Maya
in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening for Softimage 
at any time of it's existence.
Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use 
Softimage, and those who have never tried. - Get more prople to seriously try 
it.






*So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS 
PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?*


This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when 
required...  and Maya being the Industry Standard makes you understand so 
many things about the
industry standards...




2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy szabol...@crytek.com 
mailto:szabol...@crytek.com

So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya…HOW THE F@CK THIS 
PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION?

Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working 
with Maya, but seriously guys…It’s so overcomplicated, and brainkilling…In 
Softimage almost everything
is just fine (OK, we need development), but in Maya, the 
easiest task takes quite long compared to SI…Finally I found myself fixing UVs, 
Unfolding, etc. in
Softimage…Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a big 
breath, and continue working with Maya…But seriously, Softimage is way better 
in many point of view.
It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, but for example rendering is 
way faster (with MR), shading setup is way faster, modeling is lot faster, and 
so on. So I really
don’t understand, how come that Softimage is not acknowledged 
at all. I swear guys, that I’ll spread the Word of Softimage

Cheers

Szabolcs

*From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of 
*Henry Katz
*Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com 
mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year

Good thing I asked.

On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote:

Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz hk-v...@iscs-i.com 
mailto:hk-v...@iscs-i.com wrote:

Steve,

No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my 
knuckles on the bleeding edge?

Cheers,
Henry
On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote:

really?

install pyqt

set softimage to use system python, uncheck... 
filepreferencesscriptinguse python installed with softimage

run the example scripts

RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

The bigger problem that needs eyes on it is determining how the low res mesh 
details correlate to the high res mesh details.  Maya uses a cage concept to 
limit the search distance, but that doesn't address the issue of finding an 
appropriate match for a specific detail common to the two meshes.  One possible 
solution is to duplicate the low res mesh and ask the user to push and pull 
points around under the direction that rays will be cast from the low res mesh 
to the duplicate mesh along the line that matches the details.  If the high res 
mesh is encountered along that path, then the normal will be transferred to the 
low res mesh.  That works, but is probably more labor intensive to set up than 
any user would want to deal with.

I am only trying to solve a very specific problem of being able to transfer a 
tangent space normal map from one object to another using our proprietary 
tangent space algorithm.  I'm still at the prototyping stage and testing with 
standard tangent space algorithms to validate my math before proceeding to our 
proprietary algorithm which has a few added wrinkles.


Edge spill in the context of an ultimapper-like transfer process is really 
about oversampling.  As long as the entire texel is tested against a triangle 
and not just the centroid of the texel, there shouldn't be any issues.  What 
can be a problem is if a texel is used by multiple triangles on different parts 
of the mesh (i.e. the UVs are not unique).  That's when you run into garbage 
data contaminating your normal map.  If your UVs are unique and there's at 
least one pixel of safe zone around each UV Island, and you adjust oversampling 
to do some sort of stochastic sampling to ensure all parts of a texel are 
considered, then you shouldn't have any problems with edge spill looking like 
crap or allowing undesired values to bleed in.

As for the normal map from image or heightfield techniques.  That's an entirely 
different ballgame as the as the tool is making assumptions about a 2D space to 
fabricate a 3rd dimension.  While it will produce valid results, it may not 
always be desired results.  Higher resolution data will produce better results, 
but it'll never be as accurate as having 3D data as a source.


Matt



-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 7:19 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps

It is great to have flexibility in the search methods.

I´m familiarizing with xNormal at the moment and just went through the 
Normalmap sampling options, e.g. 3x3,5x5 etc. I can´t say I am sure I have a 
favourite search method for a specific task or know why, yet.

 From my artistic standpoint, I have a good idea what I want a specific 
Normalmap to look like, it´s just a bumpmap with additional info about it´s 
orientation to lightsources. Easy enough to read in 2D and translate into a 
guestimate what it´s going to give me for details (in the specs) in an 
otherwise boringly flat surface.

I would likely favour a clean version over the one with artifacts from scaling.

This includes avoiding edgespill, harsh contrast and overly pushing intensity 
to start me with.

To a developer implementing a Normalmap feature, it´s probably blasphemy but if 
you look into
ndo/ndo2 and what options it´s giving an artist to influence/suggest surface 
detail, it´s just cool.

ndo/ndo2 or crazybump or xnormal start to hurt when you do normals from 
heightmap/photos) or from a painted diffuse map and look at what consequently 
happens to the edges of your uvshells.

It´s difficult to judge how much clean edgespill is going to be needed, I try 
16x at 4K but that already takes away a lot of map space just for making sure 
downscaling to 1K may work.

Why I´m saying this?

It would be nice if you make sure edgespill around your UV shells is first of 
all there and ideally not maxed out into rainbow colors as in, let´s say 
Mudbox. Adding layers to such an area afterwards is really difficult otherwise 
and may give you artifacts creeping in on your map area fron the seams.

Cheers,

tim




On 06.01.2014 21:06, Matt Lind wrote:
 OK, so what I'm hearing is we both agree ultimapper is wrong.  That's what I 
 needed to know.

 I'll file a bug on ultimapper and proceed under the assumption my code is 
 correct.

 Thanks.

 As for looking up a normal on a high res mesh from a low res mesh, ultimapper 
 is using raycast along the low res mesh's normal to find the appropriate 
 location on the high res mesh.  If the ray shoots off into outer space 
 without hitting anything, a 2nd ray is cast in the opposite direction.  If 
 that ray hits nothing, the normal is recorded as (0.5, 0.5, 1) indicating the 
 tangent normal map stores the geometry normal as is.

 If you do a closest location search as you suggest, the results are often

Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps


The relation between the lowrez and highrez mesh is the responsibility of the 
modeler, imho.

Retopo has become a lot easier but shouldn´t be mistaken to be automagic just 
because there´s
now several options in various programs to autogenerate some sort of cage 
around a mesh.

Of course, it´s good to talk and find a general approach on how to handle 
bevels or rims,
how to sculpt highrez stuff to make sure it transfers nicely and looking into 
maybe even
temporarily subdividing a uv´d lowrez mesh to improve bake results. Fat edges 
don´tlook nice
in a highrez but may just stand out better from a distance later...

The final cleanup and adjustment (involving some trial and error) of the lowrez 
mesh should
really be the seen as the resposibility of the person that created the meshes 
and not passed
on to the guy just painting the texture. Ideally, you provide options to 
iterate quickly
and brute force it if really neccessary. Fiddling looks like struggling to the 
uneducated observer.

I´ve worked in two, three scenarios that where shotgun style task driven and 
found that some
types of personalities may be tempted to forward the problem for the sake of 
finishing their task.

This results in unfair workload that may slip the attention of the production 
team.

Been on the receiving end a few times, including a feature film involving trees 
without treetops in an establishing total shot.

That leads to some sort of frustration avoidable by actively sharing and 
distributing responsibility.
But for that you need a sup and production team actually willing to involve 
people in the decision making process.

Which seems rare to me, out of experience. Quite a few productions I worked on 
suffered from the ego of the people
more than from tight deadlines, limited budgets or even artistic limitations. 
Maybe that´s a german phenomenon.

Back to normals, the reason why I brought up the edgespill and 2D3D 
interpretation of images
is because it´s likely you´ll want to mix our baked highrezlowrez normal map 
with highfrequency
surface details derrived from  a 2D process or even various sources.

In terms of first of all creating a good bake, I try to model a clean, 
subdivideable basemesh
and bake from high subdivision to lowrez of the same mesh, to avoid the 
scenario you face.

But that is overkill and limiting both in terms of effort needed to model and 
resulting time it takes.

People sticking stuff together, be it dynameshes, voxels or cubes will iterate 
more, producing more, maybe even better results.

After a lot of trials and Errors, a highrez can be a pile of goo as long as it 
looks awesome - which is what counts.

That said, the lowrez mesh should be clean and well made, no cheap shortcuts.

Still, I prefer a clean highrez mesh but it´s not supportable in a production 
environment.


Cheers,


tim







On 07.01.2014 05:35, Matt Lind wrote:

The bigger problem that needs eyes on it is determining how the low res mesh 
details correlate to the high res mesh details.  Maya uses a cage concept to 
limit the search distance, but that doesn't address the issue of finding an 
appropriate match for a specific detail common to the two meshes.  One possible 
solution is to duplicate the low res mesh and ask the user to push and pull 
points around under the direction that rays will be cast from the low res mesh 
to the duplicate mesh along the line that matches the details.  If the high res 
mesh is encountered along that path, then the normal will be transferred to the 
low res mesh.  That works, but is probably more labor intensive to set up than 
any user would want to deal with.

I am only trying to solve a very specific problem of being able to transfer a 
tangent space normal map from one object to another using our proprietary 
tangent space algorithm.  I'm still at the prototyping stage and testing with 
standard tangent space algorithms to validate my math before proceeding to our 
proprietary algorithm which has a few added wrinkles.


Edge spill in the context of an ultimapper-like transfer process is really 
about oversampling.  As long as the entire texel is tested against a triangle 
and not just the centroid of the texel, there shouldn't be any issues.  What 
can be a problem is if a texel is used by multiple triangles on different parts 
of the mesh (i.e. the UVs are not unique).  That's when you run into garbage 
data contaminating your normal map.  If your UVs are unique and there's at 
least one pixel of safe zone around each UV Island, and you adjust oversampling 
to do some sort of stochastic sampling to ensure all parts of a texel are 
considered, then you shouldn't have any problems with edge spill looking like 
crap or allowing undesired values to bleed in.

As for the normal map from image or heightfield techniques.  That's an entirely 
different ballgame as the as the tool is making assumptions about a 2D space to 
fabricate a 3rd dimension.  While it will produce valid results,

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya

Amen ;)

Although XSi does run incredibly well under bootcamp.




From: Simon Pickard [m...@simonpickard.com]


heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.

Great stuff! Just port XSI over to OSX then.
Thanks.


On 7 January 2014 11:44, Luc-Eric Rousseau 
luceri...@gmail.commailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote:
heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.
I have two side projects that need diaper changes.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Eric Thivierge 
ethivie...@gmail.commailto:ethivie...@gmail.com wrote:
 Interested in getting back into Softimage as a small side project there
 Luc-Eric and getting us a draw bone inside mesh tool? :D


table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 
style=width:100%;
tr
td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif 
size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is 
intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original 
message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the 
permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to 
enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus 
advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the 
University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which 
are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the 
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and 
outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in 
writing to the contrary. /span/font/td
/tr
/table

Re: rigging in xsi vs maya

2014-01-06 Thread Simon Pickard

It runs really well under VMware Fusion as well. But that's currently the
only reason Fusion is ever installed on my Mac.

Basically every issue Softimage is facing in that other Softimage is
doomed! thread comes down to the fact it's not native on OSX.

Maybe. :)




On 7 January 2014 16:28, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote:

  Amen ;)

  Although XSi does run incredibly well under bootcamp.



  --
 *From:* Simon Pickard [m...@simonpickard.com]


   heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.

  Great stuff! Just port XSI over to OSX then.
 Thanks.


 On 7 January 2014 11:44, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com wrote:

 heck, I can't even run XSI anymore, I'm on a mac now.
 I have two side projects that need diaper changes.

 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Interested in getting back into Softimage as a small side project there
  Luc-Eric and getting us a draw bone inside mesh tool? :D


  This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is 
 confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify 
 us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or 
 disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only 
 authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of 
 the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this 
 message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the 
 personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the 
 views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All 
 agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African 
 Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.

RE: rigging in xsi vs maya