RE: Anybody still using mental ray?

[Pierre Schiller]

@Sven's got some really deep honest points regarding mr.

@Matt Lind, any MR shaders you develop help a lot of people, who read this
but can't participate either because they're not part of the list or this
(will be) a cached google page. In representation of them: I vote YES, we
do use MentalRay.

To this day I'm still contacted by peopñe who says: MR toon shader is the
best out there. Softimage toon shader is the best. And that'd my personal
use of MR: toon shading, normals, world normals... you know stuff that
requires more of a compositor's cheme to arm a scene for cartoon renders.

I'm interested on advanced shaders because less parameters deal with the
same amount of settings regarding out of the box MR shaders. Plus we all
have seen your page over thr years, Matt, who are we kidding, really great
tutos and SI help from you all these years. :)

Release the kra...(wait)... release the MR shaders...

Cheers.
On May 29, 2016 10:08 AM, "Sven Constable"  wrote:

> What you say about update cycles is absolutly valid. In fact mental images
> did updates quite frequently. Not as often as chaos group with vray but at
> least several per year. I had a better and newer link including dates of
> bugfixes but I can't find right now. Heres an older list by AD:
>
> http://docs.autodesk.com/MENTALRAY/2012/ENU/mental%20ray%203.9%20Help/files/relnotes/relnotes.html
>
>
>
> A lot of fixes quite frequently as it seems. But since most of the
> costumers  didn't use the standalone but the integrated version by its DCC
> developer the bugfixes were incorporated only once per year. Leaving
> costumers a year with a bug, that got adressed by mental images possibly
> just a week later.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Derek Jenson
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:36 PM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
>
>
>
> I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept
> of only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D
> program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give
> customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC
> update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being
> XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an
> issue.
>
> If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of
> rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories
> of the software.
>
> The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to
> communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward
> to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support.
> IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a
> software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible
> now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early
> years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then
> something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around.
>
> The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in  XSI), but the speed
> demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace.
> --
>
> From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200
> Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
>
> there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved
> faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time
> learning inferior render engine instead?
>
>
>
> also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with
> knowing a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and
> issues on critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :)
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:
>
> The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who
> never took the time to learn to use it properly.
>
> If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing
> than others for rendering.  For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15%
> additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is
> less stable inside of material shaders.  Segmented shadows is currently set
> as the default shadow computation mode.  If you do most of your rendering
> in
> passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to
> what
> is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and
> stability.  If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows
> off
> completely.  That's just one example.
>
> For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for
> mental
> ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly 

RE: Anybody still using mental ray?

[Matt Lind]

Most of your information is incorrect.

First, I never said nor implied "you're not smart enough to use software X" 
mentality.  I said most users do not take the time to learn the software to 
use it properly.  That has nothing to do with being smart or dumb.  It's 
about investing time to learn so you apply the principles correctly in 
context.  You can be the smartest person ever to walk the face of the earth, 
but if you don't take the time to learn how your tools work, you should 
expect many failures: http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/images/dr20120709.jpg

Majority of artists I've dealt with in production have never once opened the 
manuals to learn how to use the renderer.  They rely purely on intuition 
flipping switches that sound cool, then shove the scene off to be rendered. 
When it fails to render, they complain and blame the renderer.  Let's give 
an actual example:

Many years ago I joined a feature film when it was already well beyond 50% 
through production.  they had a lot of problems with rendering trees. Scenes 
would get pushed off to the renderer, but any scene with more than 3 trees 
would crash taking the computer down.  For several meetings there were 
grumblings how mental ray should be ditched, so I was assigned the task of 
researching the issue.  Inside of Softimage the scenes looked fairly simple 
and was very responsive to the mouse and timeline.  A street with trees 
lining the sides of the road.  No more than 6 or 7 trees in view of the 
camera at any one time.  The tree trunks only had resolution of roughly 
20K - 180K triangles depending on the tree, and each tree trunk had one or 
two bitmap textures at resolution of 2048 x 2048 pixels in 16 bit color. 
The scene as a whole had 30 bitmap textures, if that.  I inspected the 
shaders and didn't see anything other than standard phong, lambert, and 
color correction nodes in the various rendertrees.  No exotic features 
activated either.  Hmm, I thought.  So I dumped to .mi2 files and rendered 
using the mental ray standalone in heavy verbose mode to get more 
information what mental ray was actually doing.  Before it crashed, the log 
indicated there were more than 20 billion triangles in the scene exhausting 
available RAM.  That's right, 20 billion - and the scene was still in the 
process of loading.  Naturally I'm scratching my head as to the source.  So 
I reopened the scene and took another look and that's when I discovered the 
leaves of the trees were created with particle instancing.  That is, the 
artist created a single clump of leaves in very high detail (~15,000 
triangles for a handful of leaves), and instanced them around to every 
branch of every tree.  When mental ray loaded the scene, it had to 
dynamically allocate the memory to hold each instanced set of leaves.  Since 
each tree had hundreds/thousands of mounting points for the clump of 
instanced leaves, the instancing inflated the triangle count to 20 billion+ 
exhausting available memory causing the renderer to crash.

If the artist had used a different approach to setting up the scene, such as 
using a delay load geometry shader or modeling the leaves directly onto the 
trees, mental ray would in turn use a different strategy in allocating 
memory to render the scene and perhaps not crash.  This is my point about 
people needing to take the time to learn the renderer and the rendering 
process, and stop blaming the renderer.  99% of artists don't do that.  So 
when they complain about mental ray in these contexts, what they're really 
doing is shouting out their own lack of preparation.  Again, it has nothing 
to do with being smart or dumb, but it has everything to do with being 
prepared and responsibility of learning tools of your craft.


Not sure of their present release schedule as I haven't kept up in the past 
couple of years, but when I was more involved, Mental Images was in habit of 
releasing patches and updates quite regularly.  Often every few weeks.

What you have understand is the business relationship in how you access 
mental ray rendering.  Mental Images licenses their technology to other 
businesses, like Autodesk.  Autodesk is effectively the customer and the one 
receiving the regular maintenance, patches, and support from mental images. 
Autodesk in turn then integrates the rendering technology into their DCC 
products and extends their own technical support to their customers.  It is 
Autodesk who decides to only update their integration of mental ray once or 
twice per year, not mental images.  So direct your complaint to Autodesk on 
that front.  This arrangement is also why you get integrated mental ray and 
not standalone mental ray.  That was likely a cost driven decision as 
standalone licenses would cost more (read that as, having standalone 
licenses in addition to integrated rendering would cost more).  Softimage|3D 
was the last application to offer both.  In this scenario, Autodesk is like 
your local reseller - 

Re: Momentum / implosiafx plugins

[Pierre Schiller]

Oleg just entered the Softimage hall of fame, permanently.

Thank you so much. You are a MVP (Most valued player).

Thanks Oleg, great tool indeed.
On May 29, 2016 6:21 AM, "Toonafish"  wrote:

> Grrreat !! What a nice surprise. Thanks so much Oleg.
>
> - Ronald
>
> On 5/26/2016 16:24, Oleg Bliznuk wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Since the EOL of Softmage I'd like to open free access to Momentum and
> ImplosiaFX plugins. You can grab it here :
> ImplosiaFX
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B47NI7NeoDiiT1NlYzUxU3hGZ2c
>
> Momentum
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B47NI7NeoDiiNmw1Nm1hdW9mLTg
>
> These links include builds both for win and linux 64bits + documentation
> and sample scenes.
> It was a lot of fun to make tools and various tech stuff in ICE, thanks
> all for the great experience, especially for the ice vimeo channel folks
> :-) . Hopefully those plugins still can be usefull.
>
> best regards,
> Oleg
>
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
> "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Re: Arnold shaders, interactive oppacity on Alpha?

[Pierre Schiller]

Thank you. I finally got an alpha animated through Oppacity (I read the
manual). Working great. I made a .png sequence and I get a solid black
background color and no alpha channel. So I do get geometry with animated
transparency (desired) but composed against a solid black background color
(where is the alpha?).
Do I automatically get no background color when I render floats? (.exr?)

Thanks.
On May 27, 2016 12:01 PM, "Oscar Juarez"  wrote:

> That is something that Arnold has never done, Refraction always comes with
> solid alpha. Opacity on the other hand works as you want but probably is
> not what you are after. The way to handle this is to render with your
> background in 3d so it's seen through the refraction.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pierre Schiller <
> activemotionpictu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Softimagers! :D
>>
>> I´ve been doing some quick test renders on arnold and I happen to come
>> around a dead end:
>> I know arnold property has to have "opaque" unchecked on the geometry in
>> order to work the transparency from the shader (on the Refraction Scale = 1
>> to be fully transparent, also I switched Diffuse Scale = 0).
>>
>> But when I preview alpha on the image, I still get an opaque geometry.
>>
>> The general idea, should be that by driving a % value, I can decrease the
>> opacity on the mesh gradually via the arnold standard shader.
>>
>> Is there an easier way to do this?
>> Please help.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Portfolio 2013 
>> Cinema & TV production
>> Video Reel 
>>
>> --
>> Softimage Mailing List.
>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>
>
>
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

RE: Anybody still using mental ray?

[Sven Constable]

What you say about update cycles is absolutly valid. In fact mental images
did updates quite frequently. Not as often as chaos group with vray but at
least several per year. I had a better and newer link including dates of
bugfixes but I can't find right now. Heres an older list by AD:
http://docs.autodesk.com/MENTALRAY/2012/ENU/mental%20ray%203.9%20Help/files/
relnotes/relnotes.html

 

A lot of fixes quite frequently as it seems. But since most of the costumers
didn't use the standalone but the integrated version by its DCC developer
the bugfixes were incorporated only once per year. Leaving costumers a year
with a bug, that got adressed by mental images possibly just a week later.

 

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Derek Jenson
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:36 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: Anybody still using mental ray?

 

I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept of
only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D
program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give
customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC
update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being
XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an
issue. 

If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of
rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories
of the software. 

The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to
communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward
to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support.
IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a
software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible
now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early
years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then
something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around. 

The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in  XSI), but the speed
demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. 

  _  

From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200
Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com

there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved
faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time
learning inferior render engine instead?

 

also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with knowing
a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and issues on
critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :)

 

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:

The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who
never took the time to learn to use it properly.

If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing
than others for rendering.  For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15%
additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is
less stable inside of material shaders.  Segmented shadows is currently set
as the default shadow computation mode.  If you do most of your rendering in
passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to what
is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and
stability.  If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows off
completely.  That's just one example.

For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for mental
ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots
when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because
they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth
(because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of
default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly).  In
essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take
the time to learn how to use the renderer

To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray
settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a
bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra
work that never shows up in the final rendered image.  This change can often
be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users do
not tweak the settings.

If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax
mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better
performance and stability.  Much of that also involves strategy for setting
up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make
gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the 

RE: Anybody still using mental ray?

[Sven Constable]

I have to admit, since MR is a old renderer it has its flaws. I work with it 
since 1999 and I would say I know it quite well, even I never programmed 
shaders for it. One issue is DTR/ distributed tile rendering, it simply doesn't 
work reliable. Mental images/nvidia solved the memory overflow problem some 
versions ago (slave machines ran out of memory and crashed), but there still 
seems to be a problem when using satellite rendering together with BSP2. In 
some cases, the rendering hangs at 100%, not written to disk and you have to 
kill the process. It seems to not happen with BSP1 but since it's much slower 
especially when using displacement, it's not an option to use BSP1 just because 
of having satellite rendering to work.  This happens with the render region as 
well as with batch rendering. I cannot say if this is entirely a MR bug or a 
softimage-MR thing or maybe a windows network issue.

However, it works with batch rendering when not using more than one satellite 
machine. The render farm here is set up this way (I'm probably one of ten ppl 
in the world who uses mental ray satellite rendering on a farm).

It would be nice though to have rock solid distributed rendering when dealing 
with large print resolution for example. I don’t think there is an internal 
limit in MR regarding the amount of machines. Of course its not unlimited, at 
some point Amdahl's law will kick in. The limitation of using five machines was 
simply a business/licensing decision, I guess. Imagine, beeing at a company 
with a larger render farm that artists can use interactivly. Would cause a bit 
of network traffic, yes but the workflow would be improved. It's even practical 
if the farm is rendering regular render jobs simultaniously. I once did some 
tests and the raysat.exe will use a higher priority than the batch.exe by 
default. There would be only peaks of CPU utilization on the farm when an 
artist draws a render region, so the delay for normal renderjobs would be 
negligible. A potential problem would be, that artists, having vast amount of 
render power, they'll put shitload of stuff in the scenes thats simply not 
renderable in the final animation. But I disgress.

 

Another issue probably is GI for animations, as it was discussed many times 
over the years. Even you can have flicker free GI in animations, it depends 
heavily on the scenario. The classroom scene, for example. Seems an easy 
scene,no? Well it's not. Add a skylight system and animate the sun from sunrise 
to sundown. I did many, many tests with FG and even with irradiance particles. 
At sundown you will have only a few, very bright spots that have to lit the 
entire room. Therefore you need an insane high amount of FG rays to capture the 
light an even then it will produce splotches in the last few frames. IP 
adresses this problem by analyzing the screen space, firing more IP rays 
towards bright spots. Similar to portal lights. It is great in terms of general 
light distribution and does not produce light leaks. But since it's also 
screenspace dependent, it will create problems where a lit surface is not 
directly seen by the camera. In this case, at certain areas at  the window 
frames at sunrise.
Btw. while testing Redshift with the classroom scene I noticed a bug when using 
caustics. Nothings perfect. (However, the GI solution was blazingly fast and 
super clean).

All in all, I use MR in production successfully and I like it, but I would not 
say I love it :)

sven 

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Mirko Jankovic
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 9:25 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray?

 

1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.

It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render tool, 
CPU or GPU road. 

 

2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rather
good when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimage
itself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.

First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I wanna 
puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :)

When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big issue I 
had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again.

MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got ton of things but 
nothing good for most of things :)

 

Redshift saved my 3d ;)

 

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Sven Constable  
wrote:

I use mental ray almost exclusively for any project so far, even I'm
evaluated arnold, redshift and maxwell. Maxwell is so far the most accurate
renderer I've seen so far in terms of light distribution in a scene and
nothing comes close to it in my opinion. It's amazing if you do product
rendering only. But it lacks in shader variety, softimage integration and
general tweaking, as 

RE: Anybody still using mental ray?

[Derek Jenson]

I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept of 
only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D program. 
That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give customers the 
lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC update. 3D is too 
bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being XSI's only renderer 
option for a long time, stability certainly became an issue. 

If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of rollbacks) 
like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories of the 
software. 

The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to 
communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward to 
educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support. IMO, you 
can only partially point the finger at users for not using a software as 
intended. With information/training being so easily accessible now the "you're 
not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early years is void. If a 
whole user base is struggling with a technology... then something with that 
tech is flawed; not the other way around. 

The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in  XSI), but the speed 
demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. 

From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200
Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com

there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved 
faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time 
learning inferior render engine instead?
also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with knowing a 
lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and issues on 
critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :)
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:
The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who

never took the time to learn to use it properly.



If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing

than others for rendering.  For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15%

additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is

less stable inside of material shaders.  Segmented shadows is currently set

as the default shadow computation mode.  If you do most of your rendering in

passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to what

is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and

stability.  If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows off

completely.  That's just one example.



For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for mental

ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots

when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because

they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth

(because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of

default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly).  In

essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take

the time to learn how to use the renderer



To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray

settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a

bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra

work that never shows up in the final rendered image.  This change can often

be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users do

not tweak the settings.



If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax

mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better

performance and stability.  Much of that also involves strategy for setting

up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make

gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the rendering

process.



Matt









Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200

From: Mirko Jankovic 

Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray?

To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com"



*1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.*



It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render

tool, CPU or GPU road.







*2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is

rathergood when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like

Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.*



First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I

wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :)

When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big

issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again.

MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got 

Re: Momentum / implosiafx plugins

[Toonafish]

Grrreat !! What a nice surprise. Thanks so much Oleg.

- Ronald

On 5/26/2016 16:24, Oleg Bliznuk wrote:

Hi all,

Since the EOL of Softmage I'd like to open free access to Momentum and 
ImplosiaFX plugins. You can grab it here :

ImplosiaFX
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B47NI7NeoDiiT1NlYzUxU3hGZ2c

Momentum
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B47NI7NeoDiiNmw1Nm1hdW9mLTg

These links include builds both for win and linux 64bits + 
documentation and sample scenes.
It was a lot of fun to make tools and various tech stuff in ICE, 
thanks all for the great experience, especially for the ice vimeo 
channel folks :-) . Hopefully those plugins still can be usefull.


best regards,
Oleg


--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.



--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.