Re: Softimage - not going away...

[Stefan Kubicek]

On a brighter note, you won't need the NVidia Apex clothing plugins to 
set up cloth in UE4 anymore, at least if I get their claims right for 
version 4.18


https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unrealengine.com_en-2DUS_blog_unreal-2Dengine-2D4-2D18-2Dreleased=DwIDaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=Y-_x9ysHpEaSR2MwBxa5Zvg1aTg0bdU7vHZYSJP419w=5oft3grrpxXSV3m9GVvIyMq1RSF7BLYKTo5ImUDgn24=

(You will need to scroll down to approx. 30% of the page). Says also 
that the old APEX plugin workflow is still supported.


S


On 28/10/2017 20:22, skuby wrote:

Jordi

Thanks for the input, your 'point list' is very well thought out.  I 
think I'm covered (UE4 side for realtime and Houdini for composited 
works).


I'd give a point for serious Cross-Platform support (OSX, Linux).  I 
think I might even give more than 1 point to open standards support 
(in theory) but it's not always viable, I wish it were.  Walled off 
FBX is dominating, especially in games, for transporting rigged 
characters and animation to and from UE4 or the other needed devils 
like NVidia's game tools for generating clothing simulation files.  
It's worth a point on your list at the very least but for me it's 
unfortunately make or break.


On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Andres Stephens 
> wrote:


Seems like open source is the best 3D software model to make
something float indefinitely regardless of market trends. Hope FE
does that…. Unless they got bought out or something.

-Draise


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

> on behalf of
Jordi Bares >
*Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:41:04 AM
*To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist=DwIDaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=Y-_x9ysHpEaSR2MwBxa5Zvg1aTg0bdU7vHZYSJP419w=HTlI9AfkhNO92R4OaUsj7jZzcklDH8grpxfcGIjL3JA=


*Subject:* Re: Softimage - not going away...
Although I understand where you are coming from the minimising
risk side, it is also true that you end up investing a lot more in
both, the software and glue to communicate various software
applications with a myriad of file formats and what not, therefore
I advocate for a hybrid approach in which;

- You define your FX and render backbone (one single application
always) and everything else feeds it.
- No plugins if possible unless you have a solid environment
resolution system in place and are willing to maintain it.
- No strategic dependencies with one manufacturer with a proven
record of discontinuing software (Apple and Autodesk are specially
bad)
- And make sure you build as much as possible in open standards
like Alembic, OpenColorIO, OpenImageIO, USD, VDB, etc...

With that in my head, I go and evaluate the next things to define
what should be my backbone.

> Software companies with a fair price and licensing structure
have 1 point.
> Software companies that support and adopt open standards have an
extra point.
> Software companies with strong R also have another extra point.
> Software companies that maintain their code have another extra
point.
> Software companies that top support have another extra point.
> Software companies that understand what we do have another extra
point.
> Software companies that keep refining their UX have another
extra point.
> Software companies that keep refining their core have an extra
point.
> Software companies that listen to their customers in a prompt
and agile way have another extra point.

You make the choice of course for your particular scenarios but
this is my view of how to choose your backbone.

Hope this makes sense.

jb


On 28 Oct 2017, at 14:20, skuby > wrote:

Investing your time into mastering the totality of one major
software is risky.

The specific example that I want to test in the coming months
doesn't seem unreasonable for one person (and you could swap the
parts out to suit your tastes/budget/needs/prior experience) (but
please critique the idea.  I value your experience 

Re: Softimage - not going away...

[skuby]

Jordi

Thanks for the input, your 'point list' is very well thought out.  I think
I'm covered (UE4 side for realtime and Houdini for composited works).

I'd give a point for serious Cross-Platform support (OSX, Linux).  I think
I might even give more than 1 point to open standards support (in theory)
but it's not always viable, I wish it were.  Walled off FBX is dominating,
especially in games, for transporting rigged characters and animation to
and from UE4 or the other needed devils like NVidia's game tools for
generating clothing simulation files.  It's worth a point on your list at
the very least but for me it's unfortunately make or break.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Andres Stephens 
wrote:

> Seems like open source is the best 3D software model to make something
> float indefinitely regardless of market trends. Hope FE does that…. Unless
> they got bought out or something.
>
>
>
> -Draise
>
>
> --
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com <
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> on behalf of Jordi Bares <
> jordiba...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:41:04 AM
> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=DLI3Guoj0XY__tyeCFqGoxUoGb6xtuaZ2eu9uFpWbwg=WvL8ovWFwnGh75oQ0VmNxnu96tuCK6FgXlAW295C_rw=
> *Subject:* Re: Softimage - not going away...
>
> Although I understand where you are coming from the minimising risk side,
> it is also true that you end up investing a lot more in both, the software
> and glue to communicate various software applications with a myriad of file
> formats and what not, therefore I advocate for a hybrid approach in which;
>
> - You define your FX and render backbone (one single application always)
> and everything else feeds it.
> - No plugins if possible unless you have a solid environment resolution
> system in place and are willing to maintain it.
> - No strategic dependencies with one manufacturer with a proven record of
> discontinuing software (Apple and Autodesk are specially bad)
> - And make sure you build as much as possible in open standards like
> Alembic, OpenColorIO, OpenImageIO, USD, VDB, etc...
>
> With that in my head, I go and evaluate the next things to define what
> should be my backbone.
>
> > Software companies with a fair price and licensing structure have 1
> point.
> > Software companies that support and adopt open standards have an extra
> point.
> > Software companies with strong R also have another extra point.
> > Software companies that maintain their code have another extra point.
> > Software companies that top support have another extra point.
> > Software companies that understand what we do have another extra point.
> > Software companies that keep refining their UX have another extra point.
> > Software companies that keep refining their core have an extra point.
> > Software companies that listen to their customers in a prompt and agile
> way have another extra point.
>
> You make the choice of course for your particular scenarios but this is my
> view of how to choose your backbone.
>
> Hope this makes sense.
>
> jb
>
> On 28 Oct 2017, at 14:20, skuby  wrote:
>
> Investing your time into mastering the totality of one major software is
> risky.
>
> The specific example that I want to test in the coming months doesn't seem
> unreasonable for one person (and you could swap the parts out to suit your
> tastes/budget/needs/prior experience) (but please critique the idea.  I
> value your experience Mirko and I've lurked around enough to pick up a lot
> from you, so feel free to tear the idea apart):
>
> Modeling (Blender +Plug-ins & Marvelous Deisgner). Sculpting (Mudbox).
> Retopo for baking/animation (ZBrush & Blender). UV's (semi-automated via
> Houdini). Baking/Painting (Mudbox & Substance). Rigging+Animation (Houdini
> or possibly Akeytsu).  Everything else i.e. 
> Shading/Lighting/Hair/Dynamics/FX/etc.
> (Houdini or Unreal Engine 4).  Then pick your favorite compositor.
>
> With the above, I already know Blender and the plug-ins I need for
> modeling/Marvelous Designer/Mudbox/ZBrush (and a decent bit of UE4) for the
> tasks I want to accomplish.  The rest of it is a work in progress/I'm still
> deciding.
>
> The cost isn't even too bad.  Blender = free.  Marvelous Designer = $50 a
> month as needed.  Mudbox $10 a month.  ZBrush one time $800.  Substance $20
> a month or as needed.  Houdini Indie $200 a year (OR if you needed it
> Houdini FX $2,495 a year after the first ($4,495) year).  Akeytsu (Haven't
> tested it yet, but it's cheap at $200 and it looks powerful).  Unreal
> Engine Free up front + 0% to 5% depending on the project.
>
> I cannot see myself mastering every single one of those (or even ever
> mastering just Houdini on it's own), 

RE: Softimage - not going away...

[Andres Stephens]

Seems like open source is the best 3D software model to make something float 
indefinitely regardless of market trends. Hope FE does that…. Unless they got 
bought out or something.

-Draise


From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 on behalf of Jordi Bares 

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:41:04 AM
To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist=DwIGaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=wOx6c6PpXXej-OS2OE4X72A_OaZ_8Mi6rLQg93Jusjg=lf5wAismtSxlMt7XDScnmAm0npYblVdzNlG8TkF-W-0=
Subject: Re: Softimage - not going away...

Although I understand where you are coming from the minimising risk side, it is 
also true that you end up investing a lot more in both, the software and glue 
to communicate various software applications with a myriad of file formats and 
what not, therefore I advocate for a hybrid approach in which;

- You define your FX and render backbone (one single application always) and 
everything else feeds it.
- No plugins if possible unless you have a solid environment resolution system 
in place and are willing to maintain it.
- No strategic dependencies with one manufacturer with a proven record of 
discontinuing software (Apple and Autodesk are specially bad)
- And make sure you build as much as possible in open standards like Alembic, 
OpenColorIO, OpenImageIO, USD, VDB, etc...

With that in my head, I go and evaluate the next things to define what should 
be my backbone.

> Software companies with a fair price and licensing structure have 1 point.
> Software companies that support and adopt open standards have an extra point.
> Software companies with strong R also have another extra point.
> Software companies that maintain their code have another extra point.
> Software companies that top support have another extra point.
> Software companies that understand what we do have another extra point.
> Software companies that keep refining their UX have another extra point.
> Software companies that keep refining their core have an extra point.
> Software companies that listen to their customers in a prompt and agile way 
> have another extra point.

You make the choice of course for your particular scenarios but this is my view 
of how to choose your backbone.

Hope this makes sense.

jb

On 28 Oct 2017, at 14:20, skuby > 
wrote:

Investing your time into mastering the totality of one major software is risky.

The specific example that I want to test in the coming months doesn't seem 
unreasonable for one person (and you could swap the parts out to suit your 
tastes/budget/needs/prior experience) (but please critique the idea.  I value 
your experience Mirko and I've lurked around enough to pick up a lot from you, 
so feel free to tear the idea apart):

Modeling (Blender +Plug-ins & Marvelous Deisgner). Sculpting (Mudbox). Retopo 
for baking/animation (ZBrush & Blender). UV's (semi-automated via Houdini). 
Baking/Painting (Mudbox & Substance). Rigging+Animation (Houdini or possibly 
Akeytsu).  Everything else i.e. Shading/Lighting/Hair/Dynamics/FX/etc. (Houdini 
or Unreal Engine 4).  Then pick your favorite compositor.

With the above, I already know Blender and the plug-ins I need for 
modeling/Marvelous Designer/Mudbox/ZBrush (and a decent bit of UE4) for the 
tasks I want to accomplish.  The rest of it is a work in progress/I'm still 
deciding.

The cost isn't even too bad.  Blender = free.  Marvelous Designer = $50 a month 
as needed.  Mudbox $10 a month.  ZBrush one time $800.  Substance $20 a month 
or as needed.  Houdini Indie $200 a year (OR if you needed it Houdini FX $2,495 
a year after the first ($4,495) year).  Akeytsu (Haven't tested it yet, but 
it's cheap at $200 and it looks powerful).  Unreal Engine Free up front + 0% to 
5% depending on the project.

I cannot see myself mastering every single one of those (or even ever mastering 
just Houdini on it's own), but I can see myself using each one to great effect 
for a very very specific task and leveraging that tool's specific strengths to 
improve the final quality (and perhaps in spots even winning back some lost 
time).

For me the options are stay with Softimage and eventually be completely 
limited, try to pick a major software to master again to replace Softimage 
(aka. Houdini / Blender / Maya) which seems very risky/foolish.  Or go the 
above route, changing things on an as needed basis.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Mirko Jankovic 
> wrote:
How replacing 1 tool with 5 or more, and work that could be done by 1 man now 
requires 5 or more as well can be advantage?

Re: Softimage - not going away...

[Jordi Bares]

Although I understand where you are coming from the minimising risk side, it is 
also true that you end up investing a lot more in both, the software and glue 
to communicate various software applications with a myriad of file formats and 
what not, therefore I advocate for a hybrid approach in which;

- You define your FX and render backbone (one single application always) and 
everything else feeds it.
- No plugins if possible unless you have a solid environment resolution system 
in place and are willing to maintain it.
- No strategic dependencies with one manufacturer with a proven record of 
discontinuing software (Apple and Autodesk are specially bad)
- And make sure you build as much as possible in open standards like Alembic, 
OpenColorIO, OpenImageIO, USD, VDB, etc...

With that in my head, I go and evaluate the next things to define what should 
be my backbone.

> Software companies with a fair price and licensing structure have 1 point.
> Software companies that support and adopt open standards have an extra point.
> Software companies with strong R also have another extra point.
> Software companies that maintain their code have another extra point.
> Software companies that top support have another extra point.
> Software companies that understand what we do have another extra point.
> Software companies that keep refining their UX have another extra point.
> Software companies that keep refining their core have an extra point.
> Software companies that listen to their customers in a prompt and agile way 
> have another extra point.

You make the choice of course for your particular scenarios but this is my view 
of how to choose your backbone.

Hope this makes sense.

jb

> On 28 Oct 2017, at 14:20, skuby  wrote:
> 
> Investing your time into mastering the totality of one major software is 
> risky.
> 
> The specific example that I want to test in the coming months doesn't seem 
> unreasonable for one person (and you could swap the parts out to suit your 
> tastes/budget/needs/prior experience) (but please critique the idea.  I value 
> your experience Mirko and I've lurked around enough to pick up a lot from 
> you, so feel free to tear the idea apart):
> 
> Modeling (Blender +Plug-ins & Marvelous Deisgner). Sculpting (Mudbox). Retopo 
> for baking/animation (ZBrush & Blender). UV's (semi-automated via Houdini). 
> Baking/Painting (Mudbox & Substance). Rigging+Animation (Houdini or possibly 
> Akeytsu).  Everything else i.e. Shading/Lighting/Hair/Dynamics/FX/etc. 
> (Houdini or Unreal Engine 4).  Then pick your favorite compositor.
> 
> With the above, I already know Blender and the plug-ins I need for 
> modeling/Marvelous Designer/Mudbox/ZBrush (and a decent bit of UE4) for the 
> tasks I want to accomplish.  The rest of it is a work in progress/I'm still 
> deciding.
> 
> The cost isn't even too bad.  Blender = free.  Marvelous Designer = $50 a 
> month as needed.  Mudbox $10 a month.  ZBrush one time $800.  Substance $20 a 
> month or as needed.  Houdini Indie $200 a year (OR if you needed it Houdini 
> FX $2,495 a year after the first ($4,495) year).  Akeytsu (Haven't tested it 
> yet, but it's cheap at $200 and it looks powerful).  Unreal Engine Free up 
> front + 0% to 5% depending on the project.
> 
> I cannot see myself mastering every single one of those (or even ever 
> mastering just Houdini on it's own), but I can see myself using each one to 
> great effect for a very very specific task and leveraging that tool's 
> specific strengths to improve the final quality (and perhaps in spots even 
> winning back some lost time).
> 
> For me the options are stay with Softimage and eventually be completely 
> limited, try to pick a major software to master again to replace Softimage 
> (aka. Houdini / Blender / Maya) which seems very risky/foolish.  Or go the 
> above route, changing things on an as needed basis.
> 
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Mirko Jankovic  > wrote:
> How replacing 1 tool with 5 or more, and work that could be done by 1 man now 
> requires 5 or more as well can be advantage?
> ᐧ
> 
> --
> 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: Softimage - not going away...

[Jordi Bares]

Pretty much my though.

> On 28 Oct 2017, at 13:39, Mirko Jankovic  wrote:
> 
> How replacing 1 tool with 5 or more, and work that could be done by 1 man now 
> requires 5 or more as well can be advantage?
> ᐧ
> --
> 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: Softimage - not going away...

[skuby]

Investing your time into mastering the totality of one major software is
risky.

The specific example that I want to test in the coming months doesn't seem
unreasonable for one person (and you could swap the parts out to suit your
tastes/budget/needs/prior experience) (but please critique the idea.  I
value your experience Mirko and I've lurked around enough to pick up a lot
from you, so feel free to tear the idea apart):

Modeling (Blender +Plug-ins & Marvelous Deisgner). Sculpting (Mudbox).
Retopo for baking/animation (ZBrush & Blender). UV's (semi-automated via
Houdini). Baking/Painting (Mudbox & Substance). Rigging+Animation (Houdini
or possibly Akeytsu).  Everything else i.e.
Shading/Lighting/Hair/Dynamics/FX/etc.
(Houdini or Unreal Engine 4).  Then pick your favorite compositor.

With the above, I already know Blender and the plug-ins I need for
modeling/Marvelous Designer/Mudbox/ZBrush (and a decent bit of UE4) for the
tasks I want to accomplish.  The rest of it is a work in progress/I'm still
deciding.

The cost isn't even too bad.  Blender = free.  Marvelous Designer = $50 a
month as needed.  Mudbox $10 a month.  ZBrush one time $800.  Substance $20
a month or as needed.  Houdini Indie $200 a year (OR if you needed it
Houdini FX $2,495 a year after the first ($4,495) year).  Akeytsu (Haven't
tested it yet, but it's cheap at $200 and it looks powerful).  Unreal
Engine Free up front + 0% to 5% depending on the project.

I cannot see myself mastering every single one of those (or even ever
mastering just Houdini on it's own), but I can see myself using each one to
great effect for a very very specific task and leveraging that tool's
specific strengths to improve the final quality (and perhaps in spots even
winning back some lost time).

For me the options are stay with Softimage and eventually be completely
limited, try to pick a major software to master again to replace Softimage
(aka. Houdini / Blender / Maya) which seems very risky/foolish.  Or go the
above route, changing things on an as needed basis.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Mirko Jankovic 
wrote:

> How replacing 1 tool with 5 or more, and work that could be done by 1 man
> now requires 5 or more as well can be advantage?
> ᐧ
>
> --
> 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: Fabric engine is gone

[Jason S]

  
  

  I agree with everything you said..

And I'm also saddened to see fabric close-up it's doors,
especially in this already diversity deprived environment.
& all the best to the FE team!

On 10/27/17 17:59, Jonathan Moore wrote:
  
  
MPC and PSYOP output some great work with Fabric
  Engine but in the end I always felt it was too narrowly aimed
  at senior TD's with plenty of programming experience. The
  success of ICE was fuelled by the compounds that acted as a
  gateway drug to the inner workings. I thought maybe that
  Kraken would develop into that gateway drug, but after seeing
  experienced riggers feeling out of their comfort zone, soon
  realised it wasn't to be.
  
  
  When Eric Mootz joined the team I thought maybe that
would bring about tools for technically minded artists who
weren't necessarily TD's.
  
  
  Whatever the reasons I feel for the FE team after all
their hard efforts. But I feel as one door closes others
will open for them, folk with that much talent don't remain
jobless for long.


  
  
  On 10/28/17 5:19, Michael Amasio wrote:


  That's too bad.
This is rough market.  There's not much money in
  developing better solutions.  I guess we'll ride out our DCC's
  with ancient architecture, and wait till one of us becomes a
  billionaire and funds something cutting edge.
I'd love to here more of the story of what
  happened from some of the developers.


Guess I'll finally follow you to Houdini,
  Oliver.
  
  
On Oct 28, 2017 12:31 AM, "Olivier
  Jeannel" 
  wrote:
  
http://fabricengine.com
  
  


--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@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: Softimage - not going away...

[Mirko Jankovic]

How replacing 1 tool with 5 or more, and work that could be done by 1 man
now requires 5 or more as well can be advantage?
ᐧ
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Re: Softimage - not going away...

[skuby]

Jordi, what you just stated is exactly why I suggest that 'we' need to stop
looking at things as a Softimage replacement where you do the majority of
your work, from start to finish, inside of one application.  We have to
pretend we are big studios, split everything into smaller parts, using a
myriad of applications and dedicate each app to a very specific pre-defined
task.  No more trying to master a whole software or expecting it to be the
'be all / end all' solution.  It's too time consuming and the 'reliability'
of your time investment isn't secure enough to justify the old approach.

This sort of effort isn't without major inconveniences but by leveraging
the very best possible software for each task, I think it can be turned
into a clear advantage.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Jordi Bares  wrote:

> It is clear to me that developing a new 3D application is extremely
> expensive and the size of the market just does not justify the effort,
> which is the reason it was so very disheartening when AD killed Softimage..
> Building anything similar to Softimage would cost a fortune to barely make
> a dent in the near monopoly we are experiencing.
>
> What I am sure is that those developers are gold-dust and they will
> hopefully find an even better gig in the very near future.
>
> Best wishes
>
> jb
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2017, at 06:52, Christopher Crouzet <
> christopher.crou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess that this kind of comment only confirms how difficult it was for
> them to market their product and get potential customers to understand its
> purpose.
>
> Disappointed to see Fabric Engine coming to an end.
>
>
> On 28 October 2017 at 04:13, Gerbrand Nel  wrote:
>
>> IMHO Fabric targeted a ideological market that doesn't exist. The people
>> who loved ICE but needed to work in maya.
>> People like me.
>> Well I think most of "us" tried but gave up because it still lived in
>> maya.
>> You had to learn maya and fabric, and when something didn't work, you
>> didn't know if it was maya, fabric, or you.
>> Fabric was like covering a turd in chocolate.
>> If you are careful, you only taste chocolate, but softimage was forgiving
>> and turned us all into reckless 3d maniacs.
>> There was no avoiding the turd!
>> After about 3 months of this you realize that learning houdini just makes
>> more sense.
>> I'm sad to see another great piece of software go, but like Jonathan
>> said: These folks should find their place in the sun soon!
>> G
>>
>>
>> On 2017/10/27 11:59 PM, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>>
>> MPC and PSYOP output some great work with Fabric Engine but in the end I
>> always felt it was too narrowly aimed at senior TD's with plenty of
>> programming experience. The success of ICE was fuelled by the compounds
>> that acted as a gateway drug to the inner workings. I thought maybe that
>> Kraken would develop into that gateway drug, but after seeing experienced
>> riggers feeling out of their comfort zone, soon realised it wasn't to be.
>>
>> When Eric Mootz joined the team I thought maybe that would bring about
>> tools for technically minded artists who weren't necessarily TD's.
>>
>> Whatever the reasons I feel for the FE team after all their hard efforts.
>> But I feel as one door closes others will open for them, folk with that
>> much talent don't remain jobless for long.
>>
>> On 27 October 2017 at 22:03, Matt Lind  wrote:
>>
>>> It likely died for the reason you just stated - you 'eventually' wanted
>>> to
>>> learn.  Problem is most people had the same sentiments.
>>>
>>> They made the right move initially of targeting the space between the
>>> other
>>> DCCs, but I think staying there long term was a mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:34:02 +
>>> From: Andres Stephens 
>>> Subject: RE: Softimage - not going away...
>>> To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
>>>
>>> This is devastating news!!! WTF!? I was betting on learning this and
>>> eventually investing in it. I didn?t want to be locked into one software
>>> the
>>> more I got into proceduralism.  Why!?
>>>
>>> -Draise
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Softimage Mailing List.
>>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avg.com
>> 

Re: Softimage - not going away...

[Jordi Bares]

It is clear to me that developing a new 3D application is extremely expensive 
and the size of the market just does not justify the effort, which is the 
reason it was so very disheartening when AD killed Softimage.. Building 
anything similar to Softimage would cost a fortune to barely make a dent in the 
near monopoly we are experiencing.

What I am sure is that those developers are gold-dust and they will hopefully 
find an even better gig in the very near future.

Best wishes

jb


> On 28 Oct 2017, at 06:52, Christopher Crouzet  
> wrote:
> 
> I guess that this kind of comment only confirms how difficult it was for them 
> to market their product and get potential customers to understand its purpose.
> 
> Disappointed to see Fabric Engine coming to an end.
> 
> 
> On 28 October 2017 at 04:13, Gerbrand Nel  > wrote:
> IMHO Fabric targeted a ideological market that doesn't exist. The people who 
> loved ICE but needed to work in maya. 
> People like me.
> Well I think most of "us" tried but gave up because it still lived in maya. 
> You had to learn maya and fabric, and when something didn't work, you didn't 
> know if it was maya, fabric, or you.
> Fabric was like covering a turd in chocolate.
> If you are careful, you only taste chocolate, but softimage was forgiving and 
> turned us all into reckless 3d maniacs.
> There was no avoiding the turd!
> After about 3 months of this you realize that learning houdini just makes 
> more sense.
> I'm sad to see another great piece of software go, but like Jonathan said: 
> These folks should find their place in the sun soon!
> G
> 
> 
> On 2017/10/27 11:59 PM, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>> MPC and PSYOP output some great work with Fabric Engine but in the end I 
>> always felt it was too narrowly aimed at senior TD's with plenty of 
>> programming experience. The success of ICE was fuelled by the compounds that 
>> acted as a gateway drug to the inner workings. I thought maybe that Kraken 
>> would develop into that gateway drug, but after seeing experienced riggers 
>> feeling out of their comfort zone, soon realised it wasn't to be.
>> 
>> When Eric Mootz joined the team I thought maybe that would bring about tools 
>> for technically minded artists who weren't necessarily TD's.
>> 
>> Whatever the reasons I feel for the FE team after all their hard efforts. 
>> But I feel as one door closes others will open for them, folk with that much 
>> talent don't remain jobless for long.
>> 
>> On 27 October 2017 at 22:03, Matt Lind > > wrote:
>> It likely died for the reason you just stated - you 'eventually' wanted to
>> learn.  Problem is most people had the same sentiments.
>> 
>> They made the right move initially of targeting the space between the other
>> DCCs, but I think staying there long term was a mistake.
>> 
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> 
>> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:34:02 +
>> From: Andres Stephens >
>> Subject: RE: Softimage - not going away...
>> To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
>> 
>> This is devastating news!!! WTF!? I was betting on learning this and
>> eventually investing in it. I didn?t want to be locked into one software the
>> more I got into proceduralism.  Why!?
>> 
>> -Draise
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Softimage Mailing List.
>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com 
>>  with "unsubscribe" in the 
>> subject, and reply to confirm.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>Virus-free. www.avg.com 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Crouzet
> 

Re: Fabric engine is gone

[Michael Amasio]

That's too bad.
This is rough market.  There's not much money in developing better
solutions.  I guess we'll ride out our DCC's with ancient architecture, and
wait till one of us becomes a billionaire and funds something cutting edge.
I'd love to here more of the story of what happened from some of the
developers.

Guess I'll finally follow you to Houdini, Oliver.

On Oct 28, 2017 12:31 AM, "Olivier Jeannel"  wrote:

> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fabricengine.com=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=DtsmmPTf93ZHD6qAycXG89uMFCXtW0p3YhbMwhI7Ryg=FOXsIQgrS4XE5OmfYVQhj2Nvt995IFblDeuruMkgqwo=
> 
>
>
> --
> 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.

Fabric engine is gone

[Olivier Jeannel]

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fabricengine.com=DwIBaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=NGIA25JXPveaf5MIyjSYphp-EdBdUfzUWDPJRUxHmAc=7kg20PfKIhjC7adrNpSQ_8q1HKu7LJUyPif5TKQJYh8=
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.