Re: WireD plugin

[Stephan Hempel]

In 2015 it works. Be sure to use the latest version from
www.rray.de/xsi. I first tried an older version I had laying around
which threw an error, too.

Cheers,
Stephan.

am Montag, 12. Mai 2014 um 17:03 schriebst Du:

> Anyone still using this? I get an error when installing on 2014sp2.
> Thanks

Re: Dealing with CAD files format

[Stephan Hempel]

Hi would strongly recommend step-Files and convert them with MoI. So
you have full control over how the geometry gets meshed (MoI has quite
some options for tuning). And ask the client to keep the assembly
groups intact. So you have all building blocks properly named as
separate objects and don't have to deal with one single piece of
geometry. This way I had never any problems.
Try to stay away from IGES. I had always problems with missing
surfaces.
STL and WRML exports are already meshed. So it can be a bit of an
problem to clean the geometry.

Stephan.

am Dienstag, 13. August 2013 um 22:15 schriebst Du:

> Hi guys,

> Next week I shall receive a mecanical pieces generated with Solidworks.
> Because I'm dealing with an agency, they might won't be able to send an
> obj or fbx file.
> They propose various formats :
> Assemblage or Assembly (.asm)
> Part (.prt)
> Parasolid (.x_t)
> Iges (.igs)
> Step AP203 or AP214 (.stp)
> IFC 2x3 (.ifc)
> ACIS (.sat)
> STL (.stl)
> VRML (.wrl)
> Universal3D (.u3d)
> 3Dxml (.3dxml)
> Catia Graphics (.cgr)

> So my question is, what format should I ask and what software would you
> recomend  to open and save it in a classic polymesh format ? (preferably
> free...)

> I have an old Deep Exploration, I was thinking giving it a try. But if
> someone has a cool winning format + software to advice...

> Thank you !

> Olivier

Re: Dealing with CAD files format

[Stephan Hempel]

I don't know. As far as I know MoI imports only 3dm, iges, sat, step,
ai, eps, pdf and dxf.

No Parasolid files.

>From MoI I export obj. And with the export options you have good
control over the resulting mesh.

Stephan.
__
eisblau | produkt + prozessvisualisierung | animation + visual effects

Stephan Hempel
stephan.hem...@eisblaufx.net  Tel  +49.(0)3643.251186   Goetheplatz 9b
www.eisblau.deFunk +49.(0)179.1356295   99423 Weimar

am Mittwoch, 14. August 2013 um 16:36 schrieben Sie:

LOY> Stephan,

LOY> So Step files are better than Parasolids files?
LOY> Are you exporting obj from MoI to bring into XSI?

LOY> Thanks,
LOY> Leoung

LOY> On 8/14/2013 7:43 AM, Stephan Hempel wrote:
>> Hi would strongly recommend step-Files and convert them with MoI. So
>> you have full control over how the geometry gets meshed (MoI has quite
>> some options for tuning). And ask the client to keep the assembly
>> groups intact. So you have all building blocks properly named as
>> separate objects and don't have to deal with one single piece of
>> geometry. This way I had never any problems.
>> Try to stay away from IGES. I had always problems with missing
>> surfaces.
>> STL and WRML exports are already meshed. So it can be a bit of an
>> problem to clean the geometry.
>>
>> Stephan.
>>
>> am Dienstag, 13. August 2013 um 22:15 schriebst Du:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>> Next week I shall receive a mecanical pieces generated with Solidworks.
>>> Because I'm dealing with an agency, they might won't be able to send an
>>> obj or fbx file.
>>> They propose various formats :
>>> Assemblage or Assembly (.asm)
>>> Part (.prt)
>>> Parasolid (.x_t)
>>> Iges (.igs)
>>> Step AP203 or AP214 (.stp)
>>> IFC 2x3 (.ifc)
>>> ACIS (.sat)
>>> STL (.stl)
>>> VRML (.wrl)
>>> Universal3D (.u3d)
>>> 3Dxml (.3dxml)
>>> Catia Graphics (.cgr)
>>> So my question is, what format should I ask and what software would you
>>> recomend  to open and save it in a classic polymesh format ? (preferably
>>> free...)
>>> I have an old Deep Exploration, I was thinking giving it a try. But if
>>> someone has a cool winning format + software to advice...
>>> Thank you !
>>> Olivier
>>
>>
>>



-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Stephan Hempel
mailto:hempli...@web.de

Re: ocean surface generation - arete stylee

[Stephan Hempel]

are you looking for something like this:
http://www.si-community.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3504

Stephan.

am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013 um 23:23 schriebst Du:


Hi,

For those that remember the old Arete Psunami plugin...

I always liked ocean surface geometry generator, the one that gave you a grid 
with fine detail close up and low detail in the distance and that was only 
generated within the cameras field of view.
I think it kept the girid lines it aligned with the camera as well.

Does anyone know of something similar floating around?

I'd love to have the time to figure out an ICE topo tree to create it but no 
such chance right now.

(hm.. could try projecting a grid from the camera position onto a ground plane 
though!)

Thanks,

Adam. 

-
http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamseeleyuk
https://vimeo.com/adamseeley





From: Toonafish 
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com 
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 15:11
Subject: Re: Envelope freeze


why not create a duplicate of the character, freeze it, and then toggle render 
visibility of the enveloped and frozen one? Simple but effective.

- Ronald


On 8/22/2013 15:47, Eric Lampi wrote:
Can anyone think of a clever way to "freeze" a mesh that's enveloped but not 
destructively?

I'm adding some simulation functions to our character rig, basically just a 
copy of the enveloped mesh that I am using for particle generation. In order 
for my setup to work, it needs to be a static pose. So what I am looking for is 
a way to remove the envelope's influence on a frame I choose, but keeping that 
static pose. Something like when you mute the envelope operator, but the mesh 
needs to stay in that pose and not snap back to it's pre-enveloped position.

I want to be able to re-enable the envelope if I need to.

Thanks,
Eric


Freelance 3D and VFX animator

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

Re: registeronce browser gotcha?

[Stephan Hempel]

I had the same issues this year with registering Si2015 and the SiMaya
Bundle with Firefox. The only way was registering through Autodesk
support directly.

Cheers,
Stephan.

Re: Lets Hope Autodesk Buys the Foundry!

[Stephan Hempel]

Best thing would be if the community i.e. some big and small studios
would unite to a cooperative, throw in their money and would buy the
whole thing. Very unlikely though that this happens.

Stephan.

am Dienstag, 16. Dezember 2014 um 12:37 schrieben Sie:

pbc> Its starting to feel that the safest thing to use, with the most 
predictable
pbc> future is XSI.

pbc> -Original Message- 
pbc> From: Leendert A. Hartog
pbc> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:13 AM
pbc> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
pbc> Subject: Re: Lets Hope Autodesk Buys the Foundry!

pbc> Like I said:  deliberately bold statement!  
pbc> Luckily we won't have a say in it...

pbc> Greetz
pbc> Leendert

Re: Normal Maps in Softimage

[Stephan Hempel]

Hi Adam,

for scaling the strength of normal maps you could try the Mix8Vectors
Shader by Daniel Rind. You find it on http://rray.de/xsi/

Stephan.

am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 um 08:14 schrieben Sie:


So, My Softimage decided to play hardball with me and stopped working earlier 
this evening. 

What I had wanted to test out tonight were Normal Maps in Softimage. I don't do 
a whole lot of texturing , and have known the normal map to be a little strange 
in my past dealings with it. 

One of my students is having an issue generating normal maps out of mudbox and 
getting them to work in Softimage. 

Is anyone having success with this, or do you generally import high res meshes 
into soft and use Ultimapper to create the maps.

When creating maps, is it best to create 16 bit or float maps/ Do they always 
give superior results to 8 bit? 

My main issue with the normal maps out of Mudbox, is that they don't look like 
the correct scale or relief of the normals mesh in midbox, or even when I apply 
the normals to a similar mesh in Maya, and the fact the normal map 3 node 
doesnt allow us to scale normals is a bit perplexing.

The workaround with mixing the normal map with a mix 2 color node set to mix 
with RGB at .5 and B at 1 doesn't quite cut it.. 

Is there a good working solution that I am simply missing? 

A better normalMap node perhaps? 

Irie..
Adam







-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Stephan Hempel
mailto:hempli...@web.de

Re: Mia architectural highlights, bug?

[Stephan Hempel]

It seems like the infamous burned highlights problem which occurs when
you are lighting with IBL and normal lights.

When you are using the already mentioned Advanced MIA material you
have to activate "Clamp Maximum for HDR rendering" at the bottom of
the Optimization Tab and set to something reasonable like 1.2 or so.
So the highlights are clamped and don't burn out.

Another option is to tweak the "Highlight vs Reflection Balance" on
the Additional Options Tab and set it to a very low value like 0.1 or
less.

Generally it's a good idea to deactive the specular contribution off
the lights if your lighting with IBL.

Cheers,
Stephan.

Re: Softimage Devs petition

[Stephan Hempel]

Maybe Autodesk should sell the whole M&E division to the community
 before they dump any valuable asset into the ground and therefore decrease the 
total value of M&E. Given that M&E only contributes 7% to their profits lets me 
wonder why they moved into this business in the first place.

I think Autodesk would lose quite a few customers to the competition, 
especially smaller studios. So it would be utterly stupid to stop developing 
Softimage. 

Cheers,
Stephan.



am Montag, 3. März 2014 um 19:09 schriebst Du:

> That would be bad news. I hope it's not true but I'm sure many
> people on this list are not surprised given AD's strategy, or lack of, with 
> SI.

> Honestly though it doesn't make good business sense to develop 3
> dcc apps that overlap in many ways, so it shouldn't be unexpected
> for a company like AD to scrap redundancies and pool resources to one product 
> at some point.


> On 3/3/2014 11:19 AM, Emilio Hernandez wrote:
> Yes tomorrow is supposed to be the "official" announcement.  

> Maybe also they leaked this rumor before to see how would we react,
> and how much of us will "convert" to that F$2#%&$2!"#&& Maya.

>  


> 2014-03-03 11:13 GMT-06:00 Eric Thivierge :
> Wait until tomorrow...  rumored to be posted then. 


> On 3/3/2014 11:56 AM, Doeke Wartena wrote:
> Does someone have a link where i can read si2015 is the last one?

> And if so, that's so tragic.

Re: Softimage Devs petition

[Stephan Hempel]

unfortunately so true... In my opinion as a company you should not
only have a responsibility for your products but also towards your
customers. But as seen in the last couple of years this seams not more
relevant to stock corporations.

The misfortune with Autodesk is that a whole industry is depended on
their decisions which should give them quite some responsibility.

Stephan.

PG> I don't think Autodesk cares at ALL about any of the M&E packages
PG> they own.  They've recognized the value of patents and
PG> intellectual property.  It's the reason IBM is still around today.
PG> If Autodesk scoops up all the intellectual property, it doesn't
PG> matter if they cancel every M&E product they own as long as they
PG> can sue anyone who uses one of their patents without paying for it.

PG> Joe Alter ring a bell to anyone?

PG> Why hasn't there been more innovation in hair?  Hmmm...


PG>  ?



PG> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Stephan Hempel  wrote:
PG> Maybe Autodesk should sell the whole M&E division to the community
PG>  before they dump any valuable asset into the ground and
PG> therefore decrease the total value of M&E. Given that M&E only
PG> contributes 7% to their profits lets me wonder why they moved into
PG> this business in the first place.

PG> I think Autodesk would lose quite a few customers to the
PG> competition, especially smaller studios. So it would be utterly
PG> stupid to stop developing Softimage.

PG> Cheers,
PG> Stephan.



PG> am Montag, 3. März 2014 um 19:09 schriebst Du:

>> That would be bad news. I hope it's not true but I'm sure many
>> people on this list are not surprised given AD's strategy, or lack of, with 
>> SI.

>> Honestly though it doesn't make good business sense to develop 3
>> dcc apps that overlap in many ways, so it shouldn't be unexpected
>> for a company like AD to scrap redundancies and pool resources to one 
>> product at some point.


>> On 3/3/2014 11:19 AM, Emilio Hernandez wrote:
>> Yes tomorrow is supposed to be the "official" announcement.

>> Maybe also they leaked this rumor before to see how would we react,
>> and how much of us will "convert" to that F$2#%&$2!"#&& Maya.




>> 2014-03-03 11:13 GMT-06:00 Eric Thivierge :
>> Wait until tomorrow...  rumored to be posted then.


>> On 3/3/2014 11:56 AM, Doeke Wartena wrote:
>> Does someone have a link where i can read si2015 is the last one?

>> And if so, that's so tragic.














-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Stephan Hempel
mailto:hempli...@web.de

Re: A way forward - We are kingmakers.

[Stephan Hempel]

ommitments at this point -- just a list of interested parties 
who might be curious enough to be part of the conversation, pending whatever 
other conversations need to be had with superiors.  I.e., it's understood that 
nobody is speaking for their companies at this point.  Just indicating that 
they think their company *might* be interested.

I'll start:

Psyop
Massmarket




On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Felix Geremus  
wrote:

You are probably right. But these times are a little bit different and maybe 
that's exactly the one chance inside all this mess. We're all sitting in the 
same boat at the same time. I know a lot of studios who entirely rely on 
Softimage for lighting. All of these will have to spend time and thus money to 
move on to another pipeline during the next two years anyway. So why not invest 
at least parts of this time into the same thing? Individuals are great, and the 
community should absolutely try. But it's so hard to put something like this 
together in your spare time. A few studios supporting and profiting from this 
effort would accelerate the whole process immensely. And about showing 
potential: wasn't Stage, and all the other fabric applications build for 
exactly this reason? To show the potential of such a project?




2014-03-04 21:55 GMT+01:00 Steven Caron :


it is a bit harder for visual effects vendors/studios, in an already difficult 
market, spending money on software development (not their core business) is a 
hard sell. seeing a product or product in development on the other hand drums 
up interest which leads to real investment and collaboration. they need to see 
if their ideas are aligned with others on the project. don't take my comment as 
discouragement, it is just how i see it... for now it will be on individuals to 
come together on a project which shows potential. i hope we, the remaining 
softimage community, can do that together. again, not discouragement to any 
studio which wants to partner to make something happen... 

steven



On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Felix Geremus  
wrote:



So now that Softimage will be gone, isn't there room or even need for 
collaboration here? Before everybody tries to build something themselves, 
shouldn't people try to bundle forces? And I'm not only talking about 
individuals here. I'm talking about small to medium size companies who couldn't 
afford to build something like this alone.





-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Stephan Hempel
mailto:hempli...@web.de

Re: License to END if you migrate?!

[Stephan Hempel]

I have always had the impression that at Autodesk more lawyers are
employed then developers. This seems to prove it. Ohh I hate lawyers!
They make the world so complicated!

By the way can Autodesk be sued for damages for nonperformance? At
least the big studios have a mayor financial damage by this situation
(rebuilding their piplines, transitioning assets, retraining personnel).
But I guess they are not eligible for transitioning if they are doing
so.

Stephan.

> Hi Jens,
> Yes, if you want to keep using Softimage after two years that is
> the case. This really is a transition offer and our ability to offer
> free software was conditional on customers fully transitioning
> either 3ds Max and Maya. I will pass on the feedback but these
> conditions were imposed by the revenue accounting guidelines we follow.
> Maurice

> Maurice Patel
> Autodesk : Tél:  514 954-7134

> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Jens Lindgren
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:41 PM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: Re: License to END if you migrate?!

> @Maurice: Right now I'm on a 3ds Max Entertainemnt Creation Suite
> Premium license, wich as I understand it, will be upgraded to a Ultimate 
> Suite.
> Am I supposed to not renew my subscription if I want to keep using
> Softimage, and loose all Autodesk software, and then buy a new
> fucking Suite Ultimate to get Max, Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder again?
> I just can't believe I even have to ask the question, it's just so stupid.

> /Jens



> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Rob Chapman
> mailto:tekano@gmail.com>> wrote:
> like we could trust our own various crooked governments to sort
> this particular piece of greed & bullshit out. HAHAHA..

> a small example. are Strands going to be ready in Maya by 2016? or
> is Max that gets this small nugget of Softimage legacy uniqueness. An ICE 
> plugin perhaps?

> is there a list made where all the non easily transferable useful
> bits  (and made a living off) are to be found or eventually end up
> in 2016?  because they sure as hell do not exist right now in any
> other software that autodesk currently offers.






> On 4 March 2014 20:11, Paul Griswold
> mailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com>>
>  wrote:
> I doubt you'd be able to do anything class action (though I'm not a
> lawyer, so what do I know).  But I do think if enough people
> contacted their government representative about Autodesk's
> anti-competitive movement / monopolistic behavior, you'd see something happen.

> Autodesk is what Microsoft used to be.  Perhaps it's time for a
> little government oversight / investigation?

> -Paul

> [https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=acGdyaXN3b2xkQGZ1c2lvbmRpZ2l0YWxwcm9kdWN0aW9ucy5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=5ea39e17-2146-43c0-8bc8-94b59c9df0b1]?



> --
> Jens Lindgren
> --
> Lead Technical Director
> Magoo 3D Studios

Re: A way forward - We are kingmakers.

[Stephan Hempel]

Hi Felix,

well I put this post on purpose in this thread. It's targeted
primarily at FabricEngine because I have the impression that regarding
their business model they are settled (they have a venture capitalist
in their back according to their website) but I suppose not so tight
as other companies (The Foundry being a part of Carlyle Group for
example).

On the other hand I wanted to give Maurice Patel (in all modesty) an
idea about some options in the unlikely event that Autodesk would sell
the M&E division in the future (which imho I think is not so unlikely
at all for the stated reasons).

But you are right a separate thread would be better. I leave this to
the others if someone wants to contribute since I have everything said
what I wanted to say.

Cheers,
Stephan.







> He Stephan and all. Thanks for your words. But let's try to keep
> this thread constructive and on topic. Which is about what to do
> next, and if there is interest in a combined effort to create a
> scene assembly tool based on fabric (or something else)
> specifically. There are more than enough threads to vent your
> feelings about this messed up situation already. 


> 2014-03-05 5:48 GMT+01:00 Alex Arce :
> Wow Stephan,

> Thanks for sharing. I remember in some of my early days with
> Softimage CE (starting 21 years ago), Spans+Partners work on some of
> the early Softimage reels inspiring me to explore more. It makes me
> happy to be reminded of this so many years later, even at such a
> depressing moment it Softimage history.

> Thanks again,

> Alex



> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Stephan Hempel  wrote:
> after laying around the whole night and couldn't sleep here are my 2 cents on 
> the whole situation.

> When you look at the history of Softimage it's quite obvious that
> developing a software for this industry is quite a challenge. I
> think there is reason why Daniel Langlois sold Softimage to
> Microsoft, because he couldn't stand the developing costs for a
> complete rewrite anymore. And when you see how long it took until
> XSI and later Moondust got on the market you may have glimpse what
> it means to develop a piece Software with this kind of sophistication.

> I can only hope that FabricEngine and all the others develop a
> better business model then the traditional one with investors
> outside of the industry who are not bound to the company they are
> invested in and can sell their investment at anytime to anywhom. I
> think the only solution are strong bounds into the 3D industry itself.

> I want to show you an example. In the Germany there is a company
> called DATEV. They do a very unsexy thing: tax accounting software.
> But the interesting part is that this company has been built by its
> customers and is owned by its customers in form of a cooperative
> society. The company exists since 1966 which gives you an idea about
> the stability and longevity of such the business model.
> More info about you find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datev

> As manufacturing 3D software is obviously not a highly profitable
> business (or why else Softimage got sold from the founder via
> Microsoft throught AVID to Autodesk, Maya from Wavefront through
> Alias to Autodesk, 3dsmax from Kinetix through discreet* to Autodesk)
> I can only strongly recommend to stay away from financal investors
> and the stock market and try to finance the development through the 3D 
> industry itself.

> By the way if you look at Autodesk's latest business figures then
> you get the impression that big troubles can arise. Last years
> revenue dropped significantly especially when you compare it to the
> performance of the competition in the engineering sector.
> Engineering is 93% of their business by the way. M&E only
> contributes 7% to their revenue and is decreasing.
> Related to that I don't think that cloud based services which is
> supposedly the next big thing is wanted by such a conservative
> industry like the engineering industry is. And believe me or not
> they are conservative. I have some clients in this field. When this
> cloud based thing goes down the drain it is likely that Autodesk
> gets in big trouble and will therefore concentrate on its core
> business and will as consequence sell its stepchild M&E to whomever
> may have an interest in it (hopefully not a financial investor).

> Well I have no glass ball in front of me but I think the 3D
> industry should be prepared for such a situation since Autodesk has
> a dominant market position and apparently no one seems to care.

> It's a shame their will be no other software with a
> middle-click-this-button-to-repeat-the-last-command functionality
> anymore because Autodesk owns the patent on this and many other
> 

Another obituary

[Stephan Hempel]

http://www.redsharknews.com/post/item/1517-autodesk-shuts-down-softimage

Cheers,
Stephan

Re: Update to the Softtimage Transition Plan

[Stephan Hempel]

Since there still seems some chance for improvement of the current
situation I have yet another suggestion although I am sure that we
can't turn the wheel back.

It was stated that quite some schools use Softimage for teaching 3D
for obvious reasons. There shouldn't be a reason why they are stopping
this instantly. With no other software you can gain so much basic
understanding of 3D in a short amount of time so hazzlefree like with
Si. Learning 3D can be such a daunting experience. Boy, if I had made
my final film with Softimage instead of Maya... No student needs the
newest version of a 3D software. Even we professionals very rarely use
its full potential. And when you have learned the basics you can
easily transfer them to other packages.

At the same time it is clear Autodesk can't offer a viable alternative
to Si at this point in time. To be honest I don't think there will be
an alternative on the horizon without a major rewrite of Maya and we
all know how long this can take (How long took Moondust?)

Imho, a good compromise for all would be if Autodesk stopped active
development besides of bug fixing and opening up the SDK for third
party development and let Si remain in its product portfolio. To be
honest I find it an absolute ridiculous idea to stop selling a product
within 2 weeks time. A product which doesn't cost any more money and
has still the potential to earn some shouldn't be put from the market.
What if in the future a company decides it needs Softimage for a
certain task?

Related to this with FabricEngine some promising developments are
coming which mean that the host application doesn't necessary needs to
be active developed and can nonetheless live on for quite some time
by third party development. I see FabricEngine in a form of "geriatric
care" for retired Softimage. That would also give everybody more
breath for transitioning to possibly upcoming alternatives. So don't
put it this abruptly from the market. It simply doesn't make any
sense.

Second thought to this. As a solo entrepreneur never having seen a
large studio from the inside I have only a notion of how complex large
studio piplines for film or games can be. But I find two years for
transitioning especially for large studios a ridicioulus short amount
of time. Most likely you are cought in production right now, in
preproduction for the next show and planning a sequal for a Softimage
produced film afterwards. And then you should rebuild your whole
pipeline right in the middle within 24 months?
Especially in the sensitive state the VFX industry is right in the
moment? (I've just watched "Life after Pi", quite depressing)
So 5 to 10 years would be a much more reasonable amount of time for
transitioning especially for the large studios. This would also help
that 3rd party development doesn't cease so rapidly.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Stephan.


MP> Hi everyone,

MP> I have an update to the Softimage Transition Plan to share with you:

MP> When we created the initial Softimage transition plan our desire
MP> was to provide our customers with
MP> an easy, no-cost path to transition  to either 3ds Max or Maya. 
MP> We have been monitoring all of your
MP> feedback on the forums, including many direct conversations with our 
customers, and have made
MP> adjustments to the transition offering to address your concerns. 
MP> As we had previously announced, a
MP> program is available to all Softimage customers on Subscription providing 
you with the option of
MP> migrating to 3ds Max or Maya via a bundle that will include a
MP> Softimage license until April 2016. 
MP> Based on your feedback we will be adding the ability to continue to access 
Softimage indefinitely
MP> with your Subscription entitlement even after we stop support on
MP> Softimage in April 2016.   We have
MP> heard you and we want to make sure you can continue to be able to
MP> access your Softimage projects even
MP> after the retirement of Softimage.  Our intention was not to
MP> create more burden on you with this
MP> difficult change.

MP> As many of you have also asked about this, we would also like to
MP> clarify what will happen if you do
MP> not want to transition: your licenses will not stop working. Any licenses 
you have purchased are
MP> yours. They are perpetual licenses and will continue working
MP> whether you are on Subscription or not.
MP> You will continue to be able to contact support if you need to move a 
license to a new machine.

MP> maurice
MP> Maurice Patel
MP> Autodesk : Tél:  514 954-7134