NURBS improvements petition

[Eugen Sares]

Dear respected members of this community,
since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be 
beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems 
to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:


http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nurbs

... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage 
in this!

Thanks a lot!!
Best regards,
Eugen


Here's the text I put on that change.org page:

"Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and 
restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful 
for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last 
happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!


Improvement list, sorted by importance:
- fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
- support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as 
consistently as polygon islands,
- improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom 
tools, including NURBS,

- add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
- add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be 
done by 3rd parties also),

- ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).

Affected areas:
- curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, 
floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
- ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex 
animations and visualizations,
- better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design 
objects,...



To Cory Mogk -
Why NURBS should be improved:
First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other 
applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be 
fundamental in 3D graphics.


Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new 
procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage 
competitive in that field.


Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian 
restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly 
introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might 
not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they 
mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to 
internal proven workflows.
Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, 
would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.


Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable 
complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still 
unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to 
show that the interest is there.
So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in 
that area a great deal!

Thank you!"

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Angus Davidson]

Hi Eugen

Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac
Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(

Kind regards

Angus



On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:

>Dear respected members of this community,
>since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
>beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems
>to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:
>
>http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nurb
>s
>
>... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage
>in this!
>Thanks a lot!!
>Best regards,
>Eugen
>
>
>Here's the text I put on that change.org page:
>
>"Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
>restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
>Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
>for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
>happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!
>
>Improvement list, sorted by importance:
>- fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
>- support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
>consistently as polygon islands,
>- improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
>tools, including NURBS,
>- add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
>- add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be
>done by 3rd parties also),
>- ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).
>
>Affected areas:
>- curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
>floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
>- ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex
>animations and visualizations,
>- better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design
>objects,...
>
>
>To Cory Mogk -
>Why NURBS should be improved:
>First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
>applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
>Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
>fundamental in 3D graphics.
>
>Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
>procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
>competitive in that field.
>
>Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian
>restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
>introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
>Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
>not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they
>mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to
>internal proven workflows.
>Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers,
>would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.
>
>Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable
>complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still
>unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to
>show that the interest is there.
>So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in
>that area a great deal!
>Thank you!"
>

 

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: NURBS improvements petition

[Eugen Sares]

That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...


Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:

Hi Eugen

Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac
Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(

Kind regards

Angus



On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:


Dear respected members of this community,
since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems
to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:

http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nurb
s

... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage
in this!
Thanks a lot!!
Best regards,
Eugen


Here's the text I put on that change.org page:

"Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!

Improvement list, sorted by importance:
- fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
- support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
consistently as polygon islands,
- improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
tools, including NURBS,
- add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
- add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be
done by 3rd parties also),
- ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).

Affected areas:
- curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
- ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex
animations and visualizations,
- better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design
objects,...


To Cory Mogk -
Why NURBS should be improved:
First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
fundamental in 3D graphics.

Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
competitive in that field.

Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian
restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they
mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to
internal proven workflows.
Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers,
would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.

Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable
complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still
unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to
show that the interest is there.
So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in
that area a great deal!
Thank you!"




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: NURBS improvements petition

[Angus Davidson]

Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial
company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect the
bottom line its just not relevant.



On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:

>That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
>Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...
>
>
>Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>> Hi Eugen
>>
>> Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my
>>Mac
>> Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Angus
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear respected members of this community,
>>> since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
>>> beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems
>>> to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:
>>>
>>> 
>>>http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu
>>>rb
>>> s
>>>
>>> ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage
>>> in this!
>>> Thanks a lot!!
>>> Best regards,
>>> Eugen
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the text I put on that change.org page:
>>>
>>> "Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
>>> restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
>>> Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
>>> for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
>>> happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!
>>>
>>> Improvement list, sorted by importance:
>>> - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
>>> - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
>>> consistently as polygon islands,
>>> - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
>>> tools, including NURBS,
>>> - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
>>> - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can
>>>be
>>> done by 3rd parties also),
>>> - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).
>>>
>>> Affected areas:
>>> - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
>>> floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
>>> - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex
>>> animations and visualizations,
>>> - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars,
>>>design
>>> objects,...
>>>
>>>
>>> To Cory Mogk -
>>> Why NURBS should be improved:
>>> First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
>>> applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
>>> Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
>>> fundamental in 3D graphics.
>>>
>>> Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
>>> procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
>>> competitive in that field.
>>>
>>> Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian
>>> restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
>>> introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
>>> Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
>>> not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because
>>>they
>>> mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to
>>> internal proven workflows.
>>> Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers,
>>> would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.
>>>
>>> Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable
>>> complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is
>>>still
>>> unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to
>>> show that the interest is there.
>>> So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in
>>> that area a great deal!
>>> Thank you!"
>>>
>> >style="width:100%;">
>> 
>> >face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#99">>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. 
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
>
>
>

 

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. 

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Eugen Sares]

Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and 
probably everybody else) how many users actually want this.
I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only 
fool... ; )


But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I 
need this? If yes, sign it.

No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation.

By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs 
would get fixed.



Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson:

Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial
company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect the
bottom line its just not relevant.



On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:


That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...


Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:

Hi Eugen

Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my
Mac
Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(

Kind regards

Angus



On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:


Dear respected members of this community,
since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems
to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:


http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu
rb
s

... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage
in this!
Thanks a lot!!
Best regards,
Eugen


Here's the text I put on that change.org page:

"Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!

Improvement list, sorted by importance:
- fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
- support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
consistently as polygon islands,
- improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
tools, including NURBS,
- add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
- add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can
be
done by 3rd parties also),
- ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).

Affected areas:
- curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
- ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex
animations and visualizations,
- better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars,
design
objects,...


To Cory Mogk -
Why NURBS should be improved:
First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
fundamental in 3D graphics.

Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
competitive in that field.

Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian
restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because
they
mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to
internal proven workflows.
Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers,
would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.

Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable
complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is
still
unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to
show that the interest is there.
So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in
that area a great deal!
Thank you!"




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. 










This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please not

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Ognjen Vukovic]

Signed,

And i sincerely hope that something comes out of this.


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Eugen Sares  wrote:

> Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and
> probably everybody else) how many users actually want this.
> I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only
> fool... ; )
>
> But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I need
> this? If yes, sign it.
> No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation.
>
> By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs
> would get fixed.
>
>
> Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>
>  Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial
>> company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect the
>> bottom line its just not relevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>>
>>  That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
>>> Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>>>
 Hi Eugen

 Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my
 Mac
 Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(

 Kind regards

 Angus



 On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:

  Dear respected members of this community,
> since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
> beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems
> to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:
>
>
> http://www.change.org/**petitions/autodesk-softimage-**
> management-improve-nu
> rb
> s
>
> ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage
> in this!
> Thanks a lot!!
> Best regards,
> Eugen
>
>
> Here's the text I put on that change.org page:
>
> "Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
> restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
> Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
> for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
> happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!
>
> Improvement list, sorted by importance:
> - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
> - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
> consistently as polygon islands,
> - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
> tools, including NURBS,
> - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
> - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can
> be
> done by 3rd parties also),
> - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).
>
> Affected areas:
> - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
> floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
> - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex
> animations and visualizations,
> - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars,
> design
> objects,...
>
>
> To Cory Mogk -
> Why NURBS should be improved:
> First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
> applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
> Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
> fundamental in 3D graphics.
>
> Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
> procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
> competitive in that field.
>
> Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian
> restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
> introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
> Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
> not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because
> they
> mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to
> internal proven workflows.
> Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers,
> would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.
>
> Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable
> complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is
> still
> unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to
> show that the interest is there.
> So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in
> that area a great deal!
> Thank you!"
>
>  >>> style="width:100%;">
 
 <**font
 face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#99" style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Stephen Davidson]

signed ... crossing fingers.


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ognjen Vukovic  wrote:

> Signed,
>
> And i sincerely hope that something comes out of this.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Eugen Sares wrote:
>
>> Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and
>> probably everybody else) how many users actually want this.
>> I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only
>> fool... ; )
>>
>> But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I need
>> this? If yes, sign it.
>> No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation.
>>
>> By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs
>> would get fixed.
>>
>>
>> Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>>
>>  Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial
>>> company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect
>>> the
>>> bottom line its just not relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>>>
>>>  That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
 Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...


 Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:

> Hi Eugen
>
> Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my
> Mac
> Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(
>
> Kind regards
>
> Angus
>
>
>
> On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>
>  Dear respected members of this community,
>> since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
>> beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems
>> to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:
>>
>>
>> http://www.change.org/**petitions/autodesk-softimage-**
>> management-improve-nu
>> rb
>> s
>>
>> ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage
>> in this!
>> Thanks a lot!!
>> Best regards,
>> Eugen
>>
>>
>> Here's the text I put on that change.org page:
>>
>> "Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
>> restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
>> Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
>> for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
>> happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!
>>
>> Improvement list, sorted by importance:
>> - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
>> - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
>> consistently as polygon islands,
>> - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
>> tools, including NURBS,
>> - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
>> - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can
>> be
>> done by 3rd parties also),
>> - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).
>>
>> Affected areas:
>> - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
>> floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
>> - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more
>> complex
>> animations and visualizations,
>> - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars,
>> design
>> objects,...
>>
>>
>> To Cory Mogk -
>> Why NURBS should be improved:
>> First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
>> applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
>> Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
>> fundamental in 3D graphics.
>>
>> Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
>> procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
>> competitive in that field.
>>
>> Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian
>> restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
>> introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
>> Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
>> not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because
>> they
>> mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to
>> internal proven workflows.
>> Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers,
>> would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed.
>>
>> Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable
>> complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is
>> still
>> unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant
>> to
>> show that the interest is there.
>> So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softim

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Eugen Sares]

I'm giving this one more bump, so maybe there's one or the other willing 
to support this, too. So far it's 50.


Before any of you "major" users start stomping the "minor" ones into the 
ground with the usual argument that ANYthing else is more important, let 
me add:
this is also about a better operator SDK, which is still a major 
handicap to add any modeling (including NURBS) tools.

This would also cater to the big studios, I am sure.
Cheers!


Am 30.07.2013 20:18, schrieb Stephen Davidson:

signed ... crossing fingers.


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ognjen Vukovic > wrote:


Signed,

And i sincerely hope that something comes out of this.



On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Eugen Sares
mailto:sof...@mail.sprit.org>> wrote:

Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the
management (and probably everybody else) how many users
actually want this.
I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even
the only fool... ; )

But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself -
could I need this? If yes, sign it.
No probability scenarios should be put into that simple
calculation.

By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful
of bugs would get fixed.


Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson:

Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had
a commercial
company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't
seriously affect the
bottom line its just not relevant.



On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"
mailto:sof...@mail.sprit.org>> wrote:

That depends on how many people utter their interest
in this.
Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...


Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:

Hi Eugen

Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately
suspect I will get my
Mac
Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs
tools happen. ;(

Kind regards

Angus



On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"
mailto:sof...@mail.sprit.org>> wrote:

Dear respected members of this community,
since I am confident that progress on NURBS
tools and SDK would be
beneficial for a relevant part of the
Softimage userbase, and it seems
to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm
starting this petition:



http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu
rb
s

... for which I kindly ask support from
anybody that sees an advantage
in this!
Thanks a lot!!
Best regards,
Eugen


Here's the text I put on that change.org
 page:

"Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a
number of bugs and
restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
Since NURBS are and will continue to be a
viable geometry type useful
for many worflows, they should be subject to
an upgrade, which last
happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!

Improvement list, sorted by importance:
- fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported
in the beta,
- support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and
existing tools - as
consistently as polygon islands,
- improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless
integration of custom
tools, including NURBS,
- add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
- add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable
SDK is provided, this can
be
done by 3rd parties also),
- ideally, introduce T-Spline technology
(owned by Autodesk).

Affected areas:
- curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text,
logos, mechanical parts,
floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
- ICE based procedural modeling and 

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Cristobal Infante]

Signed, good luck ;)


On 1 August 2013 12:55, Eugen Sares  wrote:

>  I'm giving this one more bump, so maybe there's one or the other willing
> to support this, too. So far it's 50.
>
> Before any of you "major" users start stomping the "minor" ones into the
> ground with the usual argument that ANYthing else is more important, let me
> add:
> this is also about a better operator SDK, which is still a major handicap
> to add any modeling (including NURBS) tools.
> This would also cater to the big studios, I am sure.
> Cheers!
>
>
> Am 30.07.2013 20:18, schrieb Stephen Davidson:
>
> signed ... crossing fingers.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ognjen Vukovic  wrote:
>
>> Signed,
>>
>> And i sincerely hope that something comes out of this.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Eugen Sares wrote:
>>
>>> Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and
>>> probably everybody else) how many users actually want this.
>>> I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only
>>> fool... ; )
>>>
>>> But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I
>>> need this? If yes, sign it.
>>> No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation.
>>>
>>> By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs
>>> would get fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>>>
>>>  Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial
 company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect
 the
 bottom line its just not relevant.



 On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:

  That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
> Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...
>
>
> Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>
>> Hi Eugen
>>
>> Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my
>> Mac
>> Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Angus
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>>
>>  Dear respected members of this community,
>>> since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
>>> beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it
>>> seems
>>> to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu
>>> rb
>>> s
>>>
>>> ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an
>>> advantage
>>> in this!
>>> Thanks a lot!!
>>> Best regards,
>>> Eugen
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the text I put on that change.org page:
>>>
>>> "Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
>>> restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
>>> Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful
>>> for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
>>> happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!
>>>
>>> Improvement list, sorted by importance:
>>> - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
>>> - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
>>> consistently as polygon islands,
>>> - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
>>> tools, including NURBS,
>>> - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
>>> - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can
>>> be
>>> done by 3rd parties also),
>>> - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).
>>>
>>> Affected areas:
>>> - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
>>> floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
>>> - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more
>>> complex
>>> animations and visualizations,
>>> - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars,
>>> design
>>> objects,...
>>>
>>>
>>> To Cory Mogk -
>>> Why NURBS should be improved:
>>> First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
>>> applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
>>> Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
>>> fundamental in 3D graphics.
>>>
>>> Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
>>> procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage
>>> competitive in that field.
>>>
>>> Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and
>>> monetarian
>>> restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly
>>> introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'.
>>> Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might
>>> not even be that better NURB

Re: NURBS improvements petition

[Ahmidou Lyazidi]

I don't know a japanese specific list, but if so, you can try on this side.

---
Ahmidou Lyazidi
Director | TD | CG artist
http://vimeo.com/ahmidou/videos
http://www.cappuccino-films.com


2013/8/5 Cristobal Infante 

> Signed, good luck ;)
>
>
> On 1 August 2013 12:55, Eugen Sares  wrote:
>
>>  I'm giving this one more bump, so maybe there's one or the other
>> willing to support this, too. So far it's 50.
>>
>> Before any of you "major" users start stomping the "minor" ones into the
>> ground with the usual argument that ANYthing else is more important, let me
>> add:
>> this is also about a better operator SDK, which is still a major handicap
>> to add any modeling (including NURBS) tools.
>> This would also cater to the big studios, I am sure.
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>> Am 30.07.2013 20:18, schrieb Stephen Davidson:
>>
>> signed ... crossing fingers.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ognjen Vukovic wrote:
>>
>>> Signed,
>>>
>>> And i sincerely hope that something comes out of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Eugen Sares wrote:
>>>
 Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and
 probably everybody else) how many users actually want this.
 I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only
 fool... ; )

 But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I
 need this? If yes, sign it.
 No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation.

 By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs
 would get fixed.


 Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson:

  Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial
> company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect
> the
> bottom line its just not relevant.
>
>
>
> On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>
>  That depends on how many people utter their interest in this.
>> Hope you see the dependancy-cycle...
>>
>>
>> Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson:
>>
>>> Hi Eugen
>>>
>>> Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get
>>> my
>>> Mac
>>> Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;(
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Angus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, "Eugen Sares"  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear respected members of this community,
 since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be
 beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it
 seems
 to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition:



 http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu
 rb
 s

 ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an
 advantage
 in this!
 Thanks a lot!!
 Best regards,
 Eugen


 Here's the text I put on that change.org page:

 "Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and
 restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK.
 Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type
 useful
 for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last
 happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago!

 Improvement list, sorted by importance:
 - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta,
 - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as
 consistently as polygon islands,
 - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom
 tools, including NURBS,
 - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling,
 - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this
 can
 be
 done by 3rd parties also),
 - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk).

 Affected areas:
 - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts,
 floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,...
 - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more
 complex
 animations and visualizations,
 - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars,
 design
 objects,...


 To Cory Mogk -
 Why NURBS should be improved:
 First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other
 applications just for basic curve/surface modeling.
 Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be
 fundamental in 3D graphics.

 Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new
 procedural modeling/rigging