Wondering myself - as we have used ICE extensively to huge set dressing and
creation of bushes etc.. for Khumba - worked like a charm - and using that
'other' renderer proved to be the cherry on the top - we certainly did not hit
any walls.
S.
_____________________________
Sandy Sutherland
Technical Supervisor
sandy.sutherl...@triggerfish.co.za
_____________________________
________________________________________
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] on behalf of Stefan Kubicek
[s...@tidbit-images.com]
Sent: 06 September 2012 17:22
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: ICE in Maya is an engineer's worst nightmare
Scalability is a good buzzword, but what does it actually mean?
Does it mean you can "process" more "data" in the same amount of time compared
to another app? And
what kind of data? Procedural geometry? Rendered Images? Does it mean you can
load more assets into the same amount of available RAM on a machine compared to
another app?
How would the automation of such processes need to look like to scale well?
Scripted? C++? Node-based like ICE?
Multithreading across the board? Or is it a question of architecture rather
than which programming language was used to implement it (scripted vs C++)?
What does Maya offer in this regard, or where does it differ, to scale
well/better than Soft or app X in your opinion?
In my experience Softimage offers pretty much the same mechanisms to automate
processes and handle scene complexity as Maya does, + ICE on top, and I found
it can load a good chunk more data simultaneously than Maya can fit into the
same amount of memory, especially when it comes to working with textures and
realtime shaders. That was up until two versions ago, maybe that has changed?
If all that doesn't mean it scales well, what exactly does it mean then?
Note: I'm not a Softimage fanboy or Maya hater (ok, just a little, but not
enough to not use it if it offers something that helps me to do my work), I
just try to understand what scalability means by your (or anyones) standards
compared to how I understand it.
> There is not as much enthusiasm in having ICE in Maya internally as
> you'd think, and I think that mail from Chris means to infer that to
> the community to cause some reactions, and to look beyond ICE.
>
> One reason is that unlike XSI 6.0, Maya has always been node-based, so
> it would not be as much as game changer in Maya as it is in XSI which
> had nothing. The confusing hypergraph UI and some legacy stuff (like
> older nodes having too many inputs) obscures the use of Maya existing
> node system, but the Maya team is working on that already with the new
> Node Editor, no need to introduce a duplicate system.
>
> Another reason is much more interesting, though I suspect the message
> boards will incinerate me for suggesting it. Basically, there is a
> train of thought that ICE is great, but it's just the Now, not the
> Next; it's not scalable to the extremely large scale procedural work
> that the Maya film clients are _already_ doing in custom apps and a
> series of odd tools. This is work that they wouldn't be able to
> undertake in ICE today, because it doesn't scale well to extremely
> large data sets. Since any kind of development takes several years,
> Autodesk wants to focus on finding the Next, rather than just trying
> to catch up to the Now. The creators of Naiad, who worked on PhysBAM
> and Zero at ILM and have multiple film credits are cooking up that
> vision.
>
> Since Maya is targeted at the large studios and not the one-man
> boutique, Autodesk doesn't want to work on any tech that works just
> fine for general data sets, but falls flat on its face on extremely
> large one. Large data set scalability is a requirement for anything
> new we add to Maya. That might mean something comes up that's
> comparatively less elegant to use than ICE in XSI, but more scalable.
> Maya is more like a construction truck than a family car, it needs to
> move large stuff around, and that stuff keeps getting larger.
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Rob Chapman <tekano....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, thanks all. so what confirmations, if any, do we actually have or
>> 'allowed' to talk about?
>>
>> 1. its not going to be ICE but will have same workflow / functionality
>>
>> - I really dont appreciate the difference? so each node will be called a
>> mayacompound and not xsicompound ? will there be any interop with Softimage
>> / Maya planned in this regards?
>>
>> 2. Its going to take a few years
>>
>> 3. Its not a separate App, but part of the main Maya
>>
>>
>> I am good to assume these as actual facts then? :)
>>
>> And certainly dont want or need yet another tirade / rant / sky is falling
>> thread, am trying to tread carefully, be less emotional and just ask
>> rational questions based upon facts, which would be much more rewarding for
>> those that feel are being kept in the dark. but as a Softimage customer
>> using ICE everyday since the last 6 years , (in the ultimate niche of niches
>> - Softimage FX) I feel I have a right to know what the **** is going on
>> that will affect my favourite apps future? is the only option available is
>> to wait until 2014?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Rob
>
--
-------------------------------------------
Stefan Kubicek Co-founder
-------------------------------------------
keyvis digital imagery
Wehrgasse 9 - Grüner Hof
1050 Vienna Austria
Phone: +43/699/12614231
--- www.keyvis.at ste...@keyvis.at ---
-- This email and its attachments are
--confidential and for the recipient only--
