It's really upside down: You ask users of another package what the value of Softimage could be for their pipeline. Then you feed that (uneducated?) perception back to them. Huh? This is not how it works.
You educate people by showing them all the packages available on equal footing, each with it's strengths and weaknesses and show them how together they make a formidable suite. This isn't about converting studios from one package to another, that game is over other than to get away from Autodesk altogether. But like everybody else, I can't see what's wrong with educating people about Softimage instead of just plugging a "particles" label on it and be done? But at the same time: I worked in marketing too long to not know how erratic some decisions in large companies come about. Hey, if the entity "Autodesk" had any clue about what they have, they wouldn't need to consult an external company to find out ;-) Next time in the bathtube, I should ask my left small toe about the (to it) perceived value of having a knee. I'm sure that will be mind boggling revelations ;-) Cheers, Tom On 12 September 2012 15:53, Eric Lampi <ericla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stefan I'm not sure I understand your logic. You don't recommend anyone > learn or buy Soft anymore yet you want people to move from Maya and Max? > One of the biggest problems with Soft is the limited number of people who > use it well. If you're not explaining to people who inquire about it, and > how it may or may not be an asset then how do you expect anything to > change? Who really pays attention to this marketing garbage anyway? > marketing, salesmen, they don't have to really know anything about it, they > push a strategy plan and a script. I didn't decide to learn SoftImage 3D in > 1995 instead of Alias or Wavefront because of marketing materials, I asked > people who were doing great work, and people who had jobs. Word of mouth is > extremely important. You've been in this business a long time and if > someone takes the time to ask it's because they respect your opinion and > will use it to make a decision at a later date. I'm not saying tell > everyone Soft is the only option when it's obvious that something like, for > example, C4D would be a better fit. Don't automatically dismiss it. > > Just food for thought. > > Eric > On Sep 10, 2012 3:08 PM, "Stefan Andersson" <sander...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just to throw some more gasoline onto the fire. >> >> So the value to a 3dsmax/Maya user would be to use Softimage as a >> particle plugin. Everything else their respective Software is good at. >> >> I know you don't agree with them Graham, and it's not you who >> "wrote/made" this :) It's been said over and over again on this list, *it >> doesn't seem that Autodesk cares about Softimage.* >> * >> * >> And it's for that reason alone that I don't recommend anyone (anymore) to >> buy or learn Softimage. Autodesk representatives on this list is trying to >> assure us, but apparently those people have absolutely NO contact with the >> Marketing/PR people. It's not that we have been asking for much, but the >> way they market Softimage and the way new users and studios look at >> Softimage... well... you get my point. >> >> I don't want Softimage to be a good companion to Maya&3dsmax, I want >> Softimage to kick their ass and make all users leave their software and use >> Softimage instead!! But that is not in Autodesk view a good thing. And for >> this reason I think Autodesk is really bad for Softimage. >> >> Why is attitude and "kick butt" mentality a bad thing? it's what keeps a >> lot of us going and improving our-self. It's what makes us trying to reach >> for those extra 10% in a production. >> >> Am I pissed at Autodesk? you bet you sweet ass I am. I spent years behind >> Softimage and got companies to buy the software that were Maya based, and >> really really tried to get it to work... >> With ICE I had big hopes. But... Autodesk had little incentive to kick >> Maya/3dsmax out the window. They made Softimage into a particle plugin. >> >> So what happens now? >> >> I know it's pointless rant, and it just adds fuel to the fire. But it's >> difficult to talk about something positive when it comes to Softimage. It's >> like having a Formula One car, but you live in the country side and no one >> understands why you have it. >> >> Sorry for the rant everyone. >> >> best regards >> Stefan >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Graham Bell <graham.b...@autodesk.com>wrote: >> >>> Perhaps worth pointing out that this is a Entertainment Creation >>> 'Suites' magazine and of the course the two main flavours (Ultimate aside) >>> for the Suites are Maya and Max. And therefore the three packages shown in >>> the image are all including in the Maya/Max Suites, hence the reason for >>> trying to show their value to those respective users. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: >>> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold >>> Sent: 10 September 2012 15:08 >>> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >>> Subject: In case you missed it.. >>> >>> This is the kind of stuff that makes me really dislike Autodesk: >>> http://yfrog.com/h0t6exxtj >>> >>> I'm glad to know Softimage is a particle system that has single-step >>> interoperability with the apps in the "Areas of Excellence" (Max and Maya). >>> >>> >>> >>> -Paul >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> stefan andersson - digital janitor - http://sanders3d.wordpress.com >> >
