We are still living in Babylon here, due to the relative young age of
the 3D industry.
Many more standards are needed, just like in every other industry -
architecture, electronics, etc.
Scene data exchange and user experience (UI - even naviation shortcuts
are different everywhere) would be much simpler based on that.
Those standards should also be open source. For a start there's OpenEXR,
OpenSubdivs, Alembic, etc.
What about particles, voxels, rigging, shaders, nurbs, ... FBX is still
far from being where it should be, even after years.
Am 26.03.2013 11:23, schrieb Mirko Jankovic:
You are right. I was a bit too exclusive. Ofc that if you have tool
that do one thing really faster and better then there is reason
to implement it in pipeline.
But Having 1 application for modeling, another one for
texturing, completely different one for rig and animation and count
goes on and on.... 5 or more applications to balance with....
Even if you assemble team of 5 people each to work in single one there
are a lot more problems in keeping workflow fluid.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Stefan Kubicek <s...@tidbit-images.com
<mailto:s...@tidbit-images.com>> wrote:
What you say is true when you rule out
- Time needed to learn a second (or nth ) app.
- Time needed to maintain a second (or nth app (i.e. learn how to
work/code around bugs any app has)
- Non-waterproof data exchange between n apps.
I see this working for special purposes though, like doing
dynamics in Houdini, the rest in Soft, or Fluids in Naiad or
Realflow, the rest in Maya, or like Blur: everything Max except
character Rigging and animation, more or less at least. Spreading
the butter too thin across many different packages just causes a
lot of overhead imho, so even while you _can_ use a different app
for every step of the way, chances are good you don't want to once
you start looking at total cost of operation.
Maybe it´s time to say goodbye to the one app does everything
approach and embrace
the possibilities of having to pick from the whole range of
solutions more.
The grain of salt is, it´s less effective to keep the
exponentially bigger amount
of options in mind and also invest the time to find a workflow
that actually works.
It´s like building a PC from scratch instead of getting a
tested workstation from a vendor.
It may be cheaper to roll your own but it´s more work to do
all the development and R&D yourself.
Therefor, the Autodesk suites should actually be cheaper than
buying any one of the 3d apps,
since it actually takes the whole suite to get something done
you would initially expect
to work straight out of one box...
Cheers,
tim
On 26.03.2013 04 <tel:26.03.2013%2004>:04, Luc-Eric Rousseau
wrote:
http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-softimage/overview
--
-------------------------------------------
Stefan Kubicek
-------------------------------------------
keyvis digital imagery
Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3
A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien
Phone: +43/699/12614231 <tel:%2B43%2F699%2F12614231>
www.keyvis.at <http://www.keyvis.at> ste...@keyvis.at
<mailto:ste...@keyvis.at>
-- This email and its attachments are --
--confidential and for the recipient only--
