Na, you don't have to do that, i can see this is something you needed to get off your chest. I'm a relatively new Softimage user, there can't be that many of us every year, i bought this package, i'm still paying it off...
Sometimes you need to feel that the package you use and enjoy is going somewhere and not just slowly decaying into irrelevance. I don't think its a stingier community, if you think about it Maya users in the majority they never pay for anything, The company will batch buy scores of licences. In our small community, it isn't realistic to expect individual users to pay prices geared towards an industry giant, this is why in my reasoning, we need more animation studios and fx studios using softimage as a viable pipe, and in turn why Fabric is so interesting, cause it seems to be built with this goal in mind. i don't think anything in our industry should be like the app store, i doubt there are enough Maya users let alone softies to make that work, it just sounds like the kind of thing AD would do I can think of lots of things I'd pay 299/399 £$€ for instance, i'd do so for as previously mentioned a sculpting module similar to Artisan in maya or max with push/pull/relax/smooth... or some of the Nex utilities like drawing rows of polygons, click bridging... But as you put it, I'm an individual, i can't guarantee that my needs will reflect that of the next user. For what its worth FE is the kind of thing i would buy if only to show support. On 25 June 2013 05:20, Raffaele Fragapane <raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>wrote: > But FX is where you NEED those third parties, because if you don't have > polygonyzer, or a fluid system, or a rendering engine, there is no way you > can work your way towards shot completion by hacking thru, or working > around, the software in other ways. > Other fields are hard to serve, and historically always turn out into > horrible ROI. > > Beside that, lets not forget species, GEAR and so on, all not FX focused. > Or how about Blur/Steve's pyQt efforts? Also OSS and fully functional. > Hey, half the stuff in crate is actually NOT effects related. > But anyway... > > I'd love to hear what people think would be 3rd party software development > they feel Softimage could use, and how much they would pay for it. I guess > that's what it boils down to. > > These days there's this tendency to think everything should be like the > app store and cost between 99c and 5 bucks, but unlike iOS or Android Soft > and Maya together probably don't make it to 100k potential clients, and > you'd be hard pressed to find 1k actual buyers in any given domain. > > That's one of the problems. As a developer myself I have tons of > uninished, or even finished and unreleased stuff at home which will never > see the light of public releases because the effort to polish and maintain > something people are unlikely to want to pay more than a few bucks is > simply not worth it. > > In the past even big, production proven, fully functional and OSS projects > got tons of lip service but absolutely ZERO adoption. For years forums were > abuzz with people clamoring for RMan support in Softimage. At the end of > Charlotte's Web we released Affogato, a fully functional, production proven > bridge with in-client support for 3Delight (free first seat commercial > license) and job support for PRMan. > That put a stop to the buzz alright, and got exactly ZERO source code > contributions and only a handful of hacks downloading it and then bitching > on mailing lists they couldn't use it (down to a blatant ignorance of how > RMan worked). > > This is for a translator that was top of its game. Keep in mind back then > there were only three options, PRMan studio (limited and costly), Liquid > (which was also maintained in RSP at the times as Colin Doncaster, now of > Yeti fame, worked with us), and Affogato (free, OSS, modern, functional, > completely unadopted). > > Kim Aldis' shell operator and other efforts went the same way. Lots of lip > service, cheap, very solid release, disappointing adoption. Only the buzz > died because people had nothing to bitch about anymore, but as for paying a > few quids? No sir. > > So, with that in mind, what is a plugin/software/field you can promise me > you'd pay a hundred bucks for, and will sell more than 100 units? Not lip > service, what would you REALLY immediately put hands to your wallet for to > make it worth my time? And that's assuming months of slaving away at home > I'd be willing to do for just 10 grands gross and the maintenance > afterwards (which it's not, but lets assume for the sake of argument). > > That is one of the biggest problems Fabric has faced IMO, a lot of lip > service and enthused people, but nobody putting their money where their > mouth is at the end of the day. > The Softimage userbase at large with is heroes and praise is actually one > of the stingiest around in those regards. > > So, what would you reckon would get enough people to open their wallet > these days? I reckon nearly nothing, and cross-platform support is the > smartest thing Fabric could do, because Softimage just doesn't pay the > bills very often. > > You want it to change? You'll have to start voting with your wallet and > actually BUY Fabric BECAUSE it's supported in a Softimage client and let > them know, otherwise don't be surprised if and when they drop it. That they > support it at all to begin with is a great display of good will and > affection of many people involved who have a sentimental attachment to Soft. > Praise it, by all means, but pay for it as well, or be ready to see it > disappear if the Maya end of things turns out more successful. > > Soft has one of the, if not THE, best communities around, particularly in > this list, but I don't think non-developers have the faintest clue about > what a hard living it is to be a third party for just the one platform. > Hell, how hard it is to just support it on the side even unless you are the > rare singularity like Arnold. > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Sebastien Sterling < > sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello Raff, yes i have seen "the maya "app store" presentation" but i >> wasn't referring to it specifically, i actually share your sentiments >> regarding its current implementation, i was just reflecting that it might >> one day become a business model and that the only positive development I >> could see come out of that would be a better SDK as it would be a logical >> development. >> >> Yes there has been some epic third party content for soft, however they >> are greatly focused on one area, particles, and they are a great strength >> to the package but it does create a singular conundrum "softimage can't >> just be a particle package". >> >> For instance As amazing and user friendly as Soft is with particles, can >> it compete with Houdini in the context of a feature production ? An app >> that is after all devoted almost exclusively to that purpose. I believe >> that softs great advantage there is that it isn't just a good particle >> package but a complete solution, it would be great to see other areas get >> some TLC modelling, uv's, rigging, animation, hair and fur, and i don't >> just mean ICE solutions, or at least not exclusively ice solutions. >> >> Exocortex products as well as Arnold and 3Dlight are also available on >> Maya, they are not exclusives, and the thing is, Maya doesn't need third >> party plugins, it exists for that reason, TD's can just take it apart and >> make there own pipe tools. and they do so regarding any aspect in which >> maya is week. >> >> I'm not trying to start a war on what are the better applications for >> soft, or what direction it should go in, I just want to see it be the best >> package it can be, and a more viable feature solution. >> >> I apologies if my previous statement seemed overzealous Raff. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 25 June 2013 03:23, Raffaele Fragapane <raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>wrote: >> >>> I don't think I've -ever- seen more third party support for Softimage >>> than there is these days to be honest. >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, the general sentiment of the post I can agree with >>> to some extent, more support and more choice is always a good sign, but >>> saying there's no 3rd party support for Soft? There's never been so much >>> and so frequently updated. >>> >>> All the Exocortex stuff, Fabric, 3Delight, VRay, Arnold, new and >>> upcoming rendering engines soon, Mootz (emFluid, polygonizer etc)... >>> At what point in post Softimage|3D history do you remember seeing more >>> than this? >>> >>> It's also debatable whether there's all this 3rd party availability for >>> Maya these days. >>> If anything it's somewhat skimpier than it was in the past. These days >>> most of the historical extensive and expensive plugins for Maya have all >>> died or are about to. Yeti (not available in the US), and now Fabric are >>> probably the only things of real notice outside of rendering engines I've >>> seen in a while. Nex used to be a small but must-have one too, but that's >>> been absorbed. >>> >>> You also seemed to have missed AD's exchange, where AD did exactly what >>> you mentioned (offering a cheap, official, protected channel to distribute >>> and all, like an App Store). >>> There was a bit of a quiet commotion about Softimage not being an >>> available choice. A few months in it looks like it's simply not picking up, >>> and every developer I talked to insofar doesn't trust it one bit (how long >>> will the current 0% fee hold, and what's the benefit of publishing there >>> when all they offer is paypal payment and no promotion whatsoever). >>> >>> I appreciate what Fabric does and their (and Exo's, and Mootz's and so >>> on) loyalty to the platform just as much as anybody else, but if you have >>> some feelings of abandonment, which might or might not be legit, at least >>> make sure the context is accurate. >>> You're painting a picture that is statistically miles away from the >>> reality of things. >>> >>> Splice has just yesterday become very, very interesting for me, but for >>> its own good it'd better not be a loyalist software IMO. >>> The Softimage community over the years has provided some great lip >>> service for many developers, but very few toolsets/software saw any return >>> whatsoever in investing into it. It'd be healtier for everybody if instead >>> of a loyalist approach a more cool headed one was taken by all involved, >>> developers and userbase alike. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Sebastien Sterling < >>> sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Call me whatever you want (sticks and stones.....etc) I fail to see >>>> what is grande about Fabric Engine !" >>>> >>>> I think Chris that regardless off your doubts concerning the uses of >>>> Fabric engine, surely even you can appreciate that they are taking the time >>>> to develop this for softimage, i can't imagine this is easier then >>>> integrating it into maya, In an age where there is almost no 3rd party >>>> plug-ins for soft, why can't people understand that this is a good thing, >>>> we need more hi quality third party releases for softimage, not just pieces >>>> of ICE, these are what makes a package live. If you look at Maya's >>>> development, the current trend for autodesk seems to be buying up third >>>> party ware and offering it as a new feature, as much as this practice is >>>> questionable... it makes sense, integrating adroit solutions you didn't >>>> have to pay to develop that have already found a proofing ground among a >>>> vast number of users, >>>> >>>> Maybe in the future autodesk will sees developing for max/maya/xsi >>>> opting for a light maintenance and deebuging, and promoting a "third party >>>> App system" where people can sell there plugins/addons. Hopefully such a >>>> shift in business models would be accompanied with a full unchaining of the >>>> SDK allowing more access to devs. >>>> >>>> But that is neither here nor there, >>>> >>>> Personally I find what Paul, Helge and the other FE people to be doing >>>> to be quite exemplary, it demonstrates a profound appreciation and >>>> commitment to Softimage, in an age where they could probably just develop >>>> for maya and call it a day. >>>> >>>> it's really a choice of sticking with your principles over doing what >>>> is easy. >>>> >>>> You ask why ? well (and this is speculation) but I'd say, it offers >>>> licence, a framework to expand and grow what is currently denied or >>>> hindered by the SDK and AD policies. A new canvas for devs, you see its not >>>> their software its our software we the user brought it to where it is, and >>>> maybe... don't you think its about time we took back our software ? >>>> >>>> (beg forgiveness for such a late response) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24 June 2013 15:23, Matt Morris <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Can see that's going to get people's attention. Seriously impressive >>>>> stuff! Look forward to seeing it working with soft too. >>>>> >>>>> Would love to see a fight off, basic rig and splice rig framerates :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24 June 2013 13:34, Paul Doyle <technove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi guys – we’re pretty stoked to tell you that we have branch-based >>>>>> multi-threading working in the Maya graph. Our expectation is that we >>>>>> will >>>>>> also be able to do this in Softimage, so we're pretty excited - we have >>>>>> to >>>>>> get through Siggraph before we can start on it, but it should only be a >>>>>> week or two of work. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/69000004 >>>>>> >>>>>> “This video demonstrates a feature of our Creation Core technology: >>>>>> performing multi-threading across branches of graphs. Creation: Splice >>>>>> can >>>>>> use this technology inside of Maya and perform multi-threading across >>>>>> branches in the Maya dependency graph. This is extremely useful when the >>>>>> computation per node is rather small, like in a character rig. Parts of >>>>>> the >>>>>> rig can be computed in parallel using this approach, and the overall >>>>>> performance of the graph is improved.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Very cool to see this working (in my unbiased opinion). >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 June 2013 16:14, Paul Doyle <technove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 June 2013 15:08, Tim Leydecker <bauero...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess the reason why the general plattform is less easy to sell >>>>>>>> than the modules is that it needs a bit more abstraction to see >>>>>>>> the benefit of investing into it in comparison to a module that >>>>>>>> either already does solve a specific problem or seems like a good >>>>>>>> basis to start modifications off from. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It requires a lot of faith to start from scratch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed - the problem with a platform is you have to search for >>>>>>> problems/justifications to start using it. What we found was the >>>>>>> complexity >>>>>>> of getting started was a bit much for people that initially take a look >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> their spare time - it's rare to get a studio that allocates time to >>>>>>> investigating new technology, and when they do, you really need to get >>>>>>> them >>>>>>> somewhere valuable quickly. The challenge we had was that the investment >>>>>>> required to get somewhere useful with Creation kind of meant that the >>>>>>> value >>>>>>> of the solutions had to be much more than just a simple tool, which >>>>>>> meant >>>>>>> more time was required, etc etc ad infinitum >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our aim with Splice is to get people to see immediate value with our >>>>>>> core - then they can either continue to exploit it within their existing >>>>>>> tools, or they can move to Creation Platform and start building more >>>>>>> complete applications. I think R&D teams are more likely to get sign >>>>>>> off on >>>>>>> something like this if they have already demonstrated the core >>>>>>> performance >>>>>>> capability elsewhere. It also helps establish trust in the company with >>>>>>> relatively low risk - "let's try and write a KL deformer in Maya and see >>>>>>> what we think" is a lot less involved than "let's implement our custom >>>>>>> data >>>>>>> type in their real time renderer". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are a few companies that immediately 'got' Creation Platform - >>>>>>> generally because we either knew them well already, or they had a >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> design philosophy with their existing tools. The cool thing is they are >>>>>>> starting to push on Creation in interesting ways, so I'm looking >>>>>>> forward to >>>>>>> some case studies from them later this year. It's pretty awesome to see >>>>>>> people building things we didn't even think of yet! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If things continue to go well I promise to give Fabric dunce caps to >>>>>>> those that want them :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> www.matinai.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it >>> and let them flee like the dogs they are! >>> >> >> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! >
