If I can just chime in from an education point of view. Firstly I will say they have been getting better, but in the 6 years we have used Softimage the overall learning resources have been abysmal compared with the likes of Maya and 3Dmax. Both from a visibility and just easily availability. Yes there have been some awesome third party ones done and many have been shown on this list they haven't always been easy to find (sometimes you have to wade through a lot of crap unless you know of the exact artist).
Its a complaint we have had from students pretty much every year. Most students end up purchasing a digital tutors sub because they now have some really good Softimage stuff. Its not always about whether something is available, but whether its in a place that your person just starting out can find it. Softimage even used to ship with a free digital tutors CD in. Unfortunately those have become fairly dated (although still in very active use by our students as fundamentals remain the same. There have been very many discussions over the last few years (quite heavily before 2014 was released) about how a lot of folks don't feel they are getting value from their subscriptions. Something as simple as the DT intro courses bundled with it would be a massive gamechanger as far as education is concerned. I dont think anyone is suggesting dumbing down the software is a solution but I do think Andy has a big point in that if we are to gain more folks using Softimage there needs to be more ways to get people past the initial hump. ________________________________ From: Andy Moorer [andymoo...@gmail.com] Sent: 22 July 2013 03:25 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: I can't believe there is no tutorial for Softimage on Autodesk webiste Whoa, hold on. I'm not suggesting Softimage try to become C4D... I'm just pointing out that they have done a great job of gaining new users by eliminating the fear of the learning curve and by putting effort into smoothing the barriers for new untechnical artists. But not hobbyists, artists, ones who are professionals, perhaps not technical directors but lets face it we as TDs are creating these people's visions, and many people who start out clueless with any tool of any kind of complexity end up doing amazing and sophisticated work in a few short years. I agree with you that in many ways C4D is a dead end when those people get to a point where their ideas outstrip its capabilities as a production tool. Heck, the discovery by small studios and creatives that C4d can't cut it past a certain point is where my most recent paychecks as a hired gun have originated. So why not pave the way for those same talented people to get into Softimage, not by diverting the development of the software itself but by putting significant effort into demonstrating via educational resources like tutorials how easy it is to do very impressive graphics work with minimal training, using Softimage? You don't have to dumb down the software to appeal to nontechnical people, you just have to recognize that many of these people are not natural self-trainers and give them guidance to get rolling. Those "nontechnical" people aren't dumb, and might just find themselves going further than they could have ever foreseen. Sent from my iPad On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Raffaele Fragapane <raffsxsil...@googlemail.com<mailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>> wrote: In all honesty, if Soft was to go down the route C4D went in the last four years I'd move away from it in a hurry. This isn't some kind of mis-placed elitism, it's more that the appeal to the MCD of the app becomes more apparent each version, and while it's very fast and practical at doing many small things, it's growing sclerotically dysfunctional at the bigger picture and it's developed an extremely narrow sighted user-base. There's also a big Apple factor to its success in that field unrelated to the situation you outline that shouldn't be left out of the picture. C4D is more likely to still be a product in three years, for sure, but it's lost all chances to become a platform. ZBrush I don't believe should feature in the comparison and context at all, it's a singular, field defining blip in history that has little to nothing in common with the availability of education or its target, and it results from a singular and very left field vision to begin with. I can't say I have seen such complex work done in C4D by all these amazing artists either. I've seen a lot of small bits recombined any and every way, sure, but most of it is painfully obvious as a form of thinking particles kit bashing. Compared to the original FX work done in Soft, Maya or Houdini for commercials and titles (IE: G-Star Raw work by Glassworks) it's way below par. They've seriously pigeonholed themselves, but they have done so in a very profitable niche they have now almost cornered. More After Effects than 3D DCC. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Andy Moorer <andymoo...@gmail.com<mailto:andymoo...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think Cinema4D is a great example of the effectiveness of spoon-feeding newbies on basic techniques that give them results. C4D has very capable artists flocking to it, these are people who are intimidated by DCCs and yet who have a lot to offer... Designers and other creatives, Zbrush artists and so on. They have a perception that C4D is easy to use (despite every 3d DCC requiring effort to learn) and that perception is enough to get them to go the next step, viewing easy to find tutorials, in which immediately useful stuff is shown with emphasis on how easy it is. The result - a fast growing userbase of artists, and those art-oriented-people drive a great many jobs. I see designers who do very complex work in C4D who are -still- afraid to try other tools, because what they see are mid to high level workflows straight off the bat. Which is more likely to still be a product in 3-5 years, C4D or Softimage? Is this "cater to the newbies" strategy one worth adopting? It seems very effective... Sent from my iPad <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%;"> <tr> <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span 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. </span></font></td> </tr> </table>
