+1 Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:11, Jeffrey Dates <jda...@kungfukoi.com> wrote: > > This. > Everything Andy said. > > >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Andy Jones <andy.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Many studios having the same problems at the same time is a HUGE opportunity >> if we leverage it properly. >> >> I completely agree about the collaboration that will be necessary from >> users. However, for studios' part, I know a lot of places are interested in >> Fabric already, even if they haven't actually bought licenses yet. So if >> part of the incentive was some kind of agreement for the FE guys to help >> nurture a scene assembly tool to life quickly, it might help tip the scale >> for whatever cost/benefit analysis places are doing. The devs working on >> Fabric are truly some of the best in the world (and from what I understand, >> a big part of the reason AD bought Softimage to begin with). They are a big >> part of the equation for what will happen in the future, even if they don't >> end up wanting to build a scene assembler as a supported "product" in itself >> (or who knows -- maybe they will?). >> >> It would be great to get a little (or big?) list of studios that are >> interested in this sort of project (or other ones) and possibly have some >> kind of summit with the FE guys about what it would take to fast-track FE >> into certain critical areas of production, assuming a certain number of >> licenses were purchased. No commitments at this point -- just a list of >> interested parties who might be curious enough to be part of the >> conversation, pending whatever other conversations need to be had with >> superiors. I.e., it's understood that nobody is speaking for their >> companies at this point. Just indicating that they think their company >> *might* be interested. >> >> I'll start: >> >> Psyop >> Massmarket >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Felix Geremus <felixgere...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> You are probably right. But these times are a little bit different and >>> maybe that's exactly the one chance inside all this mess. We're all sitting >>> in the same boat at the same time. I know a lot of studios who entirely >>> rely on Softimage for lighting. All of these will have to spend time and >>> thus money to move on to another pipeline during the next two years anyway. >>> So why not invest at least parts of this time into the same thing? >>> Individuals are great, and the community should absolutely try. But it's so >>> hard to put something like this together in your spare time. A few studios >>> supporting and profiting from this effort would accelerate the whole >>> process immensely. And about showing potential: wasn't Stage, and all the >>> other fabric applications build for exactly this reason? To show the >>> potential of such a project? >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-03-04 21:55 GMT+01:00 Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> it is a bit harder for visual effects vendors/studios, in an already >>>> difficult market, spending money on software development (not their core >>>> business) is a hard sell. seeing a product or product in development on >>>> the other hand drums up interest which leads to real investment and >>>> collaboration. they need to see if their ideas are aligned with others on >>>> the project. don't take my comment as discouragement, it is just how i see >>>> it... for now it will be on individuals to come together on a project >>>> which shows potential. i hope we, the remaining softimage community, can >>>> do that together. again, not discouragement to any studio which wants to >>>> partner to make something happen... >>>> >>>> steven >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Felix Geremus >>>>> <felixgere...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So now that Softimage will be gone, isn't there room or even need for >>>>> collaboration here? Before everybody tries to build something themselves, >>>>> shouldn't people try to bundle forces? And I'm not only talking about >>>>> individuals here. I'm talking about small to medium size companies who >>>>> couldn't afford to build something like this alone. >
