"Future releases could encompass more types of solvers (rigid, cloth, fluid, liquid, etc, all interacting). And from there, it would be amazing to see more procedural geometry generation, destruction and stuff like that."
Just stepping away from solvers etc for a moment though: could I use Bifrost to do something un-simulated and simple like (for argument's sake) add the frame number onto the vertex y positions on an object if they're inside the volume of a polygon sphere? I know personally I'm not worried about the big effects, it's the small day-to-day 'simple' stuff which is where I'm concerned about not having ICE. On 21 March 2014 16:53, Adrian Graham <adrian.gra...@autodesk.com> wrote: > Ah, but may I respectfully point out that this was one of the problems > with ICE, in that its complete and total integration into Softimage makes > it difficult to engineer and manage, from a software and, unfortunately, a > marketing point of view. > > Most modern software libraries are platform-agnostic, and this is what > we're aiming for with Bifrost. The problem with ICE is that you had to use > Softimage in order to gain access to it. Nothing against Softimage, just > that you're limiting ICE's exposure to the industry at large. > > Would a renderer be more or less popular if it only worked with Maya, and > not with Max or Houdini? No, it should be available on all applications, on > all OSs if you want it to be successful. > > Adrian > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Marshall > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:52 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Re: ICE - When will we have todays functionality in Maya? > > I think we can see there's some reason to look into Bifrost, but I also > have a nagging feeling it's simply never going to achieve the same level of > functionality as ICE, for the very reason ICE is essentially being shut > down. ICE does what it does and is so much more than a particle system, > because it is built into the very core of Softimage. To attempt to make > Bifrost 'future proof' they are deliberately *not* building it into the > core of Maya, thus allowing for the potential for it to be standalone and / > or plugged into other software / platforms at a later date. But by > approaching it in this way, it'll only ever be a bolt on, that surely can > never achieve that level of flexibility that we have with ICE at the heart > of Softimage. It feels that the very thing that makes ICE such an amazing > tool is actually causing it's downfall, and is the reason Bifrost can never > replace it. And that totally sucks! > > > > On 21 March 2014 10:29, Juan Brockhaus <juanxsil...@gmail.com<mailto: > juanxsil...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hey Adrian, > this is some great info here. and makes me suddenly feel spmehow better ;-) > maybe in two/three years time, when Soft slowly falls back (just due to no > further development) BiFrost will be in a state where it can take over...? > (wishful thinking) > If I read between the lines I feel there is hope that BiFrost is not > 'just' a fluid simulation system and can be used for far more. > > Exactly what I personally (and many others) love about ICE. It is > (contrary to past Autodesk-PR) NOT just a particle-simulation-system, but a > swiss army tool which can manipulate almost every aspect of data in my > scene/objects and build, create, deform, etc... > ie at the moment I build shapes/objects made out of dominos. All > procedurally build in ICE. I made different compounds to stack and pile > dominoes in different ways and methods. And if the objects I have to create > (and even the domino) change (as usual in commercials..) it is all > instantly updated. > Only right at the end I add a Sim node and the whole things collapses... > (obviously controlled with nulls, forces, etc...) The Sim is basically the > last 5% of what I use ICE for. > If I can do stuff like this in BiFrost in the future I'm a happy camper. > Right now the only other software capable of that would be Houdini... > I'll keep an eye on BiFrost ;-) > Cheers, > Juan > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:09 AM, joshxsi <josh...@gmail.com<mailto: > josh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Part of what made ICE so successful (in my mind) was the large amount of > built in nodes and compounds that were included as part of the base system > that were used in mostly non-simulated contexts (raycasting, geometry > locations, etc). > > >From the sound of the development stages, the first two releases will be > fluid focused, do you expect that the final release will include the non > particle functionality that ICE became so useful for? > > It sounds like you're expecting the users to build a more generic set of > functionality using the API? (mesh deforms, curve based flow tools, IK > solvers etc) > > Thanks again for the information as well. > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, David Gallagher < > davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com<mailto:davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Yes, definitely giving them a chance! If they turn Maya/Bifrost into > something great that can give me back what I just lost, believe me I will > be one happy guy. > > > On 3/20/2014 6:29 PM, Raffaele Fragapane wrote: > The product will be released within the quarter. To be fair, that info if > you were on beta has been consistent and available for quite a while now, > so it's not some last minute stunt. > > Marcus, Adrian and the rest of the team are nice guys, give them a chance. > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:17 AM, David Gallagher < > davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com<mailto:davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com>> wrote: > This email was fascinating. I'm curious though; we've been told we can't > hear roadmaps because they run afoul of SEC rules. And yet, here we get a > somewhat detailed roadmap. > > Dave G > > > > > > > > -- > [http://mintmotion.co.uk/img/mint.png] > Chris Marshall > Mint Motion Limited > 029 20 37 27 57 > 07730 533 115 > www.mintmotion.co.uk<http://www.mintmotion.co.uk> > >
