I agree with martin peter and juan
Alastair Hearsum
Head of 3d
GLASSWORKS
33/34 Great Pulteney Street
London
W1F 9NP
+44 (0)20 7434 1182
glassworks.co.uk <http://www.glassworks.co.uk/>
Glassworks Terms and Conditions of Sale can be found at glassworks.co.uk
(Company registered in England with number 04759979. Registered office
25 Harley Street, London, W1G 9BR. VAT registration number: 867290000)
Please consider the environment before you print this email.
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and attachments are strictly privileged, private
and confidential and are intended solely for the stated recipient(s).
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of the Company. If you are not the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying
of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If this transmission is received
in error please kindly return it to the sender and delete this message
from your system.
On 21/03/2014 17:16, Juan Brockhaus wrote:
totally agree with Martin and Peter.
that's exactly what I'm also very much interested in.
will BiFrost be as versatile as ICE? ;-)
Juan
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Peter Agg <peter....@googlemail.com
<mailto:peter....@googlemail.com>> wrote:
"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
<mailto: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>
[mailto: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
<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><http://www.mintmotion.co.uk>
