These are great points Peter and Andres. Andres, I remember being in on the very first Truespace release... I loved the rendering engine, but couldn't stand the modeling. Interesting that you prefer it for modeling! I had many conversations with their tech support on why don't you have this or that simple modeling tool...but they insisted on their methodology, which to me was imprecise, though I can see how someone who preferred to model in another way would find it interesting. Did they change the modeling tools over the years? (I think I bailed at Truespace 3).
I got well into Imagine around that time, and found it great for modeling... Even did a couple commercial projects with it if you can imagine that. A couple other software carcasses I don't remember the names of ;-).....then settled on Lightwave for some time. Loved the modeling tools there, and the rendering, the process and the results...with some brilliant plugins....frankly I still miss Lightwave there, it was easier to achieve my aesthetic with it. It's the (lack of) animation that broke Lightwave for me, and that dual modeling/rendering application situation. XSI was an absolute dream come true there. The most logical and intuitive piece of software I've ever used. With animation systems that are so much easier to work with and visualize. First time I've ever been able to do any successful rigging of a realistic human model was with XSI. And it's great for modeling too, once you get the hang of it. You are all so right, I'm sure SI as is will continue to provide the tools I need for a very long time. As long as the help files remain online...? And if they don't break the final release so it is unusable. And if it is still available to install on future computers and windows platforms. That's the scary part, really. I'm even kind of hesitant to mention these things because I'm afraid AD is listening and might see a way to break us of the SI habit here... Also, I've never really been able to get fully the results I want out of mental ray. I've had to put a lot of hours into studying it and experimenting, and still can't get a lot of the rendering effects I got with Lightwave. I loved their system of gradation effects you could put on anything, but somehow it doesn't translate to mental ray's system. Working with mental ray seems kind of like wrestling with an invisible bear sometimes... I've heard there is a passionate C4D community, and it is often touted as a tool for artists, and easy to use. But when I've looked at it, it seems limited compared with SI. Does anyone know the state of it now, has it improved in the area of animation and effects? How does it compare with SI? I just keep remembering FPrime in Lightwave, and how great an integrated renderer that was to use... Fast for GI effects too, which i sorely need. And KRay was coming along and looking good too. If only I could get the best of both worlds there...Lightwave rendering plugins with SI everything else... Nancy Jacobs http://www.childofillusion.net/ On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Andres Stephens <drais...@outlook.com> wrote: > I agree with you Tenshi and Peter. > > I still use Truespace for my modelling and previz 5 years after Microsoft > shut it down. > > Yes it still only uses viewport tech based on directX 9, yes it has none of > the latest bells and whistles these days ... > > But it's the community, very small as is (you could count them on your hands > and feet) that helps me keep it alive as my artistic tool of choice (and it > still wowzers clients as I quickly slap together and modify on demand previz > and models in a decent viewport today) . There still are some heros > developing it and even doing "unofficial" updates, or compiling uncontinued > plugins and tutorials together and keeping then shared. Even resurrecting old > websites (www.Caligari.us) . > > And this last release of Truespace from 2009 was only beta. (though luckily > they left it for free in its dying breaths....) > > I agree with you both, and when I am able to purchase a right to softimage > 2015, I can still see years of shelf life for such a professional and capable > product like si, with so much room to expand on concepts I don't even know > (ICE) that no matter how advanced it's competion will become, it still can be > a competitive and perfect tool of choice for individuals or small studios - > for years and years to come. > > And I hope the community, even after shifting software, will not drift apart > and like TS, keep up the development how they can, the art, the products, and > in the right time master other tools and share... But there will always be > that first love on the side. > > I guess the Truespace forum "www.united3dartists.com/forum" had a fitting > title when it was created right after the demise of its beloved software.. > > Stay United, stay a true 3d artist, love your software dead or alive, and > keep mastering your skills with any tool! > > But yeah, autodesk... > > SI is not dead yet. > > > > > > --- Original Message --- > > From: "Tenshi S." <tenshu...@gmail.com> > Sent: March 22, 2014 1:54 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Re: Demise of SI and what it means for fine arts work > > +1. Well spoken :) > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:46 AM, <pete...@skynet.be> wrote: > Well said, Nancy. > > I have no illusions about how much corporations (especially this one) care > for the individual artist. > > You have developed your own, very individual workflow - it might well be > impossible to translate to another software. Unfamiliarity with a new tool is > a huge hindrance to any really creative work. Then again, challenging > yourself with a new tool could be stimulating and enriching in itself. (no, I > don’t think M#%& is going to be either) > > Remember, you are free, more than most, to choose your tool – cutting edge > or outdated, simple or advanced, high or low tech. > While your art supplier can suspend that range of papers or paints you grew > so attached to, crippling you in the process, they can’t suspend this tool. > You can keep it alive for as long as you choose to use it. I refuse to call > it the Demise of SI at this point. That will be somewhere in the future, when > I retire my last computer with Softimage on and don’t even bother installing > it on a new one. > > I have done my share of artistic projects, making imagery for theatrical and > performance arts, individually and in teams – from volunteering work up to a > million dollar budget. This is the part of my activities that I believe will > be the least affected by AD’s decision. Clients often hardly understand what > it is I do, let alone which software I run. For team work they have mostly > been asking me to decide on the tools to use, and I’ve always opted for mixed > software – providing the individuals with their software of choice. It has > invariably been the results the individual could achieve which have been > crucial – not what software they ran it on. > That being said, there is no denying that Softimage is very well adapted for > these projects – truly generalist and multidisciplinary, freestyle, > unpredictable, radical changes, fast turnaround. The core qualities of > Softimage – especially the non-linear non destructive bit – really make a > difference here. > > It is often on artistic projects that I first use new tools and features, > especially (surprising or not?) ICE – up to the point where ICE is used one > way or other – often crucial - on every single project. Without considering > myself to even know it all that well. > As long as I have not outgrown this software (which I don’t expect to do > anywhere soon) what AD decides to do with it does not matter. And if I ever > do – well, then it will be natural leaving it behind. > So whatever you do, keep using it or go elsewhere – but make sure it’s your > decision – not AD’s. > > > > From: Nancy Jacobs > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:30 PM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Demise of SI and what it means for fine arts work > > When I bought XSI years ago, I compared it with Maya, and the 3d software > packages i had been using since the dawn of the phenomenon, and made my > decision. I never looked back. I have been extremely happy with XSI -- the > workflow, the interface, everything was geared toward ease of use and > learning, and visualization of a project from beginning to end. It has been > the one piece of software that I find myself saying, every time I use it, > what a fantastic piece of software! A joy to learn and use. And I've barely > delved into ICE. > > When Autodesk purchased XSI, I was crushed. People speak of AD acquiring XSI > to use its technology, and Maurice Patel has stated, "We also acquire tech, > redesign and re-engineer it, even rewrite it entirely, to fit into our > products and workflows and yes, if it is more efficient to do so, we just > integrate it." So that is obviously one reason for them to acquire > XSI....right after ICE was introduced..... > > But what I thought then, and sadly seems to be coming true... Is that AD > acquired XSI in order to acquire and 'integrate' XSI's USER BASE. What better > way for a company to dominate the user base of a software genre than to > acquire software products in that genre, kill them, and then offer the > stunned user base a cost-efficient (in the short term) entree into their > preferred product. Plus they get to cannibalize the dead software and use it > to pump up their 'chosen one'. But we are not seeing that latter tech > application effect so much as we are seeing the hijacking of the user base of > Softimage. And, as so many have pointed out, bringing Maya into a state where > SI users will find their workflow and features emulated is only a vague > promise for future application. Not likely to be realized, considering the > track record of Autodesk. > > Does this remind anyone of the infamous corporate takeover mentality...? > Applied to software, of course. Same principle. Only here, it is the user > base which is the prize, the economic draw of an expanded user base over the > years. Especially as Maya, and the expensive plugins and expansions needed to > do comparable work that XSI does out of the box... is significantly more > expensive than XSI. > > I am a one-person fine artist, primarily a painter, using SI as a tool for > video installation work. This is a grey area of use, not completely > non-commercial, as art shows have some commerce involved, still the return on > investment in the area of 3D work is always likely to be a loss. Still, I > reluctantly went for the SI maintenance agreement with AD when it bought XSI, > stretching my budget as far as it will go. Maya is not an artist tool like SI > is, and not agreeable to a small artist's budget. Very few options remain, in > that regard. I left Lightwave because of its lack of non-linear workflow, and > cumbersome animation. XSI was light years ahead in these areas. I made my > choice, but now it seems that people like me are being squeezed out of any > chance of developing our interests and contributions to an alternate aspect > of 3D work. > > I very much admire the work of all of you who work in the industry, and the > truly amazing things you do with SI, or any software. Incredible, what you > accomplish. (And i often find myself wishing i had the great teams you have > to be able to accomplish more of what I envision.) But there has to be a > place for small artists who choose to use 3D software for other purposes, and > take it in a somewhat different direction. We may not be a large user base > which will be economically significant to a company like Autodesk, but this > (fine arts) aspect of 3D work needs to be able to exist. And that is becoming > increasingly doubtful, with the big sharks gobbling up our accessible > software package and leaving us behind with little chance to develop our work. > > Nancy Jacobs > http://www.childofillusion.net/ > > On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Paul Griswold > <pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Maurice, >> >> So the information I have today is - most of my work is done with Softimage >> and there is 0% chance it will be continued. >> >> Autodesk has a 99% failure rate internally with creating innovative >> products. (your words) >> >> Autodesk wants me to move to Maya, an old, outdated package that cannot do >> what I need now, requires significant work (scripts, plugins, etc.) to make >> usable, is not conducive to small shops or freelancers, and there is no >> promise that it will ever be able to do what Softimage can do right now. >> Making that move not only moves me back to the junior level, but reduces my >> pay, lowers the quality of my work, and significantly hampers my ability to >> compete. >> >> Bifrost is being developed at a company with a 99% failure rate with >> creating innovative products. Bifrost is not an ICE replacement and may >> never be one. >> >> And, apparently in this industry you should not have all your eggs in one >> basket. Unfortunately Autodesk bought the goose laying the golden eggs and >> wrung it's neck. Now there's no more eggs. I also find it ironic that >> someone from ADSK just said we shouldn't have all our eggs in one basket, >> yet they want everyone to buy suites and are trying to emulate the Adobe >> model.... Or was that just something you say because there's really no >> answer for what Autodesk has done? >> >> Yes, I think I can make a decision based on that information. >> >> >> -Paul >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Maurice Patel <maurice.pa...@autodesk.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Paul, Adam >> We do understand that people build their livelihoods on our software. This >> is something we take seriously, although (with good reason) you might find >> it hard to believe right now. Every year we spend significant resources >> maintaining legacy code so that the new features we add to our products >> don't radically disrupt customers workflows. We really do try not to take >> unnecessary risks with our software. And we have an incredibly long track >> record of developing software for the long term - one can just look at >> AutoCAD and 3ds Max. Even acquisitions like Flame and Maya have continued to >> be extensively developed at Autodesk as have other product acquisitions. >> >> We have stated and are committed both to developing our core products and to >> innovating. Our decision to focus on 3ds max and Maya was so we could >> continue to do both adequately (not one or the other). We are a high tech >> company so it wouldn't be realistic to expect us not to try to innovate even >> if the risks are high. That does not mean that is all we do. >> >> I am not denying that Softimage customers are now facing some challenging >> decisions. But several have said on the forum, and I would personally agree >> with them, that in this industry - as in any high-tech industry - it can be >> risky to have all your eggs in one basket, even if that means looking >> outside of Autodesk (and there are some very interesting solutions out >> there). Giants fall (look at SGI). We are not immune to that either. >> Personally, I do not think that will happen, but no one at Autodesk will >> ever make any explicit guarantees about the future. All I can say is make >> your software decisions based on what you see today - anything else would >> be, to a certain extent, vaporware and speculation, especially the farther >> out you look. >> >> maurice >> >> >> Maurice Patel >> Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 >> >> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com >> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold >> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:15 PM >> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> Subject: Re: Autodesk webinar >> >> In Softimage we have a production-proven, solid tool. ICE works TODAY, not >> 2 years from today, not in a dream of a product called Bifrost, but right >> NOW. >> >> Are you telling everyone here who has based their ENTIRE business around >> Softimage, we should trust Autodesk to have a fully functioning tool ready >> that will do EVERYTHING Softimage can do TODAY by the time Softimage hits >> the end? We should believe that after you've just admitted that Skyline was >> a failure? >> >> These aren't a bunch of ideas or concepts here, these are our businesses! >> We feed our families, we pay our bills, we survive based on Softimage and >> now we have to hope that somehow Bifrost is not in the 99% failure, but 1% >> innovation? >> >> Do you seriously want us to bet our future on that? Would you go home and >> tell your significant other that rather than focusing on a tool that works >> for you, makes money for you right now, you're betting everything on a >> promise from Autodesk?? >> >> Who on earth does business like that?? Is Autodesk going to pay our >> mortgages or feed our families when Bifrost falls apart? Because unless >> that's the plan, I can't think of a single sane person who would go along >> with this Maya-only plan. >> >> This is absolutely a terrible way to do business and everyone at Autodesk >> knows it. They've just dug in their heels to avoid looking like they've >> made a colossal mistake. >> >> -Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Adam Sale >> <adamfs...@gmail.com<mailto:adamfs...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Maurice, in all of this talk the one glaring omission is this. You guys are >> always trying to innovate. You have said success is often 99 percent failure >> to one percent success. Well, in the event bifrost falls by the wayside like >> skyline did, all of a sudden autodesk will have zero node based solutions to >> do the type of ice work we expect of a dcc product. How is that a wise move >> as a company? Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water and seems >> incredibly short sighted. So as we move to bifrost to begin our transition >> away from ICE, we may be in this same mess a couple years down the road if >> it doesnt pan out. Imagine the fallout then.. people will go absolutely >> nuclear on AD. >> >> Adam >
