Luxury? It's a lot of work to transition to another package, and particularly painful if you choose Maya.
Obviously we all very particular job situations, but still you must agree third party development for xsi will eventually stop.. On Friday, 26 December 2014, Phil Harbath <phil.harb...@jamination.com> wrote: > Some of us don't have the luxury of changing anytime soon > ------------------------------ > From: Cristobal Infante <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgc...@gmail.com');> > Sent: 12/26/2014 2:14 PM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com');> > Subject: Re: How do you guys make sure XSI files and Softimage 7.5+ files > will open in 2016? > > who in their right mind will keep developing for softimage? wake up guys, > 1-2 years from > now it will all be finished... > > On Friday, 26 December 2014, Leoung O'Young <digim...@digimata.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','digim...@digimata.com');>> wrote: > > > Hopefully those guys at Redshift will continue to develop for Soft. > > It is still a fair bit of an investment to make the shift. > > But definitely we can render out images that is not possible in MR within > > the time > > > > On 26/12/2014 3:29 AM, Mirko Jankovic wrote: > > > > If there was something faster I would go to that right now :) > > So far SI is fastest. > > If there is better tool ofc will take it :) > > > > Just it doesn't seems that way and if you loo at situation over the past > > 5 years.. not really changing in the market actually. > > > > For me personally BIGGEST change was introduction of Redshift and GPU > > rendering finally fully usable in SI :) > > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Angus Davidson < > angus.david...@wits.ac.za > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angus.david...@wits.ac.za');> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angus.david...@wits.ac.za > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angus.david...@wits.ac.za');>');>> wrote: > > > >> Currently no one can argue that SI is anything but the best from a > >> workflow point of view. What I am saying is that there will come a time > >> where that will not be enough. It will then be faster to simply get > things > >> done on current software wether that be Maya , Modo or Houdini or > something > >> totally new altogether. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> *From:* Mirko Jankovic [mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com');> > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com');>');>] > >> *Sent:* 26 December 2014 10:06 AM > >> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com');> > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com');>');> > >> *Subject:* Re: How do you guys make sure XSI files and Softimage 7.5+ > >> files will open in 2016? > >> > >> keep in mind that all the tech improvement and power that comes along > >> is nothing if you don;t have streamlined and smooth way of controlling > it. > >> > >> even tho someone would say that right Maya is "more powerful", all the > >> fancy things they keep adding and such,a nd true they do have couple > nice > >> things I would love too have in SI, but it still falls behind in every > day > >> work where while you truly to go around maya issues and workflow > problems > >> with SI it is just pure straight work. > >> > >> no one can argue with that really > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Angus Davidson < > >> angus.david...@wits.ac.za > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angus.david...@wits.ac.za');> > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angus.david...@wits.ac.za > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angus.david...@wits.ac.za');>');>> wrote: > >> > >>> The main problem is purely technology doesnt sleep. > >>> > >>> As new leap forwards in both operating systems and hardware there will > >>> come a tipping point that no matter how good Softimage is, It will > just not > >>> be able to run on , or the more likely will be so outperformed by the > newer > >>> software that it no longer makes financial sense to keep using it. > This is > >>> especially true now that GPU processing seems to be coming into its > own. > >>> Wether that be cloud based or a rack of Titans. > >>> > >>> So the question will become not wether you can run it , but whether > >>> its worthwhile to run it. > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Jason S [jasonsta...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonsta...@gmail.com');> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonsta...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonsta...@gmail.com');>');>] > >>> *Sent:* 26 December 2014 03:00 AM > >>> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com');> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage@listproc.autodesk.com');>');> > >>> *Subject:* Re: How do you guys make sure XSI files and Softimage 7.5+ > >>> files will open in 2016? > >>> > >>> On 12/23/14 12:15, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote: > >>> > >>> * I don't have a library of softimage assets worth keeping,... > >>> > >>> * I have Softimage 2010 at home and it is already broken; > >>> every workflow that prompts for a file browser just hangs, > >>> and I can't fix it user-side, ... > >>> > >>> * I've tried everything already short of re-installing the OS, which I > won't do. > >>> ... > >>> > >>> * The file format is binary and practically encrypted, > >>> so only the app can load those files ... > >>> > >>> * Worse, there is a design flaw whereby the app > >>> can crash if a required plugin is not installed or has a problem while > >>> loading a scene, then there is no way to load the scene... > >>> > >>> * Safe keeping the installers is no security, > >>> they may not run at all in the future, > >>> being tangled in microsoft "MSI" installer tech and other things... > >>> > >>> * Older 32-bit Softmage installers already don't run because > >>> they have a 16-bit component which won't run on 64-bit Windows... > >>> > >>> > >>> Whew! By the sound of that, Softimage won't be running next year! > >>> > >>> And why does Soft so often needs to be picked-up and dusted-off from > >>> the floor (?) ;-] > >>> > >>> > >>> But sure "at some point in the future", Soft would inevitably start > >>> having issues on newer setups, > >>> when Virtual Machines would come into play. > >>> > >>> *Yet*.. when do you think would that be? > >>> Soft was certified compatibility on win8 at a very early stage of the > os > >>> release, > >>> and would surely still run fine on the next OS which is itself for > some > >>> time down the line. > >>> > >>> if not also the OS after that. > >>> (os ver. coming out every couple of years, quite consitantly with 3 > >>> versions back compatibility modes) > >>> > >>> So we're looking at at least 8, if not 12+ years. > >>> > >>> On top of the fact that people rarely switch to new OS'es very > rapidely, > >>> like so many are on still on Win7 which many perfer to win8 > >>> (new, absolutely is not always necessarily better) > >>> > >>> And there will also be the advantage of anything made to work with 2015 > >>> will work as long as XSI works. > >>> (no previous version incompatability issues) > >>> > >>> And at some point, Exocortex, Mootz, and other plugins would not > >>> surprisingly become either more accessible if not free... > >>> Which would make it yet more "killer" than it already is. > >>> > >>> And if for any reason there would eventually be licensing fails, it > >>> would by then be quite legitimate to just use cracks. > >>> > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> > >>> But similarly otherwise, concerning the Future, (concerning those that > >>> can choose what they use) > >>> when would you think something will surpass SI's general strengths? > >>> > >>> And/or rather -what- will it be... > >>> > >>> If Maya could have potentially been a closer replacement overall, it > >>> would have involved making quite a few changes > >>> in areas that hasn't been touched since even before the last FXTree > >>> Update, > >>> and it would be quite unrealistic to think that such changes would ever > >>> happen. > >>> > >>> > >>> *So that leaves the introduction of new players*. > >>> > >>> May it be releases of production studio software, > >>> Pixar Premo?, .. Dreamworks Apollo? > >>> Buf's own is suppose to come at any time early this year.. > >>> (any/all of which, "*production/artist friendliness*" seemed to have > >>> come -first- from the very start) > >>> > >>> > >>> Or... that some new thing comes out of the blue > >>> (not unlike the new FlowBox Comp package) > >>> > >>> Also look at Exocortex Clara.io, who made a basic yet more than just > >>> functional online DCC all within a really short time, with usability > that > >>> feels alot like a hybrid or "the best of" Softimage and Max . > >>> > >>> > >>> ... it might even be a 3rd party making a DCC out of Fabric (since > >>> Fabric won't (.. ever want to compete with Maya)) > >>> > >>> So who (the heck) knows.. but if you ask me, it would be pretty > >>> astonishing if some (far) more comparable options wouldn't be coming > >>> (way-way!) before Soft would actually stop running just fine, > >>> especially with just 1 (one) non-specialized/general-purpose (and > rental > >>> only) DCC considered to be "HighEnd", the void is just screaming to be > >>> filled. > >>> > >>> ____________________________ > >>> > >>> *But until then,* concerning longevity, we recently spoke of Eddie, but > >>> this all SO reminds me of exactly EDDIE. > >>> > >>> Where we only realized how good it was until... well at least Windows > >>> is unlikely to go bottom-up anytime soon. > >>> > >>> With a feature-set and/or subtle qualities that made it YEARS before > >>> it's time. > >>> > >>> Enough to make me say.. > >>> << Would love to use it on a box with more than 500mb of ram :) > >>> (and higher than 8 bit depth) >> > >>> > >>> Well, it seems that it did have 16bit depth.. > >>> > >>> > >>> Also, > >>> Softimage Eddie supports network batch rendering, 32- and 64-bit > >>> multi-processing, and an open plug-in architecture for custom tools. > >>> > >>> So on a fast machine with not even that much ram, (after all this time) > >>> I would have choosen Eddie as it was, > >>> *definitely* over Shake, AfterEffects (then -OR- now), > >>> and .. also over Nuke today? > >>> Well it would actually be a hard decision(!) only because of floating > >>> point. > >>> (only for when dealing with values going over "1", in which simple > >>> tricks can be used to easily go without, similar to using Photoshop in > 16 > >>> bit mode) > >>> > >>> Meaning, it would not be by nostalgia that would make the decision > hard, > >>> it would be because it was really quite exceptionally Streamlined, > >>> Efficient, Straight-Forward and very advanced. > >>> > >>> ________________ > >>> > >>> Apart from the things previously mentioned, it also had color matching > >>> tools that with a few clicks, > >>> whatever you were integrating simply fit with your backbgound. > >>> > >>> An NLE timeline (3.5) where you could sequence comp trees > together,which > >>> is another thing that Nuke only very recently finally had. > >>> > >>> Nuke now has a pretty good Vector paint, but Eddie's paint would still > >>> be way(!) more sophisticated hands down, it was an entire program on > it's > >>> own. > >>> > >>> And memory management was remarkable (by sheer necessity back then) > >>> > >>> You would work with 2k plates with trees spanning several pages, and it > >>> would constantly save caches, flush, and go-on with a couple other > nodes.. > > [The entire original message is not included.] >
