How rendering should be

General discussion about 3D DCC and other topics
User avatar
Nizar
Posts: 725
Joined: 30 May 2010, 22:54

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Nizar » 26 Aug 2012, 10:10

With every development and support going to Maya and every other third party support not going into XSI, droppping from XSI or half implemeted in XSI, it is tempting for someone to finally move away from XSI. And the obvious next step is moving to Maya.
Thinking of this better though it might not be a good solution as well. Autodesk might buy a new software next year and move all the good stuff in their new baby and suddently Maya becomes another XSI in terms of development lagging back, just like Max is slowly doing. Then what? Oh well..move again I guess?
Reading Luceric comments I understood AD make plan for the next five years or more. For the next five years Maya is AD focus (with the mysterious maya FX project). What can buying now AD on the market? the only software they can buy is Cinema 4d and/or Lightwave, houdini is not for sale like Modo (either are private company). Anyone would like to leave Softimage for Cinema 4d or Lightwave under AD "development"? I trully think no...

So, I don't like it and I don't see so many happy users on maya front, but seems Maya is the winning horse and you can bet on it.

User avatar
Maximus
Posts: 1105
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 15:45

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Maximus » 26 Aug 2012, 11:41

Ther is really no winning horse under Autodesk horse, my guess is in few years other softwares will compete fully with AD products where nowadays they might lack.
AD is doing the same mistake Mental Images did, sitting in their old glory while other software houses keep growing, untill they wake up one day and be like "oh shit.."

You just need SideFX to take a look into make modeling and rigging more accessible and flexible and AD is going to get smashed bad. Same goes for Cinema 4D.
And considering those 2 software houses, its a really plausible future.
Watch it.

User avatar
Nizar
Posts: 725
Joined: 30 May 2010, 22:54

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Nizar » 26 Aug 2012, 12:37

Agree, but rumors (and some info is more than a simple rumor) talk about Maya development in two direction, videogame (project Skyline) and VFX (maya FX, due the name I guess is a VFX oriented project), also AD has the Excalibur project for 3dsm (exist more?). So they are not stationary (only in softimage side... no rumors, no "secret" project)

IMHO, they don't see in Houdini or Cinema a real menace for their businesses, their users base is consolidate so they can look to other market where competitor are more strong (videogame field? No one product in AD portfolio in this field (I mean something like Unreal Engine or Crisis)

User avatar
Maximus
Posts: 1105
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 15:45

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Maximus » 26 Aug 2012, 13:24

I remember pretty clearly Ken Pimentel admitting how Cinema 4D was growing and kinda "treatening" 3ds max, and he said they were working to make max stronger.
The difference between AD and other software houses is simple. AD is unable to provide good updates in short time, so you have to wait years, other companies are more productive, fast, dedicated, and this is a winning key, most of this is because AD made a fuckin mess with their softwares, they didnt care since start so after all this time all the bugs, mess and things they had to fix before are coming out all of a sudden and all together.

I am always quite amused on how many people underestimate Modo or Cinema 4D, main because of their lazyness to try them out.
Then you have people saying "omg i tried to rig and animate in Cinema 4d and was a nightmare, that software is shit", well why dont you try to do Archviz and work with dwg in Softimage?
Cinema 4D is not made to compete with maya animation/rigging system, but give it time. Meaningwhile it just shines on all other departments, from pure graphic, to motion graphic, to advertising, product design, architecture, and even animation vfx. So yeah it quite seem like people are just too lazy to try it out.
Do a simple test, open c4d and import a 150mb hdri file and drag and drop it everywhere from shader diffuse to environment, and see how much time it takes to load, then do the same in Softimage. I can assure you there are countless of those performance/workflow things. Even more evident. You can see here the difference between a modern and well written application and another that is left untouch without updates and bugfixes.

You cant pretend to compete with modern things without update yourself to being modern. There is a moment where you will just fall back, happened to Mental Ray with Vray, and its gonna happen again, its just normal. AD is simply fucking up on every front.

It always depends and come down to what you need to do, but beside that there is a ground where the whole toolset (software) grows.
The ground cinema/houdini/modo has is way more modern, faster, intuitive, updated than Autodesk products. Which leads them to just have to add toolsets to compete fully with AD, while AD have a crap ground to work with and stack on top bought toolsets, producing a gigantic mess.

Starting from the workflow, the interface, the ease of use, the drag and drop system, the multi project options, there are a lot of things that just work out of the box in cinema/houdini/modo where in AD is just a fucking mess. When i look at the "whishlist" from softimage, most annoying things are about solid ground, things that werent fixed/updated since years. Workflow problems.
Interface, UI. You have always time to add a toolset or even buy and integrate a plugin, but what AD seems to not understand is they have to work on their ground, and this is what will make difference in a long run, because as you saw Cinema 4D had an awesome ground and they just keep adding tools on top of it without a single problem, same goes for modo and Houdini, and even Blender.

Time will tell, but i can already see whats happening, its quite clear.

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 26 Aug 2012, 14:24

Nizar wrote: also AD has the Excalibur project for 3dsm (exist more?)
the current max version is xbr. 2014 will be the end of xbr developement then the max core is rewritten/overwritten/whatever or lets say its the final step of xbr developement (which does not mean the developement stops). and yes, its a bit lame compared to the xbr idea video presentation some years ago. i think max is missing the studios input that maya has.

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 26 Aug 2012, 14:29

Maximus wrote: I am always quite amused on how many people underestimate Modo or Cinema 4D, main because of their lazyness to try them out.
cinema is not ready for high end work. as soon as you start to work with alot of data, textures are geometry, cinema is slow down alot. that slow that you switch back to max, maya or xsi. alot of deformer? forget the speed, its unusable not because it will be slow, also the ram usage is exploding. but cinema is not done for these kind of work. their customers dont need this, so its good placed on the market.

iamVFX
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Sep 2010, 18:28

Re: How rendering should be

Post by iamVFX » 26 Aug 2012, 14:51

Nizar wrote:(videogame field? No one product in AD portfolio in this field (I mean something like Unreal Engine or Crisis)
Actually no, Maya heavily used by the artists in gamedev industry for modelling and animation, custom engines are built for real-time rendering and custom game logics. Some VFX companies, for some unknown and weird reasons, still use Maya also. I guess they wrote a tons of their shit a long time ago and now can't change the pipeline

User avatar
Nizar
Posts: 725
Joined: 30 May 2010, 22:54

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Nizar » 26 Aug 2012, 16:23

iamVFX wrote:
Nizar wrote:(videogame field? No one product in AD portfolio in this field (I mean something like Unreal Engine or Crisis)
Actually no, Maya heavily used by the artists in gamedev industry for modelling and animation, custom engines are built for real-time rendering and custom game logics. Some VFX companies, for some unknown and weird reasons, still use Maya also. I guess they wrote a tons of their shit a long time ago and now can't change the pipeline
Customize maya like sort of realtime engine ala crisis? :-o
the current max version is xbr. 2014 will be the end of xbr developement then the max core is rewritten/overwritten/whatever or lets say its the final step of xbr developement (which does not mean the developement stops). and yes, its a bit lame compared to the xbr idea video presentation some years ago. i think max is missing the studios input that maya has.
So this is excalibur? :) Poor 3dsm... :D

Maximus@ I well know modo, I like it, rendering is so simple and intuitive, a real joy to work with but cannot substitute softimage strong and consolidate modelling tools (I found some annoying bugs in last release), and with simple scene lag too. In particular the workflow is a bit too slow in many area. Rigging and animation cannot be compared and I think, due how slowing they archive the actual CA, they cannot compete with the actual softimage feature before 3 or 5 years (or never, actually I studying facerobot and found it great).

Cannot say nothing about Cinema, only I see a very happy user base....

The software impressed me is blender, is incredible how fast they archive great result and in some area is very great (modelling is very fast and rigging is simple and effective). I wait the result of the last google summer of code (viewport FX (more fast and strong viewport perfomance), precision modelling tool (a set of new tools and snapping), dynamic retopology (sculpt like dynamesh), GUI improvment and some improvement on cycles side)

iamVFX
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Sep 2010, 18:28

Re: How rendering should be

Post by iamVFX » 26 Aug 2012, 16:52

Nizar wrote:Customize maya like sort of realtime engine ala crisis? :-o
No, models, rigs and animations are exported to a custom engine that will just displays/blends them.

iamVFX
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Sep 2010, 18:28

Re: How rendering should be

Post by iamVFX » 26 Aug 2012, 17:22

The situation around Maya is funny, because Autodesk want to please VFX and gamedev guys at the same time (and they'll fail, eventually, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush), when Softimage could easily take a place in gamedev industry.

If you look at the old videos of Mark which shows some real-time features that was used by Valve during Half-Life 2 development or exporters for various engines (including CryEngine 2) in XSI Mod Tool, you can easily see how easy and natural the market could be achieved.

Maya 2013 will have DX11 viewport now. Do you ever ask yourself what's happened with DX10 feature in SI?

Image

User avatar
Nizar
Posts: 725
Joined: 30 May 2010, 22:54

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Nizar » 26 Aug 2012, 17:30

the mysterious AD plan...

Actually I reading some thread on Luxology board, about the last news on AD financial issue, one of the main subject concern how many time softimage will survive under AD, and if they will close it:
http://forums.luxology.com/topic.aspx?f=4&t=69412

I don't mean they have reason, I would like to stress how people outside AD and his fellow users base see softimage actual situation and future.

Ramon
Posts: 111
Joined: 19 Aug 2010, 22:47

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Ramon » 26 Aug 2012, 19:52

this policy of development of AD just help people migrate to other software
xsibase don't work, where i can post problems and wishes for tools
probably they add new tools only for personal use
Just look at forums Modo, Cinema, Blender you get answers to any questions from developers.
start learning Blender

User avatar
Maximus
Posts: 1105
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 15:45

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Maximus » 26 Aug 2012, 20:51

Kzin wrote:
Maximus wrote: I am always quite amused on how many people underestimate Modo or Cinema 4D, main because of their lazyness to try them out.
cinema is not ready for high end work. as soon as you start to work with alot of data, textures are geometry, cinema is slow down alot. that slow that you switch back to max, maya or xsi. alot of deformer? forget the speed, its unusable not because it will be slow, also the ram usage is exploding. but cinema is not done for these kind of work. their customers dont need this, so its good placed on the market.
I dont know where people draw the line between work and high end work, so might as well make me an example, because from studio i know, works i see cinema 4d is more than capable to cover a gigantic variety of jobs from simple to advanced.
Of course you wont see cinema 4d being used to rig King Kong at Weta digital. You know there are bilions of other markets and jobs other than that.

You know this looks to me the same topic there was time ago, "Vray is only for archviz", yeah go check it out now :)

User avatar
Hirazi Blue
Administrator
Posts: 5107
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 12:15

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Hirazi Blue » 26 Aug 2012, 20:57

Ramon wrote:this policy of development of AD just help people migrate to other software
Ah, the mythical mass migration away from Autodesk... The sad truth is that it will never happen! Users tend to be fiercely loyal towards the product they are familiar with and use in production. Not out of some kind of brand loyalty, but because they need this product to get the job done! In my experience, all the bitching and moaning on the different forums hardly ever seems to amount to many actually taking the plunge to adopt new software. Autodesk really hasn’t got anything to worry about in that respect. And should a product itself be killed, for instance if Autodesk eventually decides to kill Softimage (read it again: ”if”, not “when”!!!!) I am pretty certain, most Softimage users would take Autodesk up on a nice side-grade offer and would start to use Maya or Max, instead of looking elsewhere. They'd bitch and moan about it for a while, but they'd start using it nonetheless...
Life is good for Mr. and Mrs. Autodesk... ;)
Stay safe, sane & healthy!

User avatar
Nizar
Posts: 725
Joined: 30 May 2010, 22:54

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Nizar » 26 Aug 2012, 23:35

Hirazi Blue wrote:
Ramon wrote:this policy of development of AD just help people migrate to other software
Ah, the mythical mass migration away from Autodesk... The sad truth is that it will never happen! Users tend to be fiercely loyal towards the product they are familiar with and use in production. Not out of some kind of brand loyalty, but because they need this product to get the job done! In my experience, all the bitching and moaning on the different forums hardly ever seems to amount to many actually taking the plunge to adopt new software. Autodesk really hasn’t got anything to worry about in that respect. And should a product itself be killed, for instance if Autodesk eventually decides to kill Softimage (read it again: ”if”, not “when”!!!!) I am pretty certain, most Softimage users would take Autodesk up on a nice side-grade offer and would start to use Maya or Max, instead of looking elsewhere. They'd bitch and moan about it for a while, but they'd start using it nonetheless...
Life is good for Mr. and Mrs. Autodesk... ;)
I'm not so sure about. If Cinema or what else will show some great feature/capability making easer our life why don't try?
Learn an application is a big effort in terms of study, time and money, if a freelance (because who want work on the industry usually pick up maya or 3dsm wagon) will see all his effort wasted by AD choice, IMHO, why doing again some error? So will not waste its effort on AD side. With a bit of struggle every software out there can doing the job (more fast or more slow), so if I must learn another application I will prefer some no AD product.

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 27 Aug 2012, 00:59

Maximus wrote:
Kzin wrote:
Maximus wrote: I am always quite amused on how many people underestimate Modo or Cinema 4D, main because of their lazyness to try them out.
cinema is not ready for high end work. as soon as you start to work with alot of data, textures are geometry, cinema is slow down alot. that slow that you switch back to max, maya or xsi. alot of deformer? forget the speed, its unusable not because it will be slow, also the ram usage is exploding. but cinema is not done for these kind of work. their customers dont need this, so its good placed on the market.
I dont know where people draw the line between work and high end work, so might as well make me an example, because from studio i know, works i see cinema 4d is more than capable to cover a gigantic variety of jobs from simple to advanced.
Of course you wont see cinema 4d being used to rig King Kong at Weta digital. You know there are bilions of other markets and jobs other than that.

You know this looks to me the same topic there was time ago, "Vray is only for archviz", yeah go check it out now :)
it comes from my own experience (i know cinema since 1999). try it by yourself and you will see whats happen if you have to render alot of highres maps at the same time. or use alot of deformers, cinema is not responding. you have to disable all the deformers to make the whole thing workable again (editor speed and display is the problem). highres geo is also a big problem.

i did not wrote its not good. its good for what its done and where it is placed on the market. but dont think its a competitor for max, xsi or maya. and i dont think maxon is going in this direction. it works great on their current market. the developement of the last ten years shows that they dont aim high end 3d market at all, but thats ok.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests