current Fabric Engine usage?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 754
- Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 01:41
- Contact:
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Not likely we'll share the tools. It's what gives the company an advantage.
Kraken will be open source and will come with basic solvers that will allow anyone to build a biped. However the Hybride solvers stay at Hybride.
Kraken will be open source and will come with basic solvers that will allow anyone to build a biped. However the Hybride solvers stay at Hybride.
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Propriety stuff ... just trying to say... it would be nice to have at least a testimonial documented on their site and a library of "knowledge" or articles or "what can be done" reviews.. saying it CAN be done, doesn't have to be shared persay... just thought "opensource" without having to share the source. Sorry for sounding greedy.
-Marketing FE so that more people get into it, more talent, man-power, people getting encouraged to work with it, and thus.. probably making it's sure of it's survival in the industry (unlike SI).
Thanks again for sharing what you do with it.
-Marketing FE so that more people get into it, more talent, man-power, people getting encouraged to work with it, and thus.. probably making it's sure of it's survival in the industry (unlike SI).
Thanks again for sharing what you do with it.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 754
- Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 01:41
- Contact:
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Believe me, there will be quite a bit of info coming out about the work we did. We presented at the Fabric User Group at Siggraph last year and will probably be there again this year showing stuff we've done.
- MauricioPC
- Moderator
- Posts: 1085
- Joined: 16 Sep 2013, 13:39
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Thanks for all the info Eric. The good thing about this is that if Kraken works on all software that have FE, we'll probably see more cool stuff done on animation outside of the Autodesk helm and that can't be a bad thing.
Modo animation still have problems because of lack of tools and viewport performance. I imagine that that crazy fast viewport from FE will eventually come to Modo, making it easier to use for animation. Maybe smaller studio will risk to develop something and believe in something like Modo or even another possibility. Who knows ... exciting times ahead.
Modo animation still have problems because of lack of tools and viewport performance. I imagine that that crazy fast viewport from FE will eventually come to Modo, making it easier to use for animation. Maybe smaller studio will risk to develop something and believe in something like Modo or even another possibility. Who knows ... exciting times ahead.
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Wow that really sounds terrible, would've though it would've been easier to find Ice guys than extraordinarily talented scripters (especially then)Mathaeus wrote:I've been witness of sooo many sad, background stories. Like producers of small team, hunting across nine European countries, for another ICE guy, once first ICE guy left the team. At the end, finishing the project without ICE. And so on and so on....
I dunno. sounds to me like the "true meaning" of "prestige".Numbers always were important.
also sounds really terrible,When I come to XSI with XSI 4, I believed it will spread a bit more.
Around XSI 6, it was clear for me, how entire story is going to nowhere.
But for the many users that were exposed to Arnorld on Maya not long after release for SI, it seemed like literally everything came from the tiny (and specific) SI community.
And before Arnold, that effervescence also went for mental ray (which was also for 3DS and also exposed to thousands upon thousands), and also goes for the more recent Redshift until today beyond EOL on RS forums. (despite all the corporate sillyness and state of things going-on)
Why?
(probably the same reason why they went first for the tiny SI community in the first place)
SI was (and is) just as welcoming or accommodating for the most technically inclined as for the "artists".
this was from the top 5 SI thread about scripting (alone)
This is from Cristopher Crouzet (both Maya and SI User for a while)Hidden content: [ Show ]
in response to a comment a bout Maya API on his blog,
Hidden content: [ Show ]
But even before ice, any sort of "development" has always been like an extremely visual and intuitive experience in Softimage
and that's (in part) what seems to be missing generally.
While ICE has only merly been a (yet still a great) extention to that base.
(pre-ice video)
Personally, I learn new software all the time, and I really dont think I'm imagining things when getting the impression that working in pretty much everything to date,
is like really not the same experience at all. 3DS, Blender, Maya ... while truely awesome looking clips can be seen made using any of those packages,
which would much more be attributable to incredible user patience and determination, rather than how much software accommodates that (without involving insane amounts of time or technical wherewithal)
Mostly concerning finnickyness, figuring out, or making more than just basic things work (especially under pressure), not unlike before actually..
I think the recently posted 3DS rigging tutorial to me only confirms that, and Maya is still at the top of the finnickyness chain despite simplifications almost exclusive to the front end,
coming closer to SI like MCG comes closer to ICE, considered awesomely great for current users (getting bits and peices of what SI is all about), but faint attempts at best for SI users.
I know habit is a (if not -the- ) main factor, but I'm very much referring to beyond habit.
And if some people are inclined to stick with soft or be "emotional", then perhaps there's a reason for that, and I think it's just exactly that.
Call it being "fanboy", but it could be said that we have yet to witness what could more potentially replace it in those terms.
At the end of the day (or every day), for anyone that knows it, getting to all sorts of goals is still a (much) more fluid process.
For me, can't wait to see how BStudio is (supposedly equally friendly/inviting (with micro-accomodations and universal stable tool interop) as it is capable, but can't wait for further announcements beyond the BView ClipViewer),
cause I don't think I'm the only one to find that despite various changes making things "not as bad",
other things are still mostly pretty-much almost exactly like what they were a pretty long while ago.
(just comparatively awkward)
And for now, I'm happy that XSI can still do what it can still do best.
Concerning ICE (alone) and Canvas, maybe FE would move away from their very-much admitted "mostly for TD's" inclinations, but unless that would considerably change, even if it could technically do whatever Ice can,
(perhaps also like Houdini also technically can (and more) but just very technically)
... I wouldn't consider it to be enough grounds to say "yay! finally!"
and a similarly friendly/versatile -interactive creative environment- (not unlike the base DCC) would yet to become a reality.
(early) ICE page stuff from not 4 but 6 years ago. (page 202 of 203)
"times are changing"
indeed...
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Day spent without bashing Autodesk employee is a wasted day ;)MauricioPC wrote:I don't think in this case this is fair
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Wouldn't call it terrible, complete ICE story passed much better than I expected - today is probably irrelevant *what* I've expected. Generally I think the ratio of SI users, able to utilize ICE in everyday work, it was somewhere from one of five, to one of ten. So, importance was around this ratio.FXDude wrote:Wow that really sounds terrible, would've though it would've been easier to find Ice guys than extraordinarily talented scripters (especially then)Mathaeus wrote:I've been witness of sooo many sad, background stories. Like producers of small team, hunting across nine European countries, for another ICE guy, once first ICE guy left the team. At the end, finishing the project without ICE. And so on and so on....
Regarding Maya, found it nice when it comes to transforms. Skin is not competitor to SI envelope and related stuff, but like how Maya Blend shape is compact, compared to overcomplicated SI shape key system - for my taste, of course. In other word, probably second ICE compound I made, it was a ICE based morphing. Destructive, based on plain copies, but simple enough, to do not use SI shape keys, not at all, since 2008.
So, for me, main advantage of such visual programming systems is ability to 'lobotomize' or 'unlearn' the app, by replacing the overcomplicated stuff by something simpler and more predictable. Same goes to Houdini, I don't know for, and I don't care about their shelf tools - but simple 'Solver' SOP (able to turn anything into iterative, simulated process) is subject of many experiments.
Back to Maya, fortunately or not, it is *only* 3d app on planet, allowing me to keep some habits I've earned with Softimage. Just for small example, ability to key the constrained transforms back to local, even overridden SRT. Or, ability to apply the shrink wrap directly to selection of points (through 'combined' view port - out liner selection) - Blender needs some scripting to allow that. Both simply has nothing with external engines or visual programming systems, as they, by nature, have a little or nothing with interaction.
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
I wonder why nobody starts to create a very basic modeling tool with fabric.
I know... they say that their goal is not to build a standalone/monolitic DCC... also people say "Its so hard to write a modeling app".
The part that i dont get is, how can they build a complete rigging and crowd system in some months but not some basic modeling tools.
I mean something "simple" like the Softimage "N" Tool to draw polygons. For example for pbp modeling.
I still have high hopes in fabric and that they change their mind in building a complete DCC out of it.
For me i like it to have everything under one hood and i hate to have to jump from one app to the other.
Imagine the possibilities with such a modern multithreaded and gpu accelerated visual programming DCC.
Specially with Canvas which would have access to everything inside the application.
Also a sad side aspect is that tools which companys create will (of course) not be released.
I wonder how fabric will grow then...
I know... they say that their goal is not to build a standalone/monolitic DCC... also people say "Its so hard to write a modeling app".
The part that i dont get is, how can they build a complete rigging and crowd system in some months but not some basic modeling tools.
I mean something "simple" like the Softimage "N" Tool to draw polygons. For example for pbp modeling.
I still have high hopes in fabric and that they change their mind in building a complete DCC out of it.
For me i like it to have everything under one hood and i hate to have to jump from one app to the other.
Imagine the possibilities with such a modern multithreaded and gpu accelerated visual programming DCC.
Specially with Canvas which would have access to everything inside the application.
Also a sad side aspect is that tools which companys create will (of course) not be released.
I wonder how fabric will grow then...
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 754
- Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 01:41
- Contact:
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
I'm not trying to pick your post apart in a malicious way but I think it's important to go through some of this.
The Crowd system is something that was years of work. I know this for a fact. Even now it's continuing to get development and evolve. We had to customize a bunch of it for our pipeline and tools btw.
There is no complete rigging system. Osiris was their module / proof of concept system that they built. It wasn't full featured and in my opinion a bit clunky to use. There were limitations to it as well. It didn't take a few months from my understanding either. We don't actually know any start / end dates so statements claiming it was only a few months work isn't really fair to say unless we get solid time frames from the Fabric folks.blaxxun wrote: The part that i dont get is, how can they build a complete rigging and crowd system in some months but not some basic modeling tools.
The Crowd system is something that was years of work. I know this for a fact. Even now it's continuing to get development and evolve. We had to customize a bunch of it for our pipeline and tools btw.
Is it fair to make statements like this? I think it can only be said if you know what it takes to develop the feature you're talking about. Many of us I think take things like polygon modeling for granted. If you look at all of the code that the draw polygon tool uses it may surprise us. Luc-Eric any insights? Even a rough estimate of lines of code would be interesting.I mean something "simple" like the Softimage "N" Tool to draw polygons. For example for pbp modeling.
Well, you only have access to things that the DCC allows you to. I don't think we could get to the internals of Softimage just because we can us Canvas. What we could do is recreate certain systems that we then have full access to. An example is building a blend shape deformer and blend shape authoring tools. Maybe allowing you to store blend shapes deltas to an alembic file to allow not only the tools but the data to be portable too.Specially with Canvas which would have access to everything inside the application.
Well again, look at what MPC is sharing. It's incredible. The splice stand alone was all them and they were able to share it. Once I get some time I'll be sharing sub-graphs, nodes, and kl extensions. Others are already sharing things in the beta too. I think it is still too early to be thinking negatively and unlike the other companies that have been around for decades, Fabric is still growing along with its community.Also a sad side aspect is that tools which companys create will (of course) not be released.
I wonder how fabric will grow then...
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
No thats totally okay. I even like it, rip it apart.
I didnt mean to sound negative at all. Iam honestly very excited and full of hopes for the future of Fabic.
I just dropped some personal thoughts about this powerful engine.
Im not well informed and also not a programmer.
So from a clueless artists view it looks more easy to write a polygon modeling tool than a rigging system, may it be complete or not.
Iam very sure that it is NOT simple. Thats why i put it in quotes "".
However, it would be wonderful to have a monolitic standalone DCC with the modern core of fabric and with ICE like access to all of its parameters.
Thanks for sheding some light. Very informative.
I didnt mean to sound negative at all. Iam honestly very excited and full of hopes for the future of Fabic.
I just dropped some personal thoughts about this powerful engine.
Im not well informed and also not a programmer.
So from a clueless artists view it looks more easy to write a polygon modeling tool than a rigging system, may it be complete or not.
Iam very sure that it is NOT simple. Thats why i put it in quotes "".
However, it would be wonderful to have a monolitic standalone DCC with the modern core of fabric and with ICE like access to all of its parameters.
Thanks for sheding some light. Very informative.
- Hirazi Blue
- Administrator
- Posts: 5107
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 12:15
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Sorry, as I suspect this to be a stupid question:EricTRocks wrote: Well, you only have access to things that the DCC allows you to. I don't think we could get to the internals of Softimage just because we can us Canvas.
understanding Fabric is "limited" to what a specific host DCC allows it to do,
how does the "cross-DCC" functionality work?
Is this based on the most restrictive DCC as a norm?
I would imagine Softimage and Modo to expose quite different things for instance...
Stay safe, sane & healthy!
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
If you are rigging with Fabric, you'd probably just want to bring in transforms to Fabric, from your Scene control objects and export either transforms to scene bones back, or the final deformation as point positions.
'Spliced' Dccs would have no problem with basics such as that.
When it comes to generating new geometry in the scene, then the DCC needs to be able to accept incoming topology. Lightwave for example isn't designed to have geometry created in Layout, so I suspect Fabric in LW would be a no-go. I would have thought that Modo would be ok though and if not, I'm sure the Foundry will work on areas it needs to make work. Then there's things like UV's Particles etc.
There could be things for example that you might want to pass to and from ICE from Fabric that would make no sense or have no equivalent in another application, but then, if your tool is to be swapped between applications, you'd just avoid designing anything in your tool that is one-app specific.
'Spliced' Dccs would have no problem with basics such as that.
When it comes to generating new geometry in the scene, then the DCC needs to be able to accept incoming topology. Lightwave for example isn't designed to have geometry created in Layout, so I suspect Fabric in LW would be a no-go. I would have thought that Modo would be ok though and if not, I'm sure the Foundry will work on areas it needs to make work. Then there's things like UV's Particles etc.
There could be things for example that you might want to pass to and from ICE from Fabric that would make no sense or have no equivalent in another application, but then, if your tool is to be swapped between applications, you'd just avoid designing anything in your tool that is one-app specific.
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
I think Eric missunderstood what i meant with "access to all parameters" of the DCC.
I actually meant building a whole DCC on top of Fabrik.
So then you are actually not bound to the limitations of any existing DCC.
I absolutly understand why the Fabric guys chose this path BUT in the future it would be more than awesome
to have a super powerful modern standalone complete Fabric DCC Suite.
As a Softimage user i really would love to see some light on the horizon for "a bright future"...
I actually meant building a whole DCC on top of Fabrik.
So then you are actually not bound to the limitations of any existing DCC.
I absolutly understand why the Fabric guys chose this path BUT in the future it would be more than awesome
to have a super powerful modern standalone complete Fabric DCC Suite.
As a Softimage user i really would love to see some light on the horizon for "a bright future"...
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
There is nothing technically stopping anyone doing that, but the Fabric team are better off spending their time making the framework than making a DCC.blaxxun wrote:I think Eric missunderstood what i meant with "access to all parameters" of the DCC.
I actually meant building a whole DCC on top of Fabrik.
So then you are actually not bound to the limitations of any existing DCC.
I absolutley understand why the Fabric guys chose this path BUT in the future it would be more than awesome
to have a super powerful modern standalone complete Fabric DCC Suite.
As a Softimage user i really would love to see some light on the horizon for "a bright future"...
The whole philosophy of Fabric is opposite to the idea of being locked into one DCC, where you have to do things the way the app wants you to. With Fabric, you can make the tools you need, or use ones someone else has made and choose to use them in whichever app you want that supports Fabric, or even make standalone Fabric tools.
No doubt over time, people will make modelling tools, UV tools, etc, and its not inconcievable that someone will try and tie them together into something resembling a DCC.
Whether its labelled a DCC or not, I do like the idea of a set of modules to do my work in the way I want to do it. This is what I do to some extent with ICE anyway.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 754
- Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 01:41
- Contact:
Re: current Fabric Engine usage?
Not allows it to do but allows it to access. Then again it's all about what Fabric exposes into these tools. An example is weight maps. The off the shelf Splice system doesn't allow for hooking into weight maps. We (Ahmidou) have implemented this and rebuilt Splice to have access to weight maps. Maybe there is something in Softimage we can't get to though maybe something to do with the internal Softimage kinematics system. If you can't get to it, you can't use it.Hirazi Blue wrote:Sorry, as I suspect this to be a stupid question:EricTRocks wrote: Well, you only have access to things that the DCC allows you to. I don't think we could get to the internals of Softimage just because we can us Canvas.
understanding Fabric is "limited" to what a specific host DCC allows it to do,
how does the "cross-DCC" functionality work?
Is this based on the most restrictive DCC as a norm?
I would imagine Softimage and Modo to expose quite different things for instance...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests