Softimage EOL articles

[McNistor]

I'm in mood for reading some "spicy" articles about Softimage EOL's, more precisely reactions and comments from various (preferably reputable) studios around the world that were affected or at least inconvenienced by this. Google didn't return anything relevant to my craving.
Links anyone?

[Hirazi Blue]

I don't think there are many (if any). The larger players in this field will probably move on in silence. But even owei's 3dwillneverbethesame initiative died a slow and agonizing death, so I assume there's isn't all that much to talk about to begin with (insert "cynicism-smiley" here).

[MauricioPC]

I must say I was expecting more open talk of SI studios about this situation ... it looks like nobody cared. But if even the studios who invested lots of years/money/time on it are simply changing to Maya (I hardly doubt they are changing to Houdini), than I shouldn't care much. :/

[EricTRocks]

I must say I was expecting more open talk of SI studios about this situation ... it looks like nobody cared. But if even the studios who invested lots of years/money/time on it are simply changing to Maya (I hardly doubt they are changing to Houdini), than I shouldn't care much. :/

Depends on what type of work you're doing. Medium / Bigger studios who do character work have to go to Maya. VFX heavy studios will go to Houdini. All that said with the fact that no studio needs to switch immediately, though it'd be in the best interest to do it sooner rather than later.

[FXDude]

I know of at least a couple of places who would switch when something would -actually- work better/faster, (which is -far- from being the case with either Maya or Houdini by a considerable margin, most-especially on the 'efficiency' side, while remaining 'limitless')

Except people can be not unlike sheep (heard following while taking simply slapped-on labels at face value), and you can bet your bellybutton that sheepherders will play on (take advantage of) people's sheeplikeness for whatever purpose is deemed to be most convenient from their own (private) perspective, while a bunch of us just go with (and pay for) it (like predictable/easily playable sheep).

[Bullit]

Glassworks protested - then Autodesk said it was an "oversight" to not "talk" to them first. Several noises came from MPC, Chaos Group's Vlad also blasted Autodesk for all promises they have been making to him all this years.

And for must people doesn't make sense to change yet.

[angus_davidson]

Well April 2016 is pretty much decision time for the commercial studios. Thats just under two years. While the big message from the affected studios seems to have gotten lost , There is a large upswing in Current and ex softimage users finding their way to both Modo and Houdini forums. Things like the excellent Guides by Jordi Bares are introducing a lot of people to alternatives then Maya. two years is long enough for balances to shift. We are already seeing our Major animation shops going Modo / Houdini in their pipelines. With Arnold arrived in Beta for Houdini and likely for Modo 2016 is going to be a very different landscape. People will find value with smaller more agile companies. I havent seen anything from Autodesk so far to make it worthwhile sticking with them any longer then I have to.

[FXDude]

Hum! Didn't know SI would stop working in 2016, or that Modo (or Houdini) announced a ~200% efficiency boost. ;)

[FXDude]

I'm actually not kidding about that 200%,

for weather Modo (with not that much stuff happenning at the same time, despite some recent improvements (7.0) people still go back to Lightwave for it's performance/managability with larger scenes) + the modules have been found to be somewhat constraining (for SI (or Maya) users), almost like sepearate software with a few (not enough) commonalities (not as much as lightwave's Modeler+Layout being litterally being seperate but still)
(while still of course being a very decent platform)

or Houdini (Performance wise (despite recent improvements) , and like always doing everything in (a low-level tool incarnation of) ICE, without ever (easily) freezing anything)
(while of course being very (the most) flexible of them all)

Yet I'd be curious to know how many -actually- (perhaps silently) stuck-around, only because SI just works so well ! (by ~200%)

[FXDude]

In SI, theres no such thing as "static" (efficient) objects, if it's frozen, it's static (efficient). (while remaining editable)

The general modlessness, or always being in all modes-ness. (no 'edit' modes)

SI's single/multiple object agnosticism.

SI's 'Modifier stack', (unlike most of everyhting where it's like always working in immediate mode, (except Houdini which is entirely the other way around)
everything you do is a modifier (that you can freeze on a dime, eventually freezing most everything except dynamic stuff))

ICE is like access to what normally requires hard-core programming, but visual.
(far more visual than Houdini, not only because of the higher level tools, but being able to more easily (visually) follow the flow (mostly due to input output names either 'inside' or 'outside' among other things including non-dependancy on expressions) which I think is why we always mostly find simulations done on Houdini (excellent liquid splashes, smoke puffs, sand swirls, ) even though everything that you would find on one of Pooby's excellent demonstrations (among others), is all technically possible (but just very technically)
Making (often super-handy) tiny or very elaborate custom 'modifiers' that are as easily packagable for elsewhere in a scene, as they are for elsewhere in a community.

Easily figuring-out what does what, dependancies, influences..

Gatoring things around on a whim,

SI Passes ...

...

...


SI Versatility, Straight-forwardness, shot crunching limitlessness (argh! argh! argh! (home improvement grunts) )

(edit; As for Maya, who uses it unless they don't 'have' to, having the lowest ranking usability standards, despite being the most standard)

[luceric]

I haven't really seen many article out there about the impending demise of Softimage, which was quite a surprise. I was a rather muted reaction outside the user base, with some blogs talking about Jurassic Park and Softimage|3D, which was 22 years ago. This could be for a mix of reasons, from indifference to the collapse of the CG news industry.

[FXDude]

What are you saying.. every single CG related forum had at least a ~20ish page thread (all saying the same thing), & just searching for 'Softimage' brings up more media coverage (about it's official retirement) than it's ever had (about Softimage) under either AD or Avid.

I think any indifference to be more likely a (wishful) projection perceived by the (wishfully) indifferent.

[luceric]

I'm talking about juicy articles and blog posts. That's what I wrote and this thread is about.

[MauricioPC]

I'm talking about juicy articles and blog posts. That's what I wrote and this thread is about.

Yeah ... it was rather disappointing. Even FXGuide (a site I respect), wrote very few lines, most about the old stuff of Softimage. Nothing about some great current work that it was used for. It seems the message was that SI was old and it was it's time and it made history and that's all, even thought it's still the most modern software. Modo (the newest on the block) doesn't even compare to it.

I know SI have problems and you Luceric pointed some of them through the years here, but it's still the most robust, elegant, well designed software there is (until now). It would be a joy to be able to play with it indefinitely.

Anyway ... kudos to you and all original SI developers. You've guys created something you should be proud.

[FXDude]

I'm talking about juicy articles and blog posts. That's what I wrote and this thread is about.

Right.. ;)
basically quoting your entire post (hardly about any juiciness)

I haven't really seen many article out there about the impending demise of Softimage, which was quite a surprise. It was a rather muted reaction outside the user base, with some blogs talking about Jurassic Park and Softimage|3D, which was 22 years ago. This could be for a mix of reasons, from indifference to the collapse of the CG news industry.

And as if any unsettling feelings was mostly about naustalgia, as opposed to concerns about the loss of very much current, persistent, and considerable workflow advantages.


But about juiciness, even the very first article was pretty juicy,

http://www.cgchannel.com/2014/03/autode ... softimage/

Talking about leaked and retracted unofficial announcements, with next day updates about retracted restrictions, .. and the EOL itself (pretty juicy in itself).. so what would you consider 'juicy'?

(Edit; Added quote)

[FXDude]

Nothing about some great current work that it was used for. It seems the message was that SI was old and it was it's time and it made history and that's all, even thought it's still the most modern software.

Exactly