Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

That was hilarious (Autodesk Aquires XSI)


dgrigo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

I absolutely love this deal as a LW user.

But I'm so wanting NT to get it right. There's not much to fix...those fixes, though, are potentially 20 years old... The new team is looking good, though.

Once again, NT is in an eviable position... if they get it right.

As long as Andrew continues his superior support, I see no reason for the folks at NT to invest ANY energy in this area; do what they've done but do it right is all they need to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

NT : they should go ahead and modernize the app.

Join Modeler and Layout, update the core and become nodal, at least under the hood.its possible to keep what's good now, and to build on this but onto a modern structure.

They cannot keep on living on allures.

Despite the fact that high end apps are pricey, and Lw not, people tends however to adopt what's mostly used within the industry if they can. Especially if they want to work in big studios. Maya, 3D Max and yes, even XSI are widely used.

Lw finds some good place here and there. It deserves that, buts not on par with lets say Maya.

If Nt does well with Lw 10, tho, at least we'll have a modern app with a 2008-ish workflow.

Keeping into account the goodness of easy to use approach Lw has always had, BTW, will be a real benefit.

Lw has not to change radically. It has to actually evolve in better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Now the reason for Softimage to drop it's Foundation user base completely has become clear. They didn't want all those non full fee paying customers cluttering up the place and freeloading while big takeover talks were in progress. Although blogs from Softimage employees claim that they knew nothing of the takeover at the time they decided to dump Foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

These news are in no way funny or good, they're plain horrible and Autodesk dropped this as a big nasty bomb on all of it's customers and the entire industry :( i can honestly say i strongly dislike Autodesk and their business strategies. They lost all sense of reality and connection with their customers, those who keep them in business. Now yet again prices will rocket, XSI will be a subscription application like the rest. Autodesk are only in it for the money these days, they don't care about anything or anyone else.

A truly sad day for us all.. :(

/ Magnus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't think there is anything to fear about AutoDesk, they are not hunting for innovative software, they are hunting for client base.

So Autodesk is not going to come to Andrew for the moment, even if this moment can be not so far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
I don't think there is anything to fear about AutoDesk, they are not hunting for innovative software, they are hunting for client base.

So Autodesk is not going to come to Andrew for the moment, even if this moment can be not so far away.

And if they ever did, he would be a bit foolish not to grab their money and run with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • New Member
These news are in no way funny or good, they're plain horrible and Autodesk dropped this as a big nasty bomb on all of it's customers and the entire industry :( i can honestly say i strongly dislike Autodesk and their business strategies. They lost all sense of reality and connection with their customers, those who keep them in business. Now yet again prices will rocket, XSI will be a subscription application like the rest. Autodesk are only in it for the money these days, they don't care about anything or anyone else.

A truly sad day for us all.. :(

/ Magnus

@ Maximus, its a very sad thing for everyone, as we see, Autodesk expanding the user base and costs plus maintenance will skyrocket...

i just found very funny that thing about Andrew , i think he is doing a great work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken Pimentel has been giving feedback on his blog comments. It's backwards so you have to start reading from the end.

http://area.autodesk.com/index.php/blogs_k...our_passion/P0/

It sounds like all of his comments come straight out of the marketing department though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
It is very interesting how big user base is in different apps. 3DC has around 700 customers. Who knows something about other apps?

Andrew: You'll have a lot more than 700 if more industry people start looking this way. Word is trickling out. More and more people I know in the games industry are taking notice. I think 3.0 will be a big deciding factor for those on the fence. The biggest attraction I can see will be if you make the painting tools actually work with low resolution geometry and UVs, as well as normal map editing. Being able to tweak and touch up your normal maps (or any others) on game resolution 3d meshes will be a huge attraction. The volumetric stuff and the retopo tools will also be big selling points if the UI for these tools can be streamlined enough to impress others using standalone tools for those tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
I found that so funny Guys, in that sad Situation the Softimage users are, and the change in Innovation and prices.

Check this

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=130

Ha Ha , Andrew will become Prime Minister of the Ukraine! :-)

Really .. Go Andrew go! :D

That was my post, glad you liked it! :-)

The more I see of everything to do with Autodesk, and how Mudbox2 seems to be bloat ware compared to MB1; the more I appreciate everything Andrew is doing with 3d Coat.

3d Coat-the lean mean green 3d machine! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I dont think Autodesk buying up good packages only to milk them is anything to laugh about. What great strides forwards have you seen in max and maya since its under their wing? The last 3dsmax "version" is an absolute joke when it comes to new "features". Mudbox, while definately improved in some area's, brought nothing substantially new compared to mudbox 1 (well; perhaps you could count the realtime shaders as something substantially "new"). You could say it became what mb1 should have been. The "painting" is nothing impressive (compared to 3dcoat at least) either.

As far as customers for 3dcoat. I have said it before and ill say it again. Andrew has hit gold with his pure volumetric sculpting. The only thing that decides whether this becomes a success or not is wether he truly finishes it before releasing it. With this i mean it should have a competive featureset compared to zbrush and mudbox. Even if implementing those tools are not the "challenge" when it comes to voxel technology. The first impression will count for everything since most digital sculptors are allready fully entrenched in either mud or zb or both. Something simple like proper customization (rmb fixed to double axis brush control without an option to separate the two or assing a different hotkey is a crime) is a BIG thing when people already use a package they are happy with.

For them to even consider 3dcoat it will have to have at least the appearance of being equal in featureset and ease of use (good interface>good workflow). It will be necessary to get people to sit down with it and realize its freedom and advantages. This is my only worry. I think v3 is planned for december. Unless ive been missing something it seems pretty much impossible to truly create a finished digital sculpting app in such a short timeframe. Im not saying development is going slow, its going very fast, but so much has to be done still. It has only just started. So i hope Andrew will take the time needed and if more time is needed release V3 later. Add 6 months if you have too. I think its very much worth it in the end.

Offcourse if Andrew would get offered a huge sum of money its his decision to sell his work or not. Would you not take the money if it would mean you would have a guaranteed worry free life afterwards and have enough money to send your kids to college? That said i find it extremely sad softimage is aquired by Autodesk. I was extremely impressed by the stability and speed of the package and the general thought that had gone into shortcuts and viewport navigation/element selection. 3dsmax doesnt come anywhere near it. Softimage XSI may not be as feature rich but its certainly a higher quality product. Meh.. Other packages will rise (hopefully).

3dioot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
It didn't help Mudbox SO much. in the sense that the app still is not on pair with Zbrush for sure. I hope you'll be not forced to sell to AD too !

Andrew cannot be forced to sell 3d Coat because as far as I know, he owns it by himself, not a company. Of course I wouldn't blame him doing so if he was offered millions for all his hard work. He deserves it, but I hope he won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
I dont think Autodesk buying up good packages only to milk them is anything to laugh about.

Ever hear the expression "Laughing to keep from crying?"

So what are you going to do-get all depressed over something you can do nothing about?

Life goes on, same as it ever was. Insert your favourite saying here...........................

Hey, stuff happens and they never ask us before it does.

Cheers

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Yes i have heard it. ;)

Dont take my post personal; it was a general comment on this thread not specifically to your last comment. And yes; i do care. I find it sad. :( I use Autocad at work every day with the bugs that have been in it for years. I have used 3dsmax for a long time and have witnessed time and time again that the upgrades were just plugins they bought and implemented half arsedly reducing stability and performance along the way. There are no people that have autodesk products that find subscription a fair solution or "worth it". In general; people feel ripped of but have no choice. Now the choice has become even less.

With that said. I hope a hotfix is released for v34 to make the carve brush work again and then ill forget all about the big players and have some fun. ;) Ive bought 3dcoat just for the voxel sculpting (it was cheap and i had read the painting was superb and retopo was good) but ive recently tried to paint in it and it was awesome. So ill just focus on that for now. Much to learn. ^_^

3dioot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Dont take my post personal; it was a general comment on this thread not specifically to your last comment. And yes; i do care. I find it sad. :(

3dioot

I didn't take it personally. I was only mentioning why some of us were making jokes about it.

No big deal, and no worries.

Cheers

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Just make sure you sell 3dc for not less than a million Andrew. hehe.

Everyone want's to be a millionaire! Don't feel guilty about it if the time comes. Family needs to be financially secure.

So speaketh Autodesk...

Give a man a fish and he can eat for that day, give a man a net and he can feed forever... 3DC is that net.

If Autodesk buy 3DC, development/investment and features would do what they have done with all there other 'aquired' programs... trickle and then stop. Autodesk is a shark, its eating up its competitors in favour for its own inferior products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

andrew repeat by yourself:

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

I won't sell out to Autodesk

etc....

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I think it is the saddest event that have ever happen in (3D) CGI.

Autodesk is acting like black hole, or better said, Imperium, building it's own Death Star and it is up to Obi Wan Andrew to fight the Dark Side :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Here is the deal on why Max is buying out most of it's competition and it's a very clever reason too.

Now incase you people get bored easily, don't read what I will post, for it will abit of a history lesson too.

Now how many of you use Mudbox, 3D-Coat or Zbrush? Chances are, if you have a beefy PC, the answer is a sounding 'YES!'.

But, believe it or not, technology like that of Zbrush and others has been around since the early 1990's, the only issue was that the most 'primitive' way of creating such 'products' available to public was IP'ed under the person who found out how to do it in the first place.

This meant that if I was Pixologic and I wanted to create Zbrush using this 'technology' (for a lack of better terms) all the way back in the early '90's, chances are, I would have to dish out large chunks of cash to the founder to have the rights to use his technology.

So what gives you ask? Well...simple, I would much more willingly hire a team of talented vets in Graphic Development and Coding, start my own company, and start finding way of creating a products based upon the same concept, but with a different way of...shall we say using it...based upon our own technology.

This not only would void the IP of the original founder who found out the original concept (for we all know, idea's cannot be IP'ed, only the Methodology) but I would be able to IP my own Method as well make millions in the process.

That was history part 1, now, onto part 2.

Another known fact in the Graphic and Design department is that no matter how good your software is, you ARE going to have re-write every 4 years.

Lets take NASA for example.

Every 4 years, NASA brings out a new software or better more, a new OS which not only is updated, but much more optimized and compatible, this ensures that if there are any 'black-holes in the OS (and experssion which means glitches build inside the very core of the program and not simple bugs that get easily covered by patches) they not only get solved, but are never an issue in the next iteration of the said software.

However, what NASA does do in the process if should issues arise is submit quick 'Hotfixes' which are there as glue, holding the issue together, but they're not built on as a final problem solver.

With that, lets not forget the the people working on updating and re-writing the OS work all year round, even the 3 years prior to the release of the new OS. If the CryEngine cost Crytek 12 million to make and Konami well over 25 million to make, how much would you think it would cost NASA to make? Call me crazy, but all that fancy gimmickry which is beyond people like me = large cash.

Now apply the same formula to AD or any other Graphic Developer out there. What do you get?

It's simple, you'll need a company with several millions set aside every 4 years, having a team taking note and re-writing everything in the core code, fixing previous issue, optimizing and solving compatibility issues while implementing new features and codes.

If all of that doesn't cost twice or even 3 times the prices of a coder making an engine (+ don't forget that coding a utility is ten times harder then coding a game and requires more people) then I don't know what does.

So end of History Part deux.

So what is the so called 'Conclusion'?

AD can either go out, try to invest large amounts of cash in 'creating' new stuff without using the same Methodology found in other programs (which will cost them ALOT) as well rewrite a totally new version of the software in question every 4 years (another large cash in of money) or do the easiest thing possible...go out, buy the other programs as well the technology available in it for a fraction of the price.

AD is clever...bit of a bastard child but clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Another known fact in the Graphic and Design department is that no matter how good your software is, you ARE going to have re-write every 4 years.

I think that core of 3ds max, one of the oldest step-children of Autodesk, wasn't rewritten for much longer than 4 years. It definitely wasn't rewritten since Autodesk acquisition in ... eee ... 2004?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't think it has anything to do about how effective will be their pipeline and how interesting a technology could be to them.

It's all about Mergers and Acquisitions, that's all, I can bet that those who are managing these selling don't know anything about the industry except the basics.

They just know what kind of software are used in each field and how many clients they got.

And that's enough for their job.

That's just the market laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It's a cute story, but it is also your opinion.

As buga stated, 3dsmax's core hasn't been re-written at least since version 3 (and even then users were

crying for a re-write since it was evident that the discreet/autodesk practice was to just add/buy 'plug-ins'

developed by other small companies to solve their functionality omissions) which was well over 4

years ago---something like 1996-7? Also, the fact that 1 man (Andrew) is coding 3d-coat at his blistering

pace flys directly in the face of your 'truisms' relating to code-writing and applications vs. games. There

are many other examples of software applications that break your paradigm as well (nevercenter -> 2

guys, 2 years core rewrite, for example). If you are merely talking about full-blown DCC packages, those

not yet eaten up by Autodesk are dwindling...

The reality is Autodesk is a hugely capitalized company that can buy out it's competitors and at the same time

remove their technology as a threat -- and choose whether or not to re-employ it at their will. Their track

record for 'improving' their own creations as a result of their acquisitions is pretty poor (there are hundreds of

posts flying around that attest to this in direct response to their latest XSI buyout -- the cgtalk news thread,

for example). They are not really a 'rule' for how software is created, but they are monopolizing their

own slice of the industry ... which frankly, sucks on a variety of levels as it inhibits progression and limits

consumer choice (which snowballs into all kinds of things like file formats, pipelines, education, job opportunity

limitations via specific software 'knowledge', etc. --- shall we look to Microsoft to see how this is effectively

managed?).

In an altruistic world, I'd like to believe they will improve that which they buy out. But sadly, their actions speak

more towards corporate gain than true desire to excel their industry towards betterment (or the enhancement

of their consumer's ability to better do their job via Autodesk's tools). :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...