CompuServe Messages

/* It is sounding like AutoDesk has decided to abandon Ani Pro and FLC development tools */ You probably won't get an official response about this type of thing, but to my knowledge ANI will continue to be sold and the FLC format will be with us for some time to come. 8-bit flics have their place much as 8-bit images do. They are compact and clean enough for many purposes. Some folks thought .FLI files would go away, but the fact that they run on any VGA card kept them around and how old is Animator? 🙂 It is important to note also that (as I've said before) AStudio is not a replacement for AniPro. The two products have minimal overlapping functions, and together form the true latest generation of the product. If you have AniPro already, plan on keeping it on your harddisk for some time. I'd like to say (at this juncture) that I like what I'm seeing from the Multimedia group… a fresh practical perspective on product creation. For over a decade AutoCAD has been fixed and appended, replacing it's earlier versions. The problem with this is that there is an incredible amount of overlap; the majority of the "new" documentation is the same as the last release, the majority of the executables are the same… there is an incredible amount of redundancy. In response to the wishlist for Animator Pro, however, we see a new product emerging which goes "beyond" Animator Pro with new features and new customization/programming capabilities… minimal redundancy. Rather than Animator Pro 2.0, we see Animator Studio 1.0, a complimentary product which leaves the original's power alone. There are several benefits not obvious to this new approach: 1> the user's productivity does not come to a standstill, being disoriented by interface and new organization layout- productivity with the original continues as always. 2> the customizations/programming investment are intact. the languages are left alone to maintain current productivity whilst new programming needs are offered "in tandem" by a co-product. 3> Documentation for the new product is focused on new features rather than the majority of it recycling previous ones- this keeps the cost down and frees up more of the price to dedicate to new documentation (which usually results in more useful manuals) 4> Grey areas between product functionality are minimized. Users requiring the functionality of AniPro versus AStudio need not buy AStudio to maintain AniPro functionality. Likewise, users needing only AStudio's functions need not by AniPro. In the past, it you wanted 2 out of 5 main capabilities, you had to by the 5. This is an incredible waste. I've seen it with AutoCAD; users using less than 25% of the program because that was the only way they could get the 25% of the features at their disposal. If diverse features are broken up (like AutoCAD Extensions: "need this? tack it on!" approach— TRUE MODULAR PROGRAMS) into separate programs, you empower the user to be able to select which features are necessary for his/her task. The philosophy is the same as the benefit to a programmer… writing modular code gives more flexibility and control over features and their capabilities. The same can be said for programs. Imagine if AniPro were actually 10 different programs, or even one engine with 10 modules (like IPAS routines are for 3DStudio). Maybe not everyone needs palette control, or a c-language interface like POCO, or tweening or tracing capabilities. If these were purchasable in separate "modules", again like IPAS, the user could be specific about what they needed and TOTALLY exploit their investment since they are not forced to buy a HUGE package with features irrelevant to the task. Maybe I don't need "GLOW" or "WATER" or "WAVE" IPAS… if these had been a part of the main 3D Studio package, I'd be paying for them but not using them. Autodesk's IPAS approach is analogous to the AniPro/AStudio mentality. I get my money's worth as a consumer; 100% of my purchase gets used! My hats off to the multimedia group for this practical future trend in modular programs; they empower the user to fully exploit their investment in the software, they reduce the redundancy and wastefulness of large engines, and they make the response capabilities of a software company far less costly and fast-trackable. Hooray! -dave