#Why I won't upgrade
13 messages in this thread
Boy, I hate to jump on this particular bandwagon, as this is a program I love
and enjoy dearly, but I think it's important for Autodesk (and, yes, my great
God Yost) to at least know what some people are thinking.
While I've ordered the upgrade and am indeed looking forward to it, I did as
well have a sinking feeling that I'm simply paying for an open ended tool that
will require a huge investment in additional software to make it as functional
as I want. It's not unlike seeing the base price of a car only to read that, by
the time you add in such frivilous extras like a radio, tires and an engine,
the whole thing costs about twice what you see in the advertisements.
Hey, Gary, if you never did anything more in life than what you and your
cohorts have done with this remarkable product, I'd be truly happy. But I sure
wish that R4 (and R5, 6 and 7) would have had things like spline based modeling
and dynamics built in. I raised this issue about 8 months ago, when my wish
list had dynamics for R4, and I was told that "a third party was working on it,
and it would be out long before R4". Well, they were and it wasn't, and thus
it should have been part of the package.
And it's VERY weird to read the new ads for R4 — "the product that changes
weekly". They show no pictures (because then they'd have to show the fine
print that would say "IPAS routines to accomplish all this sold separately" —
beginning to seem a little like those kids commercials on Saturday mornings).
Just my humble thoughts — don't everyone jump on me.
i think that the people jumping on this bandwagon are not concidering what they
would pay for the same amount "POWER" on any other system out there. 3ds is and
will remain the most powerfull animation tool you can have right now on the pc.
believe me i have checked out alias, wavefront, softimage, i even bought
crystalgraphics topas professional and to this day it has keep the place on the
table top perfectly clean of dust<g>. just the ability to have inverse kim. is
worth the wait and price of this software. the openness of the software is what
is going to make it incredably powerfull for many people here. don't judge it
just yet my friends, you will be very satisfied on what you see and can do with
this software. or you can leave now befor the show begins<g>
sherwood animations
Mike:
Its important to make known what you desire out of this software as the Yost
Group and Adesk have been listening and have responded to some of these wishes.
I cracked up on your auto analogy as I was going to offer the same kind of
example. (Car analogies are SOP here.) No need to jump on you as your view is
quite valid.
Bob
As another upgrader in wait I want to ask a open question
Does anybody really believe that porting R5 or whatever to NT is going to make
a difference? What is the thinking here…a better port would be to UNIX and
X…just because NT has GL support does not make it a ideal target for 3DS!
Does anybody really want an NT version? How about a X version that can be used
via X-stations or powerfull workstations…render on an SGI, IBM even the slow
Pentium (relative to PowerPC).
NT is not what it is hyped up to be.
3DS needs to go the direction of workstations performace not still on the
braindead Intel chip and its children.
-Jeff
Jeff:
The core of my wish is to be able to use 3DS on the DEC Alpha platform which I
already have in place. On these Alphas my OS choices are OpenVMS, OSF and NT.
Only NT has been generally supported by the myriad of application software
which my company uses. My company wants one OS for all computers PERIOD. The
tail can't wag the dog here: 3DS is not going to have any influence in my
company's decision to leave DOS/Windows behind for Windows NT. With people
working at home or remotely, on laptops, on Intel platforms, Alpha platforms,
etc. NT is what we see as the only OS which will level our playing field. So,
it is not so much that I desire an NT version of 3DS but that I want to be able
to use the Alphas in my net-rendering. An absolutely acceptable solution would
be a render-only engine which would function on these machines. I have one
machine which I could continue to run DOS/3DS (Of course it'll have to be
booted to NT to use all of the other software). From this machine I could send
out the cross platform net-render.
I don't agree that a better port for 3DS would be to UNIX. My opinion is that
you want 3DS running on the OS where you have all of your other tools.
Photoshop, Quark, Composer, WordPerfect, WinCim, Razor, PAR, Corel, Painter,
AutoCAD, GDS, PhotoStyler, Kai's Power Tools, Digital Morph, etc. should all be
easily accessible and as yet are not all available on a UNIX platform.
Perhaps an X version is the better answer, could you flesh out how one could
set this up if it were an option?
Bob
e running Intel/DOS/Windows. Do you think everyone will change that any
soon? It's not how good an OS/platform is. What's important is how easily can
you accomplish the tasks of many people at once. Like it or not, Windows (and
therefore NT) is what's out there.
I wouldn't mind having an X version of 3DS ported to the SGI. But I would want
it running on a stable (known) environment first. I run DOS, NT, Solaris, and
Irix. If I get all my Unix applications and multiply by 100 it still falls
short of the applications I (personally) have available for DOS/Windows/NT.
Bob,
I don't know…I would go for unix before NT.
Nt does not offer anything that unix/X does not offer
As to a render only engine that is good direction albeit a short temp solution.
If 3DS does make it to NT, well then it will need to be is many
flavors…intel, Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC it becomes a nightmare…
If you have a large collection of code for DOS/Windows then of course swithing
to unix/X might not be the answer…I am between a rock and a hardplace.
Have workstations os the net that can even do anything for me…no render no
nothing…at least unix/X offers this.
Jeff
>> Does anybody really believe that porting R5 or whatever to NT is going
>> to make a difference? What is the thinking here…a better port would be
>> to UNIX and X…just because NT has GL support does not make it a ideal
>> target for 3DS!
I'm being forced to put NT on my machine at my day job because Visual C++ 2.0
won't work under Windows 3.1. That means I'll have to do some kind of dual
boot, a second machine (that won't happen) or another 3D package.
Mike,
It's tough for me to be objective about this, since all the developers of 3DS
are long-time friends of mine (I've known Tom Hudson almost 20 years), but
Studio looks better and better when you compare it to programs costing 10 times
as much. I work with Softimage every day, and find this $35,000+ program to be
maddeningly obtuse and buggy. (And if you think you're getting "nickel and
dimed" by IPAS developers, how'd you like to pay an additional $1000 just so
Softimage can use .TGA files as texture maps?)
The incredible explosion of Plug-in development helps Studio all around — it
benefits developers in earning a living doing fun stuff, it benefits the end
users, and it definitely helps the marketability of the base product.
— Jon
>but Studio looks better and better when you compare it to programs costing 10
>times as much. I work with Softimage every day, and find this $35,000+ program
>to be maddeningly obtuse and buggy. (And if you think you're getting "nickel
and >dimed" by IPAS developers, how'd you like to pay an additional $1000 just
so >Softimage can use .TGA files as texture maps?)
I'm going to reply for two reasons — one, I hate to see this thread end up
being an OS war thread (hey guys, start your own!), particularly when I'm as
confused as anyone about what direction, what platform, what software my
company has to run in the coming months (let alone years), and two, I'm
starting to see some thoughts coming together here I'd sure like Gary (but he
probably won't) to comment on.
I have no trouble with IPAS developers — either with the prices or the
functions they offer. But like some others around here, I think some of the
IPAS functions should have been core to the program itself (and I mentioned
this nearly two years ago) and I think the development of those routines has
effectively blocked any such addition to the program. Microsoft thinks nothing
of adding in features that in the past were provided by third parties to fill
the gaps in MS software — but I guess when you're that big you don't worry
about offending anyone. It further muddies the waters when you have the Yost
group as primary IPAS developers — there is a big conflict of interest there!
My own wish list is modest — just dynamics and a spline/patch modeler. I've
had that list well before the end of the deadline for wishes in R4, it was a
reasonable request back then, and apparently it will not be fulfilled anytime
soon. I know that I can't make that wish known for R5, because the way the
wind is blowing that will be considered "something some third party somewhere
can certainly provide for you at some point for some price". Of course, IPAS
can be made so open ended that the same can be said for ANYONE's wish, so I
guess eventually we'll just be told "hey, the system can be programmed to do
that."
I guess an analogy would be that if I wanted to fly to Orlando I would go to
the airline and they'd say "Hey, you can buy a ticket — the plane's out there
and it can go anywhere you want. Of course, you'll have to either fly it there
yourself (after spending money and time to learn how to do that), or find
yourself some third party pilot who might want to go in that direction some
time that's convenient for her, at a price that may or may not be acceptable to
you. But our airline planes can go ANYWHERE!"
Mike,
>> airline planes can go ANYWHERE!"<<
I can't agree with your particular airline analogy, but an airline anology is
appropriate. I'd say "Autodesk Airways" covers the major routes and cities, but
3rd party carriers (developers) will need to cover the communities off the
beaten path. Very similar to the successful Autocad philosophy.
That being said, I feel full-blown spline modeling (not just patch) should be
considered a major route 🙂
Jon,
I tried to touch on this point, cost, in a previous message and some
folks just don't get it. I'm really glad to hear someone else making
similar comparisons.
-Lee
Jon, Great reply to MikeK Jon. I had to mention it. You're absolutely right. I
think the IK plug-in alone is worth the upgrade price. Wow, $1K just to use
.TGA's on SI. Unreal. So, why do you use Soft Image everyday anyway?
Dave Mennenoh
Dave,
I work at Sega of America, which has made a considerable investment in
Softimage.
— Jon