XSI's future

[ozz-2005]

but last time i heard, Square wasnt going to share its tools with Alias. wasnt that the big blow to alias? that they helped square develop some tools/ fix up maya...but get close to nothing in return?

____________
-M-K-
ambient-whisper

[belinus]

In reply to:
but last time i heard, Square wasnt going to share its tools with Alias. wasnt that the big blow to alias? that they helped square develop some tools/ fix up maya...but get close to nothing in return?
-M-K-

I imagine Alias will get some things out of the deal. I don't think the lawyers were dumb enough to not sign away rights to re-write the whole application from the backplate up without gaining some new features.

There is probably a freeze between when Square gives the features and when Alias can release them. It would be stupid to release them out now when competators are now scrambling.

[daniel-watson]

thanks for the reply's

I think i'll focus on XSI for now (i know some max(enough to hate it)) and i'll do some maya later when the time (and opertunity) comes.

thanks again
Daniel3D

[johnnymech]

My two cents? I say stick with XSI. Learn as much as you can with the tools, modeling, texture, animation etc. Build those skills up well enough and you can jump to either max or maya much better and faster then when you first started with softimage. Thats my experience anyway... When I sat behind maya for a week after starting with soft I found the only difference was learning what buttons to push (and the only problem since my hand always went for the soft/xsi shortcut keys)
Build your skills in the package you like... train yourself the others when needed.

RaiThioS
harrassing the mail man daily for XSI 2

[nurbousbreakdown]

In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:
but last time i heard, Square wasnt going to share its tools with Alias. wasnt that the big blow to alias? that they helped square develop some tools/ fix up maya...but get close to nothing in return?
-M-K-

[/quote]

I imagine Alias will get some things out of the deal. I don't think the lawyers were dumb enough to not sign away rights to re-write the whole application from the backplate up without gaining some new features.

There is probably a freeze between when Square gives the features and when Alias can release them. It would be stupid to release them out now when competators are now scrambling.

To quote the memorable line from a song long ago...

            'Don't... don't... don't believe the hype...'

If I remember correctly, squares comment on Maya was if they were able to go back and redo it they wouldn't use Maya again... apparently they were very unhappy, and Alias had to come in and recode large quantities of stuff to keep it from going down in flames. So I'm not sure if they are so keen to give anything to Alias. Dunno... rumours are rumours, and nothing more. We'll never know, will we. Use the package that works best for you. Look at the others, always retain a critical eye, and remember that seeing is believing, and rumours are hot air.

Balgillow

[belinus]

In reply to:
If I remember correctly, squares comment on Maya was if they were able to go back and redo it they wouldn't use Maya again... apparently they were very unhappy, and Alias had to come in and recode large quantities of stuff to keep it from going down in flames. So I'm not sure if they are so keen to give anything to Alias. Dunno... rumours are rumours, and nothing more. We'll never know, will we. Use the package that works best for you. Look at the others, always retain a critical eye, and remember that seeing is believing, and rumours are hot air.

According to their special features on the TSW DVD, it seems as if they were very pleased with it given they were pretty much re-inventing the genre. Of course there are going to be wrinkles.

The Thriller video on it is amusing too.

[mike-heintzman]

oh yes - the industry is packed full of happy litlle elves that just help eachother out all the time!!! - i mean if anything ever went badly they would of course let the public know.

Large quantities of maya were modified? - yeah whoopy, thats happened on just about every major production using maya to date - perhaps AW's only favour in return is people "not" bagging their sloppy and unreliable software.

eat well, stay fit - die anyway

[ame]

In reply to:
oh yes - the industry is packed full of happy litlle elves that just help eachother out all the time!!! - i mean if anything ever went badly they would of course let the public know.

Large quantities of maya were modified? - yeah whoopy, thats happened on just about every major production using maya to date - perhaps AW's only favour in return is people "not" bagging their sloppy and unreliable software.eat well, stay fit - die anyway

Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it.

-a

[fredc]

In reply to:

Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it.

-a

Q: What did those 25 Software scientists do?

Urp

[syntetik]

Q: What did those 25 Software scientists do?

Urp

nothing... watchin' the game havin' the bud

-= Barracuda =-

[ame]

In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:

Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it.

-a

[/quote]

Q: What did those 25 Software scientists do?

Urp

Square R&D team in honolulu didn't only work on the movie but on games too. A lot of effort was put for the hair simulation and the cloth simulator for example.

And do you think that when and if XSI is going to be used in major production no one is going to write script/plug-ins for it?

take care,

-a

[fredc]

In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:

Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it.

-a

[/quote]

Q: What did those 25 Software scientists do?

Urp

[/quote]

Square R&D team in honolulu didn't only work on the movie but on games too. A lot of effort was put for the hair simulation and the cloth simulator for example.

And do you think that when and if XSI is going to be used in major production no one is going to write script/plug-ins for it?

take care,

-a

Yes, I expect large productions to do their own stuff...and a lot of it. However, you stated "Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it." which would could easily be interpreted as meaning Maya out of the box could do a FF kind of production (or at least close to it).

If you replace "some" with "boat load" in your statement, I think it would be more accurate. In addition, Square had direct access to Maya's R&D people. You certainly can't totally overhaul every feature in a product in one production of a movie. However, if key programmers from A/W had to "tweak" the executive nuclues (or the lower level code) of Maya so it could be used in the production, then I would say that "alot" of modifcations were made.

I don't think this is a negative issue for Maya, but certainly it wouldn't be truthful if Maya's marketing people made statements like "with just some plugins and MEL scripts Square was pretty much able to do FF out of the box." I know those weren't your exact words, but I felt yours could be taken that way.

Just my two cents,
Urp

[ame]

In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:

[quote]
In reply to:

Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it.

-a

[/quote]

Q: What did those 25 Software scientists do?

Urp

[/quote]

Square R&D team in honolulu didn't only work on the movie but on games too. A lot of effort was put for the hair simulation and the cloth simulator for example.

And do you think that when and if XSI is going to be used in major production no one is going to write script/plug-ins for it?

take care,

-a

[/quote]

Yes, I expect large productions to do their own stuff...and a lot of it. However, you stated "Maya wasnt modified as much as you can think. Some plugins where added and MEL script where writen but thats pretty much it." which would could easily be interpreted as meaning Maya out of the box could do a FF kind of production (or at least close to it).

If you replace "some" with "boat load" in your statement, I think it would be more accurate. In addition, Square had direct access to Maya's R&D people. You certainly can't totally overhaul every feature in a product in one production of a movie. However, if key programmers from A/W had to "tweak" the executive nuclues (or the lower level code) of Maya so it could be used in the production, then I would say that "alot" of modifcations were made.

I don't think this is a negative issue for Maya, but certainly it wouldn't be truthful if Maya's marketing people made statements like "with just some plugins and MEL scripts Square was pretty much able to do FF out of the box." I know those weren't your exact words, but I felt yours could be taken that way.

Just my two cents,
Urp

The fact is that Maya was used "almost" out of the box, and I'm not sure that Square have access to the R&D people at A|W. Jack Liao (sorry missed, rest in peace) used to work for square but the Maya executable was the same maya that everybody else used.

Most of the software was commecially available for FF the movie: MTOR for Renderman and Maya for animation and modelling.

FF was not the effort of one person only, so with no package out of the box you'll be able to do something similar. You can get good result of course.

I still beleave that Maya wasnt modify as much as people think for FF, but this is my personal opinion of course and not A|W marketing or so. I do not care what marketing and magazines says about software. Thats why I'm really looking forward to try XSI2 my self and see how it does work.

My .02c,

-a

[devdoka]

@@I still beleave that Maya wasnt modify as much as people think for FF, but this is my personal opinion of course and not A|W marketing or so.

So you don't know whether what you say is truth or fiction then. Just knowing how things work in production, I'd say a lot of custom code was written regardless of what anybody says. When production started, Maya was still in it's infancy so a lot of holes still needed addressing - this is where somebody could possibly get away with saying little extra code was written as A|W probably added some of the requests/requirements as part of their regular version upgrade scheme. So in actuality, marketting can probably get away with their statements only on technicalities whereas in reality there was probably a lot of coded added behind closed doors and blended in the stream in ways people wouldn't think twice about unless they knew what to look for.

[ame]

In reply to:
@@I still beleave that Maya wasnt modify as much as people think for FF, but this is my personal opinion of course and not A|W marketing or so.

So you don't know whether what you say is truth or fiction then. Just knowing how things work in production, I'd say a lot of custom code was written regardless of what anybody says. When production started, Maya was still in it's infancy so a lot of holes still needed addressing - this is where somebody could possibly get away with saying little extra code was written as A|W probably added some of the requests/requirements as part of their regular version upgrade scheme. So in actuality, marketting can probably get away with their statements only on technicalities whereas in reality there was probably a lot of coded added behind closed doors and blended in the stream in ways people wouldn't think twice about unless they knew what to look for.

Yes I do know what square did or didnt. As usuall you assume too much about people that you don't know.

A|W Marketing are not saint but Softimage Marketing are not either otherwise they would not have been in the marketing.

For once I was not going agaist XSI you should stop to be so protective about software and software war I was just expressin my personal opinion about Maya and FF.

Thanks,

-a

[devdoka]

@@Yes I do know what square did or didnt. As usuall you assume too much about people that you don't know.

I'm not assuming anything. You stated "I beleave" nothing more was done than a few scripts and plugins. That's a phrase usually meant to mean "I think" rather than "I know", which opens the door to scrutiny. If you don't work for Square and aren't an A|W employee, then simple logic allows me to challenge with the question "how do you know"?

@@For once I was not going agaist XSI you should stop to be so protective about software and software war I was just expressin my personal opinion about Maya and FF

...in an XSI forum?

You're being the protective one here buddy. Every time I open your words to debate, your only reply is "you assume too much" or some accusation along those lines. Well, pal, I haven't assumed anything, so stop slinging false accusations at me.

[ame]

@@Yes I do know what square did or didnt. As usuall you
@@assume too much about people that you don't know.

@@@@@I'm not assuming anything. You stated "I beleave"
@@@@@nothing more was done than a few scripts and plugins.
@@@@@That's a phrase usually meant to mean "I think" rather
@@@@@than "I know", which opens the door to scrutiny. If
@@@@@you don't work for Square and aren't an A|W employee,
@@@@@then simple logic allows me to challenge with the
@@@@@question "how do you know"?

I do not work for A|W for sure, and I'm glad I don't.
Let says I know more then you think about FF.

@@For once I was not going agaist XSI you should stop to be
@@so protective about software and software war I was just
@@expressin my personal opinion about Maya and FF

@@@@...in an XSI forum?

I didn't want people to have missleading informations, doesnt matter what forum. And I'm one of the people waiting to see how XSI2 works btw not bushing the software I'm very pleased with the progress of Softimage in developing XSI we have to see if they can keep up past version 3 on the same speed (just rember maya v1 to v3 they add a lot and now oh well we all do know now).

@@@@@You're being the protective one here buddy. Every time
@@@@@I open your words to debate, your only reply is "you
@@@@@assume too much" or some accusation along those lines.
@@@@@Well, pal, I haven't assumed anything, so stop slinging
@@@@@false accusations at me.

And for your knowledge I was not accusing anyone just point out a fact, that can be wrong as well so if I was I would like to give you my deeply apologies.

If you have problems take them off list and use the send message button thanks,

-a

[ragtag]

For FF they wrote around 1000 MEL scripts and some 200 plug-ins....if I remember correctly....and I fully understand that.

Working in a small studio without software engineers to re-write Maya for you....while still working on a big project is terrible. There are so many bugs and weird things that happen, that you can't rely on the software. Files get corrupt and what not. Maya is good in that it's framework is so open that you can re-write almost any part of it....but you also need to have the resources and time to do so. From what I've seen of XSI, it looks very promising. Of course, it's impossible to know, untill you have used it in production (created a character, setup, animation, textured and rendered). I came from SoftImage3d, which had a rock solid backbone and an old fashion interface, to Maya which had a fancy front end and shaky legs.

Cheerz,

Ragnar (a somewhat disgruntled Maya user)

http://www.freejimmy.com (page in Norwegian...but you can look at the pictures)

[belinus]

In reply to:
For FF they wrote around 1000 MEL scripts and some 200 plug-ins....if I remember correctly....and I fully understand that.

Working in a small studio without software engineers to re-write Maya for you....while still working on a big project is terrible. There are so many bugs and weird things that happen, that you can't rely on the software. Files get corrupt and what not. Maya is good in that it's framework is so open that you can re-write almost any part of it....but you also need to have the resources and time to do so. From what I've seen of XSI, it looks very promising. Of course, it's impossible to know, untill you have used it in production (created a character, setup, animation, textured and rendered). I came from SoftImage3d, which had a rock solid backbone and an old fashion interface, to Maya which had a fancy front end and shaky legs.

Cheerz,

Ragnar (a somewhat disgruntled Maya user)

http://www.freejimmy.com (page in Norwegian...but you can look at the pictures)

When I find it again, I'll watch the Final Fantasy featurette on the technology used. I watched it a while back and the guys mentioned Maya and what they did for it.

[lushgardens]

XSI 2.0 looks incredibly strong to me, with some of the new tools available I would expect plenty of studios to pick it up.

In regards to square, I know for a fact that they have a team of softimage animators working there for character animation, although they keep quiet about it. I also know that Alias has a marketing strategy that works hard to keep competitors from being mentioned/used by offering substantial rewards to studios for appearing at least on the face of it to be maya-centric. And studios that balk at this can run into the "stick" side of their approach, I did so myself when I started up a studio, and it forever changed my opinion of A|W. That is fact, so be aware that the "buzz" is often media-generated.

The fact is, XSI is a very, very powerful tool and anyone serious about 3d should see it for themselves and decide what they think. I have a hard time believing that any tool this powerful won't continue to be a major force in our industry, if it fails to be it will only be because salespeople kept artists from discovering it. Try it out and you'll see what I mean.