PDA

View Full Version : Solid Angle has joined Autodesk



Thomas Leitner
04-18-2016, 07:03 AM
...the next one...

ciao
Thomas

magiclight
04-18-2016, 07:05 AM
Ah, more rental only software on the way.

souzou
04-18-2016, 07:13 AM
"The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."

lightscape
04-18-2016, 07:20 AM
Crap.
So they own both octane and arnold now.
Hard to invest on something that might be killed someday. RIP XSI.

Every4thPixel
04-18-2016, 07:50 AM
OTOY announced a partnership with Autodesk they don't own the company, or am I mistaking?

Niko3D
04-18-2016, 08:26 AM
I hope they don't stop the development of Lightwave's plug by Juanjo...:(...
And it seems they want to integrate also 3DSmax...again again...I'm starting to hate them!

juanjgon
04-18-2016, 08:45 AM
OTOY announced a partnership with Autodesk they don't own the company, or am I mistaking?

True, it is only a partnership. OTOY and Octane currently are not owned by Autodesk.

-Juanjo

MichaelT
04-18-2016, 08:58 AM
I am truly worried about the ever growing influence of Autodesk.

Niko3D
04-18-2016, 09:18 AM
True, it is only a partnership. OTOY and Octane currently are not owned by Autodesk.

-Juanjo

Hi Juanjo,

What about Arnold Lightwave's plug?
Can you tell us something more?

Thank you
Nico

lightscape
04-18-2016, 09:18 AM
OTOY announced a partnership with Autodesk they don't own the company, or am I mistaking?

Is that the same "partnership" with The Foundry and Luxology? They made Brad president of the americas at TF :rolleyes:
All I know is that octane was once Radiance own baby under Refractive Software. Otoy bought Refractive Software.
AD has majority shares of Otoy. Radiance is not even the one in charge at Otoy. Of course he's probably loaded with cash from the sale of octane back then.

50one
04-18-2016, 09:25 AM
Yup, I would be more than surprised to see the Arnold plugin being developed for LW after this.
I'm sure the execs have the EOL date confirmed on this activity.

juanjgon
04-18-2016, 09:36 AM
What about Arnold Lightwave's plug?
Can you tell us something more?


LWtoA is a personal project, so it has not been owned by Autodesk ;)

Currently the Arnold API is public, you can use it to build your own plugins without problems, but perhaps in few weeks the really simple one page Arnold EULA could become a long list of restrictions to use the API ... who knows.

Anyway the LWtoA project is a bit on hold. Really I have very little free time to work in a non commercial project. I've tried several times to get support for the plugin from SA with the idea of include it in the set of official Arnold plugins, but without luck so far ... I suppose that now it is too late :(

In the other hand, to be honest, LWtoA is not used at all by the LightWave users ... I've sent hundreds of beta builds to a lot of studios, but I suppose that the cost of the Arnold licenses and the lack of official support from SA are some of the reasons to don't use it in production. The new LW2016 renderer, an PBR "Arnold like" CPU renderer, is also a good reason to don't use Arnold in LightWave ... perhaps the first version of the new renderer is not going to have all the Arnold features, but it is going to be free, including the render nodes, and well integrated in LightWave, so fortunately the LightWave users are not going to need to pay additional licenses to work with a modern PBR CPU renderer ;)

So as I say before, the project is now a bit on hold, but not dead at all. Let's see how things are going with Arnold in the next months ....

-Juanjo

lightscape
04-18-2016, 09:40 AM
https://www.fxguide.com/featured/autodesk-buys-arnold-2/

Nvidia's mentalray and Chaosgroup's vray will be the most affected by this.
AD will have a powerful free renderer soon because of this purchase.
Well this would also affect modo and lightwave renderers since they will be competing with built-in arnold in maya.

Niko3D
04-18-2016, 09:45 AM
LWtoA is a personal project, so it has not been owned by Autodesk ;)

Currently the Arnold API is public, you can use it to build your own plugins without problems, but perhaps in few weeks the really simple one page Arnold EULA could become a long list of restrictions to use the API ... who knows.

Anyway the LWtoA project is a bit on hold. Really I have very little free time to work in a non commercial project. I've tried several times to get support for the plugin from SA with the idea of include it in the set of official Arnold plugins, but without luck so far ... I suppose that now it is too late :(

In the other hand, to be honest, LWtoA is not used at all by the LightWave users ... I've sent hundreds of beta builds to a lot of studios, but I suppose that the cost of the Arnold licenses and the lack of official support from SA are some of the reasons to don't use it in production. The new LW2016 renderer, an PBR "Arnold like" CPU renderer, is also a good reason to don't use Arnold in LightWave ... perhaps the first version of the new renderer is not going to have all the Arnold features, but it is going to be free, including the render nodes, and well integrated in LightWave, so fortunately the LightWave users are not going to need to pay additional licenses to work with a modern PBR CPU renderer ;)

So as I say before, the project is now a bit on hold, but not dead at all. Let's see how things are going with Arnold in the next months ....

-Juanjo

Yes, I understand...;)
We'll see...
But...why do you don't work on another personal project like...cough...cough...Corona Render???Sorry I have a bit of cough...;))))

:)
Nico

juanjgon
04-18-2016, 09:49 AM
Yes, I understand...;)
We'll see...
But...why do you don't work on another personal project like...cough...cough...Corona Render???Sorry I have a bit of cough...;))))

:)
Nico

Corona doesn't have an open API to build plugins. I've been in contact with the Corona developers some time ago, but without luck so far.

-Juanjo

Niko3D
04-18-2016, 09:50 AM
Corona doesn't have an open API to build plugins. I've been in contact with the Corona developers some time ago, but without luck so far.

-Juanjo

mmmm...maybe the luck turns!;)

lightscape
04-18-2016, 09:51 AM
Juanjo

cough...cough...Redshift renderer

Ah well AD might buy them, too.

prometheus
04-18-2016, 10:07 AM
Corona doesn't have an open API to build plugins. I've been in contact with the Corona developers some time ago, but without luck so far.

-Juanjo



Thanks for the work you do with different plugins and octane, keep it up..it seems to be getting stronger and stronger.
I am one of those guys who is on the list as potential future investor to get me the plugin, but have to check demos etc.

Michael

jwiede
04-18-2016, 11:04 AM
Hard to invest on something that might be killed someday. RIP XSI.

Are you suggesting there is some other way for commercial products to end, other than to "be killed someday"?

Considering how long Autodesk actually kept SI on the market, what exactly are you faulting in their actions?

jeric_synergy
04-18-2016, 11:38 AM
Oh, y'know, the loss of childhood and innocence. That kinda thing.

bazsa73
04-18-2016, 01:10 PM
Their downfall is imminent!

50one
04-18-2016, 01:12 PM
Quick Everyone!Let's just grab our ankles and wait for the inevitable:)

Netvudu
04-18-2016, 05:32 PM
Are you suggesting there is some other way for commercial products to end, other than to "be killed someday"?

Considering how long Autodesk actually kept SI on the market, what exactly are you faulting in their actions?
This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
What are WE faulting? OK, let me see. First they purchased a week known app that was a direct competitor and promised to the whole community in a video you can still find online NOT to kill the software, that the software would be around for many years and actively developed.
Just a year later they moved the whole dev team out of SI and left a small Korean team with the bare minimums. Again, they told the community not to worry but the production studios started complaining that support wasn't working anymore because instead of experts they were talking to sellers and lawyers.
Then Maya started receiving updates and Softimage none. When the community complained they were told not to worry. That it was this occasion because of the stage or tier of updates and that next time Softimage would receive care. At this point, many vendors started telling customers to move to Maya the sooner the better even if Autodesk ensured the software wasn't going anywhere. Suddenly... Autodesk reports Softimage wouldn't be developed anymore and people should port to Maya...
Frankly, you are the first user I've known in recent years to defend this attitude that left thousands of users filled with rage and having to move somewhere else. Go, ask the Softimage community. As a Houdini user as well, I know many of them now.
Frankly, if anyone had the resources Autodesk could be perfectly sued for monopolistic competition. They just make low blow after low blow. And don't get this wrong. Do not believe anything they say. They will kill C4D and Houdini Arnold versions in less than two years. Mark my words.

calilifestyle
04-18-2016, 06:00 PM
Yup kind like Mudbox and Unfold 3d. They are still there but i rarely hear or read much about them.

erikals
04-18-2016, 06:47 PM
there was a great LightWave 3rd Party render they bought waay back "Lightscape".

- they bought it
- they shut it down

jeric_synergy
04-18-2016, 06:49 PM
I don't know how C4D crept in there: to my knowledge there's no move by AD to buy them up, they're healthy (which I don't believe SI was), and they have a good pal in Adobe.

hrgiger
04-18-2016, 07:39 PM
Considering how long Autodesk actually kept SI on the market, what exactly are you faulting in their actions?

Yeah I don't know if I would exactly celebrate 5 years with a minimal effort towards updates as a commendable effort on Autodesk's part. What I see is that XSI was one of the only other apps that had numbers approaching anywhere near Max or Maya and Autodesk decided they would take a hold of that or nip it in the bud. I figure it just took them that 5 years to run the numbers.

I certainly fault Autodesk for killing one of the most elegant apps the market has seen.

lightscape
04-18-2016, 08:13 PM
Are you suggesting there is some other way for commercial products to end, other than to "be killed someday"?

Considering how long Autodesk actually kept SI on the market, what exactly are you faulting in their actions?

Hahaha. Joke questions of the day.

Didn't suggest anything. Its a simple remark. AD buys, AD kills. You best talk to xsi users. I'm a max, maya user.

Netvudu
04-18-2016, 08:26 PM
I don't know how C4D crept in there: to my knowledge there's no move by AD to buy them up, they're healthy (which I don't believe SI was), and they have a good pal in Adobe.

If you're talking about my reply, I didn't say C4d, but Arnold for C4d. Autodesk will kill that for sure. As they are stating that it won't happen, we can be sure it will happen sooner than two years.

robertoortiz
04-18-2016, 08:28 PM
I don't know how C4D crept in there: to my knowledge there's no move by AD to buy them up, they're healthy (which I don't believe SI was), and they have a good pal in Adobe.

My bet is that they will be eventually be goobled up by Adobe

erikals
04-18-2016, 08:35 PM
My bet is that they will be eventually be goobled up by Adobe
could very well be.

jeric_synergy
04-18-2016, 10:01 PM
If you're talking about my reply, I didn't say C4d, but Arnold for C4d.
AHhh! My mistake.


My bet is that they will be eventually be goobled up by Adobe
Frankly, I'd love it. It's SUCH a pity we can't use C4DL as a text generator for LW, but the "L", afaik, means "no mesh export".

bobakabob
04-19-2016, 12:55 PM
Reading all this reinforces the notion that LW users have a lot to be thankful for regarding economical running costs and Newtek not locking customers into a subscription model.

Netvudu is also absolutely right about what happened to XSI. As he says just ask any ex XSI user!

erikals
04-19-2016, 02:02 PM
ironically, for many of us non-rental guys, rental can actually be a good option.

- rent Maya 1 month to use feature "X"
- done.

:)

allabulle
04-19-2016, 03:44 PM
Reading all this reinforces the notion that LW users have a lot to be thankful for regarding economical running costs and Newtek not locking customers into a subscription model.

Netvudu is also absolutely right about what happened to XSI. As he says just ask any ex XSI user!

I completely agree.

- - - Updated - - -



ironically, for many of us non-rental guys, rental can actually be a good option.

- rent Maya 1 month to use feature "X"
- done.

:)

Ha, good point. :)

bobakabob
04-19-2016, 04:23 PM
ironically, for many of us non-rental guys, rental can actually be a good option.

- rent Maya 1 month to use feature "X"
- done.

:)

Hmmm... I see where you're coming from Erikals, but renting Maya for almost Ģ200 quid for a month including VAT is a "good option"? And once you're done you can't open your files? I guess if money is no object. And if you were that rich wouldn't you prefer shelling out for the whole thing and owning the software indefinitely? I love Maya but as imho it's ridiculously overpriced only use it at work. Otherwise I'd rather spend the 200 quid on a LW upgrade. No competition :)

erikals
04-19-2016, 05:06 PM
do note that i underlined can

it would probably apply to 1/15 freelancers

hrgiger
04-19-2016, 05:47 PM
Hmmm... I see where you're coming from Erikals, but renting Maya for almost Ģ200 quid for a month including VAT is a "good option"? And once you're done you can't open your files? I guess if money is no object. And if you were that rich wouldn't you prefer shelling out for the whole thing and owning the software indefinitely? I love Maya but as imho it's ridiculously overpriced only use it at work. Otherwise I'd rather spend the 200 quid on a LW upgrade. No competition :)

The subscription option is a perfectly fine option if you are on a job, $185 is a relatively minor outlay of money for a months worth of work. If you need to do additional work that requires you to open your files again, then you charge your client and you rent again. Just the cost of doing business.

Of course not having a subscription only based software like LW is a better option but in no way can you compare the range of tools that Maya or Max offers to LightWave either. There is a reason that Autodesk has such a huge market share and having a [email protected] rental scheme is not going to change that.

TheLexx
04-19-2016, 06:55 PM
Of course not having a subscription only based software like LW is a better option but in no way can you compare the range of tools that Maya or Max offers to LightWave either.Just out of mild curiosity, which non-subscription software would you consider to be the most powerful in comparison to Autodesk ?

hrgiger
04-19-2016, 07:17 PM
Houdini would be an easy answer. But ultimately I guess it would depend on the needs of your pipeline.

erikals
04-20-2016, 01:32 AM
and the more you are tied to Maya / Max, the more you are tied to subscription


another boring things about subscription is that your plugins will also stop to work.

kinda sad to have FumeFX ($845) at your disposal and not be able to use it... :/

or Syflex for Maya ($2,200)

Topster-71
04-20-2016, 03:32 AM
This all looks very good for the next release of Lightwave. If they can deliver something that is impressive, shows that over the next few releases they will go from strength to strength and demo a kick-*** show reel then freelancers, students and small production companies will start looking at Lightwave as cost effective solutions that renders the same results they expect, if not better.

I just feel for those people who in vest in software they like and trust and then Autodesk comes along....

bazsa73
04-20-2016, 03:55 AM
Yup kind like Mudbox and Unfold 3d. They are still there but i rarely hear or read much about them.

Mudbox had been fused into the Borg.

Niko3D
04-20-2016, 04:10 AM
This all looks very good for the next release of Lightwave. If they can deliver something that is impressive, shows that over the next few releases they will go from strength to strength and demo a kick-*** show reel then freelancers, students and small production companies will start looking at Lightwave as cost effective solutions that renders the same results they expect, if not better.

I just feel for those people who in vest in software they like and trust and then Autodesk comes along....

Good point!

alexos
04-20-2016, 04:34 AM
could very well be.

What? C4D (or Maxon) is owned by Nemetschek. Nemetschek has been the quiet anti-Autodesk for years now, with a range of software (originally developed or indeed "gobbled up") that rivals that of the Evil Ones; hell, they even replicated the "Revit is eroding our Autocad userbase, let's buy it" move by buying the whole frickin' Graphisoft (Archicad) just a couple of years ago. They posted a revenue of nearly 300 million euros for 2015, which while being a mere 25% of Adobe's is still quite respectable, and apparently C4D counts for a nice 7% of that... Which incidentally also gives a rough estimate of the number of C4D licenses out there, and it's pretty impressive.

Sure, throw enough money at them - and a solid partnership plan - and they might sell it, but otherwise..?

ADP.

lightscape
04-20-2016, 05:28 AM
This all looks very good for the next release of Lightwave. If they can deliver something that is impressive, shows that over the next few releases they will go from strength to strength and demo a kick-*** show reel then freelancers, students and small production companies will start looking at Lightwave as cost effective solutions that renders the same results they expect, if not better.

I just feel for those people who in vest in software they like and trust and then Autodesk comes along....

This will have little consequence for lightwave good or bad, unless there's still a significant number of maya to lw pipelines around. More of them have switched to maya to modo renderer pipeline or just use vray, arnold, redshift.

This will definitely affect nvidia mentalray licensing, vray userbase, etc.
Autodesk now has a top of the line, film quality renderer. No doubt they will include this for FREE with maya, max. This is extremely good for AD users. They will butcher arnold tech like xsi ofcourse.

ianr
04-20-2016, 07:46 AM
Interesting Alexos,

Maxon have grown quietly along a strong path and now they now are writing

a 'Redshift' GPU plugin, this will faciiltate growth in more big boutiques of

their app, mentioned recently in this forum. This is a smart move,

what with their Houdini Engine up & running.

While some people around dismiss GPU rendering at their cost???

Watch the Nvidia card's Ram MB's go up from 12 , check out who uses

'Redshift' on Big slates now. It would not be shabby for LW3DG to In-House

such a Pipeline hook-up, it would be wise,as 'Redshift' don't let in individual

plug-in writers. (Please research this Mr.Powers soon.)

As I do feel that 'lightscape's' scenerio in his last post is pretty on-course.

lightscape
04-20-2016, 08:01 AM
Redshift kicks octane's butt in speed. Its a biased renderer afterall, like vray, but gpu powered. Replaced vray for some maya projects we have.
Blizzard uses redshift on game cinematics.
https://www.redshift3d.com/blog/blizzards-overwatch-animated-shorts-rendered-with-redshift


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U130wnpi-C0

sadkkf
04-20-2016, 08:35 AM
and the more you are tied to Maya / Max, the more you are tied to subscription


another boring things about subscription is that your plugins will also stop to work.

kinda sad to have FumeFX ($845) at your disposal and not be able to use it... :/

or Syflex for Maya ($2,200)

What? Really? You can't use plugins with AD rentals?

erikals
04-20-2016, 10:31 AM
once you stop to rent, access to the app and the plugins cease.

so not only do you not have access to your $3000 Maya
you also do not have access to your $2200 Maya Syflex

erikals
04-20-2016, 10:38 AM
Sure, throw enough money at them - and a solid partnership plan - and they might sell it, but otherwise..?

why, of course, that is the concept right there.

jasonwestmas
04-21-2016, 08:24 AM
once you stop to rent, access to the app and the plugins cease.

so not only do you not have access to your $3000 Maya
you also do not have access to your $2200 Maya Syflex

Just to clearly state what the competition exactly is:

If you shop around and/or look for competitive deals one can subscribe to maya under $1000 a year. Also considering that larger packages like maya which has incorporated a lot of plugins these past 5 years, negates the need to buy additional plugins. Again, depends on your individual needs.

Also it does not cost $3000 to start up your subscription to maya anymore. You simply buy a subscription since there are no more perpetual licenses to buy into.

erikals
04-21-2016, 10:07 AM
yes, but talking more about the total worth. if you use Maya for 3 years, then it's a $3000 Maya

true, l'll give 'em that, few expensive Maya plugins are needed these days.

but still. it's "one more" thing not cool about subscription imo.


on the plus side, agree, Maya has heavily improved in many areas
-modeling
-uv mapping
-"mudbox-alike" sculpting tools
-bifrost
-"endomorph" function for ca
-more..

RonB
04-21-2016, 10:29 AM
Maxon partnered with Apple years ago. C4D is the official Apple 3D app and and used exclusively by everyone there.
I did a freelance job for them on the iPhone a few years ago and had to do it in C4D.
Oops I meant to add this to a comment on another page...sorry.

jasonwestmas
04-21-2016, 04:59 PM
yes, but talking more about the total worth. if you use Maya for 3 years, then it's a $3000 Maya

true, l'll give 'em that, few expensive Maya plugins are needed these days.

but still. it's "one more" thing not cool about subscription imo.


on the plus side, agree, Maya has heavily improved in many areas
-modeling
-uv mapping
-"mudbox-alike" sculpting tools
-bifrost
-"endomorph" function for ca
-more..

I bought maya 2013 at around $2600 and have spent roughly $5,000 total on the complete version of maya. This is without plugins and without stopping my subscription. It did what I wanted it to do and was worth the cash imo. The 3rd party plugins were kind of a pain because I had to wait so long to get them updated to the latest version of maya. These days I don't have to rely so heavily on 3rd party stuff.

There was a time if you stopped paying your subscription for maya and max etc. then you couldn't get back in unless you paid full price for maya or max again. I'm glad those days are over.

lightscape
04-21-2016, 09:21 PM
if you use Maya for 3 years, then it's a $3000 Maya



3000 bucks for 3 years is not much considering the return you can get using maya. Its THE industry standard.

erikals
04-21-2016, 09:32 PM
yes, all relative, of course

Netvudu
04-22-2016, 05:54 PM
I bought maya 2013 at around $2600 and have spent roughly $5,000 total on the complete version of maya. This is without plugins and without stopping my subscription. It did what I wanted it to do and was worth the cash imo. The 3rd party plugins were kind of a pain because I had to wait so long to get them updated to the latest version of maya. These days I don't have to rely so heavily on 3rd party stuff.

There was a time if you stopped paying your subscription for maya and max etc. then you couldn't get back in unless you paid full price for maya or max again. I'm glad those days are over.

I hope it was character stuff because if it was FX stuff or motion graphics or simply generalist stuff, you could have had better features and tools for 199$ a year using Houdini indie, unless you earned more than 100k a year.
If it was character-driven shots I admit Houdini has the capabilities, but several of the tools arenīt there yet. Maya is the norm there and rightfully so (specially since the only good full-fledged software for pro characters, Softimage, was killed).
On the other hand as of todayīs standards nothing in Maya relative to FX canīt even get close to Houdini. Itīs not funny how many light years ahead they are in that respect now.

calilifestyle
04-22-2016, 06:10 PM
I hope it was character stuff because if it was FX stuff or motion graphics or simply generalist stuff, you could have had better features and tools for 199$ a year using Houdini indie, unless you earned more than 100k a year.
If it was character-driven shots I admit Houdini has the capabilities, but several of the tools arenīt there yet. Maya is the norm there and rightfully so (specially since the only good full-fledged software for pro characters, Softimage, was killed).
On the other hand as of todayīs standards nothing in Maya relative to FX canīt even get close to Houdini. Itīs not funny how many light years ahead they are in that respect now.

True but Houdini indie didn't come back in 2013.

jasonwestmas
04-22-2016, 06:14 PM
I hope it was character stuff because if it was FX stuff or motion graphics or simply generalist stuff, you could have had better features and tools for 199$ a year using Houdini indie, unless you earned more than 100k a year.
If it was character-driven shots I admit Houdini has the capabilities, but several of the tools arenīt there yet. Maya is the norm there and rightfully so (specially since the only good full-fledged software for pro characters, Softimage, was killed).
On the other hand as of todayīs standards nothing in Maya relative to FX canīt even get close to Houdini. Itīs not funny how many light years ahead they are in that respect now.

Right you are, I like to rig and deform complex things in maya. I can pretty much see doing everything else in several different packages. In 2012 I decided to get super familar with maya just because I enjoy character work and getting paid to do it. I'm glad the character animation tools are getting even more attention now in 2016.