PDA

View Full Version : Autodesk forces people to move to rental



samurai_x
03-04-2017, 12:42 AM
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/3ds-max-forum/buh-bye-permanent-license/m-p/6918037/highlight/true#M132217

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=6&t=1440036&page=1&pp=15

Too bad theres no real contender to stop AD.

erikals
03-04-2017, 12:48 AM
makes me happy i never went the AutoDesk route...   :) :hey:

Reco
03-04-2017, 01:09 AM
I have a permanent Max 2010 license. Stopped paying when the subscription started, but have received lots of mails from Autodesk were they offer me to trade in my permanent license in with a one year subscription. ???????????????????



Reco

hrgiger
03-04-2017, 01:58 AM
There is Houdini. There was also XSI but AD took care of them.

samurai_x
03-04-2017, 02:58 AM
Houdini will go full rental in the future. Their market is too small only catering to mostly highend cg. The indie license is rental, too.
Blender is stuck in lowend and indie.

bazsa73
03-04-2017, 03:39 AM
makes me happy i never went the AutoDesk route...   :) :hey:

I used Maya a lot when it was still Alias's, Max always made me cringe. 3D Studio back in DOS days was fun but Lightwave was way better and it had LENS FLARES!

MichaelT
03-04-2017, 04:14 AM
Houdini will go full rental in the future. Their market is too small only catering to mostly highend cg. The indie license is rental, too.
Blender is stuck in lowend and indie.

http://cgpress.org/archives/cgarticles/3d-software-and-future-licensing-policies

I haven't been able to find any changes in their respective positions since then.
Also, I know for a fact that Blender is used in Hollywood. But in general you're correct, It is mostly used for simpler things.

But as for AD, I do use it.. but I am probably not going to use it any more after my current period is up. That type of money is
better spent on Houdini, and other applications by companies that actually care about their customers.. not their wallets.

Asticles
03-04-2017, 04:30 AM
Until they buy Houdini to kill it. Lovely AD...

MichaelT
03-04-2017, 04:44 AM
Until they buy Houdini to kill it. Lovely AD...

Yeah, unless it is tech they actually want... Like Arnold. I still am angry AD killed ICE (softimage) which was the reason Thinking Particles was brought into market. Now, they're the only dog in town. Naturally AD only. I know, I know.. TP is in C4D too, but it haven't been upgraded in many many years. Now if LWG brought something like that into LW... then LW would absolutely be on the table again for many studios.

Asticles
03-04-2017, 04:44 AM
*Nonsense*

samurai_x
03-04-2017, 05:10 AM
Another thread.
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/moving-to-subscription/this-is-crappy/td-p/6916550/page/2

"Managing two business models (subscriptions and maintenance) is costly and complex, mainly because every time we make a change – whether to our products, services, or to our delivery model – we have to make that change twice. This slows down the time it takes us to deliver new and better features (which create value for you and which is, above all else, our goal.) Making these changes allows us to streamline our business models so we can give you the most efficient path for accessing Autodesk tools and technologies for your business."

erikals
03-04-2017, 05:12 AM
i know, it must be a nightmare for them to try to create a computer application that does that in minus 2 seconds... (!)

TheLexx
03-04-2017, 05:16 AM
Another thread.
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/moving-to-subscription/this-is-crappy/td-p/6916550/page/2I thought one funny thing in the thread is it took one user until just yesterday to write "No longer trust Autodesk".

MichaelT
03-04-2017, 05:20 AM
Well, in reality it is no surprise what is motivating them to find ways to get better at pilfering the content of customer wallets. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ADSK/holders?ltr=1
They are in it for making money after all.

MichaelT
03-04-2017, 05:38 AM
*Nonsense*

?? That something like TP would be valuable for companies? Or that ICE was like TP? OR that AD bought Arnold? Or that TP is the only dog in town? (because I would really like to know if there is someone else making anything like TP)? In short.. "*nonsense*" says very little about what you mean.

Asticles
03-04-2017, 05:42 AM
?? That something like TP would be valuable for companies? Or that ICE was like TP? OR that AD bought Arnold? Or that TP is the only dog in town? (because I would really like to know if there is someone else making anything like TP)? In short.. "*nonsense*" says very little about what you mean.

XD I wrote an adaptation of lord of the rings poem to Autodesk, after some minutes, realized that this was childish and deleted the text, changing it with this word.

If you want a meaning,

I think what this company has done over the years is simply to look for its benefit, disguising it behind concepts like "better for the user" or "more creativity". Although all they have done is seize the competition and vaguely develop their own programs.

Asticles
03-04-2017, 05:48 AM
So what I do is work with Lightwave and opensource software. So at least for my part I fight against monopoly in 3D world.
That's why I have a Modo license, and Kray, although I have not really used them for anything more than 3 or 4 projects.

:)

Asticles
03-04-2017, 06:05 AM
Finally, that is why we must support companies like Newtek, even though, like everyone else, they make mistakes. And expect the best with the new Lightwave, instead of always complaining that this or another program feature is missing.

Without acrimony.

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 07:09 AM
No it is not up to us. Unless we want to code a new software. Competition lies in the hands of developers not me. I feel no responsibility what so ever to support LightWave or any other competition just for the sake of it. Audodesk licensing sucks.

But if a company wants to get more support. Just simply start offering competition. It is the dismal state of complete lack of competition that is causing this.

If we as a group of artists are to blame at all is because we have not banded together in some way to code better software that competes. So either we have to do it, or someone does. However, no one is. All that is currently offered are other solutions with other strengths. Some features overlap. But by and large studios and artists can not get by without Autodesk products. Some of us can sure. But lets be honest. The industry at large is hamstrung by whatever AD decides to do.

Until there is real competition for these products, they will be free to do what they want.

So you want to stop AD from doing all of this? Create an app that blows Maya out of the water. It is that simple.

hrgiger
03-04-2017, 10:00 AM
So you want to stop AD from doing all of this? Create an app that blows Maya out of the water. It is that simple.

It's just a lot simpler if people just stop buying/renting from Autodesk if that option is available for you.

erikals
03-04-2017, 10:16 AM
So you want to stop AD from doing all of this? Create an app that blows Maya out of the water. It is that simple.

i'm waiting!   :)

after all, it only took them 20 years to add endomorphs. (2015)

Exclaim
03-04-2017, 10:34 AM
No it is not up to us. Unless we want to code a new software. Competition lies in the hands of developers not me. I feel no responsibility what so ever to support LightWave or any other competition just for the sake of it. Audodesk licensing sucks.

But if a company wants to get more support. Just simply start offering competition. It is the dismal state of complete lack of competition that is causing this.

If we as a group of artists are to blame at all is because we have not banded together in some way to code better software that competes. So either we have to do it, or someone does. However, no one is. All that is currently offered are other solutions with other strengths. Some features overlap. But by and large studios and artists can not get by without Autodesk products. Some of us can sure. But lets be honest. The industry at large is hamstrung by whatever AD decides to do.

Until there is real competition for these products, they will be free to do what they want.

So you want to stop AD from doing all of this? Create an app that blows Maya out of the water. It is that simple.

But Lightwave does blow Maya out of the water. Anyone using vanilla Maya for 90% of CG task, are torturing themselves. Big studios use in house programs, a bunch of plugins, and use TDs for Maya. Better advice would be to learn scripting for your software of choice.

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 11:30 AM
It's just a lot simpler if people just stop buying/renting from Autodesk if that option is available for you.

People who can are already doing that. The rest of them need a practical competitive solution that replaces the tools they rely on. The only way to solve that is to create competitive tools.

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 11:36 AM
But Lightwave does blow Maya out of the water. Anyone using vanilla Maya for 90% of CG task, are torturing themselves. Big studios use in house programs, a bunch of plugins, and use TDs for Maya. Better advice would be to learn scripting for your software of choice.

LightWave does not blow Maya out of the water fir me. Or I'd be using it for rigging and weight painting and nDynamics. All things I get out of vanilla Maya. Not to mention great retopo tools that are not available anywhere. So no pain here. Pure pleasure, practicality and a tool set that is not replaceable anywhere. I know. I have searched, learned and spent years coming to that conclusion for my workflow.

Seems to me that a lot of studios and other freelancers agree. Is that some conspiracy or laziness? I don't think so.

jeric_synergy
03-04-2017, 11:51 AM
I hope all the Blender users occasionally stick a crowbar in their wallet and toss the Blender Org a few bucks.

If they need a 'premium gift', they could buy one of the Blender Foundation's excellent print books, I really recommend them.

TheLexx
03-04-2017, 12:51 PM
All things I get out of vanilla Maya. Not to mention great retopo tools that are not available anywhere.I'm pretty sure those retopo tools are the separately available standalone software Unfold3D (http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/index.php)integrated into Maya, mentioned by Autodesk here (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya-lt/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2015/ENU/MayaLT/files/Edit-UVs--Unfold-htm.html).


Or I'd be using it for rigging and weight painting and nDynamics.I've always been curious about this, since I don't feel able to master all the softwares to compare. If a Lightwave user had a forensic knowledge of the RebelHill toolset and, say, the 3rdPowers toolset (painting weights, etc), just how much better is Maya, really ? Is it a question of the Maya interface being somehow better or just statistically that more people use Maya ?

Exclaim
03-04-2017, 01:26 PM
LightWave does not blow Maya out of the water fir me. Or I'd be using it for rigging and weight painting and nDynamics. All things I get out of vanilla Maya. Not to mention great retopo tools that are not available anywhere. So no pain here. Pure pleasure, practicality and a tool set that is not replaceable anywhere. I know. I have searched, learned and spent years coming to that conclusion for my workflow.

Seems to me that a lot of studios and other freelancers agree. Is that some conspiracy or laziness? I don't think so.
I can accept that your workflow benefits from Maya. I just don't like it when people make it seem like Maya is the only solution or that it by itself will. I will mention that Maya is made way more accessible, and many users have shared their workflows to a greater number than LW users.

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 01:38 PM
Retopo:

No they were never available stand alone. The NEX tools were a plugin now integrated into Maya. They hired the developers to further integrate and it ended as of 2017. Retopo requires a tool set incorporated into a 3D app. You often intuitively go back and forth between creating primitives and live retopo.

The best way to answer the rigging question is to try it for yourself. In my case I use Maya and MotionBuilder together. The smoother weight painting process for example is great. But there are other things, Too.

And then there is nDynamics. Best all around cloth solution. But also integrated into Maya with the other things I am doing is another plus.

So here is the deal. I don't mind explaining why I do things. And I think it can be educational. But I really do not get the challenge of software choices here. What exactly is the point? You are going to try and convince someone that the world should revolve around LightWave? Just to solve the issue with AD?

Good luck with that.

Here is the reality. People are choosing AD tools because they offer certain solutions that are not available elsewhere.

Some people find and can use alternatives. Some, or rather most, never will.

That is the long and short of it.

Solution:

Create competition. Not try and convince people they don't need the tools they do. That will go nowhere.

Exclaim
03-04-2017, 02:50 PM
Retopo:

No they were never available stand alone. The NEX tools were a plugin now integrated into Maya. They hired the developers to further integrate and it ended as of 2017. Retopo requires a tool set incorporated into a 3D app. You often intuitively go back and forth between creating primitives and live retopo.

The best way to answer the rigging question is to try it for yourself. In my case I use Maya and MotionBuilder together. The smoother weight painting process for example is great. But there are other things, Too.

And then there is nDynamics. Best all around cloth solution. But also integrated into Maya with the other things I am doing is another plus.

So here is the deal. I don't mind explaining why I do things. And I think it can be educational. But I really do not get the challenge of software choices here. What exactly is the point? You are going to try and convince someone that the world should revolve around LightWave? Just to solve the issue with AD?

Good luck with that.

Here is the reality. People are choosing AD tools because they offer certain solutions that are not available elsewhere.

Some people find and can use alternatives. Some, or rather most, never will.

That is the long and short of it.

Solution:

Create competition. Not try and convince people they don't need the tools they do. That will go nowhere.

The subject of the post is Autodesk forcing people into subscriptions. People are saying they are finding tools to get around the Autodesk issue, and you are saying they are wrong. CG can get along without Autodesk products just like it survived before Autodesk products. Autodesk didn't even develop most of the products they own for entertainment, so I don't see competition coming from them for entertainment products. If we were looking at competition from a production standpoint, it would be: WETA, Newtek, and SideFX. Of course those along with all the other renderer, plug in, DCC companies. It is good you are satisfied with AD. Oh and AD is killing competition by acquiring them, so yeah people are right for not feeding the beast here.

kopperdrake
03-04-2017, 02:50 PM
We use Inventor 2011, we produce the drawings, we don't need to bring drawings in, so it suits us fine. The AD representative called me last week and tried to convince me that paying over a thousand a year would be a good deal as I'd get around three years' use before it cost me the price of a full license. I told him bluntly, why would I spend over a grand a year when my four grand license has lasted me 6 years? The maths simply do not add up for me as a buyer. If they were close to bankruptcy and needed a new pricing structure I'd have some sympathy, but knowing it's greed really does get the goat up.

hrgiger
03-04-2017, 04:08 PM
Adobe subscription made sense for me for a while as it allowed me to get the whole suite of products for a significantly lower cost than buying the software outright. But after the last 4 years of using it, I had almost paid what the full creative suite would have cost me outright for a perpetual license before. And the products have only improved marginally in that time and only enhanced a few ways in which I worked with them. And now after walking away from Adobe rental, I don't own anything from them so I don't think its a good value at all to a freelancer. And I can thank Affinity for providing a low cost and PERMANENT license of replacements for both Photoshop and Illustrator. Rental might seem like a good deal at first, but the longer it goes on, the more it devalues unless they improve the software significantly. With a permanent license, you have the option of waiting until the improvements you would like to see have been implemented before you upgrade. With rental, you have to keep paying even if you don't feel like they've made much progress if you want to keep using the software.

So I say screw Adobe and screw Autodesk. Houdini is amazing these days and I hope a lot of Autodesk users opt out of getting stuck in their subscription scheme.

erikals
03-04-2017, 05:11 PM
can't help to think of...

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=136203&d=1488672514


136203
preview

hrgiger
03-04-2017, 05:13 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-03-04/autodesk-co-ceos-confident-about-long-term-growth?cmpid=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo

erikals
03-04-2017, 05:28 PM
who will AutoDesk buy Next   :)

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 06:20 PM
The subject of the post is Autodesk forcing people into subscriptions. People are saying they are finding tools to get around the Autodesk issue, and you are saying they are wrong. CG can get along without Autodesk products just like it survived before Autodesk products. Autodesk didn't even develop most of the products they own for entertainment, so I don't see competition coming from them for entertainment products. If we were looking at competition from a production standpoint, it would be: WETA, Newtek, and SideFX. Of course those along with all the other renderer, plug in, DCC companies. It is good you are satisfied with AD. Oh and AD is killing competition by acquiring them, so yeah people are right for not feeding the beast here.

I see what you are saying for sure. But was there a point where I said people were wrong for doing that? Sorry if it came across that way. If people can get away with not using AD products. Great. I can't do that. Not now. I have the opinion that most people won't be able to.

I think there needs to be more competition, And I don't agree with your assessment of what is considered competition.

I think we can agree to disagree on that. Can't we?

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 06:25 PM
So I say screw Adobe and screw Autodesk. Houdini is amazing these days and I hope a lot of Autodesk users opt out of getting stuck in their subscription scheme.

Agreed. More power to Houdini!

They are adding more animation and modeling tools. I like their entire concept. One app I continue to watch closely.

Surrealist.
03-04-2017, 06:28 PM
can't help to think of...

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=136203&d=1488672514




136203
preview

Yeah. Love that. And people think Autodesk does not feel the pressure. They absolutely do.

However Blender is not competition enough. Wish it was.

MichaelT
03-05-2017, 12:55 AM
LightWave does not blow Maya out of the water fir me. Or I'd be using it for rigging and weight painting and nDynamics. All things I get out of vanilla Maya. Not to mention great retopo tools that are not available anywhere. So no pain here. Pure pleasure, practicality and a tool set that is not replaceable anywhere. I know. I have searched, learned and spent years coming to that conclusion for my workflow.

Seems to me that a lot of studios and other freelancers agree. Is that some conspiracy or laziness? I don't think so.

3d-coats retopo tools is way better than Maya, and ZBrush have the absolutely wonderful ZRemesher. One major thing Maya have (and was initially designed for) is animation. And also because Autodesk gives free licenses for three years to students, those people go out into new workplaces as Maya evangelists .. And now they bought Arnold.. so that's in Maya too now.

I'd say another big problem is that many tools are for AD programs only as well.

MichaelT
03-05-2017, 12:59 AM
Agreed. More power to Houdini!

They are adding more animation and modeling tools. I like their entire concept. One app I continue to watch closely.

Yup, that's one app that I'm happy to subscribe to. The value you get for that subscription is way better than any offering AD can hope to have. And this is how you meet Indies. Not by: -Oh look, he still had a dime in his wallet! (AD)

bazsa73
03-05-2017, 01:14 AM
Carl Bass wrote: "Our transition to an all-subscription business model is well underway, we’re enjoying early but strong success" whatever it supposed to mean.
In my interpretation this statement means this. The subscr.model is just not that succesful as it should be. And the early but strong success is a complete BS. It means there is something.
Some hope maybe. But I'm sure it's not strong enough why else would AD exert brute force methods on users to change to the subscription model.
These moves can easily alienate people from a company and its products.

For the time being there are no other options, at least not easy ones, quirky, workaroundish oprions are but not the robust and solid ones.
Anyways, the seed to change to other platforms has been implanted into the users' mind and from now on they will look for alternatives. Which probably many of them already had started.
It is a question of time. Just my 2 cents. Interesting times for sure.

JohnMarchant
03-05-2017, 04:06 AM
Ive have nothing against AD products, like Adobe they are an industry standard, i do however have a big problem with some of the methods they us to try and get customers.

I will relate a story to you of an experiance i had when my daughter was at university doing her interior design degree some years ago. One day this university had an open day where parents could visit and see what their children were doing. So i decided to go along for the day, I also by chance took my laptop with me.

Now her university had as many did a deal with AD so my daughter and class were all using 3DS Max for interior design work. I have used Max but many years ago so had not really kept up on the latest versions. So she is showing me on the computer her interior design work, after a while i booted up my Laptop and ran LightWave, cant remember what version it was probably 9 or 10. Anyway after a while my daughter started looking at what i was doing, i was replicating near enough what she was doing as she had some drawing on the other monitor. She asked my how i was able to do this far quicker than she was. Firstly it was down to experiance as i had been doing 3D for many years and she knew nothing about 3D until she came to University.

I then showed her similar in Sketchup, at the time SU was still free, i also had Blender as well but it was early days for Blender and i hated the UI at the time, now i still hate it but have learnt to use it. Whilst we were doing this one of the AD techs who were hovering around saw what we were doing and got interested. My daughter was talking to him and mentioned LW and SU and he just dismissed it as old software and not very capable, but his demenour really irked me, so i bit.

I said to him yes whilst LW is not as capable as Max and Maya in some areas to completely dismiss LW is absolute rubbish, he then said well it does not matter as 3DS Max was the way ahead and that all the students will learn and use it when they leave university. Now i knew he was onto a looser, so i asked him about the price of Max in front of my daughter, he answered a bit reluctantly and of course caame out with the usual mitigation gumph. So i told my daughter about the cost of LW and of course SU and Blender were free. I also said that for what my daughter did these programs were far closer to what she needed than 3DS Max, comapring cost and features. Most students on her degree course were probably using 10% of Max's capability.

Most of the students in her class when they finish will come out with a pretty hefty student loan at the end and have to pay that off and this guy thought that paying £4000 for Max was a good use of her limited money. Now i know many people will say thats just marketing and i agree to a certain point, but this AD guy was blatently lying to her and probably many others.

Im happy to say now after a few years my daughter is in a great job doing interior design for luxury boats and yachts and she does not use any AD products to do it, just as long as she has FBX and OBJ format it does not take long to do a conversion if she needs to.

erikals
03-05-2017, 05:32 AM
Monopoly is seldom a good thing.

also, what many forget is the additional costly plugins they buy for Max / Maya.
great plugins, but often 500% more costly than LW plugins.  (or more)

JohnMarchant
03-05-2017, 05:49 AM
Agreed and i hope this gets worse and worse for AD and maybe they will learn a lesson, maybe.

erikals
03-05-2017, 05:58 AM
AutoDesk is based on pure Capitalism, so it won't happen, unless they get competition, or restrictions by law.

samurai_x
03-05-2017, 06:10 AM
Monopoly is seldom a good thing.

also, what many forget is the additional costly plugins they buy for Max / Maya.
great plugins, but often 500% more costly than LW plugins.  (or more)

But you only really need vray and fumefx for max. Max 2009 pretty much still kicks the latest version of lightwave's butt. Modo is catching up to max as generalist app.
The latest version of maya is leaps and bounds better for modelling unlike before. Some have stopped using modo.
They don't innovate but they buy and integrate other appz and makes their two main appz better. Can't believe they bought arnold renderer.
Still sucks because its rental and that's never good. More companies will go rental and subscription only including maxon, sidefx, foundry.
It is what it is.

JohnMarchant
03-05-2017, 06:45 AM
But you only really need vray and fumefx for max. Max 2009 pretty much still kicks the latest version of lightwave's butt. Modo is catching up to max as generalist app.
The latest version of maya is leaps and bounds better for modelling unlike before. Some have stopped using modo.
They don't innovate but they buy and integrate other appz and makes their two main appz better. Can't believe they bought arnold renderer.
Still sucks because its rental and that's never good. More companies will go rental and subscription only including maxon, sidefx, foundry.
It is what it is.

Looking at the amount of complaints on AD own forums about the latest versions makes me think other wise. Also Houdini, Blender and others means the competition is still there. Even the latest 3d FX for Man in the High Castle was done with Blender.

erikals
03-05-2017, 06:46 AM
Maya is great these days, not superb, but great.
Modo is "Meh" imo, and not for Super Star Generalists. (not yet)
Max, not really a fan, and i'd need fluids plugins for $1000 (+more)

TheLexx
03-05-2017, 06:54 AM
More companies will go rental and subscription only including maxon, sidefx, foundry.Maxon would genuinely surprise me if they ditched the perpetual licence, since 4D comes in so many different versions compared to the others, and priced accordingly. It would be interesting to see a pie-chart breakdown of 4D version usage. I think there will always be something available as owner software, even if it is "just" Blender, but hopefully LW too.

hrgiger
03-05-2017, 07:10 AM
Still sucks because its rental and that's never good. More companies will go rental and subscription only including maxon, sidefx, foundry.
It is what it is.

I wouldn't be surprised but I wouldn't be so sure, especially Houdini. Sidefx said on the release of the latest version that they're committed to offering the user choice.

bazsa73
03-05-2017, 07:21 AM
Maya is great these days, not superb, but great.

Maya should be by now lightyears ahead of anyone in the 3D business but it's not. Strong and big etc. but not invincible.

samurai_x
03-05-2017, 07:24 AM
Maya is great these days, not superb, but great.
Modo is "Meh" imo, and not for Super Star Generalists. (not yet)
Max, not really a fan, and i'd need fluids plugins for $1000 (+more)

Modo already has surpassed lightwave with non-destructive, procedural workflows and "ehem" actual undos. Anyone more superstar than Proton? :D

Most appz really need fluids from third party anyway even lightwave. Its by miracle we have native fluids coming from Hurley and darkchief.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/celshader/ - Didn't now she was actually part of LWG.
She moved to 3dmax, maya, realflow pipeline. She was talking moving to houdini before afair. Its no surprise given the industry condition. People and companies have no choice.



I wouldn't be surprised but I wouldn't be so sure, especially Houdini. Sidefx said on the release of the latest version that they're committed to offering the user choice.
They already have indie for rental. They could have offered it as perpetual but they didn't. I'm sure they will go rental in 3 years.

erikals
03-05-2017, 07:34 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png  Anyone more superstar than Proton?
Proton is indeed a Star, but character animation + vfx isn't exactly Modo's strength.
Modo is past LightWave, in modeling.


https://www.linkedin.com/in/celshader/
She moved to 3dmax realflow pipeline. She was talking moving to houdini before afair. Its no surprise given the industry condition.
People and companies have no choice.
true, would've done the same if i worked in Hollywood being part of big team.


Maya should be by now lightyears ahead of anyone in the 3D business but it's not. Strong and big etc. but not invincible.
yep, AutoDesk improvements for Maya were asleep for 10+ years. Seems to be a cycle.

Asticles
03-05-2017, 08:00 AM
In my opinion it seems that Autodesk wants to focus on large companies and abandon small studies. More or less what I think happens with AutoCAD. The problem is also that its policy of customer treatment is very poor, and here we complain about newtek ...
Another issue is that over the years the number of improvements that have received programs such as 3dmax have been very few, with very poor ergonomics and interface, which remains the same from the beginning. And this makes you want to break the monitor.

Asticles
03-05-2017, 08:09 AM
In addition, for me the concept of "industry standard" is somewhat similar to the cave myth. If the people of sidefx had followed this standard they would never have had the need to create Houdini ... For example, at work I always use the adobe standard for canvas prints. But more than once the standard has bothered me with print errors of unknown forms. Now I already have an Affinity license and is incredibly friendlier than illustrator. And much cheaper.

bazsa73
03-05-2017, 08:31 AM
In my opinion it seems that Autodesk wants to focus on large companies and abandon small studies. More or less what I think happens with AutoCAD. The problem is also that its policy of customer treatment is very poor, and here we complain about newtek ...
Another issue is that over the years the number of improvements that have received programs such as 3dmax have been very few, with very poor ergonomics and interface, which remains the same from the beginning. And this makes you want to break the monitor.
I really don't touch Max at all. One reason is that I just can't stand it. The other is ts interface. Those icons were probably designed by engineers using MS Paint. Or worse. And some has white leftover pixels on the edges, terribly lame.

prometheus
03-05-2017, 10:21 AM
In addition, for me the concept of "industry standard" is somewhat similar to the cave myth. If the people of sidefx had followed this standard they would never have had the need to create Houdini ... For example, at work I always use the adobe standard for canvas prints. But more than once the standard has bothered me with print errors of unknown forms. Now I already have an Affinity license and is incredibly friendlier than illustrator. And much cheaper.


That makes no sense, you say if sidefx would have followed industry standard..tjhey would never have created houdini, I can see why industry standard is labeled on what is commonly used as de facto standard and why people choose that, I can not see how you would apply that to how Any software developer approaches their own development..which in some cases actually develops so well that it takes over as industry standard.
If lightwave next turns out well and they get sales and fuzz...who knows, it could be industry standard as well..but I don´t follow you when it concerns how developers would bring that in to the equation, other than looking at what is attractive with other software.

hrgiger
03-05-2017, 12:26 PM
Proton is indeed a Star, but character animation + vfx isn't exactly Modo's strength.
Modo is past LightWave, in modeling.




Vfx no but animation is just as good as lw if not better. And animation and performance are supposed to be a focus of Modo 11. Rendering is also quite strong in Modo. Modeling and uv tools in Modo are exceptional.

Exclaim
03-05-2017, 12:45 PM
Maxon would genuinely surprise me if they ditched the perpetual licence, since 4D comes in so many different versions compared to the others, and priced accordingly. It would be interesting to see a pie-chart breakdown of 4D version usage. I think there will always be something available as owner software, even if it is "just" Blender, but hopefully LW too.
Relax. He doesn't know what he's talking about. AD needs the subscription model because of their cloud integration. That's the reason why they keep the whole 2020 talk going. Not every company is as invested in the cloud. AD is hoping that they can create better profits by cutting out cloud middle men like Amazon and others. It has nothing to do with software capabilities or anything that is practical to a cg artist.

Lightwave, C4d, Modo, are just as capable as the artist using them.

erikals
03-05-2017, 12:48 PM
Vfx no but animation is just as good as lw if not better.
like i said, CA + VFX

Asticles
03-05-2017, 04:32 PM
I'm sorry prometheus, I could be wrong but for me the industry standard is what most people use. This does not need to be the best way to do things. I mean about Houdini that probably they started with not only the will of making money, but also to change the market. To question the "standard". Maybe I'm too idealist thinking that.

jwiede
03-05-2017, 04:53 PM
?? That something like TP would be valuable for companies? Or that ICE was like TP? OR that AD bought Arnold? Or that TP is the only dog in town? (because I would really like to know if there is someone else making anything like TP)? In short.. "*nonsense*" says very little about what you mean.

Suggesting TP's origin or market position has anything to do with ICE is nonsense. Cebas TP massively predates ICE's origin, and ICE had nothing to do with TP's inception. If anything, timing suggests ICE drew ideas and inspiration from TP's rule-driven architecture, because it was one of the most advanced/usable examples of a rule-driven architecture available at that time (and introduced circa TP2.x-3.x).

jwiede
03-05-2017, 04:56 PM
Maya should be by now lightyears ahead of anyone in the 3D business but it's not. Strong and big etc. but not invincible.

Actually, in terms of its facilities for allowing high-end studios to customize, augment and replace major sections of its architecture with their own tools, Maya is "lightyears ahead of" most other 3D packages.

jwiede
03-05-2017, 05:01 PM
Proton is indeed a Star, but character animation + vfx isn't exactly Modo's strength.
Modo is past LightWave, in modeling.

Yet even in those areas, very important to his own work, he's chosen MODO, and he's not the only pro to have done so. Perhaps your perceptions of MODO's strengths relative to LW aren't as accurate as you believe.

jwiede
03-05-2017, 05:14 PM
like i said, CA + VFX

What are the functional areas that you believe make Lightwave more capable than MODO for VFX?

MODO's particle system is certainly more capable than Lightwave's in many functional areas (superior shading/blending, path modeling capabilities, interop with dynamics, and ability to apply systemic behavior modifiers like flocking and rudimentary fluidic behavior, just to name a few).

MODO's also has OpenVDB support today (has had it since 90x), and it is well-integrated into MODO's general volume shading/rendering capabilities.

MichaelT
03-05-2017, 07:03 PM
Suggesting TP's origin or market position has anything to do with ICE is nonsense. Cebas TP massively predates ICE's origin, and ICE had nothing to do with TP's inception. If anything, timing suggests ICE drew ideas and inspiration from TP's rule-driven architecture, because it was one of the most advanced/usable examples of a rule-driven architecture available at that time (and introduced circa TP2.x-3.x).

While that certainly may be true (or even possibly, I'm not debating you on that. If I was wrong.. that's fine. I'll happily stand corrected) At least I haven't heard about TP until years after I saw ICE. That doesn't change the fact that TP is alone today though. And that certainly isn't good.. especially since it is tied to AD.

bazsa73
03-06-2017, 12:35 AM
Actually, in terms of its facilities for allowing high-end studios to customize, augment and replace major sections of its architecture with their own tools, Maya is "lightyears ahead of" most other 3D packages.

So it's gazillion times better than anything else on the market because of some promised future possibility you have to develop yourself?
It's just an open door to the void. Hey dear client, here is a space where you can develop your own fantastic VFX plugins and worklfows and whatever augmentation you have in mind.
I just checked yesterday on AD's site the new features of Maya 2017. First, there's only a pathetically few inmprovements such as: they have rewritten the graph editor. C'mon, that was just due.

samurai_x
03-06-2017, 01:34 AM
like i said, CA + VFX

If Modo can integrate this, like how they integrated Groboto, they would be 90% close to max 2009 CA :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PryRX-8-xmU

Asticles
03-06-2017, 03:01 AM
Sorry for my ignorance, but is this similar to Lightwave's genoma?

erikals
03-06-2017, 03:39 AM
nah, too quirky. unless controls can be customized.
check RHiggit (signature) and see how it differs.

erikals
03-06-2017, 03:43 AM
Actually, in terms of its facilities for allowing high-end studios to customize, augment and replace major sections of its architecture with their own tools, Maya is "lightyears ahead of" most other 3D packages.

true, but that wasn't the original subject.


Yet even in those areas, very important to his own work, he's chosen MODO, and he's not the only pro to have done so. Perhaps your perceptions of MODO's strengths relative to LW aren't as accurate as you believe.

i think they are. not a Modo Guru though. i guess i could say the same thing, just the other way around.

i never said Modo is junk though.   :)
it depends on your/our needs within 3D



MODO's particle system is certainly more capable than Lightwave's in many functional areas
Absolutely a Modo win.


What are the functional areas that you believe make Lightwave more capable than MODO for VFX?
- Turbulence can be used inside LightWave.
- DeepRising can be used inside LightWave. (new)

- i also like IKB dynamics, ClothFX ripping (got great results overriding Bullet), endomorph-UVs (not quite dynamics though)

not a huge LW win perhaps, but i prefer LW for this.

--------------------------

once again, choosing an App depends on ones needs within 3D

samurai_x
03-06-2017, 04:13 AM
Sorry for my ignorance, but is this similar to Lightwave's genoma?

10 times better. Its more than an autorigger.
They are copying characterstudio.

erikals
03-06-2017, 04:17 AM
characterstudio wasn't that great last time i tried it. (way back)

but good to see them improving CA. AutoDesk needs competition.

samurai_x
03-06-2017, 05:28 AM
It's been great since max 6.
They bought it max 3 or 4 and kept max relevant even before Ad owned Maya and xsi.
Game studios were using it extensively even back then. Now fbx made it a bit easier for other apps to compete.

safetyman
03-06-2017, 05:36 AM
AD has got the big companies by the short hairs because their products are deeply embedded in the major schools. Students use it on their own for cheap or free (!) and when they graduate they are AD minions through no fault of their own. The bigger companies will only hire people who know how to use Maya or Max because that's what taught in schools and they are the "industry standard". A simplistic view and not 100% the norm, but it's a vicious cycle for a lot of companies.

Look at Adobe to foresee the future of AD: Adobe has virtually no competition and that's bad because it means they don't have to innovate or spend the money necessary to improve. The latest versions of Photoshop and Illustrator went backwards in terms of workflow and I can give examples if you like. Utter trash and they are getting worse, not better. They can totally screw up my way of working by "updating" their software and there's nothing I can do because all my files are tied to Adobe products.

kopperdrake
03-06-2017, 07:03 AM
The only good thing about subscription is that eventually a competitor *will* see the benefit in exploiting those who feel subscription isn't what they're looking for, especially if it stifles innovation. Affinity are an outfit I'm keeping my eye on closely - and they're local, which is even better.

Asticles
03-06-2017, 08:57 AM
AD has got the big companies by the short hairs because their products are deeply embedded in the major schools. Students use it on their own for cheap or free (!) and when they graduate they are AD minions through no fault of their own. The bigger companies will only hire people who know how to use Maya or Max because that's what taught in schools and they are the "industry standard". A simplistic view and not 100% the norm, but it's a vicious cycle for a lot of companies.

Look at Adobe to foresee the future of AD: Adobe has virtually no competition and that's bad because it means they don't have to innovate or spend the money necessary to improve. The latest versions of Photoshop and Illustrator went backwards in terms of workflow and I can give examples if you like. Utter trash and they are getting worse, not better. They can totally screw up my way of working by "updating" their software and there's nothing I can do because all my files are tied to Adobe products.

+10

bobakabob
03-06-2017, 02:29 PM
Actually, in terms of its facilities for allowing high-end studios to customize, augment and replace major sections of its architecture with their own tools, Maya is "lightyears ahead of" most other 3D packages.

Reality check... So it should be at those subscription rates! Do you use Maya yourself or read the Autodesk forums? As good as Maya is it's phenomenally expensive compared to Lightwave and not all users are as starry eyed about new developments. Or the endless bugs...

TheLexx
03-06-2017, 03:19 PM
Reality check... So it should be at those subscription rates! Do you use Maya yourself or read the Autodesk forums? As good as Maya is it's phenomenally expensive compared to Lightwave and not all users are as starry eyed about new developments. Or the endless bugs...There is one cutting quote in this thread (http://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/129948/autodesk-pushing-everyone-into-rental)where the guy says "...honestly, as a former SI user I think Maya is still years away from what softimage was when it got killed...", which implies to me that AD will happily scalp anything arguably better than Maya to protect a financial model first over the quality of the product.

I don't think it will necessarily be software which "blows Maya out the water" which threatens the subscription monopoly. Big companies are often subject to jiggery-pokery in the boardroom, where sometimes big and powerful can seem like monolithic and vulnerable all of a sudden. When the Autodesk CEO resigned recently (http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/autodesk-carl-bass/), it was apparently due to "two activist investors agitating for changes at the company". Investors ? Would they particularly know a single thing about the needs of a 3D artist ?

All way above my head (and needs), but intriguing in terms of picturing what might be on the cards three or four years from now.

MichaelT
03-06-2017, 04:52 PM
I do think there will come a day when Blender will be so widely spread, and advanced, that AD will succumb to its own greed.
Because this time.. there is no buying, and killing off the competitor that will save them. And frankly, I think other 3rd party
companies know too. That's why were seeing more and more of their software, being available for Blender as well.

fablefox
03-06-2017, 08:13 PM
There is one cutting quote in this thread (http://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/129948/autodesk-pushing-everyone-into-rental)where the guy says "...honestly, as a former SI user I think Maya is still years away from what softimage was when it got killed...", which implies to me that AD will happily scalp anything arguably better than Maya to protect a financial model first over the quality of the product.


maya = film / vfx

max = arch.

the problem with SI is that there is too much overlapping. yes, it was awesome (gator and face rig among others). but back then the number of users were small (hence it was sold for cheap). AD have two choice, axe maya and force large number of studios to change workflow, or axe SI and force smaller number of studio change workflow / pipeline.

The answer to what killed SI is the same answer to the theoretical answer to what killed Lightwave. It's own management. AD only prolonged the inevitable.

--edit--

the good news is that what is great with SI went to Maya. There are lots of people saying recent improvement to Maya made them switch back from Modo, even in modelling. And that means a lot.

And for me personally, if Maya Indie (what ever it was called) can play better at char animation with UE4 (which a problem due to plug-in limitation AFAIK), I too would have rent it...

samurai_x
03-06-2017, 10:59 PM
I do think there will come a day when Blender will be so widely spread, and advanced, that AD will succumb to its own greed.
Because this time.. there is no buying, and killing off the competitor that will save them. And frankly, I think other 3rd party
companies know too. That's why were seeing more and more of their software, being available for Blender as well.

If it ever comes to that cg work will be in a worse situation.
The blender forums are full of work for free, work for indie with small budget, or no budget.
It will never escape its stigma as amateur software just like Poser.

MichaelT
03-07-2017, 12:28 AM
If it ever comes to that cg work will be in a worse situation.
The blender forums are full of work for free, work for indie with small budget, or no budget.
It will never escape its stigma as amateur software just like Poser.

:) I wouldn't so categorically say 'no'. And frankly, it is already going out of that stigma.

JohnMarchant
03-07-2017, 01:30 AM
:) I wouldn't so categorically say 'no'. And frankly, it is already going out of that stigma.

Agree, Blender has been used on TV, Man in the High Castle and it is coming on leaps and bounds. I think Blender has a bright future if it keeps going the way it is. Blender and Poser are not really the same beast.

Asticles
03-07-2017, 09:33 AM
I'm making a future prediction, they will appear with a new fbx version, much more difficult to reverse engineering.

MichaelT
03-07-2017, 03:27 PM
I'm making a future prediction, they will appear with a new fbx version, much more difficult to reverse engineering.

FBX is an open format. 'Open' meaning that Autodesk provides information about it in their FBX SDK. The MAX file format however, is closed. And to my knowledge, nobody have ever made an importer for it. Or at least, an importer that doesn't rely upon 3ds max actually being installed to be able to read it.

samurai_x
03-07-2017, 07:37 PM
Agree, Blender has been used on TV, Man in the High Castle and it is coming on leaps and bounds. I think Blender has a bright future if it keeps going the way it is. Blender and Poser are not really the same beast.

Lets talk about this in ten years and see where Blender is at. :D



FBX is an open format. 'Open' meaning that Autodesk provides information about it in their FBX SDK. The MAX file format however, is closed. And to my knowledge, nobody have ever made an importer for it. Or at least, an importer that doesn't rely upon 3ds max actually being installed to be able to read it.

FBX is "open" but its not free afaik you need to pay for the license. And it's not cheap.
Its the only format that is pretty reliable for interchange right now.

bazsa73
03-07-2017, 11:22 PM
What if Maya becomes a system like SAP. Only usable and affordable by the big ones. Anyways, what's the point in pointing out in every thread how frigging bestest maya is and how lame LW is and the rest. If Maya would be that good nobody would use any of the competitive software but this is not the case. Maya is a dinosaur and we know what has happened to the dinosaurs.

JohnMarchant
03-08-2017, 12:21 AM
[QUOTE=samurai_x;1500811]Lets talk about this in ten years and see where Blender is at. :D

Agreed, lots change change and will ive no doubt.

Asticles
03-08-2017, 01:52 AM
Lets talk about this in ten years and see where Blender is at. :D




FBX is "open" but its not free afaik you need to pay for the license. And it's not cheap.
Its the only format that is pretty reliable for interchange right now.

https://code.blender.org/2013/08/fbx-binary-file-format-specification/

Seems very closed to me. If you don't pay.

THIBAULT
03-08-2017, 03:31 AM
Have you seen this news ?
From Autodesk :

"Hello,
We want to take a moment to share the direction Autodesk is heading—some upcoming changes that will affect your maintenance plan—and a special offer to move to subscription that you may want to consider.
We believe that subscribing is the best way for you to get the greatest value from our tools and technologies—and will fundamentally change how we deliver extended capabilities and new functionalities through connected services. That’s why we’re on a path toward becoming a subscription-only company. We will continue to invest heavily in our subscription offerings, to provide you with greater value through the following benefits:
• Latest and greatest product capabilities – Get access to Autodesk’s ongoing stream of innovation, updates to core products, cloud services for desktop products, and additional capabilities as soon as they are available, at no additional cost.
• Access to new industry collections – Available only through subscription, you’ll realize significant savings when you need two or more Autodesk software products.
• New and improved support – Enjoy faster response times and the option to receive help by scheduling a call with Autodesk technical support specialists.
• Simplified administration – Access tools that streamline deployment and software management when you standardize all of your Autodesk products on subscription.


With our move to subscription, one thing has become clear to us—managing two business models (subscriptions and maintenance plans) is quite costly. To continue supporting maintenance, beginning May 7, 2017, renewal prices will increase by 5% in 2017, 10% in 2018, and 20% in 2019. Also, you should be aware that maintenance plans can now only be renewed for one year at a time.
Now that we’ve shared the direction we’re heading, we’d like to talk to you about a special offer to help you join us on the path toward subscription—one that recognizes your loyalty and the value of your previous investments. Beginning June 2017, you’ll be able to move your products on a maintenance plan to a subscription for up to 60% less than the cost of a new subscription. This discount will decrease by 5% in 2018 and another 5% in 2019, so the earlier you switch to a subscription, the less it will cost—and the more you’ll save compared to those who wait to move, or choose to stay on maintenance. When you make the switch, you’ll also be able to lock in your discounted price for up to three years and continue to receive discounted pricing for as long as you renew.
We know you’ll probably have questions. These are big changes that we’re prepared to walk you through. Please see the FAQ for additional details and contact your Autodesk Sales Representative or Autodesk Reseller to discuss the options that best suit your technical and business needs.
Whether you choose to switch to a subscription or renew your maintenance plan, our promise is to continue to provide you best-in-class software, services, and support.
Sincerely,


Teresa Anania
Sr. Director, Subscriber Success
Autodesk

kopperdrake
03-08-2017, 04:15 AM
Wow - talk about honesty! "We're going to bleed you slowly until you can't bear it any more and give in." Even Adobe didn't stoop to that level. That actually makes me feel physically sick! That's a lot of stick for not a lot of carrot - in fact the carrot's getting smaller and smaller by the year!

samurai_x
03-08-2017, 04:23 AM
https://code.blender.org/2013/08/fbx-binary-file-format-specification/

Seems very closed to me. If you don't pay.

I think MichaelIT meant non-proprietary.

tischbein3
03-08-2017, 04:28 AM
FBX is "open" but its not free afaik you need to pay for the license. And it's not cheap.
Its the only format that is pretty reliable for interchange right now.

ehm, no:
A) FBX is NOT open, there is no source and low details on the specifications aviable.
If you don't use their closed sourced libraries, you have to reverse engineer their file format.
B) You don't have to pay any license fee to use the fbx sdk. Its free to use
C) Blender can't use it because it would violate their own license (GPL) wich forbids to mix
any closed sourced libraries with their own code

Asticles
03-08-2017, 04:34 AM
ehm, no:
A) FBX is NOT open, there is no source and low details on the specifications aviable.
If you don't use their closed sourced libraries, you have to reverse engineer their file format.
B) You don't have to pay any license fee to use the fbx sdk. Its free to use
C) Blender can't use it because it would violate their own license (GPL) wich forbids to mix
any closed sourced libraries with their own code

Thanks for the clarification

TheLexx
03-08-2017, 04:35 AM
From a purely philosophical point of view - I draw a circle around myself because I am Number One. I build a wall around the circle to be invincible. Then I accidentally set fire to the inside. Oh [email protected] :)

tischbein3
03-08-2017, 05:01 AM
yes, going full gpl has some disadvantages, especially for commercial 3rd party
developers wich do want to integrate their stuff in blender (and in some cases its impossible.)

safetyman
03-08-2017, 05:03 AM
ehm, no:
A) FBX is NOT open, there is no source and low details on the specifications aviable.
If you don't use their closed sourced libraries, you have to reverse engineer their file format.
B) You don't have to pay any license fee to use the fbx sdk. Its free to use
C) Blender can't use it because it would violate their own license (GPL) wich forbids to mix
any closed sourced libraries with their own code

I hate to get off topic here, but please enlighten me on some things.
• FBX may not be "open" but I don't know of anyone paying anything to use it "freely"; passing assets back and forth between apps without attribution. You would have to pay a license fee in order to incorporate it into your SW (i.e., create an import function), is that correct?
• Blender can use it... there is built-in import but it's a version that won't work on certain FBX formats. However, and this is the part I'm confused about, you can use AD's free FBX converter to convert the file to a format that Blender can import with no problems (although you may lose some functionality in the conversion -- don't know). Maybe I should peruse the license agreement on the converter, but I haven't profited off of anything that I've used it for.

I guess the question is... what triggers this license fee that you all are speaking of? How would AD enforce such fee? It has to be something to do with full access to the format, which is not needed unless you're really really reliant on moving files around this way... and I don't think anyone would be so reliant on that limited format to actually pay a fee. Please set me straight.

samurai_x
03-08-2017, 05:32 AM
ehm, no:
A) FBX is NOT open, there is no source and low details on the specifications aviable.
If you don't use their closed sourced libraries, you have to reverse engineer their file format.
B) You don't have to pay any license fee to use the fbx sdk. Its free to use
C) Blender can't use it because it would violate their own license (GPL) wich forbids to mix
any closed sourced libraries with their own code

1. I don't know what MichaelIT meant about open. Ask him. :D I assume he meant the opposite of max format.

2. I heard you have to pay if you're including it to your 3d app in another forum. Many users complained about using an older fbx version and they couldn't import the latest maya fbx exporter. The answer given was software devs need to pay for it.

C. No wonder Blender sucks with fbx. Lol! Its a hit and miss with blender fbx support.

sadkkf
03-08-2017, 08:01 AM
As with Adobe's move to the rental model, I have to ask if AD will even lose money on this. Their big clients like ILM ,Sony, etc., will continue using the software and probably not even notice a hike in the rate. Simply the cost of doing business.

AD, as Adobe, will likely lose hobbyists and small businesses, both markets they probably didn't earn much from in the first place.

This is about greed, not efficiency or anything else.

art
03-08-2017, 08:25 AM
This is just like luxury whatever-it-is makers. They don't care if little folks can't afford their things.

Exclaim
03-08-2017, 09:42 AM
As with Adobe's move to the rental model, I have to ask if AD will even lose money on this. Their big clients like ILM ,Sony, etc., will continue using the software and probably not even notice a hike in the rate. Simply the cost of doing business.

AD, as Adobe, will likely lose hobbyists and small businesses, both markets they probably didn't earn much from in the first place.

This is about greed, not efficiency or anything else.

They are losing money. Also, entertainment software isn't really where their efforts are most concentrated. They are hoping to sew up the CAD market.

sadkkf
03-08-2017, 01:58 PM
They are losing money.

Are they? I've heard reports, but nothing provable.

erikals
03-08-2017, 01:59 PM
doubt they are losing money.

subscription is a pretty secure thing.

MichaelT
03-08-2017, 02:34 PM
AFAIK, AD have never made as much money as they do now. So while I hate the subscription model.. I also have little doubt it is here to stay.
Since late 2003 until now (or lets say during 2004) the financial climb for them is massive. So I think we can scream all we want... until something comes along to bring them down to planet earth again, nothing will change. Except for the worse.
On a side note.. guess what they aggressively bought during 2004? (finalized in 2005)

That's right... Maya.

It is easy to see where that massive income came from.

Exclaim
03-08-2017, 03:01 PM
Are they? I've heard reports, but nothing provable.

Do your homework. It's not hard, Google it. Q4 profits were down, and Q1 losses were greater than expected. The video that is linked in this thread said they are giving away short term revenue for the long game. That short term revenue is about $150 million a year. Now they are making money off subscriptions , around $300 million, but they are still losing when comparing annually.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again AD subscription supports their cloud business model. There is no other reason for it than that.

Also, most of their money is coming from CAD, and engineering products. They hardly mention entertainment products when addressing their products publicly, because they have losses there.

Edit: http://schnitgercorp.com/2016/02/29/autodesk-q4/

sadkkf
03-08-2017, 03:07 PM
Do your homework.

I have and see things like this: link (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161215006277/en/Adobe-Reports-Record-Revenue-Net-Income)

That says revenues are up nearly $6 billion. And that's from December 2016.

erikals
03-08-2017, 03:14 PM
over a 8 year span AutoDesk has not been losing money. by far. they have earned millions.

tischbein3
03-08-2017, 03:31 PM
I hate to get off topic here, but please enlighten me on some things.
• FBX may not be "open" but I don't know of anyone paying anything to use it "freely"; passing assets back and forth between apps without attribution. You would have to pay a license fee in order to incorporate it into your SW (i.e., create an import function), is that correct?
I've never heard of any license fee on the autodesk fbx site or by the quick look I've taken in their license text wich
comes with the fbx sdk.

• Blender can use it...
No they can't. Its forbidden to link closed sourced libraries with the GPL code. There were some initiative from Ton Rosendaal to push
Autodesk to opensource fbx, with no result.
What the blender guys did, is to reverse engineer what these libraries do and rebuild their own exporter importer from scratch. No Autodesk libraries are used in blender own
fbx import / export.

tischbein3
03-08-2017, 03:47 PM
2. I heard you have to pay if you're including it to your 3d app in another forum. Many users complained about using an older fbx version and they couldn't import the latest maya fbx exporter. The answer given was software devs need to pay for it.
I did a small search, if something has changed since I've looked into it the last time, but I could not find
any outcry that you suddenly have to pay for a license. My I ask wich soft ?



C. No wonder Blender sucks with fbx. Lol! Its a hit and miss with blender fbx support.
Yes, but you must give them credits for doing so, this isn't a lighthearded undertaking...besides you get
sometimes wonky results when you use pure AD fbx in different software.

tischbein3
03-08-2017, 03:51 PM
That's right... Maya.

It is easy to see where that massive income came from.

Although a bit outdated, here is an interesting read:
https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Ton/Autodesk_report

Exclaim
03-08-2017, 06:49 PM
Although a bit outdated, here is an interesting read:
https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Ton/Autodesk_report

Yeah people don't seem to understand how small of a part entertainment software plays in Autodesk 's product offering.

samurai_x
03-08-2017, 09:50 PM
I did a small search, if something has changed since I've looked into it the last time, but I could not find
any outcry that you suddenly have to pay for a license. My I ask wich soft ?


Yes, but you must give them credits for doing so, this isn't a lighthearded undertaking...besides you get
sometimes wonky results when you use pure AD fbx in different software.

Reallusion afair. I get good results with modo, lightwave, maya and max fbx import export. The only app that I use that gets funky with fbx is blender. That explains why.



Yeah people don't seem to understand how small of a part entertainment software plays in Autodesk 's product offering.

I think people do know that M&E is just small compared to its huge CAD revenue.
And that makes 3dmax untouchable. Its way too much connected to CAD.
Maya is not even making more money than 3dmax. They could possibly drop maya in the distant future if they don't think the development is worth it.

MichaelT
03-09-2017, 02:23 AM
I think MichaelIT meant non-proprietary.

:) Yes I did.

MichaelT
03-09-2017, 02:36 AM
Just to point out.. Maya does support Collada (both import & export) so that's an available option to move things out of Maya, into another program that also supports it. Like Blender, or Lightwave.

I haven't had reason to try it myself though. And I assume there will be minor issues doing that. But at least I think it is possible to get the most work out that way, even it is means tweaking things a little. After that it should be possible to do most work in another tool. Now FBX export from LW seems to work better in UE4 as well. I complained heavily to Epic for some weird normal issues, I experienced using Lightwave export some years back. But it seems they've fixed that now. I didn't really look until now.. since I do have both 3ds max & Maya.

Update:
I forgot.. LW doesn't import animations in collada (looking at you LWG ;) ) But since it does import FBX 2014, I suppose that works too.

And a small note on ADs hubris... they changed how import & export works, and bombed GoZ for Zbrush in the process. Meaning the most important modeling tool in the whole industry, now doesn't work with Maya 2017. Great job AD ;)

safetyman
03-09-2017, 05:02 AM
1. I don't know what MichaelIT meant about open. Ask him. :D I assume he meant the opposite of max format. I thought I did ask... I didn't request an answer form a specific person.


2. I heard you have to pay if you're including it to your 3d app in another forum. Many users complained about using an older fbx version and they couldn't import the latest maya fbx exporter. The answer given was software devs need to pay for it.
Maybe if you want to officially include some code in your app that's 100% compatible with AD format.


C. No wonder Blender sucks with fbx. Lol! Its a hit and miss with blender fbx support.
TBH, I hardly ever use or need FBX since it's an overall hit-or-miss format and Blender does just fine with it or without it... much better than LW IMO. There are loads of other formats that I use that other programs would either choke on or refuse to recognize so your acrimony bears no influence to me.

samurai_x
03-09-2017, 06:30 AM
I thought I did ask... I didn't request an answer form a specific person.

Maybe if you want to officially include some code in your app that's 100% compatible with AD format.


TBH, I hardly ever use or need FBX since it's an overall hit-or-miss format and Blender does just fine with it or without it... much better than LW IMO. There are loads of other formats that I use that other programs would either choke on or refuse to recognize so your acrimony bears no influence to me.

That was a reply to tischbein3.

If you're working at a place that outsources to a lot of companies, small studios you will definitely need file interchange. Fbx is the most common since alembic is still not as easy to use. So far no problems with maya, max, modo, lightwave. If you work alone then continue working alone. :D No acrimony here just saying what I'm experiencing.

safetyman
03-09-2017, 05:03 PM
That was a reply to tischbein3.

I stand corrected.


No acrimony here just saying what I'm experiencing.

Same here but saying Blender sux should also be prefaced with a "what I'm experiencing" since not everyone feels the same.