One of the benefits of being on Subscription, is that those customers can get these extensions. These aren't just patches and bug fixes, but sometimes new features and substantial enhancements to existing features.
The policy is consistent with other Autodesk offerings. And many of the modelling improvements in this Maya LT Extension, are also in the recent Maya 2014 Extension.
For normal bug fixes, Autodesk can (and will) often release hotfixes and service packs. These are freely available to anyone, so that if someone isn't on subscription, they can still get those important fixes.
Speaking of pricing - what will be the price of an upgrade from one standalone release of MayaLT to the next (without subscription) ? It seems like an update will be rolling out quickly...
Also, and again not being gratuitously aggressive here : I do hope that AD will stick to its word regarding bug fixes and service packs this time. I have been paying for the (needlessly expensive) Mudbox upgrades multiple times already, and while currently on 2012 + service pack 3 I am still getting fatal crashes regularly - to a point that I have to actively avoid the circumstances that I know are causing said crashes.
In other words, I hope AD will maintain support on the different point releases of a product like MayaLT better than they did for Max and Mudbox, which ended up leaving the user quickly feeling abandoned despite paying full cash for the promised support in the first place.
So say I went and bought Maya LT today. Do I get the version with the new polygon limit, or is a sub STILL required to get that?
It would be the same as other software with these Extension releases, you would need to purchase Subscription in order to get these exclusive features.
Speaking of pricing - what will be the price of an upgrade from one standalone release of MayaLT to the next (without subscription) ? It seems like an update will be rolling out quickly...
Also, and again not being gratuitously aggressive here : I do hope that AD will stick to its word regarding bug fixes and service packs this time. I have been paying for the (needlessly expensive) Mudbox upgrades multiple times already, and while currently on 2012 + service pack 3 I am still getting fatal crashes regularly - to a point that I have to actively avoid the circumstances that I know are causing said crashes.
In other words, I hope AD will maintain support on the different point releases of a product like MayaLT better than they did for Max and Mudbox, which ended up leaving the user quickly feeling abandoned despite paying full cash for the promised support in the first place.
I don't have any information at this time regarding upgrades for MayaLT.
Regarding big fixes and service packs, I'm not in a position to absolutely confirm anything around release schedules, and I can't speak for the product development guys. But, if we feel that hotfixes/service packs are warranted and the teams can deliver them, then I believe they do try their upmost to do so. And, looking at the 2014 releases, we have delivered multiple service packs for some packages.
But with paying for upgrades, this is where the debate is regards that versus subscription. You feel that you've needlessly paid for expensive upgrades, but just from the financial view, it probably would of been cheaper to have been on subscription. You would of got releases beyond 2012 (and any fixes in them), and any respective Extension releases, and you would of retained previous usage rights, which is a benefit of subscription.
It would be the same as other software with these Extension releases, you would need to purchase Subscription in order to get these exclusive features.
Its no surprise then that when googling "bait and switch" you start finding Autodesk in the search results.
Its like saying "we heard your complaints and to reward you for your feedback, which we requested, we wont give you these fixes unless you hop on the plan that gives us far more leverage over your wallet". It's disgusting.
Well of course subscriptions have their advantages ... but only if there is a guarantee that the following release will be totally bug free, backwards compatible, and totally transparent to the user.
However this it is almost never the case, to a point where it is now widely accepted that switching to a newer version of an Autodesk product at release should be avoided. Average recommended time is one year.
To go back to my specific, personal experience with Mudbox : I purchased 2009 as a standalone license and later upgraded two times (or was it three ? ) for the promised upgrades and added features. The reason why I like purchasing a point release and maybe some upgrades as opposed to paying for a subscription is simply budget control : I'd rather pay once and for all for a solid product and never have to think about further costs added down the line, rather than knowing that I will have to pay repeatedly, and potentially suffer from the stress of re-install, new bugs, and compatibility issues.
But with the high price of upgrades, I personally feel "burnt" by the Autodesk pricing policies ; that does not make me want to take yet another leap of faith and switch to subscription at all.
Now on the subject of fixes : sure, subscriptions roll out potential fixes, but as a point release user I do expect the version I paid for to be maintained well too. However after years of Mudbox experience and multiple bug reports on my end (even sending narrated videos to the team outlining some issues ...), expensive updates, and 4 subsequent releases of the program, I am still running into the same old fatal bugs. This is a problem that the availability of a subscription program does not fix. All I want is some QA testing, and engineers maintaining the code of a program that I paid full price for about two years ago.
Now of course this is not directly related with Maya LT and its future developments. However I do think that this kind of user stories might give you a bit of perspective, and explain why many of us can be very critical about the practices of Autodesk regarding pricing, dev cycles, and communication.
There is a lot of trust to be gained back, and companies like Pixologic understand it very well.
Well of course subscriptions have their advantages ... but only if there is a guarantee that the following release will be totally bug free, backwards compatible, and totally transparent to the user.
Those are very high expectations. So high, that personally I think they would be hard for any software vendor to deliver. For example, the idea of being totally bug free. Imo, there's not such thing as bug free but if you can name a software (or game for that matter) on the market that is 100% completely bug free, then I'd sit corrected.
However this it is almost never the case, to a point where it is now widely accepted that switching to a newer version of an Autodesk product at release should be avoided. Average recommended time is one year.
I'm sorry but I would have to contest that. The notion that its somehow widely accepted that people don't move to a latest version and there's some kind or standard recommendation is (imo) misinformed. There many factors why people don't always moved to the latest version, very often it can be project related, or perhaps there is some dependancy on technology or tools.
In recent years, I've seen customers move to the latest version alot quicker and some situations people run the current and previous version side by side.
Now on the subject of fixes : sure, subscriptions roll out potential fixes, but as a point release user I do expect the version I paid for to be maintained well too. However after years of Mudbox experience and multiple bug reports on my end (even sending narrated videos to the team outlining some issues ...), expensive updates, and 4 subsequent releases of the program, I am still running into the same old fatal bugs. This is a problem that the availability of a subscription program does not fix. All I want is some QA testing, and engineers maintaining the code of a program that I paid full price for about two years ago.
Now of course this is not directly related with Maya LT and its future developments. However I do think that this kind of user stories might give you a bit of perspective, and explain why many of us can be very critical about the practices of Autodesk regarding pricing, dev cycles, and communication.
I'm sorry I can't really offer you any information regarding long running bugs, only that sometimes certain issues are harder to fix than others. Unfortunately some issues could be so deeply embedded and could take multiple versions to fix, or resolve. Other times, it might take a new feature to maybe close off legacy issues. There are many factors to consider.
Point of note though, fixes don't always just go to Subscription only, that's why there are hotfixes and service packs. Maya 2014 had an extension release and we just released an update to that extension. At the same time, there was also a third service pack released publicly this week for Maya 2014. as there were bug fixes that we could push out.
Ok so today, I contacted a CSR at AD to try to get some answers on the extensions for maya lt. I was told...
Extensions are only available to people with subscriptions!
If you cancel your subscription, you lose access to the extensions!
That is nothing short of insane. There is no way I will ever touch a product with fees like that.
If I misunderstand what a subscription is, someone please explain it to me.
Does it allow you to upgrade for free to the next years version? Sort of like adobe? If so that might change my mind. But if you are subscribing to just this years version, and it's upgrades, that's terrible.
The way Subscription works, for perpetual licenses you buy a license then you can pay the fee for Subscription. The Subscription is annual and as long as you continue to pay the annual fee and remain on Subscription, you will always receive the latest version of your software, whenever it is released.
If you decide to not renew your subscription, then you remain at the latest version you have paid for. For example, if you were using 2013 version of your software and were on Subscription, you would of automatically received 2014. If you had stopped your Subs, before the 2014 release, then you would of remained on the 2013 version and not received 2014.
Of course, you might change your mind and decide that you do want the latest version, but if not on Subscription, you would have to pay an upgrade fee. This is currently 70% of the price for an entirely new license. So just by doing some simple math, Subscription is actually the best and most cost-effective way of always keeping your Autodesk software up to date.
There are other benefits and services with Subscription, so of course if you aren't on and paying for Subscription, then you stop having access to those things. And yes that would include the Extension releases, because these are only available to customers who are on an active Subscription.
For the Rental plans it's not quite the same. Subscription isn't available on the rental plans, however because you're on rental and paying in a different way, you still receive some of the benefits, including technical support and software updates. (rental customers of Maya LT 2014, will receive the Maya LT 2014 Extension release.
Ok, so I am understanding you to say, if I buy Maya LT for 795, then subscribe for 120 dollars, next year, or whenever the next years version is released, as long as I am subscribed. I get next years version for free (other than the subscription cost). And in the following years I get to keep getting new versions for free (other than the subscription cost). If this is the case I guess it's not so bad.
But I want to clarify one other thing, the csr I talked to today said that I would lose access to extensions if I cancel my subscription. Does this mean I will lose access to all extensions, meaning even the past ones that have already been downloaded and installed, or just access to new ones that come out.
Those are very high expectations. So high, that personally I think they would be hard for any software vendor to deliver. For example, the idea of being totally bug free. Imo, there's not such thing as bug free but if you can name a software (or game for that matter) on the market that is 100% completely bug free, then I'd sit corrected.
Nice proof how AD treats customers.
We know it's bugged but we don't give a crap because bug free software idea is so high you were probably on drugs when thought of it.
Try Vray and see what happens when you have a critical bug yet took how many months to fix nex issues in 2014? People couldn't even use the new modelling toolkit because it slowed system to a crawl.
You charged them for it and they were stuck for months and here you come pretty much telling us that we shouldn't complain because bugs are absolutely normal and our expectations are unreal.
Nice proof how AD treats customers.
We know it's bugged but we don't give a crap because bug free software idea is so high you were probably on drugs when thought of it.
Try Vray and see what happens when you have a critical bug yet took how many months to fix nex issues in 2014? People couldn't even use the new modelling toolkit because it slowed system to a crawl.
You charged them for it and they were stuck for months and here you come pretty much telling us that we shouldn't complain because bugs are absolutely normal and our expectations are unreal.
...
No, you have misunderstood what I am saying.
We do not have a carefree and 'like it or lump it' attitude. I can't speak for every company out there, but I'm sure that any software provider/developer (including Autodesk) does not intend on shipping their product(s) with bugs. We try and resolve and fix as many bugs as possible to ensure our software is stable and reliable. Like our customers, it's always a high priority.
Of course, I agree, the aim should be to fix All bugs and make the software 100% bug free, however despite the best of efforts, this isn't always possible. You could fix all bugs on one day and by the next, new ones have appeared.
There are many factors and variables though, much of our software has some complex technology inside it, there's also 3rd Party in there as well, such as for example Mental Ray. We need our technology partners to try and resolves their bugs, as much as we need to try fix our own. Also, many people are running on different specs of hardware, which can also make a difference.
I'm not saying customers should not complain either, in fact quite the opposite. I'm happy for people to complain, and anyone is within their right to vent, but at the same time I'd also want people to actually log the bugs with us. The more data we have from logged bugs, or the crash error reports, the better.
We try and resolve and fix as many bugs as possible to ensure our software is stable and reliable.,
So if someone buys maya LT and doesnt have a subscription do they still get the bug fixes? I can understand not get extensions to tools and new features but surely they are entitled to getting the features they originally paid to work properly.
So if someone buys maya LT and doesnt have a subscription do they still get the bug fixes? I can understand not get extensions to tools and new features but surely they are entitled to getting the features they originally paid to work properly.
Absolutely. If we are able to, we will release hotfixes and service packs that are freely available to all customers, regardless of whether they're on Subscription or not. Sometimes they can be incremental, others they're entirely fresh installs.
The same happened with the recent Extension releases for Maya, Max and Mudbox. As they were released, at the same time, free service packs were also released.
It's quite nice to be able to have an open conversation on these subjects here with official AD guys, for sure
I know I'll certainly give LT a try in the future for sure. Still not interested in actually getting a license for it, but I most definitely want to give the modeling tools a try.
The discussion about point releases and service packs is interesting too. Deep down I cannot help but feel that the annual release cycle is a mistake and adds unnecessary pressure on the developers, but I suppose it's not going to change anytime soon now, especially since it is a good tool for marketing in the short term. (kind of like the Guitar Hero and Madden games, in a way hehe)
The discussion about point releases and service packs is interesting too. Deep down I cannot help but feel that the annual release cycle is a mistake and adds unnecessary pressure on the developers,
It depends on the feature.
Sometimes having to wait 6 months to a year until customers finally get your stuff in their hands kind of sucks as a developer.
By the time it reaches customers you have been coding on different things for months.
In other cases, you are right. Some times things are not quite 100% of where you want them to be as developer and having to release it is not great.
We have the ability to release beta's every two weeks on the beta board, which allows us to get stuff to customers frequently, which is nice. But to the public at large we do not have a system in place to opt-in to those bi-monthly builds unless you sign up for the beta.
Another thing to point out, is that it can take sometime for some features to be implemented, especially to a very complete level. There's often alot of work involved.
One approach we have taken more recently (certainly with Maya anyway) is to implement a feature for the first time in a good and solid state, then build upon it with improvements as each version goes. This has worked well with things like Viewport 2.0, Node Editor, Scene Assembly, and even the modelling toolkit.
aurodesk should prevent people from buying maya lt without subscription. if they do not already. because if you buy it now, you get the old 2014 build and not the extension release with the features you might think you get.
then again, it would not surprise me if No One has bought LT outright without sub yet and all of these questions about the 799$ product are just theoritical.
Forgive me if I'm missing something(I am a blender user day to day). But it appears there is no ability to create IK solvers in Maya LT, only forward kinematics a or human ik rig. So if your game design included non human creatures then you would have to animate everything with forward kinematics? This really surprised me and was not obvious in the promotional material/specs. Eventually found it in writing here: http://docs.autodesk.com/mayalt2014/en_us/index.html?url=files/Introduction.htm,topicNumber=d30e2590
"Basic keyframe animation, with some HumanIK (but no advanced solvers or Muscle).
Basic rigging is supported (joints, smooth skinning, blendshapes, and basic constraints), but more advanced deformers, constraints, retargeting, and utility nodes are not available. You can import and animate an existing rig with IK handles, however you cannot create a new rig with IK solvers in Maya LT."
Is it just me missing something? I read this entire thread and it has not been mentioned once???
first post bump (took 1 day to approve). can anyone let me know if this is a thing? is there really a market out there for studios that want to animate characters without basic ik?
As I said in a post on another forum.....Maya LT is aimed at a specific type of development and developer. We've tried to keep the features clean and simple. Character rigging is a complex task and discipline, even for the most experienced TD's and complex projects. HumanIK (HIK for short)can simplify that process for people who perhaps lack the rigging skills, or maybe don't have the time. HumanIK is actually a very good and powerful IK solver. It's the same technology inside Motionbuilder and also a middleware solution used in the games such as Assassins Greed.
HIK inside Maya and MayaLT, provides the user with a full body FK and IK rig to animate with. All the controls for pinning/constraining the rig are also there in Maya LT. You can define whatever Biped skeleton rig you like for HIK, as long as it has the minimum amount of joints for the HIK solver to work. This should be listed in the documentation.
In Motionbuilder, you can actually rig quadrupeds in HIK and I've done this many times, but you know thinking about it now, I don't think I've tried this in Maya or Maya LT, so I'll look into that.
Yeah, and what if you want to make something not human ? A mechanical arm for example ?
Sorry but the choice of removing IK is totally stupid. It would have been more logical to remove HIK in my opinion since it's an high-end feature that (probably) gain a lot of time. Therefore indie developers should be less comfortable since they pay less (at least, I see it that way, that would be a good balance between Maya and Maya LT features).
Autodesk seems to believe that indie developer equals less experienced user, no need to say it's a very biased point of view.
Thanks for the response! I am very interested in learning Human IK as a solution for certain game designs, the stuff it does for Assassins creed looks amazing, I would still feel uneasy about treating it as a catch all rigging solution however, although it is an interesting point you bring up about rigging quadrupeds. It looks to me that Maya LT is maybe aimed at very small teams without full time animators or technical artists, maybe generalist programmer/3d artists who only buy mocap animation? Hopefully in the future it could grow to meet the needs of say indie ps4/xbone devs but at the moment it doesn't seem like a viable option compared to full fat Maya/Blender.
Yeah, and what if you want to make something not human ? A mechanical arm for example ?
Sorry but the choice of removing IK is totally stupid. It would have been more logical to remove HIK in my opinion since it's an high-end feature that (probably) gain a lot of time. Therefore indie developers should be less comfortable since they pay less (at least, I see it that way, that would be a good balance between Maya and Maya LT features).
Autodesk seems to believe that indie developer equals less experienced user, no need to say it's a very biased point of view.
HIK isn't just about only creating human characters in only human proportions. You can define the skeleton rig to whatever proportions you like, as long as HIK as the minimum set of joints it needs to solve correctly. Same for things like legs, you can rig something like a minotaur in HIK. I accept that some would say that this is still essentially a biped character, but it's also non-human with possible non-human proportions.
But at the same time, if you have a development team of only 5-7 guys and none of them has done much character rigging at all. How long would it take someone, from scratch, to rig a character with all the relevant controls, IK/FK switching, etc etc? In this context, HIK is definitely an option worth considering.
I think alot will depend on the scope of the project and the complexity of the assets people are trying to create. And we're by no means assuming that an indie developer is less experienced. One size doesn't fit all.
There is a "Create IK handle" option inside the Joint tool options. It did however break when they rebuilt the animation system. They are however working on getting it fixed.
So yeah, it is there just not working atm.
Just met with an Autodesk dev at the NYC Games Forum who presented Maya LT and confirmed that full MEL support is included in the latest closed beta build and launching to users soon. I'll follow up once theres a launch date.
Update: Maya LT Extension 2 is out now. With NEW and awesome features, such as: IK handles, polevector constraints, OBJ Export and the new and amazing MEL scripting.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but these are things that should never have been removed in the first place.
Good to see they have listened to the users. Now if they could get UV features that are as good as Headus Uv-layout pro.
Ok so it seems like this is only available to those on a subscription. Kind of a D*** move but hey, whats new. Will this then be part of Maya LT 2015 without the subscription?
Anything that is in the subscription usually ends up in the full next release afaik.
I hope so, though for many of us, I have the feeling it will just mean waiting until Maya LT looks more well rounded as part of the default package. If Modo and others start adopting the steam approach, its going to make taking the dive into lt even less likely.
Is python scripting supported ? Or plugins like APEX Cloth.
There is one cool, plugin written in python, that I can't tell about (for character rigging).
And APEX Cloth. Well, you know it's cloth. More secondary movement is always good to have.
I know this really isn't Maya LTE related, but I wish Autodesk would come up with a subscription solution for individuals. $200 a month to use Maya is just ridiculous.
something like $50/month sounds right specially given how buggy and unstable Autodesk tools are(even with certified hardware/drivers) and how Adobe tools are so much more polished and almost no bugs...
I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut as that. You're comparing two very different types of products with some very different capabilities and technologies.
Bit of an Apples to Oranges comparison there really. Maya is $3675 straight up where the Master Collection was what about $2599? You're also comparing Adobe's pricing under an annual plan compared to our month-to-month plan. If you sign up on an annual plan then it's $1865 for a year of Maya so ~50% of the price of a new seat straight up.
your point seems a bit irrelevant to me and here is why:
$1865 is 50% of a perpetual license. this mean that a sub of 2 year would total to 100% of full price and by 4 years you get back 200% and so on. annual upgrades are not worth $1865 in my opinion.
on the other hand, adobe charges $50 per month so in 4 years adobe would get back $2400 which is still little short of their full price.
i am not the best in math but i tried, anyone feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
i also believe if Autodesk offered a more reasonable monthly sub fee then they would make considerably more money in the long run. right now you might have lets say 1000 people on sub so that totals to $200k per month. if the sub fee was $50 you might get close to 5000 subs and that would be like $250k per month. you would make more $$$ with volume of subs.
here is an earlier post from me to compare the ratio.
Bit of an Apples to Oranges comparison there really. Maya is $3675 straight up where the Master Collection was what about $2599? You're also comparing Adobe's pricing under an annual plan compared to our month-to-month plan. If you sign up on an annual plan then it's $1865 for a year of Maya so ~50% of the price of a new seat straight up.
Even factoring in the different prices and annual discounts, you're still comparing 4.2% of the total cost of a single piece of software ($3675), to 1.9% of the total cost of an entire suite of software ($2599). Is Maya really worth double the entire Adobe suite per month?
Replies
The policy is consistent with other Autodesk offerings. And many of the modelling improvements in this Maya LT Extension, are also in the recent Maya 2014 Extension.
For normal bug fixes, Autodesk can (and will) often release hotfixes and service packs. These are freely available to anyone, so that if someone isn't on subscription, they can still get those important fixes.
Also, and again not being gratuitously aggressive here : I do hope that AD will stick to its word regarding bug fixes and service packs this time. I have been paying for the (needlessly expensive) Mudbox upgrades multiple times already, and while currently on 2012 + service pack 3 I am still getting fatal crashes regularly - to a point that I have to actively avoid the circumstances that I know are causing said crashes.
In other words, I hope AD will maintain support on the different point releases of a product like MayaLT better than they did for Max and Mudbox, which ended up leaving the user quickly feeling abandoned despite paying full cash for the promised support in the first place.
It would be the same as other software with these Extension releases, you would need to purchase Subscription in order to get these exclusive features.
I don't have any information at this time regarding upgrades for MayaLT.
Regarding big fixes and service packs, I'm not in a position to absolutely confirm anything around release schedules, and I can't speak for the product development guys. But, if we feel that hotfixes/service packs are warranted and the teams can deliver them, then I believe they do try their upmost to do so. And, looking at the 2014 releases, we have delivered multiple service packs for some packages.
But with paying for upgrades, this is where the debate is regards that versus subscription. You feel that you've needlessly paid for expensive upgrades, but just from the financial view, it probably would of been cheaper to have been on subscription. You would of got releases beyond 2012 (and any fixes in them), and any respective Extension releases, and you would of retained previous usage rights, which is a benefit of subscription.
Its no surprise then that when googling "bait and switch" you start finding Autodesk in the search results.
Its like saying "we heard your complaints and to reward you for your feedback, which we requested, we wont give you these fixes unless you hop on the plan that gives us far more leverage over your wallet". It's disgusting.
However this it is almost never the case, to a point where it is now widely accepted that switching to a newer version of an Autodesk product at release should be avoided. Average recommended time is one year.
To go back to my specific, personal experience with Mudbox : I purchased 2009 as a standalone license and later upgraded two times (or was it three ? ) for the promised upgrades and added features. The reason why I like purchasing a point release and maybe some upgrades as opposed to paying for a subscription is simply budget control : I'd rather pay once and for all for a solid product and never have to think about further costs added down the line, rather than knowing that I will have to pay repeatedly, and potentially suffer from the stress of re-install, new bugs, and compatibility issues.
But with the high price of upgrades, I personally feel "burnt" by the Autodesk pricing policies ; that does not make me want to take yet another leap of faith and switch to subscription at all.
Now on the subject of fixes : sure, subscriptions roll out potential fixes, but as a point release user I do expect the version I paid for to be maintained well too. However after years of Mudbox experience and multiple bug reports on my end (even sending narrated videos to the team outlining some issues ...), expensive updates, and 4 subsequent releases of the program, I am still running into the same old fatal bugs. This is a problem that the availability of a subscription program does not fix. All I want is some QA testing, and engineers maintaining the code of a program that I paid full price for about two years ago.
Now of course this is not directly related with Maya LT and its future developments. However I do think that this kind of user stories might give you a bit of perspective, and explain why many of us can be very critical about the practices of Autodesk regarding pricing, dev cycles, and communication.
There is a lot of trust to be gained back, and companies like Pixologic understand it very well.
Those are very high expectations. So high, that personally I think they would be hard for any software vendor to deliver. For example, the idea of being totally bug free. Imo, there's not such thing as bug free but if you can name a software (or game for that matter) on the market that is 100% completely bug free, then I'd sit corrected.
I'm sorry but I would have to contest that. The notion that its somehow widely accepted that people don't move to a latest version and there's some kind or standard recommendation is (imo) misinformed. There many factors why people don't always moved to the latest version, very often it can be project related, or perhaps there is some dependancy on technology or tools.
In recent years, I've seen customers move to the latest version alot quicker and some situations people run the current and previous version side by side.
I'm sorry I can't really offer you any information regarding long running bugs, only that sometimes certain issues are harder to fix than others. Unfortunately some issues could be so deeply embedded and could take multiple versions to fix, or resolve. Other times, it might take a new feature to maybe close off legacy issues. There are many factors to consider.
Point of note though, fixes don't always just go to Subscription only, that's why there are hotfixes and service packs. Maya 2014 had an extension release and we just released an update to that extension. At the same time, there was also a third service pack released publicly this week for Maya 2014. as there were bug fixes that we could push out.
Extensions are only available to people with subscriptions!
If you cancel your subscription, you lose access to the extensions!
That is nothing short of insane. There is no way I will ever touch a product with fees like that.
If I misunderstand what a subscription is, someone please explain it to me.
Does it allow you to upgrade for free to the next years version? Sort of like adobe? If so that might change my mind. But if you are subscribing to just this years version, and it's upgrades, that's terrible.
If you decide to not renew your subscription, then you remain at the latest version you have paid for. For example, if you were using 2013 version of your software and were on Subscription, you would of automatically received 2014. If you had stopped your Subs, before the 2014 release, then you would of remained on the 2013 version and not received 2014.
Of course, you might change your mind and decide that you do want the latest version, but if not on Subscription, you would have to pay an upgrade fee. This is currently 70% of the price for an entirely new license. So just by doing some simple math, Subscription is actually the best and most cost-effective way of always keeping your Autodesk software up to date.
There are other benefits and services with Subscription, so of course if you aren't on and paying for Subscription, then you stop having access to those things. And yes that would include the Extension releases, because these are only available to customers who are on an active Subscription.
For the Rental plans it's not quite the same. Subscription isn't available on the rental plans, however because you're on rental and paying in a different way, you still receive some of the benefits, including technical support and software updates. (rental customers of Maya LT 2014, will receive the Maya LT 2014 Extension release.
But I want to clarify one other thing, the csr I talked to today said that I would lose access to extensions if I cancel my subscription. Does this mean I will lose access to all extensions, meaning even the past ones that have already been downloaded and installed, or just access to new ones that come out.
Nice proof how AD treats customers.
We know it's bugged but we don't give a crap because bug free software idea is so high you were probably on drugs when thought of it.
Try Vray and see what happens when you have a critical bug yet took how many months to fix nex issues in 2014? People couldn't even use the new modelling toolkit because it slowed system to a crawl.
You charged them for it and they were stuck for months and here you come pretty much telling us that we shouldn't complain because bugs are absolutely normal and our expectations are unreal.
...
No, you have misunderstood what I am saying.
We do not have a carefree and 'like it or lump it' attitude. I can't speak for every company out there, but I'm sure that any software provider/developer (including Autodesk) does not intend on shipping their product(s) with bugs. We try and resolve and fix as many bugs as possible to ensure our software is stable and reliable. Like our customers, it's always a high priority.
Of course, I agree, the aim should be to fix All bugs and make the software 100% bug free, however despite the best of efforts, this isn't always possible. You could fix all bugs on one day and by the next, new ones have appeared.
There are many factors and variables though, much of our software has some complex technology inside it, there's also 3rd Party in there as well, such as for example Mental Ray. We need our technology partners to try and resolves their bugs, as much as we need to try fix our own. Also, many people are running on different specs of hardware, which can also make a difference.
I'm not saying customers should not complain either, in fact quite the opposite. I'm happy for people to complain, and anyone is within their right to vent, but at the same time I'd also want people to actually log the bugs with us. The more data we have from logged bugs, or the crash error reports, the better.
So if someone buys maya LT and doesnt have a subscription do they still get the bug fixes? I can understand not get extensions to tools and new features but surely they are entitled to getting the features they originally paid to work properly.
Absolutely. If we are able to, we will release hotfixes and service packs that are freely available to all customers, regardless of whether they're on Subscription or not. Sometimes they can be incremental, others they're entirely fresh installs.
Everyone has been looking at the Maya LT extension release, but overlooked the fact that at the same time, there was a free service pack released to all customers, as well.
It can be downloaded from here: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/dl/item?siteID=123112&id=22446528&linkID=9242259
The same happened with the recent Extension releases for Maya, Max and Mudbox. As they were released, at the same time, free service packs were also released.
I know I'll certainly give LT a try in the future for sure. Still not interested in actually getting a license for it, but I most definitely want to give the modeling tools a try.
The discussion about point releases and service packs is interesting too. Deep down I cannot help but feel that the annual release cycle is a mistake and adds unnecessary pressure on the developers, but I suppose it's not going to change anytime soon now, especially since it is a good tool for marketing in the short term. (kind of like the Guitar Hero and Madden games, in a way hehe)
It depends on the feature.
Sometimes having to wait 6 months to a year until customers finally get your stuff in their hands kind of sucks as a developer.
By the time it reaches customers you have been coding on different things for months.
In other cases, you are right. Some times things are not quite 100% of where you want them to be as developer and having to release it is not great.
We have the ability to release beta's every two weeks on the beta board, which allows us to get stuff to customers frequently, which is nice. But to the public at large we do not have a system in place to opt-in to those bi-monthly builds unless you sign up for the beta.
One approach we have taken more recently (certainly with Maya anyway) is to implement a feature for the first time in a good and solid state, then build upon it with improvements as each version goes. This has worked well with things like Viewport 2.0, Node Editor, Scene Assembly, and even the modelling toolkit.
Presentation of Maya LT at Unity Unite 2013.
then again, it would not surprise me if No One has bought LT outright without sub yet and all of these questions about the 799$ product are just theoritical.
Maya LT scripting on its way.
Also polycap raised to 65k and unlimited when exporting to Unity.
I am not sure if OBJ export is coming too.
https://twitter.com/frankdelise
"Basic keyframe animation, with some HumanIK (but no advanced solvers or Muscle).
Basic rigging is supported (joints, smooth skinning, blendshapes, and basic constraints), but more advanced deformers, constraints, retargeting, and utility nodes are not available. You can import and animate an existing rig with IK handles, however you cannot create a new rig with IK solvers in Maya LT."
Is it just me missing something? I read this entire thread and it has not been mentioned once???
HIK inside Maya and MayaLT, provides the user with a full body FK and IK rig to animate with. All the controls for pinning/constraining the rig are also there in Maya LT. You can define whatever Biped skeleton rig you like for HIK, as long as it has the minimum amount of joints for the HIK solver to work. This should be listed in the documentation.
In Motionbuilder, you can actually rig quadrupeds in HIK and I've done this many times, but you know thinking about it now, I don't think I've tried this in Maya or Maya LT, so I'll look into that.
Sorry but the choice of removing IK is totally stupid. It would have been more logical to remove HIK in my opinion since it's an high-end feature that (probably) gain a lot of time. Therefore indie developers should be less comfortable since they pay less (at least, I see it that way, that would be a good balance between Maya and Maya LT features).
Autodesk seems to believe that indie developer equals less experienced user, no need to say it's a very biased point of view.
HIK isn't just about only creating human characters in only human proportions. You can define the skeleton rig to whatever proportions you like, as long as HIK as the minimum set of joints it needs to solve correctly. Same for things like legs, you can rig something like a minotaur in HIK. I accept that some would say that this is still essentially a biped character, but it's also non-human with possible non-human proportions.
But at the same time, if you have a development team of only 5-7 guys and none of them has done much character rigging at all. How long would it take someone, from scratch, to rig a character with all the relevant controls, IK/FK switching, etc etc? In this context, HIK is definitely an option worth considering.
I think alot will depend on the scope of the project and the complexity of the assets people are trying to create. And we're by no means assuming that an indie developer is less experienced. One size doesn't fit all.
So yeah, it is there just not working atm.
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Maya-LT-General/Joint-tool-Create-Ik-handle-option/td-p/4575175
That may just put it on my Christmas list.
Is this update also only for subscribers or will it be available to all LT buyers regardless of subscription?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but these are things that should never have been removed in the first place.
Good to see they have listened to the users. Now if they could get UV features that are as good as Headus Uv-layout pro.
without plugins how will someone use third-party export tools such as collada or even xNormal's SBM format ?
That is, at least for the moment, not what Maya LT is about.
If you need a custom pipeline, then you need to get full Maya.
Other wise, you need to make due with FBX/OBJ exporting.
I hope so, though for many of us, I have the feeling it will just mean waiting until Maya LT looks more well rounded as part of the default package. If Modo and others start adopting the steam approach, its going to make taking the dive into lt even less likely.
I'm guessing that they have just fixed the IK handle tool that was present and broken from the start.
Is python scripting supported ? Or plugins like APEX Cloth.
There is one cool, plugin written in python, that I can't tell about (for character rigging).
And APEX Cloth. Well, you know it's cloth. More secondary movement is always good to have.
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html
something like $50/month sounds right specially given how buggy and unstable Autodesk tools are(even with certified hardware/drivers) and how Adobe tools are so much more polished and almost no bugs...
Yeah I totally agree.
I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut as that. You're comparing two very different types of products with some very different capabilities and technologies.
your point seems a bit irrelevant to me and here is why:
$1865 is 50% of a perpetual license. this mean that a sub of 2 year would total to 100% of full price and by 4 years you get back 200% and so on. annual upgrades are not worth $1865 in my opinion.
on the other hand, adobe charges $50 per month so in 4 years adobe would get back $2400 which is still little short of their full price.
i am not the best in math but i tried, anyone feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
i also believe if Autodesk offered a more reasonable monthly sub fee then they would make considerably more money in the long run. right now you might have lets say 1000 people on sub so that totals to $200k per month. if the sub fee was $50 you might get close to 5000 subs and that would be like $250k per month. you would make more $$$ with volume of subs.
here is an earlier post from me to compare the ratio.
Even factoring in the different prices and annual discounts, you're still comparing 4.2% of the total cost of a single piece of software ($3675), to 1.9% of the total cost of an entire suite of software ($2599). Is Maya really worth double the entire Adobe suite per month?