With Unity and UE4 having big communities that really enjoy what they have, I don't see many people jumping ship to Autodesk unless there's a big reason to do so. It will be interesting to see their feature set and pricing model. Hopefully their announcement comes with a game title being announced with some gameplay footage.
I can definitely see some advantage to having a game engine integrated into a modeling tool. I've had countless struggles attempting to convince 3D engines to play nice with various model formats.
At the same time, I'm not sure how much need there would be for an engine like this at this juncture. And after the past few years, I really don't have much faith in Autodesk. I'll be interested to see what's going on with this Stingray engine, but don't expect to see me in line to pick this up.
All I see right now are resources that could be better used elsewhere.
There are some people at AD who like to see themselves as big innovators (cloud, use your software from your ipad, this). On a smaller level (some of the R&D efforts) that might work.
But judging by the last couple of years this usually means less innovation where it would actually help or should be expected. I only can talk about 3ds max, but it happened several times already that max developers were whisked away in order to work on some big guy's grand ideas.
Given the reputation of AutoDesk software in the past, it might not have been the best idea to make this teaser trailer in a "glitchy" style. Just saying.
I can definitely see some advantage to having a game engine integrated into a modeling tool. I've had countless struggles attempting to convince 3D engines to play nice with various model formats.
Then try opposite and use Houdini with Houdini Engine inside Unity and UE4
The 90s called they want their commercial back. But seriously this looks interesting. I hope to god it plays nice with their existing programs. Couldn't imagine them releasing an engine that didn't have intuitive cross software import export.
The appeal of this is very easy to see. It would be as if a studio had its own proprietary game engine. Unreal/Unity are an external game engine that one must import all assets and content into. That does take time and efficiency away.
Imagine if all the shaders you build in Max/Maya are the shaders you see running in your engine? All the lights you place in your 3d modeling software package are there in your engine. Anything you create in your modeling package would be directly in your game engine already, no need to export and create all that content in another package.
This is just what I am assuming it will be like. Its very much what we do at ND with our engine. I dont export anything, I make everything in Maya, I never leave it. I never have to bring things into another program like UE4 and that is honestly fantastic.
Workflows look like this...
Build 3d model, UV model, create shader for model (we have our own shader program but its directly linked to Maya and works in tandem with it just like hypershade only WAY better) rigg, animated and light assets. Assemble scene and build whatever it is your working on. All done in Maya, never leaving the software package. Makes rapid level changes with modeling FAR faster and easier.
Now with UE4/Unity you still do ALL of those things but then there are the added steps of importing models into the engine, importing textures and animations, creating shaders in the engine and so on. Not the end of the world but that is a lot of time and can slow down iteration as well as being an extra step.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on why I can see a lot of people really digging this.
The appeal of this is very easy to see. It would be as if a studio had its own proprietary game engine. Unreal/Unity are an external game engine that one must import all assets and content into. That does take time and efficiency away.
Imagine if all the shaders you build in Max/Maya are the shaders you see running in your engine? All the lights you place in your 3d modeling software package are there in your engine. Anything you create in your modeling package would be directly in your game engine already, no need to export and create all that content in another package.
This is just what I am assuming it will be like. Its very much what we do at ND with our engine. I dont export anything, I make everything in Maya, I never leave it. I never have to bring things into another program like UE4 and that is honestly fantastic.
Workflows look like this...
Build 3d model, UV model, create shader for model (we have our own shader program but its directly linked to Maya and works in tandem with it just like hypershade only WAY better) rigg, animated and light assets. Assemble scene and build whatever it is your working on. All done in Maya, never leaving the software package. Makes rapid level changes with modeling FAR faster and easier.
Now with UE4/Unity you still do ALL of those things but then there are the added steps of importing models into the engine, importing textures and animations, creating shaders in the engine and so on. Not the end of the world but that is a lot of time and can slow down iteration as well as being an extra step.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on why I can see a lot of people really digging this.
Makes a lot of sense to work that way. I find it quite cumbersome to switch back and forth between the editor and engine. Tons of time wasted when you think about it.
Maybe Epic caught wind of Autodesk's Stingray and decided to pair up with Houdini to keep competitive?
That's strange because I can model and output normal model from it without a problem. I modeled and rigged couple mechs in it. Outputing LowPoly is even less problematic. Anything I can't do in it I can do in Zbrush.
Different workflow doesn't mean that it can't do something. It's like saying that UE4 can't do something that unity can, because it have different workflow.
But I understand that people that are used to not seeing nodes may think that it can't be used for normal work
Looking forward to a future trailer which actually contains useful information
What do you mean? The trailer told me making 3D games is about to get a whole lot cooler! Don't most developers choose an engine based on how cool it is?
What do you mean? The trailer told me making 3D games is about to get a whole lot cooler! Don't most developers choose an engine based on how cool it is?
Actually yeah they do,
If its cool, it's popular,
If its popular, people are coming out of uni up 2 speed in it, you can take devs from other studios with all their exp being relevant.
Cool tech gets us talking, and trying, then telling our heads of department what subscriptions we'd like to swap.
Lets face it we'd all be fine on blender and gimp, if they had the hype to make us.
Who knows how many times I've harassed for a Maya Max update to get an 'essential feature' that already existed in blender but I didn't wanna use it there.
Mudbox has had some awesome feature releases that I've responded to with Wow, when that comes to ZB that will be awesome.
Cool drives subscription.
Actually yeah they do,
If its cool, it's popular,
If its popular, people are coming out of uni up 2 speed in it, you can take devs from other studios with all their exp being relevant.
Cool tech gets us talking, and trying, then telling our heads of department what subscriptions we'd like to swap.
Lets face it we'd all be fine on blender and gimp, if they had the hype to make us.
Who knows how many times I've harassed for a Maya Max update to get an 'essential feature' that already existed in blender but I didn't wanna use it there.
Mudbox has had some awesome feature releases that I've responded to with Wow, when that comes to ZB that will be awesome.
Cool drives subscription.
I get that. I just think it's silly for the trailer to tell me it's cooler. Don't tell me, show me. I'm sure they'll reveal more tech and features soon enough and I'll be curious to see what they can do to set the engine apart, but this trailer was cheesy as hell.
You can clearly see that the shaderfx node graph is directly linked to the stingray engine. I'm guessing that shaderfx is the stingray material authoring tool. This is further evidence that art assets will be completely synchronized between Maya and Stingray. I'm guessing that it's going to be a really fluid workflow.
A2M did a keynote demo of using Maya as there game engine for wet,
And pretty much all that became main stream Maya from that was Viewport 2.0 and anim layers. It did look very impressive and extremely practical though.
what's the deal with these 1980's style green screenshots - is this how you advertise a product in 2015 or am I missing something or could we post more infomative cat pictures instead?
The more game engines the better but the editing of that video is pretty much eye herpes inducing. I am interesting in seeing exactly how this will benefit from being part of the "Autodesk-family", seamless Maya integration would be awesome.
Just watched the video. Awful. I don't think they understand who they are marketing to. And if this is an Autodesk product espected to be used with other Autodesk products, there is no way they can compete price wise.
By doing this they learn more about pipelines, and that will improve Max/Maya/Motionbuilder for game production no matter what engine the asset is destined for.
By doing this they learn more about pipelines, and that will improve Max/Maya/Motionbuilder for game production no matter what engine the asset is destined for.
Or they just build engine around their existing products because... Why not ?
As for engine it self.. Well, Idk who is target of this trailer.
Epic spoiled me so much, that anything that is not informative and explained, is not even worth noticing.
And this teaser of teaser is everything but informative. Some green images randomly put together. Nothing that would convince me, to even ask what it is all about.
One thing that might be awesome, is being able to use something like all of 3D Studio Max's modifiers to actually animate different effects (not skeletal) directly in the game without having to vertex bake everything. Totally would make a few games using just warp-space modifiers.
Not to mention, if you wouldn't have to bake animation, you could tie so many different variables to actions in the game! Just guessing/not based on any technical knowledge or anything.
It would also be nice of their renderer is on par with Unreal Engine 4's. Currently I've been messing around with UE4 for creating company video ads and it's been a lot of fun, although said nightmare on importing different types of animation other than skeletal/figuring out how to make a version similar that would work in a game engine/or just not possible without programming. That said, I love UE4. I just hope some day they figure out a nice way to support vertex animation
@Deathstick, the best thing that any engines including UE4 can do to address the vertex animation situation is to implement Alembic in my opinion, I know there are talks of this going around for Unreal, hope they go through with it.
As for this engine, they are going to face a real challenge considering Unreal ,Unity and now Source 2, all of which are free, but they also have the advantage of having Max and Maya to support it and vice-versa, we'll have to see how they are going to make the connection between all of these tools because that can be the key for them.
PS: They have the least professional video editors for a multi-billion dollar company.
By doing this they learn more about pipelines, and that will improve Max/Maya/Motionbuilder for game production no matter what engine the asset is destined for.
maybe...maybe not.
We have AD people visit us regularly. They want to pimp the newest modeling/animation features while we ask them to do something about tighter integration and data exchange - especially with middleware and game engines. (Can you believe it? It's 2015 and interchange between most 3D apps is still limited to exporting and importing individual files). This means they will eventually have to talk to companies and developers who don't belong to the AD umbrella. But so far the only hope for tighter integration for any software seems to be that AD buys it
So now they have their own engine. Seems the answer is simple: you want tighter integration? Why not use OUR engine instead of <competitor product>?
there is always space to do things better, and competition is a really good thing for us as the end customer using those tools.
The best they can do is copy Epic. At this point coming up with a better way for non programmers to program would be like finding a better way for English speakers to speak English. The methods are constrained by the subject matter. As long as you are programming, this is the best way because of logic/language limitations.
If you start jumping over the micro management in favor of macro, then you lose flexibility and power.
Of course it can be tightened up over time. But all they will be doing is copying what Epic has laid out. And that just isn't enough to appeal to people who are already happy with what they've got.
I remember the Unity CEO standing at a 1 cubic meter Unity stand and hardlyanybody caring about his engine, showing some soldiers running in 3d. Competition is only nice for us, and who knows what it will bring in 2-3 years. its built in very recent time and does not drag endless burdens around from its past, so its probably up to a good start.
Well... Autodesk bought all our other tools at least. But it's gonna be nice having even more options for sure
I completely forgot about Stingray tv show. I always preferred Captain Scarlet and the MYSTERONS!!! But it's not as catchy of a name for a game engine.
The best they can do is copy Epic. At this point coming up with a better way for non programmers to program would be like finding a better way for English speakers to speak English. The methods are constrained by the subject matter. As long as you are programming, this is the best way because of logic/language limitations.
If you start jumping over the micro management in favor of macro, then you lose flexibility and power.
Of course it can be tightened up over time. But all they will be doing is copying what Epic has laid out. And that just isn't enough to appeal to people who are already happy with what they've got.
I've had to reread what you've wrote 5 times, and it still doesn't make any sense.
Unreal engine is great but it is far from perfect. There is plenty of room for improvements. Everything can be improved, you speak as if Epic has reached the pinnacle of 3D graphics.
Just because a problem is hard, it doesn't mean you just give up and copy old tech. That kind of mentality doesn't belong in any kind of software development.
I have no idea why anyone would recommend a game engine other than Unreal 4 at this point. Other than hipsters, that is, and if you are a hipster, hey who am I to judge? But Blueprints are the easiest to learn and most powerful style of visual coding that I have ever encountered and it has tremendous documentation.
And if you are trying to copy that arrogant snarky forum style some of us use... You need to know what you are talking about. The only way you can get away with talking like that is to be right, and not act that way about subjective topics where you can't have an absolute opinion.
Also you aren't quantifying your opinion with with hard experience.
you'd think seven months would be enough time to reflect on things like this but evidently not
on topic: there sure are a lot of engines trying to gain market share lately. UE4 seems to be pretty far ahead in general adoption
Replies
At the same time, I'm not sure how much need there would be for an engine like this at this juncture. And after the past few years, I really don't have much faith in Autodesk. I'll be interested to see what's going on with this Stingray engine, but don't expect to see me in line to pick this up.
There are some people at AD who like to see themselves as big innovators (cloud, use your software from your ipad, this). On a smaller level (some of the R&D efforts) that might work.
But judging by the last couple of years this usually means less innovation where it would actually help or should be expected. I only can talk about 3ds max, but it happened several times already that max developers were whisked away in order to work on some big guy's grand ideas.
Then try opposite and use Houdini with Houdini Engine inside Unity and UE4
Overall looking forward to see more. :poly124:
Imagine if all the shaders you build in Max/Maya are the shaders you see running in your engine? All the lights you place in your 3d modeling software package are there in your engine. Anything you create in your modeling package would be directly in your game engine already, no need to export and create all that content in another package.
This is just what I am assuming it will be like. Its very much what we do at ND with our engine. I dont export anything, I make everything in Maya, I never leave it. I never have to bring things into another program like UE4 and that is honestly fantastic.
Workflows look like this...
Build 3d model, UV model, create shader for model (we have our own shader program but its directly linked to Maya and works in tandem with it just like hypershade only WAY better) rigg, animated and light assets. Assemble scene and build whatever it is your working on. All done in Maya, never leaving the software package. Makes rapid level changes with modeling FAR faster and easier.
Now with UE4/Unity you still do ALL of those things but then there are the added steps of importing models into the engine, importing textures and animations, creating shaders in the engine and so on. Not the end of the world but that is a lot of time and can slow down iteration as well as being an extra step.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on why I can see a lot of people really digging this.
Makes a lot of sense to work that way. I find it quite cumbersome to switch back and forth between the editor and engine. Tons of time wasted when you think about it.
Maybe Epic caught wind of Autodesk's Stingray and decided to pair up with Houdini to keep competitive?
Different workflow doesn't mean that it can't do something. It's like saying that UE4 can't do something that unity can, because it have different workflow.
But I understand that people that are used to not seeing nodes may think that it can't be used for normal work
What do you mean? The trailer told me making 3D games is about to get a whole lot cooler! Don't most developers choose an engine based on how cool it is?
Actually yeah they do,
If its cool, it's popular,
If its popular, people are coming out of uni up 2 speed in it, you can take devs from other studios with all their exp being relevant.
Cool tech gets us talking, and trying, then telling our heads of department what subscriptions we'd like to swap.
Lets face it we'd all be fine on blender and gimp, if they had the hype to make us.
Who knows how many times I've harassed for a Maya Max update to get an 'essential feature' that already existed in blender but I didn't wanna use it there.
Mudbox has had some awesome feature releases that I've responded to with Wow, when that comes to ZB that will be awesome.
Cool drives subscription.
I get that. I just think it's silly for the trailer to tell me it's cooler. Don't tell me, show me. I'm sure they'll reveal more tech and features soon enough and I'll be curious to see what they can do to set the engine apart, but this trailer was cheesy as hell.
http://www.creativeobserver.com/img/7188_autodesk_maya_lt_2016_screenshot_lg.jpg
You can clearly see that the shaderfx node graph is directly linked to the stingray engine. I'm guessing that shaderfx is the stingray material authoring tool. This is further evidence that art assets will be completely synchronized between Maya and Stingray. I'm guessing that it's going to be a really fluid workflow.
And pretty much all that became main stream Maya from that was Viewport 2.0 and anim layers. It did look very impressive and extremely practical though.
I hope it puts Scaleform, Beast, HumanIK, and to good use.
Not possible. Epic nailed it.
I don't think they expected UE4 to be free xD
there is always space to do things better, and competition is a really good thing for us as the end customer using those tools.
By doing this they learn more about pipelines, and that will improve Max/Maya/Motionbuilder for game production no matter what engine the asset is destined for.
Or they just build engine around their existing products because... Why not ?
As for engine it self.. Well, Idk who is target of this trailer.
Epic spoiled me so much, that anything that is not informative and explained, is not even worth noticing.
And this teaser of teaser is everything but informative. Some green images randomly put together. Nothing that would convince me, to even ask what it is all about.
Learn guys.. learn!.
Not to mention, if you wouldn't have to bake animation, you could tie so many different variables to actions in the game! Just guessing/not based on any technical knowledge or anything.
It would also be nice of their renderer is on par with Unreal Engine 4's. Currently I've been messing around with UE4 for creating company video ads and it's been a lot of fun, although said nightmare on importing different types of animation other than skeletal/figuring out how to make a version similar that would work in a game engine/or just not possible without programming. That said, I love UE4. I just hope some day they figure out a nice way to support vertex animation
As for this engine, they are going to face a real challenge considering Unreal ,Unity and now Source 2, all of which are free, but they also have the advantage of having Max and Maya to support it and vice-versa, we'll have to see how they are going to make the connection between all of these tools because that can be the key for them.
PS: They have the least professional video editors for a multi-billion dollar company.
maybe...maybe not.
We have AD people visit us regularly. They want to pimp the newest modeling/animation features while we ask them to do something about tighter integration and data exchange - especially with middleware and game engines. (Can you believe it? It's 2015 and interchange between most 3D apps is still limited to exporting and importing individual files). This means they will eventually have to talk to companies and developers who don't belong to the AD umbrella. But so far the only hope for tighter integration for any software seems to be that AD buys it
So now they have their own engine. Seems the answer is simple: you want tighter integration? Why not use OUR engine instead of <competitor product>?
The best they can do is copy Epic. At this point coming up with a better way for non programmers to program would be like finding a better way for English speakers to speak English. The methods are constrained by the subject matter. As long as you are programming, this is the best way because of logic/language limitations.
If you start jumping over the micro management in favor of macro, then you lose flexibility and power.
Of course it can be tightened up over time. But all they will be doing is copying what Epic has laid out. And that just isn't enough to appeal to people who are already happy with what they've got.
I remember the Unity CEO standing at a 1 cubic meter Unity stand and hardlyanybody caring about his engine, showing some soldiers running in 3d. Competition is only nice for us, and who knows what it will bring in 2-3 years. its built in very recent time and does not drag endless burdens around from its past, so its probably up to a good start.
I found some not green images on the autodesk website, looks alright don't it. Autodesk makes all of our other tools, it makes sense for them to try to make a game engine.
http://area.autodesk.com/assets/img/events/gdc2015/fatshark_004.jpg
http://area.autodesk.com/assets/img/events/gdc2015/fatshark_005.jpg
http://area.autodesk.com/assets/img/events/gdc2015/fatshark_003.jpg
http://area.autodesk.com/assets/img/events/gdc2015/fatshark_001.jpg
Well... Autodesk bought all our other tools at least. But it's gonna be nice having even more options for sure
I completely forgot about Stingray tv show. I always preferred Captain Scarlet and the MYSTERONS!!! But it's not as catchy of a name for a game engine.
I'm begging you to never say anything to me again.
i beg you to not be such a biased fanboy in public again, but sadly we can't always get what we want
I've had to reread what you've wrote 5 times, and it still doesn't make any sense.
Unreal engine is great but it is far from perfect. There is plenty of room for improvements. Everything can be improved, you speak as if Epic has reached the pinnacle of 3D graphics.
Just because a problem is hard, it doesn't mean you just give up and copy old tech. That kind of mentality doesn't belong in any kind of software development.
Yeah I'm not even going to say anything else.
Its insane.
* See old Zbrush thread
you'd think seven months would be enough time to reflect on things like this but evidently not
on topic: there sure are a lot of engines trying to gain market share lately. UE4 seems to be pretty far ahead in general adoption
That was pretty infuriating to read through.
Pancakes, the way you approach a discussion is not a recipe for growth. It lacks any indication of a reasonable mind.
If it's the bitsquid engine I've gone from skeptical to cautiously optimistic.
[ame]
Ahem. You forget, what happen to stuff that Autodesk buys ? ;p