Last I checked Command History is in indie, I use it to remap hotkeys. Is there another function that may be disabled that I don't know about?
Algorithmic, Black Magic cimnema are both great. You can pick up Fusion 7, a pro level composite app for free. The limitations are extremely generous. I wish Autodesk would ease up a bit on their pricing but they really don't have to with the lack of competition.
Speaking of which, any update for the Modo Steam Edition buyers?
Hey Joe,
The 90% loyalty discount is applied to the MODO Steam Edition perpetual license package as well. Have at it! $29.99 one time fee.
I swear, if we could spend the same amount of energy/time talking about all of the things that you do get with MODO indie 901 then maybe there wouldn't be so much focus on what you don't get. LOL (Just having fun here everyone) There is an upgrade path towards the full version for people who require more and of course we're slowly expanding our offerings to the indie community.
In my personal opinion MODO indie should have restricted the rendering more, along with not including dynamics in the product. While Greg Brown and I supported the MODO Steam Edition community, we had little to no influence on the make up of MODO indie.
As far as the word indie, its meant to be more inclusive then just indie game focused. Indie for The Foundry means independent/individual. MODO indie is for hobbyists, freelancers and game content creators.
Subscription talk:
This is what our rep from Valve has told me:
Subscribers are upgraded automatically- 901 is now included in all the existing subscription packages, which means for the time being, any existing subscriber owns 801 and 901. They will need to install the new MODO indie 901.
If this is not the case for some of you please let me know ASAP!
Data, no need to feel frustrated. No software is ever good enough in its vanilla version and scripting is how you bitchslap it into something that fits you as opposed to you bending to fit the software. I don't need to have tried Modo to verify that principle that holds true for every piece of software I've ever used. Again some people are happy to use the tools they have never knowing how much potential is left untapped, I am not one of them. And also like many others I've been 'spoiled' by Allegoritmics and their revolutionary approach to business model - I acknowledge that.Again, I want any competitor to Autodesk to succeed and I'm only upset because I believe the foundry can do much better.
It lets you create subd meshes and merge\cut them. Would you prefer to do that by hand? And what if you feel the need to make changes? Are you suggesting that you would prefer to do that by hand or are using greater tools for such task?
Yes to be honest I find that feature fascinating and I'm really itching to get Indie just to try it. I keep reading about limitations and how it gets slow fast, but I'd be interested in seeing actual use cases that provide an example of said limitations.
It lets you create subd meshes and merge\cut them. Would you prefer to do that by hand? And what if you feel the need to make changes? Are you suggesting that you would prefer to do that by hand or are using greater tools for such task?
yup, exactly. It's generally still better to do things by hand. A lot of what meshfusion would be good for for games can just as easily be done with floaters.
The UI is obtuse and slow/prone to crashing. Weird things like having ok topology in draft mode, then getting holes or geometry that pokes out in weird ways when converting to airtight final is not uncommon.
The ability to change things on the fly is overemphasized. I'm sure it's fine for industrial design where you're making relatively simple helmets or whatever, but once you have a complex tree going, the feature to change things pretty much goes out the window because the UI is so slow/crashy.
It creates very dense meshes with a lot of weird topology, it does not let you create "boolean'd subd meshes." It's very finicky about when it does or does not work. You generally have to work around its limitations, rather than it simply working.
I agree. I'd also rather use Blender as I know the development team would be looking at what improvements and features they can give me, and not spending their time actively looking for ways to impede me and 'encourage' me to open up my wallet to get around artificial road blocks.
Thats a bit disingenuous don't you think? I know for a fact, through actually communicating with them (sometimes in person), that they are constantly trying to the opposite of what you are suggesting. The problem here is the python scripting element, if enabled then all limitations can be bypassed. There would literally be no difference between the full and Indie version. Even Maya LT doesnt have python scripting and for much of the same reason.
They have been hinting, constantly, that they are looking for solutions to this problem. They even had a survey getting opinions on who would be willing to use or in some cases buy kits that could be plugged into Modo Indie... So thats not looking for ways to limit the user at all.
On the Blender side of things, you are giving them too much credit if you think they want to give you features you want. They target features Ton wants for the most part, and its mostly based around what will aid in their open film projects or personal ideological stances for software. Its not all roses and fairies over there either.
Dataday : are we actually debating the credibility of scripts in a workflow ?
...snip... Modo Indie : Polycount limit set to 100k,no scripting,no scripts.If there is anything to add please let me know.
No we are not debating that at all, please read my post objectively. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
As for scripts in general, no one is arguing they are bad but the level of reverence and almost vague "sacred" status they are given, without any specifics as to which scripts they are referring to (sometimes none at all) paints a bit of a silly picture. Talk about the specific scripts which make it better or are needed, otherwise its just empty words based on the emotion or assumption of betterment across the board.
There needs to be "X script by z person is needed because it does Y which I cannot do (or do well) in modo natively" going on.
As for why script support isnt in. Python scripting would allow getting around the few limitations that are left. Maya LT doesnt have python scripting either. There is a valid reason why either company would hesitate to enable it.
Also the user in question I was responding to spoke to automation specifically, which is what Macros are for. Why does everyone forget Macros? Mention it and its ignored! Cmon now... it is still a feature and a solution.
You can even download and share macros with others, from Greg Brown's UV Pelt Unwrap which is a one click solution to getting near perfect UV unwraps every time, to Gamby's easy booleans...which mimics the script for seneca's quick booleans.
These exist, they are options...lets be objective and realize they are there and the workflow exist.
If script support is still too important and not worth using the Indie license over, then ignore it... move on because nothing will change before they can find solutions or compromises for the most wanted scripts.
(side point, the perfect circle script and alignment scripts have been put in Modo natively as tools with 901. They also hired farfarer to who made the vertex normal toolkit...expect something from that )
I feel like people can't seem to have a little moan at the practises of 'The Foundary' and Modo without incurring the wrath of a lot of Modo users. I wouldn't take the critiques so seriously. Sometime people just need a good old fashion illogical moan.
The lack of scripting for me isn't a big deal. The issue for me is the 100k export limit and the face the format is limited to fbx and Obj.
There's elements of comparing apples and oranges here. Allegorithmic has a very different (and far more singular) business model compared to The Foundry. The Substance licensing is awesome, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that it doesn't work for all companies.
We know there are scripts and kits out there that would really benefit Indie users. As Brandon mentioned, we're looking into what's possible with allowing them to be used in Indie without blowing past all of the limitations.
We're listening, although this kind of thing is still a fairly new approach for The Foundry. We're still finding the right balance.
Out of interest, what sort of export limits do people think are reasonable? And what apps are you exporting 100k+ poly models to (is it mostly external sculpting apps?).
For me, mostly for baking in xNormal or Substance. Limiting baking options sucks, I haven't tried indie or Modo much, but I am interested in switching to it from Softimage, because it's dead. I guess I could work around it by exporting an un-subdivided high poly mesh, and sub-dividing in a different application.
For me, mostly for baking in xNormal or Substance. Limiting baking options sucks, I haven't tried indie or Modo much, but I am interested in switching to it from Softimage, because it's dead. I guess I could work around it by exporting an un-subdivided high poly mesh, and sub-dividing in a different application.
Depending on your workflow you could also just bake out an object space normal in Modo and then via substance/xnormal convert it into the normal you want. Baking in Modo isnt that bad though (mikktspace with 901), and with progressive baking you can see it a new light.
Some of the limitations on Modo Indie make sense to me,but seeing something like the command history being unavailable is just nonsense.I love Modo,and can't wait to have enough money to buy the full version,but would never us nor recommand Modo Indie to any indie/hobbyist,because there are better options.
I don't think trying a different approch and updating it according to the feedback/profits is impossible.It's risky,but not impossible.
I was really confused when i first read about the missing comand panel thing, it's still there, they just removed some tabs from it. I think it looks something like this in indie.
Thats a bit disingenuous don't you think? I know for a fact, through actually communicating with them (sometimes in person), that they are constantly trying to the opposite of what you are suggesting. The problem here is the python scripting element, if enabled then all limitations can be bypassed. There would literally be no difference between the full and Indie version. Even Maya LT doesnt have python scripting and for much of the same reason.
I don't think it's disingenuous at all, the proof is in the software. Both Autodesk and the Foundry take an approach to indie licensing that is based around deliberately introducing roadblocks to work flow in the hopes that people will get so annoyed they just pony up the money for the full commercial license.
Looking at Maya LT and Modo indie it's pretty clear that these companies are more concerned that indies might some how cheat them, and therefore need to be kept on a short leash.
Allegorithmic, Side Effects, Unity Technologies and Epic all have the right idea. Unity Technologies is particularly interesting as they had to revamp their business model to be even MORE indie friendly than it already was in light of a rapidly changing landscape. Maybe there is something there for the Foundry to learn from.
Oh there's certainly something to learn from, and not just the Foundry but a lot of software publishers in general.
The disingenuous part is suggesting that they are trying to find more ways to impede the user, to block them. You are right about another thing, "the proof is in the software". Lets look at the "software" timeline for Modo Indie...
Modo SE (steam edition): 7k poly export limit, tons of missing features. No rendering. Dynamics. Only steamworkshop commercial gains allowed.
1 year later. Modo Indie (801) Freely given to SE owners, 100k poly export limit, all features (-scripts). Save files locked to steam account holder. Full commercial use.
9 Months later, Modo Indie 901, Includes MF and all the bells and whistles that came with 901. No features removed for Indie version. Removes file lock on save files.
Those on the Indie team working on loosening the restrictions, giving more to the users... not finding ways to impede the user. This is just the facts, I'd hate to see their effort get trashed as "not caring". You use the word "roadblocks" and imply they want to get people to pony up for the full version.. thats just not accurate at all. If so their priority would have been on establishing an upgrade path and a ton of marketing thrown in to push that element...which is not happening. You still can get an upgrade path but thats done by approaching people like Blade here and asking for one, but there is no current design mechanism for the upgrade path nor is it really advertised.
The reason the limitations exist right now is to prevent Modo full (or pro) from getting cannibalized by Indie. Unlike Maya LT, Modo Indie (maybe a mistake on their part) made the choice to offer a near mirror of the full version workflow wise (animation, dynamics, mesh fusion..ect). So the only thing separating Indie from Full right now feature and limitation wise is the polycount export limit, export file types and scripts. Thats a pretty shallow barrier for getting $1500 shaved off the cost of the software. Not to mention the 30% cut Valve takes from what they get at $299 or $10-14 month sub.
The reason the limitations exist right now is to prevent Modo full (or pro) from getting cannibalized by Indie.
I hope I am not beating a dead horse here, but that's the part I am genuinely having a hard time understanding. Let's suppose the following :
- X number of of users are currently using Modo Indie, with its inherent limitations, for a cheap price. These people are likely not freelancing or doing over 100K.
- Y number of users are currently using Modo full, either by choice (because even though they are hobbyists or "indie", they do not want to have to deal with limitations) or by necessity (reliance on scripts, need for a file format without limitation within a team, and so on), for a higher price.
Now if we imagine that tomorrow The Foundry switches to a business model where the amount of business revenue dictates whether or not someone has access to an Indie license :
- The X number of hobbyists using Indie obviously stays the same, since they are happy with the software already and less limitations means it gets even better ;
- A fraction of users Y previously using Modo Full on subscription will likely want to downgrade to an Indie license since it is cheaper. My supposition is that these users would mostly be hobbyists not making much money from the program in the first place anyways, hence not likely to drive market penetration.
The rest of users Y would stick to Full because of their revenue being over the 100K limit (active freelancers, studios with a pipeline centered on Modo, and so on). Here I am making the assumption that most professionals (freelancers and studios alike) are honest and would not attempt to cheat the system. And the ones being dishonest would be pirating the program in the first place anyways, so these are not lost sales since they are not part of the target market to begin with.
On top of that, you would get a whole new category of users being more than happy to subscribe to an unrestricted Modo Indie license just for the sake of finally trying a popular program with a great track record. If these users fall in love with the program, they would increase market penetration even further by later on generating more sales for Modo Full, when being hired at a studio for instance.
So from there, I don't think that wondering how much or how little Indie should be limited is of much value ... Instead, a very interesting data point would be to know the % of users of Modo Full making more than 100K/year. If this % is very high, then Modo Full is not going to be cannibalized by an unrestricted Modo Indie. If it is very low, then indeed, making Modo Indie completely unrestricted probably wouldn't be a wise move. Although one could argue that a dent in Modo Full licenses in favor of an unrestricted Indie could later on cause a strong wave of Modo "conversions", themselves naturally leading to more Full licenses penetration amongst studios and successful freelancers.
Woah ! Sorry for the wall of text. I hope this is constructive. And please let me know if I am overlooking something obvious here.
I mentioned this before, but these limitations are only a deal breaker if you're working on games. Of course this is polycount so this is a large chunk in this forum. I think part of the confusion comes from the way The Foundry is marketing Modo Indie. They are clearly targeting indie game developers who are the ones hurt most by the limits.
On the other hand If your're using Modo for Concepts, or freelance cg ie product renders, motion graphics, or even cg shorts this is a heck of a deal. Which is odd since that seems to be Modo main consumer at the moment. I would have never have bought Indie if rendering was gimped, since I'm interested in using it for concepts mostly, unlimited polys and 4k rendering is pretty nice for 200 bucks.
The Substance licensing is awesome, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that it doesn't work for all companies.
Let us hear why it wouldn't work for The Foundry. I am genuinely interested in understanding why. I am absolutely illiterate when it comes to business, so maybe there's something I'm not getting. I tend to think like Pior and believe that adopting this revenue model would bring more LEGIT, paying users to The Foundry.
I don't care how much more limited modo indie was in the past. I care about now. Instead of just locking off portions of the software an indie won't have the capital investment to use, the foundry chooses limitations that indies will have to actively workaround. Keep defending the roadblocks though, it's very amusing.
Why is it when allegorithmic, Side effects, Unity and Epic release software updates indies get it right away and are not left waiting? As time goes on the Foundry will probably realize thier resources are best spent enabling indies, and adopt more liberal licensing. Maybe the Foundry will even let Indies update on the same day as everyone else.
The message from the Foundry is clear, indies are second class citizens.
@Pior, I think there is a lot of "what ifs" going on, regardless it will have to boil down to putting trust in the user to buy the more expensive version if they do not need to or to do the right thing if they make over 100k... it also makes the versions in a way...meaningless. I would be curious as well to find out how many modo full owners make that kind of money a year with their personal licenses... but realistically finding that out seems pretty slim.
At the core of this though, I would hypothesize that the very uncertainty of it all...the large "what ifs" presented... represent a great risk and some companies do not needlessly move away from their normal currently success (at least in their eyes) model to take such a risk that could ruin everything. Who knows, maybe something will change in the coming years but at the same time the foundry strikes me as a very cautious company, so products like Indie end up also being baby steps or testing the water.
We also have to keep in mind or in check the feeling of entitlement... that if one software company can do it regardless of their niche, and it feels great, that every software company should or could do it.
I personally think they can make more profit going for quantity via a lower price point but thats just me and realistically, they would need to actually be able to gain a lot more users and not everyone is so quick to jump off the autodesk train or change apps. So I really dont know how this will play out long term, but the reasons for the limitations do make sense and it shouldnt stop anyone from making game assets or contributing to a game depending on the pipeline. For now its competitive with Maya LT in terms of features and price point. Thats a good start.
@doc, I wouldnt say its hurting indie developers by the limits... it really depends on the developer right? I mean if they are making low poly hand painted assets and uploading them to the steam workshop or say into Unity for a low poly game... it works. Animation, baking, general asset creation...ect If they are doing next gen assets with high poly counts and expect to have their assets go back and forth from zbrush a few times... then sure Modo Indie clearly isnt set up for that. This doesnt rule out next gen assets, it just says...stay in modo for sculpting or dont expect to pass the high poly back and forth a few times before baking down to the low poly. Its not ideal for everyone but it shouldnt be stopping asset creation for game devs.... Again not saying its ideal for every pipeline but its developer dependent.
I don't care how much more limited modo indie was in the past. I care about now. Instead of just locking off portions of the software an indie won't have the capital investment to use, the foundry chooses limitations that indies will have to actively workaround. Keep defending the roadblocks though, it's very amusing
......
The message from the Foundry is clear, indies are second class citizens.
Over exaggerating much? What you are saying is exactly why I called it disingenuous in the first place. Cmon we are adults here, be reasonable and less divisive please.
You said that by looking at the software we can see the developers cooking up new ways to hinder the artist... well we looked at the software and saw the exact opposite happening... to then respond with dismissing the very thing you said to look at. Instead of demonizing the small team of people that thought of trying to increase the accessibility of Modo with another version... offer some constructive feedback rather than turning them into the boogy man.
That said, come back down to earth please, its nice and warm down here... though that might be due to the cow farts.
Don't underestimate how pissed people are at Autodesk over the subscription pricing. Lots of people are looking for a reason to drop them. The Foundry should be aiming for more than merely competitive with Maya LT, they should aim to destroy it.
Don't underestimate how pissed people are at Autodesk over the subscription pricing. Lots of people are looking for a reason to drop them. The Foundry should be aiming for more than merely competitive with Maya LT, they should aim to destroy it.
I agree, its how I found Modo as well.. but if people are getting off the autodesk bandwagon...why then are they bypassing Modo full... which doesnt penalize for not upgrading nor does the cost increase to upgrade. (Skip a few versions if the user doesnt think its worth it, upgrade at the same price as everyone else when ready and get the latest version). Its about as consumer friendly as you can get.
that if one software company can do it regardless of their niche, and it feels great, that every software company should or could do it.
I would argue their products are not really niche anymore but reaching mass adoption including in AAA studios. I may be hobbyist as an artist but I've been working in the game industry for many years now and I can tell you firsthand that everyone and their sister I]that I know in the industry[/I is either already using their stuff or looking to integrate them in their pipeline one way or another. Don't understand your niche argument here.
It's certainly better than Autodesk, but that's a very disingenuous statement. Especially considering that we've been discussing software like ZBrush, Substances, Quixel, Houdini, etc.
I'm not personally of the mind that they need to go so far as to follow suit with those other companies. It would be nice, but it would also be an unrealistically large leap for them.
With those software in mind though, I do find it bat-shit crazy that they have any concerns about the Indie version cannibalizing the full version.
I'm also confused on how scripting could actually allow anyone to bypass the limitations. It's not like we're asking for source code access.
Would scripts allow you to export to new file formats, or bypass the poly count limitation? I'm pretty sure they would not.
On the limitations side of things, limit the renderer (resolution, baking only, watermarking, etc.), remove the dynamic and on the other side remove the poly and scripting restrictions.
That would be nice to hear directly what the heads at Luxology think (and by that I mean not the usual "we are offering a very strong offer and we are feeling confident that our customers will see the value, blablabla")
Over exaggerating much? What you are saying is exactly why I called it disingenuous in the first place. Cmon we are adults here, be reasonable and less divisive please.
You said that by looking at the software we can see the developers cooking up new ways to hinder the artist... well we looked at the software and saw the exact opposite happening... to then respond with dismissing the very thing you said to look at. Instead of demonizing the small team of people that thought of trying to increase the accessibility of Modo with another version... offer some constructive feedback rather than turning them into the boogy man.
That said, come back down to earth please, its nice and warm down here... though that might be due to the cow farts.
It's not exaggeration, the Foundry adds artificial limitations to their indie software designed to impediments to workflow. Stripping out scripting and limiting poly export is coming up with new ways to impede artists workflow, these restrictions did not exist in Modo, they had to be brainstormed and coded into the software, they are completely artificial restrictions that get in the way of using the tools that were paid for. It may not be the Modo indie team that is responsible for these decisions but someone at the Foundry is sitting around looking for ways to cripple the software and sell it cheaper, the thought process is clear: lower price = inferior product. These roadblocks also create a real division in the Modo community between full commercial license and indie.
Nobody is going around cheering that Maya is going to cost $1,470 a year because in the past it once cost close to $20k. So why should they cheer that Modo indie is now slightly less of a deliberate dumbing down of the software.
Dataday, I am firmly on the ground of planet Earth, the planet where it will never make sense to pay any amount of money for a polygon modeler that artificially limits how many polygons you can export.
It's certainly better than Autodesk, but that's a very disingenuous statement. Especially considering that we've been discussing software like ZBrush, Substances, Quixel, Houdini, etc.
I'm not personally of the mind that they need to go so far as to follow suit with those other companies. It would be nice, but it would also be an unrealistically large leap for them.
With those software in mind though, I do find it bat-shit crazy that they have any concerns about the Indie version cannibalizing the full version.
I'm also confused on how scripting could actually allow anyone to bypass the limitations. It's not like we're asking for source code access.
Would scripts allow you to export to new file formats, or bypass the poly count limitation? I'm pretty sure they would not.
Hey Grimwolf,
With full Python scripting access users can write new scripts that would be able to export different file types and bypass poly count limitations. That is the major concern. With full scripting allowed there is nothing stopping anyone from turning MODO indie into full MODO.
@Mant1k0re, What I am referring to as "their niche" is what the software is used for and where it stands within the workflow itself. Referring to something's niche doesnt connote that its not popular or widely used but that it has a specialized market associated with it. (see English definition)
There is a core difference between something like Maya, 3DS Max or Modo... and Substance Designer/Painter. The core 3d applications are competing for a particular part of the larger pipeline (specialized market)... Substance Designer and Painter do not directly compete with them because their product works alongside all of them.
Imagine there are 4 businesses next to one another. 3 of them are restaurants and 1 of them is just a retailer that sells spices. The restaurants are all directly competing to get their target audience (hungry people) into their establishment... the spice shop on the other hand wont lose any business to the restaurants, if anything it might do more business because customers might want to enhance their pallet at home or the restaurants want to do business by purchasing spices. The restaurants also will need to have a lot of employees, chefs, waiters, managers... where as a spice shop might need just one or two retailers to opperate.
This is symbolizes a bit whats going on with the Modo vs Allegorithmic business model subject and why comparing the two with the assumption they are the same or have the same situation doesnt really work. Allegorithmic is like the spices, they can exist and do good business regardless of who is on top (modo, maya, max, c4d, LW). They also do not need to have such a large team behind the scenes either or at least nothing remotely close to what the foundry and autodesk having going on for them.
As a result their situations are completely different as are their products. Pixologic's zbrush also falls into the same category, and we see this with their ability to comfortably offer a unique business model (free upgrades) after purchase. We just cant compare evenly, the core 3d applications (the foundation of cgi) and the kind of middle ware that enhances it all... if that makes any sense.
@Aabel, you are entitled to your opinions and I respect that but I know first hand from talking with them and seeing the results... that Indie has been progressively loosening its restrictions...restrictions meant to protect their flagship product from being cannibalized by a near mirror of the same thing that cost significantly less. Your claims just dont hold water. Perhaps, given your feedback the foundry should just pull an Autodesk XSI and remove a competing product in their own library. I do not think you are being reasonable here, it sounds like entitlement to me and to justify that entitlement one has to demonize or vilify the development team. I just dont see that as constructive at all. Maybe thats not how you see it, but at least from my POV its leaving that impression.
This just doesnt seem like a topic we can see eye to eye on as we have two different ways of looking at it. If Indie isnt for you due to limitations, then chuck out for the full (its 40% off right now) and if thats still not good enough or you are not interested then just write it off as a product thats not for you (and maybe question the need to berate them for making a lite version with limitations).
On the limitations side of things, limit the renderer (resolution, baking only, watermarking, etc.), remove the dynamic and on the other side remove the poly and scripting restrictions.
That would be nice to hear directly what the heads at Luxology think (and by that I mean not the usual "we are offering a very strong offer and we are feeling confident that our customers will see the value, blablabla")
Hey Joe,
I did tell you directly in the earlier post what I thought about rendering and dynamics and while I am no head of Luxology/Now The Foundry, I worked at Luxology well before the merger so... yeah. I try to be as transparent as I can with users and I fought hard to get the file lock restriction removed. Don't know what else to tell you all.
I was just sharing the same view as you about the limitations, sorry for the confusion!
Regarding the poly limitation, that looks like a really bad reason:
Let's say I got a 150K model. According to the current limitations, I could simply delete 50K, export the 100 remaining K then to the inverse procedure for the remaining 50K.
My main grip about not being able to export without limitations is that you are closing the software on itself and that currently goes against how indies (and pros) work on a day to day basis : with lots of different pieces of software (texturing, editing, sculpting, uving, engine, etc)
My main grip about not being able to export without limitations is that you are closing the software on itself and that currently goes against how indies (and pros) work on a day to day basis : with lots of different pieces of software (texturing, editing, sculpting, uving, engine, etc)
And that's only the artistic workflow.Anyone who has worked in a studio knows how necessary it is for tech artists or programmers to be able to modify a software to make a pipeline more consistent.
I did tell you directly in the earlier post what I thought about rendering and dynamics and while I am no head of Luxology/Now The Foundry, I worked at Luxology well before the merger so... yeah. I try to be as transparent as I can with users and I fought hard to get the file lock restriction removed. Don't know what else to tell you all.
Well keep up the good work. It's obvious that you care about the community of people that use the product and you do your best to advocate for them. User communities are a tremendous asset, and the people closest to the user communities are incredibly valuable people. I hope the Foundry realizes what an asset you are.
Dataday, my point of view is not based on entitlement. It's an evaluation of where Modo indie stands in the market, which is increasingly defined by a small group of indie friendly companies who are setting market expectation and direction. That direction is characterized by a positive attitude that assumes the best in people, and proclaims "we succeed when you succeed". There is a tremendous opportunity for companies that don't have the overhead and share holder obligations that Autodesk has.
As far as 'indie' software licenses that are available now there is something of a hole for a traditional robust subd modeler, Modo is obviously the ideal candidate to fill that role. Unfortunately the limitations of Modo indie get in the way of it filling the role that it is most needed in, and perhaps a few others (animation maybe?). If the Foundry would embrace the direction of the indie market, the indie market would embrace the Foundry.
Well keep up the good work. It's obvious that you care about the community of people that use the product and you do your best to advocate for them. User communities are a tremendous asset, and the people closest to the user communities are incredibly valuable people. I hope the Foundry realizes what an asset you are.
Dataday, my point of view is not based on entitlement. It's an evaluation of where Modo indie stands in the market, which is increasingly defined by a small group of indie friendly companies who are setting market expectation and direction. That direction is characterized by a positive attitude that assumes the best in people, and proclaims "we succeed when you succeed". There is a tremendous opportunity for companies that don't have the overhead and share holder obligations that Autodesk has.
As far as 'indie' software licenses that are available now there is something of a hole for a traditional robust subd modeler, Modo is obviously the ideal candidate to fill that role. Unfortunately the limitations of Modo indie get in the way of it filling the role that it is most needed in, and perhaps a few others (animation maybe?). If the Foundry would embrace the direction of the indie market, the indie market would embrace the Foundry.
Actually, Blender already exists to fill that role.
Anyway, I guess next you will argue Unity and Unreal are niche as well am I right...?
Have a good one.
What? I dont even...
I think you are misunderstanding how "niche" is used and what it means. It is why I suggested looking it up in the dictionary, it wasnt an insult. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niche
In this case "their niche" refers to the specific targeting of a segment of the market which is involved with texture creation and application, it could be big or it could be small... it could start small (with their first product Mapzone) and grow to become bigger (Substance Painter/Designer) within a segment of the market, but the niche still remains. Its not accurate to associate it with some how being unpopular, which you have done. Referring to a products niche is also not an insult.
Replies
Algorithmic, Black Magic cimnema are both great. You can pick up Fusion 7, a pro level composite app for free. The limitations are extremely generous. I wish Autodesk would ease up a bit on their pricing but they really don't have to with the lack of competition.
Hey Joe,
The 90% loyalty discount is applied to the MODO Steam Edition perpetual license package as well. Have at it! $29.99 one time fee.
I swear, if we could spend the same amount of energy/time talking about all of the things that you do get with MODO indie 901 then maybe there wouldn't be so much focus on what you don't get. LOL (Just having fun here everyone) There is an upgrade path towards the full version for people who require more and of course we're slowly expanding our offerings to the indie community.
In my personal opinion MODO indie should have restricted the rendering more, along with not including dynamics in the product. While Greg Brown and I supported the MODO Steam Edition community, we had little to no influence on the make up of MODO indie.
As far as the word indie, its meant to be more inclusive then just indie game focused. Indie for The Foundry means independent/individual. MODO indie is for hobbyists, freelancers and game content creators.
Subscription talk:
This is what our rep from Valve has told me:
Subscribers are upgraded automatically- 901 is now included in all the existing subscription packages, which means for the time being, any existing subscriber owns 801 and 901. They will need to install the new MODO indie 901.
If this is not the case for some of you please let me know ASAP!
Blade OUT!
Yes to be honest I find that feature fascinating and I'm really itching to get Indie just to try it. I keep reading about limitations and how it gets slow fast, but I'd be interested in seeing actual use cases that provide an example of said limitations.
The next evolution I think for Modo meshfusion is a dynamesh function or at least a remeshing feature that won't leave you with a dense output mesh.
yup, exactly. It's generally still better to do things by hand. A lot of what meshfusion would be good for for games can just as easily be done with floaters.
The UI is obtuse and slow/prone to crashing. Weird things like having ok topology in draft mode, then getting holes or geometry that pokes out in weird ways when converting to airtight final is not uncommon.
The ability to change things on the fly is overemphasized. I'm sure it's fine for industrial design where you're making relatively simple helmets or whatever, but once you have a complex tree going, the feature to change things pretty much goes out the window because the UI is so slow/crashy.
It creates very dense meshes with a lot of weird topology, it does not let you create "boolean'd subd meshes." It's very finicky about when it does or does not work. You generally have to work around its limitations, rather than it simply working.
Thats a bit disingenuous don't you think? I know for a fact, through actually communicating with them (sometimes in person), that they are constantly trying to the opposite of what you are suggesting. The problem here is the python scripting element, if enabled then all limitations can be bypassed. There would literally be no difference between the full and Indie version. Even Maya LT doesnt have python scripting and for much of the same reason.
They have been hinting, constantly, that they are looking for solutions to this problem. They even had a survey getting opinions on who would be willing to use or in some cases buy kits that could be plugged into Modo Indie... So thats not looking for ways to limit the user at all.
On the Blender side of things, you are giving them too much credit if you think they want to give you features you want. They target features Ton wants for the most part, and its mostly based around what will aid in their open film projects or personal ideological stances for software. Its not all roses and fairies over there either.
No we are not debating that at all, please read my post objectively. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
As for scripts in general, no one is arguing they are bad but the level of reverence and almost vague "sacred" status they are given, without any specifics as to which scripts they are referring to (sometimes none at all) paints a bit of a silly picture. Talk about the specific scripts which make it better or are needed, otherwise its just empty words based on the emotion or assumption of betterment across the board.
There needs to be "X script by z person is needed because it does Y which I cannot do (or do well) in modo natively" going on.
As for why script support isnt in. Python scripting would allow getting around the few limitations that are left. Maya LT doesnt have python scripting either. There is a valid reason why either company would hesitate to enable it.
Also the user in question I was responding to spoke to automation specifically, which is what Macros are for. Why does everyone forget Macros? Mention it and its ignored! Cmon now... it is still a feature and a solution.
You can even download and share macros with others, from Greg Brown's UV Pelt Unwrap which is a one click solution to getting near perfect UV unwraps every time, to Gamby's easy booleans...which mimics the script for seneca's quick booleans.
These exist, they are options...lets be objective and realize they are there and the workflow exist.
If script support is still too important and not worth using the Indie license over, then ignore it... move on because nothing will change before they can find solutions or compromises for the most wanted scripts.
(side point, the perfect circle script and alignment scripts have been put in Modo natively as tools with 901. They also hired farfarer to who made the vertex normal toolkit...expect something from that )
The lack of scripting for me isn't a big deal. The issue for me is the 100k export limit and the face the format is limited to fbx and Obj.
We know there are scripts and kits out there that would really benefit Indie users. As Brandon mentioned, we're looking into what's possible with allowing them to be used in Indie without blowing past all of the limitations.
We're listening, although this kind of thing is still a fairly new approach for The Foundry. We're still finding the right balance.
Out of interest, what sort of export limits do people think are reasonable? And what apps are you exporting 100k+ poly models to (is it mostly external sculpting apps?).
Depending on your workflow you could also just bake out an object space normal in Modo and then via substance/xnormal convert it into the normal you want. Baking in Modo isnt that bad though (mikktspace with 901), and with progressive baking you can see it a new light.
[ame]
I was really confused when i first read about the missing comand panel thing, it's still there, they just removed some tabs from it. I think it looks something like this in indie.
I don't think it's disingenuous at all, the proof is in the software. Both Autodesk and the Foundry take an approach to indie licensing that is based around deliberately introducing roadblocks to work flow in the hopes that people will get so annoyed they just pony up the money for the full commercial license.
Looking at Maya LT and Modo indie it's pretty clear that these companies are more concerned that indies might some how cheat them, and therefore need to be kept on a short leash.
Allegorithmic, Side Effects, Unity Technologies and Epic all have the right idea. Unity Technologies is particularly interesting as they had to revamp their business model to be even MORE indie friendly than it already was in light of a rapidly changing landscape. Maybe there is something there for the Foundry to learn from.
Oh there's certainly something to learn from, and not just the Foundry but a lot of software publishers in general.
The disingenuous part is suggesting that they are trying to find more ways to impede the user, to block them. You are right about another thing, "the proof is in the software". Lets look at the "software" timeline for Modo Indie...
Modo SE (steam edition): 7k poly export limit, tons of missing features. No rendering. Dynamics. Only steamworkshop commercial gains allowed.
1 year later. Modo Indie (801) Freely given to SE owners, 100k poly export limit, all features (-scripts). Save files locked to steam account holder. Full commercial use.
9 Months later, Modo Indie 901, Includes MF and all the bells and whistles that came with 901. No features removed for Indie version. Removes file lock on save files.
Those on the Indie team working on loosening the restrictions, giving more to the users... not finding ways to impede the user. This is just the facts, I'd hate to see their effort get trashed as "not caring". You use the word "roadblocks" and imply they want to get people to pony up for the full version.. thats just not accurate at all. If so their priority would have been on establishing an upgrade path and a ton of marketing thrown in to push that element...which is not happening. You still can get an upgrade path but thats done by approaching people like Blade here and asking for one, but there is no current design mechanism for the upgrade path nor is it really advertised.
The reason the limitations exist right now is to prevent Modo full (or pro) from getting cannibalized by Indie. Unlike Maya LT, Modo Indie (maybe a mistake on their part) made the choice to offer a near mirror of the full version workflow wise (animation, dynamics, mesh fusion..ect). So the only thing separating Indie from Full right now feature and limitation wise is the polycount export limit, export file types and scripts. Thats a pretty shallow barrier for getting $1500 shaved off the cost of the software. Not to mention the 30% cut Valve takes from what they get at $299 or $10-14 month sub.
Just some perspective.
I hope I am not beating a dead horse here, but that's the part I am genuinely having a hard time understanding. Let's suppose the following :
- X number of of users are currently using Modo Indie, with its inherent limitations, for a cheap price. These people are likely not freelancing or doing over 100K.
- Y number of users are currently using Modo full, either by choice (because even though they are hobbyists or "indie", they do not want to have to deal with limitations) or by necessity (reliance on scripts, need for a file format without limitation within a team, and so on), for a higher price.
Now if we imagine that tomorrow The Foundry switches to a business model where the amount of business revenue dictates whether or not someone has access to an Indie license :
- The X number of hobbyists using Indie obviously stays the same, since they are happy with the software already and less limitations means it gets even better ;
- A fraction of users Y previously using Modo Full on subscription will likely want to downgrade to an Indie license since it is cheaper. My supposition is that these users would mostly be hobbyists not making much money from the program in the first place anyways, hence not likely to drive market penetration.
The rest of users Y would stick to Full because of their revenue being over the 100K limit (active freelancers, studios with a pipeline centered on Modo, and so on). Here I am making the assumption that most professionals (freelancers and studios alike) are honest and would not attempt to cheat the system. And the ones being dishonest would be pirating the program in the first place anyways, so these are not lost sales since they are not part of the target market to begin with.
On top of that, you would get a whole new category of users being more than happy to subscribe to an unrestricted Modo Indie license just for the sake of finally trying a popular program with a great track record. If these users fall in love with the program, they would increase market penetration even further by later on generating more sales for Modo Full, when being hired at a studio for instance.
So from there, I don't think that wondering how much or how little Indie should be limited is of much value ... Instead, a very interesting data point would be to know the % of users of Modo Full making more than 100K/year. If this % is very high, then Modo Full is not going to be cannibalized by an unrestricted Modo Indie. If it is very low, then indeed, making Modo Indie completely unrestricted probably wouldn't be a wise move. Although one could argue that a dent in Modo Full licenses in favor of an unrestricted Indie could later on cause a strong wave of Modo "conversions", themselves naturally leading to more Full licenses penetration amongst studios and successful freelancers.
Woah ! Sorry for the wall of text. I hope this is constructive. And please let me know if I am overlooking something obvious here.
On the other hand If your're using Modo for Concepts, or freelance cg ie product renders, motion graphics, or even cg shorts this is a heck of a deal. Which is odd since that seems to be Modo main consumer at the moment. I would have never have bought Indie if rendering was gimped, since I'm interested in using it for concepts mostly, unlimited polys and 4k rendering is pretty nice for 200 bucks.
Let us hear why it wouldn't work for The Foundry. I am genuinely interested in understanding why. I am absolutely illiterate when it comes to business, so maybe there's something I'm not getting. I tend to think like Pior and believe that adopting this revenue model would bring more LEGIT, paying users to The Foundry.
Why is it when allegorithmic, Side effects, Unity and Epic release software updates indies get it right away and are not left waiting? As time goes on the Foundry will probably realize thier resources are best spent enabling indies, and adopt more liberal licensing. Maybe the Foundry will even let Indies update on the same day as everyone else.
The message from the Foundry is clear, indies are second class citizens.
At the core of this though, I would hypothesize that the very uncertainty of it all...the large "what ifs" presented... represent a great risk and some companies do not needlessly move away from their normal currently success (at least in their eyes) model to take such a risk that could ruin everything. Who knows, maybe something will change in the coming years but at the same time the foundry strikes me as a very cautious company, so products like Indie end up also being baby steps or testing the water.
We also have to keep in mind or in check the feeling of entitlement... that if one software company can do it regardless of their niche, and it feels great, that every software company should or could do it.
I personally think they can make more profit going for quantity via a lower price point but thats just me and realistically, they would need to actually be able to gain a lot more users and not everyone is so quick to jump off the autodesk train or change apps. So I really dont know how this will play out long term, but the reasons for the limitations do make sense and it shouldnt stop anyone from making game assets or contributing to a game depending on the pipeline. For now its competitive with Maya LT in terms of features and price point. Thats a good start.
@doc, I wouldnt say its hurting indie developers by the limits... it really depends on the developer right? I mean if they are making low poly hand painted assets and uploading them to the steam workshop or say into Unity for a low poly game... it works. Animation, baking, general asset creation...ect If they are doing next gen assets with high poly counts and expect to have their assets go back and forth from zbrush a few times... then sure Modo Indie clearly isnt set up for that. This doesnt rule out next gen assets, it just says...stay in modo for sculpting or dont expect to pass the high poly back and forth a few times before baking down to the low poly. Its not ideal for everyone but it shouldnt be stopping asset creation for game devs.... Again not saying its ideal for every pipeline but its developer dependent.
Over exaggerating much? What you are saying is exactly why I called it disingenuous in the first place. Cmon we are adults here, be reasonable and less divisive please.
You said that by looking at the software we can see the developers cooking up new ways to hinder the artist... well we looked at the software and saw the exact opposite happening... to then respond with dismissing the very thing you said to look at. Instead of demonizing the small team of people that thought of trying to increase the accessibility of Modo with another version... offer some constructive feedback rather than turning them into the boogy man.
That said, come back down to earth please, its nice and warm down here... though that might be due to the cow farts.
I agree, its how I found Modo as well.. but if people are getting off the autodesk bandwagon...why then are they bypassing Modo full... which doesnt penalize for not upgrading nor does the cost increase to upgrade. (Skip a few versions if the user doesnt think its worth it, upgrade at the same price as everyone else when ready and get the latest version). Its about as consumer friendly as you can get.
I would argue their products are not really niche anymore but reaching mass adoption including in AAA studios. I may be hobbyist as an artist but I've been working in the game industry for many years now and I can tell you firsthand that everyone and their sister I]that I know in the industry[/I is either already using their stuff or looking to integrate them in their pipeline one way or another. Don't understand your niche argument here.
I'm not personally of the mind that they need to go so far as to follow suit with those other companies. It would be nice, but it would also be an unrealistically large leap for them.
With those software in mind though, I do find it bat-shit crazy that they have any concerns about the Indie version cannibalizing the full version.
I'm also confused on how scripting could actually allow anyone to bypass the limitations. It's not like we're asking for source code access.
Would scripts allow you to export to new file formats, or bypass the poly count limitation? I'm pretty sure they would not.
On the limitations side of things, limit the renderer (resolution, baking only, watermarking, etc.), remove the dynamic and on the other side remove the poly and scripting restrictions.
That would be nice to hear directly what the heads at Luxology think (and by that I mean not the usual "we are offering a very strong offer and we are feeling confident that our customers will see the value, blablabla")
It's not exaggeration, the Foundry adds artificial limitations to their indie software designed to impediments to workflow. Stripping out scripting and limiting poly export is coming up with new ways to impede artists workflow, these restrictions did not exist in Modo, they had to be brainstormed and coded into the software, they are completely artificial restrictions that get in the way of using the tools that were paid for. It may not be the Modo indie team that is responsible for these decisions but someone at the Foundry is sitting around looking for ways to cripple the software and sell it cheaper, the thought process is clear: lower price = inferior product. These roadblocks also create a real division in the Modo community between full commercial license and indie.
Nobody is going around cheering that Maya is going to cost $1,470 a year because in the past it once cost close to $20k. So why should they cheer that Modo indie is now slightly less of a deliberate dumbing down of the software.
Dataday, I am firmly on the ground of planet Earth, the planet where it will never make sense to pay any amount of money for a polygon modeler that artificially limits how many polygons you can export.
Hey Grimwolf,
With full Python scripting access users can write new scripts that would be able to export different file types and bypass poly count limitations. That is the major concern. With full scripting allowed there is nothing stopping anyone from turning MODO indie into full MODO.
I hope this clears up any confusion. 8)
There is a core difference between something like Maya, 3DS Max or Modo... and Substance Designer/Painter. The core 3d applications are competing for a particular part of the larger pipeline (specialized market)... Substance Designer and Painter do not directly compete with them because their product works alongside all of them.
Imagine there are 4 businesses next to one another. 3 of them are restaurants and 1 of them is just a retailer that sells spices. The restaurants are all directly competing to get their target audience (hungry people) into their establishment... the spice shop on the other hand wont lose any business to the restaurants, if anything it might do more business because customers might want to enhance their pallet at home or the restaurants want to do business by purchasing spices. The restaurants also will need to have a lot of employees, chefs, waiters, managers... where as a spice shop might need just one or two retailers to opperate.
This is symbolizes a bit whats going on with the Modo vs Allegorithmic business model subject and why comparing the two with the assumption they are the same or have the same situation doesnt really work. Allegorithmic is like the spices, they can exist and do good business regardless of who is on top (modo, maya, max, c4d, LW). They also do not need to have such a large team behind the scenes either or at least nothing remotely close to what the foundry and autodesk having going on for them.
As a result their situations are completely different as are their products. Pixologic's zbrush also falls into the same category, and we see this with their ability to comfortably offer a unique business model (free upgrades) after purchase. We just cant compare evenly, the core 3d applications (the foundation of cgi) and the kind of middle ware that enhances it all... if that makes any sense.
@Aabel, you are entitled to your opinions and I respect that but I know first hand from talking with them and seeing the results... that Indie has been progressively loosening its restrictions...restrictions meant to protect their flagship product from being cannibalized by a near mirror of the same thing that cost significantly less. Your claims just dont hold water. Perhaps, given your feedback the foundry should just pull an Autodesk XSI and remove a competing product in their own library. I do not think you are being reasonable here, it sounds like entitlement to me and to justify that entitlement one has to demonize or vilify the development team. I just dont see that as constructive at all. Maybe thats not how you see it, but at least from my POV its leaving that impression.
This just doesnt seem like a topic we can see eye to eye on as we have two different ways of looking at it. If Indie isnt for you due to limitations, then chuck out for the full (its 40% off right now) and if thats still not good enough or you are not interested then just write it off as a product thats not for you (and maybe question the need to berate them for making a lite version with limitations).
Hey Joe,
I did tell you directly in the earlier post what I thought about rendering and dynamics and while I am no head of Luxology/Now The Foundry, I worked at Luxology well before the merger so... yeah. I try to be as transparent as I can with users and I fought hard to get the file lock restriction removed. Don't know what else to tell you all.
Regarding the poly limitation, that looks like a really bad reason:
Let's say I got a 150K model. According to the current limitations, I could simply delete 50K, export the 100 remaining K then to the inverse procedure for the remaining 50K.
My main grip about not being able to export without limitations is that you are closing the software on itself and that currently goes against how indies (and pros) work on a day to day basis : with lots of different pieces of software (texturing, editing, sculpting, uving, engine, etc)
And that's only the artistic workflow.Anyone who has worked in a studio knows how necessary it is for tech artists or programmers to be able to modify a software to make a pipeline more consistent.
Well keep up the good work. It's obvious that you care about the community of people that use the product and you do your best to advocate for them. User communities are a tremendous asset, and the people closest to the user communities are incredibly valuable people. I hope the Foundry realizes what an asset you are.
Dataday, my point of view is not based on entitlement. It's an evaluation of where Modo indie stands in the market, which is increasingly defined by a small group of indie friendly companies who are setting market expectation and direction. That direction is characterized by a positive attitude that assumes the best in people, and proclaims "we succeed when you succeed". There is a tremendous opportunity for companies that don't have the overhead and share holder obligations that Autodesk has.
As far as 'indie' software licenses that are available now there is something of a hole for a traditional robust subd modeler, Modo is obviously the ideal candidate to fill that role. Unfortunately the limitations of Modo indie get in the way of it filling the role that it is most needed in, and perhaps a few others (animation maybe?). If the Foundry would embrace the direction of the indie market, the indie market would embrace the Foundry.
Very nice.
Anyway, I guess next you will argue Unity and Unreal are niche as well am I right...?
Have a good one.
What? I dont even...
I think you are misunderstanding how "niche" is used and what it means. It is why I suggested looking it up in the dictionary, it wasnt an insult.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niche
In this case "their niche" refers to the specific targeting of a segment of the market which is involved with texture creation and application, it could be big or it could be small... it could start small (with their first product Mapzone) and grow to become bigger (Substance Painter/Designer) within a segment of the market, but the niche still remains. Its not accurate to associate it with some how being unpopular, which you have done. Referring to a products niche is also not an insult.
http://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2410025/#Comment_2410025
The easiest way is to physically split the edges, bake the normals (using Set Vertex Normals) then welding the edges you just split back together.