Yep. It would be nice to see them doing what other companies have been doing recently - opening up products and *gasp!* even releasing some source code. But I think AD mostly operates in "why do it if there's no profit?". But maybe this will change. It would be good for the industry and their reputation.
It's not like they are doing anything with Softimage, and they are doing the same normal business model with Maya and Max, they should do /something/ with it. Make it interesting to the people that jumped to Blender or Modo.
It's not like they are doing anything with Softimage, and they are doing the same normal business model with Maya and Max, they should do /something/ with it. Make it interesting to the people that jumped to Blender or Modo.
I think they are doing something with it. The reason to buy XSI was to kill off a competitor. The reason to kill off XSI as a product was to make use of its internals for future development. Because, why else buy something and shut it down? Doesn't make sense if you're not even using the brand any more.
Autodesk will not intentionally do anything that reduces the number of Maya/Max licenses that are sold. They are only interested in increasing the number of Maya/Max licenses sold. What effect do you think releasing XSI as open source could have on the number of Maya/Max licenses sold?
Autodesk will not intentionally do anything that reduces the number of Maya/Max licenses that are sold. They are only interested in increasing the number of Maya/Max licenses sold. What effect do you think releasing XSI as open source could have on the number of Maya/Max licenses sold?
Most likely it wouldn't have an impact. Studios and artists use Max and Maya because they are the industry standards. People wont switch just because it's open source, otherwise everyone would be using Blender.
open sourcing XSI all by itself probably wouldn't have impact on Max / Maya in the short term. But it would allow, depending on the license the code is released under, for others to incorporate parts into their products. Blender might be one of the products to benefit from it.
The softimage open source debate is long since over. Due to various licensing and IP conditions, Autodesk have already stated that open source isn't really feasible. And even if Softimage was released like that, I doubt it would effect Maya/Max. Many studios are too well established to just switch. If they wanted to do, they would have already done so.
Bass stepped down; or retired as he himself put it because two things. The first is showing little or no hope, that is Virtual reality which Autodesk invested in and which Mark Zuckerberg invested $2 Billion and is dying, actually it never launched so it's "attic hardware".
Second reason as Autodesk is well aware and Bass admitted it; Autodesk software is too expensive. 70% of all Autodesk software is Pirated, including AutoCAD lite.
Someone is going to have to step in and look at the problems, one of which will be the cost of their software and, even if they continue, which they probably will, the subscription model; there going to have to make it much more affordable to reduce piracy. To many $125 (US) or almost $200 (CDN) per month or whatever the cost in your country is; may not be that bad depending on your studio income or if you're freelancing what you're charging. My guess is there going to ramp up Maya LTE with more features taken from the big brother Maya. As for Max and AutoCAD, I can't comment.
Autodesk will not intentionally do anything that reduces the number of Maya/Max licenses that are sold. They are only interested in increasing the number of Maya/Max licenses sold. What effect do you think releasing XSI as open source could have on the number of Maya/Max licenses sold?
Most likely it wouldn't have an impact. Studios and artists use Max and Maya because they are the industry standards. People wont switch just because it's open source, otherwise everyone would be using Blender.
The studios using XSI would have kept using XSI for the foreseeable future if it went open source, instead they were forced to buy Max or Maya.
The softimage open source debate is long since over. Due to various licensing and IP conditions, Autodesk have already stated that open source isn't really feasible. And even if Softimage was released like that, I doubt it would effect Maya/Max. Many studios are too well established to just switch. If they wanted to do, they would have already done so.
Open sourcing XSI wouldn't be for the studios sake. It would be for the users that have been using softimage since the 90's and would like to continue using it. There are bugs in the most recent version (last year release) that are show stoppers and it's only gonna get worse as windows (and other software) continues to evolve.
The softimage open source debate is long since over. Due to various licensing and IP conditions, Autodesk have already stated that open source isn't really feasible. And even if Softimage was released like that, I doubt it would effect Maya/Max. Many studios are too well established to just switch. If they wanted to do, they would have already done so.
Open sourcing XSI wouldn't be for the studios sake. It would be for the users that have been using softimage since the 90's and would like to continue using it. There are bugs in the most recent version (last year release) that are show stoppers and it's only gonna get worse as windows (and other software) continues to evolve.
It's over and guys need to get over it, despite it being painful for some. The last release was two years ago and Autodesk stopped official support last year. The question of open source was asked and the simple answer was that it wasn't feasible with various tech and IP involved. It would all have to be stripped out, which would defeat the point. And tbh, I don't think open sourcing is the answer anyway, imho.
As for Sofimage circa 97 and booleans, they were there. Whether they worked or not, well that's another thing. :-)
Replies
And even if Softimage was released like that, I doubt it would effect Maya/Max. Many studios are too well established to just switch. If they wanted to do, they would have already done so.
Second reason as Autodesk is well aware and Bass admitted it; Autodesk software is too expensive. 70% of all Autodesk software is Pirated, including AutoCAD lite.
Someone is going to have to step in and look at the problems, one of which will be the cost of their software and, even if they continue, which they probably will, the subscription model; there going to have to make it much more affordable to reduce piracy. To many $125 (US) or almost $200 (CDN) per month or whatever the cost in your country is; may not be that bad depending on your studio income or if you're freelancing what you're charging. My guess is there going to ramp up Maya LTE with more features taken from the big brother Maya. As for Max and AutoCAD, I can't comment.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/291014/Carl_Bass_steps_down_as_CEO_of_Autodesk.php
Like I said above I doubt it will make a difference, there are vps of vps of vps at adsk.
The last release was two years ago and Autodesk stopped official support last year. The question of open source was asked and the simple answer was that it wasn't feasible with various tech and IP involved. It would all have to be stripped out, which would defeat the point.
And tbh, I don't think open sourcing is the answer anyway, imho.
As for Sofimage circa 97 and booleans, they were there. Whether they worked or not, well that's another thing. :-)