View Full Version : What if their was one 3d program?
PB Baller27 01-29-2006, 12:12 AM I came up with this idea or notion if you may. That there was only one program that everyone used for 3d animation.(another for compositing,2d,etc,) I know that everyone has an opinon and that people have worked with other programs for a while. But what if their was only one program that had all the tools(when i say all i mean atleast all the good or great ones) that a user could use in one tiny package. Now I personally already thought of some complaints or counterexamples.
First I know that I'm in the Maya forum and this will sort of reflect my answers. But I did this purposly because I'm curious about the replies because of the 3dsmax/maya deal that happened not too long ago.
Second some people might think that their would be too much code and information in the program and that alot of people dont have great computers. Well to solve this you could just narrow down the tools or make the program into sets. Like separate sub-programs. Like when the program was launched their would be a menu and would ask you what set of tools you would like to deal with(dynamics, modeling, etc). Now of course some people might think that you have to load all the programs and wait over and over again. But its like breaking down a render into layers and compositing. Its more efficient and faster.
Third some people dont have alot of money and this program(being so great and perfect) would cost alot. Well you just have kits like alias(complete and unlimited)
Some kits would be really cheap with basic nesscary tools and others with more advanced tools for large companies and developers.
I personally think this would be great because developers could stick with one program and one format(maybe stick to two or three formats). Their would be no problem of buying a whole bunch of other programs and finding employees that know the programs. Also everyone coming into 3d art wouldnt have too learn a whole bunch of programs. Just one.
NOW THIS IS JUST AN IDEA SO DONT GO ALL OVER THAT THIS IS HORRIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE. I just want to see what other people say and how they react. I also want to see if I could of missed some thought or idea that would reject my idea because I'm 14 and not as intellecual to adult standards.
|
|
I think that depends on this one application.
Let's assume this program could do everything what contemporary cg softwares can do... focused in _one_ app. Then it would be better...
But only having a 3ds max, and missing maya's/xsi's features wouldn't be the best...
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 12:21 AM
Im sorry. In my post above when I said all the tools I was implying 3dsmax/maya/xsi/cinema4d,etc. Im sorry that I was misunderstood.
no problem ;) However, I vote "yes"... because you are right with the portability of file formats, and the prices.
But think about it again... If only one program existed which can do everything, what do you think would this cost :P ?
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 12:39 AM
Well im not a genius at business and the owners of the company would be a reflecting variable. But if their was a high demand with little or adequate supply then the price would probally high. But considering that this is a program(i know there does take a lot of time in creating, packaging, and shipping.) it wouldnt be all that hard(compared to other products) to make. So with an equilibrium of supply and demand the price shouldn't be all that high. But again im not all that great in business so correct me if I'm wrong.
Do you have the slightest idea how difficult it is to write such a complex application ?
Even one app like 3ds max is a job for more than 10 programmers... now imagine all possible features inside _one_ single program....
crutch
01-29-2006, 01:02 AM
I'm glad there is no One single app. If this were true progress or advancements would be slow to none.:shrug:
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 01:38 AM
Why? If a good company was running it. Wouldn't they want upgrades and advancesments. If they didn't then everyone would buy the program and then everyone has it. Then no cash flow is coming through. Upgrades and advancements provides a continuous cash flow.
McWolfe
01-29-2006, 07:21 AM
The problem for me wouldn't be the features (I mean, most of the bigger packages today already have more or less the same features, with some differences here and there). What I would object to is that I had to keep to one single design philosophy. I do prefer the packages I work in, not because of the features, but becuase of the overall design and philosophy of the software (including, but not limited, to User Interface and workflow principles). The way I see it, that is something that runs quite deep in the software, and cannot just be solved by "customize your own GUI", (although that would be a must as well). Therefore I am a bit sceptical to the One Software to Rule Them All-idea.
McWolfe
McWolfe
01-29-2006, 07:24 AM
Why? If a good company was running it. Wouldn't they want upgrades and advancesments. If they didn't then everyone would buy the program and then everyone has it. Then no cash flow is coming through. Upgrades and advancements provides a continuous cash flow.
Which is more or less true. Although, this "reward system" combined with an outside threat (that is: competition) I believe will give us even more development and advancement.
McWolfe
kabojnk
01-29-2006, 07:31 AM
I'm glad there is no One single app. If this were true progress or advancements would be slow to none.:shrug:
Agreed. Competition begets faster and better advancements.
Yeah, it might be a pain in the ass when you have to migrate from one app to the other, or try to use certain features or import/export certain files that are native to another program... but that comes with the territory.
If I could support the idea of universalism in a product, it would be contained within the field of education. Perhaps a learning application that utilized several features from the best applications directed towards teaching students fundamentals and the various workflows available to them; however, this idea is a bit impractical outside the realm of ideas.
MrPositive
01-29-2006, 09:14 AM
Competition is what keeps things moving forward.
Global
01-29-2006, 02:01 PM
Hehe, a great question... and so tempting to answer yes, for many reasons... but no! and the more I think about it no No NO! :D
Monopolies are a terrible thing, Take Bill Gates and Microsoft for example! ;)
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 05:31 PM
Yeah I did think about competition as a counter example but I just had to suggest what if there was a perfect program. What if instead of competition the backbone of advancements that just the extra employees from the other companies would speed up production(I know, I know that would be impossible. There might be more production in a bigger system but competition is what drives humans to the farthest limits.) But if competition wasn't a problem would anyone else disagree to this notion? Why?
McWolfe
01-29-2006, 05:37 PM
Yeah I did think about competition as a counter example but I just had to suggest what if there was a perfect program. What if instead of competition the backbone of advancements that just the extra employees from the other companies would speed up production(I know, I know that would be impossible. There might be more production in a bigger system but competition is what drives humans to the farthest limits.) But if competition wasn't a problem would anyone else disagree to this notion? Why?
Yes, I would still object, due to the reasons stated above (different design philosophies etc).
McWolfe
No for two reasons
1: Competition is good. Without it development stalls and there would be no market force to regulate prices.
2: There are to many different ways to implement functionality and workflow to make everyone happy with a single solution.
Over all monopolies only have short term advantages for a limited group of people.
Cheers
Björn
Yeah I did think about competition as a counter example but I just had to suggest what if there was a perfect program.
Perfect for whom? Humanity is much to diverse to create a single solution that fits all.
What if instead of competition the backbone of advancements that just the extra employees from the other companies would speed up production(I know, I know that would be impossible.
Small teams are usualy more productive, the larger the team the larger the overhead
There might be more production in a bigger system but competition is what drives humans to the farthest limits.) But if competition wasn't a problem would anyone else disagree to this notion? Why?
If you start to eliminate single factors until your solution fits the problem you are left with neither a problem nor a solution.
Cheers
Björn
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 06:10 PM
McWolfe: Yea I know you said that I was talking about something new. for example sreks points.
Srek:Humanity I do agree with you and your 100% right on that. Small teams vs. Bigger. Bigger teams can be broken down into smaller groups to perform more efficient projects.
As for the elimnating single factors. Why?
Small teams vs. Bigger. Bigger teams can be broken down into smaller groups to perform more efficient projects.
Sorry, it does not work this way. If you do this you simply shift management effort from inside a group to inbetween groups. The effiency is even lower on that in my experience.
As for the elimnating single factors. Why?
But if competition wasn't a problem would anyone else disagree to this notion?
This is the problem. As soon as you start eliminating major parts of the problem to make your idea/solution fit you get no usable result anymore and your solution becomes worthless.
The correct way is to adjust your solution, not the problem ;)
Cheers
Björn
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 07:00 PM
From my point of view I personally think more people into small groups would be the most and best solution but yet agian I am just a kid and do not have that experience entirely.
Altough I can sort of see where you are going with elimnating factors. I agree with you that in this case elminating factors would start to negate the problem but I dont think the problem would be gone. I think it would just be altered so that there is no point in finding a solution.
I guess this brings an end to this thread. All well. I gained some sort of experience from this dilemma. Thanks guys for all the comments.
McWolfe
01-29-2006, 07:04 PM
McWolfe: Yea I know you said that I was talking about something new. for example sreks points.
Well, my point and sreks #2 are basically the same (well, that's what I meant, anyway).
McW
PB Baller27
01-29-2006, 07:19 PM
Oh.. I'm sorry I guess I just overlooked that. I was more interested in sreks second post than and lost strain of though on the first. Sorry about that but it doesnt really matter anymore since the problem has been solved(sort of. it doesnt matter anymore) so theres nothing really else I can say. :shrug:
thatoneguy
01-30-2006, 01:44 AM
From my point of view I personally think more people into small groups would be the most and best solution but yet agian I am just a kid and do not have that experience entirely.
Here is the simple math.
A two employeee company needs one of them to be a manager, otherwise work will never get done.
A five employee company still only needs one manager to function.
a thirty employee company needs two managers to function because at about this size, one person can't effectively oversee the entire operation.
Now while those numbers are pulled completely and entirely out of my ass, the concept is sound. Large groups benefit from an economy of scale. It's sort of like baseball, you need a pitcher, a batter a catcher and some players in the field. You could theoretically play with 2,000 member teams but you have to meet the minimums.
CGTalk Moderation
01-30-2006, 01:44 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.