Why does XSI cost so dang much?!

[tachy0n]

I think it's all relative. These days most 3d apps come very close to each other in capability and tools, with maybe 10-20 % difference between them. Depending on the scale and time factors of the work you handle, this small difference can either be a minor inconvenience or a major problem. The price of any app has to be seen from this perspective. Say an app costs you 'X' more than another. But if it helps you to utilize your resources more efficiently to earn that much more, then it is certainly not a bad investment.

XSI has some very impressive features including a very robust NLA system and excellent integration with Mental Ray. The modelling toolset (SubD/Poly anyway), rendertree and general animation tools are also quite nice. Not to mention the excellent after sales support. Any of these could help you save time and effort that would negate the initial cost. I'm not saying XSI is perfect, far from it... but it is the best in some features and if those features are important for you, then IMO the price is a lot less relevant.

[Cinematography]

tachy0n,

3D Studio Max
$3,000

Maya
$7,000

XSI
$12,000

Houdini
$17,000

XSI has some very impressive features including a very robust NLA system and excellent integration with Mental Ray.
I totally agree!

The modelling toolset (SubD/Poly anyway), rendertree and general animation tools are also quite nice. Not to mention the excellent after sales support. Any of these could help you save time and effort that would negate the initial cost. I'm not saying XSI is perfect, far from it... but it is the best in some features and if those features are important for you, then IMO the price is a lot less relevant.”
Do the Softimage people spend a lot of money and time into R&D, or something? Is that why it’s such an expensive package? And what the hells up with Houdini?!

Thank you for the response.

[ggg]

Originally posted by tachy0n
I think it's all relative. These days most 3d apps come very close to each other in capability and tools, with maybe 10-20 % difference between them.
Hi tachyOn I disagree a bit. They appear to have the same features if looking at a bulleted feature list from each company but work completely differently with make or break a production functionality, just compare NLA maya trax, XSI mixer and Max character tools and their flexibility and glitches, XSIs is very stable and flexible. But I do agree about there being only a 20% diff between Maya and XSI bringing to question the price dif, but this difference is increasing with each release.

Cinematography, "what the hells up with houdini?"
I guess you haven't used it extensively.
Its a very high level flexible far more procedural tool.
Make a large project in each 3D app, then try to go back and change things, like geometry topology, even change OP types right in the network, #s of anything like copies, or major things used in simulations during playback... the difference in ease of use versus power will be VERY obvious. Give it try you may or may not like it as it is a different way of working.

[Dagda]

I think the larger issue is user base. 3d Max probably has the largest user base followed by maya, softimage then houdini.

I believe when a company sets pricing they take into account the time in r&d among other costs vs their projected user base, possibkle sales, then figure out what will make them a profit.

As the user base for softimage grows I think we will see a drop in price, it just takes time.

[tomzx]

Didnt know that Houdini cost so much, and doesnt seem sooo good.

[lildragon]

Originally posted by tomzx
Didnt know that Houdini cost so much, and doesnt seem sooo good.

uh yeah :rolleyes: don't diss the app because you don't understand how it works.

-lild

[Cinematography]

ggg
Cinematography, "what the hells up with houdini?"
I guess you haven't used it extensively. Its a very high level flexible far more procedural tool.
I hear its one of the most powerful CG programs on the market today. To confirm this, I’ll probably check it later in the future, after I schedule some spare time.

”Give it try you may or may not like it as it is a different way of working.”
I think I might.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is my whole dilemma:
I need to upgrade my position as film director, and I would like to do this through a medium where there are no limitations, through a series of 3 computer animated short films. I want those films to feature realistic hair and clothing, and damn nice animation, lighting, and rendering; I will not accept anything less. After using XSI, I’ve come to the conclusion that XSI may just be the program that I’ve been looking for. Or is it....? $12,000 is A LOT of, maybe even TOO MUCH money for a program, and I need to make sure that I will get my money’s worth if I do decide to purchase it. I will be using it for other projects in the future.

[modulatum]

I've only been an XSI user for less than a month, and I'm considering purchasing a student license, but after Max, I can tell you that the shallow claims that "you get what you pay for" are indeed true. You can call me an XSI activist now, and consider that I've been a fervent Max user and promoter for a year prior to XSI. I really believe XSI is a better solution, it's built in a very systematic way that is purely non-linear, right down to the interface. I can't imagine the millions SI spends every year on R&D, because it shows with their latest release. Max is popular because it's easy to grasp and easy to get fast results out of. I've recently had a conversation with another Max-using friend and when I told him I'm into XSI now, he replied "isn't that the hardest software to use?"

The CG public really truly is blind to XSI. I've found it to be the easiest software I have worked with. Everything depends on me and how I want it to be, which is important because I can maximize my efficiency by tailoring everything to my needs, and not learning the way of a whole new platform like a company wants me to.

Why does it cost so dang much? Consider that SI|3D once cost in the neighborhood of $60,000. That's a pretty generous price drop, don't you think ;)? Oh and the student licenses (which just don't allow commercial work) are around $800.

P.S.: http://www.softimage.com/products/xsi/v3/educational/student-teacher.asp

At these prices...oh man.

Compared with the $500 student tag of Max(unlimited term), and the $1,000 student tag of Maya Unlimited, I'd say you're getting a better deal than both of them.

[tredeger]

An oft overlooked factor when choosing to focus on a particular platform is this:

If you are really good at Maya, you're competing with quite a few other people who are equally good. Of course, as a major industry standard, there are more jobs for which you can apply.

While there are fewer places using Softimage, if you are really good at Soft, you are highly in demand by those studios who do use it. Some of the major houses have purchased more seats of XSI than they can actually fill with qualified operators. So even though Maya is the major industry standard these days, knowing Soft can make you more employable. Oh, and XSI really does rock. I currently use Maya and wish I could migrate.

Some of the things I've heard about XSI: the high price supports a larger R&D effort. I've also heard that they have about twice as many developers as Wavefront (sorry, can't stand that they dropped the name). This does seemed to be evidenced by their product's development history. And while Maya seems to come out with a new release every 5 minutes, there are still some glaring short comings that are simply inexcusable. The maya boards often complain about this. I don't have as much experience with the XSI community, but they seem to be generally happier with the product.

Of course, Maya has great momentum and I'm happy to be able to do amazing things with it, but it does seem that if the XSI product held the same market share and was priced in the Maya/Max ballpark, with its current feature set and the current level of support, that it would be game over all around.

Hmm, do any of you guys think the incredible support from XSI is only possible because they have a smaller more high end user base?

Anywhat, my $.02

[Cinematography]

modulatum
”I can't imagine the millions SI spends every year on R&D, because it shows with their latest release.”
This was what I was waiting to hear. Could you tell me more about the R&D that goes into XSI? That fat ass price tag must be justified, and I’m not buying XSI until it is! :D

”The CG public really truly is blind to XSI. I've found it to be the easiest software I have worked with.”
It is, isn’t it? I’m trying it out right now, and it is really organized and forward. I was able to make a chair, a cloth object, hair, and a bunch of other stuff without having to refer to the help once. If you know the language of 3D, XSI is very self explanatory. The only thing you need before converting from a program like Max to XSI is a little courage.

”Consider that SI|3D once cost in the neighborhood of $60,000.”
Once upon a time it cost WAY too dang much. Now, it just cost a little too dang much. It still costs too much, especially for a middle class guy like myself. I can buy it, however, before I do, I need to make sure that I’m buying PURE BEEF, and not a canned ham. :shame:

”Oh and the student licenses (which just don't allow commercial work) are around $800.
If only I were a student. :cry:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

tredeger
Some of the things I've heard about XSI: the high price supports a larger R&D effort. I've also heard that they have about twice as many developers as Wavefront
Is XSI like the Lamborghini of computer animation programs, or something? Could you tell me more about the R&D that goes into XSI?

”And while Maya seems to come out with a new release every 5 minutes, there are still some glaring short comings that are simply inexcusable.”
This totally stinks! When I buy my next CG program, I do not want to have to spend money on an upgrade every couple of months.

[JDex]

Well, their current cycle is a new release about every 6 months, but if you buy a seat, just pay the minor yearly cost (minor in relative terms) for the maintenance program, then upgrades are free. As to the R&D... alot of that is under wraps within SI, but a good reflection of it is the upgrade "new features" from release to release. If you refer to the new feature lists to the common user requests of the "era" you will be pleasantly surprised to see how many are addressed. SI probably has the best user interaction with development (next to Wings of course, Bjorn is a machine). Another reflection that you may be able to surmise info from is their parent company's track record of R&D. Avid, as I am sure you know is about as choice as it gets in the industry they apply their energies to, and the same goes for their other subsidary, Digidesign who produces ProTools, the formost authority on digital audio.

Glad your liking it's workflow... it is really great isn't it. :thumbsup:

[SheepFactory]

I second that and I am not even a xsi user.

it seems that during the past year XSI was the only software that got substantial upgrades in every aspect of the software , as a result became a solid all around tool.

Cinematography , while the price is expensive for the freelancer , you should understand that its not aimed at the hobbyist or freelancer. Why dont you download XSI exp , and learn the software before making a decision to spend $11.000 based on a couple of posts here.

Maybe maya will be more suitable for whatever it is you do , maybe you'll be happy with animation master , maybe you'll find xsi suits your needs perfectly and buy it. In any case its wise to try before you buy.

[Dagda]

I believe that version four will be out within the next six months. When that happens they may offer an incentive to purchase. I think that before they released 3.5 they had an offer of around $8500 for the advanced edition. More recently they were offering incentive to move to xsi from your current package. You could save up to $5000 if you had a current lisence for max, maya and maybe others. Patience could get you a good deal on xsi if is is the package you choose.

My advice would be to continue with the exp version and make sure the software can do what you need it to do. I agree with sheep, you should also be checking out maya and whatever else to ensure that you do make the right decision.

[activemotionpictures]

As a Director new career edge, softimage XSI it´s worth it. But think also about the wage you`d pay technicians and animators, If you are truly looking for quality, they alone make XSI price.

As far as production is concerned, yes, XSI is very flexible. Version 3.5 is being used by ILM and other big companies. Is there a doubt?

2 or 3 well produced shorts /or 1 long feature movie will pay off just about a year round.

To my concept (and career, if I was a Director) that`s a really cheap price!

David R.

[Cinematography]

JDex
” Well, their current cycle is a new release about every 6 months, but if you buy a seat, just pay the minor yearly cost (minor in relative terms) for the maintenance program, then upgrades are free.”
What’s the minor yearly fee? :cool:

”As to the R&D... alot of that is under wraps within SI, but a good reflection of it is the upgrade "new features" from release to release. If you refer to the new feature lists to the common user requests of the "era" you will be pleasantly surprised to see how many are addressed.’
This sounds like a major plus. I can’t stand upgrading to a newer version and not feeling or seeing any kind of a difference in the program.

”Glad your liking it's workflow... it is really great isn't it.”
Oh yes! Very much so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sheep Factory
”Why dont you download XSI exp , and learn the software before making a decision to spend $11.000 based on a couple of posts here.”
I’m already there, and I’m loving every minute of it.
:applause:

”Maybe maya will be more suitable for whatever it is you do
I’ve been using Maya for awhile now. This is my problem: I want to find a HighEnd program that works the way I work, and I think I may have found this through XSI. However, before I buy XSI, I need to make sure that I will get my money’s worth, and that it is the program that will get what I need done, the way I want it done.

“I need to upgrade my position as film director, and I would like to do this through a medium where there are no limitations, through a series of 3 computer animated short films. I want those films to feature realistic hair and clothing, and damn nice animation, lighting, and rendering; I will not accept anything less. After using XSI, I’ve come to the conclusion that XSI may just be the program that I’ve been looking for. Or is it....?”

Or maybe 3D Studio Max could get the job done. How good is it at the fancy - realistic - stuff?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dagda
”Patience could get you a good deal on xsi if is is the package you choose.”
Ugg… I have patience, but I don’t have that much time to waste. I need to give my career, and my company a good kick to it’s arse as soon as possible.

” My advice would be to continue with the exp version and make sure the software can do what you need it to do. I agree with sheep, you should also be checking out maya and whatever else to ensure that you do make the right decision.
Understood.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sirdavid23
”But think also about the wage you`d pay technicians and animators, If you are truly looking for quality, they alone make XSI price.
I’ll be doing all of the animation stuff myself, with maybe some help from a couple of friends.

” 2 or 3 well produced shorts /or 1 long feature movie will pay off just about a year round. To my concept (and career, if I was a Director) that`s a really cheap price!”
That’s a good point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you all very much for your input. I really – really appreciate it.

[Atyss]

To summarize, I think you should ask the question to Softimage.


Cheers
Bernard

[Cinematography]

Originally posted by Atyss
To summarize, I think you should ask the question to Softimage.

Cheers
Bernard
:D


Dear Softimage XSI,

Why does your program cost so dang much?

Sincerely,
Cinematography

:p

[EdHarriss]

It sure would be interesting if they would answer wouldn't it? ;)

[Cinematography]

Originally posted by EdHarriss
It sure would be interesting if they would answer wouldn't it? ;)
Ya know what.... I think I will e-mail them personally about it. Of course, I'll phrase my question far differently than I've been phrasing it here. I will post their response here if one is given.

[Cinematography]

Softimage Rep. - "XSI products are based on over 16 years of background development and are highly prized by film and broadcast professionals do to its power, ability and flexibilities.

The 11,750USD program is very complete and incorporates a world-class 2d and 3d compositing system as well as very extensive modeling animation and rendering tools to allow you the most flexibility in your digital story telling. Used by PLF for the making of Panic room, XSI was saved millions in the films pre production costs. And for those who want to go all the way in pre production, we even have 3rd party software that plugs in to XSI then executed on a Mark Roberts Motion Control rig. Go to http://www.softimage.com/partners/xsi/Software_Partners/3rd_party_products/companies/Iktrix.htm to see some of the details.

We also have many customers that you can read about that have moved away from lower cost software to XSI in all facets of the digital story telling and gaming business. Please go to the following URL http://www.softimage.com/products/xsi/v3/film/ and check out some of the stories from the guys in your business. Stan Winston, ILM, DreamWorks, and so on."

==============

Sounds promising.

[Cinematography]

Softimage Rep. - "We sure aren't the low price leader in this business. We are dedicated to the high end - our clients demand this from us. This is what we do. The price of XSI reflects the high cost of our constant evolution of this technology. Also our support is unmatched by anyone in the business. We take care of our clients - we are passionate about your success.

Have a read through our customer stories and testimonials on our web page, and also the press releases and announcements. You will see the common feedback from our clients that include "greatest support we've ever seen" and the "technical features are awesome" , and so on.

I guess it comes down to that old adage that says "you get what you pay for".

The only relief I can offer you is that we take trade-ins for competitive products, so if you have a seat of one of the mainstream packages , I.e. max, alias, lightwave, etc, then we'll buy it from you which will effectively reduce the cost of XSI for you.

==============

Sounds very promising. :beer:

[phoenix]

i love this product.....xsi
i have been using maya and max......( licenced :D ) maya since long time way back.....and same goes for max....


but when i shited to xsi....2 i loved it so much.....that i cant explain the feelings.......xsi is very very good at lots of things



modelling is very coool and fast....
animation is pretty nice.....
and lots of other things.......

but i miss in xsi a good dynamic engine something like maya.....

anyway.......i simply loved it

[Mangaka604]

Just wait for XSI Version 4.0.
It'll have rigid bodies and better dynamics a la Maya. I think it'll even have a 2D paint program. Amazing considering how new it is, every release has a significant upgrade. I love this program...( I use Maya and XSI, and I find XSI much faster and more efficent to use). As for the animation side of things, the Mixer will be even more robust as there are still a few bugs to it. It's by far the most efficent animation program out there...much like the old SI3D.

As for why it costs so much, I know someone that works in the XSI R&D dept and the amount of things they create and come out with is incredible, not to mention the speed at which these features become available.

Hooray for XSI....

[bleu]

Originally posted by Cinematography
tachy0n,

3D Studio Max - $3,000

Maya - $7,000

XSI - $12,000

Houdini - $17,000


Why is Softimage so costly, because it's good, why is it so good, because it was create in Montreal :buttrock: (I'm just kidding around, they're nothing like a little nationalism)

Seriously, 3d studio max is best known for the is extensive plug in library, which can create ANYTHING. But it is not to forget that those great plug-in (like Mental Ray or renderman for max) cost money too. So if you know exactly what your animation will be about (you did say about cloth and hair) and considere the best plug-in to suit your job, only then will you know the real price of this great package. Softimage have very few of them, but it sure is the best "all of the box" package there is.

Have been using lightwave a long time before, but I'm currently using XSI on the production of a CGI movie and........:drool: :thumbsup: ...... so good....

pipeline, ease of use, EXPLORER, workflow, and on and on....

[Dagda]

Why is Softimage so costly, because it's good, why is it so good, because it was create in Montreal

And who would have ever thought. When they are not losing teeth on the ice those canadians can actually wright some code:)

[ThE_JacO]

not really, but they are good at employing the right foreigners for the job ;)

/me makes a dash for the safety door

[modulatum]

One little tidbit (which is true) that I use against non-XSI people who say the software is overpriced is related to the R&D department. Join the mailing-list, and ask for a feature. Within 24 hours, you'll either be notified that the feature is already implemented and be given a general instruction to use it, or the developers will put it on the to-do list. No joke. I'd like to see the apathetic Discreet tech support do that.

XSI is VERY heavily used in advertising, because it's fast, nonlinear, and intuitive. You don't need teams of training professionals to teach you this app. You either need a really good personal instructor or a college course if you're on to intensive training. The best way is learning it yourself.

Also, XSI 4 will...well...it will really put a damper on other CG apps. I can't imagine why anyone uses other apps at all, really.

And is it the Lamborghini? Well, let's call it the Mercedes-Benz level of comfort, Rolls Royce level of meticulous engineering, incomparable level of tech support, and the Lamborghini level of pure bliss.

Oh and it's generally 400 Megs lighter than some other packages ;).

[Kaiser_Sose]

Its nice and all, but I gaurauntee you that a talented person can create the same animation in any program



With xsi you are paying in to the company behind it

[Atyss]

I have not been following this thread regularly so sorry in advance if I say something that has been said.

The answers that Cinematography got are premade answers that I think anyone who ask the same question will get.

The question you should ask yourself is not "is the price of XSI justified?" (wich Softimage will always say yes, no matter what you do), but rather "would I invest in such a high priced package?". The only way to answer that question is to try the software. Really, there is no other way. Make a list of priorities for what you consider essential, in order of importance, and see how XSI fulfills those priorities.

I'm all for XSI, but I'm not naive: XSI, as any other software, is not meant for everyone. Some will hate it, some will like it, some will like it but the software will not have some of the features they need, or for some the price is just too high.

It's a personal matter that only you, the user, has the answer. Me? When you are persuaded that the tool is the right one for you, you are generally more open to bigger investments.


Cheers
Bernard

[Cinematography]

”Originally posted by Mangaka604
Just wait for XSI Version 4.0.
It'll have rigid bodies and better dynamics a la Maya.”
No.... don’t you mean XSI 4.5? Doesn’t the new version usually come with a crap load of bugs, and aren’t those bugs usually corrected, with the addition of feature enhancements in the X.5 version? :annoyed:

=========================

Originally posted by bleu
Why is Softimage so costly, because it's good, why is it so good, because it was create in Montreal (I'm just kidding around, they're nothing like a little nationalism)’
:)

=========================

”Originally posted by modulatum
One little tidbit (which is true) that I use against non-XSI people who say the software is overpriced is related to the R&D department. Join the mailing-list, and ask for a feature. Within 24 hours, you'll either be notified that the feature is already implemented and be given a general instruction to use it, or the developers will put it on the to-do list. No joke. I'd like to see the apathetic Discreet tech support do that.”
:D

”Oh and it's generally 400 Megs lighter than some other packages .”
I’ve noticed. What’s the dilly, yo?

=========================

Originally posted by Atyss
The only way to answer that question is to try the software. Really, there is no other way. Make a list of priorities for what you consider essential, in order of importance, and see how XSI fulfills those priorities.
Damn good advice! :applause:

[ggg]

Originally posted by Cinematography
No.... don’t you mean XSI 4.5? Doesn’t the new version usually come with a crap load of bugs, and aren’t those bugs usually corrected, with the addition of feature enhancements in the X.5 version? :annoyed:
-No, much less than other apps. I think you are looking at versioning from the perspective of other apps like adobe : P perhaps, and not from actual XSI use.
'.5s' from XSI and Houdini at least are considered major upgrades. Look at the feature list from each .5 to the next with XSI. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, (although some felt 2-3 was not warranted as a whole number release)

-Yes usually, but some no.

Originally posted by Kaiser_Sose
Its nice and all, but I gaurauntee you that a talented person can create the same animation in any program

I don't buy that old addage and I couldn't disagree more.
It depends entirely on the effect. Many things would be simply unreasonable to even try in some programs.
And for things that can be done in one package or another, the process, and amount of time, can also differ little or Greatly.
XSI has strength in its workflow using character "assets" (to use another apps terminology) compared to other apps but in the area of dynamics or particles, it might be better done elsewhere in many cases to even be possible(sanely).

[modulatum]

Very true, the 3.5 upgrade from 3.0, wow, that was a great deal of stuff, plus it runs a tad more stable, they say (I didn't notice the difference, but I'll take the experts' word for it). Unlike Adobe, which just collected millions for a pointless .5 upgrade (Photoshop 5.5), Softimage is almost like Macromedia. Every new version really changes the way you work, and there are hundreds of new features that make your job easier.

Size issue...well I really have no clue. XSI is C++, innit? Max is Visual C++. XSI doesn't have a great deal of preset materials and such, Max RELIES on them. Max needs 2-3 Meg plugins to do the simplest of things, XSI barely needs anything but RC Tools. Max has lengthy documentation with images, XSI doesn't. Yet XSI looks so much more complex than Max it's funny.

[tachy0n]

Size issue...well I really have no clue. XSI is C++, innit? Max is Visual C++. XSI doesn't have a great deal of preset materials and such, Max RELIES on them. Max needs 2-3 Meg plugins to do the simplest of things, XSI barely needs anything but RC Tools. Max has lengthy documentation with images, XSI doesn't. Yet XSI looks so much more complex than Max it's funny.

You think that's funny, you should compare it with the size of Houdini... the apprentice version you can download is only someting like 40-50MB :surprised: (AFAIK it has everything that the full blown Master version does) and installs at 140MB or something !

[ThirdEye]

C4D: 20 megs installed ;)

[modulatum]

To be honest, comparing C4D to XSI is..uh...unfair ;).

[tachy0n]

I agree... bodypaint alone kicks it's ass :p

[modulatum]

:D

No offense to C4D users, but when I have compared the UIs of various apps, C4D to XSI is like Mac OS X Kiddie Edition vs. Win2k Pro with a command prompt up all the time. It's hand-holding vs. robust capability, and Bodypaint...well it's not that great of a feature to rival anything XSI has.

To each his own, however.

[tachy0n]

Oh yeah ?!? You just wait till ThirdEye_01 pries open his ummm third eye !

Seriously though, I also prefer XSI but i sometimes wish it would have a richer toolset like in built painting (hence the bodypaint reference) or RBDs. And i hope in some future version they incorporate Syflex like they did with Shave. Darktree/Sasquatch would also be nice. Oh well, maybe in XSI 6 ? Or would that push the price to 20k then...

[ggg]

paint is coming, in fxtree, very powerful paint, similar to Matador ( I think ILM still uses it) not sure what version of XSI it will be introduced though.
there will be programmable user brushes PUBS, scriptable vector objects...do a search on the xsi list for the rest.

[tachy0n]

Originally posted by ggg
paint is coming, in fxtree, very powerful paint, similar to Matador ( I think ILM still uses it) not sure what version of XSI it will be introduced though.
there will be programmable user brushes PUBS, scriptable vector objects...do a search on the xsi list for the rest.

Yes Matador is supposed to be very powerful, but isn't this all still a rumor ? It hasn't been confirmed by any 'official' source has it ? I'll check the list also..

[Atyss]

Yes it has been confirmed by Softimage, though not much details were revealed. It was jus said that a painting program based on Matador was going to be implemented, hopefully for the next version. It is supposed to be an evolved Matador.


Cheers
Bernard

[ggg]

Originally posted by tachy0n
but isn't this all still a rumor ?
No

[pete]

how do you guys know about this "matador" stuff? and someone one was mentioning better dynamics earlier... Have they made a press release about this before..

[Atyss]

We know because it was discussed on the XSI Mailing list. Someone from a Europe XSI user group said that it was shown at an event, and a few people from Softimage commented (and confirmed).

As for the dynamics thing I don't know, but it seems everyone knows something I don't on that matter!


Cheers
Bernard

[gmask]

Originally posted by Atyss
It is supposed to be an evolved Matador.


I should hope so I had a breif stint with Matador in the mid 90's and it was powerfully annoying to use. I acknowledge that it was good for whatever although paint is not the feature I would have reccomended it for back then but besides that it was not very user friendly.

Even though it was touted at the time as being a great roto program you had to write your own script to conveniently advance frames to paint or draw masks on.. a couple of years later they included the script with the install and called it a feature..uh yea. I'm sure it's come along way since then. :rolleyes:

Oh I forgot to mention it cost like $15,000 back then.. but as and added value addition to XSI it will probably be more appreciated.

[skello]

it wil be awesome if a highly interactive sculpting feature (z brush style) was incorporated into matador

[ggg]

Originally posted by gmask
I should hope so I had a breif stint with Matador in the mid 90's and it was powerfully annoying to use. so was Wavefront. What's your point? especially since you know your app of choice now can trace so much to it, has greater ease of use in its implementaion of those powerful features and ideas, yet still is missing lots of its advantages and in many cases requires a script to do the rediculously simple task that one feature button could. This is the same in all our major 3D appsOriginally posted by gmask
I acknowledge that it was good for whatever although paint is not the feature I would have reccomended it for back then but besides that it was not very user friendly.

Even though it was touted at the time as being a great roto program you had to write your own script to conveniently advance frames to paint or draw masks on.. a couple of years later they included the script with the install and called it a feature..uh yea. I'm sure it's come along way since then. :rolleyes:

Oh I forgot to mention it cost like $15,000 back then.. but as and added value addition to XSI it will probably be more appreciated. :rolleyes:
gmask, do you really think this comment comes across as anything but slanted?
SI is obviously not going to just slap an old version of Matador onto XSI.
We all know our apps were much more expensive years ago, and we all know lots of things needed to be scripted and.. oh wait they still do,
But we also all know, regardless of your attempt to imply otherwise, that software assets are updated.

I was not big a Illusion fan, prefering Flint/Flame, yet as also pointed out by an ex-SI-guy XSIs FXtree which has its roots in Illusion is very user friendly and Clearly evolved.

gmask I know you'll argue this one to death, but I don't have too much time right now ;)

[wmendez]

Below is a repost of Luc-Eric Rousseau's comments regarding on what most are calling Matador. Hopefully some of this will be shown at our next user group.


Technically, Gfx isn't a 're-write' of Matador, it is
new paint product written from scratch, by some people who have worked on Matador in the past. I do not know anything more about it. If a re-write of Matador needs to be named, it could be argued to be in development at Softimage inside XSI's tree-based compositor.

This is what chinny demoed publicly at the user group
meeting : a short 'technology demo' of in-progress development
featuring multi-layer, 16-bit, XSI-scriptable raster and vector
paint, featuring Matador's programmable user brushes (PUBS),
Photoshop-era masking tools like the magic wand, weighted b-splines and other goodies that will be disclosed at a later time. It was truly next-gen stuff, with fxtree's image sequence management, XSI's scripting and expressions, and object-oriented vector shapes that 1998's Matador definitely did not have. Chinny also demoed also in-development 2D tracking and hinted at other fxtree improvements. All of this will work under both Linux and windows.

The purpose of the demo was to show our users and friends that
development at Softimage is on-going in various areas, often in
parallel to other XSI releases.

However, right now it is too early to say when a future version of XSI would manifest itself, and what the feature set would look like.

Many things will happen before a release, but at least these weren't cool research demos that never make it into the actual product, it was real (albeit unfinished) stuff.

So, unfortunately I will have to ask your patience with
regards to getting your hands on what was shown in the
technology previews, as we have just released XSI 3.5,
and we have much work ahead of us. Great software takes time,
and we definitely do want to get things right.

[gmask]

>>>Originally posted by ggg
What's your point?


My point is that I hope that the only thing left is the name as the program could not have survived this many transformation and still be usable. But the marketing department may think their is value in the original brand it had. Alias decided to drop Wavefront. I guess whatever value the name had was worn out.. I'd say the same of Matador.

If it was just a rumor that XSI would have paint I wouldn't have responded.. I just thought it was interesting that Matador was even mentioned as what it has become is not what it was and it is no longer a standalone product.

[ggg]

ah ok point taken,
its ok though, I'm pretty sure they won't call it matador. they just released this bit of info about the developement history I guess to satisfy us. We are obviously quite excited about it.

[gmask]

Originally posted by ggg
ah ok point taken,
its ok though, I'm pretty sure they won't call it matador. they just released this bit of info about the developement history I guess to satisfy us. We are obviously quite excited about it.

despite my sig I'm not an XSI Hater ;)

[tburbage3]

I think they charge what they do because:

* Apparently, enough seats can still be sold at that price point for it to be profitable for them;
* It helps to maintain the high end status of the product in a marketplace where aura and perception mean alot. They don't want to become a commodity -- they want to be a sought-after luxury item.

Porsche could probably sell 10 times as many Carerras at $20,000, but they don't want their Carerra selling at that price point and risk losing its exclusivity. A/W's gamble with Maya "Complete" at a price point way below even 3DSMax will be interesting to watch over the next couple of years. It certainly allows a hell of alot of individuals to become full time Maya users who might prefer the XSI workflow but will never spend that much for software.

[MJV]

I think the main reason it's expensive is that it is owned by Avid. It has always been Avid's pricing policy to sell high in order to help maintain the illusion that it's a pro app. There is a certain market segment that is attracted by high prices.

[ThE_JacO]

Originally posted by MJV
I think the main reason it's expensive is that it is owned by Avid. It has always been Avid's pricing policy to sell high in order to help maintain the illusion that it's a pro app. There is a certain market segment that is attracted by high prices.

out of curiosity... for how long have you been in the editing market ?

because Avid won all the battles being the cheapest in its segment.

replacing Ampex analog system... offer solutions for less money
Avid VS Quantel (Edit box times, not the effects part) offer for less
Avid VS Discreet (DS VS smoke and/or flame) offer more for less
Avid VS Sony (some ingest products) Avid is cheaper
Avid VS BBC (unity for news, ingest or broadcast products) more for less
Avid VS Sun (file serving for news and editing) More for less.

the only competitor working in a segment Avid was interested in selling for less is (and this only happened very recently) Apple with final cut VS XpressDV.

btw Softimage pricing is absolutely independant from Avid, it's been always managed in Montreal by SI CEOs and Sales managers.

I know for sure that a lot of people, especially those who never worked in a corporate environment, have very foggy ideas about mergings, ventures, business units and everything relating.
It's a good rule of thumb tho, if you don't know how something works under the hood (market policies in corporations) not to try and pop that hood ni public :) .

btw there are no hard feelings or anything in my post, just thought I could offer some infos about an often mistified market.

[ggg]

Originally posted by ThE_JacO

Avid VS Discreet (DS VS smoke and/or flame) offer more for less
It has been a few years since I used them extensively, are DS or Symphony now up to all the tasks that Flame can manage?

[ThE_JacO]

Originally posted by ggg
It has been a few years since I used them extensively, are DS or Symphony now up to all the tasks that Flame can manage?

it's a tricky question actually...
the real competitor to DS would be smoke rather then flame (since flame has close to no editing at all), in the same way smoke can't really compare to DS (that now does everything flame does featurelist wise) since DS offers not only editing but also a 3D engine for titling, DVE, flips, effects, nodestructures etc. etc. all so interwoven together that you'd need flame (or combustion+max if you have LOTS of time to spare) to complete the feature set

with DS 7 (codename main, the one that comes with the new nitris based systems) the 8bpc barrier has finally been broken (that was the main thing keeping DS away from the silver) and LUTs + realtime 2K is a solid standing reality.

so if we talk TV or HDTV (or any HD in general) I'd rather work on DS then on flame+smoke any day of the year.
if we talk cinema there hasn't been enough field testing yet to tell the truth, and while so many other experiences and products converged in the development (which makes for good chances to get it right the first time) there's no proven guarantee yet that one could toss out of the window his onyx based systems.

P.S.
if you feel like tossing out of the win your flame or smoke be very careful, just lifting them could cause you serious backstrain, and if you are somewhere close to lou ferrigno and manage to hurl them (painting yourself green is a must if you do) you still have good chances to be sued by the relatives of whoever you killed with 110 lbs of SGI systems (base offer)

[MJV]

Originally posted by ThE_JacO
out of curiosity... for how long have you been in the editing market ?

because Avid won all the battles being the cheapest in its segment.

replacing Ampex analog system... offer solutions for less money
Avid VS Quantel (Edit box times, not the effects part) offer for less
Avid VS Discreet (DS VS smoke and/or flame) offer more for less
Avid VS Sony (some ingest products) Avid is cheaper
Avid VS BBC (unity for news, ingest or broadcast products) more for less
Avid VS Sun (file serving for news and editing) More for less.

the only competitor working in a segment Avid was interested in selling for less is (and this only happened very recently) Apple with final cut VS XpressDV.

btw Softimage pricing is absolutely independant from Avid, it's been always managed in Montreal by SI CEOs and Sales managers.

I know for sure that a lot of people, especially those who never worked in a corporate environment, have very foggy ideas about mergings, ventures, business units and everything relating.
It's a good rule of thumb tho, if you don't know how something works under the hood (market policies in corporations) not to try and pop that hood ni public :) .

btw there are no hard feelings or anything in my post, just thought I could offer some infos about an often mistified market.

25 years in the business, actually.

Of course, being the first to succeed at developing a viable desktop editing system, Avid succeeded wildly by basically being the only game in town for many many years. Thus they could sell their systems at an enormous premium and still beat the machine based systems in terms of costs. Thus their meteoric financial success. I like their product very much -- It was their cavalier attitude toward the customer, horrendous customer support, and exorbitant service contracts (required to even get service for hardware under warranty) which turned me off to them so much, an experience shared by many others I know who also were customers of theirs.

The reason I say they tend to price high is because historically they have been able to be very successful at doing just that. When MS/Softimage started aggressively marketing Softimage DS, there was alot of buzz in the industry about it, and a great many unhappy Avid customers just licking their chops at the prospect of a truly viable alternative. I was personally studying the financing options when Avid purchased them. And why did Avid purchase them? I think because they were in a total cold sweat about the prospect of real competition, especially in light of the great disenchantment of their customer base. And so they quelled the competition in the American Way. Buy it out at whatever and all cost. And they paid for SI what many market analysts claimed didn't make financial sense, but we all knew why. A day later the price of DS went from $120,000 to $150,000. Hey, no competition any more, so no need to have to compete. I guess you're wrong about who controls pricing.

Regards

[Cinematography]

I’m using my friend’s super computer right now to finish my portfolio, and on his super computer he has XSI 3.5 installed. And I must say.... I thought I was in love with XSI before? After using this beast of a program for the past week or so now, I must say that it is by far the best 3D graphics program I have ever used. I started with Truespace back in 1993, and from there I moved to 3D Studio [before it became Max], Max, Lightwave, and then Maya. I'm not saying that XSI is better than all of the other programs [actually I am, but don’t tell anybody], I’m only saying that it is a better program for me, and for my style of working.

However, I am NOT going to spend my hard earned cash on XSI 3.5, a program that doesn't even have rigid body dynamics. :shame: I am going to be patient and wait for the release of XSI 4.0. I'm sure I'll be so much happier if I do.

[ThE_JacO]

Originally posted by MJV

...
I guess you're wrong about who controls pricing.

Regards

nice post, and a few points would be worth discussing if only this was the place for it (but it would be a bit OT for the forum, or at the very least for this section), my only concern is that it got totally off the point...

you said that Avid has always been highly priced, possibly with the intent of estabilishing a reputation of "high end" thru the pricing scheme.
merging politics aside, higher or lower prices are to be evaluated compared to the competition, and Avid has always priced LOWER then their competition (that is discreet, Quantel, Sony, the now dead 5D, BBC, Sun etc.) in the respective markets.

without going into the DS story (that I'v seen from the inside or from very close since a few years now) or support prices (that are NOT what the user perceives in the initial price as high or low end) my point still stands.
Avid always priced low, and is still doing.

last but not least the fact that pricing has, insofar, always been discussed and regulated by Montreal wasn't an idea or an hipotesis, it's a fact :)

I DO know who prices the product, and it had little to do with Avid until now.

the original topic of the thread was figuring out why XSI is priced higher then the competition, your point was that it was because of Avid and of how they like to have a pricey high-end aura around them...

neither is true.
if you want to look for the reasons behind the price (whatever it's a fair price or not is not my intention to argue) look for them elsewhere :)

[mbxsi]

jesus, it's cinematography again, complaining.

read this if you didn't already or if it wasn't listed already (didn't bother to look): http://www.xsibase.com/netview_forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=7863

[mbxsi]

Originally posted by wmendez
Below is a repost of Luc-Eric Rousseau's comments regarding on what most are calling Matador. Hopefully some of this will be shown at our next user group.


Technically, Gfx isn't a 're-write' of Matador, it is
new paint product written from scratch, by some people who have worked on Matador in the past. I do not know anything more about it. If a re-write of Matador needs to be named, it could be argued to be in development at Softimage inside XSI's tree-based compositor.

This is what chinny demoed publicly at the user group
meeting : a short 'technology demo' of in-progress development
featuring multi-layer, 16-bit, XSI-scriptable raster and vector
paint, featuring Matador's programmable user brushes (PUBS),
Photoshop-era masking tools like the magic wand, weighted b-splines and other goodies that will be disclosed at a later time. It was truly next-gen stuff, with fxtree's image sequence management, XSI's scripting and expressions, and object-oriented vector shapes that 1998's Matador definitely did not have. Chinny also demoed also in-development 2D tracking and hinted at other fxtree improvements. All of this will work under both Linux and windows.

The purpose of the demo was to show our users and friends that
development at Softimage is on-going in various areas, often in
parallel to other XSI releases.

However, right now it is too early to say when a future version of XSI would manifest itself, and what the feature set would look like.

Many things will happen before a release, but at least these weren't cool research demos that never make it into the actual product, it was real (albeit unfinished) stuff.

So, unfortunately I will have to ask your patience with
regards to getting your hands on what was shown in the
technology previews, as we have just released XSI 3.5,
and we have much work ahead of us. Great software takes time,
and we definitely do want to get things right.

i really hope it will be at least better, but not worse than matador. i fear it will be just a little paint-option to do little things and not have the full featureset of matador. hope not.
it would be so great to have matador incorporated into xsi as alternative to photoshop.

[ggg]

Originally posted by mbxsi
jesus, it's cinematography again, complaining.

read this if you didn't already or if it wasn't listed already (didn't bother to look): http://www.xsibase.com/netview_forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=7863
that quote is from this thread.

[tachy0n]

Originally posted by mbxsi
...it would be so great to have matador incorporated into xsi as alternative to photoshop...

I'm not sure it is actually an alternative for Photoshop, ie not a texturing tool as such. I could be wrong though...

...i fear it will be just a little paint-option to do little things...

:surprised

[mbxsi]

i've heard that matador is better than photoshop, altough it probaly hasn't so many filters. but who needs them anyway. there are also enough in the fxtree operators.

i saw matador back in 1996 when i was 15 for the first time on a indigo or onyx (sgi) and it was pretty. painting/ animating, etc...
not sure how it would be without sgi's video/ hardware throughput.

but if they can even extend matador with vector painting and such without decreasing features that would be great.

[ggg]

Originally posted by tachy0n
I'm not sure it is actually an alternative for Photoshop, ie not a texturing tool as such. I could be wrong though...

any paint in fxtree will at least help with texturing using fxops clipin/out.

I also hope ther will be some kind of contour from shader info in and 3D scene "tracking" of elements to use the scriptable vector paint and brushes with, as well as some deep raster info to drive brush stroke etc params with.

[ggg]

Originally posted by mbxsi
i've heard that matador is better than photoshop, altough it probaly hasn't so many filters. but who needs them anyway. there are also enough in the fxtree operators.
:surprised
no there aren't, not enough to replace PShop yet, there are enough comparable "included in application" 2D filters for texturing but,
-there are thousands of plugins available for PS (the PS and AE plugin standard would offer this to us too) most are junk, but many quite useful for texturing.
-and the 2D filters, useful for texurting, are often not for 3d fx except a few used in conjunction with passes. paintfx for eg have limited ability to interact with scene parameters, negating most advantage to being in a compositor integrated in a 3D app. Most uses of aplied 2d filters to a sequnce I've seen in any app have that slapped on shower door look.



Another area of interest is Exposing parts of XSi to allow us to write our own fxops might better allow such intergration with other exernal aps as well as being able to write our own filtes fx that could integrate more with 3D scene data.
An IO part way down tree versus Io at clip/source level might be nice too (if the params of the external app or process can be animated) but perhap not possible due to stack/construction history?

[Cinematography]

Originally posted by mbxsi
jesus, it's cinematography again, complaining.

read this if you didn't already or if it wasn't listed already (didn't bother to look): http://www.xsibase.com/netview_forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=7863
#1 - I was the one who got the Softimage Rep. responses.
#2 - Stop stalking me. :rolleyes:

[MJV]

Hmm. I'm sure that when Avid acquired SI, they were like, "and what the heck are we going to do with this 3D software we also got?" So it seems very plausible that they gave Montreal a certain level of autonomy. On the other hand, it seems to me quite naive, especially for an insider and one who claims to be savvy about corporate takeovers, to think that HQ is not exerting any influence over pricing.

Originally posted by ThE_JacO
nice post, and a few points would be worth discussing if only this was the place for it (but it would be a bit OT for the forum, or at the very least for this section), my only concern is that it got totally off the point...

you said that Avid has always been highly priced, possibly with the intent of estabilishing a reputation of "high end" thru the pricing scheme.
merging politics aside, higher or lower prices are to be evaluated compared to the competition, and Avid has always priced LOWER then their competition (that is discreet, Quantel, Sony, the now dead 5D, BBC, Sun etc.) in the respective markets.

without going into the DS story (that I'v seen from the inside or from very close since a few years now) or support prices (that are NOT what the user perceives in the initial price as high or low end) my point still stands.
Avid always priced low, and is still doing.

last but not least the fact that pricing has, insofar, always been discussed and regulated by Montreal wasn't an idea or an hipotesis, it's a fact :)

I DO know who prices the product, and it had little to do with Avid until now.

the original topic of the thread was figuring out why XSI is priced higher then the competition, your point was that it was because of Avid and of how they like to have a pricey high-end aura around them...

neither is true.
if you want to look for the reasons behind the price (whatever it's a fair price or not is not my intention to argue) look for them elsewhere :)

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.