3ds Max 2013 announced!

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2012   #61
Originally Posted by Charkins: What kind of major new features? It's alright if you don't know, you may just feel like this isn't worth your money, but I wish people would start contributing specifics on what is missing. (What would make it worth the price?) Then take it a step further and submit to the wishlist and/or contact the developers directly. I get the impression that a lot of users just sit on the side and expect gourmet meals to be delivered to them, and complain when expectations aren't met, whatever those expectations may be. A lot of us are invested in Max's future, it's going to take effort to help steer it in the direction we want it to go.

That said, it's never a bad idea to diversify. Use the program for its strengths. Some are better than others for specific tasks and we can't expect Max to be the be-all package.


So you want users to come up with innovations, then just give those to Autodesk? Do users of Zbrush need to do that? Or does Olaf hit them with things nobody can think of? I think your half right though. This isn't a black and white issue. I see it both ways. We should let them know what we want and they should also bring things to the table themselves. They have the bigger responsibilities to do so. We pay them. Even if they can't innovate themselves (which is very clear they can't) at least start buying more plugins and integrating them. You have to expect most users to be just that, users.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #62
Yes, if you want Max to succeed, you have to be a proactive part of that development process, even as small a role as it may be. This is the case with everything in life - your political involvement/vote, car maintenance, raising children, etc. We can't expect the developers to read minds. It is interesting to discuss; the perceived lack of innovation between Autodesk and, say, Pixologic or Luxology, but I think those are apples and oranges. Pixologic has a comparatively limited purpose and different constraints, I think too many variables to compare accurately. Modo has some great improvements, but still not the market share or functional capacity to be comparable.

We expect Autodesk to innovate and develop new tech because they have the resources to do so, and they should. My point is that idle complaints do absolutely nothing for progress. The developers aren't working in productions. They rely on users to tell them what's broke and what features we need. They need us to tell them "this app has this feature, we want it" and support that request with numbers.

I would love to see some common plugins/scripts bought or re-developed for Max. There are plenty of requests on the wishlist with lots of votes and still not "under review", which is indeed frustrating. If a single developer could create it, how can it not be implemented by a larger, more resource-wealthy team? I don't know the circumstances.

We have to expect a lot out of Autodesk and the Max developers, but we have to be a part of that process. Criticism is good, but being angry in a forum isn't enough to work towards progress. If this release isn't worth your money, that's fine, but you should let the developers know why through the proper channels.
__________________
Chris L. Harkins
 
Old 03 March 2012   #63
Originally Posted by Charkins: Yes, if you want Max to succeed, you have to be a proactive part of that development process, even as small a role as it may be. This is the case with everything in life - your political involvement/vote, car maintenance, raising children, etc. We can't expect the developers to read minds. It is interesting to discuss; the perceived lack of innovation between Autodesk and, say, Pixologic or Luxology, but I think those are apples and oranges. Pixologic has a comparatively limited purpose and different constraints, I think too many variables to compare accurately. Modo has some great improvements, but still not the market share or functional capacity to be comparable.

We expect Autodesk to innovate and develop new tech because they have the resources to do so, and they should. My point is that idle complaints do absolutely nothing for progress. The developers aren't working in productions. They rely on users to tell them what's broke and what features we need. They need us to tell them "this app has this feature, we want it" and support that request with numbers.

I would love to see some common plugins/scripts bought or re-developed for Max. There are plenty of requests on the wishlist with lots of votes and still not "under review", which is indeed frustrating. If a single developer could create it, how can it not be implemented by a larger, more resource-wealthy team? I don't know the circumstances.

We have to expect a lot out of Autodesk and the Max developers, but we have to be a part of that process. Criticism is good, but being angry in a forum isn't enough to work towards progress. If this release isn't worth your money, that's fine, but you should let the developers know why through the proper channels.


I agree with you mostly, I just think they have the bigger responsibly for putting features into the software. It is indeed frustrating watching the stuff they ask you for to sit there and do nothing. I already stated what the circumstances are. The yearly forced release to appease investors. They are forced out the same time of year no matter what the issues are. If I do decide to jump ship, the issue of a private or publicly held company may be a factor in my choice. Frankly I am tired of paying for iterations that exist solely because of investors. I'd rather wait 2-3 years and have it done in a single release or two. I think voicing displeasure on the forums is necessary especially a third party forum. If not you would have a zbrushcentral atmosphere of fanboy WOOTZ and anything critical deleted.

Last edited by BigPixolin : 03 March 2012 at 02:30 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #64
I don't know - my one experience on the beta was that users there had very little influence on the direction taken, the decisions were already made, it was just a case of bug reporting.

A lot of the gripes I have about Max seem to be a case of wasting my breath - the yearly updates aren't going to change for example, I doubt people making a plea for an update to PFlow has made a jot of difference to Autodesk's intentions.

The exception to this are the small annoying things which is something that's more readily achievable, especially on an annual release schedule, but for the big-ticket items I wouldn't expect the users to have any influence. And to be honest, the best way for developers to get an idea of what needs fixing is to use the program in production.

Personally, I'm in no rush for 2013 - the cloth stuff looks interesting, but anything that involves MassFX usually ends up having a fight with Rayfire, so I'm inclined to let the dust settle, plugins get recompiled and the first SP to arrive first.

Curious as to why Max is the only Autodesk app that is sticking with PhysX - both XSI and Maya are going the bullet route - TP and Rayfire also seem to be going with bullet - wondering if PhysX is going to end up a bit of a lame duck in comparison.

Still, quicktime on 64 bit at last...
 
Old 03 March 2012   #65
What is often overlooked in these discussions is that it is our burden to transform the core so that others can leverage it. We enable third-parties to innovate on top of as robust core as we can create. The fact that there are a ton of third-party solutions on max says a lot for our efforts. Other competitive tools that do 1/100th of what we do can afford to work on nothing but features for a very targeted workflow.

We have the current burden of transforming 5M lines of 15 year-old code into something more "state-of-the-art". Unicode is actually where we spent the most research dollars this release, yet no one is going to give us any freakin credit for it. Yet it has to be done because that is the cost of modernizing the core. It totally sucks for you and for me, as I can't sell you Unicode as a feature. But do you want the alternative? Which is building on a shaky foundation for the next 10-20 years? We decided to bite the bullet and do the work as part of our XBR initiative. We're certainly paying a price for it and will likely lose some customers who wish us to innovate faster. What you don't know is that we're sneakily putting in things that will usher in a new burst of innovation - but they are still WIP.

When you're the biggest 3d professional tool on the planet, you play a "long game", not a "short game". We're figuring on sticking around for the next 20 years, and we want a solution capable of doing that. XBR has an end point, I know it isn't as soon as we all want, but it will reach a point where we did what we intended to do. Just hope you have the patience for it, otherwise, we'll be looking to win you back in the future.

Last edited by kenpimentel : 03 March 2012 at 02:50 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #66
Originally Posted by Steve Green:
Curious as to why Max is the only Autodesk app that is sticking with PhysX - both XSI and Maya are going the bullet route - TP and Rayfire also seem to be going with bullet - wondering if PhysX is going to end up a bit of a lame duck in comparison.

Still, quicktime on 64 bit at last...


Sure, Maya has 3 or 4 unconnected physic systems including PhysX. Is that what you want from max? We were quite clear on our intention of unifying our simulation efforts. PhysX was the most credible solution when we made that decision and we have a codevelopment effort with Nvidia on it - so we leverage other resources to deliver it. It's a win-win for everyone, including users. We have much more value to extract from PhysX than we have so far.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #67
On Hair & Fur updates:
Shane just posted a video from Solomon Jagwe on the updates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-29yQfJHLXA
__________________
Twitter: @Kelly_Michels
kelly.michels@autodesk.com
3ds Max Senior QA / 3ds Max Beta Manager
M&E Division Beta Administrator
Autodesk, Inc
 
Old 03 March 2012   #68
@Charkins: I think your analogy with politics and raising children is not quite appropriate here. In politics, the people you give 'feedback' to are your representatives. So letting them know what you think is essential. Autodesk does not represent me, they want to sell something to me. They still need to know what I want/think, but their role is different.
When raising kids, you have the responsibility for that job. But I don't have a responsibility towards Autodesk.
I do agree that if you do criticize it should be constructive, as in any part of life. However, innovation and product improvement is primarily and almost entirely their responsibility. And they ought to be the experts on how to achieve that. And if you do expect users to always give feedback, you should at the very least be open to receiving it and getting involved in discussions. And if you know "the proper channels", do please let us know. I'm not aware of any (and I'm involved in the beta!).


Originally Posted by Steve Green: And to be honest, the best way for developers to get an idea of what needs fixing is to use the program in production.
Absolutely! Eat your own dog food!

Last edited by Pjanssen : 03 March 2012 at 03:05 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #69
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: You have to expect most users to be just that, users.


Can't agree more with this. It seems across the whole suite of Autodesk media and entertainment packages, a lot of users are disappointed.

There are certainly things I'm glad they fixed, mainly shown in the SAT video released a while ago. But I definitely would have liked more of those fixes.

For example from the 3ds Max UserVoice, which Autodesk themselves have set up and maintain. Out of the hundreds of highly voted suggestions, they stand as follows:

Public General Feature Requests- 13 total marked completed, 11 completed in 2012/2012 SAP or older, 2 completed in Max 2013

Public Default Settings- 4 total marked Completed, 4 completed in 2012/2012 SAP or older, 0 completed in Max 2013

Public Small Annoying Things- 18 total marked Completed, 4 completed in 2012/2012 SAP or older, 16 completed in Max 2013

Public General Feature Requests- There are 23 other suggestions with higher votes than the top voted 2013 Completed suggestion. There are a further 50 suggestions with higher votes than the lowest voted 2013 Completed suggestion.

Public Default Settings- As stated above, 0 were completed for Max 2013 which leaves 93 suggestions ignored in 2013.

Public Small Annoying Things- There are 3 suggestions with higher votes than the top voted 2013 Completed suggestion, and a further 66 suggestions with higher votes than the lowest voted 2013 Completed suggestion.

After a year, that is all we get from UserVoice? Especially considering there are 26 Small Annoying Things under review, and these are meant to be small things that can be fixed quickly and easily (in fact, Autodesk closes or moves requests it feels are beyond the scope of SAT's)

Of course, these numbers are based on what Autodesk has confirmed on uservioce so far, so the numbers could still go up, but not by much according the the blog post.

Then, for 2012 to already have known issues, be shipped that way, while having the issues already fixed in the lab, and then we are expected to wait up to a month for the fix to be released?

Quote: Things to watch for

We are required to release to a fixed schedule, which means that some issues found late in the process are allowed to ship. So make sure you read the readme before you start using the release. We are aware of various performance issues that will affect some, but not all scenes and hardware configurations running Nitrous. The good news is that we have fixed the following issues, but they are not in the release. We are scheduling an update as we speak and I don’t expect it to take more than a month past the release to get into your hands.

Backface culled wireframe results in low performance
4 viewports is slower than 1 viewport
Maximize/minimize viewport is very slow
Massive number of textures can cause lag (can be fixed by reducing default texture size)
Large shadowmap can cause low performance (can be fixed by reducing default shadowmap size)

Based on our beta experience, a minority of you will find some scenes running slower in 2013 than 2012 because of the above issues. We’re continuing to work with the beta team to resolve all outstanding performance issues. We want Nitrous to perform better than DX9 in all cases, not just the majority of cases. Nitrous continues to be a huge resource sink as we fine tune it and maximize what it can do for us.


The first 5 features of this release (listed in the blog post) were all included in 2012 SAP, only 2 of which are said to be improved/worked on since SAP.

There are some great things, as I already mentioned. The SAT fixes, Tabbed Layouts and Customizable Viewports, Nitrous Enhancements, and the Slate Material Editor Improvements.

Personally though (and please note: this is my opinion, based on my workflow):

- Adobe After Effects Interoperability: Primarily use Nuke
- Enhanced Interoperability with Adobe Photoshop: Photoshop isn't an appropriate tool when rendering using a linear workflow to .EXR
- Render Pass System: From most accounts so far, and those who used it in SAP, it isn't all that great and is pretty buggy. I would have to try this for myself though.
- Slate Compositing Editor: Hardly useful in my workflow
- ActiveShade Interactive iray Rendering: I use finalRender
- MassFX Enhancements: Nice to see some work being done on this, but you shouldn't have removed reactor until all work was completed.
- iray Enhancements: Again, don't use MentalRay
- Enhanced Interoperability with Autodesk® Revit® Architecture: Don't use Revit
- Autodesk Animation Store: This just feels like the DMM debacle in Maya, including something as standard just to sell other products.
- Hair And Fur: I replaced it long ago with Ornatrix, and Hair and Fur has always been frustrating.
- Skylights: Rather pointless, as most 3rd party renderers already offer a light type that does the same thing, only with more features and better optimized for the specific engine.

I'm not discrediting these features usefulness for others, just stating how useful they are for me.

So, there really is no reason for me to upgrade this year. Sure, there are a couple of nice things I will miss out on, but I've worked for years without them so far and I wouldn't exactly call them show stopping issues.

Very disappointing, Autodesk has dropped the ball on this one and it is painfully obvious.

Last edited by coldside-digital : 03 March 2012 at 03:15 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #70
Originally Posted by kenpimentel: When you're the biggest 3d professional tool on the planet, you play a "long game", not a "short game". We're figuring on sticking around for the next 20 years, and we want a solution capable of doing that. XBR has an end point, I know it isn't as soon as we all want, but it will reach a point where we did what we intended to do. Just hope you have the patience for it, otherwise, we'll be looking to win you back in the future.



Yes but who benefits more from being around the next 20 years? That's my point. We are paying for something that should be done on your end for your own good. Investing Autodesk's money, and not having customers pay for it in real time while selling us a promise year after year that it will benefit us in the future. All while still doing what benefits your customers right now in each release because we are paying right now. But that seems like it can't be done in a yearly forced release. Maybe I can take a lesson from Autodesk and get a client to pay me for software that I may one day use on a project that they have to pay me again for.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #71
You'll have to excuse my examples, they aren't perfect. The take-away should have been that if you are invested in something (like the money you pay for new releases), you should be a part of it's development.

Regarding proper channels (whereas forum is just public air, often times hot):
Error reporting when crashes arise (submit, don't cancel)
Community Wishlist
Beta involvement (which you know has excellent report/request features)
Report a bug
CIP
And ofcourse, contacting customer service
__________________
Chris L. Harkins
 
Old 03 March 2012   #72
Originally Posted by kenpimentel: Sure, Maya has 3 or 4 unconnected physic systems including PhysX. Is that what you want from max? We were quite clear on our intention of unifying our simulation efforts. PhysX was the most credible solution when we made that decision and we have a codevelopment effort with Nvidia on it - so we leverage other resources to deliver it. It's a win-win for everyone, including users. We have much more value to extract from PhysX than we have so far.


I thought Nucleus was the great hope for a unified system for Maya, up to the point where people were asking for that to be ported to Max - what happened to that plan?

It feels what I would like to see takes so long to implement that my wishes and things being implemented have no connection, they probably would have happened eventually anyway. Years of nothing happening with particle flow, apart from an another announcement tends to do that.

The statement that there's more to come from PhysX just makes me depressed how long it taking to get the physics stuff sorted, I really wouldn't have expected it take over the lifetime of 3 releases.

I could say this is symptomatic of the whole XBR thing in general - it's like building work with no end in sight, and I just want it to end...
 
Old 03 March 2012   #73
Nice update. The bug fixes like pan when you are drawing a line are really welcome! finally!
One thing that I think max need to fix is the wire parameters that are prehistoric. You need to do like 20 "clicks" for some basic connection, I would apreciate an update on this, like what you can do in Houdini or After effects for example.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #74
@Daniel: You are missing a lot there - like mCloth, which, from my experience with it on the beta, is a revolution, the 8-10x accelerated particles, the .NET SDK, the viewport improvements with IBL etc, that are in 2013. We all have to recognize at some point that we are not the center of the world, and not all updates go towards improving our workflow So some improvements will be more useful then others. I went with a couple versions that updated things not too relevant to me, as an FX artist, which is alright, and now this one comes, which gives me a very serious benefit. Not as much for a modeling guy, but they benefited more in the previous releases. Can't rain everywhere

@Steve: I think there never was a plan of porting nucleus to max. Anyway, looks like the max unified dynamics will be PhysX based, which benefits from delegating the effort to NVidia to a large degree. I'd prefer that the Bullet implementations are done by specialized vendors - exactly the thing with RF and TP. This just requires more focused effort, it's not a trivial task at all, turns out. But there will be enough Bullet in Max in half a year, I'd think
 
Old 03 March 2012   #75
Originally Posted by Glacierise: @Daniel: You are missing a lot there - like mCloth, which, from my experience with it on the beta, is a revolution, the 8-10x accelerated particles, the .NET SDK, the viewport improvements with IBL etc, that are in 2013. We all have to recognize at some point that we are not the center of the world, and not all updates go towards improving our workflow So some improvements will be more useful then others. I went with a couple versions that updated things not too relevant to me, as an FX artist, which is alright, and now this one comes, which gives me a very serious benefit. Not as much for a modeling guy, but they benefited more in the previous releases. Can't rain everywhere


True, I didn't list every feature, but that is due to some of them possibly still being useful, like mcloth. And, the accelerated particles are part of the Nitrous Enhancements, which I said are nice and would be useful.

I understand we aren't at the centre of the Autodesk world, which is why I specified twice in my post that I was posting my opinion about those features, and not trying to insinuate they weren't useful for someone else.

Like I said, there are some nice features I would get use from, but nothing so useful that can justify the upgrade price for me. Maybe once some more news is released about the possible Pflow updates as indicated in the blog I will be more interested. But, for now at least, I have other things I can spend the money on which will significantly improve my workflow.

Like many others have stated elsewhere, this feels more like a hotfix or service pack than a proper release, and to me feels like a slap in the face.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/coldsidedigital - 3ds Max Tutorials

http://coldsidedigital.tumblr.com - 3ds Max Blog
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.