Bifröst

#36

But if they add a completely independent system that can do all dynamics what a sense then developing a Nucleus?
Paying to Naiad team and Nucleus team would be nonsense cos they technically will exist in one package.

#37 
 You make a good point igor ! but if maya wan't to compet with H , it has to have this low level data access all along the tree. And i don't know how AD engineers could implement this in maya, only 3 options to me.
 - rewrite the core from scratch 
 - try to create a virtual layer that give you the illusion that you have the VEX low level control (but in reality they are not acessing directly the basic function only binding ... so its slower)
 - output all pre-FX geo in an external app that deal perfectly with low level data and use nucleus has a cloth / hair fx tools for the CFX guys

SESI is going really really fast, so they have to find a way to focus their team on features dev and not on debug … and focusing on an external tool coded by 2 genius , is the easiest way to go ( well i guess ? ) :slight_smile:

#38

Excuse me for my misunderstanding, I’m still a novice… but what about ICE ? Doesn’t give this low level control or what else? It’s in Softimage of course but also it’s in AD for a long time

#39

ITT: People who don’t know about software development talking as experts on codebases they have never seen.

#40

i would say talking as a technical user … :).

#41

@Cheesestraws - topic looks much nicer with you in Ignore list.

The Bifrost in total can be as DOP context in Houdini.
Mesh will converted to volume and then fetched back at the end.

I guess most suffer programs will be Realflow and Flux. Cos they did similar work and can’t provide any service except dynamics.

#42

again we are just guessing here , but from my limited POV if AD want to give a workflow as flexible and powerful as H , i think externalizing is the best choice. I would never trust an ICE into maya stuff , having encounter so much trouble with nParticles in the past (especially with cache data). i would never trust such ambitious ( don quichotesque ? :slight_smile: ) task …

But i do trust the skill of Marcus Nordenstam … :slight_smile: if they give him the full power to come with his own solution.

#43

Marcus Nordenstam confirmed that it would be independent system that not known what Maya is.

http://www.maxunderground.com/archives/19385_autodesk_siggraph_event_news___including_future_of_naiad.html

#44

Many thanks for that link, Igor. That post clears many things up nicely. :slight_smile:

     Cheers!
     
    PS: For a quick read of the relevant post for people here, I'm taking the liberty to do a copy-paster below.
 
 PPS: Igor, I think this should probably be in your above post, so if you want to include it now "in post", let me know and I'll remove this C&P.
 
    
     "by Marcus Nordenstam - July 26, 2013 9:57 pm
     
                                      Hello everyone,
     
      It seems many people are arriving at incorrect conclusions in regards to Naiad and Bifrost, and how they relate to Maya and Max.
     
      Naiad was a standalone, node-based software that did fluid simulation  (liquids in particular).  You had to use a separate app (Naiad Studio)  to make Naiad graphs, and then export the sim output into Max.
     
      “Project Bifrost” (which is a CODE-name, btw, not necessarily the  actual product name) is also a standalone, more general, node-based  software that will do fluid-simulation – and much more, in time.  
     
      Bifrost does not know about Maya.  There isn’t a single line of code  in Bifrost that directly uses the Maya API.  Maya, on the other hand,   can be made to know about Bifrost.  That’s how we, as a test, integrated  Bifrost into Maya. It follows that Bifrost could easily be integrated  into other DCCs, be made as a standalone product, ported to the iPad –  you name it.  One of the many strengths of the Bifrost architecture lies  in the fact that it’s “product agnostic” and that it can “go anywhere”.
     
      What we showed at the Autodesk User Group last week was the results  of our experimental Maya integration.  We have to focus on one product  and do it right, and the decision was to go with Maya.  I understand  that users of other products such as Max may feel disappointed, but  before you condemn Autdoesk to the 7th circle of hell you should take  note of two things:
     
      1. Autodesk has NOT said that Maya is the only DCC that will ever run  Bifrost.  Just because Maya was chosen does not mean it won’t appear  elsewhere.
     
      2. Even if Maya, in the end, is the only DCC to allow Bifrost FX  authoring, is that really all that different from Naiad Studio?  Nobody  was complaining that you had to use Naiad Studio to author Naiad graphs,  then export the sim output into your favorite DCC, and go from there?   How would this be vastly different?  Maya can, in the worst case, be  viewed as a “better” Naiad Studio.  Use Maya for making your Bifrost FX  graphs – then export the sim results into Max and go from there.  This  is what you did with Naiad Studio + Max, and you can do it with Maya +  Max.
     
      I understand your frustrations, but I wanted to give you guys a bit of perspective :-)
     
      Best wishes,
      Marcus Nordenstam
     
      Any claims that “Bifrost is part of Maya” are false claims "
     
      -  See more at:  [http://www.maxunderground.com/archives/19385_autodesk_siggraph_event_news___including_future_of_naiad.html#commentnum183](http://www.maxunderground.com/archives/19385_autodesk_siggraph_event_news___including_future_of_naiad.html#commentnum183)
#45

Hello, how about Softimage?

#46

What’s that? :wink:

#47

Yes, what about Softimage?

Marcus Nordenstam comparison between Maya and Naiad Studio is a lame excuse to the 10 power.
If Bifrost is agnostic it doesn’t need Maya for anything. Make a Bifrost authoring application that exports everywhere.

#48

Yes you right. It’s business as i wrote before.
If it would be independent app who will update Maya license?
It’s like big plugin to Maya, that’s all. To buy it you need a Maya also as addon:)
I think this what Marcus wan’t to say :wink:

#49

People wanting a standalone application must realise that Naiad cost more than Maya. If Maya can export the results of simulations where is the problem with that?

#50

The problem is that people dont want to use Maya?

#51

But why? You would only be using it for the exact same features that would be in a standalone application, there is no difference.

#52

Difference is its being used to push suites on people. Release Bifrost in three flavors, if you want make it part of the maya suite. I do not want to have to buy Maya, to use Naiad.

#53

Sorry, but with not a single release, sales or marketing note in sight you know that how?
Naiad was fairly pricey, more costly than Maya by a long shot (over 7 grands PER YEAR), lets wait and see what they price it and distribute it like first, no?

#54

Based of their previous form with the pflow box 2 and 3, I would say this was a given. You can look on the max forum to see how that Pandora’s box ended up.

#55

Here is a little more information on Bifrost and other things.

http://www.wholeapple.com/siggraph-2013-report-autodesk-users-group-event/