Creativity Extension for 3ds Max 2009

#156

is that for real ? any more info on that…?

#157

The info is all over the place - check out the rayfire thread/website, for example, to see what dynamics with PhysX in max look like (and it’s sweet!). Go to the link Bobo provided a little earlier to see what PhysX is about. Cool thing is that NVidia is developing the max SDK/plugin too, so max users can benefit from physics dev for gaming. So cheer up :wink: Also, the Physx feature outline includes fluids, cloth, metal cloth, and these are all gonna be computed on the GPU in near real time when they are finished. Awesome days coming ahead.

#158

where is the base for the rumor you are spreading Glacierise ?

only because PhysX is cool and the Max interface gets updated (via opensource)
in regular intervals, (and is by no way perfect and implementing all PhysX goodies )
doesn’t mean Havok in Max is dead. Well - not more dead than it already was before :wink:

If you can name the source for this that’s an other pair of shoes of course…

If you like to play with updated Havok stuff in Max, go and download
a free version of the ContentTools and Physcs SDK

http://tryhavok.intel.com/

#159

I’m spreading no rumor dude, Rayfire 1.4 is out on next week for example, check out the previews in the thread! Box#2 is long known to support PhysX when it is released, and TP3 does it already. So PhysX is firmly into max, new SDK versions are released - check out maxplugins.de news. And I am by no means saying that reactor will be removed from max, it will just sit quietly on the shelf until somebody needs to open a max 8 scene in 2020 :smiley: But as far as I see, PhysX is the best new max physics, right? At least generally :slight_smile:

#160

That sounds too good to be true. I really hope it’s going to happen. But, it will not be enough to add a new system. Even more important is a managable scene. For example I don’t want to type in the simulation time for each object seperately, and I also don’t want to do that for iteration settings or whatever. There has to be a main tool (a “simulation manager”) to control all that stuff at once. Global settings like simulation time or iterations have to be removed from all simulation systems and added to a simulation manager. Also, if you want to create a really cool thing, the simulation systems need to support animation layers. Everything should be compatible and work together.

#161

Reactor is not being removed, atleast not by Autodesk, unless Glacierise is breaking some NDA info he has. Please people don’t make claims that are not factual. Just because 3rd party developers are using Physx, doesn’t mean that Autodesk is removing/kicking out Havok/Reactor.

Remember that any information not released officially from Autodesk SHOULD NOT be taken as factual. In most cases they are wrong or just wishful thinking by users.

-Eric

#162

Glacierise:

the thing is , you wrote “Reactor is being kicked out of Max as we speak”…
so this is not true and most people will understand this sentence the way i did,
hence the rumour thingy…

i know about the great things PhysX can do and about the tools that support it,
so no need for repeating that for me, i simply asked for a proof of this
“is being kicked out of max” statement
So Reactor will not be kicked out of Max and there is no official or semi-official
word from anyone that ADESK will switch to PhysX,

Is that correct ?

#163

AFAIK, Autodesk has made no announcements about Physx and/or Reactor.

-Eric

#164

Oh god :smiley: I am generally a humurous person, so my statements should be read with a sense of humour. By “kicked out” I meant that there will be a better system, and not that it will be removed from max. And I don’t have any insider info on that, it’s not necessary :smiley: I get now why the AME press releases are so dry!

And to put something constructive and on-topic here:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5310730&postcount=573

:buttrock:

#165

I’m not picking sides or anything, but your description is generally how they do things. They don’t ‘remove’ them, they just leave them in.

-The original (pre-reactor) dynamics system is still in there.
-They changed the name of the bricks shader to Tiles, yet the file is still bricks.dlt for backwards compatibility.
-The original IK system is still accessible if you load a file that has it.
-The original object selection dialog is still accessible.
-And i’m sure there are other examples as well.

It’s just the way things are done, most likely for backwards compatibility.

However, just because more and more plugin makers are adding PhysX doesn’t necessarily mean we’re destined to see native PhysX support in the base package in version 2010 or anything. It’d be nice, sure, but it’s not a foregone conclusion.

#166

Try start a thread about these old bugs and see what happens… LOL LOL LOL (Try to choose a different title than “Hey Autodesk could you fix this please?”)

#167

Wow, Bao2 drop your request to have your thread opened. What you want (Autodesk to browse this forum to find your bugs) isn’t going to happen. If you want a bug fixed you need to send one bug report per bug, not a long list of bugs at once. If you want them fixed then report them properly, to Autodesk not CGTalk.

-Eric

#168

I am planning start a thread of “known workaround list”. I will try not mention the word “bug” so it is not locked. I will try my best.

#169

Do you actually understand why it was locked?

#170

That last one was not planned initially. I pride myself in having had a little role in persuading Autodesk to keep the old one. I don’t think I cried, but I would have if it would have helped. :wink:

-And i’m sure there are other examples as well.

Yes, a lot of them. Some more examples:
*The old LookAt Transform Controller is still loaded from old scenes and even automatically created if you assign a node to the .lookat property of an object in MAXScript.
*I had to load a Max 1.0 scene in Max 2009 a couple of days ago and the old PathDeform Space Warp was loaded and converted to PathDeform WSM, but the original object (including its spiky gizmo) was actually created, with a note in the UI that it can be deleted from the scene as it is obsolete now.

I prefer having these hidden obsolete plugins around than getting missing plugin messages when opening old files. Of course, 3rd party plugins might have died, but AD stuff should be supported.

#171

Hi,Bobo

Is that possible without re-write the code but give 3ds max a node base UI ? Like SME or NodeJoe are accordance with 3ds max rule,but with have a more clear sense.

Helium is a cool node UI,maybe Autodesk can improve with it.

#172

Hehehehe, this looks like a market to me! ‘Hey, I need some nodes! And don’t forget about including some amazing present in there!’ :wink: Just kidding, of course. Since Ken said in The Area that they are taking a look to the UNDO issue, I started to see a ray of hope in these days of darkness… :slight_smile:

And by the way, Bao…

Try start a thread about these old bugs and see what happens… LOL LOL LOL (Try to choose a different title than “Hey Autodesk could you fix this please?”)

Every message I read from you has ALWAYS a reference to your closed thread. I think it’s not very professional to try to look like a victim in every post :wink: Maybe you should think about it, dude…

#173

Yes. Friendships.

#174

No, because in that case we have to rename “max” to “Houdini” !:slight_smile:

#175

Hi guys,

how do I access ProOptimizer? is it the Batch ProOptimizer or the Optimizer modifier?