I know that this is getting off topic a bit, but then if EI doesn’t sell more seats then this whole discussion is academic anyway.
I keep coming back to Hexagon, not because its a particularly good package (as it stands now), but because they did several interesting things with it. First they made it really simple to use, although it has depth to it, just as EIA has. Second, that simplicity is enhanced by video tutorials in the help. Third when Daz got its mitts on it they offered it for $30. I gather that they had a lot of takers for that price, I read somewhere around 20,000. And this was for a program with no track record!
Then they blew it by not coming out with swift bug fixes and almost no communication with the new user base - big mistake.
But, they immediately got thousands of new users experimenting with the program, becoming familiar with it and adopting it into their workflow.
Interesting marketing ploy.
Mike.
EIM Resurrection Part 2
I’m just guessing. Could it be that giving it away for next to no money deprived them from resources to further develop it?
Possibly.
But I wasn’ t suggesting giving it away for next to nothing - just the next best thing to next to nothing:-)
Plus, I would guess that over half a mil would go quite a way to fixing bugs.
Who knows? It was just a thought.
Mike.
That would be my thought. I wonder how many of those people who purchased the $30 version of Hex are still using it, or did they toss it into file 13. Thing is… I don’t really like the idea of EITG borrowing marketing ideas from DAZ. Granted… I support DAZ because its a great place for me to purchase previs models. But everything overall has that low budget feel.
I did. For all I know, updates have been posted that would get rid of some of the bugs and instabilities that riddle my current version. I don’t care. A $30 piece of beta software only can hold my attention for so long. Don’t let EITG turn into DAZ.
I forgot i even had Hexagon, i should really take another look though.
No, obviously EI does not want Daz as its role model.
Remember that there was the “3D Toolkit” which was almost free ($99 peanuts these days 
Is it even available still ? this is the way i started and its a great introduction to ElectricImage even though its a bit outdated now.
Reuben
Yes… lots of folks are wanting some sort of demo or trial version of EIAS to help with marketing. The 3D Toolkit was a great product… ashame it wasn’t properly handled (from what I’m told). I wonder if a fully functioning $99 dollar version of EIAS could be produced, sold with a functional dongle, but had the plugin system deactivated or modified so it couldn’t be used with the current range of plugins. Just thinking out load.
I totally agree, and am not advocating Daz as any sort of role model.
Anyway I’m that EI will be looking at the demographics very carefully to try and figure out which market to pursue. Up to now it has served me very well as a graphics still tool and maybe Paul S. is right when he suggests that it serves graphic designers and architects best.
Has there been a poll to try and work out what EI users actually use the software for?
By the way I just watched Manuel’s Boxing Kitty movie which I loved. Read his comments on making it, and was amazed by his perseverance!
Mike.
I’m happy if EIM will be resurrected. But I’m curious that I’d make EI programmer team have much work to do without necessary.
Yes, in some area, it can help to increase more income. But for people who do Product Design, will it complete with Rhino or Concept 3D? Both from new user and for verteran who want a pro features. For people doing polygon modeling, include me, Silo + modo + zBrush is more than enough. But for me, the thing that kepth me from using these software with EI is some incompatibilities. I’m thinking about EI should invest their programmer to help people import model directly into EIAS easier.
Make the Animator work better and well incooperate with other model file types. If it need to have a modeler, let’s integrate within EIAS. First thing first, let’s Animator has a real subdivision modeling inside the core framework. I can’t imagine how well CA tool can be without it. Even EIAS isn’t position itself to be a CA tool but SDS inside surely make a wonderful things follow.
Lastly, I’m loving EIM so much but in a tight time frame and budget. It should not be the first thing to do IMHO.
Thanks. My own laziness was the biggest problem to overcome. Having a community cheering me on made the difference.
After reading all the great feedback from everyone, I would have to go in the integrated modeler camp (yeah, I changed my mind). It should be both SDS and ACIS in order to import files from other modelers. That way if the modeler within EIA can’t do what I need, or I prefer another modeler, I can use the internal modeler to act as the import engine and create the FACT files. And users who want a single solution have their integrated modeler as well.
This is a little off the topic in regards to having EIM stand-alone or integrated, but thought I would post it anyway.
I use EIM for just about all of my production modeling and this last week have been using it daily. Irregardless of where EIM eventually ends up it is worthwhile saving!
This modeler’s interface and toolset is perfect for design work - it has a great flow and feel to it and actually glitches very seldomly. I still find EIM incredibly inspiring to use…it really is a one of a kind tool!
So this is just a ‘bring it back to life!’ post:-)
Paul
that is exactly my sentiment on the subject.
I don’t need another Silo. For SDS silo has a great feature list/price point.
I am totally welcome to “forget” my negative feelings about what “they” did to EIM if
“They” just pick up where “they” left off and continue development.
Just kidding with the emphasis on “they”! But I would really like to have EIM back in the
arsenal.
Mike Fitz
www.3dartz.com
BTW,
Has anyone seen/used this software Moi?
Here is the link and looks a little EIM in acis fashion.
http://moi3d.com/
Mike Fitz
www.3dartz.com
Hey Mike,
I’ve been enjoying MoI. Not from home (Mac user) but at my local Junior college. I downloaded MoI to a USB flash drive and have been launching and running it from there.
The fellow who brought this software into the world licensed a different Kernel than the one sold by Spatial. He licensed the Solids++ kernel from Gary Crocker:
As it was ACIS licensing issues that caused financial problems in the first place (that and lack of customers) perhaps this might be worth a look for EITG. That is, if converting to a new kernel isn’t completely out of the question.
More like they didn’t retain the developers. Currently they are training new programmers to work on Hex, hence the delay in bug fixes. And the code was a mess.
Personally I think Electric Image would be better off reworking the animator, etc. then resurrecting the modeler. Electric Image Animation system could be another of the few in a dedicated group. It seems more and more dedicated, focused solutions are coming. And the era of all in one packages is not as popular. Look at all of the dedicated modelers we have available. But we have so few dedicated animation tools. Messiah and Motionbuilder are the only two that are readily available. And each has its issues. It would be great if EITG could help fill the void. And include an all in one animation/rendering solution. Including hair, softbody/cloth, a modernized interface, etc.
Could anyone give a more or less objective asessment of:
-How much resurrecting EIM (just converting it to Universal Binary and hooking the latest UB version of ACIS into it) and getting it back to its original development track would affect Animator’s development.
-What an impact in sales not having a modeler in the package has meant.
Fiirst, EIM is my modeler of choice regardeless. If OS X and its accompanying hardware mutate into somethng that can no longer run EIM, I will keep a seperate G5 in the studio specifically for EIM. I just haven’t seen that level of precision in any other modeler and if it returns to the market, I’d be thrilled if it picked up right where it left off.
Then, I’m curious as to what we think about Cinema 4D and its modular approach to animation and rendering, Buyiing the functionality as needed. Is it something EITG might emulate and if so, would that be good?
I work at a TV station where the installed 3D app is C4D, which I have not had time to learn just yet and have been handling all my 3D needs with EIAS, so I do have a personal interest in the answer as do a few others (art director, digital content manager) here.
So what do we think?
In theory I think the modular approach is fine but when-ever a new upgrade comes along all I ever hear from C4D users is confusion and frustration.
I have C4D at version 7.3 - the modular approach for upgrading (pricing) left me cold and uninterested…but then I hardly used C4D so it wasn’t a big deal not to have it current.