The Advisory Board

#1

This will probably going to be the center of future discussions for the Advisory Board should the EIM resurrection project get off the ground. EI has to reaquire the Spatial license and then go through a UB conversion and bug fixing phase. So, if it does happen it will probably take several months before we even see something. Given limited resources, EI has to pick and choose their battles and carefully assess their moves so they don’t find themselves backed further into a corner.

As much as we on the advisory board want to keep all interested users in the “know”, we don’t have access to ALL the information. We also must remember that EITG must make the final decisions themselves as to what and where they want to take the program. The good news is they’re LISTENING and the advisory board, each with their various industry representatives, is supplying them with suggestions within their respective fields. But if anything, we users need to find ways to consolidate our requests in a logical form so we can take your requests to them for consideration and not look like babeling idiots.

If the EIM resurrection project gets off the ground or not, EITG has a number of directions it will need to choose in order to focus its marketing push. There still are no answers to whether EIM will remain a separate package, be sold standalone, evolved into the next EIA, or elements of it fused into EIA or some new application… right now these are still up in the air.

Over the course of the next few months, the decisions that are made will be made considering the following bits of data:

  1. Techincal issues concerning program architecture.
  2. Financial issues.
  3. Marketing direction.
  4. Time schedules.
  5. Programmer availability.

Remember…some of these these things are sensitive in nature and wont be accessible to the users or the Advisory Board…but we should be able to keep a finger on EITG’s pulse.

So the question I have for you is: How do we properly utilize the Advisory Board to get your requests across? The vaunted “suggestion box” is good, but seemingly too random and chaotic sometimes.

#2

Brian, I think by its very nature whatever input you get is going to be chaotic in a sense.
I would love to see EIM revived because I still use it as my main modeler and have invested a hefty amount of time and effort into learning it. So, my wish list will not be the same as Alonzo’s for instance and maybe not the same as a good percentage of people using EI. In other words everyone will have their own agenda, usually quite selfish in nature and probably not what what EI themselves have in mind. But that’s the nature of the beast isn’t it!
If you look at EIM long time users such as Malcolm, he will be able to tell you without hesitation what its strong points are in the uber area. Paul S. is more than capable of giving a very informed opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the rest of the program. Some things it does magnificently well - some things stink, most long time users know what these are. So its a no brainer to try and utilize the strong points in whatever is going to be built, with the addition of poly level editing capabilities if possible.
I’ve been using Hexagon a bit and it has some wonderful things in it such as the universal manipulator (similar to Maya) that make it a breeze to use - if it weren’t so buggy. Their documentation, with mini movies showing exactly how almost every tool can be used is wonderful, but crippled by the lack of a searchable index. So, maybe a place to start is to look at not just Modeler and its strengths and weaknesses, but also other apps and what they do very well and badly and why.
Whatever is done its really good to know that this sort of input is perhaps going to be useful and maybe even pay off for the user base in general.
Mike.

#3

Certainly…but lets go beyond EIM for a minute.

I’ve heard a lot of people say, “why don’t they incorporate this feature or that feature”… and the reason may be quite logical. Problem is, most users get reactionary because their feature isn’t integrated.

Now to some degree, a program designed by committee isnt great either…we can’t please everyone…however, if there is a particular feature that is truly desired by the user base, it could be helpful to EITG as to where to turn their attention. I’d also like a way to focus the user base so they can properly say with a unified voice (as much as possible) that xyz feature is what we want most.

This may be impossible… but maybe its not. Although EITG makes the final decisions based off information that we don’t have that doesn’t mean we can’t come up with a method to present them with choices to help them make their decision.

Perhaps a polling method or election of features can help narrow things down…the point is, it would be nice to formally say to EITG that XYZ is the feature we really want. Can this be done within the spectrum of your plans? If it can…great…but to get that feature, it may cost us in time between upgrades or limitations on other features. If it can’t be done within EIAS framework wouldn’t it be nice to know that?

The other thing to consider is the programmers themselves. Open development tends to drive them a bit insane because they can not answer every question and if anything they remove themselves from that process because its too taxing. If we are focused, its easier to get a straight answer from them without a lot of the user posturing we see with our passionate opinions.

I just want to see if there is a mechanism we can create and employ that can make this process easier. It seems that the advisory board is our best method to get that info to EITG cause you’re interacting with your peers and there are more of us than there are of them.

#4

Brian,

I haven’t added my 2 cents because my initial thoughts haven’t fallen within the scope of the EIM discussion to this point. The discussion concerning EIM’s future direction verses EITG’s future direction seems to now be crystalizing and I would like to comment.

I think it may be useful to start asking about EIM’s future in a new context, I don’t know how many users would be willing or excited about it’s development if it came at the expense of Animators development. It seems to me that the conversion of Animators base code to Xcode may have opened up an opportunity to make some fundemental changes that may provide a solution that fits everybody’s needs going forward. If Animator could provide a more robust and extensible architecture, many of the things that people are asking for from an EIM perspective may be able to be added in Animator itself.

The conversion to Xcode has likely made Animators base code as well organized as it’s been. If every part of the current version of Animator could be individually added to a new Animator design through an open and extensible architecture, future components could be added as needed including EIM and a more robust CA system.

It seems to me that EIM becoming Animator through the addition of animation/texturing/rendering will only make a bloated modeler that was never designed from the ground up to do it all.

I suggest that the time is right to make a whole new system based on Animators code reorganized into modules. Additional fully integrated modules can come from EITG or a 3rd party to address future needs while being able to access any part of any other module.

It may sound daunting at first but it seems to me the best way to truly offer a long term future for EITG.

Going forward from this point I would like to weigh the interest in the development of EIM verses the development of Animator, it seems unlikely that they can both be accomplished at the same time.

what think?

Peter Lehrack

#5

Peter…

Thanks for the level headed response. The EI community has always been a passionate bunch particularly when we address the future of the software and its various hang ups. I’m sure there are very logical reasons why the package operates the way it does and why it may or may not be able to support certain capabilities easily and those others not so easily.

I’m afraid that I can not comment whether or not the Xcode transition will actually improve EIAS’ framework or not. I’m fairly certain that it was a pretty straight forward port, so what existed as a problem in pre-Xcode, may still exist today. But hopefully X-Code will make it easier to expand EIA’s capabilities. I’m sure the programmers would love to broaden EI’s API and framework, but I think it may be wishful thinking to assume that old legacy code isn’t still lurking around in there somewhere. Anyone who’s programmed can tell you that the further down you go into the base code the more issues you dredge up. Minor tweaks can cascade into major problems if they’re not careful.

I’m also not qualified to determine if EIM or EIA is a better program, programming wise, for framework expansion. I only side with Modeler because of the typical pipeline we tend to work with more often when doing 3D. All 3D starts with modeling. The routines necessary to modify geometry down on the lower level “seems” to be already “there” in EIM. The subsystems EIM lacks, like texturing for instance, can be inserted into EIM easier than trying to pull out and repair older systems in EIA. If we wanted a nodal texture editor, would it be easier in EIM or EIA to integrate? I don’t know.

We’ve been asking for a number of tools all throughout EIA’s history. We need a UV editor… yet we’ve never gotten one. Its certainly not the lack of skill on the programmers to create an UV editor, it just may be that a UV editor in a program like EIAS, that doesn’t have any sort of modeling subroutines, just might be a real pain in the ass to add. I don’t know. But in EIM, the modeling infrastructure is there. The idea of adding a UV editor to EIM seems logical.

Animation capabilities, I believe, are considered “high level” systems. As opposed to modeling which I consider a “low level” system. Each new system, as its added, is dependant on the one below it and as I stated before the lower you go, the more changes are going to cascade up through the system. Adding modeling tools to EIA (in the core)seems to be going backwards…which I think would be harder. I could be wrong.

So which is going to be easier to make modifications to? IF my theory about the two programs is correct, adding modern systems to EIM should be easier than taking out and replacing systems in EIA.

So that brings us back to the original issue. Say EIM is resurrected…depending on EITG’s focus, a decision will be made on how to repurpose that technology. Perhaps some of modelers’ sub-d capabilities can be brought over to EIA easily. That could be a boon for EI users wanting to do character animation in EI…but EITG could decide that CA isn’t where they wish to focus their efforts. In that case, keeping Modeler a separate package makes perfect sense. The current paradigm is fine for the architectural markets and hard surface animators.

My job on the advisory board is to speak for the film, vfx and entertainment industries. For me, finding a method to integrate vertex level animation controls into EIAS is important. But so is better tools to help out Camera Mapping, UV editing, Camera tools, Rigging tools and so forth. Separate modeling and animation environments are a holdout from the early days (IMO) and it makes it difficult to achieve strong character animation. (Also my opinion). But there are other ways to address that too. Perhaps new bridging tools in other applications in addition to continued FBX support can make it easier to bring things into EIA. Problem is… it may be in there, but you can’t really edit it…effectively. Plus it keeps EIAS in a second class status compared to the Big 5.

I just want to think about EIAS’ future. If we are to address new technologies into EIAS, we may have to start thinking about how we’re going to provide that on a 17 year old framework…or we start planning for a new system. Programs evolve. They also die. PowerAnimator gave way to Maya. Wavefront merged into Alias. Kinematics and Dynamation also were absorbed. At some point EIA will need to be put aside for EITG’s next big thing. We can’t do it now because we need EIA and EIM to rekindle the company. EIAS still has some life in it… and who knows, maybe she’ll take us yet another 17 years.

As users, we don’t run EITG. However, its our relationship to the package and how we utilize it that helps shape EITG’s decision making process. I just want to find a way for the users to find their voice.

#6

Actually, you could consider the EIM resurrection poll as a “first pass” poll. The factions it has uncovered (conceptual design, organic modeling, common-grounders and so) and their common arguments (EIM’s weaknesses even as per the app’s intended objectives, worries about slowing down Animator’s progress, how to compete with what is already out there, etc.) ought to allow for refining the questionnaire into a more rigid more exhaustive no digressions beyond the question points one.

#7

I agree, my current intention is to broaden the conversation to include the option of not resurrecting EIM at this time. Not because it’s not worthy, because the resources at EITG are limited and in my opinion can be utilized in a more effective manor.

Peter

#8

Dear Commitee. I just got my duo dongle. EI doesn’t do any promotion to sell a second seat while people have two dongles in their hands?

It’s a golden opportunity handed to you on a silver platter.

It’s just seems like a lost business opportunity for them…to me.

Maybe they can charge a premium to all the duplicated plugs? I mean it’s just dupes, not new plugs. You can only make money not lose from it as a second seat duo upgrade.

especially with all the talk of existing users not wanting copyprotection. This is a half way mark that could draw revenue.

Or work it out on a per plug users.

#9

Dear advisory board, I just thought of something. I’m not a marketing guru, but I know nothing gets people’s attention more than the word “free”.
How about making a slightly limited version of Animator a freebie piece of software from now on? Add to that a very limited version of Camera that only renders out 320X240 and no more than 20 frames at a time…Something tells me a lot of people will download it that way. It will obviously need to be thought out very carefully to avoid abuse, but I think it should be possible. The biggest drawback I can see is that a lot of people might interpret that sort of tactic as an act of desperation, which is bad PR.

#10

Manuel
In the same line…
Lightwave 9 can be downloaded full, with no limitations, for a 30 demo. I will test it.
I´m not so sure about how to avoid piracy, but i supposse is posible to put some kind of time bomb enside…

I think can be very tempting…

Spleeve wrote, about Exagon marketing:
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!

I´m not so sure how you return to a higer prices after that, but moust be possible. EiAS needs badly a biger userbase.

FelixCat

#11

30 day free trials are not that uncommon these days. But it is not enough time to get to know a 3D app really well.
I have worked quite a bit with a 2D animation app called Anime Studio Pro (formerly known as Moho). It used to be the case that you could download the fully functional version for free, the only limitation being that it watermarked the renders. You could save projects, work on them for weeks on end, do everything you could do in the paid-for version. Getting the paid-for version was really just buying the render license. It allowed you to get to know the application very well over as long a period of time as suited you.
After a while, you would find yourself with quite a few projects that were sitting on your hard-drive, waiting to be rendered out. Until one day you just thought: “Oh what the hell, I might as well get the license now”. Or even better, you suddenly found yourself with a paid-for job at which point you default to the tool you know best.
One more thing: this sort of strategy has to allow for a certain amount of abuse, just like 30 day trial versions allow for a paid job to be done with them.
You can imagine a studio completely set up with free version of EIAS and only one paid for version to be used as a render-license. But you can make life as difficult as possible for those people.
A few limitations the free version might need:
-You can’t open full-version files on a free version of EIAS. It’s a one-way street, once opened in a full version, it can’t be opened in a free version anymore.

  • The free version can’t use plug-ins
  • Files created in a free version can only be opened on the same machine they were created on. No transfers between machines.
  • Limit the amount of geometry that can be opened in the free version.
#12

Gentlemen…

Some good ideas here. My general thoughts are:

  1. A solid demo is necessary for EI to attract new users. The dongle program was a failure. Many people didn’t returnt he dongle and it just was more issues than it was worth. In this case, I can see the arguement for that dongle getting in the way. The best way to resolve this is a feature inhibited version of EI that can be downloaded at the users desire. Sure it might take some man power to produce a feature reduced demo version, but I think its going to need to be done.

  2. Marketing is definitely a concern of the advisory board and EITG. We’re starting off with a new identity package. New corporate logo, new logo for EIAS, plus a new website. That’s a good start, but further more, EITG does plan to begin a web campaign on high traffic websites. That’s another good step.

I think these things must be accomplished first and then more aggressive steps can be taken.

I also agree with Tomas… that a new “EI” demo reel is in order.

#13

I use to run an Apple Shop. Nothing like: " Download the demo. See what you think".

Let it sell itself. Everyone has a demo with samples. I donate ReadyRigs. :slight_smile:

Also, please, if they send a request for demo reel submission. Give us two months. It would be worth finishing some work or doing a new piece.

#14

So imagine what: “Download the free, fully functional version with no time limit. Allows for saving and can render at a quality good enough for a showreel” would do. In many ways, that’s what Maya PLE does.

I honestly feel that EITG should do more than just a demo version. I’m sorry if I sound a bit too pushy with my idea here. But check out these guys: Ambientdesign.
They make a fantastic little bit of painting software called ArtRage. It’s very simple and only has a few brushes, but it puts Painter to shame, making the latter one look like a piece of bloatware. You can download the free version which is fully functional, you can save and everything. Once you’ve fallen in love with it, you may feel compelled to pay for the full version which adds layers and some other extras.
It allows for a very mature relationship to develop between provider and client. By the time you’re ready to pay, you know exactly why you’re doing so.

#15

I think missed the huge discussion on offering EIAS as opensource or “completely free functional software”? So I can’t see where you’re coming from and I can’t just jump on that and make a comment.

I mean, even with a crack, you’re compelled to buy if not more than just bragging rights. Like any other business, or status symbols. High price software is also about shutting out competitions. There’s no incentive to buy if the software is free. Most people would take it and walk. You would never see them again. From my sales experience, I would never give someone a “free” computer and say, if you like it, then you can pay me for it when you learn it. That’s what a demo does. I don’t see it working unless it’s on a limited time frame or disable in some other way.

Unfortunately it’s a “Catch 22”. With most people, unless youre making money with the software, you can’t afford to buy it. Hence, the justifiable means and inevitable birth of the crack. it’s common knowlegde. Oddly, cracks do generate business and popularity for the company, one crack even if it’s out of date, creates many users and much business and popularity for companies who can withstand the short term lose of revenues. I dont’ think EI is on of those companies. Maybe five years ago it would have helped, but not now.
I personally hate demos, because some disable saves, and you can’t really learn that way.
So to me disabling features, defeats the purpose of the demo.

It’s sounds like youre interest is having a duplicate seat, since you already like EI? Yes, I believe they should be very accomodating to users with a second key, who have been their loyal support for years, but not give away the software free to new users. Even when it becomes profittable for the user, they have a legit free software.

Heck, that will put the people who code cracks out of business. :slight_smile: Anyway, anyone would know it’s not cracks that hurt businesses. It’s other businesses…better sofware, competition, changes in technology trends or most so, not being prepared for them.
It’s the Bill Gate’s that topples companys. The golaiths, not the davids. Autodesk that beats Maya, Maya that beats Soft, C4D that beats…etc.

Users, Cracks, they are just blades of grass. When the Elephants fights, the grass gets trampled.
but that’s another story :slight_smile:

I think fully functional for a 30 day trial. Then people wanting a extra seat even have a chance do a double load. Then let it time out with a rewritten request to Phil Martin via email for a extended 15 days. Second request would again, be that window of opportinity for EI to close a sale.

Phil: “Heck if you really need more time, why not buy unlimited time?”

Unless you are planning to become a legitamite profitable business, needing reoccuring updates, I can’t see anyone purchasing something they already own. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? Most people who have cracks aren’t serous users, they just like the novelty of high price, elite software to play with. They don’t use it seriously or get serious jobs. Anyone would undergo the strong intent of learning serious software, does so with hopes of owning…maybe several seats.

Most people that do have cracks plan to use it to learn and get a job but usually the price of software is bracketed for corporate budgets. It’s usually a company that buys it for the users. Some people buy and never use software.

Those are the only who should get a refund option or return the dongle.
Users, who have two dongles in the hands, may call it EVEN STEVEN, slam down their Macs and skip town.
I hear there is a great EIAS community growing in Mexico?

#16

As mentioned in another thread…

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.

#17

I guess the easiest demo version of an app is one that watermarks renders but allows to save projects to disk. I think a dongle-less watermarker version of EIAS (with some file formats modifications so that there is no way to hook a non-watermarking Camera to it) would be a most reasonable demo app.

By the way, would it be effective to resucitate the 3DToolkit in a way that better promotes the EIAS brand (first of all, renaming it “EIAS-something” instead of 3DTK)? What influence did the Toolkit have in sales of the fully featured EIAS product?

(I guess Spatial wouldn’t allow EITG to sell a 3DTK-like Modeler again, anyway)

Also, would it work to sell a series of EIAS variants, from an entry-level cheap one to a fully featured “XL” version? I don’t know exactly how one would delimitate the feature set for each level, but I wonder if there could be a way to tempt the enthusiasts.

It’s funny (well, actually it is not, but
): being EIAS currently Modeler-less, an entry-level version would look like a great still/animation renderer companion app for all these inexpensive modelers around. Sometimes I fear an EIAS-Lite would be a great addition to
er
eFrontier or Daz Studio app line up (please don’t kill me).

#18

This is not about open sourcing

That’s why I said: limit the render size to 320x240 pixels. In the end of the day, you will need to render your stuff out, don’t you?

New users are the ones they should attract.

If you create your own free version, you can do it on your own terms rather than on the crackers terms. People can download it perfectly legally without fear for viruses, you can openly use it as a marketing-tool, you control the quality of the software…

So what you really want is a fully functional version when trying out a new app, right? And by crippling the rendering through watermarking or something else, you’d make sure that freebie version doesn’t really compete with the paid-for version. No?

Not really. I only have one computer. But I can see what you’re getting at. A free version will allow for a certain amount of abuse. I already said as much. Doing something like this would be a calculated risk. Obviously you’d make it as difficult as possible for people to use the freebie one simply as a second seat by hampering the communication between freebie and paid versions.

Even Avid give away a freebie editing app: Avid Free DV. No time limits, no credit card numbers asked for (I think). They just want students and beginners to get used to the Avid interface and the Avid way of thinking. That’s what EITG really should try and achieve.
Just think of the marketing opportunity. Remember Maya’s dramatic price-drop? Remember SoftImages announcement of XSI Foundation? People declared them crazy. They weren’t, they were merely re-writing the rules. I just don’t think that bringing out a demo version or time-limited version is enough. A big, aggressive gesture like a free version would make EITG look like a confident company.

#19

Hi Alonzo.

Just wondering where did you get this info… ? :slight_smile:

I only know of 3 licensed EIAS users (including me) …
Of course I can only speak for my city…

I though in Spain it was kind of popular for a while thanks to Cristobal V. and David A. don’t know now ,though…

fjv

#20

As EIAS has been extremely slow in adding features to meet my needs, I’ve been forced to consider alternatives.

At my local junior college, I downloaded XSI Mod Tool, which is a FREE version of XSI that has had it’s features altered. It is set up for Gamers to modify or create levels, characters, etc. for their favorite games. You can’t use it for much pro work, but you can work with it, and you can truly get a feel for the program. I’m currently a Mac user, but at the college I quickly got the software downloaded, and began exploring features.

A version of EIAS that only renders to 480 pixels max, with a light watermark, and cannot use any 3rd party plug ins sounds like a good move to me.

After all, it was the 3D Toolkit that got me involved with EIAS in the first place.