The Advisory Board

#21

That was a joke (american). Sorry Yo. Meaning, skip the border when dodging from the law.

Luis Angel Diaz-Faes Santiago is in Spain. But never in one place :slight_smile:

#22

I’m a Maya user with no EIAS experience, so take my comments with a grain of salt. However, when I was looking to buy a 3D package, I ran into a lot of “we can’t discuss which app is better” or “all the major apps can do the same thing” comments, which made narrowing my choice difficult. Since I’m a Mac user, I looked only at Mac programs. I settled on Maya for a number of reasons, but the major one was that they have the best demo. Maya PLE actually isn’t a demo–it’s a learning addition, which means a user can use it with the vast majority of the features work, for as long as they want. To prevent it from being used as a production tool, it renders with a very visible watermark and it can’t save to a non-PLE format.

C4D was more immediately useable and their sales team is brilliant (email follow through and a very sales/user friendly sales staff). Lightwave was terrible (I had to request a CD through the mail, which meant by the time I had the demo in my hand, I was invested in learning Maya). I had forgotten about EIAS, so didn’t check on a demo.

If EI wants EIAS to grow market share, I can’t think of a better approach than a readily available, time-unlimited, robustly-featured learning edition. Watermarks don’t hinder professional users from evaluating the render quality, while the additional time allows people to learn on their own schedule. I may download the currently available demo, but if it takes me more than a few hours to get up to speed with Camera, I’ll put my money into PRman for Maya (since for me, EIAS would function as an alternative to MR with bonus features I’d eventually learn).

My slightly informed two cents.

#23

Brian this is the most valueable communication I have seen from EI in over tens years.

Please understand my post about my future with EI, and what I mean by “hurting Animator”. It’s urgent, not rash. I simply mean long spans of undevelopement, updates or releases with Animator for the sake of a “new direction” toward ressurecting the modeler could be detrimental to the users and therefore EITG.

Let’s clarify new direction, really, it translates to “catch up”. Resurrecting would be recouping something that was lost or “dead” and bring it back up to speed.

Unless “new direction” or the new EITG means new resources and programmer, It is understood that if EIM is focused upon, EIAS would experience lapses in development.

This is the situation I refer to as 'hurt Animator". A program is a program. I mean ill effect our progress. This translates to hurt current user base, and EITG. Considering between EIAS and EIM only one app actually still has life in it, produces new revenue, and competes in nichés markets.

I think it’ was always evident and always expected with EIM being 'newer" that is has the best core or newer engine for develepment. Unfortunately, it’s a hotrod body sitting in the garage without its core ACIS engine. Unless, the new EITG means new resources or new core.

The point is, whether EIAS understands this or not, the true motor that is going to push EIAS or drag EIM forward is customer satifaction. Obviously, I’m sure I speak for not many seats, being a EIAS character modeler/animator. Nevertheless, consider this, models, UVTexture Editing, FBIK Rigs, Dynamics, even cloth and blendshapes with some inguinity can be imported into EIAS. I have sucessful working samples of each one rendered in EI. At this point to me, those “basic ground work features” are redundant. Most user have a free UV editor and free model of some sort. Those are “catch up” feature for EIAS.

Basically this says, that EIM is not necessary to accomplish these effects. EIAS doesn’t have to have a modeler, generally models can be imported form anywhere. What it doesn’t have is what CA users are asking for to stay on the edge. Vertice animation, Multiple Morphs targeting, Spline IK. Zbrush intergration, subpixels, better wmps and deformers.etc. We want better way to import current CA clusters and animation we are already doing via FBX for rendering in EIAS. The reason why CA animators are asking for the modeler to be incorporated is only a mean to an end. It’s to substantiate subsytems needed to pave the way for things we are already doing that EIAS lacks. We want the modeler if it would help Vertice animation, not to model. We got that. Supplying models is secondary to model-like features. We dont need a UV editor, we need to be able to transfer UVs from model to model or to painted wmp/skin model with no UVs. We need the workflow.

Again not saying those basic catch-up features wouldn’t be welcomed. It’s just that already they have been delay that users have scrimped, scratch, begged and borrowed to them them without EITG. Now We just want to “control/edit” and render them.

Bottom line is what speaks whether we hear it or not. I’m just saying don’t neglect the flagship, to to raise the sunken shipwreck.

As it is, not everybody is happy about repurchasing plugs and shaders for UB. Not everybody is going down that path. I’m not just whistling dixie.

(just making a note of it) OK. Even from me. I got an EIAS animated character film I’m working on with someone.

#24

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.