HUGE news!!!

[IC]

I don't see how Max and Maya could be merged without a great loss.

 

Although they are becoming increasingly similar, there are still huge differences between them which is why a lot of studios use both in their pipeline.

 

To keep Max as it is and incorporate the power and flexibility of Maya would create a monster of a program. It would be a scarier learning/running prospect than Houdini.

 

Is anybody really surprised by this news though? Only a matter of time really.

[Ernest Burden III]

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is going to do 'something' in 3D/CG within' the next 5/10 years from now...

 

Microsoft already did something, then un-did it. They owned SoftImage for a few years, then sold it to Avid. I never understood what that was about.

 

And if there ever was a company to give Microsoft a run on predatory practices it would be Autodesk.

[NickG]

Microsoft already did something, then un-did it. They owned SoftImage for a few years, then sold it to Avid. I never understood what that was about.

 

If I remember right, it was about getting Windows NT into the professional market.

 

NG

[stark3d]

If you cant beat Them buy em

 

Autodesk are pimps buying up all the good ho's and giving the world all thier left over skanks.

[Ray]

If you cant beat Them buy em

 

Autodesk are pimps buying up all the good ho's and giving the world all thier left over skanks.

 

:D:D

[Munz]

My first reaction was it would be nice if this would help the price of Max go down since it seems to be the most expensive, but I am not getting my hopes up. If anything I would bet the price of Maya would increase...

 

munz

[Brian Cassil]

Yeah, the pricing of the two softwares is the first thing I thought about too. In reading the statements on the two websites and knowing the history of Autodesk, I imagine they will continue to develop the two products simultaneously. However, having one of them cost half as much as the other doesn't make much sense, especially when the lesser expensive of the two is used more on large scale projects.

[Ricardo Eloy]

I think there's a fuzz around about it, but people are letting their passion for one or the other app speak up. Some are concerned about Autodesk not developing any new tools fot Maya, but they forget all the good tools were implemented after some major movie studio demanded. Also, talking about money, A/W was almost reaching a dead-end: most companies that use Maya simply don't need A/W to develop their tools, as they have their own in-house developers.

Autodesk's goal was, imo, the car industry, where A/W has a huge market share with StudioTools. Not games or movies. But that's MY point of view.

[Christopher Nichols]

I think there's a fuzz around about it, but people are letting their passion for one or the other app speak up. Some are concerned about Autodesk not developing any new tools fot Maya, but they forget all the good tools were implemented after some major movie studio demanded. Also, talking about money, A/W was almost reaching a dead-end: most companies that use Maya simply don't need A/W to develop their tools, as they have their own in-house developers.

Autodesk's goal was, imo, the car industry, where A/W has a huge market share with StudioTools. Not games or movies. But that's MY point of view.

 

 

Actually it is the other way around. Alias has had to cut back their R&D fund a lot. Now they finally have access to some more funds.

[William Alexander]

Actually it is the other way around. Alias has had to cut back their R&D fund a lot. Now they finally have access to some more funds.

 

That makes the Kaydara Motion builder upgrade debacle make sense. Having to pay full price for the next version, to many seemed like greed. LOL think I saw some comments about that being 'AutoDesk' like.

 

An exisitng business Model that seems similar is MASCO. They own something like 5 of the biggest names in Cabinetry, that technically compete against each other but have niche's/specialties and customer bases within the industry. With the combined revenues each company/holding really ended up focusing on what they did best. Combined purchasing power, R&D, broader scope of combined management experience. That however doesn't create the best environment for innovation.

 

The earth shattering innovations in CG apps pretty much have dissapeared it would seem. These being tools....what is changing and being innovated is the interfaces and workflows, Luxology being the strongest potential mover. C4D is really all about ease of use and the prime example of how this market has/is changing. Kind of queitly you have XSI working in the background. It's another kick ass app but it's of the 'old school' workflow, like Max and Maya, in terms of workflow. Perfect for experienced users in the studio environment, not to mention probably has the greatest overall potential to work best in that environment...if ever it gets ported to Mac LOL. Love and hate the shader tree, but it's MR and max uses the same shaders and structure...the interface to it is well, not the best. They couldn't totally revamp the materials interface without really pissing of the entrenched users...the customer base.

 

In light of all this just kind of thinking that AutoDesk may very well be positioning it's self to compete long term...because Max and Maya will be very likely be old school in 5-10 years compared to the up and coming applications usability and workflows. Meaning that attrition to the userbase will take it's toll and the need may arise to create a new app to directly compete....combined resources, R&D, mainaining channel partners...just thinking and wondering

 

WDA

[Jim Mann]

Does this all come from the whole lightscape thing?

 

I personally am still mightily pi**ed of about what happened to Lightscape. Wonder if Autodesk have noticed that people are still looking elsewhere for third party render packages like Vray, Brazil, maxwell etc. Ahhh, we can but wonder how cool Lightscape might have been had it been developed in line with other packages since 1997's version 3.0 release.

 

One thing is for sure, either Max users or Maya users will lose out to some degree somehwere along the line.

[Christopher Nichols]

I personally am still mightily pi**ed of about what happened to Lightscape. Wonder if Autodesk have noticed that people are still looking elsewhere for third party render packages like Vray, Brazil, maxwell etc. Ahhh, we can but wonder how cool Lightscape might have been had it been developed in line with other packages since 1997's version 3.0 release.

 

One thing is for sure, either Max users or Maya users will lose out to some degree somehwere along the line.

 

 

Again... people need to get over these issues. Same with the old Alias people that are pi**ed off about Maya. The truth is, that people would have dumped Lightscape even if it was still a standalone. Raytracing would have taken over as the GI method of choice, either way. Lightscape did its job of bring GI to the scene, but as a methodology is pretty much dead technology.

[Brian Cassil]

Lightscape did its job of bring GI to the scene, but as a methodology is pretty much dead technology.

 

I would usually consider your viewpoint to be well informed, but I think your wrong on this one. I think a large segment of the market would be all over a stand-alone renderer. And as far as the methodology being dead, there are still some great artists who use it and use it very, very, effectively. Also, there is no reason that the software could not have evolved or offered multiple methods for creating GI.

[Christopher Nichols]

I would usually consider your viewpoint to be well informed, but I think your wrong on this one. I think a large segment of the market would be all over a stand-alone renderer. And as far as the methodology being dead, there are still some great artists who use it and use it very, very, effectively. Also, there is no reason that the software could not have evolved or offered multiple methods for creating GI.

 

Well standalone is a different thing. Vray and all the others are working on standalone versions which is critical. I was talking about radiosity as being the dead technology.

 

BTW, artist and tools are two different things (something people still have a big issue understanding). While there may be great artists that work with lightscape, it does not mean that it is not dead technology. For example, while the 1971 Baracuda was a great muscle car, it is pretty much dead technology today. There are people that still enjoy it, and drive them today.

 

If you look at all the reasearch that has been done at siggraph and at universities, you will see that radiosity is dead and that raytracing and radiance methods are the only ones being researched. There is a reason for that. You can thank people like this for that:

 

http://www.anyhere.com/gward/papers.html

[Brian Cassil]

I love the muscle car analogy! But I don't think anyone uses Lightscape for the sake of nostalgia. I also hear you about how software does not make the artist. I preach that in the classes I teach constantly. However, if people still use lightscape it must be because there is some value in it, and that it helps them achieve their artistic goals.

 

As far as radiosity being dead, of course it is. But that didn't mean that lightscape had to die with it. If lightscape would have continued to be developed it could (and would imho) have evolved with the times. I still say shame on ADSK for killiing it, because it was certainly alive and well when it was purchased, and did not die by "natural causes".

[Jim Mann]

Again... people need to get over these issues.

 

My point was that Autodesk have a bit of a track record on this and I am having flashbacks to when they bought up Discreet and all the concerns that were voiced on the old forum then and all the reassurances that came to sweet FA regarding continuing to develop Lightscape.

 

Max and Maya strengths lie in their modelling, not in their rendering - one will inevitably be killed off. 3D packages are a big investment in terms of cost, skills and time if like me you are a lone freelance. I'm not panicking, but I am wary as I have been let down before.

[Sawyer]

I don't see why 1 would be killed as both make money. And Autodesk has bought many companies and I have only heard about 1 product being discontinued. Both max and Maya are huge, Maya could be discontinued and it may never be noticed as there are so many people using it and adapting it for their own needs.

[Christopher Nichols]

Max and Maya strengths lie in their modelling, not in their rendering - one will inevitably be killed off. 3D packages are a big investment in terms of cost, skills and time if like me you are a lone freelance. I'm not panicking, but I am wary as I have been let down before.

 

 

Actually it is the scripting and the character rigging and the dynamics that most people are concerned about. As well as Animation in general. Mostly things that Archviz people don't care about. Have you tried to make an archviz model in Maya? Trust me, you are better off with Max.

[Jim Mann]

Actually it is the scripting and the character rigging and the dynamics that most people are concerned about. As well as Animation in general. Mostly things that Archviz people don't care about. Have you tried to make an archviz model in Maya? Trust me, you are better off with Max.

Absolutely,I'm not knocking Max, especially for archviz but it will be interesting to see how things develop when Autodesk is offering a string of 3D packages stretching from AutoCAD to Viz to Max and Maya.

 

Maya could be discontinued and it may never be noticed as there are so many people using it and adapting it for their own needs.

Plenty of people using Maya on a Mac might disagree with you on that point

[skauty]

A little of topic, but how do you think the incorporation of Mental Ray into Autocad 2007 will affect the use of apps like max or even maya. I'm a 3D guy not an architect or drafter so I don't use Autocad (other than importing dwg's into max). Will there be much of a need for either higher end 3D apps in the archviz industry, or will clients simply render out there own 3D plans with GI lighting? I don't mean to over simplify the work of us artists, but it seems more and more companies would rather do things cheaply, even if it sacrifices a bit of quality. This is not a new topic I know, I'm just curious if anyone thinks this will affect the industry at all.

[Christopher Nichols]

Absolutely,I'm not knocking Max, especially for archviz but it will be interesting to see how things develop when Autodesk is offering a string of 3D packages stretching from AutoCAD to Viz to Max and Maya.

 

Well they already are much more stretched then that even today. Autodesk makes the Inferno and Flame, a $1 million turnkey system that does realtime compositing and film finishing effects. They also make the Lustre, a real time digital intermediary. That is WAY more of a stretch then Maya and Autocad.

 

Also keep in mind that Alias makes StudioTools. The Autocad for the the automobile design industry. Now they have cornered that part of the market, and you may see StudioTools "tools" inside Autocad.

[Christopher Nichols]

A little of topic, but how do you think the incorporation of Mental Ray into Autocad 2007 will affect the use of apps like max or even maya. I'm a 3D guy not an architect or drafter so I don't use Autocad (other than importing dwg's into max). Will there be much of a need for either higher end 3D apps in the archviz industry, or will clients simply render out there own 3D plans with GI lighting? I don't mean to over simplify the work of us artists, but it seems more and more companies would rather do things cheaply, even if it sacrifices a bit of quality. This is not a new topic I know, I'm just curious if anyone thinks this will affect the industry at all.

 

Well, I have been out of the archiviz industry for a while, but I can tell you that from what I saw at Jeff Mottle's cgarchitect party at Siggraph, there is still a demand for high end work, and the bar keeps getting higher every year. The work is amazing, and VERY far from anything you could produce in Autocad with MR.

[Ernest Burden III]

Also keep in mind that Alias makes StudioTools. The Autocad for the the automobile design industry. Now they have cornered that part of the market, and you may see StudioTools "tools" inside Autocad.

 

That's the second reference to ADSK wanting the automotive industry. Sounds like a plan.

 

Considering the share of the architectural market that Autodesk already has, we probably should not be looking at the Alias purchase from that standpoint. It makes sense that they want to extend their reach into other markets rather than just make a minor increase in one they already dominate. Furthermore, ADSK has a history of leading the market with second or third rate products. In other words, there are often better and cheaper products, but Autodesk does not seem to feel the need to be the best, just the biggest. So I doubt they want Alias to make their Max product better. They can do that all by themselves, if they want to.

[bricklyne]

......

Also keep in mind that Alias makes StudioTools. The Autocad for the the automobile design industry. Now they have cornered that part of the market, and you may see StudioTools "tools" inside Autocad.

 

 

You're talking Nurbs modelling, Class A surfacing tools and more advanced subD tools. I don't really think AutoCAD, as it is, is ready for those kinds of tools, which are more practical and useful in the automobile Inustry than they are in AEC. Studiotools does have some rather pleasant interface and workflow features (specifically tool shelves and customizable marking menus), though, but personally I see more of a situation whereby AutoCAD features and standards filter the other way as opposed to vice versa.

 

Don't forget that in the Auto Industry ( and essentially product design Industries in general), design drawing accuracy is extremely critical since the parts and products tend to be factory produced and manufactured directly from the drawing sets; and not too uncommonly by automated/robotic production methods where there's no room for ambiguity or subjectivity. Unlike the AEC field, where as we all know with Architects at least, errors, sloppiness and huge gaps in ambiguity, are not exactly uncommon and tend to be filled in by more skilled contractors who cover a lot of errors that architects do on their drawings on site. A lot of the tools they have in programs like Studiotools, geared as they are towards this kind of high degree of accuracy and product integrity, would just throw architects for a loop. Unless Autodesk plans on integrating some of those features in the other AutoCAD flavours ( Mechanical, Civil, and Inventor), where they would fit in more naturally.

[Sawyer]

Its clear - Studio Tools will become "Auto Desktop" .

 

Actually Jim pointed this out Autodesk is great at completely ignoring the Mac. Those user (Maya on Mac users) are the ones that should be worried.