3DS Max or Max Design make a choice??

[Justin Hunt]

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, basically what you are saying is get version X and if you happen to need version Y then later (not now) pay the cross grade.

 

Sorry but this just screams what happened with Viz only the price is smaller. I bought Viz, then needed to incorporate more detail sub-Polly animations that only Max could do so I had to folk out $$$$ to get Max. This is precisely what the people who write the cheques are concerned about.

 

It seems like that every time there is a new release of Max we end up having the same arguments over again. Why do you think that is?

 

jhv

[kenpimentel]

I hate to repeat myself, but apparently, it is required because what I said is being distorted.

 

- If you assume that in 2 years, you don't know what your job is, what workflows look like or what the industry has evolved into, then you don't know what tools you'll be using. This applies to all tools. Yes, if you assume that there are none of those changes, you can predict that you're more than likely to be using the same tools as you are now - but that is not what I said.

 

- All the facts support my arguments. All your fears feed your passions. This is not a good place for me to be in. I want to talk to you about facts, you want to talk about passions. I love that you're passionate about max, but I think it also means you're having a hard time hearing me.

 

- We cannot tell you what the future roadmap of 3ds Max looks like for very good reasons. If you want to know these reasons, go look at my blog that covers this area.autodesk.com/ken "All 3ds Max Secrets Revealed".

 

- You insist that we tell you the future so that all your fears are removed. I cannot do this as much as I want to and as much as it would resolve your fears.

 

The fact is for the next 12 months, there isn't really an issue. You'll use one or the other. They are 99% identical, so there is no crisis in the next 12 months. Perhaps after a few years, we'll all get comfortable with the situation.

 

The key thing to remember that our goal is to keep you as a customer and not piss you off. I think our goals are aligned in ensuring that 3ds Max improves delivers the best customer experience. My tools for achieving that is ensuring a large market success so that the development team can grow and we can make max even better. I hope you don't resent the fact that 3ds Max Design has been a significant success in the market and this has enabled us to build 3ds Max 2010 with all those cool features.

 

I think you'll find a home with either version. In case you wander into the wrong home, I think you'll see that we'll treat Subscription customers preferentially - like we always have.

[Jeff Mottle]

Did the forum eat my extensive reply to this thread? Sigh...

 

When I get more time I'll try to explain it again. Sorry, the announce/launch of 3ds Max 2010 has me a little busy right now.

 

Hey Ken,

 

Sorry, for some reason your post went into moderation queue. There must have been a word that triggered one of the spam filters. I've removed it from moderation.

[Jeff Mottle]

I just finished reading all these posts and a few things stood out to me.

 

Thanks for contributing to this thread Ken, I do appreciate your time to educate our community. You may already know this, but most of the people replying to this thread are higher end visualization artists and companies. They are not casual users in architectural firms who use max a few times a week to visualize aspects of their projects. As a casual user I think the decision is an easy one, get the version that is aimed at architecture and design. I'd hazard a guess that any developments to max design will be right in line with what they need. As a high end visualization studio or full time visualization department, you are constantly being asked to push the boundaries of what can be done, and this often means venturing into the realms of other verticals like Games and Entertainment.

 

Clearly if the decision was to make two versions, even if the deltas are small now, one has to assume that there will be distinct feature set differences between the two at some point. Otherwise, why not just make a new menu where you choose your vertical and Voilà, a new UI and workflow arrangement based on your needs.

 

I think for this group, the concern comes from knowing that they need BOTH the tools available to other verticals AND those available to the design field. I think as the two versions diverge to fall in line with their respective targets, this group will find themselves needing BOTH versions. This is not a simple crossgrade, but a requirement to purchase two versions of the same application.

 

It may not have been as evident from all of these posts, but I do think the single point to take from this thread is that many who post here are high end visualization artists, thus the concerns being voiced are from that perspective.

 

From my own knowledge of the industry I would say that 9 out of 10 3ds max users fall into the casual user group. I'd be interested to know if your own analysis is the same Ken. From that perspective, if only 10% of an already niche market, especially when compared to overall Autodesk sales, don't like something, I'm guessing that the development of those needs is sometimes weighed accordingly?

 

On the flip side the higher end users are the most vocal in online communities and are the ones that help give a product clout and prestige when selling to the other 90%. People are lemmings, so everyone aspires to be Neoscape etc. Your position is a tough one for sure to balance those needs accordingly.

 

While CGA sees around 130,000 unique visits a month, it tends to only be the higher end crowd that participates and contributes here. I guess this is a long way of suggesting that perhaps the largest customer base of max is driving some decisions here. From a business standpoint, it only makes sense. You can't please everyone all the time, I think the saying goes. That having been said, I came from the higher end viz camp, so I tend to agree with some of the the concerns here.

[kenpimentel]

High-end visualization firms, like Neoscape (though there are many others) are expected to stick with the more Entertainment-oriented flavor. Not because of feature differences, but because they view themselves more as an Entertainment-type power user that happen to use Entertainment tools for Design/Vis work.

 

We expect that some small percentage of those working in Design/Vis will seek the Entertainment version because they feel more comfortable with it - or perhaps aspire to be in Entertainment. There could be many reasons to make that choice.

 

We established these "principles" when we launched the two flavors:

1) Don't create feature deltas that forces people to own both to achieve their work

2) Keep a single binary (because this gives you 100% plug-in and data interop along with a more efficient dev team)

 

We're going to do our best to check with the community before we violate these principles. They have huge consequences for us and for users. Despite what many people think, we're not as dumb, blind, evil or ignorant as we're sometimes made out to be.

 

I'm personally sorry for creating much of this angst. I think it would all be swept away in an instant if we could simply rattle off our roadmap, but we can't (for reasons I've identified elsewhere). I think those that have been exposed to the details under NDA do not share as many concerns. They've had a glimpse of the future - the missing piece of the puzzle.

[Justin Hunt]

Based on 13 years in the industry, having started using 3ds R3 in DOS, I think I have a fair idea of what I will be doing in a couple of years time and what tools I will be using.

 

Its not out of wanting to aspire to be in the Entertainment industry, we are in the entrainment industry. We have to entertain and inspire the money men to part with their cash to build our designs. Once they have been sufficiently entrained we then have to get the design to work. Once the design works we then have to entertain the public into buying our designs so we can pay the money men back.

 

Our industry is ever evolving, what our clients demand is increasing. No longer do they accept what was cutting edge last year. They want PIXAR, Dreamworks quality at cut throat prices.

 

Being involved in the whole spectrum of our field (as most of us are) from concept design through to Marketing, we need our feet in both worlds, design and Entrainment. As such our needs are a lot harder to satisfy. We don't have the luxury of the budgets ,team sizes or the time scales the movie guys have. As such we tend to watch out pennies a bit closer and work more efficiently.

 

So it is expected that we get a bit touchy when we are told that we have to part with more money if you need both tools, and even more so when it cant be clearly explained reasoning behind the split and where its all leading.

 

jhv

[Brian Cassil]

Ken, I am truly trying to be understanding here. But the more I read your posts, the more disturbed I am. Your last post has the general tone of Design Viz professionals having lower creative aspirations than those in the entertainment industry.

 

These two statements in particular stand out:

 

"...themselves more as an Entertainment-type power user..."

 

"...aspire to be in Entertainment."

 

Why is it automatically assumed that the "power users" are all in the entertainment industry? And if you happen to be in design viz, and know the intricate details of max, then you are an "entertainment-type". Furthermore, those in design viz generally have a much broader skill set than those in entertainment who usually fulfill very specific roles. This gets to the heart of our grievance.

 

You have accused us of not listening but I don't think you have heard what we are saying. Jeff summed up our concerns well in this paragraph:

 

"I think for this group, the concern comes from knowing that they need BOTH the tools available to other verticals AND those available to the design field. I think as the two versions diverge to fall in line with their respective targets, this group will find themselves needing BOTH versions. This is not a simple cross grade, but a requirement to purchase two versions of the same application." I have read nothing to alleviate this concern. In fact there seems to be an unwillingness to accept this as being legitimate or founded.

 

Perhaps you are not accepting our concern as legitimate because you don't want to betray your employer. Or perhaps there is some magic bullet that will put all this to rest. I'm skeptical, but hoping for the latter.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Ok, I read the All Secrets Revealed blog post so I will quit asking for a clear road map of what AutoDesks plans are.

 

Though I don't see how AutoDesk providing a road map would force you to have to recognize the profit revenue for subscription when you release the road map since a road map need not recognize the details of releases, but simply a outline the direction of the future. Any incorrect interpretation from a user standpoint creates a landfall of negative publicity for AutoDesk, but the incorrect interpretations will continue as long as people have to try and guess the direction that AutoDesk sees things going.

 

But alas, I am not a business man, accountant, or lawyer so i won't try and decipher legalities of subscription revenue. It is not my specialty.

 

Actually the whole thing reminds me a lot of a section of the Blue Oceans Strategy book, except that we are not employees of AutoDesk, merely the users of the product.

 

I am snipping an over view synopsis of that section, as written by someone else...

 

www.valueinnovation.net/2008/03/fair-process-blue-ocean-strategy.html

 

 

Remember the initial case study for Fair Process. To briefly reiterate, there were two factories. One had great labor relations; the other awful labor relations. The market was forcing substantive change. In anticipation of upcoming changes at the factory with poor relations managers kept workers abreast about the reasons for the change, the long-term ramifications of the change, and listened to their thoughts. They left the other factory alone though, thinking there's no need to bother them with decisions since there was already a strong trust relationship.

 

The end result, of course, is the factory with poor labor relations understood the need for change and bought into the process. The other factory only saw consultants coming and going quietly, heard rumors about major changes, and assumed the worst. Thankfully, before things spiraled completely out of control the managers realized how important it was to communicate and involve people, even when those people aren't in a decision making position.

 

This process of ongoing involvement -- not decision making, but rather communication -- is as vital to the health of an organization as coming up with brilliant Blue products and services delivered by value innovation. This is what's called Fair Process. It's as vital to success as a great TO-BE value curve, but frequently ignored. Ignoring Fair Process is probably the single greatest threat to your new, Blue business.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

And I would like to reiterate that I can't wait to get Max2010 Design into my work flow. It sounds like some of the new features are going to dramatically improve my work flow. The area I am most concerned with right now is how Revit/FBX import or possibly link has been improved. I might be the happiest camper on the block if container objects are able to harness the 80,000 plus objects that are often brought into Max, and make them act as though they are one object. I am not sure if that is how they are set up to work, just speculating about what I hope they do.

 

Over the course of the last year, I have spent countless hours, and many headaches trying to brute force my way through this. If it were streamlined it has the possibility of sending the production levels through the roof.

 

Part of the reason I am apprehensive is that I felt we were led to believe that FBX from Revit to Max was going to send the production levels through the roof. Instead it caused headaches, and late nights. At least for me.

 

The other feature I am really hoping for is improvement on Importons in Mental Ray. But since this is not directly a AutoDesk feature, it doesn't need to be discussed in great detail.

 

There are several other new features, Graphite Tools, new material working flows, unified interface, etc... that I am looking forward to. Though I have concerns over how smoothly the material editor will work, given how slow the new and improved scene explorer has become in the last couple of releases.

 

At the end of the day, what I need is a highly integrated work flow that can delivery full blown visuals better or as good as anything on the market in less time than it took before. I feel this is possible, but everyone has different opinions on what they feel are exceptable for anyone of those categories.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[Justin Hunt]

exactly what he said.

 

I can only relate this to an expience I had recently involving catching a train home, and another catching a train to work.

 

I got to the station, only to meet a stream of people leaving the platform in a hurry. No anouncments, only a hasitily scralled notice on a board outside the platform, informing that the trains were not running. No more, no less.

 

The crowd around the attendant prevented me from getting more info, so I followed the crowd out side where I saw a long line forming. I overheard a few people saying there was a problem on the line and that we were to catch buses. Still no official word.

 

By now I had phoned my wife said I be later, dont know how late, resigned myself to a long wait and joined the line. Luckily the line moved quickly and soon I was on the bus.

 

Now this is the important part. The bus driver went out of his way to inform us what was happening. Asked who needed to get of first and told us exactly where the bus was going. While we were in traffic he had to stop sharply a few times, he explained about "pinchy breaks" and that it will get better once we are going. Appologuised about the heat (totally out of his control). At each stop tripple checked that everyone that needed that stop was off.

 

Do you know what, not one person complained. Infact many went and thanked him for a good job. No one seemed to mind that it took them an hour longer to get home.

 

Then on the flip side, this morning I caught a train to work. I get a weekly ticket. Two policemen got on too. They were checking for fair evaiders. Quite rightly. However the way they did it felt overly agressive. Nothing outright though. A young couple hopped on the train just in time. They didn't have a ticket. When the cop questioned them and they explained that they were tourists and would purchace a ticket on the other side. I thought the cop was going to pull his taizer and zap them, such was his level of agression.

 

Even though I had a ticket I felt most uncomfortable being in their presence.

 

Right now I want to be on the bus but feel like I am on the train.

 

jhv

[kenpimentel]

Very nice. I wish I had the same magic to weave words. Perhaps I would be more effective in helping you through this.

 

To borrow your analogy, I think I am the bus driver. I can't pull out a map and show you exactly where we're going, but I can try to make sure you understand where we are and where we came from. I'm also telling you that in the short term there are no surprises and that going far off the bus route is probably not logical for us. I've also told you that in case you think this bus is going in the wrong direction, there is another almost identical bus that you can hop on for no charge at this moment - and possibly in the future - though that can't be certain. In no case, should you need to be on both buses at the same time. If that happens, then the bus company is likely to go out of business.

 

I'm just suggesting that the facts support what I'm telling you. Though I realize that fears are more powerful than facts. I think I've done what I can to the limits of what I'm allowed.

 

I'll certainly tell you more under NDA or you'll learn more if you are on the beta. I'll take the first 10 people here that want on the beta. Send me an email with your full name, email, company name and I'll get you on.

[SandmanNinja]

Wow - timing.

Read the above 1 minute after it was posted.

 

I was going to say something witty about quantum string theory and how where you are located is determined by probability waves.

 

However, I'll defer the wonderful offer from Ken as there are far more people on here that would benefit from such a magnamimus offer.

 

I liked the bus analogy.

[Brian Smith]

Ken,

Being on beta I feel I know a little bit more, but I still share many of the same worries as everyone else here and I don't think you have said anything to those reading to make them feel that 3 years down the road, you won't be giving 3ds Max an incredibly useful tool that won't be available on 3ds Max Design. For example, an interactive walk-through feature driven by some type of gaming engine. If a feature like that ever shows up in the version that I don't choose, I think I will blow a fuse. It seems to me that this will eventually have to happen, and probably not very far from now. If just 1 single feature like this is left out of the version that I choose, I will have absolutely no choice...zero...I will HAVE to get both versions. I cannot possibly compete with other firms if a feature like this (which should have come out many years ago like we've been screaming for) is being used by my competition. I believe that anyone reading this thread would think that it's only logical that it will happen...otherwise, there would be no need for 2 programs...as Jeff said, just a varied interface and varied default settings.

 

I would personally rather pay an additional 20 or 30 percent in my subscription fees for the peace of mind knowing that down the road, I won't have to buy both versions.

[Trick]

...I would personally rather pay an additional 20 or 30 percent in my subscription fees for the peace of mind knowing that down the road, I won't have to buy both versions.

 

To get the most complete version, I would too. But on the other hand, I think this is very twisted since I chose for this version a long time ago.

[kenpimentel]

To get the most complete version, I would too. But on the other hand, I think this is very twisted since I chose for this version a long time ago.

 

Getting the self-select as a permanent subscription benefit is something I would like to see happen too.

[kenpimentel]

Ken,

Being on beta I feel I know a little bit more, but I still share many of the same worries as everyone else here and I don't think you have said anything to those reading to make them feel that 3 years down the road, you won't be giving 3ds Max an incredibly useful tool that won't be available on 3ds Max Design. For example, an interactive walk-through feature driven by some type of gaming engine.

 

The fact remains that we've published no such plan to diverge and that all our efforts show minimal divergence. In fact, 3ds Max Design has more features than 3ds Max because it includes Exposure.

 

Since you want to keep stirring this pot, go ahead and propose a list of potential future things and I'll give you my opinion of whether they make sense to differentiate. The gaming example you give is obviously something we'd want in both products. I'll start by giving you my mythical examples:

- A specialized Sony PSP exporter is likely to only be in the Entertainment version (note: to use this, you'd have to be an authorized Sony PSP developer)

- A method of measuring crowd capacity or ergonomic work effort (not visualizing - that belongs in both) should be in 3ds Max Design only

 

Now you give it a try.

[Brian Smith]

The fact remains that we've published no such plan to diverge and that all our efforts show minimal divergence. In fact, 3ds Max Design has more features than 3ds Max because it includes Exposure.

 

Since you want to keep stirring this pot, go ahead and propose a list of potential future things and I'll give you my opinion of whether they make sense to differentiate. The gaming example you give is obviously something we'd want in both products. I'll start by giving you my mythical examples:

- A specialized Sony PSP exporter is likely to only be in the Entertainment version (note: to use this, you'd have to be an authorized Sony PSP developer)

- A method of measuring crowd capacity or ergonomic work effort (not visualizing - that belongs in both) should be in 3ds Max Design only

 

Now you give it a try.

 

First of all, thank you very much for chatting in this forum. Forgot to mention that before. I am ecstatic that we finally have someone with some clout from Autodesk listening here.

 

But reading your last two posts, I'm now more worried than ever that I will eventually have to buy both versions. Here's why.

 

You stated 'we've published no such plan to diverge and that all our efforts show minimal divergence.' That statements smells exactly like what the American public has been hearing from Wall Street execs and Congress over the past few months. You didn't say that you don't have plans to diverge, just that you haven't published it. I think the issue won't go away until we hear something like, "Yes we are going to diverge, there will be many features that won't be shared, and eventually if you want the best of both worlds, you will have to purchase both."

 

You stated "Is it really that hard to figure out which one makes sense for you? You're implying that there will be significant feature deltas in the future." Yes, it is very hard to figure out for many of us. How do you not understand this. And were you guys not the first to imply that there will be significant feature deltas in the future when you decided to create two products. Still haven't heard a reason that makes sense to me if it's not for this reason.

 

You said "High-end visualization firms, like Neoscape (though there are many others) are expected to stick with the more Entertainment-oriented flavor." I have to agree with Brian Cassil that this statement is a little disturbing. I consider my firm to be a high-end firm, and I have worried all along that choosing the 3ds Max Design product that I will eventually miss out on features that will allow me to do more creative/artistic things...things that will allow me to separate my firm from everyone else doing the same old thing. But I am choosing the Design version because I am a visualization firm and it would seem obvious that I should pick the option that is geared towards my industry. I'm guessing that if a new exclusive visualization feature is created, I am more likely to get it with Design. I certainly don't see how you think the choice for anyone other than new users is 'obvious'.

 

Incidentally, a week ago I conducted a survey of my contacts, and one of the questions was "Do you prefer 3ds Max and 3ds Max Design continue to be developed as separate programs?" There have been 858 responses so far and as you can see in the attached image, having two separate programs is not well liked by many. If this were an election, it would be called a landslide.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Brian Smith

[kenpimentel]

Brian,

I don't control whether you trust us or not. You seem to prefer to limit your trust. I can understand why you might do that.

 

I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. I've run out of information to provide you with. If you have a beef with Autodesk, that isn't something I can really address. I've honestly come here to share our thinking and try to correct some misunderstandings. I'm not sure what more I can possibly do than what I have done and what I have offered.

 

Time will tell if what I've been saying is accurate or not. I've told you that we don't want to "develop 3ds Max as separate programs" and that I agree with all 858 responses that it would be a bad idea. You keep telling me that it is what we're doing. I keep saying, "no it is not".

[Jeff Mottle]

Ken, would the following be a fair statement? I'm not sure if you can even comment on this.

 

1. New features added to 3ds Max would have almost no applicability to Visualization companies, and would only be in this version.

2. New features added to 3ds Max Design would have almost no applicability to anyone outside of visualization, and would only be in this version.

3. New features that could be used in by all verticals, even if only by a small percentage would be included in both versions?

 

I think this might be the version most are looking for.

[kenpimentel]

Ken, would the following be a fair statement? I'm not sure if you can even comment on this.

 

1. New features added to 3ds Max would have almost no applicability to Visualization companies, and would only be in this version.

2. New features added to 3ds Max Design would have almost no applicability to anyone outside of visualization, and would only be in this version.

3. New features that could be used in by all verticals, even if only by a small percentage would be included in both versions?

 

I think this might be the version most are looking for.

 

Yes, this is our intended policy. And there are compelling business reasons to do it this way:

A) We have a single development team (not two teams working on two products).

B) Building one feature that 100% of the community values is far cheaper than building two features that only 50% of the community values

C) Building diverging features places a high cost on maintaining data and plug-in compatibility between the flavors

 

So, it is not just a policy, we have strong motivators to ensure that differentiation is chosen carefully.

 

The most important point is that we don't make these decisions in isolation. We talk to customers and get their input first. Forcing people to own both releases would be a total business failure as we'd be competitively disadvantaged if we did that. Isn't that obvious from the level of angst that is being expressed? We want both flavors to be around for another 10 or 20 years - without forcing anyone to own both.

[Tommy L]

I think the split is a strange thing to do when you look at the logistics....unless you are a new user.

 

Product A (Max)

+

Product B (Design)

=

Product C (3d Studio Max Extreme*)

 

1: A+B (purchasing) makes existing users perturbed (or furious)

2: Both A AND B require development, support and marketing. When consolidated C becomes more streamlined.

3:......

 

Hmmmmmn, now maybe I get it, is it an excuse for a price increase for product C???!

 

Ken,

With all due respect, persuade your bosses to take a leaf out of the Chaos Groups business manual. A product that is consumer response led, has very few upgrade fees (if any) and doesnt aim to make squillions of dollars by any means necessary. Im currently looking for other modeling/animation software. Im not looking for another rendering engine.

Kind regards,

Tom.

[Brian Smith]

Yes, this is our intended policy. And there are compelling business reasons to do it this way:

A) We have a single development team (not two teams working on two products).

B) Building one feature that 100% of the community values is far cheaper than building two features that only 50% of the community values

C) Building diverging features places a high cost on maintaining data and plug-in compatibility between the flavors

 

So, it is not just a policy, we have strong motivators to ensure that differentiation is chosen carefully.

 

The most important point is that we don't make these decisions in isolation. We talk to customers and get their input first. Forcing people to own both releases would be a total business failure as we'd be competitively disadvantaged if we did that. Isn't that obvious from the level of angst that is being expressed? We want both flavors to be around for another 10 or 20 years - without forcing anyone to own both.

 

Well I'm glad Jeff asked it that way and you answered it that way, because that is the clearest I've seen it addressed. Now the only thing I'm still wondering is why for a Design Vis firm like Neoscape, the obvious choice would be 3ds Max and not 3ds Max Design. I'll stick with Design. 　

[Tommy L]

Ken,

One other question,

You asked in a previous post whether we would like to suggest features that we're not sure which flavor they would go into.

Would fluid dynamics/simulation go into both?

[Brian Cassil]

Ken,

One other question,

You asked in a previous post whether we would like to suggest features that we're not sure which flavor they would go into.

Would fluid dynamics/simulation go into both?

 

Along this same line of thinking: enhanced particle system?

[kenpimentel]

Ken,

One other question,

You asked in a previous post whether we would like to suggest features that we're not sure which flavor they would go into.

Would fluid dynamics/simulation go into both?

 

Yes. Can you see any reason they wouldn't? Perhaps analytical tools for measuring fluid-related things belongs only in Design (like Exposure) - but not visualization.