Tommy L Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Great. However, the more I think about this, the more I dont like the idea of some one else telling me what systems I am going to use and not going to use. I dont just do Arch-vis, I do loads of wierd stuff as well. I have art directors and photographers as clients AS WELL as architects and developers. 3d Studio Max has never been limiting in its appeal, its the one tool fits all approach that I like about it. Seriously, I dont like the way this is going, it doesnt matter how it gets spun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Along this same line of thinking: enhanced particle system? 3ds Max and 3ds Max Design are tools for specialists. There can be no confusing it. Sure, we try to make 3ds Max Design more approachable perhaps - or recognizable. I'd like a lower learning curve on 3ds Max Design if possible. BUT - that doesn't mean removing specialist tools or limiting anyone that wants to get extreme with the product. So, just about anything you can imagine for VFX is going to be in 3ds Max Design. Particles are a clear mutual feature. Personally, I can't imagine anything that wouldn't. I think there are some Games workflows that might not make sense. But nothing that is already in 3ds Max would make the cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Great. Seriously, I dont like the way this is going, it doesnt matter how it gets spun. I resent that comment. I'm here in an open forum trying to share my thoughts with you. I'm not here to spin anything. I'm just concerned several of you just want to "pick a fight". I'm at the end of my abilities to explain it any clearer than what I have. If you want to think that the idea sucks and that Autodesk sucks, who am I to intrude on the discussion? If you want to have a serious discussion with an open-mind, then I'll try to engage you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 It seems like some of the features being suggested might have been better implemented directly within Revit, or Ecotect, rather than modifying the path of 3dsMax. From my standpoint those are applications that should directly deal with some of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Johnson Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 It seems like some of the features being suggested might have been better implemented directly within Revit, or Ecotect, rather than modifying the path of 3dsMax. From my standpoint those are applications that should directly deal with some of these issues. Yes I agree. Seems to me that Max is being bent to the BIM world. Bet Revit and Design get more and more welded so you can't use one fully without the other. Virgil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yes I agree. Seems to me that Max is being bent to the BIM world. I think it is more accurate to say that analytical methods would more naturally fall into the Design product. We see a future where we simulate things in Design and give you analytical results to help you refine your creative vision. Entertainment might just do the simulation without needing methods of analyzing the resulting measurements. In both cases, you can visualize the same thing. Exposure is an example. In both cases you can visualize light - but Design gives you an additional method of measuring light (beyond the methods already in 3ds Max - which has some existing capabilities there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Johnson Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 I think it is more accurate to say that analytical methods would more naturally fall into the Design product. We see a future where we simulate things in Design and give you analytical results to help you refine your creative vision. Entertainment might just do the simulation without needing methods of analyzing the resulting measurements. In both cases, you can visualize the same thing. Exposure is an example. In both cases you can visualize light - but Design gives you an additional method of measuring light (beyond the methods already in 3ds Max - which has some existing capabilities there). I guess in the end I would probably benefit from this more than some of the others here. My work is mostly in visual impact and now BIM, so the entertainment part does not appear. No one asks me for animations. Just intense accuracy. (More like Joe Friday - "just the facts ma'am). But for others I think their work needs tools more extensive than what I perceive as being the coming capabilites of Design. (BTW any of your Revit pals have a program for an acoustical architect who would love me to bounce sound off his walls?) Virgil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Ken, Sorry, didnt mean to come off like Im picking a fight. I just mean to say that I think this is not the route I would like to see the software take. I still see no good reason for omitting selected functions in one or the other, when there is no practical limitation making this the case. Sure, the more tools you put in the box, the harder it is to find the one you need...but that is not a problem for experienced users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 BTW any of your Revit pals have a program for an acoustical architect who would love me to bounce sound off his walls? Not Revit, but has he looked at Ecotect? I believe you can do this using that product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbaloo Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I know when I started looking for a complete 3d package to settle on I chose 3DS Max, not 3DS Partial. Why is it so hard to understand that there are many people out there who want ALL of the features? It is my opinion that this split up of Max into two versions is a huge mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (BTW any of your Revit pals have a program for an acoustical architect who would love me to bounce sound off his walls?) I believe you can do something like that in max using pflow. Of course, you have to figure out how to do that, but I've seen it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I know when I started looking for a complete 3d package to settle on I chose 3DS Max, not 3DS Partial. Why is it so hard to understand that there are many people out there who want ALL of the features? It is my opinion that this split up of Max into two versions is a huge mistake. I think the problem is that I can point to the fact that you're getting everything you want with 3ds Max Design today. It has ALL the features. You want to make the point that perhaps it won't in the future. I'm trying to make the point that perhaps it will in the future. Neither one of us can deal in certainties regarding the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I think the problem is that I can point to the fact that you're getting everything you want with 3ds Max Design today. It has ALL the features. You want to make the point that perhaps it won't in the future. I'm trying to make the point that perhaps it will in the future. Neither one of us can deal in certainties regarding the future. Hmmmn, most people running their own business based on ONE piece of software, like to know where its going. If there is a fork in the road, there should be a reason other than "it fits into the Autodesk business plan". Its not like Adesk is selling tables and chairs and there is a shipping overhead. This is a digital product, when somethings stripped out or in this case, split into two packages, surely its a business decision not a pragmatic one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hmmmn, most people running their own business based on ONE piece of software, like to know where its going. If there is a fork in the road, there should be a reason other than "it fits into the Autodesk business plan". Its not like Adesk is selling tables and chairs and there is a shipping overhead. This is a digital product, when somethings stripped out or in this case, split into two packages, surely its a business decision not a pragmatic one? We share lots more information under NDA and in Beta. We cannot share that information in a public forum (hopefully you read my blog on the subject). Asking me to reveal the details publicly isn't going to give anyone any satisfaction. I've already put many of you into the Beta to help ease your concerns. I'm doing what I can, but I can't do everything you want. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) We see a future where we simulate things in Design and give you analytical results to help you refine your creative vision. This may be the most descriptive reference to AutoDesks plans for the future that I have read in this thread. I think our communication is breaking down because most of the people here are artists who visualize architectural design. Very few do architectural design, though some of us do participate in design development. We need all of the CAD tools and CAD work flows we can get within Max, but we will also need all the entertainment tools we can get because we have to make the picture as sexy as possibly. Analysis tools are not geared towards what we need in our daily work flow. For me, sex sells for us, not model analytics. But I need to produce that sex as efficiently as possible. At least this is the case for myself. Edited February 11, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 This may be the most descriptive reference to AutoDesks plans for the future that I have read in this thread. I think our communication is breaking down because most of the people here are artists who visualize architectural design. Very few do architectural design, though some of us do participate in design development. We need all of the CAD tools and CAD work flows we can get within Max, but we will also need all the entertainment tools we can get because we have to make the picture as sexy as possibly. Analysis tools are not geared towards what we need in our daily work flow. For me, sex sells for us, not model analytics. But I need to produce that sex as efficiently as possible. At least this is the case for myself. You do understand 3ds Max Design offers that? We're not talking about turning 3ds Max Design on its head and removing your favorite 3ds Max features, we're talking about adding analytical tools that favor Design workflows. That might complicate your user experience because you have no need for those, but that is what we're thinking. There certainly is no discussion around removing anything that is already in place. Our thoughts are only around new ideas. This discussion should make it very clear why we didn't try to increase the feature differentiation in 2010. If, as some of you have suggested, we're headed down a path of creating two totally different products, why didn't we add to the differentiation in this cycle? The answer is because it is really hard to find any features that are both compelling in a specific market and won't cause grief from the other market. We felt that Exposure and the SDK were relatively safe. I think this has proven the case with 99% of our customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 -Hello Johnny, do you want an apple or an orange? -I want an orange and half an apple. -Oh, Jamie, what do you want? -I want half an apple and quarter of an orange. -Oh. Im afraid Ive only got a big bag of apples and a big bag of oranges.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Hunt Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You do understand 3ds Max Design offers that? We're not talking about turning 3ds Max Design on its head and removing your favorite 3ds Max features, we're talking about adding analytical tools that favor Design workflows. That might complicate your user experience because you have no need for those, but that is what we're thinking. There certainly is no discussion around removing anything that is already in place. Our thoughts are only around new ideas. This discussion should make it very clear why we didn't try to increase the feature differentiation in 2010. If, as some of you have suggested, we're headed down a path of creating two totally different products, why didn't we add to the differentiation in this cycle? The answer is because it is really hard to find any features that are both compelling in a specific market and won't cause grief from the other market. We felt that Exposure and the SDK were relatively safe. I think this has proven the case with 99% of our customers. If its that hard to find things that are not in common to, isn't that a good argument NOT to split? For me the SKD is the only thing that could be split as a separate product. Those who need it can have it those who dont, dont but every one has the glory of using everything else. Exposure has a place in both, I see the analitical benifits but I also see the entertainment benifits, I'm just imangining it as a valuble tool for compositers matching digital lighting to on set lighting. Right now HDRI is king, but what if you could take the real work lighting analysis and quickly match it into the digital. Would really take the guess work. The divergance maybe small now , fair enough no problem today or the next 12 months. Over time and future releases these small differences add up, and there in lies our problem. Avolaches start with a small shift, a few pebbles, but look what the end up as. jhv By the way have all the Beta spots been filled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAcky Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Hi Ken and thanks a lot for chatting to us! It's good to see. I'm kind of sitting back and seeing how it all pans out and I understand your frustration with the "information embargo" you seem to be under but I'm just miffed at how this can be a worthwhile decision for autodesk. I think it's without question that Autodesk stands to make more money with users that will have to but two versions, but these users aren't going to be happy users at all. Secondly the logistics behind adding yet another product to Autodesk's lineup must be immense. Something i'm happy not to be involved with. A quote comes to mind with this topic which is "if it aint broke, dont fix it." Which leads me to ask what was wrong with a single product that can be customized at install perhaps with some Autodesk recommended presets? Sure I might not want to do any work with the SDK now, but in six months, hey! I can just update my install! Wow Autodesk that was easy and now I have so much more functionality. I love autodesk. I'm aware that you're trying to target your key demographics but I'm still trying to work out how a seperate program will keep as many people happy as possible. I know for a fact that one day a couple of years down the track that I'll perusing the 3DS Max product page gushing at the awesome features it has and how i'd love to have my hands on them. One product. Customizable install. Happy customers. Proud Autodesk? Thanks again Ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDillon Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Ken, First, thanks for taking the time to respond. Secondly, everyone's job function changes over time. I started using Max at version 1 and always stayed away from VIZ. It seemed silly then and at it's death I actually cheered a bit. As illustrators/animators/visualizers/artists we need to stay as flexible as possible. This choose now or pay later is a bummer at the least. Everyone knows, which ever decision you make you will at some point regret it. Just give us one version with everthing, really it isn't that hard. "In the end there can be only one" Duncan MacLeod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Exposure has a place in both, I see the analitical benifits but I also see the entertainment benifits, I'm just imangining it as a valuble tool for compositers matching digital lighting to on set lighting. Right now HDRI is king, but what if you could take the real work lighting analysis and quickly match it into the digital. Would really take the guess work. By the way have all the Beta spots been filled? Well, when the time comes that someone in VFX actually asks for that feature, we'll consider moving some variant of it over. It is unlikely they need exactly the same thing as we did for LEEDS certification, but it is possible. However, no one has raised that issue with us over the last 12 months. Yes, you can imagine a use, but that isn't the same thing as there actually being a need for it. re: beta Send me an email: ken.pimentel AT autodesk.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenpimentel Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Hi Ken and thanks a lot for chatting to us! It's good to see. I think it's without question that Autodesk stands to make more money with users that will have to but two versions, but these users aren't going to be happy users at all. Secondly the logistics behind adding yet another product to Autodesk's lineup must be immense. Something i'm happy not to be involved with. I know for a fact that one day a couple of years down the track that I'll perusing the 3DS Max product page gushing at the awesome features it has and how i'd love to have my hands on them. re: this forum Thanks for letting me know you appreciate the time I'm spending. It's frustrating when I get treated like a faceless robot from Autodesk. They don't pay me to spend my free time on forums. re: buying two versions I'll keep repeating myself: that would be a disaster for us because who on earth would remain a customer if we did that? You say it yourself in bold! Do you think any product can survive treating their customers that way? If you acknowledge what stupid idea that would be, then please don't assume we're so stupid that we don't see that. re: logistics You have to keep in mind we got rid of VIZ at the same time and that both 3ds Max and 3ds Max Design are the exact same binary. Logistically, we're in a much better situation and VIZ customers are much happier. Telling a VIZ customer that they should buy 3ds Max - an entertainment product - isn't going to ensure the maximum number of VIZ users find a home with 3ds Max. re: future You'll be so excited because the same features will be arriving any day in your brand new copy of 3ds Max Design! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) You do understand 3ds Max Design offers that? We're not talking about turning 3ds Max Design on its head and removing your favorite 3ds Max features, we're talking about adding analytical tools that favor Design workflows. That might complicate your user experience because you have no need for those, but that is what we're thinking. There certainly is no discussion around removing anything that is already in place. Our thoughts are only around new ideas. This discussion should make it very clear why we didn't try to increase the feature differentiation in 2010. If, as some of you have suggested, we're headed down a path of creating two totally different products, why didn't we add to the differentiation in this cycle? The answer is because it is really hard to find any features that are both compelling in a specific market and won't cause grief from the other market. We felt that Exposure and the SDK were relatively safe. I think this has proven the case with 99% of our customers. Yes, I know which version I need. Design. And I think 99% of the people here need the same version. At least for the foreseeable future. You shouldn't feel like a nameless face for AutoDesk. Everyone is stating their feelings because you are the only person form AutoDesk that is present to field our questions. Edited February 12, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yes, I know which version I need. Design. And I think 99% of the people here need the same version. At least for the foreseeable future. I think part of the reason this thread has carried on so long is Ken's statement..."High-end visualization firms, like Neoscape (though there are many others) are expected to stick with the more Entertainment-oriented flavor."...when the general consensus being passed around on CGA over the last week is that we should all go Design. Just a thought but only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Hunt Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Thanks Ken, you have mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now