EIAS needs perfect interoperativity with both poly/SDS-based modelers and parametric solids/surfaces ones, as EITG’s clients are clearly polarized between these camps. It’s not an either-or choice: these are two holes to fill both.
There are the ViaCADs and such out there, some of those having really good FACT export features, but EIM, for all its deficiencies, offered a very fluid UI (refreshingly un-CAD-like) and the best tesselation facilities available, so I think it deserves to be revived to at the very least its last featureset, as a starting point. I don’t know how difficult bringing EIAS to Xcode and Mac on Intel was, but if EIM shared EI’s frameworks and things, and if the ACIS license was the stumbling block back when it was terminated, then:
-Updating EIM to work on Intel Macs shouldn’t be that enormous an investment of manpower (but then perhaps I am being incredibly naive).
-Maybe it should be sold separately, in order not to penalize clients that won’t care for this class of modeling apps (and perhaps that would reduce ACIS royalties’ costs, too).
-If it can get to be a better modeler by discarding ACIS and adopting another core, I’d go for it. The problem is, ACIS I/O is important to many: could it be solved via a paid plugin, or only the real thing does the work?
-I think there ought to be an ambition to turn it into an standalone product sellable to non-EIAS users, though, so that it eventually hasn’t got to justify itself anymore. There’s a germ of a very good conceptual design tool in it. Would a matured EIM with some texturing features and Camera make sense in the market where the Form•Zs, Concepts, Cobalts and such reside?
As for SDS/Polys, it seems it is a matter of simply getting textured OBJ import right, and perhaps being able to mark groups as cages to subdivide in Camera. Things that currently are done via third party plugins but really belong to the base feature set. There being so many cheap apps out there, Modo being the costlier one, the only advantages an EIAS SDS/Poly app could offer in order to prevail would be being able to do basic texturing inside it (to easily solve texture placement, textured objects displaced/rotated/scaled replication, marking what’s a SDS cage and what’s a conventional poly group, boning, and some sort of roundtrip facility (roundtrippin’ would be very welcome at EIM, too).
If resources are so limited that resurrecting EIM is a no go, then the idea of providing bundles and discounts for selected modelers, some work done on them or in EIAS to insure perfect textured model import/export, seems perfectly reasonable to me for now. Marketing it probably would be a bit delicate an operation, even if it would be a sign of maturity, in a way.
Very good in principle. I’ve worked in many studio environments...so I know that finding the right concert of programs that can work together can be a boon to production. However, I’m also aware of what can happen if one of those applications is out of concert. The result is torture. The scenario you describe is the best case scenario. The problem is, most companies are not that altruistic.
NervCenter’s focus is Silo, not EIAS. I guarantee you that NervCenter will not adapt or accommodate its business plan to favor EITG. Likewise, EITG doesn’t have NervCenter’s best interests in mind either. It was nice that EITG could put together a deal between the two companies to provide a stop gap for the loss of EIM and maybe a little exposure for NervCenter...but that’s all it was. A stop gap. EITG’s overall direction and plan for EIAS should not rely on outside applications and external forces that can potentially limit or deflect EITG’s desired goals. If NervCenter fails or calls it quits, customers are affected.
All and all, EITG needs to be self sufficient and healthy. The revitalization of EIM is one of several steps to reclaim the company’s stability.
I think EIAS is incomplete if it does not address the most basic needs of an animation package ASAP:
1.0 include a modeler that can read and write Obj file and some other popular file format.
2.0 Include a UV editor whether reside within the modeler or Animator
3.0 A time base modeler that provide vertex level manupulations.
4.0 A seamless bridge between Modeler and Animator.
I hope the above can be a good minimum starting points to welcome EIM back. I know the wish list is long but let EITG address the basic needs and move on from there. I believe given time the Modeler will be top node. Let not blast the enthusiasm away and see what can come out from there by giving approprate support. I think EITG shall price the come back base on feature set comparable to other modelers and not to scare us a way.
We see this discussion and we feel a bit sorry/regret about tons of constructive energy are wasted for nothing ;-( You know (same as we or even better) that “revenge” and “trying to prove I’m also or even more..” is a counter-productive way. Many and many really good, interested prjs were killed by enormous “ambitions” (in our practice too). Brad didn’t ask you/us about business plans/advices. That’s not your/our affair to estimate EITG resources. Brad (maybe) wants to resurrect something? Well, it’s his solution, his risk and his reasponsibility. He will pay his money, not you/we. So, let’s not interfere him
How about to “project” these big plans on “practical plane”? Just one example: SDS. It’s not a myth to have built-in SDS in EI8. And let theoretics discuss is it good or bad ("I don’t care” variant). What? Ah, no, it’s “too simple/primitive” for your global “revitalization” plans. A big talk is better than a little but concrete result? As you want, please continue your big talk.
Both big and small details are needed for the overall picture. People are just interested in expressing their opinion in order to influence Brad in his decision making process. Its normal. I would care to say that Brad takes a lot of these things into consideration. It would be unwise of him not to get at least some of his information for change from his user base.
So lets focus on little details. How would you like to see SDS implemented into Animator v8 if EIM came back to life? I think SDS cage manipulation in v8 would be very helpful for a number of people. Character animators could certainly use it.
Both big and small details are needed for the overall picture. People are just interested in expressing their opinion in order to influence Brad in his decision making process. Its normal. I would care to say that Brad takes a lot of these things into consideration. It would be unwise of him not to get at least some of his information for change from his user base.
We don’t think “more info = better”, it’s more a chaos and a lot of personal emotions rather than objective help.
Paralumino - 07 November 2007 09:08 PM
So lets focus on little details. How would you like to see SDS implemented into Animator v8 if EIM came back to life? I think SDS cage manipulation in v8 would be very helpful for a number of people. Character animators could certainly use it.
if came back or not = we don’t care. You know well a difference between “integrated” and “external” tool. Even a “primitive” implementation makes a sense if it allows to try tenths of variants just here (in prj), without import-import jumps.
About SDS: we aren’t “young pioneers” who tries to prove something. We proposed it before Encage plug-in appeared yet. But “no judge for “no” (as we say here). Thus we’ve no plans to insists, moreover there are a lot (or even more) things to do.
IMO your mistake is an assumption that “someone” should dig up/filter the murky stream of your words to extract brilliant ideas from tons of sand. Nobody wants to do this simply cause it’s really hard and ungrateful work. Thus the stream is flowing and flowing, but.. who can build a mill?
SDS for V8 will be a big step forward but please do not forget to include an UV editor so that we can solve the UV mapping frustration. A capable OBJ import and export will be a big plus tin place for a full blown updated EIM so that we can move the geometry in and out to get help from other modelers while waiting for EIM to grow. Hope these requests are reasonable
Cheers,
We don’t think “more info = better”, it’s more a chaos and a lot of personal emotions rather than objective help.
In other words, its not an “objective” help to the programmer. Correct? Hmmm, not a surprising answer. What about other people at EITG? What about the marketing department? Or the executive department? Surely you understand that its the EIAS users that keep this program alive through their support and their willingness to continue purchasing upgrades. Its because of this that Brad needs to continue receivng as much information about his customers’ wants and desires he can in order to help him plot the future course of the program. Is that chaotic? Yes, absolutely. But that is his job. As CEO he looks for trends, analyzes customer input, and makes exectutive decisions. He can’t do that in the dark. His decisions are driven by a combination of the company’s goals, his customers’ desires, and EITG’s financial situation. But ultimately customer satisfaction is the most paramount thing to the success of program. Restricting customer opinion and directing people by telling them what they need or don’t need without considering their opinions doesn’t work in a free market place. (unless you’re advertising...then its all about telling people what they want) But ultimately its the customers who will decide. The reason why people are emotional is because they have spent their hard earned money on a product and they don’t want to feel that they’ve made some kind of mistake.
Igors - 07 November 2007 10:06 PM
if came back or not = we don’t care. You know well a difference between “integrated” and “external” tool. Even a “primitive” implementation makes a sense if it allows to try tenths of variants just here (in prj), without import-import jumps.
Yes.. I do know the difference between the two. Ultimately I’d love to see a fully integrated and unified EI modeling and animation package based on a new framework, but that’s not the point. The point is how do you make that happen? That, my friends, is the point of these discussions. Perhaps the average user doesn’t have the technical and programming knowledge necessary to make a coherant arguement on how this should be done, but that doesn’t mean their opinions and ideas are not valid. To say so is insulting the user and that is never good for business. The thing that the users have over the programmers are hundreds if not thousands of more man hours in a production environment working with this software. As much as the programmer know EIAS technically, the users, collectively, know it relationally. This has always been the problem between those who program the code and those who actually use it. To dismiss such collective knowledge and experience is a terrible mistake.
Igors - 07 November 2007 10:06 PM
About SDS: we aren’t “young pioneers” who tries to prove something. We proposed it before Encage plug-in appeared yet. But “no judge for “no” (as we say here). Thus we’ve no plans to insists, moreover there are a lot (or even more) things to do.
Maybe now is the time that such implementations are possible? Try again. One should never loose their pioneering spirit because without it a person can become disallusioned, jaded and cynical. I know this, because its happened to me before.
Igors - 07 November 2007 10:06 PM
IMO your mistake is an assumption that “someone” should dig up/filter the murky stream of your words to extract brilliant ideas from tons of sand. Nobody wants to do this simply cause it’s really hard and ungrateful work. Thus the stream is flowing and flowing, but.. who can build a mill?
Why do you have to make this personal by using “your mistake” and “your words” and thus directing that last comment at me? Igors, I’ve always respected you and your talents and we may disagree on the philosophy on how to do certain things, but I don’t publically insult you...and if I have then I most certainly apologize. I just want to get along. I want to be heard. I’ve never claimed to be brilliant but I do think I have valid ideas and I express myself quite clearly. Therefore my words are not just “sand” or “murky water”. My opinions are based on years of practical knowledge in the film and entertainment industry just as yours are based on years of programming experience. Both are valuable.
Sometimes its the really hard and ungrateful work that gets the job done and that “somone” you talked about is the leadership of EITG and that’s their job. As I’ve stated before, EITG MUST consider the wishes and desires of its customer base unless they deliberately want to continue loosing market share and the hope of ever keeping this software alive.
I wholly agree with these viewpoints! If software (of whatever product for that matter) companies routinely ignore their customer base; if Mount Olympus is their only dwelling ground - they will be doomed. It will be short-term or long-term but in the end they are doomed and rightly so.
If a company, however small or big, choses to ignore me as a customer (or react with stupid, immature answers) they’ve lost me forever. In the end it’s my money I need to spend on a product and my income that I’ve got to earn with it. In the normal world these are serious things. On the other hand, if I get the impression that someone genuinly cares and takes his time to address my issues (thank you, Johnathan; thank you Phil) than I will be a very loyal customer indeed. Things work that way.
Very good in principle. I’ve worked in many studio environments...so I know that finding the right concert of programs that can work together can be a boon to production. However, I’m also aware of what can happen if one of those applications is out of concert. The result is torture. The scenario you describe is the best case scenario. The problem is, most companies are not that altruistic.
Shortly after writing my message a different, and perhaps more appropriate example sprung to mind: I was more thinking along the lines of a Maya/Mental Ray type of solution. I must admit that I do not know the terms of their co-operation but I do know that it is a near perfect marriage for the user (like me). It may, however, be one of those best case scenarios that you mention.
NervCenter’s focus is Silo, not EIAS. I guarantee you that NervCenter will not adapt or accommodate its business plan to favor EITG. Likewise, EITG doesn’t have NervCenter’s best interests in mind either. It was nice that EITG could put together a deal between the two companies to provide a stop gap for the loss of EIM and maybe a little exposure for NervCenter...but that’s all it was. A stop gap. EITG’s overall direction and plan for EIAS should not rely on outside applications and external forces that can potentially limit or deflect EITG’s desired goals. If NervCenter fails or calls it quits, customers are affected.
I cannot judge about the respective focusses of EITG and Nevercenter but again I was thinking along a Maya/Mental Ray type of line: both independent companies but with a shared goal for an integrated product. And a good one too, that is. And with reference to a number of other messages in this thread: Mental Images is one of those companies that listens very well to their customers, even if it is a student like me. I’ve fired a lot of questions at them, and their reactions are always courteous, worthwhile and helping me a lot further.
All and all, EITG needs to be self sufficient and healthy. The revitalization of EIM is one of several steps to reclaim the company’s stability.
I agree with the first statement. If the resurrection of EIM is the right step, I cannot judge. If so, I’ll be very very happy. If not, I wish a different path would have been chosen.
We’ll see and wait, and hope for a bright future for EIAS!
...Brad didn’t ask you/us about business plans/advices. That’s not your/our affair to estimate EITG resources. Brad (maybe) wants to resurrect something? Well, it’s his solution, his risk and his reasponsibility. He will pay his money, not you/we. So, let’s not interfere him
OK, fair enough (No! No fair! :D). But even restricting ourselves to those parameters, meaning filling the survey and shutting our mouths up , some of the questions in that survey are very ambiguous, specially the second and third ones: it’s not clear if they are about abandoning parametric solids/surfaces modeling and polygon resolution independence for a pure poly and SDS approach.
(a “SDS cage” checkbox and SubD degree field in the Group Info panel would be huge. Let’s add a mini-Cage Editor to that :D. Once v7 is released, I’d like us to start some themed threads regarding feasible ideas for v8. It is difficult to suggest anything without seeing how v7 behaves)
It’s an interesting discussion. And I’d like to add a view point from a pre-modeler EIAS user. When Modeler was introduced the first time, our company already had an established work flow, and as such a new modeler was not such a draw (training old and new hires costs money). We continued to keep our modeler (formZ) licenses current, as we kept EIAS up to date. By the time some proficiency in the office with the EIAS Modeler emerged the program was no longer part of EIAS.
What ever wonderful things A new Modeler could do, would have to cover a lot of territory to cause a new investment in training for the new package. We’d also have to believe the modeler would remain as part of the package in the future. The idea of having to pay extra for the Modeler (even if just for our post EIAS 5 licenses) in the future is not welcome, still we would support whatever growth happens to EITG. Obviously we all want EIAS to grow and succeed.
For us a modeler, or really just a version of EIAS, which supported stable imports of MAX and lightwave files would be worth the added price. Otherwise, just keep improving the rendering/animation side.
OK, fair enough (No! No fair! :D). But even restricting ourselves to those parameters, meaning filling the survey and shutting our mouths up
Well, we didn’t say so But, really, for what you/we need to imagine big plans, rainbow perspectives etc.? “Hope for better, be ready for worst” = a banal common sense. Over-expectation often means also disappointing very soon.
If Animator could adopt OBJ file as an internal file format and only convert to poly when it send the data to camera for render, together with a capable OBJ import and export system, then we can freely work with many capable external modeler and EITG can then concentrate all the resources in enhancing Animator and Camera.
How would you like to see SDS implemented into Animator v8 if EIM came back to life? I think SDS cage manipulation in v8 would be very helpful for a number of people. Character animators could certainly use it.
