SGI: Computer Graphics

Does anybody know of any studios that are still using SoftImage (not XSI)? I would have thought most have moved to Maya by now....? I can't think of a "making of" movies I've seen lately that still has some SGI gear and SoftImage on display...Pity!

I just cannot understand this mentality to 'move on up' every year with a new release of the latest and greatest software....(READ AUTODESK (Maya) HERE!!!)

Jacques.

I think ILM held onto their Softimage 3D Extreme seats for a while, using it several years ago for the Star Wars prequels. They may still even use it on some projects. Any ILMmers here?

By and large, however, the CG world has moved to Maya. It has a more open architecture so large studios can customize it to their production pipeline. When I was at Sony we hardly used any of the built-in features; 95% of the tools were custom-made. Soft3D also lacks subdivision surfaces, which seems to have displaced NURBS as the high-end modeling paradigm du jour. Maya and Linux are the current platform of choice.

Soft3D still holds a special place in my heart, though. It's tight and slim and runs great even on older SGI machines like the Indy. And if it was good enough for the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, it's good enough for any task!

ajerimez wrote: ...It's tight and slim and runs great even on older SGI machines like the Indy. And if it was good enough for the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, it's good enough for any task!

Hmm, EXACTLY my thought as well! I suppose they make their money out of upgrades and subscriptions nowadays.

I'm by no means a 3D artist but a architectural designer by day, and I still find AutoCAD 2000 (CAD) sufficient for my daily tasks! Skip on 8 years and the latest and greatest version (2008) is bog slow on a machine 4 times as powerful as the PIII 800 that breezes through version 2000...Go figure...I think there is a mentality today of "press a button" results, and that in itself could help artists 'be' artists, but on the other hand, I love to struggle with a problem for a day or so, and it's the sense of exploration and success (or frustration) at the end of the day's struggle that I so enjoy!

Jacques.

Tell me about it. I think most major software packages reached maturity a long time ago. My father, also an architect, has also stuck with AutoCAD 2000, and was using it on an 850MHz P3 running Win2k until a week ago when he succumbed to the urge to buy a new Dell XPS. He's sticking with AutoCAD 2000, though, which seems to run ok on Vista.

Other software that stopped improving a long time ago?

Microsoft Word - probably no worthwhile improvements since 1995, when they added long filenames. You knew in Word 97, with the debut of the talking paperclip, that they had run out of ideas

Windows - 2000 was the last worthwhile upgrade for most users, adding USB and FireWire support along with DirectX and Plug and Play. XP was the same product with a dumbed-down interface and more bloat. Vista is an order of magnitude worse, and they've altered the interface so drastically that it's now a completely un-intuitive hodgepodge. I think Microsoft has become their own worst enemy, and the best reason to switch to a Mac.

America Online - oops, sorry, this was never worth using!

Photoshop - 4.01. Sure, there are some added features in later releases, but Adobe always seems to add more overhead than features. 4.01 is stable, fast, and compatible with every major file format in use today. Not bad for a 12 year old program.

One general peculiarity of software - the bloat always seems to increase exponentially, while the features only increase linearly.

ajerimez wrote: Tell me about it. I think most major software packages reached maturity a long time ago.

In general I totallly agree with you and that's especially true in the case of gnu stuff but there are exceptions. Pro/E has ruined the interface as far as I'm concerned but there's lots of useful new surfacing abilities in the newer versions. Death of Wildfire on Irix has really taken the fun out of the Fuel for me.

Windows - 2000 was the last worthwhile upgrade for most users ...

Windows Server 2003, actually. They fixed the network components in particular. It's sort of like a better xp without all the crud.

I think Microsoft has become their own worst enemy, and the best reason to switch to a Mac.

Scary to see all the mainstream people considering Macintosh these days.

One general peculiarity of software - the bloat always seems to increase exponentially, while the features only increase linearly.

Probably a result of letting every retarded person on earth have a computer. China Telecom and HP had a joint deal where peasants could get a p-iv with a gig of memory, 17" lcd and broadband connection for an interest-free pittance. Something like $ 500 bucks total, spread over three years ... well, there's a lawyer (the earth will be at peace when the last lawyer is hanged in the entrails of the last priest) drumming up support for some kind of action. The peasants were robbed, the computers are too slow, the flat panels old technlogy and so on. Truly hard to believe but oh-too-many dorks are ready to rush in, pontificating on how the poor farmers were robbed. Shee-it, my 4 mhz 286 with a 13" monitor cost $ 4600 from HP new. Who got robbed ?

Scary to see all the mainstream people considering Macintosh these days.

that`s in fact good, mac (os) is a nice platform, i readed that current industrial mainstream in hollywood is a mac runing linux, so where once SGI dominated, today is mac ... from my personal experience using win/pcee platform to do production quality jobs in time-dead-lines environments when your life is in danger though because of serious contracts - itself is a SCARY thing ... things just die when they just can`t, and you never know if the job will be finished in proper maner ... simple dumb everyday example: we had 4 hours to finish some big promotional pre-print about 2 x 2m in 300 dpi resolution (as i remember) full color, it had about 1.5 G when loaded in photoshop, on a high-decent-blowish-pc things go wrong form the start, we spent 3 hours of loading, re-loading, crashing, re-saving, etc ... with even one step of image manipulation ... then when things go serious, we switched to plain intel2 iMac with 2G ram all finished in 30 min., other 30 min we drinked cofee and joked ... this is reality ...

...well something like SGI solutions in production environments is definetly missing, in the other hand mac is a decent replacement, at least for now... and huh vista is a childplay for childs ...

A mac these days is serious UNIX !
I rest my case ......

JacquesT wrote: I just cannot understand this mentality to 'move on up' every year with a new release of the latest and greatest software....(READ AUTODESK (Maya) HERE!!!) .

Bug fixes, new features, workflow improvements

No studio today would be competetive using old software like Softimage. I started with Houdini at version 4 and it is now at version 9. The amount of advancement in the software since then has been enormous , with no signs of petering off. These programs are nowhere near "done".

I can understand new features and improved workflow, but bug fixes should be released as patches, not 'pay to fix' upgrades every year. Are there really sooo many advances in the program build and interface + features that it justifies a new release every year?...Hmm.

In terms of new features, with regard to AutoCAD, I haven't seen anything new in 4 years! They change the buttons...but it still crashes when setting multiple splines, 4 years on!

Can't comment on Maya, as I don't use it...yet.

I stopped using Lightwave at version 5.6, but I recall (as best memory serves ) the 'upgrade' from the previous release was a particle system plugin , and a slightly different UI layout...Worth $3000 per seat? Hmm.

I just think these companies are taking the p*ss. But then, if you're making ends meet and then some on a specific package, why upgrade? Some of the local studios here are still using Maya 6.5, and they crank out a few TV commercials a year.

Jacques.

I agree about these non stop updates, Max 2009 arrived on my desk today. The only way to survive is to go onto subscription these days as it keeps it affordable. I am still running version 9 & the 2 newer versions are still sealed sitting in their boxes.

Timberoz.

cybercow wrote: ... i readed that current industrial mainstream in hollywood is a mac runing linux ...

How is an Intel Mac running Linux different from a well-built PC running Linux? I wonder.

JacquesT wrote: I can understand new features and improved workflow, but bug fixes should be released as patches, not 'pay to fix' upgrades every year.

Sidefx releases daily builds of Houdini with bug fixes. You don't have to pay for them and they are available to users of Houdini Apprentice (the free learning edition).

Are there really sooo many advances in the program build and interface + features that it justifies a new release every year?...Hmm.

Yes. For Houdini at least. Can't comment on other apps, but if you read some of the sh*tstorm threads about new maya & 3ds releases on cgtalk, they are telling.... But hey, that's Autodesk for you.

shyouko wrote: How is an Intel Mac running Linux different from a well-built PC running Linux? I wonder.

Only the number of zeros in the price tag...

It's weird you used to hear studios boast about their equipment sgi and large render farms. Now days it seems it is all subcontrated out to smaller specialized firms working on just specific parts of the film production. I think this is why it has become more secretive, because they don't want their competitors using their subcontractors. The large production houses have moved from all in-house to sub contracting the special effects computer graphics out of house.

sgiSteve

I'm using Autocad every day in my work for maybe 7 years and I realised that the 3 major changes until 12 (dos version).

release 13 - runs under windows, much slower then 12, uses icons instead of text fields. customizable, iconbars, using system printers to print - very useful! using system gfx card drivers - also very goot feature of porting to windows
release 2000 or 2002 - addeted properties button with extendet selection button.
release 2004 - new icon colors (changed from red to blue), moved plotstyle tables to hidden directory - very funny to see how my coworkers are seeking them total localization of czech version - even commands are translated! It made localized autocad almost unuseful, becouse using captions in commands etc... Much smaller file than older version cca -30%

We are using autocad with geomap upgrade, so I use plenty of non autocad functions, maybe more useful thinks are attached - but this "touchs" my everyday work