Yes, you ARE missing something.
Rendering something is VERY different from using something.
Rendering is inherently computationally intensive and, if it goes
according to plan, not user depending.
Using the contents creation aspect of the things you mention (hair,
syflex etc) is strongly user related, and relatively not computationally
intensive.
Computational VS User load of a job are two different things.
While the latter is a very complex problem to discuss, the former is a
problem that relates to scalability.
Scalability doesn't apply solely to performance and throughput,
Scalability is also directly tied to deployment costs and other issues.
Very often a shop will have more CPUs then it has users loading them
with data (it sure is the case the very moment you have one workstation
each, and even just a couple boxes on the farm).
Providing the capability of performing computationally intensive tasks
to essentials for a bigger domain of features, means dealing with users
needs that relate to scaling up their infrastructure.
If Soft doesn't do it, it's cool, but it makes the software GRANDEOUSLY
less viable for companies that need to scale dynamically (which
accidentaly is very close to the typical XSI customer).
If Soft does it they might lose a few Advanced licenses, but have more
and happier users.
What's being discussed here is not, like you seem to think, a "gimme
gimme gimme" kid jumping up and down; it's actually closer to a feature
request then it is to changing tokenization of licenses.
Like with all feature requests, if you ask for some features, I might
find them a waste of time, but 90% of the userbase might find them
lifesaving, and viceversa, and like with all feature requests, you can
ask people to consider what they are asking under a different light.
Telling others that they are being financially unreasonable, and putting
it in a sales key, is something that's up to Soft to deal with if they
wish to, but right now your perspective is too narrow to grasp the
identity of an issue, and you're trying to ram down other people's
throats a reading key (kids stomping their feet) that doesn't fit the
subject.
You're also assuming that if ground is given to essentials, then it will
have to be given to foundation as well, and when people brought up the
networking differences between the two, you quickly discounted it as
pointless and out of context. Well, guess what... that networking
difference is the only clear cut line delimiting FND from ESS, moreso
then features, so in the context of making a software FINANCIALLY more
scalar, it DOES apply.
******************************
| Raffaele Fragapane |
| Rising Sun Pictures |
| "Remember, TD is for TopDog" |
******************************
Bernard Lebel wrote:
> I must be missing something. You guys don't mind not having access to
> hair, syflex, ref models and such (although you can still open the
> scene), and also batch rendering, but you'd want to be able to render
> these features out.
>
> Sorry, I'll probably get flamed for this, but Softimage, if you're
> listening, please DO NOT allow this. I hardly see how could Advanced
> (or even Essentials) licenses be justified in this situation. Oh, yeah
> I got it, half of the studio will use Foundation, but yet all
> computers will be usable at night for rendering...... Sorry but you
> buy the thing or you don't.
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
