Who will test and regulate it?
The users. Just like they do now.
It's very simple, offer a feedback function like on
ebay. Simply offer a checkbox for what versions of
XSI it works with. As new versions of XSI are
released, users will quickly find out if it works with
XSI 7.5 and rate it one way or the other. You can see
right on the tools list, how many users have approved
it to work with what versions of XSI.
Authors could also get "stars" based on the number of
people approving their tools. Someone like Helge for
example, would get a higher rating than Joe-Shmoe
who's tools never quite work right and get a low
rating.
Honestly, I don't want Soft to regulate it and manage
it, we can do that easily enough, the framework is
there, just add some features to it, like every other
webpage on the net. How much HD space could it take?
HD's are rediculously cheap anyway so the point is
moot.
E
--- Matt Lind <speye_21(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's great and all, but the main problem with XSI
> Net the first time it
> was launched was that it required somebody from
> Softimage to maintain it.
> Softimage has fewer employees today than it did 5
> years ago - and 5 years
> ago they weren't able to keep up. So I don't see
> where the push to get this
> done is gonna come from.
>
> A 2nd problem is that the submissions to XSI Net are
> not regulated. Who
> determines which plugins/scripts/shaders are worthy
> of installation onto a
> user's machine? Who updates the code when Softimage
> releases another
> version of XSI? Who tests the submissions for
> stability and validity?
> There are a lot of good ideas out there, but there
> are also even more bad
> ones, or simply good ideas implemented very poorly
> such as an artist's
> trying to pass off copy/paste from a history log as
> a stable script or
> plugin. When Softimage hosts such a site and its
> loaded with tons of crap,
> it reflects poorly on the system. If the portal is
> open to anybody under
> the sun, then it's better for a place like
> XSIBase.com to host the goodies.
> XSI Net only makes sense if the site is rigorously
> maintained at all levels.
> It can certainly be open for submissions from
> anybody, but heavily filtered
> to maintain quality control.
>
> Ideally XSI Net should be the portal to tech support
> to improve the user's
> experience to make sure the working environment is
> as optimal as possible.
> Supply patches, service
> packs, QFE's, and other pertinent info that's
> normally reserved for the tech
> support
> channel. Notify the customer of maintenance status
> and new releases. If
> individual tools aren't working, offer a .dll for
> the affected and have it
> available for download and
> install. XSI Net should have a direct line into the
> knowledge base, FAQ's,
> and all important things related to the customer's
> direct user experience
> with XSI. Basically, XSI Net should be a connection
> similar in scope to a
> car owner and the local car dealer. But, of course,
> this is only useful if
> the database and channels are fully supported and
> maintained.
>
>
> Matt
>
> --------------------------
> Matt Lind
> Animator / Technical Director
> Softimage certified instructor:
> Softimage|3D
> Softimage|XSI
> Matt.Lind(at)Mantom.net
>
>
>
> Date : Tue, 01 May 2007
> To : XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> From : Andy Jones
> Subject : Re: online assets and resources, was Re:
> Framestore jobs?
>
> Yeah, maybe part of the .xsiaddon creation process
> should be putting
> information in the addon that makes it immediately
> postable in netview. A
> really cool thing would be if you could basically
> check out plugins from
> NetView. So, your machine would maintain a list of
> all the plugins you have
> checked out (meaning they're downloaded and
> installed on your machine), and
> then it could automatically interface with NetView
> to check for updates and
> such. Probably, this would be a button in the plugin
> manager or something.
>
> Ideally, this design could be set up so that it's
> not just netview that
> works this way. Your plugins would all have a url
> where they can check a
> location online for updates. You can see how this
> would be great for
> internal plugin distribution as well. We currently
> do something like this
> for our workgroups, in that we check out a local
> copy of a workgroup stored
> on the server, using SubVersion for revision
> control. What's cool about this
> setup is that you could have XSI-specific
> compatibility information included
> in the plugin header, so that your system could be
> smart about what upgrades
> it does.
>
> So, in summary, there would be a generic
> specification for how an XSI plugin
> should be exposed on the web. XSI would be updated
> to provide features for
> taking advantage of that specification. Netview and
> XSIBase would be ported
> to the new spec.
>
> Ideally, we could brainstorm for features the online
> plugin shares should
> have. Like automatic bug tracking, feature requests,
> support for robust
> mirroring on multiple sites without having things
> get out of sync, etc.
>
> Just read Alan's post -- yes, automatic submission
> would be a start, but I'm
> thinking go two steps further and a) beef it up with
> some more metadata and
> b) allow it to be hosted on any url, not just
> netview. Of course, there
> should be options in b) to tell netview to mirror
> the off-site post and/or
> link to it.
>
> - Andy
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
> following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
Freelance 3-D Animator, F/X Artist
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
