I don't know if it's a special talent not to read previous mails and
jumping to answering them, or if it's just some cosmic flux...
In regards to:
"BTW please show me any other "compositor", that can match AE in ease of
use and production speed in ANY motion graphics project"
re-read the part that says " all make it a good editorial and mograph 300$
software" please. It's excellent for that, and that alone.
As for "taking those 10 minutes" it was my personal wish that Soft
wouldn't spend even that much on just considering the idea, but nowhere it's
said that it would take that much, quite the opposite instead.
This is exactly the kind of things you leave to plug-ins and don't dump on
core developers who have much more important things to do, not to mention
what a pain in the ass of a feature it is to manage.
C4D is the only exception to this rule because cad imports and
re-renderings and mograph represent well over half their userbase, so it's
not that valid of an example as doing otherwise would cost them a good chunk
of userbase. It's like saying motionbuilder handles mocap files better, of
course it does, it's all people use it for it'd be pretty embarassing if it
didn't.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:47 PM, pingo van der brinkloev <
xsilist(at)comxnet.dk> wrote:
I'm not gonna battle compositors like Nuke or Fusion and whatnot, which
I believe anytime will be not even comparable to AE for Bigtime FX shots.
But for what I do I use Aftereffects all the time. And think an XSItoAFX
button it's a pretty small "whish" to have. It doesn't need to do much more
than Helges script does, but it really would be a nice internal feature.
BTW please show me any other "compositor", that can match AE in ease of
use and production speed in ANY motion graphics project.
- That's a challenge, I would seriously be interested to know if there's
something out there worth a look.
C4D and AE work extremely well together (it can also export to some
other highend packages). C4D made Mograph which is integrated and they
are definitely selling more copies of their software because of these
two factors.
- I see more and more of these posts on this list containing the words
Cinema4d, Motion Graphics, AfterEffects... Oh and Houdini. And what's funny
is that they're all about other software and stuff that XSI can't do. It's
interesting.
I agree with David. And I think Soft should use those 10 minutes.
cheers!
On 27/03/2008, at 13.21, Raffaele Fragapane wrote:
It's also guaranteed headache for Soft when adobe releases a new AFX
version while they're in a dec cycle with other priorities, not to mention a
feature that's only remotely useful for a small percentage of the userbase,
and indispensible for none.
It would require a developer to spend valuable time dealing with another
app that needs to be maintained and updated and learning things that really
aren't that important to XSI as an actual 3D app.
Why don't you ask Adobe to start releasing plugins for 3D softwares? :)
and what "across platforms"?
AFX only runs on win32 of all the platforms xsi works on.
If there is one feature I really don't want to see Soft spending even 10
minutes on, it's one that supports a PoS, overrated, overpriced and overused
application that shouldn't even be on the market in first place, let alone
have further diffusion supported.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56 AM, André Adam <a_adam(at)49games.de> wrote:
A native solution is a guarantee that the feature is available across
all platforms and, in case of new releases, properly maintained.
