I agree. Photoshop - Collada - GO GO GO!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: March 27, 2008 11:19 AM
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: After Effects and Xsi Again
How about filing a *.fbx feature request with Adobe?
After brooding about it, imho, it´d be most desireable to have Photoshop and AE understand *.fbx (crosswalk).
Photoshop allready has *.obj handling, limited, quite quirky implementation but this at least signals they allready got requests or stumbled about the idea themselves.
The advantage of Crosswalk/Collada would be that this also allows to interface with other compositing apps, all sorts of 3D apps and maybe even some gameengines.
*that would be really cool*
Cheers
tim
Kris Rivel wrote:
> I don't care who the heck makes it. 3rd party would be fine and I'd
> be willing to pay for it too. I'm just saying I want better AE
> import/export tools. I agree; it may not be a great idea to have Soft
> invest time and money into this on their end. But the fact of the
> matter is that AE is an indispensable tool. Its by far the dominant
> choice when doing motion graphics and it would just be nice to not
> have to rely on and old script which doesn't usually work. No offense
> to the scripts author, its better than nothing and it does work
> sometimes. Its just tied to a specific frame rate and usually
> produces errors or requires a lot of tweaking to get everything to match.
>
> Kris
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Raffaele Fragapane <
> raffsxsilist(at)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
