91–100 of 153 posts
Going to plug freecad - http://www.freecadweb.org/ Of course its not Autodesk, it does not have millions of active subscriptions pumping money into it. But it is pretty fun to play with, I made a 3d model of my house in it about two years ago. For recreational CAD it is more than sufficient.
I really wish all the various companies that use 3D modeling and animations software would fund and/or contribute to Blender (or some other open source 3D app) Maya and 3dsmax are great and arguably better than Blender but it seems like if they pooled their resources they could change that and everyone would be better off for it.
Part of the trouble is that the FBX format in parts of these industries is like the DOC(X) and XLS(X) formats in office productivity software: everyone uses it, so if you want to use a tool that doesn't reliably convert to/from it losslessly you are at risk of severe friction when working with others. And like DOC(X) and XLS(X), it's a proprietary format, which creates various complications for anyone who wants to cr…
It reminds me of Gimp, which had a similar weird UI where every window had its own unique menus and what not. To give them credit, they fixed the UI for the better.
Just in case people are not familiar - Autodesk owns a considerable share of cad market (which is far more encompassing than just Autocad) and they've palmed few of the biggest 3D modeling suites - Maya, 3DMax and (sigh ) XSI. Their DWG format (Autocad's native databaseformat) is a binary blob that still has a huge impact in construction industry and is a major PITA unless one is using Autocad tools. They are a huge…
XSI was originally from Softimage. Softimage sold out to Microsoft, which had no idea what to do with a high-end product other than to make it run on Windows NT. That ended SGI's reign in Hollywood; between 1998 and 2001, studios moved off SGI onto PCs with lots of memory and graphics cards that rapidly got cheaper. Microsoft sold Softimage to Avid. Avid wanted Softimage because they also had a good non-linear editor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was astonished by poor quality of Fusion 360. On paper it makes great sense, in practice I found it practically unusable.
I've been using it on and off for the past six months, and I agree it has issues. However, it's tons better now than it was even when I started, so it seems they're quite aggressively work on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 1995, SGI bought Alias and Wavefront, each with their own animation systems. Impressively, SGI got their people to work together and produce Maya. But it was close to the end of $10,000 to $20,000 graphics workstations; around 2000, the gamer graphics cards became good enough to run the high end software. SGI thrashed around for years trying to find a niche. They bought Cray, for supercomputers. Didn't work out. T…
Interestingly, SGI seems to be doing alright with their supercomputer business, such as UV. The market certainly shrank on them, but what's leftover doesn't look like commoditized or cloud computing will be able to compete it away any time soon. I agree they made poor acquisition choices, but not that "expensive computing [is] over" -- it's just not the consumer market people thought it would be.
So, it's not quite the same lineage.
The new SGI does seem to have some nice gear, but I don't know how much secret sauce there is. I've never used it, but it looks pretty commodity to me. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might be even worse news for Adobe, though. It's hard to find reliable information about how successful their SaaS model has been, but the most plausible arguments/data I've seen would suggest they have very roughly half as many CC subscribers by now as they sold full copies of the main CS6 suites. IIRC the figures did not take into account sales of individual CS product licences, nor allow for existing customer…
You might be interested in this analysis: http://tomtunguz.com/adobe-saas-growth/ Looks like the transition has been good so far.
Given this one links to data straight from the source, I'm going to assume it's reliable and therefore the previous report I mentioned with lots of caveats was actually off by about a factor of 2-3.
The most interesting detail here might be that while they've been steadily increasing their subscriber base for CC so far, they're also still only at around half of their previous installed base for Creative Suite even today, around 3.5 years after launch. To put that in perspective, a little under half of that previous installed base was on CS6, while a modest majority were still on CS3-CS5.5. That suggests it may become harder for them to continue growing their CC subscriber base at the same rate if they approach a saturation point within the industry or at least within those parts of it willing to keep spending money on regular updates.
The other thing we should probably consider is that Adobe had almost a free ride in the early days of CC, as there was relatively little serious competition left in the industry. Now they're starting to face credible threats, albeit mostly on a small scale or in specific niches for now, and if they lose mind share and eventually the critical mass that means everyone has to use CC because everyone uses CC, that could cause them some problems.
The next couple of years will be interesting for them. Presumably time will tell whether they can find ways to drive significantly more people to regular subscriptions than they used to get upgrading anyway, and whether they'll be able to hold off any emerging competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the trouble is that the FBX format in parts of these industries is like the DOC(X) and XLS(X) formats in office productivity software: everyone uses it, so if you want to use a tool that doesn't reliably convert to/from it losslessly you are at risk of severe friction when working with others. And like DOC(X) and XLS(X), it's a proprietary format, which creates various complications for anyone who wants to cr…
The UI of Blender could be a lot better. 3D Max, Maya, CINEMA 4D, CATIA, SketchUp ... every 3D software has a sane UI that can be used without reading a manual at all. Except Blender with its non standard UI concepts. Hopefully someone sponsors a UI clean up. It reminds me of Gimp, which had a similar weird UI where every window had its own unique menus and what not. To give them credit, they fixed the UI for the bet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the trouble is that the FBX format in parts of these industries is like the DOC(X) and XLS(X) formats in office productivity software: everyone uses it, so if you want to use a tool that doesn't reliably convert to/from it losslessly you are at risk of severe friction when working with others. And like DOC(X) and XLS(X), it's a proprietary format, which creates various complications for anyone who wants to cr…
The UI of Blender could be a lot better. 3D Max, Maya, CINEMA 4D, CATIA, SketchUp ... every 3D software has a sane UI that can be used without reading a manual at all. Except Blender with its non standard UI concepts. Hopefully someone sponsors a UI clean up. It reminds me of Gimp, which had a similar weird UI where every window had its own unique menus and what not. To give them credit, they fixed the UI for the bet…
Just in case people are not familiar - Autodesk owns a considerable share of cad market (which is far more encompassing than just Autocad) and they've palmed few of the biggest 3D modeling suites - Maya, 3DMax and (sigh ) XSI. Their DWG format (Autocad's native databaseformat) is a binary blob that still has a huge impact in construction industry and is a major PITA unless one is using Autocad tools. They are a huge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There is orders of magnitude more computer science innovation in Autodesk than in the average "unicorn" I was under the impression that they've bought most of their marketable innovations. I realize this was not a fair comment to current employees there - yes, the software suites are impressive and Autocad reseachers have produces very nice things. I would still categorize them as a huge corporation with vested inte…
> I was under the impression that they've bought most of their marketable innovations. They did, but once you buy it, it's yours? The large companies buying up smaller ones are essentially funding the research and innovation.
Autodesk certainly doesn't think so, at least with respect to people who purchase copies of their software.