Yep, but that’s not capped like in Max. 
And there’s no Convert To Mesh and Cap Holes modifier to compensate that either.
Select two Blender curve points, right-click and choose Subdivide from the context menu.
You can’t slide a point along the curve though. That’d be really nice.
Same here. It was my own Amiga though. I’ve probably got the age of your parents.
While still creating 2D pixel graphics for Amiga games in the late 1980s I started fooling around in a 3D editor called Sculpt 3D. It was the first consumer-level 3D editor I know, responsible for the classic Amiga Juggler demo.
Then I moved on to Turbo Silver and Imagine, which was also available for MS-DOS. Around 1996 I made my first steps in 3D Studio Max (as it was still called back then, coming from 3D Studio for MS-DOS).
Lowly Atari ST 512 user here 
My first experience was 3D construction kit. Blew my mind at the time, although it wasn’t true 3D, rather vectors. We may be old(80s kids), but we are the generation that first experienced home computing and have been there through the entire evolution, right up to the zombie generation who spend every waking(and frustratingly, walking) moment with their heads buried in a tiny screen.
Nice! The ST was a fine machine as well. I still think Commodore should have included a MIDI port in the Amiga, like the ST had.
Like you, I’m really glad I experienced the exciting early years of the digital revolution, spending time in dimly lit attics, connecting to Bulletin Board Systems using a slow dial-up modem, years before the dawn of the public internet.
In those days people tended to laugh at you and derogatorily call you a “computer nerd”, while these days everyone panics as soon as they’re offline. 
My 2 cents:
I still use 3ds max as main tool in archviz studio I work at. At first I must say that we got 2016 version (last perpetual license), and this version as far as I know has been considered as pretty solid and one of those good ones.
Overall 3ds max is a great tool and has been numero uno for a lot CGI areas, however (and I speak only for 2016 version) there are so many things ***** up that seriously slows you down. This is coming to the light more and more as I am working with a better hardware and so manual work is actually getting over the rendering time.
It has already been mentioned terrible loading time, random crashes, long saving time, group open/close cycling bug (if you do it too ofthen it makes you scene almost impossible, lagging it to madness until you ungroup all cycled groups), merging files repetitively also slows down scene until you close and open max again, crashes sometimes corrupt ui and resets all your presets ui/keymap wise…, even closing max is sometimes tediously slow, and many many more…
The bigger the scene the more often those issues are. Right I do work in the Archviz field and yes Archviz guys are arguably the least technically educated lot in whole CGI industry and so model/scene optimalization is close to none more often than not. Still those issues are there and are slowing you down like a boulder chained to your leg.
I cannot speak for latest versions (only what I get from forums/youtube/ other comments) but I am far from considering 3ds max a healthy environment to work in for 8-12 hours a day. To make things clear I really don’t think that 3ds max is going to go away or “die” anytime soon (those deep roots in Archviz lol…) and Blender still has it’s issues but fact is (from various sources) that a lot of people from archviz field (yes archviz!) are switching or seriously considering 3ds max ----> Blender. Even larger studios…
One of the main reason that holds the gate is the lack of proper port of V-ray (which is being worked on - yes even Chaos group smells blood in the water) or Corona renderer (only non official port sadly). Archviz guys are too comfy (or I don’t know) to get their hands around Cycles, which is simply sad because besides kinda clunky glass shader solution and lack of proper proxy system I am getting really fond of Cycles (and it is still improving).
Well this is already too long…gotta cut it. Anyways considering Corona virus spread last weeks and how it is going to affect economy (first hints are TERRIBLY scary…)then process of Blender getting into Archviz field might jump into the light speed…let’s buckle up this is gonna be a bumpy ride.
T.
Coronavirus might be positive for the advance of FOSS, how much depends on whether or not we start seeing the cure distributed by the millions in a few weeks.
The reason, studios will not be able to keep their seats of Max, Maya, C4D, and even Modo active if they are not making money (because of how they are now subscription based). Autodesk and friends could find out real quick the downside of ending software ownership.
Agreed as I mentioned that in a last part of that stupidly long post of mine. I think you are right as it does apply for other open source or decently priced (e.g. Serif Affinity) software aswell. Yeah in upcoming months we shall see if subscription model is really that great…
I know that and that’s not the same as adding a point manually wherever you want. Subdivide adds a point at the center, and since you can’t slide it, it’s a nightmare if you want to position a point at specific location.
Also, in max, crease (mark sharp in blender) affects the smooth modifier, which, for some reason, isn’t the case in blender. It only works with auto smooth…
http://help.autodesk.com/view/3DSMAX/2021/ENU/?guid=GUID-566A8DA5-C3EA-472F-B846-AB334616D6BD
Compared to other apps, the release really doesn’t add anything major, especially since one of the major points is that they switched the default render engine from Scanline to Arnold.
The other major points are all visuals, such as a couple of simple PBR shaders, a few OSL shaders, a baking update, and something like Blender’s autosmooth, one of them can’t even be used unless you have Substance Designer (so those trying to flee Adobe are out of luck).
What they don’t mention in the release notes:
New BTT(baking to texture tool to replace legacy RTT) doesn’t yet support Arnold normal map baking so you have to use Scanline. Also, the UI/UX is clumsily designed by engineers and is more like a beta(which it still sort of is)
These are just high-level material wrappers on top of the Physical material, so they are not new materials at all. Also, there is no background switcher in the viewport so it results in multiplied light and a horrible ‘sheen’ and rim light that shouldn’t be there. Most of the ‘new’ viewport move towards ‘PBR’ is really just hacks of existing old technology code.
New shaders include:
These are a nice addition, but are not fully supported by Arnold GPU.
This is a complete hack and was a workaround to try and alleviate the terrible light/shadow flickering caused by the old Microsoft shader compiler that Max is beholden to(and always will be unless a brand new viewport renderer is written…which it won’t be) Pretty sad that it is listed as a ‘feature’ officially.
This last year was all about trying to modernise the viewport renderer(EEVEE was discussed a LOT on the beta forums) but essentially Max’s Nitrous viewport is ancient and although it is a powerful poly-pusher, it is never going to compete visually - especially in the coming years as real-time raytracing and all the bells and whistles that come with it become the common standard.
“A baking update” - Is not a baking update is a total new baking tool.
“A few OSL shaders” - Now max ships with over 150 OSL shaders, basically all material pipeline is switched to OSL. Adding QT for customizable OSL interfaces is not minor.
Updated to Python 3, update over 7 modifiers to improve explicit normal handling. Mikkt support on viewport/render/baking…
autodesk starting to react:
I hope they will do this with MotionBuilder as well.
The million dollar question is if this will be permanent. Right now, if you set the license to renew after a year, you will be charged the normal price.
I still wouldn’t bank on Autodesk moving in a way where the indie price is always respected, as they have shown they can even yank away perpetual licensing if it does not hurt them financially (which it doesn’t because of the revenue from the big VFX houses).
Now if they decided to offer a perpetual (irrevocable and offline) license of Maya and/or Max for under 1000 bucks, then that would be an easy way for them to kneecap any progress Blender has made in the professional arena since 2.80 (as many will simply drop Blender and come “home” to their original choice). There would also be a bonus for Autodesk in the form of a sharp drop in Blender’s funding.
maybe someone remembers this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmax
They already did a free 3ds max (lite) once and one day it disappeared - as if it never existed…
Originally, by default it went to auto-renew. They have since changed this, at least they did for Maya, to turn off auto renew.
Currently, there is no difference between a Maya subscription, and an Indie Maya subscription. This confused me at first, looking on my accounts page. The reason is because Maya is Maya. And the licensing system in place is just Maya. You get it at a discount, at this point, is all.
I am part of the Maya beta. So I can not disclose any details of what I know. But it was asked and answered on the forums there.
I can say that a marketing person took it upon themselves to come to the beta forums and answer in a long detailed post to explain fully the status of what is going on with Maya Indie and why. Because that person could not state these things publicly, yet.
Needless to say, I can’t divulge what was said. What I can say is what is publicly available. And that is currently there is no difference between a Maya license and a Maya Indie License.
You are either a glass half-empty person, or a glass half-full. So with that, use your imagination.
This “yank” you are referring to, actually took nearly two years. It is interesting the “hate” for Autodesk no matter how publicly, how transparently, and how gradually they ended perpetual. I get it. Nobody likes the force of subscription. But they didn’t just “yank” it. They gave people much more ample time to adjust than any other company did.
Yet on the other hand. Thank god we have NewTek who was the last bastion, looking out for the little guy. The true independent. They will never go subscription. Always looking out for the best interests of the users.
But wait. They completely disrespected the users, went completely silent, “yanked” out the core developers, brought all progress to a screeching halt with no warning, no statement of reason, financial or otherwise, no admission of any quit whatever, no communication, no transparency. Worse - a public promise that this will never change. And they are good with it. And even prefer it that way. Living some kind of perfect life of hermit development with no one to answer to. Leaving the few users simply sit around in an endless guessing game as to what will happen next.
I would not say I hate, Autodesk. Nor love them. Or agree with everything they do. But I have a professional respect for them.
NewTek on the other hand, has completely lost my respect and support. They have handled themselves in the most unprofessional and even borderline criminal way.
Now to the point of source of income. I think you are glossing over the realities of a capitalist economy which does not thrive on net worth alone. But on growth and growth potential. They can’t just sit back and rely on the “big studios”. To continue to show growth and growth potential they have to prove that a constant new stream of users will continue to increase. Enter - free ED Licenses, Maya LT, and now Indie.
This is fantasy. As well as the notion that Autodesk -and all other VFX software for that matter is not adversely affected by Blender.
There is absolutely no way a perp - under 1000k will even close to have the effect you say. That would not cause people to come home in droves to Maya from Blender. A few minority might. But that is a drop in the bucket.
The majority of Maya users who use Blender, well, just simply use Maya and Blender. Price won’t change that. And would not even affect in any way at all the current Blender-funding locomotive.
Being a glass half-full person, I have always predicted that Maya Indie is here to stay and that this is a direct response to Blender. It is not only a direct response, it is the only way they can keep any notion of continued growth with Blender looming.
There is nothing they can do that will stop the steam-roller that is now Blender. Nothing. The only thing they can do is react, slowly, as corporations do, and hope, it will be fast enough before eventually going under.
Off the record and simply my own opinion. This is not the last we will see of price drops.This is nothing I have heard on the beta forums. And it is just opinion. But I see that Blender is going to drive down the price of software over the next 10 years to the point that price to use any software will no longer be an issue. It will be less than your cell phone bill - or even cup of coffee in some cases - across the boards.
Subscription is here to stay. Perpetual is on the way out. The future is software rental, dirt cheap. And people won’t even give it a second thought.
As OK Boomer becomes OK Millennial, Perp licensing will be in history books analogous along side the industrial revolution, illustrating the “old way” before mass production. And our great grand kids will wonder why on earth anyone would dump their life savings into a piece of software just to “own it”.
That actually looks pretty good. Credit where credit is due, Autodesk created a pretty decent content update.
Autodesk’s biggest challenge is bringing back the culture of mutual trust between the users and the executives, the combination of light development and ever pricier licensing policies has eroded a lot of goodwill.
If they can do that, then they can at least dent the momentum Blender has. They can’t buy Blender, but they can try to convince the dev. fund donors to drop their funding and (re)embrace the power of closed-source.
Well, I think your heart is in the right place. But you just have your facts, and your logic mixed up.
First fact. Autodesk pricing has gone down. Consistently. Over a 5 year period from 2008 - 2013 the prices dropped to nearly 25% of what they were. Not even including the incentive deals that they put in place to buy suites. Additionally they offered huge discounts to users of other software.
When subscription started, if you calculate the entrance price for software and the yearly upgrade, it was even cheaper to get in, say calculated over a 3-5 year period of pay-out.
Then, they started offering Maya LT at a signifiact break to those who did not really need the full features of Maya. Price, 30 USD per month.
Recently they have trumped that with Maya Indie. Full version Maya. Works out to be about $10 USD per month. Any indie user can now - or will eventually - be able to rent a full version of Maya with no restrictions.
That is 120 per year.
That means you could use Maya for 30 years before you even approached the price of Maya Perpetual from about 6 years ago. And that is not even including the cost of upgrades for perpetual.
If you include the price of upgrades, you would be using Maya for a lifetime before you even came close to spending the same money. Even if you did not upgrade yearly.
Second Fact.
Maya does not need any additional sweeping new features to animation to be top dog. But, they have added and are adding more just the same.
The biggest development change - after XSI is:
Refactored Nodes
Bifrost
Xgen
Animation Playback cache
Fully developed NEX tools for modeling (They hired the orignal plugin developers to finish flushing it out) It is not complete, fully featured and integrated.
These are no small developments.
And many other smaller things I can’t even think of right now. But for the most part, Maya is still on the cutting edge of tech.
Yes. It has fallen behind in viewport rendering and basic modeling.
But comparatively, Blender, on the technical side, is playing a wild - and hopefully swift - game of catch up.
There are no facts then to back up an “eroding good will”, by your reasoning.
But it does not matter, because that statement is completely irrelevant.
There is nothing any development team can do to stop the Blender train. It already left the station.
All any other company can do is stay the course, stay aware of trends, and lower prices. And continue to find ways to get the software in the hands of more users.
There is only two ways to do this. And perceptual licensing is not one of them.
Low subscription prices for professionals.
Easier to qualify free versions for everyone. Not just students.
And then selling other services to users such as content, rendering etc. to supplement revenue.
Epic is the leader here. That is the direction of software in the future.
Both Unity and Unreal have other ways to make money than selling the game engine to everyone.
Autodesk has their engineering software which makes up a much greater portion of their business.