IMO, Max did not “start” as Autoshade. 3DS Max (Windows) started as Autodesk 3D Studio (DOS). I used 3D Studio 2.5-R3 back in the day quite extensively. Autoshade was another product that became obsolete due to 3D Studio but it was not the early version of Max so to speak. As far as I can remember anyway.
Here is some history: http://cgpress.org/archives/cgarticles/the_history_of_3d_studio
I could be mistaken on 3DS history. Regardless 3D Studio Dos, was something that a talented programmer could put together in short time these days. Back then it required significant funding to do anything, these days a single programmer can accomplish a successful tool.
Whatever the level of pushback now, Autodesk may have provided more gasoline for the protesters.
So you can freely use the software render engine or the little ART engine developed by Autodesk, if you want the good stuff though (like Arnold) you will have to pay for it if you need to do anything more than foreground rendering (and there’s also something in there that might even imply the idea that the free version of Arnold will create a watermark).
You get less for more (in the render department at least, far from every Blender release just giving you more for no cost). Their rationale for that is that it creates an even playing field for engines such as Vray and Corona (but who knows if this could apply to other areas in Maya and Max sometime down the road, the idea could certainly be extended that way).
This is a big one indeed.
Many studios need a dependable and serious dedicated support provider before they’d risk switching to Blender. Unless someone founds the Red Hat of Blender, most studios won’t even think of switching.
Red Hat may actually be the correct analogy here. GNU/Linux also started without professional support, and companies were reluctant to use it since they had nobody to call when their Linux server would go down. Eventually, that changed and now Linux is more successful than other unix variants (remember Solaris and Irix?). The majority of contributions to Linux come from companies like Intel or Red Hat, not the hobbyist developers.
One could envision the same scenario for Blender, although I’m not sure how likely that is to happen. But maybe sponsored Blender developers are just the beginning.
Yes. I remember. Yesterday alone I was for the nth time run uname -r on Solaris 11.3.
Solaris on Oracle hardware (specially SPARC) is like IOS/MacOS on their own dedicated hardware. Oracle wasn’t where they are now for no reason. Solaris to Linux is like Houdini to Maya. Most use Maya, but once you see what Houdini users do, your jaw will drop. Something like that -ish.
I’d say Oracle is where they are because of their database, I’m not sure they’re all that invested some of the stuff (like Solaris and SPARC) that was originally developed at Sun.
Solaris to Linux is like Houdini to Maya. Most use Maya, but once you see what Houdini users do, your jaw will drop. Something like that -ish.
Could you elaborate on that? I’m genuinely curious what Solaris in particular has going for it. I always thought it was on its way out.
Ton has been advocating this for years. It’s not in the scope of the Blender Foundation or the Blender Institute, so someone else would need to set it up. There’ve been a few tries for a Blender-centric support provider in the past, but I don’t think there was ever enough business to fully sustain it. Likely a chicken/egg problem.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. It should be in the scope of the Blender Institute. Who else has the credibility? I’ve been “advocating” (i.e. forum posting) about the “community” needing to solve things on its own, but this is something the BI should actually do.
Otherwise, to actually fit the comparison with Red Hat, we need another “distribution” (a.k.a. fork) of Blender that is controlled by “someone else”. Let’s call it “Black Beard Enterprise Blender”. Or maybe “Stapler” instead of “Blender”, that sounds more business-oriented.
There’ve been a few tries for a Blender-centric support provider in the past, but I don’t think there was ever enough business to fully sustain it. Likely a chicken/egg problem.
There probably isn’t, which is why there likely will never be a third party foolish enough to invest into providing that service.
Yeah… which studios though? Your argument on their need for support may be right, but those studios you are talking about will be the last to switch to Blender.
The studios that are about to switch are bound to be on the low end, they’re not in the market for expensive support contracts. As for all the freelancers and individuals - they’ll never buy support.
The whole CG market is about as “non-enterprisey” as it gets anyway, so any comparison with enterprise FOSS is rather out of place.
Yes, any Blender Support company will have to consist of absolute experts deeply familiar with and in control of Blender coding - and maintaining their own build of which they can deliver customisations based on customer needs where necessary and warranted.
Autodesk and FOUNDRY. do that. Medium and large sized studios pay Autodesk six-figure amounts and more, on top of license costs, for custom Maya support.
But yes, those studios currently taking advantage of Maya support or custom development by FOUNDRY. are likely the last ones who would switch to Blender. Then again, it’s very much a chicken-and-egg situation. Because getting the developers deep into the trenches with studios solving hard production and pipeline problems is also what’s most effective at pushing the software towards being a viable production tool.
For example MODO’s Advanced Viewport introduced in MODO 901 is a result of The Foundry’s custom development for Mercedes Benz.
Of course the Blender Institute would be the logical entity to serve this role, but Ton obviously wants to make animated films and not answer customer phone calls.