autodesk has taken their moneygrabbing to a whole new level!

[ior=0]

From Ken
"I've received approval (from many levels in the organization) to state the following:

Autodesk has heard the concerns of customers and has decided that current subscription users of 3ds Max and 3ds Max Design (along with users of suites that contain those products) will receive the Box2 extension (in addition to what they can already download) no later than October 2012. We will release more information about the change in the coming weeks and will update our existing marketing materials to reflect this change when it happens.

We will continue to make available the combination of Box2 and Box3 ONLY to ECS subscription customers. If you want Box3 from Autodesk, then you’ll need to be an ECS subscription customer to get it.

Enjoy!"

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost...&postcount=116

They listened a bit...!

[Dariusz Makowski (Dadal)]

Autodesk just go and die aaaa !!!!

But cool they at least hear that...

[Neilg]

Isnt box3 the powerful one, with the node based operator designer? edit: yeah. data view.

Normally i'm one of the very few who are saying 'ah, they're not that bad' when everyone moans about autodesk, but this is properly stupid.

[super gnu]

yep box 3 is probably the more powerful one.. id love to hear their excuse for requiring you to buy mudbox, to get a max particle plugin..

im wondering if box 2 really is the full box 2? i.e. with gpu acceleration? since all the physx dynamics stuff that has been incorporated into max so far has mysteriously lost its gpu acceleration en route.

[super gnu]

think ill have to give houdini a try.. anyone ever done large scale arch vis in it? or is it unsuitable? is it as broad featured as max? ive only ever heard of it being used for hardcore procedural animation.

trouble is.. if people moved to another package en-masse.. adsk would just buy that too.

[Morbid Angel]

Maya is out of question because it's more aimed for companies that have programmers that will adjust it to the workflow you need, plus again it's AUTODESK

I may correct you on your statement here. Maya is actually a lot like max in many ways. We prefer maya for a number of reasons (one having powerful reference). You do not need a team of programmers to get stuff going in maya. With that said though, the part that really suffers is the particles and dynamics in general, you can't do simple particle effects without knowing mel/python. For general purpose though maya competes well with others, though it does not have as many plugins as max does.

[instinct]

think ill have to give houdini a try.. anyone ever done large scale arch vis in it? or is it unsuitable? is it as broad featured as max? ive only ever heard of it being used for hardcore procedural animation.

trouble is.. if people moved to another package en-masse.. adsk would just buy that too.

Wait. you are moving away for Max beeing to expensive...to Houdini ??

[glorybound]

I'm not sure I understand the issue. We, by choice, purchase a piece of software. With this software we also, by choice, subscribe for updates, patches, and support. The software developer sweetens the subscription with other free software. Autodesk could drop the subscription option, charge for upgrades, and sell all the other application that they were giving away with paid subscription. I don't know, but I'm not getting the problem.

[Franx]

I'm not sure I understand the issue. We, by choice, purchase a piece of software. With this software we also, by choice, subscribe for updates, patches, and support. The software developer sweetens the subscription with other free software. Autodesk could drop the subscription option, charge for upgrades, and sell all the other application that they were giving away with paid subscription. I don't know, but I'm not getting the problem.

The problem, and uproar caused by that decision (lenghty thread on CGTalk about that) is that AD sells subscription with the promise of yearly upgrade releases, support and incentives in the form of other goodies, namely extensions, through the years' course. What they've done here is release PFlow extensions to Suite subscribers only, leaving plain Max subscribers out of the loop, without ever mentioning this anywhere before. Now, they've backtracked somewhat and will hand out Box #2 to all subscribers, but you'll still have to be on a Suite (Max+Mudbox+Matchmover or somt'n) subscription to have access to Box #3. That's why people are so pissed. Add this to the recent price increases as well. I am on a suite subscription, though have not much need for PFlow or those extensions, but I find that decision uberly cynical on AD's part and totally understand so many users are starting to be real fed up with that way of doing business, especially when we've been told for the past 4 years to be patient while XBR is panning out...

[yyk]

Out of curiosity to all of those who are considering moving away from Max..

Let's pretend you actually have time to learn, for example, Modo well enough to use it in the near future, how would you go about converting your model libraries to Modo format? I really doubt many people have all their thousands of models readily in .obj format. Would you just plain out ditch your Forest Packs, Multiscatters (yes I'm sure other packages have theis own scatter tools but are they as sophisticated as these plugins?), Railclones, Mighty Tiles and such and cross your fingers hoping there are tools readily available to substitute all of these? how about floor generators and multitexture maps?

As I said, just curious because to me this sounds like a very tedious task.

[kimgar]

thanks samuel for the quick rundown of houdini, sounds good, downloading demo now.
after all these years in max a fresh ui and fresh thoughts will be welcome. i like the thought of developers being passionate about their product (hi, chaosgroup!), and i can't say i've had the same impression of autodesk lately.

anyway, migrating from max based libraries won't be easy, guess i'll just keep em both for a while and see how it flows

[instinct]

thanks samuel for the quick rundown of houdini, sounds good, downloading demo now.
after all these years in max a fresh ui and fresh thoughts will be welcome. i like the thought of developers being passionate about their product (hi, chaosgroup!), and i can't say i've had the same impression of autodesk lately.

anyway, migrating from max based libraries won't be easy, guess i'll just keep em both for a while and see how it flows

I don't think that is fair towards the developers involved. I think you might be mistaking management and developers there.

And i still don't get it. Houdini might have a more transparent release strategy, but from a quick look without subscription you don't even get email support. And even with the smaller package, subscription is more expensive than with max, no? With the bigger package 2500$ Subscription? Without benefits except point releases and support? How's that a better deal. (Besides i have my doubts it would be a replacement for max unless your mainly doing fx work).

Am not stating i like high prices, nor that i am a big fan of the subscription model, but it does give us benefits that we need (access to older versions mainly), is cheaper than the direct upgrade path and comes with some extra goodies (which seem to be the main reason to go subscribing for some ???? )

Regards,
Thorsten

[peterguthrie]

I wish they would drop the yearly release schedule and just ask for money from us when they actually do some work and improve max. Much like..... vray!

The strength of max lies in it's plugins in my opinion. For me to consider something like Modo seriously it would have to attract plugin developers like chaosgroup, itoosoft, etc.

[theedge]

think ill have to give houdini a try.. anyone ever done large scale arch vis in it? or is it unsuitable? is it as broad featured as max? ive only ever heard of it being used for hardcore procedural animation.

trouble is.. if people moved to another package en-masse.. adsk would just buy that too.

For me Houdini is total overkill for archviz work, and its impressive toolset doesn't correspond to the arsenal we need in archviz. I'm sad when saying this, because Houdini is wonderful : its power and depth are vertiginous. Maybe you won't switch, but definitely give it a try to understand how far other 3d packages are lagging behind in many areas.

[AJ Jefferies]

Like Cubiclegangster I'm usually on the defensive side when it comes to the users vs Autodesk, not through any loyalty but because when the dust settles people's initial reactions are revealed to bemassively disproportionate. But this is the first case in quite a while where I can see no positive spin on this decision, it's genuinely insulting and I'm not happy.

I wish they would drop the yearly release schedule and just ask for money from us when they actually do some work and improve max. Much like..... vray!

God that would be brilliant. Can you imagine?