[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 16 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!



you guys probably know this more than /biz/ does because I'm sure some of you have probably worked in the industry, but how much did Autodesk acquire Maya from Alies Wavefront in 2005 for?
>>
well I turned in my 13 page financial analysis of Autodesk this morning anyway. Does /3/ want to tell what it wold have been because I found out it didn't matter anyway because Autocad and shit.
>>
>>653975
I'm curious, why are you doing a financial report?
>>
>>653985
bullshit finances class, had to do a financial analysis of Autodesk since 2015 and basically found out how poorly they're doing because they are charging a $1000+ subscription model in 2018 and using the money to take pictures in Africa instead of putting Maya on android phones for $2.
>>
>>653988
Is this part of some 3D course? I kinda want to believe that such a course was (((motivated))) by Autodesk's (((success))) and is now backfiring.
>>
>>653991
just general finances, which is fucking hell. I thought Autodesk would be more interesting since Adobe isn't publicly traded and there aren't many other 3D/GD companies that are relevant in 2018 that aren't open source.
>>
>>653539
"San Rafael, Calif.-based Autodesk Inc. on Tuesday announced that it has signed an agreement to acquire Alias, Toronto, Canada-based makers of Maya, MotionBuilder and other software. The deal is valued at US$182 million in cash."

- PCWorld
>>
>>654014
They only paid like $5 million for the company that would make 3DS Max, greedy Canadians.

And thanks.
>>
Would they try to buy SideFX? How much would they have to pay?
>>
>>654087
Honestly they should from their standpoint, but that's not good for us except for the fact that Blender and honestly probably Anim8or at this point could probably do it for free because open source master race.
>>
>>654096
What?
>>
>>654128
Anything you could do in SideFX ca be done in Blender or Anim8or by this point.
>>
>>654151
The workflow in Houdini is unrivaled. It offers a unique approach to 3d graphics that goes beyond just features.
>>654087
SideFX is privately held and idealogically opposed to Autodesk. Especially after what happened to Softimage. If they get sold it won't be for decades from now.
>>
>>654151
Sure thing.
>>
>>654152
As I mentioned earlier, a lot of /3/ and /gd/ companies are private, it's rather odd but also smart that Autodesk isn't assuming less than 50% are in circulation. Imagine how much better or worse Adobe would be though if Apple bought them out and made Illustrator a MAc/Iphone exclusive shit show with in-app purchases?
>>
>>654151
Shitty bait
>>
>>654193
>Imagine how much better or worse Adobe would be though if Apple bought them out and made Illustrator a MAc/Iphone exclusive shit show with in-app purchases?
It would most probably end up falling into irrelevance and be replaced by either proprietary or open-source tools that run on PC like that bs that required you to buy a separate MIPS workstation specifically for it.
>>
>>654406
Well the only things they have going for them are Premiere and Illustrator. Dream Waver is becoming irrelevant, they canned Muse when they could have made papers with it, their audio production is basically Audacity with a 32gb 64x vst that makes it lag like fuck, Fuse is fj-tier level /3/, photoshop is like putting Gimp into the ui of Quickbooks 1998, Lightroom, is actually ok, and flash player is as bad as Java without any networking or mis capabilities.

Adobe is showing it's age, they aren't going to fix anything unless they get a good 3D work station to go with Adobe Gameworks and a better DAW.
>>
>>654451
>Photoshop is bad
>>
File: gimped.jpg (60 KB, 320x278)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>654451
If you recommend GIMP in any form to people without being sarcastic...please walk face first into the nearest buzz saw.
>>
>>654479
Anything that isn't logos or general text is perfect for Gimp if you don't just use Lightroom. Photshop is like Illustrator except if you rendered your final image in ms Paint at bitmap format.

> tfw used Gimp at my graphic design job for two years before switching over to illustrator.
>>
>>654463
Probably exposing my brainlet here, but while I don't disagree that Photoshop is a powerful program, it's really fucking annoying to work with. It's dare-I-say beyond Blender-tier with how confusing its UI can be. But I guess no one raises that complaint because "muh industry standard!!"
Seriously, when I first started using Photoshop just getting past that ctrl-z undo-redo nonsense pissed me the fuck off. Which goddamn nigger over at Adobe decided "yeah, ctrl-z makes you undo once but if you press it again it redos!"?
And that's not to mention how many features are hidden away in a billion fuckin' menus.
The worst part is that they can't even standardise a UI scheme across their programs. The only similarities between the UI of Photoshop and Illustrator, fairly similar programs (inb4 some autist screeches that they're not, they both image manipulation programs at the end of the day), is that they share the same VISUAL UI design. Otherwise they might as well be different fuckin' programs.

It's a shame, honestly. I find Adobe products to be really fuckin' powerful tools, but with such gimped UIs working with them is like trying to jerk off with a baseball glove. Sure, you'll eventually cum, but the entire experience is just unpleasant.
>>
>>654490
>t. Mr. Reading Manuals Is For Faggots
>>
>>654479
>>654489
Any discussion of GIMP is usually along the lines of:
>people who wanted GIMP to be great but realized how bad it is, which manifests either as regret or mockery
>people who claim that GIMP is fine, leaving the first category wondering whether they're still sane

See
https://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap#GIMP_3.2
>>
>>654490
>Which goddamn nigger over at Adobe decided "yeah, ctrl-z makes you undo once but if you press it again it redos!"?
The kind of nigger who is a real professional who actually checks if the edit he just made actually improves the image or not and needs a quick way to switch between the current and previous state.
But that's gone over your head because you're all but a pro.
>>
>>654548
there's nothing hard about ctrl+shift+z or alt+z. . . .
>>
>>654524
Fair enough. At least its incredibly well-documented, but accomplishing anything is still a drag. It's a terrible UX experience, you've just gotten used to it.

>>654548
>lole just git gud brah
Wew, imagine moving the goalposts to another fuckin' field. Fine fine, insult my amateurisms, but don't you deny that the occasional need to undo twice or thrice doesn't happen.
And the bigger issue here is consistency. I don't use the rest of the Adobe suite outside of Photoshop and Illustrator, but I think those two are good enough to illustrate (heh) my point once again.
Illustrator doesn't have this step-backward-step-forward that Photoshop does. It's just straight undo. Even in the same goddamn line of products, Photoshop _just_ has to operate differently.
That's not even to mention the fact that every other software out there just has straight undo too. Photoshop's the outlier here.

As expected, people are gonna defend it because "s-shit how am i going to get into the industry if i don't learn this weird esoteric nonsense!!". Same fuckin' points can be made for Blender.
>Just Read The Documentation
Sure, Blender's documentation isn't the best, but it has a pretty good stackexchange. Photostop's obviously better documented in that respect, but it's not like people don't use _its_ stackexchange often too.
>The Program Functions Differently Because It Isn't For You :3c
I'll admit it isn't a direct comparison because ultimately you can't really call any blendlet "a professional", but excusing a program's obtuseness because "it's just not for you" is pretty goddamn cope, isn't it? Isn't the ultimate goal of these developers to get more people to use their software? Why not make it easy to learn and easy to use then?
I'm not trying to defend Blender here or anything like that. I know its shortcomings and I'm just using it as a point of comparison. I'm just saying that the double standard is incredible.
>>
>>654555
The undo thing that pisses you off so much exists so that you can go back several steps in the history and then ctrl-z between that distant state and the current state. If you aren't spending all your time in photoshop it's annoying as fuck but it's there for a reason.
>>
>>654548
>>654555
so how does one go about undo'ing twice? Is it even possible? total photoshoop noob here
>>
>>654559
ctrl alt z
>>
>>654490
They fixed the ctrl+z thing in CC 2019
>>
>>654559
>>654560
>>654557
>>654551
>>654490

You brainlets need to spend more time customizing your keyboard shortcuts
>>
>>654566
I could have just gone into Gimp and changed the hue and filtering of my image in 3 seconds and then moved into over to Illustrator to throw some text onto it and thrown in a render of my model from blender and had it ready to go in 3 minutes.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.