Thanks for the frankness of this discussion.
The points are certainly heard, and considered.
As you can imagine, we have to constantly balance new, shiny features with architectural rebuilding for processor X or GPU Y, we also think very carefully about adding ways of handling complexity intuitively (see Batch versioning, Connected conform, Pattern browsing etc). Making paradigm shifts in UI concepts is tempting, but also very disruptive.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Simon - I remember sitting behind you for a few mins at Ntropic LA maybe in 2010, as you juggled a live linked 3d model of an animated House between Maya and Flame (years before the ‘send to’ function we now have). It was amazing to see you use both tools at what they did best - a bit like animators syncing to a game engine in more recent years.
The point is : we do care, and hate to lose a great artist from the community. Please let me know if you’d like to share more thoughts, comments will.harris@autodesk.com 310 463 8321
And your response Will, is exactly why I stick with Flame.
Every software has its pros and cons. The people who complain about missing features or behaviour are likely the same ones who would complain when the subscription cost increased significantly to pay for the amount of developers & testers it would take to include it all and have it function flawlessly.
I do like that the “It would be great if…” suggestions all get looked at and considered. If there is enough support and it is not cost prohibitive then they usually get accepted and implemented as well. It’s easy to complain about something but hard to find solutions. I think yourself and the Dev team do a fantastic job with the resources at your disposal.
… before we finish with this conversation, love to throw some thoughts. Definitely, I think comparing Houdini to Flame is a false equivalence. Not only from an UI point of view, but also from any point of view :). I’m actually happy that “the flame team” kept or maintained the philosophy of “the Flame UI”. Always feeling at home while using the tools.
Agree, flame was a different tool on the 90s, and had a bit of a “unique feel” to it, but also the VFX market was small and competition was absent, in every sense of the word. And flame was there,first, with all the right concepts. As time went by the vfx market grew and software makers grew as well. It is not my intention to lecture anyone, however is important to highlight that Flame has managed to survived all these time. With a vision and consistently(of course, it was a bumpy road). Not sure that any other vfx/editorial/3d software has done that so successfully. For that I’m eternally thankful to the Flame team (devs, Will Harris, Frédéric Warren, and others) who have stuck to this idea. The “Flame” idea.
I don’t think anyone is making a direct comparison… and I think you can make UI comparisons for exactly the reasons that @smowbray mentioned in his responses. What is non-flame centric about being able to select 20 axis and move them all by 10 in the X? Or a handful of CC nodes and increase the gamma? Improvements in how a UI works or can be extended transcend packages and don’t need to break existing functionality. The dag functionality of flame hasn’t really changed much since mimic links and the addition of compasses which incidentally also are borrowed from other packages like Houdini.
Adding nodes by typing in action/batch? Houdini. Everything can and should be compared where it makes sense. @smowbray mentioned procedural finishing using a dependency system? How is that no applicable? Or being able to navigate the schematic easier with thousands of nodes. Those all strike me as applicable comparisons to make and issues to be resolved, augmented or added.
Ultimately there are very clever people helming the software… always have been. The issue is with us, the users. We need to ask for more clever shit and that comes from knowing what the possible options are and coalescing around those options. That means comparisons where they maybe don’t seem to make sense.
hmm, this conversation is becoming a bit confusing. Of course Flame can benefit from getting new concepts from other packages. In that regard the node / schematic system can be compare to many other softwares packages. However that is the point where comparisons ends. I always think of Flame as a “binomial system”. A system that needs to have answers for a very un-uniform, un-homogeneous user base (old school vs new artist). Updating the system is not that simple and requires to keep the “old” and “new” working in cahoots. If that is not clear enough , take a look at “g-mask” vs “g-mask tracer” and all the emotions produced by that addition. Having said that, I don’t think Flame can be equalized… not for a long shot.
I agree with you that users should be proactive asking for more rational interconnection inside flame, however that is far away from the origin of this topic “I wished I still could be a Flame advocate”
First off, the user base is complex as it is number of members… that complexity doesn’t reduce to a binary classification neatly or cleanly or intelligently.
Secondly, every software has these problems of complexity, and not just in the user space alone but also with regards to pipeline/workflow requirements. Other packages often solve these issues by versioning-up their tools while maintaining and the existing version under the hood. There’s always a couple versions of some nodes in Houdini or in Nuke after major changes just to insure comparability and to avoid the crotchety older user who liked it the way it was or the pipeline tech that bolted a bunch of stuff onto the exiting versions for the pipeline. Ultimately it doesn’t have to be a zero sum game. The gmask v tracer debate is not anomalous—not by a long shot. Both should coexist for the reasons above.
Lastly, this subservience to older ways of thinking is absolutely one of the reasons it’s difficult for people to advocate for flame at times which makes it very topical.
Although you are stating the obvious with your sentence “the user base is complex as it is number of members”, I don’t think is necessarily true, or proportional. I’ve never stated that the user base is binary. I’ve stated that is Un-uniform, Un-homogeneous, Un-…Republican :!.
I never said that g-mak vs gmask tracer should not coexist. It was an example of how passionate and diverse the flame user base is and the challenges that that brings for the flame devs. Also my point was that creating parallelism with other software packages may not work. Just an opinion…
I think you are confusing “subservience to older ways…” with trying to bring context to this discussion. If you disagree, just do that…
Lastly, I don’t think this conversation (you and me) is helping anyone. In the end… I mean the beginning, the argument/statement was “I wished I still could be a Flame advocate”… could you?
This is an interesting thread. It’s easy to get caught up in vertical reels vs horizontal, Flame is great vs Flame blows, Batch vs BFX, Linux vs Mac, Chicago Deep Dish vs Garbage NYC Floppy Slices, yada yada yada.
My challenge to the community is this…
What have you done today to move Flame forward? What have you done today to help someone else be a better Flame user? What have you done today to make yourself a better user? Nothing else matters. I don’t care if you’ve been doing this 97 years and you worked on Star Whatever or you invented the Stabilizer module.
When was the last time you helped someone? When was the last time you visited Flame Feedback? Or watched a Logik Live? Or listened to our podcast. Or launched a Beta product? Or logged in to this site and answered a sister or brother needing help? If for whatever reason you can’t, fine, I get it. Life happens. Then at least support the people that do.
Fed A system that needs to have answers for a very un-uniform, un-homogeneous user base (old school vs new artist). Updating the system is not that simple and requires to keep the “old” and “new” working in cahoots.
I only wish Autodesk makes own OS ! Hard core workstation OS nothing fancy. BTW I hate Apple today more than normal !! Last thing. Autodesk make updates for separate components like codec or wiretep independent from core software.
I must have Stockholm syndrome from lockdown.
I was back in the office and back on the Linux box. A far superior machine in terms of spec and operation but was missing my humble Mac back at home.
I’m standing on the other side of the aisle. I wish that Flame eventually becomes an app like any other app. In principle, I am somewhat OS-agnostic but lean towards Mac because of convenience and laziness. 6 years ago, I got a fully-fledged Linux monster from ADSK that never stopped to amaze me in terms of raw power but killed versatility in any regard. In that time, I never, what so never made myself comfortable with Linux. That OS is a monster pain. The opposite of Apple’s approach to user experience.
But the worst thing is the box’ and the Dot Hill’s power appetite. Insane and definitely not 2021.
I have high hopes for Apple’s new silicon. The Team will make Flame love that platform because that’s inevitably Flame’s future. And then advocating Flame will be even easier.
M(x) + Full Metal support = Some greater degree of parity with a Linux offering, I would hope…
No question the Linux machines outperform OSX. Slower for sure, but not impossible to work.
Especially in our current world of screensharing, zooms/webex/teams/slack, here’s a PSD/AI file, etc etc… Linux just isn’t a great multitasking platform.
Also, ever try to get Resolve and Flame working on the same Linux machine? Yeah. That’s no fun. Works a treat on a Mac though.
