3D World / Roncarelli Report on Animation Industry

[bobakabob]

Apologies if anyone's posted this already. In the July issue of 3D World the 2006 Roncarelli Report's table of most popular animation packages is published in the Analysis section. Makes interesting reading. Jay Roth (Newtek), Andy Lomas (Framestore) and Tom Roosendaal (Blender Foundation) are all quoted in the Talking point section for their reactions. Here's the list:

Ranked by number of copies installed (excluding educational licenses and upgrades). Not sure how the info is collected - there's a link to www.pixelnews.com

1. Blender
2. Flash
3. 3DS MAX
4. Truespace
5. Strata 3D
6. Lightwave
7. Cinema 4D
8. Hash Animation Master
9. Carrara
10. Maya
11. SketchUP
12. Softimage XSI
13. Electric Image (EIAS)
14. Realsoft 3D
15. Retas!Pro
16. Toon Boom Studio
17. Houdini
18. Animo

[mattclary]

Wow! Blender... who'd of thunk it.

[hrgiger]

The cost of free is very motivating.

[wavk]

annoying typical marketing speech by jay.

yeh..


mlon

[Iain]

I think it highlights the number of hobbyists more than anything else.

What did you expect Newtek to say? "Yes Blender should be nr 1 cos its better than LW"?

[Dirk]

Pretty interesting. Looks good for LW, I would say.

[hrgiger]

I find it hard to believe that there could be that many Truespace users. Have you seen that interface?

[mattclary]

Originally Posted by hrgiger

I find it hard to believe that there could be that many Truespace users. Have you seen that interface?

No doubt! All the icon based apps are about the same to me.

[oDDity]

Hmph. Statistics. Absolutely and utterly meaningless unless you know how they were arrived at.

[Matt]

What did Jay say exactly?

Jay - What did you say! (Assumes Jay may read this!)

[jayroth]

As I recall, the question had to do with the numbers Blender had exhibited in the report, and what we thought about it. The editors seemed more surprised by LightWave's position over Maya and XSI, however. I wrote something along these lines, and I was limited to approximately 80 words. Those of you who are familiar with my writing style can appreciate the challenge I faced in limiting myself that way; I started off with something three times longer... Anyway, here it is, to the best of my recollection:

Blender is a great thing for our industry; it provides access to some pretty cool features that people can get for free, as opposed to using pirated copies of professional software. I like the different approaches it takes for some user interface elements, and it will be interesting to see what, if anything, of those approaches takes hold in other applications.

I do not see Blender as a replacement for professional applications like LightWave in the production pipeline. Production people are on the cutting edge, and they need bullet-proof solutions, and support groups that are right there with answers when problems arise (which will always happen). Modelers, animators, shader writers and technical directors are very demanding, and have incredible demands placed upon them. I know of some who have experimented with Blender in the production context, but none of them have adopted Blender in the pipeline. This could change down the road, but if it does, it will likely take many years to happen.

LightWave is the most popular tool in the pipeline for television effects, and figures prominently in feature film effects, as witnessed by “300,” “Pan’s Labyrinth,” “The DaVinci Code,” and “The Gaurdian,” to name a few. LightWave integrates well into the pipeline that includes the other applications mentioned. LightWave’s rendering prowess, especially evident in NewTek’s new v9.2 release (along with free render nodes), is one of the many reasons that LightWave is so popular. Our node-based materials editor, photorealistic motion blur, and completely upgraded GI and Radiosity systems are really pushing it to the limits, and that has been appreciated by the production community. These strengths, in addition to all of the features that are standards in LightWave (which are upsells or addition cost plug-ins for other applications) make LightWave a very attractive value as well, especially for people just starting out, or even people just beginning in their 3D adventure.

[Titus]

If I remember correctly in the Roncarelli report from year 2000 LightWave had 50% of market on both movies and tv.

[bobakabob]

Originally Posted by hrgiger

I find it hard to believe that there could be that many Truespace users. Have you seen that interface?

Yep, that is a crazy interface. A friend spoke favourably about it until it eventually drove him mad. For some it might well be a good intro to the wacky world of 3D. I've never understood the appeal - cheap and cheerful?

[bobakabob]

Originally Posted by oDDity

Hmph. Statistics. Absolutely and utterly meaningless unless you know how they were arrived at.

97% of statistics are made up.

[hrgiger]

I wouldn't cut on Truespace unless I had used it (ok, I might). I bought Truespace before I bought Lightwave. I had it for about a month and a half before I made the switch. I honestly don't think I made a single object with it in that time. I just did not enjoy the interface at all. You can have some really great features in an app but if they're coated over with a klunky interface.....
To Matt C. I know how you feel about icons in apps and while I don't want Lightwave to become one of them, I think the interface doesn't have to suffer just because they're icons, but I think it does take longer to familiarize yourself with it. It wasn't just the fact that Truespace used icons, it was more about the placement and workflow. There seemed to be no real logical sense with the layout, and it very much felt crammed together. Honestly, if Lightwave ever gave us the options for icons, I might use them for some commonly used tools but keep the text for the ones I didn't use often. That would make sense to me.