maya 2019

[Anonymous]

Hi,
 Any idea when Maya 2019 release ?
thanks alot

[Anonymous]

Since new Maya was not presented at Siggraph this year, it will probably be released in October.  Remember guys, this program is from the 90's - just maintaining the old codebase and fixing bugs is a lot of effort. Adding new features (or in other words buying and incorporating outside plugins) is a lot easier than changing old stuff, so that is probably why we will not see too many "groundbreaking" things in Maya. (Remember this couple years old presentation about R&D work on modeling workflows in Maya? Now we are going back to Mudbox...) At the same time people have to remember that Maya is still changing even when it doesn't appears like it. They implemented Qt (that was a huge effort), they introduced Python API, then Python API 2.0 and support for Python 3.x is coming, meanwhile Maya team tries to support a lot of open source project like OpenColorIO, Open Subdiv, Alembic, and more. To "normal" user those things are almost invisible but they are very important when it comes to keeping software up-to-date.

[Anonymous]

hi,,,,

can you tell still how long it will take??

thanks 🙂

[sean.heasley]

Hi @Anonymous

I can't say when 2019 will be released but I assure you our devs are working hard on it everyday to get it to gold and release for the public as soon as possible!

[Anonymous]

We look forward to the R&D team releasing the new version of Maya as soon as possible, adding more intelligent multi-foot binding capabilities.

[animation]

Teach your kids 3D, the version doesn't matter. They will not miss out on anything they cannot learn once the new version hits. 

[Anonymous]

And Now? 

Do you have any info about release? 😃

[mspeer]

Hi!

You can stop asking. Autodesk will not provide any release dates until the version to be released is finished and if it's finished they will place a note in the forum.

[michaelkdaw]

No doubt the team is working hard on the next version, but the way I see it, the longer between significant updates to the product, the less valuable the subscription is. Yet the price remains the same.

[Anonymous]

From where did you get that information?

On site I cant found any about release notes.

[mspeer]

Hi!

Just ignore this, there is nothing released yet.

[BurkhardRammner]

Personally, I favor bug fixes and improved functionality over new functionality.

I work heavily with precise node layouts using containers in the hypergraph and lost month because its so slow and buggy. And also, I work heavily with references. And the reference system is also still buggy. Hopefully that will be fixed somehow...

[jasoncbraatz]

I couldn't agree with this statement more! 

//soapbox on

The basics haven't changed (and won't change in our lifetime) on understanding translation and locomotion, kinematics, and the concepts behind scene assembly (lighting/cameras etc).   I also disagree with another poster on this thread who is inclined to go to Houdini because in VFX the "clients are asking for something that's not been seen before..."  This would be like telling Michelangelo that he was using the wrong type of scaffolding to paint the Sistine Chapel and therefore couldn't come up with something that someone hasn't seen before. 

Tools are tools are tools are tools - whether it's a Ryobi or a Craftsman, or Maya or Houdini - it doesn't matter!  A sign of a terrible car mechanic would be one who complains that he simply can't fix your car because his wrenches came from Wal-Mart and not Snap-on.  In software, it's obvious that some tools have a better capability than others in producing an end result quicker  - but I'm sorry, if you know what you're doing as an artist, it doesn't matter if you are sitting in front of Maya 2011 or 2019 - or Lightwave, Modo, Blender or Houdini - or Zbrush + Keyshot (which has some very basic animation capabilities) - even DAZ, Poser or iClone.  The concepts translate across the platforms exactly.  In fact, the real time rendering capabilities from a gaming engine like Unity or Unreal put them now head-to-head with DCCs in many respect for cinematic arts.  It's really all up to the humans behind the keyboards, wacom tablets and mice using the tools, not the dev team at Autodesk, to make CGI work look nice[!].  That's like asking the knife manufacturer Wustoff to cut the watermelon for you next time.  Geez people.. first-world problems..

//soapbox off...

I think Autodesk is doing the right thing with "rolling releases," and don't get hung up on the version numbers so much.  We can even see this very recently - Maya 2016.5 was markedly the same with new HIK abilities (for example) to Maya 2017.  It's also not abnormal in software nowadays; Microsoft, Apple, Foundry, Marmoset, Substance are all doing this style to one extent or another.  Lastly, Maya 2018 came with some pretty advanced updates within Arnold, specifically speed and accuracy improvements, so I'd expect Maya 2019's Arnold to follow that path.  Thus, Maya is in a different category than 3DS or other Autodesk software with this respect.  It won't be long until Arnold moves over to the GPU like Redshift and Otoy have already done and Chaos Group, Pixar and others are already also moving in that direction.  That means that a version called "Maya 2019" may not come out until their Arnold acquisition has another big announcement.  But improvements there won't change the workflow of most creators, it just presents them with more options - but the core concepts are the same.

[Anonymous]

---

@jasoncbraatz wrote:

Tools are tools are tools are tools - whether it's a Ryobi or a Craftsman, or Maya or Houdini - it doesn't matter!  A sign of a terrible car mechanic would be one who complains that he simply can't fix your car because his wrenches came from Wal-Mart and not Snap-on.  

---

This a flawed comparison. You can't compare modern DCC apps to a simple tool like a wrench or scaffolding, or even a knife to cut your water melon...  simple tools that take seconds to understand and adapt to.

Software the size and complexity of Maya and Houdini take years of dedicated use to master. The way you approach an effect in Maya can be very different to how you would approach the same effect in Houdini.

Don't misunderstand me, I agree that the core skills of knowing what makes an appealing image vs what doesn't are transferable between any software. No argument there.

And if you are lucky enough to work in a specialist environment where all you need to know is just lighting and shading, or just modeling and UVing, or even just simulation, then maybe you can skip from software to software and not give it too much thought. But if you're working in a small department where you're a generalist and expected to perform all aspects of a job, then choosing the right 'tool' becomes very important. If only from a financial point of view. These softwares are expensive... having 5 licenses of all the best software lying around in case you might need them isn't really an option for a small studio... so you compromise and choose the one that does the most things very well.

My point is that Houdini offers a workflow and approach to problem solving that Maya is struggling to match.

Maybe you are one of those rare people that can work on all aspects of a production in both of these apps with ease. If you are then good for you! You're a smarter person than me.

[jasoncbraatz]

Actually - yes, while it does take years to master software concepts in CG [wholeheartedly agree] it doesn't take years to transfer those skills from one package to another.  For example, there's certainly a different way to do a fluid dynamic simulation between Maya and Houdini for optimal results, and ensure that it contains the proper voxel format so that it's portable to say.. Nuke, for final compositing.  But I think you underestimate yourself with regards to "learning" a specific DCC.  I've been working in CG since the days where Lightwave and XSI were the two (and Maya was an infant on SGI hardware) - and I have done an exhaustive amount of work within Houdini.  I can't say that I'm a fan of any "one" DCC no more than I'm a fan of "one" wrench or "one" spoon.  I'll clearly grab Maya if I was faced with a challenge of retopologizing and I'd utilize Houdini's full featured VFX suite for a particle sim.  But both of those DCCs can do either job.  Different places, different hotkeys - different thinking - yes.  Same result - absolutely.  I'm a freelancer nowadays, so I'm not a big studio (so completely a generalist).  For that reason exactly, I definitely need to have a big toolchest since deadlines can be met by one product quicker sometimes than another.  Just like it's aptly impossible to compare Mari to Substance - the two approach texture painting from a different idea.  That said, depending on the need, I'll use one (or both) to get what's in my head onto the screen.  We're artists afterall - not just workerbees.. so I'd argue that, as an artist, I want the broadest number of chances to give me the shortest distance between my brain and the screen. 

But really - if you have a handle on one DCC, you can [within a week] pick up the nuances of another, if not sooner.  So indeed, I *do* think that the Ryobi vs. Craftsman analogy sticks...

[Anonymous]

Like I said, you're a smarter person than me.

These are tools that can literally make anything! Think about that... a client can walk through the door and ask for anything to be put on screen... and chances are we'll be able to figure out a way of getting it done using these tools.

A Ryobi vs. Craftsman is, in my opinion, a massively over simplified analogy...

I wish I could flip flop between apps as easily as you seem to, but for me that's not the case. On something as relatively simple as painting in Mari vs painting in Substance I can manage. But being asked to rig a creature in Maya and then do the same in Houdini?... I'd need more than a week.

I started using Softimage 3D back in 1996. 3 years ago I was forced to switch to Maya. And I am only now feeling as comfortable in Maya as I was in Softimage. I am not a coder... although I have reluctantly had to pick up python since making the switch.

However I digress. This isn't a discussion about my lack of mental faculties, but rather one about the future path of the tool I'm attempting to master. And speaking as someone who has quite recently been forced to switch tools in the most permanent way, I hold firm in my belief that increased proceduralism is the direction that the VFX industry is heading, and I'm concerned that Maya isn't keeping pace.

We are a small cg department and have paid our subscription to Autodesk on all our licenses and seen scant return this year when compared to the advances made by the folks at Side FX, and even the developers at Maxon.

I am not keen on repeating the feeling of being pushed into switching softwares. I'd much rather jump when it suites me. Lets wait and see what Maya 2019 looks like when it eventually arrives.

[jasoncbraatz]

Good point about Maxon, I forgot about Cinema 4D (honestly that's one product that I haven't spent much time with, though it seems to be pretty straightforward.. I currently don't license it). And indeed, you do have a good point about proceduralism.. but if you watch the progression of how Autodesk adds features versus SideFX, the two have different approaches.  Houdini keeps refining the product and enhancing it (facial rigging on the fly is pretty cool in Houdini for example).  Whereas Autodesk seems to make strides with Maya in "pounces."  E.G., Bifost was purchased, XGen was licensed (from Disney), MASH was purchased from Mainframe, etc., etc.  So they don't seem to feel the pain of development gaps in the product, they'll just absorb someone who is doing it and smash it into the "operating system" of Maya.  (Which is why Maya crashes so often and Houdini doesn't, I suspect).  Again though I really don't think you are giving yourself enough credit.. you'd be able to pick up any DCC within a day or two and be proficient at it within a week - I think you are cutting yourself short there.  My system of learning is to just grab some popcorn and stare at youtube video tutorials for a few days (or over a weekend) and not touch the product until I've really watched so many different tutorials on the software that it's then quite easy to be comfortable with the software thereafter.  Weird tools (like Motion Builder) or something I don't try to stay fresh on, but most of the time, it's easy to keep up with what other people are doing too.  Like there are some great things that are only easily accomplished in Blender - for example.  Mandelbulbs aren't really something that is easy to get one's head around... but the Blender community is "that weird" that someone actually pre-wrote a simplified plug in for it.  Anyway, my best - I think we're closer in opinion in many ways, and I think you need to give yourself more credit about being able to go from one tool to another.  It's only $250 for an indie license per year with SideFX and of course Maya is $1500/year, which I know isn't cheap - but it's sooooo much more helpful to have them both on the desktop.  Sometimes, you need a hammer... and sometimes you need a scalpel, even though it's possible to do surgery on a cow with either of them. 🙂

[HasanDiab]

It seems that something either  big or  bad will happen to maya, as the 2018.5 release is just bug fixing

[Anonymous]

I would say something rather big, as killing Maya is rather impossible at this point in time - whole VFX industry depends on it and a big chunk of game dev as well. Seems to me like they are really struggling to have a stable build probably because the wide scope of changes they are making right now (not really in a terms of new features but rather the core of Maya).

[HasanDiab]

I hope so

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I would say something rather big, as killing Maya is rather impossible at this point in time - whole VFX industry depends on it and a big chunk of game dev as well. Seems to me like they are really struggling to have a stable build probably because the wide scope of changes they are making right now (not really in a terms of new features but rather the core of Maya).

---

[morten_bohne]

Saying that AD killing maya is impossible because so many companies depends on it, is rather naive. Unfortunately it also seems to be a very widespread opinion, especially if you ask those companies who desperately depends on it 😉

Yes, it would set the film and games industries back a lot if Autodesk suddenly decided to discontinue everything media an entertainment, but according to their last annual report http://investors.autodesk.com/static-files/474b9e4b-c869-44b0-991f-05226d08220f it only accounts for 13.5% of their net. revenue, and let's face it; it's a company like any other, so their main concern is making money for their investors.

So I would agree that it is unlikely, but not impossible for Autodesk to kill maya