Smoke 2018 now available

[dalyj]

Hi everyone,

We have just released Smoke 2018. This release is available for Smoke Subscription customers.

Subscription customers can download Smoke 2018 by logging in with their Autodesk Account (https://accounts.autodesk.com/).

Smoke 2018 Releases Notes:

www.autodesk.com/smoke-releasenotes

Smoke 2018 System Requirements:

http://www.autodesk.com/smoke-sysreqs

[rwtsmoke]

Seriously? That's embarrassing...just EOL it if that's the best you can do.

[adamt]

my thoughts exactly.

Considering how many enhancements and new features got ploughed into Flame, it's a slap in the face to the Smoke user, just how poor the offering is this year...and i bet the price won't be lowered either!

[BKM]

It really is a shame that this is all that Autodesk would put into this release.  This is barely a Service Pack. 

[rwtsmoke]

Just so I understand this...

Smoke...pretty much an EOL product.

Flame Assist...as of v2018, no Batch (though it was in 2015, 2016 & 2017)

Flare...no time line = no editing

So for those of us who use Smoke, not just as a finishing tool, but as an all around box and who don't need a Flame (I know, my God how can he say that!) where do we go from here? You've managed to cripple us at every turn.

What the F happened...  

[joelosis]

To clarify flame assist has never had batch, it has bfx just like smokes cfx.

[yann.laforest]

Hi,

Joel is correct.

There is no difference between Smoke and Flame Assist in regard to Batch.

The Batch tab has never been available in both applications.

Smoke and Flame Assist still share the same core feature set although some tools are available in Flame Assist only.

Back to your main comment, we acknowledge your disappointment about the Smoke 2018 offering.

I maybe misinterpret your point but you seem to mention that Smoke can do things that Flame Assist or Flare cannot do. 

If so, this is incorrect.  Flame Assist can do everything that Smoke does.

Regards,

Yann

[adamt]

Hi Yann,

my own disappointment with this update is the almost complete lack of any useful "new" features!

The Flame family recently had a vast array of new, useful and productive features added. On Smoke it reads as though a couple of existing features have been improved and a constant bit rate has been added to one file output type. Thats it!  Certainly no reason for me to bother downloading it.

The selling price of Smoke and Flame Assist seem to be on a par,and i can understand the arguments for switching over but the added work involved in shifting years worth of projects over to the  Flame family would require weeks of archiving and unarchiving, making the transition a big time investment.

It definitely feels as if Smoke is being wound down...without anyone wanting to admit it out loud.

[arichards]

Whilst it is a shame to see the marketing and image dissipate around Smoke from a few years ago where its editorial finishing prowess was being shouted from the rooftops, it sort of makes sense to dispose of it given how Flame has swallowed the space of Smoke (just as people thought, for a while with the addition of CFX, that Smoke might be taking itself too close to Flame) and its having been released, or unleashed, on Mac and on user choice hardware, and coming down in price. It might still be pricier than the current Smoke, but it is cheaper and more available, if you see rental as an option. I made the switch from Smoke to Flame and so much is actually easier as you don't have to go so much around the houses. My advise would be, if you don't want to go the extra mile, in terms of outlay, to take the Flame route, then there is Flame Assist. I don't think that it has disposed of BFX and it does have planar tracking on the perspective grid above the current Smoke, as well as being updated in terms of infrastructure in ways that Smoke does not seem to be. 

Perhaps, perhaps, something is going on behind the scenes for Smoke to make it more off-line and creative cutting? I don't know, but as it currently stands Flame is just so good and Flame Assist is like a cut-down version with less nodes and no desktop reels. I can see then why they've jumped behind Flame given Smoke's current shape, but perhaps, as in a relationship, they should just tell their lover whether they are still wanted. "Just let me know and don't keep teasing me that you care for me." 

You could see that it might go this way with a rental model as opposed to subscription. You could argue that you can rent a car from a few years ago or rent a new one, but the current release certainly does not fit the model of a big "year" release. Better to just be honest and rent the older model of car and then give a bit of a respray to keep it able to drive down the road (making it able to communicate with Premiere/Avid, etc.). So, for me the choice would be Flame or Flame Assist.

Cheers

Tony

[arichards]

Sorry, I didn't actually read the three posts directly above as I had it in my mind to answer earlier in the day (before these were posted) and then I just rushed to post without reading Joel, Yann or yours. Apologies. In terms of archiving Smoke projects to open in Flame Assist. I thought that you could access projects from Smoke? I have projects available that were constructed in Smoke on mine. In terms of going from Smoke to Flame Assist. It makes more sense to transition from Smoke to Flame Assist than to stick with Smoke. You will gain new infrastructural and workflow changes, as well as the planar tracker on the perspective grid which is a really nice feature. Make the leap to Flame Assist, or better Flame!

Cheers

Tony

[rwtsmoke]

My bad for using the wrong terminology (Batch as opposed to BFX) and because of that wrong terminology I was told by both AD tech support and a reseller that Batch was not in Flame Assist...so that's what I was basing my post from, so apologies for that.

Moving forward, the frustration with Smoke comes from lack of communication from AD. A full version cycle comes and goes...and nothing, not a peep as to it's future so to me that speaks volumes. I'm not sure what other conclusions we as users can draw. 

It really complicates things as I sit here at work trying to make recommendations moving forward...and also having the same concerns with my home system.

I wish I could say we are this crazy high end facility doing nothing but national spot work and VFX for features...but we're not. We're a broadcast facility which these days is not a real great place to work as budgets are almost non existent...squeezing blood from a stone so as cheap as Flame is (at least on Mac anyways) isn't on our radar.

Trust me back in the salad days we had four Linux systems, 3 Smokes and a Flint which combined carried a 25k+ yearly maintenance contract...those days are long gone. We are now down to a single Mac System currently running Smoke. So though Flame is only 4k...and really a no brainer, not here, not anymore.

I will have a hard time making a case for Flame Assist. I'm waging a war against something called Adobe...and I'm slowly loosing. They would just as soon drop a creative suite in my room and be done with it. 

So coming full circle, this kind of a situation puts me in an awkward position as our license is due to expire...like real soon, and I'm not sure what the next play is because I'm in the dark about the future of a product that I've been using for 20 years...yup, since v1.

[arichards]

If, as AdamT says, Flame Assist is roughly the same rental price as Smoke, then it seems like a good fit. I take your point about communication. They could do with settling some concerns on this. If Flame Assist is the same price as Smoke then this would be a good way of releasing some tensions. Tell all Smoke users to transition to Flame Assist and build the bridge across. To sweeten the pot, again, there is that planar tracker for the perspective grid that has so many uses and then the infrastructural changes that have moved on in 2018 quite far. So, why not renew to Flame Assist, as it were, instead of renewing to this service pack, as Brian put it. With the price being on a par, it's really just a case of nomenclature and, you get a lot of change for a simple change in nomenclature. 

Just a quick thought...

Cheers

Tony

P.S. I forgot to say that there was a lot of work done on the Paint modules in 2018 (included in Flame Assist) and that has really renewed that tool in quite a radical way. You'll be gaining that as well in the change of nomenclature. You'll also get the nice classic blue colour scheme that you know and love from your earlier versions!

[arichards]

So, just about rounding off my contribution, I was just thinking, again rather quickly and in an unformulated way...

...It seems to me that some of the changes in Unleashing Flame (and family) have not rippled through yet and this is having unforeseen, or better, collaterally damaging consequences. Flame Assist came on the scene because Smoke was eating into Flame's space as freelancers and people working in facilities houses were using it to supplement their work in Flame and taking away some of Flame's margins. So they rightly thought of a differentiation to have Flame Assist coined for that and then leave Smoke more as an island. That then brought Flame Training so that freelancers could keep up but not eat into profits. Then, through other pressures of a developing marketplace Flame quite rightly "unleashed" and put itself into a very sweet place. What then is the need for Smoke, really, when Flame Assist is now more or less doing exactly the same thing. Really, they just need to work this through and simply pause the name of Smoke until they do something different but, again, as said above, just really reach out to all the current Smoke users and suggest that they change their usage over to Flame Assist. Why, however, call it Flame Assist when so much has changed with the "unleashing." Why not then simply call it "Fire" and get rid of the word "assist" with all its secondary connotations. Basically it is Flame Lite. But then Fire does not sound like a cut down Flame, so why not call Flame "Inferno"?!

So get rid of both current names and reprise the old. Call the larger software "Inferno" and the smaller software "Fire"?! Out with the new and in with the old (nomenclatures?!)

Cheers

Tony 

[rwtsmoke]

...and wouldn't that bring it back full circle as Smoke was born from what used to be Fire.

I got the reason they severed the compatibility of Smoke & Flame...but what I didn't get was the introduction of Flame Assist because they already had it when it was called Smoke.

Well luckily for me, the powers that be didn't flinch much when I pitched them on the idea for Flame Assist this afternoon...which is good.

Regardless, it would be nice if someone at AD would grab the reigns and give some straight answers about the future of Smoke...if there is one.

[yann.laforest]

Hi Robert,

As you may recall, there was a clear distinction between the Flame and Smoke user base when we introduced Flame Assist back in the days.

The introduction of Flame Assist was meant to provide a Flame dedicated companion to facilities who were owning Flame seats (which was still sold on turnkey Linux systems at the time).

Smoke was more an application that was targeted to freelancers and small boutiques (running on MacOSX, easily adaptable to small infrastructure, etc.)

The market evolved over the last years and we had to adapt our offerings to ensure that it meets our customers' needs.

- Flame available on Mac OSX

- Flame Assist and Flare available to everyone

- Flame not bounded to specific hardware (Flame unleashed)

- More affordable price / desktop subscription

- More flexible licensing

- Etc.

The rationale behind the introduction of Flame Assist obviously does not stand today but it does not mean that there is no place left for Smoke.

As of today, Smoke is still considered as a very powerful application that can handle very complex editing and compositing tasks, and can fit the needs of users who are not requiring of all the latest features available in Flame, Flame Assist or Flare.

Regarding your question, there is no plan we can share about the future of Smoke with the community at this point and Autodesk will adapt to way the market is changing and evolving as we always do.

Regards,

Yann

[joelosis]

I find it kinda funny that people r pointing the finger at autodesk as to why smoke has lapsed in development.
In my eyes this all was a direct response to lots of flame owners not happy that smoke was honing in on flames market share and at a fraction of the price at the time. Also this was at a time when flame was still very much a smaller more closed community.
Then one NAB all of a sudden the word is that flame is taking priority in dev and updates and a hammering home of the message that flame is their flagship product.
No one was a bigger fan of smoke on mac than myself and yes it does feel like a dead product.
Say what u will but ironically this was a direct result of autodesk listening to flame owners and users at the time who felt threatened by a great priced flame equivalent at the time.
I would definitely jump ship to flame assist.

Just my 2 cents

[carlosJJNWD]

HI Jason:

Will Smoke 2018 handle red 8K r3d files shot in the new red camera Helium

[yann.laforest]

Hi Carlos,

I will answer the question on behalf of Jason here.

Smoke 2018 does not support Red Helium media.

This is something on the radar for an upcoming Smoke release.

Please note that Flame Family 2018 and 2018.1 support Red Helium media.

Let us know if you have any other questions,

Regards,

Yann

[Anonymous]

that's a great news! thanks fir sharing. it seems to be interesting...

[Anonymous]

thanks for sharing