According to engadget it looks like you get Maya LT with stingray so i guess it's technically free if you need maya. Which i intend to resubscribe to soon anyway once i get less busy.
@skankerzero: yea i think the way the video was edited didn't show the baking too well. But obviously Beast is well known and you can get some nice baking results with it.
@Stromberg90: I believe it will be available at the end of the month. Last week of August.
For source license you want to contact autodesk.
They will work it out with you.
E.g. do you need/have xbox one, ps4 developer rights etc. (since those portions cannot be distributed to people who do not have the proper agreements with Microsoft/Sony)
Don't think there is a charge for it, afaik, but not sure.
I do know we already have people on source code licenses.
The source is provided via GIT, so you can get very regular updates.
My guess is there will be contact info on the stingray website in the future.
For now, if you like to get going on source access, email: frank.delise@autodesk.com
When I first heard about this, I had no interest at all. But that actually looks really interesting.
They even took a cue from Unreal Engine and implemented native visual scripting.
The real question is; is just for Autodesk Product?
What If I'm a Blender, Modo or Houdini user? That's a huge user base they just cut off right there.
And in that case, it's absolutely no competition for Unity or Unreal.
Plus that simple fact, the fact that it's not a universal engine make me believe they won't work on it as hard as other software developpers will on their product.
The real question is; is just for Autodesk Product?
What If I'm a Blender, Modo or Houdini user? That's a huge user base they just cut off right there.
And in that case, it's absolutely no competition for Unity or Unreal.
Plus that simple fact, the fact that it's not a universal engine make me believe they won't work on it as hard as other software developpers will on their product.
Anyway, good for those interested...
Considering it has Maya Lt tied to it if anything whatever you export should be compatible with that? Granted in my experience maya and mudbox don't like blender fbx and obj files X(
I doubt even if there was compatibility with other programs the features would probably be very limited. I would guess Maya would be the mediator. While models would be easy shaders and stuff couldn't transfer from other programs, at least blender anyway.
That said i'm not sure if thats too different from other engines, you just have a full modeling suite to deal with.
On another note, I'm curious if this works for 2D games?
Considering it has Maya Lt tied to it if anything whatever you export should be compatible with that? Granted in my experience maya and mudbox don't like blender fbx and obj files X(
I doubt even if there was compatibility with other programs the features would probably be very limited. I would guess Maya would be the mediator. While models would be easy shaders and stuff couldn't transfer from other programs, at least blender anyway.
That said i'm not sure if thats too different from other engines, you just have a full modeling suite to deal with.
On another note, I'm curious if this works for 2D games?
the problem here is...
exporting from one package, into another, then having to set up all your materials and stuff again is just... ugh. takes sooo much time, and more importantly is almost guaranteed to introduce errors.
Autodesk are essentially trying to win back marketshare of their core apps with this, and i think it's a bad move.
If Softimage was still alive and integrated with Stingray, I'd probably give it a try. Is Beast doing much to keep up with other GI solutions? Is there any indie appeal at all?
the fact that it's not a universal engine make me believe they won't work on it as hard as other software developers will on their product.
It is open to everybody.
We had people using Blender exclusively on our beta forum.
And your last comment, Autodesk seems very dedicated to this product. We have a large team of experienced people who themselves are happy to try and cut through the occasion "autodesk BS" when needed.
There is an animation state machine etc in Stingray.
I don't think it is exactly the same as Skyline, but some of the people who worked on Skyline are in the Stingray team.
Well I can understand that concern. Nobody likes Monopolies.
But then I would say: use Modo/Blender in combination with Stingray instead :poly124:
If you are so open then maybe you could implement Houdini Engine into Stingray?
Side Effects is happy to help anyone that wants to do that. Maxon implements Houdini Engine into Cinema 4d so I'm sure Autodesk could easily do the same.
This would be cool and would show how good you are in cutting thru "autodesk BS"
If you are so open then maybe you could implement Houdini Engine into Stingray?
I'm not sure exactly what Houdini Engine would all require on the game engine side, but Stingray already has a few spots for plugins and the source will be available also.
So if Houdini wants to go that route, we will support them in their effort I would imagine.
Looks pretty good overall
The maya / 3ds integration is clearly the main selling point however from the videos
Are there other things it does better than unreal or unity per example ?
Looks pretty good overall
The maya / 3ds integration is clearly the main selling point however from the videos
Are there other things it does better than unreal or unity per example ?
The way stingray deals with content like textures, meshes, levels etc is super verbose and data driven. its actually fairly refreshing.
Which means that we'd loose access to the engine if the sub payments stop for any reason.
Yeah....I'll stick with Unreal 4 thanks. You guys really should take a cue from Epic in regards to the engine's licensing (the licensing structure they had before they went free-for-all)
AD gave us a demo about it and it looked quite nice.
good things:
* integrates well with AD products, including realtime updates, and viewport integration. That's the major selling point here
* possibly free or indie version available (?) They said they're aware of Unity's and UE4 pricing models. Antyhing else would doom the engine right away anyway.
bad things:
* AD will not do anything to make their product integrate better UE4, Unity, etc.
* One reason less to finally open-source FBX
if they're clever they also work on a Chinese version asap; and use this to establish their engine here. Other engines are usually lacking Chinese docs and many people here can't understand English. Kinda like XSI became popular in Japan - it was the first program to have Japanese translation.
note: those are my assumptions, not necessarily what AD people said.
It is open to everybody.
We had people using Blender exclusively on our beta forum.
And your last comment, Autodesk seems very dedicated to this product. We have a large team of experienced people who themselves are happy to try and cut through the occasion "autodesk BS" when needed.
See now it changes my whole perspective. That's good news then! Now I'll check up on it. Sorry for being so hasty, I try to be careful with Autodesk..
exporting from one package, into another, then having to set up all your materials and stuff again is just... ugh. takes sooo much time, and more importantly is almost guaranteed to introduce errors.
Autodesk are essentially trying to win back marketshare of their core apps with this, and i think it's a bad move.
Don't you have to do the same thing in something like unreal or unity anyway? I definitely understand the compatibility problems but beyond that it doesn't seem that different.
It might even be better, if something doesn't import properly you have more than enough tools to fix it instead of going back to the program fiddling then exporting and importing again.
But the flaw could be that compared to other options if everything already works (beyond materials) the process takes longer in comparison.
exporting from one package, into another, then having to set up all your materials and stuff again is just... ugh. takes sooo much time, and more importantly is almost guaranteed to introduce errors.
AD could make a decisive step here, by supporting NVidias Material Definition Language (MDL) which is a new approach to define realistic materials independently from renderers, and wether its for realtime or pre rendered. Its a great idea, imagine you could setup your game environment, and render the scene with the same materials using mental ray (or whatever) http://www.nvidia.com/object/material-definition-language.html
exporting from one package, into another, then having to set up all your materials and stuff again is just... ugh. takes sooo much time, and more importantly is almost guaranteed to introduce errors.
Autodesk are essentially trying to win back marketshare of their core apps with this, and i think it's a bad move.
Integration is imho one of the biggest time wasters in 3D production. Imagine you could seamlessly move assets between packages and engines... but no, it's either the age old .OBJ of Autodesk's closed source FBX, and that's all we have for interchange (yes, there's more but try finding support for in in any engine or tool). AD - owning the core DCC applications and owning a major interchange format - would be the ones who could really make a difference here. Of course they would have to reach out to Epic, Unity and Pixologic, but imho that would be great if a major player makes a move to get stuff working together more efficiently and effectivelty!
But I don't think they want to. This would mean giving up control. Maybe they should hire Nadella from Microsoft, who open sourced some of their proprietary stuff with nobody expecting this to happen. If AD could just jump over their own shadow...
If the biggest selling point of it will be not available for other applications, then it will end up exactly the same like CryEngine. It's cool, no one wants it because you needed to use Maya/3dsmax specific plugins to import into it.
Without live link it's just another engine on the market.
Make live link available for other applications. It's not hard to do.
It's cool, no one wants it because you needed to use Maya/3dsmax specific plugins to import into it.
Without live link it's just another engine on the market.
I might misunderstand your comment, but the engine imports FBX files.
FBX SDK is available to anybody and is integrated into Modo, Blender etc.
So you do not need live-link at all to use the engine.
Live-link just does the updating from Max/Maya to Stingray for you.
Obviously we cannot control to what extend other applications integrate FBX, so that may limit being able to import some functionality (e.g. you might only get a basic materials)
As for being "just another engine on the market".
I think Stingray has other features that will make it interesting for people, but there are many different requirements for people to make a choice for the engine that fits them best, so whatever I think is important might not be important for the next person.
I might misunderstand your comment, but the engine imports FBX files.
FBX SDK is available to anybody and is integrated into Modo, Blender etc.
But the LiveLink is the main selling point. Why such a big company like Autodesk have such big problem with making it available for other applications?
I'm pretty interested in checking this out a bit later in the year. The LiveLink alone is worth it-Naughty Dog has similar tech (check out the older Stingray Forum) and Sony Bend had something similar for Vita games back when I worked there. It's much easier to work in Maya and click a button and BAM game's running.
I love my my UE4, but definitely no harm in seeing what Stingray can do. More competition only makes things better for us. It's part of the reason these 'indie' versions of modeling packages exist.
But the LiveLink is the main selling point. Why such a big company like Autodesk have such big problem with making it available for other applications?
Yes, I know. That's how I use Unity and Unreal. So why bother with another engine that is doing exactly the same?
Why use Unreal Unity or Stingray. They all have specific advantages or wokflows they are better at - that's like saying why use modo, blender, maya or max when I have c4d.
There are send to Unreal/Unity in Maya and Max already?
@shaderfx, from your posts, I assume you work for Autodesk. If not please excuse me, maybe some one else can answer to my questions.
- I've seen all Stingray movies, and there are a few things about Beast and lightmaps. Shall I assume the engine do not support any real time dynamic global illumination?
- Is Stingray able to do anything similar with CE3 graphic?
- Will there be a price package for hobbyists? I am asking because I am interested to use/discover/learn the engine, but $30 per month seems a bit to much for my hobby.
- Indie/hobbyists all use Unity/UE4+Blender because of cost = zero. How Stingray will target those?
Replies
According to engadget it looks like you get Maya LT with stingray so i guess it's technically free if you need maya. Which i intend to resubscribe to soon anyway once i get less busy.
Maya LT + Stingray game engine, $30/month, no royalties. :thumbup:
Is it out available to use right now?
Which is the unlit scene? I actually tested the beast implementation and it is working as expected...
@Stromberg90: I believe it will be available at the end of the month. Last week of August.
Thats a no to me....
Autodesk website says it's available from August, 19th on
August 19th is release date
They talk about Beast and show the subway scene unlit (Which they show later in another video lit)
It runs on the same license as LT, so yes, subscription only.
Got something to look forward to then!
which tangent space does Stingray use?
3dsmax, or maya? because they both use different math to calculate their normalmaps.
They will work it out with you.
E.g. do you need/have xbox one, ps4 developer rights etc. (since those portions cannot be distributed to people who do not have the proper agreements with Microsoft/Sony)
Don't think there is a charge for it, afaik, but not sure.
I do know we already have people on source code licenses.
The source is provided via GIT, so you can get very regular updates.
My guess is there will be contact info on the stingray website in the future.
For now, if you like to get going on source access, email: frank.delise@autodesk.com
We import it from the DCC via FBX.
Currently we don't generate it internally, exactly to avoid your point
However, we have a task to support MIKK in the future if non are provided.
They even took a cue from Unreal Engine and implemented native visual scripting.
What If I'm a Blender, Modo or Houdini user? That's a huge user base they just cut off right there.
And in that case, it's absolutely no competition for Unity or Unreal.
Plus that simple fact, the fact that it's not a universal engine make me believe they won't work on it as hard as other software developpers will on their product.
Anyway, good for those interested...
Considering it has Maya Lt tied to it if anything whatever you export should be compatible with that? Granted in my experience maya and mudbox don't like blender fbx and obj files X(
I doubt even if there was compatibility with other programs the features would probably be very limited. I would guess Maya would be the mediator. While models would be easy shaders and stuff couldn't transfer from other programs, at least blender anyway.
That said i'm not sure if thats too different from other engines, you just have a full modeling suite to deal with.
On another note, I'm curious if this works for 2D games?
the problem here is...
exporting from one package, into another, then having to set up all your materials and stuff again is just... ugh. takes sooo much time, and more importantly is almost guaranteed to introduce errors.
Autodesk are essentially trying to win back marketshare of their core apps with this, and i think it's a bad move.
RUN, people, RUN!
Lol, exactly what I was thinking!
It is open to everybody.
We had people using Blender exclusively on our beta forum.
And your last comment, Autodesk seems very dedicated to this product. We have a large team of experienced people who themselves are happy to try and cut through the occasion "autodesk BS" when needed.
Yes it comes with Scaleform studio build in which is both for UI and 2d games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1699&v=tWPR_vkRoJg
Well I can understand that concern. Nobody likes Monopolies.
But then I would say: use Modo/Blender in combination with Stingray instead :poly124:
There is an animation state machine etc in Stingray.
I don't think it is exactly the same as Skyline, but some of the people who worked on Skyline are in the Stingray team.
If you are so open then maybe you could implement Houdini Engine into Stingray?
Side Effects is happy to help anyone that wants to do that. Maxon implements Houdini Engine into Cinema 4d so I'm sure Autodesk could easily do the same.
This would be cool and would show how good you are in cutting thru "autodesk BS"
I'm not sure exactly what Houdini Engine would all require on the game engine side, but Stingray already has a few spots for plugins and the source will be available also.
So if Houdini wants to go that route, we will support them in their effort I would imagine.
The maya / 3ds integration is clearly the main selling point however from the videos
Are there other things it does better than unreal or unity per example ?
The way stingray deals with content like textures, meshes, levels etc is super verbose and data driven. its actually fairly refreshing.
We currently ship on Windows, but everything is written such that other platforms can be supported in the future.
(Engine itself obviously runs on many platforms already)
Which means that we'd loose access to the engine if the sub payments stop for any reason.
Yeah....I'll stick with Unreal 4 thanks. You guys really should take a cue from Epic in regards to the engine's licensing (the licensing structure they had before they went free-for-all)
good things:
* integrates well with AD products, including realtime updates, and viewport integration. That's the major selling point here
* possibly free or indie version available (?) They said they're aware of Unity's and UE4 pricing models. Antyhing else would doom the engine right away anyway.
bad things:
* AD will not do anything to make their product integrate better UE4, Unity, etc.
* One reason less to finally open-source FBX
if they're clever they also work on a Chinese version asap; and use this to establish their engine here. Other engines are usually lacking Chinese docs and many people here can't understand English. Kinda like XSI became popular in Japan - it was the first program to have Japanese translation.
note: those are my assumptions, not necessarily what AD people said.
See now it changes my whole perspective. That's good news then! Now I'll check up on it. Sorry for being so hasty, I try to be careful with Autodesk..
Don't you have to do the same thing in something like unreal or unity anyway? I definitely understand the compatibility problems but beyond that it doesn't seem that different.
It might even be better, if something doesn't import properly you have more than enough tools to fix it instead of going back to the program fiddling then exporting and importing again.
But the flaw could be that compared to other options if everything already works (beyond materials) the process takes longer in comparison.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/material-definition-language.html
Integration is imho one of the biggest time wasters in 3D production. Imagine you could seamlessly move assets between packages and engines... but no, it's either the age old .OBJ of Autodesk's closed source FBX, and that's all we have for interchange (yes, there's more but try finding support for in in any engine or tool). AD - owning the core DCC applications and owning a major interchange format - would be the ones who could really make a difference here. Of course they would have to reach out to Epic, Unity and Pixologic, but imho that would be great if a major player makes a move to get stuff working together more efficiently and effectivelty!
But I don't think they want to. This would mean giving up control. Maybe they should hire Nadella from Microsoft, who open sourced some of their proprietary stuff with nobody expecting this to happen. If AD could just jump over their own shadow...
Without live link it's just another engine on the market.
Make live link available for other applications. It's not hard to do.
I might misunderstand your comment, but the engine imports FBX files.
FBX SDK is available to anybody and is integrated into Modo, Blender etc.
So you do not need live-link at all to use the engine.
Live-link just does the updating from Max/Maya to Stingray for you.
Obviously we cannot control to what extend other applications integrate FBX, so that may limit being able to import some functionality (e.g. you might only get a basic materials)
As for being "just another engine on the market".
I think Stingray has other features that will make it interesting for people, but there are many different requirements for people to make a choice for the engine that fits them best, so whatever I think is important might not be important for the next person.
But the LiveLink is the main selling point. Why such a big company like Autodesk have such big problem with making it available for other applications?
Yes, I know. That's how I use Unity and Unreal. So why bother with another engine that is doing exactly the same?
I love my my UE4, but definitely no harm in seeing what Stingray can do. More competition only makes things better for us. It's part of the reason these 'indie' versions of modeling packages exist.
Why use Unreal Unity or Stingray. They all have specific advantages or wokflows they are better at - that's like saying why use modo, blender, maya or max when I have c4d.
There are send to Unreal/Unity in Maya and Max already?
- I've seen all Stingray movies, and there are a few things about Beast and lightmaps. Shall I assume the engine do not support any real time dynamic global illumination?
- Is Stingray able to do anything similar with CE3 graphic?
- Will there be a price package for hobbyists? I am asking because I am interested to use/discover/learn the engine, but $30 per month seems a bit to much for my hobby.
- Indie/hobbyists all use Unity/UE4+Blender because of cost = zero. How Stingray will target those?
Thanks!