Bad news (rumor)

i think if this is true!

then combustion will die young younger than shake:)
and i think any new user for any product of autodesk (disceet) will not trust the life of its products..where when he b professional into the product they kill the product!...

and i don't know how they can wanna to replace combustion by toxik!
toxik need database connected to it..and other requirments..where combustion is simply installed...

now i remmber (edit&cinestream and software was for flash-can't get its name now-!)all killed haha then it is hobby at autodesk (discreet) ppl to do software's and kill it! that mean there is no good software planing! ...hope combustion doesn't go with them!
and if this happned that mean autodesk Withdrawal form the race with adobe (after effects)!

Ayman

Well, it sucks to be a user who depends on this product to have little to no feeling of permanence. I don't think I'd feel that way if I was using AE or Fusion. It's obvious those companies are behind their products. I'm really tired of these rumors. We've built a pipeline that is dependent on Combustion. Am I supposed to feel comfortable with that? I believe in this product. I wish someone from Autodesk would have the sack to pipe up and at least let us know whether or not these rumors are bs. When you take this long between updates you've got to put something out there. And BTW if they cancel Combustion the LAST thing I would do is invest in more Autodesk software just on principal alone. Also Toxik was a mess the last time I saw it. Not ready for production it looked to me.

Well, here's my 2 schillings for what it's worth. While I love combustion and use it daily, it's underlying technology seems a bit stretched relative to the current processor/OS technology and might be in line for a major overhaul. Now, do you rebuild the product or start with something newer and more flexible? In this case, Toxic could fit the bill to a certain extent. If you were to take some of combustions functionality and add it to Toxix which can handle large collaborative workflows, floating point color, and huge file sizes and you have one hell of a product. Maybe sell 2 versions. One without all the database backend and one with.

Another thing to consider is the changes in the systems group. Though mostly systems products like Flame were targeted, why not go after combustion as well. I don't know, this is all accedemic anyway.

Mark Kauffman
kauffman@paradigmranch.com

Yes, I was one of those good friends! I was even a beta tester for the edit/combustion integration "dream team," which would have killed Avid and FCP a long time ago. After receiving the same type of questionnaire recently about combustion that I received just before they decided to EOL edit*, I think the writing is on the wall!

Hmmm, I drop into the forum for the first time in a while and I see...the same old story. All this was pretty obvious to me quite a while back when C was dumped from the discreet lineup, and the once impressive website for C turn into less than a press release. At Siggraph, you would've been hard-pressed to know the product even existed.

It's obvious autodesk wants to deal strictly with big money. You know it's only a matter of time before Max and Maya become one, and guess how much that will be licensed? They milk the crap out of studios with the subscription license they're dishing out for all the discreet products. Stuff like C is nothing but a nuisance.

That said, if your using C in your present pipeline, you have enough inertia in the existing app to allow you to start looking into modern alternatives. On the "low" end, there's really only really AE, a product that while probably annoying for most C users to deal with, has a strong development, user, and support base. It's the obvious app to jump to. Jashaka looks like it coming along, although it's still a long way off, and dependent on the GPU to process data, so no multithreading. Cheap enough to farm, tho. :-)

As is, C is a capable compositor for the vast majority of comps, and even if it dies tomorrow it'll be quite useful for a long time. I wouldn't sweat it too much. It would certainly be clear that autodesk is not a company that you ever want to deal with again if they dump C. You certainly have plenty of 3D options if you wanted to jump ship from Max or Maya. Lightwave for one cost peanuts in comparison, is multiplatform and can be farmed on Linux no less.

So I wouldn't worry too much about C dying. You should never put all your eggs in one basket in this business anyway, and as Mr. Spock would say, "There are always alternatives". :-)

I agree with you Phil. The recurring "Is combustion going to be ditched?" theme is a bore and a bummer. So, what are you using since I assume you aren't using Combustion?

I think Phil is absolutely correct that Autodesk is only wanting to go after the "big studio bucks." The problem is, these expensive proprietary systems are actually the ones that are getting "long in the tooth." Even the big studio players are more and more reticent to invest in these revenue drainers. The post world will revolve around the best inexpensive software running on ever faster computers. The problem with Janice's analogy, that "these companies decide what they want 'the future' to be" becomes problematic when their expensive proprietary systems no longer appeal to the market or reality. "Their future" could then resemble that of the dinosaur.

Well, Im sorry but that's a pretty disappointing read in what has been an objectively discussed thread so far.

I thought name calling was barred here? Clearly the rule doesn't apply to companies... Even those that have mutual representation on these forums.

Justin Citement

Justin,

I offer no pretense of objectivity. Why should I, I was quite subjectively involved with Discreet and Autodesk for years. It would be completely dishonest to fein any objectivity.

For your information, I was running a very sucessful business that was built around Discreet Edit*. Then, Discreet sold out to Autodesk, who EOLed Edit* just when it was poised to achieve greatness. Edit* was running circles around the other NLE software at the time -- it had full integration with your beloved Combustion, which made E&C the most powerful set of desktop editing tools on the market. Autodesk essentially killed my business almost overnight...

And, to make matters worse, Autodesk was completely unceremonious in its EOLing Edit* and completely unsympathetic to its loyal customers. After refusing to sell the product code to anyone who wanted to take it further, their lawyers suddenly began to enforce the fine print in their software licensing agreement, thus forbiding owners to sell the software. In other words, they were screwing us and they made no bones about it.

So, now that you know the facts do you still maintain the belief that objectivity is in order? Is it even possible?

DRW

Rayk,

In answer to your question, while the decision to EOL Edit* did have immediate and profound effects, no, it did not mean that the app quit working the next day. In fact, I will admit that some people are still using it even now, five or six years later. However, the majority of those people are most likely still acquiring everything on Betacam today, just as they were way back then.

Keep in mind that Edit 6.0, the last full release of Edit*, was built on the ancient Windows NT platform, with no Firewire, no USB, and no DV support. Edit 6.5 on Windows 2000 had been released, but, it was essentially beta software, with a whole array of major bugs that made it unsuitable for most professional work. The decision to EOL the app came just two weeks before NAB, after all expectations had been set in place for the major release of the completely revamped Edit* 7.0.

For the record, the EOL of Edit* did have a huge impact on my business almost immediately. In the major markets, such as L.A. where I'm based, the EOL created an immediate loss of faith in the product on the part of facilities and their customers, causing most facilities to abandon their Edit* systems just as quickly as they possibly could. Freelance work at those facilities, a large part of my business model, effectively dried up overnight. In addition, the substancial investment I had made in software and hardware was suddenly worthless -- the retail price of Edit* software was initially $15,000, and Combustion $5000 in those days, not the drop in bucket we are used to paying for desktop apps today. So, at a time while cash flow was already severely diminished, staying in business suddenly meant complete retooling, complete revamping of workflow, and retraining on all new hardware and software. It took me several years to recover. Many others simply went out of business.

So, there you have it... It was all very painful, and as you now know, it clearly had a profound impact on me. It was the same for several thousand others like me around the world. This is why I have no love for Discreet and Autodesk.

DRW

Unfortunately Discreet (autodesk) isn't to be trusted. Flint had a great name and they killed it. After much user protest they brought it back but then killed the Effect option 3 (Flint on O2) of which I had 2 and had invested about $100k in over a few years. The excuse was that the o2's hardware wasn't up to the future of the software. Somewhat true maybe but it was clear that the o2 did too much at too low a price point compared to Flame and the new flint on Octane. Now Combustion has a good rep. (in my circles) and is thought of as kind of Flame jr. I'm thinking it's happening all over again. I agree that Autodesk is much more interested in going after the big sales than caring for a $1k program. Too bad. If they do end it, and I hope they don't, I hope they'll at least sell the code to someone who can develop it. It still amazes me that after all this time they don't have really strong competition at either the high end or low end. Aside from AE of course.

There

David

If you'd written what you just wrote as your first post - I wouldn't have said anything.

It is sad that we're still having discussions about how "bad" Discreet/Autodesk are but I totally accept the past and present situations.

In no way am I interested in censure of anyone's opinion - I simply objected to the language as there are people on this forum who contribute a significant amount that also have more direct input with the product development through their association with Autodesk.

Justin

[Eric Craft] "I was told that alot of time was spent on trying to get the Mac Universal Binary out, which probably took time out of Combustion 5 dev. Again, I don't think they would put time into to doing that if they were just going to kill it."

Well, a similar thing actually happened when they killed edit. For months they put lots of development resources into porting edit to new hardware then fired everybody six weeks before the release. You should never assume that Autodesk is going to do the logical thing.

It saddens me to see threads like these with people making the same assumptions that we made back in the day before they killed edit. If any of you depend on Combustion for your business, make sure you have your back covered, because if they dump it you will be the last to know (even if you're a beta tester.)

____________________________________

Eric Susch

http://www.LetsKnit2gether.com

[Phil Radelat] "Looking at the postings on this forum, it looks like C is already dead"

Interesting assumption. Do you think that the chatter on this forum is an accurate reflection of the product and its preception in the marketplace?

I think not personally. :)

Justin Credulous