Comments on: Autodesk Announces Combustion 2008

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:14:11 +0000

I think that Toxik will gain a lot of popularity once the Mac version gets released (a technology demo is planned for Mac World San Francisco some time in January as far as I know).

But if you ask me, they should offer a free downloadable trial version of Toxik like the one they offer for Combustion, or even a Personal Learning Edition (eyeon Fusion has one, too, I believe). Once people can see for themselves how great the thing really is, I think they will be more willing to accept it as an alternative to more established compositing packages. Plus it would allow artists to learn the software at no cost, so it would be easier to find freelancers.

But while we’re discussing name changes: If I had the choice, I’d rather have them call themselves Discreet Logic again than rename Toxik to Combustion, but neither of that is going to happen.

By: SYmek

SYmek — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:06:37 +0000

The deal with Combustion that this is a tool for unfair fight with business competitors not a serious proposition for a market. Most of Combustion’s copies come as a addition to others softwares. TO put it simply Autodesk must have a contr-product for AFX or Fusion since from a strategic point of view they can not abandon this segment of the market. Thus you can have Combustion for $300 in addition to Max or Cleaner, you get it and you are with them not Adobe.

The point is that sometimes to have a strategy mean to keep half-dead project like Combustion.
It’s really good for them.

I wouldn’t agree that Autodesk sucks in strategies. They are actually very good at it!

No one seriously involved in compositing consider C* as a main tool for its facility. One buy flame, or Nuke, or Toxic. I agree that Toxic is a very promising investment for future and I wouldn’t be worry about its present on market. The only tool ready to handle incoming realtime compositing (aside with Apple’s new child) is Toxic… that’s a deal.

cheers,
SYmek.

By: Enog

Enog — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:48:31 +0000

Autodesk should take solace in the statement - I have seen the enemy and it is me.

By: Carl Braun

Carl Braun — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:19:02 +0000

Sad to say the new version of C* has me more than a bit flustered and puzzeled. After being a long time supporter I have to I am sad to say make the switch back to After Effects as Toxic is fast but frankly incomplete compared to C* and for some strange reason not as friendly with Max as Maya (my studio runs both but I am a Max guy and the main compositor). After Effects has a suiet and frankly the little bit of bang that does add is enough to make me switch. I dunno what they where thinking they may own the 3d side of the industry in a foot hold but with stumbles like the roll out of C* here if anyone builds a even 15% better mousetrap they won’t even be a company any more will they? How in the heck did Adobe the slowest company on earth start to get so far ahead? My guess fear of Appelborg assimliation. Who are the barbarians for Aurodesk to fear?

By: Make-it-real

Make-it-real — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:07:58 +0000

Personally, I was waiting for something more spectacular with this new combustion… I think Discreet is loosing a lot of positions in the low-cost postproduction aplication’s race… There were a lot of things on combustion that needed to be revised first… of course it’s just my opinion… and I’m just a user.

By: Enog

Enog — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:51:58 +0000

Which University James?

This is what I mean about toxik, no mention:

http://www.fxguide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5852

Just watch you don’t end up with 68 people who know a piece of software that hardly any post house uses.

By: James

James — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:04:33 +0000

I have taught with Combustion (University) , but am now purchasing 68 seats of Toxik 2008. I agree with Peter: Toxik does indeed seem vastly superior to Combustion. I applaud Autodesk for its willingness to make Toxic accessable to educational institutions like mine. Hopefully the userbase will expand as students take their Toxik smarts into the workplace. I should also mention that it runs better on even a simple gaming pc than Combustion ever did. Now, if only Autodesk could update their tutorials to 2008, from 2007…

By: Enog

Enog — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:53:51 +0000

And what I’m suggesting is put all the good things in combustion into the toxik, drop toxik as a name, dropping combustion as a product and renaming toxik to combustion as you already have market peno. Then sell an ‘Upgrade’ to Combustion2008 to the new product as you have a huge user base already.

Toxik is a marketing disaster, I really enjoy using it but I think locking it into a database was a very bad decision even though thats changed now take up is going to be really slow, try getting a few toxik freelancers, it’s not as easy as you might think, where as nuke, shake, AE and combustion are alot easier. People don’t want to learn 6 peices of software, they want to learn two or three really well.

I think, just by looking at AutoDesks website that there main focus is the 3D world (and rightfully so) and there compositing side is secondary.

By: Enog

Enog — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:38:32 +0000

Hey Peter, My Jahshaka comment was a joke.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:59:48 +0000

I see the Combustion update as a confirmation from AME that they are still committed to developing it and that they do not intend to make the same mistakes as with Edit again. From what I read on the internet so far, most of the Combustion developers worked on Toxik, so they had only limited time and resources for this release of Combustion. It probably did not take too much effort to integrate the Color Warper since it is a separate module (meaning they didn’t have to re-test the entire application). Plus, it is a great feature that already existed in FFI and therefore did not have to be coded and tested from the ground up. My bet is that the next release will be more advanced with more changes to the actual application and we won’t have to wait for it as long as for this one. And $200 is pretty affordable for a feature like the color warper if you ask me.

Since some people have suggested dropping Toxik in favor of Combustion: From a technical perspective, Toxik is vastly superior to Combustion. The entire software architecture is much more modern and flexible than anything else on the market, including FFI. Taking the stuff from Toxik and porting it to the Combustion architecture would be a huge step backwards in my opinion. There is a reason why Toxik took so long to develop. It’s just a matter of time until they catch up with the rest of the solutions feature-wise.
And remember, Toxik is by no means just a compositing software, it is a platform. They could easily add a high-end editing module, or even integrate Maya directly into the application with a status equal to the compositing module. That’s close to impossible with any other compositing package. If you ask me, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg with Toxik, and I hope that the market will accept it so that AME can take advantage of the great technical potential of the application.
I think that AME deserves praise for the fact that they had the guts to design a new application from the ground up and make it as good as possible, whereas other companies just fix their existing products as long as they can. It’s like building a house: You can add stuff to an existing building that has a weak foundation without it breaking down, but at a certain point it is better and more elegant to design a new one with a firm foundation. The earlier you make that decision, the better.

Oh, and I don’t think anyone on this planet is using Jahshaka for anything, and suggesting that it is in *any* way close (or even superior) to Toxik is just ridiculous, no offense.