Beta memo: at this time the forums and insider use two different registration and login systems. We're working on unifying the process, so if you register with your same e-mail on the forums and insider we'll merge your accounts later. To access the forums please use the login below. -Thanks.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2002


    Quote Originally Posted by Xavier View Post
    Well, if Toxik is to gain any traction, they have to "steal" users from other packages.

    Now my question for Toxik users: what are the top 5 reasons for switching from Nuke to Toxik?

    -- Xavier
    I don't think they would have to "steal" users at all. Autodesk has a huge base of Combustion users. They could probably get most of them to switch over to Toxik by giving anyone with a Combustion license a license of Toxik and then only charge them the yearly subscription. That would give them a pretty big user base and more money from all the new people paying the subscription fee without costing them anything.

    Also I think getting new Toxik classes back on FXPHD would help them. Without the classes that John and Sebastien did I would probably think what most people think about Toxik.

    As for your question... speed, speed, speed, prettier interface, awesome intergration with maya.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007


    Like Xavier, I'd also like to know what advantages Toxik has over Nuke. I can't imaging it's quicker in 32-bit float calculations than Nuke...


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003


    what got me into toxik was performance.. coming from combustion and a little flame all felt natural... making the 64bit versions of linux & win64 demo versions available will let users test real performance on a desktop app.
    also coming out first with the (very cool in my opinion) database and then taking it out dosen't help , being labled as an application killer is also bad rep.
    today toxik is very stable and fast with full float images, it has "everyday" tools... I dont see why not use it.
    Last edited by esteban; 12th May 2009 at 00:05.
    Esteban Mora
    3D | VFX Artist

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2011


    At first I have to point out that I don\'t use Toxik. I just took a really quick look at it today, just because I have it with Maya. I\'m quite familiar with Nuke and Fusion.
    And I find Nuke and Fusion much more complete packages - Toxik is like a small subset of those. It\'s like comparing Silo to Maya. I\'m quite sure that if Toxik could compete with Nuke, Autodesk wouldn\'t give it for free (if it\'s not free, I want my money back)
    Someone asked about advantages of Toxik over Nuke/Fusion. I don\'t know about that, but I can tell you about things I haven\'t found in Toxik.
    -3d composition
    -some keyer
    If these features are hidden somewhere, then I\'m sorry. I admit I haven\'t tested every node Toxik has.
    I lied that I don\'t know about any advantage of Toxik. It has one big advantage. You get it for free (kind of).
    That doesn\'t mean it\'s not good at what it can do. It\'s just no replacement for Nuke/Fusion in my opinion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts