DAW software lags behind other creative software like 3D animation packages

[txl]

I think the nature of 3d/Computer Graphics are to create and use the latest greatest tools. And usability, workflow, and production pipeline are important for big studios. If you can save 1 minute/day on a task, multiple by a team of 100 for a year or two of production then that can save some money and time. Major industry standard 3d software tends to focus on open ended with many different type of user in mind (from technical to artist). So everyone one can use the same tools in different ways according to their focus.

I don't think Autodesk make that much improvement with Maya and Max compare to ZBrush. And ZBrush have a much smaller team. Even Blender which is free and getting popular. Epic and Ubisoft just made some huge donation to support Blender.

DAW for some reason are more niche where each one trying to do their own thing and if you like their ride or not. For example: node editor is a standard in most 3d software and no one care if it unique or not. Hopefully software like Bitwig can make node base/modular editor a normal thing for DAW.

Still there are some cool innovation with audio, I really like Kontakt Instruments with many unique 3rd party developers. Particle fx sound engine, wavetable, granular, and modular synth are pretty cool. AI and machine learning are starting to integrate into both audio and 3d.

[chk071]

@chk071 Seems the Japanese are at least hopping on that https://www.blender.org/user-stories/ja ... o-blender/ Then again, I suppose it does falls under the "exception that proves the rule"

In general: I always found Blender's GUI fine, then again, it may just be me or a few others (don't think I consider a pretty or "modern" GUI a "basic" anyway IMO). As for how it compares with DAWs, well...you're comparing music creation tools with different workflows and styles versus 3D graphics creation tools. There can't be comparisons here, the approach and style are too different to be compared.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's fantastic to have such a tool available for free. As a hobbyist, who wants to look into 3D modelling, i can't afford payware 3D modelling software, so, it's great to have Blender available. As i always read, for people who are more into those things, Blender is rather a jack of all trades, and does a little of everything, while it's not specialized, and feature rich in a specific area, which is the case with the usual suspect industry standard tools. And Blender's GUI is quite bad in comparison to other softwares, which is always something i notice, especially with open source freeware. Again, though, as a hobbyist, i'm happy it's there, and, i have no illusion that, once again, you get what you pay for.

[PeterP_swe]

The one thing 3d tools did right a long time ago and is still missing from DAWs is the customization. In Maya for example, you can change, extend or add pretty much any functionality you want.

I see no reason why we couldn't have audio or midi manipulation and visualization plugins. It is pretty generic data.

[CasualHobbyist]

@ chk071 I don't, at all, agree with the whole "you get what you pay for" thing, specially in the world of FOSS, as the quality of Blender is very good and professional, among with the whole environment that Linux and its apps offer. I mean by that logic, SAW Studio would be the greatest DAW in the world (last time I heard it costed upwards of 2k), so no, I believe that logic is flawed.

UIs are always a point of contention, proprietary software usually ships with shiny or pretty UIs because the companies have a product to sell, so they need reasons to convince customers and one of the first ones is through the UI. FOSS projects do not usually bother with that because they are not selling a product, they are projects (That isn't to say that you can't sell FOSS software or services, but the philosophy is different), so they tend to focus more on functionality than beautiful GUIs. That being said, some people like Blender's UI the best so what's beautiful for someone, it can be ugly or weird for the other. So is always a subjective point.

@ In general: I am not particularly well versed when it comes to 3D modeling. But I do know a lot of tools and techniques are shared among all the programs, along with a cooperation that is quite in grand scale. Then again, 3D modeling, I believe, may require more effort and dedication than creating songs (it depends obviously), as they usually need full teams to animate movies or clips in 3D and so playing together than individually is the way to go.

[chk071]

As always, exceptions prove the rule. I don't think there's really many people who use Saw Studio, which proves that their concept doesn't work, and that they should charge much less for their software.

[CasualHobbyist]

As always, exceptions prove the rule. I don't think there's really many people who use Saw Studio, which proves that their concept doesn't work, and that they should charge much less for their software.

I agree that they should charge less. But I don't agree that the quality of something increases as price goes up, no matter the amount of "exceptions". I just don't see it as a "rule" in general because those "exceptions" are not particularly uncommon, but hey, what rolls your boat.

[chk071]

Maybe not always, but, frankly, most payware i bought, i bought for the reasons that it gives me a significant additional value over free, or lower priced software. Take The Gimp for example. The GUI is just a horrible shit, and most features are already way better implemented in Affinity Photo. It's much easier to use as well, and gives you many automatisms you don't have in Gimp. And, Photoshop gives much better compression algorithms than both, and also a lot of additional features which simply make life easy for you. That's sort of a symptomatic example for me for the added value.

[CasualHobbyist]

chk071 I personally found GIMP's UI to be fine, you can customize or change it anyway, so I don't see what's the big deal honestly. And considering it can be customized to do additional things and the like, and is widely considered among many people to be one of the most advanced editors out there (along with Photoshop), is going to survive and evolve incredibly well. If you found another program that caters to the features you want, cool, but that doesn't diminish the value of FOSS (or GIMP) in comparison to those, no matter the price or objectives. And again, you only speak from your personal experiences, when you said what before was a "rule", when it isn't, at all.

All in all, this sounds more like a "you" problem, rather than "everyone" problem.

[chk071]

Gimp's GUI is absolutely horrible... non-telling icons for the tools, which are much too narrow together as well. Tool dialogs, which cut off the text in them, when you resize them, with (again) non-telling icons as titles at the top of the tabs, and the dialogs and tools also take away too much space. Really, it's very bad, and they should have spend much more time and energy into improving the GUI, as it's very important. Affinity Photo is already much better in that regard, and Photoshop probably the best.

And, no, i'm not alone with that. Check some forums with picture edition afficionados, and you'll see. Again, like Blender, Gimp is alright for no money. If you want to have something better, you have to go payware.

[CasualHobbyist]

@chk071 Again, this all paints "You problem", not "everyone problem". For every person (like you) and others who see the GUI as "terrible, absolutely horrible, piece of shit, etc." (your words) there'll be many others who are comfortable or think is pretty. Still can't see the big deal out of this, specially as you can customize the UI anyway.

"If you want better, go payware" is not a rule, a decree, etc. Because pretty UIs and catering to specific features aren't everything needed, you want functionality, you want some tutorials, etc. That isn't to say that GIMP's UI can't have flaws I'll admit, but I can also point people who aren't fans of Photoshop or the program you mentioned, there's no "one size that fits all" and everyone can agree to disagree on that. So no, payware isn't the answer for everyone's problems.

You seem pretty bent up on this particular line of thought. Let's see how it rolls then.

[chk071]

Do you think professionals like to pay money for their tools? Or, are you able to admit that these tools are catered specifically for the professional use, and that it costs money to make them as ideal as possible, and that the respective companies employ some brilliant heads, which give the software a real additonal value, which adds to the value of the software as well?

You don't have to answer. It's a rhethorical question, as it's pretty obvious. I'm sure every photographer in the world would use Gimp if it was the best tool for the job. So, it's really pointless to keep on discussing this, because... the reality is the reality.

I think the mistake that you (and others) are making is that you feel that it devalues your favorite software. It doesn't. So, keep using what you want to use. I've been messing with Gimp, and appreciate the added value i have from using Affinity Photo. I won't lie though: It is not optimal either. It's no Photoshop. It absolutely does for what i do with it, though. Actually, it's already overkill. But, even if i had lower demands, i wouldn't use Gimp. Rather Paint.net, which i think has the way easier GUI.

[Michael L]

I personally fail to see the logic in comparing 3d graphics software with audio software.

U&I Software: MetaSynth <> ArtMatic
http://www.uisoftware.com/PAGES/uimain.html

[CasualHobbyist]

@chk071 My my, it seems like you brought the "Professional card", and then you went with the "Rhetorical card" as well, to try not to bring or discuss the point further, and end things right and there.

You stated "If GIMP was the best tool, every photographer would use it" (which I'm sure plenty of photographers do). But see, in the world of "professionals", they don't use necessarily what's the "best", they use the most common denominator among them because that's what they "know" and are "familiar with". I mean, take a look at Pro Tools. I've seen countless people bringing up Pro Tools flaws (Slow software, buggy as hell, DRM'em to the end, weights too much for a DAW, horrible customer support) with proof in hand, yet is what the "professionals" you're speaking of use, everywhere.

Photoshop is the most common denominator in the world of graphical artists, and that's what the "professionals" use. Photoshop is far from being a perfect program (lots of people bringing up how the older versions were better, how the subscription service is awful for their needs, etc.) and no amount of "big professional companies who hire the best" can solve all the problems it has. (Not even Microsoft can with its own OS, but that's another story)

I don't think GIMP is perfect, it has its own strengths and flaws like any other program out there, and a different feature set than Photoshop. But you yourself said "You get what you pay for", and that term implies that "The quality of the goods and services increases as the price goes up", which, as we all know, isn't true, nor is it a rule, just a common saying among people.

That isn't to say that it can't happen. For you, GIMP may not be worth it or you may not like it in favor of another program that suits your needs. That's absolutely and completely fine if another program does it better for your use-case. But your wording suggested generalization or "common truth" so I just wanted to correct that. Really, that was my sole intention.

[whyterabbyt]

Most of the major DAWs have remained largely unchanged for the past ten years with no real innovation. I was reading up on the latest versions of Autodesk Maya and Blender. The amount of new features, functions and technological progress that has been made within just a couple of years is staggering. In terms of computer science these applications are really pushing bar of what is possible in software.

No, not even close. Maya's new features are slow evolutions and the integration of industry 'buzzword' features. Blender's only just finally dragged itself out of the 00's, and all the high-end research in 3D seems to be in rendering algorithms, most of which are 3rd party to the content packages. These are not majorly innovative products. If you'd said Houdini you might have had a bit of a better argument.
The big feature advances in 3D content packages are things like pipeline, shot and lookdev management, USD support, UDIMs, etc. Not necessarily much 'in terms of computer science' though. Maya's 'big feature' this year seems to have been the Bifrost shader graph. Meh.

If you want an example of 3D software that's pushing the bar of what is possible in software, look at Substance Alchemist, and then consider that its about the first commercial 3D content creation package to start leveraging machine learning. Plus in audio, its not DAWs where the 'computer science' matters in the first place, because much of that turns up in he more agile 3rd party market, just look at Melodyne,izotope's RX and Neutron,and Zynaptiq's tools.

[whyterabbyt]

Don't forget that Autodesk's licensing costs thousands of € year for a subscription.

FWIW Indie subscription (ie with a 100K revenue ceiling) for Maya and 3DSMax is being tested at £250 per annum.