4 ms·
I think they were not easily commercialized. I was a VFX software developer and internal tools are both very advanced and also fragile foot guns if you try to
by bhouston 3y ago
I think they were not easily commercialized. I was a VFX software developer and internal tools are both very advanced and also fragile foot guns if you try to do anything that isn’t exactly down the golden path. VFX devs are not the usual product guys, they are usually either R&D/math guys or hackers, with little in between.
The way to commercialize WETA stuff would be to make new product teams and basically redo much of the work with professional software devs and figure out where the original VFX R&D had gaps - and it always has massive gaps.
Unity just went nuts with wacky acquisitions the last couple years and this was one of them.
- Narann 3y ago> internal tools are both very advanced and also fragile foot guns if you try to do anything that isn’t exactly down the golden path. HT: That’s also an important point explained when we talk about internal VS commercial (or build VS buy) in the animation/VFX industry. Internal softwares does less than 5% (or less) of commercial products, but they are doing it in a straight, fab compatibility way. No effort is made in making the tool working with your fab, the tool is shaped for the fab from scratch. That’s the value of internal tools. Converting those is viable product is very risky.
- MrScruff 3y agoYeah, you could see this outcome a mile away. While there are examples of in-house VFX software being commercialised (eg. most of the Foundry's offerings) it's generally not built to the same spec as commercial software. There are plenty of good developers but the teams are smaller and resources are focused on bang for buck.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]