I've been talking with Autodesk and it looks like Red9 Studio Pack will be a part of the new Maya Extensions site when it's launched, presumably alongside the release of 2014.
The extensions download and install with an exe which are packaged in line with Maya's modules so there's been a bit of package redesign in order to cope with this. At the moment this redesign is only in the build Autodesk have but I'm wondering what peoples thoughts are about rolling the restructure out for the main build?
What's different?
Not a lot to be honest, the main difference is that the 'startup', 'packages' and 'core' folders would live under a 'Red9/scripts' folder (as defined by the Maya module system design). When setting up the python path you'd point it to Red9/scripts rather than just Red9. Everything else in the systems and the boot would be the same.
Anybody got any thoughts?
Mark
Red9 StudioTools have been born out of frustration at Autodesks reluctancy to add some of these core features and workflows into Maya itself. Why OpenSource, well I want to give something back to the industry as I feel damn sorry for studios without the benefit of a large R&D department to craft pipelines around them. The Studio Pack is designed to speed up a modern animation pipeline. All comments and suggestions are welcomed. For more info mail me :)
I think it makes more sense than having two different file structures between the builds.
ReplyDeleteHave you talked anywhere about the differences between the Red9 metadata and the metdata now available in Maya 2013.5+?