Refracty wrote:The dosis of information you provide is really homoeopathic.
I am a loyal customer for the last 6 years using it with various plugins almost every day. The "Maya experience" was the worst experience ever I had with software. Not because of the buggy test releases, weak support and delayed updates. The false promises in terms of schedule and what is going on was not acceptable.
I am not blaming the whole company since there are other plugins doing well with excellent support and regular updates.
At the moment it is too dangerous to use the Maya Plugin for a serious production.
But I don't give up the hope that there will be a great Maya development comming soon.
All the best for shaping a good future for the Maya Plugin.
Thank you Refracty. I am confident the expended team will deliver and support Maya integration in line with everyone's (including our own) high expectations for this product - starting with weekly roadmap progress reports mapping the remaining steps mapped to beta and GM, plus making sure V2 users are supported fully as well as we roll out final V3 (2.x is maintained - we just updated core 2.26 to support Pascal).
Communication and support, as you pointed out, is vital to the customer experience. We're focusing on that as much as we are on the tech roadmap. As you mentioned, other Octane plug-ins are doing really well with happy users. Maya has to be at this level, no less.
We recently expanded the Max development team, just as we are doing now with Maya (which similarly took some time to get the right devs lined up), and the results have been immediate and impactful for the Max plug-in. For example, one step material conversion getting solved in V3 right away. Also much deeper user feedback from customers driving features going into each next release, with weekly calls between the dev and selected Octane users from different areas (Archviz, M&E etc.).