Export scripts for demos or not ?

[face]

The other thing is, to manage the questions of the demo user.
Should they have access to the plugin forum or not?
When yes, i know that we have many questions to manage and the time to make the plugins good/better would be fewer.
Any questions would be realy simple and would be clear, when the user would read the manual.
But all the questions coast time. I think you know it

For me, i develop the plugin alone and have a 6 day job with change morning/midday/night every two days.
So the lateny from the question to the answer can take time.
Sometimes, when i have time, i try to help the other developers to answer the user questions.
And i notice, that i write more text here as code in the plugin

Users that have the intention to use Octane for work or use it seriously, will pay the 99€.
All the others will be childs that want to play with Octane.
This sounds maybe hard but in the bottom line it is right.

On this, i vote for provide the plugins with the commercial version.


face

[Amplitude]

Maybe a little video teaser to demonstrate what's possible to do with the plugins in the commercial version would be enough?

[vanlicht]

If I were to evaluate a software and see if it works with my pipeline,
I would definitely want to have the plugin to test out.
But like others mentioned, the plugin is developed along the process and
could generate a lot of questions which could for sure deprive a lot of valuable time
for the developers.

Though, I think instead of providing the plugin, not until commercial version 1.0, it would be almost equally convincing if the website could provide videos of different plugins working with Octane and with decent result with animated sequence, then I believe that could serve the purpose. If the potential customers like the speed of the Octane render, and are assured with video proof how the plugin would work, it could help them decide to jump in for purchasing the license.

As long as the video states clearly what types of modeling, naming system, using reference approach work and what does not work (nurbs, subD, spotlight, procedural textures from host app), then I think it would be fair that they are sure what to expect, instead of feeling being cheated by the sugar coating.

Ps.
1. I am not sure if Beta has turn table function or not, but if only with that video, I don't think it will be convincing enough, consider the potential buyers that want to use Octane for animation purpose.

2. Also, it might be good idea to have a short animation clips that works, not just camera fly through, because people who never use octane would not know if the character or the tank/ sports car is going to move or not. That means...a short film would be needed, 3-5 second short clips would suffice. Each host app team can arrange one, or all could use the same one.

3. Actually, if it is that ideal, maybe different team can have different theme, covering different customer categories. For instance, Maya for animation, XSI for effect, Max for game development, mudbox for modeling, blender for architecture, etc.

[radiance]

ok,

i think judging from your answers that keeping the plugins for licensed customers is the way to go.
We do need to show animation capabilities, and since we're about to start a new competition, we'll do the idea that was discussed,
eg one animation competition and one image competition (for demo users)

This should give us enough material to demonstrate that more than turntable animation is possible.

I'll update our features page to reflect this and we will announce the new competitions soon.

Thnx,
Radiance