Trensharo wrote:Honestly, 3/5th of that is... preference.
How clear is this stuff to you? You've seen the code? I'd wager you're wrong.
I'd also say that if your idea of proper integration is literally copy and pasting the fusion experience as you know it (now) into Resolve, then you need to get your expectations in order. Fusion is being integrated into Resolve, not the other way around.
I am very excited about where Resolve+Fusion is headed -- I make sure to vocally thank BMD staff any time I interact with them for all the positive impact they've had on my work.
And no, I'm not on their development team - they seem quite alright without my help. But I think it's healthy to have public discussion about the tools we use. I haven't met many developers in this industry who aren't interested in hearing (polite
feedback from their customers.
So, I think about it like this: Nuke and Fusion both arrived at some conventions and features that artists and studios seem to agree are important. There are plenty of other ways to do things but parts of the current "Nuke-like" compositing model don't mesh very well with Resolve as we know it.
I don't think taking features & choices ("preferences") away is always a bad thing -- I actually really like the rigid design of Resolve's UI -- but it will have an effect. I think a good integration of Fusion will be incredible to have in Resolve, and I'm very excited about it, but there will be tradeoffs if we lose Fusion standalone. Depending on what you do, those tradeoffs might not matter at all or they may be critical. I don't need a "copy - pasted" Fusion integration, but I do want some way of addressing the problems we're all pointing out that don't exclude current users.
You mentioned FCPX - Apple is great at removing choice from the user for the sake of streamlining what they think you need. But they've lost a lot of customers from this industry (and gained different ones) since the 90s because of those choices and the features they prioritized.
Is that bad? I don't know, Apple seems happy enough with where they're at. You've got to change stuff to move forward and BMD certainly doesn't seem afraid to change things. But if a contingent of their happiest customers are worried about product direction or want a specific feature, BMD probably doesn't mind knowing about it, whether they have a solution or not.
So, why not talk it out? At least here somebody is listening.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk