Thread: What Next?

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1 What Next? 
    jdboyd
    jdboyd is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13
    Default What Next? – February 22nd, 2005,02:33 PM
    By now, surely everyone has seen that Inferno and Fire may no longer be for sale after NAB2005.
    http://www.fxguide.com/article227.html&mode=nested

    So what do people think Discreet will be doing next? Something exciting, or just letting inferno and fire die until Linux machines get better than they currently are (note the Flint apparently requires proxies for HD work rather than being able to handle it directly for realtime work).

    I wonder about posibilities for clustered linux machines. Something that uses a SAN constructed out of 5+ 2G FC-AL loops (meaning that each node in the cluster would require at least two PCI-X buses) with one machine handling the UI and playback. While machines with several PCI-X buses are readily available, I don't know that the machines can actually keep up if you go trying to come close to saturating 2-3 of it's busses.

    Based on that FX Guide article, I'm on pins and needles waiting for NAB.
    Reply With Quote  
  2. #2  
    Aruna's Avatar
    Aruna
    Aruna is offline 2d at d2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    2,294
    February 22nd, 2005,06:35 PM
    Mmmm. NAB.. I have a feeling that Discreet may try to get hold of the linux market share by creating flame for linux.. After all, smoke and flint are there right now, and the last couple of years more and more of the tools in inferno have been distributed to flame. Time will tell, but I too, am looking forward to what's going to be happening at NAB. I would love a flame on linux running on PCI-X with a cluster of fibered boxes in the backroom. That'd be hot.
    aruna | nuke | digitalGypsy | VFXWages | twitter
    Reply With Quote  
  3. #3  
    DarkAlien
    DarkAlien is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Manhattan NYC
    Posts
    54
    February 23rd, 2005,01:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Aruna
    *snip*.... would love a flame on linux running on PCI-X with a cluster of fibered boxes in the backroom. That'd be hot.

    8way opteron systems.... 64 gigs of ram.... mmmmmm i've been waiting for discreet to come out with desktop versions of flame and inferno. would like to see the performance difference between a system rigged with a bunch of opterons and a *large* amount of ram on linux, and our current onyx/tezros

    *sigh* just gots to wait and see...
    Reply With Quote  
  4. #4  
    Hugh
    Hugh is offline No longer active
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,135
    February 23rd, 2005,03:38 AM
    What's up with Discreet's new PC-based system.... The one that they've been talking in hushed tones about for a year or so, but, as far as I am aware, have never said anything officially....
    Hugh Macdonald
    Reply With Quote  
  5. #5  
    jdboyd
    jdboyd is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13
    February 23rd, 2005,09:51 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAlien
    8way opteron systems.... 64 gigs of ram.... mmmmmm i've been waiting for discreet to come out with desktop versions of flame and inferno. would like to see the performance difference between a system rigged with a bunch of opterons and a *large* amount of ram on linux, and our current onyx/tezros

    *sigh* just gots to wait and see...
    On a side note, ffi is reported to still be a 32bit app, meaning that you probably won't see it using more than 2 gigs of ram. Of course, 2.5 gigs could still be good in the machine so that the OS can have some space while giving FFI its entire 2 gigs.

    Besides, we want it to be able to work from disk instead of only ram. Not the difference between flint and combustion.

    Not that I'm an FFI operator. Still haven't managed to convince my SO that what we really need is an older Flint.
    Reply With Quote  
  6. #6  
    Hugh
    Hugh is offline No longer active
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,135
    February 23rd, 2005,10:04 AM
    DarkAlien: Also, I believe that 64-bit machines allow much more than 64Gb RAM....

    In fact.....

    8 Exabytes (an Exabyte is a million (or so) Gigabytes)
    Hugh Macdonald
    Reply With Quote  
  7. #7  
    DarkAlien
    DarkAlien is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Manhattan NYC
    Posts
    54
    February 24th, 2005,12:50 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh
    DarkAlien: Also, I believe that 64-bit machines allow much more than 64Gb RAM....

    In fact.....

    8 Exabytes (an Exabyte is a million (or so) Gigabytes)
    true true
    you are correct in the fact they allow way more than 64 gigs, i've heard theoretical figures that they can go up to around 16 exabytes, however actually building a machine like that is super-expensive.. most current 64-bit systems limit the physical ram to somewhere between 8GB and 256TB.. so it might be awhile before you can cache the entirety of the world in ram
    Reply With Quote  
  8. #8  
    NumbGreenThumb's Avatar
    NumbGreenThumb
    NumbGreenThumb is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    66
    March 14th, 2005,12:15 AM
    Discreet has already created Flame for Linux, but it's still in beta. Runs on IBM machines. Unfortunitly I've heard that they're dropping the project. Oh well.
    Reply With Quote  
  9. #9  
    jdboyd
    jdboyd is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13
    March 14th, 2005,11:35 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NumbGreenThumb
    Discreet has already created Flame for Linux, but it's still in beta. Runs on IBM machines. Unfortunitly I've heard that they're dropping the project. Oh well.
    Dropped or postponed until the next generation of machines were ready that could handle it better?
    Reply With Quote  
  10. #10  
    NumbGreenThumb's Avatar
    NumbGreenThumb
    NumbGreenThumb is offline Certified User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    66
    March 15th, 2005,12:42 PM
    Not sure. My guess, however, would be that they're going to pick it up again later. I'd imagine they're waiting for better graphics cards and perhaps I/O solutions (DM5 board and what not). It seems like they're trying to get away from SGI. Just my thoughts though, so take them for what they're worth.
    Reply With Quote  
  11. #11  
    *ZAK*'s Avatar
    *ZAK*
    *ZAK* is offline Registered User
    Send a message via AIM to *ZAK* Send a message via MSN to *ZAK*
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    U.S.A | U.A.E | P.K
    Posts
    7
    April 28th, 2005,09:00 PM
    heard an un-official news ,discreet launching flame for windowsXP in early 2006... not confirmed... anyone got an idea what are they upto .... my opinion!! it'll be cool if hardware is also designed accordingly for windowsXP..
    Maya | Shake | AE
    [URL=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1681398/]Filmography[/URL]
    Reply With Quote  
  12. #12  
    BKM's Avatar
    BKM
    BKM is offline Cut it or Comp it
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    In a Dark Room
    Posts
    97
    April 29th, 2005,07:49 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by *ZAK*
    heard an un-official news ,discreet launching flame for windowsXP in early 2006... not confirmed... anyone got an idea what are they upto .... my opinion!! it'll be cool if hardware is also designed accordingly for windowsXP..
    Sounds like and overhauled Combustion. Sort of something in between... Super combustion/flame lite. Might be possible..... but probably not.

    BKM
    Reply With Quote  
Reply to Thread
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules