if we develop simple apps intended to be downloaded and experienced (i.e. “view our reel in 3D-interactive”), will all the users need a 2K license to just view it and interact with it?
or is there a plan for Touch to have the equivalent of a “Free Quicktime player” or “Free Adobe Reader” version?
tx
d
We haven’t yet finalized the details of stand-alone executables.
does that mean Derivative is committed to that idea and plans haven’t been put into motion yet, or Derivative is not sure whether or not there will ever be a free player?
The amount of commitment (within a reasonable timeframe, say one year) from Derivative may make a lot of difference in the apps that the users will choose to develope.
thanks,
d
You can do what you describe now:
In your example you install the QuickTime application and then double-click movies, audio & images to start up QuickTime to view them.
Similarly, end-users can install the FTE application and double-click .toe files to interactively experience the application you build.
If you don’t want the end-users to press Esc and see your networks and you have Pro, you can make .toe files open in Perform Mode with Privacy on. (FTE users can make a .toe start in Perform Mode too, just not private).
You can lock some of your media in the .toe files (geometry, images, but not movies) to make the .toe more self-contained.
that’s great. So FTE is and remain free of charge, right?
what is the difference between FTE and TDPro?
FTE non-commercial is limited to a resolution of 1280x1024. Also there are nodes that aren’t available in FTE, such as Shared Mem Nodes and the ClipBlender CHOP.
A commercial version of FTE is resolution unlimited, but still doesn’t include any of the Pro OPs.
so is it like Escape, meaning that the user can’t create/change those nodes, but if it loads a tox that has them (from Pro) the loaded app works?
I think that if you’r considerinf FTE a player, then it needs to basically have a “play” mode where resolution is not a limitation, and it supports all the nodes of Pro.
Right now it would seem that if my app goes “full screen” chances are FTE won’t work as a player because of its size limitations (not that I have an app ready to go 
).
tx
d
A file with Pro OPs loaded into FTE will still contain the OPs, but they won’t do anything (they will act like Nulls).
You can still go fullscreeen at any res in FTE, just the rendered resolution of any TOP is limited to 1280x1024, so the image will cover the entire screen, but the source image is only 1280x1024 (it’ll get stretched to fit the screen).
So we can officially use FTE non-commercial as a playback engine for (low res) commercial projects/apps/…?
Regarding the quicktime analogy, I doubt that many people would install quicktime if they had to activate the player before they can use it. So I still wish for a free (or at least affordable) exe file generation and/or a player which doesn’t need to be activated (and maybe doesn’t need be installed).
No, the rules for commercial projects still apply.
Just to clarify…
If I make a project in Touchdesigner Pro using some pro nodes and save it in privacy mode,
can it open and run in FTE as a run only project with the pro functions working?
if so, does this apply to both the free FTE and the FTE commercial versions?
specifically, if I want to use the shared memory in a project to pass on to someone to use but not be able to modify - do they have to purchase FTE commercial (since that now has shared memory) or can they use it with FTE free installed?
If the project has a pro-only feature, such as clip-blend or streaming, would they have to have a pro license before they could use the project, even in privacy mode?
Hey Rodney,
The privacy mode keeps the user from being able to exit perform mode, so they can’t see the networks used to make the file. It doesn’t add anything else to the file.
You still need a Pro license to use Pro nodes, and FTE Commercial License to use FTE Commercial nodes.
Thanks Malcolm,
that sounds reasonable. It would be cool to have some way to have something cheaper that would just play a project - but I can also see that the cost of maintaining a restricted feature version stays the same , even if it’s offered as a cheaper thing.
For the kind of stuff I’d be doing in future, I think that adding $599 to the price is not unreasonable. For projects using clip blend etc. I guess they just have to be huge enough scale to be able to factor in $2200 for a pro license for the end user.
thanks again (I’m really thrilled that the shared memory thingies are in FTE commercial now!)
Rod.
I’m still wishing for a free or inexpensive runtime version of Touch.
At present, it’s feasible to make end-user touch applications as long as no pro-only or FTE-commercial-only features are included.
If those features are needed, it’s okay as long as it’s a big enough project to include the price of a license for pro or FTE commercial.
If, for example, I was asked to include an augmented reality feature in a magazine for readers to download and interact with augmented reality thingies on a specially marked page, then the only option would be to get the client to pay Derivative to make a custom executable (like Mixxa). It would not be reasonable to ask readers to get a $599 license to view a johnny walker ad or whatever.
If I just want to make a cool thing and give it away for free online, then it’s not going to work with any of the options available (unless the features are not pro or commercial features).
I am sure that everyone at derivative have had endless meetings about this and have decided on this model for a reason, but I’m still bumping this to see how other touch users feel about it and how they intend to incorporate Touch in how they make a living.
cheers,
Rod.
i’d be keen for an exe generation capacity - maybe that could be a pro version differentiator?
i do work for theatre, museums etc and they don’t want to have to deal with renewing licenses nor do they need or want editing capability, especially over the many many years which shows run for.
Hi everyone, This is all a very interesting discussion, and believe me, we at Derivative read the postings very carefully. Yes, we have long meetings about it, and our internal discussions are far from over. These are early days for this generation of TouchDesigner and we need to make a model that makes sense to a diverse mix of users and businesses.
I just want to make a comment on the above posting. Regarding renewing licenses, once a machine is keyed, it’s permanent - there is no further keying required.
Secondly, whether your customer is running a .exe or a combination of a (Private-flagged) .toe + a TouchDesigner, it should not matter to your museum/theater clients which it is. So, correct me if I’m wrong, in the museum/art installation case, I don’t see the benefit of having .exe.
So the above posting is more about licensing issues, not .exe issues.
There are numerous challenges, among them are protecting your work (.tox is difficult to protect vs a .toe), assuring quality and reliability, support of diverse platforms/cards/drivers, and setting appropriate revenue models/mechanisms for those who wish to sell their work.
Anyway, the discussion continues, and thanks very much for your input so far.
greg h
but what if the we jump to 088 and have to fix a bug for a client installation that was done in 077? In this case, the client needs to update to 088 or I need to revert back to 077 to fix the bug. While not a huge problem, it’s something that would be easier if we could just send another exe.
right, for a fixed museum/art installation it might not matter too much. The only drawbacks for these kind of clients is that they might not be able (or don’t want) to deal with installing and licensing the authoring environment itself …, but that might be true for other clients as well.
In general, for some jobs you just don’t wanna reveal in which authoring environment you created your work. Don’t get we wrong, I push touch wherever possible, but sometimes you gotta keep some things to yourself. Though it’s purely speculative, I also have a feeling that some clients might pay less if they figure out the whole thing is “just patched together” vs “written in real code”.
I just dislike the fact that clients will have to install/purchase/license the full application just to be able to playback our apps/synths. If it’s necessary to ensure cash flow for derivative, it should be “invisible” to the client (i.e. exe generation). The current model might work for some big and well paid jobs where you deliver a turnkey system, but for “normal” jobs (besides forcing the client to install and license touch himself) it basically means you can’t create sub 2000€ jobs as ~ 1/3 of the cost for each install is needed to license the player. Even worse when the app is to be installed on more than 1 machine.
While a (free) player would be better, I don’t really like it either, as imho people just don’t like having to install extra software. Especially if there is a high chance that it won’t run smoothly on their system. But if there’s gonna be one, make it a least in way that people are not forced to register the player, so it’s a quick and pain-free process.
So that leaves the exe generation as the ideal distribution method. Again, I can’t really see a fee based exe generation working too well (It is something that a lot of people disliked about virtools too). Just imagine you had to pay microsoft for each app you compile in visual studio. They wouldn’t sell no licenses.
So how to give deivative a piece of the cake? If selling touch licenses is not enough, I can imagine a model where we pay 15-20 % of the revenues if derivative would also have a customizable system which nicely and professionally takes care of distribution and payment … Without such a system, I can imagine exe generation as part of pro or as an aditional annual “support” plan.
Either way, I believe it’s important that, whatever system is choosen, it will also support:
Thanks for listening
PS: greg, I’ll get back to you regarding the protection mail once things slow down next week