OK hi guys, this new subscription is very vague on detail.
I was surprised that the software just stopped working after a year, I thought it was an update subscription.
Not very impressed with the tactic, it means that there is little motivation for hash to upgrade AM's features but the customers a held over a barrel to repay even to use year old software.
It 's very cynical and I feel like I've been treated with some contempt as a long time customer.

Anyway my question is, if I buy a new subscription now to reopen an old project, will this mean I can update to v17 when it comes out?

I really don't understand why AM has gone with this model, I much preferred buying updates than paying for subscriptions and was happy to pay more and feeling I had both choice, and the ability to keep accessing MY OWN WORK even if AM went belly up or get bought out as do most software companies.

I 'have' to get this next subscription to keep using models, that I MADE for a series but I can say this will be my last purchase of AM if the subscription models stays this way, I really don't appreciate being extorted or have my work held to ransom by any company.

If you renew your subscription now, you will be able to upgrade to V17.0 when it's released.

The old CD model is still available for more $$$ and does not expire, BUT, you don't get to move on to the next major release without repurchase.

I was disappointed in the model too until I figured out I was paying $99 a year to upgrade my dongle version until it dawned on me, that it's not much more or less in the long run.

If you NEVER want to purchase or upgrade again anytime soon, by all means purchase the CD version which will never expire. You are also tied to that release only unless you purchase again.

The web model was not extortion, but an attempt to keep people paying into the development of a great piece of software on a regular basis to support that development consistently.

Feel hurt all you want, but I like the new model. Especially since we get Netrender and four free nodes with a basic web subscription. I HAD to buy the dongle version before to get that functionality at all. AND, there are more nodes available for a license upgrade for a minimal price.

You just can't find this kind of software for this kind of price anywhere. And don't say blender, because the comparison is apples to limes.

Cheers!

the new pricing model demonstrates Hash's desire to keep going with A:M rather than close it down even though the economics of 3D software are limited now.

Hash Inc. certainly knows there are lots of options for 3D software out there. This is the manner in which they can continue to offer theirs.

It is what it is. I recommend the $79 subscription, it's less than the old $99 upgrade and you don't have to keep a CD in your drive to run it.

Yes, you get 17 when available. The yearly subscription service is not a 'tactic' at all, it has proven to be very good for those of us who choose to use it. What a BARGAIN! Hash has been very regular with their updates since the new policy, and 17 will be a DOOZIE!

Yeah, you do honestly miss out if you simply stick to the CD purchase. I used to think the way you did before, but every time there's been a new release since I started subbing, there have been noticeable and significant changes and fixes and improvements and therefore I disagree with the fact that you think Hash doesn't upgrade the software. They've done a marvelous job in the 2 or 3 versions that have been released since I started subbing and I expect they're going to continue on this trend. That's my two-cents at least

Perhaps there is something else that Hash Inc can do in the short term to address the issue of not feeling in control of your own creations.
I know they've been working to resolve the big picture issues like this and while the full fix for your specific case probably won't be in any time in the near future I think you'll be pleased with the direction A:M is heading with v17.

Even if a solution is on the way it's not likely to arrive on your given time schedule so I'm not sure there is much I'll be able to say to convince you to stay. For what it's worth, I hope you don't leave. Hash Inc can't miracle the solution into place but has to work steadily forward little by little and day by day.

Hang in with us and eventually we'll get there.

Others have answered your main question but I'll add it here as well.
Yes, if we purchase the websubcription we get A:M for one full year and that will include v17 when it is released.
This is an improvement over the old subscription model that most of us grew up with back in the day in that the subscription was only good for the current release within the calendar year. If a new version was released the only way to get it was upgrade. Now we just install the new release and press on.

Subscription keeps you current... you can use always the last version available and like that you don't have to pay for years old software or something...

Subscription is like it is and if you buy it there is an info-text that tells you what is going on and on the website there is the info too: Softwaredetails
If you have any more advise on how to make these things clearer, please let us know... I would like to make it as clear as possible what is going on with it.

See you
*Fuchur*

I have been getting the web subscription and have to say that the software has been steadily improving. Its hard to find a better deal out there.
I do empathize with Chuck, though, as I tried to open a project created in v15 in my v13 CD version but could not, as files are not backward compatible.
That aspect is frustrating, as I still have my v13 CD and would like to use it on my portable system. I can't swing 2 web subs right now. Not that its a ton of money, but there always seem to be other bills to catch up on.

Still, even with that drawback, the web sub is a good value. I'd rather support the company, and get netrender, than see them go out of business.

It's something of a thread drift to delve too far into this idea of backward compatibility but since the issue has been raised here we might as well address it here.

A:M is highly backward compatible (it gets a bit dicey when you get back into the v8 timeframe because so many things have changed but even there most of the files are backward compatible because A:M v16 can easily read them). It is the forward compatibility that is problematic in that it is near impossible to predict, plan for and implement programming for changes and processes that will be made in the future that do not yet exist. File formats such as the one implemented in v13 certainly help in making the forward compatibility planning process easier. That makes it easier to spot the breaking changes that will inevitably occur with the addition of new and innovative features, to plan those accordingly and to help users adapt to those changes.

This is an entirely understandable and logical problem to people that take the time to think about it.
The problem arises when people have expectations that clash with reality.
Bear with me a moment here as I try to explain.

A classic example of this might be an older version of Microsoft Word. Now consider that we are talking mostly about text and images here... something that it would seem would be highly transferable from one version to the next. When a new version of MS Word is released that necessitates a change in the file format itself or when additional information from a particular feature is stored within the file, there is no way that the older version can interpret that information. The best it can to is approximate or ignore the information. Most of the converters that are available for older versions of Word do a pretty good job of 'recovering' the important information but in several cases it took years for those converters to be made. I submit to you that they were finally made because someone on the sidelines saw the problem as a challenge and set out to program the thing and eventually the converters were widely shared. Keep in mind that there is also a huge user base behind MS Word and perfect conversions when going back to older software still aren't made. (For a modern day equivalent look at some of the incompatibilities between Google Docs interpretation/conversion of MS Office files and Microsoft's attempt to use that as a selling point to get people to switch to MS Web Office (or whatever they are calling it these days).

So if Microsoft can't do it, what are the options then with A:M?
Well, firstly and foremostly most of v16 files should be largely compatible with v13. (If you start a topic that focuses on the incompatibilities you are experiencing much could be learned about the thing. Just understand that the easiest solution, and therefore the one most likely to be suggested, is going to be an upgrade.)

The problem with forward compatibility appeared circa v12 because that is where the whole structure of A:M file formats changed.
In most cases A:M now warns us when updating older files to current versions to keep us from opting out of forward compatibility.
The old program, in your case v13, cannot see into the future so it can only read files the it wasn't programmed to read.
Luckily for you you didn't say you were using v12.

While it is possible for some programmer to (in effect) time travel back to v13 and add capabilities to it (via a converter) it will be cheaper for you and for the programmers and for the community to just upgrade to the current version. Then there will be no incompatibilities.
So, while I know this is the whole issue at hand and the cause of much frustration, the solution is simple. Upgrade.
It is far more economical for two or three guys with the need for forward compatibility living four years in the past to upgrade at $79 than for programmers to program a utility that 'technically' no one needs. As you explore the problems with supporting people that are 'saving money' by using older software you start to see more and more absurdities.

Martin Hash is a smart guy and in hindsight I see that while his move to the websubscription was largely for more practical reasons and a tough decision to make, the subscription also addresses this issue of file version incompatibility across versions. When everyone is using the current version there are no (as in zero) incompatibilities.

What is amazing to me is that every time someone complains* about the subscription I get another chance to see a new aspect of Martin's genius.

I realize there are many who have closed their minds to this and refuse to hear it but I have don't expect to alter their opinion and I have very little ability to effect reality. The best I can do is suggest talking through the problem until the way forward becomes clearer.

*I don't use the word complain in a negative sense here although I recognize that most do. For what it's worth, I see complaints as a useful feedback mechanism that brings the user's experience back into the system where it informs future decisionmaking. In this sense we need more unhappy people that are willing to complain! Of course, it always helps when we have a fairly good grasp on reality on which to ground that complaint.

Another thing I should mention is that because A:M's file format it text based (and since v13 is a near XML format) everything from v13 onward is highly backward and forward compatible but the average user won't know how to interpret the text of those things that aren't. I would recommend hiring someone to interpret that text but the time it would take that person to perform the task would cost considerably more than a subscription/upgrade.

Hope that makes sense.

V13 and v15 have the same file format so most v15 files should work fine in v13, especially models.

You will get a pro forma warning message, but in actual practice v15 files will work in v13 unless there is some feature you are using that wasn't in existence in v13 and even then the file should at least load once you click past the warning message.

What file are you having trouble with, Roger?

I guess I should have said "forward compatibility" and sorry if I sounded a bit uninformed in my expectations. I wouldn't expect to create a file in v15 and be able to open it in v8, but would not have thought the feature drift between v15 and v13 would have been as great.

I don't expect Hash (or any company, for that matter) to create converters for a handful of people. I don't really balk at paying the $79 upgrade fee, for me it is a no-brainer. Even for 2 systems yearly, its not that bad. Supporting software and adding new features costs money. $79 is a fair value proposition for those things. People have brought up Blender before, to me the amount of time I would spend relearning everything I know how to do now in another program would outweigh any "savings".

It was a one-time thing, a while back I was trying to show a relative of mine what I was working on and didn't bring my main laptop with me as it can be a bit cumbersome, so I had a netbook w/ AM running off a USB cd. I think I was trying to load the penguin from v15 into v13 and couldn't.

It's not an issue now, I am probably going to get another sub for my other machine or just use the netbook for modeling stuff that I will be able to easily import into whatever later version I'm using.

The web subscription way is just the way Hash Inc has decided to deliver its product. I think its fair and for what you get its a crazy good deal. Now each time your license come due I guess one might feel a little put out but really at 80 bucks a seat...its hard to. I too once had a cd.....version 12 but actually think this is a better deal . And despite limited resources Hash Inc has managed to roll out some nice things with 15 and 16 and the hopefully soon to be seen 17. So really its a cheap upgrade if you like to think of it that way too.

Well Chuck, I totally agree with You. That's all I will say right now since my last set of comments on this subject caused the thread to be closed.
You are not alone on this.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same topic but I believe you requested that topic to be closed? (I cannot recall)

A topic is usually closed at the request of the topic starter, when forum rules are violated or when people start getting nasty with each other.
Usually the rudeness is the signal that a topic has overrun its course.
Importantly however, it does not mean the topic itself isn't worthy of discussion.

As long as people aren't disrespectful, topics tend to stay open around here.
I can't speak for others but I want to discuss this subject.
All aspects of the user experience are important.

I'll note that Hash does still offer a non-expiring license, so for someone with a critical need to KNOW that they will be able use a particular version without paying anything further in the future, that higher cost option is out there for you at a lower cost than the old CD version.

I'll also note that the actual CD-as-key plan is no longer possible because the company that owns the technology for that has gone under. The story reads like something right out of the headlines where some venture capitalists fleeced a company and then ditched it.

So Hash had to find a new way to offer the software, this is it for now. If you can't live with it, that's too bad, we'll be sorry to see you go, but for the rest of us it's a reasonable trade-off between convenience and cost and we understand what we are buying and not buying.

In the meantime, if you have A:M questions, this forum will help answer them.

Well, I have been overly vocal about the licensing scheme for sure, but I have noticed a few threads to disappear, including the one
I left my last comments on, probably at the end of last year(can't recall). The thread about Martins absence on the forum suddenly
disappeared, a thread about someone comparing C4d to Hash became inaccessible, why ? and where does this censorship come from?
I agree that one should adhere to a certain conduct, but these rules need flexibility. I have witnessed quite a number of very talented
people leaving the Hash community and it always sounded like they made a final step away from it, almost like freeing themselves
from a restrictive environment and they have moved on. That shouldn't be the way of the future of this software, but any criticism
seems to get axed. Why? and for whom, all readers are users, there is no need for PR, but honesty.

If we knew the answer to that one life would be a whole lot easier.
I'm going to guess; misunderstandings and incompatible expectations.
There is also the ugly specter of hurt feelings that ultimately causes friends and associates to part ways.

I don't want to thread drift yet another upgrade topic so if there is a particular subject you are curious about start an Off Topic and folks can drop their two cents into it.

Let me answer an easy one here:



I assume the thread is still there because you say it's inaccessible. If you point out the topic I'm sure the reason will be clear. Until then I can only guess.
From your sentence alone I would suggest that it violated the rule of posting comparisons with competing products.
Assuming it's not obvious to some people why such a rule exists, you could start a topic and we can explore why that is.
You may note that some topics with competing products mentioned have absolutely no problem. We could also explore why that is.
Some people even predict the demise of their topic before they post it... as in, "This post is sure to be deleted anyway so I'm not sure why I'm writing this."... a fascinating phenomenon for sure. We can explore that as well.

So to answer your question of 'Why'?
I'd say it's mostly because we don't take the time to think before we launch a rant or vent our frustration.
It's easier just to hit 'submit'.

There is a whole lot more to this of course and if some of it wasn't tragic it'd be funny. From my perspective it's mostly just sad.
I do have a pet theory about the disappearing post thing.

About the original question of this topic. I have found that the subscription road has worked very well for me. The Hash staff has been extremely helpful at critical times when I've needed fast set up. For that I'm most appreciative. It's always good to have the option to install a new version during the course of your subscription.

For instance...When "selection sets" capabiltiy was gained....it was great to be able to see how it works before the official release of the new V...version.

WOW....the new Hash additions to V.17 are really cool too.

William

There was a time when the forum moderators handled complaints rather poorly, but Rodney is not those moderators. He's the most moderate moderator you're going to find.

You've made your complaint... it's still there to be seen by the rest of us... that's about all a forum can offer. None of us here can change the pricing plan and few of us want to, we find it to be acceptable.

If there's another software that meets your needs perfectly, go for it. If it's only got some things better and some things not... you'll have to weigh that as we all have in deciding to do what we do with what we do it with. Nobody here is unaware that there is other software out there. I have certainly tried other stuff that is more famous but it turned out to not be easier and not more useful.

I'm glad there's still A:M here.

I don't see the point in griping about $79 subscription. I have other programs that if I update them I am forced into a "maintenance" program on top of the cost of the upgrade pushing the price tag for the year to $600. Other programs I maintain with upgrades on a yearly basis run in the $150-$300 range.

Hash as been extremely fair and kept my aging cd version up to date. I wouldn't expect them to just give me 16 or 17 for nothing. I'll be going to subscription when 17 is out. The cd version doesn't expire and maybe that is a better option for you.

I think the frequency of improvements and bug fixes with the subscription is worth while.

There are ton's of other programs out there, many with steep price tags and horrible terms which don't necessarily justify their worth. On the other end of the spectrum there are the free and open source programs that have little or no support, constant bug and stability issues that might be fine for the casual user but not recommended for any production work.

Bang for the Buck AM is pretty tough to beat and the support from the company and the users is unsurpassed.

Thanks Robert.
I wish I could stake some kind of claim here but mostly I just try to be fair across the board.
Unlike Martin, I believe in censorship, but I know the best form of censorship is the form that is self imposed.
Martin will usually take the punches, absorb the impact and recover from it. I won't. (I'm a militarily trained pacifist)

The first rule of thumb that I use in moderating myself is to try to remember at all times that this is not my forum.

Firstly and foremostly, this is Martin Hash's forum. It is also every A:M User's primary resource.
In order for this forum to remain relevant we need Martin's continuing support.
There have been many others resources but Martin's support keeps this one going.

Secondly, I make a distinction between A:M (the program) and the A:M (the forum).
There are some topics/issues that are outside the scope of this forum. Most of these can be deduced by reading through the forum rules.
They include such things as Hash Inc internal policies, business practices, trade secrets, and specific plans for the future not yet publicly releasable.
This would be a fascinating topic of it's own.

Related to the second, is purchasing, customer service and other areas outside the purview of the common user; those things dealing with money exchanging hands are beyond the scope of the A:M Forum and can represent a conflict of interest. (If Hash Inc cuts you a deal on volume purchasing it's really none of my business). Likewise, individual complaints about a product or service are best remedied by going direct with Hash Inc Support.

This last one is likely the source of much confusion for many see the A:M Forum as the official outlet for Hash Inc... and it is. But the forum is not designed for business and private matters better resolved directly and personally with those officially empowered to make (and alter) rules. While many problems can be easily addressed at the User level, there is good reason to take personal problems directly to the source... you don't want the issue discussed... you want it resolved. (If you note at the bottom of the forum there is a User Help Desk section... this is... how shall I say it... exploratory.)

Thirdly, I know for a fact that I won't always be here, so I want to pass this forum on to future moderators (and to the generations of A:M Users to come) in the absolute best condition possible. A:M is that good a program.

I do completly relate to chucky's frustration but what you just said there Rodney was well said.

Consider appending that to the A:M Forum rules as a side note if its practical.

I am revisiting this thread... can't believe it has gone as far as it has. Sorry to hear such sour-grapes. The Hash subscription is an online subscription, not like a magazine subscription... like, say if you subscribed to TV Guide magazine for 1 year and then let your sub expire, you would still have the 12 issues you bought and paid for to read and re-read and shuffle thru on the shelf. No, this is an online subscription... like a (forgive the parable) PORNO sub... if you subscribe to HUSTLERDOTCOM for 1 year and then let the sub expire... would you then complain that you should still be allowed to view the content that was released during your paid period?

For you, I would recommend the CD version of this software. Still, a bargain.

Martin won't change the subscription system. I bet they make less money on the software now even without having to send CDs out.

One thing that seems necessary to support is the element of trust. As long as we don't trust someone we are going to have problems in our dealings with them. So, my suggestion is to take a little leap of faith and invest in A:M. That won't buy a whole lot of trust but it will get us A:M for one year and in that year trust can be built.

The main concern with the subscription seems to comes from those who expect to let their subscriptions expire at the end of the year and would like to still have access to those assets. This is a legitimate concern that often gets lost in the emotions of forum rants and banter as everyone else piles on. There are things in the works that I believe will address this concern of access and longevity and hopefully this concern will be put to rest for once and for all. Then everyone can see it as I do... as a dead issue. When we subscribe to A:M we are contributing to A:M's continuing success. The reason I have always seen the subscription in a positive light is that (with the exception of one miserable year where I didn't plunk down my $99) I have been a subscriber to A:M since '98. Back then A:M cost us $99 each year.

Similarly, some are concerned that if Hash Inc were to go out of business they wouldn't be able to access their assets.
I won't attempt to explain why this as a non-issue I'll suggest that accessing assets would be the very least of your concern if Hash Inc did go out of business. While it's important to keep an eye out for what is up ahead, I would rather spend the majority of my time encouraging everyone to stop predicting the future and live a bit more in the present. (i.e. Those who have no vested interest in the present can easily afford to embrace fatalism).

Let me attack this 'woe is us' approach from a different angle because we might learn something of value in it.
Let us say that Hash Inc went out of business tomorrow. Who then would be the most valuable person in the A:M Community; the one with or the one without a subscription? Certainly not me as my sub expires in about a week. You can bet we'd all be finding out whose subs ran out first and the last of the last of the last of the A:M users would be famous for all of eternity. It'd be terrible but for the rest of the year you can bet things would get pretty exciting as the clocked ticked of the final moments of the last fateful subscription.

Actually, someone would probably just build a viewer and a conversion utility to circumvent the doomsday prophets predictions.
In the meantime, look for a more reasonable solution to this legitimate concern to be announced to the A:M Community later this year.

Okay, somewhat relunctantly I've added the following to the forum guidelines. We'll see how well it sticks.
The first (original) section and the User Led addition have been separated and now read as follows:




Note that I've altered the text somewhat and the original may have stated it better.
I regret that in the current reading I have moved away from stating Martin's considerable contribution and support.
A:M and Martin are synonymous and it is impossible to separate the two so I figure he would prefer it read this way.

Since we are here... any reasonable recommendation for additional changes will be considered.

Note that there are two primary areas that are stressed in the guidelines:
A:M Reports. A:M Reports is linked twice(once for bug reports and once for feature requests). I believe v17 is a testament to how well A:M Reports works.

The only area in bold is the one thing that is most likely to get a post or topic removed. Most other post that violate rules are simply closed. That way everyone can know exactly who really was responsible for the topic being closed. In typical Steve Sappington fashion, usually your moderator is just the poor fellow that is responsible for enforcing the rules.

Personal Attacks. Those who post personal attacks should not be surprised to see their post (but not necessarily the other posts in that topic) removed. Considering how to state an issue without resorting to a personal attack will likely prevent most posts from being removed. Multiple violations and attacks within the same topic could result in the entire topic being removed.

Note: Personal attacks haven't been an issue... I'm just clarifying the stated rule.