CompuServe Messages

<"Twist, Stretch, Reshape and Optimize" really sound like things that are of interest only to a small group of specialists?> When I bought the IPAs Disk #3 (Procedural Modeling), I assumed that these were things that didn't make it into 3DS2 but would be part of release 3 and which, out of innate graciousness, the Yost Group was offering prior to the release of v.3 and in this context I was happy to lay out the cash for the disk. Needless to say I was disappointed to find them absent in any form (let alone improved) from release 3, but even before that was disappointed that the effects could be duplicated without the routines from within 3DS2 (some of them, 2d scale does a good imitation of "stretch", and twist can be imitated with modify vertex/face/rotate and then tesselating the result). Reshape didn't work to my expectations primarily because it wasn't interactive, I had no idea what I was doing with those sliders until the effect was over with and the .pxp had terminated. I never had a need for melt or skline, so, after spending $300., primarily for Reshape, I haven't got a single modified object to show for it. Disk #6&7 on the other hand, I use all the time and they work great. I've been very happy with the results, but yes, I wish they had been part of Rel. 3. Most of my work is modeling, so all the new materials editor features and lighting were pretty meaningless to me. The most valuable addition to v.3 from my perspective was the ability to change the colors of the wireframe objects in the Editor AND, most importantly, access to Skin, Slice, and Displace. So effectively I paid $1100. so that I could make use of some things that I would have expected as part of a new release. I am extremely surprised that Meshres, Optimize, Tempo, and Keyman aren't part of the main package, and to a lesser extent, Hedra2 and Scatter. Vapor, Flame, and maybe Hedra make sense to me as side routines because their uses are so narrow.Personally, I think Autodesk should purchase outright the rights to each years IPAS routines, and then offer them as part of the subsequent years upgrades. In this way, customers could get a little jump on new routines by purchasing them separately from the Yost group, and then everyone else will have them for their $500. But then, I'm just a customer, what do I know? SoftImage charges up to around $80,000. for their software, plus around $6000-$8000 for "software maintenance (upgrades), and you'd think that for that price you'd get everything ever written for SoftImage, but no, they have a huge list of add-ons you can buy for between a couple thousand and ten thousand dollars, some things are pretty simple, like "weld"(!), others like "Lockdown" (which I would like to see in 3DS) are more complex, but no less basic in their usefulness. The above two examples are two of 42 different routines made by Minerva software for use with SoftImage. SoftImage bought the rights to the whole lot and now offers them as one package for around $10k (as of just before MicroSoft's purchase of SoftImage). Because of the enormous value of these routines and their quantity, I feel that the price is proportionate and therefore acceptable, and that is going to be the test for Autodesk, is it proportionate value? In SoftImage's case, they're charging approximately the same as they charge for their annual software maintenance, and you're getting 42 terrific options, which is maybe more than the number of additions to the new version of the main program. In 3DS's case, I paid a little more than the cost of an upgrade to get 12 routines, 3 of which I use all the time (Deform, Slice, and Skin). Obviously this isn't as good a deal as in the SoftImage example, and I sure as hell didn't like paying it (as proof, I only upgraded and got those disks two weeks ago), but after all, the Yost group is independent and can charge whatever they want. As a customer, I would just like to see a sense of proportion with the pricing of these routines, as well as the exercise of good sense when it comes to the breadth of application for a routine. If, like Optimize, it can be used to good effect on practically any mesh and any animation, then I vote Autodesk acquire it for the upgrade, if the routine is useful only to make logs burn (for all those log burners out there), then I am content to see it as an add-on, though I would still like to see Autodesk periodically collect the better routines and incorporate them into the main software. Andy