#"Difficult" software
4 messages in this thread
My 2 cents:
After reading through the recent bundle of Impulse messages, I wanted
to offer a few comments from my own perspective. My qualifications? Meager,
but I do animation professionally (and make a living at it) primarily with
Imagine, and I also teach computer animation (2-D and 3-D) at the Univ. of
the Arts in Phila.
First off, re: Imagine and other "difficult" software– yes, the manual
needs a lot of work, but the tutorials coupled with S. Worley's book
provide a pretty good reference library. I see a bigger problem with
people WHINING about how hard it is to get results when they haven't
taken the time to understand what animation is and how 3-D rendering
works! It's the same misguided thinking that leads people to believe
buying a MIDI package will make them composers. Not if you don't
understand music to begin with! I would like some perspective from
anyone using SGI/Wavefront/Alias stuff to let people know (unless I'm
mistaken) that powerful software is a complex tool, and as such, one
shouldn't expect to find an "experience" gadget on screen. (one more
brief flame…) So before you scroll thru you file requester to call up
"glass" or "chrome", why not think about the properties of the material
you're using: how does it reflect light?, is it really transparent? (all
but the best optical glass reflects about 5% of the light hitting it),
your object is red, OK, but what kind of red?
I agree that tools should be as easy to use as possible, but the more
control one has, the more decisions you will have to make, and that means
more work. It's easy to get caught up in the better-faster-more way of
thinking, but step back and realize how amazing all this animation and
graphics software is… Computer animation as we know it is barely 12
years old (Jim Blinn's JPL animations were done in 1981). When I get
the upgrade itch (and it's always there), I try and remind myself what
Sculpt 3-D looked like way back when (4 years ago?).
So, work hard, study hard, *then* your animations will "play hard".
It ain't easy, but (unlike a decade ago) it ain't impossible, either.
I'll now bend over and grab my ankles, so you all can kick my butt….
hi jeff, i agree with your comments in general about the complexity
ofmost hig end packages-as well as the idea that it is hard work,
experience, and more which makes a good 3d artist, animator whatever.
i have used alias, and even the original sculpt 3D (i was serial
number 93 :-)) and imagine, and now mostly Lightwave. I like the
power in i imagine, and the flexibility. But many of the complaints
and frustration with imagine ARE a result of poor documentation and
questionable programming IMHO. (steves book of course was a godsend)
Just two quick examples- How intuitive or rational is it for one to
set the camera's zoom and focal length using the X and Y requestors
as a ratio ? and giving you a Z requestor which doesnt do anything
?(i am referring to the action editor) And, why have the depth of
altitude mapping assigned to the Y axis of the brush, when the same Y
axis also controls the EXTENT of the brush, making texture mapping
unecessarily difficult ? In fact, even though I know that texture
mapping is a difficult concept, why is it that SO many messages on
the Imagine List and in this forum are about this? In LW, you can
quickly and easily assign maps etc. And what about world size ? ( i
know, i know , thats 3 examples 🙂
anyways, this isn't a flame, i agree with much of what you say, but also see
some very real reasons WHY people have so much trouble with Imagine-enough for
me to have switched over to Lightwave at least…
kevin
No butt Kicking will be administered by me Jeff. Thats why I like CI$, if
you are having trouble with something and you post a msg here usually
SOMEONE will have a suggestion.
I've used Wavefront and we have users who live with Alias… Imagine is a walk
in the park! Try writing some of those IPAS routines for 3D Studio…. I
think Imagine is great… (Mr. Halvorsen how about a free upgrade to 3.0 🙂
he he he)