#Real 3D ???
25 messages in this thread
There seems to be some bashing going on about Real3D v2 going on. See'ins
I've been using this s/w for a couple weeks now I'll try and put my $.02
in.
I walked into Creative to see a demo of the new VT4000 and walked out the
door with my own copy of Real 3D v2. Looks like a couple weeks for u/g to
current Toasters and I wanted a nice 3D package for my A1200.
Part of the reason this package might seem intimidating to a novice is
bcause it so VERY highly configurable in every way. It's taken me a week
to get the interface set up the way I like it, (and it is very nice) but
its mainly been a matter of reading the docs and not playing around.
I'm using it on my 040 2000 with a high res 4 color interface and
rendering directly to an external DCTV screen for display. It works very
nicely and has plans to display to may other devices. There is code that
is optmized for an 040.
Setting it up on the 1200 was easier ounce I got the hang of it and works
great with the AGA chips. The interface is actually much faster than the
2000 but renderings about 10th the speed on the good stuff :^(
And theres lots of good stuff!!!! Needs an 030 atleast.
Been mostly doing alot of Boolean modeling stuff to start with. Now I see
how they do some of the amazing things that have always impressed me :^)
And messing with Material properties and Texture mapping. The true solid
modeling of this s/w (no polygons) is far different from LW and its great
for these type of functions.
What can I say, My Toasters sold if I want. The question is if I'll be
u/g'in to a VT4000 and LW 3.0, Probably………….
….John
John, I wasn't really Bashing Real 3D 2.0, just asking the gent How he
knows that its so Great if he hasn't used it himself.
Till I actually use that software I can't say one way or the other how it
is.
For me Imagine is like a Old pair of Shoes, Very Comfortable.
Just never could Imagine……….
….John
Hehehehehehehehe Never Could "Imagine" …….. Nice Segment, I guess yer
into Off Roading eh?
I absolutely Love shooting any type of ACTION. Especially auto racing.
Thats why I like video, Nearly no end to the 'film'.
My Dad and I used to run a production company that specialized in Off Road
racing videos. Maybe 30 one hour tapes, total of a couple 1000 sold. It
was alot of fun, but now I work way to much.
Still try and do alittle Thrashin now and again, Just got a 93 Suzuki Quad
230.
….John
Sounds Cool. Enjoy yer new Suzuki. I'm looking to get another Old Harley
or an Indian Chief to restore this winter if things work out. Tho i'll
probably end up NOT doing it. Too Busy and too Broke.
Peter;
Went to a friend of my father-in-laws' place about 12 years ago. He had
an old Indian racing bike that won some championships in about '57
(Mann?). It was on a stand, and he fired it up for a few deafining
minutes.
One of my life's most memorable moments. He wouldn't let me take it for a
spin, tho…8^)
… Nate, Emerald Video.
57'??? that bike musta been a few years old already when it won the
Championship as Indian went under in 1952 if I'm not mistaken. Yes I LOVE
the way BIG Twins Sound. May not be as fast as the Four Cylinder Rocket
Ships but much more impressive sounding eh?
I LOVE the "FAT" Look of the older Bikes.
Maybe it was a '47, I was kinda young and stupid at the time. Confused,
too, as the guy had 7 Indians and 3 old Harleys, and they all ran. They'd
tour on weekends on the indians (one was his wife's, and NOBODY else was
allowed on that one!)
Nickle plated parts, shift knobs beside the tank, a flat place to put your
feet, and little buttons with flowers and little tails on the
leatherworks. Ahh…
… Nate, Emerald Video.
Peter,
Was I was refering to was just not only what I had read but what I had
*seen* at SIGGRAPH in Chicago last year. The NewTek folks were also on
hand to see the same things that I saw.
I hope that John Bennet can provide with more substantial information,
seeing that he has it in his lucky hands…
-Louis
* Celebrating a BULLS Three-Peat victory! (while on AUTOPILOT!) *
Ahhhh, thanx for the Clarification Louis. I haven't used or Even SEEN Real
3D, I'm only going by what I've been reading in Amiga_Video echo on Fido,
some folks Love Real 3D 2.0 some Don't. Till I get a demo of it, I'll
stick with Imagine, tho the Scripting of R3D 2.0 wouldn't bother me in the
least since thats the type of Rendering I started off with back in 85'
To those of you particularly interested in Real 3D's scripting ability:
Even though I'm very interested in seeing the prog, I'm pretty happy with
Imagine (if they would just get ver 3 out the door… ). One thing for those
of you currently using Imagine to check out, if you need mathematical motion
and have programming experience is the "Imagine Staging language" (version 1.4
or higher). It's freeware, I believe, and should be available on some DL here
(I got mine on Portal).
The program is in 2 parts: one "decompiles" an Imagine staging file
into an ASCII text file that is pretty easy to read; the second bit of code
"recompiles" the text file to a staging file. Even without programming
routines to write text files, it's very useful. Example: need to adjust the
timing on 15 objects, or replace a slew of lo-res "actors" with the final
versions? Just generate the ASCII file, and do a search-and-replace with a
text editor (no more hours of mouse-clicking). And it takes about 5 seconds to
de- or re- compile a complex staging file (on an '040).
The big possibilities are in writing not-to-difficult code (even in
AREXX) to generate as many keyframe tweens, FX, or whatever as you need to
model physical properties. It won't change object structure, though, so I
guess fluid dynamics would be a bear. But even without programming, it's a
utility any Imagineer should try.
Jeff Brown, Fire Mist Media
john,
How good are the docs? Is this package for experienced users only, or
could someone that was willing to put the time into it actually learn how
to use it?
//Jonathan,
\\//via AutoPilot
The docs are pretty good, LOTS of demo tutorials. And they seem to work if
you follow them to the tee, of cousre. All functions seem to be well
documented if not a tutorial showing how to use them.
For a beginner?
Just getting it set up could be the hardest part.
For modeling and rendering its not so bad, but the animation system seems
kinda difficult for a beginner. Thats where some of the features really
shine (Inverse Kinimatics???).
I wish I could have started on a package like this, then again it does
kinda remind me of Sculpt 3D where I started.
….John
The docs (and the software, for that matter) stink. The table of contents
and index are useless. Finding anything in the docs takes forever. It
forces you into page and scan mode. Many of the turorials do not work as
written. I've had to spend much time with aHex editor looking at example
files to determine what the docs should have said. Also, if I were not
computer and Amiga OS literate, I never would have been able to get the
program running. The install script it virtually unusable, for the bugs,
and the program is so tied to PAL that unless you spend lots of time
experimenting with aspect ratios, you cannot get accurate ouput (e.g.
circles that look like circles…) If you don't have AGA/Harlequin/DMI
then all you get is grey scale rendering or 24 bit to a file. The LoRes
Ham render is pathetic.
! have about 30 hours in on the program. So far I have found 41 major
problems with docs/software, and over 2 dozen less serious (but worse than
mere typo) problems with the docs. And I'm barely half way through the
Tutorial docs. (Haven't done a detailed read of the reference docs yet.)
Basically, if you do not have a strong background in computers, physics,
math,programming and the Amiga, this program is probably not for you. In
addition, at a $699 price, it is overpriced by about $450.
wmc – via Autopilot!
I only managed one quick look through the owner's manual at a
Raytracer's Club meeting recently; the manual was a little disappointing
to an idiot like me who needs things explained in REAL (no pun intended)
simple terms….
One of the "features" of R3Dv2 that was heavily promoted is its ability
to "Drop a glass on the floor and watch it shatter": While I saw a section
on "Collision Detection" and something about "Mass", it would seem to me
that the "glass" would have to have some sort of "Brittleness" adjustment
(or perhaps "resiliency"); by the same token, how can you "Pour liquid
down a tube" without knowing the liquid's "Viscosity Index"?
Please don't misunderstand me: When I saw the ads for R3Dv2 I said to
my dealer, "If this software does half the things they claim for it …";
from my quick examination it looks like that's about what it does. But I
could be wrong, and not just have had enough time to figure it out: Can it
really do all those wonderful things, and if so, how?
It does seem to do Atleast most of what has been promised, and without too
much difficulty. It will be a while before I try any of the really
advanced animation techniques.
In the docs I've seen reference to Gravity and friction but nothing like
brittleness. Lots of stuff about collision detection and the likes.
So far I love the Boolean functions, they work very easily and you can
even make a simple sphere into an interesting object. B-splines are cool
but seem to bog things down even on an 040 sys.
Glad to answer any questions I can.
….John
John,
Have you actually worked the tutorials? Do you have different version
than mine (doesn't have an "about) or comply with ADosd Version command so
can't tell which it is)? I'm alpha testing some software that is more
robust and better documented than Real 3D in spite of never having been
released!
I really feel RealSOft and Godfrey and assoc were really trying to stick
"rich Americans" with this software. And the DONGLE – GIVE ME A BREAK!!
Gotta shut the machine down, disconnect th joystick, put in the dongle
power the machine up just to run it. Very unprofessional.
wmc – via Autopilot!
Mr C,
The docs suck. Index is sparse; it and TROC refernce only in section #s.
sections are 15-20 pags long in some cases and the sec # only appears at
the beginning of the section, so you do LOTs of page flipping to find a
refernce.
Tutorial examples often don't match the tutoriual. Tutorials often don't
match the program.
To do the liquid thing (I asked them to show me that modelling process at
NAB) you use collision detection event, but then you must create RPL
scritps to react to the collision. So get you fluid dynamic s book out
and start writing force-field equations, an RPL script to apply them the
the B-Spline mesh that defines the liquid glob. IOTW, no physics degree,
don't bother with this program. If you are not ready to write equations
of motion etc, it has little advantage over other 3D packages.
wmc – via Autopilot!
I kinda had the feeling that any of the highest-touted features were
going to require someone a lot stronger in programming than I am (hell, I
can't even write an Arexx script).
On the other hand, I've recently learned Graphic-Art-Program Lesson #2:
Don't buy any package that has been "platform-ported" (Lesson #1, btw, is
"Don't buy anything you haven't read good reviews on"): I've gotten far
enough in Playmation to attempt to render the scene called "desert.cho",
which is a choreograph of six Figures, two of which (Horse and Manikin)
are moderately-complicated; even in Lo-Res, no Shadows, no Anti-Aliasing,
I watched the Renderer eat my 12 megs of Fast Ram and THEN consume all the
CHIP Ram (and naturally, finally, lock up) — and it hadn't even drawn the
first HALF of the FIRST FRAME!! This is a renderer?…
(That'll teach me to buy "used Windows" software….)
You might try Imagine on yer IBM/Clone.
Wayne,
Gosh! No fun for everybody else, but it appears almost like what I needed
a few months back for some mechanical systems. Can you use the
equation-based curves to describe regular motion (no collision)?
Sounds like a monster, but it might do what I need.
… Nate, Emerald Video.
Nate,
That is my area of interest too. But I haven't gotten that far in the
tutorials yet. I did have one example wher you attach a method to an
object that animates the texture. However, once you attach the RPL
procedure to it, there is no way to view/edit the procedure. If you don't
remember its there (or get an object from someone else) you may get a
surprise when rendering and have no way to delete said RPL method from the
object.
Based on this experience, I'm not very hopeful that attaching equations to
motion paths will be anymore freindly.
wmc – via Autopilot!
Wayne,
Oh well, so much for that.
I was looking at just making a Lightwave scene script generator that would
use an equation, and then make every frame or so a key using the
position/angle data. Someone suggested that a while back here. Have only
gotten as far as figuring out what the scenes do. Text, yuck. :^)
… Nate, Emerald Video.