CompuServe Thread

>> I am used to getting flamed for not conforming… << Well first off, I don't consider that a flame! If it is then flaming has reached a new level of refinement… second off you comments were totally contradictory to my own, which is why I replied, I don't think that's helping out but confusing the issue… >> Has Diamond built NT 3.51 drivers yet… << I'm sure this is a burning issue, that we all want the answers too… my my they must be slipping… I guess its not good enough that they've got a whole slew of 3.5 drivers in 16m. I see what your problem is, you want the future yesterday and even that's not quick enough… And if you're interested in seeing some of my work, as you'd like to poke around in my head, use yours… I'm sure you won't have much difficulty finding some if you're really interested… <G> Are you part Irish or is that all Scottish…? That temper of yours I mean. <G> Well Brandon I'm as much as crumudge as the next Scot, so try another approach. <BG> John

Brandon, I've re-read your post several times and I must say I'm rather amused. And don't take offense, hear me out first. You have a brash if not earnest approach… the brashness comes off more strongly that the earnestness, but in fact I suspect your earnestness is quite sincere. That may be obvious to you but the brashness somewhat masks it. I find it amusing because I realise and have realised we actually have a lot in common though neither of us would like to admit at much. <G> Its got something to do with the Scot's fierce independence. They only seem to work well when they've got a common goal, the rest is anarchy. Which is why the British succeeded in conquering Scotland. The romans couldn't do it, and the British only succeeded by exploiting what they knew of the Scottish temperment. You may find this all irrevelant but I think its appropriate, in that it is obvious if we continue on this vien nothing positive will result. Being different and not following mainstream convention has alot of drawbacks, however it does have alot of pluses as well, so in that regard one needs to bring the best that that insight offers to the mainstream view. Comments like "close minded options", put you at odds with the mainstream view, its kinda like admitting defeat, and not caring what other's think. I believe that is a mistaken approach. There may very well be merit in your suggestion but if there is, you haven't provided any insight which would further your position, instead you've alienated your audience, on the premise that they're close minded. Personally, and I'm not always sure I understand people very well, but personally I don't think people are "close minded"… it more a matter of presenting your insight in a positive way that they can see the advantage to your way of seeing things… I don't want ray-tracing because I think its a crutch… it may not be, but I think along the lines of painting with color, and see ray-tracing as more like taking a photograph… this does not appeal to me… if I wanted to photograph things I would have stayed in video, I want to paint with 3d, I want to bring art to 3d, and I don't think ray-tracing adds anything to the mix because a good painter can paint photorealism and frequently will for a time and then move back to the emotive or expressive form rather than illustrative. Architects and Engineers might find some advantage to your suggestion, and in this regard you have much more support than you might imagine… I don't get the sense that most animators want to paint with 3D, in the sense of traditional "art". Not that I want to do a Renior in 3D, but it would be pretty awesome to be able to do so… 3DS as it now stands is more in line with what I want to do… apparently at Westwood they use both and in such a fashion as to make it seamless… in other words you can't tell what was done in lightwave and what was done in 3DS. I'm not admitting anything by telling you what I already knew. First I think your approach to this topic is confrontational, which gets into things that have little to do with the substance of your argument. Second, I don't think 3DS has to have a ray-tracer… obviously if Westwood can make it look seamless, there are strengths to both and you want to maximize the capabilities of each approach… They are not complaining that the wish 3DS had the capability (at least if they are its in private…) but rather are maximizing the potential of each… which is your option. And a must if you are able to achieve the look you're going for. I find that all I want and need is already in 3DS. However, if I needed the capability of lightwave I wouldn't hesitate to buy it… that does not mean that I'd push for some ray-tracing capability in 3DS. That's like saying I wanted Fractal Painter to do what QFX does, or suggesting that all paint programs be identical. No I would rather the vision of 3DS as it stands be further refined and it you or others want to explore the possibilities of ray-tracing there are several options, one of which Ray Dream designer, I think is not only noteworthy but should be a part of any animators tool box. Just because of the insight it brings, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see it duplicated in 3DS. I would however like to see it as an independent IPAS or a stand-alone that could import 3DS projects but that's up to them to implement. Anyway that's as much as I'm willing to concede on this ray-trace issue, which I think is really a non-issue as there are other options… That is my view and you have your view…. so lets leave it at that. John