CompuServe Thread

<< hopefully I can answer some of your questions and save Gary and Co. some time… >> Hey, I appreciate whatever insights/opinions I can get as I, like many others in this conference, have taken a real interest in the future of this product. I'll quickly make a couple comments about what I asked and how you replied; << 3. <parametric booleans> I believe that was discussed at Siggraph as being just another object modifier in the stack. >> Right… but I don't seem to recall if they were certain that this would be a DEFINITE modifier in the stack. Though it would be great if, indeed, that were one of the modifiers, and the booleans actually WORKED this time 'round <g> << 4. <non-parametric imported objects> Set your message counter back a couple of days . There was a thread discussing this. Basically, the imported mesh becomes the starting point of the stack and all modifications in the stack act on it. >> That's kind of what I figured. At least, then, you could apply the various modifiers, stretches, tapers, what have you, on the meshes we brought in from other packages. << 5. <ACAD style blocks> At Siggraph they briefly discussed new options for instance copies. It looks like there will be several ways to copy an object and have updates affect all or certain copies. >> Unfortunately, I missed that. Good to know, however. It would be quite a time saver. << 11. <2D primitives> From the Siggraph demonstration, it appears that all 2D shapes are just another step in the "stack". They all seem to be spline-based, and modifications to the base shape will effect a change through the whole stack. >> I realize that. However – will the 2D shaper be more versitile than it was in earlier versions? Now that we can do all these wonderful things, many being parametric, it seems it would be missing out to have absolutely no parametric control over the 2D primitives these objects are based on. The idea of instance copies and "blocks" could apply to one given 2D shape, too, so that as you adjust the prototype instance, several features on the shape would change with it. It would also be nice to be able to zoom into areas you're working on without having to quit the operation to do so (Jonas, if you're listening, take this paragraph as a wish, please) << 13. <"magnet" like stretching> Don't know for certain, but the parametric mesh modifiers and "space-warps" would appear to come pretty close. >> There are some things which, indeed, come close and, in some ways, surpass the capabilities of a magnet-like sstretch. However, the lack of such a simple stretch cost time in old versions, and it's a VERY simple feature to include. I didn't see anything that did exactly that, although there were many other fine features. It would be a shame to miss out on such a simple, basic one. << Hope this helps. >> Oh, yes – as I said, it's good to have some other impressions of what will be coming in the next release, to spur on intelligent discussion about user's needs. I think YG has the right idea in adding parametrics. I think parametric modeling and model manipulation will soon be the only way to go, and we'll see increasingly intelligent parameters being addressed by newer versions of all the lead animation packages. It won't be long before we're linking distortion of objects to the movement of not just joints, but all kinds of things. Indeed, rather than just distorting the mesh in conjunction with animation, I believe soon we'll see the very parameters of the modeling process being linked to such dynamics, and in more ways than direct interaction; we'll be able to program how this movement affectss the modeling of that and THOSE objects. Naturally, though – we'll need to see some sophisticated shaping and dimensioning tools for the creation of such forms. The more parametrics play a role, the more important a good artistic AND cad-accurate shaper will be, as we can no longer just pull in 3D meshes from CAD packages which didn't assign the various parameters to the objects' gestations…. Thanx…