#Imagine 3
55 messages in this thread
Mike,
Imagine 3 is scheduled to ship in a little over 2 weeks so I presume
you're going to be beta testing it soon. How about uploading a few
renderings done with the new version to get people hyped up on upgrading?
If it actually IS that close to shipping will you be making any major
changes to the program at this point? If not, how about a few screen shots
of the new interface. :^)
Also, I understand you were planning on major changes to the way it
handles textures and brushmaps. Does the new system allow for a
transparent background on the brushmap? What about a bright brushmap on a
normally shaded object? Eg: lights in an office tower.
If you're going to be making any changes to the way textures/brushmaps are
handled in future versions of Imagine I recommend you take a look at the
material editor in Real 3D version 2. It's a bit hard to understand at
first, but once you get used to it it works better than any other system
I've used. (including Lightwave, Imagine, and Caligari)
I was also wonderign about those strange patterns you get off in the
distance when you put a checkered (or any other) texture onto a ground. Is
Imagine 3 going to cure that?
I hope they have been "beta" testing for a few weeks already! Nobody
would wait 2 weeks before shipping to begin testing.
Screen shots and a few renderings would be cool!
And everyone who cares. We are in constant testing, no longer
do we use the phrase BETA, that is an old phrase that really does not
apply that much to what is really going on with our development team.
Also there is no way with a program like Imagine that we can
test any and all possiblities. We hope that you will help in this
matter, test the software and let us know what you think as well as
the possibility of a bug report.
As we develope we test, test and test again.
As for pictures and anims, we want you to do that not us.
Humble if you will, you are the reason Imagine is not the other way
around.
I'm curious, what type of testing do you do? Do you set up test
cases for the testers, or do they just do random testing, or both? Do
you write software to test it in modules?
The reason I ask, is because we have been taking a good look at
how we do QA where I work. We started using software (SQA Manager)
that helps us track PTR's, this seems to help track related bugs and
other metrics. Also, we have the programmers meet with QA to create
test cases. Cases that we feel would cause the software to hit it's
limits, and might cause the software to break. We also automate tests
as much as possible in engineering, have a peer module reviews. Most
of the time we even trace modules with a debugger so we can cause
things to fail (fopen(), malloc(), etc…). We have reduced the
number of PTR's we get by about 50%!
Troy.
I think that our testing is less formal that what you use. We
have several users who beat the software to death and then we fix
it. This process slows down delivery time but it seems to work in
gerenal. What I think we need to imporve upon is telling people how
the software works. Many things that cant be done are often sluffed
off by users as BUGS when indeed the software of choice did not or
does not do what the user wanted to do.
Imagine is very mature, so testing is much more straight forward.
We only have about 11 people is our company. 3 artists, 3
programmers, 3 testers (2 are part time), 1 project manager, and the
owner. We have about 2 jobs currently going, 1 finishing up in a
month. We used to test the way you do, but we have found that we save
a lot of time and money using some of these methods. I'd say that we
saved most of the time by having peer code reviews, they take time,
but have a few benefits! The first is that you can catch more bugs
because having a second programmer review another's code, the second
programmer may find problems that the first one overlooked. Second,
if a programmer were to leave our company, we have other people that
are familiar with his/her code.
Also, when you spend more time in the debugger tracing code paths,
you can easily simulate program failures. It's not possible for any
tester that's not familiar with the code, to test 100% of the code.
The main area is error handling (files that don't open, buffer's that
don't allocate, user input, bounds checking, and other I/O). In a
debugger, I can cause malloc(), fopen(), fread(), fwrite(), and
others to fail. Then, I can trace my code to debug the error
handling! Testers just can't do this, and I feel most bugs are
related to these failures. If it takes me a few more hours to test a
routine in a debugger, I can catch more bugs in that routine *now*,
before QA, and while I'm still familiar with the code! It saves time
later trying to track the beast down.
Pick up these books and pass them around your company:
"Code Complete", and "Writing Solid Code" by Microsoft Press
Very good reading material!
-Troy
PS: We are required by our clients (Philips PIMA, IBM,
Macmillan/McgrawHill, Childrens Television Workshop, and others) to
meet some of these standards. But it has helped our company
tremendously… We miss less deadlines. Our numbers in SQA manager
show it!
Thanks, for your help, I am sure that we could as you suggest
be served by adopting your process. We have over the years been able
to catch most of the Bugs before they reach the user and consumer.
If we suffer from some problem it would have to be associated
to the simple fact that we dont have as much horse power as we need
for the things that we think up. We are actively seeking more
software designers who understand what we do and how we do it.
I dont think that we miss deadlines due to testing I think we
miss them due to the "BOY ISNT THIS COOL" factor. Our software and
hardware never seems to be as good as we want it. Also, due to the
type of product we make it seems that we have set our system on once
a year to have a new release. This time line is too long for anyones
good.
So, for 1994 we are going to establish a new system by where
the user pays a service contract and at least 4 times in that year we
release a new version with new features. In this way we can react
more to the users needs and find out if our COOL factor is going in
the right direction.
Not to sound negative but it does seem that most software is
developed in a state of complex secrecy. We want to open this
process up, especially with a program like Imagine., where its
success is based entirely on the user meeting the needs that she or
he has.
While I agree with your process we need more talent and a
quicker time from code to user. I think that needless bugs are not
acceptable, but what is worse is the lack of features to meet the
users needs
Enough of my babble.
Ahh, "BOY ISN'T THIS COOL"… We call those "Change Requests", or
"AA'S" (Author Authorization's) and they are scheduled! 🙂
As far as design goes, I like the Rapid Prototype method. It helps
you see what you get, before you spend a whole lotta effort on
Technical specs, Functional specs, and code, only to have the client
change everything. Also, I feel that if you can design your program
in a object oriented "modular" way, it makes it easy to add to
existing code. It don't do that well if the main system isn't
tested/debugged properly though.
For instance 3D object creation can benefit if you create modules
that allow magnetism, lathe operations, etc. In the future, you can
release new operators that the user can "plug in". Sorta like your
texture proceedures, and effects. This benefits the users, they have
the base system, and can purchase modules during the year as needed.
It benefits you because you can focus on what the user wants, design
and write it, and not have to worry about testing the whole program
again!
Users want a *new* look? Make a new interface! Leave the rest.
Users want to core apples? Make a Apple Core module! Leave the rest.
Want to replace the 040 render engine with a Warp! engine? (Anti
Screamer
statement)… Just kiddin
It also makes it easy to port to other systems. And, since you don't
have to port every module right away, you get quicker releases. We
created a program for Macmillan called "Sights & Sounds", it had to
run on the PC and Macintosh. We wrote 75% of the code on the PC, then
only had to convert the other 25%. It worked out that way because we
designed so that most of the code was not tied to the interface, and
specifics of either platform. In fact, if we had our network up back
then, we could have shared the code archives that were under PVCS
version control! BTW, even the audio data was shared between
platforms… Only the graphics and animations had to change! But
that's painless with all the great conversion software out there.
If our code wasn't designed this way, we could not make money since
we almost always do multi platform work. This is also why it's very
important that we have a real good design and testing proceedure.
-Troy Barlow
PS: I enjoy the babble!
Once again you state, IF WE ARE GOING TO RELEASE IT, of course we
are. It nice that you like Real 3D we have no plans of copying the
product of other companies, We might have something that you will
appreciate as much as real 3d.
We dont upload much in the way of images and animations, we
want you the user to do that, it seems with everyone else blowing
their own horn we thought it might be prudent to show a bit of
humility.
Users make software great not just the developer. If you make
Imagine sing then we have done a great job, if you dont then we have
done a poor job.
How about uploading a SCREEN CAPTURE of the new INTERFACE to show
that there really IS an Imagine 3.0. 🙂
Vernon,
Surely you jest,
Mike
>We dont upload much in the way of images and animations, we want you the
>user to do that,
When Imagine was first released I remember a picture that was
distributed, (the office table with the gun) which I think you
rendered, and was a GREAT selling tool when showing others what
Imagine was capable of doing.
I am sure you are thinking that if you u/l something that people will
think that this is `the best' that Imagine can do when you weren't
even trying. But I think something that shows some of the new
features would be nice especially since 3.0 has been delayed and
people get impatient.
Even a screen shoot would be nice.
Imagine has not been delayed, we just did not get done as
soon as we would like to have. I think that it is still best to let
you do the talking and we will do the making. THis is your software,
show us what you can do. Soon it will be in the hands of those who
ordered and you will be able to show each other what can be done.
You're right, the end users will probably be able to come up with
some really nice stuff. It stands to reason, there's a lot more of us
than there are of you at Impulse. However, I personally have seen at
least 5 Imagine sales lost due to a lack of sample renderings. It
usually happens something like this:
I'm in one of the local Amiga dealers and a customer walks in and
tells the salesman he wants to get into 3D animation. He doesn't know
what he wants so he asks the salesman what's available. If the
salesman knows what he's talking about he'll tell the guy about
Alladin 4D, Caligari 24, Real 3D, Imagine, and of course LightWave.
He explains the major features of each package to the customer and if
the guy seems interested in a couple he runs them to show the
interface. They look at a couple of interesting features then they
start to look at sample pictures. They look at the JPEGS that come
with Alladin 4D (really nice pics), They look at the terminator
render done with Caligari (wow!) They might look at the bowling pin
picture from the Real 3D ad, and perhaps a short video clip from
SeaQuest or Babylon 5.
Then, since Imagine has no official sample pictures they go into the
detail editor and load the cow. Don't ask me why but they always seem
to load the cow. They do a quickrender with everything left at the
default settings and in a few seconds they have a 320*200 HAM image
of the cow. Yechh!!! Then the guy looks back at the Babylon 5 video,
then he looks at the terminator render again, Then he looks back at
the cow. The salesman is talking about Essence 1&2, Understanding
Imagine 2.0, The Imagine companion, the Imagine Staging Language, and
how there are thousands of Imagine objects available on BBS's. The
guy's still looking at the cow. It's usually about that time he
picks either Caligari, Real 3D, or the Toaster.
Once in a while I'll jump in and show the guy what Imagine can do, but
I'm not there all the time and it's not my job anyways. I've seen
this happen at least 5 times and a few more where the person just
leaves empty-handed to think about it some more. If you want the
users to show off the power of Imagine why don't you have a contest.
Get people to send in their best Imagine 3.0 renders (once it's
released), pick the best 10 to distribute with the program, and refund
the upgrade price to the people who did them. The cost to you is
minimal compared to the extra sales it could generate.
Jeff, that's a great idea and a familiar story. I often have to step
in and clear up misconceptions about Imagine while I'm at my local
dealers. Impulse really has been a bit too humble about the
strengths of their program over the years. I have a feeling you'll
be seeing a change over the next few months, though. There's some
really cool stuff just around the corner that will get many people
very excited. –Rick Rodriguez
Howdy Rick, you guys at VRS have a set of Nice Interiors right? I need
a Living Room for "The Adventures of Joe Pumpt and Biff Bod", I'd
like to see a sample rendering of yer Interior models if possible.
Email to me is Fine. JPEG would probably be best to keep size down.
Thanx.
The living room set probably won't be done til January, Peter. We're
currently gearing up production on a new series of tutorial videos
for Imagine 3.0. –Rick Rodriguez
Hot Beans and Butter!!!! Can't wait to see the new Tape(s). No biggie
on the Living Room not being Done till Janruary since after I posted
the msg I found a nice Office on the Syndesis 3DROM done by Neoumen,
for some reason it WASN'T available as a Imagine object but
Interchange plus converted it fine for me and is what I used. The
Bloody Scene with the Humanoid sitting in the Office Chair needed a
Whopping 12 megs to render each frame!!!!
You spend too much time in the retail store. People in stores
sell what they like and what they have. Of course we have missed
some sales, however when the user gets home, can he indeed make that
picture that he or she saw at the demo. We have never mislead anyone
with the power of Imagine. If you like selling hype then people will
buy what sparkles. However not all that glitters is gold. Imagine
has the most power of any other software product in the 3D arena. I
personally will put the power of Imagine against any other product
period.
We do not come from the world of Hype we work on the premise
that we should do a good job, those who want the best will buy it.
We have tried to have a contest, and the entrants were few and
far between, people are too busy to be involved.
Thanks for your suggestions but I think that we will continue
to let you blow the horn while we make it easire and better to play.
That is our job, not to make lousy software that gets sold due to
some frilly hype. NOTHING makes me madder than when I have been
suckered into a Hype, help those people out who have to make a tough
decision of which to buy. Tell them the truth as you know it and move
to the next thing.
the contest Jeff suggested is a great idea. It shouldn't be much work
for Impulse and I'd love to make some stills or animations. BTW, here
in a german magazine I have seen some adds for Imagine. It does show
some example pictures! -David
David, et al. I sense that M. Halverson is skeptical about the
benefits of an Imagine contest… and I think he's right! While Impulse should
(and will, I'm sure) get some good sample pics, etc,; my guess is that there
are a lot of good Imagineers that would not participate in a "contest", for
some of the following reasons:
1) work that exists may not have clearance — you did a great logo
for MegaCorp, but will they want to have it used to advertise
someone else's product?
2) good work takes time! and if one earns a living doing animation,
it's sometimes hard to justify doing something "on spec".
3) see #2– it's not easy to give it away! Some "unpaid" (rather
than "amateur") animators do great work… and they might feel
fine about getting $100. Some professionals do great work, and
they need to make a good deal more than $100 on a job just to
make the lease payments on the video gear!
The gist of it is, "contests" can have pretty spotty results; I haven't
seen the AmigaWorld tape, but was told it consisted of a couple very nice
pieces with lots of, well, not so nice pieces….
my 2 cents,
Jeff Brown, Fire Mist Media
Alot of the Reason "I" feel the Amigaworld Contests suffer is the
fact that they accept 3/4" Tapes ONLY, I've never entered simply
because of that. Dr. Gandalfs work on the Last Amiga World tape was
IMHO the best.
>We have tried to have a contest, and the entrants were few and far
>between, people are too busy to be involved.
I will probably say that even though Imagine is a capable program it
is difficult to achieve the desired result (2.0). You have said that
3.0 will be very user friendly and this will most likely make for
more entries. It couldn't hurt…
Anthony,
I would suggest that Imagine is not hard to use, 2.0 or 3.0 it
just takes hard work. There is no such thing as an easy 3D product.
I think that the over riding reason for people not to participate is
not Imagine it is the work involved and the time it takes to do
something that you are proud of no matter what the software. I think
that many people buy into the premise that something or another is
hard to use because a few people say so. Imagine is not hard it is
complex and powerfull, you must work at the results they dont just
fall out of the sky.
I look forward to seeing your work in the future.
Mike
>Imagine is not hard it is complex and powerfull, you must work at the
>results they dont just fall out of the sky.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to give the impression that it should be
SUPER easy. What I meant was that Imagine is not as intuitive as others,
although it could be modified (Custom Buttons).
>I look forward to seeing your work in the future.
I am going to send you a entry we (the local gang and me) made into the
SCI-FI contest. Total running time with stills and anims is almost 3
minutes.
Is Impulse's address still the same?
Impulse
8416 Xerxes Avenue N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
Who should I send this `in care of'?
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
Tony,
Address the same
send it to Me
Mike Halvorson
THanx
Mike
Mike,
While I agree that some programs are over-hyped I also think it's a
fine line between humility and obscurity. You're aiming Imagine sales
at people who want the best and will buy it. Well, how are they going
to know it's the best if there are no sample pictures? They look on
TV and see LightWave animations and assume it's the best. They look
at the cover of Amiga World and see Caligari renders and assume it's
the best. Where do they get the impression that Imagine's the best?
Most people who want to get into 3D animation don't spend months
cruising BBS's looking for pictures done with every Amiga render.
They go into a store and ask the salesman to show them what's
available. If you're worried about people feeling like they got took
because they can't get the same quality as the sample pics, include a
scene file that they can render themselves. They can learn from the
lighting and object placement and become better Imagine users
themselves.
You have to understand that the average person is not going to go to much
bother to find out what's hype and what's actually the best product. If
they were IBM clones would not be the most popular type of computer and
the Amiga would not be a niche computer.
It is difficult to stand out in a field of unfullfilled
promises. I think people are smarter than you give them credit.
People dont just part with the money they earn because they see a
pretty picture. We will be posting images that will impress and
hopefully will casue people to look in the direction of Imagine.
Possibly by doing what others do will make us a bit
different.
We will be doing our best to make Imagine a recognized
product, we have sold many copies of Imagine, without the need to
over react to what is going on.
Thanks for your suggestions, I am listening.
One thing I've learned over the years is that people are ALWAYS
dumber than I give them credit for. :^) You're right though, most
people won't buy a 3D package based ONLY on a picture. A nice example
of what a program CAN do makes a difference in the buying decision
though. I'll be looking forward to seeing the images you post.
>> Yechh!!! Then the guy looks back at the Babylon 5 video, then he looks
>> at the terminator render again, Then he looks back at the cow.
>> The salesman is talking about Essence 1&2, Understanding Imagine 2.0,
>> The Imagine companion, the Imagine Staging Language, and how there are
>> thousands of Imagine objects available on BBS's. The guy's still looking
>> at the cow.
LOL, ROFL!! Lucky I didn't go to a dealer who showed me the cow <bg>
-David
>If you want the users to show off the power of Imagine why don't you have
>a contest. Get people to send in their best Imagine 3.0 renders (once
>it's released), pick the best 10 to distribute with the program, and
>refund the upgrade price to the people who did them.
I LIKE the way you think!!! I am sure with the features that 3.0 will have
there will be LOTS of stuff being done.
Thanks Tony,
Of course unless Mike likes the way I think the contest isn't going to
happen.
I've got a Toaster on loan for a few weeks. At this point I really don't
CARE what Imagine 3.0 has for features. I've been using Lightwave for 3
days and I'm saving for a toaster. ;^)
You might want to give Alpha Video a Buzz, I seem to recall seeing an
Ad from them somewhere that said they were selling used Toaster Cards
for $800(2.0)
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunatly now that Newtek has stopped
selling software upgrades the Toaster 2.0 is dead technology. (in my
opinion) The next release of LightWave is supposed to support Essence
textures. (they MIGHT even be included) I have to have something I
can upgrade so I'll be getting a Toaster 4000. Besides a 4000 is in
my future somewhere so I'll NEED the latest hardware. By the way,
what ever happened to that 5000 frame animation you were working on a
while back?
I'm still fooling around with that 5100 frame anim here and there, it
finally has a Name too. "The Adventures of Joe Pumpt and Biff Bod"
Recently I did an opening Title Animation using Imagemaster R/T's
Wipe generator. I'm rendering another 300 frames as I type this of
Joe Pumpt running/jogging past his house.
Peter,
a 5100 animation not only takes a LOT of time, but also needs a LOT of disk
space. How do you store your frames? DO you have a tape back up?
-David
I presume the name of the animation comes from the fact that it stars
the Cycle Muscles dude. Or have you changed that?
Jeff,
I hope you enjoy the toaster, indeed you have made your choice. Albeit
it might have been made in the dark. Software is a tool, you are the
ingredient that makes the software valuable not the other way around. For some
reason people seem to forget this very important aspect of software and
hardware. Take a computer and some software and set them in a room, nothing
happens until you get involved. Use all the software tools that you need to
use, if you find you are happy with only one, Great, others may find a
different need and thus it makes for more than one vendor of a product type.
Mike
My choice wasn't made entirly in the dark. I've been using Imagine
since it was first released and I've got a fair bit of experience on
every version that's ever existed. In all that time I've done some
pictures that were OK but nothing really impressive. It took me about
5 hours to start doing better renders than I'd ever managed before.
At this point I've been using LightWave for 4 days, I haven't even
opened the manual and I can do about 90 percent of what I could do
with Imagine. You're right about software being a tool, but some
people just can't learn to work some tools properly. LightWave is a
tool that works for me.
I will be looking at Imagine 3 when it's released. I know a few people
in town who will be getting the upgrade and will be happy to show it
to me. I'd MUCH rather spend $100 on the upgrade than having to buy
an entire Toaster system, but I'd have to be INCREDIBLY impressed
with the render quality to abandon my plans to get a Toaster.
Jeff,
Good luck with the toaster, many use it and love it.
The question I might ask is this.
How much of the quality of the rendering is the software and
how much is the toaster display? I trust that you had a 24 bit board
before so that this is moot question. However if your rendering are
now being shown on a higher quality display then with Imagine on the
standard AMiga there might just be a difference that you would indeed
notice.
I'd have to say that about 100% of the render quality is due to the
software. I used to use DCTV to do my animations with Imagine and
I've been using DCTV and Rend 24 for the little test anims I've done
with the Toaster. I gave up on using HAM a long time ago. I could
probably get by with HAM8 though. :^)
One thing that I've noticed that DOES make a big difference in the
render quality is the default lighting options and the single sided
polygons. The default lights in LW shows most objects pretty well
and the fact that you can use single sided polygons means that when
you're trying to light an interior scene you can use point lights for
highlighting and use a distant light to do the overall lighting for
the scene.
Everyone that I've ever talked to about Imagine seems to have trouble
with lighting. If you can make the lighting easier to use it'll
vastly improve the quality of every Imagine users work.
Mike,
PMFJI – I read Jeff's thoughts on Imagine and have to agree. I bought
Imagine 1.0 a few years ago and upgraded to 2.0 when it came out. I
struggled to learn it with the help of The Imagine Companion and
Understanding Imagine 2.0 – I need not tell you why I had to buy these
books to learn the program. IMHO, the program is simply too difficult to
use – and the lack of docs made things impossible.
I bought a VT4000 about a month ago and have had the same experience with
Jeff. I was create renderings almost right away without cracking the
manual. The program, again IMHO, is extraordinarily straightforward.
For me to spend almost $3000.00 (Canadian) on a VT4000 as opposed to $100
(American) for the Imagine upgrade tells you what my impression is of the
usefulness of the Lightwave as compared to Imagine.
For the reasons I've just stated, plus a few others, I've decided to go
with Lightwave. I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is
intended, a customer of yours outlining why he has gone with a
comptetitor's product trying to tell you why.
Rick – On Autopilot from Vancouver
Rick,
I don't think this is fair. You learned all the basic things about making
animations, rendering, placing lights, movement… on Imagine and now you are
an experienced user. Now you bought the Toaster and you don't have to start
from scratch thus you can start right away making good stuff.
You haven't even seen 3.0, so how can you judge?
-David
David,
Actually, I learned the basics things about making animations from
Sculpt-Animate 4D Jr. – a great package for learning about 3D – not
Imagine. At this moment I have both Imagine and Lightwave on my hard disk
and with the experience I have – a few years with Imagine as opposed to a
few weeks with Lightwave – I find Lightwave much easier and more useful.
True, I have not seen Imagine 3.0. I'm waiting to hear everybody's
comments on it. However, unless the program has undergone a major
transformation making it easier to use, I doubt that I'll buy it. We'll
see, though.
Rick,
Newtek is not nor have they ever been our competitor. That
is something that you the user decide to endorse. We do not make the
kind of products that Newtek makes. With the exception of
Lightwave. I am not sure that Imagine is all that hard to use. If
you were not capable of using it, then I am sorry. There are
thousands who have used the software and continue to do so. Many
people appreciate the power in the flexability of Imagine, they dont
want their work to look the same as the next guys. There power is
there and if you want to learn the software you can expect great
results.
I am also somewhat amazed at the fact that you bought all of
the books and are still not capable with Imagine. It seems that
everyone who has purchases Mr. Worleys book or Mr. Dubermans book
have been made aware of the power in Imagine and are using the
software with a smile of their face.
Never-the-less I wish you the best of luck and hope that your
investment pays off in the short and long term.
As a final note We have addressed the issue of a better set of
docs, that indeed is one of the most important parts of the new
Imagine.
Mike,
Thanks for your reply. I'm looking forward to seeing what's new in
Imagine 3.0.
Rick – On Autopilot from Vancouver
I'm in much the same boat as Rick. I've been using Imagine for years
and am very familiar with it. I've also bought all the books and
tapes available and I've done some pretty good renders with Imagine.
The problem is that if I spend 2 hours with Imagine I can get a
pretty nice render. If I spend 2 hours with LW I can get an
incredible render. I think this is due mostly to LightWave having
default settings that look pretty good. You can get an 'OK' render in
a few minutes and spend the rest of your time playing with little
details that make the big difference in the finished render. With
Imagine you have to spend much more time up front adjusting lighting,
specularity, adding global reflect maps for metal, ect.
It's not that we're not 'capable' of using Imagine, it's just that
we're more capable of using LW.
By the way, I don't want to sound like I hate your product or that
Imagine is a bad program. I've used it for years and learned more
about 3D from Imagine than any other program I've ever used. It's a
fine program and most of the knowledge I've been using to create nice
renders in LW comes from what I learned in Imagine. However, if
enough people tell you what they find difficult about Imagine, the
program will evolve into something easier to use and far more
powerful. :^)
>Software is a tool, you are the ingredient that makes the software
>valuable not the other way around.
Let me jump in and say that I agree with you. I have seen people with
GREAT software make trashy anims. Which leads me to ask about the
Particle System for 3.0. Is this to make realistic movements like
gravity and wind?
Tony,
Both Gravity and Wind, Bounce, Delay, Taper, and other factors are part
of the IM 3.0 release. And bunches more.
Mike
Mike, Maybe I bore you, but IMHO movement is what makes animation
alive. In the past we spent most of the time reproducing real live.
As you might know I'm a freelance cameraman, so I'm used to creat my
pictures with real lights, backgrounds, rain or whatever. I think in
the future animation programs will have more and more features that
are just like the things you have in real life. In the past a good
computer animation artist was one who could recreate reality, but in
the future he/she won't have to waste time doing these things, he/she
can concentrate on the artistic part.
>> Both Gravity and Wind, Bounce, Delay, Taper, and other factors are
>> part of the IM 3.0 release. And bunches more.
But as I see you already know 🙂
-David
>I've got a Toaster on loan for a few weeks. At this point I really don't
>CARE what Imagine 3.0 has for features. I've been using Lightwave for 3
>days and I'm saving for a toaster.
Well I have a Toaster and I DO care what Imagine 3.0 has for features.
While I DO like LightWave I am not going to kiss-off Imagine. Hopefully it
will have features that will set it apart from LW.
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
Tony,
While the upgrade fee for Imagine is fairly cheap, I doubt I'll get
it unless there's tools in the modeler that I just CAN'T do without
or the render quality has improved A LOT. When I bought Real 3D I
was amazed that I could get very high quality renders just by loading
an object and rendering. With LightWave I get the same high image
quality with a much easier to use interface. If Imagine 3 can
generate the same quality of renders without the endless cycle of
quickrenders and lighting adjustments, I'll consider going with that
rather than a Toaster. However,I can't see myself using both programs
because if Imagine 3 is good enough to buy, it's good enough to be my
primary rendering program. If it's not good enough for me to use it
by itself it won't be good enough for me to buy.
The upcoming release of the Dynamic Motion Module for Lightwave and and
the fact that it will soon support external textures (like Essence) will
also be a major factor in my decision on which package to go with. I guess
I won't know what I want for a few weeks when Imagine 3 is released.
Tony,
I think you have the spirit that we have made the software in. Add
Imagine to your book or bag of tricks, the price is right and I think you will
find that Imagine has gone in different direction than LW. However if you can
afford it and need them both, go for it.
Mike
Sorry if I sound a little skeptical, but you DID miss your April
shipping date. ;^) As for not copying other companies products,
that's a nice goal. Originality is nice to have in a program.
However, I wasn't suggesting you try to disassemble the program and
move the material editor into Imagine a byte at a time. I was just
suggesting you have a look at the way it works and learn from it.
Other companies have good ideas too and there's nothing wrong with
learning from them and working some of those ideas into your own
products.
I'd be careful about too much humility and not blowing your own horn.
Commodore tried that with the Amiga and it didn't work as well as
they hoped. :^)
Thanks for all of your suggestions.