3DS vs. Topas
5 messages in this thread
I would like "second" your posts, Don, per your comparison of 3DSr2 vs
Topas r4.2. I have recently purchased my own copy of 3DSr2 (via free
r3 upgrage promo), although I have used 3DS extensively in the past
years at WMU. Since graduation I have subcontracted for a tiny
company that has Topas and didn't know how to use it.
My first task at my new employment was to complete a large (well, 5
min of anim) project using Topas 4.2. I must admit that I dislike
Topas primarily because of its interface. However, having learned it
by necessity, I have also learned to respect its merits. I, too,
have just recently found out about the CG $750 Topas offer for those
who own 3DS. I am _considering_ taking CG up on their offer before
it expires on 10/30/93. I might be worth it for that price.
For those of you also making this consideration, I would like to add
to Don's comments. I will offer some informal observations that
should benefit people who will be learing Topas and who are coming
from a bakcground of 3DS and most CAD software. First up, my three
biggest minuses of Topas.
– The modeling approach of Topas is quite dissimalar to most CAD
software in the sense that the construction plane is attached to the
camera and is a fixed distance from the camera. This is especially
annoying to people like myself who like to model on a construciton
plane that is isometic to the viewport. This can be overcome by
using the "Scene" camera in T4.2 for modeling and the "Directors"
camera for viewing. Topas does have a 3-view mode that, I feel, is
absolutely useless. Each port in the 3-view mode is, again, attached
to the camera. If the viewing angle is changed in any of the three
views, the camera and other two veiws change to remain othonganal (to
the veiw that was just changed).
By contrast, most CAD software, including the 3DS Editor, allow
viewports to be manipulated independently of other viewports. This
allows the user make the most efficient use of multiple views. For
example, I often find it helpful to use two orthogonal views for
exact positioning of objects during construction, and a third
isometric view for a 3D representation of what I am doing. I have
personally found this type of modelling functionality lacking in
Topas.
– Camera manipulation in Topas is very different from than in 3DS
and most CAD apps. In Topas, the camera interface is designed to
represent that of a real camera. Hence, it is easy to get lost in 3D
space. The effect is similar to looking through a high powered
camera (or pair of binoculars) and losing the losing the indended
viewing target when you pivot the camera. You can aviod this
drawback by saving a "good" camera positon to disk and recalling it
when you get lost. This is a real kludge to those of us accustomed
to clicking a "zoom to fit" tool (or moving the camera target from
othogonal views) and then zooming back in, once our bearings are
regained.
After using Topas for some time
Thanks for the reply, James. Your message was cut off just as you were getting
started. Your comments were very specific and very true. Your message would
be valuable to those at CG for future development of Topas ver.
Continued from my posts RE: 3DS vs. Topas #63165
– Camera manipulation in Topas is very different from than in 3DS
and most CAD apps. In Topas, the camera interface is designed to
represent that of a real camera. Hence, it is easy to get lost in 3D
space. The effect is similar to looking through a high powered
camera (or pair of binoculars) and losing the losing the indended
viewing target when you pivot the camera. You can aviod this
drawback by saving a "good" camera positon to disk and recalling it
when you get lost. This is a real kludge to those of us accustomed
to clicking a "zoom to fit" tool (or moving the camera target from
othogonal views) and then zooming back in, once our bearings are
regained.
After using Topas for some time, you learn to only move your
camera in "increments" (ie. multiples of 5 degrees). In this way you
can always "get back" by following your incremental bread crumbs. I
personally feel that this imposes an unnecessary overhead on the user
(who is already trying to keep track of five to twenty other things
associated with any 3D scene construction).
– The user interface is a maze of menus. Even after months of use
I found myself annoyed by the fact that I had to wade around the
interface to find that one pick. Just imagine if all of the menu
possibilites in the five 3DS modules were all clumped into one big
pull-down menu bar. Some people may like this style, but I prefer
the "module" approach where similar operations are handled in their
own area. I feel modules promote an organized approach to
constructing an animation.
Here are some plusses that Topas has over 3DS. The latter two of
these "plusses" are not applicable to CAD software since they do not
deal with modeling.
+ Topas 4.2 incorporates some powerful 3D spline editing features
that are usefull in character animation. For example T4.2 allows the
user to "twist" a spline object. The twist feature is not available
in 3DSr2 (unless you get the Twist IPAS from the Yost Group).
+ Topas 4.2 makes it very easy to animate the surface texture,
color, and transpareny of an object. In 3DSr2 the user really have
to jump through some hoops just to get an object and its shadow to
effectively fade away. Furthermore, T4.2 can apply multiple texture
maps to a singe object.
+ T4.2 has NTSC color checking. 3DSr2 does not.
Well, that was my three major downs and ups for T4.2 vs. 3DSr2. I
think it is obvios that I see 3DS as the more superior software for
my needs. I also agree that Topas has its merits. You are probably
aware that r3 of 3DS neutralizes some of my Topas pluses. Still, I
will wait for Crystal Graphics to make their next showing (in release
5 of Topas) before I compare the next generation of 3DS to Topas.
very nice report. But why are you comparing 3dsr2 to Topas 4.2?
Release 3 is the currently shipping version and has been out for
almost a month. 4.2 is the currently shipping version of Topas. I
think you should be comparing currently shipping versions. With that
in mind 2 of your 3 points are eliminated and r3's new ease-of-use
features and slightly re-organized side menus make the interface even
better. I suppose this will all change to icons one day, but for now
the interface is just very efficient. Your point about the twist is
valid, but my counterpoint to that is that you could buy the twist
and a whole collection of other IPAS routines (which Topas doesn't
offer) for $300 and still be under the retail price of Topas.
(of course, you can twist objects in the lofter…)