#R3 vs. Silicon Garden
29 messages in this thread
Since I am doing my 3rd annual Christmas animation, and since it is
supposed to include a Christmas tree, I was most distressed to
discover that the Evergreen (among others) tree in Silicon Garden
doesn't work right in R3. The "needles" are not getting mapped
correctly somehow and look extremely dark and faint. The tree looks
dark and bare and no amount of gamma adjustment or spotlight
multiplication seems to fix it. I'm not sure about the other plants;
the roses look OK but the Willow tree looks kinda sickly.
The opacity mapped trees in Silicon Garden are setting a texture map
decal/tile flag incorrectly. RogerD brought this up, and I've sent
him a workaround for the evergreen's that ought to work fine for you.
Just go into the Mapping Parameters dialog and change the map type
from Decal to Tile and they should work fine. Regarding
non-opacity-mapped L-system trees… they'll all work exactly the
same way in R3 as they did R2.
>> Just go into the Mapping Parameters dialog and change the map type from
>> Decal to Tile and they should work fine.
Thanks for your prompt reply. The default for the pine tree's
materials _is_ Tile in my Mapping Parameters dialog box. I tried all
three options anyway and it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Also, there is still a major brightness problem. I need to have a
spotlight at 255 with the multiplier set to 2 or more to even be able
to see more than a silhouette of a tree on the screen. This was not
the case with R2. My other option is to jack the gamma setting way up
to some ridiculous level. That, of course, screws up everything else
in the scene.
This is all related to the higher-quality texture filtering (and
summed area tables) in R3, and a problem with Silicon Garden writing
the correct filtering flags in the file. If you send me a zipped
copy of your .3ds file via email, I'll take a look at it for you.
>> If you send me a zipped copy of your .3ds file via email,
>> I'll take a look at it for you.
Comin' atcha. And thanks.
Greg
I am hoping that any problems with Silicon Garden will be fixed
quickly since I need Silicon Garden and may not install R3 until this
problem is fixed.
The only problems you might have are with opacity mapped trees like
the evergreens. (and I'm not sure when we're going to have a fix for
it, but we'll be working on it during November and December)
If 3DStudio R3 was thoroughly beta tested, how could something like
this have slipped through? Perhaps there wasn't enough effort made
to find a more representative group of testers. I made mention in
another thread that I was concerned about the IPAS programs being
really not connected to the core program and its update schedule. How
can we, with any confidence, buy any IPAS procedures in the future
without having some guarantee that they'll work for some specified
period of time? There's nothing more irritating than reaching for a
tool in your toolbox, only to find it's missing. Not to mention, how
could any developer in good conscience spend the time and money needed
to develop truly worthwhile add-ons if the stuff is only going to get
blown out the door in the next product cycle? BTW, did you get my
email that your workaround does work on the redwood, but not the
evergreen?
>> If 3DStudio R3 was thoroughly beta tested, how could something like this
>> have slipped through?
I must disagree with your logic on this one! Nothing personal, I
assure you! <g> There appears to be nothing wrong with 3D Studio,
just with the IPAS routines, which _are_ technically from another
company, not Autodesk.
As developers of IPAS routines ourselves, I see all the problems.
Adding all these new features to the core program has a tendency to
create problems for the add-ons. Would you prefer less new features
to make it backwards compatible with an external program that was
around 10% of the price? Gary and company are, like ourselves, and
like Schreiber (I assume) committed to provide _free_ upgrades to the
IPAS routines to make them compatible with the new release.
>> how could any developer in good conscience spend the time and money
>> needed to develop truly worthwhile add-ons if the stuff is only going to
>> get blown out the door in the next product cycle?
I don't see is as being blown out the door, I see it as an opportunity
to develop even better, fancier add-on programs in ways we couldn't
even have imagined in R2! And the fixes are not major, it's just
waiting to have the R3 IPAS toolkit available to finalize them!
If there is a serious problem that you absolutely need a specific
IPAS routine for a scene, what about rendering it in R2? Or
rendering it there with alpha and compositing it into Video Post in
R3 with the rest of your project?
It would be a great world where all the IPAS programs were updated at
the same time as the program, but that would entail having the
program ship a month later. Personally, I'd prefer to get the new
features ASAP and just wait for the add-ons to catch up!
I would hope that everyone involved in this discussion not take any of
this too personally. I also have a problem with the logic that you
should keep your old car just in case the new one won't start. I
don't have enough system resources to keep multiple versions of
everything I own. If someone had been using some of your IPAS
routines and they're now without them in R3, how long will they be
caught with their toolbox missing tools? Didn't I catch a message
from the guy in charge of the developers kit a while ago where he
basically chewed everyone out for giving out his phone number, and
said "I don't take phone calls." How do you get ahold of this guy,
smoke signals? <g>
I personally see IPAS as not much more than another way to part me
from my money, not that I begrudge anyone value for their efforts. I
just strongly disagree with the way these things are interwoven with
the core program. All too many of these things that are being
sloughed off to IPAS should exist in the core program. But then
again, you're a developer, so you probably disagree strongly with
that point of view. But because they're not part of the core
program, my experience with too many of the IPAS routines that I own,
is that once you push that button, you venture off into a black hole
of wasted time because the parameters, adjustments, and documentation
are nowhere near as elegant, well-thought-out, and functional as the
core program. I found myself lately cringing at the thought of how
much time it'll take to create that effect. Greg, I'm a one man
operation, who's got to fight tooth and nail for the limited work
available to me. I'm basically staying alive by my wits. I can't
afford 2 and 3 and 4 days to make some of these effects work properly.
I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. I'm in contact
pretty regularly with at least 15 other people who use 3DStudio
professionally. All of them have related to me, that several of the
aftermarket routines are extremely problematic and difficult to
operate, although I don't know why any of them won't stand up and say
it. But I guess I've always been known as the Don Quixote type. <g>
>> If someone had been using some of your IPAS routines and they're now
>> without them in R3, how long will they be caught with their toolbox
>> missing tools?
Well, luckily for us, all of our routines work exactly the same for R3
as they did for R2. When we get the developer's kit we can enhance
them, and are planning on taking advantage of the 48 bit color space
available, but as of now they work identically to the way they did
before. So I have no reason to take anything in this thread
personally! <g>
>> All too many of these things that are being sloughed off to IPAS should
>> exist in the core program. But then again, you're a developer, so you
>> probably disagree strongly with that point of view.
Yes, I disagree strongly, but not for the reasons you think! I have
been an AutoCAD user for around 10 years. Part of what made that
program great is the fact that third parties can take it and
customize it in ways that the programmers never imagined. Is this
bad? I don't think so! Same with 3D Studio. The Yost Group has a
finite number of resources, and they must program in the most
important/popular features first, and work their way down the list in
order. If they tried to put everything in, the release cycles would
stretch to 5 years!
Other people need different features to do their work. I want more
character animation features, you may desire more architectural tools.
If someone came out with a great tool for character animation that
would make my life easier but add $500 to the program, would you want
to pay the extra for your copy and never use it? Probably not. But
adding these extra features in a modular manner like IPAS allows me
to purchase the ones I need, and you just get the ones you need.
It saves both of us money, and gets new releases out that much
sooner.
>> Greg, I'm a one man operation, who's got to fight tooth and nail for the
>> limited work available to me.
Wel, Roger, I'm an 18 person operation, and I still fight tooth and
nail for every job, also! And believe me, a slow month for me hurts
just as much if not more than a slow month for you! Bigger just
means that you can go through money much faster! Calculate out my
monthly overhead! It'll scare you! <g>
very eloquently and politely put! I'm proud of you and, for once, I'm
in almost complete agreement (scary!) <g>.
Martin:
>> I'm proud of you and, for once, I'm in almost complete agreement
>> (scary!) <g>.
I guess that means that it's time to reverse my position! Roger, move over,
here I come! <g,d,& r!>
Greg Pyros
After this one, I'm going to bow out of this thread before I get
trampled to death by an endless stream of developers defending their
right to my wallet. Ending third party programs was not my intent
when I started this. I'm just going to make a couple last points.
<<When we get the developer's kit we can enhance them>>
If it takes several months to get out the developers' kit, and it
takes several months develop your third party applications, what kind
of time frame window should these things work for? You may update
them for free, but they don't do me any good unless I can use them.
You made mention that the developers of the program have finite
resources. Well, if we multiply a number of something like 1800
times a number of something like 250,000, we come up with a number in
the neighborhood of 450 million don't we? Now say we take out Carol
Bartz and Bob Bennett's salary, there should be a few bucks left for
the people who do the work.
<<I have been an AutoCAD user for around 10 years. Part of what made
that program great is the fact that third parties can take it and
customize it>>
Greg, I haven't run into an AutoCAD user/owner yet that doesn't agree
that that's what has kept AutoCAD's interface so difficult to operate
and backwards to work with.
<<Other people need different features to do their work. I want more
character animation features, you may desire more architectural
tools.>>
First of all, let's remember, this is an animation package, so I,
personally, don't see any reason why animation tools which are built
into a program like, let's say, Lightwave, can't be integral parts of
3DStudio.
In closing, to those who felt an irresistable urge to flame me, first
of all, I pay for my software. I don't receive it for free, and all
too often don't receive any discount at all. My intent throughout
has been to try to improve the product through constructive
criticism. There are far too many who exchange warm fuzzies while
kissing up to receive free beta software, while privately probably
holding some of the same beliefs.
Actually, most of the people who responded to you were just plain
users, not developers. The only developers that I saw respond were
Yost, Schreiber, and us.
>> You may update them for free, but they don't do me any good unless I can
>> use them.
If you are talking about our routines, they _all_ work the same in R3
as they did in R2. When I said we will enhance them, we will add
features that R3 allows us to do that R2 didn't. As I said, if you
need someone else's routine that only works today in R2, then use R2
for the effect!
>> Well, if we multiply a number of something like 1800 times a number of
>> something like 250,000, we come up with a number in the neighborhood of
>> 450 million don't we?
I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from, but if 250,000
was supposed to be the amount of 3DS packages sold, you are off by a
full decimal point! Gary just stated that there were 25,000 sold,
not 250,000! That makes only $45 million, which is not a lot for
development of three full releases, marketing, and support of a
product like 3D Studio! Now if you want to talk about AutoCAD's 1/2
million+ users, that is another story! But 3DS has nowhere near that
kind of market! (unfortunately for you and me and Gary and
Autodesk!)
>> Greg, I haven't run into an AutoCAD user/owner yet that doesn't agree
>> that that's what has kept AutoCAD's interface so difficult to operate
>> and backwards to work with.
Well, as one 10 year user (long before I became associated with
Autodesk selling the product) I always appreciated the extensability
of the interface! And most of the people I deal with do, also! And
over 1/2 million repeat buyers of the product must agree to some
point, too!
>> There are far too many who exchange warm fuzzies while kissing up to
>> receive free beta software, while privately probably holding some of the
>> same beliefs.
I personally know many of those who have beta'd 3DS3, and I don't
know of a single one who wouldn't give _painfully_ honest response to
Gary about new features or the way the product works. Up to this
comment, I thought we were having a professional disagreement on the
way the program operated, which I will argue from both sides
(depending on the feature) as you and everyone else has seen on theis
board.
I don't know how the beta testers feel, but I know that if I thought
that this comment was directed in my direction I would be extremely
insulted! I'm just glad you didn't add dealers and developers to
this group.
I promised I was done with this, and I am, but I have no idea who are
beta testers, so I couldn't have meant anyone in particular.
>>…while kissing up to receive free beta software, while privately
>>probably holding some of the same beliefs.
Geez, now you've not only gone and insulted me, but about 75 other
people, all in one sentence. Congratulations.
If you've been reading what I've been writing you, I never meant to
insult anyone. Like I said to Greg, I have no idea who the beta
testers are, so that, in no way, could be aimed at anyone in
particular. Now I'm kind of in the situation of that old joke, "Have
you beaten your wife lately?" Again, I don't know who the beta
testers are, how they were chosen, or anything else, I just think
everyone's not 100% honest around here all the time, they're just a
whole lot more politically correct than I am. <g>
I'm not a beta tester, but I find your last comments very disgusting.
I have been tempted to dedicate you a large destructive message, but
you don't worth the time and I'm not in your same league. Period.
Whoa….What's going on guys???
Software is software. I've being developing in other arenas for 20
years. There can be problems. IPAS add ons had to be a tricky thing
to offer. Lot of companies would never dream of 3rd parties adding
features.
Maybe it is time for somebody to start a 'UL Approved' listing of IPAS
stuff. Yea I get steamed when something doesn't work. And after
seeing SGI stuff, we all have a long way to go.
Thank God we are all big boys and there is a new tomorrow. From what
I see 3DS is still great stuff for what I can afford.
Autodesk multimedia developers can easily secure beta versions of 3DS, of
course… and in this case, the Garden routines are developed and/or
supervised by the same people who were working on the next revision. They
certainly had access to the betas.
As a fellow software developer, I'm completely sympathetic to an unspotted bug.
It's tough. Yes, there are complete disciplines and careers devoted to finding
bugs and "quality assurance", but few software companies can devote as much
effort and personnel to this task as many users might demand.
There are a number of similar scenerios that might crop up in the future…
Hordes of users might complain that R4/5/N, etc. stopped working with a
half-dozen company's IPAS routines. Of course it's a "good thing" that IPAS is
improved, but that necessarily will break old software. I don't think it's
Autodesk's responsibility to test and debug everyone else's IPAS routines, yet
with only beta-quality pre-release versions of R4/5/N, how can a third party
reliably debug the interface? It isn't "final" until it ships, and then some.
Someday, I'm sure that third-party developers will complain that it's "unfair"
that any IPAS interface enhancements to R4, R5, etc. will be documented and
exploited by the Yost Group before anyone else, simply because the new spec
remains undocumented until well past the release. On the other hand, it's good
that a company with a real stake in IPAS is developing real-world routines with
any new spec, as opposed to a company handing down a relatively untested
interface.
Allowing add-ons is a two-edged sword! Look at AutoCAD. Someday, Autodesk
might start bundling IPAS routines that compete directly with the hard-won
efforts of loyal third-party developers, and more toes will be stepped on.
John,
It is true that Yost Group will always hold the edge for IPAS
development, after all they write the program. The delayed IPAS release means
that developers will have to take the interface "as is" regardless of weather
it works or not because the final release is already in use. (Use R2 IPAS as
sure sign of this problem) In the R2 interface it was not possible to create a
light, why? A light is just another object. It would have been a whole lot
easier on us and our users if Imagine Sun could run inside 3D Studio. I have
had to explain to most users why we have to read a 3DS file and add a light
then rewrite the file. This method provided alot more testing and work on our
part but we felt it was the only good way to get it done. Then with the final
release of R3 the program needed to be changed to work with the final file
format.
I don't want to give the wrong impression here, I feel that the Yost
Group is doing a very good job. Just would like to see a beta program for the
interface in future releases. As we don't do production work our best use of
the beta program is to test and comment on the interface.
Keith.
Keith, you're wrong here. We're putting all of our energy into doing the IPAS3
SDK now, and we're not even going to START developing IPAS3 routines until the
SDK is at beta. This will put all of us on a level playing field (especially
since I'm sure you're in the beta group).
– G
I understand that functions are not being developed while you
are working on 3D Studio. The edge I refer to is the creative process
which must occure before any coding occures. When developing a
program, while working on one segment, solutions to other problems
often are found. This covers the first two steps required to be able
to start writing a program. The problem to be solve needs to be
defined and understood. A possible solution to the problem and the
understanding of how the program will be structured. This often
occures well before any actual coding takes place. The definite edge
is in the fact that some of the possible problems are only know to
the programmer.
This is also the best software protection I know of. The
programmer always knows what can or should be improved. While others
trying to copy the program are busy replicating weaknesses.
I also think it is great that they get to step out and do some
of the "fun" routines. Programming a new materials editor, while more
practical, just lacks some of the bang that programming pyrotechnics
would have. The business types will often understand the market
potential of the materials editor but find pyrotechnics to
speculative.
Roger, I didn't catch all the early stuff in this thread, but I would like to
disagree strongly with you about one point. IPAS definitely belongs OUTSIDE the
mainline code. The guys at Impulse and other places are bragging about
fireworks built-in. Great! What if I don't want fireworks? In addition, where
will it end? What the Yost guys have done here is brilliant! Because of the
extensibility of 3DS, you can write or buy ANYTHING you want! Not so with most
other programs. There is no end. If Gary Yost was the sayer of all sooths known
to man and had unlimited resources, then he could predict and program every
possible routine we would ever want. But he is not and never will be. He has
given us a system consisting of one of the most powerful 3D animation systems
ever run on a PC platform AND a method by which we can extend its capabilities
limited only by our imaginations and programming prowess. There are things to
like and dislike about any software program, but this particular point is hard
to defend.
If the only routines available were those from Yost Group and there was no
developer's kit, then I would agree that they shoulda put them in the code.
What about Pyros' Action IPAS routines? Look at the Yost IPAS stuff as coming
from a different company than 3DS and I believe you'll agree.
But then, this is just my opinion…
Doug Wolfgram
True, and each new developer adds a new direction. For example, the
design people have different needs then the medical imaging people. These
veritical markets are to small for AutoDesk to provide products for. Each of
the vertical markets requires staff which are experienced and understand those
specific needs. To be able to provide support for a product and help a product
evolve a developer must be able to understand what the end user is trying to
do.
Keith.
I agree with all of you. I want a great main program to have a
standard base to start with, and then customize it the way I want.
IPAS are great, and I think add-ons are a must in all programs.
Fortuantely, it seems that the developers of software think the same
way, and add-ons for everything are jumping like mushrooms after a
rainy day. That's the software I need. Software that can grow with
you. And the same with hardware.
What I don't like about AutoCAD, is that they are getting more and
more add-on programs (like AME) in the main pack. 95% of the
architects I know don't need AME, neither 3d for their projects (hey!
They have the 3d gang to do it). If they keep the price tag the same,
it's OK. But of they start to increase the price, that's not the way.
Another reason to love add-on structures (of course, the add-ons have
to be highly integrated with the main program).
Gee Roger, you must be operating under the assumption that I'm
perfect. Contrary to popular belief, that is not true. I just try
the best I can, and I make mistakes just like anybody else. I _did_
test every IPAS routine I had. When it came to Silicon Garden, I ran
the Willow, Deciduous, Campion, Mycelis, Rose, fractal shapes,
Place.pxp and Fractalize.pxp. I just didn't think to run the
Evergreen model. Everything else worked fine.
From your tone of voice, it sounds to me like you're feeling hurt that
you weren't asked to be a beta tester. However, you never ASKED to
be a beta tester. We only make people beta testers if they ask for
the job because not everyone likes to work with pre-release software.
With the amount of work that you've got into 3DS over the past few
years, I would've been happy to make you a beta testers for R3.
Regarding IPAS programs not being connected to the core program and
its update schedule… we do our best on one thing at a time. The
primary reason why 3DS is the most robust 3D animation system on the
PC is because we DO focus. Again, we're not perfect, and we don't
have unlimited resources.
Regarding confidence in my work. If you don't have confidence in me
by now, after seeing how committed I am to my customers, then I'll
never be able to make you happy. Have you considered going with
another 3D animation package? Perhaps you can find someone you'd
have more confidence in.
Finally, regarding your email… I haven't looked at my huge backlog
of email from the past 4 days yet… I've had a wicked case of the
flu this week and I'm only logging onto ASOFT to answer urgent
questions like this. As I've said before, I'm very regular with
ASOFT support, but email takes a back-seat to it. Please have a some
patience with me. I'm still physically exhausted from finishing R3
and need quite a bit of recuperation — and this flu has really set
me back. As GregP mentioned, if you need to render something with
the evergreen tree, just boot up R2 and render it there.
Dancing as fast as I can,
Yes, we are upgrading for R3 fixes at no cost. Just made some
changes to Imagine Sun which will ship shortly. We also are committed
to providing the best possible product and as such, we provide fixes
at no cost whenever we feel it is needed. We will most likely be
upgrading our IPAS products as well at which time there will be an
upgrade fee but we do not charge for updating the program so it will
continue to function. When we ask for a fee to provide the user with
an update, we will in return be providing more features, improved
features and the like.
In the AutoCAD arena, we still support people who have versions
of programs from us which are five or more years old. These same
people have upgraded their AutoCAD four or five times and still
expect our program to run.
I do agree strongly with Roger that the IPAS interface should
have been part of the beta program. With R2 and no existing interface
in place, the delayed release of the IPAS interface wasn't a problem.
With R3 existing developers should be part of the beta program to
respond on the interface changes. The more complex the interface gets
the more critical this becomes.
Roger, I understand the problems you see in working with add
on products. One of the problems is the wide range of applications
that 3D Studio addresses. Each application uses 3D Studio in a
different way thus sees the add on programs differently. You should
also be aware of the commitment that any developer needs to make even
to enter the market. First a developer must be able to work in C and
have experience in the correct compilier. Second a developer must be
fluent in 3D Studio and then the IPAS interface. Third, understand
and then solve a need to create a product. Only then can the product
be documented and advertised so it can be sold. The process, at best,
requires a commitment of six months before a product is even somewhat
functional. It will be an additional several months before some sales
are made. All told, it can easily be a year or more before sales pay
for the development cost if ever. All of this occures at someones
guess at what the market will buy. The majority of the software
written never pays for the cost of development.
All of us have made a commitment to 3D Studio as a product and
3D Studio needs all of our diversity to keep it strong.