CompuServe Thread

#spline-modeler 3dsr4

23 messages in this thread
#128833From: John StetzerOct 13, 1994 12:55 PM
A quick question, then… >>We decided to drop the patch modeler from Release 4 Will development on the patch modeler continue over the next few weeks/months with the intent to ship it to r4 purchasers when fixed, or will we have to wait till r5/whenever? Not being in the loop, I'll respect the decision, but this was the features that I personally was most looking forward to using. If it's an Adesk 'we cannot speak on it' type thing, ok; just had to ask. John Stetzer JWS
#128850From: Jonas Ruikis [ADESK]Oct 13, 1994 1:44 PM
Hi John, << Will development on the patch modeler continue over the next few weeks/months with the intent to ship it to r4 purchasers when fixed, or will we have to wait till r5/whenever? >> It is not clear yet what will happen with this version. Regarding R5, patch modeling was requested during the recent wish list period. jonas[adesk]
#128865From: John StetzerOct 13, 1994 2:24 PM
>>It is not clear yet what will happen with this version. Regarding R5, patch modeling was requested during the recent wish list period. Thanks for the info; when I included the r5 comment, I was just trying to get a feel for how long the delay was going to be (ie, was it going to be pushed so far back that it wouldn't be availible till r5 came out). Sigh. Oh well, is it time to start giving input to the r5 wishlist? John Stetzer JWS
#128883From: Jonas Ruikis [ADESK]Oct 13, 1994 3:50 PM
<< Oh well, is it time to start giving input to the r5 wishlist? >> I think the last wishlist period, where we collected over 1200 wishes, was it.. 🙂
#128891From: John StetzerOct 13, 1994 4:42 PM
;^P. Thanks, that did put a grin on my face. John Stetzer JWS
#128911From: Mark YankeeOct 13, 1994 5:34 PM
John, << ;^P Thanks, that did put a grin on my face. >> looks more to me like you're smoking. <g>
#128918From: Oct 13, 1994 6:19 PM
Jonas: >> I think the last wishlist period, where we collected over 1200 wishes, >> was it… Oh, come on, Jonas! You can't do that to us! For example: I wish that the 3ds.set file was broken into two parts, with the local configuration stuff being in one file, and the common things for all network rendering machines in a single file out on the net in the common network info directory. That way, if I have to make a global change in something, like additive transparency or something like that, I only have to do it on one machine, vs. having to run around to 15 machines and make the change, then go back and fix it again later! Greg (keep on wishing!) Pyros
#128955From: Jonas Ruikis [ADESK]Oct 13, 1994 10:39 PM
got it..
#129086From: CSA/CAOct 14, 1994 5:20 PM
Jonas, Let's add to Greg's 3DS.SET request and make more of the items configurable *within* a session of 3DS. For instance, I might want to render an animation on 2, but have the resulting .TGAs numbers consequently. The variable for that is in the 3DS.SET file. So, exit, edit, re-start, render, exit, change it back, re-start. How about, either a data-driven dialog to set all variables and force a re-init (if required for 3DS to work with the new values), or at least be able to use the 3DS text editor & load the new settings immediately. Or do we hold our tongues until NEXT April 1? Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
#129110From: Jonas Ruikis [ADESK]Oct 14, 1994 8:52 PM
<< How about, either a data-driven dialog to set all variables and force a re-init (if required for 3DS to work with the new values), or at least be able to use the 3DS text editor & load the new settings immediately >> got it… thanks.. jonas[adesk]
#129171From: Yost GroupOct 15, 1994 10:31 AM
Kevin, the variable for setting sequential file numbering is in the Rendering Options dialog as well as the 3DS.SET file (fyi). – G
#129443From: CSA/CAOct 17, 1994 2:41 PM
Gary, Well, just an example. The wish still stands for other variables ONLY in the 3DS.SET. I didn't look before I leapt. Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
#128922From: Constance R. RothOct 13, 1994 6:51 PM
Jonas, must have been difficult for you to make this announcement. Very disappointing news, but "you can't always get what you want" (The Big Chill)!:). Actually, since I'm working on Character Animation now using Skin, Displace, and Puppeteer, the R4 IK feature is the most important to me. I guess for my modeling needs, I'll just have to depend on TrueSpace to fill in…<g> (couldn't resist just a small dig…). Hopefully, 3ds users who upgrade to R4 will be able to count on the Spline-based Modeling feature to be included soon — (in a few months?). I wonder what the problem is…why was TrueSpace & Playmation able to include the S-b Mod. feature, but 3DS can't? I guess there must be some conflict with some other complex feature(s)…oh, well, c'est la vie. Regards, Connie
#128884From: Martin StewartOct 13, 1994 4:02 PM
>>We decided to drop the patch modeler from Release 4<< Adesk should offer this as a free plug-in when available since it was originally promised? We wouldn't mind the delay as much as we do taking it away all together.
#128903From: John StetzerOct 13, 1994 5:21 PM
>>We wouldn't mind the delay as much as we do taking it away all together. I guess that's my opinion in a nutshell, and what I was trying to find out; FWIW. John Stetzer JWS
#129141From: Jeff RichardsonOct 15, 1994 1:44 AM
I don't mean to direct this only at you, but I think your comment about "Adesk offering the patch modeler as a free plug-in when available" is EXACTLY why Autodesk *NEVER* releases information about future products until they're very near ready to ship. Had Autodesk not "promised" the patch modeler, you (and others) wouldn't have expected it and would have simply gone out and purchased the upgrade for the features that were included…..and not expected anything to follow later. Autodesk, as long as I can remember, has been very strict about this policy, much to the dismay of many, many curious (and "demanding") users. But this is a perfect example of what can go wrong with software development and the release of information before its time. Frankly, I think it took "balls" for Autodesk to pull this feature this late in the cycle, rather than ship the feature and try to deal with fall-out later, much like many other software developers do. I respect their decision!
#129173From: Jonas Ruikis [ADESK]Oct 15, 1994 10:35 AM
<< I respect their decision! >> Thanks Jeff..
#129236From: Jeff RichardsonOct 15, 1994 8:24 PM
I've seen this sort of thing happen, oh…., just a few times before <G> People have to realize that "feature lists" that software developers release for public consumption are *NOT* promises. They're more like the developers' version of the wishlist. Sometimes it just doesn't come true! -Jeff
#129220From: John EllisOct 15, 1994 5:11 PM
That was well put. The problem is that sometimes projects, events etc. lead down unexpected corridors and problems arise. While the policy is frustrating at times, its a heck of alot more frustrating when you buy a product that doesn't work as advertised. You're right, it took "guts" (my term) and I know it wasn't an easy decision, but it was kinda forced by the release date. Once upon a time ADESK didn't announce when products would be released, because the reality is, its very hard to put a time table on cutting edge development. Now there are "release" dates and all the expectations that that entails. Puts a heck of a lot of pressure on the programmers. I like the Orson Welles addage (I think it was Orsen) "We'll serve no wine before its time". Same can be said for good software. Deadlines make it tough. (I know you know this, but I thought I'd mention it for others that don't quite understand what's going on.) Regards, John
#129237From: Jeff RichardsonOct 15, 1994 8:24 PM
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather wait for a full featured patch modeler, than have one delivered that is so basic in operation that it doesn't provide the user with many advantages.
#129241From: Constance R. RothOct 15, 1994 9:35 PM
Let's face it, Adesk's decision to pull the Modeler was quite simply a good business decision.
#129385From: LEE STEELOct 17, 1994 8:13 AM
You're absolutely correct Jeff. Unfortunatly I think Autodesk was faced with Siggraph and at the time probably felt that given the current state of the patch modeler (at that time) that it would pose no problem to have all the bugs worked out in time to meet the ship date. Oh well, perhaps in Rel.5 🙂 . -Lee
#129458From: Jeff RichardsonOct 17, 1994 3:34 PM
It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of a show like Siggraph <G>! It's unfortunate that the patch modeler didn't make it, but like you say, maybe R5…. -Jeff