#3dsr4 modeler
37 messages in this thread
Aren't you guys supposed to actually score the winning touchdown
before you run off to Disney World (Epcot) and proclaim yourselves
champions?<BG> But seriously, the spline-based modeler will be
shipping in fairly short order free to everyone who's sent in their
first disk for destruction, in essence taking you up on your contract
to supply them with listed features, won't it?
After all, how many of us can go back to our clients four days before
the scheduled duedate, and say, oh by the way, you won't be getting
the middle third of your animation, but we, of course, expect to get
paid what we agreed upon up front, even if we're not giving you what
we promised you. C'mon guys!
I've got a project on my desk, here, that I need I-K for desperately.
I spent a good part of 2 days watching Gary and Jack use it at
Siggraph before I agreed to take this thing, so I'm in no position to
back out of my upgrade because you guys broke your word.
<< But seriously, the spline-based modeler will be shipping in
fairly short order free to everyone who's sent in their first disk
for destruction, in essence taking you up on your contract to supply
them with listed features, won't it? >>
I don't think so. However, I can pass your observation past the legal
department on Monday. If I hear hear of any news regarding the patch
modeler's future, you know I'll post it here.
<< I've got a project on my desk, here, that I need I-K for
desperately. I spent a good part of 2 days watching Gary and Jack
use it at Siggraph before I agreed to take this thing, so I'm in no
position to back out of my upgrade because you guys broke your word.
>>
Inverse Kinematics is included in R4. So you'll get IK soon…
Every ad I saw had fine print stating that this was a preliminary
feature list for R4 and could change without notice. The fact that
notice was actually given before R4 was released is more than Adesk
was obliged to provide. I'm still trying to come up with compelling
reasons to get the upgrade, its not a "gotta have" piece of software
nor was it when I originally saw the feature list. Aside from
'perspective match' I can't say that I find the other enhancements as
being so valuable to what I do. I can't see where R4 would be any
better than R3 for architectural animation. Of course I'll try to
convince the company to spring for the upgrade just to stay current
but if someone were to ask me, "Why do we need this ?" I know that
I'm gonna be hard pressed for a convincing answer. Frankly, I could
use some convincing that R4 is something I can't live without as I
tend to beleive I can.
>>Aside from 'perspective match' I can't say that I find the other
enhancements as being so valuable to what I do. I can't see where R4
would be any better than R3 for architectural animation.<<
Several big reasons to consider the upgrade as an architect –
While the Camera Control/Match Perspective will be very useful, I
think you're overlooking the Keyframer Scripting language. This will
allow you to write/use "scripts" that can do nearly anything that a
full fledged KXP Plug-in can. Scripts for sun location, accurate
paths, translating file data into animations, and camera & light
orchestration are just a few possiblities that will probably appear
as scripts by Spring.
IK will probably change the way you think about doing animation.
While buildings don't usually move in architectural walkthroughs,
cameras and lights most often do. Ever try to figure out how to
animate a superdome roof slide back for day games? – IK would
actually make that quite easy.
And don't forget that the 3DS core code has improved greatly – it's
the most SOLID core that has ever shipped. In addition, multiple
object operations are now 100X (not 100%) faster and the internal
IPAS abilities are greatly expanded. This means that extensive
Plug-ins are soon to arrive but only R4 users will be able to take
advantage of them (since they will require the new core).
At the price, it's a bargain.
I understand that R4 is supposed to be more open for 3rd party
development but I haven't seen much mentioned by these developers
which I could apply to architectural animation. The character
animators' needs have been driving the develpment of most IPAS
routines I've seen of late. I cite 'Bones' and 'Puppeteer' as
examples. The scripting language in R4 sounded great when it was
first mentioned but after thinking about its application to
architectural work I do not have the same opinion. I'll have to see
a demo or some real examples of what the scripting language offers to
make a decision on its usefulness for me. I like the idea of doing
accurate sunpaths but this routine has been around for a while from
GregP and hasn't been necessary for me yet. I have never experienced
a problem with 3DS code 'solidity' so to have this improved sounds
great but I don't know how I'll notice the improvement. I appreciate
your opinion that R4 will be a tremendous improvement but I believe
at this juncture that I could hold out for R5 and not miss a step.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for 'new and improved' but I fear
that this upgrade will be almost transparent in its noticeable effect
on what I do.
Do you know of any IPAS development underway to make architectural
work easier or better in the future? Thanks for your comments, I'll
admit to playing the part of a devil's advocate but I am concerned
about the direction of my favorite software and I know that alot of
architects share at least some of these concerns.
<<Every ad I saw had fine print stating that this was a preliminary
feature list for R4 and could change without notice.>>
Robert, were you at Siggraph? That was definitely not the tone in
regard to the feature list down there. All the folks that love to
issue press releases and bask in the warm media glow weren't saying
anything like "Well, maybe".
<<Aside from 'perspective match' I can't say that I find the other
enhancements as being so valuable to what I do>>
I agree with you about the architectural animation tools. Two-thirds
of what I do is architecture related, but I've been trying to get
more media work. It pays better, and there aren't as many
architectural students with educational software trying to outbid you
at every turn. With the media stuff I've done, they've been much more
understanding about time and cost.
I've been so anxiously hoping that the new spline based modeler could
give me the ability to create sliceable and skinnable models. Now
even if I go out and use other much less expensive software's spline
based modelers, and try bringing models in to render in 3DS's
superior renderer, they won't be skinnable. I desperately need more
flexible modeling tools. Deform just doesn't offer anywhere near
enough flexibility to substitute for a spline based modeler. I know
there are some *extremely* talented people that have had some success
with lofting and slicing, but that process is the closest I've ever
come to black magic. I recently spent 2 whole days working on a
human figure that, by the time I was all done, I wouldn't have paid
50 cents for.
Hey, they promised it. They made the agreement with people (a
contract). They're trying to change their part of the contract at
this late date. Let them come up with something of at least equal
value if they're incapable of engineering a spline based modeler. If
they are capable of finishing a spline based modeler, let them finish
it and ship it. I'm certainly willing to wait a reasonable amount of
time. Hey, everybody screws up once in a while.
->Hey, they promised it. They made the agreement with people (a contract).
->They're trying to change their part of the contract at this late date.
I have to agree with you on this. Considering how little ADesk reveals
about upcoming products, when they actually do reveal a feature list
I've been inclined to bank on it. This is something I'll not do in
the future.
Since I've invested my $$ and career in 3DS, I've tried to remain
competetive with my counterparts who use workstation/SGI tools. I've
lobbied heavily with my current employer (The Software Toolworks) to
move to using 3DS in a network scenario as opposed to Alias or
Softimage. One of my strongest arguments has been that r4 will
introduce IK & spline modeling. Now I'm basically eating my hat with
a little salt.
I'm probably not as disappointed about losing the spline modeler as I
am with Autodesk not picking up the slack. The fact that they still
intend to charge the same price _and_ not include any other features
is beyond me. I don't buy the argument that "hey, IK and core updates
_still_ make it worth the price." In my mind this is no longer a
major revision upgrade, more like Yost disk #8.
Some folks can call it "whining". But anyone who knows me realizes
that I'm one of the biggest proponents/trumpet blowers when it comes
to 3D Studio. I've enjoyed poking fun at my SGI friends over how much
they spend for what they get. I've made plans and preliminary
promises based on what I saw at SigGraph. Now I'm the one making
apologies while the folks who I thought were behind me make
statements like "we had nothing to do with it" and pass the buck.
Very well said, Heinz. People very seldom hear me say anything
against 3D Studio other that maybe here. It's an excellent tool,
just missing a couple of pieces, though.
I must echo your statements I am very disappointed with Autodesk
performance.
And to rub salt in our wounds the road show was a disaster. the next
time I what to learn how model in the 2d shaper I will look through
the book! My boss was very "up" on 3ds until the show. You see you
can downgrade SGI all you what but you better come through with the
goods. It would be a good time for Autodesk to mend some hard
feelings. -Brandon
>> They made the agreement with people (a contract).
It's been quite a while since my MBA law classes, but I recall
something about 'consideration' having to be given to have a binding
contract. That's why so many contracts say "for the sum of $1" or
something like that. If you paid for the upgrade prior to the
announcement, then you would be able to sue them to get your money
back! I'd think you'd have a hard time proving damages, though. :^)
Hey, I agree that the spline based modeler would have been a great
addition ot the arsenal of tools available, however, not if it had
more problems than it was worth. From what I see here on the forum,
most people realize that software is not like building a bridge,
where there is a simple black and white test of whether it is ready
or not. (Did the truck cave it in? No, then open it for public
use!)
There is no problem airing your views (that's what makes this forum
great!) but too many people complaining too much will prevent
Autodesk from saying anything about future releases until the day
they ship, which would be even worse, IMHO. I like having some
direction as to what way the industry is going in order to coordinate
hardware purchases, etc., even if it does mean some features that I
was hoping for did not quite make the cut. At least I knew I didn't
have to go out and get SoftImage for IK!
I too was looking forward with great anticipation for a patch modler
within 3DS, and I too am disappointed it won't be included. But the
depth, quality, and stability of the existing program has led me to
the realization that Adesk and Yost really know what they are
doing…so in this case I'll defer to the experts whom I've learned
to depend on and just say AW SHUCKS!
R4 as currently announced should keep me very busy, and I'm sure the
crew writing software is aware of how many of us would like a modeler
so I expect it will be included when its good enough. In the
meantime I'm depending on professional good judgement- a tough call
but I'm glad Adesk isn't shipping if its not up to the rest of 3DS.
<<then you would be able to sue them to get your money back!>>
Then you also must know that there's something usually known as suing
for performance of a contract or consideration of partial
nonperformance. Not that I'm actually going to sue, but it's
probably a good idea to sometimes point out to people that what
they're doing probably isn't right, and may very well not even be
legal. Hey, I'll try to be reasonable. I'm willing to mitigate
damages. When they finish it, send it, no problem.
<<too many people complaining too much will prevent Autodesk from
saying anything about future releases until the day they ship>>
I don't believe any of this was said for mine or any other user's
benefit. There are those at Autodesk that wanted the warm fuzzies of
a new release, and all the attention that would bring them at
Siggraph. No one's ever called me up to say "Guess what we've got
for you" and I don't believe they will.
If this thing just gets dropped and just gets sloughed off to another
IPAS routine, there won't be anywhere near the motivation to keep it
updated, current, and working with each evolution of the core
program, as if it were part of a full release. And I think we've
seen more than enough evidence of that already. But I guess we've
already had that discussion, haven't we? Besides, how many times am
I going to be expected to buy the same add-on?
<<There is no problem airing your views (that's what makes this forum
great!)>>
I agree, and I probably have done more than my share of that
(whining)<g>, but for some reason people seem to lurk here, not say
anything, then come to user group meetings and voice exactly the same
opinions. I've always considered myself an outsider ever since
everybody got so mad at me for complaining way back when .dxfs
wouldn't even import. What the heck, what's right is right, and
what's wrong is wrong.
Once upon a time, I downloaded a stand-alone modeler that handled
b-patches from CIS and made some neat stuff with it. I think it was
called MORAY, perhaps from the GRAPHDEV forum. It's not an IPAS, but
it worked fine. You might check to see if it's still around. I
can't seem to find it just now, but my brain is kind of fried.
>> I can't seem to find it just now, but my brain is kind of fried.
It must be if you're calling me Carlton! Perhaps a misaddressed
e-mail, oh fried one?
You are indeed a sharp one, able to discern such detail as your name with
lightning-quick accuracy! I'm impressed. You obviously can't begin to qualify
for the Scrambled Wit and Fried Brain award. <g>
JKJ (a shoo-in)
JKJ:
Actually, it took me three reads of the file and even then I had to go back
again! Where do I apply? :^)
Greg Pyros
Sounds cool, I'll look for it.
Thanks,
Carlton
>> too many people complaining too much will prevent Autodesk from saying
anything about future releases until the day they ship, which would be even
worse, IMHO. <<
When I was following them closer several years back, IBM was frequently taken
to task (i.e., to anti-trust court) for PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT of products. Seems
that it's thought to stifle the ability of smaller companies to compete when
the big guys promise the moon "real soon now."
>> I like having some direction as to what way the industry is going in order
to coordinate hardware purchases, etc. <<
Which is what inhibits vendors of _currently_ available competing products.
(But, of course, like you, I'd like that direction, too!)
>Hey, they promised it. They made the agreement with people (a contract).
>They're trying to change their part of the contract at this late date.
Of all the press releases, messages, faxes, notices, etc. that I've
read on Release 4, I can't recall a single one that "promised" these
features. I also haven't seen any sort of "contract"…. It's no
wonder that Autodesk has to be so reluctant to "discuss features of
future releases"!! As soon as a bit of information IS released, some
people figure its a guarantee and are out bidding jobs based on it.
If Autodesk felt they should remove the patch modeler from R4, well,
that's their business. Face it, it sounds like the patch modeler is
gone (for now at least). If the remaining features are valuable
enough for you to purchase, that's your business.
They solicited my business: asked me to upgrade. They promised me a
certain feature set in that upgrade. I agreed to pay them for the
upgrade. What you now have is 2 parties who agreed upon the
exchange of something for consideration: money. Thus, a contract.
You may not like that, but that's the law. An agreement makes a
contract, not a piece of paper.
My only point is impressing upon them they may have some legal, if not
just moral, responsibilities to come through on their word. It may
help to dedicate resources to the solving of the problems. If it
just gets thrown in the hopper, I don't know why that should please
you. Now, I'm sorry, if they promised me something, and don't
deliver, it is my business.
You've got a couple of interesting points, but unless you've had
different discussions with Autodesk about R4 than I have, I am not
under the impression that Autodesk has solicited me to upgrade. They
have advertised that an upgrade will be available soon and have
provided information on the features ("subject to change").
Nonetheless, if you feel that Autodesk indeed has PROMISED something
to you, then, I suppose, you could also feel that they have backed
out. This probably means that you would not be obligated to fulfill
your end of the contract (i.e. buy the upgrade). Your choice.
Or would you prefer that Autodesk deliver the current patch modeler to
you? If it doesn't work and Autodesk can't (or won't) fix it, you can
exercise the warranty described in your 3DS license agreement…..get
your money back.
Why get so hung up on the legalities of software development,
announcements, feature lists, etc. If everyone "slammed" every
company who slipped on product release dates (Windows '95 for
example) or features there probably wouldn't be any software to argue
about…. They'd all be too busy in court to actually do any
programming!
Again I think it's important to add at this point, looking at the
REL.4 ad slick that the phrases "Preliminary Technical Specification
features are subject to change." and "Features and Specifications are
subject to change." are both on the front and the back of the
document. I don't see a cut-off date here where anything is set in
stone.
Throughout the course of any beta cycle no one could ever forsee what
problems might turn up. That's why there is a beta cycle where
several different people with several different hardware
configurations put the software to the test. It doesn't have anything
to do with presumed promises. The thing isn't fully functional and if
it doesn't work, it just doesn't work. Who would you be ready to sue
if you were in the midst of a major project with a real deadline and
as a result of a malfunction with this module you lost your data or
couldn't complete on time. Don't you find it more assureing just to
know that if you get a new piece of software from Autodesk that 99.9
percent of the time you can bank on the fact that the program is
going to perform as it is sold and intended to ? Perhaps you should
take up "C" programming and write somthing useful for 3DS. I'm sure
several of us would buy it. Oh, but, one more thing, don't forget to
tell us in advance what you intend to create so we can all hold you
to your word.
When they finish it, sendit, _No Problem_!
You know, maybe we're onto something here. If you're willing to accept
whatever I send you regardless of what I told you in person, and pay me
whatever I feel like charging, maybe I should take up C. <BG>
Roger D.
Hey look man, sooner or later you're gonna have to accept the fact that
there are other people out there who have a better idea of what is best
for you than you do. If Autodesk says that the product isn't ready then
why can't you just accept that and go on. I'm not grinnin' on my end
and I can tell you this, I get real tired of this kind of pissin' and
moanin' when in reality here we have a company who maintains THE most
awesome program of this nature on the planet. They have been doing
business long before you ever had a PC and will continue to do business
long after you're dead and unheard of. Now my best advice to you is
cut your losses now, don't upgrade, sell all your 3DS stuff here on
the board at a reduced USED rate to someone who wants to hang out here
and be content belonging to the ultracool brotherhood of 3DS, and buy
yourself an SGI. You really sound, to me, like one of these SGI
complainer types who are just never satisfied no matter what they get.
Perhaps if you were paying three or four more times what you are now
for the same type of software you would be less likely to bitch about
everything. IMHO!
-Lee
I'll second at least some of those sentiments. I'll chant this until I die:
if you want to minimize risk, don't lay out cash to be on the "bleeding edge."
Pre-paying for software that hasn't shipped is risky. Second, if you get too
wrapped up in one little feature and its absence or presence in package X,
you're wasting your time and frustrating yourself. And of course don't start
accepting jobs and saying "yes, we can do that" to clients based on someone's
spec sheet for one of those non-shipping products.
Thanx John,
This was my point exactly. And all the rest of the extraneous grumbeling
does no one any good. I'm just as disappointed as anyone about the
fact that the patch modeler wasn't ready in time to meet the shipping
date but it really just pisses me off when someone has to go on and on
and on about a dead issue. I mean, come on, state your case and move on.
We'll all have our hands full getting a grip on the tools we are about
to recieve and just about the time we feel comfortable with those
Autodesk will have somthing new for us. History repeats itself.
-Lee
On the bright side, this is a market opportunity for IPAS developers and other
third-party developers. Perhaps more than one developer will step forward to
replace the fallen modeler. After all, Autodesk has done all the
pre-advertising, and now there's pent-up demand for something that everyone
didn't have before, and were happy, but are now unhappy for not having it. 🙂
Lee,
Personal attacks aside, you haven't exactly stopped yourself, and no one has,
of yet, explained what's the matter with the concept of Autodesk changing the
price to reflect what they've removed from the package, or just shipping the
modeler when it is functional. And next time, if you don't like it, just hit
the page down button.
Roger D.
Lee
Do You Think You Are Helping Autodesk?
Roger D.
At this point I need to apologize for my statements reguarding this
thread. I have been informed that this guy is suffering from
chronic complainer syndrome. I didn't realize I was being baited
into an argument I was destined to never win. Geez, I thought I
had started out giving this guy some helpful guidance.
-Lee
Hmm, you're right! Everyone should have a sunny, positive attitude about
everything, and share the same view! If they don't, they should just go away
because it's not worth the effort to educate them!
But seriously, folks. This is a public forum, which means we'll see a
diversity of opinion – and that's a good thing. But it's also a moderated
forum, which means that if the sysops think someone's being extraordinarily
impolite, they'll take steps to remind the person of their breach.
If you're here to "win," then I think you'll enjoy your online experience a
little more if you adjust your attitude… we're all here to learn from each
other. Sure, there are know-it-alls here, but I can overlook their personality
quirks, because they might just know something I don't know. 🙂
Yes, I was at SIGGRAPH, and I agree that the tone was more focussed on
the handful of major features which were certain to appear in R4.
Even so, I would never bank on anybody making promises in the
software business, I'd be penniless. Nobody was saying, "Well,
maybe" except the disclaimer in the printed material which was handed
out.
You seem to be looking for the same tools I seek, a more flexible and
efficient modelling environment. I, like many architects, avoid the
3DS lofter and prefer to use other packages for modelling.
More realistic interior lighting effects are high on my list. I'll be
checking into Lightscape soon as I have heard it will be able to run
on NT. I've heard rumor of a bundle with MicroGDS and Lightscape. A
great CADD package with a great radiosity based renderer, could be
quite a deal. I'll have to scour the fine print of any ads they put
out. :-}
Bob
<<Yes, I was at SIGGRAPH, and I agree that the tone was more focussed
on the handful of major features which were certain to appear in R4.
Even so, I would never bank on anybody making promises in the
software business>>
Do you really think that that will always be the case? I think that
has more to do with computer illiteracy on the part of most state
attorney generals and consumer affairs people than the immunity of
the software industry to consumer law. One of these days you're
going to end up with a state attorney general who figures he just
might be able to get 12 people to understand the issues involved. And
there you go. I've seen some pretty tough fines, and even prison
terms, handed out to people in other industries, like the home
improvement industry, for far less fraud than you and I have seen
software companies commit.
<< The previous thread.. >>
I'll be forwarding this thread to the R4 team.
I sympathize with your desire as you've probably noted, I've been
trying to get Adesk to just tell us for what platforms (if any) are
they currently developing 3DS. However, I know that whatever they
tell me could change in a heart beat and if I took their 'maybe the
DEC Alpha' (No, they haven't even hinted at this) as meaning that it
was only a matter of time I could very easily be left holding the bag
when they change their minds.
Making product development promises occurs in every industry not just
software so I do not make any distinction for how I construe any
other products' announcements. If I believed Cadillac was going to
keep their promise on including rear passenger air bags and they
renegged at the last minute, all they gotta do is refund my down
payment and the matter is settled without recourse. If you paid
money on R4 based on its preliminary feature list you are entitled to
your money back but that's it. If I had a limo business for which I
had started a new ad campaign claiming that I would soon have the
safest cars of any fleet based on what I believed to be true from
Cadillac's pre-release annoncement I would be left groundless for
some kind of claim against them for changing the features at the last
minute. Its their prerogative to sell whatever they want. The same
is true for software. In my opinion the consumer is taking all of
the risk in believing a products pre-release information.
Alluding to this feature exclusion as some kind of fraud is extreme.
I'm not liking it but I didn't bank on the list of features remaining
in tact through actual product release. Mfgrs change their minds all
the time and the fact that some let you in on what they are trying to
do with their new products is a privilege not a promise, an
opportunity to gain insight not a binding contract.
Sorry about the automotive analogy but they seem to big here on the forum. <G>
Bob