Why I won't upgrade
62 messages in this thread
I called my dealer this morning and cancelled my order for an upgrade from
3DS R3 to 3DS R4 after hearing the announcement that the spline modeler won't
be included in the new upgrade. This was not the only reason I decided not to
upgrade, but it was the final straw. This is going to be a long message. I
don't expect you to respond to it, but I wish you would pass it along to your
marketing people.
When I bought 3DS R1 a number of years ago, I was absolutely delighted and
amazed by the package. I never regretted spending thousands of dollars for it –
I felt I got my money's worth.
When I bought the 3DS R2 upgrade it confirmed my decision to go with
AutoDesk. I was delighted by all the new features in this release and was sure
that you had a customer for life.
The feature list for the 3DS R3 upgrade seemed a little thin but I bought
the upgrade anyway. I anxiously ripped off the shrinkwrap, and the first thing
I saw was a form I was supposed to fill out and send, with more money, to some
third party (Vibrant) who would send me the video drivers that would allow 3DS
to work at full speed. I was very upset, to say the least. Why was I shipped
the "B" version of 3DStudio? I payed all the money that was asked of me –
expecting to get the best program that was then currently available – yet was
shipped what amounted to a crippled version. I realize that the amount of money
asked was small, and I'm not going to elaborate on this issue. If you don't see
this as a marketing blunder, then I'm not going to try and explain – you'll
just have to find some way of seeing the issue from a customer's point of view.
I became hesitant about upgrading to R4 when it became clear that the
direction you were taking was to provide additional functionality through
add-on modules that needed to be purchased separately (IPASs). It concerned me
that the Yost Group, who I understood were writing 3DStudio, were also writing
IPASs that they sold separately. Why were they not concentrating on improving
the main program? I know that a number of software companies are taking a
similar approach to software development these days. I suppose the
rationalization is based on a "you only have to pay for what you use"
philosophy. But just because I understand it doesn't mean I agree with it.
I started to write out an extended explanation of why I don't agree with
that approach but decided that my reasons could be summarized, in part, by the
phrase "EXCEED YOUR CUSTOMER'S EXPECTATIONS." For all its supposed faults, look
at what you get with each release of CorelDraw for example.
I would like to go on but, in conclusion, my attitude towards your (and
other) software packages has become: Sure I only pay a few hundred dollars for
the upgrade, but there are tens of thousands of users like me who also upgrade
and buy new packages and that adds up to millions of dollars that we are
paying. Should we get a better package for that amount of money? In a number of
cases the answer is yes. When you start exceeding my expectations again, I will
start supporting your software again.
Thanks for listening.
David:
In some ways I agree with your opinion of the future of 3DS and the value of
R4. I believe the network render feature added in R3 was worth the price of
the whole upgrade, however. You and Brandon of Cyberdreams have spelled out
what I find to be a disconcerting future for this software. Like you I have a
limit as to what I consider a warranted cash outlay for a product improvement.
If all of my wishlist items were granted I'd be ecstatic, right? If I have to
pay for 30 different IPAS routines just to get these wishes I'd be furious.
However, this seems to be what it is going to take to get the features and
functionality that I desire into this software. This new open core code is a
bit of a double edged sword. More new features will be developed by more
people but I'll have to fork over more dough if I find them necessary. I think
some of us will have to weigh the accumulated total cost of 3DS plus all of the
IPAS routines versus an all in one solution perhaps on another platform. I'll
put in my R5 wishlist items and hope that the powers that be understand that I
want these items in the base package not as IPAS add-ons.
B.O.H.I.C.A.
Bob
PMJI.
From what I've seen and read, r4 offers _some_ nice new features. These seem
more evolutionary than revolutionary which may be just the natural course for
this product. 3DS extensibility has certainly spawned a flurry of plug-ins.
But, in my view, implementing this capability has inadvertently diverted
attention away from the core product.
I recently read [was it in 3D Artist?] that Mr. Yost said he developed 3D
Studio in an attempt to implement a tool for creative people. And in the PC
domain the Yost Group has done a fantastic job. However, I take exception to
Autodesk's 3DS Release 4 announcement that trumpets "#1 Professional 3D
Animation Product Adds Workstation-Level Production Efficiency." Just what
does that mean? I think a Computer Artist item profiling Gene Bodio gives a
realistic perspective of what one animator thinks the relationship between
"tool" and "creativity" ought to be.
Bodio, who used 3DS on work for The 7th Guest, says that "Software has got to
give you feedback" and "[w]hen you're creating something, you need to be able
to say 'wouldn't it be cool to have a light beam coming out of here' for
example, and then see it in seconds. It gets a creative flow going. Instead
of fighting you, it's giving back to you and pushing you along." Referring to
Alias PowerAnimator he says, "If you want a glow on the end of a cigarette with
smoke rising up, you can see the glow and the smoke in the preview window
actually changing in real time as you adjust the parameters…"
Yes… the fast preview renderer and other features in r4 provide some
feedback. Yes… Bodio now uses speedy, expensive workstations and expensive
software. But Autodesk has created a rather lofty expectation by equating 3DS
with workstation-level capabilities. I believe this goal _can_ be reached
through further development of the core product and not simply through
plug-ins. After all, we have smoke and glow plug-ins and a preview window.
What we don't have is the ability to see and manipulate these effects in real
time. In my view, this capability would be an example of "workstation-level
production efficiency."
EJB
Thanks for responding to my message.
I would like to emphasize two things:
1) I really *like* 3DStudio. I wish I could continue to support it. It is with
regret that I must consider other packages.
2) I don't want something for nothing.
There may be people out there who are using 3DS to design piping systems for
office buildings. A "piping module" would be a wholly appropriate third party
offering. Or, as another example, I wouldn't expect an "astronomy package" to
be part of the core product. Personally, I would cheerfully pay extra for an
astronomy module that could position stars to the 8th magnitude, the planets,
the sun and moon on a celestial sphere for an arbitrary date and time. But when
I look at the Yost group of IPAS modules I don't see tempting extras, I see a
kind of anti-features list: things you will never see in the core program.
C'mon, do "Twist, Stretch, Reshape and Optimize" really sound like things that
are of interest only to a small group of specialists?
When these features are sold as extras, they must be priced higher because
fewer people are going to buy them. When they are included in the core package,
the cost can be amortized over more users reducing the price that any
individual pays.
David:
I wouldn't hang out here on the ASOFT forum if I didn't think 3DS was the best
package for the money. I agree with you again that there are some features
which make sense to inclulde in the core package as their use and appeal seems
global.
Bob
<"Twist, Stretch, Reshape and Optimize" really sound like things that are of
interest only to a small group of specialists?>
When I bought the IPAs Disk #3 (Procedural Modeling), I assumed that these were
things that didn't make it into 3DS2 but would be part of release 3 and which,
out of innate graciousness, the Yost Group was offering prior to the release of
v.3 and in this context I was happy to lay out the cash for the disk.
Needless to say I was disappointed to find them absent in any form (let alone
improved) from release 3, but even before that was disappointed that the
effects could be duplicated without the routines from within 3DS2 (some of
them, 2d scale does a good imitation of "stretch", and twist can be imitated
with modify vertex/face/rotate and then tesselating the result). Reshape didn't
work to my expectations primarily because it wasn't interactive, I had no idea
what I was doing with those sliders until the effect was over with and the .pxp
had terminated. I never had a need for melt or skline, so, after spending
$300., primarily for Reshape, I haven't got a single modified object to show
for it.
Disk #6&7 on the other hand, I use all the time and they work great. I've been
very happy with the results, but yes, I wish they had been part of Rel. 3. Most
of my work is modeling, so all the new materials editor features and lighting
were pretty meaningless to me. The most valuable addition to v.3 from my
perspective was the ability to change the colors of the wireframe objects in
the Editor AND, most importantly, access to Skin, Slice, and Displace. So
effectively I paid $1100. so that I could make use of some things that I would
have expected as part of a new release. I am extremely surprised that Meshres,
Optimize, Tempo, and Keyman aren't part of the main package, and to a lesser
extent, Hedra2 and Scatter. Vapor, Flame, and maybe Hedra make sense to me as
side routines because their uses are so narrow.Personally, I think Autodesk
should purchase outright the rights to each years IPAS routines, and then offer
them as part of the subsequent years upgrades. In this way, customers could get
a little jump on new routines by purchasing them separately from the Yost
group, and then everyone else will have them for their $500.
But then, I'm just a customer, what do I know?
SoftImage charges up to around $80,000. for their software, plus around
$6000-$8000 for "software maintenance (upgrades), and you'd think that for that
price you'd get everything ever written for SoftImage, but no, they have a huge
list of add-ons you can buy for between a couple thousand and ten thousand
dollars, some things are pretty simple, like "weld"(!), others like "Lockdown"
(which I would like to see in 3DS) are more complex, but no less basic in their
usefulness. The above two examples are two of 42 different routines made by
Minerva software for use with SoftImage. SoftImage bought the rights to the
whole lot and now offers them as one package for around $10k (as of just before
MicroSoft's purchase of SoftImage). Because of the enormous value of these
routines and their quantity, I feel that the price is proportionate and
therefore acceptable, and that is going to be the test for Autodesk, is it
proportionate value? In SoftImage's case, they're charging approximately the
same as they charge for their annual software maintenance, and you're getting
42 terrific options, which is maybe more than the number of additions to the
new version of the main program. In 3DS's case, I paid a little more than the
cost of an upgrade to get 12 routines, 3 of which I use all the time (Deform,
Slice, and Skin). Obviously this isn't as good a deal as in the SoftImage
example, and I sure as hell didn't like paying it (as proof, I only upgraded
and got those disks two weeks ago), but after all, the Yost group is
independent and can charge whatever they want.
As a customer, I would just like to see a sense of proportion with the pricing
of these routines, as well as the exercise of good sense when it comes to the
breadth of application for a routine. If, like Optimize, it can be used to good
effect on practically any mesh and any animation, then I vote Autodesk acquire
it for the upgrade, if the routine is useful only to make logs burn (for all
those log burners out there), then I am content to see it as an add-on, though
I would still like to see Autodesk periodically collect the better routines and
incorporate them into the main software.
Andy
>>SoftImage charges up to around $80,000. for their software, plus around
$6000-$8000 for "software maintenance (upgrades), and you'd think that for that
price you'd get everything ever written for SoftImage, but no, they have a huge
list of add-ons you can buy for between a couple thousand and ten thousand
dollars, some things are pretty simple, like "weld"(!), others like "Lockdown"
(which I would like to see in 3DS) are more complex, but no less basic in their
usefulness. The above two examples are two of 42 different routines made by
Minerva software for use with SoftImage. SoftImage bought the rights to the
whole lot and now offers them as one package for around $10k (as of just before
MicroSoft's purchase of SoftImage). Because of the enormous value of these
routines and their quantity, I feel that the price is proportionate and
therefore acceptable, and that is going to be the test for Autodesk, is it
proportionate value? In SoftImage's case, they're charging approximately the
same as they charge for their annual software maintenance, and you're getting
42 terrific options, which is maybe more than the number of additions to the
new version of the main program. In 3DS's case, I paid a little more than the
cost of an upgrade to get 12 routines, 3 of which I use all the time (Deform,
Slice, and Skin). Obviously this isn't as good a deal as in the SoftImage
example, and I sure as hell didn't like paying it (as proof, I only upgraded
and got those disks two weeks ago), but after all, the Yost group is
independent and can charge whatever they want. <<
It may be true that as a proportion of the 3DS upgrade cost, the Yost Group'
IPAS add-ons are more expensive than SoftImage's Minerva add-ons. However at
$300 each they are one hell of a bargain! That is less than sales tax on
$10,000!
Terry Gilbert
Forcade & Associates
<It may be true that as a proportion of the 3DS upgrade cost, the Yost Group'
IPAS add-ons are more expensive than SoftImage's Minerva add-ons. However at
$300 each they are one hell of a bargain! That is less than sales tax on
$10,000!>
Exactly so. But it is a bargain similar to a ten dollar can of compressed air
that lasts for five minutes. An airbrush artist who can't afford a $200.
compressor which can provide an unlimited amount of air can at least work with
these little cans, but in the end he'll spend more and get less.
Andrew Paquette
I agree that a sense of proportion and the exercise of good sense is an
important factor here. I too, have had experience with software companies who
thought they could exercise monopolistic pricing strategies by charging you
extra to sneeze because they felt you had already commited tens of thousands of
dollars to their software and would pay whatever they asked for whatever they
offered. My company slowly weaned ourselves away from their grip and now are in
a position to have options for all the software we use. (By the way, that
company is not in business anymore while we are still doing well.)
I don't know what the relationship between Autodesk, the Yost Group and other
software developers is – and I'm not particularly interested. What I am
interested in is getting a professional quality software solution to a
particular problem – 3D graphics. If Autodesk wants to buy software from third
party developers and include it in their core product that's fine with me.
Again, I don't want to know the details. All I want to know is that when I pay
my money I am getting a well-integrated, professional-quality piece of software
that does not have key pieces missing.
Autodesk has been in business long enough to have developed a sense of
proportion and should be able to exercise good judgement in this area. I'm not
really here to run their marketing department for them – all I can do is vote
with my wallet.
PMFJI
The only harmfull side affect of putting off your upgrade now is the
increased learning curve later although if the new features are ones
that you won't get much use out of then I'd have to agree, stick with
what gets the job done for you.
-Lee
around 3DS in many ways, 3DS still had more convenient and/or better ways of
performing certain functions. Also, the good people at Autodesk are working
their hardest to think of and provide as many terrific tools as they can manage
given their resources, they're not going to think of everything, and they won't
be able to provide everything they think of-it's really beyond their power to
do so. With this in mind, I can hardly chastise them for not grabbing up all
these routines that are getting written and providing them for little or no
charge. We should be grateful that these third party developers exist!
Andy
PS. In an earlier post I mentioned that :
<Most of my work is modeling, so all the new materials editor features and
lighting were pretty meaningless to me. The most valuable addition to v.3 from
my perspective was the ability to change the colors of the wireframe objects in
the Editor AND, most importantly, access to Skin, Slice, and Displace>
This is misleading beacause, well, it's misleading. I wrote it while trying to
think of reasons why Autodesk should start giving away 3DS to the public,
throwing it out of airplanes by the thousands and so on. In any case, 3DS3 had
plenty of other stuff that all told certainly was worth the cost of the upgrade
even though I haven't used the new renderer or Materials editor much.
PMFJI,>>>Also, the good people at Autodesk are working their hardest to think
of and provide as many terrific tools as they can manage given their resources,
they're not going to think of everything, and they won't be able to provide
everything they think of-it's really beyond their power to do so. With this in
mind, I can hardly chastise them for not grabbing up all these routines that
are getting written and providing them for little or no charge. We should be
grateful that these third party developers exist!<<<
Coming from the Amiga/Lightwave camp one of the features of 3DS that I hoped
for was the plug-in features available with IPAS. With only two people working
of Lightwave/Modeler, with one major release each year, it was difficult seeing
new features added to 3DS through IPAS as they were needed or thought of.
Lightwave 4.0 for Win/NT will be shipping soon with plug-in support, like Gary
says, that is the way software is going.
I would rather have the option of complaining about the IPAS costs, than
complaining about missing features that cannot be added. It seems to me most
people are making money with 3DS and can justify the purchase of IPAS stuff.
With someone like me, who hasn't made any money yet, it is a big incentive to
do so.
<<When these features are sold as extras, they must be priced higher because
fewer people are going to buy them. When they are included in the core package,
the cost can be amortized over more users reducing the rice that any individual
pays.>>
You've hit on an interesting point, one which I think only time will determine
the accuracy of. The same argument can go both ways: For animators in a
special field (and aren't all to a degree?), the use of IPAS modules over
built-in routines may be appealing because they allow the user to pay only for
the functions they'll actually use, not one overblown program trying to please
everybody, and in fact satisfying no one. Which is most cost effective? At
this point I have to admit for the quality, 3DS rX has always been very $$$
competitive compared to other platforms. I realize this is something of a
rationalization, and in theory doesn't always hold water.
I am upgrading to r4, but one quality I DON'T like about it is its rather
disjointed feel, a fault of upgrading via IPAS modules over built-in code. I
DON'T want to see Adesk go so modular they loose 3DS's consistency. Already
you need to "switch modes" to work in the new routines, which was never the
case with the well-integraded shaper/lofter/editor/keyramer — although
technically they could be considered to be separate programs, I never needed to
think of a new way to operate commands. This is most evident on the Mac; I
don't know of anyone who runs a single program which could potentially create
an animation from start to finish. You buy your modeler, your animator, your
render, as separate packages. More expensive, and less intuitive, no matter
what the Mac people argue. To me, this consistency translates into creative
freedom.
Essentially, it's easy to take for granted how well put-together 3DS is,
considering a single (comparatively) low priced package can perform such
different functions so competently. However, I don't think they could have
kept it up forever. Everyone wants more features, to the point the whole
package becomes too bloated to be useful. When spreadsheet users used to ask
Lotus for new features, they'd be told to just "write a macro," implying it was
the*users* fault for not making the program as functional as they wanted it. I
hope we're not being abandoned in a similar manner, giving up ease of use
(translate: creative freedom) for an opportunity to own the latest, trendiest
lens-flare effect right away. I think it will be a while before we see if most
users accept this over real functionality.
Mathew B.
Don't sweat it everyone. Yost and Adesk are just buying time by releasing R4
with an unimpressive features list. They don't have enough available resources
to develop an R4 with a long features list because all of their ace developers
are working on the NT version (R5).
(Hopeful speculation on my part…)
-TC
Tyler:
/__________From your message___________\\
They don't have enough available resources to develop an R4 with a long
features list because all of their ace developers are working on the NT version
(R5). __________________________________________
If this were true and 3DS could run on an Alpha I'll dance flamenco style with
Ana from Krazy Images on a pile of Intel chips at the next SIGGRAPH. <G>
Bob
>> If this were true and 3DS could run on an Alpha I'll dance flamenco
>> style with Ana from Krazy Images on a pile of Intel chips at the next
>> SIGGRAPH. <G>
Bob, I will pay to see that! <bg> —————————-
———-And I'll be glad to strum the Spanish Guitar for you both as I
prepare to drop an Alpha in my DEC machine!
-Alan
Don't think I'll forget this one, senor. Ole!
hey, how'd you do those fancy letters?
You mean n & e? (had to think awhile what you meant) I logon from a Mac & in
Mac-land, if you hold down the option key and then hit the n or e, it signals
it to put in the tilda or accent respectively. When you hit the opt-n, you
won't see anything happen till you hit the n again by itself. There ya go.
<<If this were true and 3DS could run on an Alpha I'll dance flamenco style
with Ana from Krazy Images on a pile of Intel chips at the next SIGGRAPH.>>
Don't forget to throw your DOS disks and manuals, qemm, the 640k barrier, and
the "Rendering in progress…" screen onto the pile!
I'll join you! If Ana brings a sister, that is. I would love to yank the
daughter card out of my XL590 and drop in an Alpha board! Please Gary, oh
please, oh please…
-TC
Tyler:
I'm gonna get me some of those caballero boots, some castinets, I'll present
Ana with a rose to bite down on and do my own Cuban Pete dance!
Bob
Wow Bob, there are a lot of eyes reading this. I think you are really
committing yourself!
Ana, what do you think of all this?
The Yost Group has stated that they are deep in development of R5. At some
point 3-DS will have to run in NT and whatever Chicago is called by the time it
is released. I hope that the comprehensive upgrade of all IPAS routines and 3rd
party modules to make the shift to new OP SYS will be merciful and perhaps even
free. After laying out perhaps $5000 in plug-ins, it would be enraging to have
to shell out a large upgrade fee to enable me to move to a more efficient Op
Sys.
<<I hope that the comprehensive upgrade of all IPAS routines and 3rd party
modules to make the shift to new OP SYS will be merciful and perhaps even free.
After laying out perhaps $5000 in plug-ins, it would be enraging to have to
shell out a large upgrade fee to enable me to move to a more efficient Op
Sys.>>
I couldn't agree more. This issue of plug-in compatability is a sticky one. I
once posted the question to Yost concerning optimization of 3DS for the
Pentium. The reply that I got back was essentially "that would hose all of the
existing IPAS routines".
Well, that didn't seem like an acceptable response to me. I replied saying
that holding up the entire 3DS train for the existing IPAS "passengers" that
stepped off and fell asleep in the terminal is not reasonable. When I said
"There must be a solution…" all I got back from Yost was "nope."
Needless to say, they (Yost) are doing something big for R5. And it ain't DOS
related. They must have a plan in place for conversion of the plug-ins but
they ain't saying what it is (surprise, surprise…). I, like you, hope what
they are doing doesn't drain my pockets. I say we should all leave "wish list"
requests that IPAS upgrades be free and that the individual IPAS developers be
compensated for their work through ADESK. What do you say gang! YEAH, FREE
IPAS UPGRADES! RAH! RAH! RAH! SHISH BOOM BAH… and all that.
-TC
Hi Tyler,
<< I say we should all leave "wish list" requests that IPAS upgrades be free
and that the individual IPAS developers be compensated for their work through
ADESK. >>
wish.. got it.
jonas[adesk]
>>What do you say gang!
I say for now I have my hands full learning all the new stuff with R4 to waste
time worrying about R5 and how it will affect my pocketbook. The immediate
goal is to put R4 to work making big money using the efficiency of IK and
scripting language so the cost of upgrading to R5 12-18 months from now will be
taken care of.
Its Gary's job to worry about R5 for now and I trust he will do his usual
fantastic job of it. Meanwhile just shoot the wishlist to him and then get on
with the tutorial for R4.
Don, well said. My years of crawling up the continuous upgrade path of 3-DS has
become a sort of ritual. Early morning, cup of blessed coffee and those thick
thick books. We all need to remember that all the added frill and effects
cannot dress up terrific use of the core program. And, that core program is
certainly deep. If, at this juncture, I raise some complaints, it is because of
my regard for 3-DS and the Yost Group.
I fully understand that a core program cannot be expected to supply everything.
Good 3-D animation begins and ends with resourceful use of JUST the core
program. The desire or need to employ IPAS Plug-ins comes with a premium. That
I can live with. But an intelligent price structure and some sense of central
control is required. I would never expect 3-DS to include an overwhelming IPAS
array within the core release. But, at the same time, purchasing the 7 disk
boutique is a grind due to the way the routines are distributed across the 7
disks. $300/disk, which includes many routines I have no interest in irritates
a bit (so to speak). Additionally, seeing some more efficient routines, the
more primitive versions of which appear in the core release.. well, hmmmmm.
Then, there are some things which I really do feel belong bundled. Liquid
Speed, Model Optimization Engine, Model replacement with simple object rep
(improving screen redraw 100x)… Here we do agree. To make the core program
really roar, Autodesk could stand to distribute that cost across it's user
base. Essentially, I am amazed at the core program, and am temporarily closing
my eyes to a little boogie step 4.0 has made. As the numbers of 3-D developers
grows, and the user base expands, let's all hope for intelligent overview and a
long prosperous life for 3-DS (here I simply shudder when recalling the swift
downfall of a previous 3-D animation software).
>>>Needless to say, they (Yost) are doing something big for R5. And it ain't
DOS related.<<<
Latest rumor I heard is R5 is waiting for Windows 95 to ship. Don't know if
that is true, but by SIGGRAPH next year I would expect a Windows/NT version.
>>>The Yost Group has stated that they are deep in development of R5. At some
point 3-DS will have to run in NT and whatever Chicago is called by the time it
is released. I hope that the comprehensive upgrade of all IPAS routines and 3rd
party modules to make the shift to new OP SYS will be merciful and perhaps even
free. After laying out perhaps $5000 in plug-ins, it would be enraging to have
to shell out a large upgrade fee to enable me to move to a more efficient Op
Sys.<<<
With all the other AutoDesk products going to Win/NT (ie. ACAD,Animator Pro) I
would expect to see R5 for Win/NT at SIGGRAPH next year. DOS is dying (yes
people have said that before) and 3DS must migrate to survive in the long run.
I'll even buy a hat and eat it if 3DSR5 for Win/NT isn't announced at SIGGRAPH
95.
>> R5 for Win/NT at SIGGRAPH next year <<
Or NAB??? 😎
There seems to be an interesting proliferation of oaths regarding dances and
eating of clothing for the R5 rollout. Would you mind telling me exactly what
kind of hat that would be (you can be outlandish because you will never have to
eat that hat or I will eat crow). Note: Animator Pro does not run in windows,
at least not at anything above 320×200 with any stability. It is Animator
Studio they developed for Windows. Am eager to check out the first version of
Anim-Studio and see if it can reasonably replace Anim-Pro. I rely on Anim-Pro a
great deal, but with Painter 3.0, Photoshop 3.0, both supporting avi/flc
time-lines, and now Anim-Studio, I am afraid that my old tool box and uncanny
familiarity with Ani-Pro will receive a deserving Official Burial with fully
rendered flyby and 64bit salute. I really hate to say goodbye to that package,
and would appreciated if the code meisters would just replace the Pharlap etc,
with NT compatibility and let me stick with that pre-historic but beloved tool.
Hi Jeffrey,
<< Note: Animator Pro does not run in windows >>
Animator Pro 1.3a does run in windows. Send in the bug form found in the back
of the Installation Guide and state that Animator Pro 1.3 will not run under
windows. You will be sent 1.3a. Post messages in the Autodesk Animator section
addressed to Nik Grant[adesk] or Brian Rudolph[adesk] for more details.
Thanks Jonas, sending in the bug report right away. Didnt even know there was a
3.01a. Can't help but wonder whether 3.01a running in windows won't mind my
installing EMM386, which it will not tolerate running in DOS. Anyway, this will
make functionality with Anim Studio a lot more viable.
Since there is rumored to be a DOS 7.0 I hope that they will make it compatible
with DOS 7.0/6.1 and not saddle everyone with the need to upgrade to a brand
new OS.
Judy
I am no authority, but the way I understand it, DOS 7 will be a subset of
windows 95 and compatible with whatever memory management it uses and be able
to run whatever it can or cannot run.
This is merely my impressions, if anyone has solid information, please share.
Since IBM is also making a DOS 7.0 – I would be surprised if that was a subset
of Windows 95 – but Like you it is just what I have read in the magazines. I
did hear that IBM DOS will have an OS/2-like GUI interface. I am not big for
GUI interfaces – prefer command line stuff myself.
Judy
I was thinking of the microsoft version of 7 (7.2?). I have no idea what IBM
might be doing.
Tim,
DOS 7.0 *is* Windows 95. Windows 95 is also Windows 4.0. They're one and the
same. DOS can *probably* be seperated from the windows stuff though. I
wouldn't be too surprised to see Win95 and DOS 7.0 sitting on the same shelf.
Marc
>>DOS 7.0 *is* Windows 95. Windows 95 is also Windows 4.0. They're one and
the same. <<
I know this, but from a few articles I read, they were considering stripping
out enough to be like DOS is now, except it would have the new memory
management scheme, and kill the 640k barrier.
Sort of…
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I share your distaste for bloated software
and your feeling that integration and consistency translates into creative
freedom. I don't want features for the sake of having features I want a
coherent solution to a particular problem – in this case the problem of
creating 3D models. To illustrate, look at how the solution to the problem of
creating 2D vector illustrations has evolved (on the Mac, because I am familiar
with it and you mentioned it). FreeHand and Illustrator have competed against
one another for many years now to offer a solution to the same problem – the
problem of creating 2D vector illustrations. The thing that I find most
striking is how their respective evolutions have resulted in a shared feature
set rather than trivial, distinguishing gimmicks. Neither of them has really
stooped to "feature-frenzy" to distinguish themselves in the marketplace. They
have both converged on named, lockable, hideable layers for example. I see this
as two companies with a high level of integrity arriving, after a number of
years, at a professional solution to a specific problem.
A similar, mature solution may not exist at the moment for 3D software.
Nevertheless, I still want some degree of coherence. In my opinion, the core
package of features ought to include things like the ability to "deform"
objects (the ability to "stretch", "reshape" and "twist" objects should be
operations that follow logically from a single, well-defined deform tool). I
will not buy these basic functions from a third party. I don't want to be faced
with the situation where I am deprived of these essential functions because the
company has gone out of business, the functions no longer work with a new
version of the core product, or any number of other reasons I could think of. I
agree that 3DS is reasonably priced. I agree that the upgrades are reasonably
priced. I am willing to pay MORE for the upgrades if the core feature set is
beefed up and made more coherent. I won't buy a mish-mash of adhoc
semi-solutions from a bunch of different third party suppliers.
Autodesk was correct in attempting to include splines in the core package. (As
I mentioned in my earlier message, I had placed my order for the upgrade until
I heard that they had pulled this feature). Some sort of parametric curve
package has to be central to modern 3D modeling programs.
Hi David; Please understand my post is not in any way meant to be antagonistic.
But I would be VERY interested in your response to a certain question. It isn't
meant to "lead" the discussion anywhere, but it is a response I find very
essential these days in my perspectives on software development and usage.
If you could put a percentage on the portion of the software that you actually
use (in comparison with the total software included)… on the _average_ for
most of the sofware applications your company owns, what would that number be?
-dave
I create 35mm slides for corporate presentations for a living. I create them on
the Macintosh using, primarily, FreeHand, Persuasion and PhotoShop as well as
3DStudio for the odd 3D illustration. Any non-trivial slide is created with
FreeHand, very simple slides are created with Persuasion. I use Photoshop
mostly to acquire and clean up images from my scanner.
With respect to FreeHand (V4.0b) I do not use some of the "most important"
recently introduced features such as multi-page documents, and OLE. However, I
liked the introduction of Boolean operations. I don't use the multi-page
document feature because I often have to find old artwork to modify it and I
find this a lot easier if every slide has its own, descriptive file name. I
don't use the OLE feature because I am sceptical that any software manufacturer
can pull off such a relatively complex feat of software integration without
severe problems. Since I create slides, which are continuous-tone RGB files, I
also have no need of any of the color separation features.
To try and answer your question more directly I'm sure that I use less than
half of all the features available in most of the programs I use regularly
(even daily).
There are two things I would like to add to put this statement into context:
1) In no way do I feel that FreeHand is in any way "bloated" even though I do
not use all its features. If they offered a "lite" upgrade that cost half the
price but left out features (even those I don't use) I wouldn't go for it. I
like to try out all the new features in each upgrade even if I only end up
adding one or two of them to my Standard Operating Procedure.
2) I use 3DStudio to produce high resolution, still images for 35mm slides. I
have never made a penny using its animation capabilities. Net-rendering, VTR
control, FLC formats, IFLs, etc. are all entirely irrelevant to my professional
life. I may seem absurd, but I would not have bought 3DStudio if it was not
able to do animation. Why would I want to pay so much money for something I
don't use? Basically because I am inherently interested in graphics, 3D and
otherwise, and am willing to pay for features that I don't need or don't make
money from to further my education, stay on top of industry trends, anticipate
what my job will be like 5 years from now, and a number of other reasons.
/* price but left out features (even those I don't use) I wouldn't go for it. I
like to try out all the new features in each upgrade even if I only end up
adding one or two of them to my Standard Operating Procedure. */
I agree 100%. One can't scrutinize from ignorance.
/* professional life. I may seem absurd, but I would not have bought 3DStudio
if it was not able to do animation. Why would I want to pay so much money for
*/
You do not seem absurd at all. Greg Schutz (in his 3DS telecourse this semester
advocates profitability from still images as a starting point, possibly leading
animations later. Thanks for the feedback. -dave
>> 2) I use 3DStudio to produce high resolution, still images for 35mm slides.
I have never made a penny using its animation capabilities. Net-rendering, VTR
control, FLC formats, IFLs, etc. are all entirely irrelevant to my professional
life. I may seem absurd, but I would not have bought 3DStudio if it was not
able to do animation. Why would I want to pay so much money for something I
don't use? Basically because I am inherently interested in graphics, 3D and
otherwise, and am willing to pay for features that I don't need or don't make
money from to further my education, stay on top of industry trends, anticipate
what my job will be like 5 years from now, and a number of other reasons. <<
This is kind of like the debate over "pure" scientific research and applied
science. You need a balance of _both_ to be able to deal with the unexpected.
BTW- the keyframer can be used as a modeling tool. To get just the right
object shape, you can create an extreme morph and using the keyframer get a
"snapshot" of an intermediate form. This "snapshot" function can also be used
to create repetative objects like stair steps along a non-linear, twisting
stairway.
Terry Gilbert
Forcade & Associates
Where it is true that the keyframer is an excellent development platform for
modelling [Extreme morph, Transfromation Matrix manipulations, First Vertice
displacement, etc.], there is an underlying truth to regarding IPAS routines
such as Displace (PXP), Hera2 (PXP), Skline, Skine, Twist, Melt etc. as basic
model editing tools. Particularly in light of the limitations of lofting 2-D
shapes, a somewhat larger model building tool kit should be bundled. Clearly,
there are limitations to how much to include in a core program. Therein lies
the dynamic of where 3-DS currently resides.
The real reason you SHOULD upgrade is so the core package is current and
capable of supporting ALL the 3rd party plug-ins. The secondary reason is so
your 3DS operating environment will run at the most efficient speed for your
platform. Thirdly, when you need a suggestion on how to accomplish an effect
your support will come from the rest of us using the latest upgrade.
The main power in 3DS is that it has become a "shell" to support custom
plug-ins for you to customize around your particular needs. I am very glad
that I DON'T have to pay for a bunch of features that I will never use. What
you feel is very important to have in the package, I might never have a need.
We all have different requirements.
I don't agree with every decision that ADESK makes regarding what's included
and comes as part of the core package but having the latest release of 3DS will
allow you the most options in customizing your 3DS environment for your needs
with 3rd party options.
Today I consider the core 3DS as an operating environment nucleus for all my
graphics. Even Photoshop, PageMaker, and Corel Draw have become support
packages for 3DS.
When I do a new job and it requires something special the first thing I do is
examine the collection of IPAS plugins available. Then I build the cost of
this into the project. I'm thankful that the Adesk/Yost philosophy supports
this concept.
The alternative: I would be using something like Design Cadd 3D or similar for
one project and LW for another, Imagine for yet another and none of the final
projects would be as efficiently developed primarily due to brain
saturation/task loading/constant learning curve struggle etc.
David:
>> Personally, I would cheerfully pay extra for an astronomy module that
>> could position stars to the 8th magnitude, the planets, the sun and moon
>> on a celestial sphere for an arbitrary date and time.
Hmmm, the stars would be an interesting addition, but our SunPath routine will
not only position the sun, moon, and planets for you, but animate them over
time as well! It's been shipping over a year now.
Greg Pyros
I am aware of your package and its almost at the "buy threshold". With the
addition of a star database it would become a must-have. Check out the
Astronomy forum, there is a nice shareware planetarium program for Windows (two
files: SKYMPA.ZIP & SKYMPB.ZIP). In it he mentions a bit about where the
display algorithms are from and where the database for star positions are from.
David:
Good info, I'll check them out. Also, Stars2_i.ixp will create an accurate
star background for you, just insert planets and shake!
Greg Pyros
David,
Just curious — what other packages are you considering? If you don't want to
shell out the money for 3DS, then are you willing to spend ten times as much
for workstations and their related software?
— Jon
That's a good question. In message #130630 I explained to "naaug" (Dave, I
think) that I make 35mm slides for a living on the Macintosh. All I use
3DStudio professionally for is for the odd 3D illustration that I have to make.
All I really need is some package that can create high resolution still images.
Fortunately, it is a buyer's market for 3D software at this time – there are so
many choices. Probably, Alias Sketch would serve my needs.
I also explained in previous messages that I really *like* 3DStudio, and I
would be perfectly happy sticking with it if AutoDesk's marketing department
and I were going, even approximately, in the same direction.
I cannot attempt to write a truly comprehensive post on the juncture 4.0 seems
to have arrived at. However, I can attempt to hit on a few essential thoughts
the keep circulating in my mind since the Roll-out Seminar: 1) 4.0 does seem
thin, particularly compared to where full version upgrades
have been since 1.0. 2) Lack of patch model, spline base editing is painful.
Why do I have to depend
on Caligari, that does a pretty good job? 3) As vast as tool choices will
become with 3rd party developers, there can
easily occur a slip from essential responsibility of the core code to
continu to provide increasing functionality. 4) I am very concerned about
upgrades to improved op sys… and willingness of
all 3rd party developers to provide free or very reasonable upgrade path 5)
there was too much talk of the Yost Group being more distant from this
particular upgrade ( I cannot stress or say enough regrading that) 6)
Serious Ani-Pro users really got befuddled in the face of how Anim-Studio
was presented at the roll-out. 7) For 5 years I have had an incredibly
strong faith in 3-DS, and have been
amazed at the curve of progress this platform has made. It also appeared
that
the core program team was always in control and really understanding my
needs as an animator. It is with a certain shyness, but frankness, that I
admit to being very nervous at the sight of more Corporated Management
decisions, as opposed to essential program decisions. Perhaps I am a little
too skiddish when it comes to this issue, but 3-DS has been basically an
art power tool, with much brilliance driving it's progress. Sheeeesh, I
hope it stays that way (and remains tough as competition will arise). 8) I
can handle laying out $5000 for a massive plug-in shopping list. However,
it also seems that with regard to IPAS/3rd Party Plug-ins:
a) A number of the effects in the core 7 discs should be bundled (perhaps
at some very reasonable price) because they are basic editing tools)
b) Provided users with larger shopping lists various ramps of purchase
i) many of us out here are not large houses with huge client lists,
but experimental and fine arts oriented etc etc… the number of
3-D animators is growing and we could use some profile consideration
hell, i have typed enough… never expected to go beyond 1 paragraph, this is
all on the fly, not even going to proof it, would probably delete it, but it
has really been pressing on my brain for a few weeks now.
<<1) 4.0 does seem thin, particularly compared…>>
I agree, see my previous messages.
<<2) Lack of patch model, spline base editing is painful…>>
That's what caused me to cancel my upgrade.
<<3) As vast as tool choices will become with 3rd party dev…>>
Yes
<<4) I am very concerned about 3rd party developers to provide free or very
reasonable upgrade path…>>
Me too. We have over 24 major software packages for the Mac and PC. Just
keeping track of the lastest versions, maintenance releases, etc. could become
a full-time job if I let it (of course, I won't have a job if I did). I can't
see having to track a half-dozen third-party plugins for each of them as well.
<<5) there was too much talk of the Yost Group being…>>
I don't know anything about that.
<<6) Serious Ani-Pro users really got befuddled…>>
Don't know anything about Ani-Pro, either.
<<7) For 5 years I have had an incredibly strong faith in 3-DS…>>
Me too.
<<8) I can handle laying out $5000…>>
Not me. I would be willing to pay up to $1000 for a full-featured upgrade.
<<hell, i have typed enough… >>
Not bad for stream of consciousness.
Have you ever tried to model something in patches alone? It's really just a
part of spline modelling, the preferred method being able to draw and skin
spline curves. Patch modeling is of limited use, and not necessarily more
powerful than current 3D vertice editing of polygons. I'm constantly amazed at
the overestimation of patch modeling going on with 3DS users.
John Tissavary | LUNA cie, inc
<<Patch modeling is of limited use, and not necessarily more powerful than
current 3D vertice editing of polygons.>>
I am aware of some of the limitations of patch modeling. I knew when I saw the
demo of 3DS R4 (when the spline package was a part of it) that it was more of a
toy implementation. A real implementation must be allow patches to be
subdivided *locally* so that detail can be added only in the areas that it is
needed without needlessly propogating the subdivision over the entire set of
patches – and consequently it must solve the problem of cracks or discontinous
surfaces. I know this is a difficult problem, I also know that there are
solutions to it. Furthermore, I know this was not part of the 3DS
implementation of splines. My hope was that once splines were at least
implemented as a basic data type we could look forward to spline subdivision in
a future release.
Since spline modeling (complete implementation) was high on many people's
wishlists, and the Yost Group is nothing if not attentive to this list, that
it'll end up in 3DS sooner or later.
John Tissavary | LUNA cie, inc
John,
And don't forget the irony of the high end workstation 3-D program OEM's
suddenly begining to add optimized polygonal modeling as an innovative feature
in the game developement versions of thier software.
Bruce N. Goren
Larf Larf Larf….<gasp> that's my problem… no shut-off valve on the old
babbling brook of consciousness.