#R3 vs. Silicon Garden
19 messages in this thread
No, Gary, nobody's perfect, but an awful lot of R3, itself, does come
pretty close. I did just try a test render of Willow, and only got
what looks like a bunch of strings hanging off the ends of branches.
I could send you another sample if you would like. The deciduous,
roses, and other stuff do seem to work.
I thought to be a beta tester, you had to live in California, and
achieve some sort of sainthood status. <g> I did mention it to you
at one time, but at that time, you told me you had plenty of beta
testers. That was back around the release of R2. I am flattered
that you would have considered me, though.
In reference to the IPAS programs not being more closely tied to the
core program, first of all, I will agree that 3DS is one of the most,
if not the most robust animation package on the PC. So, I'm going to
try to be really careful in how I say this because I do have great
respect for you and the others at the Yost Group. But my frustration
level, as a one man animation studio, with some of the IPAS routines
is much higher than it has to be. I don't know how else to say it,
but they just don't work as easily as they could. And granted, I may
be somewhat spoiled by 3DS's grace and ease of use, but when you've
got to turn out production work, you just don't have time for
multiple test renders, all too often, where absolutely nothing is
happening at all because the multiple sliders and dialog boxes have
succeeded in confusing you, making 14 hours of rendering time all for
naught. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. I really
feel that if some of these things were incorporated into the core
program, a lot of the clumsiness could be worked out. I don't
begrudge you, or anyone else, value for your efforts. I, myself,
would rather pay more for the upgrade, and have these tools more
closely integrated than struggle with third party applications.
Gary, I do very much have confidence in your work. That's why I'm so
sure these things could work so much better inside the program
itself. With Topas selling for something like $700 to 3DStudio
users, it was almost tempting, but I find 3DStudio to be too
professional a package to jump ship and try to learn the
idiosyncracies of something else. If you don't think I'm loyal, I
could give the phone number of a couple of Amigaheads who might
disagree.
I do hope you're feeling better. We went through the flu 2 weeks ago
and I'm still not totally up to par. I suppose I could have been
more tactful, and relayed my original comments in email, but I didn't
think in my moment of frustration, when blur.ixp was giving me
conniption fits, that you would have considered the comments from
somebody out here in flyover country to be urgent.
I agree with some of the IPAS routines being very difficult to work
with, though I tend to use them VERY sparingly. I have a very hard
time doing visual work by numbers, which is why I'm not a programmer!
I think the deeper interface in R3 will yield a new generation of IPAS
routines that integrate more fully with the core program. I do not
believe the IPAS's should be part of the package, as most major 3D
packages (Wavefront, Alias, Softimage) are modular. The new IPAS
interface will come MUCH closer to "modular" than the old one, and I
hope that all developers out there put as much effort into the
interface as they did into the actual effect. After all, what good
is a fancy bit of code if "artsy" (mathematically handicapped in my
case <g>) types can't make cool pictures with it?
IPAS routines should not be interfaced purely through numbers and
sliders, the approach should be intuitive.
And I don't mind upgrading to a new version of a particular routine,
or even waiting for it, if it will be easier and better to work with,
and provide equal or better output.
Third party developers can better handle the vertical markets
as they can have experts in those fields to tackle the problem. On
the AutoCAD side you have a single general CAD program, add in third
party programs and you have around 3500 programs avilable to solve a
very very wide range of problems with the same base program. There
are very few AutoCAD stations that do not use one or more third party
add ons.
When it gets late and the routines are requiring infinite
teaking, just remember that the developers had to do the same thing
only longer. After you have teaked with a routine for days the whole
process sometimes becomes ablur.
In any program the first release is always alittle rocky, they
will improve with time.
>>(mathematically handicapped in my case <g>)
The politically correct phrase is "numerically challenged" <BG>
Greg
>> I have a very hard time doing visual work by numbers, which is why
I'm not a programmer!
I'll ditto that comment. I spent quite a bit of time with just a few
IPAS modules like hilite to get it down so I could be productive
working the numbers. All in all, though. I'm just happy as can be
that the stuff is even available at all. Therefore I can spend the
time to learn it. I won't make the mistake in the future of ordering
an IPAS to use in a tight deadline. Best to order and learn well
when things are slow business wise.
John, when I get frustrated with the lack of a gui on the ipas I just
remember GRASP 2.0 or more recently POV. Then, I appreciate programs
like 3DS and Topas. and IPAS.
>IPAS routines should not be interfaced purely through numbers and sliders,
>the approach should be intuitive.
Now tell me an example of that.
The time to apply for beta-testing is 7-9 months before a release. (ie, for R3
that would've been Jan-March of this year… for R4 it'll be Aug-Oct of next
year). Right after a release, all we're interested in is recuperation and
regrouping.
Regarding IPAS programs being difficult to use… I don't mean any offense at
all, but (as you said yourself) you're basically spoiled by the interface of
3DS, so you don't have any perspective here. Things like particle systems are
so incredibly difficult on SGI systems that they're impossible to use unless
you're a C programmer. Our IPAS routines for R2 were the first cut at some
very complicated processes. And since the IPAS interface in R2 didn't allow
for any graphic feedback or interaction, we had no choice but to represent
everything with sliders, buttons, etc.
We put a LOT of energy into making the IPAS3 interface in R3 capable of
providing a high level of interactivity just for that reason. Again, we try as
hard as we can, within a finite release schedule. You seem to want us to do
more, and we just can't do the impossible. And instead of doing our own IPAS3
routines right away, we're putting all of our available energy into helping
Autodesk make an IPAS3 SDK that'll make development easy for 3rd party
developers.
Regarding incorporating all this stuff in the core… totally unrealistic. I
really wish you'd stop looking at us as miracle-workers, and start having some
compassion for us as real human beings. We already work ourselves so hard that
we're constantly on the edge of burn-out, just to give our customers as many
capabilities to produce high-quality imagery as possible. Do you want us to
push so hard that we end up in a nut-house? Or a morgue? If we tried to do
what you seem to want us to do, we'd end up in one of those two lovely places.
Please, give me a break. I need it.
Thanks for the compassion,
– G
>>…wish you'd stop looking at us as miracle-workers… >> Please, give me a
break. I need it.
May I complement you on your tact and tolerance. I was ready to fire-up the
"flame"-thrower, but others here have already stood-up in your favor.
I must say that I'm kinda disappointed you're not a miracle-worker. Ho-hum, at
least Santa Claus is real. <g> Sorry to hear about the flu… It sucks.
Take care,
– Dave
We all recognize that you're working very hard! But it's not like
we're using a whip on you, right? You *are* working so hard for a
reason, and I think it's green. 🙂 I certainly don't hope you're
headed for the nuthouse or the morgue, but if you do, I'm sure you'll
be able to pay for it.
Meanwhile, turn the computer off as much as possible!
I wish I _could_ turn the computer off more, but I feel too great a
responsibility to my customers, and since Autodesk doesn't do direct phone
support, my sense of honor requires that I help get people over the "hump" of
installing R3 (hey, I know this stuff isn't easy).
BTW, I'm really taken aback by your comment:
>>You *are* working so hard for a reason, and I think it's green. 🙂
I realize that you were smiling there, but since you've been around for the
past 10 years watching me do this, even on Atari computers for which we charged
$79 for our 3D animation system, you ought to have a better perspective. As
you know, we had a motion control scripting language, 3D liquid crystal shutter
stereoscopic displays, video recorder controllers, 3D clip art (we were the
first we that, as you probably remember… we even had suitable-for-framing
blueprints done by Darrel Anderson that shipped with the clip-art disks and the
whole shebang sold for $19.95). I worked myself just as hard then as I do
now… it's been since 1984, and I've been pushing it for almost 10 years. At
that time, we were constantly living hand to mouth, and nobody said we were
doing it because "we were greedy" THEN.
I'm still doing it because I've got a vision of what I can eventually achieve.
And until I achieve that potential, the only thing that can stop me is "the
morgue or the nut-house". I'm trying to stay 2 steps ahead of both. The fact
that 3D animation has become more popular, and that Autodesk has done such a
great job of marketing this stuff, is just gravy.
Finally, money is as much of a constraint as it is a benefit. There are a lot
of obligations and pressures that go with having a successful product
(especially with a publicly held company like Autodesk) that are unique and not
terribly pleasant. I just try to do the honest best I can, and hope that
everyone else is working _with_ me as much as I'm working with them.
– G
I'm sorry, I didn't mean anything offensive by my reference to profit.
I certainly didn't say you were greedy, I said you were making
money. I think making an honest buck is a great thing. I'm
capitalist at heart, just short of "greed is good."
3D Studio is a product that makes money for a lot of other people,
too: animators, third-parties, dealers, etc. The money you make
personally is small change compared to the money-amplifying effects
your software and 3D-related efforts have had over the years, no
doubt. You've earned every cent! If you weren't concerned with
profit, you'd still be on the Atari, right? 🙂
I know you know this, but users (collectively) will always be asking
for the moon for $19.95, with a money-back guarantee. Don't let them
get you down when they beg for more features and more quality
software. Their requests are a strange kind of compliment, reminding
you that they expect more quality from you in the future.
I figured that your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I guess I'm just too tired
and my sense of humour has run down to near-zero. I think that your advice to
turn the computer off for awhile is the healthiest thing for me at the moment.
To get my enthusiasm and humour back I'd better unplug for awhile. I'm
considering shutting down Sunday night and taking the entire month of November
to chill out. I'll be gone from the 10th-on anyway. (it'll be a good test of
my willpower, at least 🙂
– G
All right Gary. Now you let us into a portion of you mine. What is
your final "Vision" in 3d animation? Or what would you like to
achieve that would finally set your soul to rest and say "Their it is
finally done, now I can go live in my south (or north) paradise"? ah,
ah, ah,…. what, what, what, come on say it.
Looking to the future
Carl
Although I'd LOVE to spill the beans and let you know where I'm going
with our future products, I don't think the folks at Autodesk would
appreciate my sharing my ultimate vision of where I'm taking this 3D
stuff publicly. That would give you (and all of our competitors) a
clear roadmap of my product development plans over the next 5-10
years.
Suffice to say that we're nowhere near it yet. And if I can pull off
what I think I can, things will be pretty exciting during the second
half of this decade. We've got some "bad ideas" in our heads.
The 80's were the decade for CAD.
The 90's are the decade for 3D.
The current momentum of hardware and software innovations will bring
us to an interactive threshold that we can only dream about today.
Well said.
If you feel a routine is problem because you have to teak it a
dozen times, remember the developer ends up running it easily hundred
fold that. All the possible uses and options on these types of
routines can not be checked. Some times the unplanned "features" of
a routine provide something more useful then the planned features. To
allow for the creative animator to create an unique effect often it
is better not to polish the rough edges.
>> I did just try a test render of Willow, and only got what looks like a
>> bunch of strings hanging off the ends of branches.
Roger,
Try re-mapping the Willow (or the Redwood, or the Pine) by choosing
Surface/Mapping/Adjust/Scale, clicking on the tree with the ALT key pressed,
and re-applying to the tree with Surface/Mapping/Apply/Object. That should
help.
Greg LeVasseur
Thanks for that workaround on the willow. My problems at the moment
have more to do with the image processing effects, but I'll be able
to use your suggestion on my next project, where I'll need lots of
different types of foliage. Thank you.
You're welcome. Gary et al. have come up with another workaround
you might try. Save the file as an ASCII text file and re-load it.
Make sure GARDEN.MLI is current. Have patience on the reload. Takes
time.