#Imagine 3.0, uhhh…
38 messages in this thread
[ continuation ]
As expected, Imagine feels a whole lot more like Lightwave now. Even if such
niceties as Bones and Kinematics aren't available yet, what _is_ there is more
than enough to play with for many, many moons. I'm sure you have many
questions, but for now, it's time I went to sleep.
Blaq!
Thanks Charles, there is a bunch of 3D renderheads that will be glad to
hear of the list you made. It is VERY much appreciated!
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
(Any render time >0 needs acceleration.)
>> s expected, Imagine feels a whole lot more like Lightwave now.
oh no, you said the forbidden word <g> (Lightwave)
-David
Just adding to Charles' great report: There are also 45 textures of which
about 30 are new and awsome! Bad news: Essence textures are broke! 🙁
…AutoPilot Engaged…
-Paul-
Mr. Blaquiere,
I appreciate your, "review" of Imagine 2.9. It seems that you
have spent a few hours with the new software. I am however a bit
upset that you make the comment that Imagine is more like LIGHTWAVE.
Imagine is Imaigne, just as Lightwave is Lightwave. We have not now
nor will we in the future attempt to emulate some other code set.
Other than that one item, we appreciate you comments. We look
forward to other comments as well. If you find any "BUGS" (real
ones) please call our toll free hotline or directline to let us know,
or please use this forum to send me mail directly. I would suggest
that you mail the bug reports directly to me instead of a general
post, just to make sure that indeed what you have found is a bug and
not user error or lack of explanation on our part.
Mike,
actually, I opened the Imagine package at 7:30 PM, and this list
was typed up at 11:00 PM, after a couple of hours of doodling in
Imagine. (I noted new features as I read them) Your addendum was just
perfect, by the way. Not a real manual, but certainly enough to get
any experienced Imagine user up to speed on all the new features.
Mucho thanks Mike. And please, lighten up regarding the inevitable
Lightwave comparisons. Like it or not, Lightwave is the glamourous
star of Amiga 3-D, and inspires lots of envy among its groupies;
however, its steep price puts it out of the reach of many ordinary
folks, and that's where Imagine comes in: a solid performer, with a
respectable feature set, at the perfect price. But just like people
who lust after Lamborghinis should be forgiven for blurting out
something like "the new Escort's leather steering wheel cover is
soooooo reminiscent of the Lamborghini", an occasional Lightwave
comparison will pop up online.
By the way, my point about Imagine 2.9 being much more
Lightwave-like referenced the beautiful sense of control one gets
when playing around with the new active Perspective view, which had
always been a visible difference in the way Imagine and Lightwave
interfaced with the user. I guess I could've said "Imagine is now
much more Caligari-like", but that doesn't inspire the same ooohs and
aaahs.
As was said in a political debate between our past Vice
President and a Senator from Texas Lloyd Benson to Dan Quale. " Mr.
Quale you are no Jack Kennedy."
My point is this. I dont think that Light wave is a
Lamborghini. It is a good product but I contend that it is not
better than Imagine. I talk to users all over the world and here in
NTSC land. There are those who feel that LightWave is the end all
and be all for 3D. They have a right to that opinion.
As far as being a shinning star of 3D for the Amiga I would
ask you to consider the following.
We have sold tens of thousand of more Imagine software than
there are toaster in the world. Many of those sales have been in
places where the Toaster dont work. Twice Imagine has been voted the
#1 AMiga 3D program by the readers of Amazing Computing Magazine.
We know of more than 7 movies that have used Imagine to do
special effects and images. There are numerous corporate videos and
films that have been made with Imagine, and 5 television shows here
in the US that have used Imagine (the ones I know of). Of couse
there have been thousands of commericals made with Imagine that have
been viewed world wide.
If I am sensitive about your comments it is because I feel
that Imagine has a much broader impact than you might have knowledge
of. That is not your fault for not knowing, we here at Impulse tend
not to blow our horn, we think that this kind of balbbering is
counter-productive. We want everyone to have the opportunity to do
good things, and not have the "PROS" constantly thrown in thier
faces.
Very few people can do the kind of things that a team of
artists can do with a more than casual budget.
Imagine is for everyone and we want you and everyone else to
enjoy what we have done. You can compare Imagine to anything that
you like, maybe now you realize or have a better feeling for why I
might be a bit sensitive.
OK enough Blah, Blah.
Mike
PS Thanks for taking the time to go through the software and
let others know what you found, I look forward to the next rev and
your comments, I hope that you will however be busy playing that it
will take more than a few hours to get to it all.
Again, Mike
And Bentsen was no VP.
Dave,
Thanks but reread my message I said he is a senator from texas.
Mike
Mike,
I'd like for some help with Imagine.
If I set the camera to track a object it won't automatically track it in
the Stage editor, I keep having to issue the Camera re-track command. Is
there a way around this?
The new perspective window is nice but without a auto-track feature it is
very inconvenient to set things up.
It would be nice if instead of a `Camera re-track command' there would
be a `Track' command followed by the `Find' requestor listing All
objects. This would make it very easy to track objects without
having to go into the Action editor.
Tony,
You are right, we are getting ready to put auto track in the
Stage editor so that once you make the track it holds for what you
have done. There are some draw backs to this feature. I used to use
track all the time, now with the new system I never use it. I use
the new mode in the stage and for me it works just the way I wanted
it to. However, I am not the only user, others have asked for this
feature so we will put it in.
You might say that is why we release 2.9 we wanted feedback on the
features that are there, we have many and that helps alot. You guys make the
difference,
Thanks for your help.
Mike
After using Imagine 2.9 for a while I wrote down a few suggestions I have
for 3.0. I don't have a printer otherwise I would have printed it and
mailed it.
Problems from 2.0 that are still in 2.9:
1: Repeating Cylindrical maps don't repeat. And it seems to stretch the
bottom part of the image that does get mapped.
2: If one applies a BrushMap to a object as a Flat X, Flat Z (for example)
then wants to change it to any other method of wrapping it keeps the
original orientation and doesn't auto-size.
3: Define the Altitude size without using the Y axis since this would NOT
allow doing a Flat map onto a object with any kind of thickness.
Bugs found in version 2.9:
1: In the Spline Editor the `OK' gadget is always ghosted even though the
spacebar works.
Suggesstions for Imagine 3.0:
1: There has been new features that have added more requesters, some of
these could be joined to make it easier to use.
For example, when doing a quickrender there is now a second requester
for palette info which I think should be integrated into the first and
changed to `toggle type' buttons. Since these won't be changed that
often.
2: The new pull down menu called `NewStuff' could probably be changed to
`Tools' since it won't be `NewStuff' forever. :^)
3: Automatically add a default light source to all scenes.
4: Make `Camera Re-Track' automatic. If the camera is tracking a object
you will NOT see this in real-time in the perspective view or any other
view. Or change it to a `Track' command which would apply to any object
instead of just the camera.
5: There was supossed to be a way to access the Timelines (Action Editor)
of a object from the Stage.
6: Cut and Paste in the Action Editor. Also add another command called
`Drag', so instead of having to click on every timeline and enter
numbers in requesters, changes can easily be made by just draging them.
And use a `Shift Click' to drag the `Transition frame #s'.
7: The preset `Gadget buttons' in the editors need to be editable from the
Preference editor because in some editors there is hardly any space
left over to add and some people don't use alot of the preset ones. The
Detail editor is a good example.
8: Whenever one enters the Stage editor there is a enter `Frame Number'
requester. This could be eliminated if the settings in the Prefs show
any of the `Warn' settings (WARN,WRNO) are set to False. My reasoning
behind this is that anyone who has any of those settings set to False
knows what they are doing and doesn't need to be bothered. At least I
have found little use for it.
9: Whenever one either tries to make a wireframe anim or just move to
another frame in the stage editor it has to re-load every object in
each frame. With small objects this isn't as noticeable but I have had
projects that exceeded 50,000 polygons and making a wireframe preview
it spent most of the time just loading objects. This is also seen when
one `GOes TO' another frame. I suggest keeping the objects in memory to
speed up the display. I realize there are now `Quick Edges' to speed up
redraws but doesn't help re-loading of objects.
10:The New Perspective view is Great! If the Zoom button also affected the
other views it would be easier to do things. Otherwise we have to be
manually zooming in and out.
11:I think you should have a few Projects included so people can get
ideas on how to do things. The Particle F/X is a good example, with a
project they can look at how you guys did it and expand from there. This
would reduce the `experiment times' since they would have a head start.
I hope you give some thought to the suggestions I have made here and maybe
add a few of them or give you other ideas.
Btw, is the Spline editor going to evolve into a 3D Spline editor? It is a
PERFECT logo maker.
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
(Any render time >0 needs acceleration.)
Tony,
Thanks, marked em down now I gotta fix em.
Mike
Mike,
I was playing around with States and I found something that I thought I
should be able to do. I know that we can now make Brushes/Textures `stick'
but I wanted to make a brush move over an object but whenever I make
another State with the altered brush the main State will use the same
brush placement. I CAN'T get a brush to move. Before I could morph the 2
objects but I thought that States could do the same.
Can different States have different Brush/Texture placements?
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
(Any render time >0 needs acceleration.)
I don't know why you're so sensitive about being compared to your
competition. LightWave has a reputation as being an easy to use
program that gives high quality results. I've used LightWave and I've
used Imagine and I know there are shortcomings in both programs. The
reason that LW seems to be more well known is because NewTek doesn't
make a secret of what it's used for. I can list quite a few movies
and TV shows that use LW graphics but I cna't name a single one that
uses Imagine graphics. You say you know of 7 movies and 5 TV shows
that use Imagine graphics and yet you don't list any of them. You're
so busy NOT blowing your own horn that most people think Imagine has
never been in any broadcast program. They see nice graphics and they
assume it's done with LW or 3D studio or some workstation software.
The only stuff you do see that says it was done with Imagine is
what's on your local BBS, so what you end up with is people comparing
HAM images done by Imagine novices to stuff like Seaquest and Babylon
5. Not a very fair comparison I'll agree, but it's the only
comparison they can make without Impulse blowing their own horn.
Jeff,
See my last posting to Blaq. Why dont you do a great picture
and then tell everyone what you did it with. We are gald to let you
blow your horn. And whats most important is this, people need to see
what others have done not a few people who work for a production
company and have a job doing what they do for money. Most of the
users of Imagine dont get paid to do what they do they do it for the
love of it. Maybe you get paid for it. I dont know. I guess however
with everyone screaming how great their product is, its nice to know
that there are those companies who choose not to join that din of
noise.
Every company has its purpose and goals ours is not to be the
center of activity we want you to be that center. We will continue
to imporve what we do and hope that you will see your way clear to do
a little horn blowing on our behalf.
Think about it.
Just cause everyone else does it does not make it right.
Mike
Hei Mike
What happens with the Dream Machine? Could you post any information on
it?
Price/tech/when??
Geir Molstad, FAMO as, Fax +47 22357797
Gier Otto Molstad,
Sorry not yet, but soon, around Christmas time.
Mike
PLEAASE dont drag this any longer. I'm realy tired of those nearly
war between you Amigans. Consider this your best friend comes along
saying: That girl is MUCH better as your wife, you realy must admit
that. Shouldnt you change your wife?? Doesnt this sound stupid? The
software makers are often more attached to ther product than their
wifes. So please all you "BANGERS" please let Mike Halvorsen, Mike
Uhman(Oxxi) and all other great Amiga contributors alone. If you have
any real problems with THEIR software (without comparing it to
everything else) then you leave them a message else call it a
WISHLIST.. P.s. Sorry for my bad english, i'm sorry you dont
understand Norwegian:-)
Your English is just fine, Geir Otto – and your sentiment is, I am sure,
shared by a very large percentage of the readers of this forum.
—Betty
>I am however a bit upset that you make the comment that Imagine is more
>like LIGHTWAVE.
I am sure he meant that Imagine is now as easy to use as LightWave,
at least that is what I understood.
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
(Any render time >0 needs acceleration.)
Anthony,
Imagine is easier to use than lightwave. I am sorry that upsets you
but facts are facts. You of course dont have to agree, thats the cool thing
about freedom of choice, you get to use anything you want, and have any
opinions you desire.
I am not a lightwave user, I am sure there are those who dont use
Imaigne who would indeed feel that lightwave is eaiser.
No big deal, its all in what you are used to.
Mike
I'm new out here although I have been following the crossfire
for a few weeks. Toaster this , Lightwave that, lots of strong
feelings out here. I just recently ordered my Imagine 3.0 (with 2.9
on the way), and I look forward to many productive hours & projects
with it.
I just wanted to say that with your strong feelings of
individual identity for your product, it shows the real commitment
and belief you have in it. I labored over which platform to chose &
which software to work in and after sitting out on the sidlines for a
while, I feel great about my decision. I look forward to joining
your forum in a contributing fashion in the near future.
Brendan,
Thanks for your support. You are right, people are very opinionated
about what they want and how they expect other to act or react. The most
important point is that you made a good decision to get in on the fun of 3D and
all the long nights and frustrations of doing the next best picture or
animation.
I would not pay to much attention to the blabber that goes on. Most of
the people on this forum are great and have lots of good suggestions and
comments that we take very seriously. From time to time a person tries to make
themselves famous for wacking at the vendors.
If you need help you can count on us and the other people who use
Imagine, they are a great bunch, and are always willing to help.
Good luck.
Mike
Mike,
PMFJI, _BUT_……….
If 'Imagine is easier to use than lightwave' (sic), then how come the
'2.9' version I got from you didn't even have an INSTALL utility.
Now, don't get me wrong, I can install anything I'm given, and had _NO_
problem installing your product.
HOWEVER, not including an install utility for those not familiar with
the Amiga, WorkBench, or your product shows the typical cavalier
attitude shown by certain software developers.
Basically, it's a situation of 'my way, or the highway.'
Since virtually all software – on all platforms – _usually_ comes
with some kind of install utility, any arguments you try to make
about it not being 'necessary' to include an automated install will
fall upon deaf ears. (It's really easy anyway, I wrote one for my own
products….)
Remember, you are selling your product to a wide and varied audience.
If you make it too hard to look at your product, then how many will?
If you are happy limiting your sales in this way, then so be it.
BTW, I think your concept of the $99 upgrade is great! I've got an
oldtime pal who works at Microsoft, and the concept of making money
by selling upgrades has made him a millionaire in the last few years.
I think the $99 price is the 'sell-thru' price of the software
industry – for that price, the end user feels like they're getting a
deal, and it helps discourage piracy. (I'd never used your software
before, but for the price, you got yourself another sale – something
you wouldn't have had at a higher 'upgrade' price.)
Geez, how robust you are with your topical humor. This
upgrade is just that, an upgrade, we assume people are not stupid, we
assume they can indeed read and have no problem taking the time to
copy a few files and execute a batch file.
When we release 3.0 as a final retail product we will of
course have a fancy dancy install script.
We have limited this version of the software to users of
record "ONLY" we know that they are smart enough to do a bit of
typing. How quickly we have become used to what is and how quickly
we forget.
The bottom line is I loved your joke and I am sure everyone
else did who takes the time to real all of this stuff.
We will always try to keep the price of Imagine in the realm
of affordability not just a way to stuff the coffers. Hope you enjoy
2.9 and I am looking forward to your response to 3.0.
Once again thanks for the jokes. 8:)
Mike
Glad you enjoyed my comments. I am also glad to hear you'll be using an
Installer for the full release – it'll greatly ease the acceptance of your
product by the many neophytes out there. (Esp. if you use the C= std.
Installer app?)
As I read in a magazine, 'I have seen the future of software,…..and it
is the $99 upgrade.' For me, that retail price is the 'sell-thru' point,
just like pre-recorded VHS tapes go gangbusters at <$20.
(Please excuse the follwing…:^)
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Eric,
You bet, I am however not sure what you mean about C=? installer. Help
me so we can address this issue. WE unfortunately do work in the dark from
time ti time, we dont get out much.
The price is what is right, enough to make a profit and not too much
for people to plan for.
I buy laser disks, they start out cheaper and I can beat them to death
and they still dont die.
Mike
I was gone for a week, so pardon my delay……
When I referred to the C= Installer, I refer to the standard install
utility made available to developer's from Commodore.
There are several benefits to using their installer:
1. It's designed to install software, and provides a nice GUI front end
w/o your having to spend time coding one. All you have to do is write a
simple plain text script that it executes.
2. Since a majority of software for tha Amiga uses this format Installer,
you will reduce your tech support load. If you use a non-standard
installer, there's a greater chance you'll have more people confused, and
then calling you……
As for the analogy with videotapes on the 'sell-thru' price. It was only
an example. I too, only purchase and rent videodiscs – they're far
superior to even S-VHS.
Talk to ya later…..
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Eric,
No to sound like a balloon head, but we dont really have a install
problem with 2.9. I agree we will have install when we ship final version, but
it does seem that Amiga users are smarter than some think. So far I have had
only one call with an install problem. Thanks for you help.
Mike
It's not a matter of the users being smart.
It's a matter of you being courteous to the user's.
Automated installs are standard on all professional applications.
Not having one creates a certain impression in the mind of the user.
In most cases, you will find more people complimenting you on including a
C= standard installer than you will if you force them to use the CLI.
(It's a big, changing market out there. It would be foolish to alienate a
large segment just because you didn't want to spend half a day making an
installer [heck, get some tester to do it…]. [I may portray the average
user as being somewhat boorish and petulant, but trust me, it's closer to
reality than we would all like to admit.] :^)
Thanks,
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
If you don't want to copy what other people are doing with their 3D
software does that mean you're going to drop the idea of inverse
kinimatics for 3.0? Real 3Dv2 has had that for quite a while and I'm
sure you don't want anyone to think you're stealing their ideas. ;^)
With the Screamer and R3D2 using the Warp card I guess it's a safe
bet Impulse will be avoiding RISC accelerators as well eh?
Jeff,
Second message, I think that you have no idea of what you are
talking about. Of couse we will do kinematic motion, much better
than other software that claims they have this, very difficult
function.
The screamer is $10,000. Or at least thats what I heard, how
many are you going to buy?
The warp board you speak of, supposedly made by Ron Henry, who
was in our office 2 years ago claiming that he had one done, has not
yet seen our front door, even though Mr. Henry claims he was going to
send us one or two for the last six months.
We will address any technology that is something you can
acutally buy and a product that is worth the money.
SO now that you have had your shot at being negative, how
about answering this.
Are you going to buy a screamer, if so we understand that
NewTek does not look kindly to outside developers for this product.
However if you are going to buy one, then I guess we better do
something just for you, so that you can tell everyone how great it
is.
Take a break jeff and smell the roses.
You seem to keep switching between the "We're not going to copy
anybody elses features" and the "Of course we're going to copy it,
and we'll do it better" modes. A few months ago I suggested you have
a look at the materials editor on Real 3D2 and try to incorporate
some of the better ideas into Imagines material editor. You didn't
even want to consider it because you said you didn't want to copy
anybody elses code. And besides you said, "Imagine 3 is going to have
something much better." Well, I've seen 2.9's texture editor and the
only change I can see is that you've broken the Essence textures.
That's what you consider better? You use the same "we won't copy"
argument every time someone suggests a feature from another program
and yet you don't hesitate to copy features you want.
As for the Screamer, I would consider buying one if I could find
enough work to pay half the cost of it in the first year. I'd be MORE
inclined to buy a Warp card simply because it will probably have more
software support and a lower price for equal performance. That's
something we'll have to see when both products hit the market.
The point is, you TALK about how you want to make Imagine the program
your customers want, but whenever someone suggests doing something a
little differently you get this "not invented here" attitude and give
some reason on why you can't use the suggestion.
I guess this is my last response to your comments. So far all
you have done is tell me of other software not make suggestions of
what you would like to see. Be creative, dont suggest that we copy
the hard work of another vendor. You would find problems with that
if we copied someone elses code.
Imagine has been invented by users who have had an open mind
and a clear vision of what they would like to see. We have thousands
of letters which out line in great detail what they want to see. Not
any of these letters suggest that we copy something from some one
else. We have noticed that many things done in different code ends
up being the same or very close. If you have a suggestion, think it
through and then react with a real suggestion, written down, with
pictures so that we can evaluate what you want.
I am not here to debate with you or anyone else this train of
dialogue that you desperatly want to establish. I invite you to call
me, at my expense, 1 800 328 0184 and we can to your hearts content,
debate what ever you want, providing I have the time, which if I have
it I will take.
I am here to help users who have questions about the software
and hardware we make, NOT to carry on with someone who seems bent of
having an argument. So, jeff, if you want to participate in this
dialogue I have given you the frame work from which I can and will
work. Comit your ideas to paper, put your ideas where you mouth
seems to be. I will be glad to review any and all suggestions that
YOU make, however simply saying, Hey these guys did it this way and
so should you, does not carry any weight with me or the developer
staff.
As for breaking the textures from Apex. Here is the deal, we
write Imagine, not textures from Apex. In order to do Kinematics and
other features, we had to change the object format. Also we have
improved the texture code by making them tackable. So I guess you
dont want texture tacking, like everyone else. We should in this
case not put in something the user base has asked for.
Apex will have to adjust their code, and maybe this time
instead of reverse engineering the code they can call us and we will
be glad to tell them how to avoid this problem in the future.
jeff, you are one angry person, and for no reason that I can
figure out. Like I said, take a breath. Remember, I have no
intention of spending anymore time with this line of conversation,
other people have suggestions and complaints that need attending to.
I look forward to YOUR suggestions and bug reports if you find
them.
Nuff said.
Mike
Mike,
Perhaps you're right and I am being overly negative about Imagine an
Impulse. I'll make a point of not doing that any more. I have learned a
lot from Imagine and produced some nice images with it. So, from now on
rather than complaining I'm going to try to be Imagine's number 1 fan.
Great I look forward to your suggestions and complaints. As
always our goal is to make Imagine a software product that you can be
proud of owning and be productive with.