Suggestions for 3-D?
44 messages in this thread
I'm thinking of investing in some 3-D software/hardware. Here's what I
have in mind. I'd like some opinions and/or suggestions:
Imagine for the 3-D software. This sounds like a good package, though I
haven't seen it demoed yet. Does anybody know if you can model in Imagine
without a 3-way orthogonal screen setup? I hate that.
Firecracker for the 24-bit card. The price seems good and it's true
24-bit.
I have Mega Midget Racer for the accellerator, I just have to invest in
the math chip. Should I think about anything else to speed up rendering?
That's it. I imagine I'll be attempting some 3-D animation, as well as
some architectural stuff for the fun of it. Transferring to video is
something I'll meditate on in the future!
-Glenn-
Imagine does require orthogonal views as do most 3-D model creation
programs. However, you can expand any view to fill the entire screen, and
a fourth screen is presented with a "3D view". Hope this helps. I use
Imagine and really like it.
Jim
I've gotten the impression from reviews that Imagine is strictly a
triangle-based system. No multi-sided polygons. Is this a real hassle or
is it something you get comfortable with? I really hated it in Sculpt3D.
Also, can you construct objects in the 3-D mode or are you limited to
construction in orthogonal-mode and viewing only in 3-D? I use Wavefront
at work & it's very easy to switch from ortho to perspective at the push of
a button. And is there anything you can tell me about Imagine's animation
capabilities? Thanks.
-Glenn-
I'd like to let you know that my company, Syndesis, has a program called
InterChange that translates between 3D modeling formats. We do sell a
converter that reads and writes the Wavefront format, allowing you to share
objects with programs like Imagine. Give us a call at (608) 455-1422 for
more information.
Yeah, I've heard of your object converters (in Amiga World I think).
That's definitely something I'd use!
-Glenn-
Caligari2 constructs in 3-D mode with point manipulation functions so easy
that you can use the program withoug even looking at the document, for the
most part. It also comes with a VHS Video tape tutorial.
wmc
Amiga World had an article in their latest animation issue & didn't
mention Caligari at all (though I did see a full page ad for he software
that aroused my interest). What are we talking in the way of price here?
-Glenn-
Glen, The 'Show Price' at AmiExpo (where I got to play with it and talked
to some happy users) was $259. I don't know that the store bought price
is, but retail is $399.
wmc
Get that Math coprosessor…and 32bit ram if your board supports it. Other
than that your plan sounds solid.
I wasn't sure about the 32-bit chips. I'll keep that in mind. Also, I
know the Wavefront system that I use at work isn't really a true ray-trace
renderer. They use quite a few tricks & shortcus to get the same results,
thus saving rendering time. Still, a frame can take on an average of 5
minutes to an hour to render on a DECStation 5000 (which is a fairly speedy
computer). What am I looking at in render time on an accellerated Amiga?
And is Imagine a ray-trace system or can it render in different formats?
Thanks.
-Glenn-
Imagine can Raytrace,Solid Polygon render,wireframe etc…
Glenn,
If you want to spend more time reading, figuring, experimenting, and
redoing that actually producing objects or animations then by all means,
get Imagine. It is difficult to find a more obtuse, less intuitive (except
to the authors and the people who originally learned 3d stuff in Silver)
than any program I have had the misfortune to work with on any platform in
the 15 years that I have been involved with computers professionally and
privatley.
It sounds like you want Caligari2. Not the broadcast version, but the
"consumer" version (unless you really want to spend $2000). It supports
HAME and DCTV directly, and saves out objects in Lightwave, Videoscape, and
Sculpt formats. If you really want Imagine you could get both and build
objects in Caligari, output to VScape, transfrom to Imagine via
Interchange, breing the objcect into Imagin for surfacing and animation to
the Firecracker.
wmc
Wayne, I don't want to start a '3D wars' battle, but did want to respond
somewhat to your criticisms of Imagine (and earlier Silver), mainly so
Glenn might get a 2nd opinion. 🙂
While I can easily imagine (smile) a better interface, better docs, etc….
I still found that I managed to get up to speed with Silver (and later
Imagine) reasonably quickly. I've seen others get up to speed pretty
quickly too. (One video guy in particular I know created a nice anim, w/
orig object, after two days (2-4 hours each day) of using it. He was a
real 3D novice before he started.
Impulse does seem to have a hard time putting out a really usable manual,
but thankfully we have had others to fill the bill. Steve Worley's new
'Imagine 2.0' manual is great. It would be nice if Impulse just shipped it
with the product, but for only $30.00 I'm not complaining. Given the glut
of 3rd party computer manuals in the PC/Mac world, it would appear that
most companies don't do a very good job with the manual? That's not an
excuse, of course, but maybe it does add perspective vis-a-vis the manual
inperfections?
I've played with Caligari as well, but really don't know it. You make a
good point about the 'friendliness' of its object editor, and then
Interchanging the objects over to Imagine. (hey, I still do much of my
object creation in Sculpt, and IC over to Imagine, I admit it) But the
Imagine editor has been growing on me. I wonder if I hadn't come from the
Sculpt mindset if I wouldn't be finding the Imagine editor pretty good
right now? I don't know.
Anyway, I've always respected your opinion around here; but did want Glenn
to realize that there is at least one satisfied Imagine customer here!
TTFN
–jp–seattle–
I'm very satisfied with with Imagine too. I really enjoy using it, and
now I enjoy it even more since I received the Steve Worley book. 🙂
I'll have to admit, though, that Lightwave makes animation very very
easy….even easier than Imagine IMHO.
Steve
John,
I'm glad you mention Steve W.s new book – checkout section 1.1 Warning to
New Users. It confirms my opinion. If you want to invest time learning
you will eventually be rewarded. If you want to start maximizing
productivity early, try another package.
I used to think it was just me. But AmiExpo changed all that. I was in a
class with 11 other confessed Imagine owners. All had roughly equivalent
opinions. Very powerful, but it takes lots of time and effort to get what
you want from it due to the contra-intuitive nature of the program
organization, user interface and terrible documentation. In addition, if a
person uses Imagine only once or twice a month for a few objects/seconds of
Anims, he spends a fair amount of time 're-learning' the program becuase of
its obtuseness. Even some famous graphic/animation gurus in the Amiga
realm apart from Steve say that Imagine is based on a philosophy and
approach that did not make sense until they spend considerable time on the
phone with the creator getting inside his head to understand the
assumptions and space form which he came. After that, they claim, it was
easier to learn as they had a point of reference, yet it was still not
'intuitive' even with that knowledge.
I'm not being emotional or flaming. I have the program, I continue to
upgrade it, use it and buy about every book/video taped tutorial on the
program. After a year and a half with the program (no prior Silver
exposure – Sculpt 3D/4D only) I still don't 'get it' and have to labor
through things that are a snap in Lightwave, for example. Like, try
wrapping a map of the world onto a globe in Imagine. THen try to do it in
Lightwave. I gave up after 4 days about 6 – 8 hrs per day trying to do it
in Imagine. I accomplished it in 15 minutes in LW and in the next 4 days
did 3 different versions of earth fly-by/landing animations. Now, if I was
getting paid for producing, based on that experience it would be clear
where some extra room on my Hard drive would come from.
[ MORE ]
I don't quite agree with your experiences on Imagine.
I am a casual Imaginer. I played with SA4D for a while, and got a copy of
Imagine quite a while ago. I tried to use it, tried to wrap things onto
spheres, tried to get it to do anything except a mirrored sphere over a
checkered floor, and couldn't get anywhere. I shelved it.
Then I got ahold of Imagine 2.0. Imagine 2.0 is Imagine 1.0 with a lot of
the quirks dealt with in some way… Not necessarily made perfect, but at
least made understandable.
For example, in Imagine 2.0, if you want to wrap a brush onto a sphere, you
just do it. You don't have to edit axes, and it doesn't screw up if you
don't put the axis in exactly the right place… You can turn on
Refraction and Shininess and not have your object just turn black (or
somthing similar).
Anyway, to anybody who is thinking of getting Imagine, make sure you get
Imagine 2.0, and make sure you get Steve Worley's book, Understanding
Imagine 2.0. Don't read the manual, read Steve's book.
Imagine has a LOT of power – but it's quite well hidden. For example, play
with some of the F/X once you figure them out. Or try growing an object
from a spline path. Or combining multiple textures and brushwraps. You
can do some wild stuff with it.
…Steve
Steve,
I justa wasted 4 hours tonight trying to render the hubble telescope object
that was uploaded here. Rendered once very grey in spite of the fact that
I chose white in the attributes. I repeatedly saved from the attribute
panel with the block that has an object name to fill in that I have yet to
figure out what that does. Then I save the object from the detail editor
menu, go to the stage editor, load the saved object, position 2 light
sources, line it up in the camera view, save, go to the project editor
render the frame and voila – a blank black screen. GREAT program….<grrrr
|:^{
wmc
I've run into the same problem, but I've just tried to duplicate it, and I
wasn't able to. The solution I used before was to check the settings in
the action editor. If I remember correctly, the Light Source attributes
weren't set. Try checking that. If I can duplicate the problem, I'll try
and be more specific with the solution.
Steve
Steve,
Maybe that was it. I got one very grey image once when I had phong
selected. BUt every try after that – no go.
wmc
Wayne,
I don't quite know how to say this without turning it into a personal
comment aimed at you. This is definitely not my intent. I agree that it is
hard to get Imagine's brush mapping right at first, give the sorry state of
their documentation. (Even though 2.0's manual is a valiant effort, it
needs a good _reference_ manual to accompany it) But I've had those darn
texture axes explained so often, in CIS and Usenet messages, in online
tutorials, Amiga World articles, how-to-videos, and in Steve Worley's
invaluable new book, that I find it hard to imagine how someone who admits
to having been exposed to most of the aforementioned sources could _still_
get it wrong.
I mean, one night I got a phone call from a friend who'd been busy
learning Imagine and wanted to know how to map a world map onto a sphere to
create a planet. I'd never tried Wrap X/Wrap Z at that point, but I figured
I'd give it a try. I coached him over the phone, and in no time flat the
both of us had a wonderful planet floating around. _Worked the first time_.
Hmmm. I can't remember ever doing a Wrap X/Wrap Z since then. Let me
flip over to Imagine and see if I can duplicate it. <Time passes… ahh,
the beauty of multitasking!> Yep, it worked!
I have to admit Imagine is a tough program to learn. But Steve Worley's
book explains in crystal-clear terms. I wonder how it compares to other
similarly-priced packages, such as the new $400 Caligari, 3-D Professional
and Real-3D.
Blaq!
Claigari2 at AmiExpo was $259. What sold me on it was when I asked this
guy sitting at an Ami with Caligari running to show me how to do this then
that etc. All the things that were difficult or obtuse in Imagine. He did
every one of them without hesitation or difficulty. Then I asked him to
convince me as to why I should invest in the package when I already owned
Sculpt, Imagine and Lightwave. His reply was, "Oh – I don't know anything
about that stuff – I just got Caligari two weeks ago and haven't played
with it much. I don't work for these guys. The guy you want to talk to
took a break. I'm just playing around until the next seminar starts…"
I ordered Caligari, needless to say.
As for the Imagine brush wrap I've tried it over and over everywhichaway.
It flat doesn't wrap without major holes AND distortions. As the manual
admits, like square wrapping paper around a basketball. There is either a
huge bunch of extra paper or you don't completely cover the ball. Anyway,
the real issue is even if it CAN be done (sorry, I'm taking a Missouri
attitude on this one) is that if it takes many hours or days to figure
something out in Imagine that can be done in Lightwave or Caligari without
looking at the manual, in the first try in five minutes, then I'd have to
say Imagine will be a commercial failure except with the 'cult of Silver'.
It doesn't have any extras the other programs are lacking that make it
worth that hassle.
BTW, Oran Sands had trouble with the same problem on Imagine. So imply
what you want about my mental capacity, I feel MUCH better knowing someone
of his calibre had trouble. (Also, I did a short Mensa test and did very
well on it. :^{&} <– Bronx cheer face.)
wmc
Wayne,
as I said, I never wanted to imply anything about your mental state.
(I'm also Mensa material, BTW) And I agree that Caligari looks to be much
simpler to operate; now that the new, lower-priced full-featured version is
out, I expect to read a lot of interesting articles and message about it
this year. To be honest, I haven't had enough exposure to all the Amiga 3-D
biggies to know whether Imagine is still at the top of the heap. I do know,
however, that someone who does go out and buy Imagine (plus the requisite
Understanding Imagine book, now offered at the special price of $20 direct
from Impulse) will have a very capable program in their hands. Whether they
can tame it is another question, though. And that's where personal
preference, attitude and mindset come into play.
Blaq!
Well I have been using Imagine and I like it although I think it could
be improved even more than what it already has, and it has improved.
I have seen Caligary but I don't really see any power there, true it
has a nice interface but is lacking in motion control and support
from other vendors. I haven't seen any object converters for it, but
then again I haven't really looked. The consumer version does not
output to 24-bits only HAM and psedo24-bit formats like DCTV and
HAM-E, for those who have these it is no problem but if later they
decide to move up to a REAL 24-bit display device upgrading Caligary
just to add 24-bit is in the thousands of dollars. And we thought
Imagine and Toaster had expensive upgrades :^).
Well mate ya really don't NEED any object converters for Caligary as
it imports Sculpt and Videoscape objects directly
Well I wasn't really thinking about importing, I was thinking about saving.
Once you save in Caligary format your stuck in that unless soeone has made
a cnverter for it.
– via Whap!
Best talk to John Foust over in Amigavendors Syndesis area he may be able
to help ya with Conversion FROM calagari
As for Caligari's import of other formats, I have heard a few customer
complaints about the way it works when it comes to point editing those
objects. I don't own Caligari v2, so I can't say for sure – this is
something you should check into.
Howdy John,is the new Interchange avail yet?
[ continuation ]
Well, maybe I'll catch on to the unifying principles underlying what appear
to me to be a chaotic interface after I work my way through Steve's new
book. Then again, maybe I'll take solace in the fact that I found 11 other
souls in the same room who felt as stupid as I did over their experiences
with Imagine.
John, no war intended. You have the advantage on me since you 'grew up'
with Silver, apparently. So, I'll cop to my density and withdraw the
field is yours… wmc
No war at all 🙂 I can't say that your experiences with Imagine are
unusual; there certainly have been enough poor comments about creating
objects (in particular) in the prog over the years to warrant a presumption
that it is difficult to use.
Like you said, I 'grew up' with Silver. Was learning both Scult and Silver
at the same time; given the two I preferred (and still do) the overall
Sculpt interface.
But I didn't find Silver/Imagine that difficult, and it is certainly a
great deal more complex and capable than Sculpt was. Still, isn't there
some statement like, 'genius is not making complicated things complicated,
it is making complicated things simple.' (or something like that). Maybe
Impulse should find the quote and post it on their wall; refer to it often?
🙂
–jp–seattle–
John,
'Course the other view is that Impulse was kind enough to supply Steve
Worley with a neat little side income. He is a nice guy so in a round
about fashion, they are good to nice guys :^}
wmc
ARRRRGHH I HATED Sculpt 4D's object editor,I was plainly Destroyed by Cyber
Sculpt on the ST which is VERY similar modeler to Imagine. I just CAN'T
live without Drag Box for picking points to make models the other way is
toooooooo tedious.Just figgered I'd throw in my 2 cents
Wow, now there's a thought! Sounds like Caligari2 has the friendlier
interface, while Imagine has erhaps better rendering capabilities (with
24-bit). I know one dealer mentioned that one of the schools in the area
taught classes in Imagine because the new version was so complicated. I
assume I have a head-start with my Wavefront experience.
I'll have to do some shopping. Maybe find a store that'd have a demo
version of both programs available.
-Glenn-
Glenn,
If you are in the NYC area, Octree will probably show at WOC in April. You
could go play with it there. Im not sure about Impulse.
wmc
Nope, I'm in the Indianapolis area. I've got an Amiga store down the
street that seems to have no problem with opening & trying out software
before buying it!
-Glenn-
Glenn,
I basically agree with everything you mentioned. Some inexpensive
add-ons are:
* Understanding Imagine 2.0, a book by Steve Worley that explains in
crystal-clear language every signle feature about Imagine 2.0.
$30 from Apex Software Publishing, 405 El Camino Real, Suite 21,
Menlo Park, CA 94025
* Pro Textures, a set of 8 _useful_ textures to wrap or reflect on
your objects. They include bricks, water, gold, two marbles, clouds,
rocks and umm… stone? Included are HAM and 24-bit versions, and
they are SEAMLESS! Each image has been retouched so that the left
edge matches the right; same for top and bottom. This means you can
repeat a texture without any discontinuities. A real bargain at
$59.95 (? — seems like I paid less) from Amazing Computers, 1441 E.
Fletcher Ave. #1450, Tampa, FL 33612.
I was also wondering … I remember way back with Sculpt 3-D (before
there was a Sculpt 4-D) you would build the object, then point a camera at
it. But you had to render the frame before you were sure everything was
lined up correctly. With Wavefron you build the objects in one program
then transfer them over to another program to set up lights, cameras,
reflection maps etc. But you can see what you'r doing immediately thru the
camera(s). Is this also true of 3-D software for the Amiga? I hated the
old Sculpt way of doing this!
-Glenn-
Imagine allows ya to "SEE" what the Camera is seeing without rendering the
scene.It is able to do a "Preview" in Wireframe,solid and also gray shaded
Works great tho ya obviously WON'T see brush maps etc hope this helps
ya.BTW I use Imagine exclusivly tried the old Caligari and Sculpt 4D and
went insane
Okay, that's great. I can undertand not being able to see things like
maps & surface properties in quick-render mode as these are computationally
time-consuming. Sounds good …
-Glenn-
it is VERY Good prg but as MANY peopel have probably already told ya it
isn't easy to do alot of things in Imagine,It's not a user friendly prg(But
I'm used to that hehehehe) Brushmaps espescially seem to defy logic.I'm
gonna look into Caligari 2 myself as I keep hearing good things about it's
ease of use.There's a Demo version floating around too
Glenn,
Imagine 2.0 has a handy-dandy Quickrender feature that will do a
Scanline rendering of whatever is showing in the perspective window. You
wouldn't believe how often I use it! And contrary to what Peter Greci says,
it does show brushmaps; 5 minutes ago I composed a reply to Wayne Cole
where I'd wrapped some clouds around a primitive sphere and done a
Quickrender to see what the object looked like.
Imagine 2.0 is a solid upgrade that doesn't add much in the way of new
features; (things like global fog and backdrop picture and such) it
addresses the productivity-oriented features that were lacking in earlier
versions, or didn't work correctly. I suggest you give this package a long,
hard look. You could also buy Steve Worley's book: a $30 investment may be
smart when you're considering a $xxx package. You could then sell the book
to a local Imagine buff if you decide to go with another program. Certainly
Steve's book would give you a complete rundown on Imagine's features.
Blaq!
Once again I keep referring back to what I know (wavefront). They have
a quick render mode on a frame in Preview (basically a jaggy render) that
lets you see what the image will look like. But they also have a
quick-shade mode which pretty much lets you know how your lights are set
up. And this is fast enough to render during frame changes (animation).
The battle here is hot & heavy for both sides (Imagine & Caligari). I'll
see if I can find the $30 book on Imagine and see what's up.
-Glenn-
Dude I said that the "Preview" windo doesn't show the brushmap,never said
that the Brushmap don't show when ya do a quickrender,I guess I
wasn't clear in my msg.Sorry Folks.Just did a Nice Rendering of an T2 like
android with a Digitized Swamp pic Global mapped and as the Backround looks
VERY Realistic,I'll UL later in the week