#F/X or no F/X?
9 messages in this thread
I think we can all be pretty positive that Hash Inc. is well aware that
without effects, AM will not be as popular as it should. I think Jim Jonah is
probably right about Hash deciding that a new interface is a priority. I
personally think that anyone who thinks that the interface is too confusing or
difficult to use is just too lazy to learn it. But in order to attract new
users, Hash has got to make a program people want to use, and since it seems
that the #1 complaint is the interface, I would have to agree that it deserves
top priority. Ease of use is a big selling point to John Q. Public these days,
for hardware and software at all levels of sophistication.
Martin has shown that he thinks toward the future. He also realizes that
folks still have ties to the past. That is why there is a .DXF import/export
option. Anyone reading Martin's Minutes should know that he believes that the
polygon modeler is mostly a thing of the past, but because so many still use
.DXF files, he eventually included that capability.
There is a guy who works right across the street from me who is a Beta
tester for AM. According to him, they are working on gravity, but since there
has been no mention of this from Hash, I take it with a grain of salt.
Unfortunately, people have the habit of not liking change, some, to the
point of resisting it. They don't seem to understand that the computer is not
like a refrigerator or television that you buy and use for years, but it is
more like an Indy car; it requires constant tweaking, overhauling and
improving. In the next few months, we are going to see the $499 computer
system. Yes, it will be a slow, almost worthless piece of junk, but
Joe-I-don't-know-how-to-set-the-clock-on-my
-VCR is going to see an outwardly nice looking machine that can run almost all
of the popular games and software, and yes, even get you on the NET.
So he gets it home, and finally up and running with the help of someone
who actually knows what they are doing, and is ready to play DOOM II.
That's when Mr.-why-do-I-get-the-feeling-I've-just-been-suckered finds out
that he needs a math coprocessor, more RAM, a video accelerator card, a sound
card, a CD-ROM drive, speakers, and a monitor with something much better than
the .39mm hunks of blurry glass that are shipping with a lot systems even now.
Suddenly "Ha Ha! I got my system for hundreds instead of the thousands you
spent," suddenly comes back to echo with an icy chill in his ears as the hungry
dust is already settling down onto a shadowed lump of metal and plastic before
the attic is even closed.
Maybe that scenario is a little exaggerated, but take a look at reality.
Windows 95 is not going to be a completely 32 bit coded OS. There will be some
16 bit coding, and it will be there for basically one reason: Gates knoes that
there are millions of users who are running on only 4 megs of RAM and refuse to
buy more.
Why is the PC outselling the Mac by about 10-to1? Why is VHS the video
format of the household when Beta is much better? For the same reasons. Greed.
Mac systems are not built with any better parts or engineering that PC systems,
but the cost and architecture are designed for the sole purpose of lining
Apple's pockets. Sony was unwilling to share the beta format to create healthy
competition, so the public, not liking to be told it has no choice, made one.
Originally, True Type was a joint effort by Microsoft and Apple to force font
users into a single format. Agian, we didn't like being told that there was no
choice, so the first efforts of True Type failed. Until they were given away
free with Windows 3.1 and System 7. Suddenly there was a reasonable alternative
to Adobe, who, I think out of desperation to revive its lost market share, has
since purchased Aldus.
The point of all of this is that the users determine the sucess or failure
of any product. Like any other company, Hash, I think, is trying to please the
majority of us a majority of the time. Effects, obviously are a topic for
debate. Will we get them? I think we will in time. Most of us, to do the type
of work we want to, probably need them. I know that I do, so much so that I am
going to have to make a decision shortly to give up AM. I don't want to, but
the competition is fierce, and I can't afford to fall behind. I will always
support AM, and recommened it to anyone as their first consideration in buying
a 3D application, dependant upon what they want to accomplish. Nothing compares
in features and performance vs. price. If I do have to make the decision to
switch to another application, I will still keep up on AM's progress in the
hopes of being able to come back to it.
Michael S. Flynn
Michael,
>>>I personally think that anyone who thinks that the interface is too
confusing or difficult to use is just too lazy to learn it.
I have to disagree with this. Good interface is a very important. In addition
to the learning courve, you end up doing manually the job the computer should
do automaticaly. Refined interface can cut the amount of time it takes to
create things.
An example here is Imagine. It has a lot of things you are asking for… but
its interface is a big turn off. In spite the fact that it has more power than
3DS, more features, costs a fraction of it, can do ray tracing, AT1 fonts and
so on, until Impulse reworks the interface, it's acceptance will be limited to
a fairly small group of people.
As far as A:M interface I have mixed feelings… Some things are absoluterly
first class. With other you have to ask "WHY?!" (And I do understand this
program pretty well)
1) Why not to have 3D (sphere) material preview? 2) Why decalling can't be
acomplished without the long delays of loading and rescaling bitmaps, but with
simple ractangle first? (with multiple bitmaps in single ractangle for mixing
the types of mapping) 3) If to Skin a figure you have to build is as a whole,
why the program doesn't create the segments by simple grouping of control
points? 4) Why to separate Sculpture from Character and manualy redo something
that has been done earlier while modeling?
And so on. I hope the new interface will take all those "Whys" away. Than
we/they can concentrate on all the missing powers… explosions, rain,
displacement mapping, maybe even plug-ins — I wish I could see something like
Vista Pro or the new KPT Bryce _inside_ A:M… <BG>
Pawel
Pawel,
Maybe I'm not undetstanding what people mean by interface. To me, it means
the layout of the windows, title and menu bars, menus, tools, etc. Most of what
you described seem to me to be improvements on existing features, or new ones
altogether. I would agree that Sculpture and Character should probably be one
module. I based my opinion by being honest with myself about why I refuse to
work with Quark Express; I know PageMaker inside and out, overall it is a
better application, but the main reason is that I don't want to learn where all
of the functions I use in PageMaker are in Quark.
I have talked on the phone and online with HSC concerning KPT Bryce.
Officially, there are no plans to port the program over to Windows.
Unofficially, it is under discussion. I would consider buying a MAC just to run
KPT Bryce. I have never used or know anyone who has or uses Scenery Animator,
but I used to work with a guy who told me that they were adding a feature that
would allow you to import .DXF models into scenes and render them. I would
imagine that KPT Bryce employs some very revolutionary coding that may not
allow it to be open ended enough for importing objects for other programs, but
it would be great if its landscapes could be brought into AM. I have tried a
few different ways of using a .DXF exported .DEM in AM, but I wouldn't brag
about the result, especially since even a moderate .DEM file is about 4MB when
exported.
Michael S. Flynn
Well… First I would say If people read the manuals thorougly, then all of
the whys would not exsist. If you want skinning, then it has to be seperated…
what's the big deal??? I mean you still have to link hiearchys in most programs
which is simular… and doesn't provide a seamless effect…
Grady III
– Interface…as long as it's understandable…
Grady,
>>>First I would say If people read the manuals thorougly, then all of the whys
would not exsist. If you want skinning, then it has to be seperated… what's
the big deal???
I don't know what other people reading habits have to do with me asking
"why?"…<BG> I've read the manual many times over… Understanding how things
work doesn't necessary mean there aren't any better ways. What I am questioning
is the logic that forces me to spent hours doing things already done… The
parts were in one piece, why brake it apart and put together? The program
itself could do that internally.
Pawel
>I don't know what other people reading habits have to do with me asking
>"why?"…<BG> I've read the manual many times over… Understanding how things
>work doesn't necessary mean there aren't any better ways. What I am
>questioning is the logic that forces me to spent hours doing things already
done… >The parts were in one piece, why brake it apart and put together? The
program >itself could do that internally.
>Pawel
Mostly because how would the program know what to take apart??? What if you
needed othe r sections seperate, and the program didn't allow it??? If you
don't connect it when you model it, then it isn't something ou've already
done… just make it lke a continuation except seperate…
>>>Mostly because how would the program know what to take apart???
Grady,
You must have missed my earlier messages where I did explain how… In any
case, Steve does know about the idea even if it showed up to late for a closer
examination for A:M 3.0…
Pawel
Micheal,
I'm certainly not trying to start on OS war just giving my two cents and
defending my choise platform. Before I do, though, I should point out that I
own both Macs and PCs and use both daily.
>>Mac systems are not built with any better parts or engineering that PC
systems<<
BUT Macs give you more right out of the box, 16 bit sound input and output
built in, almost all bundle monitors are Sony with .28 pitch, not the .39 in
most entry PCs. Most can display thousands, or even millions of colors on 14"
and on some, 17" monitors without extra cost, AND most of all, the interface is
usually easier for non-computer literate people to get up to speed on (In my
experience). It has multination capabilities built-in, Networking built-in (no
stores around here sell PCs with WFW), SCSI ports, 32 character file names,
etc…
>>Originally, True Type was a joint effort by Microsoft and Apple to force
font users into a single format.<<
From were I sat, True Type was a Power Play to force Adobe to reduce or remove
the (rumor has it) $150,000 Postscript licensing fee to get the "Hints"
capability (so small points sizes print good on laser printers). It worked!
>> I know that I do, so much so that I am going to have to make a decision
shortly to give up AM.<<
Why give up on it, just use it for what it does best, and use other programs
to fill in the pieces! (Or is it Blow up the pieces?) <G>
On the price vs. performance issue, I think Hash has a great pricing policy,
especially when it comes to multiple copies and cross-platform
upgrades/additions.
Believe me, I am rooting for special effects, along with Postscript type
conversion (even just converting to 2D would be GREAT, especially if there was
a "Make Face" command!!) AND I strongly believe that the ONLY way Quark XPress
beat out PageMaker was the Extension Capabilities!!! (Hopefully A:M will have
plug-in's!)
Anyway, this is not meant to be "warring", just pointing out my point of view!
See Ya!
JIm Jonah
Jim,
Any right out of the box machine, either PC or Mac is not ready to do the
type of work we are doing. That is why I bought all the parts and put together
my own system. It would have cost me at least twice as much to put together a
Mac with the same capability. As long as the Mac is over-priced and closed
architecture, they are going to continue to get killed in the market. I would
own a Mac if the price and performance were at least comparable to a PC. The
Mac OS has its limitations just like DOS and Windows, but the nice thing about
the PC environment is that it much easier to customize DOS or Windows to fit
your needs. I have worked in a mostly Mac shop, and have been so much more
productive on the PC, that the Mac users conspired to have me terminated
because after seeing the speed and quality I was producing, the owners gave
serious consideration to becoming an all PC shop. If I had learned computing on
the Mac first, I probably wouldn't be using a PC now. I glad that my PC
training came first. It makes using a Mac easier than a Mac operator trying to
work on a PC.
The reason that I might give up on AM is that I like my realism. Combining
two animations from two different applications would eliminate almost all of
the interacting shadows. And being a firm believer that light and shadow
determine the difference between a good scene and a great scene, I find that
solution unexceptable. Besides, at the moment I can't another application. I
will admit though that I haven't experimented with Alpha Channels too much in
combining two animations, but I will experiment with it before I make a choice.
I think that Quark gained so much ground on Pagemaker because Aldus sat on
their butts for three years with a King-of-the-hill-pie-eating-grin between 4.0
and 5.0, and suddenly found themselves doing a gruesome imitation of Marie
Antoinette.
In order to keep the price stable for AM, maybe instead of adding so many
features, Hash ought to create their own 3rd party add-ons and market them with
2 or 3 different company names. That might fool some other companies into
thinking they are missing out (which they are!) and convince them to start
creating their own add-ons. That way, users could pay a base price, and then
add only feature they want or need.
Michael S. Flynn