>We've used WCS ourselves and it's an excellent program, but we feel that it
>suffers because it tries to be all things to all users - is it a 3D
>artists's tool or a scientific tool? Sure WCS allows you to set every
>conceivable option under the sun, but it does so at the expense of a
>difficult user interface and steep learning curve. That's not my opinion -
I agree with that assessment, but not the intrepetation . However, that's a
feature not a detraction. Given the choice between an awkward-seeming
interface conjoined with control and flexibility, and an easy interface but
limited ability, I'll go with control and flexibility thankyou.
<digress>
The software industry and the users in general need to a learn to find a
better balance between easy-to-learn and easy-to-use (not the same thing at
all). True I found WCS quite daunting at first and almost gave up on it.
This was in large part because at the beginning I didn't try and _learn_ the
program, I tried to _use_ it.
With most popular GUI applications this works -- after a fashion; how many
people have you watched habitually use tabs & spaces to indent paragraphs
instead of a straightforward indent? Or backspace/delete half a sentence
just to insert or change one word?
When I gave up on intuiting WCS and _read the manual_, everything changed.
When I gave up the assumption that I already knew how to use it (because it
was a GUI, and all GUIs are the same) and admitted my ignorance, learning
was easy. From that point it only took a handful evenings before I was
cranking out Before & After visions of a potential open pit mine.
In summary, WCS is only a steep learning curve if you don't want to do
homework. Granted, it has a very -long- learning curve, but it's not really
steep.
</digress>
Anyway, choosing between easy/advanced or simple/complex programs is pretty
much a philosophical/emotional/prejudiced decision. So yes, G2 is not aimed
at the same market as WCS, but that's not the way your intitial announcement
read. Which is why I had to throw in my $.03 (canadian eh?)
>from the ground up to do that. True this version has to import via MIF/SHP
>files, but the code structure is already in place to use TAB files
directly.
>
>Furthermore the hooks are there to do database stuff in the way you suggest
>and more (two-way for instance) We'll also be publishing a development SDK
>for this in there near future so you can add your own interfaces. We think
>we win on this one.
This is a development I shall watch with great interest.
>G2 v2.1 uses the Terragen atmospheric model. Matt Fairclough (Terragen's
>author) is part of the team who've contributed to GenesisII. So we stand
by
>our statement that GenesisII produces the most realistic images of any
>commercial program.
I didn't know that. Perhaps he held some stuff back though? Not entirely a
tongue-in-cheek comment -- the Terragen images on Fairclough's site look
much more realistic than those on Geomantics. Not really a fair comparison
with only two G2 images though. Probably an academic observation since I
think the keyword is "commercial". :)
>For comparison we suggest you compare
>http://www.questarproductions.com/images/GISWorld.jpg
><http://www.questarproductions.com/images/GISWorld.jpg> from WCS (which
was
>a GIS World front cover so presumably an image they're proud of) with
>http://www.woolleysoft.co.uk/img/dee2.jpg
>http://www.woolleysoft.co.uk/img/dee1.jpg . Also we'd like to underline
>the fields in our images. We're located in Europe and this kind of effect
>is very important here as the vast majority of our landscapes have similar
>features. Again GenesisII was built from the ground-up to do this with
>minimal effort.
Yes, Dee1&2 look much more realistic than GISWorld, but you are comparing
current G2 with 2 year old WCS. These are a little more current:
http://www.questarproductions.com/images/covereom.jpg
http://www.questarproductions.com/images/BlueMesa.jpg
http://www.questarproductions.com/images/FogBay.jpg
http://www.questarproductions.com/images/jfarm.jpg
As I mentioned earlier, having only two G2 images to compare to is not
really a fair comparison, a variety of scene types are necessary. It's a lot
easier for a distant hazy mountain shot to look realistic than a
close-no-fog shot.
Anyway, for me the debate was never really about near photo quality, but
rather total usefulness. Perhaps if I'd read more carefully:
>The primary mission of G2 is to produce high-quality photo-realistic images
>based on real-world (GIS) data.
...I wouldn't have embarked on such a long winded counter article. Then
again, maybe not. :-)
Anyway, nobody else seems to have joined in, if you want to continue the
discussion maybe we should move to email (?)
cheers,
-matt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
"unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
