Considering someone took the time to make a block breaker in ICE, i don't know if we get to laugh that hard :P
On 14 February 2014 05:09, Guillaume Laforge <[email protected] > wrote: > LOL > > Cinema4D + Asteroid sounds so Amiga (the first platform of this 3D app). > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Sebastien Sterling < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> You can do it in cinema4D ! with the asteroid belt deformer, its right >> next to the popcorn deformer and the flap your arms like a bird deformer ! >> >> >> On 14 February 2014 03:49, Guillaume Laforge < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Btw, would love to see how to build such asteroid belt in Modo ;) >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matt Lind <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Below: >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto: >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Luc-Eric Rousseau >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:26 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Survey - how would you do this? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Matt Lind <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> Allows us to define our own primitives, data structures, and >>>> treats those data structures as first class citizens in the API. >>>> >>>> >yeah, with only experience with Softimage's SDK one might think that's >>>> >something special. But it's a common thing to do with Maya. >>>> >>>> [Matt] >>>> I was paraphrasing a comment made by one of our engineers. Although I >>>> have run into the issue myself more than once. >>>> >>>> >>>> >sure, Fabric requires no work at all to make it usable for artist.. >>>> >it's magical. (Does not really answer the questions about your uv >>>> editing, retopology, and reduction problems, though) >>>> >>>> [Matt] >>>> Never claimed it did. Only said it's closer in paradigm to what we >>>> need, and it still needs to mature for us to give it a serious look. What >>>> it does offer is the ability to take control of the situation and develop >>>> what we need without re-inventing the wheel from scratch every time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >About authoring stuff that would not be obviously better authored >>>> directly in the game engine: >>>> >there are a lot of custom authoring tools out there where the tool is >>>> actually the Maya running in library mode. >>>> >You have no way of knowing this if all you see is a video of it on the >>>> >web, the maya UI is not there at all, >>>> >it looks like it was a custom tool written from scratch. Maya in >>>> library mode takes no licenses. All of this is simply >>>> > inconceivable from a Softimage point of view, and it was a factor in >>>> getting kicked out of the bigger places. >>>> >>>> [Matt] >>>> The point of editing in the game engine is changes to the engine are >>>> immediately available to the artist creating content. What they see is >>>> what they get, and with real time feedback. A large portion of any >>>> artists' day is spent waiting for files to export from the DCC and collate >>>> into the engine. In some cases many minutes per export/collate. That is >>>> not iteration friendly and problematic for engineers as they have another >>>> set of code to maintain and keep in sync. Having a Maya backend in >>>> library mode doesn't solve this problem. >>>> >>>> One problem we continually face is the ability to see an asset in the >>>> context of the game with proper lighting, fx, and other game specific data >>>> in the authoring stages. An artist needs to see how a reflective surface >>>> will look in a particular zone of a world. You cannot easily replicate >>>> that in a commercial DCC. Likewise, it's not simple to recreate the DCC's >>>> editing power for creating raw assets. The process of moving towards the >>>> engine has to start somewhere. Right now many games have level editors, >>>> texture paging editors, and so on. Those tools need to come together and >>>> start incorporating raw 3D data into the mix where it can be more easily >>>> edited. That's the next generation of tools. Most engines already define >>>> how animation works and exposing transform manipulators and FCurve editors >>>> wouldn't be too much of a stretch beyond what's already in the system (in >>>> comparison to doing the same for modeling, texturing, etc...). The DCC >>>> shouldn't be dismissed, but the commercial vendors have to stop working >>>> like a cable company and forcing customers to choose off their menus to get >>>> any signal at all. >>>> >>>> >There are other stuff at Autodesk that is moving away from putting >>>> everything directly in the DCC when >>>> >it makes sense. For example, shaderfx is a realtime shader editor >>>> that runs also out of Maya. >>>> >The Bifrost and xgen engines are also separate from Maya. >>>> >>>> [Matt] >>>> Does not apply to our situation. Make sense for small to mid sized >>>> studios that work with commercial engines where they're limited in what >>>> they can modify. Commercial tools tend to develop towards a spec, and is >>>> only useful for consumers of the spec. Once you move out of the spec, the >>>> tool is less useful because it cannot always accommodate. We built our >>>> engine from scratch and in some cases don't follow the same standards as >>>> the rest of the industry because we needed to do certain things more >>>> efficiently whether it be how we pack data or crunch the numbers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
