Thanks Tim and everyone for their posts on this. I don't have any choice. I have RS which works like a charm for what I need and I have C4D which I can't figure out at all and have given up trying. As someone once said ... folk will very often stick with the GUI they first come to terms with: in my case RS.
Certainly am glad that I don't have to interface with any commercial pipelines but that's because I'm a coward, lazy, old and stupid. But, viva 3D graphics ... regardless of the circumstances one approaches the work within. Neil Cooke ----- Original Message ----- From: "BT-3D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:25 AM Subject: AW: The future of the cg workflow and cg technologie and their cost in $$$ new version > > You are 100% right, but remember the title is "Future". > Ok ;) Future then. > > > Import export is sometimes faster than switching mode in Maya or > > in Houdini. > > Maybe sometimes, I don't know, I never worked with Houdini. But if you have > to change just some small things, I think it's easier to do in one > application than to switch. > > > It is faster to edit UV in UV mapper pro than in Realsoft. > > Sure. > > > Learning Houdini is as long as learning 20 other applications. > > Mastering a software like XSI, Maya, Houdini is almost impossible. > > Why? Do you think to learn 20 small applications with their own workflow and > own thoughts of logic is faster than learning one more complex software with > one workflow? I'm really unsure in this point. > > > In a studio no one use the software entirely ony 1 or 2 modules > > per artist : > > texture, material, modeling, animation, lightening, rendering, > > compositing. > > Besides the fact that there are often 3D allrounders also, I think most > people know a least roughly about the other features, because they have to > work hand in hand. The modeling must fit the animation purpose and so on. > > > Why would someone need to master renderman when there is plenty > > of software > > that connect to that renderer? > > That is really not your argument, or? The one thing that makes renderman > outstandig and used in so much productions is it's flexibility. When you > have ever worked with it you will know that most studios have their own > development team just around it and have developed their own pipeline. There > are very few converters at least when it comes to the shading language (the > really important part of this renderer). You don't use it because it's > there, but because you can modify it to your purpose. > > > You are right, I never worked for a studio. > > But I work with a team of 3 other people with all different tools. > > I also worked this way a few times and it works fine. The only thing I want > to mention that this is not in all circumstances the best way. Sometimes you > have to work closer together, in particular when there are a lot of fast > changes. > > > Ok, but admit that for the price and feature : buying many > > dedicated app is > > better. > > > > For 500$ of many small applications, you get more power than a full > > software. And if you are not happy, you are less dependent on the software > > maker, you can change easely the current app that is lagging. > > And have to learn it. > > > By dividing your problems into smaller other problems you are more > > independent. I mean you don't like the renderer, you change it. You don't > > like the modeler you change it. You don't have to wait 3 years for the > > company to implement it. > > You don't change that easily a renderer if you a) have a deadline b) must > know the tool 100% in production. It sounds to me like people say: Where is > the GI button? Where is the make beautyful button? If it isn't there simply > take another renderer. I personally prefer it to search for a solution first > before simply changing the renderer. If I really need a special feature I > will do it, no question. But often there is allready a way to solve the > problem. > > > By forcing your workflow to use many software you may access things that > > will never be done in a full package : tree/plant editor, terrain > > generator, > > character generator, motion for character. > > That's why I said 'no studio uses only one tool'. Special tasks require > special tools. > > > In my experience it is better to master a limited software than not > > mastering a much more powerfull software. > > I think it's surely good to have an eye on all kinds of tools. You have to > be flexible, that's no question. But if you can handle a tool which can be > used for the whole project, where is the problem? > > > Knowing a software 100% aloud you to think about the solution right in the > > beginning of the project. > > And that's exactly the reason why you have to know the tools (one big > software, or 5 small ones). And I personly think it's easier to learn one > workflow instead of 5 different which will maybe change within the next > project. Don't get me wrong I'm the last one who believes in one software. > There were rarely a project in the past where I only use one software. But > in most cases one was the main application and the others were only for > special tasks. > > > Ok, you are right but le me win on the price : it is a cheaper and more > > powerful solution to buy many dedicated 3D app than buying a one that > > pretend to do everything. Even if it may be difficulte to go from one > > another. > > Ok, cheaper for you but maybe not cheaper for a big studio. As I mentioned > in most studios is a slowly grown production proofed pipeline. > > Anyway, I think we both know our agruments now. Let's do something creative > again :) > Best > Tim > > >
