Cad people are uneducated, boring, bythebook, and they don't understand the basic principles of computer.
They are like programmers, most programmers code like spaghetti garbage. I know some people where I work that do CAD, they can't even save their work. And they believe that everything is magic in their file. I am so lucky I never had to import from cad. And another problem is the cad software (this is another retarded planet) Cad software are lagging 30years behind. (With the eception of SolidThinking). They sell their "joke" for 1000$ when they are nothing more than unflexible line editor. Here and there I try a CAD software that does 3D. They are teribly disapointing. And they export piles of problems. They say it support 3DS export and DXF but in fact they only export the extension .3ds at the end of the file name. I am sorry for you. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.neuroworld.ca -----Message d'origine----- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Neil Cooke Envoyé : Monday, May 15, 2006 3:56 PM À : [email protected] Objet : Re: The future of the cg workflow and cg technologie and their cost in $$$ new version Mark mentions Cad files. My own experiences involving frustration and vast periods of time-wasted have left me with an idea that maybe the Cad folk simply don't want anyone else to play with their files in any way at all. Perhaps its some kind of isolationist dependency thing on the part of their marketing strategy folk or something. Neil Cooke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Heuymans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:21 AM Subject: RE: The future of the cg workflow and cg technologie and their cost in $$$ new version > At 03:22 AM 5/13/2006 +0100, you wrote: > >Hi Jean, Tim and all, > > > >Just to say - keep this topic going - even expand it. I think lots of > >listers may find the views of those participating to be really > >interesting, I know I do. I enjoyed the little joust with Carlo recently. > >I look forward to reading these posts from you guys. It might be > >controversial, but at least its lively and healthy. > > > Agreed! Thanks everyone for sharing some interesting viewpoints. > > My 2 cts: > I'm often involved in importing architectural scenes made with Autocad. The > latest version ditched 3ds export... hm, RS can't import 3ds from Acad > anyway. So I have to resort to 3dsmax to import dwg and from there export > 3ds. What I get in RS is often only useful as a 2d overlay, it would take > too much time to fix the mess... the cad people are often sloppy and don't > realize their output could be part of a production pipeline. They never > heard of IGES or .obj... > Also: one 3ds isn't the other, dxf isn't dxf... You really can't trust a > spec sheet, you have to test things and base your workflow on practical > experience. With many import/exports in the workflow, the risk that > something isn't compatible grows. And it often ends up too big or too > small, or tilted, so you have to fix those things manually each time... > > Like many people here, I'm now stuck with RS because I don't want to learn > another fullblown 3d app. I grew into it since V1.4 on the Amiga.. loved it > ever since. > > About rendering: I don't want to use another renderer because of VSL. I > spent a lot of time playing with VSL and don't want to throw that away. > Besides that, render quality can be phenomenal! > For production, Realsoft's GI is problematic because 1) it's slow 2) it's > too resource hungry, especially for print resolution pics and animations 3) > AA and blur problems 4) glass and reflection problems. That doesn't mean > you can't produce great pictures with it - I just think it's not wise to > use it if you have tight deadlines. > > It wouldn't hurt RS to add a few more import/export options. There's no > question it's too isolated now. I really need dwg import for production > work... and please, I want to export complete models including textures, > uvw and animation! > > > -Mark H > >
