Well, I guess I understand what you mean, though yours is not my point
of view.
In my opinion it is especially the GUI that has become better, even much
better.
When I started with R3D I was simply overwhelmed by the interface and
the way you HAD to work with the program.
In some respects RS3D is still that quirky when, for example, no matter
what I do, I am not able to understand how to use the "scale/move/etc.
1D/2D/3D" tools.
From my perspective Real 3D was in some ways absolutely
counterintuitive and overly complex - designed from the viewpoint of a
mathematician, not an artist.
RealSOFT 3D has made progress in this respect, making things more
visual, more "what you see is what you get"; in my opinion, the
interface has evolved, though it still shows where it comes from.
Strangely the things that I don´t like in RS3D are in a way also the
things that I really like - this straightforward way of handling things,
this direct connection to base-attributes of objects without a fancy
interface that keeps you apart from what lies unterneath a nicelooking
surface (like in, for example, Truespace).
But while this "design-paradigm" lets you access objects directly, it,
in a way, also hinders an "artistic" approach; I often HAVE to, for
example, join vertices to build a polygon by hand just because RS3D
didn´t do it correctly when I selected those 4 vertices.
I think you could say that it´s a matter of micromanagement versus
macromanagement and although I like the micromanagement-capabilites, I
would want to be able not to HAVE to care about them.
So, sure, somehow you probably could do everything that you now can in
RS3D with the old R3D but you would have to go even further into detail
and build even more objects "by hand", diving into the depths of the
program.
Personally I wouldn´t want to miss SDS and wouldn´t want to miss GI and
wouldn´t want to miss the enormous capabilities of VSL.
Those things enable the users to let out their creativity without having
to care about every single detail.
Still I would want to see RS3D evolve further in a direction of better
connecting the user to the program through an even more intuitive
interface, decreasing the necessity to know what´s going on under the
hood of the program.
So I think you´re right with what you say about VSL - great capabilities
but hard to control unless you have a degree in mathematics. Or GI -
would be nice if it gave a decent result without dozens of minutes or
even hours of testrendering and finetuning.
So, in short: Yes, the software has evolved, offering you more choices
and thus becoming more complex.
But for me the interface has gotten better, the software gotten more
easy to use.
And when you "complain" about RS3Ds complexity I would say that it´s
more an issue of the GUI still not being good enough, not keeping up
with the vast amount of possibilities the program is offering.
So I wouldn´t say "Let´s get back to Real 3D!" but rather "Let´s make
Realsoft 3D easier to use!".
But, well, just my point of view. ;-)
Greets
Martin
Jean-Sebastien Perron schrieb:
I miss the original Real3D.
At the time it was the easiest software to learn.
It was so powerful, yet so simple.
In theses days, it did not take a week to create a material, only a
couple of sliders.
No GI, everything had to be tricked with multiple lights to simulate GI.
There was no rigging since animation was by hierarchy only.
Rendering option was limited to resolution and color.
Everything was so simple, there was not too much thinking.
All we had to do is model with basic shapes, put in proper hierarchy,
put a material, a light, a camera, render.
Object were not exact detailed replicas, but an idea of. It was enough
to tell a story.
My view on 3D is that by limiting a software (simplifying to the bare
minimum) and limiting choices, you leave the user face to face with
it's own creativity. Too much choice is counter productive.
I would buy the Original Real3D if it was still available (for windows
of course).
The UI of the original Real3D was better looking, It was not MS
Windows looking : dialog, buttons, textbox, inputbox.
There was more space for the workspace.
Jean-Sebastien Perron
www.NeuroWorld.ws
