I think Realsoft's strengths are modeling and user interface. And that it's available on Linux. It's also very cheap on Linux.
If you do only one thing and you find a program that does it very well, then it's probably the best to use that. But Realsoft does many things. If you want to buy the best program for every different task, it's going to be very expensive. The only thing that really bugs me in Realsoft is their release plan, or lack of it, especially for Linux. -Jouni 2010/7/29 Jean-Sebastien Perron <[email protected]>: > You are right Martin. > > I agree with everything you just wrote. > If you look on my website you will realize that I do exactly the opposite of > what I wrote. > > RS needs to open to the world and lower it's price. > And they should simplify RS or redesign it completely. > > I don't know if a 3D software can be as simple as Strata and Powerful as > Houdini at the same time? > > Stand alone modelers, stand alone renderers, stand alone texture painting, > standalone character animation ... > Are all doing better than full application at a lower price combined > together. > > What is the most important thing about RS? Modeling, Rendering, Animation or > FX? > > Jean-Sebastien Perron > www.NeuroWorld.ws > > On 10-07-28 04:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> @Jean-Sebastien: >> >> Thing is simple: Time is money. >> >> RS comes at something around 600 Euros. Lightwave for example comes at >> around 900 Euros. >> If I have to experiment dozens of hours just to get the GI done for a few >> scenes, I could as easily buy another program that spares me this work. >> When seen as an investment, this becomes even more important - why should >> one go for RS3D with the prospect of having significantly more work to do, >> instead of simply spending some additional hundret bucks to get a solution >> that gets the work done more quickly? >> Of course discovering the possibilities of a program is nice, but HAVING >> to "discover" a needed possibility isn´t. >> So slogans like "Don't blame the car, blame the driver." sound pretty >> cynical to me. >> >> Yes, "we" are getting left behind, as Jason wrote. >> Especially when there are already a bunch of FREE standalone renderers >> that do better. >> Kerkythea, Sunflow, Luxrender, Yafray... I surely even forgot some. >> In its newest edition, Blender even has volumetrics in. And rendering >> volumetric clouds is even much easier here, compared to RS3D. >> The features that set RS3D apart from other 3D-packages get less every >> year. >> Blender just had to implement NURBS surfaces and CSG, and the ice would be >> getting real thin for RS3D. >> Cause, according to my knowledge of RS3D, these are the two things that >> set RS3D apart from most other 3D-apps. >> >> (Now i see that Stefan Klein already mentioned those things. So. He´s >> right. ;-) >> BTW @ Stefan: Pleeeaaase... don´t put your message at the bottom of the >> huge block of cited messages but ON TOP of it. At first I even thought the >> email to be some accidentally sended chunk of text from the lists server. >> >> >> >> Greetz, Martin >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >>> Datum: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:51:10 -0400 >>> Von: Jean-Sebastien Perron<[email protected]> >>> An: [email protected] >>> Betreff: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it\'s users. >>> The maxwell renderer demo reel says it all : beautiful images, >>> noanimation. >>> And the few animations have noises moving around. >>> >>> RS must offer a way to use stand alone renderers (that is >>> reallyimportant). >>> For now there is not one "efficient" standard way of communicating witha >>> renderer. >>> All of them use all sorts of undocumented SDL (scene descriptionlanguage) >>> or worst : binary or .dll >>> >>> But I don't agree that the RS renderer is not good enough. >>> It is perfect, just not what some need right now. >>> What is needed is a "perfect GI" button or template scene (Seriously)like >>> Strata3D. >>> Strata3D do all the setup for you with predefined scenes. >>> >>> Procedural materials will always have AA problems, textures never will. >>> The problems found in RS are the same encounter in Renderman. >>> Pixar renderman generate a lot of lighting glitches that need to >>> becorrected by hand for example. >>> Contrary to Renderman, all these small (look at me) stand alonerenderers >>> are not production ready. >>> To create beautiful images with renderman you need a lot of work. >>> In renderman there is no GI, only the mathematical function to code >>> ityourself inside your shaders. >>> By reading and experimenting a lot with Renderman, I found that it hasa >>> lot >>> of similarities with RS. >>> >>> RS can make images as beautiful as any other renderer on the market. >>> For that you need to understand rendering, lighting, shading and RS >>> alittle >>> deeper. >>> And that is what most RS users are not ready to invest time in. >>> >>> Don't blame the car, blame the driver. >>> >>> It's not fair to compare RS to other renderers. RS is a pure Raytracer. >>> Like any methods there are pros and cons. >>> >>> Contrary to many other 3d app, RS does not offer decent scene setup >>> andmaterials right from the start : you have to do it all from scratch. >>> >>> Prepare for the flames and the usual offended : ) >>> >>> Jean-Sebastien Perron >>> www.NeuroWorld.ws >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >
