> With respect to RS and the industry in general - Sculpting. Pretty
> much every other app has listened and either has sculpt features OR
> can import very large meshes without falling over THEN has retopology
> tools. Least of all an import export set to get you in / out of the
> likes of Zbrush, 3D Coat and the like,
I don't know. Of course sculpting is something "up to date" and many
applications tend towards it.
On the other hand there a) are enough standalone sculpters, some of them
even for free (Blender, Sculptris) and b) I would like to see RS3D
getting its already implemented features right before implementing
massive new features.
> I would also have to argue that alot of other more up to date featured
> app are equally as good or better at modeling as RS is. Modo, Silo,
> not to mention the big boys.
In my opinion, RS3D scores when it comes to quick yet precise "hard
surface" modelling, yet it lacks tools for working in bigger scales/
with more complex models.
Like a usable selection set system or tools for inserting and
manipulating edge loops, etc..
Actually, IMHO, RS3D lacks pretty few modelling-related features to be
on par again with other modeling-centric software.
But a hand full of features really can make the difference.
> RS will / cannot survive on the few who feel the current tool /
feature set is fine.
Signed. And somehow there seems to be a sentiment in Realsofts userbase
that "You could do all you wanted with Real 3D 1.0 alone!", meaning that
any further enhancement was basically needless.
If that was true, tens of thousands of other 3D-app users just must have
gotten it wrong.
> It's not all about features. For example Blender has a very impressive
> feature list, but after trying it a couple of times, I decided I will
> never try to use it again. The user interface is just so awful
> compared to RS.
Honestly - try out Blender 2.5.3. Personally, I also never came to use
Blender because of its GUI.
Blender 2.5 really improved the GUI, so that now it is (IMHO) no more
complicated than most of the other 3D applications.
> In my opinion RS should concentrate more on the already good user
> interface and modeling. Sculpting would be a good addition, but more
> important would be better import/export features, so that you could
> use other rendering/modeling software with Realsoft.
I do think so as well.
> The complain is only about GI, so it's simple, we need better GI.
Well, the MAIN complaint is about GI. But there are still plenty of
other complaints, some of them years old.
> Subdivision surfaces are _not_ simple and efficient. They're less
> simple and efficient than NURBS, which in turn are less simple and
> efficient than CSG/Analytical solids.
Of course you're right. But for obvious reasons, NURBS and CSG are
tremendously less compatible with many other 3D-apps, especially CSG is.
I honestly don't know ANY other 3D-modelling/rendering-application
besides Real 3D/ Realsoft 3D that features CSG.
So there should at least be the option to convert these geometry to
poly-surfaces.
In fact this would enhance RS3Ds modelling capabilities further -
modelling an object with CSG-booleans and then converting it to polys
could save humongous amounts of time, compared to modelling the same
objects by using polygon modelling from the start.
> I can't agree with this either: texture maps are limited by their
> resolution whereas procedural textures are not.
You're right.
Greetz, Martin
