Sculptinh is modelling... it is same prosess with different tools. Dont you got it, it is same prosess.. There is: Modelling (including sculpting) model isnt ready before it has been sculpted... Then tehre is painting, modell isnt ready before it is textured. After that comes animation: Animation is different prosess. Also rendering is different prosess and simulation.
I think it this way: It is frustrating to modell your 3d modell in realsoft because you cant modell it no more because users' dont have sculpting tools and i say it again: Sculpting is same thing than modelling.. it is modelling but with different tools. So why i have to pay more from same prosess... no i am not gonna pay anymore for nothing... i want software which makes what it says... Good night. > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:53:28 +0100 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Understanding is the key word? RE: (Future...) Key word is > full-featured btw. > To: [email protected] > > I completely understand that it would be cool to have an all-in-one > application. > > It´s simply that this is unrealistic to expect from Realsoft. > And let´s face it - there is not a SINGLE 3D package that combines ALL these > features in one application. > And there are reasons for that. > > 3Dstudio, Maya and Softimage for example depend on Mudbox. > This makes sense because this way Autodesk doesn´t have to implement the same > functionality in every single 3D-package. > But even if your not the leading company of the industry this makes sense. > Because you can target customers more precisely. > If someone already uses a certain package and just wants sculpting > capability, he doesn´t have to pay for a complete suite but instead just can > buy the standalone sculpting package. > On the other hand, if someone doesn´t need sculpting, he doesn´t have to pay > for it. > > So I rather talk about compatibility. > If RS3D had excellent im- and export and the basic tools needed to make it > unproblematically compatible with, say, 3D-Coat, RS3D itself wouldn´t have to > implement sculpting in the first place. > > > > Regards > > Martin > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:48:27 +0200 > > Von: Juha Mukari <[email protected]> > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: Understanding is the key word? RE: (Future...) Key word is > > full-featured btw. > > > > > Dont you understand it is frustrating to use lots of different softwares > > for same thing... for 3d, like.. for modelling i have used also, silo, > > cinema 4d and realsoft. > > I also think that sculpting is one way to modell your 3d-modell, so it is > > not seperated thing.. it is one way modell your 3d-modell and it is > > frustrating to use different software for same process... for modelling. > > > > > > > > And what comes to all in one.. what makes it better... If everything is > > integreated to one software it makes everything simple because then users' > > do > > not need to consider that "is this software compatible with this software > > etc.."... I know this thing and it is shitty thing when you need lots of > > softwares and they aren't compatible with each other it is frustrating... > > argh... Dont you know this issue? Isn't it familiar to you guys? > > > > I have used in my life about 200different softwares.. i have tried to > > learn them and i know from this expierence that they aren't compatible with > > each other. It dosent makes sense to use 5different software for one > > thing... > > modelling, or animation, or simulation, or rendering... It dosent make > > sense. > > > > > > Oh, and btw. I am studing movie career in post production so i do know > > that you need lots of softwares for editing and creating visual effects for > > movies. > > > > > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:30:23 +0100 > > > From: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: (Future...) Key word is full-featured btw. > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > @Juha: I also think that you expect RS3D to become more than it could or > > even should. > > > I don´t think that RS3D should compete with every other mayor > > competitor. > > > And to be fair - not even the mayor packages offer all of the features > > you proposed. > > > Instead, for example, Autodesk has Mudbox to provide sculpting and > > painting, and tries to establish it as part of the respective pipeline with > > Autodesks products. > > > And it makes sense. > > > Of course it´s cool to have sculpting already integrated. > > > But people who don´t need it possibly won´t be willing to pay an extra > > few hundret or at least dozen bucks, just because this feature-suite was > > integrated into RS3D. > > > Whereas people who need sculpting can easily turn to a specialized > > application like Sculptris, 3D-Coat, Mudbox oder Zbrush. > > > Thus in my opinion in this case it makes sense to not spend the > > ressources needed to implement full sculpting capabilities, but to instead > > just > > make sure that RS3D fits in a pipeline with already existing sculpting > > tools. > > > And this would mean quick, easy and reliable UV-Mapping, -Import and > > -Export, and possibly dedicated handling for respective materiallayers, so > > that e.g. displacement-, diffuse- and specular-maps could easily be imported > > and/or applied to a model, without having to reconfigure VSL-structures. > > > > > > When it comes to materials in general, RS3D already offers nearly all > > that´s needed, at least when it comes to the code. > > > It´s really just the graphical user interface and the amount and > > structuring of presets, that would have to be changed. > > > It could pretty easily be done to make a complete material with boxes > > and sliders just like in Modo or Cinema 4D (by the way, in my opinion Modo > > does it better than C4D), that would be loaded as a standard template; for > > example > > > In my opinion, it is about the number of this exact (already existing!) > > templates that you can choose from when building a new material; it´s that > > these should be expanded and be presented in a way more central to the > > material-interface. > > > This would mean more, and better, of the material "compounds" that e.g. > > control Fresnel effects, subsurface scattering, etc., and a better handling > > of them. > > > > > > > > > Now, based on the criteria that I presented in the last mail, I > > personally would consider the following features important/"most wise" to > > be worked > > upon. > > > > > > > > > _Rendering and materials_ > > > RS3D has a powerful material system. But if render-quality or -features > > do not suffice, users switch to other renderers, meaning that these > > powerful capabilities of RS3D go unused, and a reason to use RS3D at all > > disappears with them too. > > > So RS3Ds capabilities here should really be improved, so that people see > > RS3D as an alternative for rendering again. > > > Specifically I would improve: > > > > > > - GI > > > Because RS3D lags so much behind in this respect, while it has a > > potentially very powerful material and rendering system; making GI better > > would > > complement these strengths. > > > As already said, even freeware renderers are lightyears ahead of RS3D in > > this respect. > > > Another reason why I consider a better GI important is architectural > > visualisation. > > > I´ve seen and read much about this and RS3D in the past, and it seems > > that RS3D has a bigger foothold with architecture visualizers than with > > other kinds of users. > > > And as I understand it, a quick and simple GI is of utmost importance to > > these users. > > > IES lightdata functionality would of cause also be a nice thing for > > them. > > > > > > - VSL/materials > > > Because it is one of the great strenghts of RS3D. > > > VSL should be expanded with new compounds and templates, it NEEDS a good > > SSS template/material, it NEEDS a good and quick way to produce blurry > > reflections and refractions and ambient occlusion. > > > A nodebased editor for advanced material control would be sweet, and > > about time, but if this wasn´t integrated, the GUI would at least HAVE to be > > updated to offer an improved workflow through e.g. multiselection and easy > > management of VSL-components in general. > > > Other suggestions have been written in the section above. > > > However - improving VSL should make it more intuitive and approachable, > > reassuring current users and appealing more to possible customers. > > > > > > > > > > > > _Modelling and texturing_ > > > Modelling also is one of the great strengths of RS3D, especially it´s > > NURBS->SDS workflow capability plus CSG and it´s general SDS tools and > > handling. > > > Texturing on the other hand, and UV-Mapping in special, rather lack ease > > of use, power, and reliability. > > > These are critical for inter-operability though, so for RS3D to be > > considered to be part of a pipeline, these parts of the software should be > > improved. > > > On the other hand, SDS capabilities of other programs have improved > > vastly in the last ten years, and some already outrun RS3D when it comes to > > polygon-modelling and SDS. > > > > > > - Polygon modelling and SDS > > > This could be fixed though, and also pretty easily, I guess. > > > There are only a few tools that I really miss here, mostly "loop > > slice","loop slide", more indepth beveling options, easy cleaning up of a > > mesh, > > and a more flexible and dynamic selection-sets/-groups system. > > > In general, RS3D is well suited for hard surface modelling, but has > > problems with modelling/altering and managing bigger, more complex polygon > > models. > > > Modo for example has way more tools to handle those. > > > > > > - Modelling in general > > > Like for example curve-based deformations, and even inserting a profile > > along a given loop of a polygon model. > > > The latter is probably a pretty advanced feature, but curve-based > > deformations are already offered by RS3D with the scale/move/size 1D/2D/3D > > tools; > > they just don´t work right. > > > Or at least I haven´t gotten them to work like they should have EVEN > > ONCE. > > > And that´s a shame, because they are such a powerful feature. > > > Indeed there are a couple of modelling tools in RS3D that are powerful > > but awkward to use. > > > To improve these tools, to make them easy and intuitive to use, > > shouldn´t be much of an effort, but would improve RS3Ds modelling > > capabilities a > > big deal. > > > Rather it would even really enable the average user (I consider myself > > an average user for that purpose) to really use these features for the first > > time. > > > > > > - UV-Mapping > > > It´s terrible in RS3D. It´s unintuitive and lacks features. Easy UV > > im- and export? Nope. > > > As said, this way RS3Ds compatibility is greatly hindered, which is > > extremely bad for RS3D. > > > Cause if an application already doesn´t offer all that a user needs, it > > should at least enable him to use it in conjunction with another > > application. > > > UV-Mapping DEFINITELY has to be vastly improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > _Animation and simulation > > > I can´t say to much about that, because I don´t use it. > > > It seems though that a disturbingly great amount of users desperately > > wants these to be updated. > > > Accordingly they should be. > > > If Carlo could get Chrono ready, this would take the need for an > > improvement of RS3Ds inbuilt system. As was already said, Chrono could even > > be > > integrated into RS3D, making it an excellent choice for more technically > > oriented users. Would also be no problem to sell a RS3D Standard and a > > RS3D+Chrono bundle. > > > Particle Rendering has also been often debated and should accordingly be > > tended to. > > > Animation is a field which I can´t say anything decent about. But as > > said, many other users have. > > > > > > > > > > > > So all in all there would be a few bigger improvements to be made, with > > many smaller ones that would nonetheless impact RS3D very much. > > > Personally I consider improved GI, VSL/materialcreation and > > UV-mapping/-handling to be most important. > > > > > > But I would be interested in how YOU think about my priorities, criteria > > and explanations - am I mistaken? How does RS3Ds userbase look in your > > opinion, and what new features do you consider MOST important? > > > I mean, perhaps we could make a list, get all the suggestions together, > > and assign "levels" of importance to them, so Realsoft could see on one > > page (or so) what features the users desire the most? > > > > > > > > > Greetz > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:32:24 -0500 > > > > Von: Jean-Sebastien Perron <[email protected]> > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > Betreff: Re: (Future...) Key word is full-featured btw. > > > > > > > In the industry, they don't use 1 software but ell over 20 softwares > > for > > > > a single movie. > > > > RS can do everything, but it is not specialized. > > > > > > > > In my own project I have used Vue for trees, VistaPro for the terrain, > > > > Gimp for texture, UVmapper Pro for texture placement, Silo for some > > > > modeling and all that imported in Realsoft. > > > > For character animation I would use something more specialized. > > > > > > > > Don't care if GI is fake as long as it looks good. > > > > > > > > Personally, the only weakness of realsoft is IK for character > > animation. > > > > > > > > Do you think that one day, a company will make a software that is > > > > definitive (no improvement needed)? > > > > I does everything you can think of easily. > > > > Or are we condemned > > > > > > > > Jean-Sebastien Perron > > > > www.NeuroWorld.ws > > > > > > > > On 10-11-11 06:14 PM, leee wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 11 Nov 2010, Juha Mukari wrote: > > > > > [snip...] > > > > > > > > > >> I think it this way: realsoft could raise their software's price > > > > >> really much if they would make it so great software that you > > > > >> wouldn't need any other softwares if you got realsoft. > > > > >> > > > > > I think that this sentence, on it's own, says a lot, and I think it > > > > > raises two important issues. > > > > > > > > > > The first is that I don't think that RS want to raise their prices: > > > > > their ethos seems to be to try to provide the best combination of > > > > > features and quality for a moderate price, and by doing so, make > > > > > those features and quality more accessible i.e to those on a > > > > > limited budget. > > > > > > > > > > The second issue is that if RS were to take on more people, to > > > > > provide more features etc, and then raise their price, who would > > > > > buy it? There are already many other established players in the > > > > > high-cost region of 3D software, so why would their existing users, > > > > > who will have years of learning and experience invested in their > > > > > existing 3D packages, bother to switch to RS? > > > > > > > > > > Like anything else you might buy, RS is a trade-off, a compromise > > > > > between price and functionality/capability. > > > > > > > > > > If price is of no importance to you, why are you using RS when you > > > > > could simply pay a lot more money and use something else? > > > > > > > > > > Sure, RS isn't perfect, but then nothing else is either; everything > > > > > is a compromise, and like I said in an earlier post, you pays your > > > > > money and makes your choice. If you don't think that RS is good > > > > > value for money then spend your money elsewhere but don't complain > > > > > that you haven't got a Rolls Royce when you've only paid the price > > > > > of a Ford. > > > > > > > > > > LeeE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 €/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit > > > gratis Notebook-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl > > > > -- > GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome
