Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users.
On Friday 30 Jul 2010, Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: > All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with > Quad polygons. Why, because all the industry is doing it. > It's simple and efficient. 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. > > All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural. > Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons. I can't agree with this either: texture maps are limited by their resolution whereas procedural textures are not. LeeE
Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users.
The complain is only about GI, so it's simple, we need better GI. Better = simple, efficient, fast and realistic Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws On 10-07-30 07:05 AM, Jouni Hätinen wrote: 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. 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. -Jouni 2010/7/30 aidan o driscoll: And by the way - while reading the various opinions on this topic over last while - I have seen some people pretty much saying for what I do in 3D RS is fine, it has what I want so therefore all is fine. Unfortunately one cannot bury one self in the proverbial 3D sand either, with that attitude. Not everybody who uses / has used RS is the same. RS will / cannot survive on the few who feel the current tool / feature set is fine. 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. Try them - then compare to RS. Aidan On 30 July 2010 10:42, aidan o driscoll wrote: 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, Thought I would throw that one in :D Aidan On 30 July 2010 05:38, Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with Quad polygons. Why, because all the industry is doing it. It's simple and efficient. All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural. Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons. If you follow this, your creation will always works perfectly on any 3D software. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.CombadZ.com On 10-07-29 11:54 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote: Yeah, I too would say that RS3Ds greatest strenght is its modelling capabilities, and in general its straight-forward approach for the basic tools. The problem here, as I see it, is a not so good interoperability of RS3D. Exporting polygon geometry is pretty easy - until you want to export a model with a UV map. I´ve never gotten that done. Exporting NURBS is possible if you got the IGES (?) im-/exporter plugin, but than again there are not that many renderers that support that. Exporting CSG-Booleans then is nigh-impossible, for the most part perhaps because there are so very few other 3D-packages that support CSG. Then you also have the option of converting your geometry to polygon geometry - but not if you use CSG-booleans. So you end up "caught inside RS3D" where problems like the one with GI affect you. You either use the application to it´s full potential OR remain interoperability with other software like named standalone renderers. RS3Ds greatest benefits are in part also its greatest flaws, because they set the software appart in a way that other software can´t keep up or simply does things in a totally different way. If you look at unbiased renderers for example, the material parameters are pretty exactly the same in every renderer. If RS3D featured a "physically based material" that featured all theses parameters, it would be not that much work to make an exporter for Luxrender, Maxwell, Fryrender and the likes. Well, as long as you sticked to polygon meshes and left out procedural textures. And if there was something like an "auto-mesh" tool for CSG that converted CSG geometry to polygon geometry, you could use CSG-Booleans in RS3D without worrying about how to get the data out to another program, should the need arise. "Converting" CSG in such a way even is already possible if you do it by hand. By taking a mesh and using the "collision detection" setting with the move and scale tools, you already can "shrinkwrap" a mesh around a CSG-boolean quite pleasingly - only that this can take quite some time. Integrating a feature that did the work automatically would make RS3D more open. So in the end you would have the choice to either use RS3Ds own rendering engine, or to convert/export your scene to another renderer, whatever type of geometry you used. Thinking again about the NURBS-im/export. I guess this will mostly be used to get data out of other (specialized) software into RS3D for building a scene to render a still or to animate it. In this case exporting or convertion capabilities won´t matter much. Instead here it would be most important to increase the packages own capabilities, perhaps most of all it´s GI rendering capabilities. So, in
Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users.
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. 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. -Jouni 2010/7/30 aidan o driscoll : > And by the way - while reading the various opinions on this topic over > last while - I have seen some people pretty much saying for what I do > in 3D RS is fine, it has what I want so therefore all is fine. > Unfortunately one cannot bury one self in the proverbial 3D sand > either, with that attitude. Not everybody who uses / has used RS is > the same. RS will / cannot survive on the few who feel the current > tool / feature set is fine. > > 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. Try them - then compare to RS. > > Aidan > > On 30 July 2010 10:42, aidan o driscoll wrote: >> 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, >> >> Thought I would throw that one in :D >> Aidan >> >> On 30 July 2010 05:38, Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: >>> All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with Quad polygons. >>> Why, because all the industry is doing it. >>> It's simple and efficient. >>> >>> All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural. >>> Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons. >>> >>> If you follow this, your creation will always works perfectly on any 3D >>> software. >>> >>> Jean-Sebastien Perron >>> www.CombadZ.com >>> >>> On 10-07-29 11:54 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote: Yeah, I too would say that RS3Ds greatest strenght is its modelling capabilities, and in general its straight-forward approach for the basic tools. The problem here, as I see it, is a not so good interoperability of RS3D. Exporting polygon geometry is pretty easy - until you want to export a model with a UV map. I´ve never gotten that done. Exporting NURBS is possible if you got the IGES (?) im-/exporter plugin, but than again there are not that many renderers that support that. Exporting CSG-Booleans then is nigh-impossible, for the most part perhaps because there are so very few other 3D-packages that support CSG. Then you also have the option of converting your geometry to polygon geometry - but not if you use CSG-booleans. So you end up "caught inside RS3D" where problems like the one with GI affect you. You either use the application to it´s full potential OR remain interoperability with other software like named standalone renderers. RS3Ds greatest benefits are in part also its greatest flaws, because they set the software appart in a way that other software can´t keep up or simply does things in a totally different way. If you look at unbiased renderers for example, the material parameters are pretty exactly the same in every renderer. If RS3D featured a "physically based material" that featured all theses parameters, it would be not that much work to make an exporter for Luxrender, Maxwell, Fryrender and the likes. Well, as long as you sticked to polygon meshes and left out procedural textures. And if there was something like an "auto-mesh" tool for CSG that converted CSG geometry to polygon geometry, you could use CSG-Booleans in RS3D without worrying about how to get the data out to another program, should the need arise. "Converting" CSG in such a way even is already possible if you do it by hand. By taking a mesh and using the "collision detection" setting with the move and scale tools, you already can "shrinkwrap" a mesh around a CSG-boolean quite pleasingly - only that this can take quite some time. Integrating a feature that did the work automatically would make RS3D more open. So in the end you would have the choice to either use RS3Ds own rendering engine, or to convert/export your scene to another renderer, whatever type of geometry you used. Thinking again about the NURBS-im/export. I guess this will mostly be used to get data out of other (specialized) software into RS3D for building a scene to render a still or to animate it. In this case exporting or convertion capabilities won´t matter much. Instead here
Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users.
And by the way - while reading the various opinions on this topic over last while - I have seen some people pretty much saying for what I do in 3D RS is fine, it has what I want so therefore all is fine. Unfortunately one cannot bury one self in the proverbial 3D sand either, with that attitude. Not everybody who uses / has used RS is the same. RS will / cannot survive on the few who feel the current tool / feature set is fine. 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. Try them - then compare to RS. Aidan On 30 July 2010 10:42, aidan o driscoll wrote: > 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, > > Thought I would throw that one in :D > Aidan > > On 30 July 2010 05:38, Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: >> All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with Quad polygons. >> Why, because all the industry is doing it. >> It's simple and efficient. >> >> All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural. >> Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons. >> >> If you follow this, your creation will always works perfectly on any 3D >> software. >> >> Jean-Sebastien Perron >> www.CombadZ.com >> >> On 10-07-29 11:54 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I too would say that RS3Ds greatest strenght is its modelling >>> capabilities, and in general its straight-forward approach for the basic >>> tools. >>> >>> The problem here, as I see it, is a not so good interoperability of RS3D. >>> Exporting polygon geometry is pretty easy - until you want to export a >>> model with a UV map. I´ve never gotten that done. >>> Exporting NURBS is possible if you got the IGES (?) im-/exporter plugin, >>> but than again there are not that many renderers that support that. >>> Exporting CSG-Booleans then is nigh-impossible, for the most part perhaps >>> because there are so very few other 3D-packages that support CSG. >>> Then you also have the option of converting your geometry to polygon >>> geometry - but not if you use CSG-booleans. >>> >>> So you end up "caught inside RS3D" where problems like the one with GI >>> affect you. You either use the application to it´s full potential OR remain >>> interoperability with other software like named standalone renderers. >>> RS3Ds greatest benefits are in part also its greatest flaws, because they >>> set the software appart in a way that other software can´t keep up or simply >>> does things in a totally different way. >>> >>> If you look at unbiased renderers for example, the material parameters are >>> pretty exactly the same in every renderer. >>> If RS3D featured a "physically based material" that featured all theses >>> parameters, it would be not that much work to make an exporter for >>> Luxrender, Maxwell, Fryrender and the likes. Well, as long as you sticked to >>> polygon meshes and left out procedural textures. >>> And if there was something like an "auto-mesh" tool for CSG that converted >>> CSG geometry to polygon geometry, you could use CSG-Booleans in RS3D without >>> worrying about how to get the data out to another program, should the need >>> arise. >>> "Converting" CSG in such a way even is already possible if you do it by >>> hand. By taking a mesh and using the "collision detection" setting with the >>> move and scale tools, you already can "shrinkwrap" a mesh around a >>> CSG-boolean quite pleasingly - only that this can take quite some time. >>> Integrating a feature that did the work automatically would make RS3D more >>> open. >>> So in the end you would have the choice to either use RS3Ds own rendering >>> engine, or to convert/export your scene to another renderer, whatever type >>> of geometry you used. >>> >>> >>> Thinking again about the NURBS-im/export. >>> I guess this will mostly be used to get data out of other (specialized) >>> software into RS3D for building a scene to render a still or to animate it. >>> In this case exporting or convertion capabilities won´t matter much. >>> Instead here it would be most important to increase the packages own >>> capabilities, perhaps most of all it´s GI rendering capabilities. >>> So, in the end you would get around doing that. >>> >>> >>> Greetz, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> Original-Nachricht >>> Datum: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:04:15 +0300 Von: "Jouni Hätinen" An: user-list@light.realsoft3d.com Betreff: Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it\'s users. >>> >>> 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 o
Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users.
And by the way - while reading the various opinions on this topic over last while - I have seen some people pretty much saying for what I do in 3D RS is fine, it has what I want so therefore all is fine. Unfortunately one cannot bury one self in the proverbial 3D sand either, with that attitude. Not everybody who uses / has used RS is the same. RS will / cannot survive on the few who feel the current tool / feature set is fine. 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. Try them - then compare to RS. Aidan On 30 July 2010 10:42, aidan o driscoll wrote: > 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, > > Thought I would throw that one in :D > Aidan > > On 30 July 2010 05:38, Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: >> All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with Quad polygons. >> Why, because all the industry is doing it. >> It's simple and efficient. >> >> All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural. >> Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons. >> >> If you follow this, your creation will always works perfectly on any 3D >> software. >> >> Jean-Sebastien Perron >> www.CombadZ.com >> >> On 10-07-29 11:54 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I too would say that RS3Ds greatest strenght is its modelling >>> capabilities, and in general its straight-forward approach for the basic >>> tools. >>> >>> The problem here, as I see it, is a not so good interoperability of RS3D. >>> Exporting polygon geometry is pretty easy - until you want to export a >>> model with a UV map. I´ve never gotten that done. >>> Exporting NURBS is possible if you got the IGES (?) im-/exporter plugin, >>> but than again there are not that many renderers that support that. >>> Exporting CSG-Booleans then is nigh-impossible, for the most part perhaps >>> because there are so very few other 3D-packages that support CSG. >>> Then you also have the option of converting your geometry to polygon >>> geometry - but not if you use CSG-booleans. >>> >>> So you end up "caught inside RS3D" where problems like the one with GI >>> affect you. You either use the application to it´s full potential OR remain >>> interoperability with other software like named standalone renderers. >>> RS3Ds greatest benefits are in part also its greatest flaws, because they >>> set the software appart in a way that other software can´t keep up or simply >>> does things in a totally different way. >>> >>> If you look at unbiased renderers for example, the material parameters are >>> pretty exactly the same in every renderer. >>> If RS3D featured a "physically based material" that featured all theses >>> parameters, it would be not that much work to make an exporter for >>> Luxrender, Maxwell, Fryrender and the likes. Well, as long as you sticked to >>> polygon meshes and left out procedural textures. >>> And if there was something like an "auto-mesh" tool for CSG that converted >>> CSG geometry to polygon geometry, you could use CSG-Booleans in RS3D without >>> worrying about how to get the data out to another program, should the need >>> arise. >>> "Converting" CSG in such a way even is already possible if you do it by >>> hand. By taking a mesh and using the "collision detection" setting with the >>> move and scale tools, you already can "shrinkwrap" a mesh around a >>> CSG-boolean quite pleasingly - only that this can take quite some time. >>> Integrating a feature that did the work automatically would make RS3D more >>> open. >>> So in the end you would have the choice to either use RS3Ds own rendering >>> engine, or to convert/export your scene to another renderer, whatever type >>> of geometry you used. >>> >>> >>> Thinking again about the NURBS-im/export. >>> I guess this will mostly be used to get data out of other (specialized) >>> software into RS3D for building a scene to render a still or to animate it. >>> In this case exporting or convertion capabilities won´t matter much. >>> Instead here it would be most important to increase the packages own >>> capabilities, perhaps most of all it´s GI rendering capabilities. >>> So, in the end you would get around doing that. >>> >>> >>> Greetz, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> Original-Nachricht >>> Datum: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:04:15 +0300 Von: "Jouni Hätinen" An: user-list@light.realsoft3d.com Betreff: Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it\'s users. >>> >>> 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 o
Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users.
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, Thought I would throw that one in :D Aidan On 30 July 2010 05:38, Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: > All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with Quad polygons. > Why, because all the industry is doing it. > It's simple and efficient. > > All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural. > Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons. > > If you follow this, your creation will always works perfectly on any 3D > software. > > Jean-Sebastien Perron > www.CombadZ.com > > On 10-07-29 11:54 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote: >> >> Yeah, I too would say that RS3Ds greatest strenght is its modelling >> capabilities, and in general its straight-forward approach for the basic >> tools. >> >> The problem here, as I see it, is a not so good interoperability of RS3D. >> Exporting polygon geometry is pretty easy - until you want to export a >> model with a UV map. I´ve never gotten that done. >> Exporting NURBS is possible if you got the IGES (?) im-/exporter plugin, >> but than again there are not that many renderers that support that. >> Exporting CSG-Booleans then is nigh-impossible, for the most part perhaps >> because there are so very few other 3D-packages that support CSG. >> Then you also have the option of converting your geometry to polygon >> geometry - but not if you use CSG-booleans. >> >> So you end up "caught inside RS3D" where problems like the one with GI >> affect you. You either use the application to it´s full potential OR remain >> interoperability with other software like named standalone renderers. >> RS3Ds greatest benefits are in part also its greatest flaws, because they >> set the software appart in a way that other software can´t keep up or simply >> does things in a totally different way. >> >> If you look at unbiased renderers for example, the material parameters are >> pretty exactly the same in every renderer. >> If RS3D featured a "physically based material" that featured all theses >> parameters, it would be not that much work to make an exporter for >> Luxrender, Maxwell, Fryrender and the likes. Well, as long as you sticked to >> polygon meshes and left out procedural textures. >> And if there was something like an "auto-mesh" tool for CSG that converted >> CSG geometry to polygon geometry, you could use CSG-Booleans in RS3D without >> worrying about how to get the data out to another program, should the need >> arise. >> "Converting" CSG in such a way even is already possible if you do it by >> hand. By taking a mesh and using the "collision detection" setting with the >> move and scale tools, you already can "shrinkwrap" a mesh around a >> CSG-boolean quite pleasingly - only that this can take quite some time. >> Integrating a feature that did the work automatically would make RS3D more >> open. >> So in the end you would have the choice to either use RS3Ds own rendering >> engine, or to convert/export your scene to another renderer, whatever type >> of geometry you used. >> >> >> Thinking again about the NURBS-im/export. >> I guess this will mostly be used to get data out of other (specialized) >> software into RS3D for building a scene to render a still or to animate it. >> In this case exporting or convertion capabilities won´t matter much. >> Instead here it would be most important to increase the packages own >> capabilities, perhaps most of all it´s GI rendering capabilities. >> So, in the end you would get around doing that. >> >> >> Greetz, Martin >> >> >> >> Original-Nachricht >> >>> >>> Datum: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:04:15 +0300 >>> Von: "Jouni Hätinen" >>> An: user-list@light.realsoft3d.com >>> Betreff: Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it\'s users. >>> >> >> >>> >>> 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: >>> 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
