Do you guys think that i am so stupid that i dont know what they are using in
movie bisness..
I know, that they are using lots of different softwares. I am just trying to
say that realsoft should keep their words... "full featured" which would be
very usefull feature and advertise sentece.
Key word still is "full-featured", and like i said: it dosent have to include
all 3d-softwares.. like motion capture etc.. But any other softwares already
have Cloth, rigid, softbody, water, exploding simulation features.. why these
features are missing from realsoft.
And i care about fake gi, it never has look as good as real ones and its slow.
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:32:24 -0500
> From: j...@neuroworld.ws
> To: user-list@light.realsoft3d.com
> Subject: 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
> >
> >
