Hi, I'm not even qualified enough to be classed as a newbie yet, but I was wondering if some kind person would explain the differences between Carrara and Amapi. Specifically, would it be fair to say that Amapi is mainly for modelling, but also does some rendering/animation, but that Carrara is mainly for rendering/animation but also does some modelling? Or are Carrara's modelling abilities the equal of Amapi, making Amapi a sort of cut-down version of Carrara? In short, would it be useful to have both, or does Carrara sort of make Amapi unnecessary? Personally, my main interest is in modelling - creating items that I would render/animate in other programs like Poser. I'd assumed that Amapi would be more useful, but I've heard that Carrara has some nice modelling tools that aren't in Amapi. Any advice much appreciated! And enjoy the holidays! Morph

You are basically correct, Amapi is probably just for modeling. I wouldn't even bother rendering in Amapi if you have Carrara. However, Carrara's modeling is not close to what Amapi can do, although C3's modeling is improved. I think that if you become proficient in Amapi you won't model much in Cararra, except for very simple things. Carrara is great for rendering though, GI, HDRI, lighting and texturing blow away Amapi's rendering tools. It is a great set to use both, especially because of the ease of opening Amapi files in Carrara. If and when Poser import of complete models and animation becomes a reality, I wouldn't render in Poser either. Just my 2 cents, others may disagree somewhat, but not much I think. Patrick Tuten

Thanks, Patrick. When I upgraded to Amapi 7, Eovia kindly gave me a freebie copy of Carrara 2, which I've never used (though I've been playing with it this morning). Based on this vast(!) experience, I think you're right - Carrara has some nice modelling tools, but on the whole Amapi seems to be a more dedicated modeller. On the other hand, Carrara has those nice metaball thingies, which Amapi (oddly) doesn't. And it does some really nice rendering too. I'm going to play with it some more, and I may even end up upgrading to version 3. Thanks!

Patrick is esentially correct but I want to emphasize that Carrara can do some pretty spiff models. The major modeling difference between Amapi and Carrara is the power of modeling tools Amapi has over Carrara when building complex meshes. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anything could be built in Carrara but lots of the more complex meshes like organic creatures and shapes that have multiple sweeps and complex curves could be created in Amapi with tools which are better suited for that style of model. Many people have created heads/faces and people and such in Carrara but I think Amapi can do it easier. One other note, the quality of a model, whether created in Carrara or Amapi is directly related to the skills and talants of the user. What one person can do in Amapi, another person could probably do in Carrara. It might just take more time. And last but not least, Carrara 3 is one major hammer blow to the world of image rendering. The new render engine has entered the class of the heavy hitters. Be prepared to be impressed. -Kix

I'm curious which one is better/easier for modeling cars?

You're probably going to have more luck modeling a real car using Amapi. All those complex curves and edges, Amapi. -Kix

Attached Link: http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/lw-gallery/thumbnails.php?album=14

Maybe I'll hear it from Amapi NURBS users but I thought nurbs were sort of old school and that most people were modelling using polygons and sub-d these days? Lightwave has a polygon/sub-d modeller so in theory anything you could do with it you could do with Carrara's vertex modeller (albeit somewhat more slowly since the vertex modeller is missing some advanced features and lightwave also has lots of free third-party modeling plug-ins to make your life easier). I've seen lots of great cars done with lightwave (I've attached a URL with some examples). If you search on "lightwave car tutorials" at google you get things like: http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/tutorials/modeling/car/ Here's one that was done with c4d (which also has a polygon modeler with sub-d): http://www.maxoncomputer.com/images/gallery/h_sl500.jpg For movies these days it often seems like they first make a little physical real-world model and then do a fancy 3d trace on the model rather than trying to create the model by hand completely in the computer. I think similar things are happening with animation like the amazing motion capture work done for Gollum in LOTR.