Understood. I dont' blame anybody in the rest of the world with a low opinion of us right now. Their opinions are well founded.

Message edited on: 09/03/2004 20:41

Having poked at it a bit....this looks like a godsend for anyone who wants to do dynamic cloth. It =looks= as though Shade maintains the scale values when exporting an obj built around a Poser mesh. That is probably the number 1 complaint is the variations in mesh scale between Poser and other apps. Never mind the photon mapping and other nice lighting features...

I think there is a big value jump between LE and Standard, definitely worth twice the price. I happen to think TextEffector is about the fastest and easiest to use tool for generating 3D letters. Also, Standard supports plugins and scripts. Once people here start playing with it, you are going to want to be able to load these up. I dont have the English manuals, but the Japanese manuals are beautiful and an excellent reference (unfortunately Im forgetting my kanjis with age!). I think they are very helpful for getting the Shade way of handling sub-objects. Best regards, Lynn

Thanks, Lynn! I'll get Standard, then. The boxed version costs the same as the download, except for shipping, so I'll get the boxed version so I get a manual. PDFs just aren't the same.

Actually, from a scientific point of view, there are a lot cleaner and more abundant sources of energy available if the people who have the money act with some altruism and initiative to implement them. The cost of switching over would be huge and employment would be an issue however. I'm from West Virginia which is a big coal state. Basically, the state is pretty underdeveloped compared to the rest of the country. The Republicans and big business are trying to preserve the coal industry here without considering that a whole generation of young people have grown up with the idea that they would go to college instead of being laborers. As a result, there is a massive exodus of people leaving the state. So that business will cease to be as fruitful in a few years.

I can't go with either until I find out why I keep getting an out of memory error. Anyone got a clue? I realize that I have 3 char loaded and some props but this isn't acceptable. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks, Marque

I added a V3 with full set of 'point at' primitives and high rez tex to my test of 8 stephs and got 'out of memory'. The 8 Stephs worked fine, but the loaded V3 on top of it tipped the scale. Course, we can do that to any 3d app. I've loaded and rendered several 'busy' pz3's with no troubles, though. Have you tried other pz3 files on your system besides that one? It's pretty early in the game. There might be some quirks we need to learn yet.

Message edited on: 09/03/2004 22:14

Attached Link: http://www.economymodels.com/oil.asp

the world will be out of the grades of oil that produce your gasoline within 40 years, well within my grandchildren's lifetimes.

Yeah, this is one of many scenarios -- frequently listed by environmentalist wackos and doomsayers.

According to the predictions made in tomes such as Silent Spring and The Population Bomb, we should have all been dead a couple of decades ago.

Well.....the predictions were flat wrong.

And so is this one.

One of the results of the oil crises was feeling that oil might run out. Known oil reserves would only last for a few decades into the future. But time passed by and oil did not run out. In fact remaining oil reserves seemed to increase each year rather than deplete. Today the general consensus is that oil will not run out, at least not in the foreseeable future. Anyone who thinks differently is a crackpot or a doomsayer. History has taught us that we will find as much new oil each year as we pump from the ground. Yet, this will not go on forever. Oil is a limited, non-renewable resource. Every time we burn a barrel, there is one less barrel left. Eventually oil will run out, or at least become scarce enough and costly enough so that we wont burn it all. Before oil runs out, there will be a peak in production. We have not passed that peak yet, but growth in production tends to be slowing.

Just maybe if US citizens started paying a realistic price for it

The fact is that we do pay a realistic price for it.

The Europeans are the ones who pay an unrealistic price for it. A price artificially jacked up by ridiculous taxes.

they'd stop using more than the rest of the world put together and start wondering what they're doing to their kid's futures.

Perhaps there is a reason why Europe enjoys extraordinarily high unemployment rates -- rates that would be considered to be indicative of a depression here in the U.S..

Perhaps "the rest of the world" needs to follow an example.

Message edited on: 09/03/2004 22:17

Son. I don't really want to lay this on you, but my university schooling was in geology and mining engineering. Your little diatribe there is nonsensical. I'm not going to go into any detail. If you really want to learn about non renewable energy resources then research it and learn about it. Geophysical methods of identifying crude reserves were all but perfected years ago. There are a few spots on the planet that haven't been fully explored simply because we can't physically reach them very easily. Oil is a non renewable resourse that is indeed disappearing. Attempting to argue otherwise is silly.

Message edited on: 09/03/2004 22:26

Message edited on: 09/03/2004 22:35

Attached Link: http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html

Odd how you seem to assume that I don't hold 5 PhD's. But I've never considered academic laundry lists to be a way of gaining -- nor of denying -- credibility to an argument. It's just a way of attempting to condescend and overawe.

In spite of your educational claims, you've missed my point completely.

Yes, oil is non-renewable. I never stated that it wasn't.

However, the doom scenario isn't one to swallow.

With increased technology (not to mention need), shale oil can become economically viable. That will last us for another 200 years or so.

It's been said that necessity is the mother of invention. Fuel cells and other technologies will come to fill the gap.

I'm not particularly concerned about doom 'n gloom predictions.

Throughout history, the world has ended numerous times -- according to predictions made by individuals living in those times.

We're still here.

*In the past two years, a number of articles have appeared warning not only of a new oil crisis, but of the end of the oil era, as oil production inevitably peaks and declines due to inexorable geological forces. These include "Mideast Oil Forever?" by Joseph J. Romm and Charles B. Curtis and "Heading Off the Permanent Oil Crisis," by James J. MacKenzie, among others.

The profusion of articles on the subject is unfortunate, since the casual reader (and policy-maker) might conclude that the large number of articles have an equally large amount of research behind them. In truth, most of these are not actually about oil, but take the assumption that oil scarcity is imminent, especially outside the Middle East, and nearly all rely on a few pessimistic quotes from oil men, or recent work by one or two geologists using what is known as a "Hubbert approach." Most notable are the recent publication of the book The Coming Oil Crisis by Colin Campbell and the March 1998 Scientific American article "The End of Cheap Oil" by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere.

The gist of their argument is that most of the world's oil has already been found, as evidenced by the alleged lack of recent giant discoveries; Middle East reserves have been overstated for political reasons; actual total recoverable resources are only about 1.8 trillion barrels, not the 2.4 trillion barrels that others have estimated; existing fields will not continue to expand in size and production as others suggest; and most oil producing countries outside the Middle East are said to be near, if not past, their point of peak production, which occurs when 50% of total oil resources have been produced. Production is predicted to drop off steeply afterwards. Thus, they forecast that "The End of Cheap Oil" is at hand and prices will be rising shortly.*

See the link for the rest of the article on "Crying Wolf".

...you're babbling.

Message edited on: 09/03/2004 22:49

...you're babbling.

Yeah.

That your best shot?

That one was too easy........ Message edited on: 09/03/2004 22:57

SO... How about some renders of 8 Oily Naked Vickys in a Temple with a PhD from SHADE hmm?

What are you trying to do? Keep this thread on topic or something? Great way of bringing it all together. I'm impressed. Perhaps I'll give your suggestion a try -- sometime after Shade arrives in my mailbox.

Incidentally, Xenophonz. That smug, ignorant 'American attitude' is why we are so hated in the world these days. Think before you spout.

Tunsey --

If we are going to continue this, then we need to take it over to the Den -- although it might not fly over there, either.

The management tends to frown on off-topic debates in the Poser forum. Such activity tends to lead to deleted posts and to locked/deleted threads. Believe me, several threads with my personal "greatest hits" in them now reside in the Coordinator's Forum: a place to which we peons have no access.

So.....in the interest of not hijacking this thread, I'll just let the matter drop.

It's late. Going off-line for tonight.

Message edited on: 09/04/2004 00:31

My personal conclusions from this thread: If you already have a good modeling app, go for Vue. I don't think Shade can beat Vue when it comes to environments. Vue/Mover 5 supports dynamic hair, Shade doesn't. But when you don't have a decent modeling app, then Shade is definitely very interesting and affordable. By the way, PoserFusion in the demo only shows the first frame of a pz3, I couldn't find out how to go to later frames.

svdl;

that's what I'm trying to work out. I already have Vue 4 Pro, and will be upgrading to 5 which will have GI and radiosity, so my interest in Shade is as a modeller. I can't justify the cost of something like Max, which I understand and have used at work, but I'm frustrated with arkward interfaces and lack features in freebies (currently using Anim8or) and cheapies (bought Amorphium 3 and never got on with it) so; can anyone give me an idea of just how good Shade is as a modeller?

Xenophonz;

The UK continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world at 4.8% compared with the United States (5.6%), Spain (11.1%), Germany (9.8%) and France (9.5%).

Source: ONS (Office of National Statistics)

Considering we in the UK pay the highest petrol (gasolene) taxes in Europe, you might want reconsider the statement:

Perhaps there is a reason why Europe enjoys extraordinarily high unemployment rates -- rates that would be considered to be indicative of a depression here in the U.S..

Perhaps it has nothing to do with fuel taxes, which are much lower in Spain, France and Germany?

John

As for free modelers: there's ZModeler (free, but the site that hosts it, somewhere in Russia, is quite instable and offline most of the time), Wings3D (which I know next to nothing about), and Blender.

Blender is highly spoken of, it seems to be very powerful, there's also quite an active group supporting it with plugins, tutorials and freebies. Lots and lots of importers/exporters, not in the core package but as free downloads (alas, via a very clunky Python scripting interface), but everything works. One of the few open source programs I know about with halfway decent documentation. I do know the user interface relies heavily on combined keybourd/mouse use, learning all the keuboard commands may take quite some time.

There's also gmax, a free version of Max, without rendering, materials and UVmapping. I've read about problems with importing and exporting objects, but you could always use Blender for the conversions.

I do my modeling work in Max 4.26, I've got a licence from work. As a modeler it beats Shade hands down - but it is extremely expensive to buy yourself. Same goes for other high-end packages like Maya and XSI.

Lightwave, while not as cheap as Shade LE, has a good reputation as a modeler, lots of merchants here use Lightwave for their modeling work. Shade Pro might be on the same level with Lightwave - but the prices are comparable too. Lightwave does not have Poser integration, Shade does. Quite useful for modeling clothes and cloth morphs (but you can do that in Lightwave too, just import the character .OBJ files).

Hope this info is useful.

svdl;

Thank's very much. Think I've tried all the freebies, including Wings and Blender, can't seem to really get on with any of them. I think my problem is that, having learned 3D modelling using the first 3D Studio for DOS (around the time Autodesk bought it, what was the name of the company that created it?), I'm kind of stuck in the old lofting room and stuff, looking for something based on that paradigm.

I never tried gmax as I didn't think it could export anything, if it is just like the modelling tools out of Max that's exactly want I'm looking for! Point me to the download!!!

John

Don't worry, found it myself! At Turbosquid?!?! Downloading now. John

It's pretty clear to me......if you want to model something other than landscapes, then Shade makes sense. Vue is not a character modeler...it's an environment generator. If you don't want to learn how to model, prefer to buy them from other merchants, or you already have a good character modeling program, then I wouldn't see much need to lay out the extra cash. It's what I'm trying to decide....do I or do I not want to learn how to model.

Attached Link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031206.html

The problem can be stated in another way: Are you content with what other people have built and textured, or do you find yourself needing stuff which isn't on the market because it is "too niche".

Suppose that you need a Welsh weddingspoon for an anniversary picture, or one of the Inuit stone men to place on a headland (with drakkars in the background), or a Russian-domed building covered in snow for your Christmas card? Asking for stuff like combination locks or bars of soap or propeller beanies is reasonable (a lot of other people might also need a padlock), and good folks such as Little Dragon or Cooler or Trekkiegrrrl are quick to respond. When joining Traveler's PropsClub I noticed all the stuff for doggies and asked for some cat toys. I didn't feel too guilty, because there are a lot of people who pamper even their virtual cats, and Traveler graciously oblidged the next week. But how many people even know about the stone men?
Something I'd like to model someday are the stone observational buildings erected in the 18th century in India by Jai Singh II... like sundials and such, only huge and very, very precise. A lot of people like orreries and astrolabes and gyroscopes, because those are gadgets... but how many people would want a bare swoop of granite pointing to the sky?

So if there are images you want to build, but you are just lacking a piece or prop, and it is something pretty specific, you might consider a modeler.

Message edited on: 09/05/2004 13:13

Attached Link: http://mondediplo.com/1998/04/12robert

Many European countries (including the UK) have interesting methods of calculating unemployment rates.

*On 4 February (1998) the United Kingdom adopted a new system for calculating the number of jobless and "discovered" 500,000 more than expected. This has upped the British unemployment rate from 5% to 7% of the working population. Earlier statistics covered only those on unemployment benefit, rather than the total number of unemployed (1). In fact, the Conservatives changed their method of calculation 32 times between 1979 and 1997, each time omitting certain groups from the statistics, such as young people under the age of 17, the over 55s or the long-term unemployed.

This is a watertight way of producing "good" statistics. Similarly in the Netherlands, the official figures cover only 6% of real unemployment thanks to a very broad interpretation of the concept of disability: it disguises the existence of some 800,000 unemployed workers by describing them as "unfit", although many if not most of them are quite able to work. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), were it not for this manipulation, the real unemployment rate would rise to 20% (2).*

So, you might want to reconsider the statement:

Perhaps it has nothing to do with fuel taxes, which are much lower in Spain, France and Germany?

I don't agree with everything that this article claims, but it does point out some of the statistical "games" that governments play (yes, including the US) in order to make the employment picture look far more rosy than it actually is.

In addition to which, I would never lay the blame for European economic difficulties only at the door of high petrol taxes. The effects of Euro-style socialism go well beyond that one factor alone.

But one must admit that it's true -- Ireland is booming.

Why? Because they are lowering taxes:

*In January The European Commission rapped Ireland's knuckles. The Emerald Isle's sin: planning another round of tax cuts. Ireland has previously incurred Brussels' scorn for its low-tax regime. True, Germany and France are engaged in some of their own tax cutting, thanks to their less-than-stellar economies and their paltry participation in high technology. But they and most other EU countries don't like the idea of it at all, so they vent their spleen by picking on Dublin.

What makes Ireland's tax "sins" truly unforgivable is that the cuts are working. Ireland's unemployment rate is lower than ours. Its budget surplus is proportionately higher, and its growth rate is 10.7%. Indeed, revenues are pouring in at such a rate that Dublin is embarking on a major spending program to improve the country's road system and is paying down its national debt.

The European Commission's periodic anti-Irish eruptions underscore the reason the Bush Administration should seriously consider extending NAFTA to the Emerald Isle and Britain. Such a move would send a loud message to the EU that we fervently support economic liberalizationnot a statist, high-tax, pro-government, anti-entrepreneurial, bureaucratically driven regime.*

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0305/039_print.html

We need to lower taxes over here, too.

Message edited on: 09/05/2004 16:04

Xeno: Your origninal post was to counter our British friend:

"OK -- I said that I'd stay out of the politics, but someone has chosen to issue a challenge:

the world will be out of the grades of oil that produce your gasoline within 40 years, well within my grandchildren's lifetimes."

Nothing you've posted has remotely established your point. His point remains valid. We should probably let this go, though. Most of us want to learn about Shade here.

Message edited on: 09/05/2004 16:52

hauksdottir is absolutly right. Furthermore if you model something by yourself it gives you this added feel of coziness... just like sucking lemons through a straw, but different.

Nothing you've posted has remotely established your point. His point remains valid.

Uh.....I thought that we had dispensed with the "oil supplies gone in 40 years" bit, and that we had moved on to other matters.

Oh, well.....

As for making broad statements about what's "valid", and what isn't -- that's somewhat subjective.

just like sucking lemons through a straw, but different. I've never tried that. Perhaps I've been missing out on something?

Can you gentle people take the political discussion (oil and taxes and employment) to The Den (and remember to keep it civil). This thread is becoming far too tangled and is losing value to folks wanting to read about and discuss the software and its whys and wherefores. Thank you, Carolly Renderosity Moderator

sandoppe: if you don't know if you want to model, I'd suggest you try out one of the free products mentioned in this thread. I can't give you recommendations, I haven't used any of them to a significant degree. I'm rather happy with 3D Studio Max, but it's way too expensive just for a "tryout". There's a free 30 day demo that you can try, it's fully functional as far as I know.

Not sure if I want to learn how to model or go to the Den and talk about employment loss.....something I know about having worked in the employment and training field for over 30 years!! :) I do agree with Carolly that there are times when you just can't find what you're looking for either free or at cost and knowing how to model would certainly be a plus in that regard. I've probably spent enough puchasing other folks models to have acquired 3d MAX 5 times! I've thought about the free products, but there is something to be said about the adage: "you get what you pay for". Besides....I'm one of those people who tends to attend to business much better if I pay for something. I'm currently working with the Shade demo and getting some tips along the way. The cameras are making me crazy.....they make no sense to me right now, but I suspect I'm missing something very simple and will have one of those "Ah Ha!" moments any day now! One of the things that really thrills me about Shade is that you can cancel any action any time without crashing it!! :) The plain rendering is fast....of course you're sort of limited with the demo to a 480x480 image embellished with watermarks, so it's a bit difficult to get a good look at the results. I turned on the radiosity thingee and it's busy doing something right now...not sure what. A little red dot is scrambling around the image....like maybe it's calculating something. Not sure what that's about, but it looks to be just about done.

If money isn't the issue, and you're sure you want to model, then I'd say go for Max. It's better at everything than Shade (including Poser integration if you purchase the Reiss BodyStudio plugin), as it should be for that price tag.

sandoppe: If it is available to you, the beginners tutorial explains how to use the camera in such a way that I had my AHA! moment very quickly. Now that I know how it works, I really like it. It's better than other program that I use. Much more precise.

Will try to explain, hope this is clear.

In the camera toolbox (the one with the awkward tic-tac-toe box), click the radio button labeled 'Target'. Then holding down the CTRL key, click what you want to look at in two of the three views. Then click on 'Set' to the right of radio button.

Then, basically do the same with where you want to look from using the 'Eye' radio button.

You should see view in the perspective panel change to what you choose.

Message edited on: 09/05/2004 21:00

Can you gentle people take the political discussion (oil and taxes and employment) to The Den (and remember to keep it civil). This thread is becoming far too tangled and is losing value to folks wanting to read about and discuss the software and its whys and wherefores.

Actually -- you're right.

No probs here.

;-)

Hi, Sorry I haven't been able to post lately. Lots of discussion on the price comparison from US to Euro. CL is now able to place appropriate pricing globally. The changes in conversions can be difficult to keep up-to-the-minute, but what we will have when the Euro site is fully finished/live, is unified pricing. That means $100 will be 100 Euros. The special pricing for Poser users such as the $49 for Shade designer LE (if you are a Poser Artist, Poser 4 or Poser 5 user) will be 40 euros coming soon. We're hoping VERY soon. Just check back on our site. On Shade and Vue, as a user - both are part of a 3D suite. Of course there's some overlap as is in with many programs, but Vue is a fantastic terrain program and Shade is a fantastic modeling program. Shade standard seems to be the most popular so far. It's the "mainstream" program for most. Those new to 3D prefer the designer LE version is a good fit. And as many might be surprised, the professional version has been pretty popular so far as well. The professional has many more bridge support with plug-ins for those who prefer using more than one program for professional and unique final images. Will post this as a new message as well to those who may not return to this thread. With kind regards, Katherine

Katherine: Can you list what plug ins are supported by both the standard and Pro ? Or point me to a list :) The Pro version is more than my pocketbook can handle at this point, but the Standard is do-able.

Attached Link: http://www.curiouslabs.com/filemanager/download/516/Shade%207%20Feature%20Chart_Web.pdf?sbss=416

Thanks for the link! For plug-in capability, not much difference between standard and Pro it would appear. The 3ds MAX and Lightwave (LWO) import/export capability with the Pro version, probably accounts for a good deal of the interest in that version. That and the additional rendering capabilities (especially Network rendering). For me, it may be a toss up between Standard and LE, with a lean toward Standard because of the Scripting and Plug-In capabilities.