Attached Link: http://www.cgfocus.com/ArticleDetails.cfm?ArticleID=283

Read the whole thing and I'm not sure if he's using the same application as I do. A lot of the things he mentions as hard to do and not sufficient, are very well to in Vue and very sufficient in my opinion. To me Vue 5 doesn't feel like a light version at all and it isn't for sure. Seems like his review is based on the first impression of Vue 5, without really going all out with the application. It does cover much more then my basic needs and I even manage to build great scenes with ease.... seems like the reviewer couldn't.

I read the article now too. Interesting. But I still try to understand what the author wanted me to tell. That he is a critical journalist? Had not much ot complain about really. Beside the non scalable windows and the missing Pro features. That he is an 3D expert? Not really in my eyes. He should show me one other application that makes it especially beginners so easy to do excellent images. All type of images when i look into our gallery here. He said it is sweatening if you want good results? Well, show me one technique that gives you that without efforts. No input, not output. Very simple. But all in all it is not too bad article. So i don't complain. To use his technique, there is always a "but". The style of this article sounds a little like a school essay. Too much menu description, not enough imagination what can be done with the features he got in the package. And no knowledge of the historical background of Vue d'Esprit when it comes to reasons for things in 5.

I agree. I find the review shocking. If I summarize the article, all you can do with Vue 5 is use presets. I find this insulting to all the wonderful artists that post such nice images in the gallery here. Doesn't make me think much of cg focus to hire such poor reviewers.

A few points from my 2 cents... #1 I can criticize Vue, because I understand it, and yes, even love it. :) This guy's bugging me when he does so. ;) #2 As for the customizable interface thing, well, it's not a make-or break thing, IMO. Example: Lightwave has a menu (not to mention keyboard shortcuts) that is so customizable, it's ridiculous. Yeah, it's cool, and yeah, I use it, but I wouldn't say, "this is a professional app because I can rename my box-creation tool, 'SpongeBob' if I want to." Yet, he seesms to imply that somehow "pros" need to be able to do so... #3 You set your atmosphere settings before you do anything else... Who made that rule? (By this point, I'm figuring the guy really doesn't understand this software much, at least not enough to "review" it for anyone but himself) #4 The bottom line... The first time you ever start Vue, you can create a cool island scene in just a few clicks, in just a few seconds. But that's where the "easy fun" stops, if you want more control, you either have to sweat for it, or you simply cannot have it. Well, that's just inconsistent: One the one hand, it's unprofessional because of the lack of interface customizability, but then, later, it's not "user-friendly" because you have to think too much to make something good. Hmmm...wouldn't that same professional who knows what he's missing in not being able to tweaek the menues be able to figure out how to make a decent water material with his vast knowledge... My quickie review of this review: This guy missed the whole point. And, in the second sentence, he spelled "imitate" wrong. ;)

One more thing: ...this is another sign of Vue's apparent identity crisis : is it trying to be something more than a landscape creator ? That's always bothered me in a fundamental way. I remember a long time ago lobbying e-on to not refer to Vue as a "landscape generator", because it just sounds wrong. Makes it sound "cookie-cutter", or somehow like the creative process is bypassed or compromised. Vue doesn't "generate" anything on it's own other than pre-programmed presets which someone else already came up with, but, the thing is, any one of us can do it too, if we understand certain fundamentals as to what makes for reaslism in materials, lighting, etcetera. In other words, its only real limitation is your own knowledge; if you can't visualize, Vue ain't gonna do it for you, but if you can, Vue can render up there with the best of them. But as to whether Vue is trying to be something it's not, I would say, "No." Vue d'Esprit is a 3d model surfacing/rendering program, which has built-in funcionality for incredibly realistic outdoor scenes, but which has, unfortunately, and largely because of its marketing, been branded by the public as good for only landscapes.

Wow, you know, I really wish these reviewers would actually bother to review the software based on how it works and not what they would have "liked" to see included. What a crappy review, I mean, he compliments it and then slams it down. I have yet to see another software that functions as smoothly or easily as Vue does.

Ah One of those: RAA Real Application Apologist He -did- miss a few points in there, didn't he? like the procedural terrains. Oops. Like the ability to use Vue in a networked rendering configuration, to enable animation in a reasonable amount of time. Aw, shucks. Being able to import content animated in Poser into Vue 5 with Mover 5. Oops, I used the 'P' word. Etc, ad nauseum... Yeah, E-on really needs to find a way to emphasize that Vue can be used to create more than landscapes, and can be part of a nice little rendering pipeline for those of us who can't afford the money and time to purchase and learn the big 3...

LOL! :)

We start out with the preconception that VUE is an amateur tool based on the pricetag and write a review that fits that idea. The trick for E-on would be to raise the pricetag by adding a 1 before the $249 because the same reviewer seems to like the uncustomizable interface of RealViz 4 well enough. In other words the usual tunnelvision of "pro's" aka "if it ain't expensive it ain't worth sh*t".

I too find it insulting. I'm not shure what's going on with medias today. It seems that some people think they are the center of the world and that their words are the words of god. Bullsh*t
But who are they really?
I love Vue 5, and I don't believe anything in that crappy review.
How come any News forum can publish this, it seems they're not really aware of what the real users think of the product they have in their hands...
It makes me wonder if those guys are really doing their job correctly...

CG Focus just lost one more reader!

Well, I don't like the review either, but only because I think he chose the wrong things to crit. I tried the demo, and I wasn't overly impressed with Vue 5, maybe because I never tried Vue 4 and don't realize the improvements made. I can only observe what it's lacking compared to other apps I've used. Anyway, the main thing I would crit about it would be the lack of control over the Radiosity solution (which may be addressed in Vue 5 Pro), the lack of weather/seasonal control (something that may or may not be put into Vue 5 Pro), and I find it lacking in some G-Buffer output info. It has Alpha and Z-buffer output, and that's about it from what I've seen? I'd like more control in that area. Anyway, it's a cool program overall. I don't like the inability to customize the interface either, but I don't find it extremely difficult. It just won't adapt to individual workflow as well. All this talk about "pros" looking down on apps because of their price is bullshit. Pros - real pros - would much rather work with an app that costs less but can do more. For instance, if Adobe After Effects could do what Discreet Inferno can do, and as efficiently, then why would an FX studio ever think about investing over $50,000 per seat for the high end solution? They're all about making a profit and saving money. Think about it. The kids who go on boards and talk about apps being better just because the price is higher are usually just warez kiddies who hacked their copy of the app, and wanna pretend to be a pro. The fact is, most low-end to mid-level software ARE more limited in different areas of importance than the higher end solutions, and often times (more times than not) it's just more efficient to use an app that has everything you need built in, rather than spending countless hours doing workarounds for what should be simple tasks. There are reasons why the big apps like Lightwave, Maya, 3dsMax, and Softimage XSI are being used by the pros, and believe me, it's not all about the price. Anyway, I'm still holding out for Vue 5 Pro. Should be a great app. ;-)

Excactly what I meant, unless you use a $50000 program you're not a Pro, so all you have to do to become a Pro isto use an expensive program. :)

MikeJ wrote: "#3 You set your atmosphere settings before you do anything else... Who made that rule?" It probably refers to the fact that when you start a new scene, you are immediately prompted to choose an atmosphere.

Yeah but that's just a starting point, I know with me I select a standard daytime atmosphere to start with while I arrange the scene and do the texturing (so I can see what I'm doing more clearly) and then after I'm happy with that I load the atmosphere I really want to use and start tweaking from there. There's no rule you have to use the atmosphere you start with, the review seemed to imply that you HAD to set up the atmosphere you want in your final image first, that there was no other order you could go in, whether you select one or start with the default one (as most softwares do) you still don't have to start by tweaking the atmosphere.

Hi everybody. This is Nick Hatzichristos, I am the writer of the review this thread is all about.

I decided to reply to this thread, which just came to my attention, in order to show that maybe some of you guys are reading the review wrong.

First of all, like a few of you have already pointed out, the Vue line of products is marketed as landscape/scenery generation software, and Vue 5 Esprit was reviewed as such. If you, the experienced users believe, or know, that it is more than that, I respect that knowledge. But I urge you to understand that the review was based on its landscape generation features.

About Vue 5 Esprit being a "light version"... Vue comes in two flavors, Esprit and Professional. Esprit looks like Pro, works a lot like Pro, and its only differences are it costs a fraction of the price of Pro, and misses a number of the features of Pro. If all those aren't typical characteristics of a "light version", I don't know what is.
Being a "light version" is not a bad thing, by the way - I don't see why anyone would consider calling an app "light" such an insult.

I also don't see how some of you thought I tried to present myself as the ultimate 3D expert. I did not try to present myself as anything; I wasn't the object of the review, Vue 5 Esprit was.

Wabe said in post #3, "show me one other application that makes it especially beginners so easy to do excellent images". That's exactly the point, and one clearly illustrated in my review. That Vue 5 is excellent for beginners, making it very easy on them. At the same time, however, that's the drawback - all images, as wonderful as they may be (and they are), have that distinctive "Vue" look. If you want to get past that and create something trully original or realistic, then it takes a lot of work. The bottom line, Vue 5 has a click-and-wow side, and a deep-and-technical side. Which is an odd balance to say the least, and that is exactly the point made in the review.

The "school essay" writing style was deliberate, as I 'm tired of the usual writing style of many other reviews. Imagination regarding what can be done with Vue was restricted by its advertising as landscape software (you can do landscapes in Lightwave, should it be reviewed as landscape generation software, when it's not advertised as such ?). As for the historical background, I don't see "heritage" as a reason to not fix something when it's wrong. And in my opinion, some things are off. History shouldn't hold developers back.

Petshoo said in post #4 that "I find the review shocking. If I summarize the article, all you can do with Vue 5 is use presets". Petshoo, read again. There is so much in that review that emphasizes the exact opposite, while commenting on e-on for adding such a great collection of presets for everything (which makes it easy on beginners).

MikeJ's point #1 in post #5 : "I can criticize Vue, because I understand it, and yes, even love it. :) This guy's bugging me when he does so". Mike, anyone who either loves or hates a product is the wrong person to review it. I did the review bias-free, telling everything like I believe it is.
Point #2 says "the customizable interface thing, well, it's not a make-or break thing", and "he seems to imply that somehow "pros" need to be able to do so..." . Not at all. First of all, no one, and certainly not I, ever brought any amateur/pro disputes into this, so please don't do it now. As for the interface, sure it's not a make-or-break thing, but it is really annoying when everything is set in stone in that area. Still, I never presented it as a showstopper, just as an annoyance. And I did point out the good things in the interface. Maybe you missed those parts, but they 're there.
Point #3 : "You set your atmosphere settings before you do anything else... Who made that rule?".
No one made any such rule. I 'm just reflecting the classic workflow. Is it a coincidence that the atmosphere presets come up by default every time you hit the "new scene" button ? And I did mention that you can go back and edit everything, any time.
Point #4 : You believe I claimed that "it's unprofessional because of the lack of interface customizability"... Well, I don't know how you came to this conclusion, but it's not what the article says or even implies, my friend. Later on you imply that I believe that "you have to think too much to make something good" - again, it's not the thinking that bothers me, it's the difficulty in executing your thoughts.

I do admit to one thing though. I did spell "imitate" wrong right in my second sentence :)

Nanotyrranus said in post #7 that "he compliments it and then slams it down". Yes, more or less. I complimented it on its great features and "slammed down" (actually, criticised) its shortcomings. That's what a review is supposed to be like.

As for me judging an app by its price tag, that is just plain wrong. I use and rely on $300 apps in my work every day, and I only have the best things to say about them. And by the way, REALVIZ MotionBuilder's interface is very customizable, hein (post #10), although that wasn't what made it a reliable tool.
Do I "think [I am] the center of the world and that [my] words are the words of god" ? Of course not, I don't know where you got that from, kwanou (post #11). If you don't agree with what I have to say, that is fine, different people have different opinions.

Finally... I think some of you guys here need to re-read that review. Try to stay objective while you do it, too. I appreciate the civilized comments of some of you (note taken, thank you guys). However, there is something very insulting here which I will not tolerate, and that isn't the review - it is the name-calling, hostile attitude towards me by a minority of Vue users posting here, just because I "dared" to call e-on on what I thought where some bad calls, and point out the product's weaknesses. A few of you seem they haven't even read the good things I had to say. A few of you seem they haven't even read, period.

I 'll apologize for one thing, and that is the length of this post. It is not my intention to start a flame war, only to try and make things a little clearer.

Thanks for reading. I 'm open to constructive criticism, as well as any clarification on any specific parts of the review you believe I was flat out wrong in.

nick

Thanks Nick for some of the clarifications, I was actually going to go back and read the review again, but the link no longer goes there and I couldn't find it under the reviews or articles sections of cgfocus so, oh well I suppose. I really do feel though that you spent a lot of time in the review rating it by some of the features it didn't have as opposed to rating the features that were there and whether or not they were useful and or whether or not they were buggy. Would I like weather effects in Vue? Sure, but reading a review I'm usually more interested in what I CAN do in a software than what I can't do, but that's just me.

Maybe it's just me, but Vue fits just fine into my workflow without the need for customizable toolbars and a re-arrangeable interface and I really like it's interface, it's organized in such a way that I have no problem getting where I need to go, so for me it doesn't NEED to be re-arrangeable. My background is primarily Autocad and so I use a customizable interface program on a regular basis, but I don't think Vue needs it. I'm really trying to keep this whole thing civil (I mean, it's a review, not the end of the world) I just thought that your review of the program could have used more analysis of how well Vue does what it does and less of how Vue 5 doesn't have what you were hoping for.

Anyway, no offense intended or taken, Happy Reviewing/Rendering

Message edited on: 12/08/2004 16:07

Hey nanotyrannus, I removed the article temporarely until we clarify the issue with e-on. Here it is in plain form: http://www.cgfocus.com/Vue5_rem.cfm Cheers!

Thanks Flywaver! I've read it again and I still mostly stand by my comments about it featuring a lot of emphasis on what it can't do and not enough on what the new features are (especially metablobs, text and procedural terrains). I do still disagree with the "lite" analogy as the Esprit line is actually the original program, and Pro doesn't have nearly as many "extra" features as the review implies. I actually use both versions in my free time and for work and the only time I really miss any of the Pro features is when I need to update a model in the original software it was created in (Pro recognizes when you modify the model and will update it if you want). I suppose when I compare it to Bryce 5 (It's closest competitor for quite a while) even given that Bryce is a few years out of date there's still a lot more I like about Vue than Bryce (I can't stand Bryce's interface), and none of the things that were brought up as negatives in the review were things that (at least as far as I'm aware of) are available in Bryce or any of the comparable softwares (I could be way off on this as I haven't tried Carrera and my experience with Worldbuilder's interface was horrible to put in mildly). Thanks for posting the link! Regards :)

nixx-vfx...go look in the galleries if you want to see Vue 5 in the hands of true masters....Czarnyrobert for 1, several others I can't recall off the top of my head. The only difference In the Pro version & V4-V5 is the lighting & animation & plant editor. I can edit my own plants by scanning leaves etc & applying them..no biggie...I'm not into animation, so I don't care...Lighting I consider VERY crucial.

You stated all scenes look like Vue...well when I look at pics quite frankly I can tell if they are done in Vue/Bryce/Poser/3dsmax etc...it's all obvious unless you are a master and there are so few of those. IMHO...only Pixar are Disney(only Pixar lately) I can't tell what they have used ;)

So, IMHO...your review is less than accurate. IMHO you should take more time & explore the program for a few months maybe then make your review :) As for what it can't do...well there are other softwares out there that allow for weather/particle effects etc(I'd prefer to save on render time thank you :)...Postwork works fine for me.

Message edited on: 12/08/2004 19:16

dlk30341 english is not my language what do you mean by IMHO?

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion :) = Internet lingo

"You stated all scenes look like Vue...well when I look at pics quite frankly I can tell if they are done in Vue/Bryce/Poser/3dsmax" I'd love to know how you can tell the difference between something done in Max and something done in Maya or Lightwave. I can tell when something is done in Bryce or Vue or Poser because so many times, people tend to incorporate PRE-packaged materials and models in their work. The Bryce standard atmosphere, with it's tell-tale blue hue and hard shadows gives it away, but I've seen some renders done with it using light domes that mimic things I've seen done in Lightwave or Max. I don't think there's much to destingish any app from one another if the user doesn't use default settings.

" IMHO = In My Humble Opinion :) = Internet lingo" Damn. I always thought that it meant - "In my honest opinion". Hehehe.