This isn't a rant, but I have been thinking about this question since I got back into 3D this summer. By way of introduction, I began using 3D software on the Amiga back in 1986. I owned the first versions of what would become Lightwave and A:M as well as a half dozen other programs. The tool I became most proficient in at the time was Turbo Silver, which eventually became Imagine 3D on the PC. I stopped trying to be a 3D modeler/animator in the mid-90's as my career forced me to focus on other activities. In the intervening years, I tried to keep up with developments in the field and bought every-other upgrade to keep Lightwave and Imagine current. I also played with the various versions of 3D Studio and Poser along the way. Anyway, here it is ten years later and I have the time on my hands to dabble with 3D again. The software is definitely more powerful. Poser 5 or Maya 6 or A:M 2004 run circles around anything I used back in the day. But when you stop to look at everything on the market (from XSI to Maya to 3DS Max to Lightwave), you don't see any efforts at simplification or streamlining of workflow. You just see layer upon layer of commands and features, each more cryptic than the next. (And don't get me started on the lack of a uniform terminology!) Even Poser, the program with the simplest mission, has evolved with version 5 into a increasingly labrynthine resource hog. But never mind the complexity issue. What gets me is that users are asked to reinvent the wheel every single time they begin a new project. It's almost as if a film director were asked to handcraft every single element on the screen (as well as the lights and other technical gear) for every shot before beginning to work with his actors and film crew. So my question is: why haven't these programs' developers (Curious Labs included) taken a step back and introduced wizards or other such tools that might hold a user's hand and automate some of the most routine modeling tasks? For example, every 3D project involves sets and props. I know you could buy pre-built set elements, but they're rarely exactly what you need for a scene. Why couldn't a program offer set and prop primitives that could be customized (including materials) via a Wizard? Think of the time and effort that could be saved. I know what most of you are thinking: it's impossible for a programmer to anticipate every single prop you might want to dream up for a scene. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. But there are so many things that are so basic. Rather than create a plane and map it with a tiled texture, wouldn't it be great if you could tell the software you wanted a floor made of wood planks? And wouldn't it be great to tell the software you wanted to create a 12x12 room with 8-foot high ceiling and a door and window? And you wanted to add a tungsten or flourescent light source? I've been playing with the Room Planner in Shade Professional and it is a step in this direction, but it leaves a lot to be desired as a Wizard. And getting back to the original mission of Poser, shouldn't it be possible to offer a humanoid primitive that can be roughly modeled via a Wizard (inputting as many or as few specific dimensions as one would like) and then fine-tuned to one's heart's content by hand? The Poser dials are too abstract for my taste. I'm not an artist by any stretch of the imagination, so I generally model from the real world and take very precise measurements. Maybe I'm just being ignorant here, but with all the computing power and sophistication of these software tools, it seems to me that this is all possible if developers would stop and think about true productivity rather than the latest and greatest whiz-bang features. Thoughts?

Well, no offense man... I see where you're coming from, but it puts a knot in my stomach whenever I hear people complain that they have to WORK to get what they want out of an application. :-) People always demand MORE functionality, MORE features, MORE capability to create whatever they can imagine, yet they also want the program to walk them by the hand through the entire process. It must be a reflection of our culture. We want FAST food, we want it made to order, and we want it NOW. Then when it tastes like crap, we complain. There are applications out there that let you design a room like you have suggested, by simply telling it you want an 8 foot door put here or there, windows, etc. But in order to get full customization of the elements in a scene, to your exact specifications, you need some manual parameters to dictate to the application what you want it to do. Using a wizard for everything couldn't possibly allow you to create something exactly the way you want it, while at the same time allow you to create something that's unique from everyone else's works. In order to do that, you still need to have parameters that allow manual input. "Why couldn't a program offer set and prop primitives that could be customized (including materials) via a Wizard? Think of the time and effort that could be saved." This is exactly what I have found available in some programs. In Max, for example, there are plugins with which you can put a chair in a scene, and using a parameter panel, customize the chair to your specifications. There's another one for trees, walls, etc. There are literally dozens of primitives objects pre-installed with the app, of all shapes, that you can customize in infinite ways to use as starting points in your scenes. 3D has come a long way IMHO, and is getting easier every year. No, it's not "instant" yet, nor will it ever be truly instant for most users who want to utilize the software to create unique and specific projects. There should be, and probably will always be, manual manipulation required on some level.

The wizard idea would be hard to implement and use a lot of memory etc. For people who didn`t want to use the wizard it would be an unusable extra like the content room in poser 5. Also the wizard idea would take out some of the creativity involved in making a scene. Poser 5 is still fairly simple to use. I used imagine and lightwave on the amiga too, I preferred imagine and still use it now on the pc for making figures and props.

Maxxxmodelz, no offense taken. I'm not advocating a wizards-only approach to modeling or anything like that. I'm just wondering aloud hoping to start a dialogue about why things haven't progressed further along these lines. The fast food analogy may be appropriate, but to my mind, 3D apps require you to hunt your food before you even think about preparing it!

Xantor, I guess it all depends on the software you mastered first, but despite having access to every high-end app out there, I still find it so relatively straight forward to use Imagine!

The problem with newer 3d programs is that they can do a lot more but are a lot more complicated.

Right. So back to my original question. Why haven't developers taken a step back and tried to simplify their software by automating some repetitive tasks? Don't get me wrong, I get great pleasure out of modeling little bric a brac and I usually end up putting way more detail in the model than will ever be seen. But for the most basic backdrops and props (walls, floors, ceilings, windows, doors, tables, chairs and yes, maxxxmodelz, streets and sidewalks) should you really have to spend time building them by hand for every new scene?

Imagine has slipped way behind everything else, unfortunately. Lightwave is very capable, but I don't care for the UI or the split application thing. My favorite for workflow is Cinema4D. It doesn't have any such 'wizards, but everything about the UI is very intuitive, especially since r8.5 and r9.

I took a course for 3dsMax a while back, and found it to be a waste of money (the course). Once I was shown how to do certain things, I kicked myself for not having gone through the manual more carefully. Most things were VERY easy to understand in my opinion, and all I really needed to do was go through a few of the tutorials that came with the software to get a basic understanding of how it works.

Between the enormous library of step-by-step tutorials available for Max and other apps online for free, the multitudes of instructional books that are out there at your local book store that teach you the software at your own pace, and the plethora of forum resources out there, all you really need to learn "complex" software is time, and some willingness to practice. That goes for any software.

People who open Adobe Photoshop for the first time, for instance, are no doubt going to be overwhelmed. As with many 2D programs, most 3D apps have the ability to use scripting to automate mundane tasks, pre-built items to create things faster, and tons of tutorials to help you get started. In general, I don't understand why there seems to be more complaining about the complexity of "high end" 3D apps than there is for 2D apps, when learning 2D apps can be just as complex for newcomers. Is it because people coming into 3D have some pre-conceived notion that it's a medium where the computer is supposed to do all the work?

I've been to 2D forums, and people there seem much more willing to accept a more manual approach to their applications than many 3D artists do. It can't be workflow issues, because I've watched guys who work in 3D create things EXTREMELY fast (it's usually the renderer that hold them back). In general, it's a MUCH faster medium than 2D ever was... particularly when dealing with animation. So why does there seem to be more people with less patience in 3D? And, most notably, it seems to be a sentiment which generates particularly from the POSER community more than any other, which is ironic, because more Poser users have a background in 2D it seems.

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 02:24

Maxxxmodelz, the biggest difference for me between 2D and 3D apps, is that I am attracted to 3D because I want to tell stories. (In the real world, I work in television and have been making shows for over 20 years). Any time that I can save performing mundane modeling chores is time that I can apply to fine-tuning a scene or finessing a performance. This discussion got me thinking back to the 80's and reminded me of WordPerfect. Are you old enough to remember the time that you needed to understand control codes in order to format a document?

"Right. So back to my original question. Why haven't developers taken a step back and tried to simplify their software by automating some repetitive tasks?" They have done that. It's called scripting. Poser has Python, which can be used very effectively to automate so many mundane things. 3dsMax has Maxscript, which automates just about anything the program is capable of doing. Maya has it's own powerful coding language as well that can fully automate almost anything. I imagine automation and "ease of use" will go well beyond this in the near future (imagine sculpting a 3D object with your hands using holographic projection, or photorealistic rendering that happens in truly real time), but right now, software is limited to the computers that run it, and the OS that runs the computers, etc. WIth more extensive features comes a more extensive, complex interface in the software. It's not an organic thing. Software IS advancing... at the pace of hardware. You may as well ask why do we still need keyboards? Why can't my computer just understand and execute everything I command it verbally? Why isn't my computer completely "hands free" and do everything in absolute REAL TIME?

I fully agree with the orginal poster. Why is it so hard when it shouldn't be? These programs should be a learning tool not a production company. I work at home on my laptop not in a production studio. I simply want to make 3D animation shorts and it takes me months to get a character the way I want. God Bless Poser because I wouldn't be able to do it any other way. These programs are real memory hogs to top it off. I don't see it advancing all I see is our beloved software changing hands from one greedy company to the next without any new fatures being added. I've tried them all except for Maya. They are all built on the same software we've used in the past except that the companies stick their names all over the same products and call it their own and make a bundle of money while doing it. If it weren't for us geeks these companies would be broke. And if DAZ Studio takes over Poser for good them I'm out cos I would never upgrade from Poser4 to a DAZ product, yuck. I prefer animation in realtime. Personally, they need to stop adding and eating up memory. 10 percent of some of the functions they include we will never use, at least not me. Wizards would never work 3D apps. I can't see that happening because you need to work with the cameras/lighting and the angles of the scene you're trying to make. Wizards never really work right. :)

(my 2 cents worth)

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 03:38

well you do have the option, in all 3d apps, of setting up a library of presets, like lighting for different scenes, basic planes for walls etc, which you then just have to make texture maps for the actual type of floor or wall you want. the more effort you put into building your libraries, the more you can point and click for the real basics. the real problem in 3D isn't the complexity of it, it's that lack of standardisation between applications, as in the way a loft works. or an extrude. case in point, max's version of loft is closer to rhino's extrude. and max's extrude is more like rhino's loft. this also extends to the 2d apps, and is just as drastic in differences. Vue has wonderfull atmospheric presets, and easily altered once you become familiar with thier interface. R Hatch, take a look at the gimp, 5 separate windows as soon as you open a picture in it. can't stand that style of interface myself. it's called ( technically ) an MDI (Multiple [Top level Window] Document Interface )

You made mention in your first post of AM. A 'famous' quote of Martin Hash: "Animation is hard". Pretty blunt, but pretty accurate. And that's coming from a phd who had Catmull as his advisor ;) The skill set required if you want to do all steps yourself is just huge. Modeling, texturing, rigging, animating, lighting, any one of which you could spend a career and a life time mastering. Fortunately, us mere hobbyists have Poser which allows us to skip the modeling, texturing, rigging and to some extent the lighting and animation, but at the end of the day it's still hard, damn it! ;)

"I simply want to make 3D animation shorts and it takes me months to get a character the way I want." "These programs should be a learning tool not a production company." Do you not see the paradox in what you just said in those two sentences? ;-) You want to make animation shorts (production), but the programs you use should be for learning, not production? I don't know why it's taking you months to get the character the way you want it, but anything worth doing is also worth the time it takes to do it. As you pointed out, you're not a studio. So animation on a production level (yes, even a "short" is production) is going to take time for one person to do. It's a craft, and like any craft, it does take patience.

One of the things I like the most about poser is that it doesnt have preset scenes and I also like it`s complexity too.

...incidentally, one of the previous posters refers to 'company greed', etc, a common mantra of the consumer. Most of the 'major' 3d apps are a financial house of cards. They are not getting rich. In fact, they're barely surviving.

"...incidentally, one of the previous posters refers to 'company greed', etc, a common mantra of the consumer. Most of the 'major' 3d apps are a financial house of cards. They are not getting rich. In fact, they're barely surviving."

The same can be said for many/most software companies. We have hackers/crackers to thank as part of the reason software is such a "hit and miss" financial game today. The internet has always been a breeding ground for the "free" mentality. Basically, a lot of people think, "why should I pay for it when I can get it for free"?

It should be recognized that some major software companies (like Discreet, who make 3dsMax, Inferno, Combustion, etc.) are known to be financially successful despite their software being distributed illegally on the net. This is in part due to the large financial contributions of production companies that use multiple licenses of the software legally, but smaller companies like Curious Labs (who don't have much commercial backing) are the ones who REALLY suffer from illegal distribution. So much so that it could easily bankrupt these small companies over time. Message edited on: 12/27/2004 05:53

Right. And the next level would be wizard to create Gollem or JarJar Binks? When you start nowadays in 3D without having followed its growth through the years and versions, it is by far the most complicated thing that can be done on a puter. Poser's basic level is shockingly simple. You just buy everything, pose it and you render. You can even avoid clothesif these are too difficult for you. This is it's greatest strength. Yet from the moment you want more, when you want to add something personal, it suddenly becomes clear that Poser is a very powerful application with an incredible lot of options, not in the least because it allows you to create your own morphs and fully poseable characters and objects. And these you will have to study and experiment with, just like anyone else. The other ones you mention, 3DSMax, XSI, Maya, Lightwave, C4D,...those are professional applications, made to give people who are and artists and engineers the ability to create whatever their inspiration brings them. It took me three years to get what I call "a basic insight" in 3D. But it was worth it. It's a question of arriving at the point of the "aha" experience. From then on, all you need is experience. There is no app that can make movies of your dreams. Not yet.

I agree wholeheartedly, Max. I run a very successful business in a traditional industry unrelated to 3d. On occassion I find myself having to tell a customer, "Payment is not an option. It's a requirement", or "If you can't afford it, don't buy it." The customer who doesn't like those realities I don't want as a customer. People frequently jump to the conclusion that if your product costs $100,000 then you're making $100,000. They just don't realize that the company might be spending $99,000 to produce that product. If I ran a software company and I caught a cracker/hacker ripping me off I would instruct my attorneys to "do whatever the law allows to him" (that's exactly what I tell our attorneys to do on the rare occassion I run into a deadbeat). No sympathy...at all. A guy who steals software is no different than a guy who breaks into your house when you're away and steals your belongings.

I said it and will stick by my orginal statement. Maybe if the companies stopped switching/changing hands, then, the 3D products wouldn't suffer? They charge hundreds of dollars for their apps and, you're not gonna tell me they don't make money off their products thats bull. If there was no money in it they wouldn't make the product. If I like a product, I BUY IT, or, my friends give me their copies when they are done, either way, I still end up with the orginal package. I'd rather have the CD package than just a download. You don't get the complete package if you dl off P2P. The ones who do, are very few and far between. If you price a product out of a customers reach then they won't buy it and will find other ways to get it. We're not all Donald Trump. You remind me of the RIAA/MPAA suing all their customers.

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 06:33

...(chuckles). "Maybe if the companies stopped switching/changing hands, then, the 3D products wouldn't suffer?" Why do you think they keep changing hands? There's a truism in business: "When a smart businessman realizes he's made a bad investment he gets out of it as fast as he can." Most of them do indeed lose money. I'm afraid even 3dmax falls into the 'financial house of cards' category. It's easy to confirm these observations with a little googling. By the way, "We're not all Donald Trump." is not an excuse to steal. That's just rationalizing theft. My attorneys would have a field day with a guy using that as a defense ;)

"Maybe if the companies stopped switching/changing hands, then, the 3D products wouldn't suffer?"

Why do you think a company changes hands, Zippy?

"If their was no money in it they wouldn't make the product."

Of course there's money in it. That's absurd. The problem is, a small company developes a product with every intention on making a profit, but many unforseen financial events along the way can turn that endeavor sour. In the case of Curious Labs, it was not only financial problems, but also managerial problems. I'm SURE, however, cracking played a big part in the software's profitablility (or lack thereof), because when P5 was released, they made overzealous efforts to thwart illegal distribution. They've since had to do away with those protections because it made it hard for legit users to use. But CLEARLY, they knew there was a big problem in the illegal distribution of their product.

"We're not all Donald Trump."

Uhm, Donald Trump at one time was BILLIONS of dollars in debt himself, and had to convince banks to loan him money to rebuild his empire. So evidently, financial setbacks can happen to ANYONE, and smaller software companies are particularly vulnerable to financial demise. Trading software (be it on P2P or from a friend) does not help the consumer at all. Not in the least. It can cause small companies to go under, and do what you so obviously dislike so much... selling out to another company.

"If you price a product out of a customers reach then they won't buy it and will find other ways to get it."

Obviously. Or, if their smart, they'll save some money until they can afford it. :-) Then again, in today's society, it's so clear that people just can't discipline themselves to WAIT for results. ;-) Patience is a rarity these days. Message edited on: 12/27/2004 06:59

problem is, even lower priced software apps are being cracked. as was pointed out already, CL was losing a lot of sales to warez twits, and they ran into financial problems. and poser is not an expensive application.

I don't think it is a lack of "user friendly" efforts so much as their inapplicability to this particular genre. Sure, someone out there could come up with a scripting system and make a wizard with step creation for scenery props, but then 9 of every 10 users is going to want it to work differently because they all have different objectives. The reason it isn't done (effectively) is the same reason you don't have Photoshop popping up a wizard for "Paint a Seascape," because art cannot be contained in something so formulaic. ;) I can picture a NVIATWAS wizard! Poser is a wonderful tool for what it was intended to do. It was designed specifically to let 3D artists create and pose multi-part figures with a (relatively) Very small amount of effort. Unfortunately, CLabs lost sight of this with P5, and focussed it more on materials and rendering capability, at the cost of a huge chunk of downward compatability and the alienation of newcommers to the market. Just ask a 3D-newbie who starts out with P5 how frustrating it is. .. compared to how simple it was for those who started with 2, 3 or 4, it is no wonder 5 is so hated. (besides of course, the major bugs, design flaws, and lack of import for P4 materials) So, you are right on the mark in reference to P5, but 3D software as a whole has been improving as well as can be expected from software that is intended to be used to express individual artististry.

"Just ask a 3D-newbie who starts out with P5 how frustrating it is. .."

Ask a newbie to ANY application or medium how frustrating it is. If your goal was to become a carpenter, would you expect to be building a house within a few days? If your goal was to become a painter, would you expect to be painting the Mona Lisa within a month?

I'm not sure when Poser became expected to always remain an entry-level application, but it has evolved since it's early days. Can it use some improvements? Absolutely. Start with rebuilding the code (which is very old), but why should we expect it to be made into something that someone who has NO experience with 3D can use immediately?

When I first got introduced to 3D, it was with Ray Dream. By no means was that an application you could just walk into and immediately start creating scenes that rivaled what professional studios like Pixar was putting out there. I also used to use an application called "Simply 3D" years ago, which was almost totally wizard-driven. It was so limited, I outgrew it's features within a few months.

Bottom line is, if you don't like to be challenged, or if you don't like to spend time learning, then 3D is not for you. That goes for almost any trade or skill. :-) Message edited on: 12/27/2004 09:43

Thanks for all the replies. And as you read along, please remember that I come from the physical film/video production world, so I tend to want to force the 3D paradigm to fit within the boundaries that I understand most...

We've focused a lot of our conversation on modeling, but what about lighting? That's always been the real bane of my existance!

In the real world, you mostly encounter three types of light sources: tungsten, flourescent and daylight. Each has its unique color temperature. Intensity is measured by wattage.

If you were to agree a standard unit of measure, i.e. a meter in your scene corresponds to a "real world" meter, shouldn't preprogrammed light sources be available that give you the results you expect when you place a 60 watt bulb in your lamp at home? (You'd have to also tell the software the focal length and speed of your virtual lens, naturally.)

For example, I've seen the great tutorials on building skylights and I have also purchased some light kits for Poser. It's amazing that artists have spent the time to work this stuff out so painstakingly. But shouldn't some of this already be coded into the software so that everyone else doesn't have to figure it out for themselves?

Wouldn't it be great if you could tell the software to light an outdoor scene as if it were 12 noon on a sunny or overcast day? I know it's more complicated than that, but light does have certain predictable qualities.

Once you apply the preset, you'd certainly want to tweak the lighting from there, but the point is that for most of us, the presets would do most of the work and we would just embellish that by adding a kicker light or two.

I agree entirely with everyone who has pointed out that 3D is a craft that must be learned and refined over time. What I am focusing on is design changes that might attract an entirely different level of users to the field who might help to make companies like Curious Labs and Hash, Inc. more financially solvent.

Discuss amongst yourselves... :-)

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 10:10

There was talk about piracy, I had heard that the big companies dont really bother much about piracy because people who have pirated versions of programs generally couldnt afford to buy them full price anyway. Suprnova and winmx were put out of business by the film industry not by software companies.

now where did that link come from earlier....an app that is a point and click to build a complete house. ~wandering off to try to find it~

should you really have to spend time building them by hand for every new scene? I'm not sure I understand your initial assumption. As I do more and more 3D models and scenes, I build a library of them that I can use in other projects. Isn't that what merging files, importing and exporting is all about? I can take things I've done before and adapt them to a specific purpose by editing them instead of creating them all over again.

here it is at Artifice.com

"If you were to agree a standard unit of measure, i.e. a meter in your scene corresponds to a "real world" meter, shouldn't preprogrammed light sources be available that give you the results you expect when you place a 60 watt bulb in your lamp at home?" There ARE pre-programmed light sources available in 3D that use the real-world standard of measure, and duplicate the wattage of whatever bulb or light source you want. They're called PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTS. Sorry, but they're not available in Poser. But other apps do have them. 3dsmax comes to mind. Also, at a lower cost, I believe Truespace can also use photometric lights. So this IS something that is out there, and it's not new to 3D. "Wouldn't it be great if you could tell the software to light an outdoor scene as if it were 12 noon on a sunny or overcast day?" Again, this is out there. There's a feature in 3dsmax called a "Daylight System", and it automatically sets up a skylight and direct light rig that corresponds with whatever location on the planet you wish, as well as the time of day you set. There's also HDRI, which allows you to light a scene using "real" light calculations in high dynamic range from special images taken from the real world. This is all possible and available in 3D, I think you just need to research more about what you want. It's been out there for quite a while now.

I definitely will do more research, Maxxmodelz. I just purchased 3DSMax 7 and I have not had time to explore its features (the last version I used regularly was 3D Studio 3.1(?) when they updated to Max, I bought the first two versions, but stopped using it regularly shortly thereafter). I guess that's why I'm partial to a wizards interface on top of all of these great programs. I know that there's a tremendous amount of power there, but unless you know where to look, that power can just sit there untapped.

"I guess that's why I'm partial to a wizards interface on top of all of these great programs. I know that there's a tremendous amount of power there, but unless you know where to look, that power can just sit there untapped." That's very true. Let me know if you need any help. Also, I recommend visiting the 3dsmax forum over at cgtalk.com, as well as searching for tutorials for Max on the web. Do as many tutorials as you possibly can find, even if they aren't relevant to your current needs. It's amazing how much you can learn there. "I had heard that the big companies dont really bother much about piracy because people who have pirated versions of programs generally couldnt afford to buy them full price anyway." I don't know where you heard that, but it sounds like bullshit to me. ;-) No software company actually wants their stuff pirated, because although it's true most of the people couldn't afford it anyway, it eventually circulates to those who can. If, for instance, 1 out of 4 people, who could actually afford the software, gets it via P2P for free, then that can add up to huge profit losses. It's a risk I don't see any rational company willing to take.

"I had heard that the big companies dont really bother much about piracy because people who have pirated versions of programs generally couldnt afford to buy them full price anyway." Bwhahaha...go ahead and tell that to Adobe or Microsoft. "Wouldn't it be great if you could tell the software to light an outdoor scene as if it were 12 noon on a sunny or overcast day?" This is completely impossible. There are a few simulations, most of them based on HDRI, but no monitor will ever be able to give you the differences between the intensity of sunlight and full darkness. It would burn your eyes out. As someone who is working for television you should know this. They can do a lot to make the subdivisions smaller by going to 16 bit/channel, but the overall intensity is out of reach. Let alone imitating/calculating the atmospheric conditions of dust and humidity. Noon...where? Zabriskie Point or Alaska? Toscane or Macchu Picchu? There are far too many variables for that.

Aeneus, you're presuming that the end goal is photorealism. But I think there is a large hobbyist market that would be thrilled with light settings that consistently delivered reasonably natural results with minimal user intervention. Going back to the early days of Lightwave on the Video Toaster, I think that that was one of the secrets of its success. Default settings gave a result that was superior to anything else on the market at the time. For several years, you could pick out a Lightwave scene just by the look of its lighting.

"Noon...where? Zabriskie Point or Alaska? Toscane or Macchu Picchu? There are far too many variables for that." As I mentioned in the post above yours, time of day and location is entirely possible. Max's daylight system lets you pick any location on a global "map", time of day, etc. to set up a daylight simulation. Of course you can't duplicate the exact intensity of the sun on a monitor, but I dont think that's what he was asking. You can, however, duplicate the lighting of artificial bulbs and such in world space using photometric lights.

Maxxmodelz, please point me to the 3DS Max documentation for these tools. I was just browsing the interface and couldn't find them.

Ok, I'm using Max 6, but I'm sure it's the same in 7. If you go to the Systems rollout, you'll see a button there for daylight. Click it, and you'll get a parameters rollout with everything from Timezones, Altitude, Locations, Orbital Scale, and even parameters to input your own Longitude and Latitude coordinates for any spcific location in the world that may not be listed in the presets.

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 12:59

Attached Link: http://rndr4food.blogspot.com/2004/09/daylight-system-adding-locations.html

Ooops... forgot to mention that there is a photometric sun in Max as well, which the daylight system uses. It measures intensity in lx temperature. You can swap out the photometric sun for a standard direct light, but that kinda defeats the purpose. Anyway, if you have more questions regarding Max, we should take it to the Max forum, else this thread gets locked for being OT. ;-)

Thanks for the info.

Okay, getting this back to how to simplify Poser. One thing I don't understand about the software is why it doesn't limit the axis of movement or angles of rotation for joints. It seems to me that this would make posing so much easier if joints behaved like the real world equivalent. Is this the software's limitation or is it because figure designers don't bake those limits into their models?

And what is up with those dial settings? Why are they so seemingly arbitrary? Why give someone a tool that ratchets up to a whole number when the practical limits are in the hundredths?

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 13:23

Under "Figure", there is an option to enable limits. It's not entirely accurate, but it prevents you from posing past the joint parameters most of the time.

Poser's joints system is antiquated. It's based on a falloff zone architecture that's not even used in other apps anymore. It's never been improved on much by Poser's developers. Other applications use weight mapping, which enables the mesh to react much more realistically to bending/posing than do the falloff joints.

Dial settings can be adjusted to taste. Next to each morph dial, there is a black arrow. Click it, and a dialogue box appears. From there, select "settings", and you can change how the dials behave.

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 13:30

Thanks. Amazing to me that limits wouldn't be enabled by default regardless of their weaknesses. I'll take a look at those morph dial settings as well. Perhaps that's what I'm advocating: that all software come with training wheels in place that a user can disable once he/she feels comfortable enough with a given feature.

"Thanks. Amazing to me that limits wouldn't be enabled by default regardless of their weaknesses." Well, I'm sure if they were, people would complain about that to no end. ;-) I mean, people complain all the time that they hate having IK enabled by default, and I find that an extremely useful tool. If only Poser had FK (forward kinematics) as well, then we'd be in business.

Rick. It takes a team, no, a studio to create the kind of work you see in professional animation. Guys like the one running Red Meat Construction Set spend their entire career doing nothing except lighting. Another artist is responsible for texturing Gollum. Someone else designs the mechanics for Green Goblin's costume to ensure it conforms to the lycra/fiberglass suit Willem Dafoe and his stuntman wears. Another guy is busy figuring out that Manhattan is best simulated by painstakingly remodeling the entire city's buildings one by one and then wrapping the photos they took midday around them as image/texturemaps. Someone else is dealing with how to "relight" those daytime-mapped buildings for nighttime scenes. Another artist is working out a burning skin shader for a special effect. Even totally CG productions like The Incredibles require technical experts in separate fields (lighting, texturing, tailoring, body mechanics, etc.) to manage the output you see on the big screen. What you're blithely asking for is someone to write a program which puts a simple interface on a task that should be ideally not done by an individual. For every Kerry Conran there's -- well, there's really only one Kerry Conran. Art is work. Master engraver Barry Moser once said that talent is as useful as tits on a boar; it's the acceptance and application of discipline that makes memorable art. Hollywood keeps pushing the bar beyond what Poser can do and Poser does its best to keep up; the rest is your responsibility. If it wasn't a killing floor we wouldn't have this forum or a need for it. Apologies if this sounds unsympathetic.

We've explored a number of side tracks here, but I think some of the central points of the original argument stand.

In direct responce to maxxmodels, yes, a complex, non-intuitive, disorganized command structure can be memorized with enough application of time and practice. But it will always result in less optimal workflow. I am a carpenter, as well as a scenic painter. In both those tasks I can and do slim down the tools to a small number (a half dozen) of primary tools that I keep close to hand, and a few dozen special tools that are racked for occaisional use. Each time I pick up a hammer it does the same thing -- it's behavior doesn't change from moment to moment, requiring me to shift gears. Similarly, my brush responds to my hand so that I can get all the basic effects I need without having to drop and swap, drop and swap. I spend as little time as I can manage sorting through some poorly-labeled box for a tool I've misplaced (it happens, though....boy, does it happen).

Too many 3d application force a "suis generis" mentality, where moving a polygon to the left uses the Hand'O Tool, but moving it to the right requires going into the Phase'em Room and using the Brillo Tool. We should be using our minds to look at the growing model or scene, not remembering heirachies of menus, and we should be flipping pages of artistic references, not manuals. One of the greatest joys of PhotoShop is the way it is organized in depth; there is always a simple way of doing something, and if you are like me, you get 90% of the job done with a few basic tools. The power and options never force you to wade through them during simple tasks; unlike many 3d applications, you don't have to click and dismiss a pop-up every time you choose a common tool.

I admit that 3d is still young enough where there are many plausible opinions about what makes up an object and how the workflow moves around it. I'm not surprised tools and terminology are not standardized. Different manufacturers put different tools into different catagories and classes, like competing paleontologists with their own arrangements of the fossil record. The best bet for the end user is to find the package that most closely matches the internal architecture of their own creative proccess. Still, I wish there was more effort towards coordinating standards for the nomenclature of basic tools, and the structure of shared files (like .obj).

On wizards... It is a mistake to think that there can be either one-size fits all (the "Make Art" button), or the other extreme of complete freedom. There is a continuum of helpfulness.

One thing I'd like to see more is increased real-world analoging/button examples. In the old Bryce, for instance, you could set any numeric value you wanted for refraction index -- and right below, the program would display the name of the nearest real-world analog. In the Poser5 cloth room, there are nothing but raw numbers, with no insight into what the programmers meant to model, what had been used by others to what effect, or even what the customary dial limits are.

There is so much difference between render engines, physics engines, that "Brass" is not going to behave the same in two different software packages. But both will behave in a way that is consistent with how metals are treated in that software package; if you have learned how a "Lead" object takes light, bounces, etc., you will have a fairly good what kind of behavior the programmers will have set up for a "Brass" object.

Too often it seems the relation between the numbers and the real world effects being simulated is undisclosed -- test after test is required to learn if changing a light from "50" to "100" is linear, photometric, or something else entirely. Worse, even the basic algorithms seem to be considered trade secrets. Are they ray-traced shadows? Shadow-mapped? Interpolated? Only her hairdresser knows for sure.

The user community can and does explore these questions and make an effort to educate fellow users. But how much more convenient if some of these answers were built into the software itself!

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 14:55

vue has really good realistic lighting tools, and can import poser pz3 files. so you can set your charater up, then save the file. then import and render in a scene you set up in vue. vue is comparable to bryce, different interface, in my opinion a better one, and better lighting tools ( from bryce 4 )

"In direct responce to maxxmodels, yes, a complex, non-intuitive, disorganized command structure can be memorized with enough application of time and practice."

Ok, but what you consider intuitive, I might consider disorganized. I have NEVER liked working with Bryce's interface (for example) regardless of how many tutorials I went through and lessons I completed. However, after a short time, I fell right into place with 3dsMax, and it feels like second nature to me. Yet, there are many people who feel it's like learning Greek. So can there ever really be an interface that satisfies everyone's work habits and intuition? I highly doubt it. The best you can do is make the interface customizable, which many programs strive to do.

Know what I mean? Message edited on: 12/27/2004 15:28

Some one mentioned a NVIATWAS wizard...

Daz's Christmas gift was everything you needed for a nviatwas out of the box.

:)

~rotflmao@Tirjasdyn ~