IM not some 3D newbie :-) Over the past five years i have learned to use Lightwave3D versions 6-7.5 Maxon Cinema4D versions 6-8.5 All versions of poser of course and lifeforms 3.9 i am well learned in nonlinear video editing in Adobe premeire and Apple final cut pro And i use After effect pro 5.5 and Autodesk combustion and media cleaner pro I know basic polygon modeling cloth sim and hair systems and I can animate a character in almost Any programs that uses key frames I consider myself some what "expert" in 3D scene lighting (see my gallery) an I am willing to read a manual. studying String theory is a personal hobby of mine but for crying out loud Shade7LE is an usuable waste of hardrive space!!! I managed to learn to navigate its utterly ridiculous camera system (Thanks blondbear) I even found a decently lit scene file in the tutes folder with intention of reverse engineering it for import of poser animations but I can find no means to simply select move an item for scene arrangement the whopping six images in the rosity shade gallery seem to indicate im not the only one who finds this freebie not viable for major rendering projects Thanks EF Pffft!!!!.

Ya know..... String theory has never been proven. :-P Something about the theory isn't provable like it's missing a dimension or something like that. I can't remember. I'm dimensionally challenged. ;-)

LOL. You certainly don't pull punches, Wolf. ;-P I wouldn't say Shade 7LE sux (there's definitely some people out there doing cool stuff with it), but it's not something I personally enjoyed using. I just couldn't get comfortable with it's tools/UI at all. For the record, I have lots of experience with 3dsmax v5-7, as well as Poser 5/6, but Shade had me 'stumped' on several occasions. I thought my experience with 3ds would make working with Shade a breeze, but that just wasn't the case. Totally different workflow there. ;-)

The only thing I use shade7LE for is 3dText, thats it nothing else. :) My 6 (damn almost 7 how the years get by) likes the magical sketch though.

Still trying to figure why it's called String Theory since usually a scientific theory requires a model, predictability, and experimental evidence. It seems to be lacking the latter. ;) I have Shade 7 Std and played with it when first purchases. Got it mainly for the offer and sought to see how it faired against other 3D software. It has a very nonintuitive workflow/interface, but one can get used to it, one supposes - lol. Personally, I'd stick with LW, C4D, Maya, XSI, Bryce, etc. Seems that Shade7 and String Theory have that in common - extremely nonintuitive. [shrug]

I agree. I've use 3D Studio Max, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, Hash Animation:Master, Poser TrueSpace and a number of others. Some of them great, some of the good others not great but still useable. Shade 7 has been a few days on my harddisk, then I got so tired of it that I removed it forever and gave away the original CD to a friend. I'm not sure if the applications is that bad, but the workflow is. I was hoping it would be a good replacement for TrueSpace 6, but it isn't. I'm not planning on spending ages to get to know an application. It's so different that it just isn't fun anymore. I'm not a novice when it comes to applications and I can handle most of it what I do come accross, but Shade drove me crazy and that never happened before.

Interesting. I downloaded as many trial/demo programs as i could find when i was looking for a modeling program and i found shade to be the most intuative. Ive enjoyed using it and look forward to Shade8

I tried the demo of shade 7 and couldn`t understand most of it either, it is good to know that I am not the only one.

Semi-ditto.... I tried Shade (since it was free!) and thought its interface wasn't all that bad. I probably could have gotten used to it, but it lacks some of the features I use all the time in Amapi. Since I already spent a year and most of my hair learning Amapi, no point in wasting the few remaining years, neurons, and hairs on yet one more modeling app which is less powerful!

Without question, shade does have an unfriendly interface and it is odd that, from what we are used to in this hemisphere, there are so few poly tools. Certainly, you want standard to make this really useful but even then, you need to want to work in splines. Keep in mind that FeiFei was made with Shade, as is a large amount of Japanese stuff for Poser. It is a pretty powerful ap if you can used to the different way of working. I'm learning Hexagon and Silo at the moment but I still have a place for Shade and will seriously consider getting version 8. I can't begin to compare it with the software you mention using. I can't afford them - which is relevant, because for the price, particularly if you have Poser, you do get a lot for your money, even if you do have to work to use it.

I feel your pain, wolf. But string theory is like intelligent design - there's no way to test it in the lab, no way to do experiments to confirm or disprove it. Even the equations that would be needed to check string theory are too complex to solve, or so I heard.

But, come to think of it, since string theory is too complicated to solve or prove, maybe intelligent design supporters could use it as further "evidence". Hmmmm.....

Hey, I'm just kidding!

The big problem with string theory is that there is no unified consensus on how the various known principles should be applied to the theory hence we have various "factions" much like dogmatic religious groups who are basicly proceeding based on thier "faith" in thier particular approach. once we establish a unified theory we will be closer to that greater understanding of our universe... hopefully :-)

I much prefer the Pull My Finger theory anyway. ;-)

I can't slam a gift, I got Shade 7 LE free when I purchased Poser 6. Though I am intriqued by the thought of modeling something, my primary interest is in composing scenes. I purchased the Shade 7 LE: Model, Animate, Render book and paging it through it I hadn't seen anything that was terribly intimidating or different than many of the other 3D apps I've tried using. Have you tried that book? It seems to be well written, though I haven't had time to work through the exercises in it yet myself. I am particularly intersted in how Poser figures will look rendered in Shade, but haven't tried that yet. I will agree that the interface leaves something to be desired, a point I stressed in the survey that e-frontier sent me, but as to whether the thing is simply unuable or I simply don't have the patience to learn it is another question entirely. I was somewhat amused by the renderings I've seen in the book that I bought, if people can do that kind of work with it, then it can't be all bad. I suppose it depends too on what your goals are and what you want to create with it. Software experience is rarely a universal with people, however, and while one person may be able to create a stunning, complicated model in Shade, someone else might not be able to do anything with it.

Message edited on: 08/28/2005 16:14

Message edited on: 08/28/2005 16:16

Aside: Part of that problem is that the 'hypothesis' (hehe) is dealing with the universal structure on such a small level (sub-subparticle) and at such a fundamental level (actual structure of the time-space fabric). And we still don't have the technology to verify plain ole' varieties of sub-atomic particles - which is why the GUT is still untenable. We need superduper colliders that can accelerate particles to just shy of light speed to produce the energies that would unite fields in ways that simulate the very early universe. On top of all of this, you have, as you correctly mention, wolf359, various competing hypotheses around the general concept (which is a good thing in my science book). Finding experimental evidence for the so-called 11-dimensions (7 of them 'rolled up') is going take pure genious! On the other hand, don't get me started on ID. ID doesn't even have a valid hypothesis to test (irreducible complexity is naive and has been countered on all sides - I read Behe's book). (I know that was tongue-in-cheek, mateo) :)

I considered Shade 7, but after my experience with Poser I decided that I would never give Curious Labs another penny.

I considered Shade 7, but after my experience with Poser I decided that I would never give Curious Labs another penny. lol Shade is not made by Curious Labs. Shade is nothing like Poser.

Is it that Shades company, e-frontier has now purchased Curious Labs? I'm not sure about the details, can someone comment?

Attached Link: http://www.planit3d.com

Maybe you'd like to try the full version of Shade 8? You can win it in the latest "Sports Render" contest at PlanIt 3D. I'm pretty sure it'll shape up a lot better than 7 LE for someone who's used to more...how shall I put it...*feature-laden* software? ;)

Attached Link: http://www.shaderscafe.com

Try this site, completly dedicated to Shade & the people there are very friendly & helpful. I have the Standard Version and I actually find it somewhat easy compared to others I've tried. I've only messed around a bit with the modeling side & did 1 render(not a full scene) just to check it out. I'll be upgrading to 8. Not trying to be a cheerleader or anything, just so far it's "clicked" in my wee brain LOL and it doesn't crash, which is a big plus for me. I must admit I haven't touched it in months but only to the lack of hours in a day.

Well, my 14 year old son has gotten quite good at it in the past month, so much so that I am taking a second look. I guess it is only odd, when we are use to other ways of doing things. From stuff I have seen done with it, it is a powerful tool in the hands of someone capable of getting their mind around it.

Freebie modelers are available that are easier and more versatile, like Blender, and there are better freebie rendering engines, like Pov-ray, too.

The alien workflow, tools, and techniques coupled to someone's preconceived and learned methodologies using other software have much to do with Shade's usage difficulties for sure. Remember that this software was restricted to Japan only (and maybe other local areas) for most of its lifetime. It has never been under the scrutiny of the entire world where there seems to have resided a divide between Japanese-only software and others. It may be that we have become so used to our own methodologies that something designed for another methodology doesn't make sense and causes frustration. ?

I like Shade 7. I have Standard installed though, so I never bothered with the LE version I got with P6. The rendering engine is way better than Poser. I even had them ask about publishing one of my shade images. It was just a quickie moved from poser to Shade to render. Can we say HDRI. But like everything, something works for one, it's complete crap to another. I can't stand Truespace. Shade and Wings combined I find the better way, for me that is. I will most likely buy Shade 8 when it comes out.

That it is mainly aimed at a Japanese market is no reason for Shade to be so obtuse. I have tried Metasequoia on several occasions, and its interface is very intuitive. In fact, I use another Japanese 3d program, MarbleCLAY, on a regular basis, because it has the most intuitive modeling workflow I have ever used. The only reason I don't use Metasequoia is that it isn't available for purchase outside of Japan.

Maybe ESV should have purchased Poser? ;) But, I'd like to add (strongly too) that MarbleCLAY and MetaSequoia are both 3D Modellers. Shade is likened to LightWave3D, Cinema 4D, Maya, XSI, etc. - full-featured 3D applications.

Message edited on: 08/29/2005 02:01

I found MarbleCLAY's interface a bit odd to work with. To some extent it comes down to the individual I guess. Some folk swear by Blender. There may not be much at the e-frontier gallery but Shader's Cafe has some great images. Take a look at Jerick Ho's renders.

buy shade7 pro,, maybe you will see a difference.

I'll have to go with sargebear (and it has been hinted elsewhere here) and say it appears that the difference in the Shade versions isn't just in feature set. Maybe that's why LE "SUX!!!!!!!!" ;) , Std is bearable if not obtuse, and not many complaints about Pro?

IM not even interested in Shades modeling tools I was just looking for another render option for poser animation that opens PZ3'directly And shade has a decent radiosity engine that quite fast its just that manipulating scene objects and lights thats so difficult Can someone tell me exactly how you grab and move place a point light or imported poser figure it seems to elude me. :-/

Moving objects in Shade: In the tool palette, click on Move/Translate. Then in the 3d viewport, drag the object you want to move. To avoid too much mouse travel, move/translate can also be called from the context menu in the viewport. I'd guess there's also a keyboard shortcut that I don't know. It's a different workflow than we are usually used from other applications with move/rotate/scale modes and the 3d manipulators. Oh, and holding the space key while dragging in the perspective view is maybe a more convenient way of placing the camera than dragging in the camera window.

it is easiest to select your parts with the Browser (ctrl+9) this will allow you to get all the parts at once. or open your browser and in the "Body" that represents your pz3. click the last check box (if you don't have check boxes in your browser, click on the triangle in the upper right of the browser.) This is the "group selection" option which will allow you to click on the body in the edit window and get all its parts at once. Single stroke shortcut keys are user definable (view>shortcut) or hold down shift + x to move (shift + z to copy). While on the surface this may not make sence, there are several options that use the shift, ctrl, alt, x and z keys which are all clustered over there under your left hand (unless thats where your mouse is). point lights can be moved with the above commands or you can click on it until it enters control point mode ( or ctrl + m) and drag it by its control points (hit enter to exit control point mode) My server is down at the moment but my camera control tutorial is here whenever it comes back up. http://tyger.xganon.com/poser/Free_Stuff/files/navigation.pdf If you wish to be able to update your poser figures with PoserFusions update, you will need to avoid changes to the pz3's parts. if you don't care to update them, then you can group them (use "part" from the tools>part menu) and move them about as you wish.

Thanks guys Ill give it another go

Attached Link: HobbyHopper

Since LW9 is around the corner I've wondered if Shade works well with Poser. That's too bad it's difficult to work with.

Ne way, check out this Shade artist whose's been working with the two apps for years. Amazing work!

It appears that they're not going to bother making Poser compatible with Lightwave anymore so I may have to find another 3D app. I've wanted to try Shade but haven't had time yet. Darn! I'm just bookmarking here to see if Wolf's next post after he's tried these suggestions.

Bobasaur, it would be worth your looking at Shade 8 when its released. They have promised improved Poser import and a better interface. There are also much better poly tools with Poser in mind (including sub division).

At the time I downloaded and tried out the demo I was fairly good at maneuvering around a scene in Carrara (my preferred app for doing my final images). Couldn't really get used to Shade. So I never bothered installing the free copy that came with my copy of Poser 6. I wouldn't go as far as to say Shade "sux" since clearly there's some great work being done with it. However I will go on record as saying I don't like it personally.

Imho the main problem with Shade is that you need atleast 3 hands to use the very very keyboard oriented UI and that the "program/manual" uses non-standard names for standard actions and the same action may have a different name in the different explanations in the manual. Try a search in the manual for something as simple as "join" , when you want to connect 2 pieces of an object together, "connect" won't get you there either.
The whole "English" version of Shade reminds too much of the "japanenglish" user guides that appeared in the 60's with glorious highlights like "approach object A with the side of B and advance into adhering mode for complete success", which to the enlightened of us it really meant "glue A to B". :)

Lost in translation? :)

I already gave that prize to Amapi 6! I've been building my present project with Hexagon but for my next I'm now determined to get back down to Shade. I'm building machines and am starting to see the big advantages of splines over Hexagon's easy to use poly tools. One of the biggest advantages is efficiency with regards to the meshes it builds: when you convert to polys, it puts the detail only where the curves you've made need it and all in tidy quads, no need to decimate, leaving you with nasty looking tris. Saying that, I'm still very new to all this and I'm sure that Hexagon lets you build tidy meshes too - but with Shade, that seems built into the whole workflow. I'm very tempted to go with version 8 and work through the interface problems. Interface aside, another thing that I feel Shade has going for it is the workspace. I remember doing TD at school and this feels the closest thing I've found to a virtual drawing board! I can't get a huge monitor, nor have I space for two, so this matters to me. I know that you can open up the workspace in Hexagon but it still doesn't feel as good - perhaps because it uses palets that open onto the workspace rather than the floaters you show and hide and put where you want. The more I get into this side of things, the more I see how individual it is. Not just 'the right tools for the right job' but 'the right tools for me'.

Imho the main problem with Shade is that you need atleast 3 hands to use the very very keyboard oriented UI I would have to disagree. Shade's default short cuts are predominatly on the left side of the keyboard. add to that the ability to asign commands to keys it is even more user friendly.

Well you Do get what you "pay" for :-) as part of my search for an alternate to posers slow render engine i have been looking at Carrara Pro4 with included transposer plugin for sometime well the BOX Came yesterday but i didnt get a chance to install until this morning. And franklyI must confess that, despite all the derision of posers "tinker toy" interface, seeing those Kai krause trackball navigation tools gave me a warm feeling of nostalgia especially after the horror of SHade7 LE It seems I have my Direct PZ3 import of poser animation solution after about ten minutes i was already doing test renders in CP4. interposer for Cinema4D has served me well for stills and i will still use Cinema4DXL for modeling content But since MAXON went to its price gouging "module" system i have never been able to justify paying an additional $500 USD just to add HDRI and radiosty to my renders and vue5 is a little outside my Hardware power right now Now my long delayed animated film can go into production Shade7 has been Secure deleted from my MAC. here is a quick render of "arnold maximus" on Carrara pro4 thanks All

I want Cararra Pro so bad! The interface should look familiar Wolf as Poser and Cararra both came from Metacreations way back when. I dare say the Cararra interface is most Poseresque, but it must have imitated Poser rather than the other way around, because Posers' interface had already been established by another software company when Metacreations bought it. Bryce is rather Poseresque as well. If I were to go out and buy a modeling program now I'd do Cararra, I think it would suit for my limited modeling needs, but it does come with a nice selection of content, ready made scenes and can do outdoors as well. Amapi, forget it, I've never seen such an obscure interface and cryptic program in my life, I got a free copy of that when I purchased the rather limiting Cararra 1.5 when Eovia first took it over.

Amapi is ecclectic. I have version 6 and will say that I found something oddly intuitive about the interface - once I got into the workshop metaphore on which it's based. Funny thing is, I went back to it a couple of weeks ago and found that, after learning Hexagon, I could get quite a lot out of it. The documentation is Amapi's worst enemy. I uninstalled it again after that, after all, its redundant to me now - although it does support NURBs but they just don't interest me right now.

Im not even going to bother with amapi I will still model in cinema4D and Yes Carrara pro Can do outdoor stuff as well as bryce and at 3 times the render speed!! we also have real HDRI/Radiosity check the Eovia web site for a full list of features my main use will be to render animated poser figures indoor and outdoor I m just stoked to have direct import of my animated PZ3'3 with out any hassle the scene in the picture is recent test scene file using poser 6 SR1 and Apollo Maximus. cant wait for this 3 day weekend to really dig in and start test rendering animations. ;-)

I would love Carrara Pro, if only for rendering but eovia's European prices keep me away. $549 at 1.8 to the pound (that's the current rate and the one e-frontier uses) is 308, which, with 17.5% VAT is 358. Eovia charge 379 PLUS 19.5% VAT (which is just wrong!) for a bill of 453. That's about $815. Hmmm.

Carrar 4 Pro = Good. I upgraded from C3 awhile back since it was reasonably inexpensive to do so. For the price you're paying, you do get a relatively fast renderer with modelling tools. And yes, the feature list for Carrara is pretty nice, all things considered.