It's Finally happened. i've been watching the hot 20 for the past few weeks and ive noted a steady increase in the number of UF images, and a decline in apo and XD. now there is only one apo, and 19 UF. what's wrong here? are we so stuck on simple UF spirals and the like that we forget about the wondrous weird shapes and patterns that apo and XD can create?? Honestly, most of the UF images on the hot 20 are either spirals, or they're bilateral mirror images. the one apo image was a postworked one that actually looked a little UF-ish (no offence to Yesitis3, i actually liked it too.) so what's the problem with apo? any ideas? can we step it up a bit, and try creating more cool things?

Well, right now number 2 is an XD image. As far as flames go... I don't know, maybe we do need a special gallery for all of the underprivileged flames that are constantly being discriminated against here. Maybe we need to declare an international flame month or push for a flame rights bill. Maybe a hot 20 quota for flames would work - at least 40% must be flames, and flames assemble in UF don't count. While we're at it, at least 40% of all comments that we make must be made on flames. That's what we need. Then we would have justice and fairness in this place.

it was XD? i thought it said a composure in UF. oh well, it's always nice to see an XD on the hot 20.

I've got it - flame awareness day. We can wear powder blue ribbons with black shirts. The more experienced of us can wear any color ribbon on white shirts and the most experienced can wear any ribbon with transparent shirts. That will get some attention.

Hi Kid, don't take this personally. I'm just taking the opportunity to point out how ridiculous it is to ask for special treatment for apo images. I never dreamed of the day when UF would be pitted against apo, or that it would be looked at as "the man" or some sort of oppressor of flames. UF does quite the opposite for flames. It promotes them and brings them to their highest potential. In my view there is no difference between UF and apo. Every flame is a potential UF image.

As far as the hot 20 goes, I don't care.

Message edited on: 02/19/2006 15:39

I'm certainly not one to promote the H20. I don't bother looking at it anymore. But what people vote on is their business alone. Sometimes it feels like 'Fractal Wars' here, with Apo forces as the rebels and the UF army as the Empire. May the force be with us all. All I want to know is, where can I get a picture of the ladies wearing the transparent shirts?

Attached Link: BBC News Website

I have to say that I really struggle to understand the two recurring obsessions amongst members here (and elsewhere for that matter) - the Hot20 and fractal program battles. What's that all about?

Actually, I don't really want to understand them, but I do get a mite irritated by the reptitive posts in the forum about them.

So, my suggestions to overcome these irrational concerns about votes & vote-rigging, flames or no flames, one layer or many layers or, or , or ... is to open up your eyes, expand your horizons and take a good look at what is really happening out there.

Tina

Message edited on: 02/20/2006 04:24

Tim, you saw right through me. :o)

Tina, I just noticed your link. I wish that we could solve world hunger and eliminate death and war. Maybe we can work on those things after we figure out the hot 20. They are a little lower on my list of things to do. First I need to figure out why the apo beta versions don't work with UF and why apo users seem to resent UF, then it's hunger, death and war, then I need to understand why my pants are getting tighter around the waste. In that order. We'll get to it sooner or later. ;)

I think that there just isn't much collaboration between the folks redoing Apo and anyone who knows UF. Sue Chambliss is really the only one who has tried to keep up with the changes but I'm pretty sure she's not "in the loop" and has had to insinuate herself into the dialogue. Actually, in terms of it's intended original use as a powerful tool to be used with UF, Apo is pretty much broken maybe beyond repair. I think the people writing the code now are operating from the standpoint/mindset that Apo is a stand-alone program. That's not anything "evil" or anything - just the way they see the program and that's probably the way they SHOULD see it as they program in more bells and whistles and take "ownership" of the process. So all of this has thrown the Apo/UF interface into disarray and brought on concerns that compositions - like your "Coral Reef"(s) and my "Galadriel's Muse" will ever be able to be brought up to print size or the files even opened in the future should we have need to do that. So, for compo's and "landscaping plant" flames, I'd go no further than Apo 2.02c and back up the ucl that works with those in like 3 places. There's always was a great divide between the way Apo calculated a flame and how UF did it and, with the newer x-forms, that divide may even be uncrossable? The things could be rebuilt in PS of apo rendered parts but we all know how what a kludge the PS scale/rotate/stretch functions are compared to the way UF does it....back to work! Rick

Now you have my attention. I understand that apo has evolved into a standalone program but I am not at all convinced that its incompatibility with UF is as it should be. I think that apo needs UF and that incompatibility with UF is a shot in the foot of apo. Imagine if the Microsoft Office applications were not compatible with each other. Those tools are powerful because they can be used together. Rick, your flame compositions yell "get Apophysis" as much as they say "get UF". Apo needs UF. The world of apo is better because of UF. I understand that beggars can't be choosers and I am a beggar, but I am convinced that a beta version that is fully compatible with a UF formula will be used more than any other version. Apo is shooting itself in the foot when it isn't compatible with UF.

I have to hammer on this a little more. In my above sarcasm I mention what I think is a natural progression: Flames on black backgrounds, flames on light colored backgrounds and then transparent backgrounds. Transparent backgrounds imply compositions. UF is the next step in the progression (aside from scripting). It is the best place to build a flame composition. They can be built in PS but that is only after a flame has been rendered. In UF they are rendered after they are assembled, so the flame color and even the shape can be adjusted before rendering. I would be willing to bet that everyone who learns apo will eventually give UF a try too, and then maybe XD if that style suits them. Apo brings people in and that's great, but it's just the first step. Apo needs to work with UF. It's good for everyone when it does.

Hear, Hear! Or is it Here, Here! Or Heir Heir! But that's something I hate to cut because it doesn't ALL seem to grow back...LOL. I agree the two programs are interdependent in a lot of ways but I'm just not sure the current "owners" of the program see it that way. It's their "baby" and I get the feeling that they want to "leave the nest" and fly with their own wings in their own direction. Which is a natural thing. As things stand now, you'd still need like 3 different ucl's to get an image rendered if they are a mix of old/new ones. - BTW thanks a TON for those, Susan, and I'm sorry I misspelled your last name above. I have a friend with that surname and he spells his with an "i". What might be WAY cool is if someone figured out how to program Apo into/within the UF environment with all of the image editing/layering stuff. Now THERE's something that would be worth a lot to have!

There's no doubt that apo is looked at as an independent program. It can still be that way. I just think that there is some real value for it to be fully compatible with UF. There probably is more apo users than there is UF users, but there is still a heck of a lot of UF users (if that were not the case then the apo users wouldn't be complaining about being shut out by UF style images all the time). It's just bad marketing to cut UF out of apo - bad for apo.

I use apophysis without UF. I never really new that it was designed to be used with UF. I only found fractal art last August though. I think UF does get a lot of recognition in the fractal community. However, i also find that the artists are more professional, and present their art a lot better. I hope no apo users are offended by this. UF is much more commercially viable. It is no wonder that it is therefore more popular. It is up to us apo artists to create better art to change that. I see lots of camplaints about a lot of UF images being the same. Just the same old spiral. I think there are UF artists who need more creativity, and do something different. I hope no UF users are offended by this. But how is this different from apophysis? There are a lot of flames that have very little aestetic qualities to them posted here. Not much different from the random generated flames found on startup. Michael

Both applications have their pros and cons - and both applications have the potential to produce exceptional works independent of each other. UF is definitely a professionally designed application that has a whole lot more "bells and whistles" than Apophysis - masking, layering, etc... I also find that UF has a much steeper learning curve than Apophysis (for me at least... lol!) I suppose it comes down to one's personal tastes when viewing an image - preferably on it's own merits, rather than what application was used to create it. I have a leaning towards the images created in Apophysis - but that doesn't mean that UF works like those created by Deagol or Rykk don't just blow me away... I'd kill for that sort of talent and the patience needed to create such amazing images! T.

Please excuse my ignorance here! I have three questions:

1. I currently have Apophysis 2.02 installed. What will happen if I install the latest version? - actually what is the latest version, and where can it be downloaded? I have apophysis203a.exe (23-10-2005) in my download folder, but I don't know where I downloaded it from, as the version on Mark's website is v202. So far I haven't installed v203a, but I saw on a post somewhere that there is a v203c. Now I'm really confused!!

Actually - is Mark not involved in developing apophysis an more? If not, who is?

My main priority for using apo is that I can still copy / paste straight into UF4 for rendering - at least I am assuming that UF4 is better for rendering, as I can only see limited file formats and sizes in apo itself - is it?

1. When I've made a flame image in apophysis, I can see how to zoom, and move it up and down, but how do I rotate it?

2. What are the different ucls that I should have back ups of? At present I just have the ones that are in the current UF database.

Thank you to anyone who can answer these questions!

Tina

Forgive my ignorance also!

I downloaded Apo 2.03C last night (heard about it on the Terragen mailing list of all places!!) and created a few flames.

I found it here:

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=127736

Having read the above comments I tried copy / pasting the UPR into UF 4 and it worked without a problem.

What is the current issue regarding incompatability? I've been concentrating on Terragen & Vue images for a while, so forgive me if I'm asking something that should be obvious!!

Thanks,

Bernie

Message edited on: 02/22/2006 10:54

Hi Tina,

Someone has a link to the latest beta version. I'll let them give it to you.

The beta versions offer some nice improvements over Mark's version. From what I can remember, they allow rotations, they're faster and the triangle interface is easier to work with, plus many other good other things.

Unfortunately they do not always work with UF and that is why I am frustrated. From what I can see, the problem is on both sides. The UF formulas no longer match what the beta versions create and the beta versions will occasionally kick out error messages when exporting UPRs. When they are successful and exporting a UPR it may not appear correctly in UF, which is probably due to the mismatched UF formula.

On the most recent beta version, there was a lot of excitement over unlimited transforms. If I understand the UF formula correctly, it can't deal with unlimited transforms. I bring this up to point out that this alone makes it obvious that the good folks creating the beta versions are not concerned about UF compatibility. I hope that in future versions they become concerned about it. That is why I am saying what I am in this thread.

The beta versions are great and I appreciate all of the effort that has gone into them. I feel guilty about making requests and complaining, but I really do believe that there is value in Apophysis being fully compatible with UF. It's good for both programs

I know that I didn't answer your technical questions. Hopefully someone else can do that.

Keith

Message edited on: 02/22/2006 11:17

Thank you Bernie and Keith for your answers :-) - I've downloaded the various releases, but not yet installed.

I guess on the one hand I'd like to use and keep up with the latest versions and make some nice pictures with them; on the other I don't want the version I have, which works fine even though it has its limitations, overwritten by a version which will break my existing saved files, and then not be comptible with UF.

Wouldn't it be better to call the program by a different name if it's going to end up being so far from version 2, or a standalone, so that the old and new versions can both be installed without interfering with each other, and also call the ucls different names, too?

For me backwards compatabillty of formulas that are being updated in the database is paramount. It would be better if formulas that have been greatly changed should be released with a different name to avoid this issue.

Tina

Thanks for the explanation Keith, guess I must have been lucky with the flames that I created! I fully agree that it would be a huge shame, not to mention a massive retrograde step if Apo were to lose UF compatability. Tina, it is not neccessary to overwrite your current version of Apo with 2.03 - just install to a different directory, and keep the two separate, that way you can continue to use your current version whilst experimenting with the new. Bernie

I have a number of different versions of Apo on my desktop at the moment, including the original (Apo 1). Within the Apo 2 sphere there are the Mark Townsend versions (through 2.02) and the betas (2.03 a-c) The betas are simple .exe files that can be included in the Apo 2 folder (with shortcuts if you want) and don't overwrite Mark's originals, so there is no reason not to set them up. I also have something called 2.02z which is a beta that seems to have gone down a separate pathway, lol. I agree that there are several problems with the beta versions and compatability is only one of them. They also don't allow some of the same ways of handling the transforms so that they lose some valuable techniques. For example, they no longer allow you to click/shift-click on the triangles to make them enlarge/shrink all around, substituting a scaling function that is a bit clumsier, and doesn't give the same results. My $.02 Vivian

ok - thank you Vivian - that answers one big question :-)) Tina

I have now tried using v2.03c, made a flame, and then copied the upr into UF - but straight away got an error (see attached jpg). The apophysis.ucl I have in my public formula folder is the one downloaded from the public database I think - dated 3rd april 2005, but throws up no errors when pasting a upr from apo 2.02 >:-|

Is there another aopophysis.ucl floating around somewhere?

Tina

Tina, you have to set up apo to export using the sdc ucl. I can't tell you off the top of my head what the correct syntax is but many others can. If you already have it set up that way then you are seeing what I am complaining about

In Apophysis 2+ in Options, on the UPR tab, you have to enter the following in the Coloring algorithm section: Identifier: sdc+enr_flame_a File: sdc.ucl

ok - no, I have it set up to use enr-flame-a in apophysis.ucl (under options - UPR tab). I'm not sure how I change that - do i just type it into the little box?

I think maybe for now I should just stick to v2.02 is it seems to work ok other than not having all the new features, until I've become a bit more proficient at using it!

Tina

oops - our posts must have crossed! Tina

Yes, all you have to do is type it in, or copy/paste it.

oh - this is all too bad - there really was some constructive discussion going on - thank you Viv, Keith, Bernie & Richard for your help.

Tina

I'll go ahead and jump back into the non-constructive part of this thread.

I have heard a couple of you say that people have left because they were offended by harassment. Those are really strong words. Can you be more specific? I do remember specific incidents with A person, but that was quite a while ago and that person has behaving quite well lately. Is that what you are referring to?

You are making it sound like hundreds of people have left. About how many can you really count? Where did they go?

What are you calling harassment? Maybe I was one of the abusers. Do you consider what I said above about flames not needing special treatment to be harassment?

Seriously think about what you are implying. Harassment is a violation of the TOS. I don't think that folks like Nick and Barb would tolerate it. Are you saying that Nick and Barb have done a bad job of controlling it?

I'm guessing that most of these people moved over to DA. Good for them. That place is almost 100% flames, which is too many, but it really is a great site, but maybe too big. As far as being treated better there, I don't buy it. I was just told that I am a premier UF artist here (thanks) but on DA I don't get a lot of comments on anything that I put up, aside from the one daily double that got a lot of attention. That's because I haven't been too sociable there. If I wanted to I could step the number of comments that I offer and do a bunch of thank yous and your welcomes and talk about the kids and the weather, and then the number of comments that I receive would go up. So I don't get a lot of recognition there. Should I complain and ask for special treatment? I don't think so. For a different perspective, I just put a photograph of a deep space object in my gallery. The equipment and technical skill that it took to come up with that image is big, but I got what, 3-4 comments? Should I cry discrimination against astrophotography? No. People just aren't interested and that's OK.

Message edited on: 02/25/2006 11:58

yesitis3, UF formulas in the Public Formula Database are free to use for the purpose of creating artwork; no one (other than individual formula authors referring to their own formulas) has ever said people can do whatever they want with them -- for instance, slice and dice and mix and match bits and pieces to make "new" formulas and upload them to the Database, or copyright the default image generated by a formula, etc. -- without first obtaining permission to do so. Some formula authors have adopted the Creative Commons License approach to their formulas, but that can still impose restrictions on exactly what can be done with them beyond using them to generate artwork.

As a general note, I'd be curious to know what people consider "being harrassed" as used in this thread to mean; as far as I know, Renderosity's TOS forbids harrassment of members, so it's rather a serious accusation to make.

Keith: I would not consider your words to be harassment. I found it very funny. I think there are people who want a special place for apo art, and that is ridiculous. However, I think you did misinterpret Kid_Fisto. He said: "so what's the problem with apo? any ideas? can we step it up a bit, and try creating more cool things? " He didn't want special treatment, he wanted apo artists to be more creative. I think that is the answer to the lack of flames in the Hot 20. Now there are problems with the Hot 20, but that is another issue altogether. And also Keith, i think it is called a Daily Deviation. You might be watching too much Jeopardy :)

THank You Michael!!!! that's exactly what i wanted this thread to be about! but, the main problem with splitting the gallery would be re-classifying all the old apo and UF and XD images into their respective galleries. that would be the hardest part, and that may be why it hasn't happened (i've seen several threads in Fractal Forum about splitting the gallery) and, i try to be very creative with my flames, but sometimes it's really hard to express your image through the title and 200 by 200 thumbnail. i think that may be why many apo images (like mine) are still stuck with 30 viewings and 3 comments while all the UF images around them have 50+ viewings and ten comments. it sometimes gets rather frustrating. anyone else feel that way? craig

Message edited on: 02/25/2006 12:27

The way i see it, if the fractal gallery was split, then there wouldn't be as many people looking at the apo thumbnails. Many people would only go to the UF gallery and no any other fractal program. You may find that 30 viewings drop significantly. I think all fractal images belong together. The reason i like fractals is because it amazes me what math can do. There is so much more to good fractal art than what program is used. Creativity, and being different are so important to what i look for in a fractal. There are apophysis users who do get 50+ viewings. I have, and so have you Craig. There are, however UF images that get more recognition than i think they should deserve. If i were more social, and had a huge network of R'osity friends, then i am sure i could get more viewings, and spend less time making fractals too. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being here on more of a social level though. It is a community after all. I think UF does deserve a lot of credit though. it is a powerful program, that can create awesome fractals. My only suggestion is to try something new with apophysis. be creative. Michael

Wow - this got to be a long thread. Reckon I'll weigh in, too.(aaargh! - wrong choice of words considering the "fractal flab" I've accumulated - lol)

I don't think splitting the gallery is a good idea at all. We fractallists are very few in number compared to the site at-large (aaarrrgh! Another "weight" connotation! lol) as it is and further reduction of our ranks, at least in a concentrated place, would only serve to make us all even more "red haired step-children" of the digi-art world.

The fewer flames may be somewhat due to a few people going over to DVA but I know of at least two Apo artists that are now focused on "graduating" to UF and XD. Carol and Arend were responsible for a good 7 or more of the available H20 spots when they were doing only flames. Any reduction in the number of flames is likely not really due to Apo folks leaving, it's due to the usual holders of the H20 slots switching to different programs. They are still there just as much, just not with flames. Please, I'm NOT making any statement pro/con the H20 - just backing up my assertion with a piece of quantifiable data is all. So this thread is maybe "much ado about nothing"?

I read up the list and see that Yesitis has complimented my art - thanks! I do wonder how/why removing me from your faves list is considered "cleaning house"? Sorry - it's true that my images haven't been up to snuff, lately.........and that I haven't left comments at many of your images, lately.........but I'm sure THAT had NOTHING to do with being swept off your list with the rest of the "garbage", right?........

Lunch is over - gotta git! Rick

Message edited on: 02/25/2006 13:01

in response to both of you, i do know that there are some really ho-hum images (and i have gotten over 50 viewings, on occasion) that get 50 viewings, and then there are some (like encrypted and yours, rick) that really deserve to have tons of recognition. Craig

Micheal, I saw that and went of on a tangent. Thanks for pulling me back in. I'm not sure what a creative flame is. Maybe it's one that hasn't been seen before. Those are hard to come by.

Craig, This is the third time that I have had this discussion. Here's the scenario: I say something along the lines that flames are not the center of the universe, then someone comes along and says, "Oh really? Let me show you these flames" or "maybe these flames will change your mind". Then I get a URL or a list of flame artists that will enlighten me. I'm not sure how to react when that happens. In the past I have provided a list of my own flame compositions. It's flame envy time. My flames are bigger than yours are, and so on. I'm not going to do that this time, but I will say that you and I have different views on creativity. As far as your list goes, my favorite is twiggypeasticks. Keith

Keith: What are your views on creativity? You find that there is a lack of creativity in flames. Is there also a lack of creativity in other styles too? I do see that flames are quite often similar to one another. In my opinion (and i don't mean to offend you Craig or anyone else), but i find random generations and mutations just don't do it for me. There has to be something else. Intellegent design. Craig: You asked if "can we step it up a bit, and try creating more cool things?" I think that was a leading question. It was more like a calling of all apo artists to step it up. The obvious answer is yes. That means doing something different. You like your style, but you cannot make anyone else like it. if you want more views, you have to give people what they want. There is so much more to apophysis than mutations. I've never used a mutation on any of my flames i have posted. Michael

Michael, thanks for asking, but I'm done.

Why? We could start now a discussion about Flames and Intelligent Design! Something like "Can flames be created or are they all created already and can only be found by us?"

If a flame fell in the forest and there was nobody there to hear it, would it make a sound? Are flames real or they all just a dream? Do they think when they are being rendered? Maybe we all exist in a flame dream. Maybe we're not real

Is it real or is it memorex Does a flame - uh - spit in the woods A finger pointing at the flame is not the flame Does chaos possess consciousness He/she who flames gets burned twice Is my mind screwed up Or what

My question was a pendant of an old mathematicians's dispute: "Can a proof of a theorem be found or be invented?" Now you made a funny "Zen in the Art of Burning Flames" from it. :-)

I have always wondered that about bears. Although many flames remind of what cows do in the pasture, but with lots of pretty colors mixed in. Fractals are everywhere in nature. No wonder we love them. I just don't like stepping in them.

Uh oh, just had a brainstorm - or something. Since 100% of the flames I have created so far are reminiscent of bovine or equine fertilizer, they could be printed on recycled paper, shredded, then used as MULCH! No need then, to step daintily, and, see how the garden grows... Voila!

I look back at some of my early Apophysis works and cringe... but I was supremely proud of them at the time... I must say that encouragement and positive critique from others has helped me to develop what I consider to be my particular style nowadays. Mind you, experimentation and testing of different styles, techniques, etc, also plays a big part... some people seem to stop at a certain point and go no further - possibly because their "friends" keep telling them how wonderful their works are... hey people - some of those "friends" are not telling you the truth! Keep playing, keep experimenting, keep challenging yourself... T.

as a response to stephi: That's why flames are usually digital. they can be reduced to a bunch of indents on a metal disk at any time at all. and to tdierikx- i also look back at my non-rendered apo images, and cringe, but i also get nostalgic at my better images, such as Jellyfishes, the Gift, the Eclipse series, Faces, etc. i only posted the ones that i thought were good. and to tony: Thanks for your input. this thread was not intended for people like you. if you don't have anything nice to post, keep your browser out of the Forum!!!!! and to Tonyyeboahismygod: Please don't start a cult.

It looks like he already has, again. Just like he wanted. You should look at the archives.

Attached Link: http://www.undisclosed-design.com

And Craig? The two Tonies are the same person in this thread!!!

Thought you vanished from this community, 'Tony', why are you back then?

It must be attractive for you to get in here [i doubt it]

ROFLMFAOWTIME

have a nice day

Keep On Smiling

Harmen p.s. Stephi, it aint a 'brainstorm' but a brainfart smile

Message edited on: 03/04/2006 05:42