So, the new version of apo has been released. I went to the release site (forgot the name) 2 days after the announcement of the new version and noticed that it had already had over 600 downloads. That is impressive.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of flames, they are becoming the standard for fractal art. I know, "free" is the main reason for all of the downloads, but "free" is a pretty good marketing strategy, especially when it is a good product to begin with. I don't see how the makers of UF and XD can compete in the long run.

You already know what I think of flames, but just in case... I like them but I think that the really good ones are few and far between. On any given day the DA fractal gallery looks like a nicely rendered random batch. Even the cool tiles and patterns don't do much for my artistic senses, although they are technically very cool.

BUT, what I think of flames doesn't amount to a hill of poopoo when you have over 600 downloads in 2 days. Apo is now defining "pure" fractal art. Like it or not, when fractal art finally appears in the high end galleries in the big cities, that art will be made of flames.

Thoughts? Specifically, what about "free"? What sort of impact is that having on the world of fractal art? We have seen this strategy before, haven't we - with web browsers and operating systems? 

You love this...don't you?...lol...

I don't know what to think of it. The flame trend is real and it is growing. I am trying to decide if I want to jump on the bandwagon with everyone else.

Marketing has always been the problem of fractals - as in, most people don't know what a fractal is, but it appears that they are learning and what they are learning is that fractals are flames.

Maybe "public awareness" is a better expression than "marketing".

Well, the fractal explorer and chaos pro are "free" too and no one cares. It is all about enthusiasm and power.
When I make fractals with UF and (OMG) with XD I think of a one hundred issue wishlist of improvements in ten minutes. And I know maybe three will come in a year or three with a new version after the money is spent .. and I have to learn to live with the handicap.
So it is the other way round in my opinion. This money thing seems to paralyse the developers.

Apophysis is alive and kicking.
My dream of UF would be an update every week with a lively discussion. But I talk to a sleepy dinosaur who easily could play the first violine in the orchestra if something of the Apo spirit would swing in.

So I thank God and the Apophysis People to be an alternative Island in all that cash flowing marketing kingdom.

I'm not a flamer but here's my two cents: I find Apo boring. I mean isn't it about random clicking and then moving some triangles around? Where is the joy of exploring formulae and colorings, the fascination of understanding how parameters and functions affect the mathematical realities in them? Some flames are very impressive indeed, but it more like autopilot, as far as I can see...

Toby

I used to think that apo was boring too, but the new features in the recent versions have moved it past the mindless searching for images. Now there is some skill involved.

ulliroyal, you have just offered an example of the religious following. How can anyone compete against a religious following? It's just going to continue to snowball

Quote - ulliroyal, you have just offered an example of the religious following.

Not at all. I tried to illustrate the difference between software that is developing very fast (APO) and software that is developing very slow (UF, XD).

bows down to the developers for giving me the tools to create psychedelic art everyday and unlocking the inner artist in me..... im not biased in anyway lol

Long live apo :D

http://segami.deviantart.com/

Check out the images that I have put under recent favourites on my DA site. Those things go way beyond colorful cowpies

Keith said: "Like it or not, when fractal art finally appears in the high end galleries in the big cities, that art will be made of flames."

Possibly, possibly not. Just because a particular medium is widely used, doesn't mean that the best art is created using it. Many, many more pictures have been created using crayons, felt-tip pens or coloured pencils than oil paint, but look what's hanging in the galleries.

"The flame trend is real and it is growing. I am trying to decide if I want to jump on the bandwagon with everyone else."

Very little worthwhile Art (with a deliberate capital A) was ever created by anyone who chose to be on a bandwagon. In fact, I think I can fairly confidently say that ultimately the most celebrated art is created by the people who jump off bandwagons or who deliberately head off in directions no wagon has gone before.

When, eventually, there are images hanging in 'high end galleries' that have been created digitally, I think it very likely that they will have been created by people who are more focussed on the image than they are on the medium. The software that is used to make them will be the software that enables the artists most powerfully to express themselves, whether it's flame-based, escape-time-based, or whatever.

I don't really like the term 'fractal art' because I think it is too focussed on the medium - there's an unhealthy set of ideas (I think) that follow from too much focus on the medium (e.g. don't post-process) that get in the way of producing the best art. Anyway, I digress. The point is that I think we're still in the early stages of using computers to make art, and understandably we're still pretty much focussed on what can be done technically, and not thinking enough yet about what we're actually producing. Most people who visit galleries wouldn't understand the difference between flames and other types of fractal, neither would they want to, and why should they? Given that, what's the likelihood of stuff hanging in a gallery that does little more than demonstrate the creator's ingenuity with flames?

I've rambled on at quite some length (more than I intended to). I did so because I think Keith's original comments demonstrate a lot of wrong-thinking (sorry Keith, but I know you like straight talking!). I think it is counter-productive to try to create art that other people will like - you should create what you like, and then (ironically/paradoxically) I think you're more likely to be creating something that will end up hanging in a gallery (that people other than your peers will want to look at). I also think it's wrong to care whether flames/Apo will 'win' or escape-time/UF will - I don't care what software you use: use whatever helps you express yourself best. Lastly, I think it's wrong to want the average person to know what a fractal is - what we create should be compelling whether or not the viewer knows anything about the medium - so I don't care whether the average person thinks of flames when they hear the word 'fractal'.

Erm... I prattled on far too long, so I'm going to shut up now. :-)

Best wishes,
Simon.

Wise words. Thanks Simon

But I do wonder about people like Frederick. If they loose business to a free program, what will keep them motivated to stay with it?

Ulli, it's not the program development that gets paralysed, but the issues of documentation, bugs, beta testing, delivery and notification that make it more complicated than for open source freeware.

Every update of XD has been free so far and the next one will be too. It's just the time between them that's not ideal. If you emailed me your wishlists many of them might be implemented by now, and some probably already are. It's too late now for significant features for v1.6, but minor improvements are still possible while I finish writing a user guide. If you really want to see suggestions implemented on an ongoing basis, becoming a tester is an option.

Regards, Garth

Well said, Simon!

Garth, thanks for jumping in.

I'll just ask the question instead of making assumptions: Do you believe that you are loosing business to Apophysis? Not that there is anything that you can do about it, but I am very curious.

Thanks,
Keith

Apophysis is merely a tool, albeit a free and easy to use tool, but still it is just a tool.  UF, XD, Chaoscope, Chaos Pro, FE, Fractint, etc. are just tools.  Some are old and significantly out of date and some are new and pushing the state-of-the-art with fractals.  Some are free, and some cost money.  Some are easy to use, and some are difficult to use.  You use the one, or multiple ones, to best express what you are trying to create.

Apophysis is popular right now because it is a very easy way to create images, particularly flame images.  It even generates a 100 or so for you when it starts up.  You don't have to spend weeks or months experimenting and learning the best formula, coloring, and transform options to create nice images.  You don't have to spend weeks or months learning how to navigate the UI to get the most out of the program.  IOW, you have an easy to use program, but quite limited, control over your images.  I think Toby said much the same thing above.

Is there going to be the same discussion when something comes out that supplants Apophysis in popularity?  There will be.  Will there be the same discussion when something comes out that surpasses UF in capabilities?  It is likely at some point there will be.  Will the same discussion take place when something comes out that combines the capabilities of UF, Apophysis, and other programs?  Again, all it takes is a motivated individual or a group of them to pool their talents and be creative.  This is no different than the creative energies that individuals need to use with their particular favorite set of tools to create their art.

In short, isn't worrying about the popularity of a particular program and/or the quantity of images produced by a particular program kind of pointless?

Ken...

Hi Ken,

It's good to hear from you. I'm more curious than worried.

Apophysis is a labor of love. If the momentum continues the way that it is, it will not fade out for a long time. At least I don't think so. When one of the developers gets tired of it, some other bright person (out of the 600 in 2 days) will pick it up. It ends up being a never ending free development team competing against Garth and Frederick, for example. All it needs is continued distant guidance from people like Draves, Mark and Erik.

I'm not complaining or saying that it is good or bad. I'm just very intrigued by the momentum of it all and I am speculating about how it will turn out.

In the past, the idea that you get what you pay for was true. I don't think it is true with this team rolling forward like it is.

I can't help but think of Fractint in this context. I was in on the tail end of that, but from what I can see Fractint was killed by 2 things: Windows and UF. I think that there was a windows version but it didn't works very well. In other words, the love stopped. I can see why because Fractint was sort of a PITA to use. Apo is easy to use and the coding technology has improved since the Fractint days.

I guess that the universe will stay in balance as long as Frederick and Garth choose to stay in the game. I know that I'll keep paying for UF. If they step out, I wonder if anyone else would be willing to step in to offer a good commercially available application that can compete with apo.

Keith

Hi Keith,

overall I don't think XD is losing business to Apophysis. There will be some who are satisfied with just Apo, short or medium term, who might otherwise have tried other programs. The increasing popularity also brings people in who will likely want to use XD or UF later. The competition is at the cool toy level, and to that extent includes other kinds of cool toys.

At heart, UF, XD and Apo use three different approaches. UF is built on per pixel iteration and formula compiling, with the flame algorithm bolted on. Apo is built on the flame algorithm, which is essentially a 2D coloring method. XD is built on 3D iteration projected to 2D. While the users see some crossover, the fundamental model differences are likely to prevent any two from converging too much. XD could implement flame rendering (because sometimes it works better than simple transparent rendering) but there are many higher priorities, all more concerned with 3D.

In the longer term I think it depends more on Frederick's vision for UF and my vision for XD in terms of what we want to achieve, and how that translates into demand and opportunity.

Garth

I don't think apophysis is an easy program to create art with. it is very easy to create images, but art takes time and understanding. For me i think there is a lot of crap flames out there. if it cost something, then i think the average apophysis user would be better. There would also be a user manual though.

Diversity in fractal art, and therefore the programs used, is essential to fractal art being accepted more by the public. UF creates some very nice images.

Keith, you have a distinctive style, and i think i would enjoy your art with whatever program you use. You have obviously put time and effort into UF. if you are willing to do the same with apophysis i know you will impress a lot of people. That being said, whether you jump the bandwagon or not, don't give up UF!

Michael

Well said Michael - both what you say about Apophysis and what you say to Keith - completely agree. 

As a user of both Apo and UF - with equal enjoyment - my dream would be for Apophysis to support working in layers - now that would be a programme I'd be willing to pay for!

By the way - all you people who think working with Apo is boring and easy - I don't think you've got the hang of using it properly!!

Mags

Just a rhetorical question but, what exactly is your idea of the "proper" way to use Apo?? I'd like to know because I would really like to do it the right way and maybe get it to make better images for me... Could you give a few tips? I've been enjoying Apo since '03 and have apparently missed something fundamental?

BTW - Apo already has a way to work in layers that was built into from the very start - the "Export UPR" function. Just stack 'em up in UF - the capability is already there.

Rick

Rykk - I can't be bothered to answer your question - you're just being pedantic. 

Garth, thanks. What you said makes a lot of sense.

Michael, thanks. I have spent the last couple of nights trying to figure out how you and the other Faber (your brother?) have been building your images. Those things are so impressive. I thought that I was getting close 2 nights ago but nope. You two are proof that there is more to apo than mindless random batches.

On the other hand, I did get bored after about 20 minutes. I need a breakthrough to keep my interest. The final transform could be it once I figure out how to use it

LOL - another nifty "p" word! Thanx!

Rykk - if you're looking for an argument - forget it.  You're trying to turn my lighthearted comment into a fight and I'm sorry but I'm not interested!  I'm outta here.

Mags

I looked it up and I am still not sure that I get it

I can't figure out what the 'final transform' button does either, and there is still no documentation!  I tried tried the mailing list, but I don't understand half of what they are talking about, they are like gearheads and I'm a Sunday driver, LOL.  I also would like to know how to evenly shrink the entire triangle, rather than scale it so that it remains oriented around a single angle.  I have tried using the tiling script, but it doesn't seem to do much for me.  I have only gotten one image that was tiled, and it was kind of boring.  Any help would be good.  Tutorials would be amazing!

Thanks,

~Vivian

Oh, perhaps she meant presumptuous or impertinent or impudent or insolent.....not that I think Rykk is any of those at all!

Keith - I think it means "happy feet" or "fun with bicycles"? To wit - "Ped" from the Latin for "foot" or maybe "Ped" from the Schwinn root word "pedal" - coupled with "antic" as in funny stuff like that culturally pertinent and deeply spiritual infomercial, "The Antics of Cletus and Poot on the Withlacoochie - Phase One", in which Doris (and GranMammy Greendenture) gets her oats and Poot succeeds in clothespinning an ENTIRE (shhyeah - all 52!) pack of cards to the spokes of his tricycle and needs Cletus to help push the pedals. You know, the one where they're "fixin' to learn ya" and 400lb Family Boy does cartwheels around his brother's used car lot?

Anyhow - sorry, just having fun - amateur "commodian".

Well, you've gotten farther than I have, Viv - I can't even FIND a thing/triangle/button called "Final Transform". I did finally figure out that the "Blur" variation gives those really cool "big", smooth shapes....

Ohhhh...now I see. I have my editor, preview,and two gradient windows all open on the desktop at the same time and things are pretty small so maybe Ioverlooked or had that icon covered. Can't wait to get off work and see what it does - thanks, Viv! Hmmm...I have UF intalled at work for lunch break - oughtta bring Apo in, too....

Rick

Ohhhh...now I see. I have my editor, preview,and two gradient windows all open on the desktop at the same time and things are pretty small so maybe Ioverlooked or had that icon covered. Can't wait to get off work and see what it does - thanks, Viv! Hmmm...I have UF intalled at work for lunch break - oughtta bring Apo in, too....

Rick

Not to offend any groups or anything else but, I think I'm learning more about apo off this thread than anywhere else. Maybe we can start an ‘Apo for Dummies’ thread, please?

Btw, my 2 cents worth...create YOUR art, express yourself using what you want. As far as fractals go I think they're out there more than most think. I see them everywhere in different uses. Fractals being 'high-end gallery' give it time they will.

Apo verses UF, who cares? They both work well alone or together and I highly doubt one will put the other out of the market. Nor will the general public care about the definition of what a fractal really is artistically. They will be looking at a how piece affects them, apo or UF will not matter. Only a mathematician will care about the ‘definition’ and then again I think they may not even care if it is apo or UF. Only the lure of algorithms and the concept of chaos will matter. Anyways, now I'm rambling. I'm going back into my cave to hide again, lol.

Melissa

Keith, getting back to your original message, the digital art that appears in galleries (of the future) will be the most expressive and that makes people say "Wow!"  I agree with Simon (as usual) in that art must be driven from within, and the tools an artist uses will be those that enable him to express it best.  UF is so powerful; nothing I've seen matches its scope and versatility. I think any technically minded artist will surely gravitate to it.

I think it is good that you are exploring Apo again, since you have in the past been a bit of an Apophobe. There are some great things coming out of Apo. It's a useful arrow in one's quiver, as they say, although I find it a bit limiting in general.

Rick, I don't think you are pedantic. Neither are you a peddler of pedestrian parasols. But you do have the "commodian" gift, something I have always admired.

Cheers,

Tim

I must say that this thread has been very entertaining and somewhat informative. Like Keith, I have been impressed with the recent flame images more than ever. And...Like Rick, I have struggled to come up with something that looks even close to acceptable, all the while pulling out my hair.

I agree with Simon that you should create what you like and the rest will follow. I must say that I have spent a few moments wishing  there were a way that I could make money with my "frivolous" hobby, and that way I could justify my investments of time and money into it. After awhile I just began to realize that I really needed to just enjoy the creative process and have fun again, which is something I had lost sight of.

Anyway, I just wanted to add my 2cents and confess that my favorite part of this whole discussion was the playful p's performing such a pertinent part of this program ponderment!

Take it easy and take care ya'll

sincerely

Treena:biggrin:

I think I agree for the most part with what Simon, Kerry and Tim have said. It really doesn't matter how one created the work, just how it looks and if it evokes some reaction in the viewer. And it really only matters to those of us who create these odd looking images how "hard" or "easy" we might perceive that that artwork was to make. Like when I played in bands back in the day - A musician can miss the joy of just listening and feeling the music because he's too intent on checking out the guitarist's technique and whether he's playing the song "correctly" - as we might define "correct" in our own minds.

I think Simon had a neat point, an example being the views of artists who might be considered "fractal purists", that we might go to too many pains to "define" our artform and thence become "slaves to the genre" imprisoned by set-in-stone attitudes as to what constitutes a valid piece of "fractal" art and what can and can't be done to it before it can no longer be called a "fractal" as if it should matter whether it is or isn't something that fits that label more than it matters whether or not the piece just looks great. I think that can lead to stagnation in one's progress as an artist and you can end up just making the same images over and over. The average non-fractallist person doesn't know or really care about the esoteric "fine points" or the math involved in fractals or whether you did a bunch of layering and post-processing. And they don't care what it's called or whether it fits that definition. They just look and either they like it or they don't. The term, "post-processing" sort of bugs me - as if there is an artificial point where the creation of an image or effect has to stop before it becomes "invalid". I think we need a broad rather than narrow view of our art and not be constrained by any limits on the methods used to realize whatever vision we had in the course of the creation of a piece of art. I've never understood exactly why a fractal image needed to be "pure". We're artists, not mathematicians for the most part, no?

C-ya!

Rick

Quote - I can't figure out what the 'final transform' button does either, and there is still no documentation!  I tried tried the mailing list, but I don't understand half of what they are talking about, they are like gearheads and I'm a Sunday driver, LOL.  I also would like to know how to evenly shrink the entire triangle, rather than scale it so that it remains oriented around a single angle.  I have tried using the tiling script, but it doesn't seem to do much for me.  I have only gotten one image that was tiled, and it was kind of boring.  Any help would be good.  Tutorials would be amazing!

Thanks,

~Vivian

Oh, perhaps she meant presumptuous or impertinent or impudent or insolent.....not that I think Rykk is any of those at all!

Each transform (a triangle in the editor) maps one coordinate space into another coordinate space.  This just means that every point (x1,y1) gets transformed into another point (x2,y2).  The flame fractal algorithm randomly transforms points from one coordinate space into another repeatedly (or recursively, if you will). To get a better understanding, try this:
 -  Start with a flame you like.  Something simple with fine lines would be easiest.  Make sure it doesn't have a final  tranform (final xform, for short)
 -  Add a new transformation in the editor.  This new transformation might make some changes in the colouring, but it doesn't change the shape of the flame.  This is because a linear transformation at the default size and position doesn't change the coordinate space.  Mathmatically,  (x1,y1) = (x2, y2).
 - Now try rotating the new linear transform a little bit.  Notice the effect that this has on the flame.  The flame has been rotated and superimposed on itself repeatedly.  There are many copies rotated at multiples of the angle that you rotated your linear transform because of the recursiveness that I mentioned above.
 - Delete that linear transform and add a new final xform.  This should be a linear transform with the default size and position.  Notice again, that this doesn't have any effect on the shape of the flame.
 -  Try rotating the final xform by a few degrees.  Notice this has a different effect than rotating the first linear transformation.  The whole flame rotates because the last mapping (or "final transform") is one that rotates every point in your flame a few degrees.  There is no recursion in this case.  The whole flame is mapped into a new coordinate space.

I hope this helps.  If something doesn't make sense or whatever, just send me a message.  I'd be more than happy to help out.  btw Vivian, your post was hard to read.  A different colour would be better :)

~~

As for the original discussion, I think the best fractal images, whether they were made with Apophysis, UltraFractal, XD or whatever, are absolutely beautiful!  The rest I'm tired of seeing.  I don't like random flame fractals and I don't like that many UF images look like the same spiral with different colours. 

Producing art isn't easy.  Producing colourful pictures is.  I haven't played with UF much, but I believe that much time must be spent learning how to use different colouring techniques and formulas.  I think one of the things that holds many Apophysis users back from making better art is that it is far too easy to create random flames.  Take a look at Nick's (grinagog), Andrew's (psion005) and Michael's (MichaelFaber) and my galleries.  There is nothing random there.  Those artists took time to learn how to use the different variations to get a desired outcome. When I make tiled fractals, I often use a pencil, paper and a scientific calculator to help me out with the trigonometry that I need to get everything to line up properly.  I know that is a little extreme, but using the editor and learning how the different variations behave when they are manipulated is the first step Apo users can make to becoming better artists.

Sorry for writing a very long post :)

All the best,
Joel

**Thanks, Joel, for the excellent post and the explanation.  I didn't know what experiments to perform with that xform so that I could understand its function, and now I do!   I think you should write a few basic tutorials for the rest of us who are either new or catching up.  That might make for more art and fewer 'colourful pictures'! **

**As to my font color... I could use some advice.  I have a very dark background (deep purple) in my CSS stylesheet, and black font color simply disappears.  I am looking for a color that will be seen on all sorts of backgrounds...  any suggestions, anyone?  I went for a middle gray, hoping that it would be visible on more backgrounds than any other color, but if it isn't working, I need input. **

Thanks again!

~Viv

Wow - well said and explained, Joel. And this just shows to go that there's more to some fractal images than meets the eye.

I'm amazed by his stuff and the others he mentioned. I'm no newbie with Apo but I can tell you straight off that NOTHING I ever made with it required as much work ethic as Joel described. And, of course, it shows! Because I've never come up with anything remotely like what they have.

You know, I go around and around and back and forth on this "Apo vs UF" thing and have thought it a "mindless distraction" sometimes. But after reading this and also a couple of conversations with Joel's brother, Michael, it's occurred to me that maybe the reason I've thought Apo to be "mindless" might just be because that's the way "I" use it. And I'm certainly on the lower end of average when it comes to making flames. I just tug the polygons around until something looks cool or run a script and fine tune that. Think??? Moi???? As if!! lol I've never dug deeply into Apo like have have UF. Most of the time I was just trying to make organic "landscaping" flames for compo's in UF. It's just too easy for me to get caught up in tugging triangles in a daze because it seems to have a neat, calming effect....though the triangles get me fixated on ordering pizza from Dominos - lol. Someone needs to turn shrinks onto this stuff for their stress management courses! lol

So - near to the heart of this debate that keeps coming up is maybe the perception by UF users that Apo is just too easy. Well it can be and then again, as Joel describes, it isn't. Certainly using the "Kaleidoscope" mapping in UF is as simple and easy as running a script and whacking the mutate button. (btw - I've never had a mutation that looked better than what i started with but then maybe I don't  how to use it - lol) It DOES make some neat images. I can remember when kaleido was the extent of my "expertise" with UF and I was pretty pleased with myself. Of course until I saw what Keith Mackay, Linda Allison and many others were doing. So both software platforms have "average" users - which is most of us -  and then there are the few, like Keith, Jackie L or the Fabers, Nick, and Andrew and some others that knock your eyeballls out when you see what THEY can do and that can inspire us all to try to do greater things. Speaking of Apo, I'm also really floored by Judi's(twiggypeasticks) flames on light backgrounds, too. And maybe there's a perception that UF users are "snobby" and think UF is the be-all-and-end-all of fractal programs. Sure, there are lots of opportunities for creative input but, as I said above, there's no shortage of "easy" stuff to do with it, too. You get out of any fractal program what you put into it and some people are serious about it and others are just having fun. And the bottom line is, "is it beautiful or cool looking". Maybe directly at the heart of the debate is the same old, worn out "popularity contest" thing that keeps coming up and that there is really no help for anyhow. (please please please don't start THAT one up again!)

So, I don't think Apo is going to "take over the world" any more than UF took over the world. It's just the newest "great thing" and 600 is really not a very large number when you think of the thousands of Bryce or Poser users. And it helps expose more people to our kind of abstract art and some might be intrigued by UF and pick it up just as some have done UF and then moved to flames.  BTW - Does anyone know roughly how many copies of UF Frederik has sold? That would be an interesting thing to know. Hope it's a lot...but not so many that he retires and quits coming out with new versions - lol.

c-ya!

Rick

Quote from Rick

it's occurred to me that maybe the reason I've thought Apo to be "mindless" might just be because that's the way "I" use it.

Think this is the point I made that you took exception to!! 

That's what I meant when I said people who found Apo easy and boring maybe hadn't found the way to use it properly.  Maybe instead of properly I should have said to it's full potential.

Quote from Vivian

Oh, perhaps she meant presumptuous or impertinent or impudent or insolent.....not that I think Rykk is any of those at all!

No Vivian - I didn't mean any of those or I would have said so - and I rather object to being referred to as 'she'!

Tim, good to hear from you. "apophobe" made me smile. That's another one of those "P" words, isn't it?

Joel, thanks for jumping in. You and the others that you mentioned certainly have my attention. Like I said, you all are proof that there is much more to apo than a random batches and mindless triangle tweaking.

It looks like we have established that you need a brain to use apo. Cool.

I still believe that the way to most properly use apo is to find flames and move them into UF. I have avoided the newer versions because they didn't work with UF, which means that I didn't take the time to learn about the new capabilities. I know a little more about it now, but I still hate not being able to move flames into UF. Every standalone apo flame that I create looks unfinished to me and I am totally frustated that I can't finish the job in UF.

This has been a great thread so far. Even if it is the same old thing, the counter says that 570 of you have been interested in reading it. Thanks for jumping in

Keith

Time flies... 2539 downloads of Apophysis 2.04 beta right now.

http://www.ivy-cottage.net/ApophysisUserGuide.pdf

Vivian,

Take a look at Carl's 2.04 tutorial.  It explains the Final Transform very well.

It can totally change the look of your project or give new life to old flames.

Diane

I wrote a really basic tutorial for newer users to begin making flames from scratch... rather than spawning random flames and clicking on the mutation window...

You can graab it at the following url...

http://woosie.net/apophysis/flamesfromscratch.zip

It's been a while since I used the mutation window... I tend to keep that one closed nowadays... more room for the editor window that way... lol!

I can say that during the last development run for Apophysis, we have almost managed to get coordination between all of the "players" - Apo dev/testing, Flam3 dev/testing, sheep dev/testing, and UF compatibility... the next release of Apophysis should see all areas coming together and working nicely with each other.

The only thing that was left behind with the last Apo release was the full UF compatibility... and seeing as this is being done by one person, who has other real life things to do, we decided to release the newest version when we did - leaving the UF compatibility for the next Apo release.

The UF compatibility stuff is apparently now waiting for the Apo developers to work in the suggestions that Susan has made, so that everything will be cool for the next Apo release... then all will be well with the world again... lol!

T.

Thanks, Tracy, for that great news.  I don't mind waiting, since I now know it will all happen.  Meanwhile, I can learn to use the program and stockpile some images, lol.  I do still go backwards to work with some of my images in UF.

These sort of topics are always interesting because they stir up the opinions/emotions.

Well I'm going be boring but, in my opinion it doesn't matter two jots what program you use. I reckon the market for bought fractal programs will continue, as long as the designers keep up their standards and developing.  I agree with SimonKane :the average person out there won't know how you've created your art, or anything about the program. They'll initially judge it on whether they like it or not. In the end what will distinguish one artist from another is the quality of their work. Yes, apo can seem boring sometimes, and you can create and image with the click of a button, but it really isn't that easy to create something breathtaking with it - as with any program it's what you do with it, and the skill you develop with it, not which program it is. There are outstanding examples in the galleries made with different programs, and equally not so interesting images too.  Ultimately the most important thing is that you get enjoyment from whatever art you are creating, and are creating what pleases yourself. 

Off for a nice cuppa now..