Anyone using Swift 3D v3, or VectorStyle? I have Carrara and have considered buying VectorStyle, which is the Swift 3D plug-in. It looks like the stand-alone Swift 3D v3 has additional features not offered in VectorStyle. The cost for Swift 3D v3 is not that much more than VectorStyle, so it would seem that Swift 3D is more bang for the buck. The only advantage to VectorStyle that I see is the integration with Carrara. I would expect that VectorStyle will be upgraded in the future, so the lack of certain features may not be an issue. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Chris

Really you'd get a lot more out of VectorStyle. Since you'd have all the animation abilities of Carrara, Swift3D is a bit limited in my opinion. Brian

I went with VectorStyle precisely because of the integration with Carrara (for example you can animate with Carrara physics and dump that to Flash). I also didn't feel like learning yet another 3D interface. I'm hopeful that there will be an upgrade to VectorStyle at some point to pick up the features that are new to v3. Discreet Plasma is another option in this space and will probably appeal to those who already know MAX. If you're into Flash, also check out swish at www.swishzone.com (I find it much easier to use than Macromedia Flash).

Thanks for the input. I agree that learning a second program is less than ideal. And, when you consider Carrara has more extensive animation capability already, the extra goodies in Swift 3D v3 might not be worth using a second program and complicating workflow just to take advantage of those "extras". I am hoping to hear from someone who is actually using Swift 3D v3, particularly for the additional rendering effects. I have also posted the question over in the 3D Apps forum. Chris

Attached Link: http://www.sleepdirt.org/temp/2jumpers

Aloha! I've got Swift 3, but for me it was just a waste of money. The new vector renderings looks great and it's smart-layer export may be great, but the Swift interface simply sucks in my eyes. Another thing is that it does not work under OS X natively. That's why I hardly use it, but when you're on a PC you won't have this problem ;) Well, it just depends on what you want to do with it. For example the link shows a file size comparison. The smaller QT-swf looks better to me. And now imagine how big a Swift 3 swf would be if it also had that reflections... OK, but it would be resizible. Doesn't help very much, right? ;) Bob.

An article I read on Plasma commented on this issue that sometimes outputting to a video format can yield better results (both quality and size) then using a flash vector output program. If you want to incorporate the movie into a larger Flash piece (especially one targeted at player versions below 6), though, it still may be more helpful to have a .swf than a .mov or .avi A product called optimaze is supposed to help make flash movies smaller but I haven't been able to find a demo version.