Wow, thanks again, all. (I hope I am not robbing you too much of your creative time!)

I think Zonkerman might have a good grasp on at least the dilemma that prompted my question in the first place...not knowing what to try to put a program through it's paces seemed a little difficult to even get started.

I am sure that to all of you experienced in 3D software you could, by now, probably just read a spec sheet and know if what it does will work for you. In my own situation, though, being a good traditional artist, yet a neophyte to the whole 3D world and not just one program, it would have been a lot more daunting to think of even being ABLE to get enough out of a 30 day demo.

So please understand how much I appreciate the guidance here. Of course I mentally went over the prospects of downloading all of the demos, but the "where to start and what to look for (meaning how to gauge)" I was totally deaf, dumb, and blind to.

On the other end of the multimedia spectrum, I have written music for over 20 years and know the audio production software like the back of my hand. (No, not much TV time for me, growing up - too focused on art and music!  :)  ) So when I look at a new program it takes me about 2 seconds for me to figure out its value.

So I guess that word sums it up - value.

WIthout having some kind of input like you all provided here, I could have spent weeks, months, or whatever long not even knowing that Carrara's modeling capabilities weren't as productive as XYZ's...

I am sure after trekking out and becoming familiar with one or two programs it'll all start to make more sense, but like Zonkerman I don't want to spend any more money on something that wouldn't do myself half as good as...(fill in the blank).

And before this thread, I didn't even KNOW about Modo, and holy crap does it look nice!

And maybe another sort-of-technical question, though - do programs render at about the same speed? Obviously I am talking about if the same scene, objects, etc were all there, nothing different about any of them.

Is this what makes a renderer "better"? How fast it does it? Because right now, I can't tell what you actually do as a user but push the "go" button to make it render - meaning that the user's work is generally done at that point.

And is rendering just a product of CPU and RAM, or do any rendering calculations happen in the graphics card, also?

Thanks again, all, and have a super weekend,

• A

Thanks, again.

I'll try out all of this. (I wouldn't have known about half these programs had I not revealed my own new-ness!)

• A

Another newbie, huh, Paul? Looks like those are my questions, too...but you're a little more advanced it seems.

No problem! Any answers only help at this point...thugh I am starting to think that we should be paying those answering for their time!

Take care, all, and thank you, again!

• A

Hey,

Thanks - I'll give those a try - I hope I've got a PC good enough not to have to wait two hours for a render jsut to see that I got some of the lighting/shading off.

On another note, you wouldn't by chance happen to work for Verio, would you? I worked there from '00-'01 before tech support was outsourced to Jamaica of all places. (Hey, any of you want to move to Jamaica? No? See ya'...)

Thanks again, and take care,

• A

Dann-o,

I guess I am still trying to find my own "artistic voice" but for subject matter I tend to gravitate more toward the architectural/mechanical, not so much human/anatomical.

I am really revealing my ignorance when I state I didn't even know modeling has so many different types and then rendering is a separate quality altogether to make a program be what it is (or what it isn't, too!)

It's starting to make sense now why I'd see so many gallery pictures - here or otherwise - say "modeled in X...rendered in Y" due to the ability - or lack thereof - of the program(s) itself.

I am starting to notice, when looking at the various programs, multiple formats (w/import and exportabiity) and not sure what is useful in this regard or not. I mean, I still have Illustrator and could always do a 2D flat "model" of sorts and then export. What are the formats that are most supported and workable when working in 3D progs? For example, jpg and gif are good web formats but there are tons of others.

What are the formats to look for or "necessary" to work back and forth within the various 3D programs?

And thanks, all, for the patience and sharing of your own viewpoints and tips. I don't know of any other forums like this so feel free to laugh discouragingly and point to the beginners forum over at...(fill in the blank).

Have a super day,

• A

P.S. Oh, hey Cornelp - I used to work in the old IBM building on Yamato Rd in Boca. You near to that? I moved, though, a hop, skip, and jump close to Disney World, though, in Summer of '04. (Yup - first hurricanes in 25 years in FL! OUCH!!)

Thank you for the input.

I was hoping that the wording of my question(s) wouldn't confuse them with the "which is best / what should I buy" variey, but it's hard to gauge intent by a simple form post, so I do apologize. I was (and still am :)  ) simply, as new to this industry, looking for an effective way to examine one program over another.

I guess I was feeling mentally anguished at putting some more intense efforts in Carrara just to realize down the road that something else was needed or better yet - could have done the same thing faster or more productively, so thank you both for your input and guidance.

If you don't mind me asking a more technical question dealing with plug-in...since I am only on one PC, and obviously render time can be in the "honey, let's go out to dinner" deal. Do the plug ins like Vray, etc, actually reduce render time compared to the program itself? Or is it just a factor of the PC itself?

Thanks, again, and sorry for the stupid question,

• Paul