The esscence of 3d modeling software..


(CAVZ24) #1

I’ve been cruising different sites looking at what other options are out there and there seems to be plenty, and most are big bux.

One in particular that I like REALSOFT3D Very nice program.

But given all the apps out there, what is the esscence of each and everyone? MODELING… Not lighting, not rendering just bare bones modeling. I would say not even animation could be considered the esscence, but a bonus.

Looking at all the galleries, I’ve came to one conclusion. Theres nothing that can’t be modeled in Blender that can be modeled in othe packages. Sure the process for doing the modeling may be different but the end result can still be the same.

Is it really worth it to blow up to a grand on an application when little ol blender can give the same results for free? Or could it be that most folks are after the glitzy part of modeling…IE rendering with ray traces and volumetrics, physics and animation?

I myself keep telling myself…hey richard, this is a cool program but think before you blow a couple hundred, a grand or more. Blender can model this same awsome looking monster, truck, car, mechanisim…way cheaper.

THIS IS JUST AN OBSERVATION…


(SatoriGFX) #2

I don’t agree with you at all. Sorry.

While you could probably model everything in Blender, how long would it take? And why not consider rendering, lighting, texturing? You need them to complete a scene don’t you? And animation? Why not just take out the modelling features and look at file import and export features only? Because it makes no sense.

Many of the other packages are indeed expensive. And many are not. A:M is reasonable as is the 3D Toolkit (both under $300). Both have a slew of fatures that Blender does not (and are missing some too). Truespace isn’t ridiculously priced. And Realsoft 3D is $700 (on sale for $535). Merlin3D is $595. Lightwave is down to $1595.

To say that with Blender you can achieve that exact same results as with the more expensive packages is simply false. If you are purely talking modelling, then I suppose you might be right in some cases. But will you model it just as fast? And when you are done modelling what do you do next? Put a capture of your wireframe up on the net for people to look at? Don’t know about you, but I like to add lights and textures and render as well. Most of the more expensive apps have superior renderers to Blenders. Many have better shader editors.

One thing that Blender users often forget to consider is the availability of aftermarket plugins, the availability of quality books, manuals, tutorials and other resources, size of the knowledgable user base etc… And support. Especially now. With Blender, you have no support from the company. And as of now, Blender is at a stand still. You buy Lightwave, for example, and you have support, great manual, alot of great books available, tutorials, plugins and further development. That’s worth something. Alot in fact.

SatoriGFX.


(Free Mars) #3

Some things in Blender are better than some things in other programs.

The only other program I happen to own is Animation Master. It offer a couple of things that are not native to Blender. It has a hybrid raytracer allowing it to do glass more correctly. It better built in toon shader options. It allows for the creation of libraries of actions.

This does not necessarily make it better overall, just better in some respects.


(Briggs) #4

Hey Cav,

>But given all the apps out there, what is >the esscence of each and everyone? >MODELING… Not lighting, not rendering just >bare bones modeling. I would say not even >animation could be considered the esscence, >but a bonus.

I don’t see how you can say this. Project Messiah for instance is made specifically for character animation, It probably has modelling features but it’s main thrust is animation. The same is true with Animation master, which has a very limited (although robust)set of modelling tools and it’s main thrust is character animation as well.

>Theres nothing that can’t be modeled in >Blender that can be modeled in othe >packages. Sure the process for doing
>the modeling may be different but the end >result can still be the same.

Sure you can model just about anything if you throw enough poly’s at it, but thats not really the point. What happens when you want to animate the thing? How you get the model to its ‘finished’ state matters a lot.

>Is it really worth it to blow up to a grand >on an application when little ol blender can
>give the same results for free?

Yes, because it may take 10x longer to do it in blender. I don’t know about you but I have a very busy life, and in a professional setting, time is money.

>Or could it be that most folks are after the >glitzy part of modeling…IE rendering with >ray traces and volumetrics, physics and >animation?

Well yes, people do want to render there models you know, and the DO want the renders to look nice. Blenders renderer is perfectly adequate for some, but it can only be pushed so far (even Ton said something to this effect). For the people who need something better they go elsewhere.

I think it’s interesting that you call these features ‘glitz’ as well. The implication seems to be that its all style and no substance. But without pyhsics simulation how are you to get realistic cloth motion or hair? Volumetrics have there place because such things happen in real life and many times people want to incorporate that into their renders (many people overuse them though).

Furthermore, the fact that you lump animation as a whole in with what you call ‘glitzy’ features really astounds me. Animation (at least character animation) is an art unto itself!

Anyway, I know you wern’t meaning to start a flame war. That’s just my 2cents.

Stay cool.


(CAVZ24) #5

Well I did say esscence. But yes you need the whole suite to build a complete scene/animation, but the roots of it all is the modeling.


(xype) #6

On 2002-03-27 12:34, CAVZ24 wrote:
> But given all the apps out there, what is the
> esscence of each and everyone?
> MODELING… Not lighting, not rendering just
> bare bones modeling. I would say not even
> animation could be considered the esscence,
> but a bonus.

I can not agree here. Maybe for stills, but to most 3D artists animation is as much or more important than modelling only (that’s why some use Rhino or Nendo to model and 3dsMax or lightwave to render).

> Looking at all the galleries, I’ve came to one
> conclusion. Theres nothing that can’t be
> modeled in Blender that can be modeled in
> othe packages. Sure the process for doing
> the modeling may be different but the end
> result can still be the same.

Sure, but I have to agree with Satori - often the limiting factor with projects is time and time only. And if a package can offer you a “superior” modelling technology it actually only translates to “faster”. This for example includes NURBS for technical modelling…

> Is it really worth it to blow up to a grand on
> an application when little ol blender can give
> the same results for free? Or could it be that
> most folks are after the glitzy part of
> modeling…IE rendering with ray traces and
> volumetrics, physics and animation?

Excuse me - rendering, animation and raytracing is a part of modelling?

> I myself keep telling myself…hey richard,
> this is a cool program but think before you
> blow a couple hundred, a grand or more.
> Blender can model this same awsome
> looking monster, truck, car, mechanisim…
> way cheaper.

Sure, if it does not matter to you how much time you spend on project or getting “real” reflections or if you don’t really need some advanced IKA system that allows you to “paint” affected regions then Blender is perfect for you. In fact, Blender is perfect for any “hobby” 3D work. But it’s not the same as Lightwave or Maya.

.xype


(xype) #7

On 2002-03-27 13:51, CAVZ24 wrote:
> but the roots of it all is the modeling.

one can also buy models someplace and just animate them. or one can only animate cubes! :slight_smile: