Talk:3D computer graphics software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] merge
These articles *should* be merged and someone with an account needs to make a redirect page for Terragen 2. -Thanks
[edit] Blender is not a minor package
--User:nopnopzero 16:56, 05 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree although I might be biased :) It depends on how you determine 'major and minor' - Total commercial usage? Commercial usage in particular sectors (Ie Feature length animation? Television? Games? Visualization? Print?) References to it in professional trade publications? (Ie cover of CGWorld) Prominence at industry trade shows? (One of the largest and better attended boths at Siggraph) References to it in popular magazines? (Blender had a sidebar in Nov. 2006 Playboy) Usage of content in other trades? (Elephants Dream is used to show off the capabilities of HDTV in a number of places in Europe; Blender is a frequent demo on hardware and OS vendors) LetterRip 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3ds Max isn't the most expensive package
Houdini, with a price tag of $17,000, is actually the most expensive one in the list. --JT 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] do not merge
3D Modeler and 3D Graphics Software should be two separate categories.
Not all software does modeling, and not all modeling software does everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dryo (talk • contribs).
I disagree. I don't think it's possible to make 3D graphics without models. It makes more sense to lump modelers and all other needed software in one easy article. -joseph.thacker@baesystems.com
I disagree as well, this article is almost redundant to 3d modeler. There are differences, but not distinguishable enough to make two separate pages. This a duplication of text and effort.
Maybe the tools of the trade (software) "3D Graphics Software" should be one page and the skill "3D Modeling" should be a separate page. 3D modeling can include notes on 3D scanning and 3D printing, performance capture, virtual engineering and virtual anatomy. Oicumayberight 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think 3d modelers should be merged as a subset of 3D computer graphics software. 3D animation suites include modelers (NURBS, patch, Subdivision surface, polygon, metaball, sculpting); UV mapping (spherical, cylindrical, box, pelt mapping, LSCM mapping, ABF++ mapping); texturing (paint based, procedural based, image based, programmable shaders); rigging; weight painting; animating; simulation (particles; fluid dynamics; rigid body dynamics; explosion simulation; fire; smoke; cloth body dynamics; soft body dynamics); rendering; compositing; non linear editing; scripting etc. There are specialized tools for each of those categories as well as specialized tools for other smaller area (such as lightmap and normal map baking)
have a look at this comparison page which covers most of the significant 3D tools http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools LetterRip 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Skill versus Software
I'm not sure if I made my position clear in the previous section. So I started this section to clarify my position a little more and to see if everyone else concerned understands the difference. All 3d modeling software and software features should be one parent page, with the exception of details on sub pages if the details are too extensive. What should be kept separate from that page is the skill. I realize that 3d Modeling can be interpreted to mean skill or software, just as well as 3d Modeler can be interpreted to mean either. Weather you chose "ing" or "er" for the page is irrelevant. You can separate the meaning simply buy using the word "software".
I would merge 3d modeler software into this page because 3d computer graphics has broader meaning than modeler. Then I would move any skill related text to a page called 3d Modeling or er, it doesn't matter. Maybe put the word "skill" in the title to make it less confusing. Note the Artist page is clearly distinct from the Art software page. The same contrast should be made for the 3d Modeling skill and the software. The absence of the contrast implies that the skill is knowing the software. I'm sure any professional would say that such implications would be an insult to their years of training and experience.
The 3d modeling skill is similar to sculpting. I would call it modern day sculpting, except that it would falsely imply that traditional sculpting is a lost art. Maybe say a paragraph or two about sculpting. Show a picture of a clay sculpting perhaps. The goal is not to go into two much detail of traditional clay sculpting, but to show similarities between modern 3d modeling. This would invite more contribution to the page from professionals eager to share tricks of the trade. It could expand into areas that deal with integrated hardware such as 3D scanning, 3D printing and performance capture hardware. It could also explain various uses of 3d models besides entertainment such as virtual engineering and virtual anatomy. There are many benefits to keeping skills separate from tools. Oicumayberight 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is actually digital sculpting (ZBrush, SharpConstruct, Mud Box and all major 3d applications have a sculpting tool). Also metaball/metaelms are similar to using clay. Sketchup is very similar to drafting and sketching in 2d. Box modeling and point by point modeling, NURBS and patches are much more technical approaches and are a substantial departure in methodology from traditional tools. I tend to agree with your general thrust although I should point out that wiki.cgsociety.org is where most 3D professionals are likely to contribute. LetterRip 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable statements in the Lightwave description
LightWave 3D (NewTek) is a popular 3D package because of its easy-to-learn and efficient interface; many artists prefer it to the more technical Maya or 3DS Max. It has more powerful polygon modeling capabilities than other programs, and Lightwave introduced many concepts which have later been adopted in other packages. Its animation features are less powerful than some of the larger packages, but it is still used widely in film and broadcasting. It's particularly well known for the outstanding quality of its render engine. (US $795)
First while 'many artists' may prefer it, to 3DS Max or Maya that is no more accurate than saying 'Many artists prefer Blender to 3DS Max and Maya'. The reality is that in terms of adoption 3DS Max and Maya have huge adoption which dwarfs that of LightWave. Also I've never heard LW described as having 'powerful polygon modeling capabilities' except in relation to 3DS Max and Maya, but they are widely acknowledge as sucking. Also the render engine quality is a bit comment seems disputable - I've heard it generally considered tv quality, but I don't think it has even been considered 'outstanding'.
I'm not sure how I would recommend changing it.
LetterRip 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
