Blender, AC3D, Rhino or...?

[gruhn]

They named a product after a technology? That can't make them easy to find on the web.

[Markus Jakas]

...

I have not taken the time to properly test Blender yet, as I'm in the middle of my graduate studies for now. But as I understand it, the rendering capabilities of Blender can be expanded with plug-ins, there is one for POV-Ray, at least. Modelling and animation, it does.

Of the (few) commercial alternatives I've looked into, It seems like Rhinoceros is the only company that allows their products to be bought at a student discount and later used in professional work. As I was told here that it might not be the best tool for an architect, I'm no longer in a hurry looking for a piece of 3D-software before I graduate.

M.J.

[Markus Jakas]

[Richard MacIntyre]

"gruhn"

Is that a typo? If not, and if that's common, it may be suggestive of why some outfits bomb.

I think it could matter... For one, the new dev is/was also a user, so they have perspectives/insight from both sides. They may be more in tune with and empa/sympathetic to the users, and less likely to make certain typos. ;) They already know the group and their methods/styles/expectations, etc., and the group knows them. And of course they know the software and may even alread have some familiarity with the code. From what I hear, many groups (ie. companies) hire from within first, presumably for some good reasons.

Not necessarily, but in some cases, possibly. Might encourage community and belonging, too. How about apprentice or intern devs? How about 'encourages users to participate in the development process more than they would otherwise with closed source'?

Is this FUD? When I say developers, I am also talking about non-core; scripting, some plugin-writing, and the odd main code mod-- much of which I assume can be integrated at the core-devs discretion and facility.

Different kinds and levels of, sure.

I imagine it can be both hard and easy-- like learning ACAD-- but much of what we learn and do in life in general can be. I think just about anyone could code if they wanted to... and isn't HTML or PHP kinds of programming languages, and haven't more gotten into programming than would otherwise have without the web? Can you build an app in Python?

Read 'feel'.

...

Well I tried.

Information wants to be free... Then again, some businesses make a business out of selling bottled tap water.

[Richard MacIntyre]

"gruhn"

Well, if I recall, it was originally closed-source and recently opened. Try Googling Radiosity Renderer.

[gruhn]

I already did before I posted, just to check and see if something freakish happened. Googling radiosity renderer is like googling for "Autocad cad"

[Richard MacIntyre]

"gruhn"

A little handholding and that's what we get... Correction, the product in question is 'Radiance'... named not after a technology, but... that attractive combination of good health and happiness glow that can emanate from one.

Google test of confirmation... "radiance renderer"... enter... select...

It feels good.

[gruhn]

Heard of it. Much more sane name for a product.

[Kris Krieger]

[e-mail] (Richard MacIntyre) wrote in news:d87ejl$ds3$ [e-mail]:

Radiosity also takes a long time to render, because of the way reflected light is calculated. But it's a tool I'm happy to have at my disposal! I generally do a mix of ray-tracing and mapping, since my various "Daylight" settings involve 36 lights of various types (atill tweaking that); sometimes I'll add in an image-based light.

((But I have only tried goniometric lights a very little bit; those use real-life settings, and take a while to learn if you don't have the numbers on hand.))

For Daylight settings, tho', the main thing is to observe the sky and realize what's going on. IOW, have an idea of what the angle of the sun, and atmospheric conditions, do to the color of the light and the shadow color; also, observe the horizon color. A great deal of this info is is a book called "3D Lighting - History, COncepts, and Techniques", by Arnold Gallardo (a very pleasant fellow BTW), puiblished by Charles River Media. I got mine via Amazon dot com. It is IMO indespensible. It's also hardcover, which is good since it's seen a lot of use (soft covers just don't stand up to use very well).

There are a couple other books on the topic as well, but I can't recall the titles. If you need me to, let me know and I can do a search (I have them on record somewhere in my email from last year) and see whether I can find the titles.

THe one drawback to Glalardo's book is that the bulk of the pictures are greyscale (to keep the book proce within reason). You can still tell what's going on, but jut so'd you know. THere is a middle section with a bunck of color examples.

HTH :) !

[Kris Krieger]

[e-mail] (Richard MacIntyre) wrote in news:d87gf7$erm$ [e-mail]:

[ ...much snippage... ]

I'm hoping that what you meant was, if one looks only at commercial programs. The same, however, is true if one looks only as open-source. Although I think it's more accurate to simply say that, as above, one should research, try, and evaluate.

Part of that evaluiation has to involve one's needs - i.e., how one intends to use the program. One size does not fit all. Why do you insist upon claiming it does?

I personally have found (through trying and using various 3D modeling apps) that freebie 3D doesn't offer me the ease and efficiency of use, or the capabilities with lighting, materials, and modeling, that I want and require. I have never claimed this to be true of everyone - I've said all along that everyone is different and people need to try demos and so on, do the informational research, analyse their current and possible future needs/wants, and make their decision based upon that - not upon any one person's opinion, including mine. The difference is that I seek to inform and have never maligned open source, whereas your argument seems to denegrate any and all 3D modeling commercialware (or perhaps just all commercialware period, I'm not sure).

I don't claim that commercialware is "always better for everyone"; nor have I ever claimed all companies offer great support - many companies are only interested in sales and to hell with the customer/user; early on, I eliminated such companies from purchasing consideration. But *not* all are like that. I've been more than satisfied with the app support I've received from the company, and with the mailing list and the forums that the company hosts on its servers. IMO, and based upon my own experience, being able to just call the programmers/coders and, as you'd mentioned, have a "tete-a-tete" with them whenever one has the whim to do so, is simply not the end-all and be-all of 3D modeling, or even of app support - IMO of course; it's possible I've been wrong for the past, what, 14 years, and it's possible that the people I've communicated with have also been wrong - although several of those people earn a good living specifically doing 3D modeling, so I've assumed - again, albeit perhaps mistakenly - that they know whereof they speak.

Also, coders and users very often simply speak different languages.

Be that as it may, the thing that I find to be a disservice to those seeking information is that you consistently seem to argue that "free/open surce is always the best and only choice". That's like saying that the one, best, and only choice for everybody, regardless of use or profession or anything else, when it comes to buying a vehicle, is one certain size class. The simple fact is that a building contractor can't use a Mini- Cooper for the jobs; similarly, a retired person who only goes to the grocery once a week and nowhere else doesn't *need* a Ford F250 truck (although wanting is another matter). One size does not fit all.

For some people, a commercialware 3D modeler is the best choice; for others, open source will meet their needs. As I keep saying, people have to research the information, try the demos, look into *all* their options, and then decide what's best for them. There is no one 3D modeler,

*regardless of source*, that can/will meet the needs of everyone. One size does not fit all.

If you personally prefer freeware, if that is what "fits" you, great, that's fine - for you. The problem with your argument is that you posit a great many conditionals - i.e. the various "you could"s and "if"s and "a user might"s and "they ought to"s and so on - and then build your argument upon the those conditionals. Unfortunately, conditionals are at best a shaky foundation, and relying upon them renders the argument specious. One size does not fit all, no matter how much a person might wish it were so or say it is so.

[Richard MacIntyre]

"Kris Krieger" "Richard MacIntyre"

[ ...mucho macho snippage... ]

I offered it as a close anology to make the point that, if we want to talk about being informed, "closed code" is apparently about as uninformed as you can get when talking about source code.

I am also seeking to inform, and my information may include some added context that I think might be important, and will, in all liklihood, be different from yours and sometimes in disagreement. To inform means just that... Speaking of which...

"Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information... Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs 'owners', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use... Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):

• Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.

• Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.

• Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.

• Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use."

... "The term 'freeware' has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please don't use 'freeware' to refer to free software."

"Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. 'Commercial' and 'proprietary' are not the same thing! Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is non-commercial non-free software."

Exactly, and where it helps to get a second opinion. :)

[gruhn]

Radiosity takes a short time to render and a long time to calculate. ;-)