Talk:3D computer graphics software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Maxwell Render - a photon tracer?

Can someone confirm this statemount about Maxwell Render under the Renderers heading: "Maxwell Render is a multi-platform renderer which forgoes raytracing, global illumination and radiosity in favor of photon rendering with a virtual electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in very authentic looking renders. It was the first to market."

The first section of the sentence seems to be copied from the description of Fryrenderer: "Fryrender is a multi-platform renderer which forgoes raytracing, global illumination and radiosity in favor of photon rendering with a virtual electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in very authentic looking renders."

The article on Maxwell Render does not contain the word 'photon' once and the renderer's website states that it is a ray-tracer and not a photon-tracer. --MessiahAndrw (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections about Moonlight|3D

I'm the project lead on this program. There are two mistakes in this page: first, the spelling is Moonlight|3D with a capital D and there are not yet any animation features in this program. We are trying to get to that, it'll be some time before this will ship (sometime 2008 or 2009 at earliest). Please correct the article. Thanks. --Gmueckl 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yafray is a renderer

Being a renderer, should not yafray be listed in the "renderers" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.253.250 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

These articles *should* be merged and someone with an account needs to make a redirect page for Terragen 2. -Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.10.212.129 (talk • contribs).

3D modeler should be merged with what? Why is a redirect from Terragen 2 needed? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)


  • I think we need to consider some of the software that is listed under "package". I would consider a 3d package to be a peice of software that incudes a modeler, animator, renderer ect and can be used for a wide range of purposes and the software itself covers all you need to say; make a pre-vis of a product, a clip for an advert, cg for a film or tv production. There are a few bits of software under package that i don't think should be there. i am sure they are major bits of software but iwouldn't class them as a "package". Massive seems specific to crowd simulation for example. I think we need to make a distinction between peices of 3d software and packages. The obvious packages seem to(to me) be cinema 4d, Maya, 3ds max, lightwave, xsi, houdini, blender(in non-comercial section), and maybe truespace although its limited feature set is a problem especialy in classing it as major.
    • Hi I tend to agree with your list of major packages. Probably the packages listed in the Roncarelli Report are what constitute 'Major Packages' (This tends to mirror your own list...), someone recently added a few packages to the Non-Commercial/Open Source that don't seem to be appropriate - ie Anim8tor and Art of Illusion - neither of which have any significant usage. Yafray is semi reasonable. It gets a fair amount of professional usage as an add on to Blender. LetterRip 23:41, 30 September 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)

Do merge it but make shure it is under a clear subsection

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)

The 3d modeler page could not be merged because the 3D modeler designation is also used in the CAD World Computer-aided_design, List_of_CAx_companies where the modeller is based on Solid_modelling. The designation is used for the basic part of a larger system, that would bee sufficient for modelling single parts to a lower license price. Peter A. Jensen, 10 june 2007.

[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)

Let me guess, you use 3dsmax/maya, don't you? I would provide a few sources before saying that, I know how people can get defendant of their 3d graphics software. You sound biased without sources that show otherwise. Although, the same could be applied to the current information of the article. So, some research is in need.

[edit] Clean up pass for POV, citations and consistency

I've started working on a full clean up pass for this page for POV issues to say the least, and have started adding citations where I could find them on film and TV credits. Plus I can't see why Blender is getting special treatment as a Non-Commercial product that the structure of this page has been made inconsistent so as to place it at the top. Plus I removed the testimonials as no other product on this page features something like that and it seemed to boarder on fan-ish.

Please feel free to help clean this page up. I think has a great foundation to become a good starting point to find out more about these programs.BcRIPster (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi completely agree that the testimonals thing was 'fanboyish' - hadn't checked the wiki for awhile otherwise would have removed it myself. As regards Non Commercial and Commercial - it is a rather arbitrary separation I'd rather it just be done away with since it doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose (also in some respects it is an incorrect classification of Blender in that the Blender Institute has been incorporated, to do among other things, perform various commercial activities related to Blender development). I changed some of your edits regarding the Blender entry - in particular, I added back in the mention of blender scaling up to running on supercomputers to down to handhelds since that is a rather unique feature, and the briefs are focused on the unique aspects of the various 3D suites. LetterRip 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I totally agree on the separation, to be honest the Major/Minor separation is a bit annoying as well. Who made these distinctions? For instance, how is it that Bryce, MilkShape and Poser are listed as minor and Modo and Silo are major? This seems like an organizational structure that is asking for abuse unless it is better defined. Also, I agree on the commercial/non-commercial point, in my mind, non-commercial usually implies that the product is specifically designed to be used outside of the business setting. Also I made some slight changes to your edits. As I noted on the reasons, I removed the word "advanced" because it is redundant and POVish in this context as someone else may think those are base/mandatory features for a program like this. It would be better to wikify the terms themselves and let the terms make the case for their complexity/advanced nature. Lastly on the supercomputer/handheld issue, that makes since but I think we should provide a citation for that. Definitive statements like "the only 3D animation suite..." really need to be supported. I revised the sentence a bit to make it work a little better, but we really need to get a citation in there.BcRIPster 15:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes about latest changes made based on 148.4.33.116's edits...

  • Cinema 4D:
struck irrelevant info about Amiga market collapse
lower initial entry -- struck initial as redundant
  • Houdini:
The interface is notable, that people don't like it or that the publisher is making changes :in the current version is probably something that should be left to the product specific page.
  • Mudbox:
To many POV claims, keep it to the facts or cite it.
  • Poser:
removed irrelevant controversy notation
  • 3D Mesh Blacksmith:
where do I even begin... nearly complete re-write.BcRIPster 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I would rather propose a differenciation of Virtual engineering tools and Creative & Entertainement tools

I am engineer and I was rather surprise to see Solidworks at the same level of Maya! Indeed they do 3D modelling but it would made clearing to the reader that Solidworks is an engineering tool and pursue far different goal from other modellers... I suggest a differentiating like :

  • Engineering Tools :

- Solidworks - 3ds max Autodesk - Catia (very more known in the industry than Solidworks) - there are many others...

  • Entertainement Tools :

The other ones, even if we need to repeat 3ds Max...

Just a suggestion, it was also previously mentionned but there was not changes after...

Of Maybe a link to engineering tools with a proper list of them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrusader 440 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your thoughts, the reality is that this list could be sliced and diced to accommodate any given industry's perspective on how these tools are used. The list as it stands is a clean separation between applications that let you construct and or manipulate 3-D models, and applications that let you perform specialized activities with 3-D datasets. Additionally while some people clearly use the tools as they are marketed, that's not always the case. In your example if we had 10 or 100 categories, applications like 3DS, Blender and Maya would end up being argued into every single one of them. Then we would have the he religious wars of these applications fans. I think the list works pretty good as it is as an impartial list of applications.BcRIPster (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)