Way 2 much!!!

[xmb]

i thought the same when i tried xsi for the first time. but be a little patient and look at the experience clips & manual too. - once you know how the interface/ workflow works, it's the best 3d-package out there (in my opinion).

[RickW]

Going into a production application without reading the manuals or following the tutorials can be quite intimidating.

Perhaps you should try a few tutorials first. :)

I noticed you said you tried ALL the other packages...so I'm assuming you tried Houdini and Maya as well? And they appear easier to you?

In any case try the tutorials/manuals for XSI, it might be worth your time or stick with C4D :)


Good Luck!

[Galo]

Originally posted by RickW
Going into a production application without reading the manuals or following the tutorials can be quite intimidating.

Perhaps you should try a few tutorials first. :)

I noticed you said you tried ALL the other packages...so I'm assuming you tried Houdini and Maya as well? And they appear easier to you?

In any case try the tutorials/manuals for XSI, it might be worth your time or stick with C4D :)


Good Luck!

not houdini but maya i did for half a year, but i didn't liked the render engine that's wy i got back to Lightwave, but i don't like to model in LW so that's why i started with C4d, i liked that.

i also tried max for 2 years and also didn't liked it cause of all the plugins you had to buy for it to make something really nice...

so im a little bit stuck... but i'll find my package :D untill now i liked maya's modeling tools the most, LW render engin, The speed of max, and the workflow/rendering engine/speed of C4d.

but what about XSI :D

so when i opened it i thought "whhhoooooooooo...., that's comlicated..."

and maybe i am a little to fast with my conclusion, so i will try it for a while.... gonna start with the tut's included and the ones from ed's place...

[RickW]

Good Choice!

Ed's site has tons of resources as well as softimage's tutorial bank.

Some other useful links:

www.xsifiles.com (tutorials)
www.xsibase.com (Forum and tutorials)
www.3dbuzz.com (forum)

Enjoy

[HapZungLam]

you are very picky my brother.

You don't expect you'll learn if you just sit there many hours and play around with the program. This is not photoshop, not MS word. Not video game. you are not able to learn the package in few hours.

If you really want to learn, you have to dig into it. Read the manual, read tutorials.

I don't know about you, but i compare Max with soft, XSI has a way better work flow, and easy to use. I just hate Max's roll out menu, they are just keep getting the page longer and longer, never ends.

[mr-doOo]

u found it complicated!!???? i found it so easy compared to maya
so intuitive...

[Atyss]

All you need is to get started. With XSI 3 there is now a jump start tutorial guide, and it is very good (didn't do it all, but what I did was very good, so I assume the rest is too).

Other than that, you can get XSI Illuminated: Foundation if you really want a basic book about workflow and basic functions. I started with that book and it helped me understand the interface and the workflow.

Once you'll know how to use the program to some extand, you'll know intuitively where to find functions. XSI is very ergonomic, once you know how to deal with it you're almost addicted.


Salutations - Cheers
Bernard Lebel

[Gonzo The Great]

What if a beautiful sexy woman in a bikini gave you private sessions for XSI? Would you learn it then?

[Galo]

Originally posted by Gonzo The Great
What if a beautiful sexy woman in a bikini gave you private sessions for XSI? Would you learn it then?

sorry coudn't concentrate.....

[stump]

Hi there folks!!!


I have a background as a Maya user. My experience shifting to XSI
was more or less painless. The workflow in XSI (thats a comment often written) is great. And I love the drag and drop-ability....

Its very easy to use!!!! ( at least I think, hehe)


Stump

[KEKS]

i have been using max for 5 years now and XSI was really easy to learn in about a year or less. Like someone said it so intuitive. I could never work in Maya i have tried it and i think that workflow wasnt for me. I still like max since it is the program that i learne don but i am going away from max and moving to xsi for good with this version 3.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by Galo
i don't like to model in LW so that's why i started with C4d, i liked that.



Thats a first

Many people like LW just for the modeler

[winthorpe]

Originally posted by Kaiser_Sose
Thats a first

Many people like LW just for the modeler
First? I cant stand LW's modeler. Toooo many workarounds for simple tasks.

[raffael3d]

yeah you have 10 buttons for what you can do in XSI with 3 buttons.

[RuiFeliciano]

This is not intended to start an app war but, as a LW user always looking for another better alternatives for current shortcomings as I've long stopped believing that one app is the holy grail over the others (and whoever thinks this way is very naive...), I'd like to know what kind of modelling steps do you consider to be cumbersome when compared to LW's way of modeling. Please, this is a genuine intent to get education and NOT start an app war. Thanks in advance for any clarification has I know very little of XSI but I'm eager to know more.

[wmendez]

Hey Rui,

You know me from the LW and Toaster list, I don't have a problem with modeler but with LW's worklfow. why should we draw paths in modeler then import them into layout, you should be able to draw them in layout directly. Both modeler and layout are dependant on too many plugins while in XSI everything is at mouse clicks reach with out cluttering the UI. Something simple as deform by path is just 2 clicks in XSI while in lightwave you have to import your path, assign the show curve plugin to it then select the object you want to deform and assing the CurveConform plugin and then at that you dont get the results you need you have to tweak the settings, others have opted to do the chain of bones and then animated it that way. I just feel it far too many steps just for a simple effect. I too agree that you should not rely on one app but with XSI it's possbile to do so espeacially with the advance version, the compositor can pretty much go head to head with some of the toasters features.

I just finished writing a LW 2 XSI Quickstart guide and will look to post it on XSI Base later on this week, It's geared toward the wavers that are using the experience version of XSI and those just getting adjusted coming from LW.

[RuiFeliciano]

hi Will!

I agree with everything you said. I'm also becoming quite disapointed with Layout's workflow and the many "band-aids" that are needed in order to get simple things done not to mention all the time it takes Newtek (or Luxology or whatever) to release bug patches (I'm not mentining new features...bug fixes take long months to appear as you know...is it the same with XSI?)
My initial question was more towards the other user's comments regarding Modelller which I believe is LW's strongest link, together with the renderer although I'm finding more and more limitations on the texturing part.
How do you find the rendere in XSI compares with LW's? I'm not talking feature by feature (don't want a feature list comparison) but in real world production (speed, workflow in texturing, making changes to several surfaces at once that use the same material, etc). I'd like to hear what you think on that part.
Also, do you know of any workflow/tools that may help the integration of XSI in a current LW pipeline? object/animation converters, etc. Sort of a Project Beaver for XSI...is there such a tool?

Looking forward to your guide Will!

[wmendez]

I hear ya Rui..Lots of wavers are left holding the bag because of the delay and whatever is going on between Lux and Newtek.

as far as the renderer Mental Ray and Lightwaves renderer produce the same quality images. I think with mental ray Radiosity is much faster and it also has a feature called Final gathering which is sort of like Radiosity but much faster. there is no OGL motion blur like LW 7.5 but they are getting there. And you also have the option (someone correct me if im wrong) to tweek the rendered Mi files that MetalRay produces.

As far as conversion tools Dstorm has a HRC export plugin for lightwave which will export your objects with surfaces intact and then there is Polytrans. There are DotXSI plugins for Max and Maya which softimage wrote themselves so I think LW will be the next logical one.

Cheers!

[chrleon]

Begun, this flame war has!

:)

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

XSI looks tempting to me. Just now I'm scavenging the net for tutorials to use on the xsi experience 2.0 demo cd.

Like the interface, so far.

[wmendez]

search no more

www.xsibase.com Forums and resources
www.edharriss.com Flay.com of XSI
www.xsifiles.com
www.softimage.com/Education/XSI/SelfPacedLearning/tutorials/default.htm

[Zidane785]

Here's a better thing to do. Use softimage 3D it's great for beginners or advanced people. with the right plugins and such u can do the same things as old xsi except rather easily. but u know if u can't find 3d then xsi is alright I'm gonna go to a softimage xsi camp hopefully this coming spring so that I can learn it up.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by wmendez
Hey Rui,

Both modeler and layout are dependant on too many plugins while in XSI everything is at mouse clicks reach with out cluttering the UI.


You are looking at the cup half empty instead of half full

The beauty of LScript is that non programers can make there own scripts with just a days of reading the manual. What you find makes LW to dependent on plugins, others use it to their advantage. The fact that there are tons of scripts for LW is a testament to this

Out the box, LW is pound for pound the best thing around

[wmendez]

XSI script language can be Java, VB Script, or Python and does not rely on a Proprietary scripting language.

while your reading manuals I'm copying and pasting my scripts into into custom expressions directly from the script edtior which records all of you actions in XSI and has the ability to limit how much is recorded as well.

The only thing LW has on XSI is the price.If XSI was $2,500 you will see a mass migration.

[rendermonkey23]

Well said Will. Agreed 100%

[EdHarriss]

Comparisons between apps is fine, let's not get nasty though. So far, this thread has been pretty tame. (and very informative.) Try to keep it that way. :)

[wmendez]

Agreed, Sorry I got carried away about the reading manual stuff, just wanted to express how quickly you get results in XSI.

[Galo]

Anyway, the point is i just didn't liked the other packages, don't know why, i orderd the Experience cd, got it in my mail today, so maybe, the SXI community has yet another member, see what xsi can do for me....

I just like to do things dificult...

[EdHarriss]

Originally posted by wmendez
Agreed, Sorry I got carried away about the reading manual stuff, just wanted to express how quickly you get results in XSI.

No need to be sorry. No harm done, I just wanted to make sure that this thread did not spiral into flame territory. That's all. :)

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by wmendez
XSI script language can be Java, VB Script, or Python and does not rely on a Proprietary scripting language.



And you were born with Java programming skills, I think not

Anybody can copy and paste code ... the famous first timer ' Hello World ' program ... but with just limited LScript knowlede you can make a script that makes the polygons needed for clothes, for example

You do have to know Java VB Script, or python, correct ... or is XSI a coder too

You like XSI and thats cool ... I like it too but at the end LW can PRODUCE everything XSI can

[wmendez]

nope, but in XSI I don't need to because of the script editor. The fact that I can copy and paste or modify the script is a plus. Now when the people that know the languages have that added advantage then the script editor becomes a very powerful tool.

You are 100% correct about the end result but it might have taken you longer in LW than it would have in XSI. specifically the character rigging and animation process hence why all the studios that rely on LW have Messiah running side by side.

[Open12d]

Originally posted by wmendez
XSI script language can be Java, VB Script, or Python and does not rely on a Proprietary scripting language.


But Jscript and VBscript are such bad languages (and with C#, they are now outdated and not even really supported by Microsoft itself anymore) that there's really little benefit over proprietary language. Also, the lack of consistency in XSI of having a single language makes it impossible to develop a library for your facility, since code written in Jscript cannot use functions of VBscript and each user seems to pick a different poison. Perl and Python can supposedly be used, but only on NT..

[fastfinger]

I can say one thing about LW modeler.
It does everything with keyboards ,not right click and find the menu. If you want to be a modeler, I recommend LW. As for modeling keyboard shortcut is faster cause you have to use at thousands of times.
But if you are a little more animation-oriented, I really recommend XSI. It`s overall workflow is lightning fast. I`m not sure if the built in compositor`s necessary. When there are a lot of robust compositing tools out there, like Combustion, Digital Fusion, Shake, After effects. And I see no benefit of the built in compositor unless you dont have so much money.

[Cman]

Can you set keyboard short-cuts in XSI to resemble LW keyboard - or anything you want?

[toonshady]

Cman, XSI does allow keyboard reassignment. I believe you can have multiple sets too.

I have tried 3dmax soft3d, and currently lw and xsi. I like the latter two. They work nicely. It tough to say which program is better. Especially when you get into details. What is being said is really just describing the strengths and weaknesses. All programs have that. If you know one more than the other, you'll be bias toward the one you use most. Also, it depends on what part of the 3d market you are coming from. I find LW showcase a wealth of high quality print works. For me, I use XSI for my personal short animation because I like the animation toolset over lw. Why is that? It just the my needs, and which program fullfills that and the the experience I with. Software gets upgrades. Who knows, I might be able to animate with a dopesheet in the next release of LW.

[CIM]

I've used XSI, and there are alot of things I don't like about it (slow workflow, clunky, poor modeling tools, slow MR, etc). But, just like any app. there are some nice things (animation tools, hair, etc). If you like XSI the best, then use it. All apps. have strong and weaks points so just make do with what works best.

[punchatz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CIM
[B]I've used XSI, and there are alot of things I don't like about it (slow workflow, clunky, poor modeling tools, slow MR, etc).[B]

If that is what you got out of it you need to take another look. I have a feeling you didnt use it that much. I think if you spent a little more time with it you would do an about face. I know of many non softie's right now really startng to change thier mind about their initial feelings regarding XSI. XSI 3.0 has the best,most usable and by light years fastest Sub-Ds modeling tools around. Give it another try and maybe a little more time I suspect you might like it. All high end software is clunky at first because the user is clunky. But once you get the mind set of the program its off to the races!

G

[ggg]

Originally posted by Open12d
But Jscript and VBscript are such bad languages (and with C#, they are now outdated and not even really supported by Microsoft itself anymore) that there's really little benefit over proprietary language. Also, the lack of consistency in XSI of having a single language makes it impossible to develop a library for your facility, since code written in Jscript cannot use functions of VBscript and each user seems to pick a different poison. Perl and Python can supposedly be used, but only on NT..
I'm not a serious coder but I see it as a benifit
-complex wrapper made by your facility not needed
-mostly the object model is used so code is fairly similar if you need to convert/rewrite something
-and in XSI you can call xsi "commands" that is scripts written in another language

would be nice if perl and pyhton were better supported even on NT, I think I would like to learn one of them more than vbs.

[frumpy_bunyin]

On the comment to use 3x over xsi.. I'd not bother, xsi is much more fluent, and easier to do most everything in. It may be a little confusing at first, but I did not find it too much so coming from 3x, though the similarities had me a little confused as to how it was actually dealng with things.
Learning 3x now would seem a backwards step.


On the slow workflow comment.. I don not know how you got to that, maybe you're just not use to it yet? Or have not sussed out where things are and how to use it. Prehaps it does not suit the way you work and is not the tool for you.

I model in xsi now over Maya as it's much faster for me, I have to go to less menus, I spend less time selecting and re-slecting things between modes. The few things that are not on a default hot-key I've added. I've not used Lightwave I've looked at it, but I'm not qualified to comment on it, maybe there is a gem I've not discovered. As for xsi, it's workflow, for speed and intuitive is I prefer it over anything else I've used.


FB

[RuiFeliciano]

One other thing I'd like to ask is that in LW there're literally thousands of user produced scripts and plugins that do all sorts of time-reducing things like, for example, if I have a ton of polygons and want to randomly select 50% of them I can easily find a script for that, If I want to "plant" X-shaped trees on irregular terrain I also find script for that, etc. What I'm getting at is that the community is huge and is very generous so that those little shortcomings that are often found when working with the program are often solved by the many scrpts that aboun don the community. I'd like to know if XSI's community is like this. I suppose that XSI may have far to few resources available due to the fact that it's almost a brand new program when compared with LW which has been around for so many time (I know about softimage but as far as I know you can't exchange scripts/plugins betwwen the two, am I wrong?). Other impression that I have is that due to its cost, XSI is to be found majorly on studios where they do not like to share parts of their workflow as opposed to LW which is a much more accessible and have all sorts of people helping fulfill its gaps. COmments on this subjetc are apreciated.

One other question I'd like to have answered, preferably by someone who knows Messiah (LW plugin), is to know if XSI animation toolset includeds anything like Messiah's setup mode which, basically, is the opportunity to make any kind of skeleton changes to your character rig without loosing any animation that has already been done with it. Thanks.

[ggg]

yes the xsi community is smaller at the moment but do share scripts. go to xsinet on softimage.com to see examples of scripts being shared. Some scripts are shred in other forums on users sites that they mention in the user lists and in other forums.

Other impression that I have is that due to its cost, XSI is to be found majorly on studios where they do not like to share parts of their workflow
unfortunately I agree. I have had some nice private emails sharing off list, and some disturbing ones off list that want to "trade" info sometimes never getting back after helping them. I understand intellectual property but I think its more job security or better phrased as "job insecurity". Sorry to be blunt on this one but life is too short not to share info and advance together. I was a bit disheartened years ago using Houdini for this very same reason but the sidefx list is much more helpful these days.

You will though find a decent group of people at xsibase and here and on the xsiuser list helping each other out, one advantage of the newness and growing user base is less noise and an understanding of each others xsi walls that we have more recently run into.

I don't know LW anymore at all but XSI does allow rig modification without loosing your animation or weighting by disabling envelope operator temporarily.

[wmendez]

Rui,

One thing I notice about the XSI community that is similar to the LW community is that they are passionate about the software they use and they are extremely helpful and add to the success of the product as well as the people at Softiamge. They remind me of the way newtek was in the 5.6 6.0 days.

The resources are not as abundent as the LW community but as G mentioned XSI net is a start, XSI Base and www.edharriss.com which I call the flay.com of XSI will get you started.

[fastfinger]

I`m a die hard LW user. But I know pretty much about XSI.
I must admit XSI`s rigging efficiency is unbeatable. Fast and Advanced. For scripting capability, I must say both LW and XSI are good enough. As XSI`s still a little young, it`s future`s pretty potential. You know, LW is an OLD app and grown up for more than 10 years. I think XSI will get better as the time passes. The situation will improve as more and more people use XSI.

And I want to make this point clear.
Even though some apps and have some good or bad features, that`s not the major thing that makes the app superior or inferior to other apps. What`s really important is the overall workflow. How fast and easily you can do things. That`s the point what I want to people to talk about. And each function`s the next thing we have to talk about.
Let`s talk people :)

[ggg]

Originally posted by fastfinger
And I see no benefit of the built in compositor unless you dont have so much money.
Most people do not like to do things over an over again, going back and forth between the compositor and 3d app, adjusting values of parameters and timing to match.

Its a pain the ass dealing with the thousands of keyframes to maintain relation between effects in seperate apps using thousands of prerendered frames for texture and/or post image adjustments. And most don't have the large studio staff or time to write pipline software wrappers to exchange data between the apps.

Besides I would rather have direct expressions, SCOPS and scripts between scene events and an integrated compostor such as the one in Houdini and XSI than have to deal with passing that data through possibly three languages to get it to-from another compositing app and not have anything near the interactive feedback.

Originally posted by fastfinger

And I want to make this point clear.
Even though some apps and have some good or bad features, that`s not the major thing that makes the app superior or inferior to other apps. What`s really important is the overall workflow. How fast and easily you can do things. and this is a strength of XSI a the moment so I agree with the importance of workflow, but disagree with your point, as it really depends on where you work, with how many doing what, in what capacity for support, and what effect needs to be accomplished on time and on budget. A "good feature" *IS* workflow as its absence or a poor implimentaion of that feature ("a bad feature") requires not doing it and loosing work or making the tool yourself.
Using the compositor example above, tasks easily and quickly achieved by Houdini or XSI due to compositor integration cannot within reasonable or affordable time be handled by Aura.

XSIs worklflow is excellent but could use a lot more good features other apps currently have to improve that workflow especially in the area of OPs.

Talking about workflow is subjective if you are not going to discuss "good or bad features", but such discussion unfortunately usually results in sw wars and without using the tool extensively, such as the integrated compositor by example, its hard to appreciate.

[fastfinger]

What I mean is......."We have this. Do you have one? No? Then that sucks!" Just a single feature cant make 3D apps a Good app.
What I`m going to say`s "Dont look at the finger pointing at the moon, look at the moon"

The compositing makes no difference when the compositing`s done after the rendering`s finished. You can composite outside XSI. But if you can composite before the rendering`s done. I think that will make a difference. And that`s what i expected when I heard XSI will have a built in compositing tool.

[dmonk]

Originally posted by fastfinger
What I mean is......."We have this. Do you have one? No? Then that sucks!" Just a single feature cant make 3D apps a Good app.
What I`m going to say`s "Dont look at the finger pointing at the moon, look at the moon"

The compositing makes no difference when the compositing`s done after the rendering`s finished. You can composite outside XSI. But if you can composite before the rendering`s done. I think that will make a difference. And that`s what i expected when I heard XSI will have a built in compositing tool.


It makes big difference when you don't have to import your renders into a compositing app. If you actually used it you would see why so many people find it so useful.
I had to jump in because alot of the comments made seem to be coming from people who speculate about what xsi can actually do and not people who actually work with it every day. If some of you guys spent more than a week to make your final judgement on the app, I think your opinions would change drastically.

Just my 2 cents.

[ggg]

Originally posted by fastfinger
What I mean is......."We have this. Do you have one? No? Then that sucks!" Just a single feature cant make 3D apps a Good app.
What I`m going to say`s "Dont look at the finger pointing at the moon, look at the moon"
The compositing makes no difference when the compositing`s done after the rendering`s finished.
Not true at all, I mentioned the advantages of an integrated compositor over external compositors in my last post.

We are not looking "at the moon" or the "finger pointing to it", we have landed on it. Go to the moon, XSI or Houdini and try an integrated compositor and hopefully you will understand its many valueable possibilites well beyond convenience, especially as it pertains to the issue that you raised of "worklflow".
Originally posted by fastfinger
You can composite outside XSI. But if you can composite before the rendering`s done. I think that will make a difference. And that`s what i expected when I heard XSI will have a built in compositing tool.
I'm not sure I understand here. Are you saying XSI can't do this or that thats all XSIs compositor offers over an external compositor? edited: You are right, I apoligize I was told repeatedly at SIGGRAPH that XSI 3.x could comp prerender, 3.0 apparently cannot. I have it up and runnign here now and unlike Houdini, it does not seem to be able to comp prerender. Perhaps in 3.x it will be offered, in the mean time try an integrated compostior, even with the features in 2.03 ther were things far less or not achievable in an external compositor without lots of scripting.

[piajartist]

I hear you Galo, I entered the softimage package with no manuals, or tutorials, the best was is to bust out a regualr polygon figure like a sphere and go to town with the various modelling tools and the selection tools to your right. THen you can play with curvs and just some everyday, like a workout machine ad, just 10 minutes a day, and the fat is gone.

[iMag]

the compositor does let you basically composite before you're finished rendering. just create some passes and render a frame or 2 of each pass. pull those up in the fx tree and viewer. another nice feature of the built in compositor is that you can add and apply affects to any image clip you have so when they render they have colour correction or a painterly affect applied to them. not to mention everything in the compositor can be linked and animated so you can quickly enlarge and shrink the pupil of an eye or many other things. the new depth of field is a real nice addition to 3.0 also. you can quickly do DoF post rendering saving alot of cpu time and get very good results quickly. i can honestly go on and on about the compositor, but i'll stop for now.

Something I see is that Maya and Lightwave have hoards and hoards of scripts for them. I've never really used Lightwave (couldn't get my head around the UI, but i never really gave it a good chance either). Tools like CPS for Maya i see as something giving maya users what XSI pretty much has built into it. With maya I used scripts for doing alot of things. as I used XSI more and more I switched because honestly not really needing alot scripts is nice. Softimage puts into the program what the industry really wants and uses.

Okay onto the next big thing, Customer support. From my instructors at school they've mentioned that they had bugs with Maya and A/W never really got back to them. Though with XSI a day or 2 later they recieved a fix for their problem so they could work without worry of that bug. While Softimage doesn't have a huge following yet and people do bitch about the price being so high, but these people don't realise what you get with that purchase. Excellent service support with problems fixed within a very short time. The community is very helpful and respectfulof other users. Okay i'm finished typing now :)

[ggg]

Originally posted by iMag
the compositor does let you basically composite before you're finished rendering. just create some passes and render a frame or 2 of each pass. pull those up in the fx tree and viewer. another nice feature of the built in compositor is that you can add and apply affects to any image clip you have so when they render they have colour correction or a painterly affect applied to them.
thats the point, its not really a feature that a prerendered frame or two can be composited, thats a requirement for it to work, it is a feature that modification to clips does not require prerendering them in FXtree, and that is what is being sought here, like clips are rendered through the fxtree as needed, we had hoped that passes at current frame or param change would be rendered on input to fxtree. That is what would make it more "seamlessly integrated". I was told that it would be able to do this in ver 3 and said that it could, and I was wrong.

yes XSI support is excellent and are likely already far along with enabling this feature.

[sumpm1]

There has been a lot said on this subject but here is my 2 centz.

I came to xsi from maya, and i found myself looking for this or that function, did some tuts, and have found it extremely intuitive. It has html,browsers, explorer, you can get on the net in an internal browser, link scripts to custom buttons and toolbars that integrate to the layout, create your own layouts, create html and link it to scripts to use images as toolbars. Great stuff. That is the more advanced stuff though, not hard to do as it is in the getting started tuts. From the core though, xsi works like you are used to, like windows and the explorers and browsers. It makes things easy to find. The modeler is super easy, to smooth a mesh, press the + key on the keyboard, then press - to go bact to normal mesh. Couldn't live without it. And Softimage does updates all the time. Each time they give something that we asked for, not just whatever they want, they listen, that is where xsi came from , I feel.

Cheers

[FreeQ]

Choosing the tools is related to how much you can understand computer works! Just go and find how connect your imagination with your abilty...

... I cry with my own tools too... there is no apps for making everyting so easy... not released yet, maybe never, until you die :cool:

Life is short or time is one and only enemy of ours!

[withanar]

People have already mentioned the obvious reasons, which include the interaction between 3D elements and compositing functions, or for the speed of not having to move between applications.

For us, it saves a ton of money. We're a high end post house with a handful of Infernos and Flames and a thriving 3D production. Before the integrated compositor in XSI, we were using After Efffects to do our own comping in 3D, but mostly we had to bug the Flame guys to build composites to check our passes.

Often, we have to wait for Flames to open, which could be a long time considering they're usually booked. Then there's the factor of money lost from Flame time that could be spent with clients which is instead spent on testing our render pass composites.

All of us in the 3D department are using the built in compositor in XSI, and just like everything else about the software, it's a boon to our efficiency. On the occassion that we have to use After Effects for a specific plugin or Flame for a specific spark, it's an instant reminder of how nice, intuitive, and quick XSI's compositor is.

I think the main reason people are upset about the integrated compositor is that they assume it's the main reason XSI is so expensive compared to the competition. Fact is, without the compositor, I can't imagine the price was going to be any different for the full package. On the other hand, if the compositor were an option, my boss probably wouldn't have purchased it, at least not one for everyone here. We would never have come to realize how much 3D time and Flame time it saves, and it would have been his loss.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.