PDA

View Full Version : AM and zealotry


bugzilla
01-25-2003, 12:21 AM
Hello everyone. After reading some of the posts I see that many of you have had similar experiences to mine with getting kicked off the list by Steve for minor and constructive criticism of the software.

I have another problem when dealing with AM and that is with the zealotry of many members of the AM community. The first time I wrote a "wish list" type of post where I mentioned showing AM to a friend and comparing it to software he used like Max. I posted that my friend noted that if AM had certain Max type features it would be the most rocking software around.

At that I was attacked by about 5 people who told me basically Am has the best tools around and anyone who thinks different is an a**hole, including my friend and myself. Needless to say, I posted some replies that got me kicked off the list and at that time I didn't care.

I didn't touch AM again for almost 2 years.

I recently got back into it when I saw that they fixed alot of problems with the software. I really, really got into it and started animating lip synch and character stuff easier than I even had. I still had a problem with the rendering engine. A problem many people on this list have as well.

I spoke up and was attacked again. This time one guy said the Am renderer is great, awesome, wonderful and the problem was that I was too poor an artist to use it. I went to his site and saw that his animations used nothing more than the default shading with no texturing or lighting work. I took umbrage with this and told him so in no uncertain terms.

I am wondering if anyone else out there has had problems with being attacked by these people.

Wegg
01-25-2003, 12:46 AM
I think you will find. . . that those are the same people stroking Hash Inc's ego.

Take no head. . . stick to your guns. . . and hang out where the real people are.

My Fault
01-25-2003, 12:56 AM
But recognize that zealotry is a fact of life with every 3d app. I think it's because it takes so much time to learn that people hate to be told they may be wrong. Also, many times someone will come in with what they think is a great idea and everyone should bow down before them, without really knowing what the software can do. Not that I've ever done something like that :p

penguinpavilion
01-25-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by My Fault
But recognize that zealotry is a fact of life with every 3d app.

Its a fact of life when you deal with human beings. Its the whole Ford versus Chevy thing. Both make some good cars, and some bad cars. So why do some people view one as the greatest, and the other as shit? Certain people become blindly loyal to something or someone, and nothing, no amount of rational argument, no amount of hard evidence will change their minds.

Kinda like the weather, you know there is weather you don't like. You identify it, deal with it, and move on with your life. I deal with the zealots by ignoring them these days, well thats not completely true, sometimes I'll bait them to get them worked up. That can actually be fun.

Hookflash
01-25-2003, 02:22 AM
The A:M zealotry seems rather extreme, though. Just look at the backlash on the list (search the archives). The community has essentially been split in two by this whole fiasco, and the only people left on the list are the zealots. Maybe that was Hash's plan all along?

Dearmad
01-25-2003, 02:40 AM
Bug,

I have run into that zealoutry before, but OTOH I could see myself as the person who defended AM's renderer, though I *hope* I wouldn't say anything like "you lack artistry and thus you can't use the renderer."

Heck, I'm aware of quite a few shortcomings in the final renderer that I need to work around in order to get what I want from it.

But the fact is it takes a lot of thinking and developed skill (or talent) to use any renderer out there effectively enough to create anything beautiful or compelling *and* original. I find it takes a lot of thinking about lighting, color schemes, composition, posing, shape (form), texturing, and on and on...

I've also found that while yes, the AM renderer has certain limits, it's ability to produce images is quite competent in the hands of someone willing to take some time and thought in putting together their scene. Even, as Ballistic Prince has demonstrated, near photographic quality renders, though my bent is more toward illustrated or clearly CG but not plasticky.

I'd say ignore the zealouts, but don't ignore strong or critical advice if it might be right, even if it comes from a zealout... we can all stand to learn to better our skills. Just don't let anyone stop you! Two years is too much time to waste, man!:wavey:

JoeW
01-31-2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by bugzilla
_snip_

I spoke up and was attacked again. This time one guy said the Am renderer is great, awesome, wonderful and the problem was that I was too poor an artist to use it. I went to his site and saw that his animations used nothing more than the default shading with no texturing or lighting work. I took umbrage with this and told him so in no uncertain terms.

I am wondering if anyone else out there has had problems with being attacked by these people.

You were ATTACKED!? Say it isn't SO! :)

I'd bet that at least one of those guys who took you to task was ...well... initials were MF. I had a few run-ins with him on Postforum - he showed up there to troll.... and I was kicked off the AM list a loooooong time ago. About the time Armando Afre was, if memory serves.....

What I've found is that the people who DON'T have a problem with AM's renderer fall into one of two catagories: A) those who have no idea what they're doing or what to expect, and B) those who've never used anything else... and of course, there's overlap between the groups.

Don't sweat the turkeys, man. You aren't wrong when you bitch about the renderer - trust me.

JoeW

Rodger Reynolds
01-31-2003, 03:33 PM
"...the people who DON'T have a problem with AM's renderer fall into one of two catagories: A) those who have no idea what they're doing or what to expect, and B) those who've never used anything else..."

Joe,

Being a member of both groups I would appreciate a visual education on the problems you have with the renderer (other than the anti-aliasing issue which even I can see). Maybe the reason for Hash's response to these problems being "Most of our users don't care about X" is because those same users are as inexperienced as I and therefore never complain. If the more A:M users knew what they were missing and learned to consider these features important, perhaps most of their users would care about X.

I get the implication from Martin's most recent p.r. release, where he said, "...any true errors in the renderer are always immediately addressed." that he feels complaints such as yours are aesthetic/artistic and not really errors in the simulation. But I have no evidence on which to make an informed decision.

If you have the time, would you please post a few image comparisons to show how A:M and a superior renderer handles the same problems?

In fact I'd appreciate anyone's image comparisons to make me a better judge of A:M's render engine.

Thanks.

Commiekeebler
01-31-2003, 05:41 PM
Dear Rodger,

Please don't take anything out of Martin's mouth for granted. In fact, you would do well to do the opposite.

With that being out of the way, I can name two problems with the renderer... wait... three problems... um... right, I'll just do three now.

First. Transparency bug (not present, AFAIK in v.10). If you create a transparent surface (such as a cornea of an eye) that intersects with a non-transparent one (the rest of the eye), at a certain distance from it, the transparent surface won't be quote so transparent, creating ugly rendering artifacts. I've had characters run around with chrome and pink eyes because of this.

You could make a test of this by creating two patches, setting transparency of one of them to 95 or 100 percent, run one through the other at a very steep angle, and do some test renders on their intersections.

Second. The black dots - sometimes they appear in renders completely randomly. Tiny little black dots with no rhyme or reason to them.

Third problem: motion blur that doesn't apply to the whole image but only to certain patches on a moving object, as long as they exceed some threshold. That can be very bad for rotating objects, such as wheels or slung hammers or baseball bats or swords, because the tip, the edge, the tire will get blurred, while the center of the rotation will not, breaking up the object into two parts.

There are other problems but I'll stop here.

My Fault
01-31-2003, 06:05 PM
Hey Commie, get back to Messiah you traitor :beer:

CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2006, 07:00 AM
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.