Silo Developers..will you do Hash?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08 August 2005   #16
Originally Posted by StephanD: That's my point.

NC would gain in this since HASH stated X times in the last several years times that they won't be supporting polygons...Are you asking them to rewrite their whole software instead of someone developing an exporter???


How is hash writing an obj importer going to force them to rewrite thier whole software? It sounds like A:M users want polygons, but the developer of thier software give them options. So why does it fall to another company? If anything another A:M user should it, they would probably have a much better idea of what functionality is desirable in a hash spline exporter anyway.

Quote: think exporters are an easy feature that wouldn't detract from other features.


This isn't necessarily true, things like an obj or dxf exporter, sure pretty easy. But when you get into program specific file types all sorts of issues surface. Look at Modo's maya ascii exporter for example, it tends to mess up the scale pretty bad. Hash splines are a radically different geometry type from polygonal subd's. Writing an exporter on the Nevercenter end of things would require writing a ton of new code to go from polygons to hash splines, as I am guessing they don't have any existing hash splines floating around in the silo code.

I understand the pain you A:M users are feeling. Hash splines suck to model with and with the wide array of cheap subd modelers available you want some alternatives. Your best bet though would be to do an obj to hash spline converter on your own. As A:M users you will know what functionality is most desireable, and you don't have some axe to grind against polygons like the Hash team apparently does.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #17
Quote: How is hash writing an obj importer going to force them to rewrite thier whole software?


HASH stated that AM wouldn't be anyone's animation plugin,kinda clear no?either they give support for it all the way or stick to coon-splines.

Like I said earlier,the AM users have much more chance with NC to ever get there.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #18
If Nevercenter could do it that would be cool. If they don't that is cool too.
It would just be a nice feature to have. Open up another market group for them.

It was just an idea hoping they would see it. It's a small request that maybe they could add if they wanted to.

Suggestions or wishes don't hurt anyone.

It's just a thought.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #19
How well does the dxf export from silo work with A:M? I know people have been taking dxf's from LW to A:M in the past.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #20
AM need to pull there finger out of there little brown hole by the sounds of things.
Silo supports every industry standard format really so how this could be something NC should do i dont know ?
If AM wont give there customers the features they want why do they buy it ?
Its not like its cheap anymore when you look at XSI and so on.

Although you may think this is a worthwhile addition others sure wont, Exactly the same as my LWO importer exporter which wouyld probably find more users.
That is why i have found somebody to help me make it in the SDK.
If it is that important get up find some help and make it yourself, If it is going to be as useful as you say ajnd a flood of AM users will come to Silo then charge for your plug.

I am sorry to say though that i believe you are sadly mistaken, I doubt any one plugin will bring a whole slew of new users but go ahead and prove me wrong
 
Old 08 August 2005   #21
Lyr, I understand where you are coming from but there are reasons whey Silo is a better modelling alternative for Hash users than most other poly modellers.

1. The price is similar.

2. Silo handles n-gons well and gives the user the ability to draw new geometry over old (Topology brush).

Flog, the mesh that you posted doesn't look like a spline mesh to me as there are areas where a whole load of quads meet. In Hash, you would make those (5) quads turn into one big 5p patch. This is one of the reasons why patches are often a little lighter than polys (quads at least). When keeping to quads, there are instances where extra geometry has to be added. This is rarely the case with patches (because of hooks and 5p patches).

Now... it would be possible for a person who knows hash patches well to use silo to draw a hash patch type mesh onto a poly model unsing the topology brush... but I can't see this being any faster than working in splines from the outset for models like faces (except that some people like to box model... the crazy fools )

There are however certain types of model which could benefit from silo import but if you think that heads are one of them then you had better get down to learning your patches rather than spending time posting about poly import.

The types of model that I could imagine using the Silo-Hash rout for would be things like buildings, some types of mechanical model and models with complex topologies such as systems of tunnels. Having said that, you would loose the advantage of seeing what the model looks like in patches as you build it and you would also loose the ability to tweek bias handles (unless this is supported in some way in Silo).

So to conclude, Silo could be a good room-mate for Hash because conversion from polys to patches would be SEMI automatic with certain procedures left to the user. This would eradicate the most difficult programming challenges (the ones that have prevented seemles conversion in the past) but would mean that many people wouldn't bother using it as it wouldn't be a push-button solution.

It is worth noting that THERE IS IN PRINCIPLE NO RELIABLE FULLY AUTOMATIC PUSH BUTTON SOLUTION FOR EXPORTING FROM POLYS TO PATCHES (that I can see). But Silo could present the best alternative with a smaller amount of work and greater benefit than is the case with other polly modellers.

It is also worth noting that HASH CAN IMPORT POLY MODELS AS PROPS but these cannot be deformed.

Last edited by John Keates : 08 August 2005 at 09:41 PM.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #22
Quote: AM wont give there customers the features they want why do they buy it ?
Its not like its cheap anymore when you look at XSI and so on.

Although you may think this is a worthwhile addition others sure wont, Exactly the same as my LWO importer exporter which wouyld probably find more users.
That is why i have found somebody to help me make it in the SDK.
If it is that important get up find some help and make it yourself, If it is going to be as useful as you say ajnd a flood of AM users will come to Silo then charge for your plug.

I am sorry to say though that i believe you are sadly mistaken, I doubt any one plugin will bring a whole slew of new users but go ahead and prove me wrong


You'd be suprised how large the A:M community is. A:M in itself is a great tool. XSI maybe getting cheaper, but for hair and other things you have to buy the UBER package at 3,000+ G's.

A:M has great cloth simulation, flocking, good rendering, it is what it is, in way of Animation=A master. Hair system is cool!!

That is why people buy it. Even the big boys use it at times. Many a hobbyist and many a great animator started on A:M.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #23
So if AM is so cool whats the problem, They will surely give you proper object import export if all there users want this, Which is what is being said here, If so many users use it and all those users want proper import export it will be implemented yes ?
So why should NC go out of there way to support a niche product when they already have an SDK for users to do that.
Is Hash such a bad company that they wont implement something that all there users want ?

Sorry to be blunt but like i already said, I wanted a similar thing for Lightwave so i found somebody to help me achieve that using the SDK, I dont think NC should support LW but that does not mean third parties cant.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #24
Originally Posted by Nu Visual Science: So if AM is so cool whats the problem, They will surely give you proper object import export if all there users want this, Which is what is being said here, If so many users use it and all those users want proper import export it will be implemented yes ?
So why should NC go out of there way to support a niche product when they already have an SDK for users to do that.
Is Hash such a bad company that they wont implement something that all there users want ?

Sorry to be blunt but like i already said, I wanted a similar thing for Lightwave so i found somebody to help me achieve that using the SDK, I dont think NC should support LW but that does not mean third parties cant.


I'm pretty sure that my last post answers your question. Feel free to ask for clarification.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #25
A:M does import those things, but not as well as most would like.
A:M is just a whole differant creation and workflow.

and remember it was just a request for Silo guys to offer a support for another tool. Those are usually what are imputed in all 3d programs. Export options are always fun, the more the merrier.

Does it really make a big differance if we would like to use their tool as well? No body has ever forced them to or said they better do it, just like no one is forcing A:M to do it. Just a simple request. If they want to do it that would be cool.

What is wrong with asking A:M and then asking Silo as well? Don't make it a big deal, it was a simple request, that maybe they can keep in mind.

It can't hurt to ask.

Nobody is saying NC should do anything but wouldn't it be nice if they did. They have a strong program and the more export options the better. Just makes their tool so much better. Export options are usually not the big selling point, they are just icing on the cake.

The better a tool fits into a pipeline the better it will be.
They may even be looking to get into supporting LW and A:M.
No one is saying they have to, but it would be nice.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have LW support right out instead of having to do a whole SDK setup?

Remember it is just a request. I've made the request of A:M too and I'm sure they'll hear it as well, eventually.

It's all about options!!

The more options the better.

Last edited by Flog : 08 August 2005 at 10:55 PM.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #26
To repeat what everyone else is saying...

Each feature in development spreads NC's resources a little bit thinner, so they have to prioritize what will serve the maximum number of users. Within that, since they're uniquely positioned to deliver and improve upon workflow inside of Silo, those features which affect that generally take priority over anything an outsider can throw together using the provided SDKs. Nevercenter can make their own decisions, of course, but what you're asking for is quite literally a waste of their time.

Similarly, "HASH stated that AM wouldn't be anyone's animation plugin", if this is true, means an A:M export from Silo would actually go against their wishes, so you're asking one developer to disrespect another, conveying that developers (such as themselves) aren't worthy of respect. A point no one intended, but which comes across strongly the longer one argues after it's been pointed out.

*shrug*

It hurt no one to ask.
It hurt no one to answer.

Both tasks have been accomplished, and no pain was inflicted. Let's move on.

Last edited by APLevitz : 08 August 2005 at 11:34 PM.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #27
APLevitz, I am wondering if you read my post two posts ago. It may change your mind a little. Only a little though.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #28
I did. Your comments were well thought-out, and actually do add something to the conversation beyond the usual "I want this." / "so what?" bickering.

But, yeah. While I'm sure an export from Silo would be beneficial to A:M users, it sounds like the result would bring new complaints from those same users.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #29
I still dont understand though, If so many AM users want this which is what is being stated then why not just get a few together use the SDK and make it yourself ?

Like i already said i have started doing that for LW support, Wheres the problem ?

I honestly dont see a need for NC to have to cover little bonus features like this, Isn't that the whole point to an open SDK, Surely there are some coders using AM ?
 
Old 08 August 2005   #30
Yeah, I guess that a lot of the work can be done by third parties.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.