A CG Software Wish List


#1

After reviewing the posting rules for “general” again, it seems this is the best place to start this type of query. Probably this winter I’ll start work on a brand new software developmental project to amalgamate CAD/CAE/CAM with a modeling/animation and rendering program. This will be the first time I create software with the idea of actually distributing it. I will likely use more than one language to build its components, but Python will likely be present or at least its scripting language.

What I’m wanting to know is what others have found lacking in some of the software already out there that could be addressed during the developmental process. I don’t have or run every brand of CG software out there, so the focus is on what you’d like to see at your mouse and fingertips rather than complaints about the other guys’ works.

As a starter, for example, I’ll be basing figure models around technically realistic bones that could render on their own, but can just as easily have a one-click organ and skin orchestration, same as forensic and medical programs. In fact this could be considered to be medical arts driven.

So what else should I be considering?


#2

The other 99 programmers, 10 years dev time to catch up to the competition and a few million budget to keep you going?


#3

It should be obvious that isn’t what I mean. I’ve already written one parametric type of CAD program. It took a little over a year, working on an ATIA basis. This would be more of a parametric mesh type modeler. The first efforts of most programmers are not a team project and my experiences discourage teamwork, so just consider that I don’t care about the competition or megabucks. I’ve been writing graphics for 20 years now, starting with QBasic and POVRay. In that I have a good idea of what’s out there more than all the shortcomings of all of those 99 programmers. I’m leaving it to others to list those shortcomings and maybe we’ll see what I can come up with by the end of 2016.

I’m really wanting to know what others want in a CG modeler. One thing I could imagine is a universal rigging export system.


#4

Are you this person?
http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18795
? :stuck_out_tongue:


#5

I believe the appropriate internet response to this is:

LOOOOOOOOOL.


#6

On a more serious note, why reinvent the wheel? Do we really need another entire package? Why not do something more specialised than that? It kinda sounds like you want to create something for no reason other than you want to, well, create something. So it feels like you’re not so much motivated by the existence of a niche which actually requires this.


#7

Oh wow, i just had to drop in on this.
Character assassination, internet bin rummaging and thread lockdown…

Wow what an awesome forum, defiantly time to prune my favorites.


#8

To be honest, I find it almost offensive that someone is going around calling themselves “Doctor” when it seems they aren’t.


#9

I could call my self the king and master of independent people’s republic of Chiswick and greater Hammersmith on the internet, whats it to you? Maybe its a joke, context is key here… And what did any of this have to do with the original post…


#10

Because when someone is dishonest about who they are, it casts everything they say into question. Like this:

I’ve already written one parametric type of CAD program. It took a little over a year, working on an ATIA basis… I’ve been writing graphics for 20 years now, starting with QBasic and POVRay.

To be fair, I’d never have gone digging around looking for someone’s name, and I’m not entirely sure how that user made the connection between the two different forums, but now that it’s been brought up, it definitely makes me view this thread differently. The above may well be true, but dishonest presentation of context/personal title really rubs me the wrong way.


#11

How does that qualify as being on topic?


#12

I find it almost offensive when people who have difficulty looking up the word “doctor” in a dictionary act as though they know the qualification for the title when it seems they don’t.


#13

Huh? You admit in that thread that you’re self taught and therefore don’t actually hold a doctorate. That means you’re not a doctor, simple as that.


#14

Wrong. Simple as that. Cognitus iudicum carries more weight than you seem to know.

Actually I’m very honest about who I am, how and why I get to use that title, as well as my capabilities. You are basing your derision on grossly incomplete and even outdated knowledge. I’m into CG to better depict concepts and illustrate my written material, still the software out there most always leaves something to be desired.

Now, back on topic. (I won’t even respond to anymore mockery.) What would you like to see in CG software?


#15

There are a lot of things I’d like to see but I’d have to say that top of the list is a 24 foot high angel skeleton.


#16

Going back on topic for a second, this is exactly what I was thinking. Why don’t you take a look at Blender, for example, which has all of its source code available, and see if you can build upon it? Maybe it will provide a more efficient avenue, and benefit the Blender community at the same time. I don’t know the ins and outs of what you’re trying to accomplish either, so it’s just a blind suggestion.


#17

Wild idea! Size is relative, naturally, but consider this. As I was walking back from up town this morning, I considered the genetic level in a piece of software. DNA is only a small component of genetics. It is so complex, though, that the most powerful supercomputers of today are just beginning to establish the taxonomy of its sequences. There is even evidence of alien DNA that has some just like ours.

To take a humanoid and give it wings may be as simple as having a choice of code variations that revive some of the so-called “junk” DNA. Instead of growing a CG figure from bones, it may be better to take it to one more basic step. Cellular reproduction. That would be a challenge.

Thanx for the idea! :slight_smile:


#18

If youre working alone and actively hate teamwork, then you will only ever go so far. All of the one-man products limit their scope very specifically to a single area, nurbs modellers, poly modeller, sculpting, opencl render engine etc. Making a full blown 3d app with modelling, animation, rigging etc is just not realistic. Looking back at recent entrants, to get a 3d app from scratch up to a point where people will buy it and use it, youre looking at about a decade of work for a team of people.

In a nutshell you are grossly underestimating how much work goes into such an app. Good luck and all, but youre mad.


#19

That’s a thought, too. Blender has recently started working on “BlenderCAD.” Promising, but feeble so far. If I want to make the new software compatible with Blender, I’ll have to study the source. That’s a given.

What I’m looking for here are ideas. Personally I want a program that I can model what I want, print out a set of plans, render it and probably even send parts to a 3D printer. All under one roof.


#20

I would remind you that teams OFTEN fail miserably. Two or three at most is controllable. Even if all team members are writing exe’s or dll’s somewhere one of them will make a class private, possibly by mistake, so unusable to the rest till it’s rewritten. We have so many OS’s out there that are standardized in their interfaces, yet have inherent class privatization that if someone favors Unix, for example, they’ll create problems with Windows API and vice versa.

Mad? Perhaps, but madmen often invent things like paddlewheel boats from rowboats, step up coils that make plasma, and other forms of artificial lightning, and capacitance, without which we wouldn’t have CG, let alone an Internet.