EIM Resurrection Part 2

#6

Both together, Polys and NURBS, integrated into EIAS.

I’ll repeat an earlier post, XSI and Maya (and most other applications) have full modeling capability within the core package. Using an outside modeler is the user’s CHOICE, not a failing of the core package.

Modeling within the application allows for creating blend shapes, morph targets, and smart skins. It eliminates many, many, issues with basic workflow like names, scale, orientation, vertex and face normals, etc. When you can get to the vertices, you can UV Map, bake illumination, bake out procedural textures.

Despite EIAS’s advantages in render quality and speed, without a built in modeler, the program seems incomplete, and falls behind.

#7

The question was posed as a hypothetical. You’re cheating by saying both. :wink: lol. Of course it would be nice to see everything integrated into a single package and do all the things you’ve stated…but that could take a while to manifest and we still don’t know how well EIA’s framework would support it. I’m just curious to know if this kind of separation of technologies could be beneficial somehow.

#8

Let me start by saying that 3d is just a hobby for me. My bread-n-butter is in the world of Flash and UI design, but here is my opinion anyhow. :wink:

I’m not sure there is a need to re-invent the wheel. There are tons of modeling packages out there (modo, silo, hexagon, amapi, and others). Unless EI brings a core modeling toolset into EI, then I’m not sure if its worth the money to produce a modeler just for the EI users. I would like to see EIM running as a UB app, so maybe fix the existing bugs, make it rock solid as possible, but spend the development time on EI and making sure it works with as many apps as possible and extend the API so plugin developers can continue to add great things like Swage, Braider, cloth, and dynamics, etc.

#9

I would be happy with SDS being split, dont even need it integrated into EIAS.

I am of the old EIAS/FZ camp… use EIM for organics.

Cj

#10

Several professionals and EI Counselors have already suggested putting Ubermesh and poly modeling into EIAS, and keeping EIM as an ACIS solids modeler (including UberNURBS) as a standalone application.
It makes perfect sense to me
After all the primary need for sds integration in EIAS is to allow editing of the form (cage) in anim to correct deformation and to do so many other things specific to animating organic models.

#11

Probably everyone agrees on at least getting these poly tools into EIA, be it as a stopgap measure or a solid route to EIA’s future.

Now, what would be the best way to implement them? The most interesting and difficult one surely would be trying to make them act directly inside Animator’s scene views, as most 3D apps do.

#12

I guess we might have caught up by the fact that EIAS can only acept Tri and not quad meshes. If quad meshes is the native format in EIAS and the conversion from Quad to Tri is the hidden process in CAMERA. I suppose life will be much easier.

We then only need ONE standalone EIM as before as long as EIM output Quads meshes. Then we can have a simple but adequate Quad SDS editior within EIAS for last minutes changes and vertex level editing for animation or editing/ adding in round corners/creases to improve render quality.

If this is possible, I think many import issues will have an easier path to resolve as most current modeler output quads meshes. Form Z need a new FAC format to write to Quads. If EIAS also export Quads to other organic modeler via obj. format to take advantage of more advance SDS tool sets. I think EIAS will ZOOM ahead.

Just another one cent if it does make sense. I am just guessing, I may be wrong. Cheers.

#13

I know that this is getting off topic a bit, but then if EI doesn’t sell more seats then this whole discussion is academic anyway.
I keep coming back to Hexagon, not because its a particularly good package (as it stands now), but because they did several interesting things with it. First they made it really simple to use, although it has depth to it, just as EIA has. Second, that simplicity is enhanced by video tutorials in the help. Third when Daz got its mitts on it they offered it for $30. I gather that they had a lot of takers for that price, I read somewhere around 20,000. And this was for a program with no track record!
Then they blew it by not coming out with swift bug fixes and almost no communication with the new user base - big mistake.
But, they immediately got thousands of new users experimenting with the program, becoming familiar with it and adopting it into their workflow.
Interesting marketing ploy.
Mike.

#14

I’m just guessing. Could it be that giving it away for next to no money deprived them from resources to further develop it?

#15

Possibly.
But I wasn’ t suggesting giving it away for next to nothing - just the next best thing to next to nothing:-)
Plus, I would guess that over half a mil would go quite a way to fixing bugs.
Who knows? It was just a thought.
Mike.

#16

That would be my thought. I wonder how many of those people who purchased the $30 version of Hex are still using it, or did they toss it into file 13. Thing is… I don’t really like the idea of EITG borrowing marketing ideas from DAZ. Granted… I support DAZ because its a great place for me to purchase previs models. But everything overall has that low budget feel.

#17

I did. For all I know, updates have been posted that would get rid of some of the bugs and instabilities that riddle my current version. I don’t care. A $30 piece of beta software only can hold my attention for so long. Don’t let EITG turn into DAZ.

#18

I forgot i even had Hexagon, i should really take another look though.

No, obviously EI does not want Daz as its role model.

Remember that there was the “3D Toolkit” which was almost free ($99 peanuts these days :slight_smile:
Is it even available still ? this is the way i started and its a great introduction to ElectricImage even though its a bit outdated now.

Reuben

#19

Yes… lots of folks are wanting some sort of demo or trial version of EIAS to help with marketing. The 3D Toolkit was a great product… ashame it wasn’t properly handled (from what I’m told). I wonder if a fully functioning $99 dollar version of EIAS could be produced, sold with a functional dongle, but had the plugin system deactivated or modified so it couldn’t be used with the current range of plugins. Just thinking out load.

#20

I totally agree, and am not advocating Daz as any sort of role model.

Anyway I’m that EI will be looking at the demographics very carefully to try and figure out which market to pursue. Up to now it has served me very well as a graphics still tool and maybe Paul S. is right when he suggests that it serves graphic designers and architects best.

Has there been a poll to try and work out what EI users actually use the software for?

By the way I just watched Manuel’s Boxing Kitty movie which I loved. Read his comments on making it, and was amazed by his perseverance!
Mike.

#21

I’m happy if EIM will be resurrected. But I’m curious that I’d make EI programmer team have much work to do without necessary.

Yes, in some area, it can help to increase more income. But for people who do Product Design, will it complete with Rhino or Concept 3D? Both from new user and for verteran who want a pro features. For people doing polygon modeling, include me, Silo + modo + zBrush is more than enough. But for me, the thing that kepth me from using these software with EI is some incompatibilities. I’m thinking about EI should invest their programmer to help people import model directly into EIAS easier.

Make the Animator work better and well incooperate with other model file types. If it need to have a modeler, let’s integrate within EIAS. First thing first, let’s Animator has a real subdivision modeling inside the core framework. I can’t imagine how well CA tool can be without it. Even EIAS isn’t position itself to be a CA tool but SDS inside surely make a wonderful things follow.

Lastly, I’m loving EIM so much but in a tight time frame and budget. It should not be the first thing to do IMHO.

#22

Thanks. My own laziness was the biggest problem to overcome. Having a community cheering me on made the difference.

#23

After reading all the great feedback from everyone, I would have to go in the integrated modeler camp (yeah, I changed my mind). It should be both SDS and ACIS in order to import files from other modelers. That way if the modeler within EIA can’t do what I need, or I prefer another modeler, I can use the internal modeler to act as the import engine and create the FACT files. And users who want a single solution have their integrated modeler as well.

#24

This is a little off the topic in regards to having EIM stand-alone or integrated, but thought I would post it anyway.

I use EIM for just about all of my production modeling and this last week have been using it daily. Irregardless of where EIM eventually ends up it is worthwhile saving!

This modeler’s interface and toolset is perfect for design work - it has a great flow and feel to it and actually glitches very seldomly. I still find EIM incredibly inspiring to use…it really is a one of a kind tool!

So this is just a ‘bring it back to life!’ post:-)

Paul

#25

that is exactly my sentiment on the subject.

I don’t need another Silo. For SDS silo has a great feature list/price point.

I am totally welcome to “forget” my negative feelings about what “they” did to EIM if
“They” just pick up where “they” left off and continue development.
Just kidding with the emphasis on “they”! But I would really like to have EIM back in the
arsenal.

Mike Fitz
www.3dartz.com