Hypothetical Question For Users

#1

Here’s a hypotethetical question or two for the users.

If EITG had the means to return Modeler or a new separate modeling package that could “talk” to Camera into their product line up…would you be in favor of it? Would you prefer resurrecting Modeler with some new tools or would you rather see a brand new package?

If you wanted a new modeler, what kind of modeler would you like to see?

A purely polygonal modeler?
A sub-d modeler?
Nurbs modeler?

What kind of tools would it need to possess? Would EITG benefit from taking a similar approach to a “new” modeling package like Luxology did with Modo? What kind of price would you be willing to pay? Would you wish to see this package evolve into the “New Animator” or would you rather concentrate on retrofitting what we already have with more advanced modeling plugins and a better API?

#2

Without a doubt, continue to develop EIM.

Even if it doesn’t get much better or more evolved, just having it upgraded to run on the most recent computers and OS’ would make me happy.

It never was perfect but it sure does what I need it to.

Barring that, EI should contact these guys and see what it would take to have their tools connect up with EI. Great guys and a very powerful toolset:

http://www.npowersoftware.com/

Probably would take some development time but these guys have a great nurbs modeler.

Paul

#3

Purely SDS would be amazing…

ubernurbs!

Cj

#4

EIM would be an amazing package.

If given enough development, with tools to equal Concepts Unlimited for hard body modeling, and tools equal to Silo’s (within the UberNURBS/MESH environment) for organics, I could see paying $500.oo to $750 for such a package.

#5

I love Modeler for the most part but hate its flaws. If EI fixed the bugs I’d want it. But the price I’d be willing to pay would depend on what else is available when it came out.

My ideal would be an SDS modeler that worked like Modeler and was built into EI.

Jim Mulcahy

#6

Further development of EIM would be great. I would pay between USD500 to 650 for an updated, stable and universal EIM.

If anyone else has tried the NURBS based ‘moi3d’ (I posted a link on another thread), I’d be interested to hear comments on how it compares to EIM. I realise moi3d is still in beta but the developer seems to realise the importance of an uncluttered, user friendly UI.

#7

Yes, resurrect EIM, definately. Make it a standalone tool like Rhino. Give it import options for “pro” CAD packages like Catia, ProEngineer or Unigrafics. Combine it with Camera for still rendering…

The tesselation engine of EIM is still one of the best I have ever used. EIM had the potential to be a CAD modeler for designers (see Paul S) but was badly marketed. I never understood why it was not sold seperately to Animator. It was said in a seperate thread that EITG could concentrate on other markets the hard surface marked being the natural realm. With Modeler they could have done that years ago.

Polygon tools would be great within Animator, and the option to just integrate Animator into Modeler was also on my wish list for a long time, since EIM uses a more flexible interface than Animator. I imagine the layer window of EIM with the time controls of Animator…

Jens

#8

Well I loved EIM and I agree with Jens, if they spend the time to bring it back, they need to market it as a separate app. Make some cash off of it from none Animator users.

That being said though, I still think a polygon modeler built into animator is what I’d want. EI needs to buy encage, fix it and integrate it into the interface of EI so we have subd at render time. Also, I ask for a poly modeler in EI because then we have access to the vertex level, so something like smartskin could be possible. For a character animator, this is vital. The ability to bend an arm and at that bone angle, reconstruct the shape of the elbow and bicep. This way when the bone is rotated to this angle the vertices move to the new shape, and stops looking like a pinched pipe. This is the main reason I am trying to find another application for my CA.

#9

US $650-700. if ahs the level of Modo or similar.
For the same reasons posted by Jens and Richard, spetially Richard. In my CA experiments i´m finding the same problems.
BTW, i still use the EiM for hard surface modeling alongside SILO and a bit of ZBrush.

FelixCat

#10

I really liked Modeler, But as a standalone product I think it will be tough to compete with Concepts 3d/Unlimited and formZ.
Modeler did have great interactive controls, and one truly unique feature- subdivision surfaces that could be switched over to Acis based nurbs patches (real curves no-polygons!)
Every other SDS modeler is polygon only.

I agree that Modeler was on it’s way to becoming a competitor for Industrial Design modeling. I was always excited by it’s potential.

Modeler’s tesselation was good. Using the code from modeler (if that’s feasible) for tesselation in Transporter/Animator would be great. Support for the STEP file format would allow import from most Engineering/CAID packages without needing to re-license ACIS.

Another option may be to partner with the Concepts folks and license some of Modeler’s unique attributes to them (Ubernurbs), and then offer a bundle deal with EIAS and Concepts 3d/Unlimited. Perhaps even integrating texture support, etc?

I would love to see Modeler come back, but unfortunately I now have investments in about four seperate modeling packages. I could see spending $500 on Modeler, but it would have to be very special for me to buy it.

I do think that newcomers to EIAS may be put-off by the lack of a bundled/ integrated modeler.

#11

Well if we can convince EITG to enhance the plugin API and include a few more support tools in Animator, Paralumino could handle that. :wink:

#12

Pretty much only interested in SDS these days. Booleans is the only thing I really miss from NURBS modelling.
But tell me Brian, since you believe CA to be such an important feature for EIAS’ future. Wouldn’t it make more sense to develop a basic SDS modeller within Animator?

#13

Manuel,

Everything has to start somewhere.

Animator is purely a polygonal package and any modeling tools created for Animator need to reflect that right now.(As you see in Paralumino’s current line up) Additonal plug in API enhancements and programmers’ tools would open the doors for developers to provide something even more sophisticated down the road.

Well coordinated and cooperative efforts between EITG and its 3rd party developers could make that happen since there is only so many resources to go around.

#14

Manuel,

My desire for CA tools in EIAS is exactly that…my desire. It may not reflect what EITG may wish to ultimately focus on. Their marketing focus is their decision.

Its also the reason I push for opening up the package more. It allows 3rd party developers the opportunity to forge their own niche markets that may be outside of EITG’s primary marketing focus.

I think that’s healthy for a 3d software company and program to have.

#15

I can´t agree more with your effords, Brian. Do you know if EiTG is listening? could be very interesting to know their feedback…
FelixCat

#16

Of cause, thats why they came up with the Silo deal.

Seems to me that “newcomers” either simply get what everyone else is getting or just compare feature lists, in the latter case, EIAS can never win.

BTW, i still use EIM now and then, and also think its a huge loss to the package as a whole now its “dead” so to speak.

R

#17

I’m sure their hands are full with the Intel port right now…but I’m pretty confident this forum and all of its threads are being examined. Its only a matter of time…and I’m a really patient man.

#18

I would pay $1000 for a UB version of EIM’ last incarnation.

I like SDS modelers, but i really miss knives, booleans, and the accuracy of EIM.

Cheers

Hans

#19

I think with the availability and pricing of Silo, it would be hard to make any dent in the market with a new or upgraded modeller from EI.
If they did revitalize EIM, I’d surely get the upgrade. But to start from scratch, especially
an sds modeller would be a tuff sell, in my opinion.

I rather they opened up camera to other software packages for rendering.

Mike Fitz
www.3dartz.com

#20

Sorry to hijack the thread a bit: do any of you use EIM under Rosetta? Is it usable? I am looking forward to buying a Mac Pro and am afraid of losing EIM in the transition to Intel (at least until Parallels manages to support accelerated 3D graphics as they claim they are in the verge of achieving). I’ve seen no one give a definitive answer to these questions in any EI forum.

Back to the thread: when EIAS declared EIM dead, it sort of looked like they had some ideas to pursue if they ever produced a new modeling app. I wonder about them.