Should Animator include modeling tools?

#14

Wow… big question. It can be approached from so many angles and a lot depends on EITG’s intended marketing strategy. (which I don’t know) I don’t think one tool will do it, but rather a set of tools, methodologies and company marketing agressiveness are in order.

However, I’ll give it go. (Remember these are my opinions…not EITG’s)

EIAS has certain “infrastructure” limitations due to its age. None of these limitations are uncermountable, but changing EIAS into something its not could potentially cascade and effect a number of systems that are dependant on its current infrastructure. (Camera, plugins, etc) Picture EIAS like the x86 architecture. It can grow and offer new things, but it has to remain sensitive to the old x86 core. Luckily we’re seeing advancements to the Shader and Plugin APIs and this is a great thing. FBX also goes a really long way to bridging gaps in the character animation field. Right now, EIAS is better than its ever been. So where can they improve?

  1. The program needs to be more open to both the user, the programmer, and other applications. The number one need pro users require in the film industry is an open architecture program. Notice I didn’t say open source, there is a difference. The reason why Maya is such a success in the film industry is advanced users can get into the guts of the program through MEL and through Maya’s plugin API. EIAS now offers Xpressionist, which is a first step, but Xpressionist more about controlling animation channels than permitting a method to construct new tools which tap into nearly EVERY aspect of the program.

  2. EIAS is a polygon based program. In the past, this was somewhat of a detriment in the film community. EI countered by being able to handle huge numbers of polys. However, polys were generally avoided because of their finite resolution. Studios would utilize NURBS patch modeling instead and then either tessalate to a required resolution or just simply render NURBS on the fly. Today, machines are stronger, and polys for film animation are making a big comeback. For the typical user, polys are easier to use. SubDs are popular because they offer a nice hybrid between the two technologies. If EI wants to be seen as a complete package, some form of modeling within the program is required. This is mainly because animation users want the ability to modify and manipulate geometry down to the vertex level. Bouncing back and forth between a separate modeler and animation package is cumbersome for the character and organic animator, but not necessarily a problem for the illustrator or hard surface animator. Organics require the abilty to control the surface of a mesh to the nth degree. That currently isn’t available in EIAS. So, EI must continue to market itself to a niche group of people that are either doing hard surface animation, matte or set design, motion graphics, lighting and rendering tasks, or CAD. If this is EI’s desire, then they are on the right path. But you must also look to what the market wants.

  3. The CG market, at least in the entertainment industry, wants character animation. CG is the preferred method of storytelling for animated movies now. The rise of Pixar is proof of this. However, there is difference between visual effects and organic animation. EIAS is definitely better for VFX than character work…but to the aspiring filmmaker, which is more appealing? Character work in my opinion. Everyone wants to create the next Toy Story, and right now, EIAS isn’t the right tool for the job. Could it be? Yes. is it getting there? Yes. Is it too late? Difficult to say.

  4. Next, EITG needs to focus its direction towards its desired market. If it is to remain an advanced rendering solution for other packages through FBX then make that known. For years, users of EIAS have wanted Camera to be available as a separate application to compete with Maxwell, Turtle, Renderman, etc… but EITG refused to open it up. At first I thought this was a mistake, but I think they took a page from Apple and did the right thing. If they can make data exchange between EIAS and other packages as seemless as possible, they can start to offer Camera to other programs without giving up its secrets.

  5. Tools. Ugh. So many I want. I agree with you that breaking away from the linear approach to animation is important, but so is including nodal methodology. EIAS’ infrastructure needs methods to route animation channels more effectively through a nodal approach in addition to the xpressionist route of writing expressions and also through constraints. Expressions and constraints must be evaluated on a frame by frame basis and they slow things down and users are scared of them (expressions at least). Redirecting animation channels like a telephone switchboard would go a long way. Then integrate modeling, followed by more character tools. We know that Camera can make things look pretty.

#15

I don’t know if Jens browses this forum but if he does maybe he can chime in on this/ correct me…

I think the goal for XP is that it will eventually allow users to program + compile their own plugins… I’m sure I read it somewhere… If true, it really would open the flood gates as it were, imagine simply attaching your camera to a custom plugin and instantly getting handheld shakes (obviously a scene scale global would be needed)… But things like that, little utility plug-ins would make EI an even more attractive app in my opinion.

And no, I don’t think it is too late for EI in character animation, people do switch their 3D programs, I’ve done it. And lets remember that 3D isn’t about one ‘do all’ app, it is increasingly about being able to tap different animation apps for their strengths, FBX really helps us with that (FBX export is coming!).

Edit: A lot of the back and forth to modeller tedium could be resolved with better asset management: An update model button for instance.

:slight_smile:
Ian

#16

EI needs to acquire more users and keep the ones its got… I don’t know whether it can aqquire new users from other high end CA apps very easily, but can it also compete with other apps that hobbyists or ‘middle of the road’ dtp graphic designers might buy. These latter type people would be looking for an all in one application that doesn’t cost too much, (although c4d isn’t really an all in one program, it used to be fairly cheap). EI is really a specialist rendering application. Its extremely unlikely that modelling tools will ever be included in Animator and I’d have thought It’d be a waste of their limited resouces to go up this path. Much better to bundle something like Silo and produce GOOD documentation on how to use it- for those totally new users.

Also, for new users, Animator should have its interface redesigned. Forget all the ‘techno correct’ way of changing parameters, (like the camera aperture scale) and design a consistent to use method of things being 'off or ‘on’ on a scale of 1 to 100, small or big, 1 to 100. They need to get away from the ethos of, 'sometimes when we say ‘right’ we mean ‘right’, BUT sometimes we actually mean ‘left’. Sometimes we mean neither… As I remember this sort of stuff went through the TripleD shaders as well.
One reason c4d caught on was not because it was good quality, but because it was so easy to use, (mostly). I don’t say EI is hard to use, but there are confusing elements.

Assuming EI can keep its current users, its big problem is getting new users. It’s really a marketing problem, getting the product into the head of new potential users. Unfortunately EI and also c4d, don’t seem to have the ‘shop window’ that Maya, XSI and Max have. All things being equal, (and I know that things, as far as animation go, probably aren’t equal in all apps), the visual quality of work you get out of all these apps is mostly down to the operator. This aside, the perception one gets, from looking at user galleries for both EI and c4D is that the work is largely amatuerish and mediocre. This obviously tends to reflect badly on the product. EI need to get the very best work into adverts in magazines like 3D World and to have some kind of profile on sites like CG Talk. Paul S was a great ambassador
for EI, and for what EI could produce, in the right hands, at a time when EI really needed it, unfortunately and unbelievably he was hounded of the postforum, no doubt busy enough with commisions…

Martin K

#17

Hounded off postforum ?, think it was more a case of being distracted by Max and Brazil !

Reuben

#18

But EI’s Global Illumination got him BACK!

After all Paul’s no fool. He uses whatever tool is required to get the job done.

#19

Martin,

Yes, I do believe Paul S. ran off to work with Max and Brazil…though on several occassions he’s popped into the Post Forum to tell us that he’s had to jump back into EIAS to get certain things done.

I agree with you in that EITG should probably avoid providing a complete modeling solution for Animator. However, as you’ve probably already seen, I am in favor of EITG providing some limited tools and vertex level editing. Its just really necessary for character work. I’m also working with Konkeptoine to possibly have them provide users with a modest modeling subset in the form of plugins. If we want EIAS to compete for the ilustrator and mid level artist, some kind of internal modeling capabilities will be necessary. Bundling Silo as a dedicated sub d / high end modeler is wise and should continue.

I think EIAS’ interface is good, albeit old. It doesn’t have the aqua factor, and I’d only support aqua if it will improve the user’s experience and interaction. If all we’re doing is a asthetic face lift, I think I’d rather put energy into something else. Though ultimately, I agree with you. The interace should be updated, ultimately.

Obtaining new users:

I can agree with you that this is a marketing issue. However, we all know that marketing costs money. Its a catch 22 situation. You have spend money to make money. I believe EITG should continue to conserve its energy and work on mandatory OS ports, new tools, and paying salaries. As much as we want to see flashy ads in CG trades, they’re gonna have to wait until EITG is a larger company.

We as users, however, have a bit of responsibility ourselves. This is why I’ve started this forum. I don’t think we should do EITG’s job, but we are ALL ambassadors here. Trying to place a single person as EIAS’ primary evangelist is not wise. The moment that person moves to another package or has dropped off the scene (like Paul) its seen as a major set back or defection. I was upset at Paul for leaving EI and that’s just stupid. He has specific needs for what he does and if he can’t get them with EIAS then he should move to something that can do what he wants. This kind of reaction is what I see a lot of EI users falling prey to. The thing is, as a community we’re stronger than any one person. Our community must act as ambassador. This show of support energizes people from the outside. They see what we have and want to be apart of it. Humans are social creatures and want to be defined somehow. If EIAS users are whiney little bitches, who wants that?

So, I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. Everyone needs to do their part. No matter how small.

#20

For me, I’d like to have vertex and edge editing capability for sds imports. It would be sooooo useful for creating morph targets and hand-animating cloth.

And an updated version of transporter. I know FBX is here but it would be massively helpful to import relevant data like IGES and native Maya, Silo, Rhinoceros, Modo and Soft Image files. Rhino does a good job of importing and exporting to a wide variety of formats – maybe something like that?

Just my 2 cents.

#21

man this is so right i have always tried to do this in any thing i have done be it skateboarding using truespace or going out with a fat chick. i always trying to promote the good in any activity that i do. i wish people of today had the D-day spirt like my nan.

#22

Unfortunately all of those programs you listed are all NURBS/SubD centric programs. EIAS only speaks polygons right now. Spline entities are not understood. In order for Transporter to handle those model formats it needs to understand NURBS and tesselation. FBX was written specifically for EIAS to do this. It will import .fbx data from these packages and any NURBS entities will be converted into polygons for EIAS to understand. Tesselation is the same process that EIM and SILO have to use when exporting files to EIAS as .fact files. Polys only.

#23

hi
A bit OT, i know, but i think a real improvement in CA tools 4 EiAS could be very important right now. Since Pixar, clients seems very interested in animation. For instance, one of my clients is asking me about some number of CA shorts for cine and TV, and i´m not sure if EiAS is the right tool for the job. I will make my best for fit in but i think i will miss something that can put some kind of handlers on the face for more subtle control, besides morph animation… maybe something like poor´s man SOFTIMAGE|FACE ROBOT. :drool:
I will have rigid clothes an stiff hair (life is hard :cry: ) but the expresions on the faces are crucial.
Maybe too much work a feature like this, i now, but dreaming is free.

FelixCat

#24

Hi Brian,

I know EIAS is polygon only but EIM used to be able to import IGES files (NURBS data) very well toward the end of its life. And it used to export FACT files very well, of course. Maybe EITG could take the SAT, SAB and IGES import features that were in Modeler and repurpose them in Transporter. And the SDS looks like it’s being handled well by the clever folks at Konkeptoine. Their “Encage” system would probably make Ed Catmull blush with pride. Maybe EITG could put all this in Transporter, taking the place of some outdated formats. I mean, come on . . . is there anyone out there who still uses Sculpt and Swivel 3D? :wink:

FBX is great but it would be nice to be able to get data from other time-tested, universal formats too.

#25

Not a bad idea…but Transporter is Blair’s baby. Its best to pose that question to him.

#26

Thanks Brian,

I’ll do that but I can’t find his contact info on the EI forums or the main site. Would you happen to have his contact info?

#27

I think its just simply info@northernlights3d.com.

I don’t want to post his personal email address here.

#28

I wouldn’t be surprised if they were build on Spatial Technology libraries, so EITG probably can’t use that.

#29

Hi Manuel,

I just got an email back from Blair at Northern Lights. It turns out the Spatial libraries ARE extremely expensive and that IS why they aren’t used. That’s probably the main reason why EITG let the modeler go – the Spatial ACIS stuff. There are other libraries, even open-source ones, that might be used instead. Rhino and other NURBS packages use the AGlib NURBS library to great effect. Maybe there’s some way EI could use that?

Oh well, we’ll see. . . .

#30

Rhinoceros has had to remove all AGLib technology from Rhino because Alias, who owns the library, didn’t like the idea of a low-cost Nurbs modeller competing with their super expensive high-end stuff. So I don’t think you’d want to license any technology from those guys.

#31

Really?! Wow, I wonder what made them license it in the first place. Oh well. . .

#32

If that’s so, one would asume there is a market for an EIModeler sucessor. If there was an affordable modeling engine around, it could be interesting for EITG to market such a modeler as a low cost conceptual design tool (and EIAS as a rendering and animation “upgrade”?), implementing the features such customers demand without making them getting in our way too much.

I am finally learning EIM’s ways and getting to like it a lot. I long for more versatile surfacing tools and being able to tweak curves and surfaces as in Maya’s malleable NURBS. The ideal would be something quite like Maya, modeling-wise: NURBS, poly and SubD toolsets and being able to convert from one to another.

There are a lot of specialized new modelers around, lately: SubD ones, mostly, ranging from costly to quite cheap. Would it be interesting to provide a cheap new “Rhino-like” conceptual design one?

#33

About modeling tools in Animator: perhaps an ideal first tool would be a versatile Bezier curve primitive (it being able to, say, parent its endpoints or selected knots to other objects, simulate tension under gravity, etc.), and ways for plugins to read it and do things such as, say, produce tubes of several kinds, distort an object along, distribute objects along, etc.