XSI vs. A:M

[KenH]

Thought about it, what you have said makes absolutely NO sense. I don’t think you understand my post, it’s all about harnessing the power of A:m and not losing the flexibility and benefits of my other tools. Bringing stuff into A:M atm does just that.

If you want to use static immobile objects in AM, you can bring them in as Props. That works very well. I think that’s what the other post meant.

[Fuchur]

Hm… I think you missunderstood hash here…

Martin said something like this in a recent thread:
The problem with export and import models etc. is the following:
A:M uses a other technology and even if we liked to, it would be very hard if not impossible to really make a good import/export-pipeline for A:M…

I think they thought about it and just thought, that it wouldnt be worth the price…

There is a possiblity to export (better this way) or import low-res-models and with bvh-files you are able to export animations to other softwaresystems…
But as he said: A:M works in a whole other way, what makes it so easy but what although limits the compatibillity…

You should read some of martin’s or yves posts in the last 4 weeks. They really told the users something there… I have never seen another company which talked like that with it’s users about there product than hash did and it was a really nice feeling to be taken full and to be in the boat.

Fuchur

PS: I dont know, but I did a few test and had not problems to import low-res-models…
In many polygone-programs, when you use polygones as modellingtool, you just stop when you would smooth them and export the file as obj.
Make a new model and use the obj-importer in the modelling window… It is not perfect, but the best way to get more or less good models in A:M… you will have to tween some things so…

[nvvm]

If you want to use static immobile objects in AM, you can bring them in as Props. That works very well. I think that’s what the other post meant.

This to me is beating a dead horse but, at the hope of clarity I’m going to be very frank; a:m by far isn’t superior in all aspects of 3d modeling and animation. So the idea of using other apps to feed it content to texture, animate render and vfx etc, is a poor one. For me a:m would only have one use and that would be to animate, rig and animate at that point I’ be looking to get that content out of a:m into another app for vfx, particles, cloth/hair and etc. It would be counter producive for me to use A:m as you and others have eluded to.

[higginsdj]

This to me is beating a dead horse but, at the hope of clarity I’m going to be very frank; a:m by far isn’t superior in all aspects of 3d modeling and animation. So the idea of using other apps to feed it content to texture, animate render and vfx etc, is a poor one. For me a:m would only have one use and that would be to animate, rig and animate at that point I’ be looking to get that content out of a:m into another app for vfx, particles, cloth/hair and etc. It would be counter producive for me to use A:m as you and others have eluded to.

Well to be just as frank no-one is suggesting that you give up your tools to use A:M! Hell it would be just as counter productive for me to do anything in Maya and try to import it into A:M. Just because one way works best for you doesn’t mean that it must be that way for everyone. I prefer to use A:M because its cheap and it’s the only application I know how to do anything in - and yes - I’m a Hobbiest.

Cheers

[CGTalk_Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.