No thanks. I can't thikn of a reason for needing a black eye today. ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of brad
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:01 PM
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: RE: XSI 5.1
Hmmm, why don't you walk over to Ral and ask him about particles in XSI. :-p
> -------Original Message-------
> I think it's innevitable that people would make such assumptions. I
> cannot for the life of me imagine a more frequently requested issue
> than particle overhaul/improvement. The particle/FX related threads
> are frequent and very sizeable and provoke emotional reposnses from
> users who have battled with particles in the past.
>
> And like adrian has suggested, this weakness in XSI alone has
> probably been one of the biggest contributyors for those evaluating
> software to go with the competition. On ths basis alone, and as a
> business descision, it would stand to reason that Softimage would
> gove this concern top priority.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On
> Behalf Of adrian
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:22 AM
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: XSI 5.1
>
> i agree, this isn't intended to de-rail the thread, and certainly not
> to lay blame at gareth's door!
> i think desperation has made us jump on the slightest hint, leading
> to speculation that something is in development, maybe even nearing
> completion, when it probably isn't!
>
> i also am aware that it's not an obligation that Soft should tell us
> everything they are working on, but some kind of official word or even
> acknowledement that particles need work would be nice.... the silent
> treatment doesn't win friends, and just fuels rumours!
>
> a
>
> Adrian Wyer
> Fluid Pictures
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kim aldis" <kim(at)cg-soup.com>
> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:09 PM
> Subject: RE: XSI 5.1
>
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> >> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of adrian >> Sent:
> 23-March-2006 10:46 >> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM >> Subject: Re: XSI 5.1
> >> >> >> i know (kim) that we 'can' get some passable effects out of
> >> the particle system (and i have in the past!) but too much >>
> jumping through hoops and too much inflexibility in the >>
> architecture makes the process extremely painfull....
> >>
> >
> > Actually, some of the limitations in the customisation openings for
> > particles mean that often you can't. Most of the work I've done with
> > particle customisation I've done simply because sometimes you have
> to > knuckle down and make something work, but that doesn't mean it's easy.
> >
> > I've been as vocal as hell about particles and I want them improved
> as
>
> > much
> > as anyone else, especially over the next couple of months, but the
> point I > was trying to make was that I felt Gareth has been
> misrepresented and I > think he's getting a lot of unecessary flack
> for it.
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text
> in
> body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
