I can´t resist a snappy remark.
> Of all the stages in 3D production, modelling is the most flexible and
> least critical in terms of interchange and openness. It is easy enough
> to being in models from other apps or visa versa.
I often wish people would take more time to create clean meshes that
will behave and deform well in later stages of a production. I´ve allready
run into so many crap models and people telling me that should do I can
hardly control my temper. It´s a shame, really. My grandma allways says:
"Make sure you´ve build your base right".
In a broader stroke, it´s true, modeling isn´t the most urgent area (imho)
XSI needs to improve, I feel alot of freedom in modeling (with polygons)
coming from Maya. XSI is easy, fast and intuitive in most cases that don´t
require absolute precision, e.g. it rocks for organic modeling +++++++++
tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre DeAngelis" <andre.deangelis(at)ubisoft.com>
To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: XSI needs UV editor improvements
> In all fairness, there are needs in XSI that are far more pressing than
> modelling.
>
> Maya is tragic for poly modelling, but people get by. Modo is hardly a
> cheap tool considering modelling is all it does. I don't consider Modo
> or Silo to be so far ahead as to be concerned about XSI falling behind.
> They (Modo or Silo)both have some niceties, but nothing remotely as
> significant in terms of revolutionizing 3D modelling as say,
> Zbrush/Mudbox Furthermore, these tools are focused on modelling only, so
> the dev teams hardly have to be concerned with prioritising their
> roadmap.
>
> Of all the stages in 3D production, modelling is the most flexible and
> least critical in terms of interchange and openness. It is easy enough
> to being in models from other apps or visa versa. Animation, texturing,
> lighting, simulation and rendering on the other hand, are areas which
> are more application centric, and involve a great deal more
> dependencies.
>
> AD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf
> Of Norm Olsen
> Sent: August 3, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: XSI needs UV editor improvements
>
> "Agreed. Adding complete new additions is great and worth the massive
> effort required to do so, but I don't want to see the core tools in my
> main
> app fall behind as a result."
>
> Too late (in my case anyway). As a modeler/texture artist, I feel that
> while
> XSI's modeling and texturing tools are 'o.k' at best, they have already
> fallen behind the curve somewhat. I have already submitted to Soft what
> I
> would like to personally see improved already, so no need to repeat it
> all
> here again. But I will say this...
>
> It is admittedly frustrating when smaller lower cost apps like Silo or
> Modo
> can come up with great improvments (on the topic of modelling /
> texturing....no matter how little they may seem on their own accord),
> thus
> shaving off many small quirks and imperfections which result in better
> productivity over the long haul while a multi-thousand dollar app like
> XSI
> (using ESS and ADV as the example here.. for me especially, ESS, as this
> is
> what I bought) cannot seem to get up to speed.
>
> Now I understand that there are many variables and other unknows in the
> big
> equation of development. Perhaps it is the many layers of corporate
> bureaucracy that is partly guilty for the hinderance of tool set
> developments. Small dev teams like Silo don't have many people to answer
> to
> (if at all), which is an extreme blessing in its own right. But apps
> like
> Silo are solely focused on modelling, which enables them to develop and
> refine awesome modelling toolsets while apps like XSI are all general
> purpose 3d packages (sure, XSI is a character package, but let's be
> frank,
> you need to model the characters to be able to animate them, unless you
> use
> another package, which in my opinion starts to bog down things, not to
> mention additional expenses). So this all pupose functionality is a
> curse if
> many of the elements fall behind (which is happening to some extent with
>
> XSI).
>
> Perhaps a viable solution is to hire small teams that are solely focused
> on
> coding what they are good at (exmaple, two or three kick ass poly
> modelling
> toolset designers/programmers who's sole task is to listen to the
> community,
> watch what others (like Silo) are doing and develop only kick ass
> modelling
> tools XSI version after version.. same for animations, particles, etc..
> etc.. Having small focused 'sub teams' of very talented people who are
> good
> at what they do, covering all bases of what XSI has, and contantly
> develope
> and refine their respective areas of expertise would ensure that XSI is
> always on the ball in all areas.
>
> Perhaps one of the problems with this is that dedicated kick ass talent
> may
> be hard to find. In either case, I constantly wonder what exactly is the
>
> current structure at Softimage, and how can they improve on it. Because
> to
> be very frank, when I see small apps like Silo and Modo start delivering
>
> better workflow (going by what I am hearing and seeing from videos and
> whatnot), it makes XSI look alittle troublesome (as powerful as it is,
> and
> yes, XSI definately has its strong points.. otherwise, I would not be
> using
> it. It has its extreme advantages over those (and other) apps).
>
> All in all.. this thread does strike some very interesting (and valid)
> points. Now, the next version is obviously in development.. And I do
> know
> that Softimage does listen to their costumers.. but from the frequent
> complaints about how people have been asking for features since version
> (god
> knows how long ago), and from seeing with my own eyes some of the
> glaring
> issues, one has to wonder if it is an issue such as lack of sufficient
> staffing (not sure if this is an Avid thing or a Softimage thing), or if
> it
> is perhaps the quality of its staff (which Im sure this is not the
> issue..
> they seem quite talented).. or lord knows that else. I understand that
> big
> clients like Blur are important.. and I am going to hazard a guess that
> what
> the big studio clients wants, they get.. but this is the whole point to
> my
> response.. Having small focused teams that bolster their respective
> areas of
> specialties within XSI will make the app even better than it already is.
>
> People are expecting one hell of a kick ass release for version 6. Time
> will
> tell what all in all has been augmented and what has been left behind.
> I'm
> still hoping for the best, however. I know Soft is a good company
> overall,
> and XSI is a great product overall. But leaving systems to fall behind
> isn't
> the most appealing to see.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Norm Olsen
>
>
>
>
>>From: James Edwards <jedwards(at)digitalextremes.com>
>>Reply-To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>>To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>>Subject: Re: XSI needs UV editor improvements
>>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:10:35 -0400
>>
>>Agreed. Adding complete new additions is great and worth the massive
>>effort required to do so, but I don't want to see the core tools in my
> main
>>app fall behind as a result. There's plenty that can be done to
> improve
>>things between releases and this is exactly what makes applications
> like
>>Modo and Silo so good. The refinement and attention to details the
>>developers are putting into tools and features that have been there
> since
>>the beginning is what keeps me using those tools.
>>
>>What softimage did with XSI's tweak tool, I'd like to see happing in
> more
>>areas within XSI. Such a great improvement to an existing, core tool.
>>
>>James
>>
>>
>>Kris Rivel wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, you have some good ideas there. I will have to give Modo,
> Unfold3D
>>>and UVlayout a try but it still would be really nice to have these
>>>features in XSI. I could go on about having built in 3d paint but
> thats a
>>>beast of a request and going to another app for that is fine for now.
> I
>>>would much rather have much more robust and intuitive UV tools built
> into
>>>XSI.
>>>
>>>Kris
>>>
>>>James Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kris Rivel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The one thing I thought was pretty cool was Modo's UV editor. I
> think
>>>>>it blows XSI's UV editor out of the water in several areas. I like
> how
>>>>>you can select polys in the UV layout just like you would in a
> viewport.
>>>>> That makes total sense. I'm sick and tired of just moving points
>>>>>around sometimes or sinking my UV selection to a selection I made in
> a
>>>>>viewport. We need to have some good built in pelt mapping stuff too
> I
>>>>>think. I know there are some tools out there for this but really
>>>>>powerful UV tools for quickly laying out character UV maps is
> becoming
>>>>>the norm in every other package except XSI.
>>>>>
>>>>>Kris
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
>
>>>>>body:
>>>>>unsubscribe xsi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>This is funny because for the last year or so I've been requesting
> XSI UV
>>>>features to be added into Modo whenever the developers ask how we can
>
>>>>improve Modo's UV tools. Stuff like overlapping UV highlight colors
> is a
>>>>direct request from XSI users for instance. =] But then there's
> stuff
>>>>like the unwrap tool and the new UV pinning feature of the Relax tool
>
>>>>that come more from blender than anywhere else. Point being that lux
>
>>>>does listen very closely and follows through on a lot of user
> requests.
>>>>I do agree that Modo has a great UV editing environment now...
> especially
>>>>with the full support of all native 3d selection and transform tools.
> I
>>>>do all my UV editing in Modo now, as unwrap is my most important
> tool,
>>>>and the new paint engine just makes it easier to keep more of the
> 3d/2d
>>>>process in the same application. I still miss some XSI UV tools
> though,
>>>>especially the UV match tool and island healing. Modo does edge
>>>>stitching pretty well though so it sort of makes up for lack of
> island
>>>>heal, but the match tool in XSI is sorely missed when I'm working in
>>>>Modo. One tool I've been drooling over since I first saw it was
>>>>Polyboosts 3D UV tweak mode. With this you can tweak UVs right on
> the 3d
>>>>mesh in a viewport... this is much easier and more intuitive than
> doing
>>>>it in a flat texture view, as you can see the texture being affected
>
>>>>whereever you tweak.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Warning, more 'improvements' requested below. Ignore if you please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Selection workflow in XSI is one of my biggest beefs with the program
>
>>>>when it comes to modeling. The one thing that would make everything
>>>>easier for me is to be able to just have a simple 'edit' mode for
> models
>>>>- where all elements are selectable (much the same way that the tweak
>
>>>>tool works now) this would eliminate having to use multiple keybinds
> to
>>>>switch element selection types. If you want a really good example of
> how
>>>>much this can improve workflow, download Silo and give the demo a
> try.
>>>>It has a multi-selection mode that does just this. The mode is bound
> to
>>>>my thumb button on my mouse and it also doubles as a 'clear
> selection'
>>>>tool so that it can revert to being able to select any element your
> mouse
>>>>passes over. Once an element is selected you can only
> select/deselect
>>>>more of that element until you drop the selection.
>>>>Something like this could easily be added to the spacebar as a state
>>>>toggle from object to element selection in XSI. Then all you'd have
> to
>>>>worry about are your methods, such as window, lasso, paint etc.
> These
>>>>could also use some streamlining instead of binding them to specific
>>>>element types, which more than triples the amount of keybinds you
> need
>>>>just for doing basic selections. I'd sooner just have a dropdown menu
> on
>>>>one of my toolbars or some kind of mode cycling (perhaps bound to a
>>>>key/mousewheel combination). My point being that selection methods
>>>>should not be tied to specific element types.
>>>>Paint selection is one of my most used selection methods. Would be
>>>>awesome if I could use the mousewheel to grow/shrink an actual paint
>>>>cursor that gets remembered for each element type. So for edges and
>>>>polygons I might have it reduced to just the size of the cursor most
> of
>>>>the time - the way it works now. But for verts I might keep it a
> little
>>>>larger for capturing more points within a stroke. Being able to
> combine a
>>>>modifier (sticky) key with the left mouse button might also be a good
> way
>>>>to switch selection methods on the fly.
>>>>Anyway, I ramble because I care. =D
>>>>Might or might not be the right place to post this but I figure so
> long
>>>>as the possibility exists that someone in the right place sees it and
>
>>>>something actually happens as a result then it's all worth it.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>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
>
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
