And in the end, you wonder of you really do end up saving any time?
I agree, these vendors should be made to provide more detail to verify
the quality of their models.
Viewpoint used to be horrendous in this regard. Hopefully, now that MAX
polys mashes support quads, well see an improvement in standard.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf
Of kim aldis
Sent: August 4, 2006 10:31 AM
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: RE: XSI needs UV editor improvements
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On
> Behalf Of Andre DeAngelis
> Sent: 04 August 2006 15:26
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: RE: XSI needs UV editor improvements
>
> I couldn't agree more Kim.
>
> How my times do you get a model you purchased and realised you would
> have been better off modelling the thing yourself
[kim aldis]
Every single time, without fail. It's our own fault, though. We just
take
what we're given, fix it and move on. Of course, we have to because
we're
deadline driven but we should still complain.
The other thing I hate is the way they just assume that filtering the
high
resolution model is all that's needed to make a low res one. They score
on 2
counts; firstly they save money, secondly the result is so bloody awful
you've no choice but to go for the more expensive one when really you
shouldn't need to.
---
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
