🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28-Mar-96 20:50:33, starecjc@hydra.zrz.tu-berlin.de
<starecjc@hydra.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> wrote:
>Hello !


>Because i'm absolutely new in the subject (rendering...3d-gfx...) i
>want to ask some of you what are the (essential) differences between
>this gfx-programs...what are the minimal configs one needs to work
>(seriously) with each one?

>Which one of this programs is fastest/gives the best results and so on
>?

>I want to choose a program for doing some 3D-Animations (or rendering)
>that also runs fine with only 4 megs of fastram on an A1200 with
>030/40mhz and
>882/50mhz fpu...LW seems to be a memhog to me and what i've seen from
>imagine so far i don't like it's user-interface very much...(sh*tty
>configuration and system-nonconform gadgets etc...)...

>Ok...thank you for help (write your experiences ;

  In this area of programming, you tend to get what you pay for :)

  I use Lightwave.  With 8 megs fast, 2 megs chip, it worked pretty
well, and more memory only makes it better.  With 4 megs fastram, you
may find a strong need for something like VMM, but running it in virtual
memory will tend to slow things down.

  Lightwave, however, works exceptionally well.  Most important to me,
is that it is so easy to learn and use.  The learning curve for simple
animation projects is minimal.  And the program produces great results,
renders quickly, etc.  The new plug-in structure allows the program to
be expanded, and it always had excellent Arexx support.

  As to the others, each has useful features, and for projects which
depend specifically on them, they can work quite well.

--
*-__________________________ | *Starfire* | _________________________-*
Jeff Jones  email:jeffsj@execpc.com  *//* Amiga Lives! |Born
*TFG* *Starfire* Design Studio        *\\//* 1985-1994,    |again 1995!
--