🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30-Mar-96 15:11:34, Anthony R Pierre <apierre@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <1817.6662T674T1453@execpc.com> jeffsj@execpc.com (Jeffery S. Jones)
>writes:
>>
>>On 28-Mar-96 20:50:33, starecjc@hydra.zrz.tu-berlin.de

>>>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...)...

>>  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.

>I have been using Imagine since v.1. Guess I am too lazy to change to
>anything else although I have LW with my Toaster. BUT the big
>difference is in animation, I can play it back from RAM while unless
>you have the latest LW, you cant. Nice to have the ease of animation,
>but for me, getting it to tape is important and I dont have the
>resources to get a PAR or update LW. I also use Imagine on the PC. It
>again costs me less to have it running on both PC and Amiga's  (2 of
>them. Sorta like a small rendering farm) and the tech support from
>Impulse is great (another very important aspect). Impulse is constantly
>making upgrades (cant wait for an interface change though!) and even
>though the PC version runs from DOS (I really dont care about that),
>they do have a Win version but the cost and overhead are that much
>greater. As for speed...well just as fast as your system allows. And of
>course, 4megs of ram is cutting it REAL CLOSE.

  If someone is going to buy Lightwave, I'd assume that they will get
the latest version, or update to it.  In any case, you could always make
RAM-playable animations from LW if you rendered single frames and
combined them into an animation, with something like Rend24.  You do not
have to have a PAR, or something similar.  But a PAR, or any other
playback device with 24 bit color, would help out any 3D animator.

  But, in your opinion, which is easier to use to create animations,
Imagine or Lightwave?  Try to ignore your experience using Imagine;
which has the easier learning curve, is faster to set up animations, is
more productive?

>I am sure that you will find different choices from different people.
>LW is more 'visible' due to Amblin and B5 people and it has a lot of
>support. While Imagine does cost less and offers a bunch of features
>and will allow you almost infinite control over every aspect of what
>you due.

  Cost is a factor, naturally.  But I do think that the cost difference
between Imagine and Lightwave definitely favors LW.  Though if you have
enough money, you can get both, and Imagine is a good second program,
for its texture-generation if nothing else.  Yes, there are other add-on
programs for LW for that, and lightwave includes many of its own, but
Imagine is really quite good at it.


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