🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi!

On 28-Mar-96 17:50:33, starecjc@hydra.zrz.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> 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,  I've read what the LightWave/Imagine guys have said.  I've used both
Imagine  (for more than 1 year) and LightWave (for some 3 years) and then
I moved to Real3D (by the end of '94).

All of them have their pros and cons, but there's one thing you must know
on  3D software:  you need powerful hardware and lots of memory to do any
serious  work.  So, if you want your work to compete with the other guys,
my  first  suggestion  is  to get a new machine to work with.  If you can
afford,  a  Pentium 120+Mhz with 32Mb RAM would be excellent.  If you can
not  afford  a  new machine, try getting at least some extra 4Mb Fast RAM
for  your  A1200.   That's about the same configuration I have on my A500
(2Mb  Chip/8  Mb Fast, '030/40Mhz, '882/40Mhz).  With this configuration,
you  can run any 3D software with an acceptable ammount of memory to make
simple projects.

Now for the software question.  Let me assemble a little table to compare
LightWave, Imagine and Real3D (based on how they perform on my A500):

                          -----------------------------------------------
                           LightWave 4.0     Imagine 4.0     Real3D 3.11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rendering Speed                 ***              ****             **
Rendering Quality              ****              ****          *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ease to Learn                 *****               ***             **
Ease to Use                    ****               ***           ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling Features               ***              ****          *****
Animation Features              ***              ****          *****
Rendering Features             ****              ****           ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-Party Support           *****               ***           ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS (sum)                     31                29             31
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As  you  can see, they're almost equal.  Imagine lose by 2 points because
of  it's  weird  interface  and  also  because of the lack of third-party
support.   Then  you  may  ask  why  I chose Real3D, if it's tied up with
LightWave  and almost everybody uses LightWave.  The answer is simple:  I
don't  care  too  much  about what people are using (If I did, I would be
using  a  PC in the first place), and I also think that built-in features
and  rendering  quality  are  far  more  important than ease to learn and
rendering  speed.   A  software  with  less  features is always easier to
learn.   And  you  can  boost  speed  with  hardware, but the same is not
applicable to quality.

I hope that helps.

--
   //   WAGNER SCHIEBER -------------------------------------------------
 \X/    3D Animator - HTML Master           wagsch@br.homeshopping.com.br
AMIGA   Sao Paulo - BRAZIL ----------------------------------------------
--
Visit my homepage  --->  http://www.lookup.com/Homepages/100541/home.html