Quote:
|
I can see what you are saying but I do not expect you to please me or have a portfolio. What I am saying is that if you are going to state that Modo is a much better modeler than Hexagon you should at least be able to use both programs and produce a simple figure in both programs if you want anyone to take your advice. You can then show screen shots of the technic used between the two programs. You can not just assume the information on a website about the competiton is true. Show me why one is better and easier. I have had people show why a technic in one program is better than another. That is good to see posted. That is what these forums are all about. Thomas does post screen shots and images to give him credability.
|
Ok. I'll chime in here. Its remaining mostly polite, lets keep it that way
I think you are confusing what is being said here. I don't feel that he is saying that the workflow is necessarily better in XSI, which surely by default its not better than say Hexagon (for modeling). But it does have a much larger toolset and flexibility than Carrara. Along with that you CAN customize it to work how YOU want to work. For example, you can write a script to do a set function (or set of functions) that you perform often. That can't be done in Hexagon or Carrara.
If you want to see real examples of XSI functionality. I'd suggest checking out
http://www.xsi-blog.com
Or watch the mesmer videos talked about above. XSI is not BETTER, its more FLEXIBLE. Its one of the few applications I've looked at if I were to leave Carrara. It has a massive learning curve, but the rewards are great.