I planning to buy softimage XSI foundation - Page 3 - Polyloop

medeamajic · 25th August 2006, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reactor

Apologies for taking so long to post. I usually get emailed when there's a reply, but I've received nothing.

Medeamajic, you need to grow up. I'm not an animator, but that doesn't mean I lack an understanding of Carrara's animation, rendering, or modeling limitations compared to XSI. I'm actually an indie game developer. You can see an example of what I've done here- www.superfurious.com It's old work, and I'm currently undergoing so training before getting back into what I'm passionate about. As for you, I don't really care what you've done. You need to get that bitter chip from off your shoulder and stop having a go at people.

I won't be wasting my time producing a pointless animation. I have a number of other tasks I'm currently involved with which I'd prefer to focus on. Am I a professional? I have no idea. My references to XSI's toolset being developed for a professional audience is simply due to the fact it has a proven track record in a production environment. Mental Ray is what they call a 'production proven' renderer, which means that it's been through many trials and tests over the years and is something pro guys (the real pro guys working day in, day out on demanding projects) can trust. It Carrara's rendering engine good? I like it for what it does, sure. Is it production proven? Not that I'm aware of, other than a few uses in budget films. XSI's render tree and texture adjustment controls provide the kind of exacting control you often need when rendering out huge animations for demanding clients. Will I ever need those controls? More than likely not- I purchased XSI because I liked how it felt to use. I've learned about these things afterwards.

The same is true of animation, and if you want to sit on this forum all day long mouthing off about things... hey, be my guest. It's not my job to explain the advantages of a program to you, or prove it to you by jumping through the rings of fire you set for me. You've got a brain and a desire. Go and learn the program and you'll see. If you don't want to, just remain ignorant to it and enjoy the programs you have.

Do me a favor as well, and stop over reacting. I've used many, many different 3D programs, and there's nothing wrong with me talking positively about XSI. I use Carrara and enjoy it just as much as XSI, and to be honest, you just make yourself look like a fool by having a go at me for nothing. Take it easy- we're all on the same side here. Anyone these days can take a 3D package (like Carrara) and produce excellent work. I understand how annoying it can be to have some guys who know nothing at all bag Carrara in favor of something like Vue, but that's not what I've been doing here.

A good 3D toolbox has more than one tool, which I have.

Reactor,

I do not apologize for my post.

Do I need to grow up or do you need to learn how to use the XSI software instead of just reading info at the XSI website? I do not see why you would not post a few images or a video for us unless you do not know how to use XSI. In this post you admit you are not an animator but that does not mean you lack the understanding that XSI has better modeling, rigging and rendering. I am not arguing that XSI is not a better program than Carrara. I think your confused about the issue. I want you to show me why XSI is better than Carrara with a few examples of your portfolio not just info you read at the XSI website. I could have posted everything you have reactor. I do not care if you post good comments about XSI being better than Carrara but you should at the very least be able to use the XSI software and Carrara software if you are going to comment about the modeling and rigging being better than Carrara. I know the Mental Ray is a good rendering engine. I also know XSI can produce better renders than Carrara. I can talk the talk just as good as you but why waist the time if I can not walk the walk in case someone should want a few examples?

Is it just me or should I know how to use Boris FX and After Effects if I am going to post that Boris FX is much better than Adobe's After Effects? I think I should do more than just read info off the websites.

Nichod · 25th August 2006, 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by medeamajic

Reactor,

I do not apologize for my post.

Do I need to grow up or do you need to learn how to use the XSI software instead of just reading info at the XSI website? I do not see why you would not post a few images or a video for us unless you do not know how to use XSI.

Enough guys. Lets keep this civil and on topic. No need to act like this.

Reactor · 25th August 2006, 12:20

Not a problem, Nichod. I'll do my best to keep things both interesting and civil.

Medeamajic, I know what your point is. And, it's a fair one to make. If someone is going to comment on something, they should have a decent level of understanding of it. The main problem is, how much should they have? It's silly to say they should have enough to develop either a portfolio or perform some artistic feat with the software which pleases you.

I know guys who are really new to certain applications, but they've been in the 3D game so long, I sit up and take notice when they comment on an application. Do you ignore Thomas when he starts playing around with a new app like Modo? No, you listen, because he's a knowledgable guy. Does he need a killer portfolio? No- it's obvious to me when someone is talking sense. If a guy has been involved behind the scenes with compositing work for years, but has no portfolio to show other than the work he did with a large team, do you ignore him when he comments on applications? Do you tell him he's an idiot if he can't make killer CG composite that pleases you? No, you'd be dumb if you did that. You listen, because chances are you'll learn something.

I'm not going to run out and produce some waste of time art, simply to appease you. I'm sorry, but I don't think someone's ability to produce something decent looking in an application makes them some kind of authority on that thing. I can whip up a pretty darn good render in Carrara, but I've only been using Carrara for a little while now. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about it as some of the guys on here are. Still, I've spent a lot of time learning about rendering, so when push comes to shove, I can get a fairly good result from any application on the market, even if I haven't used it before.

The 3D market is filled with a lot of guys making comments about software and techniques which they're quite clueless about. The response to that isn't to be an arrogant git and challenge every one of them. The response is to accept that at some time in the past, many of us were exactly the same, and so you correct them, and teach them.

I hope you can see what I'm saying.

medeamajic · 25th August 2006, 14:00

Reactor,

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.

I disagree with you about listening to what other say about software and then passing the information off as fact. I think you must actually use it your self to give an accurate and fair opinion. I have heard professoinals give false information many times and even read false information when a program is getting revued in a magazine.

Most of the folks over at DAZ have Vue, Bryce, Carrara, True Space, Lightwave, Poser and a few have XSI. I see post about how Vue can do this and Carrara can not. It is sad that the person posting the information has never even tried to use the shader tree of Carrara not to mention Carrara can do many of the things that Vue does but the people just do not know how to use the software. I think we can all agree there are many wanna bees. That is why I got sick of the Daz forums. To many people posting about what they read rather than actually being able to use the software and demonstrate the technique used. I know XSI, Maya and even 3DS Max can do some great figure animation but I opt not to post about any of them since I do not actually use them nor could I demonstrate the superior modeling tools of XSI over Carrara. If I buy XSI and like it I will infact show screen shots of how great the rigging and modeling is compared to Carrara to let others know what XSI has to offer.

Nichod · 25th August 2006, 14:53

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.

Sketchy · 25th August 2006, 18:33

The Great Master Grendel wrote:

Quote:

A good analogy is from Spider-Man "With great power comes great responsibility"

LOL! Couldn't agree more with that famous quote of Spidey.

Reactor · 25th August 2006, 18:40

Nichod hit the nail on the head there. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Quote:

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.

I'm not sure who said that, but it wasn't me. Aside from a few workflow issues and bugs, I'm a happy Hex 2 user. Modo's modeling tools on the other hand were quite buggy, and hard to use. So... you won't hear me talking up Modo over Hex 2 for modeling

medeamajic · 26th August 2006, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichod

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.

Nichod,

I am not confusing any thing but I think you might be confused. I am not saying XSI does not have a great tool set. I am not asking info about XSI. Why can't any of you just post a simple image or AVI of something you have done with the XSI software? I say show me don't tell. I am not saying Vue can not do great land scapes but what I like to see are images by people that can actually use the software and show screen shots rahter than posts by people who just repeat what is on the website.

I can post Maya is a very powefull software program for figure animation. It has much more powerfull features for rigging than Carrara. If you want to see proof look at Spider Man 2. The shots of Doctor Octopus in the Water and climbing the walls were done with Maya. I can post how great Maya is but I opt not to because I can not actually prove it. My statement does not show anyone why the rigging in Maya is better than Carrara. It shows than I can read the Maya website and trust that Maya has better rigging and rendering than Carrara and Lightwave. If I do buy XSI and like the rigging more than Carrara you can all bet your sweet arses I will show some screen shots of the rigging of XSI VS Carrara.

I guess I will just be one of the boys and start posting about how great Maya and XSI are even though I can not actually use either of them. I wanna blend in.

Reactor,

I used Modo as an example. If you post Modo/XSI is much better than Hexagon I would expect you to be very good with both. Reactor, I know you now realize the point of my other post but now I think Nichod is confused.

Reactor · 26th August 2006, 11:16

Well, I agree with you to a point, but I don't agree that someone should have to prove something before they're allowed to talk about it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, at what point is someone 'worthy' (so to speak) to speak about a certain bit of software? And, who in the world determines that what they've produced is good enough? I'm sure there are guys who are better than you out there, so because you can't create something as good as them, does that mean you shouldn't comment on any software? Of course not. That'd be silly.

Quote:

If you post Modo/XSI is much better than Hexagon I would expect you to be very good with both.

How good is 'very good'? I don't think that's definable.

The fact of life is this- you can't tell between those who know what they're talking about, and those who don't. I know it bugs you, but you're going to have to live with that fact. Many of us deal with it in a much more gracious way than challenging everyone to 'put up or shut up'. And besides, a lot of what 3D newbies say is valid. There really is no better or worse in 3D, so when they say Silo is better than Hex 2, it is... for them at that time. We may disagree for good reason, but that's life. They're still entitled to their opinion.

Nichod's not confused. He was simply clarifying what my original point was.

Quote:

I can post how great Maya is but I opt not to because I can not actually prove it.

I think that's a very admirable thing to do (one I agree with) but I don't think it should be law for everyone, for the above reasons.

medeamajic · 26th August 2006, 12:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reactor

Well, I agree with you to a point, but I don't agree that someone should have to prove something before they're allowed to talk about it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, at what point is someone 'worthy' (so to speak) to speak about a certain bit of software? And, who in the world determines that what they've produced is good enough? I'm sure there are guys who are better than you out there, so because you can't create something as good as them, does that mean you shouldn't comment on any software? Of course not. That'd be silly.

How good is 'very good'? I don't think that's definable.

The fact of life is this- you can't tell between those who know what they're talking about, and those who don't. I know it bugs you, but you're going to have to live with that fact. Many of us deal with it in a much more gracious way than challenging everyone to 'put up or shut up'. And besides, a lot of what 3D newbies say is valid. There really is no better or worse in 3D, so when they say Silo is better than Hex 2, it is... for them at that time. We may disagree for good reason, but that's life. They're still entitled to their opinion.

Nichod's not confused. He was simply clarifying what my original point was.

I think that's a very admirable thing to do (one I agree with) but I don't think it should be law for everyone, for the above reasons.

Opinions are fine. Statements like Hexagon worked better for me than Modo or I could not figure out the GUI of Animation Master are not the same as a person announcing XSI has a far better modeling and rigging system than Carrara if they can not use either program. That is not an opinion but you are stating a fact (it may be wrong). There is a big difference. I am not saying I am great at 3-D but I can comment about Poser, Bryce and Carrara since I have them and can use them. You can comment about Maya and so can I. I would not post Maya has a much better rigging system than Carrara but I might post that movies like Spider Man 2 made use of Maya. I would not want to say to much about a product I can not use. I think others may agree that might be the wise thing to do. Opinons are different than a statement that is presented as fact. If I posted XSI has a far better modeler than Carrara I think I should be able to use the XSI and Carrara modeler. If I post I have read that the experts use the XSI modeler for Hollywood movies I am letting you now I do not know jack about XSI but I have read that it is good. It may or may not be a better program than Lightwave or Carrara.

I do not think you have to be an expert with XSI or Carrara but you should be able to use the bones, modeling and morhping features of both Carrara and XSI if you are going to post that XSI has a far better modeling and rigging than Carrara even if it is only an opinion. Demonstrate how you decided this to be true. Can you use the the bones and morphing in either XSI or Carrara or are you just being led by blind faith? As of now I think you can see why I called you out. Perhaps I should not have. It was nothing personal. I have done this in hopes that the forums are not flooded with Maya and XSI wannabees but true XSI , Carrara and Maya users who can demonstrate the difference for us. I hope you can appreciate that.

You seem very passionate out XSI and you seem like a good person at heart for trying to spread the word.

Nichod · 26th August 2006, 14:00

Quote:

I do not think you have to be an expert with XSI or Carrara but you should be able to use the bones, modeling and morhping features of both Carrara and XSI if you are going to post that XSI has a far better modeling and rigging than Carrara even if it is only an opinion. Demonstrate how you decided this to be true. Can you use the the bones and morphing in either XSI or Carrara or are you just being led by blind faith? As of now I think you can see why I called you out. Perhaps I should not have. It was nothing personal. I have done this in hopes that the forums are not flooded with Maya and XSI wannabees but true XSI , Carrara and Maya users who can demonstrate the difference for us. I hope you can appreciate that.

I'm one of the few people to have constructed a complex rig in Carrara. You can see it here: http://forums.polyloop.net/showthrea...ight=character

As far as XSI is concerned, I've merely been evaluating it. I'll post some "screenshots" later (when I get home) but I will tell you that Carrara has nothing on XSI. Rigging and animating is LIGHTYEARS ahead of Carrara. For example, I worked through a tutorial on Edharris.com where a set of "muscle" nulls could be created to flex a character's muscles as you animated it. (This is in foundation by the way) It was also possible to automate a realistic breathing effect. I only went through the tutorial partially just to see the effect. Using some info from XSI-blog.com I also created a simple toon stretch effect which impressed me. Something thats NOT possible in Carrara at all.

Ok. Back to the original topic. Who has actually purchased XSI? I looked into a deal for Carrara users on Cinema4D 9.6 XL/Studio and thought it was a joke. $2500 HAHAHAHA! Sorry, but I can buy a new computer and XSI with money left over for that.

For those looking into adding XSI to their toolset, I'd suggest buying from Sharbor. I've purchased from them in the past and they have an excellent deal. Only $369 for XSI foundation. And you can purchase the DVD tutorials for ~$50. I'd recommend taking a look at the digital-tutor video series if you buy XSI. Excellent series.

medeamajic · 27th August 2006, 01:35

I do not disagree that XSI has some great features for figure animation. I can say that myself but when I read Reactor's post I was inclined to think he was very experienced wiht both Carrara and XSI. In a nut shell if I posted Carrara'a rigging blows away XSI I imagine some of you would call me out to prove it. It would be OK to want proof. I would like to think I would do more than just make a post to the Carrara website but rather show you the advanced rigging in Carrara (I know XSI is better). I am stating for the record that I know XSI can do more complex figure animation than Carrara but talking about features is one thing, demonstrating them with some thing you have created is much better in my opinion and that is what I wanted form Creator. Creator has responded to my satisfaction as of now. Even Creator stated he could see my point. I am saying some screen shots like I did when asked about Bryce VS Carrara for shaders would be nice rather than just talking about XSI being used for Hollywood movies.

Reactor · 27th August 2006, 09:32

I purchased Foundation, but it was through an Australian reseller. The only issue I have with XSI is that an upgrade path for Foundation is lacking, so when looking to go from 4.2 to 5, I didn't bother because the same cost again just wasn't worth it. My next re-purchase may be version 6, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 7.

Something to keep in mind, if looking to purchase it.

Medeamajic, I certainly see your point, but I still don't agree two people can (for example) argue over which program has better shaders, and see that resolved by having both people compare their created shaders. Sometimes, the feature list of a program is the best place to go, because it outlines the facts (assuming you do the research to find out the systems the program uses).

Of course, if a program has the potential to do great things, it has just that. Potential. At the end of the day, it's the artist who determines what is produced by using the program.

medeamajic · 27th August 2006, 12:48

What I am saying is, if you want to see a screen shot of the Carrara plant/tree editor I could post a screen shot. I could post a screen shot of the Bryce plant and tree editor. I can say I think the Bryce plant and tree editor is easier because the shaders are adjusted in the plant/tree editor instead of in a shader room like Carrara. I can state the rigging of bones is better in Carrara than in Bryce by posting a fully rigged figure in Carrara. Bryce on the other hand can not do rigging at all so Carrara wins by default.

Somethings can not be argued. Premiere is much better for video editing than MS Word.

On a side note. In some ways I like the way the Daz/Poser models are animated/posed in Carrara (rotation tool) better than Poser but at other times I like the way it is done in Poser (dials). Some time Poser user will argue that the rigging in Carrara sucks. The figures are rigged like in Poser. Thomas is good at rigging. He is much better than myself. My Daz models did have good rigging but there is a difference in the actual posing and animating between Carrara and Poser. I do not use Daz models but I did test it out. I did not want to post about the Native Daz/Poser support with out trying it first. That is just the kind of guy I am.
I have nothing bad to say about you personally Reactor. I imagine I will get XSI around Christmas time this year. I imagine I will like it and post about the great modeling and rigging features but not until I have learned how to use them both. We are just a bit different in the way we give information. Perhaps your way is best.

Reactor · 27th August 2006, 13:11

Quote:

Somethings can not be argued. Premiere is much better for video editing than MS Word.

Hey, I'd like to see some video editing done in Premiere before I accept that remark! (just kidding!

)

I look forward to hearing your perspective on XSI when you manage to grab it, medeamajic. On a side note, I missed where you posted some of your work. Do you have a link?

Nichod · 27th August 2006, 15:00

Quote:

I purchased Foundation, but it was through an Australian reseller. The only issue I have with XSI is that an upgrade path for Foundation is lacking, so when looking to go from 4.2 to 5, I didn't bother because the same cost again just wasn't worth it. My next re-purchase may be version 6, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 7.

Watch for immediately after the release. They tend to have a "special" price. I think for version 5 it was half the price or something. Version 5 is useful if for nothing else but the ability to use the gigapolygon core.

Reactor · 27th August 2006, 17:09

I watched for a long time, and don't remember any special offers... especially not half price off Foundation.

With 4.2 I also picked up the DVD training, which was a bargain at the time

So, I'm hardly complaining. 4.2 will be a great program for many years to come, assuming I can handle the bugs which didn't get fixed.

Jolran · 27th August 2006, 17:37

Actually, I upgraded to version 5 to get the shape manager. You dont have that in 4.2. I kind of like that thing.

medeamajic · 27th August 2006, 17:56

I posted a few things in the Daz forums and sent a few PMs a while back. If you do a search for thess forums you might find a rigged figure I posted and you should see an AVI with an orbital pan on a motion path along with a few screen shots. I posted a few other things hear and there. I had some people post screen shot on how to build a guitar. I was told my way was the chessy way but I still use it. I use the spline modeler of Carrara. I think there may be a few screen shots of that some where. You should be able to find them. Keep in mind I only make posts with screen shot or images if I need help or I am helping someone else. The images will look chessy if they are just for demonstration. I think I have posted more camera moves than anything else. This image was the most recent image I posted (a few months ago). I just wanted to know if my apples looked like apples or not (I used Hexagon).

27th August 2006, 17:56	#59 (permalink)
medeamajic Now, I learn animation Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,026 My Photos: (2)	I posted a few things in the Daz forums and sent a few PMs a while back. If you do a search for thess forums you might find a rigged figure I posted and you should see an AVI with an orbital pan on a motion path along with a few screen shots. I posted a few other things hear and there. I had some people post screen shot on how to build a guitar. I was told my way was the chessy way but I still use it. I use the spline modeler of Carrara. I think there may be a few screen shots of that some where. You should be able to find them. Keep in mind I only make posts with screen shot or images if I need help or I am helping someone else. The images will look chessy if they are just for demonstration. I think I have posted more camera moves than anything else. This image was the most recent image I posted (a few months ago). I just wanted to know if my apples looked like apples or not (I used Hexagon). Attached Thumbnails

25th August 2006, 12:20	#43 (permalink)
Reactor NURBS Booleans are your friend Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 117 My Photos: (0)	Not a problem, Nichod. I'll do my best to keep things both interesting and civil. Medeamajic, I know what your point is. And, it's a fair one to make. If someone is going to comment on something, they should have a decent level of understanding of it. The main problem is, how much should they have? It's silly to say they should have enough to develop either a portfolio or perform some artistic feat with the software which pleases you. I know guys who are really new to certain applications, but they've been in the 3D game so long, I sit up and take notice when they comment on an application. Do you ignore Thomas when he starts playing around with a new app like Modo? No, you listen, because he's a knowledgable guy. Does he need a killer portfolio? No- it's obvious to me when someone is talking sense. If a guy has been involved behind the scenes with compositing work for years, but has no portfolio to show other than the work he did with a large team, do you ignore him when he comments on applications? Do you tell him he's an idiot if he can't make killer CG composite that pleases you? No, you'd be dumb if you did that. You listen, because chances are you'll learn something. I'm not going to run out and produce some waste of time art, simply to appease you. I'm sorry, but I don't think someone's ability to produce something decent looking in an application makes them some kind of authority on that thing. I can whip up a pretty darn good render in Carrara, but I've only been using Carrara for a little while now. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about it as some of the guys on here are. Still, I've spent a lot of time learning about rendering, so when push comes to shove, I can get a fairly good result from any application on the market, even if I haven't used it before. The 3D market is filled with a lot of guys making comments about software and techniques which they're quite clueless about. The response to that isn't to be an arrogant git and challenge every one of them. The response is to accept that at some time in the past, many of us were exactly the same, and so you correct them, and teach them. I hope you can see what I'm saying.

25th August 2006, 14:00	#44 (permalink)
medeamajic Now, I learn animation Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,026 My Photos: (2)	Reactor, 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. I disagree with you about listening to what other say about software and then passing the information off as fact. I think you must actually use it your self to give an accurate and fair opinion. I have heard professoinals give false information many times and even read false information when a program is getting revued in a magazine. Most of the folks over at DAZ have Vue, Bryce, Carrara, True Space, Lightwave, Poser and a few have XSI. I see post about how Vue can do this and Carrara can not. It is sad that the person posting the information has never even tried to use the shader tree of Carrara not to mention Carrara can do many of the things that Vue does but the people just do not know how to use the software. I think we can all agree there are many wanna bees. That is why I got sick of the Daz forums. To many people posting about what they read rather than actually being able to use the software and demonstrate the technique used. I know XSI, Maya and even 3DS Max can do some great figure animation but I opt not to post about any of them since I do not actually use them nor could I demonstrate the superior modeling tools of XSI over Carrara. If I buy XSI and like it I will infact show screen shots of how great the rigging and modeling is compared to Carrara to let others know what XSI has to offer.

27th August 2006, 01:35	#52 (permalink)
medeamajic Now, I learn animation Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,026 My Photos: (2)	I do not disagree that XSI has some great features for figure animation. I can say that myself but when I read Reactor's post I was inclined to think he was very experienced wiht both Carrara and XSI. In a nut shell if I posted Carrara'a rigging blows away XSI I imagine some of you would call me out to prove it. It would be OK to want proof. I would like to think I would do more than just make a post to the Carrara website but rather show you the advanced rigging in Carrara (I know XSI is better). I am stating for the record that I know XSI can do more complex figure animation than Carrara but talking about features is one thing, demonstrating them with some thing you have created is much better in my opinion and that is what I wanted form Creator. Creator has responded to my satisfaction as of now. Even Creator stated he could see my point. I am saying some screen shots like I did when asked about Bryce VS Carrara for shaders would be nice rather than just talking about XSI being used for Hollywood movies.

27th August 2006, 09:32	#53 (permalink)
Reactor NURBS Booleans are your friend Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 117 My Photos: (0)	I purchased Foundation, but it was through an Australian reseller. The only issue I have with XSI is that an upgrade path for Foundation is lacking, so when looking to go from 4.2 to 5, I didn't bother because the same cost again just wasn't worth it. My next re-purchase may be version 6, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 7. Something to keep in mind, if looking to purchase it. Medeamajic, I certainly see your point, but I still don't agree two people can (for example) argue over which program has better shaders, and see that resolved by having both people compare their created shaders. Sometimes, the feature list of a program is the best place to go, because it outlines the facts (assuming you do the research to find out the systems the program uses). Of course, if a program has the potential to do great things, it has just that. Potential. At the end of the day, it's the artist who determines what is produced by using the program.

27th August 2006, 12:48	#54 (permalink)
medeamajic Now, I learn animation Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,026 My Photos: (2)	What I am saying is, if you want to see a screen shot of the Carrara plant/tree editor I could post a screen shot. I could post a screen shot of the Bryce plant and tree editor. I can say I think the Bryce plant and tree editor is easier because the shaders are adjusted in the plant/tree editor instead of in a shader room like Carrara. I can state the rigging of bones is better in Carrara than in Bryce by posting a fully rigged figure in Carrara. Bryce on the other hand can not do rigging at all so Carrara wins by default. Somethings can not be argued. Premiere is much better for video editing than MS Word. On a side note. In some ways I like the way the Daz/Poser models are animated/posed in Carrara (rotation tool) better than Poser but at other times I like the way it is done in Poser (dials). Some time Poser user will argue that the rigging in Carrara sucks. The figures are rigged like in Poser. Thomas is good at rigging. He is much better than myself. My Daz models did have good rigging but there is a difference in the actual posing and animating between Carrara and Poser. I do not use Daz models but I did test it out. I did not want to post about the Native Daz/Poser support with out trying it first. That is just the kind of guy I am. I have nothing bad to say about you personally Reactor. I imagine I will get XSI around Christmas time this year. I imagine I will like it and post about the great modeling and rigging features but not until I have learned how to use them both. We are just a bit different in the way we give information. Perhaps your way is best.

27th August 2006, 17:09	#57 (permalink)
Reactor NURBS Booleans are your friend Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 117 My Photos: (0)	I watched for a long time, and don't remember any special offers... especially not half price off Foundation. With 4.2 I also picked up the DVD training, which was a bargain at the time So, I'm hardly complaining. 4.2 will be a great program for many years to come, assuming I can handle the bugs which didn't get fixed.

27th August 2006, 17:37	#58 (permalink)
Jolran NURBS Booleans are your friend Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 118 My Photos: (0)	Actually, I upgraded to version 5 to get the shape manager. You dont have that in 4.2. I kind of like that thing.