|
|
3D World Review is in
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
3D World Review is in // Roundtable
Post by i_maker // Mar 27, 2006, 8:55am
|
i_maker
Total Posts: 156
|
Thanks for that Splinters. Coming straight from 6.6, I am still struggling to find a raison d'être for Player. Although I have ts7, I am using mostly Modeler because this is what I am familiar with. It is a very steep learning curve getting used to ts7: new gui, tools, render engines, etc... Hope to get there before too long. |
Post by Cayenne // Mar 27, 2006, 10:33am
|
Cayenne
Total Posts: 144
|
Thanks for that, Frank. Can you render to file at high resolution from the Player like you can from Modeler?
Highest resolution I see in the settings is for WHUXGA at 7680 x 4800 however I am not sure on the typical hardware that would be needed to produce output in this size.
the model was a basic mesh 524 faces made some while back in tS6.6.
I then used just the player modeling tools and new SDS features the loop and face selections mainly, did some bridging with new tools and the final mesh is 96541 faces .
Took about one hour to build up some detail and find a suitable texture.
Texture is from the player library I started with the purple one called fancy cross, and changed the texture and normal maps to a 512 texture and 512 Normal map of my own. |
Post by splinters // Mar 27, 2006, 10:38am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Simple selling point i_maker;
Load up your supercar and place a spotlight above it with shadows enabled. Now switch to player. If your PC spec is up to it you can swing your camera view around that baby at 60fps-it looks very impressive. Now move the spotlight around and watch the realtime shadows. Now imagine you can just hit a render button to get that pic without rendering.
Now where is that HDRI render of that car you promised?
Any help you need-just ask.....:) |
Post by i_maker // Mar 27, 2006, 11:25am
|
i_maker
Total Posts: 156
|
Thanks for the answer, Cayenne.
Splinters, thanks for the tip. I did some preliminary test renders with HDRI, and was rather disappointed with the results. I was also a bit surprised that a scene with 1.3 million polygons took just under an hour to render in ts6.6, came up with an "out of memory" error when rendered in ts7 (using the same PC). Looks like ts7 is more memory-hungry than ts6.6...
But I will persevere ... |
Post by splinters // Mar 27, 2006, 11:26am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
That might be the bridge. Are you working in full layout or default layout? If you are in default then try full layout and see if that helps. |
Post by i_maker // Mar 27, 2006, 11:35am
|
i_maker
Total Posts: 156
|
Splinters, is there anyway of turning off that bridge? There is a mention of this in the artist guide, but the guide does not show how to do this... |
Post by splinters // Mar 27, 2006, 11:59am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Sure is. Go to default mode and click on the preference icon (hammer and spanner icon).
You can adjust bridge from there. Turn it off but make sure you do not want to use player or Vray as these require the bridge; |
Post by Burnart // Mar 27, 2006, 12:21pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
I stand by my earlier statement that realtime "photo-realistic" display is an exaggeration and that certainly would influence the outcome of an unbiased review.
Paul your image was very nice and I'm sure you and the beta team have a whole swag of good ones. tS7 has made an amazing advance in live display no question about that but it isn't "photo-realistic" and that is my point. It doesn't show all those attributes I could achieve in photography such as (for want of better terms) hdri reflectivity, global illumination, depth of field, accurate shadows etc. Even saying NEAR "photo-realistic" is a statement about what it ISN'T - I think Caligari should be promoting the player view in tS7 for what it IS, a truly fabulous live tool. |
Post by Naes3d // Mar 27, 2006, 12:35pm
|
Naes3d
Total Posts: 0
|
I actually like Paul's image, I just don't put it in the category photorealistic.
Most modern rendering packages simulate a lot more of the visual cues we use to define 'reality'. The above image, while good, doesn't simulate any effect that couldn't be done years ago.
And the best way to demonstrate photorealistic effects is to present an image that keeps the viewer from percieving the controlled environment it is in. Basically you have to simulate real world as opposed to studio environments. There is a difference between photo real, photo accurate and a clever illusion. |
Post by rj0 // Mar 27, 2006, 3:02pm
|
rj0
Total Posts: 167
|
I stand by my earlier statement that realtime "photo-realistic" display is an exaggeration and that certainly would influence the outcome of an unbiased review.
Paul your image was very nice and I'm sure you and the beta team have a whole swag of good ones. tS7 has made an amazing advance in live display no question about that but it isn't "photo-realistic" and that is my point. It doesn't show all those attributes I could achieve in photography such as (for want of better terms) hdri reflectivity, global illumination, depth of field, accurate shadows etc. Even saying NEAR "photo-realistic" is a statement about what it ISN'T - I think Caligari should be promoting the player view in tS7 for what it IS, a truly fabulous live tool.
Some renderings certainly don't require GI, HDRI, etc. to be photo-realistic. If it looks like a photo, or even could be a photo (mind you, some of my early life attempts at being a photo bug created some truely terrible pics -) ...
rj |
Post by Burnart // Mar 27, 2006, 4:40pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
rj your comments refer to what was done in the past. I suspect if you say "photo-realism" now to a 3D artist they have higher expectations as regards to what that means. I'm not just talking about the qualities of the artist in terms of modelling, texturing, lighting etc. - I'm talking about how the software itself renders. I f people really think I'm wrong please post a "photo-realistic" player view image for us all to see - then lets place it in an unbiased environment and ask others whether they regard it as "photo-realistic". (BTW such an image should show glass materials and reflective materials - how about an exterior as well as an interior. Really put it to the test - a crystal, porcelain and silver table setting or a new car in a driveway on a semi-cloudy day.)
People are missing my point - I think the player view is fantastic, its the best onscreen live display I've seen in any 3D software. For some purposes the player view onscreen display amounts to a finished product I have no doubt. I can't heap enough superlatives on it but one I would not use is "photo - realistic" because it simply isn't. If I was someone looking at tS for the first time and found the references to "real time photo realism" - as in the brochure:
http://www.caligari.com/Products/trueSpace/tS7/Brochure/Intro.asp?Cate=BIntro
I would be scratching my head and asking "Where's the proof?" because the image shown looks great but not "photo-realistic". What is wrong with Caligari describing the live display as being the "best around" or "super detailed" or any of a thousand phrases that are true rather than something which is untrue?
Ok I'll stuff my frustration back in its box.:D |
Post by e-graffiti // Mar 27, 2006, 5:26pm
|
e-graffiti
Total Posts: 171
|
Photorealism:
-A style of painting that resembles photography in its meticulous attention to realistic detail.
-Having the image quality of a photograph.
-international art movement of the late 1960s and 70s that stressed the precise rendering of subject matter, often taken from actual photographs or painted with the aid of slides.
More definitions at: http://www.answers.com/topic/photorealism
Those early photorealistic paintings looked very convincing, but you could tell it was still a painting. Bert Monroy vector art looks very much like reality, but you can tell its CG, because it looks better than life (like a good HDTV).
It is now likely an overused term that may have its roots in objectivity but room enough to be subjective. I think if it really looks convincing, its a photo; if close enough its photorealistic. |
Post by rj0 // Mar 27, 2006, 6:01pm
|
rj0
Total Posts: 167
|
Very true. CG photo-realism is very much a term in flux. Indeed, there are renderers such as Maxwell (if it ever releases -) that keep pushing the boundaries.
rj |
Post by mrbones // Mar 27, 2006, 9:05pm
|
mrbones
Total Posts: 1280
|
I agree with you Burnart, Its a simple communications problem.
I also dont think they should use the term, First User Reactions on the front page of the website, it has a negative conotation in my opinion..
People are missing my point - I think the player view is fantastic, its the best onscreen live display I've seen in any 3D software. For some purposes the player view onscreen display amounts to a finished product I have no doubt. I can't heap enough superlatives on it but one I would not use is "photo - realistic" because it simply isn't. If I was someone looking at tS for the first time and found the references to "real time photo realism" - as in the brochure:
http://www.caligari.com/Products/trueSpace/tS7/Brochure/Intro.asp?Cate=BIntro
I would be scratching my head and asking "Where's the proof?" because the image shown looks great but not "photo-realistic". What is wrong with Caligari describing the live display as being the "best around" or "super detailed" or any of a thousand phrases that are true rather than something which is untrue?
Ok I'll stuff my frustration back in its box.:D |
Post by Colfax // Mar 28, 2006, 1:41pm
|
Colfax
Total Posts: 49
|
Alot of products out there, from software to videogames and movies, like to brag about achieving "photorealistic" results even when it isn't quite that. So I didn't set my expectations too high. Truespace7 makes impressive use of the latest available DirectX9 features, just like every version of Truespace before has tried to offer the latest available features of realtime solid shaded rendering.
Where Truespace7 is going to fail to impress everytime and in every review that is written about it is in the fact that it is glaringly incomplete. Major advertised features are not to be found in the product. It would be different if they were there but did not work very well. Trueplay and Shared Space are completely unavailable to the common user. Documented features like the speech engine and 1D Text Icons do not work in the program like they are displayed in the book. Thats just a few examples.
I open up Truespace7 and fiddle around and I get excited about the potential in front of me, but there is absolutely no way I could recommend Truespace7 to anyone until the features they tell you that you're getting are actually in the program that you get. I always thought it was illegal to tell people a product does something that it doesn't do unless you put some kind of fine print warning that there is no gaurantee. |
Post by slaughters // Mar 28, 2006, 3:35pm
|
slaughters
Total Posts: 16
|
...I always thought it was illegal to tell people a product does something that it doesn't do...Harsh statement - calling people liars. |
Post by behzad // Mar 28, 2006, 3:47pm
|
behzad
Total Posts: 173
|
everyone is entitled to their opinion. |
Post by slaughters // Mar 28, 2006, 3:50pm
|
slaughters
Total Posts: 16
|
....If I was someone looking at tS for the first time and found the references to "real time photo realism" - as in the brochure:
http://www.caligari.com/Products/trueSpace/tS7/Brochure/Intro.asp?Cate=BIntro
I would be scratching my head and asking "Where's the proof?" ...The proof is in the image right next to the words "real time photo realism" in the link you provided. People can look at it and make up their own mind.
Should Caligari say, "real time photo realism-if-you-know-how-to-use-all-the-options" instead? :) I see it as kind of like when companies claim they have a Photo real render engine. It means it's possible to make photo real images with it. Not that everyone can, just that it is possible.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of the Realtime stuff. Give me a good render engine instead. I like to make pretty still images and animations, not make pretty realtime displays. I'll admit that there is an art to this as well. It's just something that I'm personally not interested in. |
Post by e-graffiti // Mar 28, 2006, 3:53pm
|
e-graffiti
Total Posts: 171
|
there is absolutely no way I could recommend Truespace7 to anyone until the features they tell you that you're getting are actually in the program that you get
I would also agree with that statement at this time. Regarding the use of photorealism though, I think it is subjective. With that said, the player view is more of a live preview "render-realism".
Harsh statement - calling people liars.
Simple put as colfax already explained the product has not yet "fully" lived up to the user manual, let alone the marketing hype. But I do hope that changes real soon with new releases. |
Post by slaughters // Mar 28, 2006, 3:54pm
|
slaughters
Total Posts: 16
|
everyone is entitled to their opinion.Even me, or am I confused? Were you leaping to my defence and not the other guys? :)
P.S. Everyone says everyone is entitled to their own opinon when that opinion also happens to be their own. (say that three times fast) :) |
Post by Zrad // Mar 28, 2006, 4:19pm
|
Zrad
Total Posts: 15
|
There are some who may not be satisified due to personal views of Terms which may be use to describe with the precision of sorts, but to date TS7 offers a very good addition to potential realm of possibilities to the optomist.
My View is Positive that some great stuff is on the way. To the Visonary We're still just sratching the surface!
If you feel that Caligari using the Term doesen't meet your perceptions of perfection or Term missused then your perceptions are just an interepertation of what your view of detail is in absolutes. Nothing wrong with that it's a perfectionist trait.
My outlook is there is allways a lot of Stress as a perfectionist myself but objectivity and tempered reasoning over when not to get stuck on a word or two in getting to the next level that could hold me back from finding the interesting goodies that push to the next envelope.
Make any Sense? Sorry if ROS and SP as well as Incomplete Sentences frustrate in any way. Just so the relative Idea gets across is my Motto!
Love/Peace and joy!
Have a good day! Scott
:rolleyes: |
Post by Naes3d // Mar 28, 2006, 5:32pm
|
Naes3d
Total Posts: 0
|
There is a fallacy being injected here. The absence of perfection is not what is causing people to say an image is not photo realistic.
What it seems people are doing is looking at the picture above and seeing a realistic bump then going on to say that the image it self is photorealistic. there are a lot more elements to the image than just the bump.
This isn't as subjective as some people think. A subjective thing is something that exists in the mind and not in the external world. So an objective opinion is possible since 'photorealism' involves comparing the image to something visible in the real world.
In order to tell if an image is truly photorealistic, all you have to do is look and see if you notice anything missing that you would be able to percieve if the image existed in the real world.
The more things you can spot that are missing, the less photorealistic the image is. It's not about looking for perfection. It is actually more about how forgiving the viewer is. What I see here is that people are trying to make the definition fit the image as opposed to the image fitting the definition as it should be. |
Post by Mitch // Mar 28, 2006, 6:10pm
|
Mitch
Total Posts: 70
|
Colfax expressed "there is absolutely no way I could recommend Truespace7 to anyone until..........."
Now here is a test for you: If your very best friend, who was on a very tight budget, wanted to get into 3D work would you recommend trueSpace 7 to him as the way to go? Just yes or no!
This same question could be asked in regards to any 3D program to-day. You would have a mix of answers for every program on the market to-day. Is any program perfect or vastly superior to all others for the money? |
Post by KeithC // Mar 28, 2006, 6:17pm
|
KeithC
Total Posts: 467
|
Well, if he was on a very tight budget, he could always get XSI:foundation for $100 less, or Carrara for around the same price. I think it will still come down to a number of issues (including ones that we've beat to death); but one that is often spoken of, but not mentioned here, is to get whichever program you feel comfortable with. I'm a visually 'inspired' person, so I took an immediate liking to the icons that TS employs. The best thing in that situation would be for the friend to download the demos of all of the apps. that are comparatively priced, even though they'd have to use a demo from an older version when it comes to TrueSpace (which could be a turnoff in itself). One other thing to point out, is who has tutorials that are easy to find and free?
-Keith |
Post by Naes3d // Mar 28, 2006, 6:25pm
|
Naes3d
Total Posts: 0
|
If your very best friend, who was on a very tight budget
Important words there. A crucial factor in making that decision would be what he ultimately wanted to do.
As to the last question I say the answer is yes. If we were allowed to speak candidly, I would tell you which one and why (but the key words are 'for the money').
EDIT
Didn't see Keith's post so candid has already been said, but a modeller plus a renderer would do, if tS 3.2 is still available for download then he could combine that with a program like Bryce or Vue (which import .cob).
There is no reason to spend a lot of money for professional results. |
Post by slaughters // Mar 29, 2006, 9:46am
|
slaughters
Total Posts: 16
|
...The more things you can spot that are missing, the less photorealistic the image is.....What if I take a picture with a Kodak instamatic camera? Since you can spot things missing from the picture it takes versus what can be done with a $4,000 Digital SLR camera could it be said that the Kodak does not take photorealistic images?
Would I in fact have in my hands a non-photorealistic photo? |
Post by Naes3d // Mar 29, 2006, 11:54am
|
Naes3d
Total Posts: 0
|
What if I take a picture with a Kodak instamatic camera? Since you can spot things missing from the picture it takes versus what can be done with a $4,000 Digital SLR camera could it be said that the Kodak does not take photorealistic images?
Would I in fact have in my hands a non-photorealistic photo?
That would depend entirely on what is missing. The type of information 'missing' from a digital photo is entirely different from the type of info missing from a image created in a 3D package.
If you want a better example of what is being compared here, go to the grocery store and buy 2 fruit drinks. One of them must be '100% Pure X' and the other must say 'Contains No Fruit Juice'. Then find someone who will believe that the one that contains no juice can pass for real 'x' juice.
Then you should see what I am saying. |
Post by Burnart // Mar 29, 2006, 12:12pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Why has no-one posted what 3d artists would regard as a photo realistic image including, reflection caustics, glass transparency and distortion etc captured from the player and put an end to this discussion? -because the player view can't do it. That is my point. I love the player view but describing it in such an inaccurate way damages the credibility of the software. Can people really not see that? |
Post by Naes3d // Mar 29, 2006, 2:16pm
|
Naes3d
Total Posts: 0
|
I think people do see it Burnart, they just understand that now that the claim has been made, it may also be damaging to back away from it.
Like I said before, the image is a convincing illusion but not an example of photorealism. The Player view is more of a hyperreality simulator. |
Post by e-graffiti // Mar 29, 2006, 3:40pm
|
e-graffiti
Total Posts: 171
|
I decided to do a little "more" research regarding photorealism and its roots.
I found that photorealism does not have its roots in 3d programs but in painting. And that the paintings are "based" on photos with an effort to capture direct and indirect lighting, shadows, reflections etc.. The basis of photorealism is objective and technical but it becomes subjective in the hands of artist and certainly some artist will do it better than others, and by this I mean some artist can capture the above named global illumination properties better than others, therefore producing an image that is more "photo" like. The most notable photorealist is Richard Estes
http://www.artelibre.net/ARTELIBRE1/ESTES/pagestes.htm
Can people really not see that?
To your point Burnart some people may be less "technical" than you and Naes3d about it and be satisfied that bump, shadow, and texture are enough to be photorealistic. Just as some artist that painted photorealism were not as "technical" about it as Richard Estes and therefore not as good.
As for me, I have gotten beyond the marketing "hype" and see the player view simply as "render-realism" and not that of true photographic quality. Can Caligari get away with calling it photorealism, well that depends as the only standard for photorealism is that the image has photographic qualities. That can be some (bump, shadow, texture) or all surfacing characteristics. But like Public Enemy said "dont believe the hype". |
|
