scott wrote:
>>Wow... Excellent modelling, I am very jealous, I still have not
>>managed to get to grips with Wings and modelling things like this
>>are too much of a challenge for CSG. Currently I am trying out
>>blender to see if that is any easier does anyone have an opinion as
>>to which modeller is better?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also trying both out, currently I prefer Blender but I find two things 
> annoying.  Firstly the way you rotate the 3D view with the mouse is weird, 
> nothing like Wings, 3DS Max or Pro Engineer etc, I can never get the view 
> orientated the way I want very easily.  At the moment I waste lots of time 
> just trying to look at the right part!  The other thing is you cannot apply 
> a bevel to one edge at a time, you have to do the whole mesh.  I find 
> Blender generally easier for mesh work though, it's much easier to combine 
> vertices, extrude edges, make/delete faces etc.  Wings seems to have weird 
> rules about what you can and can't do.
> 
> 
A significant characteristic of Wings, and from where it derives its 
name, is the way in which it stores its data.  The result is that Wings 
cannot produce or store independent triangles, only closed shapes where 
every edge has an adjoining edge.  This produces behavior that appears 
weird when certain tools are used which need to retain open edges 
temporarily, or when externally produced models are imported that have 
existing open edges.  This also imposes restrictions when modelling that 
are satisfying to certain purists of mesh geometry but frustrating to 
others. Those who prefer poly-by-poly modelling are out of luck with 
Wings.  Also it is a bad "utility" tool for importing and working on 
externally produced and stored meshes (like from Poser.)  What it is is 
an extremely light and well thought out tool for so called "box 
modelling." This technique produces a model by first starting out with a 
simple closed volume such as a cube, then extruding and subdividing it 
so that the result is always as closed shape with no open edges. This 
method is particularly well suited to "organic" forms in my opinion. 
With a certain degree of inventiveness, imagination, and ingenuity, it 
can also produce these stunning engineering models as Rene, Jaime, and 
Gilles have proven. But we should not underestimate what they have 
accomplished here.  Other modellers have more extensive tool sets 
oriented to producing this type of model.

The problem to me with this kind of thread is that the assumption that 
there is one champion modeller that everyone can point to is simply not 
  true.  Individual artists have idiosyncratic preferences and 
prejudices.  The good news is that there are a nice selection of free or 
cheap modellers available with differing blends of tool sets and 
differing interfaces and design priorities such that any given artist 
should find one that matches close enough to their preferences.

I think Blender provides a great modeller and has some very interesting 
features.  The interface is not completely to my taste however, and 
creatively I am still not at the point where I need use some of the 
things it can do that Wings can't.  So I enjoy Wings. I love the roomy 
viewing area and the context sensitive menus. I enjoy the challenge of 
improvising from a relatively light toolbox over the challenge of 
choosing precisely the correct tool from an extensive toolbox.

Another popular modeller that seems to extend the good things in Wings, 
adds some further useful tools, and is not so purist about edges, is Silo.

Post a reply to this message