In article <3e9ed72c$1@news.povray.org>, tom### [at] tomandlucouk says...
> "Jide" <jid### [at] kotisoonfi> wrote in message
> news:3e9ecb22@news.povray.org...
> > Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> > > I did find the interface horrible, a case example of how apparently smart
> > > and innovative interface design can turn out to be just dumb and clumsy
> > > (I'll rant about this some day as it's quite common, particularly in
> > > free/low-cost 3D modellers).
> >
> > I too have tried a free uncrippled version of Amapi over a year ago.
> > I didn't like the interface much either but luckily there's always Wings3d
> > ;)
> >
> 
> Any worse the TrueSpace? (no, surely that's not possible).
> 

Umm. If I remember rightly, yes it is worse than TrueSpace, worse some 
object types (like NURBS) couldn't be used with some tools or converted 
into a form that could be worked with using those tools. This quirk 
resulted in my jumping to several other apps before finally deciding that 
I didn't know any of them well enough to do what I wanted. However, it is 
better than some others, so I have Amapi on the launchmate bar I have 
used for years, along with 3D Canvas (which gasp!! actually loads DXF 
objects as individual and 'visually unique' meshes, instead of lumping 
them all into one huge mesh like some do), Hamapatch, Moray (really need 
to either get the non-demo or maybe buy Rhino instead..), Poser and an 
old copy of Breeze Designer.

In general.. Amapi's problem is that they supply very nice tools and 
object types, but ignore the traditional multiple view style interface 
and manipulation methods that most usable programs have in favor of a 
single view and really hard to use one. TrueSpace does much the same, but 
it at least lets you easily change viewing angles, etc. Amapi is 
'supposed' to, but when rotating things or attempting to adjust view it 
can be sluggish, unpredictable or just plain refuses to do what you want 
it to. A major pain in the rear to work with.

> I can't help but wonder whether the whole principle of using a mouse to build 3d
> objects is basically flawed. Poser, for example, is a lot easier to use IMHO
> when you give up trying to drag limbs about with the mouse* and use the dials
> instead.
> 
Hadn't thought of the dials, but Poser bugs the heck out of me anyway. 
Why exactly for instance don't even the standard models contain 
constraint information to prevent you from turning an ankle around 180 
degrees from normal? I would rather see someone eventually come up with 
something with Poser like features and some way to 'easily' model and 
define morph data, so you can create something more detailed by altering 
the model in a useful way (I.e. changing general distance between the 
eyes, actual shape of a nose, etc.) and not have to hack the files to add 
morphs for what should be built into the dang thing.

The first time I tried using it my reaction was, 'Gee this is annoying to 
use. I wonder how much a real program like cosmetic surgeons use would 
cost and if -it- could export to a useful format.' Poser was quite 
disappointing and far more annoying than any 'real' modeller I have ever 
seen.

However, you may be right about mice. The main issue as I see it is that 
way back in the days of Autocad someone thought, 'Heh lets add a third 
button to make it easier to access some options.' So, how many 3 button 
mice did you see? Now practically every mouse has at least three (even if 
one is 'under' the scroll wheel), but you are lucky if so called 
professional modellers recognize that button for anything. They also 
ignore the mouse wheels, never mind the fact that using it with the mouse 
movement would give you 3 axis. Hmm.. Somehow that sounds familiar, but I 
can't imagine what 'use' it would have in the 3D app. lol You shouldn't 
blame stupidity and bad design for why it is hard to build things in 
these programs. ;)

But one should not despair, some people have gotten fed up with this 
silliness and have started building more accurate means to do 3D. They 
only work with applications that support them and currently probably cost 
$5,000-$10,000 dollar a piece for something that is little more than a 
mouse that they gutted the scrolls and buttons out of and rearranged so 
they work better, but won't be affordable for most people for years if 
ever. Realizing the ridiculous price tag on these sorts of things, most 
people designing new programs are trying to reinvent the reflective 
sphere by coming up with new, innovative and often impractical or just 
plain dysfunctional interfaces. Such is the world of copyright and 3D 
technology. ;)

> * well, unless your aim is to create some kind of genetically deformed alien
> undergoing a cruel and unusual torture.
> 
Exactly, but then again... At least it 'might' look unique, but I doubt 
it. ;) lol

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message