This month's PC Pro has a free full version of Amapi (I can't remember which
version - sorry).

As far as I can tell, it is the complete program without restrictions, and has a
full range of import/export plug-ins.

Anyone know much about Amapi?

--
#macro A(V,B,C,R)#while(B-256)#if(V-128/B>=0)sphere{0,.5translate<C-4R-1,9>
pigment{rgb<1-C/8R/2C/8>}}#local V=V-128/B;#end#local B=B*2;#local C=C+1;#
end#end A(234,1,0,2)A(85,1,0,1)A(81,1,0,0)light_source{-5 1}//Tom Melly

Post a reply to this message

3e9e625f$1@news.povray.org...

> Anyone know much about Amapi?

I have (and used) a previous version, also free and uncrippled.
As always, some people do like it and make nice things with it.
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).

G.
--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> 3e9e625f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Anyone know much about Amapi?
>
> I have (and used) a previous version, also free and uncrippled.
> As always, some people do like it and make nice things with it.
> 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
;)

--
-Jide

Post a reply to this message

"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).

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.

* well, unless your aim is to create some kind of genetically deformed alien
undergoing a cruel and unusual torture.

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3e9e625f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Anyone know much about Amapi?
>

A rather vague question - I like using the pov SDL directly, but, for example, I
like poser since I accept that there is no way I'm going to be able to code
realistic figures without it.

So... what will Amapi allow me to do that I couldn't do with the SDL? (or at
least not realistically).

Post a reply to this message

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

3e9ed72c$1@news.povray.org...
> I can't help but wonder whether the whole principle of using a mouse to
build 3d
> objects is basically flawed.

Well, my reference in 3D modelling is Rhino, which I have always found to be
one of the most intuitive piece of software ever (among complex ones of
course).
Often, it doesn't take much actually, and it's not even about the 3D aspect
itself, but just respecting some common conventions - or at least some
logic - about selecting, dragging, copying, pasting and deleting things, or
using some recognisable icons for usual tasks etc. The worst offender was
the very first version of Blender: some users (including me) couldn't figure
out how to quit the application and the only solution was to crash it.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

> So... what will Amapi allow me to do that I couldn't do with the SDL? (or
> at least not realistically).

I don't know Amapi (just tried it a view month ago) but generally a modeler 
will allow you to make organic and / or realistic looking objects. You 
can't do that with POV-Rays SDL. Most images posted at p.b.i are nice, some 
are quite impressive, but none are really realistic. In my opinion the SDL 
is not very well suited to build a scene. Not worth mentioning that this is 
a very unnatural way to create something. So if you just want to create 
some kind of 'interesting' images, SDL is okay. If your goal is realism, 
you should forget it.
You mentioned to code realistic figures. There are lot's of other things you 
can't really do with SDL.

-- 
http://www.render-zone.com

Post a reply to this message

in news:3e9efa16@news.povray.org Andreas Kreisig wrote:

> I don't know Amapi (just tried it a view month ago) but generally a
> modeler will allow you to make organic and / or realistic looking
> objects. You can't do that with POV-Rays SDL.

I have to disagree! Anything can be done in SDL, if you have the right
macros and a lot of time. On the other hand the same can be said of
doing something simple in SDL that turns out to be something complex
with a modeller. There actually may be a reason for the fact that more 
and more GUI modellers also incorporate a scripting language.

> Most images posted at
> p.b.i are nice, some are quite impressive, but none are really
> realistic.

Please define realistic.

> In my opinion the SDL is not very well suited to build a
> scene. Not worth mentioning that this is a very unnatural way to
> create something.

Yet again I have to disagree. SDL can be seen as a modelling language
or as an intermediate format between a GUI and the raytracer. If you
export your Maya models to POV-Ray, however "realistic" they are,
you're still using SDL. 

> So if you just want to create 
> some kind of 'interesting' images, SDL is okay.If your goal is
> realism, you should forget it.

Again, define realisim.


Ingo

ps. I'm not advocating the pure use of SDL here, POV-Ray IMO is 'just' a
tool to get a result. To get that result I may, or may not, use other
tools. And realism is IMO not the holy grail of graphics, ever seen a 
negative light source in reality. No? Yet in POV-Ray you can use them.

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3e9e625f$1@news.povray.org...
> This month's PC Pro has a free full version of Amapi (I can't remember
which
> version - sorry).
>
> As far as I can tell, it is the complete program without restrictions, and
has a
> full range of import/export plug-ins.
>
> Anyone know much about Amapi?

Get it if you can. Interface is extraordinary, but it's a
powerfull  modeler. It was in version 3, also, when I first tried it. Beside
NURBS, it support subdividion surfaces, probably the best way for organic
shapes today. As I can see from their site, version 7 can have a clasic
interface.
Well, as i can see, you need some extra tools for another half of work, uv
mapping, suggested tool is UV mapper - this isn't good, really.

Blender have some nice things about subdividion surfaces, and modeling at
all (automatic creation of surfaces between objects), but don't have
undo-redo functions, and have a weak export.

Metasequia ( http://www21.ocn.ne.jp/~mizno/ ) is one of the best tools for
polygons at all, subdivdion surfaces, UV-mapping, but the only educational
version is available outside of Japan, with some export restrictions, for
formats like a 3ds, LWO, etc, but you can export UV-mapped models to
DirectX, and toPOV-Ray through 3d win. Complete, customizable interface is
available in English, but docs are not - however, it's enough intuitive. I
think there are some plugins for uv-mapped POV export, today.

HamaPatch is a powerfull bezier patch modeler, but UV mapping works only
with direct POV bezier patch export, which isn't smooth as exported meshes
in POV.

Some most important modeling things, probably, are: easy adding or removing
elements from your model, support for hardware accelaration, symetrical
modeling, and UV mapping editor. Only Metasequoia can do all of these
things, between mentioned modelers.

Some of free or cheap modelers are equaly powerfull as a high-ends 3d's,
esspecialy in cases of organic modeling. Subdividion surface models can be
exported and animated almost everywhere.

For organic models, POV-Ray SDL is, in my opinion, just a good toy for
spending time.
Anto
http://www.matkovic.com/anto

Post a reply to this message