|
|
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
|
|