Mike Hough wrote:
> You might want to give one of them a try since it makes modelling organic 
> shapes quite simple. Alternatively you could try Blender which can do much 
> the same thing with subdivision surfaces.

Having used both HAM and Blender to try modeling things, each for a couple 
dozen hours, I'd have to say I found blender far easier to model with. Hash 
isn't really any easier in terms of "organic" forms, and it seems 
outrageously difficult to model simple non-organic forms like a room or a door.

On the other hand, the texturing, image stamping, and animation all seemed 
easier in Hash. (For example, the different ways you can move the skin when 
the bones move the underlying vertices? Dunno how to do that in Blender.) I 
wouldn't put that past me just not having learned Blender enough, tho.

Overall, I was pretty disappointed with Hash, I don't think I got my money's 
worth, and their support wasn't noticeably better than Blender's. For 
example, I got banned from one forum for posting a Hash file and asking what 
in there makes Hash crash. Because, of course, Hash has no bugs and never 
crashes. And they sent the wrong version of the manual with it, because they 
had left over manuals from the previous years' release, and they didn't feel 
like actually shipping what you'd paid for. It's a rather expensive program 
for that kind of crap.

HTH.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message