Mike Raiford wrote:
> Just my opinion, here... but, While the winner for technical merit is an
> excellent image, There's really not that much "technical merit" to the
> picture. All was modeled in Wings3D, with exception of the feather,
> which was using a 3rd party tool. Not bad, but, not what I would call
> deserving of a technical merit award.
I have not found ANY modeler in 3D that can do everything well, and
easily. Wings3D has a learning curve like any other tool, as does POV-Ray.
POV-Ray does some things quite easily. Does that mean they are more
technical just because they are hand coded? There are things Wings does
quite easily also, but almost any complex model will require a high
degree of knowledge and familiarity both the object being modelled and
of Wings toolset.
I would give that a higher technical score than some things done in POV
SDL, which although they have lots of parts and look very complex, are
achieved in 12 lines of code by simple nested while() loops. To me,
technical merit is the quality of the objects of your scene, your
texturing and your lighting. If all are good you get a high technical
score regardless of the tool you use to achieve it.
And if you use a variety of tools, it shows me that you know your own
strengths and weaknesses and how to use the tool that best suits you for
the job. Based on my years as a musician I consider that a skill in its
own right. There's nothing worse than a musician with masterful
technical abilities on their instrument, but who doesn't know when to
back off and overplays everything.
Post a reply to this message