 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, Damien Guichard wrote:
> > Take a look at Maya and Lightwave. The concepts have been all thought out
> > already.
> >
> > www.alias.com/maya
> >
> > http://www.newtek.com/lightwave
>
> Can't have a look, would be too expensive for me.
> May be the concepts in these sofware are fine for 3D artists, but nobody has
> ever experienced and validated them for complete lego animation. Take "Revenge
> of the Brick" as an example: it's more about adding some bricks in traditional
> animation than adding some animation effects in a complete lego world.
>
> The simple concepts are deceptive: the software components that implement them
> are really difficult to develop, require software-engineering experts, and
> finally have poor chances too seamlessly connect at the end of a long and
> painful development cycle.
>
> > If you want an LDraw animation package, you are first going to have a willing
> > programmer TEAM. That is right, animation applications take teams of people to
> > write them. Several individuals (myself included) attempted to do various
> > things with LDraw and have not produced very much. Look what has been done with
> > Lightwave, and they didn't need the LDraw library either.
> >
> > http://www.daveschool.com/projects/BATMAN/assets/pages/index.html
>
> It takes several tries before someone succeeds.
> Will is a bad substitute for talent concentration.
> You still think about a GUI tool, but a textual scripting language does not take
> a team to develop.
> As far as i know no LDraw team has succeeded either, so your argument ressembles
> an open-source myth.
>
> The success/failure criterium is not the individual vs. the collective, it's
> about the concentrated vs. the diluted. I think only the concentrated side
> stands a chance, the diluted side will ever be too divided (both in minds and in
> geography).
>
> Considerations,
>
> - damien
Dear Damien,
I'm not 100% sure what you are saying for a lot of this post but I do have to
say that writing an animation scripting language, even utilising what else is
around, is a very difficult task.
As a simple example of how hard this problem is, lets say the only animation
allowed would be from sub-models with a defined connection to other sub-models
(perhaps through a meta-command). With one connection, the problem is
straightfoward, with two, a little more difficult, if we want five connections
though, we already have a difficult computational problem, even without a
physics engine. Once we throw in a physics engine it becomes even more
complicated.
I'm not saying it can't be done. Just that it is difficult. It obviously could
be written given enough time and energy. For me though, I do not have the free
time, nor the inclination to embark on such a large project. If you believe you
can do it on your own then go ahead and if it works effectively I'm sure people
will use it. I would be happy to volunteer mathematical 'expertise' to such a
project were it required.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> Dear Damien,
>
> I'm not 100% sure what you are saying for a lot of this post but I do have to
> say that writing an animation scripting language, even utilising what else is
> around, is a very difficult task.
>
> I'm not saying it can't be done. Just that it is difficult. It obviously could
> be written given enough time and energy. For me though, I do not have the free
> time, nor the inclination to embark on such a large project. If you believe you
> can do it on your own then go ahead and if it works effectively I'm sure people
> will use it. I would be happy to volunteer mathematical 'expertise' to such a
> project were it required.
>
> Tim
Yeah it's already difficult enough and i don't say i will try.
And if i try i will not embark anyone as a collective project can have a
negative impact when it fails: people who have invested time and effort want
someone to be blamed and that's very bad for small communities.
Damien
| | | | | | |
