Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: "Nigel Critten" Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.programming.3d_graphics Subject: Re: Efficient Object Modelling Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:19:09 -0000 Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 42 Message-ID: <7a41jt$7op12@chuka.playstation.co.uk> References: <7a3ea7$7op10@chuka.playstation.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: gameware.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Lightwave has a good modeler, which unlike MAX has better access to the polygons and points, it doesn't handle UV mapping very well so you would need some like UView to do that or import your model into MAX and do it from there, the only problem with that is that it will convert all your polygons to triangles (which by the sounds of it you want anyway) the other problem for the amateur is Lightwave is £1600, you can get Inspire for £350ish and that would do what you want exactly the same as Lightwave, just don't try rendering out Film or Broadcast sized anims with it (inspire is aimed at MultiMedia) Other people use Softimage|3D and Maya but as they start at around $4400 (USD) they are more than Lightwave, but better value than 3D Studio Max If I can help with your modeling in anyway please let me know. Regards Nigel Critten www.gameware.demon.co.uk http://www.netyaroze-europe.com/~ncritten Daniel Abels wrote in message <7a3ea7$7op10@chuka.playstation.co.uk>... >Hi everyone! > >What are you guys using to make your 3d models? I know some >people are using 3d Studio Max, however, isn't it a bit inefficient >for this sort of work? It is a 3d rendering program after-all and clipping >unwanted triangles probably isn't one of it's strongest features. > >I have been fiddling about with a editor called Ac3d: > >http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/andy/ac3d.html > >It seems to handle this thing a little bit better, but it's still not great >Try extruding a circle and exporting the file as triangle coords... >It seems to produce about 3-4 times the information required. > >Not good for our line of work eh!?