Amiga Tools 3/Amiga Tools 3.iso/grafik/raytracing/imagine/tips/arc43.txt

Text File | 1993-11-02 | 437.8 KB | 12,692 lines

This is the Imagine Mailing List ([e-mail]) Archive #43
covering messages from Oct 02 to Oct. 31 1993.
If you have any questions or problems with this file, E-mail Nik Vukovljak
at [e-mail]



Note: each message separated by '##'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: Re: MS-DOS Imagine
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 11:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Andrew McDonald)

Now that you've gotten Imagine to run fairly well with MS-DOS, have you
managed to get Global Fog to work?




##

Subject: Re: MS-DOS Imagine
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 14:10:27 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>
> It also appears that Imagine needs as much of the standard memory as you can
> get, like in excess of 580K.  This CONFIG.SYS works for me and I named it
> CONFIG.OLD so I can use a batch file called OLD.BAT which I run and reboot
> the machine to use Imagine.  I have another NEW.BAT  which loads CONFIG.NEW
> into CONFIG.SYS when I need to use all the other MS-DOG junk.


Dos 6 has a config.sys menu syntax that allows you to have multiple
configs and autoexecs in one file. you are prompted when the machine
boots to enter the config of choice. I don't remember the exact syntax
so you'll have to check the manual but here's something close.

[menu]
Imagine
Regular

[Imagine]
(minimal bootup lines here)

[Regular]
(your normal config stuff)

[Common]
(executed by any config)


There is a function key (f7 maybe) that you can hit during boot up
to also have the machine prompt you before each line of the config.

yikes! I'm starting to twitch. Too large an msdose. It's the weekend
after all and my body is simply rejecting config.sys talk. gotta go.

                    | Hey Beavis. Essence-II's Crumpled texture
steve lombardi      | really KICKS ASS.    Mhhh huh. Yea. And those space
[e-mail] | textures don't suck either. Huh.


##

Subject: The Imagine Companion 2.0
Date: Sun,  3 Oct 93 10:50:57 PDT
From: [e-mail]

Motion Blur Publishing is pleased to announce publication of
The Imagine Companion 2.0, a book of tutorials, hints and tips
for users of Imagine 2.0 on PC and Amiga.  Feeling somewhat
apprehensive about the release of 3.0 when you've yet to come
to grips with 2.0?  With over 14 well-illustrated and fully-
explained in-depth tutorials, The Imagine Companion 2.0 takes
you by the hand and guides you through Imagine's intricacies
and eccentricities.  One of the tutorials, on a variable-
transparency spotlight beam, was recently excerpted in 3D Artist
magazine.

The Imagine Companion 2.0 plus disk (MS-DOS or Amiga) is
available for $29.95 postpaid from: Motion Blur Publishing,
915A Stambaugh Street, Redwood City, CA 94063. Phone
1-415-364-2009 for info, but sorry, no credit card orders.
Dealer inquiries welcome.


##

Subject: Re: Suggestion for InterRender Interface
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 12:27:24 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Hannes Heckner writes:
>
> Something like Motion Control could make it possible to
> composite VistaPro landscapes in the background and a Real3D or Imagine
> forground.

I've done this a bit with FDPro Flight recorder, but it generates both
Imagine staging files and Vista camera scripts internally.

It just dawned on me, however, that it should be possible to convert one
to the other (with ISL, what else?)  Assuming you could translate the
camera's movement into frame-by-frame Position and Alignment numbers, you
could transfer the movement from Imagine to Vista.  That translation might
be hard though, if you are using keyframes (not too hard) or paths
(harder.)  Going the other way, from a Vista script to Imagine would be
easy - just create a "keyframe" for the camera for every frame, the way
Flight Recorder does.

You're right though, it would be nifty if we had some standard motion
file format.  Even more nifty would be an easy fix for the hassle of
collision-detection when combining two animations.  (!! :O !!)

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: New Renderer for Amiga
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 1:44:38 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

A new renderer was announced on c.s.a.graphics today. I was wondering
if anyone has any further info on it. or if any European IML members
have actually used it and would provide feed back. An extensive
feature list was presented, but some info from a detached party would
be appreciated. The package is called "Revelation 3D" and lists for
449dollars US, although no US distribution has been announced. Price
includes a dongle and 400 plus pages of documentation and tutorials
as well as sample objects, maps etc....

The feature list is long so I won't post it here. but I'll email it
to anyone who asks. Here's a snippet of the post for the curious.
I'll keep it brief:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Revelation 3D (TM).

For the first time on the Amiga, does a system finally have objects which
are truly color shaded within the modeller. And it is FAST!

If you like to really build your scenes fast, then Revelation has a
fantastic REAL-TIME-CAMERA mode for you, which allows you to adjust, rotate,
move, shear and scale objects and camera views freely, at exactly 25 frames
per second (30 fps NTSC).
For the raytracing freaks, we also have good news. Our raytracer sports many
atmospheric effects, along with depth of field, true soft shadows, fuzzy
transmissions and fuzzy reflections. Along with all the standard features,
this gives you the ability to create stunning lifelike images.
Not to mention our texture support, with more than thirty procedural textures
included, both color textures, bumping textures and post textures.
All are fully adjustable and allow the creation of absolutely all kinds of
surfaces. They also include textures like clouds, water, glow, and fire.
ALL kinds of IFF mapping are available too.
(farther down they mention external texture support)

Revelation 3D is shipping on the 14th of October 1993.


+ Support for network and serialport distributed raytracing!
+ Special Silicon Graphics(TM) based rendering module and network systems
  available, allowing rendering on faster processors.
+ Soft shadows.
+ True transparancy and refractions.
+ Fuzzy reflections.
+ Fuzzy transmissions.
+ Support for viewing with X-Specs 3D glasses.

Modeller
--------

FAST & TRUE color shading of objects within the modeller. Never seen before!
Work with objects, while they are shaded, not just wireframes. Integrated
easy-to-use modeller with full screen editing from all angles and Quad-view.

Supports loading a large number of alien 3D object fileformats, including:
  Revelation(TM),
  AutoCAD(TM) DXF,
  Imagine (TM),
  Sculpt-4D (TM),
  3D-Professional (TM),
  VideoScape (TM) GEO,
  Turbo Silver (TM),
  Forms-In-Flight (TM) microobjects,
  3-Demon (TM),
  and Cad3D (TM).


Object and Vertex tools are all controllable on XYZ axis and include:
 scale,
 rotate,
 shear,
 flip,
 mirror,
 copy,
 slice,
 object lock and unlock.

Animation
---------

Full fledged PATH and EVENT animation system.
Predefined animation EVENTS include:
 morphing,
 autosize,
 jitter,
 rotate,
 replace,
 shear,
 sight,
 scale,
 twist,
 keyframing.

Selectable Hierarchy based animation objects.
Full fledged advanced script animation, with many advanced application areas.
Many fast and selectable methods of previewing animations. Spline paths can
be controlled with all object deformation tools, thus allowing very advanced
path movements, along with individual events.
Morphing works on all objectparameters, also including texture settings and
image maps.
Support for Anim-5 animation output.

Scandinavia:
Vision Images.
Phone: +45 75 - 459 701. Fax: +45 75 - 459 701
Norgesgade 55
6700  Esbjerg
Denmark

Germany:
RCS Management GmbH
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Dammweg 15
28211 Bremen
Germany

For other countries and distribution matters,
contact RCS Management GmbH, Germany.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
As stated, this is only about 20% of the list. Lot's of stuff that lightwave
now has and imagine is promising (bones for instance) is missing,but
for the most part it looks like it might be worth taking a look at.



##

Subject: Re: Screamer and CRAY-1
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 03:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mr. Scott Krehbiel; ACS (PC)" <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 1 Oct 1993, Roy Park wrote:

> > Does anybody know the speed of SCreamer in MFLOPS?
> > I have read that the Cray-1 Supercomputer has a speed of 160 MFLOPS.
> > When they say that the SCreamer has double the speed of Cray-1
> > they mean in MIPS, MFLOPS, all overall performance?
>
> 160 MFLOPS eh? must be 'entry level' Cray or something  :)  Seriously,
> you can't really compare different computers in terms of MIPS or MFLOPS since
> they are not the best way of measuring performance.
>
> Remember, number of instructions or flip-flops are can be really different
> machine to machine... efficiency, etc. can be another factor.
>
> >     The Hard(ware) way.
> >     Commander Ilias
>
> ----
> Roy Park   // [e-mail]
> A3000@25 \X/ 1st yr UofW Comp.Eng.
>
> APO/SparX

Actually, MFLOPS stands for "million floating point operations per second"
which means that it's measuring the rate at which the computer does math.
(boy, that sounds pretty retarded, doesn't it... "does math"  oh well)

For a ray-tracer (and yes, I DO mean ray-tracer, not scanline renderer ;-)
the image generation is based so heavily on linear algebra that the
speed of math processing will almost solely determine the speed of
image generation.
  (with scanline rendering, there are hardware tricks that can be employed
with high end polygon engines, making the machine's math processing speed
not quite so important - ie: the Iris Indigo Elan w/ Wavefront.  I'm pretty
sure that Wavefront takes advantage of the SGI hardware for greater speed.
By the way, this parenthetical part is prone to have a few errors... it's just
info I've accumulated through the years)

With Imagine and most probably with Lightwave (unless the Toaster has a
few polygon engines hiding in there) the floating point processing speed
of a machine (MFLOPS) will pretty much determine your rendering time.

In terms of MIPS not being a real deciding factor, you're right on that
one.  Remember: Mips:  "Meaningless Information for PC Salesmen"

Later
Scott
[e-mail]




##

Subject: stage editor views...
Date:     Sun, 3 Oct 1993 21:55:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

I've recently used LightWave 3D on friend's Amiga, and really liked how it
handles "Camera view" in real time.  And same thing goes for the light source
too!

I really hope the 3.0 release have this feature... instead of using Amiga-K
all the time to manually update the camera view in Stage Editor.

----
Roy Park   // [e-mail]
A3000@25 \X/ 1st yr UofW Comp.Eng.

APO/SparX

APO/SparX


##

Subject: transparency & 3D objects
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 13:04:21 -0600
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

>In order to _really_ get around it, I suppose the renderer must model
>solid objects instead of space-bounded-by-polygons.  Does R3D do this?
>Lightwave?  Aladdin?  And if so, do the allow the technique of using a
>transparency texture to "lop off" the extruded plane?
>
>  - steve

Yeah, you're quite right about the limitations of polygonal programs.
Caligari calls its objects "solid", but its just for internal reference
purposes, so that the soft can keep the "inside" and "outside" of the
objects under control, something totally forgot by Lightwave ("T's your
problem!" in LW).
Since Real3D is a solid modeller mainly, you will probably achieve the
effect you're wanting in a solid object (a paralelogram is fine), but
not sure with which texture, maybe you'll have to write your own in
RPL (Real Programming Language, which is *quite* powerful).

By the way, anyone knows how to subscribe to the Real3D list?
Could anyone post this "US Cybernetics Transputer" press release?
Quite interesting stuff, from what you said!

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Re: Shadows and Light Objects
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 10:46:18 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> I see many people having trouble with light objects casting shadows.
> I see many tricks being discussed here. The easiest way to
> get your light objects to cast shadows is to
> scale the axes down to almost nothing.

How about click on cast shadows in the light requestor;)

> Many times your light object's
> axis may be so large that the only thing being illuminated is the
> light object itself.

But really, I was under the impression that spherical lights were just
point light sources, where the (0,0,0) on the obect axis is the source of
light.  You cannot make a whole object emit light!  Only its axis will.
I can't recall about conical or cylindical.  I think they are point light
sources as well, it's just that the axis' effect the distance and area of
the light.  When you put the axis inside of the object, unless the object
is somewhat transparent, light won't come through(or shouldn't, see below).
Although, I've seen some weird effects when this isn't how the scene is
set up.

I played with it some this weekend.  The best setting I got for a lightbulb
was as follows.

Make the bulb glass(transparency 200, 200, 100 or what ever, I used the settings
       from Understanding Imagine 2.0)  Not sure if you need this since you are
       going to be setting fog.  I need to play some more.

Make the object a light source by clicking on the light box in the attributes
  requestor.  No need to set the bright box.  In light requestor select
  spherical and put the light to 400 400 250, kindof yellow.  Select cast
  shadows if you like.

Put the object axis of the bulb where the filiment of the bulb would be.
    (shift-M to move the axis)

Set the fog length as suggested by another Imagineer.  You will have to play
with this as it depends on the distance from the object axis to the edge of
the bulb.  My bulb was 40 units across(turn on coords and measure) and my
fog length was 10 or 15, can't recall which.  The smaller the setting, the
more opaque the bulb will be.  The fog will be the color of your object.
My bulb was white.

Some weirder results occured when the object was not transparent.  It still
seemed to emit light, but the bulb was completely black.  Turn on "bright"
and the bulb turned white(but it didn't look right, kindof flat looking").
I makes sense to make the bulb transparent and this seems to work the best.


One idea someone might try, is to turn on a light bulb.  Start with the object
without light selected and the fog length set high.  Gives the lightbulb a
frosted look.  In you're keyframe a few frames later, select light and set the
fog length a little lower.  The bulb will "glow" a soft white.  Might be a
nice animated effect.

Oh well, enough rambling for now.

BTW, hows the beach these days, David?  God, I miss that place.  Its too damn
cold up here:(


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin




##

Subject: IML munging mail headers?
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 13:10:43 -0600
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

I'm not a mail guru, but this looks odd.  A recent message to the
imagine mailing list appears from the headers as if it is from me:

> From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

but in reality was from Breno A. Silva ([e-mail]).

Is the mailing list somehow getting confused about mail headers?

  - steve


##

Subject: MFLOPS and etc
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 10:21:44 +0200
From: Ilias Alexopoulos <[e-mail]>

Hello again,
I wanted to point out some points:

1) MFLOPS is an absolute way (assuming the same algorithm is used for
calculating the MFLOPS) to measure speed for CPU/FPU or whatever.
It counts the Floating point operat. per sec, ie. How fast the data
is outputed by the Processor in math calculations.
Thing of a Vector Processor (VP) (like CRAY's). In "normal" CPU the mnemonic
ADD A,B means A+B. But A,B are 2 numbers. In a VP A,B are set of numbers
(Vectors) so if A is 64-point vector it would add 64+64 numbers!
So in "normal" CPU you have 1 instruction=1 Floating operation
and in VP you have 1 instruction= 64 Floating operations.

2) MIPS is for general instructions. It is used to measure speed
in general program instructions like Cmp (compare), jump, move etc.

>From the above it's easy to see that both parameters, must be
calculated with the same algorithm on all processors (i think this is
not always true), but and then the results (mainly for MIPS) will not always
show the correct result (each processor can be very different from others,
see Intel-Motorola CPUs, or CISC-RISC).

I asked that question because of this phrase: "...twice the speed of CRAY-1"
I wanted to know in which way faster, MIPS or MFLOPS (see VP of CRAY).
(600MIPS isn't a ZX Spectum speed!)

Anyway i am sorry for taking that much bandwidth.

                    The Hard(ware) way
                    Commander Ilias

PS: Does anybody know where can i find a memory module of 8192MB for
a friend of mine? oh! i forgot it is for his CRAY XM/P-4.
What is his name?
Cray junior! :)



##

Subject: 3D object scanners
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 08:44:11 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Tom Smith)

Does anyone know where I can find a 3D object scanner? i.e. have a persone
pose while it scans them in 3 dimensions and gives you an Imagine or
Lightwave object of the person?

                                            Thanks in advance
                                                  Tom


##

Subject: Re: MFLOPS and etc
Date:     Tue, 5 Oct 1993 10:37:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Ahh.. that clarifies some stuff.  BTW, what kind of floating point operation
are we talking about here to measure MFLOPS?  Adding 2 floating numbers?
Negating one floating number?  There are several in floating operation.  It
would be better if the manufacturers give more accurate specs.

Same thing goes for MIPS... which 'instruction' are they talking about? cmp
, jmp, add or what?  Each instruction has different cycles, etc...

>     The Hard(ware) way
>     Commander Ilias

----
Roy Park   // [e-mail]
A3000@25 \X/ 1st yr UofW Comp.Eng.


> PS: Does anybody know where can i find a memory module of 8192MB for
> a friend of mine? oh! i forgot it is for his CRAY XM/P-4.

Call Memory Universe at 1-493-579-3883.. they have even bigger ones (65536 MB)
except that the delivery charge is quite high, due to its size.  I think they
sell the above 64 GB module for 2.3 million dollars a piece.  I recently bought
3 of them.  Of course, you'd need a 64 bit machine (or 256) to use them.  I
personally own a Cray Y-MP 832.

> What is his name?
> Cray junior! :)

Oh, I know him too!  :)

APO/SparX


##

Subject: fwd: DPS PAR and output quality...
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 15:45:51 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis - ICD ~)

    I am forwarding this from the Real3D mailing list, because I
thought that some IML people might be interested...  sorry if someone
else has already done the same.
                            -- Glenn

------- Start of forwarded message -------

> From: [e-mail] (Sean C. Cunningham)
> Sender: [e-mail]
> Subject: DPS PAR and output quality...
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 13:41:42 +0800

Mr. Waters stated in a previous article that the DPS PAR was capable of output
quality of S-VHS/Hi8 and rivaling that of component formats such as Betacam.
This is a tad on the inacurate side.

We are currently evaluating DPS PAR based Amiga systems for various uses here
at Digital Domain and have been researching the quality of this board for a
while now.  We have scoped out the signal of the PAR with our test equipment
and found that it is a tick under D1, equal to or better than D2 (provided you
are using sufficiently low compression ratios).  There was a minimal ammount
of crosstalk noted, but this could be due to other boards being installed in
the machine we tested or other outside (read non-PAR) influences.  This device
is nothing short of incredible.

Everyone involved with this project has been extremely impressed with the
quality afforded by the DPS board, as well as other products we are
investigating...several were not fans of the Amiga and were originally not
overly enthusiastic with the reccomendation to check out Amiga-based solutions.

Just thought I'd let you know.

--
------- End of forwarded message -------


##

Subject:  Water bubbles
Date:  Tue, 5 Oct 1993 15:26:58 +0000
From: "Rob (R.D.) Hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Folks,

  Has anyone used the Essence II ClusterBump or Polkabump textures (or others)
to animate bubbles on water?  I'm trying to simulate the bubbles produced when
water from a faucet hits the water surface (like, oh, maybe in a bathtub...)?

  Hints appreciated.

Thx
Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| Global Product Performance:            PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Re: 3D object scanners
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 07:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 5 Oct 1993, Tom Smith wrote:
>
> Does anyone know where I can find a 3D object scanner? i.e. have a persone
> pose while it scans them in 3 dimensions and gives you an Imagine or
> Lightwave object of the person?
>
>                                             Thanks in advance
>                                                   Tom

Depends on what level of accuracy you need and how much time and/or money
you're willing to spend.  There are now several companies marketing laser
scanners in the $50,000 price range that will do what you want.  There are
also companies that own these machines and will rent time on them, to the
tune of $200 and hour and up.  These things are VERY accurate, down to
tiny fractions of a millimeter.

If you are willing to settle for accuracy around 1.5 millimeters, and
don't mind spending a few hours per model, I've got a do-it-yourself
technique that works.  You need a slide projector, a video camera, and a
video digitizer (DCTV works great). You don't need to own them, just have
to borrow them for a few hours.

Let me know if you want the details.  If anybody else on the list wants
them, e-mail me directly.

I've used this method to assemble models of friends' faces and fragile
porcelain figurines, without using molding compounds or taking tedious
measurements.  It works!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161
              home:[phone]      fax:[phone]
   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------





##

Subject: MFLOPS etc.
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 19:13:27 +0200
From: Ilias Alexopoulos <[e-mail]>

Well MFLOPS, and MIPS comes from a combination from all instructions of
the processor, like move,jump, and normally because some instructions
are used more than others in programming (in a 680xx the most common inst.
is move.x xx,xx) they use factors for each instruction to calculate
the performance.
Anyway because of the Competition each company probably has its own
formula to calculate these numbers (ie. Motorola, and Intel), for
obvious reasons.

                    The Hard(ware) way.
                    Commander Ilias


##

Subject: stage editor
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 15:04:49 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Frederick Joseph Oko Jr.)

For some reason, I just can't get the stage editor to save my objects rescled.
I resize them in the stage editor and "save changes".  Selecting size bar
doesn't help either.  It does save all positions etc. Any help?
Also, I selected the primitive sphere in the detail editor and enlarged its
axis for its internal light.  It looked fine here but when loaded into stage,
it was stretched along the z axis while I had changed the x and y axis. Any
help here?
Thanks in advance,
Fred




##

Subject: stage editor views...
Date:   Sun, 3 Oct 1993 21:55:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

>I've recently used LightWave 3D on friend's Amiga, and really liked how it
>handles "Camera view" in real time.  And same thing goes for the light source
>too!

In fact, I think that's really the point in Imagine that needs the most
reworking - the Stage editor. Old stuff like RA+K to retrack the camera
stinks! Idealistically, we should be able to simply select an object and
move/rotate/size it IN THE CAMERA/PERSPECTIVE view. If at least when we
move it in the tri-view the results in the camera view was updated in re-
al-time, that'd be almost perfect. By the way, we should have the option
of choosing THE FRAME in which we're setting the keyframe, independant
of in which one we are, 'cause sometimes it's easier to position an object
in a frame in a position we want it to be in OTHER frame. The advantages
of this method are a little obscure to the novices, I know, but who have
ever used - and I mean USED, not played a bit - knows what I mean.
I have to admit that the LW's Layout (stage editor counterpart) interface
is almost perfect, so Impulse shouldn't be ashamed to be inspired by it.
The "almost" stands for:
 - You can't view the scene in solid mode. Only wireframe. Imagine's Solid
view it's wonderful to prevent the overlapping of objects - or to make the
overlapping precise.
 - You can't move an object in its local axis, as in Imagine.
 - Up to now, you can't have REAL spline paths, just keyframes with adjus-
table spline controls, and a (very good) representation of the "path".
Good, but lacking sometimes.
 - Hierarchies aren't represented (sometimes it's good to see the lines
connecting the parents).

Except this, everything is *wonderful*. But since Imagine is a more
thorough program (you have EVERYTHING under your control, and MUCH more
control), if it could achieve the staging sophistication of Lightwave,
I would finally consider it as development tool, since my deadlines are
too tough for the intricacies and amount of man-hours Imagine requires.
In its actual version, its just a hobby (and a very pleasant one) for
me. Let's pray (and demand) 3.0 fulfill all of our needs.

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Re: MFLOPS etc.
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 93 17:09:34 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> Well MFLOPS, and MIPS comes from a combination from all instructions
> Anyway because of the Competition each company probably has its own
> formula to calculate these numbers obvious reasons.

Well MFLOPS certainly come in a variety of flavors. The most basic and
common measure is peak MFLOPS which is simply based on how many floating
point ops can theoretically be done in a second. There are also several
benchmarks such as LINPACK which attempt to quantify a more meaningful
(ie. useable) number. For example, the super scalar i860XR can execute
one fp add and multiply in one 25ns clock tick. That makes it 80 peak
MFLOPS. However LINPACK numbers on it are closer to 11 MFLOPS.

At Concurrent, we make multiprocessor systems designed around both the
68040 and R4400. We ran a fractal generator to roughly gauge performance
between the 2 cpus. It was compact so it wouldn't break the 040's cache
an it was mostly all floating point. We saw close to a 20x difference
between the two. Not too shabby. It just so happens that our 4400 based
product also uses 4 cpus like the Screamer, except ofcourse, our design
is radically more advanced to handle the rigors of real-time, general
purpose, symetric multiprocessing. As a LightWave engine, NewTek doesn't
need all that complexity. Its kind of ironic that I am currently using
LightWave to create a really cool animation that illustrates the architecture
of Concurrent's new R4400 based systems.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: New Renderer for Amiga
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 1:44:38 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>The feature list is long so I won't post it here. but I'll email it
>to anyone who asks. Here's a snippet of the post for the curious.

I want it!

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Re: stage editor
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 17:54:54 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

>
> For some reason, I just can't get the stage editor to save my objects rescled.
> I resize them in the stage editor and "save changes".  Selecting size bar
> doesn't help either.  It does save all positions etc. Any help?
You might try using ISL to convert the stages to ASCII, before and after
your changes, to see what is really getting saved.

> Also, I selected the primitive sphere in the detail editor and enlarged its
> axis for its internal light.  It looked fine here but when loaded into stage,
> it was stretched along the z axis while I had changed the x and y axis. Any
You mean the CSG sphere, not the polygon one, right?  If so, I believe it
only pays attention to the X size, for all three axes.

> help here?
> Thanks in advance,
> Fred
>
_john



##

Subject: Light bulbs again..
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 19:18:19 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

   If anyone has the time (and ability), how about sending up to wuarchive
an example of one of those frosted light bulb objects recently discussed?

  Thanks,

     Greg





##

Subject: Re: stage editor
Date: 5 Oct 93 21:52:00 EST
From: "Ross Knepper" <[e-mail]>

> For some reason, I just can't get the stage editor to save my objects rescled.
> I resize them in the stage editor and "save changes".  Selecting size bar
> doesn't help either.  It does save all positions etc. Any help?

Check in the Action Editor.  If the size is only defined for frame one, then it
will let you change the scale on the screen in the Stage, but won't remember it.
Try extending your size bar to the entire length of the animation.  This has
happened to me several times, and that always fixed it.

 --Ross Knepper (Who has lately had almost *NO* free time for Amiga!! :-( )



##

Subject: Re: Light bulbs again..
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 21:28:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>   If anyone has the time (and ability), how about sending up to wuarchive
>an example of one of those frosted light bulb objects recently discussed?
>  Thanks,
>     Greg

     Or even posting one uuencoded (for those of us with ftp-mail
headaches ;-) to the list?

ps. Hi Greg! Nice to see an AMUCer still using Imagine.......



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: Re: FEATHERS. any advice.
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 02:00:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mr. Scott Krehbiel; ACS (PC)" <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 26 Sep 1993, Steve J. Lombardi wrote:

>
> Howdy. I need to make hummingbird feathers. I haven't sat down
> at the machine to experiment yet, but figured I'd ask first to
> see if anyone has done this. My first thought was to try to
> elongate essence-II's reptile skin and soften the edges somehow.
> Any suggestions or accounts of previous experience are appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
>                     | Hey Beavis. Essence-II's Crumpled texture
> steve lombardi      | really KICKS ASS.    Mhhh huh. Yea. And those space
> [e-mail] | textures don't suck either. Huh.

Pretty neat idea, considering that birds supposedly evolved from
reptiles (scales -> feathers)

{Sorry, couldn't resist}

Scott Krehbiel
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: stage editor views...
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 93 15:18:11 EDT
From: David Watters <[e-mail]>

> Breno A. Silva posing as Roy Park writes:
> > I have to admit that the LW's Layout interface is almost perfect
> > The "almost" stands for:
> >  - You can't move an object in its local axis, as in Imagine.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that since all objects move on their local axis.
> LW3 added the capability to move the location of that "local axis" without
> going into modeler.

He means that in Imagine, if the objects local axis is rotated, for example,
you can move the object along the worlds X,Y, and/or Z or the objects local
X, Y, and/or Z.

             _     ___
David    ~  |_|,--'   |@,__
Watters   ~   ( )-_______-()`-

--
David R. Watters ([e-mail])    Cranel Inc. Development & Engineering
"Porsche.  The very name is, to many, the last word in sports cars. Any car
 blessed with these magic seven letters is sure to be the very best. Period!"
                        - Car and Driver, January 1993


##

Subject: Re: stage editor
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 17:03:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

>
> For some reason, I just can't get the stage editor to save my objects rescled.
> I resize them in the stage editor and "save changes".  Selecting size bar
> doesn't help either.  It does save all positions etc. Any help?

I almost pulled my hair out over this one night when I couldn't get
the *#$! object to stay rescaled.  But you know that feeling already :)
In order to rescale something in the stage editor and KEEP it rescaled, I
had to click on the LOC button at the bottom.  Basically, you have to
scale along the object's axes.  Hope this helps.

> Fred
>
>
>

Peter Garza
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Archive 42
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 12:22:05 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Ok, guys. I have taken over the position of the archiver of the IML.
The new Archive (#42) is now available from wuarchive.wustl.edu from the
/systems/amiga/boing/incoming/imagine directory. File name is arc-42.lzh

This archive contains messages from Sep 9 to Oct. 1.
There is a gap between the arc 41 and arc 42 but this is for now how it
will stay.
I may add a few archives in between (41a, etc) but only if I have the
spare time to hunt down all the messages (not likely right now).

The file is in .lzh format so all the PC users should also be ok. I
prefer .lha but am not sure what the story is on the PC. Is this archive
type supported ?


I'd also like to thank Marvin Landis for helping me with getting the
archive going.

Well, it's back to your regular broadcast time... :-)

Nik Vukovljak

AGA Sig President
IML archivist - wishing you all the best from Sydney, Australia





##

Subject: Re: Light bulbs again..
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 21:03:04 -0700
From: Tim Salazar <[e-mail]>

Christopher,

In your sign you have Join the Animation Sig. What and where is this? Can I
get on email to this?

Thanks, Tim  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Archive 42
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 17:00:18 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

  Re: lha on the PC.

   The major archivers on the PC are zip and arj, but if it's
a choice between lzh and lha, lha is certainly supported. I
had no problem last year in obtaining an lha compatible archiver
on the PC.

  Greg



##

Subject: Re: stage editor views...
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 93 14:38:01 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

>Breno A. Silva posing as Roy Park writes:
Hey, don't blame me 'cause of this crazy "re-signing" of the IML!
Ask to the distributor why's that happening. It doesn't bother me
at all, 'cause my mails reach everybody, and you can read my name.
>> I have to admit that the LW's Layout interface is almost perfect
>> The "almost" stands for:
>>  - You can't move an object in its local axis, as in Imagine.
>
>Not sure what you mean by that since all objects move on their local axis.
>LW3 added the capability to move the location of that "local axis" without
>going into modeler.
Hmm. Pretty obvious you never REALLY played with Imagine, did you, Mark?
If you, casually, have a copy of Imagine around, or can get one for a moment,
try the following:
   Load an object/Rotate it on its, say, X axis/Select Move/Select Locale/
   Type Shift+y -> Instead of moving the object in the global axis, so mo-
   ving it horizontally, it will move it in a plane parallel to the orienta-
   tion of the object. VERY useful for moving the camera directly towards
   its target, without the need of TARGETting, and LOTS of other nice stuff,
   like effortlessly animate a plane taking off (always a bit unprecise
   in LW), and moving/rotating objects much more flexibly. Try it, and
   you'll admit it. :^)

>>  - Hierarchies aren't represented (sometimes it's good to see the lines
>> connecting the parents).
>The scene window in LW3 now lists all objects, lights, and camera with
>a graphical representation of hierarchy and keyframe locations.
Nah, that's not the lines I'm talking about! I mean a visible line IN the
layout, showing the connection of the axes without the need of the objects
being individually selected for you to see its axis. Very nice, mainly
when you have a Parented object far from its parent, so you can see exac-
tly the spatial relation they have. Come on, give LW a break and play a
bit with Imagine! You will find some stuff in 1.1 that LW don't have in 3.0.

>> Except this, everything is *wonderful*.
>And now its even more wonderful than you realized :-)
Not really... why? Have Allen released a 3.1 version with hierarchical
connection viewing, hidden-line removal (for christ sake! I can't belie-
ve they still don't have it!), local axis moving, children affecting bo-
nes, inverse kinnematics, CSG, physical properties, NURBS, and *REAL* spli-
ne mapping/rendering? Tell me how much does it cost, and I'll grab it! :-)
PS: I'm not being that much demanding, am I? I thought LW was being directed
to compete with SoftImage, anyway...

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: HI
Date: 7 Oct 1993 14:07:20 U
From: "Shalini Govil" <[e-mail]>

                       Subject:                               Time:2:07 PM
  OFFICE MEMO          HI                                     Date:10/7/93
Are there any dinosaur models out there on the archives? Was trying to get a
hold of one..
Also, does anybody know how to transfer files from the amiga to a work station?
I bought a modem, but it doesnt seem to have s/w to transfer files.
Thanks in advance
Shalini





##

Subject: Imagine makes Enforcer go beserk!
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 10:25:21 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

Hi Ho Imagineers!

Has anyone ever tried running Enforcer (Mike Sinz's overall illegal activity
and good-guy debugging program) while they're using Imagine?

Basically Enforcer detects illegal writes to ROM or protected memory areas
and watches out for programs performing naughty actions that could solicit a
visit from the GURU.

Mike (who up until very recently worked for CBM and who made very substantial
contributions to the Amiga's exec.library and 68040 routines) writes in his
doc's that there is absolutely no excuse for a program to cause Enforcer
"hits".

Well the bad news is that Imagine causes a slew of them.

Try running Enforcer in the background, go into the Detail Editor's Attributes
Requester and toggle Phone shading on & off.

Try performing a quickrender.

Has anyone ever noticed this????
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: Nintendo-SGI 3-D machine
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 93 16:54:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

SGI will supply chips for next-generation Nintendo home entertainment

     Silicon Graphics Inc. (Mountain View, CA), still milking its Jurassic
Park fame, held a joint press conference in late August with Nintendo of
America Inc. (Redmond, WA), the leading maker of video-game systems, to
announce a deal to put SGI-owned MIPS chips into next-generation Nintendo
game machines.
     In a room that seemed populated with more shareholders and bankers than
reporters, audience members sat through a presentation accompanied by a 3-D
interpretation of Nintendo's popular character, Mario the Plumber.
     The two companies reached an agreement to develop a 3-D, 64-bit
Nintendo machine for home use. Nintendo calls it "Project Reality", based on
"Reality Immersion Technology", video entertainment that lets players
experience real-time, 3-D scenarios and manipulate events in the game.
     Demonstrations of SGI's 3-D capabilities included a screen that showed
the user riding on the back of a prehistoric pterodactyl through a 3-D sky.

What to expect

     The product, developed specifically for Nintendo, is expected to hit
the arcades in 1994. American homes will have it by 1995, most likely just
in time for the holiday seasons, when video companies, one expert pointed
out, "make 80percent of their sales".
     The target price for the home-entertainment version is $250.
     Components of Project Reality include high-fidelity audio and
"record-setting" speed, such as exceeding 100 MIPS and 100 MFLOPS.
     The system will be gnerated by the MIPS Multimedia Engine, a chipset
made of a 64-bit MIPS RISC chip, a graphics coprocessor, and custom ASICs
(application-specific integrated circuits).

Business terms

     The terms for the joint development and license agreement are simple.
 Nintendo will pay SGI royalties for use of the licensed 3-D technology.
 The product will be available from Nintendo, as well as "current and future
licensees".
Nintendo will supply application software.  Nintendo reported retail sales
of $4.3 BILLION for the fiscal-year ending March 31, 1993.
     SCI MIPS spokesperson Steve Schick said the agreement spells "big news"
for MIPS "because of the volumes [we'll] ship ... it's huge.  It's a
tremendous opportunity to ship MIPS RISC chips all over the country, all
over the world. It really puts MIPS far ahead", he said.
 --- Shalini Chatterjee, SunWorld October 1993


##

Subject: MS-DOS Imagine Objects
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 93 16:29:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

  Check out wuarchive.wustl.edu (IP 128.252.135.4) under
pub/amiga-boing/incoming for a file called DAKDUNGN.LHA.  This is a large
collection of dungeon objects in MS-DOS Imagine format (TIFF brushmaps,
backward backslash \ directories) that somebody put up.  There are quite a
few nice objects especially if you are trying to dress up a dungeon or
medieval scene.


##

Subject: Imagine: PC <==> AMIGA
Date: 8 Oct 1993   03:12:27 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

    Hello!

    I was wondering if anyone could help me with the following:

    I would like to transfer files to/from my PC and Amiga (486 to 3000)
via Null Modem.

    I have null modemed over my IBM before to another ibm.  I have the
null modem, required gender changer, and cable.  However, i used some special
IBM software.

    What I would like to know is what/where can i get software to send file
back and forth from the Amiga to the IBM etc...?  I have never tried but
will 2 terminal/modem programs do the job?  If so, what amiga program
is recommended? Shareware/Freeware would be nice!?

    Thanks!




##

Subject: Re: Imagine: PC <==> AMIGA
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 23:40:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Daniel Jr Murrell <[e-mail]>

>
>
>     Hello!
>
>     I was wondering if anyone could help me with the following:
>
>     I would like to transfer files to/from my PC and Amiga (486 to 3000)
> via Null Modem.
>
>     I have null modemed over my IBM before to another ibm.  I have the
> null modem, required gender changer, and cable.  However, i used some special
> IBM software.
>
>     What I would like to know is what/where can i get software to send file
> back and forth from the Amiga to the IBM etc...?  I have never tried but
> will 2 terminal/modem programs do the job?  If so, what amiga program
> is recommended? Shareware/Freeware would be nice!?
>
>     Thanks!
>
>
>

TwinExpress is probably what you need.  I think it's on aminet.

Danimal



##

Subject: Re: MS-DOS Imagine Objects
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 22:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 7 Oct 1993, Stethem Ted 5721 wrote:

>
>   Check out wuarchive.wustl.edu (IP 128.252.135.4) under
> pub/amiga-boing/incoming for a file called DAKDUNGN.LHA.  This is a large
> collection of dungeon objects in MS-DOS Imagine format (TIFF brushmaps,
> backward backslash \ directories) that somebody put up.  There are quite a
> few nice objects especially if you are trying to dress up a dungeon or
> medieval scene.

Glad you like them.  Any comments/suggestions are welcome; and please read
the DAKDUNGN.README file for details like how to make the barrel more
realistic or make the door turn properly on its hinges.  For you Amiga
folks, just convert the TIFFs to IFFs (using ADPro or whatever), rotate
them 90 degrees, and apply them in the original size/orientation.

I'd like to see any pics anybody renders with these objects.

DAK (Doug A. Kelly, of course.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------







##

Subject:  Imagine 2.0 Coverdisk
Date:  Fri, 8 Oct 1993 14:28:44 +0000
From: "Rob (R.D.) Hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Folks,

  Did anyone else read the note in c.s.g.a. regarding Imagine 2.0 being
"given away" as a coverdisk on one of the upcoming issues of one of the
European (British?) magazines (e.g. Amiga Format,...). Can't quite remember all
the details. It had something to do with replacing another renderer that
couldn't make it.

  I thought perhaps Impulse could confirm / deny?

Thx
Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| Global Product Performance:            PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Damn those lights
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 14:01:01 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

I tried to do the morph of a light.  From off to on.

Here is my set up.  I'm not sure what causes the "feature" because I didn't
experiment with it too much.

Heres the set up:

Key frame one:

   lightbulb:
     attributes are the same for glass from Steves book except color
     color: white(255 255 255)
     fog length 25 slightly longer than the radius of the bulb

now when I set it as a light source and the axis is inside the bulb(all
the way) and set the brightness to 0 0 0 (No light) and then render,
it renders with everything dark, EXCEPT the bulb!  It even tells me there
is no lightsource, which is what I want, but that damn bulb is hovering
out there in black space!  It is too bright to be a unlite bulb.  And no,
bright is not set in the attributes.

If I don't set the bulb as a light, then when I morph to a bulb that is
on, every frame pops up that damn requestor, "No lights, continue?"

Any hints?

Oh well, other than that, the morph of the light looks OK.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: flags & brushmapping
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 13:25:24 -0600
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

Lets say that I have a flag object.  It is a flag which is not being
blown straight out from the flagpole by the wind, but rather is hanging
limply along the pole.

I can make the object, but for the life of me I can't get a brushmap
mapped to it correctly.  If the flag is standing out from the pole as
if under a stiff wind, this mapping is easy, because you can just do a
flat-x flat-z mapping.

However, a flat-x flat-z mapping clearly won't do anything useful for a
limp flag.  Unfortunately, it seems that none of the others do either.
My first guess was wrap-x wrap-z, but this produces _really_ strange
results which don't look anything like what I want.

Has anyone managed to get this effect to look right?  If so, what did
you do?  I could perhaps make the stripes & a field by shading
individual polygons in the flag object.  This might work OK for some
sorts of flags, but for something fairly complex like a US flag it won't
work very well.

(BTW, I haven't found wrap-x wrap-z mappings to be very useful for
objects other than spheres in Imagine.  If I try it on other sorts of
things, it never seems to do anything reasonable).

   - steve


##

Subject: Re: Trying to contact Steve Koren !
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 20:46:23 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis - ICD ~)

>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]> writes:

Hannes> Sorry when I am wasting bandwidth with a personal matter but I
Hannes> tried to reach Steve Koren via Email and all I got is the
Hannes> following:

Hannes> to <[e-mail]>

    Whenever I have problems like this, I try sending the mail to
a well-known, well-connected site, such as uunet.uu.net.

    Try this:

mail [e-mail]

and see what happens.  I hope this helps.  Maybe other IML'ers will
find it useful too.

                            -- Glenn

P.S.  I checked Steve Koren's e-mail address, and what you used is
      correct.



##

Subject: Re: flags & brushmapping
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 17:17:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

Steve Koren asks about mapping a brush onto a (limp) flag:
> Has anyone managed to get this effect to look right?

Imagine can't do it, because it simply projects the map onto the inter-
sections of the object as if the object was a sphere or a flat sort of
object.  In other words, it does not care about the object's REAL shape.
What Imagine would need is contour mapping (if that is the proper term, I
don't know) which takes orientation of individual polygons into account.

There is no easy way around this.  Perhaps the only way to do this is (at
this time at least) to create the entire flag from polygons, using image
tracing.  This would require you to stamp pieces of the brushmap from
DPaint (i.e. all the blue, then all the red, then all the white color) and
trace these individually, assembling the final result after each section
has been appropriately colored in Imagine.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of a way to conform the final object to the
shape of a limp flag, ...

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Thanks! Was: Re: AMIGA <==> PC
Date: 8 Oct 1993   20:29:24 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

    Thanks!

    I have recieved numerous replies to my question here about transfering
file to/from Amigas/PC's.  I will add a section to the FAQ so those using
both Imagine PC and Imagine on the Amiga can benifit.

    Thanks alot!

    Mike C.




##

Subject: Imagine 3.0 Info
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 12:48:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

The following information is taken from the Impulse summer newsletter.  Of
course, the advertised release date has come and gone.  Supposedly, the rest
of the info is reliable.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
     ** All information taken from IMPULSE GRAPHICSWORLD Summer 93 **


                        New Features of Imagine 3.0
                        ===========================


Bones..  This amazing function will allow you to build a skeleton that you
will associate to the object that you want to manipulate in a smooth method,
unlike the process that is now used in the cycle editor.

Brush tracking..  Presently when you wrap a brush to any object you can not
morph that object and retain the position of the brush on the object.  The
brush stays at the same position in the real world while the object moves.
Very confusing and not real handy.  Now with Brush Tracking, brushes or
pictures will be mapped directly to each face of the object, so that when
the face moves, the part of the brush that was tacked to the face will move
with the face.  Doing things like snake skin and then animating the snake
with the bones function will make the snake look real.  No more sliding
textures.

Kinematic Movements..  There are several high end software products that
have this feature.  Now imagine3.0 has the feature as well.  Kinematics in
its truest form is the study of motion, and how things move.  Within the
cycle editor we have had a form of Kinematics without the more intelligent
association of the hierarchical relation of the objects that are in the
cycle
group.  Now with the new Kinematic information you can constrain movements
so that when you move some portion or the group the other objects will be
less or more effected by one single movement.  Making more realistic cycles
will now be possible.

Font and Image Editor..  Over the years it has become apparent that many of
you make your living creating what we have all come to know as flying
logos.  The only real problem with this has been the conversion of images to
objects has lacked the kind of detail needed to make the fonts and images as
crisp as they needed to be for professional use.  The Font an Image editor
Hence we have added an entire new editor.  The Font and Image editor will
allow you to read Postscript fonts as well as one bitplane graphics.  The
difference is in the fact that these objects will use splines to create the
borders of the objects that you create.  This gives you much more detail and
control over the object.  Once you have the object the way that you want it,
you simply save it and load it into the detail editor to add its final
touches, such as colour and texture.

Motion Graphics..  It has been near impossible to create animation where
actions occur at different rates.  In the Action editor you could assign a
starting and ending speed to objects that travel along a path.  But you
could apply only one set of numbers.  Now with Motion Graphics you can deal
with each segment of the path as a different motion speed.  Not only can you
apply more information to the path, you can also see what you are doing by
graphic motion sine wave display.  No more tricky math calculations to
consider, just call up the actor and plot your graphs with the mouse.

Hierarchy Control and Pop up Action Bars in the Stage..  To say the least
going from one editor to the next can be a real pain.  Now from the Stage
you can move any object no matter if it is a part or a group or individual
and stand alone.  Also from the Stage you can call up the action bar
directly so that you don't have to go to the Action editor to make any
changes.  This gives you total control over object movement.  If you don't
like the way an object is moving, you don't have to go back into thew cycle
editor to make those changes, do it right in the stage.

Sound..  Not just sound added to digital animations, but the ability to load
your soundtrack of music or voice right into the Action editor.  Instead of
making a guess at when things happen and trying blindly to time your
animation to a preset sound, now you can actually see when it is happening
and make the changes in movement that correlated directly to the sound.  The
incoming digital sound must be in certain formats, once in that format they
are loaded into the Action header bar for your viewing.  You can not edit
here, the sound is for reference only.

AA Chip Set Support..  For those of you with the new Amiga computers,
Imagine will now render in those formats that extend your computers visual
power.

Improved Anti-Aliasing..  Jaggies just aren't any fun, and they don't look
good either.  One of the most suggested improvements for Imagine has been to
make the anti-aliasing better.  There is not much to say when it comes to
the improvements we have made here, its another one of those "You must see
it to believe it" new features. Suffice to say that you will appreciate this
improvement.

Real Time Graphics.. Other software vendors have offered a form of real time
or symbolic real time movement of objects or real time movement of the
camera.  We have implemented these features into Imagine3.0.  In the
perspective window you can chose your movements based upon several viewing
options.  You can then move things around in real time and see the results
immediately.  Caution.  Real Time is always misleading. In order to do this
in real time the objects are given a more symbolic representation like
bounding boxes.  This feature used in the Stage can create paths in real
time, which can then be followed by other objects as well as lights and the
camera.  Also this new feature allows you to create your Key Cells on a much
quicker basis with a single key stroke.

Deformations..  It has always been fairly easy to deform objects, but to do
them in a perfect manner has eluded many users.  Now with the new
deformation tools you will be able to: Twist, Taper, Bend, Shear and Pinch
objects to create even more unique and interesting objects as well as use
them in some very amazing animation effects.  These deformations combined
with Brush Tracking will make animations that will move you to the next
level of reality.

Materials.. We have long thought that there were two sets of properties
which
aside from the shape of the object should be applied by the user.  Color,
specularity, reflectivity, refraction are all attributes, where as a brush,
and textures and shaders are all properties that could be better called
Materials.  Now instead of just a massive attribute editor we have broke it
down and enhanced to two separate editors.  Materials stands alone so that
you can gain even finer control over your brushed brass pots and pans or
polished chessmen.

Forms Editor enhanced..  Now in the forms editor you will be able to
manipulate the slices of the object with the new magnetism system.  Each
point on the slice is a control point which you can move to create objects
that have just the right look and feel.

Field Rendering..  Digital animations are generally done by showing a frame
at a time or recording those frames to a single frame VCR.  In most cases
these animations, depending on the amount of frames and the distance of the
movement of the objects, can look very smooth.  The truth is that due to the
fact that the human eye and brain function under a process called
Persistance of Vision, it fools you into seeing motion.  This process
however
is discrete enough to see a jerking or quickness to movement.  With Field
rendering, your animations can be almost perfect completing the illusion of
motion.  When you see field rendering you may never use frame animations
again.

Camera and Light makers..  This feature makes it easier to visualize the
effect lights will have on your scene as well as what the camera is looking
at and just how much the camera is seeing.  This feature is accomplished by
extending markers from the center of a light as well as the camera.  These
markers form a triangle that shows the area of effect.  Now as you move
lights and the camera you will have a very definite idea of what you are
lighting and what you are looking at.

Apply.. We took this feature out of Imagine when it had existed in Silver.
This command causes the information about the first object you pick in a
multipick selection, to pass the attributes and materials of that object to
the other objects that have been picked.  So now if you want to make all the
objects in the scene have the same properties and attributes of one object
you simply use the Apply command.

Macros..  With Imagine3.0 you can take even more control of the software.
Many of you have said that you find yourself performing many redundant tasks
that lend themselves to the concept of Macro recording and playback.  So if
you find yourself doing the same thing over and over again, simply make it
a macro and just push a button to make those redundant tasks happen like
magic.

Particles..  Among the newest features found in 3D software is the particle
system.  Like most new features everyone has a different opinion of what a
particle system is.  Simply put, Imagine particles are varied and are simple
to use, they can be morphed, brushed, textures, and animated.  Even more to
the point they are very simple to use and don't slow the rendering process
down at all.

Alpha Channel Support..  For video uses and makers or great video fare, you
have asked for Alpha Channel support so your life would be easier.  We have
added for your using pleasure Alpha support.  Even if you don't make videos
for a living you may find this feature handy.

Depth of Field..  If you own a camera you already know what this new feature
is going to do for you.  If you don't own a camera you may still know.  If
you don't know, well here is a shot at an explanation.  When you open the
aperture of a camera you increase the light that can hit the film plane, but
you do so at the expense of having the lens to focus much beyond the object
that you are focused on.  This can be a great thing for making an object
stand out from it's environment.  When you close the lens down you increase
the focus of the camera from the point of focus to infinity.  This means
that the entire scene is in focus.  To date Imagine had an infinite focused
lens due entirely to its digital nature.  Now with Depth of Field you will
be able to make your images even more realistic.

Light Source Controls..  More creative control for you must also include
more dramatic control over lighting.  In this area there are numerous new
features.  Many or you have asked for a way to control not only the color of
the light but also its power.  Now you can control how much of an area a
particular light has control over.  The process is simple to use and the
effects make an even better photo-realistic image than previously possible.
Other new lighting features include:  Light sources that have shape or
dimension to them like light flowing through a venetian blind.  Sure you can
do these things now but you have to go though all the trouble creating the
blinds and placing the light, just so.  No more, now you can just click and
render.  Of course we have also implemented the ever so popular Soft edge
light source and for you Scanline die hards (faster rendering or course) we
have included shadow mapping.  This feature made it possible to have
shadows in Scanline as well as Full Trace.

Infinity..  Well not really but for all intense purposes we have added the
ability for you to have as many textures or images maps as you want or your
computer can handle.  In doing thins we have taken the Brush and Texture
options out of the attributes requester and have given these options to
their very own requester.

Imagine3.0 has over 200 new features, a fractoid for those of you keeping
track of that sort of thing.  With all this quality of new features we have
not cut any corners, making sure that Imagine meets and exceeds your needs
now and into the future..  (If they do say so themselves)..


Well there you have it the newest info in Imagine straight from the horses
mouth.. The release date is August 93' and the price for upgrade from
Imagine2.0 is $100.00US for pre paid..  The retail price for Imagine3.0 is
$649.00US.




##

Subject: Re: flags & brushmapping
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 16:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

What you need is the brush tacking function that's supposed to be in
Imagine 3.0, where you could model a FLAT flag, apply the brushmap, then
morph the flag to a limp, draped shape and the brushmap would remain
'tacked' to the appropriate vertices.

I don't know of any other way to get the effect you want, other than
having the flag made up of colored faces in the pattern you want.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: Damn those lights
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 93 8:55:43 CDT
From: [e-mail]

>
> If I don't set the bulb as a light, then when I morph to a bulb that is
> on, every frame pops up that damn requestor, "No lights, continue?"
>
> Any hints?

    How about adding an axis, make it a light source with
1,1,1 rgb?  I've never tried this, but seems to me that such a low
level of light will go unnoticed, and Imagine should be fooled into
believing there is a "meaningful" light source.


##

Subject: wuarchive
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 93 13:54:42 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Re: my last message -

> 421-wuarchive.wustl.edu FTP service is unavailable due to system
> failure.
> 421 There is no ETA for repairs at this time.

Ooops.  Guess I won't be posting Bulb.lha right now...  Wonder what's
wrong?

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: Damn those lights
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 93 13:35:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Thomas Setzer writes:

>      color: white(255 255 255)
>
> now when I set it as a light source and the axis is inside the bulb(all
> the way) and set the brightness to 0 0 0 (No light) and then render,
> it renders with everything dark, EXCEPT the bulb!

Your problem is the color - make it black, and morph it to white.   I
did this, looks fine.  I'll post it to the IML file section -
"Bulb.lha", a 31 frame HAM ANIM.  This was raytraced with a single
shadow-casting light source fully inside the bulb object.  The fog trick
does indeed work!  (I also morphed the fog from zero to about 75% of the
bulb's radius - any higher than that and the bulb was _too_
transparent.)


> If I don't set the bulb as a light, then when I morph to a bulb that is
> on, every frame pops up that damn requestor, "No lights, continue?"

That's to be expected if you don't set it as a light!  ;)  Instead try
making the light color (brightness) black 0,0,0 - and morph it to bright
white or whatever color you want.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: Imagine: PC <==> AMIGA
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 08:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Ingeman <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 7 Oct 1993, Daniel Jr Murrell wrote:

>     What I would like to know is what/where can i get software to send file
> back and forth from the Amiga to the IBM etc...?  I have never tried but
> will 2 terminal/modem programs do the job?  If so, what amiga program
> is recommended? Shareware/Freeware would be nice!?

TwinExpress is definitely the way to go.  Very easy to operate and relatively
fast. It should be on Aminet.

 Jeff Ingeman                      Dept. of Neurobiology/Anatomy
 University of California          Irvine, CA  92717
 [e-mail]                  [e-mail]





##

Subject: Imagine 3.0: where is it?
Date:     Sun, 10 Oct 1993 15:06:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Where the heck is Imagine 3.0?

----
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
      | aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
              "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"
----

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Burmuda anim
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 16:41:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]

Hey! I have an Idea anyone wan't to do an anim of Roy & I flying to bermuda
To pick up Imagine 3.0 vaporizing us might be symbolic of our promised vaporware
version of 3.0 Perhaps if we are all vaporized we could all be using 3.0
in burmuda on vaperville Island! eating vaporizing cocunuts and bananas...
any suggestions on some good fade effects sort of tranversing from one universe
to another but doing it within the ride so to speak?

                        Lesk


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0: where is it?
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 16:09:47 PDT
From: [e-mail]

>Where the heck is Imagine 3.0?
>
>----
>       ------------------------------------------------------------------
>      | Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
>      | aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
>       ------------------------------------------------------------------

Well you can take this with a grain of salt, or an ox cart full, your choice.
I spoke with Mike Halvorson a couple days ago (called him about something
else entirely, actually), and asked him his projected release date
for Amiga Imagine 3.0 and he told me he's looking to release it
as a manual-less upgrade package for upgraders who have/will pay the
$100 upgrade fee on 28 Oct 93, and then release it to retail stores
in the full fancy package with the finished manual about a month later.

Again.. these are HIS words, not MINE :)

Harv
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Archive 42
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 04:12:14 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>OK, then. The next archive will be in the .lha format.

  If anyone's still looking for an IBM version of lha, here's
what archie turns up:

          ftp.psg.com:/pub/LHA213.EXE
          ftp.psg.com:/pub/fidonet/LHA213.EXE

 If this doesn't work, try a gopher search with veronica using
'lha -t5'.

  Greg





##

Subject: burmuda anim
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 02:42:17 PDT
From: [e-mail]

    Or maybe you could do an anim of YOU writing a 3D package and we
could all be using that! I want 3.0 as much as anybody else and it is
obvious that the time frame has slipped. However so has the development
and upgrades to other packages( the Toaster being the most infamous).
To equate 3.0 to Vaporware is a little on the unfair side. My only
worry is that it meets it's hype. We can rag all day, and all night
but it won't write code, or smash bugs. The 3d arena has changed
dramatically in the last 8 months and I'd rather wait than to have
a product that give up to much to the competition. I would imagine
(no pun intended) that Impulse's first release date wasen't based
on the product that 3.0 it going to turn out to be. If anybody
has a problem tell Impulse you want your money back! Then get
another renderer. Seems simple enough to me. I'll wait as I always
have and hopefully will be as happy with the results. In the interim
I'm still enjoying 2.0.
                            bill
/*
standard disclaimer would go here but I'm busy modeling

*/




##

Subject: Help:To get a Chain Working.
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 23:34:02 +1300
From: [e-mail] (Oren Ben)

I'm trying to get a chain moving round a cog in an animation.How would i
do it ?( please be gentle) I've tried alsorts ways but cant get it
working.
Thanks
Oren Ben



##

Subject: Joe's diner project any results, yet ????
Date:     Mon, 11 Oct 1993 13:13:28 +0100
From: Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]>

Hi,

I am curious about the situation of the Joe's diner project.
Is the video tape ready, when and where can I get it ?

Thanks
Hannes



##

Subject: Where is Mike ?????
Date:     Mon, 11 Oct 1993 13:14:21 +0100
From: Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]>

As far as I remember Mike Halverson wanted to be back on the IML real
soon. So where is he.

I think there are yet a lot of problems and infos to be discussed
with somone from Impulse

Hannes



##

Subject: RE: burmuda anim (Imagine 3.0)
Date:     Mon, 11 Oct 1993 09:09:16 -0400
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>


I suppose I am as dissappointed as everyone else about the pushbacks in
release dates.  But if these pushbacks mean Imagine 3.0 will be more
powerfull and have fewer bugs in it then I can wait.  Testing & debugging
usually consumes most of the developement time anyway.

Jason K.


##

Subject: Perhaps to harsh
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 11:02:40 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]

My apologies to anyone who might have been offended by my comments.
If I was not excited by and enjoyed imagine so much I would not be disturbed
by a 2 year gap between revisions. No I am not interested in the purchase
of another package! I like imagine or I would not be frustrated. I am a novice
and therefore hope you will take my comments as such.

    To the one who responded negitively HEY lighten up! one of the great
things about this IML that I noticed as I read through the archives before
joining was that there was synergism here and humor.

REALLY REALLY REALLY I just wanted to turn frustration into humor OK!

P.S. I would Really like to thank those who are asking specific qustions
on Imagine although not able to respond as much as I would like those
questions and answers have help many fold.

                    Thanks
                     Lesk


##

Subject: Imagine Release Date!
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 19:37:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Well, not getting my hopes up TOO much, but during my weekly call to Impulse
today, I asked my routine questions...

1> When is Imagine 3.0 going to be released?

2> What is the best new feature that you've been playing with?

Today the answer was a resounding 'Imagine 3.0 will be shipping AT THE END OF
OCTOBER' (caps mine for emphasis). I asked if that was another date like the
end of August, end of September, or what. The person (didn't get the name, but
I know it wasn'
t mike h) assured me that this one was for REAL.

The second question was answered with 'The particle system. Definatly the
particly
e system'!

Call me crazy, call me a fool, but I'm starting to get a little excited
about all this again. I was somewhat bummed at the end of Aug, and Sept, but
they seemed to be telling the truth this time. We'll see.

At any rate, as long as Impulse can put Imagine on the map as the BEST ray-
tracing package out there, I will wait as long as it takes.

Look for me at 'The Forge'! ( hi steve!) call me



##

Subject: RELEASE DATE, FEATURES, ....
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 22:22:08 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

I called Impulse Today with a tech support question. Mike H answered the
phone, and talked my ear off. It's fun to get him going. Here really seems
like a good egg despite what I often read about him here. The following
are some of the major points I can remember now, hours later.

1. Imagine 3.0 will be released at the end of OCTOBER. THe printed manual
may not be ready, but if you can't wait they will send out the
software with a readme file. manual will follow when it is finished. He
seems to think that a competent 2.0 user will step into 3.0 with
no problem using only the on disk documentation.

2. Lots of cut and paste type stuff in the action editor.

3. Bones feature is implemented, but may never be needed as something
called "STATES" is far cooler.

4. In the future (that is after the 3.0 package with manual is shipped)
Impulse may implement an update scheme that allows the user to receive
new features as they are written. that is to say that instead of release
1.0 and a 1.1 bug fix and 2.0 with a small bugfix and 3.0 with a bug fix
they will make 3.1 and 3.2.... availible as the features are added. Upgrades
won't sit on a shelf at impulse for 18 months any more!

5. something like 100 textures are included. many sound cool. eg LIGHTS
which makes city nightscapes and spacecraft dashboards a snap.

6. A full spline based object editor will be the first feature they
implement beyond 3.0.  Hey, with the new update policy as mentioned
in (4) above, this could be in our hands in early 94.

7. In short, the release should contain enough new cool stuff to keep
us all entertained until the manual version hits. makes Halloween
something to look forward to. He really sounds serious about this release
and I will be very sad if they blow it off.

                    | Hey Beavis. Essence-II's Crumpled texture
steve lombardi      | really KICKS ASS.    Mhhh huh. Yea. And those space
[e-mail] | textures don't suck either. Huh.
                    |     -From a really new Beavis and Butthead

















































































































































































































































































































##

Subject: ISL ?s
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 22:55:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

Greetings all,

    I have heard some mention here about Imagine Staging Language.
What exactly is it?  It sounds like a way to write a script to use in
the Action Editor.  If so, could it be used as a substitute for a
particle system n 2.0, or is it just "Put this here then move it
there" outside of the Action Editor?  If it's pretty powerful, where
can I get ahold of it?

Thanks,
Peter Garza
[e-mail]




##

Subject: DPS
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 12:22:11 +0200
From: Ilias Alexopoulos <[e-mail]>

Doew anybody know what is the DPS PAR system. I know that it has to do
with real time animation. I also want the address and the phone/fax numbers
for that company.

If someone is using this stuff i would like his/her opinion on this product.
My email is:
            [e-mail]
thanks in advance

                    The Hard(ware) way.
                    Commander Ilias


##

Subject: New upload on FTP.LUTH.SE
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 07:18:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

I just sent a file called master11.lha to FTP.LUTH.SE. Currently, it's in
the NEW sub-directory of AmiNet, but it should get to one of the picture
directories soon.

It's an Imagine render I did called 'The Making of a Masterpiece'. Kinda
fun...

Comments or flames to [e-mail].

See ya!


##

Subject: DPS phone number
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 8:32:38 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

    Oops!  In my previous post I forgot to leave DPS's phone number.

    DPS - 606.371.5533



        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Re: DPS
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 8:29:50 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|
|Doew anybody know what is the DPS PAR system. I know that it has to do
|with real time animation. I also want the address and the phone/fax numbers
|for that company.

    Digital Processing Systems (DPS) makes a product called the
    Personal Animation Recorder (PAR) Model # DR-2150.  It is a
    hardware video compression system, using a proprietary format
    somewhere between JPEG and MPEG technology, that allows you to
    play back 24 bit animations, in guaranteed 30fps, to tape.

    It works in realtime and therefore single frame recording, and
    time base correction is no longer necessary.  The output is top
    notch, and from the reviews I've read, matches (or exceeds)
    everything short of D1.

    My PAR is sitting on my table at home, waiting for my Seagate HD,
    which hopefully will be arriving soon.

    The board is pricy for the hobbiest ($1560 mail order).  But for
    the serious animator, is a dream come true.  "Don't pinch me.  If
    I'm dreaming, let me dream on."  ;-)


|
|If someone is using this stuff i would like his/her opinion on this product.

    I haven't used it yet.  the reviews I've  heard are very promising
    though.


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0: where is
Date:     Mon, 11 Oct 1993 20:37:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> Again.. these are HIS words, not MINE :)

So far, two people (including yourself) told me the same thing.  Does this mean
2.0 upgraders won't be getting the manuals AT ALL?!  What the HELL?  I want the
#?$%#$ manual!!  I'm too stupid to use Imagine w/o manual!!!  ARGH!!!

> Harv
> [e-mail]

----
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
      | aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
              "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"
----

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: stage editor views...
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 18:01:55 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

Breno, why do all your mail messages say they are from the person you are
replying to?

Breno A. Silva posing as me writes:
> Hmm. Pretty obvious you never REALLY played with Imagine, did you, Mark?

Every experience with it has been FAR too painful, preventing me from delving
into it with any seriousness. For *me*, the additional capability it has over
LW is completely out weighed by the counter intuitive design and unpredictable
results. Plus there are just too many things that I could not live without
in LW that Imagine does not provide.

> If you, casually, have a copy of Imagine around, or can get one for a moment,
> try the following:

Yes, I now know what you were refering to.

> Come on, give LW a break and play a
> bit with Imagine! You will find some stuff in 1.1 that LW don't have in 3.0.

I deleted Imagine 2.0 from my disk many months ago. The only purpose it will
likely serve in the future is an upgrade to 3.0. I will then re-evaluate its
usefulness. But it has some major hurdles to leap before I will actually use
it.

> inverse kinnematics, CSG, physical properties, NURBS, and *REAL* spline
> mapping/rendering? Tell me how much does it cost, and I'll grab it! :-)
> PS: I'm not being that much demanding, am I? I thought LW was being directed
> to compete with SoftImage, anyway...

Well yes, I think thats a little demading since Softimage costs well over
$25K. And no other program under $20K does all of what you are asking for.
LW is by no means complete, but to insinuate that the current 3.0 is not
worth upgrading to because it lacks a list of "dream features" is ludicrous.
It completely boggles my mind how anyone using LW could possibly justify
NOT getting the upgrade.

PS. This was not intended as a LW sales pitch.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject:  Essence & Imagine 3.0
Date: Mon Sep 20 12:12:23 1993
From: [e-mail]

If indead Essence I and II textures do not function with Imagine 3.0, I am
sure that it is because of the increased flexibility and functionality that
the 3.0 texture format brings.  Impulse has stated that when "things are set
in stone" that they will share all file formats with anyone who asks for them.
I would assume that Apex is included in that "curious" group, and I'm sure
that those of us with some programing talent will wish to explore this option
as well.  Some sacrifice is almost always neccessary if advances are to be
made (look at KS 1.3 to 2.04)

Cheers


##

Subject: Re: IMAGINE DEFAULTS
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 09:50:56 -0600
From: [e-mail] ()

On Aug 27, 11:28am, Thomas Setzer wrote:

> I want the directory in the file requestor to be the directory where *my*
> object files are kept and it just so happens that this is not where Imagine
> looks.  Can I change where Imagine originally looks for files?  ie  are
> these default directories hardcoded or are they configurable.  Does this
> stuff get put in a startup file when I installed Imagine?  Could I change
> the default directories?
>
>
> Tom Setzer
> [e-mail]

As you probably know, Imagine look first in the directory which it has be loaded
from.
So, in this directory (called Imagine :-), I have the program, the Projects
directory, Brushes, Objects (with objects I use in different animation, such a
basic cube), Textures, etc...
All my brushmaps are located in Brushes (i.e. I write Brushes/gluglu.iff in the
brushmap requester). The same for my textures.
If you go into the Objects directory and you want to go to the parent directory,
the parent button doesn't work. So I hit the Disks button, then return and I'm
back in the original directory where Imagine has been lauched from, with all my
Projects-Brushes-Objects-Textures directories.
Then, if I want to move all the project on another computer in order to render
it, I just make a directory containing the program itself, the config file, the
Projects directory with only my projects in it and the Brushes directory with
the brushes I use for this animation (idem with the textures). I copy all that
where I want and I never need to have logical (i.e. assigns) or physical
directories with the same hierarchy as on my hard disk.

Hope you understand what I want to explain, my mother language is not english
(in fact it is french) and this things are not too easy to explain.

Hope it will help, too.

Robin
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-------









##

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 13:22:08 +1000
From: [e-mail]

> Doew anybody know what is the DPS PAR system. I know that it has to do
> with real time animation. I also want the address and the phone/fax numbers
> for that company.
>

Yep.  Real time 24 bit full screen animation playback.  CAn also be used
with the DPS TBC 4 for real time capture of video ie: nice for rotoscoping
too though i don't have a tbc 4.

Anyhow, I am using the product with Imagine, Vista Pro 2 etc....  Unbelievable.
BTW, if you don't have a recent copy of ADPro 2.3.0 or whatever you may have
some little problems. I have 2.1.5 and sometimes the machine crashes.  I have
found out that it is a problem with ADPro and NOT the PAR....upgrading adpro
will fix the problem.

The interface is great, and easy to use.  I am quite happy with the quality
SVHS AND VHS is all I use so I can't vouch for the Betacam output....though
I've heard it's really good.

If you want to do 24 bit anims and have the money, this is a must for any
animator.  No more drop outs etc...

The best thing is you can render different anims/scenes and can then edit them
how you want.

Also hold about 5,000-10000 still frames too.

Here is the address:

DPS - Digital Processing Systems
11 Spiral Drive, Suite 10
Florence, KY 41042
Phone: [phone]
Fax:   [phone]


Mike C.

PS: I am not affiliated with DPS, I'm just a happy customer.




##

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 13:54:19 +1000
From: [e-mail]

On Tue, 12 Oct 1993, Dale R Rogers wrote:

>     Digital Processing Systems (DPS) makes a product called the
>     Personal Animation Recorder (PAR) Model # DR-2150.  It is a
>     hardware video compression system, using a proprietary format

Yep, I'd be interested in a PC version (chagrin).

Has anyone seen or used the new Sanyo single frame video recorder? I've
seen ads but never a price or a review.

Rob Lewis <[e-mail]>




##

Subject: Re:  RELEASE DATE, FEATURES, ....
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 18:44:55 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>
> >Here really seems
> >like a good egg despite what I often read about him here.
>
> He could be a nice guy and still be rude... lack of basic social graces does
> not mean lack of goodwill.  He's been rude to a lot of people who've called
> him by phone, however, including me.  Speaking as someone who's sometimes rude
> myself but who works with many public relations types, I can see his problem.
> And it's going to get bigger unless someone explains reality to him - these
> days, it's service that people look for.  If I had called him without already

I see this is going to get way off of the subject of Imagine, so I'll make this
my last post on the (non)subject.

It comes down to a matter of opinion I suppose. I can understand why some
folks would consider Mike H. 'Rude'. He is blunt and right to the point.
He never sweetens his words and he has strong opinions. This is what I
like MOST about speaking with him. Sometimes I'll call for tech support at
other companies, and even though the voice at the other end of the line is
coming from a human being, it often does not seem to be a 'Person' at the
other end. I hate that fake 'phone voice' and condescending attitude
that a lot of people send out. Like I said, it's all personal preference.

>
> BTW - you do know your message was followed by over 300 blank lines?  Just
> checking.

Yes, i seem to have stumbled upon a 'feature' in MG. left amiga + 3 =
300 blank lines at the end of file. Sorry to all!

                    | Hey Beavis. Essence-II's Crumpled texture
steve lombardi      | really KICKS ASS.    Mhhh huh. Yea. And those space
[e-mail] | textures don't suck either. Huh.


##

Subject: light speed scene??
Date:     Tue, 12 Oct 1993 21:53:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Hello all...

Another one of my strange questions.... does Imagine support relativistic (?)
corrected raytracing?  If that doesn't make much sense to ya, here's what I'm
talking about.

When we do animation of two cars passing by each other, from one car's point
of view the other car wouldn't look much different from when it's at stop.
However, this is not true when two cars are travelling at clost to light speed,
since the relativity kicks in.  If Imagine raytracer was written with this
'speed of light and relativity' in mind, you'd be able to simulate what a car
would look like travelling at speed of light!

Perhaps they should implement this feature into Imagine 3.5 or 4.x  :)

----
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
      | aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
              "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"
----

APO/SparX


##

Subject: jet?
Date:     Tue, 12 Oct 1993 22:05:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Is it possible to simulate a 'jet' thrust?  Suppose I designed a nozzle object
and placed a light source inside, would it look like a 'thrust' coming out from
it?  If no, how do I simulate this using Imagine?

Also, is there a way of getting 'illuminated' light throught the atmosphere?
Something like a soft ray of light coming down through the clouds after rain..
I'd really like that.  Wouldn't you?  :)

----
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
      | aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
              "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"
----

APO/SparX


##

Subject: diffraction...
Date:     Tue, 12 Oct 1993 21:58:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Another idea on a 'truly nice raytracer'.

As I remember from high school physics, I recall light diffracts around the
corners of the object.  In another words, when standing behind an obstructing
object, you'd see light diffused (fuzzy) around every edge of the object...
looks quite 'illuminated', so to speak.

Is there any raytracers out there that does this?  Perhaps Impulse should
implement this feature into Imagine 3.5 or 4.x  :)  The images would look a lot
more natural.

----
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
      | aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
              "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"
----

PS - I suppose a 'rough' anti-aliasing on darker object would do the trick too!

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: jet?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 07:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

You'll need something a little more complex than a light source in the
nozzle.  I'd try a Fog object, shaped like an afterburner exhaust flame
(try watching "Top Gun" for ideas), with the same settings you'd use for
searchlight beams & the like.  Don't forget to modulate it slightly from
frame to frame, even the 'standing wave' phenomenon in afterburners
flickers somewhat.  Color the object like a gas flame, blue shading to
purple or something like that.  Yellow flames tend to be from low-octane
fuels, and it sounds like you want to simulate something hotter.

Sounds interesting.  Would you please upload your results to wuarchive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0: where is
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 07:50:15 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Tom Smith)

[e-mail] (Roy Park) writes:
>So far, two people (including yourself) told me the same thing.  Does this mean
>2.0 upgraders won't be getting the manuals AT ALL?!  What the HELL?  I want the
>#?$%#$ manual!!  I'm too stupid to use Imagine w/o manual!!!  ARGH!!!

I think I'll wait for Steve's next Imagine book Understanding Imagine 3.0.
I chunked my Imagine 2.0 manual from Imagine about a year ago. They couldn't
write a period!

                                                   Tom Smith


##

Subject: Re: Imagine3 release date?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 8:52:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|Well, my answer to "is Imagine 3.0 ready yet?" was "No, we're still
|programming it..." in a rather annoyed sounding voice (I'm sure I was
|about the 354 caller that week to ask the same question).  So, although
|this isn't any help as to when it'll be released, it's just typical
|Impulse for you.  When they mentioned that Imagine 3.0 was supposed to be
|out in the summer, the first thing I said to myself was "Okay, knowing
|Impulse, that'll be more like Novemeber..." I might not be too far off.
|:)

    You know... Mike could sure save himself alot of annoying phone
    calls if he would simply communicate with the mailing list.  Since
    we are the people that are predominately calling in anyway.

    He could keep us informed as to what is going on and there would
    be no reason for us to call.

    He doesn't even need to be on the distribution list.  So he won't
    receive thousands of hate mail messages ;-).  Just mail the status
    info to the imagine address.  It will be distributed
    automatically.  And we could stay out of his hair. At least, those
    of us without an "ax to grind" (we do exist).

    Has anyone suggested this to Mike?  Maybe someone should who has
    his personal address.... Dave??? (hint hint nudge nudge)


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Algorithms, Modelling, and Anarchy
Date: 13 Oct 93 10:21:00 EST
From: "J_GEORGE" <[e-mail]>


Over the past several months I've been a subscriber to this mailing list
and have learned a great deal from many of the posts. I've noticed continous
posts concerning upgrades and specifics pertaining to "what would REALLY be
cool" to add to Imagine. This is fine and dandy, but brings some questions to
mind:

    Has anyone, particularly those who are constantly searching for new
functions to play with, really taken their available medium and pushed it to
it's limits? As an artist, throughout my personal and scholastic training I've
learned that any medium has its limits at first glance, and part of the
creative process is to push those limits beyond what is considered the norm.
Watercolor paints, when applied in one fashion, will produce an image
composed of pastel colors, almost as if it was made of crepe paper. Those same
watercolors, however, can be 'pushed' to the point of producing extremely
photo-realistic works, it all depends on how it's applied, and no amount of
waiting for the company that produces the paint set can change that.

    On that same note, having some background in programming and watched
the evolution of computers since the early 8-bit daze, I have an understanding
of what kind of serious task we're talkin about as far as coming up with some
of these algorithms. For those that don't know, <chuckle> it's not easy. And
even with the latest and greatest effects and textures, these algorithms are
still very finite in their capabilities, and probably will remain so for years
to come. No matter how many reflections or refractions are used, the 'feel'
will remain pretty much the same due to the limits set by the program.

(sorry it's taken so long to get to my point)

    I understand that professionals in business don't have the time to take
their frames and work back into them with paint programs and image processors;
most 'flying logo' work doesn't require much more than color adjustment and
maybe a few effects applied by batch image processing. Most hobbyists are
concerned with the latest spindizzies and gizmos and producing the coolest
"Star Wars" or "Terminator 2" sequences. And lastly, most artists are exploring
and incorporating this new medium. The question I pose to all: Are the designs
and animations truly becoming stronger due to pushing the available medium or
weaker because most of us are waiting around for small collectives of
software engineers to give us these 'canned' capabilities?

Something to think about...

Thanks for your time..

                        I\/Iax I\Iomad




##

Subject: 3d Trees
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 11:04:53 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Greg Burger)

Greetings

I'm working on an Imagine graveyard for a school project and I'm in need
of some trees to put in it.  Some spooky ones.  I was wondering if anyone
with Vertex could generate some trees and uuencode them and mail them to
me.  It would be greatly apprieciated!

Thanx!
-Greg



--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-///-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            ///           [e-mail]       I had raytraced my
        \\\///  Only                or                 .sig, but I forgot to
         \XX/  Amiga      [e-mail]     include a light source.


##

Subject: Imagine Manual
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 11:49:56 MST
From: [e-mail] (John R. Spencer)

[e-mail] (Tom Smith) writes:

>I think I'll wait for Steve's next Imagine book Understanding Imagine 3.0.
>I chunked my Imagine 2.0 manual from Imagine about a year ago. They couldn't
>write a period!

Agreed!  Imagine 2.0 is a wonderful program, but it's *seriously*
compromised the quality of the manual.  Some suggestions for the 3.0
manual follow.  We can only hope...

1)  Divide it into lots more subsections, clearly labelled with
subheadings at the beginning of the section and at the top of each
page, so we can find the relevant part of the manual.

2) Try to tone down the "chatty" style.  A light tone is appreciated
in a manual, but having to read through a paragraph or two of digressions
on the importance of individual creativity when you're trying to find
out how to change the camera focal length gets frustrating after a
while.

3) Improve the organisation, so that you can learn enough to create
interesting images early on without reading and understanding
everything in the manual.  One or more tutorials that teach you some
basic concepts (unlike the grudging tutorial in the 2.0 manual) would
be a nice addition.  The 2.0 manual demanded intimate knowledge of
every feature in the Forms editor (a nice editor, but not one that most
people use every day) before telling you anything about the Detail
editor.  No wonder so many people abandon Imagine in frustration...

4) Better diagrams!

5) Fewer spelling errors!

6) Maybe just get Steve Worley to write the manual instead.

John Spencer.





##

Subject: Re: 3d Trees
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 12:35:32 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>
>Greetings
>
>I'm working on an Imagine graveyard for a school project and I'm in need
>of some trees to put in it.  Some spooky ones.  I was wondering if anyone
>with Vertex could generate some trees and uuencode them and mail them to
>me.  It would be greatly apprieciated!

     What do you know, someone else is working on a graveyard! I'm
interested in finding some decent reference material on tombs and
gravestones (beside going to a gravesite with a camera). Did you find any?
Mine's a dinasour graveyard, complete with a skeletonal triceratops
walking through it ;-).
     Perhaps having those trees uploaded to wuarchive would be nice, I'm
considering getting some sort of foliage generator and would like to see
Vertex's output.

                                      Christopher

ps. Has anyone used the Anti-Gravity SnapMaps?



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: Re: Help:To get a Chain Working.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 16:03:42 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>I'm trying to get a chain moving round a cog in an animation.How would i
>do it ?( please be gentle) I've tried alsorts ways but cant get it
>working.
>Thanks
>Oren Ben

  Since all the links in the chain are the same, you actually only
have to move the chain the distance of one link. This is an old trick..
if you move the chain EXACTLY one link (over a series of frames), you
can repeat the cycle, and it will look like the next link is the one
moving.

  Now.. how do you get it to move around the cog even the distance of
one link? That's the hard part I suppose.. how about manually moving
all the links up one position? If they're separate objects, you could
write down the coordinates of each, then type them into the next link
to get them lined up perfectly. Then to have chain rotate one link,
you could maybe morph from the one object to the other. I haven't
really done much with morphing, can anyone else confirm this idea?

  Greg


##

Subject: Re: jet?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 16:16:42 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>flickers somewhat.  Color the object like a gas flame, blue shading to
>purple or something like that.  Yellow flames tend to be from low-octane
>fuels, and it sounds like you want to simulate something hotter.

  Also, it would be nice to simulate the distortion caused by the heat.
This is really noticeable especially if the afterburners are off. Are
there any good ways to do heat waves? Too bad there's no way to apply
a brush as the index of refraction.. maybe make a bunch of transparent
objects with different indexes?

  Greg


--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+



##

Subject: Deja Vu?(sp?) ATTEN DAVE!!!!
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 17:37:53 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Hmmm, some strange goings on, on the IML.  Seem to be trapped in some kinda
timewarp.  Anyone else getting old messages, some as old as Sept 18th!

And what about those stange messages that said they were from someone when
in fact they were from someone else.  Dave?  Is it the ghost of archivers past?
Does impulse have a voodoo doll in the form of the IML?(what would that look
like?)  [insert twilight zone music here]

Oh well...

BTW, did anybody figure out how to do feathers on a bird(or Native American
head dress, or a strippers fan or...)  I saw the one "feather/wing in motion"
response, anyone else come up with anything?


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And now for something completely different..."
"You polymorph into a tripe ration.  The little dog eats you.  You die."





##

Subject: Re: jet?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:32:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David A. Rollins" <[e-mail]>

Hello Greg Pringle,
>
> >flickers somewhat.  Color the object like a gas flame, blue shading to
> >purple or something like that.  Yellow flames tend to be from low-octane
> >fuels, and it sounds like you want to simulate something hotter.
>
>   Also, it would be nice to simulate the distortion caused by the heat.
> This is really noticeable especially if the afterburners are off. Are
> there any good ways to do heat waves? Too bad there's no way to apply
> a brush as the index of refraction.. maybe make a bunch of transparent
> objects with different indexes?
>
>   Greg
>
>
> --
Greg, I have not tried this, but maybe it could be done by creating
a fog object and using the ripple FX on it.



##

Subject: Demo Renderings
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:29:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David A. Rollins" <[e-mail]>

Hello virtual realists!

I have uploaded a few SCANLINE renderings to Aminet to give you
an idea of some of the objects contained in the professional object
set that Cybergraf Synthiotics will be releasing in a couple of
weeks.

Cybergraf Synthiotics intends to make these objects for any rendering
platform that can run Imagine by Impulse and Lightwave from Newtek.

The objects will also be available for Macintosh and SGI, if Imagine ever
gets ported to that computer.

These are preliminary renderings, so please excuse the slight lighting
or reflection anomalies.

The pictures are available in iff and jpeg format and are located at:

/pub/aminet/pix/trace


The pictures are:

BATHR00M_iff.lha
BATHROOM_JPEG.lha
BEDS_iff.lha
BEDS_JPEG.lha
FOYER_iff.lha
FOYER_JPEG.lha
FURN_iff.lha
FURN_JPEG.lha
INTERIOR_iff.lha
INTERIOR_JPEG.lha
LIVROOM_iff.lha
LIVROOM_JPEG.lha
MEALROOMS_iff.lha
MEALROOMS_JPEG.lha

Comments are welcome. These pictures only represent some of the
objects that come in the object set.

Correspondence information is included in the accompanying .readme
files.

One last thing - Everything you see in the renderings is an object
of some kind. The brush maps will also be included in the object
package when it is released.

Pre-orders are being accepted.

Cybergraf Synthiotics will also make custom objects if you desire them.


Thanks.



##

Subject: Re: Help:To get a Chain Working.
Date:     Wed, 13 Oct 1993 23:37:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rosario Salfi)

To get the chain to follow the cogs, perhaps what could be done is to
use the points of each cog as a point for a path.  You can either use
Conform To Path on the chain (though I've never actually done this, and
I believe the algorithm (did I spell that right?) will stretch or
compress the chain to match the length of the path), or you can manually
place each link on the cog and keyframe the entire sequence.

Still again, you could (probably) just have the chain follow a path
(generated by placing each axis on the cog and making a path from that)
over the animation.

Hope it helps!


##

Subject: Re: jet?
Date:     Wed, 13 Oct 1993 23:39:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rosario Salfi)

To make the ripples behind the engines of a jet, could you not simply
model a flat plane in whatever shape you desire, make it perfectly
clear, then play with the index of refraction?  I mean, if you apply a
linear ripple (or even a radial ripple, with the center being the
exhaust port of the jet), you would get a type of rippling atmosphere
effect.


##

Subject: Feathers
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 19:34:29 CST
From: Jeff Niebergall <[e-mail]>

For feathers try a plane in the proper shape with an Essence I
texture for ridges. I don't have my manual here at work so I can't
remember the name of it. I tried this on the feathers of some
darts I made for a dart board scene and they looked reasonably
good. A gradient brushmap or texture would add more realism to
a natural bird feather. The problem I ran into with the darts
was the knurling on the grip area. I ended up using a altitude
map. A cylindrical knurl texture would be handy and I have suggested
this to the Essence guys. Would be great for camera lens focus
grips, socket wrench grips, stereo knobs etc.

Re: Imagine 3.0

It would be nice if Impulse released some demo renderings that
made use of some of the new features such as particle motion.
Even a few screen grabs of the new control options in the editors
would be nice. A least this would show that work is well on the
way.

[e-mail]

--


##

Subject: Re: jet?
Date: Wed Oct 13, 1993 20:33:50
From: scotte@137.110.11.73 (Scott Ellis)

David A. Rollins said on Oct 13 :

> Hello Greg Pringle,
> >
> > >flickers somewhat.  Color the object like a gas flame, blue shading to
> > >purple or something like that.  Yellow flames tend to be from low-octane
> > >fuels, and it sounds like you want to simulate something hotter.
> >
> >   Also, it would be nice to simulate the distortion caused by the heat.
> > This is really noticeable especially if the afterburners are off. Are
> > there any good ways to do heat waves? Too bad there's no way to apply
> > a brush as the index of refraction.. maybe make a bunch of transparent
> > objects with different indexes?
> >
> >   Greg
> >
> >
> > --
> Greg, I have not tried this, but maybe it could be done by creating
> a fog object and using the ripple FX on it.

I've done a little experimenting in the past on some of my jet pictures, and
found that for stills, using the "blur" style of painting in ImageFX gives the
most realistic results, as you can manually adjust how the "heat" looks.

If you're doing an animation, a transparent tube with the "ripple" effect
applied to it works okay..not as good as hand painting, but acceptable.  Oh yeah,
make the ripple size REALLY small..it seemed to work better for me.

   /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  //  Scott Ellis //  IRC: ScottE // WARNING: This signature warps   //
 //    [e-mail]   //  time and space in its vicinity //
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



##

Subject: Re: jet?
Date:     Mon, 18 Oct 1993 02:34:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> You'll need something a little more complex than a light source in the
> nozzle.  I'd try a Fog object, shaped like an afterburner exhaust flame
> (try watching "Top Gun" for ideas), with the same settings you'd use for
> searchlight beams & the like.  Don't forget to modulate it slightly from
> frame to frame, even the 'standing wave' phenomenon in afterburners
> flickers somewhat.  Color the object like a gas flame, blue shading to
> purple or something like that.  Yellow flames tend to be from low-octane
> fuels, and it sounds like you want to simulate something hotter.

Ahh... the fog object.  Something I haven't tried YET!  I'll see if it works
as I expected... and perhaps post it on wuarchive.

> -!---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting
> Group
> [e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-
> 5161

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Imagine PC?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 00:37:19 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

  I was wondering if anyone could give me some info on Imagine PC..

  What animation formats does it support? Is there a stand alone
animation player for it? Is Imagine PC ever going to support SVGA?
(even just VESA SVGA support?)

  Is Imagine PC 3.0 coming out soon, too?

  How about an Essence PC? Any word on if registered Essence owners
can upgrade to a PC version (assuming Essence PC is even in the works?)

  Thanks..

      Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+



##

Subject: Objects uploaded to Aminet
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 01:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prenter)

Hi, I just thought I'd give a quick mention of some objects that were just
uploaded to Aminet.  They're some pretty cool robot objects made by a friend
of mine.  The file is called CYCLEOBJ.LHA and it contains three robots all
ready to animate with Imagine's cycle editor.  There's also a JPEG picture of
the robots called CYCLEOBJ.JPG.  Take a look.  It's worth it. :-)

                                                                  Mark

P.S. - They do make use of some Essence textures.

--
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Jet?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 07:44:14 EST
From: Adam Benjamin <[e-mail]>

Text item: 10/13/93 10:14AM (IA5Text Enclosure)

>Sounds interesting.  Would you please upload your results to
> wuarchive?

Wayne Haufler modeled NASA's Delta Clipper and made a pretty nice
exhaust plume using essence I.  I have the object somewhere, I can't
remember if he grouped the exhaust with the clipper rocket or not.

At anyrate, the clipper is available from ftp.harding.edu under
pub/GG/imagine (I think?)

************************************************************
* Adam Benjamin                    [e-mail] *
* Christian Animator                   [e-mail]   *
* Disclaimer:  Nothing I say means anything to anyone that *
*               might take it to mean something I didn't!  *
************************************************************



##

Subject: Re: Imagine PC?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 06:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 14 Oct 1993, Greg Pringle wrote:
>
>   What animation formats does it support? Is there a stand alone
> animation player for it? Is Imagine PC ever going to support SVGA?
> (even just VESA SVGA support?)
Imagine PC will create proprietary Imagine anims (NOT compatible with the
Amiga player, BTW) or .FLC anims.  There are some PD and shareware
standalone players out there, check your local PC Graphics BBS (I use Leo
Graphics), and there are also utilities that will assemble and edit .FLCs.
>
>   How about an Essence PC? Any word on if registered Essence owners
> can upgrade to a PC version (assuming Essence PC is even in the works?)
Last I heard from Steve Worley (at SIGGRAPH), they're working on it.




##

Subject: Re: Knurled Metal
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 06:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

Is it possible to squeeze the 'diamond plate' pattern so each diamond
touches its neighbors, and all run along the same axes instead of
alternating 90 degrees?  I think this would emulate the knurled effect,
and would also be good for checkered grips, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: "Top 3D Packages"
Date: 14 Oct 93 07:30:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

     November Amiga World page 26   "6 Top 3-D Anim Packages"

     Aladdin 4D, Caligari 24/Broadcast, Lightwave, Playmation, Real 3D


     "We were not able to report on Imagine...we were unable to get
     details [on the 3.0 upgrade]"


##

Subject: Help !
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 15:15:58 +0100
From: [e-mail]

Hi Guys,
 I am new to Imagine as well as this list. Where can I find some
objects, textures, tutorials etc. for FTP ? I did find a few
objects on wuarchive. Are there any other sites ?
Thanks
Arun Kumar


##

Subject: Re: Imagine PC?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 10:58:59 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>  I was wondering if anyone could give me some info on Imagine PC..
>
>  What animation formats does it support? Is there a stand alone
>animation player for it? Is Imagine PC ever going to support SVGA?
>(even just VESA SVGA support?)
>

    I think it has both impulses own formats and FLC format.  If you
use FLC there are a number of players you could use.  I don't remember if
it has a standalone or not...i think it might since the Amiga version does.

    As far as SVGA it does support it!  I found running my VESA driver
allowed my to view the higher res renderings at full screen.


>  Is Imagine PC 3.0 coming out soon, too?
>

    Depends on what you mean by soon.  Who knows...

>  How about an Essence PC? Any word on if registered Essence owners
>can upgrade to a PC version (assuming Essence PC is even in the works?)
>

    Dunno....would be nice though.




--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail], CWRU Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Re: "Top 3D Packages"
Date:     Thu, 14 Oct 1993 14:24:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

>     November Amiga World page 26   "6 Top 3-D Anim Packages"
>
>     Aladdin 4D, Caligari 24/Broadcast, Lightwave, Playmation, Real 3D
>
>
>     "We were not able to report on Imagine...we were unable to get
>     details [on the 3.0 upgrade]"

That's only FIVE of them... where's the 6th one?

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: "Top 3D Packages"
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 10:14:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

>      November Amiga World page 26   "6 Top 3-D Anim Packages"

That's a hoot.  There _are_only_ 6 3D animation packages!
Leave it to AW...

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: Imagine PC?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 16:52:14 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>   Imagine PC will create proprietary Imagine anims (NOT compatible with the
>   Amiga player, BTW) or .FLC anims.  There are some PD and shareware
>   standalone players out there, check your local PC Graphics BBS (I use Leo
>   Graphics), and there are also utilities that will assemble and edit .FLCs.

   I've heard of FLI's, but I've never seen FLC's. Do you have some filenames,
so I can search for these utilities? Is there anything that will turn a
FLC into something more common? (like .AVI, mpeg, .fli, etc..)

  Greg






##

Subject: RE: burmuda anim (Imagine 3.0)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 02:39:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Yury German)

Hi Jason (Jason B Koszarsky), in <[e-mail]> on Oct 11 you wrote:

:
: I suppose I am as dissappointed as everyone else about the pushbacks in
: release dates.  But if these pushbacks mean Imagine 3.0 will be more
: powerfull and have fewer bugs in it then I can wait.  Testing & debugging
: usually consumes most of the developement time anyway.
:

    Well I do not know.. I decided to go out and get myself Lightrave
and Lightwave instead! Now come sthe part of learning to work with
Lightwave!



##

Subject:  more feathers
Date:  Thu, 14 Oct 1993 18:43:22 +0000
From: "Rob (R.D.) Hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Tom,

>
> BTW, did anybody figure out how to do feathers on a bird(or Native American
> head dress, or a strippers fan or...)  I saw the one "feather/wing in motion"
> response, anyone else come up with anything?

  Essence II has a "scales" texture that can be used as feathers, although I've
never tried it myself.

Rob

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| Global Product Performance:            PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Re: A Standard for replies (please!)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 18:26:17 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Carsten was mentioning a standard for replies.

Well, if you want to see EVERY letter written on a partic. subject, just
D/L the IML archive. That's why you guys have me, your friendly archivist.
The latest archive (#42) is on wuarchive, and covers messages from Sept
10 - Oct 1. The new archive (#43) will be released in 2 weeks or so.

Happy rendering.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Deja Vu?(sp?) ATTEN DAVE!!!!
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 00:57:16 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 13 Oct 1993, Thomas Setzer wrote:

>
> Hmmm, some strange goings on, on the IML.  Seem to be trapped in some kinda
> timewarp.  Anyone else getting old messages, some as old as Sept 18th!
>

I sure did. Gonna have to edit the latest archive as one or two of those
may have sneaked in.


>
> Oh well...
>
> BTW, did anybody figure out how to do feathers on a bird(or Native American
> head dress, or a strippers fan or...)  I saw the one "feather/wing in motion"
> response, anyone else come up with anything?
>
>
Sounds like something that could possibly be done with Anti Gravity
Workshop's Snap Maps. Trouble is, I don't have them and don't know anyone
who's tried them. Anyone out there who could give us more info on this
package ?

Nik.
[e-mail]

(Your friendly IML archivist)



##

Subject: Re: "Top 3D Packages"
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 01:08:03 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On 14 Oct 1993 [e-mail] wrote:

>      November Amiga World page 26   "6 Top 3-D Anim Packages"
>
>      Aladdin 4D, Caligari 24/Broadcast, Lightwave, Playmation, Real 3D
>
>
>      "We were not able to report on Imagine...we were unable to get
>      details [on the 3.0 upgrade]"
>
This is ridiculous. Even at version 2 Imagine is definitely better than
Aladdin 4D and in many ways than Caligari 24.
Seriously, who has used Aladdin 4D for any major project ? The program is
useful for rendering Gasseous objects and that's about it. The interface
and the poor manuals prevent users from doing much else, IMHO.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Imagine Manual
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

Hey everybody, give Impulse a break.  Mike has obviously paid attention to
all the ragging about previous manuals, and has farmed the 3.0 manual out
to somebody who's going to be doing a really good, thorough job.  Mike is
also obviously trying to get the upgrade out the door as soon as possible
for all you people who have been waiting less than patiently.  Excuse the
reality check, but publication cycles are even worse than software
revision cycles.  You can have your upgrade sooner, or you can have it
with a nice, complete and USEFUL manual.  Can't have 'em both.  Just MHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: Help !
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 01:11:33 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 14 Oct 1993 [e-mail] wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>  I am new to Imagine as well as this list. Where can I find some
> objects, textures, tutorials etc. for FTP ? I did find a few
> objects on wuarchive. Are there any other sites ?
> Thanks
> Arun Kumar
>
Welcome!

The site with most in terms of objects, tutes, etc would be wuarchive.
Look in systems/amiga/boing/incoming/imagine (I think), and in
systems/amiga/boing/video/imagine

You will also find archives of the IML in these areas (arcXX.lzh or such)

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Barm
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 11:28:08 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bandy)

Can someone give me an idea how to make good barm - you know, the
foamy head on a glass of beer (maybe you didn't know that's what its
called).  I have Essence I and II but all can seem to get is dirty
mush -- anybody need the equation for oatmeal?

Thanks.

--

Mike Bandy      [e-mail]
Johns Hopkins University / Applied Physics Laboratory


##

Subject: Re: ISL won't handle '+' in an object's name
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 8:44:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

>
> Hi Ho Imagineers!
>
> I just found a bug in ISL.
>
> One of my objects contains an embedded '+' in its filename.
>
Yup, that's true.

It's fixed in version 2.

Coming soon, to an ftp site near you!

:-)

_john



##

Subject: Re: .FLC Players
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 16:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

The BBS I use lists DTA17G.ZIP, Dave's Targa Animator Version 1.7, which
assembles Targa, PCX or GIF files into an animation by the numbers, and
LOOK09B1.ZIP, Look v.0.9 Beta 1, "A very fast .fli and .flc viewer with
mouse and GUI."

I haven't a clue as to the difference between the .fli and .flc formats.
Anybody out there want to enlighten us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0: where is it?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 14:03:39 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

On Oct 11 Harv wrote:

>I spoke with Mike Halvorson... and asked him his projected release date
>for Amiga Imagine 3.0 and he told me he's looking to release it
>as a manual-less upgrade package for upgraders who have/will pay the...

Obviously Mike meant to qualify the term "manual-less" with the adjectives
"sense-less" and "use-less".

Maybe the extra programming time has been devoted to producing a package that
is so intelligent the user doesn't even need to know how to use the new
features to get them to work perfectly!

Please add to the Imagine 4.0 features wish list:
- Telepathic Interface

I wonder what we, the existing Imagine user base need to do to get our hands
on the #?$%^&! manual!
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: ISL won't handle '+' in an object's name
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 17:01:04 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

Hi Ho Imagineers!

I just found a bug in ISL.

One of my objects contains an embedded '+' in its filename.

My staging file loads the object:
CrRsch2:3.imp/objects/crater+ground2

When I destage this and then restage it I get the error:
Syntax Error near "2"

If I change the '+' to '.' there is no problem, so restage seems to be
choking on the '+'
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: Re: stage editor
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 14:13:05 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

> For some reason, I just can't get the stage editor to save my objects rescled.
> I resize them in the stage editor and "save changes".  Selecting size bar
> doesn't help either.  It does save all positions etc. Any help?

How did you create the objects?

I had this problem when using objects created from a bitmap by Pixel3D.

Pixel creates the object with the lengths of its x, y and z axes set almost
to 0!  When you try and scale them in the Stage Editor they appear okay at
first, but if you save and reload the Stage Editor they're set back to where
they were originally.

I guess Imagine looks at the values in the axis sizes and figures that twice
nothin' is still nothin'.

I had to change the axis sizes in the Detail Editor, resave the objects and
then rescale them again in the Stage.

Does this help any?
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: Archives & other IML files
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 11:44:50 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Is there anybody "maintaining" the IML file section over there on
WUarchive?  I see loads and loads of files in the "new" dir, when are
these gonna make it over to the right dirs?

Also, I tried to u/l something there, but it didn't work and I can't
erase the files, and I don't know who to contact regarding this.

"Who's in charge here??" - overheard at an Anarchist's Convention.
--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: imagine .vs AGA
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 14:58:52 EST
From: Adam Benjamin <[e-mail]>

Hi there Imagineers.

While I'm in the mailing mood..

I just "finally" got a multisync for my 4000 so I can use the higher
scan screen modes now.  Any tricks/tips you can share about using
imagine with a "real" monitor?

Adam B



##

Subject: Re: .FLC Players
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 14:39:52 EST
From: Adam Benjamin <[e-mail]>

Text item: 10/14/93 7:40PM (IA5Text Enclosure)

>The BBS I use lists DTA17G.ZIP, Dave's Targa Animator Version 1.7,
>which assembles Targa, PCX or GIF files into an animation by the
>numbers, and LOOK09B1.ZIP, Look v.0.9 Beta 1, "A very fast .fli and
>.flc viewer with mouse and GUI."

>I haven't a clue as to the difference between the .fli and .flc
>formats.  Anybody out there want to enlighten us?

Hmm, well hopefully someone will know more than I do, but I believe
FLC is more rubost than FLI.  If I rememeber right .fli only supports
low-res (320x200) FLC allows high-res and probably a lot more
features I forget. The both use the same basic scheme though.

I have used DTA it is pretty swift (for a PC program 8-)
************************************************************
* Adam Benjamin                    [e-mail] *
* Christian Animator                   [e-mail]   *
* Disclaimer:  Nothing I say means anything to anyone that *
*               might take it to mean something I didn't!  *



##

Subject: Re: IMAGINE PC
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 14:00:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

   Imagine PC produces animations in Imagine and FLC formats.  The best
public domain stand alone player I have found for FLC is called something
like PLAYMOVY.  FLC is not a bad format to have for the MS-DOS machines.  I
believe it is an AutoDesk format.  I don't explore the PC public domain much
and so far haven't found much in the way of animation utilities like the
Amiga has (plug, plug).  Anyway, there is a good program on the Amiga, not
PD, called ImageFX which will import .FLC animations, and from there, can be
converted to pretty much anything else.  I seem to remember a PD utility,
for the PC, to take a bunch of still frames in different formats, primarily
GIF I think, and assemble them into .FLI or .FLC.  A good bulletin board for
these utilities is Graphics Alternative [phone].  For a small fee,
Grpahics Alternative will also allow access to the Syndesis CD-ROM 3D object
collection with over 800 3D objects in Imagine, 3DS, Wavefront, and
Lightwave formats as well as hundreds of textures.
As for SVGA, Imagine PC will render SVGA (640x480x256 colors) in TIFF or
Targa
as well as 24-bit TIFF, Targa, and RGB.  If you mean the screen mode for the

editors, I think that is already at 640x480 and the editor screens don't
really require 256 colors (yet).
   Imagine PC 3.0? Where is Imagine 3.0 period?  Also, have heard that
Essence is not yet available for Imagine PC.


##

Subject: Re: ISL won't handle '+' in an object's name
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 17:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David A. Rollins" <[e-mail]>

Hello John Rowe,
>
> Hi Ho Imagineers!
>
> I just found a bug in ISL.
>
> One of my objects contains an embedded '+' in its filename.
>
> My staging file loads the object:
> CrRsch2:3.imp/objects/crater+ground2
>
> When I destage this and then restage it I get the error:
> Syntax Error near "2"
>
> If I change the '+' to '.' there is no problem, so restage seems to be
> choking on the '+'

Is this a bug? Maybe YOU are using an ILLEGAL character in a file name.




##

Subject: Re[2]: "Top 3D Packages"
Date: 15 Oct 93 10:20:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

>>     November Amiga World page 26   "6 Top 3-D Anim Packages"
>>
>>     Aladdin 4D, Caligari 24/Broadcast, Lightwave, Playmation, Real 3D
>>
>>
>>     "We were not able to report on Imagine...we were unable to get
>>     details [on the 3.0 upgrade]"

>That's only FIVE of them... where's the 6th one?
>
>----
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
>| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"
REPLY:

Caligari 24 and Caligari Broadcast are two different variations on the software.
($399 and $795 respectively)


##

Subject: BEYOND;
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 18:51:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]

Has anyone seen the video at Radioshack called Beyond the minds eye?
There are some liquid effects (fluid and kinamatic) That are incredible.
I wonder if anything like that can be done using imagine or if imagine
was used for any part of it?
another question I have is ther any way to use the files produced by imagine
on a cray using unix to generate the anims?

I hope that made sense. In other words do your development on your amiga or
msdos and then send the final 400 frames to your local cray to render.
(or for those of us a little less flagrant a vax ....
                            Lesk


##

Subject: Snap Maps, etc.
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 15:15:22 EDT
From: ucsdev![e-mail]

>  On Wed, 13 Oct 1993, Thomas Setzer wrote:
[...]
>  > BTW, did anybody figure out how to do feathers on a bird(or Native American
>  > head dress, or a strippers fan or...)  I saw the one "feather/wing in motion"
>  > response, anyone else come up with anything?
>  >
>  Sounds like something that could possibly be done with Anti Gravity
>  Workshop's Snap Maps. Trouble is, I don't have them and don't know anyone
>  who's tried them. Anyone out there who could give us more info on this
>  package ?
>
>  Nik.
>  [e-mail]
>
>  (Your friendly IML archivist)
>

My understanding is that SnapMaps work by using matching transparency,
color, and altitude maps.  I've never gotten this to work well with
Imagine.  The problem appears to be the Transparency Maps.

Right after 2.0 came out I saw an animation called LocoMotion that
made (very good looking) pine trees by apparently mapping images
of tree branches on planes with transparency maps to blur the
edges of the branches/leaves.  No matter what I tried in Imagine,
you could always see the edge of the plane (rendered as a thin
black line).  I boosted the max value, I tweeked the transparency
map by hand, made the object transparent by default, pulled my
hair out, and waved a dead chicken in the air.  Nothing helped.

When many (a dozen) of the trees are in the same scene, Imagine 2.0
will get confused and start rendering black rectangles when a given
ray of light has to pass through too many transparency mapped planes
to get to the 'camera' viewpoint.  I was nowhere near to running out
of RAM when this happened.  (Additionally, forget about using
transparency mapping and global fog at the same time, it won't work.)
I reported this 'feature' of Imagine 2.0 to the friendly people at
the Impulse Tech Line and they told me I was insane.

This isn't meant as a slam on Snap Maps.  They probably work great
for anything that doesn't require transparency, and probably work
even better for Lightwave.

Kenneth Jennings      [e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: flags & brushmapping
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 13:50:52 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

Hi Steve!, on Oct 8 you wrote:
>I could perhaps make the stripes & a field by shading
>individual polygons in the flag object.  This might work OK for some
>sorts of flags, but for something fairly complex like a US flag it won't
>work very well.

How about using Pixel3D to do a colour conversion of the bitmap to an Imagine
object - Pixel automatically creating each colour on the flag as a separate
collection of faces for Imagine.

This will almost certainly produce an object with ->MANY<- points however.

If you think working with such an object sounds like a pain, you'd better
take a seat, the next step gets even worse!

If you needed to make the flag curve smoothly across the middle of some of the
faces you could always try slicing them.  (Arh HA HA HA HA!  Sorry I couldn't
resist.  The slice operator!?  That way lies madness!)

Hmmm.  Let's see.  The Australian flag has 3 colours.  How many in the American
flag?  Dumb question.  How about creating the flag in DPaint in 3 colours, but
use a 32 colour palette and simply duplicate the same 3 colours in the palette
as many times as possible.  Then use the Stencil feature to recolour vertical
slots on the flag's surface to the next available group of 3 colours in the
palette.

You end up with a flag that looks the same, but who's colours are actually
mapped to different registers of the palette in alternating vertical slots.

Then you convert it through Pixel3D and Pixel will create different groups of
faces for each colour register number in the palette.  So you wouldn't need
to use the slice operator (Thank goodness!) and you'd still end up with a
correctly coloured object that you could curve around on itself to make it
look limp.

Sounds like a lot of work, you'll have to really want that flag badly!

Hope this helps.
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: Re: .FLC Players
Date:     Fri, 15 Oct 1993 21:13:03 -0400
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

Are there any converters around to go between FLC & Anim5/7?  Preferably
something PD/Shareware as I can't afford to get a >100$ package just to
convert anims.

Jason K.


##

Subject: algorithmic plants for imagine?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 21:26:07 -0600
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

A short time back, I recall hearing of a program which would generate
some sort of algorithmic plants for Imagine.  However, my rather poor
memory can't recall what it was called or any details about it.  Or
perhaps its all something I dreamt up :-)

Assuming its real: Does anyone know what this is?  Can you give a brief
blurb about it?  I'm interested in:
  - general impressions
  - about how much does it cost?
  - is the quality of the results high?
  - does it supply any sort of texture or attribute info, or just the
    polygons for a plant?
  - what sorts of plants can it make?
  - what sort of control do you have over the results?
  - anything else that might be useful.

Thanks,

  - steve


##

Subject: Morphus
Date:     Fri, 15 Oct 1993 23:52:03 -0400
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

I've been playing around with Morphus's object morphing.  Whenever I load a
destination object, it becomes distorted.  Is there a way around this?

Also, what's the latest version of Morphus?  The one I have is 1.1.

Jason K.



##

Subject: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 1993 01:26:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Remember me?  I was the one to ask you people about 'jet' thrust effect in the
first place, so I decided to do the 'simulation'.

Man... I'm trying to accomplish that effect in this 200 frame animation, and
it's on 33rd frame right now... and it's been one whole day already!  At this
rate, my A3000 will be computing for this project for one whole week!

Everything I do on the background (such as calling BBSes to do transfer, and
posting messages) is REALLY SLOW!!  Transferring compressed binary files on
my 14400 HST is now at 1300 cps (on v.32bis 14400 it's 990 cps!) and loading
other smaller programs in the back takes at least 5 seconds to load.. duh...

I'm not sure how long I could take this multitasking abuse any longer... perhaps
it's time for me to get an 040 accelerator (I'd still prefer an 060...)

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: BEYOND;
Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 1993 03:30:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> I hope that made sense. In other words do your development on your amiga or
> msdos and then send the final 400 frames to your local cray to render.
> (or for those of us a little less flagrant a vax ....

NO!

>       Lesk

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Impulse was in my dream!
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 08:03:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

I think I've been playing with Imagine too much.  I had a dream where
I called Impulse, ask for Mike H., and proceded to ask him if Imagine
3.0 would have this and that.  One thing that popped into my dream
that I have been thinking about is true symmetry in the forms editor.
Now, we have edges for the former and stringers, but the diagonal
edges of the base form all go in the same direction.  So even with
symmetry turned on, the form isn't symmetrical.  I'd like it if the
diagonal edges changed direction for the symmetry.  I hope that makes
sense.

Changing the subject:
I ask a while back about ISL, but got no responses.  My questions are
1) Can it be used to write a scrpit for a particle system?
2) Where can I get it?

Oh, yeah, the dream then switched to the MASH episode where they all
have nightmares (i.e. G.I.'s crucifixion behind Father Mulcahy)

Thanks for any responses to ISL,
Peter Garza
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: .FLC Players
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 08:47:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cliff Lee <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 14 Oct 1993, Doug Kelly wrote:

> I haven't a clue as to the difference between the .fli and .flc formats.
> Anybody out there want to enlighten us?

Autodesk's FLI animatin format was originally for 320 x 200.  With the
advent of SVGA cards, they modified the format to include the upper video
modes and now calls it FLC to differentiate between the two.  There may be
other differences, but thats my working knowledge of it.

BTW,
Daves Targa Animator is in version 2.? now and will "decompile" a FLI or
FLC into its constituent images as well as create.  It also will create
fli/flc's from zipped images.  It knows to unzip them to use them. Saves
disk space.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Cliff Lee
 [e-mail]
 "Everything will work out if you let it!" Cheap Trick






##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date:     Sat, 16 Oct 1993 10:09:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> This _is_ an Amiga you're rendering on, right?  Why not down the priority
> of Imagine?  There are any number of PD programs which will let you do
> this.  I normally render at -2.  This prevents the renderer from interfering
> with the other stuff I want to do, but lets it use the entire machine when
> I'm not doing other stuff.

Not a bad idea!  Ok, here goes priority -2....

> _john

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date:     Sat, 16 Oct 1993 23:31:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> Roy,
>  I can't help you with the jet effect, but you can use a program like
> ARTM to chanbge the priority of Imagine.  Change it to -1, and
> everything else will be just like it was before.  Imagine will slow
> down slightly, but I doubt you'd even notice, especially since it's
> taking so long anyway.  I always have Imagine at -1.  You can give the
> icon a tooltype of TOOLPRI = -1, and that'll do the trick.

Thanks for your help Dan... the Jet effect is coming along fine... it's at
30th frame now (yes, I've done some re-work on the objects and the gas, etc)
and it should be done by next week (total of 200 frames!).  Probably require
lots of RAM... it shouldn't be problem for us Imagineers with lots of RAM  :)

> Dan

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: IMAGINE PC
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 20:52:12 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

   Thanks for all the great info re: imagine PC, everyone! I
really appreciate everyone resisting the urge to launch into
IBM vs. Amiga bashing. I've been tracking down the utility programs
mentioned, and after I get a chance to test them out, I'll try
and post a summary of what is available where.

   Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+




##

Subject: Chain
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 04:38:17 +0200
From: [e-mail]

Hey all

In reply to the old cog and chain question, here are my couple of cents, or
the equivalent phrase:

One obvious way is to create one link in the chain, copy/paste it until you
have all the links that are seen in the animation, and move/rotate so there
are all lined up in reference to the cogs. SAVE OFTEN! group them to save
once.
Now, preferably by writing down the individual coordinates of each link and
porting it to the next one in the sequence, as Greg Pringle suggested, move
the chain one cog ahead. One cog length is the maximum amount you can move
it, because the chain rotates, and morphing would look !@#$%^&* when moving
it more then one cog length. So one cog length it is.
Once you are satisfied with both versions of the chain, attributes and all,
you should ungroup and JOIN them. Save again, as chain01 and chain02.

Set up the scene as you like in the stage editor, positioning the links so
they feet perfectly to the cogs. Two animation possibilities exist:
One - the animation shows the chain moving endlessly, meaning you move the
chain one cog length and repeat the animation. For this situation, simply
morph the chain to the moved version over the entire length of the
animation, and combine the individual rendered frames WITHOUT THE FIRST OR
LAST FRAME, so there won't be a delay when playing the anim.

The second, and more problematic situation, is when you need the chain to
move many times around the gear wheels. Morphing again to chain01 would make
the chain go back, and I suppose that is not the desired effect. So -

Say the animation is 60 frames long, and the morph goes on from frame 2 to
frame 10 (frame one contains chain01). Load chain01 again on frame 10, and
morph it again to chain02 till frame 20. On frame 20, load it, morph, etc.
to the end of the animation. ISL would make the whole process a lot easier.
I couldn't try this at home because of the happy fact that I'm rendering a
paid for animation right now, and feel no need to overload Amy too much.
But I'm sure it works.

                             -----------------
>From Roy Park:

> When we do animation of two cars passing by each other, from one car's point
> of view the other car wouldn't look much different from when it's at stop.
> However, this is not true when two cars are travelling at clost to light speed,
> since the relativity kicks in.

Yes, that would be a nice feature.. utterly weird, but nice. Try stretching
and morphing the object to get the desired effect, that would be... Anyone
ever sat in a car going light speed? what would be the effects on the
rear-view mirrors? would headlights be a thing of the past? Anyway, there's
no point in driving at the speed of light, because you would never get on
time to the place you're going to, right?
I do not intend to start a thread about relativity, just some points to
think about...

Nir Hermoni
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: SETTING TASK PRIORITI
Date:     Sat, 16 Oct 1993 23:37:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> Roy- You desperately need to download ARTM or one of the many other
> utilities/commodities for the amiga that will let you set the priority
> of a process. Priman11.lha is only about 35K and can be found on
> aminet. If you dont' have ftp access let me know and I'll send it
> to you. You can drop the interactive priority of imagine to -1, allowing
> other tasks to take CPU as needed. when you are not doing anything else
> on the Amiga interactively(ie. you went to sleep or out for a snack)
> imagine will get all of the CPU back.

Thanks for your help.  I've already managed to get TaskY and it's working
beautifully on my A3000!  BTW, I do have FTP access and I was wondering where
I could get some interesting Imagine objects.  Any idea?

> I'm currently rendering an animation that will probably take 10-12 days.
> I leave my machine on all the time with imagines priority set to -1.
> when I'm typing(like this message) or drawing in dpaint my interactive
> response is great, yet imagine can still grab any CPU cycles I'm not
> using.

Yup, priority -1 works for me too.  Man... there's gotta be some quicker way
of doing this rendering!!!

>                    | Hey Beavis. Essence-II's Crumpled texture
> steve lombardi      | really KICKS ASS.    Mhhh huh. Yea. And those space
> [e-mail] | textures don't suck either. Huh.

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 06:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

Depending on the price of your upgrade options, it may be cheaper for you
to buy a 486 PC to use as a rendering engine.  I use both platforms, and
can attest that modeling on the Amiga and rendering on a dumb (but faster)
PC is definitely the way to go for speed/price performance.  As per
earlier threads on this list, the PC version of Imagine runs SIGNIFICANTLY
faster then even a hot '040.  Of course, it doesn't multitask at all.

I've been checking on 486's for a friend, and you can get a minimum 486/33
with a 120mb HD and 4Mb RAM for $1300, and RAM expansion is about
$200/4Mb.  Use a parallel-port connection or a network card to link your
machines, and productivity goes through the roof...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date:     Sun, 17 Oct 1993 16:33:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> Depending on the price of your upgrade options, it may be cheaper for you
> to buy a 486 PC to use as a rendering engine.  I use both platforms, and
> can attest that modeling on the Amiga and rendering on a dumb (but faster)
> PC is definitely the way to go for speed/price performance.  As per
> earlier threads on this list, the PC version of Imagine runs SIGNIFICANTLY
> faster then even a hot '040.  Of course, it doesn't multitask at all.

That's not bad... I suppose I could get a 486 DX2-66 with 16 MB RAM and 40 MB
(minimum) harddrive, and standard VGA graphics for about $2000 CDN... but
there's advantage of getting 060 on my A3000 for about same price (I WISH)
and it'd be a lot faster too!  :)

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

Still waiting for 68060.....

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Impulse was in my dream!
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 12:19:31 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

> Changing the subject:
> I ask a while back about ISL, but got no responses.  My questions are
> 1) Can it be used to write a scrpit for a particle system?
Yes, sort of.  It's basically an ASCII representation of what you would
see in the Action editor.  Much easier to work with programmatically.  :-)

It has no built-in particle system functions or anything like that, tho.  You
have to write those.  What ISL will help with in this situation, is making it
easy to place the particles once you know where you want them.

> 2) Where can I get it?
>
Should be on Aminet and on Portal.  Latest release version is 1.5.  2.0, the
first shareware version (cheap), will be out any day.

> Thanks for any responses to ISL,
> Peter Garza
> [e-mail]
>
Most welcome,
John T. Grieggs
author of ISL



##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date:     Sun, 17 Oct 1993 20:19:42 -0400
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

Since you brought up getting a 486 to increase rendering throughput what
about bridgeboard options?  I havent looked into it recently but I would
find it more convenient to have one computer on my desk than two(those of
you that have seen my desk can understand why).  Has anyone tried this?

Jason K.


##

Subject: Rain effect...
Date:     Mon, 18 Oct 1993 00:56:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Hello all.. it's me again...

Question of the day:   How do I achieve raining effect in Imagine 2.0?

Why am I asking?  I just saw FredFloaty.lha and I'm truly impressed!  Perhaps I
should make something like that with Imagine 2.0... Possible?  Man, I'll have
to spend some time making objects first.... and the rendering... another couple
years and I might end up with some 2 minute animation!  :)


##

Subject: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date:     Mon, 18 Oct 1993 01:01:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Ok... I've once heard that the colour operations in Imagine 2.0 is processed in
24-bit internally.  Does this mean if I render to a 24-bit image rather than
HAM, the rendering might be a little faster?

Also, LightWave uses 96 bit per pixel internally for raytracing.... verses 24
bits per pixel of Imagine.  Is this going to change at all in Imagine 3.0?  Or
isn't it a big deal at all?


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 01:19:35 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>Ok. I've once heard that the colour operations in Imagine 2.0 is processed in
>24-bit internally.  Does this mean if I render to a 24-bit image rather than
>HAM, the rendering might be a little faster?

   Yes, rendering is faster with 24 bit images. Also, you get better results
if you use adpro to dither to ham mode, since Imagine's dithering isn't the
best. You can get even better results using Hamlab Plus to convert to hires
ham mode. (the difference is amazing!)


    Greg




##

Subject:      FLI's, FLC's
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 93 09:33:32 CET
From: "R. Luettgens" <[e-mail]>

FLI's were used on PC VGA cards in 320x200 resolution and 256 colours.
FLC's i think were invented with the ANIMATOR PRO from Autodesk in order
to support higher resolutions like 640x480 and 256 colours. As far as i
know those players for FLI, FLC as well as some animations can be found
on nic.funet.fi somewhere in pc directory.
But i have to say i was never happy with FLI, FLC animations on the pc.

Roland


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date:     Mon, 18 Oct 1993 07:10:29 -0400
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>if you use adpro to dither to ham mode, since Imagine's dithering isn't the
>best. You can get even better results using Hamlab Plus to convert to hires
>ham mode. (the difference is amazing!)

Yes but did you ever notice anything strange about Imagine's dithering method?
It seems that in order to reduce deltas in animations, Imagine will try to
maintain regions of dithered patterns.  An easy way to see this is to render a
simple plane moving across the screen.  It will look like the plain is a window
into another region, the dithered pattern remains stationary while the plane
moves.  I wish I could shut this feature off.

Also, I noticed that if I generate my all my frames first and then compile them
into an anim with make, the resulting anim looks better that if I simply
selected the range of frames and hit MAKE.

Jason K.


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date:     Mon, 18 Oct 1993 11:20:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rosario Salfi)

You can turn the Imagine dithering off by:

1. De-selecting the AutoDither button in the Project Menu

2. Entering the Preferences editor and turning AutoDither off

Hope it helps!


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date:     Mon, 18 Oct 1993 13:36:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

>   Yes, rendering is faster with 24 bit images. Also, you get better results
> if you use adpro to dither to ham mode, since Imagine's dithering isn't the
> best.

Not a bad idea!  Damn.. I already did 105 of 200 frames rendering... I wonder
if I should go back and start it again in 24-bit!  :(

>    Greg

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re[2]: .FLC Players
Date: 18 Oct 93 10:49:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

*****************************
Begin include:
The BBS I use lists DTA17G.ZIP, Dave's Targa Animator Version 1.7, which
assembles Targa, PCX or GIF files into an animation by the numbers, and
LOOK09B1.ZIP, Look v.0.9 Beta 1, "A very fast .fli and .flc viewer with
mouse and GUI."

I haven't a clue as to the difference between the .fli and .flc formats.
Anybody out there want to enlighten us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End include.
*****************************
     DTA rel 2.0 (7/29/93) is available.  I used it last week to
     create a PC FLI animation.  These anim files seem to be bigger
     than our anim5 format, but I had no problems. I used FLXPLAY to
     play the anim on the PC.


##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 12:54:48 EDT
From: ucsdev![e-mail]

>  >From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>
>  Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
>
>  Since you brought up getting a 486 to increase rendering throughput what
>  about bridgeboard options?  I havent looked into it recently but I would
>  find it more convenient to have one computer on my desk than two(those of
>  you that have seen my desk can understand why).  Has anyone tried this?
>
>  Jason K.

So far, I am not aware of any 'real' 486 bridgeboards for the Amiga.
Imagine requires the floating point processor in the PC which
the 486SX (I'm pretty sure) and 486SLC (I know) lack.  I don't
know of any bridgeboards that use a DX, DX/2, or SL.  (Though,
I'm sure someone will point out my error shortly.)


Kenneth Jennings, Amiga Advocate | ======Equine Video Studios======
"Proud I'm not a PC/Mac Lemming, | =========& SyntheToonz==========
 but still The Voice Of Reason." | >>Lynn Chandler, Video Goddess<<
      [e-mail]       | >Ken, Computer Animation Artist<
  AT&T Universal Card Services   | >>>>>>Bruno The Wonder Dog<<<<<<
--(Not the opinions of AT&T and I'm sure they're glad to hear it)--


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0: where is it?
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 15:32:13 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> On Oct 11 Harv wrote:
>
> >I spoke with Mike Halvorson... and asked him his projected release date
> >for Amiga Imagine 3.0 and he told me he's looking to release it
> >as a manual-less upgrade package for upgraders who have/will pay the...
>
> Obviously Mike meant to qualify the term "manual-less" with the adjectives
> "sense-less" and "use-less".
>
> I wonder what we, the existing Imagine user base need to do to get our hands
> on the #?$%^&! manual!

All you have to do is wait!  Is it just me, or does it seem like a lot of
people out here don't read everything, and reply to stuff out of context, etc.
I could have sworn that Harvs message went on to state that people who upgrade
before the manual was ready (back from the printers, OWE), would recieve it
when it is ready.

I have to say this is one area that it sounds like Impulse is on the right
track.  First, they aren't using the excuse "the manual isn't ready" and
are keeping customers, the most important ones, current ones, happy by releasing
the software as soon as it is ready, even if that means before the manual is
done.  Second, they are doing the manual out of house.  Hopefully the manual
will atleast have spellcheck done on it.  Odds are, its got to be better. Third,
you will get the manual when its done!

Someone, maybe Harv or Dave, said that Mike said there would be on-disk docs
explaining the new features.  Enough info to let you try it before you get
the manuals.  Sounds good to me.


Tom Setzer                   -> Agnostic <-  ;)
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: Re: Chain
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 15:58:27 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

[stuff about morphing one chain link deleted]

This would work nice if the cog is perfectly symetrical.  What if it isn't?
What if it has pedals attached that must turn at the correct speed?  Hmmm.
Cycle editor?  Thats a pain...  Buy Real3d and use the kinematics.  Or wait
for Imagine 3.0(supposed to have kinematics, right?).  But I think the original
post said Imagine 2.0.  Thats tough if you have pedals.

I'd say a Cycle object that rotates through 360 degrees is your best bet if
you have pedals or an asymetrical cog.  And if your second cog is a different
size, you would have to go through [large math calculation deleted] degrees.

Let us know if you get something working...love to see it.

Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin






##

Subject: upgrade offer...
Date:     Sat, 23 Oct 1993 00:42:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

I'm well aware of the fact that Impulse is letting Imagine 2.0 owners to get
Imagine 3.0 for $99 US.  Is this offer for a temporary period or pretty much
permanent?

Any idea?  Impulse?

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

PS - does it include later shipping charge of the new manual (if I get that
     manual-less version first) and possible copy of less buggy 3.0 which
     will be shipping with the manual?

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Manuals
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 20:51:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

IMHO, i find it incomprehensible that a software company,
any software company, could consider releasing a package for
sale without adequate printed documentation. I can understand
shareware stuff with readme.txt  etc., of course, but packages
as complex as 3D modeling rendering really deserve the best
documentation possible.
of course, i have been spending a lot of time using Macintosh
software lately, so maybe I have a skewed sense of such
things :-) :-) :-) :-)
online help is great, but nothing can replace well written,
illustrated, etc. printed documentation.
I hope Impulse is serious about releasing  the written
manual ASAP. I think I'll wait for it before upgrading...:-)

kevin


##

Subject: ISL v2.0 released!  Rejoice!
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 23:12:37 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

ISL 2.0 is now out.  I uploaded it to Portal so far, and will put it
on the net as soon as Aminet heals.  Feel free to distribute it to
the other pay services if you like.

Here's the readme:

--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--snip--

Hi, and welcome to ISL version 2.0!

What is is?  ISL is the Imagine Staging Language, a language create to
make the creation and manipulation of Imagine 2.0 staging files a whole
lot easier.

Who needs it?  You do, if you are an Imagine user who is not satisfied
with the Action editor, and aren't afraid to try something new!

How much does it cost?  Well, ISL is now shareware.  See register.doc
for details.  The ISL package may still be freely distributed, as long
as it is not sold for more than media cost.  I require that you not charge
for it's use or sale and that you keep all the pieces together.  Fred Fish
library distribution is specifically allowed.  I also ask that you give me
a little credit if you use it for anything neat.  I'd like to hear from you
at one of the addresses below if you use it - it's always nice to hear!

There are a lot of changes and bug fixes in 2.0, as well as an entire new
program (islobjs).  See history.ISL for details.

Here are the current ISL distribution contents:

    name        size

    destage        24616        the de-compiler
    restage        44756        the re-compiler
    islobjs        30304        object lister
    ISL.doc        5560        the docs
    ISL.BNF        6303        the grammar
    frames.c    2390        a sample c stage producer
    history.ISL    3416        version history
    islobjs.doc    717        docs for islobjs
    register.doc    1834        shareware registration info

Now what?  Get it, enjoy it, and have a great day!



##

Subject: The Revenge of the FLC's
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 01:09:24 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

   Well, I managed to get DTA 2.0, flxplay, and a few other IBM programs
that handle FLC's.

   When I ran flxplay on a FLC generated by imagine PC, I get a "bad block
header" error, and nothing is displayed. When I ran DTA on the FLC, I
got a segmentation fault. This happened no matter if I tried converting
to FLI, or decomposing to pictures.

   So, it looks like something is funny with Imagine's FLC format. Since
it doesn't look like there's a standalone player for imagine's custom format,
I guess the only way to play Imagine PC anim files is to buy Imagine PC.
Sigh..

   Greg



##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 00:57:09 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>  When you refer to 24-bit images, do you mean simply punching the ILBM24 or
> RGBN button in the subproject browser? I assume there is more to it than that
> since that is independent of the HAM/LACE/HIRES button set.

 That's about it. I use the ILBM24 button, and I have my dimensions set
 to 720X480. I think this corresponds to the "hires overscan" setting

> So, how exactly are you creating a 24-bit file rather than a HAM file? I have
>HamLab and I'd like to see for myself, but I admit I'm confused over the various
> display formats and how they relate to 24-bit colour.

     Well, when you select ILBM24, Imagine will create a 24 bit IFF file.
   This has 16 million colours, and isn't dithered. Then, you load the file
   into hamlab, set the dithering to floyd-steinberg, set the modes to
   interlaced, high res, sliced, dynamic, and then you can display and save
   the file. The resulting picture can be viewed with mostra. Note that
   these settings apply to hamlab PLUS, regular hamlab doesn't do hires ham.
   If you can FTP, take a look at the 3000T render (and object) I upped to
   wuarchive. Convert the pic to lores ham and compare (yuk!)

     Oh, and re: the animation artifacts someone mentioned.. those drive
   me nuts sometimes too! It does seem to make the anims smaller, but
   if you just have one object moving, it looks like it's surrounded by
   swarming ants (from the moving dithering).

      Greg




##

Subject: Golden Glint !!
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 10:08:38 +0100
From: [e-mail]

Hi Guys,
 I am trying to do some 3D titles with Imagine. I have created
some Golden letters and made it whirl around. But I also need to
make each letter glint one by one. Do I need to position lights
on each one of them one by one ?. Forgive me if I am asking a
stupid question. Thanks


##

Subject:      Bump maps
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:44:28 +0800
From: "Brian Akey"  <[e-mail]>

Can I take an iff file and map it to a cube and modify it's shape?
I tried it and the shape didn't change.
How do I do this?


##

Subject: Re: .FLC Players
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 22:19:34 +0800
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

>LOOK09B1.ZIP, Look v.0.9 Beta 1, "A very fast .fli and .flc viewer with
>mouse and GUI."
What I'd really like to know is if FLI/FLCs are faster to playback than
IFF anims. Now that we have the opcode-anim7, I guess that's unprobable.

>I haven't a clue as to the difference between the .fli and .flc formats.
>Anybody out there want to enlighten us?
Hmm... as far as I know the FLIs are limited to 320X200 resolution, while
the FLCs have unlimited resolution. BTW, I think FLI and FLC are two abbre-
viations of "FLIC".

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Re[2]: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: 19 Oct 93 07:07:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

>>   Yes, rendering is faster with 24 bit images. Also, you get better results
>> if you use adpro to dither to ham mode, since Imagine's dithering isn't the
>> best.
>
>Not a bad idea!  Damn.. I already did 105 of 200 frames rendering... I wonder
>if I should go back and start it again in 24-bit!  :(

24 bit is faster?  I ran a test last night to see.  I used a seven letter
word with chrome attributes, marble brushmapped ground, genlock sky
(reflected off of letters only), one light source, 640x400 scanline mode:

Mode      Time      File size

RGB8-24   4:51      530K
DCTV      4:33      64K

Didn't work on this test.  Is there something I forgot to do?


##

Subject: Re: The Revenge of the FLC's
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 06:56:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cliff Lee <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 19 Oct 1993, Greg Pringle wrote:

>    When I ran flxplay on a FLC generated by imagine PC, I get a "bad block
> header" error, and nothing is displayed.
>    So, it looks like something is funny with Imagine's FLC format. Since
> it doesn't look like there's a standalone player for imagine's custom format,
> I guess the only way to play Imagine PC anim files is to buy Imagine PC.
> Sigh..

I have had the same experience.  You can still make FLI/FLC's though.
Just render the images 24-bit TGA's and let DTA make them.  There is
something strange about the file formats that are supported.  The TIFF
support is also suspect.  Image Alchemy converts graphic file formats from
one to another and is fine with everything BUT Imagine.

Anybody know of a decent, NON-Windows, shareware, DOS paint program that
produces TIFF's that Imagine likes?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Cliff Lee
 [e-mail]
 "Everything will work out if you let it!" Cheap Trick






##

Subject: Re: Re[2]: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 11:42:32 EDT
From: David Watters <[e-mail]>

> 24 bit is faster?  I ran a test last night to see.  I used a seven letter
> word with chrome attributes, marble brushmapped ground, genlock sky
> (reflected off of letters only), one light source, 640x400 scanline mode:
>
> Mode      Time      File size
>
> RGB8-24   4:51      530K
> DCTV      4:33      64K
>
> Didn't work on this test.  Is there something I forgot to do?


This test is a bit biased as the render time is so short that the file
size became a factor.  I would imagine that the 24bit render took longer
because of disk activity and not because of the rendering process.

Try with a render that takes a bit longer!

             _     ___
David    ~  |_|,--'   |@,__
Watters   ~   ( )-_______-()`-

--
David R. Watters ([e-mail])    Cranel Inc. Development & Engineering
"Porsche.  The very name is, to many, the last word in sports cars. Any car
 blessed with these magic seven letters is sure to be the very best. Period!"
                        - Car and Driver, January 1993


##

Subject: RE: burmuda anim (Imagine 3.0)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 02:39:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Yury German)

>   Well I do not know.. I decided to go out and get myself Lightrave
>and Lightwave instead! Now comes the part of learning to work with
>Lightwave!

Not a problem, if you managed to do something in Imagine, IMHO. :-)

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: RE: The Revenge of the FLC's
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 08:25:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

  Don't know if you saw my previous post about Imagine PC.  Anyway, get
PLAYMOVY to play Imagine .FLC's.  There are several .FLX players including
AAPLAY, FLXPLAY, and something called LOOK???.  None of these work for
Imagine FLC's.  PLAYMOVY is also much nicer in that it allows control of the
playback speed, fade in and out, loop control and some other things.
   If you want to assemble animations, it is probably better to render each
frame individually, maybe in 256 color TIFF or whatever,  vice an animation.
 Then you could take something like Graphic Workshop and convert the frames
to .PCX, BMP, TGA, GIF or whatever.  From there you could use DTA to
assemble your animation.
    I could upload PLAYMOVY to wuarchive except something is wrong, either
on my end or their end, and file transfer is not working for me.  PLAYMOVY
is available on ProGrafx BBS, a professional 3D board with primarily IBM
users, [phone].
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: imagine
Subject: The Revenge of the FLC's
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1993 1:09AM


   Well, I managed to get DTA 2.0, flxplay, and a few other IBM programs
that handle FLC's.

   When I ran flxplay on a FLC generated by imagine PC, I get a "bad block
header" error, and nothing is displayed. When I ran DTA on the FLC, I
got a segmentation fault. This happened no matter if I tried converting
to FLI, or decomposing to pictures.

   So, it looks like something is funny with Imagine's FLC format. Since
it doesn't look like there's a standalone player for imagine's custom
format,
I guess the only way to play Imagine PC anim files is to buy Imagine PC.
Sigh..

   Greg



##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 11:14:41 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>So, the HAM/LACE/HIRES buttons just tell imagine how to format the data when
>it is displayed?  (Um, I guess not since the LACE button will cause the file to
>be twice as big (makes sense)).  So if I hit HAM, what will the difference be in
>the 24-bit file from if I had hit HIRES instead, given the same image
>  dimensions?

   HAM and HIRES are rendering presets.. you can even make your own.
(I have made some VGA & SVGA ones). They basically tell imagine what
dimensions and aspect ratio to use. So a laced ham is 320X400,
and a ham is 320X200, hence the size difference. That's why
I suggested hires overscan (720X480) since these are the dimensions
you want, and you wind up with a 24 bit file rather than a hires
pic anyways as long as you pick ILBM24.


>This is where I'm confused.  If a 24-bit file is just 8 bits for each pixel in
>the image, how does HAM come into it?  Is a 24-bit HAM file different than a
>24-bit HIRES file?  My guess is yes, since it is the encoding that is different.

  There are no 24 bit ham or hires files.. maybe it would be less confusing
if you made another rendering mode called "24 bit 720X480" that has the same
dimensions as hires overscan. The name of the mode doesn't affect how
imagine outputs the 24 bit file, just the aspect ratio and size settings
in the preset.

>But if you can modify only one colour register each pixel, what's the point of
>having 24 bits for it?  Auuggh!

 I wouldn't bother worrying about it too much.. just try it! B^)

>   Rob

  Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+



##

Subject: particles, I am confused ?!?
Date:     Tue, 19 Oct 1993 19:03:10 +0100
From: Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]>

Hi all,

Now I need a real professional to answer this question :-)

I keep hearing and seeing particle animations. And I see that people
are talking about partcle systems meaning two perfectly different
things.

1) Particle Systems
See Real 3D. Meaning that 3D Objects get physical attributes allowing
them to interact that is colliding etc.
This includes friction, mass, etc.

2) Particle Systems
First famous animation with this technique: Star Trek Genesis Sequence.
Then a lot more followed (includeing Intro of Star Trek NG Deep
Space Nine).

Method of spreading tiny elements around so that it seems like a cloud
or dust.

Now my questions:
Are there nouns to distinguish between these two different things?

How are 2) achieved. I mean how are they rendered. I hardly believe that
each particle is a full 3D Object (with faces, edges etc). What
is the trick with 2D-particle textures as in Lightwave ?

Any insight on this greatly appreciated.

Hannes




##

Subject:  Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date:  Tue, 19 Oct 1993 17:36:06 +0000
From: "Rob (R.D.) Hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Greg,

>    HAM and HIRES are rendering presets.. you can even make your own.
> (I have made some VGA & SVGA ones). They basically tell imagine what
> dimensions and aspect ratio to use.

  Ahh. So, a 24-bit file is a 24-bit file is a ...

  Good. That's settled. So, once the file is generated, I can have Imagine (or
other programs) display it as hires, lores, or ham (given that it will look
stretched and/or crummy if the aspect ratio and dimensions I tell it to use are
not the same as those the file was originally generated with)?  i.e.  there's
nothing in the file that says "hey, this is HAM data" or "this is hires data"?

  If so, then when displaying a HAM image from a 24-bit file, I assume that
Imagine (or whatever) has to make intelligent guesses regarding pallette, and
how to apply it to a HAM'd pixel? Is this degree of intelligence what makes one
program better at displaying HAM than another?

Thanks for bearing with me on this,

Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| Global Product Performance:            PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Imagine 3.0 dates
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:53:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Had a nice long conversation with Arv out at Impulse yesterday...

Looks like 3.0 will be released Oct 28, 1993 ("or a day or so on either side,"
said Arv)

It _WILL_ be a manual-less upgrade at first, but some dox will be included,
enough to get started, I was assured. When I asked about the logic of a
manual-less upgrade, Arv said "Would you rather have it to play & tinker with,
or wait for the manual?" Everyone knows my answer...

There will be _NO_ dongle protection with Imagine. (phew!) Brick (from VistaPro
fame) told me to expect one. It's clear to me that Brick is insane. ;-)

I asked about some demo pix/screen shots, and Arv said they've been so busy
that they haven't had time, but it sounded like he was thinking about it. Even
to the point of describing texture screens that "could be" released. Sounds good.

Imagine 3.0 will ship with "around" 50 new textures. Sounds like some nice ones
- dinosaur hide was one he mentioned specifically.

Imagine 2.0 objects will be load-able into 3.0. Arv explained that if any
thing 'breaks' because of the new Object format, it will be converters.

We didn't talk much about Essence, except Arv saying that if 'the guy at
Apex' wanted the texture specs, that they would be happy to share them. Also,
Arv mentioned that he expected Apex to update their stuff for 3.0. Hmmm....

One 'dream' item for me would be allowing DEFAULT directories for Object,
Attributes, Textures, and etc. to be placed in Imagine.CONFIG. For example,
OBJECT_DIR:  OBJECTS:
ATTRIBUTES_DIR: ATTRIBUTES:
BRUSHMAP_DIR: MAPS:

...and etc. Arv told me that that's one of _HIS_ wishes too, and as of yester-
day, it wasn't in. Ah well...

Impluse _IS_ keeping the nice numeric input requestors (that autoMAGICally
delete the old values when a new value is entered). I like this.

Arv did say that the manual will be automatically shipped to people who get
a manual-less version when it's ready. He said it would probably come with
a 3.01 bug-fix/tweak version as well.


Guys, Impulse has always impressed me witht the caliber of their products, and
they seem to be committed to customer support as well. Hopefully, any unpleasant
experiences people have had with Impulse are things of the past.

-Andrew Vogel
BowTie Productions



##

Subject: Where to upload?
Date:     Tue, 19 Oct 1993 16:36:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Hi.. my Jet Thrust animation is finally done... so I thought I'd upload it to
Aminet or something.  However, something is wrong with wuarchive and I can't
seem to upload it there... so where should I send it up to?

Roy
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re[2]: 24 vs HAM?
Date: 19 Oct 93 01:30:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

>But if you can modify only one colour register each pixel, what's the point of
>having 24 bits for it?  Auuggh!

     8 bits (255 levels of intensity) per color per pixel

     3 colors x 8 bits = 24 bits

     I don't know if this is correct but it looks logical.


##

Subject: Gfx brds support in 3.0..
Date:     Tue, 19 Oct 1993 23:22:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Hi all.  I'm pleased to say I ordered my 3.0 upgrade today!  Anyway, this
question goes to people at Impulse..

"What graphics board support is included?  Is Picasso II supported?  EGS?"

Why am I asking?  I'm planning on getting Picasso II tomorrow... if I succeed
in leeching some cash off my parents  :)   Please let me know!

Thank you!

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Picasso II graphics board & Imagine
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 16:32:14 MST
From: [e-mail] (Aaron Bryson)

Has anybody played with the Picasso II board yet ?

Does it allow you to drag down a screen and see another one behind it ?

I assume that Imagine will open up on a 1024x768 screen, but can it take
advantage of that real estate ?

Oh, and what's its price, I think it comes with a 2/4 meg video ram option ?


##

Subject: beyond
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 09:16:33 PDT
From: 19-Oct-1993 1209 <[e-mail]>

>From:    3049::"[e-mail]" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 15-OCT-1993 23:19:46.22
>Subj:    BEYOND;

>Has anyone seen the video at Radioshack called Beyond the minds eye?
>There are some liquid effects (fluid and kinamatic) That are incredible.
>I wonder if anything like that can be done using imagine or if imagine
>was used for any part of it?
Actually Beyond The Minds Eye was the second video. The first was simply
"BEYOND". Both were distributed by MIRAMAR Productions. A friend gave me
 the set for Xmas one year. Beyond the Minds Eye was made up of clips from
 3D animations, and I saw more than one scene from the movie "Lawnmower Man".
 "Beyond" contained material that while not done with Imagine, could have
 been done on imagine.

>another question I have is ther any way to use the files produced by imagine
>on a cray using unix to generate the anims?
Well we have run Anims done on an Amiga on the Vax using Xanim. I believe
Xanim runs on VMS, and Unix boxs, but I don't know of an anim builder.
Thes things really scream on an Alpha box(one of these running MSDOS
may do it).

>I hope that made sense. In other words do your development on your amiga or
>msdos and then send the final 400 frames to your local cray to render.
>(or for those of us a little less flagrant a vax ....
>
                            Lesk

I assume you mean take the gifs or whatever format and build the anim.
If you have animation software and can get the images into the required
format , Why Not.
                            bill

/****
    These ramblings are my own and in no way can be attributed
    to my employer or anyone else.
                                ***/


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0 dates
Date:     Sun, 24 Oct 1993 02:26:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> I like 99.99% of all of the other people using this post would like
> to know what the procedure is for getting the upgrade....

Call Impulse tech support at 612-425-0557 and get your credit card ready!

That's what I did...

> Some of us here do not live anywhere near Impulse. The same country for
> that matter.

Hey, I live in Canada and it worked!  :)

> Graeme Mc Donough

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Picasso II graphics b
Date:     Sun, 24 Oct 1993 02:34:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> Has anybody played with the Picasso II board yet ?

I should be ordering mine tomorrow if I'm lucky... so I'll be posting my
result within a week (that's if I'm lucky!)  :)

> Does it allow you to drag down a screen and see another one behind it ?

Yes!  Picasso II is only board capable of this function.... however, when RTG
becomes available, the only thing will matter with the graphics boards will
be the hardware speed  (RTG will provide ALL the graphics board similar WB
emulation of Picasso II and BETTER).

> I assume that Imagine will open up on a 1024x768 screen, but can it take
> advantage of that real estate ?

Well, don't know yet... I doubt it though.  I currently use 664x452 (or
something of that nature) WB screen, and Imagine still opens up in 640x400
floating screen.  It seems that the people at Impulse didn't think too much
of possible 'larger' screen modes at that time.  I hope this is different
for Imagine 3.0 (which I ordered yesterday!)

> Oh, and what's its price, I think it comes with a 2/4 meg video ram option ?

The price is about $460 US from mail order stores.... that's for 2 MB version.
There is NO 4 MB version, and it's no VRAM either... it's DRAM!

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0 dates
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:46:29 -1000
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

>Had a nice long conversation with Arv out at Impulse yesterday...
>
>Looks like 3.0 will be released Oct 28, 1993 ("or a day or so on either side,"
>said Arv)
>
>It _WILL_ be a manual-less upgrade at first, but some dox will be included,
>enough to get started, I was assured. When I asked about the logic of a
>manual-less upgrade, Arv said "Would you rather have it to play & tinker with,
>or wait for the manual?" Everyone knows my answer...
>
>There will be _NO_ dongle protection with Imagine. (phew!) Brick (from VistaPro
>fame) told me to expect one. It's clear to me that Brick is insane. ;-)
>
>I asked about some demo pix/screen shots, and Arv said they've been so busy
>that they haven't had time, but it sounded like he was thinking about it. Even
>to the point of describing texture screens that "could be" released. Sounds
>good.
>
>Imagine 3.0 will ship with "around" 50 new textures. Sounds like some nice ones
>- dinosaur hide was one he mentioned specifically.
>
>Imagine 2.0 objects will be load-able into 3.0. Arv explained that if any
>thing 'breaks' because of the new Object format, it will be converters.
>
>We didn't talk much about Essence, except Arv saying that if 'the guy at
>Apex' wanted the texture specs, that they would be happy to share them. Also,
>Arv mentioned that he expected Apex to update their stuff for 3.0. Hmmm....
>
>One 'dream' item for me would be allowing DEFAULT directories for Object,
>Attributes, Textures, and etc. to be placed in Imagine.CONFIG. For example,
>OBJECT_DIR:  OBJECTS:
>ATTRIBUTES_DIR: ATTRIBUTES:
>BRUSHMAP_DIR: MAPS:
>
>...and etc. Arv told me that that's one of _HIS_ wishes too, and as of yester-
>day, it wasn't in. Ah well...
>
>Impluse _IS_ keeping the nice numeric input requestors (that autoMAGICally
>delete the old values when a new value is entered). I like this.
>
>Arv did say that the manual will be automatically shipped to people who get
>a manual-less version when it's ready. He said it would probably come with
>a 3.01 bug-fix/tweak version as well.
>
>
>Guys, Impulse has always impressed me witht the caliber of their products, and
>they seem to be committed to customer support as well. Hopefully, any
>unpleasant
>experiences people have had with Impulse are things of the past.
>
>-Andrew Vogel
>BowTie Productions



All of the above sounds fantastic.
I like 99.99% of all of the other people using this post would like
to know what the procedure is for getting the upgrade....
Some of us here do not live anywhere near Impulse. The same country for
that matter.


Graeme Mc Donough



##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 18:20:16 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Rob writes:
>
> Good. That's settled. So, once the file is generated, I can have Imagine (or
> other programs) display it as hires, lores, or ham (given that it will look
> stretched ... crummy if the aspect ratio and dimensions I tell it to use are
> not the same as those the file was originally generated with)?  i.e.  there's
> nothing in the file that says "hey, this is HAM data" or "this is hires data"?

Yes.  A 640x400 pic will be 2 times too wide in HAM (320x400), and
likewise a 320x200 pic will only take up 1/4 of the screen in HiRes.
There is nothing in the IFF24-format picture file that denotes what
physical Amiga resolution to display it in.


> Is this degree of intelligence what makes one program better at
> displaying HAM than another?

Yes.  Palette choosing algorithms, as well as type & amount of dithering
are what make the difference.  Imagine isn't too good at these things -
ArtDept. is just about the best, the PD programs like Rend24 & HamLab
fall somewhere in the middle.

Also, you will probably notice a speedup when rendering in 24bit versus
HAM, due to the fact that Imagine doesn't need to do the "palette pass"
for each frame.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 22:41:39 -0600 (PDT)
From: Fred Crowell <[e-mail]>

Is hamlab plus a commercial program, and are there other programs that can
display/manipulate high-res HAM images.  I know that digi-view could
display them, but will it work on an A3000?

==============================================================================
-- Fred Crowell -- [e-mail] --
==============================================================================




##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:54:57 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 18 Oct 1993, Roy Park wrote:

> Ok... I've once heard that the colour operations in Imagine 2.0 is processed in
> 24-bit internally.  Does this mean if I render to a 24-bit image rather than
> HAM, the rendering might be a little faster?

Yes it does since Imagine doesn't need to calculate the palette.

>
> Also, LightWave uses 96 bit per pixel internally for raytracing.... verses 24

Why ?

Nik
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Rain effect...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:53:25 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 18 Oct 1993, Roy Park wrote:

> Hello all.. it's me again...
>
> Question of the day:   How do I achieve raining effect in Imagine 2.0?
>
> Why am I asking?  I just saw FredFloaty.lha and I'm truly impressed!  Perhaps I
> should make something like that with Imagine 2.0... Possible?  Man, I'll have
> to spend some time making objects first.... and the rendering... another couple
> years and I might end up with some 2 minute animation!  :)
>
No easy way to do it since Imagine 2 doesn't support particles. Wait for
Imagine 3 - shouldn't be too long.

Nik.




##

Subject: Re: Re[2]: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:09:11 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On 19 Oct 1993 [e-mail] wrote:

> >>   Yes, rendering is faster with 24 bit images. Also, you get better results
> >> if you use adpro to dither to ham mode, since Imagine's dithering isn't the
> >> best.
> >
> >Not a bad idea!  Damn.. I already did 105 of 200 frames rendering... I wonder
> >if I should go back and start it again in 24-bit!  :(
>
> 24 bit is faster?  I ran a test last night to see.  I used a seven letter
> word with chrome attributes, marble brushmapped ground, genlock sky
> (reflected off of letters only), one light source, 640x400 scanline mode:
>
> Mode      Time      File size
>
> RGB8-24   4:51      530K
> DCTV      4:33      64K
>
> Didn't work on this test.  Is there something I forgot to do?
>
For IFF24 bit use ILBM-24, and Imagine doesn't calculate the palette for
DCTV pics either.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 02:21:57 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>   Is hamlab plus a commercial program, and are there other programs that can
>   display/manipulate high-res HAM images.  I know that digi-view could
>   display them, but will it work on an A3000?

   Hamlab Plus is shareware. It has an arexx port, and supports a bunch
of picture formats. I think the PD version is limited to 512X512 pictures
(bigger ones get cropped). Can't remember what it costs to register, but
it's pretty reasonable. The results with digi-view aren't very good, you
wind up with fringing and horizontal flickery lines. It does work on a
3000, but you need to get the updated dynamic hires viewer (the original
one that came with my digi-view gold did not work on an '030). An old
version of AD-Pro used to have dynamic hires, but it wasn't very good,
and I think it got removed.

   Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+



##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 02:48:02 MDT
From: [e-mail]

>nothing in the file that says "hey, this is HAM data" or "this is hires data"?

  Yes.

>how to apply it to a HAM'd pixel?Is this degree of intelligence what makes one
>program better at displaying HAM than another?

  Yes. Dynamic hires isn't really HAM, it's just hires with the palette
being changed as the computer scans down the screen. (at least this
is the way digi-view did it). So, displaying the picture can kind
of slow down the computer since it has to keep changing the palette
so quickly. Not too bad on faster amiga's though.

> Thanks for bearing with me on this,

  No problem!

> Rob

   Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+



##

Subject: RE: The Revenge of the FLC's
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 02:39:44 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>   Don't know if you saw my previous post about Imagine PC.  Anyway, get
> PLAYMOVY to play Imagine .FLC's.  There are several .FLX players including
> AAPLAY, FLXPLAY, and something called LOOK???.  None of these work for
> Imagine FLC's.  PLAYMOVY is also much nicer in that it allows control of the
> playback speed, fade in and out, loop control and some other things.

  Yes, I saw your post about playmovy, but I didn't realise it was the
only program that worked. Too bad there's no way to convert the FLC's
to something else, but this is good news! However, I spent several hours
searching for FLI utilities (via archie), and didn't seem to come across this.
Just now tried a specific search for it and it still doesn't turn up.

>    If you want to assemble animations, it is probably better to render each
> frame individually, maybe in 256 color TIFF or whatever,  vice an animation.

   Sorry, must have left my 1.3 gig hard drive in my other jacket B^)
Seriously though, that should work good for smaller anims. (is
imagine still planning on supporting that sanyo VCR in Imagine 3.0?
I suppose I'd have to get DCTV or the IBM equivalent though..)

>     I could upload PLAYMOVY to wuarchive except something is wrong, either
> on my end or their end, and file transfer is not working for me.  PLAYMOVY
> is available on ProGrafx BBS, a professional 3D board with primarily IBM
> users, [phone].

   Somebody else mentioned problems with wuarchive too. This would
probably be a good thing to have on there considering it's the only
player that works. Hmmm.. maybe I'll just phone ProGrafx.

   Thanks for the help,

    Greg


##

Subject: Re: Picasso II graphics board
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 10:40:32 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Eichhorn (santos))

>> I assume that Imagine will open up on a 1024x768 screen, but can it take
>> advantage of that real estate ?
>Well, don't know yet... I doubt it though.  I currently use 664x452 (or
>something of that nature) WB screen, and Imagine still opens up in 640x400
>floating screen.  It seems that the people at Impulse didn't think too much
>of possible 'larger' screen modes at that time.  I hope this is different
>for Imagine 3.0 (which I ordered yesterday!)

Good news for you: Imagine 2.0 DOES use larger screens, at least it did on
my old Domino and it does on my Piccolo.  :-)

__________________________________________________________________________

     /// Oliver Eichhorn, CS graduate
    /// Fraunhofer Institute For Computer Graphics, Darmstadt (FhG/IGD)
\\\/// eMail:[e-mail], voice: ++49 6151 48200
 \XX/ "Things are more like they are now than they ever were before"



##

Subject: Re: Picasso II graphics board & Imagine
Date: 20 Oct 1993 11:30:25 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Aaron Bryson wrote:

>I assume that Imagine will open up on a 1024x768 screen, but can it take
>advantage of that real estate ?

I too am interested in PicassoII.  I talked to a very knowledgeable tech
support guy for a dealer here in the UK.  He has tried the board with Imagine
2.0.  He has run the detail and forms editors in 1280x1024 and they do occupy
the full screen.  Two points though:
1) he said you need to refresh the display more than usual (RAmiga-R) because
parts of it don't get updated;
2) he noticed more crashes than running without the Picasso.  He put these down
to Imagine 2.0 not really being designed to run on add-on graphics cards.

Let's hope that in 3.0 Impulse supports the display database, so that for
example the modes added by the Picasso will become accessible.

Apparently, Picasso comes with a program called ChangeScreen that lets you
decide whether the application you are just starting up should be run on the
Picasso now, forever after, never or not this time.  You can also run this
ChangeScreen program to configure screen modes for this and other applications
so that when they are run, the applications automatically use the selected
screen mode.

Regards,
David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: Re: Rain effect...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 10:23:11 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1993, Roy Park wrote:
>
> > Hello all.. it's me again...
> >
> > Question of the day:   How do I achieve raining effect in Imagine 2.0?
> >
> > Why am I asking?  I just saw FredFloaty.lha and I'm truly impressed!  Perhaps I

>No easy way to do it since Imagine 2 doesn't support particles. Wait for
>Imagine 3 - shouldn't be too long.


Lightwave doesn't have particles either, does it?  Mark (or is that Mr.
Thompson;), did you use a script or place those raindrops by hand?  It
was my impression that for Windmill, you used a script, correct?  Prompted
by Kiernans argument that it could be done, you argued it couldn't and
proceeded to prove yourself wrong;) (Although, if memory serves me, he was
talking about 3D objects, such as soldiers).  Does lightwave have particle
systems?

I would think you could write a script for ISL to do this.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 09:54:17 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> >
> > Also, LightWave uses 96 bit per pixel internally for raytracing.... verses 24
>
> Why ?
>
They probably just use floats(32 bits) for RGB values of each pixel 32+32+32=96.
Big deal.  Nothing new.  They still round to 24 bit or whatever.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Re: particles, I am confused ?!?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 10:11:01 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> Now I need a real professional to answer this question :-)
>

Professional what? ;)

> I keep hearing and seeing particle animations. And I see that people
> are talking about partcle systems meaning two perfectly different
> things.
>
> 1) Particle Systems
> See Real 3D. Meaning that 3D Objects get physical attributes allowing
> them to interact that is colliding etc.
> This includes friction, mass, etc.
>
> 2) Particle Systems
> First famous animation with this technique: Star Trek Genesis Sequence.
> Then a lot more followed (includeing Intro of Star Trek NG Deep
> Space Nine).
>
> Method of spreading tiny elements around so that it seems like a cloud
> or dust.
>
>From my understanding, and I could be wrong(yes its been known to happen;),
what you described are one and the same.   3D objects get physical attributes,
behaviors even, allowing them to interact like you said.  Now copy that
object/particle many times giving each one a different set of beginning
values, such as location, and voila, particles interacting with each other.

Eg.  Define a comet dust particle as in DS9 intro.  Tell it to swirl in a
random manor around its axis.  Copy it a bazillion times...tell em to
follow the comet....  The interface to a particle system probably has some
neat features that allow you to group all of your particle, make one varible
effect all particles(such as wind effecting rain), etc.  Also, many particles
may only be 2D objects, like in Mark Thompsons animation, Windmill(a must see).
This would help reduce render time.

I think thats how it works...but then, I might not be the type of professional
your looking for;)  Is this right?  Anyone?

So Real3d is part way there.  I don't know if it has the other neat features
that other particle systems have.  Does it?  Anyone?


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Re: Re[2]: 24 vs HAM?
Date: 20 Oct 1993   02:51:59 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

>>But if you can modify only one colour register each pixel, what's the point of
>>having 24 bits for it?  Auuggh!
>
>      8 bits (255 levels of intensity) per color per pixel
>
>      3 colors x 8 bits = 24 bits
>
>      I don't know if this is correct but it looks logical.
>
    Yep.  This is correct.  RGB each have 256 levels of intensity (0-255).
This allows for a smooth enough gradient that your eyes don't notice.  But
what's more important is that in this way each pixel can have it's own unique
value to create full color life like images.  Unlike palette based systems
where all colors in a picture must be within some small number of colors
(such as 2,16,32, or even 4096) this allows for true color images.

    Of course this could technically be a problem if the amount of pixels
in the image exceeds 16 million....not very likely.  Also with 16 million
colors your eyes can't distinguish that many colors.   Actually humans only
see about 2-4 million colors....this is why JPEG compression can loose a
certain amount of color information but still look good.

        Mike C.
        [e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Rain effect...
Date: 20 Oct 1993   13:10:07 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

> On Mon, 18 Oct 1993, Roy Park wrote:
>
> > Hello all.. it's me again...
> >
> > Question of the day:   How do I achieve raining effect in Imagine 2.0?
> >
> > Why am I asking?  I just saw FredFloaty.lha and I'm truly impressed!  Perhaps I
> > should make something like that with Imagine 2.0... Possible?  Man, I'll have
> > to spend some time making objects first.... and the rendering... another couple
> > years and I might end up with some 2 minute animation!  :)
> >
> No easy way to do it since Imagine 2 doesn't support particles. Wait for
> Imagine 3 - shouldn't be too long.
>

    Yes....I believe Fred Floaty used particles.  Anyhow...here is something
that may or may not work with Imagine 2.0 or other.  It's one of those things
that just haven't had time to try yet.

    In traditional animation (cel animation) rain could be achieved by taking
a loop of clear mylar with long streaks of rain drawn on it and rotating it
a bit around the main drawings for each frame.  In this way when played back it
looked like the rain was coming down in front of the animation.

    You might try making a big tube object with a Filter map such that every
thing is clear except for some streaks where white or grey shows through.
Then put this so that one part is in front of the camera and one is in back
and just rotate it over your animation.

    This should work though I am not sure how Imagine will like the fact
that it is a filter map and I am not sure how it will look compared to a
particle system...but it's a shot.

    Hope this helps.

    Mike C.
    [e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: 20 Oct 93 11:46:00 EST
From: "Ross Knepper" <[e-mail]>

>Is hamlab plus a commercial program, and are there other programs that can
>display/manipulate high-res HAM images.  I know that digi-view could
>display them, but will it work on an A3000?
>
>-- Fred Crowell -- [e-mail] --

HamLab+ is shareware -- you download a demo version that crops images at
512x512, and pay your fee, and you get the full version.  As for Hi-res HAM
images, the Enhanced Chip Set cannot display that.  Only AGA can.  You can
display low-res ham, or convert of fewer bitplanes.

 -Rossss!



##

Subject: Picasso II & Monitor
Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:16:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rosario Salfi)

I've been hearing some great things about the Picasso II.  What I want
to know is what kind of monitor does it require.  I know it needs a VGA,
but what flavour?  Should it be bi-sync, multi-sync, VGA, SVGA, scan
rate, dot pitch, etc.

Thanks for the replies!


##

Subject: Re: Picasso II graphics board
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:14:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

>>> I assume that Imagine will open up on a 1024x768 screen, but can it take
>>> advantage of that real estate ?
>
> Good news for you: Imagine 2.0 DOES use larger screens, at least it did on
> my old Domino and it does on my Piccolo.  :-)

I have had my Picasso II since early August (lucky me, eh? :) Imagine's
screen can be promoted to a 1024x768 (or 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 ...) size;
the only problem is that Imagine seems to have trouble with screens that
are wider than the standard 640 pixels.  Height doesn't seem to matter, but
when the width exceeds 640 then Imagine starts acting strangely, especially
with respect to dragging, rotating and sizing objects (it leaves "tracers"
on the screen.)  I've also had an occasional crash, even during startup.
    I suspect that MOST of Imagine's code adjust for various screen
sizes, but not ALL of it; therefore, things go wrong.  I sure hope that
Imagine 3.0 isn't so pig-headed about the display.  Maybe there is a law
against perfection ...

As to some other question regarding the Picasso II: yes you can drag
screens just like Amiga screens and you can see other Picasso screens AND
AMIGA SCREENS behind it.  The Amiga screens behind Picasso screens don't
updated (yet), i.e. they're "snapshots", but I suspect things will get only
better with future software updates (free.)  Auto scrolling works, too, and
the WB emulation on my 2000 is quite snappy in 1024x768 (16 colors); more
so than an ECS-based WB using only 4 colors and 720x480 resolution.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Picasso II & Monitor
Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:07:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> I've been hearing some great things about the Picasso II.  What I want
> to know is what kind of monitor does it require.  I know it needs a VGA,
> but what flavour?  Should it be bi-sync, multi-sync, VGA, SVGA, scan
> rate, dot pitch, etc.

Well, you'd need a multisync monitor that does 31.5 KHz (horiz. scan rate) and
up.  No fixed rate VGA stuff!

> Thanks for the replies!

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Imagine and HamLab II+
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 07:55:00 -0700
From: "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529" <[e-mail]>

> Is hamlab plus a commercial program, and are there other programs that can
> display/manipulate high-res HAM images.  I know that digi-view could
> display them, but will it work on an A3000?
>
> -- Fred Crowell -- [e-mail] --

  Yes HamLab is a commercial program.  There are demos of this program
available which have all features enabled but limit the input and output
images to 512x512 pixels.  The latest released version is 2.08.  I believe
that updates are in the works.

  To clear some thing up.  HamLab does NOT support HIRES HAM.  Is does
support every available ECS display mode.  Even palette change modes are
supported in low and high resolution.

  I too have noticed that you can get significantly better looking images
from Imagine by rendering in 24-bit and then using HamLab to render to
an Amiga Display mode.  I really like the Jarvis dithering.  5 or 6
dithering modes are available.  This program has full ARexx support and
is one which I use quite frequently.

  I believe that the cost of this program is $35 (don't quote me on this).
It is available directly from the author, Ed Hanway.  His contact
information is included in the Demo archive.

-Jeff Wahaus-


##

Subject: ISL v2.0 released!  Rejoice?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 04:41:00 BST
From: [e-mail]


John,
  Gee, if only there were an IBM version... I'd be happy to do the port for
you, gratis.

Greg,
  As others have said, what you want to do is generate all the still frames
as TGAs and use DTA to stitch them together into a FLC; you are correct,
Imagine's FLC format is... idiosyncratic.  What has NOT been said is that
only versions 2.0.4 and later handle Imagine's OTHER "custom" file format in
the TGA's.

                                           /// Torville ///


##

Subject: Re: 24 vs HAM?
Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:21:06 -0400
From: [e-mail]

The problem with dynamic hires is that it is a hack mode and isn't really
practical for animating.

Jason K.


##

Subject: Re: Rain effect...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 15:31:44 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

Mike C. writes:
>  Yes....I believe Fred Floaty used particles.

Sure did.

> You might try making a big tube object with a Filter map such that every
> thing is clear except for some streaks where white or grey shows through.
> I am not sure how it will look compared to a particle system.

I've done it in LW and it looks rather cheesy compared to the particle
method. I used animated transparency mapped planes. It can look OK for
a stationary camera view but rather horrible otherwise.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark (Particle Man) Thompson  CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* Particle *==--  [e-mail]        Particle Graphics    %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!particle!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%      Productions      [phone] [phone]   & Particle Nuisance  %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: Re: ISL v2.0 released!  Rejoice?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 13:13:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

>
>
> John,
>   Gee, if only there were an IBM version... I'd be happy to do the port for
> you, gratis.
>
Thanks, but I don't release source for my compilers.  :-)

Be patient, there will indeed be an IBM version before long.  I just need
to get good versions of flex and byacc installed on my PC first.

_john



##

Subject: Re: particles, I am confused ?!?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 15:19:31 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

I responded to this in comp.sys.amiga.graphics, but since a discussion has
started on it here, I'll post here as well....

Hannes Heckner writes:
> I keep hearing and seeing particle animations. And I see that people
> are talking about partcle systems meaning two perfectly different
> things.

Note there are two different terms here actually: particles and particle
systems. For the most part, particles have historically been volumeless
entities represented either as a dot or line (1D and 2D particles). To
the best of my knowledge, LightWave is the only Amiga package that supports
these 1D and 2D entities. Particle systems, however, are any collection of
objects that are controlled in some sort of collective way. Each "particle"
in a particle system could be any object: spheres, points, teapots, whatever.
For very large particle systems (many thousands of elements), it is obviously
advantageous to use 1D or 2D particles as the fundamental element since
they dramatically reduce memory requirements and render times (just try
playing around with 20,000 spheres!).

> ...Star Trek Genesis Sequence...
> I mean how are they rendered. I hardly believe that
> each particle is a full 3D Object (with faces, edges etc).

No, they are simply single points (or a pair of points for the 2D case).
There isn't a definitive way of interpreting a single point within a
renderer. The method used to render particles in LW has actually changed
a couple of times.

> What is the trick with 2D-particle textures as in Lightwave ?

It sounds like you misinterpreted my explanation of how the grass was
done in my Windmill animation. It is not a texture, they are a physical
collection of 2D particle entities. There are between 10K and 20K 2D
particles in that scene (I forget exactly). But since they are particles
rather than polygonally modeled primitives, they render very fast. Each
frame from that animation took only 10 minutes with antialiasing and
shadows at 752 x 480. The full description is in the premiere issue of
LightWavePRO which just came out: contact AVID Publications @ [phone].
Note that it is not available at dealers or news stands.

One final note: The rain in Fred Floaty was done with motion blurred 1D
particles as opposed to the 2D particles used in the Windmill anim.
Also, it is possible that particle primitives do not exist in programs
other than LightWave because they cannot be raytraced (since they occupy
no volume for ray intersection calculations).
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: whose objects are these?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 15:07:05 EST
From: Adam Benjamin <[e-mail]>

Someone on my local BBS uploaded some imagine objects and the Sysop
asked me to check them out to make sure they were legal.  They are
pretty cool looking, but they didn't contain any readme files or
anything.  Can you tell me if these objects are PD??
They are
3 mechforce style robots called
MegaRobot
hawk(something)
and
scoutship

Also a few viewpiont looking objects

a 32 Ford
a porche
and HulkMan  (that's what they called it!)

Thanks,
Adam



##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 15:40:39 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>HamLab+ is shareware -- you download a demo version that crops images at
>512x512, and pay your fee, and you get the full version.  As for Hi-res HAM
>images, the Enhanced Chip Set cannot display that.  Only AGA can.  You can
>display low-res ham, or convert of fewer bitplanes.
>
> -Rossss!

   Gee, I must have some AGA chips hidden somewhere in my 3000, since
I don't have any problem displaying them B^). BTW, either mostra or
viewtek (or both?) will display these pics, you don't need hamlab to
view them, just to make them.

   Greg


##

Subject: Re: beyond
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 09:45:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

In <[e-mail]>, 19-Oct-1993 1209
<[e-mail]> writes:
> >From:        3049::"[e-mail]" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 15-OCT-1993 23:19:46.
22
> >Subj:        BEYOND;
>
> Actually Beyond The Minds Eye was the second video. The first was simply
> "BEYOND".
>
Actually, the first video was called "The Mind's Eye", and the second was
called "Beyond The Mind's Eye" with music from Jan Hammer! I have both
videos, and they are classics. Also by Miramar, is the computer animation
festival which has "Locomotion", and Grinning Evil Death", both of which are
worth a look see! Take care, God Bless, and I'll BCNU!

Warm regards,
Michel


                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 17:45:17 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> > > LightWave uses 96 bit per pixel internally for raytracing.... verses 24
> > Why ?
> probably just use floats(32 bits) for RGB values of each pixel 32+32+32=96.
> Big deal.  Nothing new.  They still round to 24 bit or whatever.

Actually this is a big deal, because shading calculations done to only
24bits can exhibit very definite banding in certain circumstances. By doing
the calcs at 96 bits and dithering down to 24, banding is basically eliminated.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject:  whose objects are these? (fwd)
Date:  Wed, 20 Oct 1993 22:59:07 +0000
From: "Rob (R.D.) Hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Adam,

Forwarded message:
> anything.  Can you tell me if these objects are PD??
> They are
> 3 mechforce style robots called
> MegaRobot
> hawk(something)
> and
> scoutship
>
> Also a few viewpiont looking objects
>
> a 32 Ford
> a porche
> and HulkMan  (that's what they called it!)


  All these are from the objects disks that may or may not be bundled with
Imagine (mine were, from Creative Solution, I think). Since they are from
commercial disks, I highly doubt that they are PD.

Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| Global Product Performance:            PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Particle Systems
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 11:13:51 PDT
From: "Charles Congdon" <[e-mail]>

    Hannes Heckner ([e-mail]) expresses
reasonable confusion about the buzz word "particle system."  Since I have a
physics background, have worked on particle system code (yes, I've even done
animations with it), and have taken the SIGGRAPH classes, I thought I'd
comment.

    The basic problem is that the term "particle system" has evolved over
time.  It was originally coined to describe methods that model fuzzy objects
such as fire and clouds, and has evolved to include methods that model very
complex objects (grass, forrests) and even the complex interaction of
"real-world" objects (bowling alleys, gears).

    In its present most general sense, the term "particle system" seems to
apply to any set of objects (particles) whose motion or shape is not directly
controlled by the animator.  Rather than using a path or other morphing
technique to control the objects, they are pretty much just "set in motion" and
allowed to do their own thing subject to physical or behavioural laws and
constraints.  Such contraints can be the physical boundaries between gears and
the position of their axes, gravity, wind, friction, etc.
    The animator (subject to the restrictions of their animation system)
adds these constraints as desired (so it's still possible to create "illegal"
types of motion).  Particle systems can be lots of fun and very frustrating,
since the animator really has very little control over how the system evolves
over time - it's as much a discovery for the animator as for the person who
watches the final film.

    To better understand, let's go from the very simple to the very
complex:

What Is a Particle?
===================
    The basic particle is created sometime in the animation at some
location in space with an initial velocity vector.  After the particle is
created, its basic properties are:

1)  Position in space.
2)  Velocity
3)  Size (not necessarily a physical size - can be related to pixel size
    for antialiasing reasons).
4)  Color

    There are all sorts of variations on these basic properties.  A
particle can have a transparency or shape.  It can have a specific lifetime
(live for an interval of time or so long as it is within the boundaries of the
cloud).  Its properties (color, size, transparency) may change over its
lifetime.  During rendering the entire path the particle follows over its
lifetime may be made visible (to simulate grass, trees), its path during the
last "x" timesteps can be made visible to give a better feeling of motion
(shooting stars, short "laser" blasts), or one can render the particle only in
its current position.  A particle can also have mass, wind resistance,
friction, etc.

    A group of like particles, generally held in the same data structure of
your simulation system and subject to the same constraints, is be called a
"particle system".

    Because particles evolve over time, it is necessary to keep track of
the particles.  This can either be done along with everything else during
rendering, or it can be done as a pre-processing or post-processing step.  For
example, if your "particle grass" is only going to be in the background, the
background image of the field can be rendered first using a different
rendering system than the one used for your animation.  If you want to simulate
foam when waves break on the sea shore, the particles can be added after the
image of the sea shore has been generated.
    Another reason to keep some particles separate from the general 3D
rendering system is because you need a very large number of them to simulate a
cloud, flame, or explosion (by large I mean 10s of thousands to many millions
and up). Your scanline renderer or ray-tracer would die a horrible death if it
had to to an intersection test with a million particles, each going their merry
own way (OK, there are ways to speed this up).  Put another way, you'd have to
wait a long time.

    Particles can either be created from dynamic sources (that give out
particles over time) or by placing a fixed number of particles in the "world"
and letting it do what it does.  A rocket exhaust is an example of the first, a
bursting firework of the second.  Both of these, the rocket exhaust and the
particles in the firework, are (separate) particle systems.

    Particle sources can be directed (rockets), omnidirectional
(fireworks), or created from the verticies of an invisible object (Lightwave).

    Complex particles (modeled objects) must be rendered in your 3D
renderer, while simple particles can be "rendered" by simply drawing a spot or
streak to represent the particle.  If you are good at compositing, for example,
you could render them using a particle simulation program to drive
OpalVision/Deluxe Paint through AREXX.  Heck of a way to make an animation, but
that's really all you need.  For really simple objects, have your particle
simulator drive ISL.
    The major problem you will encounter when the particle rendering engine
and the 3D renderer are separate is how to do collision detection between the
particles and the rest of the scene.  The big problem when your particles are
rendered with the 3D renderer is the renderer's limitations (for example,
Imagine cannot render points, nor is there a programmatic interface so you can
plug in your simulation code to drive the motion of the particles while the
simulation runs).
    Particle simulations also tend to be non-reversable to numerical
reasons, so they only work best when run forward.

Blind Particles
===============

    Particles don't have to know anything about the environment they are
in.  So long as they don't do anything that breaks the illusion of their being
"in the scene," they need not interact.  For example, if simulating a cloud,
you really don't want to do a collision check for each of your million
particles to see if they hit the mountain top.  Unless you are simulating
rainfall or aerodynamics, it's just as easy to have your particle-system
clouds behind, above, or cutting off the top of you mountains.  "Blind
particles" can be used to simulate blow torches, some fireworks, gas burners
(like on a stove - an easy post-process operation), and rocket exhaust in
space.

Directed Generation
===================

    An improvement in realism can be attained if you allow the particle
source to move in space, particles to create other particles (when they hit
something, or after a certain percentage of their lifetime), or new sources to
appear.  For the case of the sea shore, your particle sources can follow the
crests of the waves once they reach a certain height.  Your rocket can now turn
in space with the proper result in the exhaust plume.  Or you can simulate the
Genesis Sequence or Deep Space Nine.
    For Deep Space Nine, simply put lots of low-intensity particle sources
on the asteroid (generate lots of particles, but with very low outward
velocities), start it tumbling, and move it along a path.  As the asteroid
moves the particle sources move with it, but the particles follow the path the
started on when they were generated.  The result is a complex dust trail.
    For the Genesis Effect, there are many ways to do it.  Say you create
your moon out of polygons.  Simply start a particle source at a given vertex.
Now, put particle sources at all the other vertices, starting them when they
fall within a given radius of the starting point.  Make this radius start are
zero and be a function of time.  The result is an effect that grows outward
from a single point.  Once started the particle sources don't stop, and the
particles only live long enough to make it a fraction of the moon's radius out
until they die.  Make them change from red to yellow over their lifetime.  This
is not how they actually did it, but similar.

Interacting Particles
=====================

    Now that we have particles being created from moving or changing
sources, add interaction effects.  The particles can be made to interact with
the objects in the frame being rendered, or they can interact with invisible
objects that direct them in ways that appear to relate to the objects in the
scene.  They can be made to feel "wind," gravity, "turbulence," etc.  Leaves
blowing the the wind around the side of a house, waterfalls, fireworks in
gravity, lawn spriklers, smoke or fire in the wind, etc. can all be done this
way.
    Most of these can be done via force calculations you'll find in any
introductory physics text, although collision detection and response is where
it gets tough.  In fact, now the simulation limits become apparent.  Collision
detection doesn't always work if you have the time step too large.  Gravity
simulations can go *very* wrong when a close interaction occurs and the time
step is too large.  So, you must trade off realism with rendering time.  One
trick, though, is that you don't always need to *render* each frame of the
simulation.  This lets you go through a lot more time steps than you actually
render, but it will still take a lot of time.

Objects as Particles
====================

    Up to now I've been discussion particles as points.  They may have a
"size" or "shape", but so far I've only been considering this for particle
effects (wind resistance, size of the particle on the screen).  As mentioned
above, there is no reason particles cannot be actual objects.  Collision and
force calculations get hideously hard when your particles are objects as
opposed to simple spheres, but it can be done if you want to wait long enough
(after all, you had to write some of the complex stuff just to get those
simple spheres to bounce off your U.S.S Enterprise model).  If you are willing
to write the code to do this, bowling alleys, destructive explosions, gears,
falling park benches, etc. all become possible.
    The only difference between objects that are treated as particles and
the basic particle is the complexity of the interactions.  They can still be
generated in the same manner, move under the same laws, change color or live
for a certain time like the basic particle.  The same simulation system can be
used for all of this.  For example, there is no reason the Genesis Effect could
not generate swarms of floppy disks.  So long as the floppy disks are "blind"
(e.g. they can pass through each other), it would look pretty much the same.
    The biggest limitations encountered when treating objects as particles
is time and memory.  Creating a million simple particles with a finite number
of parameters (position and velocity vectors, color, surface area, lifespan,
etc) that don't interact with each other is considerably easier than creating a
million floppy disks.  The floppy disks can collide with each other (and have a
nasty collision shape) and the Genesis moon.  You need to keep track of their
orientation.  Floppy disks need to be shaded, visibility calculations need to
be done, etc.  And the models (even if cloned like Caligari can do) can
take up a lot of memory.  This is no longer something you can do in
post-processing unless you are very good at compositing.
    But it's all the same basic idea as simple particles.  I don't know if
Real 3D or Imagine 3.0 can handle simple particles as well as objects that are
treated as particles, but the underlying simulation system isn't any different.
Lightwave may be able to deal with simple particles (so Mark Thompson's grass
comments and animation suggest), although I don't know how well it handles
treating object as particles.  Having both abilities is the ideal
creative situation.

The Sky's the Limit
===================
    Well, now that we have objects interacting with other objects and their
environment to handle collisions, repulsion, wind, etc, there's no reason not
to go farther.
    "Particles" can be made to simulate "flocking," where particles "want"
to stay close to each other and avoid collision while avoiding predators (we're
back to where we started - the fuzzy object modelled by particles is now the
flock).  The flock can have goals of its own, such as escaping a predator (like
you saw in Jurassic Park - the Gallimimus herd was done via flocking model,
although the Gallis themselves were not modeled using a particle system).
    Portions of an object can be modeled like "particles," which,
in conjunction with other effects (springs), allows the simulation of cloth
or water waves.
    But this all ties back to the idea of a very small object, or portion
of an object, that evolves over time subject to various constraints and rules.
The particle.  While particles and the rules that control them can be very
simple, the cumulative effect of the particle system can appear very complex
and add considerable realism to an animation.

    In short, "physical" simulation (in this case simulating motion and
object interactions) can be a lot of fun, and is still a field where creative
people can make their mark.
    Cheers,
    Charles     (Standard disclaimer)


##

Subject: Well well....
Date:     Mon, 25 Oct 1993 01:54:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Well well... I just spent a big chunk of money on graphics system for my
A3000... bought a ViewSonic 17 and 2 MB Picasso (1MB Picasso and 1MB upgrade
to be exact)... geez, now my monitor is the most expensive computer asset
I've got!  I also ordered Imagine 3.0 upgrade as I might have mentioned
previously....

After all this money, Imagine 3.0 better be good enough to utilize what I've
got!

Now... next thing I gotta buy is a 2 GB drive and *the video module for
Picasso II.  :)


*: Yes, I talked to Expert Services people today and they told me Villige-
   Tronics is already selling PAL version of video module (composite & S-VHS)
   for Picasso II... the NTSC version is soon to be coming out under $100 US.

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Re[2]: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 14:07:08 -1000
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

Has anybody got some comments that they can give on using ImageFX
as to adpro when processing images rendered from Imagine ???

Graeme Mc Donough    |
Monash Uni           |
Clayton              |
Melbourne Australia  |



##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 22:40:56 GMT
From: Jason Jack <[e-mail]>

> > Also, LightWave uses 96 bit per pixel internally for raytracing....
> > verses 24
>
> Why ?
>

I remember a recent posting in comp.sys.amiga.graphics - apparently LW uses
96 bit internally and then dithers down to 24 bits - author said this gave a
better image...

Jay.



##

Subject: Imagine PC for rendering
Date:     Thu, 21 Oct 1993 05:53:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bill Best)

     I am currently using Imagine 2.0 on my A3000 with 68040, and I am
finding that I need more processing power.

     I have been considering buying the fastest 486 machine just to do
rendering.  Will I be able to use all my Amiga IMAGINE files on the
PC version of IMAGINE?

     Does anyone know the speed of a 486/66 in conparison to a 25mhz
68040?

Thanks!

[)    [)
[)ill [)est
===========
[e-mail]

 * Q-Blue v0.7 *


##

Subject: Imagine and DXF
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 17:41:21 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Has anyone who's recently talked to Impulse asked them if the Amiga
version of Imagine will support DXF files ? If their PC version can, this
should be incorporated on the Amiga side as well. I've had a need in the
past to render DXF object, and may need to do it again in the future and
this feature would be nice. Playing with various object converters is a pain.

If no one has asked this, if you are planning to call Impulse could you
ask them about this ?

Thanks.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: stage editor views...
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 18:01:55 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

First of all, I'm Breno!

>Breno, why do all your mail messages say they are from the person you are
>replying to?
Just found out! T's a problem with the system when I forward a message.
I'll report it so it will be fixed as soon as possible.

>Every experience with it has been FAR too painful, preventing me from delving
>into it with any seriousness. For *me*, the additional capability it has over
>LW is completely out weighed by the counter intuitive design and unpredictable
Yeah, it took me more than a year to get its mood, mainly 'cause the manual is
so bad. I'm not telling LW isn't *currently* better. I used to think twice
when LW was still in its second incarnation, though.

>Yes, I now know what you were refering to.
And I'm quite sure you found it to be VERY useful, and I miss it a lot in LW,
as the solid/shaded view (I can't miss something more), point editable (ie.
rotatable) splines, acceleration/deceleration in paths, plenty of ray-tracing
options (# of multiple reflections, global size), tri-view option, camera track
In fact I think LW's way of moving things is one of the worse. Just take a look
at Caligari to see how things should be done. You can move the object/eye along
the different coordinate systems, your eye's, your object's and the world axis.
THAT's completeness, something LW lacks in some points.

>usefulness. But it has some major hurdles to leap before I will actually use
>it.
Yep, I totally agree.

>> inverse kinnematics, CSG, physical properties, NURBS, and *REAL* spline
>> mapping/rendering? Tell me how much does it cost, and I'll grab it! :-)
>> PS: I'm not being that much demanding, am I? I thought LW was being directed
>> to compete with SoftImage, anyway...
>
>Well yes, I think thats a little demading since Softimage costs well over
>$25K. And no other program under $20K does all of what you are asking for.
>LW is by no means complete, but to insinuate that the current 3.0 is not
>worth upgrading to because it lacks a list of "dream features" is ludicrous.
Hey, Mark, I didn't say that! Go on everybody and get your upgrades! But re-
member these aren't SoftImage specific features, there's an Amiga package
which offer all this (except NURBS - and I forgot metaballs :) for a street
price of about $350! LW3 has lots of advantages over its previous version,
more than worth the upgrade cost, but I think there's so much more that it
has to be developed, that maybe Imagine3 will give it serious trouble.

Breno A. Silva (INF02@BRUFSE)


##

Subject:      PATHS
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 93 14:27:07 TUR
From: Erdem ERTAN <[e-mail]>

     Hello to all IMAGINE Freaks!
     My problem is about the paths.When I track an object to the path,
the object starts from the end of the path.I cant understand the start
position of the paths.Is there a way to understand it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-     Erdem ERTAN       [e-mail]                       -
------------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Imagine PC for rendering
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 22:49:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 21 Oct 1993, Bill Best wrote:

>      I am currently using Imagine 2.0 on my A3000 with 68040, and I am
> finding that I need more processing power.
>
>      I have been considering buying the fastest 486 machine just to do
> rendering.  Will I be able to use all my Amiga IMAGINE files on the
> PC version of IMAGINE?
>

You should be able to, but you will need to change the pathnames to 8
letters and remember that the directories use \ instead of / (silly, silly)



>      Does anyone know the speed of a 486/66 in conparison to a 25mhz
> 68040?
>
> Thanks!
>
I did some tests about 6 weeks ago with help from some people and this is
what I found..

Using the same image, resolution and preference settings:

A4000/040 - 27 min to render the image (Trace mode)
A2000/040 - 12:40

(so you can expect your 040 to be a little bit quicker than the 400o if
you have onboard RAM - 4000 doesn't support Burst mode thanks to C=)

PC - DX 33 - depends on config. - 29min - 38 min.

PC DX2 66 Mhz - (Fastest config.) - 8:25

So, the DX2 66 is significantly faster than any Amiga 040 solution right now.
Also, I believe that the Amiga version is NOT optimized for the 040. I
hope that the next version will be...

Hope this helps...

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Imagine PC for rendering
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 10:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

You'll be able to use all your object and cycle object files.  Your
attributes will be red-shifted if you edit the object, otherwise they'll
be OK (just don't open the Attributes requester, the bug is in it's
loader, and is fixed in 3.0)  Any brushmaps will have to be converted to
256-color or 24-bit color TIFFs, the only format Imagine PC accepts.
Paths will have to be edited by hand, if you're planning to move entire
projects to the other machine.

I don't have specifics, but I believe the final consensus on previous
threads was that for similar clock speeds, the 486 version ran
significantly faster than the 040 due to some hardware and OS differences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: Rain effect...
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 11:20:39 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

Tom Setzer writes:
> Lightwave doesn't have particles either, does it?  Mark (or is that Mr.
> Thompson;)

The only people that call me Mr. Thompson are telephone solicitors :-)
LightWave is the only Amiga 3D package that does support particles. However,
it has no builtin support for particle systems. But there are hooks provided
to manipulate and control particles externally allowing you to code up
your own. There is even some sample code provided that illustrates how simple
it is to do (it creates a fountain of 1000 bouncing "beads".) But as Charles
Congdon pointed out in his wonderful "particle disertation", the ideal
would be to have both particles and particle systems control integrated into
the 3D package. Unfortunately, no such solution currently exists.

> did you use a script or place those raindrops by hand? It was my
> impression that for Windmill, you used a script, correct?  Prompted
> by Kiernans argument that it could be done, you argued it couldn't and
> proceeded to prove yourself wrong;)

No scripts were necessary for either the rain or the grass. Both were done
with a little creative use of the existing LW functionality. My argument
with Kiernan was that "you would be crazy to try and model a field of tall
grass using traditional modeling methods because of the memory and compute
power that would be needed", and I said "particles are the way to go". He
thought I was a goof for saying such a thing and proceded on some brain-dead
extravaganza on a buch of VAXs or some such thing. This only seems to add
credence to my statement. I did the Windmill animation just to see how well
LW particles would work. It surprised even me how well they worked.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 10:34:26 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> > > > LightWave uses 96 bit per pixel internally for raytracing.... verses 24
> > > Why ?
> > probably just use floats(32 bits) for RGB values of each pixel 32+32+32=96.
> > Big deal.  Nothing new.  They still round to 24 bit or whatever.
>
> Actually this is a big deal, because shading calculations done to only
> 24bits can exhibit very definite banding in certain circumstances. By doing
> the calcs at 96 bits and dithering down to 24, banding is basically eliminated

By no big deal, I meant that this is not uncommon.  It is not something that
*only* Lightwave does.  For example, Imagine FP does this.  Big deal.  Ofcourse
it makes a difference, less rounding errors(banding, right?).  But I think
even Turbo Silver did this(if I read that texture file right).


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: RE: Imagine and DXF
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 09:20:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

  I haven't talked to Impulse whether Imagine 3.0 will import .DXF files but
I have been using the .DXF import on Imagine PC.  You should know that  the
.DXF "standard" is not.  The .DXF import on Imagine PC will only load
non-layered .DXF.  As far as I know, .DXF with layers started with AutoCad
release 10.  I have been messing with .DXF conversion/loading in PixelPro3D,
Caligari24, and using some public domain programs like DXFER on the PC.
 Layered .DXF and versions beyond release 9 won't load in Pixel3DPro and
crashes Caligari24.  I have heard the absolute best .DXF converter is
Syndesis Interchange Plus.  I use Interchange Plus 2.0 and it is the most
bullet-proof convertor I know of.  I understand that Interchange Plus 3.0
will include modules for .DXF, 3DS, and Wavefront as well as the existing
Imagine, Sculpt, Videoscape, 3D2 and some others.  Imagine should do what
Newtek did with Lightwave; make a deal with Syndesis to license their
converter in Imagine 3.X.  BTW, Syndesis has a very informative bulletin and
.DXF converter module manual pages available from them for $10.  These two
documents are almost a complete "Everything you ever wanted to know about
.DXF but were afraid to ask (and for good reason)".  Happy trails.
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: Imagine Mailing List
Subject: Imagine and DXF
Date: Thursday, October 21, 1993 5:41PM

Has anyone who's recently talked to Impulse asked them if the Amiga
version of Imagine will support DXF files ? If their PC version can, this
should be incorporated on the Amiga side as well. I've had a need in the
past to render DXF object, and may need to do it again in the future and
this feature would be nice. Playing with various object converters is a
pain.

If no one has asked this, if you are planning to call Impulse could you
ask them about this ?

Thanks.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: PATHS
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 9:55:17 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|     Hello to all IMAGINE Freaks!
|     My problem is about the paths.When I track an object to the path,
|the object starts from the end of the path.I cant understand the start
|position of the paths.Is there a way to understand it?

    Hmmm.   Well, when I create an open path I get a line.  The line
    has two points.  The line points in the positive y direction.  The
    start point (more negative y direction) determines where the
    object will be at the start of the path.  The end point of the
    line determines where the object will be position when it reaches
    the end frame, as defined in the action editor.

    I usually define how many frames are needed for the duration of
    the object travel.  (I visualize the movement in my head and count
    how long it takes for the object to get into position).  Then I
    create an open path.  I move the first point to where ever I want
    the object to start; in the initial frame.  Next, I move to the
    action editor and modify the end frame of the path object to be
    the sum of the frame where it started and the number of frames
    needed.  Next, I move to the end frame, and position the end point
    of the path to the position where the object needs to be in that
    frame.  I then modify the path, adding segments and rotating the
    alignment until I get the desired movement.  The object will be
    interperlated between the start point and the end point over the
    frames defined.

    Make certain the object knows to look for the path.  Make sure the
    path name in the position requester (Action editor) reflects the
    path name as defined in the action editor (not the "file path" of
    the path object itself).  The path name refers to the logical name,
    if you will, as defined in the left column of the action editor.

    Those are the two areas that I had problems with when I first got
    started.  If I haven't answered your question, let me know.

    Hope this helps.

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Re: particles, I am confused ?!?
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 10:47:08 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> Hannes Heckner writes:
> > I keep hearing and seeing particle animations. And I see that people
> > are talking about partcle systems meaning two perfectly different
> > things.
>

Well, I was close....:)

> Also, it is possible that particle primitives do not exist in programs
> other than LightWave because they cannot be raytraced (since they occupy
> no volume for ray intersection calculations).

This came to mind after someone mentioned point objects (1D).  Hmm, I guess
the particle system that Imagine 3.0 will supposedly have will not contain
particles (1D objects).

What if you added an extent(bounding box) around the particle, and then
draw the point the first time you hit the extent, but not anytime after.
Probably would eliminate the speed advantage given by 1D objects, but
we're raytracing anyway, right?  Oh well, we'll have to wait and see what
Impulses definition of a particle system is.  What ever it is, they've
promised us that it is implemented the "right" way(note sarcasm).


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject:      Re: More news on 2.40
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 03:16:07 +0800
From: "Breno A. Silva" <[e-mail]>

> The speed is amazing.

Could you test with the older version to tell us specifically how much?
(percentage faster)

BTW, you mean it's faster only in the 040 (now really optimized) version,
or also in the normal FPU (030) version?

You know, LW people are used to laugh at Real3DV2's power 'cause of its
lack of speed. I hope this has been really developed.

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: RE: Imagine PC for rendering
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 09:44:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

  Hey, welcome to the club.  I also have an A3000 with PP&S '040/25 MHz.  I
have been using Imagine PC on a 486/33MHz for a few weeks now.
  Imagine PC on the 486/33MHz is running about 1.5 to 2 times faster than
ImagineFP on my A3000/040/25MHz.  Of course when it comes to rendering,
there are a lot of other factors like rendering format, resolutions, number
of objects, textures, etc. which can make it comparable to comparing apples
and oranges.  The areas that can be compared  are in the detail editor and
stage editor, primarily the redraw rate.  This is where a 486/33MHz is
definitely about twice as fast as my '040/25MHz.  I think this is primarily
due to the clock rate rather than any better use of the FPU or anything.
 So, a 486/66MHz should be about 4 times faster than the '040/25MHz and the
486/100MHz should be about 6 times faster.  The rendering seems to be much
faster but depends on a lot of variables so it is hard to provide any
quantitative comparisions.
  Now, for the bad news.  Imagine PC appears to be buggy as hell, random
crashes, objects disappearing during rendering or only partially rendering,
strange color changes, crashes if global fog is used, all kinds of other
weird things.  Also, the directory structure is in PC form so it uses the
backslash character for the directory path.  Apparently, textures are
algorithmic so the Amiga textures, including Essence, are different (code)
from the PC textures included with Imagine PC.  Wraps/brushmaps have to be
in .TIFF (the right TIFF format by the way, whatever that is).  If you
meander around in the PC world, you will find that PC users have to deal
with a myriad of "standards", especially in graphics, which are totally
incompatible with each other i.e. one software package's .TIFF may not
necessarily be another software package's .TIFF, same for .PCX, .TGA, etc.
etc. etc.
   So, if you use Imagine PC, the detail editor, forms editor, and stage
editor increase in speed might be worthwhile.  And if you use RGB-24 for
rendering, the still frames should be alright also.  But if you want to do
anything with animation, get it over to the Amiga.  It is amazing how much
more powerful the animation tools for the Amiga, commercial and public
domain, are compared to those for the PC.
 ----------
From: bill.best
To: imagine
Subject: Imagine PC for rendering
Date: Thursday, October 21, 1993 5:53AM

     I am currently using Imagine 2.0 on my A3000 with 68040, and I am
finding that I need more processing power.

     I have been considering buying the fastest 486 machine just to do
rendering.  Will I be able to use all my Amiga IMAGINE files on the
PC version of IMAGINE?

     Does anyone know the speed of a 486/66 in conparison to a 25mhz
68040?

Thanks!

[)    [)
[)ill [)est
===========
[e-mail]

 * Q-Blue v0.7 *


##

Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 17:52 GMT0BST-1
From: Gary Whiteley - Amiga Shopper <[e-mail]>

FREE IMAGINE 2!

Wasn't someone asking if Imagine was going to be given away free on
the front of a magazine? You weren't? Well, here's some interesting
news then....

Amiga Format (UK Amiga magazine) will be giving Imagine 2 (Integer
version) away on a forthcoming issue. Readers will be able to obtain
the FP version for just an extra #1.50 (that's around US$2.30). No
manual of course, and most of the example objects missing, but WTH!

Here's a quote for you from an Amiga Format character:

=========================================================================
I can confirm this is true. We are giving away Imagine 2 on the
coverdisk of issue 53. It's the complete (integer) version, bar a
couple of objects which we couldn't fit on the disk. You can also
upgrade to the FPU version for one pound fifty. There is also an
offer to upgrade to Imagine 3 for the measly sum of seventy five squid.
(i.e. #75 - Gary)

A resonably good cover disk, I think you'll agree....

Cheers,

Richard Baguley
Amiga Format

=========================================================================

So now you know. Incidentally, #75 pounds is around US$110, so this
is slightly more than Impulse's $100 upgrade but with bank charges etc
the end result would be about the same.

Just thought you'd be interested!

Gary Whiteley








##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date:     Thu, 21 Oct 1993 15:37:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> By no big deal, I meant that this is not uncommon.  It is not something that
> *only* Lightwave does.  For example, Imagine FP does this.  Big deal.
> Ofcourse
> it makes a difference, less rounding errors(banding, right?).  But I think
> even Turbo Silver did this(if I read that texture file right).

I think you missed the point of my original posting (and Mark's reply)....
What I was meaning to say was that by using 96 bits per pixel colour infor-
mation (oppose to Imagine's 24 bpp, LightWave 3D is able to provide users with
more accurate rendering result.

The subject is on 96 bpp versus 24... not how some programs does it or not.

> Tom Setzer
> [e-mail]

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject:      Re: Re: Particles
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 93 16:14:42 EDT
From: "Breno A. Silva" <[e-mail]>

>> Now I need a real professional to answer this question :-)
>
>Professional what? ;)

I guess he told it. A REAL(3DV2) professional. :-)))

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Irregular shape brushmap
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 13:47:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

    OK, I have a question for anybody that can help.  I have a butterfly
cycle object.  I want to apply a brushmap to the wings.  The wings are not
simple ellipses but a realistic model of a butterfly wing, like a Monarch.
 I have tried painting the wing brushmap in DPaint and then using the Flat
X-Flat Z wrap but can't get the proportions to match the wing shape.  The
other wraps, Wrap X-Wrap Z, don't work either, stretches the wing shape out
of proportion.  I remember a hint from Steve Worley in the Imagine
compendium about using a screengrabber to grab the irregular outline shape
from the detail editor as a bitmap and using that to make the brushmap in a
paint program.  I did this and got pretty close but the proportions are
still off and after trying to get the proportions just right for several
hours, gave up.  Anybody got any tips on a easier method?  Will a brush
saved from DPaint work better than a whole screen saved from DPaint?  It is
pretty easy to take a rectangular brushmap and lay it down on top of a
rectangular object but it appears to be much more difficult to take an
irregular outline brushwrap and lay it exactly over an irregular outline
object.  Am I missing something here to make my life simpler?


##

Subject: Irregular shape brushmap
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 13:47:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

    OK, I have a question for anybody that can help.  I have a butterfly
cycle object.  I want to apply a brushmap to the wings.  The wings are not
simple ellipses but a realistic model of a butterfly wing, like a Monarch.
 I have tried painting the wing brushmap in DPaint and then using the Flat
X-Flat Z wrap but can't get the proportions to match the wing shape.  The
other wraps, Wrap X-Wrap Z, don't work either, stretches the wing shape out
of proportion.  I remember a hint from Steve Worley in the Imagine
compendium about using a screengrabber to grab the irregular outline shape
from the detail editor as a bitmap and using that to make the brushmap in a
paint program.  I did this and got pretty close but the proportions are
still off and after trying to get the proportions just right for several
hours, gave up.  Anybody got any tips on a easier method?  Will a brush
saved from DPaint work better than a whole screen saved from DPaint?  It is
pretty easy to take a rectangular brushmap and lay it down on top of a
rectangular object but it appears to be much more difficult to take an
irregular outline brushwrap and lay it exactly over an irregular outline
object.  Am I missing something here to make my life simpler?


##

Subject: Re: Irregular shape brushmap
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 17:44:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

Stethem Ted 5721 <[e-mail]> writes:
[Mapping a brush onto a butterfly wing]
> Anybody got any tips on a easier method?  Will a brush saved from DPaint
> work better than a whole screen saved from DPaint?  It is pretty easy to
> take a rectangular brushmap and lay it down on top of a rectangular object
> but it appears to be much more difficult to take an irregular outline
> brushwrap and lay it exactly over an irregular outline object.  Am I
> missing something here to make my life simpler?

Perhaps this will allow you to match them up better: save the brush (not an
entire picture, just the needed portion as a brush) and have Imagine trace
this into an outline.  This should assure that the image will have the same
proportions as the butterfly's wing.  After adding the requisite faces to
the wing, map the same brush onto the wing that you used to create the wing
and render away.

Good luck.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: DXF translation
Date: 21 Oct 93 13:17:00 EDT
From: John Foust - Syndesis Corporation <[e-mail]>

To: >internet: [e-mail]

Writes Stethem Ted 5721 <[e-mail]>:
> release 10.  I have been messing with .DXF conversion/loading in PixelPro3D,
> Caligari24, and using some public domain programs like DXFER on the PC.
>  Layered .DXF and versions beyond release 9 won't load in Pixel3DPro and
> crashes Caligari24.  I have heard the absolute best .DXF converter is
> Syndesis Interchange Plus.  I use Interchange Plus 2.0 and it is the most
> bullet-proof convertor I know of.  I understand that Interchange Plus 3.0
> will include modules for .DXF, 3DS, and Wavefront as well as the existing
> Imagine, Sculpt, Videoscape, 3D2 and some others.  Imagine should do what
> Newtek did with Lightwave; make a deal with Syndesis to license their
> converter in Imagine 3.X.  BTW, Syndesis has a very informative bulletin and
> .DXF converter module manual pages available from them for $10.  These two
> documents are almost a complete "Everything you ever wanted to know about
> .DXF but were afraid to ask (and for good reason)".  Happy trails.

Even better news: the InterChange Plus v3.0 manual includes an
updated "DXF Primer" and the DXF, 3D Studio and Wavefront Converters.
(Of course, updates are available for registered users.  If you
didn't get a flyer two months ago about this, drop me a line with
your postal address and I'll send you a new one.)  We formerly sold
these converters separately for more than $600, now you can get an
update from v2 for $50 or from v1 for $75.

Yup, DXF is barely a "standard."  In the Primer, you'll learn about
the many variations of what passes for import or export of DXF.
Yup, the DXF import/export in Pixel and Caligari really bites.

If you've got a PC, there's another option.  Autodesk, the people who
make AutoCAD and defined the DXF standard, released a freely
distributable DXF to 3D Studio converter.  It's probably the best
I've ever seen.  It was written by Dan Silva, better known for Deluxe
Paint.  We include a copy of it on the ICP v3 disks.  If you have a
PC, it's a failsafe method of converting any DXF file, even the ones
we can't handle in our Amiga translator.

We will release InterChange Plus for Windows later this year.  As
much as I'd like to license our translators to Impulse, it may not be
possible.  They wrote their own DOS extender, which means we can't
use conventional 32-bit DOS tools for porting the software.  We are
already negotiating licensing deals for our Windows DLL versions of
our translators with other companies, so hopely the import/export
situation will improve in other markets.




##

Subject: Free Imagine 2
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 20:55:45 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Greg Burger)

So, how do I get a copy of this Amiga Format if there are no
stores around me that sell it?

Would it be possible for someone to buy it and send it to me if
I pay for it + shipping?


-Greg


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-///-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            ///           [e-mail]       I had raytraced my
        \\\///  Only                or                 .sig, but I forgot to
         \XX/  Amiga      [e-mail]     include a light source.


##

Subject: Re: Questions about Retina
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 23:06:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail]

>> 1)  How in the world do you play a normal Amiga IFF Anim5 on it?
>>    I have tried ViewTek, ShowAnim, View 3.2, and everytime I get
>>    a black screen.  Is it impossible to play NORMAL Amiga IFF anims
>>    on this board?  It would be a small drawback if not.
>
>Better idea would be to call MacroSystems US directly at 313-263-0095 and ask
>them.
>
>However, I don't think Retina is anywhere near fast enough to show animations
>on its screen.  It's just good for doing 'fixed' 24-bit page work.

Oh, the Retina is plenty fast enough to display anims, even 24bit anims,
the PlayRace proves that.  I have made 320x200 24bit RACE's from MPEGS
and most of the time I have to put delays of about 4 VBL's to slow them down!

>>    me open a 256 color screen and looked gorgeous, ... except for some
>>    color banding which I later determined to be that even though I can
>>    use 256 colors, I still only have 4-bit guns and therefore a 4096
>
>What are you talking about?  What 'guns'?  Didn't you say you could open up a
>256 colour (8-bit in another words) screen already?  What 4096 color palette?
>AGA has 24-bit colour palette, and so does Retina.

256 color does mean 8-bit BUT 8-bitplane screen not necessarily 8-bit
color guns.  I can open an 256 color, 8 bitplane screen, and use 256 colors,
BUT I am limited to the 4-bit color guns of OS2.0 and therefore the OS2.0
4096 color palette.  OS3.0 should not have that problem.  Maybe a call to
MacroSystems will help this out too.  It's kind of stupid to assume that
an OS3.0 systems automatically has the AGA chips, granted that the only
production machines with 3.0, have the AGA chips.  BUT, what about the
3.0 developers who use an A3000 with an 040 board?!?!? Wouldn't it be nice
to be able to use a Retina Board in a 3000 to test AGA stuff?!?

Thanks




##

Subject: Re: Irregular shape brushmap
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 13:03:55 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 21 Oct 1993, Stethem Ted 5721 wrote:

>
>     OK, I have a question for anybody that can help.  I have a butterfly
> cycle object.  I want to apply a brushmap to the wings.  The wings are not
> simple ellipses but a realistic model of a butterfly wing, like a Monarch.
>  I have tried painting the wing brushmap in DPaint and then using the Flat
> X-Flat Z wrap but can't get the proportions to match the wing shape.  The
> other wraps, Wrap X-Wrap Z, don't work either, stretches the wing shape out
> of proportion.  I remember a hint from Steve Worley in the Imagine
> compendium about using a screengrabber to grab the irregular outline shape
> from the detail editor as a bitmap and using that to make the brushmap in a
> paint program.  I did this and got pretty close but the proportions are
> still off and after trying to get the proportions just right for several
> hours, gave up.  Anybody got any tips on a easier method?  Will a brush
> saved from DPaint work better than a whole screen saved from DPaint?  It is
> pretty easy to take a rectangular brushmap and lay it down on top of a
> rectangular object but it appears to be much more difficult to take an
> irregular outline brushwrap and lay it exactly over an irregular outline
> object.  Am I missing something here to make my life simpler?
>
I have a suggestion that may work. Pick all the faces on the wing and
make them a subgroup . Then, when adding the brushmap restrict it to the
subgroup. This may work and hope it helps.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Writing Particle Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 22:16:56 PDT
From: "Charles Congdon" <[e-mail]>

A number of people asked how to write particle systems, where to find
additional references, etc., so....
    Enjoy,
    Charles

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting Started - Basic Principles
==================================

    The basic idea behind particle simulations is that the particle
behavior is described by an ordinary differentual equation (ODE) that is
formulated as an initial value problem.  Don't panic, this is really
easy.

    Say the particle is located at position X at time T.  Its
position some time later is defined as a function of these initial
parameters, such that:

        dX/dt = f(X,T)

Basically, this is saying the change in the particle's position (a
vector) is determined by its present position.  This change is found by
evaluating f() at the present location and time, so that f() "drives"
the particle from point to point, like an orange glued to a conveyor
belt.  Wherever the particle is initially placed, it will be "grabbed"
by this "current" and swept along.  Where it ends up depends on where
you initially place it.  Easy, eh?  Note that to make things work
nicely, f() should be by "smooth" and infinite.  f() may, however,
change smoothly in time (wiggle).

    This is real easy to solve numerically - look in any numerical
methods text or just think about it.  A reasonably reliable method is
known as the midpoint method (a 2nd-order solution, also known as an
order 2 Rugne-Kutta solution), which calculates the new position of the
particle in three steps.

1)  Compute the particle's change in position over the time interval dt:

    dX = dt * f(X,T)

2)  Evaluate f() at the midpoint of this time step:

    f_midpoint    =   f( (X+dX)/2, (T+dt)/2 )

3)  Calculate your new position using the midpoint value:

    X_new = X(T + dt) = X + dt * f_midpoint

Where X, X_new, dX, and f_midpoint are vectors, and f() returns a vector.

Variations on this scheme involve adaptive step sizes, to name one
improvement.

    The above best describes "tracer particles," which are "stuck"
in the vector field f() and move along it.  Most objects in the real
world "resist" when a force is applied to them (inertia - they like to
continue moving the way they were moving).  The above formulation needs
to be modified a little to simulate "real world" objects.

    Don't worry, this is still really easy.  Basically, we need to
add the concept of acceleration to the above scheme:

    acceleration = f(X,dX/dt,T)/mass     (Force = mass * acceleration)

This is a second-order differential equation - acceleration is the
second derivative of the position (X) with respect to time.  This
equation alone is more difficult to solve for the new position of the
particle.  However, this can be solved in two steps using the methods we
discussed above.  That is, this single second-order equation can be
written as two first-order equations:

    dX/dt = velocity = V

    d(velocity)/dt = dV/dt = f(V,T)/mass

    These two equations are the key to the palace.  With them you
can simulate a broad number of dynamic phenomina as follows:

1)  At any given time, a particle has a position (X) and velocity (V)
    associated with it (these are both three-dimensional vectors).  It
    also has a (presumably unchanging) mass.

2)  To move the particle, first sum up all the forces that act on it.
    Remember, each f() returns a vector (a force vector), and vectors
    add without problem (just make sure you scale them so they have the
    same units of force - you don't want gravity to be 1,000,000 times
    stronger then your wind).  So, calculate all your f(V,T)s for
    the particle, and then add them up to create f_total(V,T).

3)  Use the midpoint method (above) to calculate the new *velocity*:

    dV = dt * f_total_1(V,T).

    f_midpoint = f_total_2( (V+dV)/2, (T+dt)/2 )

    V_new = V(T + dt) = V + dt * f_midpoint

    NOTE:  you need to evalute f_total() twice - once for the initial
           velocity, once for the midpoint velocity.

4)  Calculate your new position from the new velocity:

    X_new = X + dt * V_new

5)  Repeat 2-4 for all particles in your particle system.

6)  For the next time step, increment T by dt, and return to (2).

Once again, X, X_new, V, V_New, f_midpoint, and f_total are vectors,
while each f() returns a vector.

    There.  That's all you need to build a basic particle system.
You can have as many different particle systems around as you have disk
space, time, and patience.  For each particle system, create a data
structure to hold the data for each particle (X, V, f_total, and mass)
and a data structure to keep track of all the particles in the particle
system (pointer to member particles, number of member particles, time).

    But wait, what about forces?  Again, look at your physics book.
For example:

    Gravity:   f() = mass * constant

                         constant = the gravitational constant

        Drag:      f() = -1 * velocity * constant

                         constant = the "drag coefficient"

        Wind:      a.  Add all the wind vectors
                   b.  Subtract out the particle velocity (to give the
                       net wind speed/vector with respect to the
                       particle)
                   c.  Calculate the force due to the wind using a
                       variation on the drag equation.
                       f() = net_wind * drag_coef * surface_area

        Force Fields:  Make up your own smooth position-dependent force.
                   Try, for example, a "blower":

                   A wind vector, pointing from the blower center to the
                   particle, scaled by the factor

                        constant / (distance between blower position and X)

                   Be careful when X = blower_position.

                   Make a vacuum by simply reversting the direction of
                   the vector.  To make a black hole, throw in the mass
                   as well.

Be careful of your signs and all should be fine.  How big to you make
your constants?  That's impossible to say.  Depends on how large they
are with respect to the particle mass or velocity, and the other
parameters in the equation.  Pay attention to units.


Where Now?
==========

    The great things about particle systems is that you can layer
them as deeply as you want.  You can add bits to your code so that each
system is influenced by an arbitrary number of forces.  You can attempt
to add collision detection to make the particles bounce off each other
or objects in your environment.  You can make the particles live for a
finite time, change color, multiply.  You can add moving sources, etc.
But all of this all boils down to that 6-step process above - just plug
in new forces and go!  For "non-linear" effects such as collisions
(where the position or velocity do not change smoothly), modify the
position and velocity *after* calculating X_new and V_new.  Use the
position information you generate to control objects in your scene with
ISL, drive your own Renderer, etc.  Above all, have fun.

References
==========
Here are a few of the available references - use their bibliographies to
get you further into the subject if interested.  A good place to start
is Sims, 1990:


An Introdiction of Physically Based Modeling, SIGGRAPH '93 Course 60
Notes.

Fornier, A., A Simple Model of Ocean Waves, Computer Graphics, 20(4):
75-84, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '86)

Hocknew, R.W. and Eastwood, J.W.,  Computer Simulation Using Particles,
Adam Hilger, New York, 1988

Peachy, D.R., Modeling Waves and Surf, Computer Graphics, 20(4): 65-74,
(Proc. SIGGRAPH '86).

Reeves, W.T., Particle Systems - A Technique for Modelling a Class of
Fuzzy Objects, Computer Graphics, 17(3): 283-291,  (Proc. SIGGRAPH '83)

Reeves, W.T. and Blau, R., Approximate and Probabilistic Algorithms for
Shading and Rendering Structures Particle Systems, Computer Graphics,
19(3): 313-322, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '85)

Reynolds, C.W., Flocks, Herds, and Schools:  A Distributed Behavioural
Model, Computer Graphics, 21(4): 25-34, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '87)

Robertson, B., Powerful Particles, Computer Graphics World, July 1993,
pp. 40-48.

Sims, K., Particle Animation and Rendering Using Data Parallel
Computation, Computer Graphics, 24(4):  405, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '90)

Szeliski, R. and Tonnesen, D., Surface Modeling with Oriented Particle
Systems, Computer Graphics, 26(2): 185-194, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '92)

Watt, A. and Watt, M.,  Advanced Animation and Rendering Techniques,
Theory and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York, 1992

Weil, J., The Synthesis of Cloth Objects, Computer Graphics, 20(4):
49-54, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '86)

Wejchert, J. and Haumann, D., Animation Aerodynamics, Computer Graphics,
25(4): 19-22, (Proc. SIGGRAPH '91)

Witkin A., Kleischer K., and Barr, A.,  Energy constraints on
parameterized models, Computer Graphics, 21(4): 225-232, July 1987



##

Subject: Re: Questions about Retin
Date:     Tue, 26 Oct 1993 04:33:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> Oh, the Retina is plenty fast enough to display anims, even 24bit anims,
> the PlayRace proves that.  I have made 320x200 24bit RACE's from MPEGS
> and most of the time I have to put delays of about 4 VBL's to slow them down!

You are NOT serious... are you?  Is this another Retina advocacy?

> 256 color does mean 8-bit BUT 8-bitplane screen not necessarily 8-bit
> color guns.  I can open an 256 color, 8 bitplane screen, and use 256 colors,
> BUT I am limited to the 4-bit color guns of OS2.0 and therefore the OS2.0
> 4096 color palette.  OS3.0 should not have that problem.  Maybe a call to

Ok, I think I know what you meant by 'guns' now... you mean OS2.0 doesn't
support 256 colour WB..

> Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use a Retina Board in a 3000 to test AGA
> stuff?!?

Well, there's still that 64k window for Retina memory swap..

> Thanks

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Irregular shape brushmap
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 00:24:16 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ziolkowski)

        Simple solution.  Make your screengrabber image, then paint
it in Dpaint.  After it's done, draw a box around the entire image.
grab the brush *so that the border of your brush is the box.  Now,
make a matte using black, and clear the screen with white.  This
should give you a 2 color image of the wing, black and white, with
white being the wing. This you should save as a picture.
        Back in imagine, make the black and white image into an
object, no faces.  You should have a wing shape with a box around
it.  Now place the outline over the real object, scaling and sizing
accordingly.  Then, you map the picture onto the wing,       ^moving
use the box as a refernce guide, and place the map this way.
You can also use the b/w image, convert it to an object *with*
faces, and then just apply the map flat, and it'll position it
correctly.  This only work if the object itself is flat!
        Good luck!
steveZ                 Rhythm & Hues, Inc.
celia![e-mail]
"That's not Art Linkletter, that's Mickey Mouse!"
            -Art Linkletter, Disneyland opening day



##

Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 13:49 GMT0BST-1
From: Gary Whiteley - Amiga Shopper <[e-mail]>

> FROMJ_GEORGE <[e-mail]>

>Okay... so let me get this straight...
>you can buy the magazine, get the disk, and upgrade to Imagine 3.0 from >it? Is this som-
e kind of sneak-attack promotional work or what ;-)...

Don't know about the promotional stuff (I have no connection with Amiga
Format beyond very occaisional frelance work for them) but the rest is
certainly the case - at least as I understand it and from what I posted
earlier....

Gary






##

Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 13:49 GMT0BST-1
From: Gary Whiteley - Amiga Shopper <[e-mail]>

>From: Greg Burger <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Free Imagine 2

>So, how do I get a copy of this Amiga Format if there are no
>stores around me that sell it?

>Would it be possible for someone to buy it and send it to me if
>I pay for it + shipping?

Greg - Amiga Format have an e-mail address ([e-mail])
so you could start there. There are also Amiga dealers in the States
who sell Amiga Format. Adverts in Amiga World often mention them, but
I can't remember who at the moment.

Gary




##

Subject: Opalvision question
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 8:45:15 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

    Can someone with Opalvision experience get back to me.  I have
    some questions about it before I purchase the board.

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Imagine 3.0 Manual!
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 11:08:58 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hanna)

Hey, PJ Foley managed to get a "pre-release" version of the 3.0 manual!
I decided to post it here, so you can all use it when your manual-less
upgrade comes in "2 weeks."

Excerpt from Imagine 3.0 manual:
    Well com to Imagen vershun 3.  0!  Experiment and learn!  If we maid
this programm eezy to use, it wood make yer work suck!  Try this load an
object and then select quick render.  When it's done it will dissapeer, but
you can experiment!  If it was easy you would make stupid things!  Experiment
and lern.  Then try out new things and experiment too.

Index:

Page one ......................... 1
Page two ......................... 2
Page 3   ......................... two




Jeff Hanna


##

Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 18:02 GMT0BST-1
From: Gary Whiteley - Amiga Shopper <[e-mail]>

>From: Rick Rodriguez <[e-mail]>

>Gary, please note that Amiga Format will be shipping the PAL version
>of the software.
>--Rick Rodriguez

OOPS! Sorry, my fault. Not thinking again....

But does this stop folks in the US from getting Amiga Format
and then asking for an NTSC version when they upgrade - assuming that
the original reason for getting the free disk was only to get a cheap
upgrade to Imagine 3?

Gary




##

Subject: $10,000
Date: 22 Oct 93 10:30:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

     If you were to receive $10,000 for a 'general purpose'
     3D animation system, how would YOU spend it?  What would
     YOU buy?  Would you still use imagine?

     Any and all comments welcome...


##

Subject: 'free' imagine
Date: 22 Oct 93 10:21:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

>>Okay... so let me get this straight...
>>you can buy the magazine, get the disk, and upgrade to Imagine 3.0 from >it? I
>>e kind of sneak-attack promotional work or what ;-)...
>
>Don't know about the promotional stuff (I have no connection with Amiga
>Format beyond very occaisional frelance work for them) but the rest is
>certainly the case - at least as I understand it and from what I posted
>earlier....
>
>Gary

     I haven't seen this 'free' software yet, but it doesn't please me
     that I paid HUNDREDS of DOLLARS for something that someone else is
     getting for 'free'. :(


##

Subject: Re: $10,000
Date:     Fri, 22 Oct 1993 15:31:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

>     If you were to receive $10,000 for a 'general purpose'
>     3D animation system, how would YOU spend it?  What would
>     YOU buy?  Would you still use imagine?

Well, give me $10,000 and I'll tell you how I spent it.  :)

I just spent $2500 CDN no problem on graphics system for my A3000... a nice 17
inch monitor and 2MB Picasso II board.

I guess I'd buy a single-frame accurate VCR, V-LAB Y/C, a nice colour scanner,
a 2GB harddrive, a multifunction MO drive, and more RAM.  That'd cover the rest
$7500.... or I might be a little short for that.

Hey, nobody knows how to spend money on computer like myself  :)



Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money!

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Picasso II & Monitor
Date:     Fri, 22 Oct 1993 15:33:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> I'm curious... Do you have a Picasso II?  And how do you like it?
> it sounds like an ideal low cost 24 bit sol for an A2000.

I'm getting the 2MB version today through UPS overnight (!) so ask me the
same question in about a week... or I'll post a review.

> George Hepker
> [e-mail]

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: Re: Amiga Format
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 12:49:27 PDT
From: Byrt Martinez <[e-mail]>

content-type:text/plain;charset=us-ascii
mime-version:1.0

> so you could start there. There are also Amiga dealers in the States
> who sell Amiga Format. Adverts in Amiga World often mention them, but
> I can't remember who at the moment.

Current Amiga World has Amiga Format magazine available from Amigaman.
Phone # [phone]  U.S. & Canada

--
****************************************************************************
 Byrt Martinez  a.k.a  [e-mail]
****************************************************************************





##

Subject: Re: 10K Animation System
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 12:58:22 -0700
From: "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529" <[e-mail]>

> Ed Totman Wrote:
>
>     If you were to receive $10,000 for a 'general purpose'
>     3D animation system, how would YOU spend it?  What would
>     YOU buy?  Would you still use imagine?

  Here what I would get:

Amiga 4000/040                       $2500
Video Toster 4000                    $2000
DPS Persional Animation Controller   $1500
Time Base Corrector                  $1000
2GB worth of Hard Disk               $1500
Extra 16MB of RAM                    $1000
1 MultiSync and 2 Composite Monitors $1000

Well I could keep going but I already spent my $10K.  That still leaves
me needing a good VTR to get these animations on tape.

I don't think that the above setup could be beaten on any other
computer platform cost/performance wise.

-Jeff Wahaus-



##

Subject: Re: Imagine 3.0 Manual!
Date:     Tue, 26 Oct 1993 05:16:00 -0400
From: j#d#[e-mail] (J. Moore)

S> Hey, PJ Foley managed to get a "pre-release" version of the 3.0 manual!
S> I decided to post it here, so you can all use it when your manual-less
S> upgrade comes in "2 weeks."

S> Excerpt from Imagine 3.0 manual:
S> Well com to Imagen vershun 3.  0!  Experiment and learn!  If we maid
S> this programm eezy to use, it wood make yer work suck!  Try this load an
S> object and then select quick render.  When it's done it will dissapeer,
S> but
S> you can experiment!  If it was easy you would make stupid things!
S> Experiment
S> and lern.  Then try out new things and experiment too.

S> Index:

S> Page one ......................... 1
S> Page two ......................... 2
S> Page 3   ......................... two

God, what a relief -- I was afraid the new manual wouldn't be an
improvement!

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *


##

Subject: RE: 'free' imagine
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:14:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Pack,SQA)

     >I haven't seen this 'free' software yet, but it doesn't please me
     >that I paid HUNDREDS of DOLLARS for something that someone else is
     >getting for 'free'. :(

It doesn't please me that I paid ~$2200 for my A3000 and now they are
selling them for $850 plus they have more RAM and a bigger HD.  That's life
in computerland.  Basically Imagine 2.0 is dead - Impulse is probably not
selling a lot lately since 3.0 is just around the corner and everyone knows
it.  They don't have to do much for the magazine deal other than provide a
single master copy and then collect the cash from the publisher; no
packaging, manual, support, etc.  It's a wise move for them.

-Scott
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: $10,000
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 17:13:48 EDT
From: David Watters <[e-mail]>

>      If you were to receive $10,000 for a 'general purpose'
>      3D animation system, how would YOU spend it?  What would
>      YOU buy?  Would you still use imagine?

I would buy a used 2.x based A2000 (~$300).
I would buy a GVP G-Force '040-33 w/ SCSI controller and 16MB of RAM. (~$2100).
I would buy a HP 2247 1GB hard disk (~$1100) or a Seagate Barracuda2 2.1GB
  8ms, 7200rpm hard disk (~$1900).
I would buy a MegaChip 2MB Agnus for 2MB of chip ram (~$250).
I would buy a FlickerMaster or some other denise socket display enhancer
  or maybe one of these Zorro slot VGA boads (PicassoII or whatever would
  display my 3D software de-interlaced. (~$500)
I would buy some standard SVGA monitor (~$350).
I would buy a DPS Personal Animation Recorder with a Seagate ST3655A (~$2500)

and lastly I would buy a VideoToaster4000/3.0 and run Lightwave (~$2000)

That is $9,900 with the Barracuda 2 drive.
A couple hundred more for misc. software here and there still keeps you in the
$10k range.

This would be hell of an animation system, playing back full color component
video animations off of hard disk that were generated by Lightwave.

Any one else?

             _     ___
David    ~  |_|,--'   |@,__
Watters   ~   ( )-_______-()`-

--
David R. Watters ([e-mail])    Cranel Inc. Development & Engineering
"Porsche.  The very name is, to many, the last word in sports cars. Any car
 blessed with these magic seven letters is sure to be the very best. Period!"
                        - Car and Driver, January 1993



##

Subject: Re: 10K Animation System
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 18:08:15 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> >     If you were to receive $10,000 for a 3D animation system

> Amiga 4000/040                       $2500
> Video Toster 4000                    $2000
> ........
> I don't think that the above setup could be beaten on any other
> computer platform cost/performance wise.

Amiga 2000             $600
Video Toaster         $1800
DPS PAR               $1650
IDE Drive for PAR      $600
GForce 040 w/1.2 Gig  $2000
Extra 16MB of RAM      $800
Epson Scanner          $800
2GB DAT drive         $1200
1084 + video monitor   $550
                      _____
                     $10000

Currently you are better off using an 040 card in a 2000 or 3000 than
using the 4000/040. It can make a difference in speed of upto 3x in
LightWave.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: Re: DXF translation
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 00:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Andrew McDonald)

> We will release InterChange Plus for Windows later this year.  As

Can't wait.

> use conventional 32-bit DOS tools for porting the software.  We are
> already negotiating licensing deals for our Windows DLL versions of
> our translators with other companies, so hopely the import/export
> situation will improve in other markets.

The MS-DOS/Windows graphics market is really just starting to mature.
Along with ICP/win, Adobe PhotoShop is the other main program for anyone
considering the PC as a platform. A phenomenal image processor, plenty of
forthcoming extensions (plug-ins), does the best job of converting image
files (including 24-bit IFF), BUT, don't try to use your boot drive for
virtual memory (conflicts with Windows swap files). Also, start saving for
RAM and storage. ha.



##

Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 10:12 GMT0BST-1
From: Gary Whiteley - Amiga Shopper <[e-mail]>

Jeff Hanna writes:

>The only difference between the NTSC and PAL versions of Imagine 2.0
>is the Imagine.config file! I have both actually. Impulse sent me my 2.0
>with the PAL .config file on the FPU version disk and the NTSC .config
>file on the INT version disk.

I think Rick was probably talking about the interfaces being in NTSC or
PAL, not the rendered output.

True, the rendered sizes can be set from the Imagine.config file, but I'd
be happy for you to show me which numbers to change to swap the interfaces
between PAL/NTSC screen sizes. I'm pretty sure it can't be done so easily.

AFAIR, the NTSC version will use screen sizes in the region of 640 x 480
for the interfaces, whilst PAL screens are 640 x 512 (at least the ones I
grabbed with GrabIFF are...).

Gary





##

Subject: Amiga 2000 vs 4000
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 05:38:41 -0700
From: "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529" <[e-mail]>

> Currently you are better off using an 040 card in a 2000 or 3000 than
> using the 4000/040. It can make a difference in speed of upto 3x in
> LightWave.

  Yea, I agree with this as far as speed goes BUT you loose a lot when
using a Toster 4000 with less than an Amiga 4000.  Since the original
request was for an animation system I guess that the video transition
stuff you would loose by going with either a 2000 or 3000 would be
acceptable though.

  Mabey the A4000T will take care of the speed issue when it is finally
released.

-Jeff Wahaus-



##

Subject: Imagine Screen Sizes
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 05:44:07 -0700
From: "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529" <[e-mail]>

> True, the rendered sizes can be set from the Imagine.config file, but I'd
> be happy for you to show me which numbers to change to swap the interfaces
> between PAL/NTSC screen sizes. I'm pretty sure it can't be done so easily.
>
> AFAIR, the NTSC version will use screen sizes in the region of 640 x 480
> for the interfaces, whilst PAL screens are 640 x 512 (at least the ones I
> grabbed with GrabIFF are...).
>
> Gary

  Actually the screen size for Imagine can be easily changed.  All you
have to do is find a good HEX editor and patch the executable.  The
bytes to change were posted here not long ago.

-Jeff Wahaus-



##

Subject: Re: $10,000
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 05:23:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

Well, $10K is a lot for a personal use type thing, but for a professional,
that may well be a good 'starting' place &-) I'd opt for LW3D a la Video
Toaster, with A4000/040, 128MB ram, 1.2GB HD, and 20" multisynch monitor, and
possibly throw in a transputer card or two, and maybe a 24 bit GFX card. I'm
not being greedy, just facing the reality of what *can* be done. PS don't
forget the personal animation recorder too! Take care, God Bless, BCNU!

Virtually yours,
Michel

                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: Changing Screen SIzes
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 20:42:10 EDT
From: [e-mail] (William V. Swartz)

It was recently mentioned that Imagine's screen size could be zapped with a hex
editor and that the bytes to change are known.  Could someone repost or mail
this procedure to me as I have a large monitor and the extra screen area for
modelling would be bonus.  Thanks....

  //
\X/ -BiL-
    [e-mail]             (See my 'Imagine'-ary signature below)


##

Subject: Meeting on IRC ?
Date:     Sun, 24 Oct 1993 12:18:21 +0100
From: Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]>

I wondered if anyone on this Mailling List would like to meet the
others on-line via IRC?

So how many of you do have IRC access.

How many of you are interested in this ?

What do you think
Hannes



##

Subject: Re: OHH, I AM *SO* SORRY!!!
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 15:55:12 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

> Just to make sure that I NEVER do or say something that might offend someone
> in the future, I have removed all creative programs from my Amiga. Yup, that's
> right! No more DPaint, no more Text editors, no more Imagine, no more
> soundtrackers, etc. I have gone cold turkey on creativity.
>
> Now if you will excuse me I am going to go watch "The Program" and then
> lie down in a highway...
>

YIKES!! If the pitiful attempt at satire you posted the other day is
a sampling of your 'creativity' please spare us of further efforts.
And if thats v 4.6 of dpaint please send it to me before offing
yourself in the road. remember, for best results lay perpendicular to
the dashed yellow line in the center.  :)


##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date:     Sat, 16 Oct 1993 10:09:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

> This _is_ an Amiga you're rendering on, right?  Why not down the priority
> of Imagine?  There are any number of PD programs which will let you do
> this.  I normally render at -2.  This prevents the renderer from interfering
> with the other stuff I want to do, but lets it use the entire machine when
> I'm not doing other stuff.

Not a bad idea!  Ok, here goes priority -2....

> _john

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX



##

Subject: Imagine screen size hack?
Date:     Sun, 24 Oct 1993 17:06:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Hello all..

Mr. Grant Cormier kindly pointed out that there was some hack which will let
me open up different size screen for Imagine.  Now I have Picasso II board,
I'd really like to know this.  It involves changing one hex number from the
main file as pointed out by Mr. Cormier.

Thanks!

----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy K. Park  \ e-mail: [e-mail] / FidoNet: 1:229/15   |
| aka Diabolist \        [e-mail]      / RelayNet/RIME: ->CRS |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
        "I believe in spontaneous creation of the universe!"

APO/SparX


##

Subject: RE: Meeting on IRC
Date: 24 Oct 93 19:56:00 EST
From: "J_GEORGE" <[e-mail]>


On occasion I've left my account online on IRC under the channel name #IMAGINE
with a topic referring to Imagine, Raytracing, Animation and so forth... to
date, I've talked with one person so far that was in search of basic graphic
info and I sent him to a site to download the SIGGRAPH Comp Graphics FAQs.
Another time I left it online, went to run some errunds, and upon my return
I found about 10 people on the channel comparing MTV in Europe vs MTV in
America. Not one of these people had any idea what raytracing was - they
claimed they liked the channel name.

An IRC channel would be nice, but it's a little disheartening to find lamers
discussing what color Janet Jackson's underwear is. ;-)

I kinda figured most Imagineers had their systems tied up rendering to have
time to IRC. C'est la vie..

                            I\/Iax I\Iomad




##

Subject: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: 24 Oct 93 21:55:00 EST
From: "J_GEORGE" <[e-mail]>


Granted, I know the problems associated with creating realistic starfields is
a timely topic; forgive me, it's coming up again. ;-)

I found that incoporating both clustered starfield objects and slow-panning
animated background brushes serve the purpose to a degree. To get around
the shimmering effect that creeps up with this method, using wide light
sources @ around 600 600 600 or so washed out any artifacting that occured
with 24-bit rendering. Crisp and clean and no caffeine... Well, here's where
I ran into stumbling blocks:

When converting these frames to DCTV format (yeah, I know, get a >REAL< 24-bit
card), I got alot of rainbow artifacting on the stars. I've tried filtering
the colors down to below the NTSC Limit, figuring that the white was too 'hot'
for composite video, and have gotten the same results. I've tried rendering
rendering at twice my image size and through batch image processing, scaling
the frame down to the desired size while filtering the colors (in hopes that
there was some anti-aliasing going on somewhere that I had missed). Still,
the rainbow persists.

Has anyone else run into this problem or similar? I'm not sure whether this
problem is due to the limitations of DCTV itself or if I need to experiment
with my anti-aliasing levels (EDLE) in the Preferences Editor (which is what
I'm going to try when this current sequence finishes rendering). Any and all
help/advice/sources for enlightenment would be appreciated.

Thanks.

                            I\/Iax I\Iomad




##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 01:40:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mr. Scott Krehbiel; ACS (PC)" <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 17 Oct 1993, Doug Kelly wrote:

> Depending on the price of your upgrade options, it may be cheaper for you
> to buy a 486 PC to use as a rendering engine.  I use both platforms, and
> can attest that modeling on the Amiga and rendering on a dumb (but faster)
> PC is definitely the way to go for speed/price performance.  As per
> earlier threads on this list, the PC version of Imagine runs SIGNIFICANTLY
> faster then even a hot '040.  Of course, it doesn't multitask at all.
>
(stuff deleted)

Aren't there problems transferring files to the PC version and maintaining
info?  I know you'd have to convert your iff maps to targa images ( isn't
it targa?  or am I just running on too little sleep? ) and I've heard
about the detail editor info becoming garbled in the transfer.

Do staging files transfer at all?

What kind of info tweaking have you had to do to get this to work well?

Thanks for any help
Scott Krehbiel
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: .fli - .flc difference
Date:     Mon, 25 Oct 1993 12:59:42 +0100
From: Peter Bugla <[e-mail]>

Just to enlighten you:
.fli and .flc-files are both so called "flics".
The only difference is the resolution.
.flis are in low resolution (about 320x400 or something like that
    sorry, got no example available here)
while
.flcs are the "big ones" in higher resolutions up to 1024x768.

The pd-players available are not always work with both formats.

aaplay e.g. does only work with .fli
but
aaplayhi works with both .fli and .flc

locations to get aaplayhi (for PC of course):
ames.arc.nasa.gov
in /pub/SPACE/SOFTWARE

wuarchive.wustl.edu
in /graphics/graphics/mirrors/ftp.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/
    pub/dkbtrace/utils

Hope it helps!
Peter



##

Subject: Re: The Revenge of the FLC's
Date:     Mon, 25 Oct 1993 13:46:44 +0100
From: Peter Bugla <[e-mail]>

> ...considering it's the only
> player that works. Hmmm.. maybe I'll just phone ProGrafx.
I successfully played an 1024x768 .flc animation I created
with aaplayhi without any problems.
So it's not the only player working with HI-RES imagine-output!

Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <disclaimer.h>               " If architects built buildings the way
                     programmers write  programs the first
                         woodpecker that came along would
Peter Bugla                     destroy civilization "
E-mail: [e-mail]  -- Murphy's Law of Computers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject:      HOw can I get Imagine3.0?
Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 93 14:23:25 TUR
From: Erdem ERTAN <[e-mail]>

     Hello to all guys.(especially near Impulse)
     As i live in a country overseas(for America)(In the eastern of
Europe-Turkiye(I dont prefer the word-= Turkey =-)),i dont know how to
get a copy of Imagine3.0 .If anyone can inform me,I will be happy.Also
does anyone know that Essences can be used in imagine 3.0?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-       Erdem ERTAN   email:[e-mail]                   -
-                                                                      -
-                                SEEING IS BELIEVING                   -
------------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Imagine screen size hack?
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 12:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Roy Park) writes:
> Mr. Grant Cormier kindly pointed out that there was some hack which will let
> me open up different size screen for Imagine.  Now I have Picasso II board,
> I'd really like to know this.  It involves changing one hex number from the
> main file as pointed out by Mr. Cormier.

No need to patch Imagine with the Picasso.  Just promote the Imagine
screen to whatever size you like.  Make sure you have ChangeScreen in
the WBStartup drawer.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 12:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

"J_GEORGE" <[e-mail]> writes:

[Starfields and DCTV]
> When converting these frames to DCTV format (yeah, I know, get a >REAL<
> 24-bit card), I got alot of rainbow artifacting on the stars.

I believe this is a problem with DCTV as it is not 100% NTSC.  It's close,
but with high contrast things (such as white text on black background, or
stars for that matter) it tends to show its limitations.
    You might want to try blurring the background to reduce the drastic
edges that DCTV can't properly handle (think of it as a problem similar to
HAM fringing.)

Personally, I think despite its limitations, DCTV is a marvelous little
device, especially for non-AGA Amigas (such as mine) which don't have HAM8
and/or the high video bandwidth.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Imagine screen size hack?
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 13:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

>>Just promote the Imagine screen to whatever size you like.
>
> It doesn't work for everyone, though, as has been gone over here in the
> past.  Imagine can get real flaky at higher horizontal resolutions,
> especially in the Detail editor.  Flaky as in crashy and lock-uppy...

Quite true, yes, but Imagine is flakey regardless of the method used to
obtain a larger display: patching it or promotion.  As far as I'm concerned
it's less cumbersome to just let the software promote Imagine's display.
And you can always promote to Picasso's 640x480 display which is marginally
larger than 640x400 and should be safe.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Ooops.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 13:46:46 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]

Hmm.. I dont think I sent that last message to the right server. :)
Well, here is my problem.  I have a 386Sx with 750 megs of storage.
My Amiga has only 150 MEgs.  Now, is there something similar to Parnet
that I can use to "network" the two together so I can use the IBM as
bulk storage?  Thanks,
                  -Don
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 12:54:39 CDT
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>

>When converting these frames to DCTV format (yeah, I know, get a >REAL< 24-bit
>card), I got alot of rainbow artifacting on the stars. I've tried filtering

   I've struggled over this problem many times myself.  I eventually decided
that DCTV cannot display a star as a single pixel.  The DCTV display is based
on a scheme that requires more than one pixel to represent white.
   With alot of fiddling, I was able to make a very nice looking star that
consisted of a horizontal series of five pixels.  The center one being that
color you want, and the outer four being a gradient to black.
   The problem is, I see no way of having imagine create such a series
of pixels.

--------
Charles Peterson
Tony Peterson
Iowa State University
Internet: [e-mail]
--------


##

Subject: Re: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: [e-mail] (Marcelino A Vilaubi)

> [Starfields and DCTV]
> > When converting these frames to DCTV format (yeah, I know, get a >REAL<
> > 24-bit card), I got alot of rainbow artifacting on the stars.
>
> I believe this is a problem with DCTV as it is not 100% NTSC.  It's close,

I had the same problems with DCTV, so I tried the same animation on the
PAR at school and I still got rainbow stars. I think it's a bad idea to
use a single white pixel on a black background in NTSC.

>     You might want to try blurring the background to reduce the drastic

I tried this approach with some success, although the stars do look a little
bigger than they should be afterwards.

--
Marcelino Vilaubi
[e-mail]    [e-mail]



##

Subject: Stars & Artifacts & Stuff
Date:     Mon, 25 Oct 1993 17:26:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rosario Salfi)

I think a real solution to the rainbow stars problem would be to simply
generate a massive sphere.  On the boundary of this sphere would be a
multitude of little "star" objects.  Problem is, no one has created a
little program to do this (although I think it could probably be done
using TTDDD by Glen Lewis).


##

Subject: Re: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 14:53:52 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|> [Starfields and DCTV]
|> > When converting these frames to DCTV format (yeah, I know, get a >REAL<
|> > 24-bit card), I got alot of rainbow artifacting on the stars.
|>
|> I believe this is a problem with DCTV as it is not 100% NTSC.  It's close,
|
|I had the same problems with DCTV, so I tried the same animation on the
|PAR at school and I still got rainbow stars. I think it's a bad idea to
|use a single white pixel on a black background in NTSC.

    If this is true, then why is it that the Star Trek effects don't
    rainbow.  That is I'm assuming they don't.  I've never examined
    them in minute detail.  But I know that it's something that never
    blatantly stood out.  The signal coming through the TV is NTSC.  So
    why is there a signal problem with the PAR; which is RS-170A
    compliant?

    So... do we need a video theory mailing list ;-) ?

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .



##

Subject: Re: 10K Animation System
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 17:04:36 EDT
From: David Watters <[e-mail]>

>   Here what I would get:
>
> Amiga 4000/040                       $2500
> Video Toster 4000                    $2000

As Mark T. and I both pointed out, it is much cheaper and far better to use
a used A2000 with a GForce-040/33 and some RAM (16 or 32MB) than it is to
use an A4000.  This is assuming this is for an animation setup and the loss
of AGA based effects would not be missed.  Besides all those "WoW!" MTV effects
are often a big negative.

I also listed the DPS PAR as an unreplaceable component which means the AGA
animation playback available with an A4000/Toaster4000 setup would not be
needed and it pales in comparison anyways.

I would build the same system, without the Toaster, if you wanted to use
Imagine 3.0.

             _     ___
David    ~  |_|,--'   |@,__
Watters   ~   ( )-_______-()`-

--
David R. Watters ([e-mail])    Cranel Inc. Development & Engineering
"Porsche.  The very name is, to many, the last word in sports cars. Any car
 blessed with these magic seven letters is sure to be the very best. Period!"
                        - Car and Driver, January 1993


##

Subject: 3D Artist - free copy
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 14:36:26 PDT
From: [e-mail]

Bill Allen, publisher/editor of 3D Artist newsletter, has asked me
to announce that he'll send a free copy to anyone in the US and
Canada who calls and asks for one.  The voice number is
505-982-3532 and fax is 505-820-6929.  The latest issue, just out
is 32 glossy pages of absolutely essential info for anyone doing
3D on any platform, altho it concentrates on PC applications.
Check it out!


##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 18:36:33 EDT
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>
> >you have onboard RAM - 4000 doesn't support burst mode thanks to C=)
>
> Half the speed! Wow! That's why they say the 4000 is a DOG! Excuse my
> ignorance, but can you tell me exactly what the burst mode is, and why
> has it been removed (or if can it be reactivated, or we have to switch
> the processors)?
>

You should be getting better rendering times than you are. If that is an
040 based 4000 check your libs directory for the version of the math
libraries you re using.

                    | Hey Beavis. Essence-II's Crumpled texture
steve lombardi      | really KICKS ASS.    Mhhh huh. Yea. And those space
[e-mail] | textures don't suck either. Huh.


##

Subject: Re: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 18:31:24 EDT
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

>> I think it's a bad idea to use a single white pixel on a black background
>> in NTSC.
>     If this is true, then why is it that the Star Trek effects don't
>     rainbow.

Because those stars are NOT a single white pixel on a black background.
As the first poster suggested, doing such a thing in NTSC is not a good
practice. Instead use something less than full intensity white and smoothly
roll it off to black (gaussian filter would do).
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject:       Re: Ooops.
Date:          Tue, 26 Oct 1993 11:54:37 GMT +1200
From: [e-mail]

> Hmm.. I dont think I sent that last message to the right server. :)
> Well, here is my problem.  I have a 386Sx with 750 megs of storage.
> My Amiga has only 150 MEgs.  Now, is there something similar to Parnet
> that I can use to "network" the two together so I can use the IBM as
> bulk storage?  Thanks,

I'm currently using Parnet -> A2000 (parallel) and TwinExpress ->
386SX (serial) from a A1200. TwinExpress speed wise is slightly faster
but depends on the baud rate. It allows file transfer and maintenance
from either machine via a shell. Ideal for storage problems, thou a
little slow.

TwinExpress.lha can be DL'ed from Aminet in misc/emu ? I think.

Cheers
Paul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul Batten       Science & Computing Dept.       Christchurch Polytechnic
 [e-mail]              Christchurch      New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: particles, I am confused ?!?
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 79 08:20:07 GMT
From: Tony Jones <[e-mail]>

Posted for Andy Jones (2:253/[e-mail])

In a message of 21 Oct 93 Thomas Setzer wrote :

 TS> I think thats how it works...but then, I might not be the type of
 TS> professional
 TS> your looking for;)  Is this right?  Anyone?

 TS> So Real3d is part way there.  I don't know if it has the other neat
 TS> features
 TS> that other particle systems have.  Does it?  Anyone?

Things like the DS9 comet tail are done with shaders not actual 3d objects.
Shaders became popular through Renderman and are used on just about every
high-end system, you pay someone to write a shader to give you the effect
you want. If you want a icy comet in Renderman you have to have a shader
written to do it. When it comes to rendering them it just treats it as a
'texture'. The shaders use Particle Generation, not Particle Systems.
Particle Generators are great for smoke, fire, etc. I saw an amazing anim
of a log fire created using Alias a while back, the fire was a shader that
used particle generation based on fractal noise and looked 'REAL'

I don't know the exact techniques involved in writing a particle generator
but my best guess is that they define whatever formulas they need and then
just use the results to modify the pixels rather than shade individual
objects. I'll also bet they are using adaptive oversampling techniques so
the pixels affected are really the result of anti-aliasing the texture at a
much higher resolution. In other words you need some 'serious' hardware to
even consider doing it and even then it's really a kludge as they didn't
ray-trace anything, shaders don't, but it produces VERY good results so who
cares...

Andy


##

Subject: Re: Starfields, Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 23:22:36 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

It depends a lot on what deck you are recording on and what monitor you
are viewing it on.  DCTV isn't all that bad actually.  I've made
starfields using Imagine's built-in stars (I know... but it was a cheap
job), and while the stars did rainbow a bit, it wasn't that bad - it was
recorded on a pro 3/4" deck and viewed on one of those killer Sony
reference monitors.  (In other words, plenty of comb-filters in the
loop :)  After being edited once, and then dubbed down to SVHS, the
stars did tend to fade into the black background a bit, but it wasn't
terrible.  Of course, the background wasn't dead-zero black and the
stars weren't full-white, that helped.

Mars, that 1084 is _not_ the best video monitor for the PAR and you know
those cheesy RCA cables don't help either ;)

Still, if you have to make stars with NTSC video, just make them bigger
than one pixel, don't use full bright white, and filter/antialias the
edges.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:39:27 +0100
From: "- Carsten Berggreen - Denmark -" <[e-mail]>

Hi there,

I was wondering if there is any 24-bit converters that has the ability to
perform a sort of "script" facility like the one found in powerpacker??

The idea of this is quite simple, I do NOT find it very amusing to convert
200-300 frames by "hand" (load picture, convert picture, save picture etc.)

Any ideas/software products doing this kind of job?

Thanks, that would be it for this time...

Signed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Address: Carsten Berggreen         E-mail: [e-mail] -
-          Hirsevaenget 16A                                         -
-          8464  Galten          "It isn't the equipment alone, it  -
-          Denmark                is also what YOU can do with it!" -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- A true fan of Amiga, Coca-Cola, Imagine and good looking females! -
---------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Imagine Screen Sizes
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 15:03:19 +0100
From: [e-mail] ()

On Oct 23,  5:44am, "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529" wrote:
> Subject: Imagine Screen Sizes
>
>   Actually the screen size for Imagine can be easily changed.  All you
> have to do is find a good HEX editor and patch the executable.  The
> bytes to change were posted here not long ago.
>
> -Jeff Wahaus-
>
>
>
>-- End of excerpt from "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529"

So, is it possible to force Imagine to use the overscan (on an ECS system -
A3000)?

Thanks.


--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: RE: 24-bit converters?
Date: 26 Oct 1993 11:07:49 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Carsten Berggreen wrote:

>I was wondering if there is any 24-bit converters that has the ability to
>perform a sort of "script" facility like the one found in powerpacker??
>
>The idea of this is quite simple, I do NOT find it very amusing to convert
>200-300 frames by "hand" (load picture, convert picture, save picture etc.)

Both Imagemaster and ImageFX have this multi-frame capability you require.  I
think ADPro also does with FRED, though I don't have ADPro.  In simple terms,
with Imagemaster you select starting, pre-render, post-render and ending
scripts, choose your frames and let it process them.  With ImageFX, you hook
into a program called IMP, specifying what pics to use, what alpha channel and
destination etc, tell it the number of frames to process, what to do and let it
go.

You can also write ARexx scripts to process sequences.  For example, I wrote
one, for Imagemaster, to merge groups of frames in an animation so as to create
the effect of motion-blur.

Regards,
David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 07:26:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cliff Lee <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1993, - Carsten Berggreen - Denmark - wrote:

> I was wondering if there is any 24-bit converters that has the ability to
> perform a sort of "script" facility like the one found in powerpacker??
> The idea of this is quite simple, I do NOT find it very amusing to convert
> 200-300 frames by "hand" (load picture, convert picture, save picture etc.)
> Any ideas/software products doing this kind of job?

If your using a DOS machine, you can use a BATCH file and shareware piece
of software called Image Alchemy.  I used it last night to take a GIF to a
TGA that was used as a brushmap.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Cliff Lee
 [e-mail]
 "Everything will work out if you let it!" Cheap Trick







##

Subject: Imagine priority
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:36:18 -0600
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

Someone wrote:

> > This _is_ an Amiga you're rendering on, right?  Why not down the priority
> > of Imagine?  There are any number of PD programs which will let you do
> > this.  I normally render at -2.  This prevents the renderer from

Some time back, I wrote a set of utilities which may be helpful in this
area.  Among other things, you can tell it to set the priority of
Imagine (or anything else) to a given value each time the program is
run, so you don't have to do it manually whenever you start up.  Also,
if you run more than one CPU-bound program at once (say, Imagine,
VistaPro, and some Mandelbrot thing), you can indicate what fraction of
your available CPU cycles you wish to go to each CPU-bound process,
which is something the normal Amigados scheduler doesn't let you do. For
example, you might allocate 70% of the free CPU cycles (after foreground
tasks take their cut) to Imagine, 20% to VistaPro, and 10% to the
mandelbrot.  It also will track CPU utilization for you, so you can see
what fraction of your CPU cycles are going to Imagine.  It has problems
with few programs and is long overdue for an update, but is nonetheless
useful for Imagine, among other things.  Look for "JM" on aminet.

  - steve


##

Subject: RE: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 8:33:48 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|>The idea of this is quite simple, I do NOT find it very amusing to convert
|>200-300 frames by "hand" (load picture, convert picture, save picture etc.)
|
|Both Imagemaster and ImageFX have this multi-frame capability you require.  I
|think ADPro also does with FRED, though I don't have ADPro.  In simple terms,
|with Imagemaster you select starting, pre-render, post-render and ending
|scripts, choose your frames and let it process them.  With ImageFX, you hook
|
|You can also write ARexx scripts to process sequences.  For example, I wrote
|one, for Imagemaster, to merge groups of frames in an animation so as to create
|the effect of motion-blur.

    I wrote an ARexx script to convert 24 bit frames to HAM a while
    back, using a file requester, in ADPro.  I haven't played with
    FRED yet so I don't know the extent of its capabilities.  There
    are numerous examples of ARexx scripts included with ADPro so that
    you don't have to "re-create the wheel".  I thought it was quite
    painless and works great.

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Udo K Schuermann <[e-mail]>

"- Carsten Berggreen - Denmark -" <[e-mail]> writes:
> I was wondering if there is any 24-bit converters that has the ability to
> perform a sort of "script" facility like the one found in powerpacker??

I can highly recommend Art Department Pro (ADPro) for the job.  It's not
only quick, but offers a whole bunch of image processing operations, too,
which would help convert Imagine 24-bit images into HAM images for anims.
Oh, ADPro's "scripts" are ARexx.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: measurements in Imagine
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 11:35:35 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Any suggestions on how to measure angles.  I would like to make a pentagram
(Eeew, how utterly Satanic).  Any paint packages have measurable
angle generators I can create a bit map with?


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: Re: measurements in Imagine
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1993, Thomas Setzer wrote:
>
> Any suggestions on how to measure angles.  I would like to make a pentagram
> (Eeew, how utterly Satanic).  Any paint packages have measurable
> angle generators I can create a bit map with?
>
>
> Tom Setzer
> [e-mail]
>
> "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
> intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin
>
You can download a pentagram as part of the DAKDUNGN.LZH set on wuarchive.

It's easiest to make multi-pointed stars by creating a cross-section (a
square, in this case), moving the axis to the center of the star, and
rotating copies of the cross-section to the points of the star.  Place TWO
copies at the starting point.

Then Pick the objects IN THE SAME ORDER YOU'D DRAW THEM, (i. e.,
1-3-5-2-4-1) beginning AND ending with the starting point, and Skin them.

If that didn't make sense, let me know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Re: measurements in Imagine
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 12:57:55 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Steve Ziolkowski sent me a suggestion.  I thought I would share it.
> [stuff deleted]
>     package like imagine and make a 5 sided circle, grab the screen
>     and read it into your paint package.
> steveZ                 Rhythm & Hues, Inc.
> celia![e-mail]
> "That's not Art Linkletter, that's Mickey Mouse!"
>             -Art Linkletter, Disneyland opening day
>
>

If I use one of the Imagine primatives, with 5 sides, will it make a perfect
pentagram(on that 5 sided side)?  I'll have to try this.

Does Dpaint or Brilliance or DCTV paint have angle requestors or angle tools?

I guess I could write a little script for T3DLIB(or whatever its called).
Haven't played with it much.  Is there a way to build objects from scratch
using this, instead of just modifying existing objects?  Maybe just start
with an axis?


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: RE: measurements in Imagine
Date: 26 Oct 1993 17:49:05 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Thomas Setzer wrote:

>Any suggestions on how to measure angles.  I would like to make a pentagram
>(Eeew, how utterly Satanic).  Any paint packages have measurable
>angle generators I can create a bit map with?

If you set cyclic 5 point symmetry in DPaint and paint a dot at the required
radius, you should get be able to generate a 5 point object easily.

Regards,
David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>




##

Subject: Re: measurements in Imagine
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 12:49:30 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ziolkowski)

>>If I use one of the Imagine primatives, with 5 sides, will it make a perfect
>>pentagram(on that 5 sided side)?  I'll have to try this.

Yeah, it'll make a perfect circle, no matter how many points around it is.
    You can also get a perfect triangle or square too.  (You can
    do this in Dpaint as well, but hey:)
steveZ                 Rhythm & Hues, Inc.
celia![e-mail]
"That's not Art Linkletter, that's Mickey Mouse!"
            -Art Linkletter, Disneyland opening day



##

Subject: Education/Training 3D
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 12:52:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]

Hello all;
    Other than raw talent and this IML are there classes or courses that
would be of value to take to improve 3D rendering?
    There have been discussions here that go beyond any docs I have read
in conjuction with various pd stuff I have found on the internet, or any of
the docs with the varous pics, gifs, etc. And yes I read the imagine manual
but the depth is not there either. this leaves me to believe there is much
more to be found. I just wondered where?

                        Thanks
                         Lesk


##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:55:57 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

Can you say Static Column Ram vs. Fast (sic) Page Mode Ram? Think about the
diffeence, and You'll understand CBM error! Share and Enjoy, ILBCNU!

Virtually yours,
Michel

                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: Re: measurements in Imagine
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 16:01:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Daniel Jr Murrell <[e-mail]>

>
>
> Any suggestions on how to measure angles.  I would like to make a pentagram
> (Eeew, how utterly Satanic).  Any paint packages have measurable
> angle generators I can create a bit map with?

Tom,
  I was just thinking abxout this, and tried something.  I made 2
disks, one with 5 sections, both about 200 units, and one with however
many sections you need to approximate the curved part around the
pentagram.  Join them, then Pick Edges.  Pick All, then delete all the
edges.  You can also delete those 2 points in the middle while you're at
it.  Now, look around the sets of points.  There should be an exact
correlation between the two sets of points somewhere.  Use that as a start.
Now trace out the pentagram.  Draw the inner star with Add Lines, and when
you get back to that starting point, go around the outer circle.
You'll come back around to that point eventually.  Now, make a new
plane object, about 5 or 10 units wide/tall.  Extrude that, using the
'path' of the outline you just made (I had renamed it to PATH back
when I was working on it.)  I'm not sure how many sections the
algorithm needs, but if you don't give it enough, it'll cut corners.
Good thing we hae an undo button.  The only problem I had is that when
I tried to extrude for thickness, it didn't connect the two
endpieces.  I'm going to go back, and redo it using a cube instead of
a plane now.  Only took about 5 minutes, add your favourite spooky
Essence II texture, and there ya go.  I haven't looked at that dungeon
set's pentagram, so it may be of much better quality.


> Tom Setzer
> [e-mail]


Danimal on IRC
[e-mail]
There should be a law against using Imagine without Essence. :)



##

Subject: Positive response to IRC question
Date:     Tue, 26 Oct 1993 21:09:34 +0100
From: Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]>

Hi all IML-members

I received a positive response to my suggestion on meeting on IRC

Now we must negotiate for the week-day and time because people will
be ircing from all over the world.
Although most will do it from USA.

SO please make suggestions on time and day.

Keep in touch
Hannes



##

Subject: Changing Imagine Screen Size
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 13:13:58 EDT
From: [e-mail] (William V. Swartz)

Well thanks for all the cautionary messages regarding zapping Imagine's screen
size although there are some conflicting ones.  Some say don't grow the
horizontal, some say don't expand vertical.  Some even say let Picasso II's
screen promotion do it.  But none say how to do this operation at all with the
hex editor!  Which bytes, where, to what etc. is what I was looking for!

If this info is in an archive could someone point it out?  Thanks...

  //
\X/ -BiL-
    [e-mail]             (See my 'Imagine'-ary signature below)


##

Subject: RE: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 13:34:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

BTW, there is a program called Procontrol for ADPRO where you can just point
and click  to do the equivalent of an AREXX script without having to know
AREXX.  This program is incredible.  Everything that ADPRO can do is
available including reading in anims, different pic formats, resizing,
resolution conversion, effects, dithering, breaking up anims, reassembling
anims, etc. etc. etc.  all with mouse point and click.  Then once you set it
up, away she goes!
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: imagine
Subject: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1993 10:55AM

"- Carsten Berggreen - Denmark -" <[e-mail]> writes:
> I was wondering if there is any 24-bit converters that has the ability to
> perform a sort of "script" facility like the one found in powerpacker??

I can highly recommend Art Department Pro (ADPro) for the job.  It's not
only quick, but offers a whole bunch of image processing operations, too,
which would help convert Imagine 24-bit images into HAM images for anims.
Oh, ADPro's "scripts" are ARexx.

 ._.  Udo Schuermann
 ( )  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Irregular shape brushes
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 13:47:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

    Thanks to everybody for their suggestions and tips on using irregular
shape brushes.  My problem has been resolved.  I found that my main problem
was trying to apply the brushmap to an object that had already been set up
for a cycle object, transforming the axis.  When I went to attributes, I
assumed the axis orientation in the brushmap was aligned correctly,
automatically.  What was throwing me was that this was not the case, and in
fact, the Flat brush was being applied to the EDGE, not the face, of the
object.  Once I realized this, the mystery was solved.  I learned another
valuable Imagine lesson:  Never assume anything is automatic in Imagine!
 Let's face it, Impulse just thinks we are more intelligent than we are.


##

Subject: Re: Education/Training 3D
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 15:55:05 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|Hello all;
|    Other than raw talent and this IML are there classes or courses that
|would be of value to take to improve 3D rendering?
|    There have been discussions here that go beyond any docs I have read
|in conjuction with various pd stuff I have found on the internet, or any of
|the docs with the varous pics, gifs, etc. And yes I read the imagine manual
|but the depth is not there either. this leaves me to believe there is much
|more to be found. I just wondered where?

    Everywhere.

    I have a BS. in mechanical drafting and design technology.  I
    picked up some of the info in college;  in my descriptive geometry,
    mechanical drafting, and CAD classes.  I work for the Intergraph
    Corporation, who specializes in CAD hardware and software.  I have
    learned some stuff on the job.

    The DPaint manual discusses some color theory and computer stuff.
    The Art Department Professional document has very good info on
    file formats and other stuff.  There is no one place.  You get it
    here and there.  Amiga World, Desk Top Video World, everywhere.  I
    have learned alot from this mailing list.  Try animation books.

    I don't know of courses.  There are animation majors.  Call some
    colleges.  Some members of this list are students.  There is so
    much to learn.  There is object creation - drafting.  There is
    computer formats and hardware speeds - computer science.  There is
    lighting methods - photography.  there are color choices - art
    classes.  There is movement theory - anatomy and physiology.  It's
    a life long process...  Realistic depiction of reality - physics.
    Different people on the list bring different talents.

    That's the beauty of it.  It's kinda like watching Jeopardy on
    televsion.  No one person knows all that stuff.

    Hope this helps.

    Dale



        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Starfields,Paralax, and Artifacts..
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 21:18:35 GMT
From: Andrew Nunn <[e-mail]>

The problem of the rainbow effect in starfields mentioned recently
would seem to be a feature of DCTV. I have a PAL model and have
noticed that the banding seems to appear at edges of high contrast,
in a similar manner to HAM fringing.

Andrew


##

Subject: Re: Positive response to IRC question
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 20:12:51 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>Hi all IML-members
>
>I received a positive response to my suggestion on meeting on IRC
>
>Now we must negotiate for the week-day and time because people will
>be ircing from all over the world.
>Although most will do it from USA.
>
>SO please make suggestions on time and day.
>
>Keep in touch
>Hannes
>
>
>

    Might i reccomend picking more than one time...as well as a
suitibale name like Imagine3D.  Last time i looked on #Imagine wthere as a
bunch of people talking about some christian movement or something... :)

    Mike C.


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail], CWRU Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: ProControl
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 20:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David A. Rollins" <[e-mail]>

Hello Stethem Ted              5721,
>
>
> BTW, there is a program called Procontrol for ADPRO where you can just point
>
> and click  to do the equivalent of an AREXX script without having to know
> AREXX.  This program is incredible.  Everything that ADPRO can do is
> available including reading in anims, different pic formats, resizing,
> resolution conversion, effects, dithering, breaking up anims, reassembling
> anims, etc. etc. etc.  all with mouse point and click.  Then once you set it
>
> up, away she goes!

Okay. So, where can I get this program?



##

Subject: Mode Promotion for Hi-Res Imagine
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 21:55:27 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Cedric Georges Chang)

After reading all the posts about promoting Imagine on a hi-res screen, I
downloaded PPrefs and opened Imagine on a 1280x400 screen without a hitch.
The only problem is that Imagine's window is still 640x400 and is a bit too
narrow to be useful.  How do I resize Imagine's window?

Thanks.

Cedric
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Cedric Chang     |     Grad Student       |  Aerospace Engineer  |
|[e-mail]  | Rennselear Polytechnic | (Will Work For Food) |
|Amiga 3000       |      Institute         |                      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Positive response to IRC question
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 20:53:13 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>   I received a positive response to my suggestion on meeting on IRC
>   Hannes

  Is it possible to access IRC through telnet? Is there somewhere
I could pick up the source to an IRC client program?

   Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+





##

Subject: RE: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 19:55:09 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>You can also write ARexx scripts to process sequences.  For example, I wrote
>one, for Imagemaster, to merge groups of frames in an animation so as to create
>the effect of motion-blur.

     I have a similar script for ADPro but can't, for the life of me,
figure out what is wrong with it. You wouldn't be willing to share that
Imagemaster script, would you? (I own both packages). Trade you for a
fully animated skeletonal triceratops object ;-).


                                              Christopher



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: Re: 24-bit converters?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 19:51:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>I was wondering if there is any 24-bit converters that has the ability to
>perform a sort of "script" facility like the one found in powerpacker??
>The idea of this is quite simple, I do NOT find it very amusing to convert
>200-300 frames by "hand" (load picture, convert picture, save picture etc.)
>Any ideas/software products doing this kind of job?
>

     I .jpeg my animation frames as they are generated and delete the
originals (saving one hell of a lot of hd space). When all is done, I
scale the frames down one pixel (to take advantage of ADPro's
anti-aliasing), convert them to Ham8 and combine them into an animation.
     All this is automated using ADPro and it's accompanying software
(Fred, Sentry and provided scripts). I didn't have to write a thing. I
assume some of the other commercial packages have these capabilities too.

                                        Christopher



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: Thanks for Stars replies and YET another query...
Date: 27 Oct 93 01:45:00 EST
From: "J_GEORGE" <[e-mail]>


Quick note - thanks to everyone that I might've forgotten to thank concerning
the stars'n'rainbows question. Your input has helped me come to some other
alternatives to get around this problem..

And now for my NEXT trick..

1] Has anyone seen any Virtual Memory programs for the Amiga?
2] If so, has anyone used any of these Virtual Mem programs with Imagine?

Granted, I understand using such a program would create much longer rendering
times and wouldn't be conducive to the health of the average harddrive over a
period of time (for round the clock raytracing), but might provide a viable
option for those of us who have managed to hit those memory limits and are
willing to sacrefice a little rendering speed just to get that extra UMPH to
produce some of those images where even breaking the scenes down into
foreground/middle-ground/background cels just won't do.

Sorry for the run-on sentence... ;-)

Thanks in advance.

                            I\/Iax I\Iomad




##

Subject: Re: YET another query...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:39:50 +0100
From: [e-mail] ()

On Oct 27,  1:45am, "J_GEORGE" wrote:
> 1] Has anyone seen any Virtual Memory programs for the Amiga?
> 2] If so, has anyone used any of these Virtual Mem programs with Imagine?
>
I use GigaMem. It works great. I tried it because the scene I'm rendering needs
 more than 20MB, and I removed my '040 board on which was 8MB. So I was left
with 18MB instead of 26MB, and I had to use Gigamem. But for that reason, I
cannot compare rendering times. But I don't think Virtual memory increases
rendering times so much. The only time the computer needs is to swap let's say
some 5MB to and from disk, then it continues to render.
I recommend it.
BTW, Gigamem is a commercial package, it's not PD.

Robin
















--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: Big black triangles appearing where transparency should be
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 20:29:07 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

Hi All!

I am rendering an explosion which is made up of a number of near-transparent
objects.

In certain frames some of the faces of these objects are being rendered in
scanline mode as black.

I'm not sure if this occurs where many of the faces of these objects overlap
or merely where the observing is looking through a given number of them.

Neither rendering the image as a Trace nor changing the
 RSDP    4    # "resolve depth" (multiple reflections)
setting in Preferences helps.

Any ideas??
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: Re: Re[2]: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 17:36:29 EST-10
From: [e-mail] (John Rowe)

On Oct 19 Ed Totman wrote:
>>if I should go back and start it again in 24-bit!  :(
>
>24 bit is faster?  I ran a test last night to see.
>Mode      Time      File size
>
>RGB8-24   4:51      530K
>DCTV      4:33      64K
>
>Didn't work on this test.  Is there something I forgot to do?

I think rendering to DCTV format is just as fast as rendering to 24 bit format.

The difference in speed here is probably due to time taken to write the larger
file to the drive.

I always thought that when Imagine renders to DCTV it goes through almost
exactly the same process as when it renders to 24 bit; with a conversion
of its 24 bit buffer to DCTV format right at the end of the render or on a
line by line basis.  There's no palette pass as there is when rendering to
Amiga displayable modes.

In fact it's the palette pass which adds so much time when you render in an
Amiga displayable mode.  If I ever want to create a standard Amiga playable
animation, I always render to Impulse's RGBN-12bit format.  Since its format
is true 12 bit (4096 true colours) as opposed to HAM's pseudo-12bit (as close
to the true 4096 colours as the HAM algorithm allows), it doesn't require a
palette pass either.

Then when you "Make" the anim file, Imagine will convert its RGBN format to
HAM on the fly.

Just my 2 cents worth  :-)
 ____________
(\           \             -> Christian <-        FAX   [phone]
\o\ John Rowe \        CBM-Australia Developer      VOICE [phone]
 \o\ Animation \  Programmer, Renderer, 3-D Animator  EMAIL
  \o\___________\   Aussie AMIGA Keyboard Overlays     [e-mail]
   \(___________(


##

Subject: Which Format was that?
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 08:19:12 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Adam Benjamin)

Hello all you 3D people (You know who you are)
8-)

When is the Amiga Format due out with Imagine on the cover?  I
do want to check that out.
also:
If you happen to have my old email address written down someplace
([e-mail]) Please change it to this one
([e-mail])  I gave up on the email system at work, (we're
just a computer company, why should I expect the network to work?)

Keep on Keeping on..

--
---
Adam Benjamin      [e-mail]   A.K.A.  [e-mail]
Christian Animator    Computer junkie      4000/40 CD-ROM 486DX33
Get a life! (John 3-16)


##

Subject: Official IRC announce
Date:     Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:39:36 +0100
From: Hannes Heckner <[e-mail]>

Hi all,

I received several interest email about connecting via IRC.

I decided to open the channel IML.
This name was chosen because then it is more unlikly that somebody
unrelated to imagine will join.

Hope to see (hear) you soon on IRC

Keep in touch
Hannes



##

Subject: 24 bit converters?
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 05:12:54 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)



    >Hi Christopher, you wrote:
    >>     I have a similar script for ADPro but can't, for the life of me,
    >>figure out what is wrong with it. You wouldn't be willing to share that
    >>Imagemaster script, would you? (I own both packages). Trade you for a
    >>fully animated skeletonal triceratops object ;-).
    >
    >Sounds like a good deal :)  You should find some instructions in the comments
    >at the header of the file.  Any problems, please contact me.
    >
    >Enjoy,
    >David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>

         I'll send you the object tomorrow ;-). I hope you dont mind uuencoding.
    I actually use some version of Imagemaster R/T, 1.01, I think. Will your
    script work with that, or should I re-install an old version? 1.01 is a
    little flakey anyway, IMHO.

                                                     Christopher




    --
    ....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
    to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
    believe to be good, then are we all damned.
       Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject:  boing effect
Date:  Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:15:12 +0000
From: "Rob (R.D.) Hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Folks,

  In an animation, I'm attempting to deform an object as it lands on another
after falling from a height. The Boing2.0 effect in Imagine 2.0 seems to be
what I want (and I've replaced the original file with the one included on Mr.
Worley's "Disk-o-Stuff"). "Understanding Imagine 2.0" indicates that Boing2.0
is what would be used on, say, a bouncing basketball.

  I gave it a shot, but I'm missing something. I applied the effect, selected
Z-axis deformation, and the -(XY or Z) "flow". Although the object did squash
in the Z axis, it was displaced by a large amount in the +ve Z direction. As
soon as the effect was finished, the object returned to its original position.
Definitely NOT what I want.

  What I'm trying to accomplish is to squash the object down vertically (shrink
it in the -Z direction) and (if possible) at the same time expand the object
where it contacts the ground in the X-Y plane, similar to the common cartoon
effect. I suppose I could do this using a couple of morphs, but I was hoping
Boing would do it. Can anyone describe a good way of accomplishing this effect,
and also describe how the -(XY or Z) and +(XY or Z) radio buttons affect the
object? (shrink to centre seems pretty straight-forward).

  Maybe I could move the object's axis to the "bottom" of the object and shrink
to center. But that wouldn't create the "roll" around the lower edge. Morphing
seems to be the way to do it, now. Suggestions?

Thanks for the help.

Rob
(a happy owner of a brand new A3000, having finally trashed my hacked A1000!)
 RIP.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| System Performance:                    PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Re: Education/Training 3D
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 09:50:27 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Greg Burger)

On Oct 26, 12:51pm, [e-mail] wrote:
} Subject: Education/Training 3D
} Hello all;
}     Other than raw talent and this IML are there classes or courses that
} would be of value to take to improve 3D rendering?
}     There have been discussions here that go beyond any docs I have read
} in conjuction with various pd stuff I have found on the internet, or any of
} the docs with the varous pics, gifs, etc. And yes I read the imagine manual
} but the depth is not there either. this leaves me to believe there is much
} more to be found. I just wondered where?
}
}                         Thanks
}                          Lesk
}-- End of excerpt from [e-mail]


I'm a Film/Video major with an concentration in animation.  Right now
I'm taking computer animation.  I've taken classes that have to do with
film grammar, lighting, creative processes, and other things like that.

You should find out what colleges around you offer classes like that.

-Greg



--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-///-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            ///           [e-mail]       I had raytraced my
        \\\///  Only                or                 .sig, but I forgot to
         \XX/  Amiga      [e-mail]     include a light source.


##

Subject: Using Imagine with Large Screens
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 07:13:46 -0700
From: "Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, 404-640-3529" <[e-mail]>

  Since someone asked (twice actually) I'm reposting the information
which describes how to patch Imagine.  Perhaps this information can
be added the the FAQ.  In my experience I haven't had any problems
using Imagine 1.1 at a resolution of 720x480 after patching it.

Using a promoter program doesn't work for me, I get all sorts of
ghosting.  Your mileage my vary...

-Jeff Wahaus-


For Patching Version 1.1:

Hi Everyone,

  For those of you wanting to use Imagine at a higher resolution
than 600x400 I have found a solution.  This will work only with
version 1.1 of the FFP version of Imagine.  Fire up your copy of
FileZap or NewZap and modify the following two bytes.

  Change the byte at Sector 85 offset $0A3 from a $C8 to a $F0.
This will change the Vertical resolution from 200 or 400
(interlaced) to  240 or 480 (interlaced).

  Change the byte at Sector 393 offset $0DD from a $80 to a $D0.
This will change the Horizontal resolution from 640 to 720.
Higher values can be used if you would like to get more
horizontal resolution.  I think the limit for a standard ECS
Amiga is 768.

  I have noticed about a 10% slowdown with Imagine due to the
increased screen size.  Very acceptable in my opinion.

  I'm sure a similar modification can be made to Imagine 2.0 but
someone with this program will have to find which "magic bytes"
to modify.  I found these bytes in version 1.1 by searching using
FileZap for a value of $00000280.  This will be the NewScreen
structure used by the program. The last 2 bytes found are the
integer 640 in HEX.  The two bytes after $0280 will be the
vertical resolution for a non-interlaced screen but modifying
them will have no effect.  The bytes which actually effect the
vertical resolution in version 1.1 are the first occurance of
$00C8 which is HEX for 200.  Note that this number is doubled for
interlaced mode by the program.  It is possible and probable that
there will be more than one occurance of $00C8 in version 2.0.
Trial and Error here is your only hope.  In version 1.1 is just
so happened that the first occurance of $00C8 was the right byte!

  I really like using Imagine with the higher resolution.  I only
wish that I had done this a year ago!  Most of the program will
use the extra real estate, the action editor dosen't seem to
notice though.

  Well back to working on my model of a woman.  Now lets see...
how big should I make her....................... feet.

Later,
-Jeff Wahaus-



******************************************************
For Patching Version 2.0:

The hex values to open Imagine on a larger screen is:

   Hex position 0000BEFA and 0000BEFB  these two positions contain
    the Hex values of 00 and C8.  00C8 in dec is 200.  Imagine
    auto doubles this value if you've checked interlace in your
    prefs.  To get the full 482 height, just set the 00C8 to
    00F0.  00f0 in dec is 241.

   Hex position 0003E348 and 0003E349  these two positions contain
    the Hex values of 02 and 80.  0280 in dec is 640.  Change
    the 0280 to 02E0.  02E0 in bin is 736.

you can try to plug in your own values to adjust the size of Imagine
for the optimum usage of your monitor.  DO REMEMBER!!!  Make sure that
you have a backup copy before you attempt to `hack' Imagine.  The Hex
positions are for the FP version of Imagine 2.x.  For editing Imagine,
I use HEX.  HEX is a shareware program by Nicola Salmoria.  Another editor
that I have used in the past is DEKSID. (disked spelled backwards)  DESKID
is also shareware writen by Christian Warren.  DEKSID is a bit diffrent
in that it does not display the hex position info.  If you use DEKSID,
the positions 0000BEFA and 0000BEFB are in block 95 in positions 0FA and
0FB and positions 0003E348 and 0003E349 are in block 497 positions 148
and 149.  And finaly, If you've PowerPacked or Imploded ImagineFP, do
uncrunch it!  It's an awfully hard time finding the compressed version
of 0000BEFA!!!!  :^)  I've noticed that Imagine tends to crash a lot more
often with these changes.  It's partly my 040's fault (NEVER BUY AN GVP
GFORCE 040 FOR THE 3000!!!! IT'S ABOUT THE WORST PRODUCT I'VE EVER HAD TO
DEAL WITH!!!!)  I might try changing the stack and see if it helps much,
I dought it...

                    -Ray Collett
              [e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: YET another query...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 10:16:21 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

> > 1] Has anyone seen any Virtual Memory programs for the Amiga?
> > 2] If so, has anyone used any of these Virtual Mem programs with Imagine?
>I use GigaMem. It works great. I tried it because the scene I'm rendering needs
>more than 20MB, and I removed my '040 board on which was 8MB. So I was left
>with 18MB instead of 26MB, and I had to use Gigamem. But for that reason, I
>cannot compare rendering times. But I don't think Virtual memory increases

   I can confirm this also works well with smaller memory sizes.. I've rendered
12 meg scenes in 6 megs ram with no problem. Doesn't really seem to increase
render time too much, and hard drive use is minimal (some programs cause gigamem to swap pages to disk constantly). However, the more virtual memory you
use, the slower it gets. Virtual memory is great to have when rendering
(3d studio for the IBM has virtual memory built in..)

>  BTW, Gigamem is a commercial package, it's not PD.

  There is a PD virtual memory program, but it's much slower.
Remember you need a true '030 CPU with an MMU to use these..

   Greg


##

Subject: 3d illusion
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 09:23:22 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Gerard Menendez)

Hello All,

I'm working on douplicating the 3-D effect that's so
popular recently.  The one where the picture just looks
like a speckled mess until you gaze at it right.

I've done pretty good, I'm definately recreating the
effect but solme of the features I want raised look indented.
Any tips or pointers towards info would be helpful.

Thank

--
Gerard Menendez     Seattle, WA
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: YET another query...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 20:31:42 +0100
From: <[e-mail]>

On Oct 27, 10:16am, Greg Pringle wrote:
> Subject: Re: YET another query...
>
> > > 1] Has anyone seen any Virtual Memory programs for the Amiga?
> > > 2] If so, has anyone used any of these Virtual Mem programs with Imagine?

> >I use GigaMem. It works great. I tried it because the scene I'm rendering

> Remember you need a true '030 CPU with an MMU to use these..

...or a '040 with Gigamem 3.0 (the true '040 with MMU)
>
>    Greg

Robin



--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: Re: boing effect
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 12:38:34 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Adam Benjamin)

>  In an animation, I'm attempting to deform an object as it lands on another
>after falling from a height. The Boing2.0 effect in Imagine 2.0 seems to be
>what I want
Yup

>  I gave it a shot, but I'm missing something. I applied the effect, selected
>Z-axis deformation, and the -(XY or Z) "flow". Although the object did squash
>in the Z axis, it was displaced by a large amount in the +ve Z direction. As
>soon as the effect was finished, the object returned to its original position.
>Definitely NOT what I want.
>
Don't give up on BOING, just go to the stage editor and using Transformation
you can move the object up (was it 20 imagine units? I forget) the
required amount during the frames the BOING effect is at work.
I had the same problem with some falling letter objects, shifting them
up in the stage or action editor fixed it right up.

>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
>| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
---
Adam Benjamin      [e-mail]   A.K.A.  [e-mail]
Christian Animator    Computer junkie      4000/40 CD-ROM 486DX33
Get a life! (John 3-16)


##

Subject: HomeComing
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 12:46:33 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Wickard)

Wahhhooooo Imagineers!  :-)



I am happy to announce the addition of another
talented rendering maniac to our midst.

8 lb. 9 oz. Adam David Wickard came into the world
on Oct 22 at 2:22 am.

Until this time, we only had the flat 2D view of
this guy. Happily, to acknowledge his interest in
rendering, Adam was born in a full 3D version with
soft edges and a healthy 230-150-70 RGB tone.

Mom (Julie) and son are both doing fine (although Adam admits
a bit of confusion regarding Imagine's Slice Bug).

Sorry for being gone for a while, but as you can see,
I was doing something important.

If you are having any problems with reception, posting,
and/or unsubscription... I am now back fulltime here,
so feel free to drop me a line.


Dave Wickard  [phone]     "Hey those apes are really
[e-mail]          laying around and taking it easy.
[e-mail]         They must be RECESS (Rhesus)
[e-mail]         monkies."  -Mystery Science Theater




##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 10:40:23 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ben Scott)
writes:
>
> Oh, so it was CBM error that SC RAM SIMMs didn't exist when the 4000 was
> being developed and released?  You want them to redesign the memory
>interface
> NOW, I suppose?
>
I could care *less* what CBM does or does not do. SC RAM SIMMs have been
available since *before* the A4000 was released, CBM just went for the lowest
cost solution, that's all. Both the A2500, and the A3000 use SCRAM, and it
*does* make a difference, especially with rendering SW :^) CBM can do as they
wish (won't they anyways?), I'll just keep upgrading my A2500 to keep up with
new(er) technology. At least if and when RTG becomes more substantial than
proposed vaporware. Don't get me wrong, I really *like* using my Amiga,
especially with Imagine2.0 (soon 3.0 :)), but I think that using slow(er)
ram in the A4000, especially with LW4.0, and the VT, was shooting themselves
(CBM and NewTek) in the foot, IMHO. Good day, God Bless, and ILBCNU!

Virtually yours,
Michel


                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: Pentagram
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 14:56:09 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Well, I made my pentagram last night using a 5 sided cone.  This required me
to only delete one point to make a pentagon.  I added edges to make the
star in the middle.  Then I used a smaller version of the pentagon to follow
the pentagram while extruding.  It came out fine if I used lots of divisions,
around 100.  But this creates a lot of unnecessary points and faces.  Along
the straight lines of the star and the outside of the pentagram.

As we all know, more faces = slower rendering.  I wish there was more control
in the extrude/follow path.  Or more intelligence.

I then proceeded to copy my pentagram, my intention, to make a 3D pentagram,
like a 12 sided dice(from D&D or whatever).  I wish you could change the
angle of view of the tri-windows.  Foreground stuff often gets in the way.  Hide
points is nice, but....

It came out OK.  Needs a little attention to detail.  In a trial trace, I made
the bottom pentagram a light, didn't change any other colors.  GREAT effect.
Looked really erie.  Would probably make a nice addition to a wizards lab.

Oh well.  Maybe after a little more work, I'll upload a trace of it.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: M i walking
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 00:16:01 +0200
From: [e-mail]

Hey Everyone, and hello to All T. Others, too!

The usual update, how I needed to do something and I didn't know how to do
it, and how I did it :)

Well, the client wanted a walking M (like the MTV' M) to go from the side
of the screen, to the upper left corner.
I made the M move along a path and track to it while morphing different
'leg' positions, so it really walked. He didn't like it, but wanted it to
stay straight all the time and rotate around it's legs. Here lies the
problem.
You see, an Imagine object has only one axis! I know, it sounds funny, but
that's the way it is. So I could do one step rotating that axis, and I
would be stuck. If there was a way to choose a child object and rotate the
whole group around it, that would have done the trick. Imagine 3.0 maybe?
Where is Imagine 3.0, BTW? Never mind.

So, this is what I did.
I positioned the axis in the lower left corner of the M, to form the first
hinge. Added an Essence II texture, and sent it flying to the Stage Editor.
In there, I positioned it at the place where it would END it's motion. This
is because I needed it to be at this precise spot, and getting there
after a long walk would be hard. Once the frames are rendered, I'll join
them to an animation in back order.
I added a second axis (the first is the camera tracking axis) in precisely
the lower right corner of the M, to form the second hinge.
Went to frame 10, shift-picked M and the axis IN THAT ORDER (crucial!).
Rotated some degrees on world Z axis, then 12 degrees up on LOCAL Y axis.
pressed Amiga-7 and Amiga-8 to record the changes.
Frame 20, same order of picking, 12 degrees down on LOCAL Y, some degrees
on WORLD Z. record, save.
That's one step. Did the same for the second, only shift-picked FIRST THE
AXIS AND THEN THE OBJECT. This made the object move as if it was rotated on
the other corner, not the one with its axis in it. Record, save, do again,
save, render, record to tape, pick money. American Express would do nicely,
thank you. (HEY! What's that got to do with it?! :))

Nir Hermoni
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: HomeComing
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:31:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

>
> Until this time, we only had the flat 2D view of
> this guy. Happily, to acknowledge his interest in
> rendering, Adam was born in a full 3D version with
> soft edges and a healthy 230-150-70 RGB tone.
>

I assume he is fully hierarchically grouped for use in the
Cycle Editor  :)  Have fun watching the crawl, walk, and run
cycles develop.  And with the addition of sound in 3.0 (so
they say), he should be talking in no time.  :)

Congratulations!

>
> Dave Wickard  [phone]     "Hey those apes are really
> [e-mail]          laying around and taking it easy.
> [e-mail]         They must be RECESS (Rhesus)
> [e-mail]         monkies."  -Mystery Science Theater
>
>
>

Peter Garza
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 17:36:38 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>cost solution, that's all. Both the A2500, and the A3000 use SCRAM, and it
>*does* make a difference, especially with rendering SW :^) CBM can do as they
>wish (won't they anyways?), I'll just keep upgrading my A2500 to keep up with
>   Michel

   I used to have a 2500, and my 2630 board didn't come with SCRAM, although
the board does support it (maybe the new ones have it, I dunno).. my 3000T
did come with SCRAM, but I only notice about a %10 speed increase, and the
chips were way more expensive when I expanded my memory.

(sorry for this un-IMAGINE-ative post..)

  Greg

--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+




##

Subject: Re: Big black triangles appearing where transparency should be
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 17:50:05 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

>   In certain frames some of the faces of these objects are being rendered in
>   scanline mode as black.
>
>   Any ideas??

   I ran into a similar problem. I made up a (still) scene to compare the
speed of imagine PC to imagine amiga. The scene had a semi-transparent
object of running water in it. In the amiga version, it came out as
black, and the same scene loaded directly into imagine PC without
any changes came out as a nice rippley-water effect.

   Anyways, I still don't have a clue why this black thing happens..
maybe if someone compared the default config files of the PC and amiga
versions?

  Greg



##

Subject: Re: ProControl
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 10:57:53 CET
From: [e-mail] (Imagine Mailing List Receiver)

Hi David (David A. Rollins), in <[e-mail]> on Oct 26 you wrote:

 > > BTW, there is a program called Procontrol for ADPRO where you can just point
 > > and click  to do the equivalent of an AREXX script without having to know
 > > AREXX.  This program is incredible.  Everything that ADPRO can do is
 >
 > Okay. So, where can I get this program?

You get FRED with ADPro which does just the same and even more.. FRED is more
like th lighttable setup used on Quantel machines. It's not easy to get into,
but one you do it's fabulous.

Problem is a lot of people do not have the ADPro/FRED manual and cannot work
with FRED for that reason. So they get other 'easier' programs which they can
use without the manual

Now, I am NOT accusing anyone specific of piracy, but I know this is what
happens quite often.

--
       Paul van der Heu, The MotherShip Connection running DLG BB/OS
         Home of cOmcOn Productions, Amiga Multimedia in a BIG way
            FIDO - 2:280/207.0 , UUCP - [e-mail]

            ' Givin' them something they can FEEL ' - En Vogue


##

Subject: Re: Imagine priority
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 03:02:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Saffold)

> Some time back, I wrote a set of utilities which may be helpful in this
> area.  Among other things, you can tell it to set the priority of
> Imagine (or anything else) to a given value each time the program is
> run, so you don't have to do it manually whenever you start up.  Also,

Better yet, just use TASKPRI=taskpriority to do it.  No need for extra
programs using up memory..  On Imagine, I use TASKPRI=-1 so its always
letting other programs go before it..

> which is something the normal Amigados scheduler doesn't let you do. For
> example, you might allocate 70% of the free CPU cycles (after foreground
> tasks take their cut) to Imagine, 20% to VistaPro, and 10% to the
> mandelbrot.  It also will track CPU utilization for you, so you can see

Sounds cool..  Wish I still had Internet access, and I'd get it..:)

___
 X MsgView V1.13 [R029] X  eaC
--
*******************************************************************************
* Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway                   Data/Fax: [phone] *
* Pueblo, Colorado USA                               FidoNet:  1:307/18       *
*******************************************************************************


##

Subject: Bi-weekly Complaint
Date: 27 Oct 93 11:00:05 EDT
From: John Foust - Syndesis Corporation <[e-mail]>

To: >internet: [e-mail]

Why do people send an unsubscribe request to imagine-admin, then
decide to re-post to the entire list just to make sure it sticks?

And please think twice before replying to the entire list.  If you're
just quoting fifteen lines and answering "yeah, that's a good idea"
or you're having a public but private chat with someone regarding
scripts for ADPro, or you've got a question aimed at a particular
person, then perhaps you should send it via private e-mail and NOT
CC: to the list.

And just because DCTV/Picasso/Opal/Rasterburn can display Imagine
images, doesn't mean we're all interested in it. Please think twice!

Short signatures are good.  Long signatures are boring.




##

Subject: Re: Positive response to IRC quest
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 00:32:09 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Marino)

Hannes-

In response to the Imagine IRC meeting, I think it is an all around excellent
idea.

With upcoming release of 3.0 (only hours away ;), this meeting couldn't
arrive at a better time. We could compare notes on the new release as well
as invite Impulse to sit in ( I can dream, can't I?) to hear
what we might have to say...

As far as the time and place, I would think a weekend night
around 8 p.m. EST (USA) might be beneficial to everyone.

If anyone else can offer a different time(& the place) I'm open to it.

Looking forward to the first online Imagine users group meeting...

- Paul Marino






##

Subject: Texture (altitude) fading?
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 00:45:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

Is there a way to fade textures out in a pattern.  Say you have a
plane with a brushmap on it, and on top of that you want a blob of
"blobc" from Essence I.  Is there a texture (maybe on Essence II) that
will fade out a previous texture in a Radial-type pattern, so that you
have a circle of blobc on top of a brush-mapped plane.  Is there
anything to fade out the altitude of a texture, like having a circle
of diamonddeck that flattens out gradually to a certain radius?  Just
thought something like this might be useful.

Peter Garza
[e-mail]


##

Subject: IRC's ??
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 0:11:12 PDT
From: Scott Lundholm <[e-mail]>

Hi All,

     I am not familiar with IRC's. Would someone be kind enough to E-Mail me
some info on what they are, and how one uses/access them. Thanks much, in
advance.

                                               Scott Lundholm

 *----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | Amiga 500/030 at 38Mhz w/68882 at | Email (UNIX)[e-mail] |
 | 50Mhz, 8Meg of 32-bit RAM, Bodega |                Memeber                 |
 | Bay w/105 & 450 Meg Hard Drives,  |   Redwood Empire Amiga Users Group     |
 | HP PaintJet, 16" HP Programmable  | Imagine 2.0 rendering enthusiast and   |
 | Multisynch w/Flicker Free Video.  | graphics fanatic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   |
 *----------------------------------------------------------------------------*


##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 08:42:00 EDT
From: David Watters <[e-mail]>

> I think that using slow(er)
> ram in the A4000, especially with LW4.0, and the VT, was shooting themselves
> (CBM and NewTek) in the foot, IMHO.

Using slower RAM in the 4K is pretty dumb, but CBM has always tried to put
out the slowest machine at the slowest clock rate available for each chip
type.

However, the problem that makes the 4K so slow when rendering is not the RAM
speed, it is the fact that the processor module has to convert the '040's BUS
protocal to an '030 BUS protocal because in CBM's infinite wisdom they wanted
a 4k motherboard that could be driven with both an '040 and an '030. So the
whole thing had to be built around the '030 bus, and for the '040 processor
they do the translation which just eats time!  Idiots!

             _     ___
David    ~  |_|,--'   |@,__
Watters   ~   ( )-_______-()`-

--
David R. Watters ([e-mail])    Cranel Inc. Development & Engineering
"Porsche.  The very name is, to many, the last word in sports cars. Any car
 blessed with these magic seven letters is sure to be the very best. Period!"
                        - Car and Driver, January 1993


##

Subject: Re: Positive response to IRC quest
Date:     Thu, 28 Oct 1993 13:42:29 +0100
From: Peter Bugla <[e-mail]>

[stuff deleted]
> As far as the time and place, I would think a weekend night
> around 8 p.m. EST (USA) might be beneficial to everyone.
>
> - Paul Marino

A weekend night is no good idea for all the students who only have
irc/internet-access on weekdays (during normal University-opening-
times) (if you can call it so?).

Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <disclaimer.h>               " If architects built buildings the way
                     programmers write  programs the first
                         woodpecker that came along would
Peter Bugla                     destroy civilization "
E-mail: [e-mail]  -- Murphy's Law of Computers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Big black triangles appearing where transparency should be
Date:     Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:14:40 -0400
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

I had this problem in trace-mode.  I noticed that as I bumped up the reflection
depth, the black would eventually be gone by the time the reflection depth
grows to its max of 16.  If I did the same scene in scanline, the appropriate
areas would be filtered just fine.

Jason K.
        __                  __       __
       /     /  __ _     __ / o_    /     __ _ __ __  o       _
      /   \//\ /_////| //_// //    /- \/ /_////_///  //\ /| //
     /  __/ \/ \ / / |/ \ /\/ \   /__ /\/  /  \  \\\/ \// |/ \
     \___________________________________________//__________/


##

Subject: Again? (24-bit converters?)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 14:06:09 +0100
From: "- Carsten Berggreen - Denmark -" <[e-mail]>

Hi there again-again!!!!!

I forgot, who/where/how much for "Protocol" ???????
(The ARexx supporting program for Adpro...)

Signed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Address: Carsten Berggreen         E-mail: [e-mail] -
-          Hirsevaenget 16A                                         -
-          8464  Galten          "It isn't the equipment alone, it  -
-          Denmark                is also what YOU can do with it!" -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- A true fan of Amiga, Coca-Cola, Imagine and good looking females! -
---------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: IRC's ??
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 12:25:02 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

    Just a note for those interested....Every now and then I have
created a channel and just sat waiting to see if anyone else would stop by
as I know others have stopped to look now anad then.  Anyhow, you might
want to check to see if there is #IML channel at anytime.

    I may be on....


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail], CWRU Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Thanks! (24-bit converters?)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 14:03:44 +0100
From: "- Carsten Berggreen - Denmark -" <[e-mail]>

Hi there again!!!!!

And many thanks to ALL of you, who took the time to answer my letter.  &:-)

Many of you suggested ADPro with the use of Arexx, but I don't know how to
make a Arexx script.... &:-(

Does ANYBODY have ANY scripts that I might have a "glimse" on???

Or perhaps a simple illustration of the idea, so I might learn how to make one?


Thanks again, it's nice to have THAT many responses...

Signed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Address: Carsten Berggreen         E-mail: [e-mail] -
-          Hirsevaenget 16A                                         -
-          8464  Galten          "It isn't the equipment alone, it  -
-          Denmark                is also what YOU can do with it!" -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- A true fan of Amiga, Coca-Cola, Imagine and good looking females! -
---------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 08:38:10 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

In <9310272336.AA20062@sun>, [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)
writes:
>
>    I used to have a 2500, and my 2630 board didn't come with SCRAM, although
> the board does support it (maybe the new ones have it, I dunno)..
>
My board came with 4MB of SCRAM, and they are *fast*, AIBB says 125% vs.
A3000!
>
> my 3000T did come with SCRAM, but I only notice about a %10 speed increase,
> and the chips were way more expensive when I expanded my memory.
>
Maybe has to do with *how* the memory is used (?) I know my pal across the
pond has a B2000 with a Zeus, and its faster than an A4000 by 150% (AIBB)
>
> (sorry for this un-IMAGINE-ative post..)
>
Rendering SW like Imagine *needs* acceleration, fpu, ram, etc., so I would thi
nk that anything that makes it easier, faster, or better, is desirable, IMHO:)

Virtually yours,
Michel

>   Greg
>


                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: IRC, Me too!
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 13:05:37 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Adam Benjamin)

Sorry, but here is another "Me too" note.
Please send information about IRC and if you happen to know
of any DOS (or even (blech) windows) IRC client programs
please let me know!

Adam B


--
---
Adam Benjamin      [e-mail]   A.K.A.  [e-mail]
Christian Animator    Computer junkie      4000/40 CD-ROM 486DX33
Get a life! (John 3-16)


##

Subject: IRC FAQ for those interested (about 9k long)
Date: 28 Oct 93 13:02:00 EST
From: "J_GEORGE" <[e-mail]>

X-NEWS: vger.nsu.edu alt.irc: 6031
Relay-Version: VMS News - V5.9C 19/12/89 VAX/VMS V5.5; site vger.nsu.edu
Path: vger.nsu.edu!uvaarpa!caen!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!kei.com!hrose
Newsgroups: alt.irc,alt.irc.ircii,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: IRC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Helen T. Rose Davis)
Date: 14 Sep 1993 14:18:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: poster
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
Approved: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocza.eff.org
Lines: 201
Xref: vger.nsu.edu alt.irc:6031 news.answers:8154

Archive-name: irc-faq
Last-modified: 1993/09/01
Version: 1.08

(1) What is IRC?

    IRC stands for "Internet Relay Chat". It was written by Jarkko
Oikarinen ([e-mail]) in 1988. Since starting in Finland, it
has been used in some 40+ countries spanning the globe.  It was designed
as a replacement for the "talk" program but has become much much more
than that. IRC is a multi-user chat system, where people convene on
"channels" (a virtual place, usually with a topic of conversation) to
talk in groups, or privately.
    IRC gained international fame during the late Persian Gulf War,
where updates from around the world came accross the wire, and most
people on irc gathered on a single channel to hear these reports.

(2) How is IRC set up?

    The user runs a "client" program (usually called 'irc') which
connects to the irc network via another program called a "server".
Servers exist to pass messages from user to user over the irc network.

(3) How do I use a client?

    You either compile the source yourself, have someone else on
your machine compile the source for you, or use the TELNET client.
"telnet tiger.itc.univie.ac.at 6668". Please only use the latter when you
have no other way of reaching irc, as this resource is quite limited.

(4) Where can I get source for the irc client?

UNIX client-> cs.bu.edu /irc/clients
              ftp.acsu.buffalo.edu /pub/irc
          nic.funet.fi /pub/unix/irc
              coombs.anu.edu.au /pub/irc
          ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de /pub/comp/networking/irc/clients
          slopoke.mlb.semi.harris.com /pub/irc
          there is also a client avaliable with the server code.
EMACS elisp-> cs.bu.edu /irc/clients/elisp
          nic.funet.fi /pub/unix/irc/Emacs
              ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de /pub/comp/networking/irc/clients
          slopoke.mlb.semi.harris.com /pub/irc/emacs
              lehtori.cc.tut.fi /pub/irchat
VMS ->        cs.bu.edu /irc/clients/vms
          coombs.anu.edu.au /pub/irc/vms
              nic.funet.fi  /pub/unix/irc/vms
              ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de /pub/net/irc
REXX client for VM->    cs.bu.edu /irc/clients/rxirc
                        ftp.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de /pub/irc/rxirc
                        ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de /pub/net/irc/VM
                        coombs.anu.edu.au /pub/irc/rxirc
                        nic.funet.fi /pub/unix/irc/rxirc
MSDOS->         cs.bu.edu /irc/clients/msdos
                nic.funet.fi /pub/unix/irc/msdos
Macintosh->     cs.bu.edu /irc/clients/macintosh
                sumex-aim.stanford.edu /info-mac/comm
                nic.funet.fi /pub/unix/irc/mac
                ftp.ira.uka.de /pub/systems/mac

(5) Which server do I connect to?

    It's usually best to try and connect to one geographically
close, even though that may not be the best. You can always ask when you
get on irc. Here's a list of servers avaliable for connection:

        csa.bu.edu
        ucsu.colorado.edu
                penfold.ece.uiuc.edu
        ug.cs.dal.ca
        irc.funet.fi
                poly.polytechnique.fr
                disuns2.epfl.ch
                irc.nada.kth.se
                cairo.anu.edu.au
        sokrates.informatik.uni-kl.de
                bim.itc.univie.ac.at

This is, by no means, a comprehensive list, but merely a start. Connect
to the closest of these servers and join the channel #Twilight_Zone
When you get there, immediately ask what you want. Don't say "I have a
question" because then hardly anyone will talk.

(6) OK, I've got a client and I'm connected to a server? Now what?

    It's probably best to take a look around and see what you want
to do first. All irc commands start with a "/", and most are one word.
Typing /help will get you help information. /names will get you a list
of names, etc.

The output is typically something like this-> (Note there are more
channels than this, this is just sample output).

Pub: #hack      zorgo eiji Patrick fup htoaster
Pub: #Nippon    @jircc @miyu_d
Pub: #nicole    MountainD
Pub: #hottub    omar liron beer Deadog moh pfloyd Dode greywolf SAMANTHA

"Pub" means public (or "visible") channel. "hack" is the channel name.
"#" is the prefix (see number 7 below). A "@" before someone's nickname
indicates he/she is the "Channel operator" of that channel. A Channel
Operator is someone who has control over a specific channel. It can be
shared or not as the first Channel Operator sees fit. The first person
to join the channel automatically gets Channel Operator, and can share
it with anyone he/she chooses (or not).

(7) What is a "bot"? How can I get one?

        "bot" is short for "robot". It is a script run from an ircII
client or a seperate program (in perl, C, and sometimes more obscure
languages). [e-mail] (Michael Adams) defined bots very well: "A
bot is a vile creation of /lusers to make up for lack of penis length".
IRC bots are generally not needed. See (9) below about "ownership" of
nicknames and channels.

(8) What are good channels to try while using irc?

    #hottub and #initgame are almost always teeming with people.
#hottub is meant to simulate a hot tub, and #initgame is non-stop game
of "inits" (initials). Just join and find out!

    Many irc operators are in #Twilight_Zone ... so if you join
that channel and don't hear much talking, don't worry, it's not because
you joined, operators don't talk much on that channel anyways!

(9) Someone is using my nickname, can anyone do anything about it?
    Someone is using my channel, can anyone do anything about it?

        Even with NickServ (see (11) below) registering nicknames, there
are not enough nicknames to have nickname ownership. If someone takes
your nickname while you are not on irc, you can ask for them to give it
back, but you can not *demand* it, nor will irc operators /kill for
nickname ownership.

        There are, literally, millions of possible channel names, so if
someone is on your usual channel, just go to another. You can /msg them
and ask for them to leave, but you can't *force* them to leave.

(10) There aren't any channel operators on my channel, now what?

        Channel operators are the owner(s) of their respective channels.
Keep this in mind when giving out channel operator powers (make sure to
give them to enough people so that all of the channel operators don't
unexpectedly leave and the channel is stuck without a channel operator).

        On the other hand, do not give out channel operator to
*everyone*. This causes the possibility of mass-kicking, where the
channel would be stuck without any channel operators.

(11) What if someone tells me to type something cryptic?

    Never type anything anyone tells you to without knowing what it
is. There is a problem with typing a certain command with the ircII
client that gives anyone immediate control of your client (and thus can
alter your account environment also).

(12) What is NickServ? What if I can't remember my NickServ password?

    To quote from NickServ's help text, NickServ's purpose is to
keep unique nicknames on irc. NickServ sends a warning to anyone else
who signs on with your nickname.  If you don't use IRC for 10 weeks,
your nickname expires for reuse.

    Only a NickServ operator can change your nickserv password.
To find out which NickServ operators are online, send
/msg [e-mail] OPERWHO

Nicknames with a "*" next to them are online at the time.

(13) Where can I find GIF archives of irc people?

        GIF archives of irc people are available:

     nic.funet.fi:/pub/pics/gif/pics/people/misc/irc
     ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de /pub/comp/networking/irc/RP

(14) Where can I learn more?

    A good place to start might be downloading the irc tutorials.
They're avaliable via anonymous ftp from cs.bu.edu in
/irc/support/tutorial.* .. You can also join various IRC related mailing
lists. "operlist" is a list that discusses current (and past) server
code, routing, and protocol. You can join by mailing
[e-mail]. You can join the irchat mailing list by
mailing [e-mail]. There is a low traffic ircII mailing
list, mail [e-mail] to be added. Another mailing list,
[e-mail], exists to discuss protocol revisions for the 3.0
release of the ircd, currently in planning. Mail
[e-mail] to be added to that. A vmsirc mailing list is
avaliable. Mail [e-mail] (with "subscribe" in the
message body).

(15) What do I do if I'm still confused or have additions to this posting?

    email [e-mail] or ask for help (in #Twilight_Zone) on irc.

--
Helen Trillian Rose Davis                <[e-mail], [e-mail]>
Kapor Enterprises, Inc.                email [e-mail] for EFF Info
Electronic Frontier Foundation          Flames to:
Systems and Networks Administration    [e-mail]



##

Subject: IRC
Date: 28 Oct 93 14:10:00 EST
From: "Andrew Church" <[e-mail]>

  Seeing all the requests for information about IRC, I thought I'd
contribute what I know...

  IRC stands for "Internet Relay Chat".  Using it, people can converse
with each other about various topics.  To use it, you need an IRC client
(or access to one), and you need to know the name of an IRC server close
to you.  I can't help with that, though - I haven't actually used IRC,
since I can't find a client anywhere.  If anyone knows of anywhere I
could telnet to and use IRC, please let me know.

  Hope this helps.

  --Andy Church



##

Subject: DCTV on IML/ 3.0 today?
Date: 28 Oct 93 11:19:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

>And just because DCTV/Picasso/Opal/Rasterburn can display Imagine
>images, doesn't mean we're all interested in it. Please think twice!

     I certainly do not want to start a "flame war", but the most
     recent DCTV discussion involving imagine generated star fields
     was most relevant and helpful, as I encountered the same problem
     only a week before.

     Today is October 28.  Big question of the day:  Is 3.0 ready?


##

Subject: Opinions
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 13:17:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

Paul van der Heu says:

"Problem is a lot of people do not have the ADPro/FRED manual and cannot
work
with FRED for that reason. So they get other 'easier' programs which they
can
use without the manual

Now, I am NOT accusing anyone specific of piracy, but I know this is what
happens quite often.

 --
       Paul van der Heu, The MotherShip Connection running DLG BB/OS
         Home of cOmcOn Productions, Amiga Multimedia in a BIG way
            FIDO - 2:280/207.0 , UUCP - [e-mail]

            ' Givin' them something they can FEEL ' - En Vogue"
___________________________________________________
Everybody is entitled to their opinion.  You are also entitled to bash your
head against a brick wall in order to prove a brick wall can be brought down
by bashing your head against it.  Why not use another program if you can
decrease learning time and increase throughput?  FRED is very nonintuitive
and does not have a graphical user interface whereas ProControl does, and in
effect, provides a GUI method to develop long, iterative, multi-functional
scripts to ADPro without having to learn AREXX or FRED sequence projects.
 If you want to empty the ocean with a teaspoon, that is your prerogative.


##

Subject: Star Fields
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 15:00:19 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ziolkowski)

If anyone is interested, I came up with a great looking star field
    that is really easy to make, it took about 20 minutes, and
    most of it was spent trying to find the right size for the
    map.
In Dpaint, make a screen 1000x1000.  Then using the spraypaint
    tool and a white color with the smallest brush size, make
    a bunch of stars all over the screen.  Save it out.
In Imagine, make a sphere.  Call it something interesting, I used
    star1.  Make it white, then apply the star picture as a
    wrap wrap transparency brush.  Don't forget to click the
    inverse video button!  Now copy star1, call it star2 and
    change the map to color.  You don't even have to drop
    it and start over.  But make sure to turn inverse video
    off.  Scale star2 to be bigger than star1 and rotate it
    a little, I used 90.  Now make BOTH spheres bright,
    and save it out.  Voila!  I tried a 60 frame test, just
    moving my camera around, and it really gives this great
    multi-planing effect.  Even with a really wide camera
    lens, it still holds up.
Let me know if it works for you guys!
steveZ                 Rhythm & Hues, Inc.
celia![e-mail]
"That's not Art Linkletter, that's Mickey Mouse!"
            -Art Linkletter, Disneyland opening day



##

Subject: Re: IRC FAQ for those interested (about 9k long)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 18:36:19 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

  Thanks for the FAQ! Came in very helpful. I managed to get a client program
and compile it under UNIX, but when I try connecting, it connects, but tells me
"The IRC doesn't allow ghosts".  Anybody run into this?

  Greg

+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Greg Pringle                 | Amiga VBBS - Multitasking, Windowed   |
| [e-mail]     |                BBS'ing!               |
| [e-mail]  | VBBS 14.4K: [phone] & 284-5625 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+



##

Subject: Re: Thanks for Stars rep
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 15:33:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Saffold)

> And now for my NEXT trick..
>
> 1] Has anyone seen any Virtual Memory programs for the Amiga?
> 2] If so, has anyone used any of these Virtual Mem programs with Imagine?

Gigamem.  It will work great with Imagine, provided you tel Gigamem to
have Imagine use Vmem first..

     // Jeff Saffold
   \X/ Only the Amiga makes it possible.

... Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.
___
 X MsgView V1.13 [R029] X
--
*******************************************************************************
* Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway                   Data/Fax: [phone] *
* Pueblo, Colorado USA                               FidoNet:  1:307/18       *
*******************************************************************************


##

Subject: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 12:58:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alex... <[e-mail]>

Just to let you guys know... its true, the UK Amiga Format mag. has given
away a complete copy of the INT version of Imagine 2.0 on their December
cover disk. You can also get them to send you the FP version for 1.50 UK
pounds.

But, most interesting, they are offering an upgrade to Imagine 3.0 for only
75 UK pounds, which they say is now shipping.

Does anyone know if this is really true, cos if it is my cheque will be in
the post tonight *:o)

Regards,
    Alex...

%-------------------------- #include <.siggy.h> --------------------------%
% Alex Craig, [e-mail]         -=* Retina's Rule *Bo) *=-  %
% ~~~~~~~~~~  CSE Student @ Warwick Uni. UK  "All opinions are just mine" %


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:34:57 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
> Just to let you guys know... its true, the UK Amiga Format mag. has given
> away a complete copy of the INT version of Imagine 2.0 on their December
> cover disk. You can also get them to send you the FP version for 1.50 UK
> pounds.
>
> But, most interesting, they are offering an upgrade to Imagine 3.0 for only
> 75 UK pounds, which they say is now shipping.
>

Does this piss off anyone else, or is it just me?  I understand the stratagy
involved here, but still.

How much is 75 pounds in US money?  Does the upgrade include the 3.0 manual?
If so, and it is cheaper than $100 US, I will certainly go that route, instead
of going through Impulse.

Personally, I think this is a bunch of BS.  They should have given Imagine 1.0
or something.

Hmm, kinda funny what this implys...the manuals are worth $100!  HA...HA HA HA
HA HA HA!

Glen and Steve, when did you say Essence would be ready for Real3d?;)


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Re: DCTV on IML/ 3.0 today?
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 09:31:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
>      Today is October 28.  Big question of the day:  Is 3.0 ready?
>
Not according to Mike H. :-(

Virtually yours,
Michel



                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: wuarchive down?
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 09:51:00 PDT
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

     Does anybody know what is the status of wuarchive.wustl.edu and aminet.
 I know wuarchive was having some hardware problems a couple of weeks ago
but then it came back up.  It appears to be down again.  Also, aminet
mirrors don't seem to be getting any updates either.  It was sure nice to
have a node that supported an Imagine subdirectory and I sure would hate to
see it go away.  It helps to see other peoples efforts in modeling,
rendering and animation.  Is there any other Imagine specific sections on
other nodes?


##

Subject: Re: 040 Vs. 486
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 03:03:33 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 25 Oct 1993, Breno A. Silva wrote:

> >you have onboard RAM - 4000 doesn't support burst mode thanks to C=)
>
> Half the speed! Wow! That's why they say the 4000 is a DOG! Excuse my
> ignorance, but can you tell me exactly what the burst mode is, and why
> has it been removed (or if can it be reactivated, or we have to switch
> the processors)?
>
> A now sad A4K user:
> Breno A. Silva
>
Was I referring to 1/2 the speed of the 33Mhz 040 ?

Anyway, regarding Burst mode... I don't quite understand it but...
the '040 was built to support Burst mode and it does originally. But, to
implement it in the 4000 would have cost more so C= decided not to.

Now, Burst mode allows you access to Ram at full speed (i.e. less wait
states than usual) and this speeds the whole computer up with programs
that access the RAM all the time like Imagine for instance does.

Now, C= is unlikely to fix this and it would require a new CPU board.
There are rumors that GVP are developing an '040 board for the 4000 though.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Imagine screen size hack?
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 03:17:34 +1000 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1993, Steve Koren wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this is different for various "minor revs" of
> Imagine, but I've always found that any horizontal resolution is fine,
> but vertical resolutions beyond 400 crash when interactively rotating
> objects or axis in the detail editor.  In other words, anythingX400 is
> OK, but anythingX401 is not.  I run it right now at 896x400, which is
> annoying yet more useful than 640x400.  But if I increase the vertical
> res even a little bit, it crashes Imagine the first time I rotate
> something.  It is odd; Imagine seems about 99% capable of taking
> advantage of any screen size, but just has a couple of bugs which
> prevent it from actually working.  I hope they fix them for 3.0, but
> I'll be surprised if they do.  I'd like Aladdin-like gaseous object
> handling also, but I'm not holding my breath for that either.
>
>   - steve
>
Well, I can vouch that the Pal version of Imagine 2.0 has no problems at
800*600 on the Retina. Not even when interactively moving, rotating, etc.
things.

In 1280*1024, the mouse jumps from one side to the other if you try to
move things interactively throughout the whole window, but this can be
worked around. (A friend at whose plce I've been using Imagine on the
Retina has an NEC 5D and likes working in 1280*1024 even with the
quirkiness of Imagine)

Nik.
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 14:01:30 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

just to answer my own question, 75 pounds = $111.82 US according to USA Today.
(dollars per pound = $1.4910)

So a new user can get 3.0 for $111.82 plus the cost of a magazine.  Upgrade
cost to old faithful users who have paid Impulse lots o money(and who do
nothing but complain;) is $100.


New user  $111 + change
Upgrade  $100

Hmmm.....

I'd still like to know if the upgrade to 3.0 from the Amiga Format version
will contain the manual.  I assume it will.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin




##

Subject: Re: HomeComing
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 15:44:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Saffold)

> Wahhhooooo Imagineers!  :-)

Wahhhooooo back to ya!  Welcome back.
I was starting to think that the evil 2D people kidnapped you or
something..:)

> Until this time, we only had the flat 2D view of
> this guy. Happily, to acknowledge his interest in
> rendering, Adam was born in a full 3D version with
> soft edges and a healthy 230-150-70 RGB tone.

Congrats!  Are you gonna upload a rendered picture of him for us?:)


And on a more serious note, could you by change send me the newest
Imagine Faq again?  My mail reader choked on it last time..  Thanks.

     // Jeff Saffold
   \X/ Only the Amiga makes it possible.

... A sword sometimes misses its mark -- a bouquet never.
___
 X MsgView V1.13 [R029] X
--
*******************************************************************************
* Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway                   Data/Fax: [phone] *
* Pueblo, Colorado USA                               FidoNet:  1:307/18       *
*******************************************************************************


##

Subject: spheres
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 12:13:20 GMT
From: Andrew Nunn <[e-mail]>

Can anyone answer this query? I recently created an object which required
a number of sphere primatives. I started by using the perfect sphere
but found that the memory used by the object when rendering in Scanline
mode was huge. I then created a version using faceted sphere primatives,
and memory usage was much less. I then tried rendering the first version
again , but in full trace mode, and found that the memory usage was a lot
less. This leads me to believe that in scanline, the perfect sphere is
being approximated to a faceted sphere. Is this true , and if so what
kind of point/slice characteristics does it use?

Andrew Nunn


##

Subject: Imagine 3.0
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 12:49:22 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Marino)

I spoke with Impulse(I believe it was Mike H.) on Oct 29.
He said that 3.0 should be shipping either Monday or Tuesday.

When I asked if they were sending it UPS ground(U.S. parcel delivery)
he said that considering the size of the package they would probably
send it by air.

I'd like to believe this. I think they might keep their word on this one
but I'm still a little skeptical ( as I'm sure most of you are).

Well we can only wait and see.

- Paul Marino

P.S. Maybe we'll be using 3.0 instead of just talking 3.0 by this time
next week.



##

Subject: Re: IRC FAQ for those interested (about 9k long)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 14:53:18 MET
From: [e-mail] (Paul Kolenbrander)

Hi J_GEORGE (J_GEORGE), in <[e-mail]> on Oct 28 you wrote:

Thanks for the IRC FAQ. i tried IRC last night and got in without problems.
Unfortunately there was nobody in #IML. :-( Anyway, I've registered myself
as 'Wildey'.  That's probably the *most* difficult thing in IRC, getting a
/NICK. All the good ones are already taken. Anyway, I'll be present in IRC
once in a while and I'll check into #IML when I'm in... See you all there!

CYa, Paul
   __
--/_/ |/ ------------+--Main  : [e-mail]-
-/aul |\olenbrander--+--Spare : [e-mail]---
---------------------+-----------------------------------
-Reg. CD32 developer-+-A4000/040&A3000. Best of 2 worlds-


##

Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 17:54 GMT0
From: Gary Whiteley - Amiga Shopper <[e-mail]>

>From: Adam Benjamin <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Which Format was that?


>When is the Amiga Format due out with Imagine on the cover?  I
>do want to check that out.

It's out in the UK - I just saw it earlier on today. Don't know the
issue number though - sorry.

Gary




##

Subject: Re: Amiga Format
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 13:29:16 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>>When is the Amiga Format due out with Imagine on the cover?  I
>>do want to check that out.
>
>It's out in the UK - I just saw it earlier on today. Don't know the
>issue number though - sorry.


     It takes about two weeks to reach the stores in Canada. I assume it'd
be about the same for you. I wonder whether they'd release the beemer
version sometime. Finally, a use for that grungy '386 lying on the floor
;-).

                                           Christopher



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 09:50:32 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)
writes:
>
> Does this piss off anyone else, or is it just me?  I understand the stratagy
> involved here, but still.
>
Nope, it makes me fell like I paid good money to get f****d by Mike H. >:-[
>
> How much is 75 pounds in US money?  Does the upgrade include the 3.0 manual?
>
75 Pounds is ~ $115 US, and would prolly include manual >:-[
>
> If so, and it is cheaper than $100 US, I will certainly go that route,
>instead of going through Impulse.
>
Either way, you are *still* going through Impulse, if you think about it!
>
> Personally, I think this is a bunch of BS.  They should have given Imagine
>1.0 or something.
>
Or Turbo-Silver, or Silver....*ANYTHING* but Imagine 2.0!!!
>
> Hmm, kinda funny what this implys...the manuals are worth $100!  HA...HA HA
>HA HA HA HA!
>
Or that the manual is worth more than the software itself! This is just
another dumb marketing move to increase their sales base, while losing their
current base. Hopefully they'll be in worse shape than before. They must've
gone to the CBM school of marketeering ;-7 Take care, God Bless, ILBCNU!

Virtually yours,
Michel

PS: I'm getting Lightrave because of this, and I encourage *ALL* Imagineers
to do the same, IN MASS!!!

                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: Re: 24-bit vs. HAM...
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 16:13:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Yury German)

Hi Greg (Greg Pringle), in <9310180719.AA23943@sun> on Oct 18 you wrote:

:    Yes, rendering is faster with 24 bit images. Also, you get better results
: if you use adpro to dither to ham mode, since Imagine's dithering isn't the
: best. You can get even better results using Hamlab Plus to convert to hires
: ham mode. (the difference is amazing!)
:

    Greg you are partially correct. But rendering in the ILBM mode
slows it down a bit as well. So the best bet is to render in Imagine
Format or the RGB8 as it is called otherwise. Then USE ADpro, Image FX or
Imagemaster to convert and render it.


##

Subject: Re: Golden Glint !!
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 16:28:48 EST
From: [e-mail] (Yury German)

Hi A.Kumar (A.Kumar), in <"878*/I=A/S=Kumar/OU=rea2102/O=icl/PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/"@MHS> on Oct 19 you wrote:

: Hi Guys,
:  I am trying to do some 3D titles with Imagine. I have created
: some Golden letters and made it whirl around. But I also need to
: make each letter glint one by one. Do I need to position lights
: on each one of them one by one ?. Forgive me if I am asking a
: stupid question. Thanks
:
    No the easiest way is to set a cone light up and just let it
follow a path accross the lights.. it should provide you with the proper
gleam to the lights. You might have to full around with the radius and
things but it should come out fine!




##

Subject: Re: Damn 'Jet' effect!
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 16:24:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Yury German)

Hi kjenning (kjenning), in <[e-mail]> on Oct 18 you wrote:

: So far, I am not aware of any 'real' 486 bridgeboards for the Amiga.
: Imagine requires the floating point processor in the PC which
: the 486SX (I'm pretty sure) and 486SLC (I know) lack.  I don't
: know of any bridgeboards that use a DX, DX/2, or SL.  (Though,
: I'm sure someone will point out my error shortly.)

    Actually you are correct there are none. Besides the cost is a
little prohibiting. Considering that the Amiga Bridgeboards run you aroun
d $1K with limited memory and expension. While a whole 486DX2 33 system
will probably run you from 200-400 more then that and will have a real
system behind it. And believe me that when you are talking about a mini
tower... there is really not much space needed underneath your table.


##

Subject: Re: Golden Glint !!
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 19:45:37 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

> Hi Guys,
>  I am trying to do some 3D titles with Imagine. I have created
> some Golden letters and made it whirl around. But I also need to
> make each letter glint one by one. Do I need to position lights
> on each one of them one by one ?. Forgive me if I am asking a
> stupid question. Thanks

     I cheat and use Imagemaster's asterize function for highlights ;-). A
tightly focused cone light should work too.....

                                                Christopher




--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: RE: Stars & Artifacts & Stuff
Date:     Sat, 30 Oct 1993 23:32:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Charles Blaquiere)

Imagemaster has a wonderful filter operator called "NTSC Filter" (how
appropriate!) which smooths out any illegal color/luminance transitions,
like the aforementioned stars. A CompuServe user uploaded one of the
classic Babylon V images, showing how NTSC Filter dramatically improved
image quality.


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 11:16:11 WST
From: Jason S Birch <[e-mail]>

Sigh. I really can't believe you guys. I've been sitting here, reading
through this for days now, and I'm sick of it. If it keeps up I'm going
to unsubscribe - I've never seen such a group of whiners.

> In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)
> writes:
> >
> > Does this piss off anyone else, or is it just me?  I understand the stratagy
> > involved here, but still.
> >
> Nope, it makes me fell like I paid good money to get f****d by Mike H. >:-[

Why do you feel you got f****d? Did you not get what you paid for? Have
you not had much use from it? How does something Impulse does *now*
with *other* people suddenly affect the transaction you made with them
some time ago which you were presumeably happy with up until now? If Impulse,
in *their* generosity, decide to give away *their* program, I can't see how
that makes any difference to you.

> > How much is 75 pounds in US money?  Does the upgrade include the 3.0 manual?
> >
> 75 Pounds is ~ $115 US, and would prolly include manual >:-[

Ooh, boy, that *really* sucks, doesn't it??? I mean, fancy allowing the
unwashed masses to upgrade for nearly the same price as the faithful,
eh?  Don't forget, though - you *have* been using and gaining benefit
from the software for quite some time now, correct?

> > If so, and it is cheaper than $100 US, I will certainly go that route,
> >instead of going through Impulse.
> >
> Either way, you are *still* going through Impulse, if you think about it!
> >
> > Personally, I think this is a bunch of BS.  They should have given Imagine
> >1.0 or something.
> >
> Or Turbo-Silver, or Silver....*ANYTHING* but Imagine 2.0!!!

Why??? What difference does it make to *you*?

> > Hmm, kinda funny what this implys...the manuals are worth $100!  HA...HA HA
> >HA HA HA HA!
> >
> Or that the manual is worth more than the software itself! This is just
> another dumb marketing move to increase their sales base, while losing their
> current base. Hopefully they'll be in worse shape than before. They must've
> gone to the CBM school of marketeering ;-7 Take care, God Bless, ILBCNU!

Firstly - I think it is a brilliant strategy. Think about it... It costs
them nothing (no production/marketing/etc, AF will take care of that)
and they establish an enormous base of users with Imagine 2.0. *Many* of
these users will be impressed by what they see, and upgrade to Imagine 3.0
with their brilliant offer. Result? *Lot's* more Imagine users, and hence
maybe an Imagine 4.0, 5.0, whatever. You can't possibly lose with *more*
people owning Imagine.

Secondly - why on *earth* are they going to lose their current base???
Are you guys going to take your ball and go home just because Impulse will
allow just *anyone* to play? Aww... And you *really* want them to be in
worse shape because of it??? Sheesh. Michael, since you seem religious,
there is a parable you may be aware of - the one about the farmer
who pays the workers who came late the same as the ones who worked all
day, and the ones who worked all day get pissed off because of this.
Think about it.

> Virtually yours,
> Michel
>
> PS: I'm getting Lightrave because of this, and I encourage *ALL* Imagineers
> to do the same, IN MASS!!!

Children. Bloody children. And I believe the term you're looking for is
"en masse" - not many people will get Lighrave in church, I suspect.

>
>                                   ||
>                                 __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
> [e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
>                                   ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
>                                   ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
>                                   ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!

--
Mr Jason Birch                       _--_|\  Internet: [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science      /      \ Tel (work): [phone]
The University of Western Australia *_.--._/ Fax (work): [phone]
Nedlands  W. Australia  6009              v  Tel (home): [phone]


##

Subject: Re: Golden Glint !!
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 00:29:56 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>  I am trying to do some 3D titles with Imagine. I have created
>> some Golden letters and made it whirl around. But I also need to
>> make each letter glint one by one. Do I need to position lights
>> on each one of them one by one ?. Forgive me if I am asking a
>> stupid question. Thanks
>

    One thing I just thought of is a technique i've used with DPaint
and 2D animated logos.

    Basically what you do is you make a diagonal gradient and then pan
this along your letters.  Thus, when the gradient moves along it lookes as
if a light were passing over it or if it where gleaming.

    For 3D you'd just have to render a dark gold to  light gold
gradient, and then simply wrap this on your objects and then animate the
wrap by moving the brush over time (ie morph).

    This may or may not give a reasonable solution but it might work.


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail], CWRU Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Re: Thanks for Stars replies and YET another query...
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 18:33:19 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On 27 Oct 1993, J_GEORGE wrote:
> 1] Has anyone seen any Virtual Memory programs for the Amiga?
> 2] If so, has anyone used any of these Virtual Mem programs with Imagine?
>
> Granted, I understand using such a program would create much longer rendering
> times and wouldn't be conducive to the health of the average harddrive over a
> period of time (for round the clock raytracing), but might provide a viable
> option for those of us who have managed to hit those memory limits and are
> willing to sacrefice a little rendering speed just to get that extra UMPH to
> produce some of those images where even breaking the scenes down into
> foreground/middle-ground/background cels just won't do.
>
> Sorry for the run-on sentence... ;-)
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
There is one commercial VM program for the Amiga - GigaMem - distributed
by Inovatronics.

While it works well with most things I have found that it doesn't work
too well with Imagine. It will work but,... only in VM mode only (i.e.
none of your FAST RAM is used for rendering, the whole render needs the VM)

So, it isn't a very ractical solution except for an occasional pic.
Gigamem authors blame Impulse and this is probably true.
We'll see what happens when v3.0 arrives.

Nik.
[e-mail]




##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 09:58:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Trin Yuthasastrackosol <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 31 Oct 1993, Jason S Birch wrote:

> Sigh. I really can't believe you guys. I've been sitting here, reading
> through this for days now, and I'm sick of it. If it keeps up I'm going
> to unsubscribe - I've never seen such a group of whiners.

I agree..I remember when useful information was the order of the day (back
when the list just started up). Now much of what I see is whine whine
flame, whine, flame...but, enough of my whining :-)

>
> Firstly - I think it is a brilliant strategy. Think about it... It costs
> them nothing (no production/marketing/etc, AF will take care of that)
> and they establish an enormous base of users with Imagine 2.0. *Many* of
> these users will be impressed by what they see, and upgrade to Imagine 3.0
> with their brilliant offer. Result? *Lot's* more Imagine users, and hence
> maybe an Imagine 4.0, 5.0, whatever. You can't possibly lose with *more*
> people owning Imagine.

Yes this is brilliant strategy. Expands the userbase for much less work
and $$$ on the part of Impulse and it allows those who never upgraded to
2.0 a cheaper way of upgrading to 3.0. Being an Imagine 1.0 user who didn't
upgrade to 2.0, you can be sure I'll be upgrading to 3.0..I would never have
upgraded in the first place if not for the Amiga Format distribution, so
instead of nil jack, Impulse will get $100 from me. Altho'...I never did
inquire as to Impulse's policy of upgrading 1.0 to 3.0...anyone know about
that?

Some other guy wrote:
> >
> > PS: I'm getting Lightrave because of this, and I encourage *ALL* Imagineers
> > to do the same, IN MASS!!!

I don't understand this. Does Lightrave come with Lightwave??? It was my
understanding that you still needed to own a Toaster or the Toaster
upgrade to get  Lightwave in the first place. It would certainly be too
expensive for me and I am sure for many Imagine owners..to spend $600 for the
toaster upgrade and $600 or whatever for lightrave. I'd rather just get the
Toaster if I had that kind of cash. However, if Lightrave comes with
Lightwave, I'd most certainly bite :-).

Trin Dominic Yuthasastrakosol        | We are like discrete sheep; we
Dept. Pharmacology and Therapeutics    | wait to see how the drove is going
University of Manitoba            | and then we follow the drove.




##

Subject: Imagine 3.0....NOW!!
Date:     Sun, 31 Oct 1993 14:24:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Roy Park)

Ok folks... in case you forgot, Impulse DID say they'll be shipping the first
3.0 manualess beta on October 31... so my guess is, my copy better be on the
way now!!!

Or... I can call Impluse and check tomorrow morning... and I will!

 ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Roy Park            | C= //    A3000@25Mhz-14.4HST-2MBPicassoII|
|[e-mail] |   //   DM3024-ST296N-LP240S-LP240S-LP105S|
|[e-mail]       | \X/  ViewSonic17-2MBChip/12MBFast-Emplant|
 ---------------------------------------------------------------


 APO/SparX


##

Subject: Thank You!
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 14:33:23 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

To all those who reponded to my query on education/training I would
like to thank you. I did send mail to each of you but for some reason
it all came back this weekend 3 or 4 days later? anyway I wll see what the
problem is but in the meantime thanks all of you.

                        Lesk


##

Subject: Golden Glint
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 14:29:38 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Hi to those who have been talking about the golden glint;
    I was wondering if you could track your light like your camera to
an axis then move your axis across your golden letters, if angled right
you should get an interesting effect with the reflections moving themsevles
instead of something more stationary by just moving the light or trying
to rotate the light(this is horrible I can never get the light right where
I want it, Well ok it takes a number of tries) anyway Just a thought I haven't
tried it but if it can be done I would like to hear about it.

                        Thanks and good luck
                             Lesk


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 & AmigaFormat...
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 15:43:52 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

On Sun, 31 Oct 1993, Trin Yuthasastrackosol wrote:

> upgrade to 2.0, you can be sure I'll be upgrading to 3.0..I would never have
> upgraded in the first place if not for the Amiga Format distribution, so
> instead of nil jack, Impulse will get $100 from me. Altho'...I never did
> inquire as to Impulse's policy of upgrading 1.0 to 3.0...anyone know about
> that?

    In their last news letter they stated that the upgrade price for
1.0-1.1 would be $200...




##

Subject: Lots o stuff a flyin...
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 15:04:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Well It looks like many of you are upset about impulse mmmmm Well It only
makes sense. Think about it, What was their first change of platforms
well, well, well, MSDOS going from ADOS to MSDOS is no small feat and
I am not trying to offend the msdos users but bailing wire and duct tape
is in heavy use there and it is a big BIG mountain to cross. A better choice
could have been made on platforms nonetheless they did it. Now they have to
pay the price! The marketing strategy is simple survive. if they are in
trouble (other companies have tried this to build a user base when sales
are down) then this approach makes very clear sense development is not cheap.
    I think the most imprtant thing to remember is that if impulse is
around to support their product we are moving forward if not then we find
the next boat. If I paid $600.00 for a product that made me $5000.00 I don't
think I am going to spend much time complaining about what somebody else
may or may not have paid for the same product. i am going to try to make more
money. And I do hope we all do very well by this product. I just hope we all
remember its not impulse or imagine but our individual talent that is most
important whatever software/hardware we use! And to those involved in flamming
here I hope you will stick around. If the artist temprament follows the norm
I am going to be VERY anxious to hear how you use 3.0 when it does finaly
arrive, I am sure my imagination will be pressed when I see your work and
I look forward to it.

                        RENDER HO!
                          Lesk


##

Subject: whining, and a _real_ question..
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 19:28:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Daniel Jr Murrell <[e-mail]>

Guys,
  The whining and bickering is getting really ridiculous.  WE don't
own the copyright to Imagine, Impulse does.  What they say for the
product goes.  It's not like 2.0 came out a couple months ago.  I
didn't see any whining when 2.0 was being bundled with Firecrackers
and Opalision.  Do you resent those people who got it free as well?
The bottom line is that Imagine is getting a much wider user base,
which means more $$ for Impulse, more development $$ for Imagine, and
with more users to satisfy, hopefully faster and better upgrading of
Imagine.  Anyway, I'm sure AF _didn't_ get the right to sell 2.0 for
free, so SOMEBODY paid a penny.  It seems to have paid off for all
parties involved, which is good.  We want the Amiga to prosper too,
you know, and more $$ in the development community is good.
  I, myself, got 2.0 for only $100.  I bought it from a friend who was
selling his system.  I only had Turbo Silver 3.0 up to then.  So,
since I didn't pay $200-$300 for the TS->2.0 upgrade, am I one of the
bad guys too?  Calm down, and be happy that more folks are using what
I think is the best, least expensive, rendering system out there.

Ok, my question:
  I needed to create a landscape for use in a Wavefront animation the
other day.  I didn't have much time, so painting what I wanted in
Vistapro and saving that as an .iob was out of the question.  So I
dusted off my Terrain disk (remember that ol' program? :)  I made a
really nice landscape, exactly what I needed, but then I couldn't get
Imagine to load the object.  I eventually had to boot Turbo Silver up,
at the Impulse guys' suggestion, and load it in there and save it back
out.  The problem there was that TS is so old, it apparently doesn't
work with OS2.1.  I had to use a friend's softbooting 3000 to use 1.3,
so that I could get it done.  A little hassle, but I'd prefer a more
direct way to do it next time.  Has anyone had success converting
these old objects?  Glenn, does T3D load them?  Terrain is _still_ a
really good program for the money (I bought it for $10 from Creative a
few years back), and was really a lifesaver in this case.  I wish
they'd upgrade it too, the palette is a little anti-2.x-ish.

Dan
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Terrain
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 20:58:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Daniel Jr Murrell writes:
> The problem there was that TS is so old, it apparently doesn't
> work with OS2.1.

Turbo Silver Pro v3.0A works fine on my 2.1 A3000.

Anyway, I _think_ I remember reading that Imagine 3.0 will load those
Terrain files ... or maybe that 3.0 will come with a new Terrain, or
have it builtin (?)

Yes I like Terrain too.  It could use an update though.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer