Amiga Tools 3/Amiga Tools 3.iso/grafik/raytracing/imagine/tips/arc47.txt

Text File | 1994-05-07 | 279.0 KB | 7,181 lines

This is the Imagine Mailing List ([e-mail]) Archive #47
covering messages from Feb. 02. 1994 to Mar. 3. 1994.
If you have any questions or problems with this file, E-mail Nik Vukovljak
at [e-mail]

Thanks goes to Neil Miller for his efforts in creating the new header stripper
for me.

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

IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #1  ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Bump maps and textures
Date:     Wed, 2 Feb 1994 14:00:05 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>of etc...' Email (that was pages and pages long) I got the impression that it
>is possible to do bump maps (as with Real 3d), if so how is it done.

You could use a variety of bump textures that come with Essence or
Imagine2.9(if you upgrade).

You can also use a brushmap made in DPaint or some other program and when you
apply it in the attributes, set it to be an altitude map.  If the map is
greyscale, whites would be the highest bumps, blacks the lowest, and greys
in between.  You don't usually want to go to extremes of contrast in the map
like black areas right next to wwhite ones.

None of these though will actually change the physical surface of your object,
only its appearance.  The surface is coloured to look as if it would bumpy.
If you take a plane, for example, from above it will look bumpy but as you
move you point of view lower & lower, finally onto the same level as the plane,
all you will see is a flat surface.

>What is phong shading????????

It is a method of shading that tries to hide the sharp edges of your objects.
Take two spheres, one phonged & one not.  Quickrender them and see the
difference.  On the un-phonged sphere you can see the edges making up the
triangles.  The phong sphere on the other hand looks as if it had a smooth
surface.

Again, this is just a trick, and you object's surface really isn't changed.
If your sphere has too few points, you can clearly see that around its
edges, it is not a smooth curve.  Phong shading won't hide that.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #2  ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Roman Helmet, how to?
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:12:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 2 Feb 1994, Stethem Ted 5721 wrote:
>
>     I have a Greek helmet object with all those features if you are
> interested.  I could probably attach it and send it if you want.  Don't know
>
Could you please upload it to wuarchive?  Along with any other
arms&armor-themed objects you've created?  They'd go pretty well with some
of the D&D stuff I've been working on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #3  ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: pc stuff
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:52:55 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 2 Feb 1994, Stethem Ted 5721 wrote:

> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 10:00:00 PST
> From: Stethem Ted 5721 <[e-mail]>
> To: IML <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: pc stuff
>
>
>     This was talked about a few months ago on this mailing list.  The
> absolute, best PD hi-res, FLC (especially Imagine FLC) player for MS-DOS is
> Hi-AAPlay from Autodesk.  Somebody on this list  provided the Internet ftp
> site directory where one might be able to get it.  That is where I got it
> but I don't remember what the address/directory is anymore.  If you are
> REALLY interested, I could probably ZIP it, and send it out as an email
> attachment (which I believe is being uuencoded). I have been having pretty
> good luck with this method of file transfer.
[other neat stuff about FLI/FLC and how this player show Amiga ANIMs]

Could you please post this to the list?  I'm sure there are plenty of
people who would love to get this.  If it is a huge archive, though, it
may be better just to point out where it is if you find out.

Earl C.
[e-mail]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #4  ***************************************:-)

Subject: Soft Shadows (was: Bump maps and textures)
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 14:19:36 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Kent Kalnasy)

At  2:00 PM 2/2/94 -0500, Jason B Koszarsky wrote:

>>What is phong shading????????
>
>It is a method of shading that tries to hide the sharp edges of your objects.
>Take two spheres, one phonged & one not.  Quickrender them and see the
>difference.  On the un-phonged sphere you can see the edges making up the
>triangles.  The phong sphere on the other hand looks as if it had a smooth
>surface.
>
>Again, this is just a trick, and you object's surface really isn't changed.
>If your sphere has too few points, you can clearly see that around its
>edges, it is not a smooth curve.  Phong shading won't hide that.

I noticed this when rendering lamps in which the edge of a lampshade
determined the pattern of light which was cast.  While the lampshade was
nicely phong shaded and looked smooth, the lighting pattern revealed
the polygonal nature of the model.  It taught me to make sure that edges
of any object which will cause shadows are sufficiently smooth.  Here's
a case where soft shadows would be very helpful.

Does anyone have suggestions for emulating soft shadows?  Multiple, closely
spaced light sources?  Partially transparent edges?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kent Kalnasy (speaking only for me)              [e-mail]
 Loral Advanced Distributed Simulation, Inc.             Bellevue, Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #5  ***************************************:-)

Subject: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 09:41:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

Hi all...

I am one of the unlucky plebs to not have any better colors that HAM
can provide on my Amiga.  I am thinking of buying a DCTV module.
Any comments on this??
Is there a better solution for this? (I am considering the RAM consumption for
anamations.)

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.




/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-SUN
Graeme Mc Donough,
INTERNET: [e-mail]  (postmaster)
                                                                        ///
Monash University                                                      ///
Dpt of Earth Sciences                                                 ///
Clayton, Melbourne                                                \\\///
Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3168                                           \XX/
PHONE: [phone]
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-TWIRL





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #6  ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Parnet = Twin Express
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 22:40:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Tim Salazar <[e-mail]>

As to using Imagine to design and xfer to the PC. I haven't tried it with
Imagine sobjects and stage files per se, but I have used TwinnExpress to
transfer directories with imbedded dirs and files. The slashes transposed
perfectly to the PC. Even though when going to the Amiga the slashes go
every which way. (This doesn't seem to make a diff to the Amiga thou.)

Tim Salazar  [e-mail]




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #7  ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Soft Shadows (was: Bump maps and textures)
Date:     Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:00:59 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>Does anyone have suggestions for emulating soft shadows?  Multiple, closely

What I do gives me a less harsh shadow.  Sometimes I will place two lights
in the exact same location.  One will have the normal intensity that I want
to illuminate my scene & cast shadows.  The 2nd light is less intense and
doesn't cast shadows.

Jason K.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #8  ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Action editor...? (was: 33300 lines of drivel)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:22:59 -0400 (AST)
From: the Shockwave Surfer <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 2 Feb 1994, Ken Morton wrote:

>     I've played with Infini-D on the Mac - they have a great way of
> handling the above.  Their time line is like the action editor except:  It
> isn't frame-dependent (everything is in time increments and you can tell
> it to render x number of frames per second (this sort of functionality is
> *desperately needed* in Imagine!).  You can cut/paste/copy drag all the
> event points.

Lightwave is good that way....you can drag keyframe events around in a
time-line graph. You can scale and shift groups of keyframes....makes it
very easy to change the length of an animation. I use this feature on
EVERY animation I do with Lightwave, and would really like to have it in
Imagine.

>     Oh, one other thing Infini-D has that sorta neat.  On any view you
> can drag a selection box and have it rendered.  So you can spot check
> something w/o rendering the whole thing (Like, I was doing molding on a

Turbo Silver used to have this....it was silly of Impulse to drop that
feature. Lightwave has it too. Good for rendering a small "window" in an
area that shows motion, while leaving alone the areas that are static in
sequential frames. Works a lot better than taking out some objects &
rendering a Bdrop....cause you get true reflection/refraction. Great
time-saver. Used to use it all the time in TS.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #9  ***************************************:-)

Subject:  Re: amiga PERL
Date:  Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:23:23 -0500
From: "rob (r.d.) hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Dear Shockwav,

> Are you running PERL on the Amiga? If so, what brand/version? I've used
> it on the UNIX boxes, but not on the Amiga yet...I had heard that it
> wasn't all that stable in the ported version. PERL is a good choice for
> this sort of thing....animator-programmers take note. The only problem
> with PERL's power is that it is goddamn nigh unreadable :)

  I have PERL for the Amiga, but in practice I use my HP workstation
exclusively. I have a high-speed modem connection from home, so it's just as
easy. My job involves leading a team of programmers that used to code in C but
now use PERL exclusively, so it was a natural choice.

  I've been speaking with Glenn Lewis about this project. Depending upon the
usefulness of AmigaPERL, we may eventually produce a binary version of a tool
to be included with T3DLIB, but PERL would give the end user more flexibility.
Time and demand will tell.


regards,
Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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                        |
| Bell Northern Research                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #10 ***************************************:-)

Subject: PC Memory Help!
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:01:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Morton <[e-mail]>

    Hi.  Ive been having memory problems w/Imagine 2.9 on my PC.  It's
either telling me that it doesn't have enough memory to setup, or it's
leaving out sections (rather annoying!).  I have 8 megs'o'RAM and I run
imagine with a clean boot.  Should I be using any of those memory widgets
(and if so, what?)?

    Oh, Imagine reports 5.4 megs free when I first open it.


            Thanks

            Ken



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #11 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:06:16 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 3 Feb 1994, Graeme Mc Donough wrote:
>
> Hi all...
>
> I am one of the unlucky plebs to not have any better colors that HAM
> can provide on my Amiga.  I am thinking of buying a DCTV module.
> Any comments on this??
> Is there a better solution for this? (I am considering the RAM consumption for

> anamations.)
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I would also like to hear feedback on this.  I've been thinking that
perhaps an Amiga 1200 + FPU/RAM + DCTV + Consumer VCR would be the best low
end way to render Imagine animations to tape.  AGA + DCTV should fairly
rock in FPS, and be high color enough for television viewing.  Thoughts?

Earl C.
[e-mail]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #12 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Soft Shadows (was: Bump maps and textures)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:19:32 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
> Does anyone have suggestions for emulating soft shadows?  Multiple, closely
> spaced light sources?  Partially transparent edges?
>

Sounds like you already came up with a few good ideas there.  Maybe add the
Essence texture that makes it more transparent on the edge and less
transparent in the middle.  Can't remeber the name, its a noise texture though.
It was used for the fire tutorial in the last Apex news letter, I think.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one" - Unknown



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #13 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:58:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Collett <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 3 Feb 1994, ecorbin wrote:

>
> I would also like to hear feedback on this.  I've been thinking that
> perhaps an Amiga 1200 + FPU/RAM + DCTV + Consumer VCR would be the best low
> end way to render Imagine animations to tape.  AGA + DCTV should fairly
> rock in FPS, and be high color enough for television viewing.  Thoughts?
>

Is there a new version of DCTV that takes advantage of the AGA modes?

>
> Earl C.
> [e-mail]
>



   r--\            _____   ***************************************
   |   |    ___----     \  *Ray Collett -- [e-mail]*
   |   \__--             | ***************************************
   |   *                 | *Partner -  PSI Animations  - 624-8185*
   /           //       /  *17924 SW Pilkington Rd Lake Oswego OR*
  |           //        \  *Professional  3D Titling & Animations*
  |       \\ //          | *Video Editing - Rotoscoping - AB roll*
  /        \X/           | ***************************************
 |                       | *   Rendering my life away....  :^)   *
  \______________________| ***************************************




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #14 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Soft Shadows
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:16:14 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

I use a different 3d package but I was instructed to create a
ring of about 10 lights each at 10 percent intensity in a ring.
These will create soft shadows as if from 1 100% intensity light
source.  I've seen renderings and it looks good (at least from
ray traced mode).  It does slow down rendering a little to
have that many more light sources to have to calculate.

Just a thought,
shawn joyce
[e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #15 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: AAPLAYHI locations
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 11:07:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

I can't believe it, I actually found the original post for the sites where
AAPLAYHI is available.  AAPLAYHI will play your MS-DOS Imagine FLC's.

>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
>
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: Imagine Mailing List
Subject: RE: AAPLAYHI
Date: Wednesday, February 02, 1994 4:52PM

Could you please post this to the list?  I'm sure there are plenty of
people who would love to get this.  If it is a huge archive, though, it
may be better just to point out where it is if you find out.

Earl C.
[e-mail]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #16 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Um... er...
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 11:56:13 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings,

Glen Lewis:

>... I sent you a long-ish message. I have received no reply from you. I can
>now draw one of several conclusions: ... [followed by 3 "conclusions" that
>make me sound like I'm purposely and maliciously ignoring you]

Sorry Glen, please understand there is no mal-intent here.  As I posted soon
after signing on, I got sick.  I didn't get around to really responding to
mail until about the third week of January.  I have been responding to some
of the older stuff, but haven't gotten to it all yet.  I read, and really
liked, your note and have been wanting to get back to it - I did respond to
a heap of that older mail (including yours), but I use vi on the amiga -
it crashed - I lost the entire note and part of my hard drive - it was 3am
- I went to bed - since then, I just haven't gotten back to it.  (the vi
I use is aztecs old 'z' - is there any /free/ vi editors on the amiga that
are less buggy than this one?).

I also wanted to get to responding to (I think it came from 'Roger'?) a
message from someone that was afraid Impulse was abandoning the
professionals that use Imagine.  Briefly, don't worry - what Mike said
wasn't meant to be interpreted that way.

On the subject of "conclusions" - This isn't directed at you Glen, but
towards a more general tone I'm seeing here on the net - most of the
"conclusions" that people are arriving at here sound more like paranoid
conspiracy theories than objective conclusions based on the available facts.
I'm supprised by the amount of misinterpreted, misquoted, and misconstrued
information I've seen on here.  I chalk some of it up to misunderstanding
and lack of communication, but part of it is totally illogical and looks
more like it's being used to support some personal drama that says,
"everyone's trying to screw poor little me."  RELAX!  It just ain't so.
Impulse is doing everything they can to get the best product out as quickly
and inexpensively as possible.  We've probably made mistakes, but it's
asanine to assume that we would purposely do anything to hurt our user base.

We want EVERYONE to use Imagine, and we want EVERYONE to have FUN using
Imagine - (and to have fun being entertained by what's been done with
Imagine).  Its great if people use other software along with Imagine (or
Imagine with other software as the case may be).  The results get better,
the envelope of creativity gets pushed, and in the symbiotic relationship,
EVERYONE benefits.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a flame, its not intended to piss anyone
off.  Its just hard to take this stuff after, less than a month ago, I
get such a welcoming letter from Glenn, and now, due to my inability to
respond, I get this note laced with arsenic.  It's like I'm listening to
Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Glenn (that's a joke, not a slam ;)  As I stated
before, this is me, Scott, your talking to - not Impulse.  Please don't
use the kiss-ass (when I want something) vs threatining (when I don't get
it) techniques you may normally use when dealing with the faceless
corporate (non)entity.  All that stuff does is put me off - Just talk to
me like a normal person.  I'm here primarily to improve my skills as a
computer artist/animator by discussing how to tackle problems and achieve
results.  I happen to work at Impulse, and happen to be the only person
here that wants to voluntarily watch and respond to what's going on up
here.  thanx..

Steve Z:
>Is there a bug with multiple maps in 2.9?...

Yup. - Thats fixed already in the version we've got here.

Chris:
>...postscript interpreter ... I have the source if you guys need it.

Cool, send it to me.  If you want to email it, that's fine.  If you want to
USnail mail it to me, Impulse's address is:

Scott Kirvan c/o
Impulse Inc.,
8416 Xerxes Ave. N.
Mpls, MN, 55444

I didn't know this was available when I was working on the interpreter -
Sometimes, after being off the net for a while (years), its like you've
been in a vaccuum.  thanx...

-Mark:
>...wished for in the Action Editor ... resize, move, cut, paste, save ...

Resize/save: sorry, not in. Cut/Copy/Paste - ITS IN THERE! (yesss!)

SP:
>.... bumpmaps ... how is it done? ... What is phong shading?

Sorry, didn't realize you had V2.0.  There were only 6 textures that came
with the V2.0 stuff.  Essence has a bunch that work with V2.0.  The textures
for V2.9/V3.0 don't work with V2.0 so you can't use the Antique texture I
mentioned.  You can do bump mapping by adding a picture (a brush) to an
object through it's attributes requester and select "altitude map."  The
length of the brushes Y axis (it may be the Z axis, I don't recall off hand)
controls the apparent depth/height of the bumps.

Phong shading is a method of messing with surface normals to make an objects
surface appear smooth.  Add a primative sphere, give it some attributes
(color/specular/hardness) and render it with phong turned on and off to
compare.  The phong button is in the attributes requester.  Note that on the
phong shaded sphere, the edge of the sphere still has flat spots - that's
because the shader didn't actually alter the triangles, it only changed the
surface normals on the faces.

How's the Amiga Format tutorials been - I saw the first one but not any
since.

GreG:
>... I reload saved arrtibutes ... some values change slightly...
>[ ei.  -1.00000 -> -0.99997]

This is because the object file format uses fixed point numbers, and the
rounding from fixed to floating point introduces a very small error.

This error should be minimal enough that there is no real change in the
texture.  None of the textures should look for perfect integer numbers -
Using a -1 in a color gun was used as an example in the documentation.  Any
negative value should shut off the color application.  The texture
parameters that ask for integer numbers should have all been written to
round the number they get.  If these don't seem to be working properly, or
if you find any textures that appear to need exact integer numbers to work,
let me know and I'll get them fixed.

Ken: (and Alex too, I guess...)
>[Continuous time line and opening/closing groups in the action editor?]

These aren't going to make it into V3.0, but may be in one of the quick
upgrades.

>... On any view you can drag a selection box and have it rendered...

This is going to be in V3.0 (ala set zone from Silver).  I haven't used it,
so don't know exactly how it works.

Let me check into the Zoom In/out PC gig - that sounds familiar.


bip...                       sk...



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #17 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 15:44:27 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

> Is there a new version of DCTV that takes advantage of the AGA modes?

As far as I know, there is not.  I haven't seen Digital Creations run an
ad for DCTV in Amigaworld for a while.  Used to be there every month on
the same page as their ad for the Kitchen Sink.

Earl C.
[e-mail]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #18 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:34:36 CST
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Wilkinson)

ecorbin <[e-mail]> replied:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 1994, Graeme Mc Donough wrote:
> >
> > Hi all...
> >
> > I am one of the unlucky plebs to not have any better colors that HAM
> > can provide on my Amiga.  I am thinking of buying a DCTV module.
> > Any comments on this??
> > Is there a better solution for this? (I am considering the RAM consumption
> > anamations.)
> >
> > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I would also like to hear feedback on this.  I've been thinking that
> perhaps an Amiga 1200 + FPU/RAM + DCTV + Consumer VCR would be the best low
> end way to render Imagine animations to tape.  AGA + DCTV should fairly
> rock in FPS, and be high color enough for television viewing.  Thoughts?
[snip]

I have Imagine and a 6Mb A3000/25 at home. I can play anims off of my
Quantum 49 Mb at very reasonable rates thru my DCTV using BigAnim from
aminet. The trick is to play the anim off the drive but use your RAM to
create LOTS of buffers on the drive (addbuffers) and you have to fine
tune the BigAnim buffer size.  This takes some patience, but I am very
pleased with the results. I must admit that I'm more into VistaPro
anims lately :) but they're of the dreaded
"the-camera-zooms-everywhere" kinds of anims so they should be
representative! BTW, I assume the AGA comment means the extra bandwidth
since the DCTV uses only 8 or 16 colors.

Stephen

____________________________________
Stephen Wilkinson     [e-mail]      "Programming is like pinball. The
Software Engineer                         reward for doing it well is the
LB&M Associates                           opportunity to do it again."
____________________________________
#define OPINION         myown
#define COMPANYOPINION ~myown

      This message created using 87% recycled neuro-transmitters




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #19 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 20:10:10 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Lesk)

>
>I would also like to hear feedback on this.  I've been thinking that
>perhaps an Amiga 1200 + FPU/RAM + DCTV + Consumer VCR would be the best low
>end way to render Imagine animations to tape.  AGA + DCTV should fairly
>rock in FPS, and be high color enough for television viewing.  Thoughts?
>
>Earl C.
>[e-mail]

I have an amiga 1200 with M1230XA 50MHZ 68030 and 6882 with 16M ram,
Fairly rock well... yep! but It is not an 040 and it shows if you set up a
full 256 color workbench. However on anims it is great, I use the composite
out to tape and have extremely good results. but I run into problems with
imagine 2.9
trying to get the right screen. Sometimes it opens on my svga monitor and
sometimes says it cannot open screen etc. and then I have to do some
forcing with mainactor or options with vt. it really turns out a mess when
working in greater than 640X480 and I get very frustrated with imagine
because of this.
Also If using a IDE you can gaurantee what I call Klunkers.... You know
where it is going great really smooth and then it all stops to load from
disk then on again... I did a fly by with a ground plane using the
deathstar texture (yes I am renaming everything to nonmutant #%$&*&%^
abrviatns...) and My compliments to impulse on these new textures,I was not
impressed with the defaults but as I played with them I had some awesome
results. anyway I can do about 600 frames 640X400 high res laced etc. at
800 frames it turned out to be a 25Meg anim and didn't run smooth at all.
so I would suggest the 128M ram if you have the money and want to do longer
anims. 800 frames took about a day when using "cpu fastrom" even though
imagine 2.9 keeps crashing it is a lot (lots lots lots) faster. One last
thing to anyone who actually read this far thank you, and let me ask. How
do you get two objects on the same path but one is ahead of the other so
you can do a good chase scene?

                                        Thanks Lesk

P.S. To those who seem insistant on which machine is better here is a tidbit
I just loaded linux on a 386sx I know I can get unix for tha Amiga, Mac
quadra, VAX 6000 4-410, Vaxstation 3100 m38 and the RS6000 all of which are
within five feet of me right now. and all communicate together. If imagine
ran under unix how many of you would be having more fun than me? and do you
think I would give a hoot owls beak about which one was faster if I could
use them all as rendering engines?





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #20 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Roman Helmet, how to
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 19:10:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Saffold)

Uucp> >     I have a Greek helmet object with all those features if you are
Uucp> > interested.  I could probably attach it and send it if
Uucp> > you want.  Don't know
Uucp> >
Uucp> Could you please upload it to wuarchive?  Along with any other
Uucp> arms&armor-themed objects you've created?  They'd go pretty well with
Uucp> some
Uucp> of the D&D stuff I've been working on.

Yeah, does anyone have some armor objects available?  Especially
English plate mail armor?

 ...Blessed is he that expects nothing, for he shall not be disappointed.

 * Q-Blue 1.0 *--
*******************************************************************
*  Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway  *  Data/Fax: [phone]  *
*  Pueblo, Colorado USA              *  FidoNet:  1:307/18        *
*******************************************************************


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #21 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 08:49:02 +0100
From: "Robin Chytil" <[e-mail]>

On Feb 3,  8:10pm, Lesk wrote:
> One last
> thing to anyone who actually read this far thank you, and let me ask. How
> do you get two objects on the same path but one is ahead of the other so
> you can do a good chase scene?

I have two different solutions (one is better than the other, dependisg on the
case):

- Make an axis that is on the path, and group the 2 objects to this axis.

- The first object is following the path and the second one is "hinged" to the
first. Don't forget to make the position change (with interpolation, for the
second object) from the first image to the last one, and to re-position the 2nd
object relative to the 1st object on the last frame. Am I clear ?

Any correction/addition welcome.

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]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #22 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Altitude mapping bug removed ?
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 08:54:11 +0100
From: "Robin Chytil" <[e-mail]>

Scott (or anybody else not from Impulse),

What is the "altitude mapping bug" status in Imagine 2.9 (or maybe 3.0). You
know, when you wrap x and z an image on a sphere and make it as an altitude
brush map, the joint on the other side is visible. Or if you use this type of
brush in flat x and z on ground, repeatedly, the joint is visible. I think
everybody knows what I want to say.
Is this bug removed (sorry I can not at that time try it on Imagine 2.9...I'm
at work).

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]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #23 ***************************************:-)

Subject: double the speed of your fpu
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:00:46 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCool)

Hey guys and guyas,

    By a circuitous route, I came upon a hack that presumably
doubles the speed of an A3000's floating point unit.  It's a
simple solder hack, involving the CLK30 and resistor R120, and
the person who posted it said he was running a 300 frame anim as
a test, to see how it worked.  He said he was getting an
unofficial 40% increase in rendering speed with this hack.

    I was going to upload it in ascii to the IML, when it
occurred to me this is old news to everyone, since it seems to
have shown up in comp.sys.amiga.hardware--a section I only
accidentally stumbled into.

    So has anybody tried it?  Is anybody interested in
doubling the rendering speed of their 3000?  Want me to upload
the instruction file?




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #24 ***************************************:-)

Subject:      Re: PC Memory
Date:         Thu, 03 Feb 94 16:33:36 EDT
From: "Breno A. Silva" <[e-mail]>

I guess there should be a Virtual Memory solution suited for the Imagine...
somewhere. By the way, I can't seem to do *any* render in 3DS without mem
swap... I guess it drains memory in excess, and that VMEM really slows
down the performance. Hope there's a decent solution for Imagine.

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #25 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Um... er...
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:02:46 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Digweed)

** Including message from SSESCO.com!kirvan **
> Greetings,
>
> - I went to bed - since then, I just haven't gotten back to it.  (the vi
> I use is aztecs old 'z' - is there any /free/ vi editors on the amiga that
> are less buggy than this one?).

Get the excellent 'vim' (util/edit/vim-2.0-bin.lha on aminet, there's a
source archive as well). It's 'feels' just like 'vi', and there are a whole
host of improvements also (nested undo's etc). I actually use it on my Unix
boxes at work in preference to the system one!

Cheers,
Kev.

--

Kevin Digweed, 32-bit RTS development.
+-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Telephone : Switchboard : (0635) 32646  |   Email: arpa : [e-mail] |
|             Direct:       [phone] |          uucp : uknet!mfmail!ked|
+-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Smail: Micro Focus LTD, 26 West St, Newbury, Berkshire, England, RG13 1JT |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Execution error : file 'ked.int'
error code: 250, pc=b01, call=0, seg=0
250      Erroneous error ... Nothing Wrong .... Sorry.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #26 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: 4 Feb 1994   16:44:00 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

> > do you get two objects on the same path but one is ahead of the other so
> > you can do a good chase scene?


    another idea (stupid maybe) is start your animation a couple of frames in
but start the first object at frame 1.  ie: object 1 start to travel on
path at frame 1, object 2 at frame 30.  This will make the space difference
1 second worth.

mike c.
[e-mail]




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #27 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Two objects, one path Was: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:03:44 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Goldman)

> thing to anyone who actually read this far thank you, and let me ask. How
> do you get two objects on the same path but one is ahead of the other so
> you can do a good chase scene?
>
>                                         Thanks Lesk


    Well, you could make the decceleration of one object over a
number of frames that would speed it up for the majority of the path's
length (BTW, this method isn't the best)... Or, you could copy the
path (load it twice), send one object down one path at, say, frame 10.
Then send the other 'chase' object down the new, but same, path at
frame 20. That would give one object a 10 frame head start on the
other one, but they'd still be going down the 'same' path. In other
words, just load the path twice (renaming the second path) and offset
it by an appropriate number of frames. Then, send objects down the
different paths (making sure they're on their own offset paths). My
explanation is way to confusing...

                        Jeff G.----->

E-Mail: [e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #28 ***************************************:-)

Subject: multiple objects on path
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:40:41 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Lesk)

Thanks To everyone who responded I really appreciate this.

        As to answers there were many but basically it came down to realizing
it would be necessary two use two paths.
        If they are cicular then rotating one of them on one axis would put
one object in front of the other but thats not much of a scene.
        another way is by trying to use a delay in the action editor accell
frames etc. I was not quite happy with the results.
        another way was suggested to start one object after the other in
the action editor. this is really simple and I felt kinda dumb when it was
suggested I should have realized it from the start. It however still
presented a problem in that my scene is not the first frame and the second
object would pop out from nowhere.

        So finally after much thought and a little sleep I came up with
what I thought was worth a try. I copied my path and brought the second one
in and selected edit paths. I then added an axis between the first and
second axis in the loop then saved it. I think what it did was make the new
axis the first in the loop. now the objects start at different positions
(two paths same place etc.) and chase each other very well....

                                Thanks to all who replied
                                        Render Ho!
                                           Lesk




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #29 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: double the speed of your fpu
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:43:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Collett <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 3 Feb 1994, Mike McCool wrote:

> Hey guys and guyas,
>
>     By a circuitous route, I came upon a hack that presumably
> doubles the speed of an A3000's floating point unit.  It's a

stuff nuked...

> doubling the rendering speed of their 3000?  Want me to upload
> the instruction file?
>

yes, please.




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #30 ***************************************:-)

Subject: A man walks into a bar with a duck on his head...
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:04:45 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings,

I never really know what to use as a Subject when I'm just answering a
bunch of questions.

Kent Kalnasy:
>...suggestions for emulating soft shadows? ...

I've done soft shadows by using a bunch of lights closely placed on a plane
(not a plane object, just a mathmatical plane> perpindicular to the stuff
I want rendered.  You may get some banding doing this, but with enough
tweeking, the results are pretty good.  Note:  The total amount of light
coming out of this light-pack should add up to no more than 255 in any
one color if you're using non-diminishing light sources.  For example,
if you're using 10 light sources and you want a white light, set all the
color params to 25.5.  Its easiest to build all the lights by using axes
in the detail editor and them group them. (don't forget to make them all
shadow casting.)

In V3.0 there is something called Light Textures, and one of the
textures is soft edge sources.  Sometimes this can give what you may
be looking for.  I've done some pics with a combination soft/hard edge
shadows, and the look is really cool - sort of a sublime impression of
depth between lights and objects.

GreG:
>...DETHSTAR texture .... not all the bevels are visable...sometimes they
>become obscured by other square panels...

That's sort of what I wanted it to do - not originally, but after I saw it,
I liked it - You know, the weird layered look it has.  I've been thinking
about taking another hack at a space/mechanical/paneled look - If I get the
time (and the imspiration) I'll do it.

>...assign a color range to the individual panels would be welcomed...

I'de like that too - problem was lack of space in the requester.  Maybe
I'll just lock down some other parameters on any newer one so colors can
be done with it.  (Bevels on the Window textures, hmmmmmm...)

>Can we increase the number of textures we can assign to objects...?

In V3.0 the number of textures/brushes is unlimited, and can be interleaved
so you can control the order in which textures and brushes are applied.

Nik:
>...bump mapping ...depend[s] on the y-axis thickness....  Impossible to
>use with irregular objects...

The Y axis doesn't affect the direction of the bumping in bump mapping
(brush type I'm assuming).  The length of the Y axis only determines the
*apparent* depth of the bumping - like the Bump Adjustments in the
textures.  The bumps that are added are always done perpindicular to the
objects surface, regardless of shape.

>... to be able to map a brush onto an object and have it deformed but
>following the contours of the object....

This isn't that easy to do.  I don't think anything that did this
automatically would work acceptably for all cases.  We've discussed
creating a new editor for controlling applications of brushes and textures,
but there's no time for this before V3.0.  For now, you have to do the best
you can with the application shapes available, restrict to subgroup, and
state tacking.

rosario:
>...underlay...an IFF in any/multiple view windows...[for tracing -
>rotoscoping] ... I don't think its THAT difficult an option to implement.

I use the Firecracker24 to do this - it replaces color 0 on an amiga screen
with a 24 bit image.  I think there are other graphics boards that will do
this too.  On the amiga, it is difficult to implement because of the lack
of screen colors available - it could be done on the AGA chipset amigas,
but anybody else couldn't use it.  I'de love this feature as well as a
light-table for tweening/animating.

>...control movement speeds...

V3.0 has spline interpolated motion with endpoint velocity control - I'de
wanted motion control graphs, but after using this I don't need them
anymore.  This is much more immediate than the graph idea was going to be -
it can all be handled in the stage where you get a good idea of the results
instead of messing with stuff in the Action editor.

>A more GUI approach to the new deformations,...numeric entry [and] mouse.

You can use numeric entry by using the menu item to get to deformations.
The buttons on the bottom of the screen let you do the deformations in
real time with the mouse.

>Texture Ideas...flooring...

I've been meaning to do some good wood floorings.  I got a real good
close-up oak by just using DinoSkin - I'll wrap these up with some other
stuff to do hardwood floors and parquets if there is time.

later....                             sk...








IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #31 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Altitude mapping bug removed?
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 11:34:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

    This brushmap "bug" you are talking about is not a  bug.  The "joint" is
occurring because you are not using a seamless brushmap.  The differences
between the edges are causing the joint.  There are several companies that
sell mathematically generated seamless brush maps to satisfy this need.  I
got a brushmap of Jupiter, from a Voyager .gif, and pulled it into a paint
program and kept modifying the left and right edges until they were almost
the same.  The "seam" almost disappeared, enough that I could do a full
rotation with almost no disturbance.
   The  altitude map is a whole different situation.  This is a definite bug
that is in 2.9 that was not in 2.0.  The altitude map is used to give the
appearance of different surface levels on an object.  This is a very neat
effect and needs to be fixed!
 ----------
What is the "altitude mapping bug" status in Imagine 2.9 (or maybe 3.0). You
know, when you wrap x and z an image on a sphere and make it as an altitude
brush map, the joint on the other side is visible. Or if you use this type
of
brush in flat x and z on ground, repeatedly, the joint is visible. I think
everybody knows what I want to say.
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
 ---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer                Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                       Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                       Fax :  [phone]


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #32 ***************************************:-)

Subject: FPU solder hack for A3000's
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:02:18 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCool)

Hey guys and guyas,

   Here's that fpu solder hack for the A3000 I mentioned last night.
Response is such I thought I'd go ahead and upload it.  Please keep me
posted on your results, as I'm fascinated.


I just thought I'd tell all A3000 owners something they might find
interesting:

I right now run my FPU at 50Mhz, and it works!

I've been rendering a 300 frame animation for the last 24 hours to test
the FPU, and sofar there's been no problems. The temperature in the room
is 21 degrees centigrade, and the temperature of the FPU is still under
40 degrees (according to a thermometer I left in the immediate vicinity
of the FPU), so there doesn't seem to be any heat dissipation problems.
I'll continue to render for a few days more to make absolutely
sure the FPU can handle the doubled speed.

            According to AIBB I'm 11-96% faster than an ordinary 25Mhz A3000 on
floating point (I assume the differences depend on the amount of memory
accesses done by different types of tests). In the beachball test (the
interesting one) I'm 40% faster than a 25Mhz A3000.

SysInfo claims that I'm doing 1.1MFlops, as compared to the 0.66 I did
before the hack.

The beauty of this hack is that it didn't cost me a penny.

This is the way it was done (thanks to Stefan Johannesdal for telling
me how to do it!):

1) If you look at the motherboard from the front of the computer, you
will see the FPU close to the front/middle of the computer. Locate
pin 11 (it's the second from right on the far side of the 68882).
>From this pin a copper wire goes out then right, and then disappears
down through the card on the right side of the FPU. This wire is the
FPUCLK (or CLK30), and has to be cut (preferrably on the underside of
the motherboard. It resurfaces one cm to the right of where it went
down, and me and my more soldering experienced friend cut it between
these two points).
2) Locate resistor R120 (22 ohm). It's just left of the 50Mhz crystal,
and the far side of this resistor is to be connected to the FPUCLK
pin of the 68882. We did it this way: we soldered a wire on the underside
of the card from the point where the wire after the R120 goes through the
motherboard, to the point where the FPUCLK wire from pin 11 went through
the motherboard the first time.

That's it. We tried to do it neatly, and to make it as hard to spot as
possible for service technicians (I've still got warranty...maybe), but
if that's not a concern you can simply solder a wire between R120 and
the FPUCLK pin, after cutting the FPUCLK wire. The greatest problem was
actually dismantling/reassembling the A3000...

***************************************************************************

            DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any errors which might have got
ten
into this post, or for any mistakes you might do when trying to repeat
this hack, nor for any damage it might cause. It works for me, on my
A3000, but there's no guarantee it will work for you. Don't try this
unless you're absolutely sure that you can handle it. This hack pushes
the FPU beyond it's specs, and might shorten the FPUs lifespan, and
cause computational errors. I have no indication this is the case, but
it is a definite possibility.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #33 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:33:30 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

All you really need to do is offset the axis of the second object to
match the distance (and relative position) that you want it to follow
behind the first object.  Track both to the same path - the axis of the
object is what follows the path.

If you don't want the second object to follow -exactly- behind (which
might lead to a computer-ish look), you could copy the first path and
modify the points.  Move the start and end points backwards according to
how far you want the second object to follow, and also modify the
intermediate points a little so that it's not exactly the same as the
first.  Track the first object to the first path, and the second object
to the second path (duh ;^).

--
Jeff Walkup <[e-mail]> Computer Graphics, Animation, Video


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #34 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  A man walks into a bar with a duck on his head...
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:41:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ziolkowski)

Hey, I had a question about that unlimited map bit... Will 3.0 be able
    to read the map just once per frame, and then put it wherever
    it has been placed?  This would be really cool.
steveZ                 Rhythm & Hues, Inc.
celia![e-mail]
"That's not Art Linkletter, that's Mickey Mouse!"
            -Art Linkletter, Disneyland opening day



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #35 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Altitude mapping bug removed?
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 15:01:13 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Stethem Ted 5721 wrote:

>
>     This brushmap "bug" you are talking about is not a  bug.  The "joint" is
> occurring because you are not using a seamless brushmap.  The differences
> between the edges are causing the joint.  There are several companies that
> sell mathematically generated seamless brush maps to satisfy this need.  I
> got a brushmap of Jupiter, from a Voyager .gif, and pulled it into a paint
> program and kept modifying the left and right edges until they were almost
> the same.  The "seam" almost disappeared, enough that I could do a full
> rotation with almost no disturbance.

I've noticed this problem myself and even with a seamless brush. I
believe that a problem does exist.

Nik.



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #36 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Vertex2.0Demo
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 23:55:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (Tyrone Marshall)

What root is the Vertex2.0Demo located in and what site carries it?

                Tyrone Marshall





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #37 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Textures
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:42:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

     Hey folks, just having a problem with a texture. I've got radwind
applied to a small (curved) portion of a spaceship yet I'm getting windows
ALL over the place. I figured that restricting the texture's box to a
certain area would work and I can't, for the life of me, figure out what's
wrong. I know I can make another object (or attempt the dreaded booleans)
but I'd like to avoid that situation. Any help appreciated.

                                        Christopher.

ps. I've seen the posts on emulating soft shadows and it works so-so for
me but it's better than nothing, good stuff guys. I managed to figure out
automated field rendering lately so if anyone is up on their arexx, I'll
explain (I'd post the script but I didn't write it myself ;-).
Does anyone out there have an easy motion blur script? ADPro preferred (as
Imagemaster is crashy on me) as I can't get the one I have to work.

--
....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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #38 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Textures
Date:     Sat, 5 Feb 1994 11:51:47 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>applied to a small (curved) portion of a spaceship yet I'm getting windows
>ALL over the place. I figured that restricting the texture's box to a

The texture's axis box does not restrict application of the texture as it
does with brushmaps.  Some textures use the axis to define start/stop positions
but not all.

To restrict the texture, create a subgroups of faces where you want the texture
applied.  Then under the texture attributes, use the restrict to subgroup
option.

>Does anyone out there have an easy motion blur script?

I'd be interested in something for ImagemasterRT, haven't done too much rexx
programming yet.


Jason K.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #39 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Textures
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:45:57 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>Hi, have you tried creating a sub-group and restricting the
>texture to the sub-group?...(I assume you know how, but I will say how
>just in case..)
>Render and you should have the desired effect.

     And I was just using subgroups the other day, didn't think of using
them for textures...... Thanks!

     Here's another one...... I presently converting all my 2.0 projects
and objects (in which I used a LOT of Essence textures ;-( to 2.9. Most
effects I've been able to translate but I've been having problems with my
spaceship deflectors (get Scottie! ;-). With essence I'd just apply blobc
to a transparent plane and morph it over time for a fractelly, energy
effect. I've been using filnoise2 to some degree of sucess but it 'aint
nearly as nice. Any suggestions? What are people using to dirty up
objects? Is there something that recreates the effect of fracturb etc...?

                                       Happy rendering....

                                                 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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #40 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Field Rendering
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:54:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>Hiya! I'd certainly be interested in seeing info on Automated Field Rendering.
>Heck, even post the ARexx script!

     The process itself is pretty simple, automating it is not! Simply
double the length of your animation to generate it at 60fps. HALF the
vertical resolution of the images you're generating and you've just field
rendered. To make the animation, load a backdrop in ADPro that's double
the vertical resolution of the images generated. Composite the first field
(frame1) in the upper half (0,0) and the second field (frame2) in the
lower (0,200 if generating a 640x400 anim). Use ADPro's interlace operator
and viola! Now do this for the rest of the frames.........
     I'm presently trying to turn what I have into a FRED script and will
post it when completed..

                                            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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #41 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Textures
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 11:03:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>>Does anyone out there have an easy motion blur script?
>
>I'd be interested in something for ImagemasterRT, haven't done too much rexx
>programming yet.
>Jason K.



     I, unfortunatly deleted my ImagemasterRT blur script but you might
contact the author that sent it to me.

     "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

                                                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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #42 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: double the speed of your fpu
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:50:21 MET
From: [e-mail] (Paul Kolenbrander)

Hello Mike McCool,On 03 FEB 1994 22:00:46 you said regarding double the speed of
 your fpu:

>           By a circuitous route, I came upon a hack that presumably
> doubles the speed of an A3000's floating point unit.  It's a
> simple solder hack, involving the CLK30 and resistor R120, and
> the person who posted it said he was running a 300 frame anim as
> a test, to see how it worked.  He said he was getting an
> unofficial 40% increase in rendering speed with this hack.

>           So has anybody tried it?  Is anybody interested in
> doubling the rendering speed of their 3000?  Want me to upload
> the instruction file?

I saw it in c.s.a.hardware. It worked for some people, but for others
the FPU behaved flakily and system crashes ocurred after that hack.
Personally I'm not taking the risk of messing up my FPU by overclocking
it 100%. (from 25MHz to 50MHz) The chip will run much hotter and it's
lifecycle might be shorter. And since it's soldered in. I know Motorola
25MHz parts _can_ able to run at 50MHz. This is due to their checking
process. But for the same money it's one of the one's only able to do
25MHz. For those doing this hack, I suggest mounting a heatsink on the
FPU to keep it cool.

--  __
---/_/  |/ ------------+-E-mail only: [e-mail]--
--/aul  |\olenbrander--+-UUEncodes  : [e-mail]----
-----------------------+----------------------------------------
-Regd. Amiga&CD32 Dev.-+-A4000/040 & A3000. Best Of Both Worlds-



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #43 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Textures
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 12:48:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Christopher Stewart wrote:

>
>
>      Hey folks, just having a problem with a texture. I've got radwind
> applied to a small (curved) portion of a spaceship yet I'm getting windows
> ALL over the place. I figured that restricting the texture's box to a
> certain area would work and I can't, for the life of me, figure out what's
> wrong. I know I can make another object (or attempt the dreaded booleans)
> but I'd like to avoid that situation. Any help appreciated.
>
>                                         Christopher.

    I have had this same problem as well.  The only work around I
could find was to have only two subgroups, one that you wanted the
texture applied to and one you did not.  I would then restrict the texture
the the subgroup that I did NOT want it applied to.  Then it would apply
itself where it told it not to and not apply itself where I did tell it to
(Still with me?).  This seems kind of sloppy to me.  In addition, the
window pattern is far from random (just like particles).  The pattern
repeats itself along the Z axis (perhaps along other axies as well).  I
assume that these will all be fixed in 3.0

    IF 3.0 can give me results as realistic as LightWave (though, of
course, not identical), and IF these bugs are worked out, then I am quite
willing to wait until March (or April, or May, or...).

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel

            "To render:  By any means necessary!"




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #44 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and AGA
Date: Sun,  6 Feb 94 21:16:25 PST
From: [e-mail]

>
>> Is there a new version of DCTV that takes advantage of the AGA modes?
>
>As far as I know, there is not.  I haven't seen Digital Creations run an
>ad for DCTV in Amigaworld for a while.  Used to be there every month on
>the same page as their ad for the Kitchen Sink.
>
>Earl C.
>[e-mail]
>

I stopped by the DC booth at WOC and asked about an AGA Version of DCTV.
Their candid reply was that an AGA version of DCTV had been discussed.
They never said they would make one or were making one or anything about
specs, just that the idea had been discussed and an 8 bit hi-res DCTV
screen would like VERY nice.

Don DeCosta           |The nice thing about sanity is|  VM/Nomad2
[e-mail]   |you can lose it more than once|  Amiga/Imagine


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #45 ***************************************:-)

Subject: BBSs
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:13:56 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

    This may be a stupid question, but are there any free BBSs out there
    that have ftp access?  I would love to see some of the images
    being produced by the mailing list members; as well as downloading
    ICOONs, and the other programs available to the list.  I have a
    modem at home, but can't afford to join a commercial BBS right
    now.  Are there any free BBSs out there, or do I just have to wait
    until I join a commercial service?

    Dale



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #46 ***************************************:-)

Subject: picasso
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:59:00 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Paul Rance)

Dear All

What I'm after is someway of tricking Imagine2.9 into thinking that the
Picasso board is basically a 1200 or 4000 system with AGA chip set. When I
go to the project editor and clip on the "MAKE button (after chosen the
ILBM12 format and a HIRES format) a requester appears on the project screen
stating that there is no AA chipset present. Imagine2.9 must check something
in my 1500. What I want to know is what does it check for so that I can
change the parameter within Imagine 2.9 to stop this. If I can achieve this,
I can then produce 256 colour animations and play them through the Picasso
board with MainActor or VT.

Thanks

Paul



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #47 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: BBSs
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 14:47:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

    There are BBS's that do have FTP access on a request-only basis,
but there is a system somewhere that you can mail to that will retrieve
the file, uuencode it, and send it to you for free.

    Of course, I don't know where it is or what it's called...


    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel

            "...To Render:  By Any Means Necessary!!..."

On Mon, 7 Feb 1994, Dale R Rogers wrote:
>     This may be a stupid question, but are there any free BBSs out there
>     that have ftp access?  I would love to see some of the images
>     being produced by the mailing list members; as well as downloading
>     ICOONs, and the other programs available to the list.  I have a
>     modem at home, but can't afford to join a commercial BBS right
>     now.  Are there any free BBSs out there, or do I just have to wait
>     until I join a commercial service?




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #48 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Field Rendering
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 17:54:26 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> double the length of your animation to generate it at 60fps. HALF the
> vertical resolution of the images you're generating and you've just field
> rendered. To make the animation, load a backdrop in ADPro that's double
> the vertical resolution of the images generated. Composite the first field
> (frame1) in the upper half (0,0) and the second field (frame2) in the
> lower (0,200 if generating a 640x400 anim). Use ADPro's interlace operator
> and viola! Now do this for the rest of the frames.

While this method is similar in effect, it is not the same as field rendering.
The problem is that your interlaced frame still has an effective vertical
resolution of 200. Its just been scan doubled to 400 lines (although the
scan doubling is time shifted). In an application that truly supports field
rendering, you get the full 400 line vertical resolution (actually 480).
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #49 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Clouds
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:49:09 GMT
From: Tony Jones <[e-mail]>

Posted for Frank Aalbers:

In a message of 28 Jan 94  wrote to :

 >      Does anyone know of a way to make good looking clouds with Imagine? I
 > don't mean 3-D clouds, just clouds ala VistaPro & Scenery Animator. Might
 > be a good idea for a new texture.  :)

Well ! Try making some clouds with Scenery Animator and turn your camera vertica
lly up to the sky . Then render a pcture of it and use it as a brush with the "r
epeat" gadget and "mirror" gadget on.

HASTA LA VISTA from Franky !



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #50 ***************************************:-)

Subject: picasso
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:54:03 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> Dear All

> go to the project editor and clip on the "MAKE button (after chosen the
> ILBM12 format and a HIRES format) a requester appears on the project screen
> stating that there is no AA chipset present. Imagine2.9 must check something

Can you render to 24 bit and post-convert to ILBM12?  I've found its
best to do all your rendering to 24 bit originals.  Then you can convert
to whatever you want later - you get better results anyway from a
dedicated image processor (ImageFX, or whatever your favorite happens to
be).

  - steve


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #51 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  picasso
Date:     Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:25:56 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>Can you render to 24 bit and post-convert to ILBM12?  I've found its
>best to do all your rendering to 24 bit originals.  Then you can convert

I haven't actually sat down and timed this but when for me 24 bit renders
always seemed faster than 12bit, 24bit RGB that is.  I wondered if all
internal calculations were done in RGB24 and then converted to one of the
others.  It may account for the apparent time difference.  Anyone know for
sure?

Jason K.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #52 ***************************************:-)

Subject: transparency on brush maps
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 03:03:37 -0500
From: [e-mail]

I am trying to apply a brush map to an object and I want the background of
the brush to be transparent. My brush is a picture of a face, and I don't
want the white background of the brush to show up on the object, just the
face.  Do I have to mess around with color 0 on my brush, or maybe do
a transparency mask and a color mask on the object.  Do I need to use the
genlock option?

Thanks
  -Travis


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #53 ***************************************:-)

Subject: re: transparency on brush maps
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:54 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

On 8th Feb 1994, travis wrote:-

>I am trying to apply a brush map to an object and I want the background of
>the brush to be transparent. My brush is a picture of a face, and I don't
>want the white background of the brush to show up on the object, just the
>face.  Do I have to mess around with color 0 on my brush, or maybe do
>a transparency mask and a color mask on the object.  Do I need to use the
>genlock option?

    The way i do it is to create a filter map using the full colour
version. i make the background colour 0,0,0 and all the other colours
255,255,255 (make it two colour... it saves room on your HD!)... then
apply the new map as a filter map (with inverse image ON cos white
makes the object transparent and black makes the object solid)

    steve



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #54 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: transparency on brush maps
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 12:03:37 +0100
From: "Robin Chytil" <[e-mail]>

On Feb 8,  3:03am, [e-mail] wrote:
> Subject: transparency on brush maps
> I am trying to apply a brush map to an object and I want the background of
> the brush to be transparent. My brush is a picture of a face, and I don't
> want the white background of the brush to show up on the object, just the
> face.  Do I have to mess around with color 0 on my brush, or maybe do
> a transparency mask and a color mask on the object.  Do I need to use the
> genlock option?
>
> Thanks
>   -Travis
>
>
>-- End of excerpt from [e-mail]

IMO the only way to go is to make a second brush. only black and white (i.e. 2
colors), with what you want transparent in white and opaque in black, and apply
it at the exact same location as the colour brush, but as a filter brush.
Note : your white needs to be RGB 255,255,255 (i.e. 24bit), or if you use a 1
bitplane picture, as it uses a LUT (look-up table), it will refer as a RGB
15,15,15 white (on a scale from 0 to 15), which will be translated as a
15*16=240 (for R,G and B) white, which is a light grey. In that case, you
transparent will be slightly seen. To make it totally transparent, you need to
put "240" in the "Full Scale Value" field in the filter map requester.

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]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #55 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: BBSs
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 08:49:11 GMT
From: "Steve Essery" <[e-mail]>

Dale R Rogers:
>> This may be a stupid question, but are there any free BBSs out there
>> that have ftp access?  I would love to see some of the images
>> being produced by the mailing list members; as well as downloading
>> ICOONs, and the other programs available to the list.  I have a
>> modem at home, but can't afford to join a commercial BBS right
>> now.  Are there any free BBSs out there, or do I just have to wait
>> until I join a commercial service?

Cyrus J. Kalbrener:
> There are BBS's that do have FTP access on a request-only basis,
> but there is a system somewhere that you can mail to that will retrieve
> the file, uuencode it, and send it to you for free.
>
> Of course, I don't know where it is or what it's called...

Try sending mail to [e-mail] with the single line:

HELP

and it'll send back its help file.  I decided not to include it as its rather
long.  This ftp mail server is good with fast turn around times, though it
limits you to around 5 Meg of transfers a day.  Its invaluable for people like
myself who work isolated behind corporate fire walls.

Apologies for my boring work sig...

================================================================================

Steve Essery   Unix Support, Oracle UK    Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya,
                                          you killed my father, prepare to die.

Tel: [phone] ext 4572           What you don't know is that I too
Tel: [phone]                    am left-handed!
===============================================================================



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #56 ***************************************:-)

Subject: One hand clapping...
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 14:33:01 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings,


Robin Chytil: (and Nik:)
>[What is the status of the altitude mapping bug in V2.9?] ...
> when you wrap [a brush on an object and make it] an altitude brush map,
>the joint ... is visable.

The "status" of this, and most of the bugs in 2.0/2.9 is that they have all
been cataloged and will be wacked when we get to them.  We are presently
busy with design and implimentation (sp) of the features, and will get to
the bugs when finished.  When V3.0 is out, ask again about specific bugs and
I can probably tell you if they are still in there.


Tom Setzer:
>Are there going to be more or improved deformations in 3.0?...

Yes, there is a free form deformation tool in V3.0 that works great.  I've
done some very cool organic looking shapes with it as well as being able to
bend objects (I don't really dig the 'Bend' either).  The new tool relates
a lot closer to working with a piece of clay where you can squish/stretch
things.


steveZ:
>... about that unlimited map bit...Will 3.0 be able to read the map just
>once per frame, and then put it wherever it has been placed?...

If you mean, applying one map several times and having Imagine load it in
only once to save memory/time, I doubt it.


Glenn Lewis:

I'm not going to quote a bunch of stuff out of our letters, because its
just not worth it.  But - you brought up a few things I do want to mention
here.

First off, my apolagies for the insinuation that Glenn's notes to me were
either kiss-ass or threatining.  I probably should have organized that
paragraph differently, because that isn't what I was saying.  As I said,
Glenn's first note to me was very nice and "welcoming" - not kiss-ass.  I
then said his second note was "laced with arsenic" - meaning, basically,
a bit venomous and distasteful - not threatining.  The kiss-ass/threatining
riff wasn't directed at any one in particular, it was just saying, to
everyone, don't treat me like some ladder-climbing corporate-pee-on mouth-
piece for Impulse.  I didn't say, nor did I intend to even hint at, that
Glenn had done this.  My public responce to Glenn's private e-mail was done
to satisfy his, and everybody I haven't responded to('s), curiosity.

Now, TO ANYONE WHO WRITES PRIVATE E-MAIL TO ME:  Expect that I will answer
your questions publically. - I've got two reasons for this:  First, if you
ask a good question, there is probably a pile of people with the same
question who either won't, or can't ask it.  Answering it publically keeps
me from having to answer the same question over and over.  Second, its
just simpler.  I only have to post once to answer several messages, I can
dump all my incomming mail into one file and rip all the e-mail headers
out of it, and I don't have to worry about trying to remember who I've
told what to.


Jeff Walkup:
>>...spline interpolated motion...
>Could you clarify this for me?  Please, please pretty please say that it
>interolates keyframes that you set from the Stage.  I.e. position
>object, make key, move object, make ey - and the movement inbetween is
>smoothed automatically.  Not just with paths.  Please  ;^)

Ok, "it interolates keyframes that you set from the Stage."  Exactly like
you said.  This works great for the thing Lesk was asking about (getting one
object to chase another).  Using this to get objects to chase looks a lot
less sterile than the path stuff does.


Nik:
>[basically, a hit-and-miss discussion of the problems with altitude mapped
>brushes caused by the y-axis not being used to orient a brush map]

Dig, (I think...).  Yes, there is no way to use the Y axis to orient a bump
brush.  This isn't going to be changed by V3.0.  The only (inadequate I'm
sure) thing I can suggest is using the restrict to subgroup stuff with the
brush.  Looks like we need some sort of texture/application editor...


Jason K.:
>Could a "View Quickrender" option be added?...

I think this is supposed to be in V3.0.  There is also supposed to be an
option for saving a quickrender to any directory/filename you choose after
rendering it.

>...[moving objects] from 2.9 to 2.0, I lose defined subgroups...

The object format has changed a bit (because of states and stuff).  This may
cause that.  This won't happen when moving V2.0 objects into V2.9, but the
old code doesn't understand parts of the new format.


Andrew Vogel:
>[Will V3.0 have a library of loadable default texture attributes - Sorry,
>lost the original post]

We may do this IF 1) we have enough time and 2) we come up with some way to
generalize the texture directory so it will work on everyone's
configuration.

                    sk....

"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you."
    -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #57 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Essence on 2.9!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:29:17 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Wouldn't you like to run Essence texture on Imagine 2.9?  I bet you would!

And now you can!!!  Thats right boys and girls, Impulse, specifically Mike
H., flat out lied!  So, I've come up with a simple fix that will allow all
you Essence lovers to get back to using those grand textures.  Flame bait
will follow in a seperate message, so if you have questions about the
specifics on how to, reply to this message.  Otherwise, if you wish to
join in the flame fest that is sure to follow, reply to the message entitled
"2.9 Flame Textures!!"

Step 1:  copy your Essence textures to a new place, say Essence_2.9 drawer which

         you just created.

Step 2:  "zap" the Essence texture you wish to make work on Imagine 2.9
         (you need a program to edit binary files)

Step 3:  go to address location 0xFF, you should see a 0x10 there. The line
         will look something like this:

         90bc 0000 001a 6700 ff6a 90bc 0000 0010
                                            ^^^^

Step 4:  change the 0x10 at location 0xFF to a 0x20
Step 5:  save the file
Step 6:  change the file name to have .itx extension
Step 7:  run Imagine 2.9
Step 8:  try your new texture
Step 9:  Shout with joy!  WAH HOOOO YIPEEEE YAAAHOOOOIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Step 10: repeat process for each texture!!!!!!!!

I don't know if this will work for Essence II.  I can only assume it will.
Also, I haven't tried this on all textures(in fact, I haven't tried it at
all, I got a friend to do it), only a few.  If you have any problems with
any particular textures, give a yell.  BTW, these new textures won't work on
Imagine 2.0, so, thanks to Impulse, you will have to keep 2 copies on your
HD.  Whoop, last minute addition, for Essence II, the magic location is
5F.  Just change the 10 to a 20 and Voila.

Hope I didn't piss off too many people!;)


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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #58 ***************************************:-)

Subject: 2.9 Flame Textures!!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:29:51 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

      "Lets first address Essence Textures.  We had to change the file
structure of Imagine objects so that we could do things like Brush and
Texture tacking.  This facilitated a major change in how things are done,
et al the Essence Textures don't work anymore.  I realize that most people
won't believe this but we do not have a desire to break any product that
you the user finds valuable.  However, becuase you the user wanted these
other features of tacking, we had to make the changes that we indeed did
make.  SO, where does that leave the Essence textures, Simply put, in the
next couple of weeks we will release for public use the file formats of the
objects as well as the information for Apex and others to generate textures
that will work with Imagine.  I assume that Apex will augment their product
and make appropriate offerings regarding upgarding your present texture
base.  I have no control over the process they will use to get these new
textures to you.  They may charge you for them and they may give them to
you free.  That is of course between you and Apex. "

- Mike H. 1/5/94

EEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, wrong answer.  As we have seen from my little hack,
all that is required is a change to tell Imagine 2.9 that we are a texture
of that version.  Essence textures would have worked fine if you hadn't of
changed that number.  I'll post some assembler to accompany my proof if
you like?

    "Yeah we know that people want different file reqs, I suppose when
we have time to do this we will but we are too busy with other things like
BONES and Depth of Field or any number of other things that seem more
important.  I truly wish all we had to do was do new file reqs to make
people happy with the money they spend, somehow I think that this action
would not make everyone happy."
-Mike H.  1/6/95

Why am I flaming Impulse?  The above pretty much sums it up.  Instead of
spending time bringing things like the file requesters, display databases,
optimization, bug fixes up to date, time was spent replacing something we
already had and were satisfied with, Essence I & II.  Sure, Impulse added
a few nice new textures that weren't in Essence, but they repeated A LOT of
stuff already in Essence.  Talk about wasting time!!!  Why not just add the
textures not found in Essence, and then spend the rest of the time on other
things that are needed?  Why MAKE Essence obsolete with the flip of a bit?
HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT IMPUSE OR THE USERS OF IMAGINE!?!?!?!  The answer is
simple, it doesn't.  The only explination I can come up with, is that it is
or was an ego thing.  A decision based solely on pride.

Well, there you have it.  Ofcourse the above is just my opinion.  You're
welcome to try and change 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



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #59 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: One hand clapping...
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:27:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)


Scott Kirvan writes:

> >>...spline interpolated motion...
> >Could you clarify this for me?  Please, please pretty please say that it
> >interolates keyframes that you set from the Stage.  I.e. position
> >object, make key, move object, make ey - and the movement inbetween is
> >smoothed automatically.  Not just with paths.  Please  ;^)
>
> Ok, "it interolates keyframes that you set from the Stage."  Exactly like
> you said.  This works great for the thing Lesk was asking about (getting one
> object to chase another).  Using this to get objects to chase looks a lot
> less sterile than the path stuff does.

Yikes.  After reading this I think I should have been more verbose.
When I said "interpolate", I meant does it add "ease-in" and "ease-out"
to the movements, as well as "smooth" the curves.  I.e., if I create
three keyframes, one at the bottom-right of the screen, one at the
top-middle, and one at the bottom-left - will my object travel in a
smooth curve (as I want it to), or will it move in a triangle, with
sharp transitions between the keys (as it does now in Imagine 2.0)?

Sorry, don't mean to be a pain, just want to make sure we're talking
about the same thing.

--
Jeff Walkup <[e-mail]> Computer Graphics, Animation, Video


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #60 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Essence Patch Program (esstoim29)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:13:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

Hi.

As you may have heard by now, it is possible to modify your Essence and
Essence II textures to work with Imagine 2.9.  Well, I've known this for a
while, but didn't feel free to publicize it.  Since the cat's out of the bag,
I've decided to distribute my patch program.

To use it:

    Copy your Essence and EssAtts folder into your Imagine 2.9 folder.

    Run a CLI.

    Change into the new Essence folder.

    For each directory:

        Change into the directory.

        SPAT esstoim29 #?

That's it!

The actual change is a version number change.  You need to make a copy of the
tree, as above, because Imagine 2.0 and Imagine 2.9 check for individual
version numbers.

esstoim29 also renames your textures with .itx extensions, because otherwise
the Imagine file requestor would ignore them.  You don't need to add the .itx
extension to the texture instances in your old objects.

I guess this means that I can now admit that the 60-frame ray-traced Magic
Lantern anim for the Picasso which I'm about to release was done with Imagine
2.9, Essence I, and Essence II.  :-)

_john (IRE)

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

begin 644 esstoim29.lha
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MK[_VZ&H@.X&(@Q$/>LMY_$68J##/F6..\M.>/[>=IQG;$9W//R83! ;%=+_
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MGL;=RD=PA&WNV5F. 9'9P$ E>F$\[.-O Q*M#2=G<(\R:WG5QG;$9W!E(R,
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M0DFGH]<CM%8;S?OGZ*\@<9*L-\AE,49E)#0+#R-%##06M,5$I?PV91R<C1;
MW>.[@E:;F,8[+C%$7)E4H)Z:A]I5\\?D-HU&[EM9]"EOQ#?[]%6'?N!#^7!=
MN&KO^\J(4TRJVZ:;<01GTZ,4R%.,[I+SLT"7X;\I6H%NB+>H=IGDN+.;.<,2
MJL$_HN&$V<,7Z OTPQSZ)=-3\)]%GXNAJ,!W2?OZ2:HI5F.6&7JVIG5_V-"
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MWAW<JZVNY;U753]S-0W2>&E,),0ZW$\/Z<3E+.>UBGC?D_D,OWE?39'ZJ/
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"4  B

end


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #61 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Essence on 2.9!!!!!!!
Date: 09 Feb 94 11:16:02 CET
From: [e-mail] (Soren Wind)

 [ 8 Feb 94 ] [ Thomas Setzer -> me ]

 TS> Wouldn't you like to run Essence texture on Imagine 2.9?  I bet you
 TS> would!

Yes and thanks to you it is now possible.. :D

 TS> I don't know if this will work for Essence II.  I can only assume it
 TS> will. Also, I haven't tried this on all textures(in fact, I haven't

It didn't work, anyone else who want to give it a try or find another way to
patch the Volume II...

Please, i am not able to find the Way...

   _:        Sren -IZI- Wind          __     _____        _______  _:
  / \\     Imagine'er in IMPACT       (__) /\/\___ \/\_____\     / / \\
  \ //   Fidonet  : 2:230/418.30      /  \/ \/ \/  /  \ ___/\/ \/  \ //
  _\/   Amiganet : 39:141/104.30     /____\  \__\ /__| \\___/\__\  _\/
   :   Internet : [e-mail]     /     \      |__\_____\     :
   |A2000/030/882/9MB/345MB/33MHz+SVGA /_______\                    |
   .                                                                .
... Just do it...explore the possibilities!!!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #62 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: One hand clapping...
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:02:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (William V. Swartz)

>
> Robin Chytil: (and Nik:)
> >[What is the status of the altitude mapping bug in V2.9?] ...
> > when you wrap [a brush on an object and make it] an altitude brush map,
> >the joint ... is visable.

  Scott replied:
>
> The "status" of this, and most of the bugs in 2.0/2.9 is that they have all
> been cataloged and will be wacked when we get to them.  We are presently
> busy with design and implimentation (sp) of the features, and will get to
> the bugs when finished.  When V3.0 is out, ask again about specific bugs and
> I can probably tell you if they are still in there.
>

I hate to sound like a whiner but...

This made my heart sink.  I am more than willing to wait for 3.0 to be made
right but this sounds like I will have to subscribe to the update program
($100) or buy 3.1 (or whatever) for $xxx to get bug fixes that should be in
3.0, especially those in 2.0-2.9.  I hope I am wrong about this!

  //
\X/ -BiL-
    [e-mail]             (See my 'Imagine'-ary signature below)


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #63 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Essence on 2.9!!!!!!!
Date:     Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:55:05 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>TS> I don't know if this will work for Essence II.  I can only assume it

> It didn't work, anyone else who want to give it a try or find another way to

I tried the uuencoded program that was posted and it worked.  At the moment
I'm rendering an anim with textures from both Essence & Essence II under
2.9.

The only difficulty I encountered with using the program was that I couldn't
use the wildcard for more than 3 or 4 items in a directory.
If I typed 'spat esstoim29 #?' and I had say 8 items in a directory then it
would complain.  but for 4 or less it worked.  But eventually I got all
converted and it works so far.

Can we go the other way, to get 2.9 textures to work under 2.0 by switching
their version numbers to something 2.0 will accept?


Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #64 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Impulse & Apex
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 10:57:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Wow... What a weird development. I KNEW that there wasn't that much difference
between the 2.0 & 2.9 texture files, but to realize that only ONE BIT of
information changed... That smacks of underhanded dealing to me, on the part
of Impulse.

We all know that there is some bad feelings from Impulse for Apex, and I don't
want to get into the reasons or anything. It seems to me that the action taken
by Impulse is REALLY unprofessional. They tried to put the ball into Apex's
court, but this is really blowing up in their faces.

Scott? You or Mike care to comment on this?



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #65 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Forms Editor Freaks, Come on Down!!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 08:55:48 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Brad Molsen)

        Hello all, I've been spending some time trying to learn the Forms
Editor and am having trouble trying to manipulate it. Mr. Worley says that
it is "one of Imagine's most powerful object creation tools" but, I am
having trouble bending, twisting, and stretching the cross sections in a
way that I can see their relationship with the other cross sections. Even
scaling, which I would have thought would have involved a "scaling size
reference in the menu bar like the other editors is not giving me the
comparisons between the "key" sections I had hoped for. In lieu of a
scaling reference in the menu bar, I thought that possibly there would be
an onion skin type of outline of the first key section as a faint outline
to use as a point of reference in making the second key section the scale I
wanted it. What is one suppose to use as a reference when up or down
scaling between key cross sections? Have all you animators tamed this
editor or are you using the detail editor to create your objects? As always
any pointers or help would be appreciated.
                                Again, Thankyou in advance,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Toasters don't burn toast. People burn toast."
                        Curator Seattle Toaster Museum

Brad Molsen c/o  LORAL                          [e-mail]

13810 SE Eastgate Way Suite 500                 [phone]
Bellevue, Wa 98005                              Fax: [phone]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #66 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Imagine 3.0 bugs?
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 09:02:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

On 2/8/94, Scott Kervin writes:

>Robin Chytil: (and Nik:)
>>[What is the status of the altitude mapping bug in V2.9?] ...
>> when you wrap [a brush on an object and make it] an altitude brush map,
>>the joint ... is visable.
>
>The "status" of this, and most of the bugs in 2.0/2.9 is that they have all
>been cataloged and will be wacked when we get to them.  We are presently
>busy with design and implimentation (sp) of the features, and will get to
>the bugs when finished.  When V3.0 is out, ask again about specific bugs
and
>I can probably tell you if they are still in there.

    Does this mean Impulse is planning to release V3.0 with known bugs?!?
 The lack of multiple brushmaps, a bug in V2.9 that was not in V2.0, is a
very severe bug to me.  Not only that, there are some objects that appear
fine in the V2.0 detail editor but are invisible in the V2.9 detail editor
(Star Trek logo objects from wuarchive).  I also have objects from V2.0
which load and render with no problem, but V2.9 says there are "logical
errors".  Also, are we going to get some kind of explanation for these error
messages?  An error window with some cryptic message is not much help in
correcting the error.
   It really concerns me that I paid my money up front for a "new, improved"
version only to hear that it is going to ship with known defects in place.
 And that it is going to be up to me, the customer, to identify the defects?
 Aren't there supposed to be some Halvorson brothers testing the program?


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #67 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Essence on 2.9!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 9:31:59 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

> It didn't work, anyone else who want to give it a try or find another way to
> patch the Volume II...
>
My patch program works.  Try it.  Aloha.

_john



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #68 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Essence on 2.9!!!!!!! (fwd)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:15:44 EST
From: Frank Branham <[e-mail]>

>
>  The only difficulty I encountered with using the program was that I couldn't
>  use the wildcard for more than 3 or 4 items in a directory.
>  If I typed 'spat esstoim29 #?' and I had say 8 items in a directory then it
>  would complain.  but for 4 or less it worked.  But eventually I got all
>  converted and it works so far.
>

This tends to work much better:
list >ram:cooktext #? lformat="esstoim29 %s"
execute ram:cooktext

This is pretty much what spat does, and I've always had tourlbe with it.

Moo
Frank Branham


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Branham       | [e-mail] | "Toys are loyal, and
Sequent Consultant  | [e-mail]  | that's a fact." Dolls



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #69 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Impulse & Apex
Date:     Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:20:00 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>Wow... What a weird development. I KNEW that there wasn't that much difference

It is possible that changes to the texture formats haven't been implemented
yet.  Changing the check for a version number may make a difference with 3.0
that it really doesn't in 2.9.  So you may find that your converted Essence
textures won't work with 3.0, 3.0 would accept the version number but you
could be crashing the program.  Not something I enjoy.

Since impulse hasn't made their changes in texture formats, at least in 2.9,
then it explains why information hasn't been released to Apex & others on the
new formats yet.  They're not ready, as Impulse has been saying all along.

I don't think that it was underhanded on Impulse's part but it would have been
nice if they let 2.9 still accept the old versions but remind us that it
will change in 3.0.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #70 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Imagine 3.0 bugs?
Date:     Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:39:51 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>The "status" of this, and most of the bugs in 2.0/2.9 is that they have all
>been cataloged and will be wacked when we get to them.  We are presently
>busy with design and implimentation (sp) of the features, and will get to
>the bugs when finished.  When V3.0 is out, ask again about specific bugs

 >Does this mean Impulse is planning to release V3.0 with known bugs?!?

Yes.  It is normal in software developement to design first, then implement,
and finally work out known bugs.  Then release it.  But there will always
be some bugs that they know of and ship it with that they hope to fix soon
after.

A problem that I see is that Impulse hasn't corrected the bugs in 2.0 before
trying to do anything new and they should have done that.  How many years
have they known about the 2.0 bugs and not fixed them?

I'll accept finding new bugs in 3.0 but all 2.0 bugs should be corrected
by now.  Also, any bug-fix update versions should be sent free to registered
owners.  I'd pay for a update with new features but why should anyone pay
for a fix to something that was supposed to work when it was originally
purchased?  uh-oh, I said new features above and meant new tools & utilities.
Bugs too often tend to be called 'features'.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #71 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DCTV and Imagine
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 08:46:25 EST
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

I thank all who replied back to me on DCTV. Everybodys comments were greatly
appreciated.


I even had somebody comment that they had a frend who might sell me one.
Just adding to that, is there anybody in Australia that has one that they
would like to sell?
Send an Email if you do..




/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-SUN
Graeme Mc Donough,
INTERNET: [e-mail]  (postmaster)
                                                                        ///
Monash University                                                      ///
Dpt of Earth Sciences                                                 ///
Clayton, Melbourne                                                \\\///
Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3168                                           \XX/
PHONE: [phone]
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-TWIRL





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #72 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Brush Map Bug on 2.9
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:29:51 +0100
From: [e-mail]

    Hi,

    I try to finish my formula one race car (Williams Renault, Alain Prost).
I just have to apply brush maps on it, but there are a few ones. If I try to
put this image there, another one disappears !...
    I can't render it on 2.0 since I use States to map "GoodYear" on the
tyres.
    Does anyone know if it's possible to avoid those pbs, or will I have
to wait for Impulse to fix this bug ?

        Stanis


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #73 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Imagine a Overscan
Date: 09 Feb 94 22:30:05 CET
From: [e-mail] (Soren Wind)

Maybe i missed it, but have there been any news, about how to Patch Imagine
V2.9 to use, overscan settings, or can i just use, the old adresses posted
for the V2.0 version....

I would certainly like a 724*284 screen or alike...

        SObren Wind - IZI/ImPACT       __     _____        _______
 //\   GFX / 3D Design / Raytrace    (__) /\/\___ \/\_____\     / /\\
 \//    Fidonet  : 2:230/418.30      /  \/ \/ \/  /  \ ___/\/ \/  \\/
       Amiganet : 39:141/104.30     /____\  \__\ /__| \\___/\__\
      Internet : [e-mail]     /     \      |__\_____\
   A2000/030/882/9MB/345MB/33MHz+SVGA /_______\
-------------------= So GooD, So Far, So WHAT ? =--------------------

... SILENCE: Wisdom's One Satisfactory SubstituteNS


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #74 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: 2.9 Flame Textures!!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:59:03 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

> >
> > Why am I flaming Impulse?  The above pretty much sums it up.  Instead of
> > spending time bringing things like the file requesters, display databases,
> > optimization, bug fixes up to date, time was spent replacing something we
> > already had and were satisfied with, Essence I & II.  Sure, Impulse added
> > a few nice new textures that weren't in Essence, but they repeated A LOT of
> > stuff already in Essence.  Talk about wasting time!!!  Why not just add the
> > textures not found in Essence, and then spend the rest of the time on other
> > things that are needed?  Why MAKE Essence obsolete with the flip of a bit?
> > HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT IMPUSE OR THE USERS OF IMAGINE!?!?!?!  The answer is
> > simple, it doesn't.  The only explination I can come up with, is that it is
> > or was an ego thing.  A decision based solely on pride.
> >
> > Tom Setzer
> > [e-mail]
> >
>
> Tom, a few months ago I began to "convert:-)" essence textures to 2.9
> on an as needed basis. As I cursed Impulse each time I had to dust off
> NewZap, I tried to keep an open mind as to why they would do this.
> It was quite clear that the addition of wonderful 2.9 features like
> tacking did not necesitate this one byte change.  Because I can't imagine
> a company going out of their way to screw over a large percenatage of it's
> user base, I conjured up the following senario.
>
> Imagine if you will....
> The 3.0 texture interface will be radically different - more parameters,
> sliders for color and value, thumbnail previews of the texture.....
> whatever. the 2.9 textures were intentionally crippled to let folks (users,
> developers) know that their old textures would not be compatible with the
> new generation of imagine. A new leaf is being turned at impulse- Published
> object/texture formats for developers, quaterly upgrades free from 2 year
> old known bugs...
> Rosie glasses removed.
>
> Whew! what a stretch. back to reality. I simply think that Impulse
> stuck a big pole in our collective ass. This may or may not be true. I'll
> reserve my ultimate judgement until 3.0 is in my hands. If it ships with
> a radically new texture interface that sports many new features only
> possible through a new texture format, I'll understand. Anything
> less will leave me feeling cheated.
>
>                     |
> steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
> [e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #75 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Essence fix
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 18:25:18
From: [e-mail]

Regarding the Essence byte Fix for use with Imagine 2.9,

Does the texture tacking feature of Imagine 2.9 work with the fixed Essence
textures?  If not, then the changes made to the textures in V2.9 are valid
changes.

If the texture tacking feature does work, the changes may still be valid
changes...where the hooks to the textures were changed in order to better
facilitate their operation within the new object formats.

Either way, to knock anyone for intentionally breaking Essence I & II is
unsubstantiated & circumstantial.

My 2 cents,

GreG

P.S.  I like the Essence textures and do want to use them.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #76 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Impulse & Apex
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 16:54:09 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

>
>
> >Wow... What a weird development. I KNEW that there wasn't that much differenc
e
>
> It is possible that changes to the texture formats haven't been implemented
> yet.  Changing the check for a version number may make a difference with 3.0
> that it really doesn't in 2.9.  So you may find that your converted Essence
> textures won't work with 3.0, 3.0 would accept the version number but you
> could be crashing the program.  Not something I enjoy.
>
> Since impulse hasn't made their changes in texture formats, at least in 2.9,
> then it explains why information hasn't been released to Apex & others on the
> new formats yet.  They're not ready, as Impulse has been saying all along.
>
The version number change in Essence matches the version number change in
the 2.9 Impulse textures.  These textures use the old texture interface
exactly, with only a version number change.  Feel free to disassmble a
couple and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

If indeed there is a new texture interface change coming (dunno), they will
have to introduce yet another texture version number, and re-compile their
textures to match it.  Either they break both their 2.9 textures and the
newly hacked Essence textures, or neither.

> I don't think that it was underhanded on Impulse's part but it would have been

> nice if they let 2.9 still accept the old versions but remind us that it
> will change in 3.0.
>
I think the anger from the list is more because they claimed such a change
had already been made, when it clearly has not.

In fact, didn't Scott from Impulse mention the other day that it was still
being worked on?

> Jason K.
> Cybernetic Expressions
>
_john



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #77 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Imagine 3.0 UPGRADE and AMIGA FORMAT
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:44:35 CST
From: [e-mail] (Matthew O'Reilly)

Hi, I'd just like to know if it would be better (read cheaper)
for me to use the AMIGA FORMAT upgrade deal (95 or 75 pounds)
from imagine2.0 to imagine 2.9/3.0 when it arrives. (Amiga Format
only just came out in Australia (the Imagine coverdisk copy)).

OR

Buy direct from IMPULSE. I Sent mail to [e-mail], but no reply
, guess he was too busy. I would still like an answer.

BTW, the Aussie dollar is about

AUD $1 = US $ 0.72

and

AUD $1 = UK 0.49 Pounds

I would be paying by VISA, so currency conversion is automatic.


All replies appreciated,

--Matthew


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #78 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Impulse & Apex
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 20:43:40 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> only ONE BIT of information changed... That smacks of underhanded
> dealing to me, on the part of Impulse.

That was my first reaction too, but upon thinking about it a little
more, I'm not so sure.  It seems really bizarre that they would just
change the version number to screw over Apex (who'd figure that out
right quick anyway).  There are much more effective ways to do that if
that's what they wanted - they could have *completely* changed the
texture format in a manner that was hard to reverse-engineer.

Anyhow, it seems clear that Impulse and Apex don't exactly have a warm
and loving relationship.  I'm not sure why.  I would tend to think
they'd have more of a symbiotic relationship than an adversarial one.
They are each more successful with each other than without.  Impulse
must know that there is a large set of people who have only stuck with
Imagine *because* of Essence (I'm one such person; I know for a fact
there are others).  Impulse will get my money for a 3.0 upgrade because
of the Essence folks, and the Essence folks got my money for Essence I
and II because of the Impulse folks).

I'm not sure I quite buy the theory that Impulse did that just to ding
Apex.  It seems little too weird and ineffective.  IMHO, Impulse should
have just added new texture *hooks* and capabilities in 3.0 (maybe a
more powerful texture UI), and let Apex supply a library of 3rd party
textures.  But I'm not running the show, so its up to them what to do.

  - steve, who mostly just wishes he could afford Lightwave.

PS - (Personally, I plan to stick with 2.0 until 3.0 is out "for real"
*and* Essence works with it, and then upgrade.  I have no desire to give
up Essence nor to use a "pre-release" version of Imagine.  I do *really*
want those scan-line shadows though :-) ).


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #79 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Impulse & Apex
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:13:54 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> >Wow... What a weird development. I KNEW that there wasn't that much differenc
e
>
> It is possible that changes to the texture formats haven't been implemented
> yet.  Changing the check for a version number may make a difference with 3.0
> that it really doesn't in 2.9.  So you may find that your converted Essence
> textures won't work with 3.0, 3.0 would accept the version number but you
> could be crashing the program.  Not something I enjoy.
>
Yes, its quite possible and all together likely(Scott has mentioned that
you would be able to affect more things through textures).  But that means
that Impulse will have to upgrade the 2.9 textures that come with 2.9, just
as Apex will have to upgrade.

> Since impulse hasn't made their changes in texture formats, at least in 2.9,
> then it explains why information hasn't been released to Apex & others on the
> new formats yet.  They're not ready, as Impulse has been saying all along.

Sure.  I have no problem with this.  I just don't understand 2 things.  One,
why change it for 2.9?  If the change to the texture format didn't make it
into 2.9, why change the version number?  Two, why did Impulse go to all the
trouble of replicating the work done by Apex, when they could have spent that
time fixing bugs or getting 3.0 out a little faster?

>
> I don't think that it was underhanded on Impulse's part but it would have been

> nice if they let 2.9 still accept the old versions but remind us that it
> will change in 3.0.
>
Yep.

I need to clear a few things up.  May as well do it here.  I don't own, nor do
I have a copy of Imagine 2.9. (What?!?!  why do you care then!?!?!  How did you
figure it out?)  As I said in my original post: "Also, I haven't tried this on
all textures(in fact, I haven't tried it at all, I got a friend to do it), only
a few." I was able to figure it all out based on my knowledge of previous
textures(which are the same as 2.9, as we now know). I did this for my friend
who paid hard earned(and I do mean HARD EARNED) money for Imagine 2.9 and
Essence I & II, and wanted to use both, at the same time.  I thought I would
share the secret as well as my opinions with all of you here.

Also, I have been accused of being an Imagine basher.  I have used Imagine since

the days of Silver(it was called Silver back then).  I like it, thats why I'm
here on this list.  I would like to see it grow to its potential.  I do,
however, disagree with the way Impulse does some things(you may have noticed).
And unfortunatly(for some), I am a chronic complainer.   I hope Impulse doesn't
take my flames in too much the wrong way(I just reread them, and I don't
see how they could keep from getting upset.  Ooops), but maybe, hopefully,
in the future they will consider the customer more carefully.

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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #80 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Beginner with w/o a clue...
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 19:45:06 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

Greetings.

Some time ago I bought the Amiga Format Imagine2.0 and have finally got
it running in 640x400 NTSC, all nice and useable...

Except I haven't got a clue as to how to animate.  What can one expect
for twelve bucks?  I'm happy rendering stills and such, but I'd love to
animate.  My question is... would anyone like to give me an outline of
the process?  I don't expect anyone to quote the manual word for word,
but just maybe a hint on how to make an object move along a path over a
certain number of frames or something.

Or better yet, is there anybody on the list from the Bloomington/IU
campus area who wouldn't mind loaning me their manual?  Or selling it?
I wouldn't mind trading a few games for a manual.

Anybody kind enough or interested in trading?  E-mail as not to annoy
IML people further than this message already has.

Thank you,

Earl C.
[e-mail]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #81 ***************************************:-)

Subject: More BIG Bugs.
Date: 11 Feb 94 00:58:57 CET
From: [e-mail] (Soren Wind)

WoouuuWWW...

I Think i just found the biggest bug in Imagine V2.9

I was tracing a Spacestation where a camera was flying around by a pathline.
i had setup a global brush with a Sky.

As the camera had rotated 180 degrees the global brush became visible in 2
frames out of 200, just as if i had put up a plane, with a sky wraped on it.

I Can't take all these mistakes..

Last time, it became a pain in my neck ,the screen flashed up, just one
frame, but i was not able to find the reason, so it must have been a bug.

Would someone please report these to Impulse.

        SObren Wind - IZI/ImPACT       __     _____        _______
 //\   GFX / 3D Design / Raytrace    (__) /\/\___ \/\_____\     / /\\
 \//    Fidonet  : 2:230/418.30      /  \/ \/ \/  /  \ ___/\/ \/  \\/
       Amiganet : 39:141/104.30     /____\  \__\ /__| \\___/\__\
      Internet : [e-mail]     /     \      |__\_____\
   A2000/030/882/9MB/345MB/33MHz+SVGA /_______\
-------------------= So GooD, So Far, So WHAT ? =--------------------

... BOING!  RIME--America's Funniest Home Computers


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #82 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Essence tacking
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 20:12:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Hi everyone!

Essence textures tack properly!

YEAH!



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #83 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Impulse & Apex
Date:     Thu, 10 Feb 1994 21:52:43 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>Sure.  I have no problem with this.  I just don't understand 2 things.  One,
>why change it for 2.9?  If the change to the texture format didn't make it
>into 2.9, why change the version number?  Two, why did Impulse go to all the
>trouble of replicating the work done by Apex, when they could have spent that
>time fixing bugs or getting 3.0 out a little faster?

one:  I don't think Impulse expected to run so behind on the initial release
date of 3.0 so 2.9 wasn't part of the original plan.  Users were getting
upset with the wait so they packed together what they had finished into 2.9.
The textures released with 2.9 may be a small subset of textures that didn't
didn't require new stuff so changing them later for 3.0 may be pretty simple.

two:  Some is replicated, some is really new.  They didn't recreate all of
what is available with essence.  Didn't they hire a new guy to work on textures?

So, it is not as if everyone dropped what they were doing just to make textures.

Getting someone new freed the other guys up from having to make them so they
could work on other things.  But one of the worst things you can do is to
start hiring people just so you can get a project completed and out the door.
IBM did this back in the 60s and learned their lesson.  New people aren't up to
speed on what has been done and the software's inner workings.  Even if they
are good programmers they will slow things done more than helping.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #84 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Impulse and old textures
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 09:17:49 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Impulse ought to consider seting up version 3.0 (and later versions) of
their software to accept old texture documents as well as new formats.
It isn't very difficult.  Just make two procedures for loading textures.
One new, and one old.  Check the version number in the file and call
the appropriate texture loader.  Perhapse they could then offer to let
the user change the old texture to the new format.  Presto - lots of
power, and all the users are still happy.

Shawn Joyce
[e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #85 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Video Capture boards
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 9:13:02 PST
From: [e-mail] (Thorne Kontos)

Greetings Imagineers,
     I know this is a bit off the subject of Imagine, but many of the people
on this mailing list seem to be very well-informed on the video aspects of
Imagine. The company I work for is very interested in capturing video
images from our wafer inspection microscopes to establish a database for
failure analysis. We have two of these systems both of which are
capable of outputting the following signals: RGB w/sync, Y/C chroma, and
video out. What I am interested in is a video capture board (and software)
to capture these video images. Commercial and consumer products are
currently being considered.

Requirements that must be met are as follows:
1) The resolution of the captured image must be first-rate. This is a must.
   Many of the defects we are looking at can only be found at magnifications
   of at least 1000x.
2) The captured image must be in a non-proprietary format, so that the
   image can be easily converted into other formats. I would prefer TIFF,
   GIF, JPEG or IFF.
3) Systems will be considered as well, but the system should be able to be
   networked (via modem is fine).

If anyone out there has any information along these lines, your help would
be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail me at [e-mail]
or reply via the Imagine mailing list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorne K. Kontos                            [e-mail]
Engineer (of many hats)                     [e-mail]
Professional Gopher at large
                Intergraph Advanced Processor Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #86 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Beginner w/o a clue (longish)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 11:10:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Whitten MedSchAdm <[e-mail]>

ecorbin <[e-mail]> said:

>Some time ago I bought the Amiga Format Imagine2.0 and have finally got
>it running in 640x400 NTSC, all nice and useable...

>Except I haven't got a clue as to how to animate.  What can one expect
>for twelve bucks?  I'm happy rendering stills and such, but I'd love to
>animate.  My question is... would anyone like to give me an outline of
>the process?  I don't expect anyone to quote the manual word for word,
>but just maybe a hint on how to make an object move along a path over a
>certain number of frames or something.

>Or better yet, is there anybody on the list from the Bloomington/IU
>campus area who wouldn't mind loaning me their manual?  Or selling it?
>I wouldn't mind trading a few games for a manual.

>Anybody kind enough or interested in trading?  E-mail as not to annoy
>IML people further than this message already has.

I'll post this to the list because I, too, am starting to learn Imagine
thanks to the AF coverdisk, and feel there must be many of us newbie
types out there stuggling with The Wall.  First:  get Steve Worley's
excellent book 'Understanding Imagine2.0'......due to the AF coverdisk,
Worley made another run with the publisher to meet demand and should
have copies available to anyone who asks.  Here's the blurb:

*              "Understanding Imagine 2.0"
*
*This fine book can be ordered by credit card from Apex by calling
*415/322-7532 between the hours of 10AM and 6PM Pacific time. Calls will be
*answered by a courteous, intelligent and Imagine-literate salesperson who
*will be glad to help you, Steve Worley himself. :-) Fax orders may be
*placed at 415/322-2059.
*
*For more information, contact Apex Software, 405 El Camino Real #121, Menlo
*Park CA 94025.

This book is comprehensive and clear; I recommend it heartily.  Much of it
seems to be culled from Steve's experience and experimentation as this
list's originator and guru.  I am currently reading the IML archives (I'm
on archive03 out of 30+ archives and it is quite interesting to see the
development of user-based knowledge of Imagine accrue.  Its also interesting
to get a sense of the current Imagine/Apex drama thru the background those
archives provide.  In fact, I'm recalling now Rick Rodriguez' (Imagine
manual author) msg to Steve urging him to contact Mike Halvorson about
3rd party Imagine products and how Mike is so receptive to the idea.
Kinda Hollywood.  Anyway, spend money on the book, neophytes!

Also:  I, too, did the 640x400 hack to the PAL coverdisk version, but since
it only changes the resolution (you must still manually tweak the monitor's
vertical to see all of PAL mode's screen) and NOT the video mode....its
still PAL, pal.  Be careful with that 'NTSC' stuff.

I see some of those old archive user-names still subscribe today, and all
I must say that I am humbled to be 'mingling with the Greats!'  Hopefully,
in a few months/years/whatever, I, too, will be able to contribute something
useful.

Michael




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #87 ***************************************:-)

Subject: objects and paths
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 09:50:50 -0800 (PST)
From: ANIEMANN <[e-mail]>

Would like to see:
1)Making paths: To make an object follow a path - In the stage editor, select
the object, select "start path". This would automatically start a new path at
the objects position. Go to the frame where the path is to end, position
the object where it is to end up and select "end path". This path would be
assigned to this object, and 'follow' it during the frames that it is
active. In other words, if you were to move the object in it's last frame
the path would automatically adjust it's end point. If in an intermediate
frame the object is not in a good position, move the object and the path
modifies itself accordingly. The path would also figure out the smoothest
and shortest curve between the various object positions.

2)Dynamic camera tracking: In the stage editor, as you change the "track"
object the camera automatically adjusts it's view, continuously, until you
are satisfied. This should also apply when the "track" object is following a
path! Change the path and you see instantly -without having to resave the
path!- what effect this will have on the camera's view. (mind you, with the
previous suggestion you wouldn't have to even worry about changing the
path).
andy






IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #88 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Impulse and old textures
Date:     Fri, 11 Feb 1994 14:51:59 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

>Impulse ought to consider seting up version 3.0 (and later versions) of
>their software to accept old texture documents as well as new formats.

This would be a nice feature.  But a point comes where you have too many
old versions to support or the texture format undergoes a radical change
that makes supporting the old format impractical.  Perhaps a utility
that could convert old textures to newer formats.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #89 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Essence on 2.9!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:32:52 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

After re-reading my original post(over and over), I can't help but think that
I may have stepped out of line.  I want to appoligize to Mike and everyone at
Impulse, as well as the other users here on the IML.  I feel I could have made
my point without sinking down to name calling.  In the IML "charter" it states
that the only rule is respect for other members of the mailing list, and it
appears I showed disrespect toward, of all people, the ones who made this list
possible.

I still stand by the fact that I think Impulse was wrong in changing the version

number.  After all, the 3rd party PD and commercial support of Imagine is
part of the appeal.  T3dlib(is that what its called), ISL, Essence I & II,
all those modelers and object coversion programs, tapes, tutorials and manuals,
they all contribute to making Imagine a better product.  Hopefully Impulse
will start to see this the same way the users do.


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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #90 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Impulse & Apex
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:35:10 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> >Sure.  I have no problem with this.  I just don't understand 2 things.  One,
> >why change it for 2.9?  If the change to the texture format didn't make it
> >into 2.9, why change the version number?  Two, why did Impulse go to all the

> >trouble of replicating the work done by Apex, when they could have spent that

> >time fixing bugs or getting 3.0 out a little faster?
>
> one:  I don't think Impulse expected to run so behind on the initial release
> date of 3.0 so 2.9 wasn't part of the original plan.  Users were getting
> upset with the wait so they packed together what they had finished into 2.9.
> The textures released with 2.9 may be a small subset of textures that didn't
> didn't require new stuff so changing them later for 3.0 may be pretty simple.
>
True, they probably didn't expect to take this long.  You never do.  But I doubt

they expected to release in a few days, probably not even a few weeks.  Knowing
that it would be a month or 2(not six), I would have done things different.
At best it is changing a #define from 0x60 to 0x50.  At worst, a simple find
and replace script for all the textures.

> two:  Some is replicated, some is really new.  They didn't recreate all of
> what is available with essence.  Didn't they hire a new guy to work on texture
s?
New guy point taken.

> So, it is not as if everyone dropped what they were doing just to make texture
s.
> Getting someone new freed the other guys up from having to make them so they
> could work on other things.  But one of the worst things you can do is to
> start hiring people just so you can get a project completed and out the door.
> IBM did this back in the 60s and learned their lesson.  New people aren't up t
o
> speed on what has been done and the software's inner workings.  Even if they
> are good programmers they will slow things done more than helping.

Although I *could* see someone working on debuging, or adding isolated features
(display database, new requesters) that don't *really* require the knowledge
of the inner workings of Imagine.  My main point was that Mike had talked of
priorities, getting bones, and other 3.0 neato things, before working on things
like lens flare, and other less important things.  I would put new textures
on pretty low priority considering we already had/have Essence.  As I understand

it, Scott did work on other things (FX, anything else??? deformations?).  I
would think you would need a pretty good understanding of Imagine(object format,

stage editor, action editor, fx format) to work on FX.  And we've all seen
some pictures of the new textures, I'd guess that Scott is quite the competent
programmer.  So to say that Scott couldn't have contributed to other areas
needing more attention, is stretching *my* imagination a little far.


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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #91 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Conversation with Mike H.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:19:46 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

I received a message from Mike H at Impulse in regard to my rather nasty
message posted here regarding impulse/essence/imagine in general asking
me to give him a call. I did. We had  long conversation about all of the
above. He said it was fine by him to recap the conversation for the list,
so here are the highlights from memory:

I apologized to mike and will echo that sentiment here. I explained to mike
that my reaction was out of the frustration of many apaprent problems
with the software and Impulse. He addressed these in sequence.

First off, I have been receiving newsletters for some time now from Impulse
stating that Imagine 3.0 is a month away, two months away... whatever.
Of course it never arrives. As I use the software semi-professionally (read
periodically receive payment for work rendered) these dates now mean more to
me than when I was just a casual user. Mike said that they will not
do this in the future, realizing now that it is often quite impossible
to predict with accuracy a release date. Also the periodic update plan
will go into effect after 3.0, meaning we will see new features as they whip
them up.

Next up was old bugs and why they still survive. The slice thing. Mike says
this is a known problem that they do not have a solution for at this time.
He went on to give a mildly technical explanation of the problem, most of
which went over my non tech head. The other popular one on the maillist is
the backdrop /fog deal. This will be fixed in 3.0


TEXTURES! Yes a hot topic here on IML. After speaking with mike, I do
believe that Impulse did not break 2.0 textures to screw over the user
developer base. Indeed, they have their valid reasons. Reasons that
I might add I don't agree with, but that's none of my fucking business.
It was their decision, They had a valid reason, and now it's life. I think
We'll all be pleasantly surprised when 3.0 is out. I must leave it at that
for now.

Of course with mike on hte line I had to take a few moments to pry some
new features out of him!! Yes, he did give me a rough ddte of when to expect
it, and although it is soon, I won't repeat it here as nothing good could
come of that! Bones are their and functional although this didn't seem
to excite him. States are even more improved and easier to use. Finally
the action editor gets some cut/paste functionality! better camera in
perspective. Some nice new path stuff. new lighting stuff, including the
much requested lense flare business, all of which sounded real nice.
Mike said the software looks much different than what we are used to,
is easier to use, and is quite stable.

I also took a moment to let him know that it is excellent to have Scott
posting factual information here to the list regarding new features,
and answering how-to questions. I'm sure you've all noticed, as I have,
that since his appearance here there is a lot less noise and more
constructive conversation here on IML (except that nasty texture stuff
this week :-) again my apologies for contributing)

I'm sure there was more, but those are the highlights. Imagine, no matter
how you look at it, is one of the finest programs out there. As compnies
like Gold Disk are cutting back or dropping amiga support, It's good to
see Impulse's support of the platform grow.

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #92 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Impulse and old textures
Date: 11 Feb 94 20:25:00 EST
From: "Andrew Church" <[e-mail]>

>This would be a nice feature.  But a point comes where you have too many
>old versions to support or the texture format undergoes a radical change
>that makes supporting the old format impractical.  Perhaps a utility
>that could convert old textures to newer formats.

  I don't see how a program can support "too many" old versions of a file
format, unless the code for loading those old versions starts taking up a
significant (>32k) portion of the code.  I've got a utility program whose
data file format has undergone two major revisions, but it still supports
both of the old formats - I keep the old code, and just add new code that
handles the new format.  Then, my program can call any of the old loading
routines based on the version number in the data file.

  I don't know how major the change in texture format is, but it seems to
me that they could still let the old textures work.  Compatibility is not
too difficult to retain, unless they're completely rewriting the program.

  --Andy Church



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #93 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Pegger V1.3 Press Release
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 17:33:59 PST
From: [e-mail]

PRESS RELEASE


   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


               New Upgrade of PEGGER Image Compression Software


Columbia, MO -- February 11, 1994



     Heifner Communications Inc. is proud to announce the availability of

v1.3 of their product, PEGGER, an automated image compression system for

Commodore Amiga computers.  PEGGER v1.3 brings drastically improved support

for the NewTek Framestore format used in the popular Video Toaster product.

"We are pleased to offer the finest support of NewTek's Framestore format

found in any 3rd party software currently on the market", said Heifner

Communications President, Greg Heifner.  "We have become well aware over

the past months that many of our customers are Toaster owners and we felt

that improving the product's performance for them was an important goal."

Not only is PEGGER v1.3 much faster when compressing and decompressing

Framestore images but also provides incredible broadcast quality while

maintaining high compression levels.

     PEGGER v1.3 also provides support for compression of pre-buffered

Toaster CG Framestore pages as well as automatic support for compression and

decompression of IFF and JPEG images from the Macintosh.  In addition, we

have listened to our users and implemented some of their suggestions to

improve the software.

     This upgrade of PEGGER is so important that we have decided to provide

a free upgrade to all currently registered owners of the product.  If you

have already sent in your PEGGER registration card you will automatically

receive PEGGER v1.3.  In addition, a patch file to upgrade either PEGGER

v1.1 or PEGGER v1.2 to v1.3 will be placed on all electronic services,

including Internet, for the benefit of those PEGGER owners who have access

to these services.


     ATTENTION DEALERS/DISTRIBUTORS:  We will be providing dealers and

distributors a demonstration video tape explaining PEGGER and showing

off its capabilities as well as some cool animations that were originally

compressed using PEGGER.  You can share the video tape with your customers

and use it as a point of sale tool for PEGGER.  The video tape will be

shipping in approximately 2-3 weeks.  If you do not receive a video tape,

please call Heifner Communications to request one!


Availability:   February 15, 1994.


FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

   CHRIS MINSHALL / IVAN MOORE
   HEIFNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
   4451 I-70 DRIVE NW
   COLUMBIA, MO  65202
   [phone]  (VOICE)
   [phone]  (VOICE)
   [phone]   (FAX)

PEGGER is a trademark of Express-Way Software
Video Toaster, Framestore, and Toaster Paint are trademarks of NewTek, Inc.
Amiga is a trademark of Commodore Business Machines, Inc.


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

What follows is a re-print of the original press release for PEGGER

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

PRESS RELEASE


   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


             PEGGER, Automated JPEG Image Compression Software


Columbia, MO -- September 10, 1993


     Heifner Communications is now shipping a new software utility for

the Amiga line of personal computers and Video Toaster workstations.

PEGGER is a fully integrated JPEG utility based on the compression

algorithm from the Joint Photographic Experts Group.  PEGGER allows

programs that don't support JPEG images to work automatically with

them.  Everything from 3D animation systems to graphic and multi-media

programs greatly benefit from the enormous savings in hard drive space

PEGGER's JPEG compression provides.

     PEGGER's Snoop capability automates the JPEG processing for programs

that don't support JPEG, such as Electronic Arts Deluxe Paint AGA,

the NewTek Video Toaster, so they can load or save JPEG files. Literally

any program on the Amiga that supports the loading and saving of images

in the IFF 24 bit, DCTV, HAM8, or NewTek Framestore formats will now be

able to transparently load and save JPEG format images using PEGGER.

PEGGER runs seamlessly in the background, compressing and decompressing

files as needed.  Your 100 MB 24-bit or HAM8 library can be compressed

to under 10 MB and your applications won't even know it. A 50 MB hard

drive can now hold more than 1000 frames of high resolution 24-bit

files instead of just 60 or 70 frames.

     PEGGER does its job in just seconds.  We have optimized the JPEG

code for the Amiga.  The JPEG compress, decompress, and selection of

files to process run completely independent of each other.  This

allows both compression and decompression of files at the same time,

with the ability to adjust the priority of each.  A cue list of files

awaiting processing is maintained so that you can select additional

files to process while PEGGER is busy in the background processing

your previous selections.  In addition to selecting individual files

to process, entire directories of files can be set up to be batch

processed.

     You can have PEGGER execute an ARexx script prior and/or after JPEG

processing of a file.  This allows the integration of PEGGER's powerful

batch processing capabilities with other applications which support

ARexx.  For example, using an ARexx script to load a frame buffer

and activate a single frame recorder after JPEG decompression of an

image.

     The JPEG processing is performed on a small portion of the file at a

time, so PEGGER doesn't need megabytes of RAM to hold the entire image

before processing can begin. A 2000 by 3000 pixel 24 bit image takes

almost 30 MB of system RAM to JPEG compress or decompress with current

Amiga programs.  With PEGGER, less than 1 MB of system RAM is needed.

     Designed to run in the background, and when idle, uses few system

resources.  Even if your computer were to crash while PEGGER was

processing files, when restarted, PEGGER will continue processing

the files where it was interrupted.


   Features:

      ARexx support.

      Support for NewTek Framestore, 24-bit IFF, DCTV, and HAM8 images.

      PEGGER can process images up to 32000 pixels wide using less than
      4 MB of system RAM.

      AmigaDOS 2.0 & 3.0 compatible.

      Follows all AmigaDOS programming guidelines.

      Adjustable priority for JPEG compression and decompression.

      PEGGER is designed to multi task in the background using minimal
      system resources so a 3D rendering or graphics program can also
      run at the same time.

      Snoop feature allows PEGGER to compress the output of your 3D
      rendering or graphics program into a JPEG file automatically.

      JPEG code has been optimized for speed.

      PEGGER can be used with the appropriate ARexx script to single
      frame record images directly from JPEGed sequential files.


   PEGGER is a low cost alternative to a new expensive large capacity
   hard drive for animation or color graphic workstations.

   NOW SHIPPING!
   Retail Price: $99.95
   Dealers and Distributors : Contact Heifner Communications Inc.


FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

   CHRIS MINSHALL / IVAN MOORE
   HEIFNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
   4451 I-70 DRIVE NW
   COLUMBIA, MO  65202
   [phone]  (VOICE)
   [phone]  (VOICE)
   [phone]   (FAX)

PEGGER is a trademark of Express-Way Software
Deluxe Paint IV AGA is a trademark of Electronic Arts
Video Toaster and Framestore are trademarks of NewTek, Inc.
Amiga is a trademark of Commodore Business Machines, Inc.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #94 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Beginner w/o a clue (longish)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 23:19:44 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 11 Feb 1994, Michael Whitten MedSchAdm wrote:

> Also:  I, too, did the 640x400 hack to the PAL coverdisk version, but since
> it only changes the resolution (you must still manually tweak the monitor's
> vertical to see all of PAL mode's screen) and NOT the video mode....its
> still PAL, pal.  Be careful with that 'NTSC' stuff.

Actually, my screen is NTSC.  I guess it all depends on how you fool
Imagine into thinking your machine is PAL.  I use Degrader, using the
50Hz System option and Survive NoReset.  The video is still 60Hz, NTSC.
I should have been more clear on that, sorry.  Thanks Michael, and all
others who replied with "clues" and suggestions.  [Most suggested
"Understanding Imagine,"  so I therefore withdraw my request to buy a manual.]

I was mainly interested in the manual because I heard Mr. Worley's book
was out of print, but is apparently available again due to demand. :)
(Thanks again Michael)


Not so clueless...


Earl Corbin
[e-mail]

Disclaimer:    My cluelessness does not neccessarily represent the
        cluelessness of the Indiana University Computer Science
        Department.





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #95 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Essence on 2.9!!!!!
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:46:02 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Saffold)

Uucp> >  If I typed 'spat esstoim29 #?' and I had say 8 items in a directory
Uucp> then it
Uucp> >  would complain.  but for 4 or less it worked.  But eventually I got
Uucp> all
Uucp> >  converted and it works so far.
Uucp> >

Uucp> This tends to work much better:
list >ram:cooktext #? lformat="esstoim29 %s"
Uucp> execute ram:cooktext

Hehe, I just made a script file, told Diskmaster to then use the
script, clicked on al the directories, and then just sat back..:)  (If
anyone wants me to write the script I used, let me know, I thinkI can
remember it pretty easily.)

 ...You can observe a lot by watching.

 * Q-Blue 1.0 *--
*******************************************************************
*  Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway  *  Data/Fax: [phone]  *
*  Pueblo, Colorado USA              *  FidoNet:  1:307/18        *
*******************************************************************


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #96 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Textures
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 16:03:06 +0100 (MET)
From: Frank Huebner <[e-mail]>

Hi !

I have some problems with my Imagine 1.13( or so) .
I can`t understand why it did not render brushmaps correct.
I say Imagine, that it should wrap a 24-bit brush on a plane
with flat x ; flat y ---- but the result in RAYTRACE - Mode
isn`t nice - I don`t understand why there are such jaggies etc.
and on cylinders or so it`s impossible to look at the results
because they are very ugly.

Can you help me?

Sorry, I come from germany and my english isn`t so good because the
school is many years ago......
I hope that you understood me problems.

Frank Huebner

[[e-mail]]


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #97 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Forms Editor
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:21:12 EST
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

Hi all.

Please excuse my ignorance but,   Can somebody tell me how to split a ball
        down the middle and spread the two halves, then turn 90Deg and do
        the same?

        EG:         -                   -             (Crummy Graphics isnt
it)
                  (   )      to       ( + )
                    _  Ball             _  4 Part ball



This sounds simple, But I have had no success.  I even tried making one
piece at a time. All I could do was half get it right. There is something I
have
obviously missed and mucked up.
Oh the horrors of learning.....




/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-SUN
Graeme Mc Donough,
INTERNET: [e-mail]  (postmaster)
                                                                        ///
Monash University                                                      ///
Dpt of Earth Sciences                                                 ///
Clayton, Melbourne                                                \\\///
Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3168                                           \XX/
PHONE: [phone]
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-TWIRL





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #98 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re:  Forms Editor
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 16:51:53 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Daniel T. Edwards)

Forms Editor!  I'd never use the forms editor for that.  It's just too
easy in the detail editor.
Here's what to do in the Detail editor.

Select Functions/add/primitives/sphere and create a whole sphere with
a number of sides that is divisible by four. (like 24)

Select Mode/pick points.
Select Mode/pick method/dragbox.
hold down the shift key and use the cursor to capture (nearly) half the sphere
(what you want to do is leave half a sphere, so don't select the exact middle.
)
select Functions/delete.

Do this again from any other view to make one quarter sphere.

if you want the quarters to look solid (not hollow), add two disks (one rotated
appropriately )  then delete the parts you dont need.  Then use Function/join to
 make them one object.  Merge them if you want to too.

Now make three copies of this object and put them wherever you want them.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #99 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Motion blur and such
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:19:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>I have written an ARexx script for doing fake-but-effective motion blur
>on a set of Imagine frames.  I would repost it, but this mail program
>pukes every time I try to include a file in it.  You might want to check
>the IML archives (I've never done this so I don't know how trivial or
>difficult that would be).

     Does your script write a DCTV anim? If so, I have it and am having
some problems modifying it to output a HAM8 instead.... Just a little
begging ;-)...

>I have also tried to re-create field rendering
>but to no avail.  It almost works.  If someone could post a little more
>detailed description of what field rendering is doing, maybe I (or
>someone) could hack around some more and get it right.

     Generate an anim at 60fps instead of 30. Run deinterlace on each
frame and alternativly composite the tops and bottoms of each successive
frame onto a backdrop the same size as the original. You should end up
with half the frames you first generated (a'la 30fps). Run interlace on
each frame and you've got field rendering. I'm told (by Mark Thompson)
that it's not true field rendering but don't really understand why...
Still, it looks pretty good. What is really needed is a Fred operator that
combines deinterlaced images as there are fred scripts for deinterlacing
and interlacing already present.

     If you wan't more info, don't hesitate to contact me....

>BTW -  what is the subscribe address for the LightWave mail list?  I'm
>       on my way to Toaster Town!

     Me too, eventually. I've been on the list for awhile and have learned
a lot (and applied what I could to Imagine).

     Send a message to "[e-mail]" with

                   Subscribe Lightwave-l <address>

      as the text. That's from memory so don't kill me if it dosent' work.
If nobody else tells you there are regular postings in
comp.graphics.animation and comp.sys.amiga.graphics with the info.

                                              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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #100 ***************************************:-)

Subject: DEM source
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 12:25:20 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCool)

Hey y'all,

    Yes, this is Imagine-related.  I want a local landscape
that I can save out of VistaPro as an Imagine object, so I can
render a flyby of recognizable landforms.

    Only problem is, I can't seem to find any DEM data, other
than what the USGS mapstore in San Fran wants to charge me three
thousand dollars a pop for.  That's right, we paid for the
gathering of this data, and now they want us to pay for it again.

    I've heard there are public access sites for USGS data,
but I can't find them yet.  Are any of you Imaginoids hip to how
these doors are opened?

    And hey, I'm not being cheap about this.  I PAY for the US
Geodetic Survey.  I'm a part-owner, already.  I'd just like
access to my little local piece of it.





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #101 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DEM source
Date:     Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:27:40 -0500
From: Mark B Sachs <[e-mail]>

>
> Hey y'all,
>
>     I've heard there are public access sites for USGS data,
> but I can't find them yet.  Are any of you Imaginoids hip to how
> these doors are opened?

There are a whole bunch of DEMs on the FTP site spectrum.xerox.com.
It's not comprehensive, but there's a good selection there.

If anyone finds a (most likely US Government) site that _is_ comprehensive,
by all means post -- I'd like to know about it too, and I suspect so
would a lot of other people.

-Mark Sachs
 Industrial Might & Logic, Inc.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #102 ***************************************:-)

Subject: PatchMath020
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 19:26:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (William V. Swartz)

I have run across a utility someone uploaded to our user group BBS call
PatchMath020.  It seems to have been created for use on Hurricane boards,
whatever they are, and patches the math routines in programs.  I will
replicate the doc file below.

I have applied this to Imagine 2.0 FP and have noticed faster movement in
the detail editor and in rendering quickrenders.  More testing to follow I
am sure.  I'd like to know the status of this program as far as
distributability...the uploader said he found it on GEnie.  I'd also like
any info or thoughts on this patch, and if in fact it is a good thing for
all 68020 and above users.

  //
\X/ -BiL-
    [e-mail]             (See my 'Imagine'-ary signature below)

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

PatchMath020.doc

Begin Include

This program "snoops" through other programs looking for 32 bit
   interger multiply, divide and modulus subroutines and replaces
   them with 68020 multiply, divide and modulus instructions.  The
   68000 only has 16 bit multiply and 16 bit divide (divide a 32 bit
   number by a 16 bit number giving a 16 bit result and a 16 bit
   modulus) instructions.  C compilers for the Amiga all generate
   68000 code so they must make subroutine calls to perform full
   32 bit math.

   This program recognizes several of these library modules and can
   replace 20 or thirty opcodes with two: the multiply or divide
   followed by RTS.

   Programs which use 32 bit math intensively may run significantly
   faster after being treated with PatchMath020.  A few modified
   programs run 2 to 3 times faster than the originals.  A more
   common result is 15 to 20 percent faster due to the fact that
   multiply/divide/modulus is usually a small fraction of the
   instructions executed.  As an example, Sculpt 3D's object editor
   runs 15% faster after being modified by PatchMath020.  Silver
   runs an additional 40% faster.

   Note that the program is modified "in place" so be sure to
   make a backup before running PatchMath020 on you program.
   Also note that these modified programs will no longer run on
   normal Amigas.

End Of Include


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #103 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Gentlemen Start Your Engines
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:15:31 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Wickard)

The following notice hit my mailbox this morning. It is posted
in it's entirity.

----

Dave,
    Please post this to the total IML

    After much concern on the part of you the Imagine user, it has
become apparent that the use of Apex textures is very important to you.  We
did not realize the amount of people who have purchased these textures and
were amazed at the din of complaints over the fact that they did not work
with Imagine 2.9.

    There has also been much discussion about the fact that Impulse has
some "underhanded" concerns in making these textures non-opeartive with
2.9.  This was done as we said for reasons of file format change and
texture tacking problems.

    We have however fixed the problem with all textures and have
decided in an effort ot please our user base to make sure that upon the
release of Imagine 3.0 that " THE APEX TEXTURES AS THE ARE NOW WILL WORK
WITH IMAGINE 3.0."  This action on our part is to make sure that your
investment in Imagine and other products that support Imagine is protected.

    The texture format is changing and we will continue to change
Imagine.  However for this release it will not be needed for APEX to change
their textures.  We must also alert you to a fact that is also of concern
to us and to you.  These textures from Apex while attractive are not
created as they should be.  They are slower when rendering and this is
because they were developed with out the assistance of Impulse.  We still
urge APEX to comply with our standards, upon the release of the file format
this decision to change thier textures will rest soley on the back of APEX.
 We are willing to help any and all 3rd party vendors with this new
process.

    The door for communications is always open at Impulse, even if the
communication is one of a negative nature.  Our goal is now and has always
been to LISTEN TO YOU so that we could make Imagine the product that you
helped to build.

    For those who have waited for what seems like a decade for Imagine
3.0, we are happy to annouce that the release of 3.0 is only a few short
weeks away.  Your continued support is appreciated and needed.

    As always, if you have any concerns please give us a call or drop
us a note here on the IML.


    Sincerely
    Michael C. Halvorson
    President

    Please post this message where appropriate.




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #104 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Gentlemen Start Your Engines
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:40:08 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Hurray!  Thank you Mike and Impulse.  I think this is terrific!
Keep up the good work.  Can't wait to see 3.0.


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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #105 ***************************************:-)

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:25:21 +1100
From: [e-mail]

>     I've heard there are public access sites for USGS data,
> but I can't find them yet.  Are any of you Imaginoids hip to how
> these doors are opened?

I haven't tried them so I don't know exactly what they have to offer, but you
could try the Global Land Information System site:

  TELNET glis.cr.usgs.gov

Login as: guest


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #106 ***************************************:-)

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:14:03 +1100
From: [e-mail]

   Hello, I've encountered a problem with Imagine 2.0 that I was hoping
someone could help me with.  I've created an object (in the detail editor)
that isn't rendering correctly in "trace" mode.  Basically, it's a one-
no...it's a two-dimensional object which has been extruded to three dimensions.
When the object is rendered, ridges appear on the flat surface, apparently
along edges of a few faces.  This should not be happening as all the faces
on this side are coplanar; in the rendered image it should look like one
smooth, flat surface.  I suspect that the problem might be due to the fact
that at precisely the areas where these ridges are occuring, there are a
couple one-dimensional faces.  Since this object is being morphed into a
more complicated object, quite a few points have the same cordinates.  If
this is some kind of Imagine no-no, then what must I do to get around it?
   Due to the specific two shapes being morphed,  it would be very difficult
to arrange the polygons of the more complicated object in such a way that
make it unnecessary to converge points together.
  Any suggestions? explanations?

Please email me directly if you can, because I'm not subscribed to this
group (when I am subscribed, it clutters up my mailbox big-time).

Thanks.

Chris.

[e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #107 ***************************************:-)

Subject: The Imagine Ray Trace Engine
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:03:37 -0700
From: [e-mail]

    I guess this question would be directed at Scott or somebody
who has a contact at Impulse.

    Simple question really:  Does the imagine ray-tracer shoot
more than one ray per pixel?

    The reason I'm asking this is that I've noticed that when I
apply a texture (say peened or scratched metal) to an object and
scale the texture down fairly small I get something that looks sort
of like when I use the Roughness Attribute (usually a no-no, since it
looks pretty hideous).  The effect gets very unattractive when an
animating is done.

    I realise that Impulse wants to push for speed but I just


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #108 ***************************************:-)

Subject: The Imagine Render Engine
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:18:47 MST
From: Mark Allan Fox <[e-mail]>

Greetings:

        I guess this question would be directed at Scott or
somebody who has a contact at Impulse.

        Simple question really:  Does the imagine ray-tracer
shoot more than one ray per pixel?

        The reason I'm asking this is that I've noticed that when
I apply a texture (say peened or scratched metal) to an object and
scale the texture down fairly small I get something that looks
sort of like when I use the Roughness Attribute (usually a no-no,
since it looks pretty hideous).  The effect gets very
unattractive when any sort of animating is attempted.

        I realise that Impulse wants to push for speed but I just
can't accept an animation that has some sort of ugly static on
certain objects.

    I've been researching ray-tracing for a while and
personally I would find it unacceptable to write a ray-tracer
that used any less than three rays-per-pixel.  The result would
be much better animations and stills (this would also eliminate
the need for antialiasing).  Guess what else, if you set up a
multi-ray-per-pixel ray-tracer you open the door to temporal
antialiasing (read that as motion-blur).

    I really wish I had the option of defining my own balance
between render quality and render time.


                Thanks for Reading,


                M. A. Fox
                [e-mail]


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #109 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Clouds
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:10:07 EST
From: [e-mail] (Yury German)

Hi Tony (Tony Jones), in <[e-mail]> on Feb 8 you wrote:

:
:  >      Does anyone know of a way to make good looking clouds with Imagine? I
:  > don't mean 3-D clouds, just clouds ala VistaPro & Scenery Animator. Might
:  > be a good idea for a new texture.  :)
:
: Well ! Try making some clouds with Scenery Animator and turn your camera
: vertically up to the sky . Then render a pcture of it and use it as a brush
: with the "repeat" gadget and "mirror" gadget on.
:
: HASTA LA VISTA from Franky !
:


    Actually that will not look so good! The best you can do is create
a landscape for VistaPro or or SceneryAnimator that is totally flat! Then
Load it in to the program. Then place the camera in the Scenery program at
approximate location of your camera in Imagine. If you want to exclude the
ground raise the camera up .. and also raise the cloud ceiling up. This
will get rid of the ground. At worse you can always clip the ground out
with a paint program. This will give you the correct positioning and the
proper location and density of the clouds. If you point it towards the scy
it will just not look right!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #110 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: PatchMath020
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 22:50:40 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

>I cannot upload this file to Aminet nor distribute it via mail until I
>confirm the status of this program as FD.  I received a mailing that


I believe that this has already been on AmiNet, I have it
and I think that's where I got it!  I don't get amiga stuff from
anywhere else but AmiNet.



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #111 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Gentlemen Start Your Engines
Date:     Tue, 15 Feb 1994 22:04:01 -0800
From: "Steve \"Vis\" Lopez" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 15 Feb 1994, Dave Wickard forwarded this from Impulse:

>     We have however fixed the problem with all textures and have
> decided in an effort ot please our user base to make sure that upon the
> release of Imagine 3.0 that " THE APEX TEXTURES AS THE ARE NOW WILL WORK
> WITH IMAGINE 3.0."  This action on our part is to make sure that your
> investment in Imagine and other products that support Imagine is protected.

Absolutely Beautiful!!!  Now THIS is the sort of post I like to find in
my mailbox!  I think everyone should engage in a moment of applause for
this little development.

Oh, and a big 'thank YOU' to the folks at Impulse for listening on this
crucial subject.

Steve.

v
i
s



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #112 ***************************************:-)

Subject: textures
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:03:51 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Sebastien PERKINS)

has any one out there, especially Impulse or Apex, thought out a texture that wo
uld keep an object "wireframed" ? it would really be nice, for example for creat
ing flashy objects, half wire-framed, half rendered ..... like in some adverts .
....


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #113 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DEM source
Date:     Tue, 15 Feb 1994 22:11:15 -0800
From: "Steve \"Vis\" Lopez" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 14 Feb 1994, Mike McCool wrote:

>     I've heard there are public access sites for USGS data,
> but I can't find them yet.  Are any of you Imaginoids hip to how
> these doors are opened?
>
>     And hey, I'm not being cheap about this.  I PAY for the US
> Geodetic Survey.  I'm a part-owner, already.  I'd just like
> access to my little local piece of it.

US Geological Survey I beleive...  But just to warn you, some of the DEM
files on the xerox site are 20 megs long.  Mite bit big to render.  There
are a few dem's on aminet, but I cant remember where...  I downloaded the
SHORT.FILES list and used emacs to do a text search on DEM and map.
Also, I seem to have lost the data, but I once jumped on the sci.geology
newsgroup and asked this same question, and they were able to give quite
a few sites.  Wish I could find that data now...  Ah well, that's what
happens when you leech 15 megs a day....  you cant keep track of
anything.  Thank god for tape drives though...

Steve.

v
i
s




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #114 ***************************************:-)

Subject: textures
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:33:05 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Sebastien PERKINS)

is anyone at APEX or IMPULSE thinking of creating a "wireframe" texture ? i.e. h
ave a wireframe version of an object in a scanline scene. This could be very nic
e, imagine a half-rendered, half wire-framed object ......


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #115 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DEM source
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:32:34 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike McCool) writes:
>Hey y'all,

>    Only problem is, I can't seem to find any DEM data, other
>than what the USGS mapstore in San Fran wants to charge me three
>thousand dollars a pop for.  That's right, we paid for the
>gathering of this data, and now they want us to pay for it again.

  Well, if you have access to a cdrom drive..
(from alt.cdrom FAQ)


47. Where can I get maps of the US on CD-ROM?

  The USGS is producing a series of cds that contain 1:100,000 scale
  digital line graph (DLG) data. Presently, only Florida is available.
  Also, 1:2,000,000 DLG cd is available for the US.  Call 1-800-USA-MAPS
  for more info.

  You can also get topo data (with AVHRR coverage) on CD-ROM for $32. This
  is DEM (30" elevation data) for the whole US.  Contact: EROS Data Center,
  Sioux Falls, SD  605-594-6507, or 6511

  The Digital Chart of the World (DCW), produced by your Defense Mapping
  Agency, is generally acknowledged to be the best data set providing
  world-wide coverage. It is at a scale of about 1:1 000 000, and it is
  unlikely that you will find data at a larger scale for much of the world.
  At $200.00 for the set of 4 CD-ROMs and viewing data, it is considered to
  be a steal by most professional users, though it might be a bit of an
  overkill for domestic use.  You can obtain it from:

    U S Geological Survey
    Distribution Center
    Building 810
    Box 25286
    Denver, CO 80225




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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #116 ***************************************:-)

Subject: A reply to Mike Halvorson
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:06:09 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Steve Worley)

Mike Halvorson has posted a letter to users here on the mailing list
regarding the use of the Essence textures with Imagine. As author of
the Essence textures, it obviously interested me a great deal.

I have been very careful in trying to avoid noise on the IML,
especially from fanning flame wars. During the past week or so, when
the information that Essence I and II could indeed work with Imagine
2.9 was made available, I was carefully quiet, though I read each post
daily.

A simple, one byte, ID number change allowed Impulse to make Imagine
2.9 reject any non-Impulse texture. The decision to add this rejection
is odd in the sense that it seems to have no function other than to
produce incompatibilities, in particular with Essence. I was hoping
that with the release of Imagine 3.0, we at Apex would just be able to
change this byte in our textures, and ship off free patches to all of
our users. I made a conscious decision NOT to immediately announce or
patch the one-byte change to the textures to make them 2.9 compatible
for the reason that Impulse might just change the byte again (or
worse) and break them again in 3.0. This is why it was an independent
person who was the one to post the "What?  The textures are just a
byte different?" revelation.  In fact, I had asked John Grieggs, who
had figured out the patch byte weeks ago, NOT to post the information,
since it would certainly lead to unproductive flaming.

With Mike's recent post here on the IML, I feel I must now respond.

Mike Halvorson, president of Impulse, writes:

>         There has also been much discussion about the fact that
> Impulse has some "underhanded" concerns in making these textures
> non-opeartive with 2.9.  This was done as we said for reasons of file
> format change and texture tacking problems.

I agree, there ARE new texture capabilities in 2.9, but Zack has been
intelligent in adding these by extending the 2.0 format. This allowed
Impulse to use their old 2.0 textures without rewriting them. Note
that the Impulse "Checks" texture in 2.0 and 2.9 are identical, with
the exception of ane byte changed internally. It was this ID byte
which has caused the incompatability problems, not the texture code
itself. The Essence textures, with the byte changed, work perfectly in
2.9, including using texture tacking.

>         We have however fixed the problem with all textures and have
> decided in an effort ot please our user base to make sure that upon
> the release of Imagine 3.0 that " THE APEX TEXTURES AS THE ARE NOW
> WILL WORK WITH IMAGINE 3.0."

I am extremely glad to see this. The decision to reject 2.0 textures,
even though they were still compatible with 2.9, was a bad one, as
evidenced by the uproar this has produced here on the IML. At Apex,
there have been literally hundreds of phone calls, and I'm sure
Impulse has gotten many as well.  Mike, thank you for deciding to
remove the texture ID check; it will make life easier for both of us.

> We must also alert you to a fact that is also of concern to us and to
> you.  These textures from Apex while attractive are not created as
> they should be.  They are slower when rendering and this is because
> they were developed with out the assistance of Impulse.

This is the claim that really stung me and made me write this reply.
Mike, I am shocked that you have made such a deliberate, malicious,
slam at Essence. I fiercely disagree with your absurd
misrepresentation of the quality or speed of the Essence textures.
How do you know how the Essence textures work? How do you know what
their internal algorithms do?  Different textures have different CPU
requirements. In particular, making high quality fractal noise
requires a significant amount of computation, especially when you need
to avoid visual artifacts and support the use of 4D, animated noise.

Efficient texture design is actually a topic which I can claim to be
expert at. I have written several articles about efficient texturing,
including "The Art of Noise" in Ray Tracing News (Volume 5, Number 2,
1992), and "Practical Texture Implementation" in last year's texturing
course at SIGGRAPH (Course notes, "Procedural Modeling and Rendering
Techniques", 1993).  In SIGGRAPH '94 I will be lecturing in a new
texturing course, and I'm now coauthoring a new book about texturing
methods to published by Academic Press, also be released at SIGGRAPH.
Mike, please don't imply that I do not understand how to write
textures.

The mechanics of making a texture that Imagine can use is not hard.
We have indeed been forced to backengineer this method, but it is not
a difficult task; other people have done the same. We are quite sure
that we at Apex understand this texture calling method quite well, and
that there is no inefficiency in the texture interface we use. Mike,
your comment refers to the Essence textures as if they are quick,
unstable hacks which are "not created as they should be." I see this
is in dramatic contrast to Impulse's own textures, where your own
documentation actually WARNS you that misset texture parameters can
break them and possibly crash the machine.

But the main question is whether the Essence textures are indeed slow
compared to "Impulse-approved" versions. Well, this is easy to test.
The single texture which has an exact equivalent in our independent
libraries is "Crumpled"; even the name is the same in both our
collections.  Fire up Imagine 2.9, and render an object with the
Essence Crumpled texture on it, timing the rendering speed. Render the
exact same scene, but using Impulse's version of the Crumpled texture.
In a low resolution test case, rendered on a stock A3000, using the
default parameter settings of each texture, the Essence version
rendered in 1:53, and the Impulse version in 3:09.

> We still urge APEX to comply with our standards, upon the release of
> the file format this decision to change their textures will rest soley
> on the back of APEX.  We are willing to help any and all 3rd party
> vendors with this new process.

Mike, you're implying that the Essence/Imagine 2.9 incompatibility has
occurred because we have not asked for any help from you. This is
completely untrue; in fact I've made many attempts to get any
information about textures, as far back as May of 1992, even before
Essence I ever shipped. Your only comment to a pre-release set of the
Essence I textures I sent to you was that they were nice and that
you'd like to see a foliage texture. I've talked to you personally as
well as sent FAXes, asking for any texture information. While I've
been promised information on many occasions, as recently as December
1993, I have never received anything, even on 2.0 texture formats. I
think it's great that you claim you will publish something publically
about the 3.0 format textures when you ship 3.0, since you have never
provided any assistance whatsoever to us in the past.

>         The door for communications is always open at Impulse, even if
> the communication is one of a negative nature.  Our goal is now and
> has always been to LISTEN TO YOU so that we could make Imagine the
> product that you helped to build.

Ah, this is true, you do listen to input. I sent an early copy of
Essence Volume II to you in August of 1993. You obviously did look at
the software I sent, since many ideas from Essence are now found in
the new 2.9 Impulse textures.  This is suggested by slight
similarities like using negative colors to disable color addition, to
more overt correspondences like using "T1 T2" labels for transition
levels, to textures with comparable functionality and even names (like
Crumpled).  I doubt that any Apex code was copied, but obviously you
incorporated a lot of the ideas pioneered by Essence into your new
textures. I actually don't have any objection to this; it's the most
sincere flattery you can possibly give me.


-Steve Worley

[e-mail]




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #117 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DEM source
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:04:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Not sure if this got out the first time I posted it, so ...

Try:

resdgs1.er.usgs.gov

In the /DEM directory, there are hundreds and hundreds of DEM files,
compressed for your chewing enjoyment.

--
Jeff Walkup <[e-mail]> Computer Graphics, Animation, Video


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #118 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: DEM source
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:08:32 EST
From: "W. Bruce Moore, Video Alchemy" <[e-mail]>

   Here are the ones on Aminet:

mcnv3.lha            gfx/misc    27K+Converts USGS ascii DEM files to Vista/Sce

vdem-az-co.lha       gfx/misc   683K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat
vdem-md-dc.lha       gfx/misc   671K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat
vdem-mid.lha         gfx/misc   185K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat
vdem-pa-ny.lha       gfx/misc   359K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat
vdem-penny.lha       gfx/misc    11K+Vistapro DEM files converted from NIST dat
vdem-southeast.lha   gfx/misc   201K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat
vdem-va.lha          gfx/misc   879K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat
vdem-west.lha        gfx/misc   887K+Vistapro DEM files converted from USGS dat



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #119 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: textures
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:20:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Alex..." <[e-mail]>

> has any one out there, especially Impulse or Apex, thought out a texture
> that would keep an object "wireframed" ? it would really be nice, for
> example for creating flashy objects, half wire-framed, half rendered .....
> like in some adverts .....

    Ahh, well, this is really easy to do in Imagine 2.9.  Use the
    Lattice function (under the New Stuff menu) and enter a value of
    about -0.05 in the requester.  This will turn your entire
    object into a wireframe, made up form narrow tubes.

    If you just want part of the object wireframed, then select the
    edges you want in Pick Edges mode and perform the Lattice from
    there.

    If I get a chance I'll do a quick piccy and upload it to the aminet.

    TTFN,
        Alex...

%-----\|/------------------- #include <.siggy.h> --------------------------%
%    (o o)     [e-mail]         -=* Retina's Rule *Bo) *=-  %
%-oOO-(_)-OOo- CSE Student @ Warwick Uni. UK  "All opinions are just mine" %


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #120 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Mr. Worley's recent letter
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 09:18:33 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Wickard)

The following letter was waiting for me this morning in my mail.
It is posted here in it's entirity.
-Dave
-----------------------------------


Dave please post over IML

    I have read, as some of you may have, Mr. Worleys letter.

    It seems Mr Worley suggests that there is still some other agenda
on the part of Impusle as it reagrds the essence textures that he produces.
 Mr Worley forgets that Imagine 2.9 is not a relase product, it is a
interim version so that people could see what we have done.  Yes we made
some changes, it broke his textures, and you complained about it.  Of
course there are more changes than the one which makes the essence texutres
work, but what is the point of arguing, we have fixed the problem so that
you would not have to wait for some patch to fix what you want to use.

    We here at Impulse appreciate that Mr. Worley spends his time
studying textures for programs like Imagine. We are excited to know that he
will continue his fine work, he however takes us to case when it comes to
speed of his textures.  I appologize, I make this comment in the second
voice, this is what we have heard from several users.  They are slow, this
is what you have said,  not us.  I was foolish to publish such a comment
knowing that I have no personal knowledge of the essence textures, I looked
a a few, used them once or twice and went back to the ones that we make.

    Also in Mr. Worleys post, he alludes to the fact that we copied his
textures, this is as far from the truth as possible.  Mr. Kirvan, the man
who wrote the textures for 3.0 is not one who would in any way spend time
doing this.  He is very creative in his own right and as such I think has
enough ego to warrant the  development of his own textures.  I know this to
be true, I watched him as he put in months and months of time to do the
best he could.

    The rest of Mr. Worleys letter to you the IML user is for your to
decide upon.  I will not get involved in any further NOISE, if you have
complaints, please let us know, we will as in this case make the changes if
we can.  If you have suggestions regarding Imagine, please let us know.  If
you find bugs, let us know at once.

    All vendors, no matter how diverse the backgrounds or directions
must find a common ground by which they can work together.  Mr Worley is
invited to direct himself to the issues of the growth of Imagine and you
the user.  I doubt that you really want to hear all of this garbage or
noise, so it stops here, today and in the future as it realtes to Impulse.

    As a final note, complaints, suggestions and other comments are not
resticted to Imagine users, this includes all vendors who would make a
product to support our efforts.  I get many calls from various other
vendors who would be involved with what we are doing.  My phone is always
open to Apex or any other company that would desire some help.

    So, back to 3.0, we are very close now and hope that you will enjoy
our efforts, and I will personally make sure that Mr. Worley gets a brand
new shinny copy of Imagine 3.0 so that he can do whatever testing he
desires.

    Up, Up and away.

    Mike


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #121 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: textures
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:59:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

This adds alot of extra polygons though.  It's not true wire frame, which
Imagine is completely capable of, just not for specific objects...

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel

            "...To Render:  By Any Means Necessary!!..."


On Thu, 17 Feb 1994, Alex... wrote:
>     Ahh, well, this is really easy to do in Imagine 2.9.  Use the
>     Lattice function (under the New Stuff menu) and enter a value of
>     about -0.05 in the requester.  This will turn your entire
>     object into a wireframe, made up form narrow tubes.
> %-----\|/------------------- #include <.siggy.h> --------------------------%
> %    (o o)     [e-mail]         -=* Retina's Rule *Bo) *=-  %
> %-oOO-(_)-OOo- CSE Student @ Warwick Uni. UK  "All opinions are just mine" %





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #122 ***************************************:-)

Subject: 3.0 Upgrade Pricing
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:47:07 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Gary Beeton, [e-mail])

This is directed to Impulse.  Have you determined what the pricing will be
to upgrade from 2.0/2.9 to 3.0?  Will there be any breaks for those of us who
own Imagine for the Amiga _and_ the PC?  For that matter, will the PC upgrade
be shipping at the same time as the Amiga upgrade?  Thanks in advance.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #123 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Texture talk
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 09:38:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

   I was going to bring this up but Steve Worley has already responded to
Mike Halvorson's open letter regarding the "supposed" slowness of Essence
textures to "legitimate" Imagine textures.  That comment from Mike's message
really stood out so I did a speed comparison and found the Essence and
Imagine textures to take about the same amount of rendering time, which
backs up what Steve said.
   A few months ago, somebody posted a message quoting Mike as saying the
textures for Imagine 2.9/3.0 were "algorithmically different" (supposedly
better)  so that was supposed to be the reason for the incompatibility of
V2.0 textures, including Essence, with V2.9/3.0.  Don't think a version
check byte can be considered "algorithmically different" unless you consider
a version check an "algorithm" (don't know what school of software teaches
this interpretation).
  Beyond all this Essence vs. Imagine textures controversy, I am having
problems with inconsistencies between Imagine V2.0 and V2.9 textures.  I
made an object with a radial texture (the "legitimate" Imagine one) in V2.9
and did a Scanline.  The object with radial texture  was opaque, when it was
supposed to be partially transparent.  So, I went to Trace and now it was
partially transparent but the object behind it was showing through in
greyscale, not color.  Then, I went back to Imagine 2.0, recreated the
object with the radial texture, using the V2.0 radial texture, and did a
Scanline. Lo and behold, it worked the way I thought it should; partially
transparent and the colors of the object behind it coming through with some
diffusion.  To experiment further, I rerendered in Trace mode and it came
out like the same scene in V2.9; partially transparent but with the colors
of the object behind it coming through in greyscale.  Why is Imagine V2.9
treating the same Imagine texture differently from Imagine V2.0?

      |\_/|
  < O_o >
     =( I )=   - Aackk!
       |U|        Pphhttt!
       |   |        Bleeaahh!         Bugs in software is like coughing up
furballs;
                                                  it sure feels good getting
them out of your system! - Bill the Cat









IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #124 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Stuff -n- Nonsense
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:18:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Hello everyone.

Just wanted to comment on the situation with Apex and Impulse...

I'm extremely pleased to read that Imagine 3.0 will allow Essence textures to
be used. This indicates to me that Impulse is attempting to be responsive to
the needs of their customers. I do admit that I was _plenty_ peeved when I
learned that one byte was the sum total difference that was preventing them
from working in 2.9. I'm not sure I understand completely WHY the change was
made in 2.9, but that's water under the bridge. The patch works for now, and
3.0 will allow us to use the original Essence textures, so I am satisfied in
that respect.

Curious, though, is that Impulse took the opportunity to slam on Essence
textures and question their efficiency and all that. Additionally, I received
a private message from Mike H. that told me that although the Essence textures
may LOOK like they're working, that essentially they're not at all. I replied
that to me, the LOOK is what I'm going for... No response. I've got the
original post somehwere... Perhaps when I get home I'll send it up.

Fact of the matter is this: There is acknowledged friction between Apex &
Impulse, and I don't know much of the reasons why. Impulse, with 2.9, had put
us, the consumers, right in the middle of their bitchy little war. With 3.0,
they've put us, the consumers, back where we should be - the driver's seat.

Thanks Impulse for listening to us. Perhaps the huge reaction you've gotten
to EssenceGate has put into better perspective the feud...

I am curious about Mr. Worley's post (Hi Steve!) as well. In it, he indicates
that Impulse didn't respond to his requests for texture code guidelines for
2.0, much less for 2.9. To the best of my knowledge, Steve has NEVER received
any code from Impulse regarding textures. Interesting, eh?

I think that we're in the back stretch of a nasty little issue, and that we're
coming out ahead for it.

One last little thing... Does anyone, anyone at all, specifically anyone from
Impulse think that maybe they can give us a slightly better (hopefully
accurate) estimation of when 3.0 will be available? For a while now, we've
been seeing 'in a few short weeks', and I'm wondering just how many 'short
weeks' it's going to be. Call me impatient, but I remember paying $100 a LONG
time ago for 3.0. Granted, I got 2.9, but I bought 3.0, and it still hasn't
been delivered....

Scott or Mike: how are the manuals coming?

Can't wait to try out the LATTICIZE trick to make wireframe-looking objects!
Thanks to whomever tipped us on that!



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #125 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: textures
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:12:00 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Dan Santos)

In a message of 16 Feb 94 Sebastien PERKINS wrote to me:

 SP> From: [e-mail] (Sebastien PERKINS) To:
 SP> [e-mail]


 SP> is anyone at APEX or IMPULSE thinking of creating a "wireframe" texture
 SP> ? i.e. have a wireframe version of an object in a scanline scene. This
 SP> could be very nice, imagine a half-rendered, half wire-framed object
 SP> ......

 I tried to simulate this with filter brushmaps once... It could look really
great if it weren't for this Imagine bug with filter (an object with full
filter values isn't totally invisible). Great idea for a texture though, if
this bug is fixed on v3.0

 /Dan

Internet  [e-mail]
FidoNet   2:200/103.5
AmiNet    39:162.113.7


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #126 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Wireframe
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 01:51:51
From: [e-mail]

Ok, I see someone already metioned the Latticize function for creating
wireframe objects.

Here's another way for creating the wire-frame with square or rectangular
wireframe openings.

Set the objects filter values to 255, 255, 255.  Apply one of the Death Star
family of textures to the object.  Set the Bevel Filter value to 0 (zero).

What you get is the bevel portion of the texture showing only.  Voila!
"Wireframe".   Of course, you may or may not want to adjust the bevel width and
the bevel slope.

GreG



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #127 ***************************************:-)

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:04:49 +1100
From: [e-mail]

Kirvan,

  Hey there!

  I've run across a problem in Imagine 2.0 in trace mode wherein a totally
transparent object with a bright global reflection map will display the
reflection map's colours in even if the object is non-shiny and non-reflective
i.e it is not rendered as transparent.  If there are two such objects
overlapping, where they overlap *is* transparent.  This isn't a problem when
using scanline.  I don't know if this has been reported by anyone yet, but it
sounds very similar to other problems I've heard discussed on the mailing list.

  So,

  Is there any public bug-list available for Imagine 2.0?  (i.e.  has it been
reported?)

  How does one report these bugs other than calling Impulse (is there an e-mail
address??)

  Is there a list of what bugs will fixed in the 3.0 release?


Blitzkrieg (tanks in advance),
Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| System Performance:                    PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. SP23  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Bell Northern Research                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #128 ***************************************:-)

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:13:04 +1100
From: [e-mail]

     Any ideas for creating a good snake?  Use texture or bitmap and
     tack?  Thanks for your suggestions...Ed


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #129 ***************************************:-)

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 10:37:28 +1100
From: [e-mail]

Well, I have uploaded the lensflafe object from the last AA, so it
should be on Aminet ASAP (If I got the readme right this time.:)  Its
not the greatest, but, its better then nothing.:)
Look for Flare.lha  on Aminet soon!

... I'd rather be assimilating.
 * Q-Blue 1.0 *--
*******************************************************************
*  Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway  *  Data/Fax: [phone]  *
*  Pueblo, Colorado USA              *  FidoNet:  1:307/18        *
*******************************************************************


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #130 ***************************************:-)

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 01:31:11 +1100
From: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Craig Donaldson) pecked out:

>
>
>In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
>>     Here's another one...... I presently converting all my 2.0
>>projects and objects (in which I used a LOT of Essence textures ;-(
>>to 2.9. Most effects I've been able to translate but I've been having
>>problems with my spaceship deflectors (get Scottie! ;-). With essence
>>I'd just apply blobc to a transparent plane and morph it over time
>>for a fractelly, energy effect. I've been using filnoise2 to some
>>degree of sucess but it 'aint nearly as nice. Any suggestions? What
>>are people using to dirty up objects? Is there something that
>>recreates the effect of fracturb etc...?
>
>Hi, Just found this among my "TO DO" list.  I am not sure if I have
>replied to this yet, if not I am sorry for not replying earlier :(.
>Well, I guess now that there is a known patch, you don't require an
>answer anymore :)

     Yea, I'm fine now but this whole process has been pretty tiresome. I
wasted a lot of effort trying to recreate effects generated with Essence
and Imagine 2.0 to no avail. I'm happy that the matter has been cleared up
but sincerely NOT IMPRESSED. PoP! goes a week of work.
     On the matter of Imagine/Essence textures. I vastly prefer Essence's
fractel coding. I find the effects much more to my taste and that "time"
parameter is a boon to anyone doing swirling clouds or shields. It'd be
nice to see something like this for the 2.9 textures (some hope, they'll
just keep squabbling....).

                                          Christopher

ps. There, I've said my piece, let's get back to some relevant (read:
productive) discussions. Has anyone got the inside track on the
psuedo-particle requestor? I've been trying to get something "engine-like"
through an emmission but.......... no "bubble-drive" ;-).



--
....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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #131 ***************************************:-)

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:11:58 +1100
From: [e-mail]

Well guys, I've got some news for you if you're after some Postcript
fonts for Imagine 2.9/3.0.

A friend of mine that is running a PD distribution house and is a fan of
Imagine has managed to amass a large collection of freely distributable
Postcript Type 1 fonts that can be used for Imagine 2.9/3.0.
The fonts have all been certified to work with Imagine 2.9 as those that
didn't were converted through TypeSmith into working ones.

He has 5 collections for sale. Each collection has 101 fonts spread over
4 disks (DS/DD).
The disks are in Amiga format, but if there is interest from PC users on
this list I'm sure that he will meet your needs.

The price for these is A$ 11.95 per pack or $A 11.00 per pack if 2 or
more packs are ordered. The price includes postage within Australia.

Only cheques or Money orders are accepted.

These should be mailed together with the order (number of packs) to:

Public Domain Plus

P.O. Box 791

Hornsby  NSW  2077

Australia

For people outside of Australia, E-mail me with any questions regarding
the price including postage to your country, I will ask him and then get
back to you with the price.

Nik.
[e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #132 ***************************************:-)

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:56:40 +1100
From: [e-mail]

Well, here's a little problem maybe some of you Imagine guru's can help
me solve...  Forgive me if it is a dumb/common question, but this is the
first time I have had it happen...

I am rendering an anim of several chess pieces on a marble chessboard.  I
spent a ton of time on the chess pieces, as they are all woodgrain, and I
had to go in an alter the textures on them all (and rotate them) so they
would be convicing.  They all had the same pattern (basically)
otherwise...  The next step was to put them on a marble chessboard.  I
used a flat plane with a brushmap of marble squares.  (that was fun to
do..)  The problem is, for some reason , whenever I render the pic,
chunks of my objects come up missing.  sometimes, whole chess pcs. are
gone.  It doesn't do this if I remove the brushmap and render the with
just the plain plane.  (plain plane....ick!)

BTW the Idea with this little project is to (ultimately...) fly the
camera view in a swoop down through the pcs.  and then out the other
side, bank and come back through.  The cool part is, when it banks, and
comes back through, the camera angle will switch, and you will see the
spaceship that in the previous view you were inside.  So far, everything
has worked correctly, except the brushmap thing.

Some specifics.

   Plane is 8x8 (to match brushmap squares and aid in
   placement of chess pcs.)

   brushmap is flat 640x400x8

   Rendering scanline HAM lace

   4 light sources

So, any ideas?  Or maybe a better way to do the board?

BTW I am using 2.0  Because the 2.9 glitches were quite irritating.  I
got tired of spending two hours working on something just to find
something I wanted to do didn't work.  Waiting for 3.0.... (camera lines
would have been NICE in this project.)

Please send replies to me at [e-mail] as our mailer on
hebron.connected.com seems to have puked tonite.  I hope this isnt
causing a bunch of bounced mail, as I didn't see anything from the IML
here tonite...Sigh.

     /----------------------------------------------\
    /    ///  Steve Lopez -> [e-mail]\
   /    ///    Student at -> Art Institute of Seattle \
  / \\\///        Program -> Audio & Video Production  \
  \  \XX/ `040'  Computer -> Amiga 2000 GVP040'33 DCTV /
   \                       : DSS8+ 9megs Flicker fxr  /
    \ "I can do that..."   : Midi DJ500c Supra 14.4k /
     \----------------------------------------------/
           If nobody else uses Amiga, that's ok.
        It just means I have the competitive edge.




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #133 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Brushmaps driving me crazy
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 07:02 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

Steve,
    this sounds almost certainly like a lack of memory problem. I had a
problem just like this where things would disappear without warning.
Imagine 2.0 has a 'undocumented program feature' that doesnt tell you
if it has run out of memory and loses objects (usually the last ones
you added to the scene, in my experience)... it could be something else
i haven't come across, but running out of memory is my guess....

    steve



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #134 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Metal texture in 2.9
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 21:56:08 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Manjit Bedi)

Has anyone been using the Metal texture that came with 2.9?

I have spent this afternoon trying to use it.  Maybe I am making
a fundamental mistake; my renders are coming out dark.
I did add an object that was not using a texture and it came
out in the render.  I am using scanline.  I was using "Copper"
with a polish of .5 and an antique of .5 and a finsih of 1.

I was applying the texture to an object that was created in the
forms editor which I added faces to in the detail editor.



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #135 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Line appearing on flat planes
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 07:21 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

hi all!
    i have a problem that i cant suss out.. I have a flat plane (2
polygons) which has the essence radturb applied so that the centre of
the plane is solid but the outside has the turbulence (like a sun
corona)... I was rendering 100 frames to use as a sequence to use in
LightWave (sorry!) BUT i keep getting lines across the plane, just
where the two polygons join... how can i get rid of this? it has
happened to me before a couple of time but i couldn't work out how to
make it disappear... any ideas?

    steve



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #136 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Brushmaps driving me crazy.
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 15:01:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Crowell <[e-mail]>

How much memory do you have on your system?  Your problem sounds like a
lack of memory.  The brushmaps use much more memory than the standard
attributes alone.  When Imagine runs out of memory it just stops adding
points.  Then end result is parts or objects missing in the final
picture.  If you are using the scanline mode you can save some problems
by switching to trace mode (I may have these reversed).  Good luck.

==============================================================================
-- Fred Crowell -- [e-mail] --
==============================================================================



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #137 ***************************************:-)

Subject: re: Brushmaps driving me crazy
Date:     Mon, 21 Feb 1994 06:41:05 -0800
From: "Steve \"Vis\" Lopez" <[e-mail]>

Thank you for all the info on my brushmap problem.

It sounds like the general consensus was lack of memory for the
brushmap.  I am running 9 meg on my machine, but there are quite a few
objects with a full chess set so maybe I will nuke a few objects.  Trrace
mode is really slow, and I dont know if I can stand to wait for it to
finish a big anim :)

I dont use brushmaps too often, and this is probably the biggest anim
I've tried.  I might have to bag the whole idea of the brushmapped board,
and try to use the bathtile texture when 3.0 comes out.  This project
is'nt time intensive as I'm not selling it...  I just decided to show off
at school.  This video production school I am going to is too expensive
to buy more ram, so I guess I'll have to tough it!

Thanks again for all the info again!  Will let you know.

BTW, a few people mentioned that they were interested in the marble
chessboard brushmap I am trying to use...  I will try to put it on Aminet
when I get a chance.  I am in the middle of Midterms now and when I'm
done I'll stick it on there and mention it here.

I cant wait for 3.0!!!  (and my tax return so I can buy it!)  Has there
been any info yet on what the upgrade will cost from 2.0 to 3.0?  I might
have missed it with the mail problems this machine has had recently.
(fortunately they got that fixed...)

     /----------------------------------------------\
    /    ///  Steve Lopez -> [e-mail]\
   /    ///    Student at -> Art Institute of Seattle \
  / \\\///        Program -> Audio & Video Production  \
  \  \XX/ `040'  Computer -> Amiga 2000 GVP040'33 DCTV /
   \                       : DSS8+ 9megs Flicker fxr  /
    \ "I can do that..."   : Midi DJ500c Supra 14.4k /
     \----------------------------------------------/
       If nobody else uses Amiga, that's ok.
        It just means I have the competitive edge.




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #138 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Imagine & Gigamem
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 12:19:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Whitten <[e-mail]>

Does anyone know if Imagine will utilize virtual memory via Gigamem and
68030 cpu?

Thanks

Michael


 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 +    M.D. Whitten   [e-mail]    Sentience is overrated.   +
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #139 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Line appearing on flat planes
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:09:47 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Gary Beeton, [e-mail])

> ...i keep getting lines across the plane, just where the two polygons join...


I have seen this problem too, when rendering walls with a "paint" attribute
assigned.  It produces not so much a sharp line, as a distinct difference in the

grain or texture of the wall where the polygons join.  Sorry, I have no
answers.

Gary


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #140 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Imagine & Gigamem
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:35:54 EST
From: "Steve J. Lombardi" <[e-mail]>

>
> Does anyone know if Imagine will utilize virtual memory via Gigamem and
> 68030 cpu?
>
> Thanks
>

YES!! They work quite well together. If you set a comfortably large
ram buffer for gigamem, performance is quite good. I've done some
scenes that require 20 megs on my 9 meg system. I usually set a 1 meg
buffer. I've heard a rumor (jim drew of utilities unlimited) stating that
VM will be in the next version of the OS and an 030 based 1200 is on the way.
It wouldn't surprise me if C= simply licensed Gigamem as I don't think anyone
is left to do OS stuff.

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #141 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Imagine & Gigamem
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 08:46 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

    Imagine will use Gigamem for virtual memory but only if you have a
full 68030, not a 68EC030... Gigamem uses the MMU that is present on
the full version but is faulty or not present on the 68EC030. I run
Gigamem on an A4000 (040 with MMU), an A2000 with A2630 (68030 with
MMU) but it won't work on my A2000 (with GVP G-Force board cos it has
the EC version of the chip)..

    steve



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #142 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: My message about line appearing on flat plane
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 08:46 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

    i think i now know why it is doing it.... it only happens if the
camera is *EXACTLY* perpendicular to the plane... i.e. the plane is
pointing straight at it. I moved the camera ever so slightly and the
lines dissappear, but if i put track camera on the plane, the line
appears again. so i went into the detail editor and rotated the axis of
the plane slightly, aligned the object to track the camera again and
hey presto, the line has dissappeared because even though the plane's
axis is tracking the camera, the plane is slightly rotated from the
axis and therefore isn't point squarely at it (although its so close to
it that you wouldn't notice it!)... thanks for all the comments, I'll
try the edge smoothing one later as that could be easier...

    steve



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #143 ***************************************:-)

Subject: convert (to and from) TIFF and Sun ras. files
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 16:31:17 GMT
From: Waland J F <[e-mail]>

-----included---------
Would any of you have knowledge of a Public Domain or Shareware utility to
manipulate (classic image processing) and convert (to and from) TIFF and Sun
rasterfiles ? This utility would have to be run from a Silicon Graphics or a
Sparc Sun.
----------------------

try these places for the pbm+ graphics routines...
Host unix.hensa.ac.uk    (129.12.21.7)
Last updated 03:25 20 Feb 1994

    Location: /pub/uunet/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume23
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x    1024 bytes  23:00 27 Jul 1992  pbmplus

    Location: /pub/uunet/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume25
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x     512 bytes  23:00 27 Jul 1992  pbmplus

    Location: /pub/uunet/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume26
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x     512 bytes  23:00 27 Jul 1992  pbmplus

    Location: /pub/uunet/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume9
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x     512 bytes  23:00 27 Jul 1992  pbmplus

Host scitsc.wlv.ac.uk    (134.220.4.1)
Last updated 03:19 20 Feb 1994

    Location: /infomagic/usenet.cdrom/sources/misc/volume23
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x    4096 bytes  23:00  2 Aug 1993  pbmplus

    Location: /infomagic/usenet.cdrom/sources/misc/volume25
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x    2048 bytes  23:00  2 Aug 1993  pbmplus

    Location: /infomagic/usenet.cdrom/sources/misc/volume26
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x    2048 bytes  23:00  2 Aug 1993  pbmplus

    Location: /infomagic/usenet.cdrom/sources/misc/volume9
      DIRECTORY    drwxr-xr-x    4096 bytes  23:00  2 Aug 1993  pbmplus

Host ftp.sunet.se    (130.238.127.3)
Last updated 03:15  9 Feb 1994

    Location: /pub/X11/R5untarred/contrib/clients
      DIRECTORY    drwxrwxr-x     512 bytes  17:14  2 Oct 1993  pbmplus

in the package you should get the source to compile a whole
load of programs for image manipulation and convertion.

eg:
atktopbm (1)            - convert Andrew Toolkit raster object to portable bitma
p
brushtopbm (1)          - convert a doodle brush file into a portable bitmap
cmuwmtopbm (1)          - convert a CMU window manager bitmap into a portable bi
tmap
g3topbm (1)             - convert a Group 3 fax file into a portable bitmap
gemtopbm (1)            - convert a GEM .img file into a portable bitmap
icontopbm (1)           - convert a Sun icon into a portable bitmap
libpbm (3)              - functions to support portable bitmap programs
macptopbm (1)           - convert a MacPaint file into a portable bitmap
mgrtopbm (1)            - convert a MGR bitmap into a portable bitmap
pbm (5)                 - portable bitmap file format
pbmlife (1)             - apply Conway's rules of Life to a portable bitmap
pbmmake (1)             - create a blank bitmap of a specified size
pbmmask (1)             - create a mask bitmap from a regular bitmap
pbmreduce (1)           - read a portable bitmap and reduce it N times
pbmtext (1)             - render text into a bitmap
pbmto10x (1)            - convert a portable bitmap into Gemini 10X printer grap
hics
pbmtoascii (1)          - convert a portable bitmap into ASCII graphics
pbmtoatk (1)            - convert portable bitmap to Andrew Toolkit raster objec
t
pbmtobg (1)             - convert a portable bitmap into BitGraph graphics
pbmtocmuwm (1)          - convert a portable bitmap into a CMU window manager bi
tmap
pbmtoepson (1)          - convert a portable bitmap into Epson printer graphics
pbmtog3 (1)             - convert a portable bitmap into a Group 3 fax file
pbmtogem (1)            - convert a portable bitmap into a GEM .img file
pbmtogo (1)             - convert a portable bitmap into compressed GraphOn grap
hics
pbmtoicon (1)           - convert a portable bitmap into a Sun icon
pbmtolj (1)             - convert a portable bitmap into HP LaserJet format
pbmtomacp (1)           - convert a portable bitmap into a MacPaint file
pbmtomgr (1)            - convert a portable bitmap into a MGR bitmap
pbmtopi3 (1)            - convert a portable bitmap into an Atari Degas .pi3 fil
e
pbmtoplot (1)           - convert a portable bitmap into a Unix plot(5) file
pbmtoptx (1)            - convert a portable bitmap into Printronix printer grap
hics
pbmtox10bm (1)          - convert a portable bitmap into an X10 bitmap
pbmtoxbm (1)            - convert a portable bitmap into an X11 bitmap
pbmtozinc (l)           - convert a portable bitmap into a Zinc bitmap
pbmupc (1)              - create a Universal Product Code bitmap
pgmtopbm (1)            - convert a portable graymap into a portable bitmap
pi3topbm (1)            - convert an Atari Degas .pi3 file into a portable bitma
p
xbmtopbm (1)            - convert an X11 or X10 bitmap into a portable bitmap
ybmtopbm (1)            - convert a Bennet Yee "face" file into a portable bitma
p

jon


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #144 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: RELAY BOUNCE
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:08:35 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail] (Kiernan Holland)

<used a flat plane with a brushmap of marble squares.  (that was fun to
<do..)  The problem is, for some reason , whenever I render the pic,
<chunks of my objects come up missing.  sometimes, whole chess pcs. are
<gone.  It doesn't do this if I remove the brushmap and render the with
<just the plain plane.  (plain plane....ick!)

This is Imagine' way of saying "Not enough memory.."
I used to get these kind of results when I rendered
a castle once, then I got 4 megs of ram and it did well..
I wonder if that Virtual Memory program "X-mem" would help out,
it cots about 50 bucks now, but I think it may require special
support.. It would be neat if Imagine supported some kind
of virtual memory, but all the other programmers have told me this
is a operating system matter.. So I guess CommonBore Machines
will have to include this is the next release of Amigados.


(This was originally Emailed yesterday but our school's stupid
version of Elm misunderstood which way to route the mail so I
am resending it, hopefully to the right place..)


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #145 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: My message about line appearing on flat plane
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:47:18 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Gary Beeton, [e-mail])

> ... thanks for all the comments, I'll try the edge smoothing one later as
> that could be easier...


Huh?  All the comments?  The edge smoothing one?  Did I miss something here?

Either my email is all screwed up or people have been replying privately.
Please, please, if you have anything potentially interesting/usefull to say,
make it public.  That is the whole reason I subscribe to the IML.

Gary


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #146 ***************************************:-)

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:40:21 +1100
From: [e-mail]

>Huh?  All the comments?  The edge smoothing one?  Did I miss something here?

Sorry, I guess my reply was private.  I suggested that with phong turned off
that you should select the edges cutting across the center of the plane and
make them soft.  Or leave phong on and make the outer edges sharp.

I found that this had solved the problem for me.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #147 ***************************************:-)

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:51:56 +1100
From: [e-mail]

hi,

I was wondering if there exists a object converter which converts from
POV or VIVID object format to some amiga format (imagine, lightwave or sculpt)?

thanks,
dave Monachello


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #148 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Installing 2.9
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:11:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tak Tang <[e-mail]>

Hiya folks,

I was rather please to receive imagine 2.9 yeasterday, and installed the
int version, but when I run it, it looks for fc24.library, cant find it,
and bombs out.  I've edited the config file to turn USEFIRECRACKER from T
to F, but it still looks for it (I'm using SNOOPDOS).  Can anyone who has
managed to get it working help?

Thanks in advance,

Tak

+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Tak Tang, Internet : [e-mail]    |   // Amiga 1500, KS 1.3,    |
| Computer Science                              | \X/ 3 Megs ram, 2 Floppies, |
| Faculty of Applied Science                    | GVP Series II SCSI Card,    |
| Department of Electronics & Computer Science  | Quantum 11ms 52Megs HD,     |
| Southampton University, England               | Vortex 386sx GoldenGate     |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #149 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Aspect ratio
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:16:23 CET
From: [e-mail] (Thorsten Ebers)

Hi Folks,

how do I calculate the right aspect ratio for a DIN A5
print ??

I render the pic for ca 300 dpi.(ca. 2500 x 2400 pixel)
The measurements are for DIN A5 21 x 14,85 cm.
Anybody giving me a formula ???

Thanx Thorsten



---
Thorsten Ebers   - PGP public key available on request -
Horstweg 28
D-14059 Berlin
e-mail: [e-mail]

Tel.: [phone]


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #150 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Aspect Ratio and FC24.library
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:10:41 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings,


Thorsten Ebers:
>how do I calculate the right aspect ratio for a DIN A5
>print ??

I don't have my calculator with me (and I've already deleted your original
message) so I can't give you the numbers, but here's how you figure it out:

The aspect ratio tells Imagine, in a device independant way, how to render
so that squares stay square (and not rectangular) on any particular display
device.

The numbers themselves represent the width and height of any single pixel
in an arbitrary, unit-less, measure.

Take your display width (measure it as accurately as you can if you don't
know the manufacture's spec), and divide that by the width of display area
in pixels (the number of pixels across the screen).  This is the width of a
single pixel - keep this number.  Now calculate the height of a pixel by
doing the same math with the height of your display area.  Slide the decimal
points on each of these calculated numbers to the right until you get some
integer ratio you can use (you can do this because the units on the
calculation don't matter in a ratio) - you may have to round the numbers to
get an integral (integer) ratio.  You have to slide the decimal point the
same number of positions in each number - ie. Slide it to the right 3
decimal places in both numbers.

For example:  say your printers display area is 12.5 x 10.0 inches exactly
and the display has 500 x 350 pixels.  After calculating, the size of a pixel
is .024 x .02857 inches - sliding the decimal point gives you an aspect ratio
of about 24 x 29 (or if you want to be more accurate, 240 x 286).

Hope this makes sense - the explanation is a bit wordy and overdone.


Tak:
>...receiv[ed] imagine 2.9 yeasterday, and installed the int version,
>but when I run it, it looks for fc24.library, cant find it, and bombs
>out.... (I'm using SNOOPDOS)....

SNOOPDOS is telling you that, but Imagine will run with or without the
fc24.library.  The problem is most likely that you are running out of
memory, and is coincidentally running out while trying to load the
library.  Suggestions: free up as much memory as possible - don't run
anything else in the background - don't run workbench and start imagine
from cli - or get lots o' memory...


later....                 sk...



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #151 ***************************************:-)

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:45:09 +1100
From: [e-mail]

I've got Imagine 2.0 from the Amiga Format magazine, and I am having
trouble setting it up so that I see the entire screen at once.
I've got a 1200 with a microbotics 1230xa accelerator with math-co.
I boot up with both mouse buttons down, and select PAL mode.
After workbench loads, it still looks like ntsc, I then run the pd PAL
program and the workbench shrinks a little bit.  I then double click
on Imagine and it starts up, but stretches above and below what I can
see on the screen.  I toggle (left-amiga M) to the workbench and
somehow it got switched to ntsc mode, I then run PAL, the workbench
shrinks, toggle back to Imagine, (still looks stretched out) toggle
back to workbench, and workbench is back in ntsc mode again.
 Is there a way to shrink the imagine screen so I can see everything
at once?

thanks, steve


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #152 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Cycle->Detail->Cycle=Problem
Date:     Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:17:08 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

If a cycle object is loaded into the detail editor and resaved then it can't
be reloaded into the cycle editor.  Cycle complains that the object is not
correctly animated.  I didn't think a cycle object would retain any cycle-
specific info if it went to detail and was resaved.

Replacing the parent of the group with an older version seemed to cure the
problem and allow re-entrance into cycle to create new cycles.

This isn't something I normally do and it can easily be avoided but is there
another way to get back into cycle if this does happen?


Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #153 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Cycle->Detail->Cycle=Problem
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 22:09:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Goldman)

>
>
> If a cycle object is loaded into the detail editor and resaved then it can't
> be reloaded into the cycle editor.  Cycle complains that the object is not
> correctly animated.  I didn't think a cycle object would retain any cycle-
> specific info if it went to detail and was resaved.
>
> This isn't something I normally do and it can easily be avoided but is there
> another way to get back into cycle if this does happen?
>
>
> Jason K.
> Cybernetic Expressions
>
    I was having problems with this until I discovered you have to
branch all your cycle stuff off of another axis that isn't the main
axis. In other words, you can't have more than one branch off of the
main axis.
    To fix this (in the detail editor) just create another null
axis and group it to where your main object axis was. You should then
get one axis (main axis) grouped to another axis (main body object)
then a whole bunch of cascading grouped object off of that axis. Kinda
confusing, so I'll try to illustrate.

    What you probably have now:

        0    Where O are objects grouped to MO (main object)
            |
        O--MO--O
            |
            O

    You want:
        O    Where MA is the main axis...
        |
        O--MO--O    Grouping order should go:
           /|
          / O          __O
            MA             /
            MA--MO--O    (Wow, ascii sucks)
                 \\ O
                  \O
                   O

    Do this, redo the 'cycle setup', and you should be fine...
Fixed my problems... Hope it helps...
    BTW, when you go to the cycle editor it will ask you whether
you want to convert the object to a cycle object...

                        Jeff G.---->

E-Mail: [e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #154 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Memguard & Imagine
Date:     Wed, 23 Feb 1994 23:48:24 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

I just installed a program called Memguard IV by Ralf Thanner, it trys
to prevent illegal memory accesses to certain areas.  I found that it
alerts me quite frequently when making changes in the attributes requester
in Detail.  Turning phong on & off usually will set it off as well as other
things.  What's up with this?

Jason K.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #155 ***************************************:-)

Subject: memguard & Imagine
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 08:27 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

>I just installed a program called Memguard IV by Ralf Thanner, it trys
>to prevent illegal memory accesses to certain areas.  I found that it
>alerts me quite frequently when making changes in the attributes
>requester in Detail.  Turning phong on & off usually will set it off as
>well as other things.  What's up with this?

    I have noticed that the attribute requester does nasty things with
memory. I used to run enforcer on my A4000 to prevent memory trashing
my rogue code but i got so hacked off with this problem that i turned
it off. I haven't tried enforcer with v2.9, i'll try that later. i do
hope impulse have fixed this as i don't like programs that cause
enforcer hits :(

    steve



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #156 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Coolnesstivity man...
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:07:51 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings all,

Just a quick note:

I just saw the the first "bones" animation. - OH MY GOD!

f***ing amazing.  It looks like a bit of a pain to get set up, buth
the animation is easy and looks great - WOW...

later.....                     sk....


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #157 ***************************************:-)

Subject: JellaCycle
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:31:10 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings,


Rosario Salfi:
>What about a new effect (called Jello, mayb) that would squash an
>object in one (or more?) axis, but also would allow for a recursie and
>degenerative squash.... It'd be a lot easier than setting up ether
>keyframes or using multiples of the boing effect.

Actually, keyframing this isn't too bad in the V3.0 stuff.  With the
Deformation tools, states, and spline interpolated morphing you can
get some really good jello effects - the osilations and damping are all
up to you, but its not too tough.

Still, an FX would be cool - but, maybe a bit tough.  I read a paper on
jello dynamics that somebody was doing as a doctoral thesis using
computer models a few years ago.  It was really interesting but the
physical time-based model was very complex.  Damn - my pocket protector
is showing.

Jason K:
>If a cycle object is loaded into the detail editor and resaved then it can't
>be reloaded into the cycle editor.  Cycle complains that the object is not
>correctly aimated.  I didn't think a cycle object would retain any cycle-
>specific info if it went o detail and was resaved.

I think you can reload cycle objects if the only thing you mess with is
attributes.  If you alter any points/edges/axes,etc, the cycle info gets
blown out - I'll take a look at it to see if we've put in a new problem.


later...                sk...



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #158 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Cycle->Detail->Cycle=Problem
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:46:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

  If you are pulling a Cycle object into the detail editor, ungrouping, and
then editing, I think this is changing the cycle orientation.  What you need
to do is group the object again, after making your desired changes, and go
to the Cycle setup command in the menu (can't remember which command the
menu bar starts with right now).  Anyway, there are a couple of Cycle setup
commands in the Detail Editor if you look for them.  I believe they are only
operational in the group mode.  There is a good explanation of this in
Understanding Imagine 2.0.  If you run this properly from the Detail editor,
then you can go straight back into the Cycle editor with the edited object.
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: imagine
Subject: Cycle->Detail->Cycle=Problem
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 1994 5:17PM


If a cycle object is loaded into the detail editor and resaved then it can't
be reloaded into the cycle editor.  Cycle complains that the object is not
correctly animated.  I didn't think a cycle object would retain any cycle-
specific info if it went to detail and was resaved.

Replacing the parent of the group with an older version seemed to cure the
problem and allow re-entrance into cycle to create new cycles.

This isn't something I normally do and it can easily be avoided but is there
another way to get back into cycle if this does happen?


Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #159 ***************************************:-)

Subject: TDDD format
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 18:37:30 CET
From: [e-mail] (Jesper Rou Larsen)

reply to: [e-mail]

Anybody know anything about the TDDD format that Imagine objects consists
of?? I'm planning to make an Object Viewer, and needs this information.
Is this format Copyright'ed or can I use it as I want?



 Best Regards, Jesper.
--
       __
      /// EMAIL: [e-mail]
     /// Postal: Jesper R Larsen, Trige Centervej 74stth DK-8380 Trige, Denmark
__  /// Phone: [phone]
\\\///  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 \XX/ - The only major difference between kids and adults,
        is the price of their toys!!!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #160 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: JellaCycle
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:14:29 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> >What about a new effect (called Jello, mayb) that would squash an
> >object in one (or more?) axis
> I read a paper on
> jello dynamics that somebody was doing as a doctoral thesis using
> computer models a few years ago.

And don't forget to read "Ray Tracing Jello-O Brand Gelatin" in the 1987
Siggraph proceedings in which the derivation for the Jell-O Equation is
presented. There is even an Amiga reference :-)
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #161 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Motion blur and such
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:37:19 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

Christopher Stewart <[e-mail]> writes:
>    Generate an anim at 60fps instead of 30. Run deinterlace on each
> frame and alternativly composite the tops and bottoms of each successive
> frame onto a backdrop the same size as the original. You should end up
> with half the frames you first generated (a'la 30fps). Run interlace on
> each frame and you've got field rendering. I'm told (by Mark Thompson)
> that it's not true field rendering but don't really understand why...

Its hard to explain without visual aid, but basically you will have half the
effective resolution using this technique unless you render 60fps at full
height (480 pixels), and then use the odd scan lines in the odd numbered
frames and the even scan lines in the even numbered frames. This means that
each image pair (odd and even) is spatially shifted one scanline from the other
and has 1 scanline gaps (which the other image fills in). By simply rendering
60fps with a height of 240 and combining them with ADPro as described, you
get double the camera time sampling, but both fields (the even and odd pairs)
are presenting the same set of rendered scanlines (just time shifted). So
your effective resolution is 240 rather than 480, even though the effective
frame rate has been doubled from 30fps to 60fps. Is that any more concise?
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #162 ***************************************:-)

Subject: MemGuard update
Date:     Thu, 24 Feb 1994 23:31:06 -0500
From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]>

I don't know if I mentioned this before but the version of Imagine that was
causing problems with Memguard was 2.0.  Imagine 2.9 has not caused any
conflicts with Memguard.

Jason K.
Cybernetic Expressions


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #163 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Motion blur and such
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:53:48 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

     Mark Thompson pecked:

>Its hard to explain without visual aid, but basically you will have half the
>effective resolution using this technique unless you render 60fps at full
>height (480 pixels), and then use the odd scan lines in the odd numbered
>frames and the even scan lines in the even numbered frames. This means that
>each image pair (odd and even) is spatially shifted one scanline from the other

>and has 1 scanline gaps (which the other image fills in). By simply rendering
>60fps with a height of 240 and combining them with ADPro as described, you
>get double the camera time sampling, but both fields (the even and odd pairs)
>are presenting the same set of rendered scanlines (just time shifted). So
>your effective resolution is 240 rather than 480, even though the effective
>frame rate has been doubled from 30fps to 60fps. Is that any more concise?

Kick! It's now obvious Mark. Sorry I didn't get it at first but it
was a matter of theory vs application. I now render everything at full res
60 fps and use the aforementioned technique. Works like a charm although
my scripts leave a lot to be desired. Would anyone out there be willing
to take the mess I've acclumulated and turn it into a FRED operator?
Something that could be run from DOPUS would be good too. Just select the
frames in question and get an animation ;-). For a FRED operator you'd
just need to modify the script to take deinterlaced frames and composite
the fields alternately, discarding the chaff. ADPro's present INTERLACE,
DEINTERLACE, RENDER and SAVE AS ANIM scripts will take care of the rest. I
just don't have the stuff to modify the material myself.

                                              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.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #164 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Animation Question(s)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:16:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Whitten <[e-mail]>

I'm still new to Imagine2.0, so I hope I'm not boring anyone.  I've
successfully managed to create animations, but being the inquisitive
type, I'm unable to understand exactly *WHEN*, in the setting up of a
scene in Frame 1, said scene is 'copied over' (for lack of a better term)
to the remaining frames for subsequent key editing.

After preparing a project/sub-project and establishing # of frames in the
Action Editor, I go to the Stage Editor and load objects. Moving, scaling,
and rotating are possible here.  At this point, I can Goto any subsequent
frame and see that the scene I established in Frame 1 is 'copied' into these
subsequent frames.  Can I further edit/load objects into Frame 1 and see
these changes reflected in those subsequent frames?  If yes, are these
reflected changes automatic?  For example, if I want a loaded object to
actually be smaller in size throughout my animation and I scale it
appropriately in Frame 1, the same object in subsequent frames will not
scale.  Is it correct that to properly scale that object for use in the
animation, I should have scaled it down in the Detail Editor first, THEN,
brought it into the Stage Editor?

With the concept of keys and key editing in mind, it seems I SHOULD be
able to, 1) edit Frame 1 to my heart's content, NOT keying anything in that
Frame, 2) when I'm finished with this setting up in Frame 1, explicitly tell
Imagine to 'copy over' the scene into subsequent frames, and, 3) THEN start
keying objects throughout the animations frames.  I know there's big
differences between the 'shoulds' and 'ares', and that the real method
Imagine uses is probably more flexible, but I'm having a hard time getting
a mental grip on it.

Unfortunately, Worley's book has no tutorial for setting up animation, so
its hard to understand SEQUENCE of operations and how important it is in
the setting-up of animations.  I'm sure this is all pretty second nature to
most of you, but if someone can supply some insight on just this ONE hurdle,
I'd be most thankful.......well, the one hurdle for THIS week, at least.

Michael

PS: Has anyone ray-traced an animation of the quantum double-slit experiment
yet?  If yes........whaaat happened?


 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 +    M.D. Whitten   [e-mail]    Sentience is overrated.   +
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #165 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Now I get to ask a question...
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:47:29 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings,

I haven't read much of the mail yet, so my apolagies for not
answering any questions yet.

My question is : What is, and how do I get on to aminet?

I could probably throw a bones anim up there early next week.

(bet I won't get bombed with mail on that one...)

thanx...                     sk....



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #166 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RFO (Request for Objects)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:02:19 CST
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Wilkinson)

Hello All!

    I am looking for some Imagine 2.0 objects. I need some objects
of tanks... I need something like an M1 (I'll take an M2) or T-72 or
anything resembling a modern tank/howitzer... US Vehicles would be the
best, but I'm not picky at this point. They don't have to be very
detailed, but object size is not a problem if they are detailed.
Anybody have any pointers??

Thanks,
Stephen

____________________________________
Stephen Wilkinson     [e-mail]      "Programming is like pinball. The
Software Engineer                         reward for doing it well is the
LB&M Associates                           opportunity to do it again."
____________________________________
#define OPINION         myown
#define COMPANYOPINION ~myown

      This message created using 87% recycled neuro-transmitters


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #167 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: RFO (Request for Objects)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 16:32:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Stephen Wilkinson wrote:
>
>     I am looking for some Imagine 2.0 objects. I need some objects
> of tanks... I need something like an M1 (I'll take an M2) or T-72 or
> anything resembling a modern tank/howitzer... US Vehicles would be the
> best, but I'm not picky at this point. They don't have to be very
> detailed, but object size is not a problem if they are detailed.
> Anybody have any pointers??
>
The archive at avalon.chinalake.navy.mil is generally the best for this
kind of stuff.  They also have a lot of satellites, missiles and naval
craft.  You will probably need to translate the objects, as they do not
have ALL objects in ALL formats.  This site is also mirrored all over the
place.  Try grabbing the index file at the root directory, and perusing it
before grabbing individual files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #168 ***************************************:-)

Subject: light
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 19:27:00 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Paul Rance)

Message to Impulse

Question about Lights.

At the moment I'm modelling a kitchen and am including a couple of strip lights
(fluroscent tubes). With the current version (2.9) its difficult to get
them realistic looking. I have modelled them using a tube object and then
given it a bright spherical light and a 0.01 fog setting (for casting
shadows), the problem is the light only emits from the objects axis and not
from the shape of the objects faces. Will this be overcome in v3.0? The
only way around it I can see is to add 10-15 lightsources in a line.

Thanks

Paul Rance




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #169 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Memguard & Imagine
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:19:00 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Dan Santos)

In a message of 24 Feb 94 Jason B Koszarsky wrote to me:

 JBK> From: Jason B Koszarsky <[e-mail]> To:
 JBK> [e-mail]


 JBK> I just installed a program called Memguard IV by Ralf Thanner, it trys
 JBK> to prevent illegal memory accesses to certain areas.  I found that it
 JBK> alerts me quite frequently when making changes in the attributes
 JBK> requester in Detail.  Turning phong on & off usually will set it off as
 JBK> well as other things.  What's up with this?

I also get a lot of enforcer hits when messing with the attributes requester..
but Imagine seems to be very stable, I can't remember when it crashed the last
time. So.. don't worry, be happy! :)

/Dan

Internet  [e-mail]


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #170 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Sparks (before it was Re: 2.4 thoughts)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 15:18:02 +0800
From: Erdem Taylan <[e-mail]>

On Friday 25th Alex ? wrote:

>If there is a way to have the blue light affect half of the objects
>in the scene and have the orange light affect only the sparks, I
>could do it but I don't know of any way to limit a light's effect to
>specific objects.

The answer is lying under the hierarchy. Just create a hierarchy for
the sparks and put the orange light in it. After that Real3D show its
power of hierarchy and only the level of sparks and the levels
recursively below if there is any, will get the orange light.

Hope this helps,

Erdem Taylan

**********************************************************

 Being with the Amiga for an hour is like a minute,
 Being with the Mac and Pc for a minute is like an hour,
 That's what Relativity is!

**********************************************************


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #171 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: RFO (Request for Objects)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 13:23:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

Also try wuarchive.wustl.edu in systems/amiga/boing/incoming/imagine

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel

            "...To Render:  By Any Means Necessary!!..."


On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Doug Kelly wrote:

> The archive at avalon.chinalake.navy.mil is generally the best for this
> kind of stuff.  They also have a lot of satellites, missiles and naval
> craft.  You will probably need to translate the objects, as they do not
> have ALL objects in ALL formats.  This site is also mirrored all over the
> place.  Try grabbing the index file at the root directory, and perusing it
> before grabbing individual files.




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #172 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: light
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 15:25:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew McDonald <[e-mail]>

>
> At the moment I'm modelling a kitchen and am including a couple of strip light
s
> (fluroscent tubes). With the current version (2.9) its difficult to get
> them realistic looking. I have modelled them using a tube object and then
> given it a bright spherical light and a 0.01 fog setting (for casting
> shadows), the problem is the light only emits from the objects axis and not
> from the shape of the objects faces. Will this be overcome in v3.0? The
> only way around it I can see is to add 10-15 lightsources in a line.
>
The way to do this is to make the object "bright", and NOT a lightsource.
Then, in the stage editor place a light in the same spot as the tube, and
yes, if it's a long tube, you might have to add several low power
overlapping lights. I don't know of any desktop programs that support
tube shaped lights. Anyone else? Anyone, anyone, Bueller?

A object that is also a light uses the y-axis to determine the direction
of the light.

Andrew.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #173 ***************************************:-)

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 12:04:37 +1100
From: [e-mail]

This is to everyone who has encountered files with a tar.Z extension,
these are plentiful on ftp sites.

IF you send up a file that is not compressed with any compression program
specific to your own computer, add a '.Z' to the filename upon uploading,
this is cause an automatic compression on the file you upload.

IF you want a file that has the tar.Z extension uncompression upon
executing a 'get' or download command from a ftp site, LEAVE OFF the '.Z'
this will cause an automatic file uncompression to occur on the file you
wish to recieve!




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #174 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Files with the tar.Z extension
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 21:43:36 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Kent Kalnasy)

At  6:28 PM 2/26/94 -0500, Tyrone Marshall wrote:
>This is to everyone who has encountered files with a tar.Z extension,
>these are plentiful on ftp sites.
>
>IF you send up a file that is not compressed with any compression program
>specific to your own computer, add a '.Z' to the filename upon uploading,
>this is cause an automatic compression on the file you upload.
>
>IF you want a file that has the tar.Z extension uncompression upon
>executing a 'get' or download command from a ftp site, LEAVE OFF the '.Z'
>this will cause an automatic file uncompression to occur on the file you
>wish to recieve!

This doesn't sound at all right.  "tar" means that multiple files have
been joined into one using the UNIX tar command (a version of which is
available on the Amiga).  The ".Z" means that it has been compressed
using compress (also a UNIX command available on the Amiga).

My strong guess is that you're using some kind of program (a version of
FTP?) on your local node that automatically provides these services.
This is great for you if you are, but most of us still have to uncompress
and untar files manually.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kent Kalnasy (speaking only for me)              [e-mail]
 Loral Advanced Distributed Simulation, Inc.             Bellevue, Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #175 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: light
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 01:41:10 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Paul Rance wrote:

>
>
> Message to Impulse
>
> Question about Lights.
>
> At the moment I'm modelling a kitchen and am including a couple of strip light
s
> (fluroscent tubes). With the current version (2.9) its difficult to get
> them realistic looking. I have modelled them using a tube object and then
> given it a bright spherical light and a 0.01 fog setting (for casting
> shadows), the problem is the light only emits from the objects axis and not
> from the shape of the objects faces. Will this be overcome in v3.0? The
> only way around it I can see is to add 10-15 lightsources in a line.
>
> Thanks
>

I've got a question about your fog setting... What did you mean by
setting for to 0.01 "for casting shadows" ?
I haven't tried this as yet, so can you tell me what it means ?

Nik.



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #176 ***************************************:-)

Subject: RE: Animation Question(s)
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 16:07:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tak Tang <[e-mail]>

Michael,

Go to the actio editor.  Each `ACTOR` has a number (8 I think) of
horizontal bars associated with it (description on RHS of screen).  The
'actor' bar determines which frames (accross top of screen) the actor
appears on.  If you click on it while in INFO mode, it allows you to change
which OBJECT on disk it uses, and a few other bits I have'nt worked out.
You can also change the RANGE of frames for which the ACTOR exists on.  If
you need to have and actor dissapear for a bit, change the actor bar so it
goes from 1..n, the add a SECOND actor bar from m..o (select ADD mode,
click on where you want to to begin on the actor bar space, then click on
where you want it to end).

Theres also SIZE, ALIGNMENT and POSITION bars, which do not have to exist
over the range to have an effect.  You can click on these and change the
details directly, though its easier to do it in the stage or detail editor.

If you are in a subsequent frame, in the stage editor, and you want to move
the actor to a new place, go to the menus (I forget which - second on the
left i think), and select POSITION bar.  This has the effect of creating a
new position bar on that frame (which will effect subsequent frames),
without having to go through the action editor.  Same goes for SIZE and
ALIGNMENT bar.

Oh, about your first question - I've noticed that if I set the stage before
changing the number of frames, the info isn't 'copied' over.  If I set the
frames before setting the stage, the frames are.

Its worth playing about in the action editor.  You can add effects to the
objects over a period of time - I like the EXPLODE.  You can also have one
object MORPH into another, by changing the actor object, and setting the
transition frames (i think).  And you can make objects follow paths, and
track other objects.

This might be a good point to direct you to Carmen R's Imagine Hints and
tips available on AMINET (gfx/3d I think).

Oh, request to imagine writers - it would be nice to have a 'copy' feature in
the action editor.

Hope this is of some help,

Tak



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #177 ***************************************:-)

Subject: lights
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 11:51:00 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Paul Rance)

MIKE HALVORSON

 > No 3.0 will not try and deal with this the way you suggest, this
 > would take about 40 billion years to render due to the fact that the
 > light
 > would have to be about that many lights.  All of the lights in IMagine
 > 3.0
 > and 2.9 are point based not object based.

I had a feeling about that. But if you could make lights using CSG wouldnt
that get around it.

 >
 > In 3.0 we do have rectangular lights, this will allow you to
 > establish an area that the light casts a square are of light, then you
 > will
 > add a new Transmission texture that will soften the edges of the light
 > and
 > it will look for all purposes as though the light is indeed doing what
 > you
 > suggest.

Sounds good, but this will act as a true lamp wont it, meaning casting
shadows,bright
and not just an illusion of a rectangular light. In v3.0 will it automatically
adjust the lights depending on the fog in the scene? So if I had a spotlight in
fog
it will defuse the light, instead of having to build a cone object and give it
a fog
setting.

 >
 > Dont make the tube a fog object, just make it bright and then if
 > you really need to do more, put another tube around it and make it fog,
 >
 > very thin fog and it will look like a flouresent tube in a dusty room
 > or
 > what ever you want.
 >

I actually made it a fog so that It can cast shadows, If I turned the fog off
the lamp wouldnt work as i have it on cast shadows aswell as bright. I'm
not really after a halo effect as the tube is hidden under some cupboards
(above a
sink) it just instead of a oblong emission of light from the tube
I'm just getting a spherical which doesnt look too convincing, but it sounds
like the rectangular
lights could do the trick. Thanks
A
Paul Rance




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #178 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Powerful Computers
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:01:08 EST
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

Hey Peoples .. I have just come from a seminar where the CRapple  people
                displayed there latest animal called the Power-PC.
                I myself dont have much of an opinion of CRapples, but I had to
                kneel down to this one.
                If CRapple can come out with a critter with aprox 100Mips for
                aprox $7,000.00.  I will be busting my gonads to see how the
                new Amiga 5000 will be.
                Oh by the way, the CRapple is Verry fast (A4000 x5) at
computing
                but it is still pathetic at graphics (speed).




/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-SUN
Graeme Mc Donough,
INTERNET: [e-mail]  (postmaster)
                                                                        ///
Monash University                                                      ///
Dpt of Earth Sciences                                                 ///
Clayton, Melbourne                                                \\\///
Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3168                                           \XX/
PHONE: [phone]
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-TWIRL





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #179 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Thanx...
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:38:28 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

Greetings again...

thanx for all the info on aminet - I thought I knew what it was, but
haven't been able to log in anonymously because there's been too many
people up there.

One more question - is there a PD flc player for the amiga up there?

thanx...                   sk...


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #180 ***************************************:-)

Subject: overlapping transparency & render times
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:38:48 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

Has anyone figured out a clever way to speed up rendering of overlapping
transparency?

I have a moderately complex object to which I have applied transparency.
With transparency turned off, the object renders in about 8 minutes in
900x630 in trace mode with antialiasing set to 32 (which I think is
pretty darn fast).  With transparency turned *on*, it takes over 9
*hours* to render in the same resolution.  I can get it a little faster
by setting antialiasing back, but not too much.

I'd like to be able to speed this up, but I can't figure out how.  (I
have already cranked the "resolve depth" back to the minimum that I can
do and still get reasonable pictures).

I can certainly wait 9 hours to view the render, but there are two
problems.  First, it gets difficult to "tweak" the image to get it
right, since even at the lowest tolerable preview resolution (about
640x400 in this case) it takes a long time.  Second, if I add more
transparent objects, the render time seems to increase exponentially.  I
have one image which took 193 hours of CPU time to render (which is just
over 8 days - actually even more in clock time since interactive use
took some CPU time also).

Anyway, this transparency thing is killing my render times.  Any tricks
or hints for speeding things up?

  - steve

PS - anyone heard any news about that Transputer card?  There were
rumors a while back that both Imagine and R3D might be ported to it.  I
could sure use a 10-fold (or whatever) increase in rendering speed, and
I can't afford a Screamer.  I suppose we'd need Essence ported to it
also, come to think of it.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #181 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: RFO (Request for Objects)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:52:49 CST
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Wilkinson)

I recently requested pointers to some tank objects... My thanks
go out to Doug Kelly, Cyrus Kalbrener and Scott Lundholm for
their helpful replies (hope I didn't forget anyone :) ).. Now
that I have found the objects, how do I convert them??? They
are in "obj" format and I don't have any converters! There
is an m1 and an m2bradley which I would love to have. Scott,
I may take you up on your offer to convert them if "obj" is
Wavefront format. Thanks again for the help

Stephen

____________________________________
Stephen Wilkinson     [e-mail]      "Programming is like pinball. The
Software Engineer                         reward for doing it well is the
LB&M Associates                           opportunity to do it again."
____________________________________
#define OPINION         myown
#define COMPANYOPINION ~myown

      This message created using 87% recycled neuro-transmitters



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #182 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: lights
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:47:22 GMT
From: Andrew Nunn <[e-mail]>

Hi Paul, (we meet again I think)

> I actually made it a fog so that It can cast shadows, If I turned the fog off
> the lamp wouldnt work as i have it on cast shadows aswell as bright. I'm
> not really after a halo effect as the tube is hidden under some cupboards
> (above a sink) it just instead of a oblong emission of light from the tube
> I'm just getting a spherical which doesnt look too convincing, but it sounds
> like the rectangular lights could do the trick.

For this application it sounds like making the tube bright, and the move
the object axis outside the tube. Then make it a conic light source with
extreme axis difference eg X 100 and Y .001 ,thus giving a planar effect.

Andrew


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #183 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Thanx...
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:40:30 EST
From: [e-mail]

There is a good ECS/AGA flc player on aminet called 'flick.lha'.  I think it's
in gfx/show, but I'm not sure.  It's in gfx/? somewhere.  It's preety good.
I got 14 fps on a 640x480 256 color flc on a A1200 with 33MHz 030 and fast ram.

Now some questions:

     1) Is the LOAD flag bug in config going to be fixed in 3.0?

     2) (this goes to anyone)  I upgraded from 1.1 to 2.9/3.0, so I never knew
some of the new stuff in 2.0.  Since 2.9 doesn't have a full manual, I have a
question about the config file.  There is a setting (I forget what it's called)
that can be set to 1-6 and the comment says something about 'oct-tree level'.
What EXACTLY is this about????  All I could determine is that a setting of '6'
GREATLY decreased my trace times.

Thanx all, and keep up the good work Scott!

Nick


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #184 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Waiting for 3.0...
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:15:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Well, I called Impulse the other day, and asked when we might be able to
expect 3.0.

They told me 'in a few [short] weeks', which is really frustrating. I pried a
little bit, asked if that meant that we'd see it in March. The person on the
phone said they didn't know, but they thought maybe.

I asked how the manual was coming, and they said fine. I asked how close to
completion they were, percentage-wise, and the person said 'almost'. I
said 'almost?', and they said 'Yeah, it's ALMOST done'.

Ah well...

Anyone wanna start a betting pool as to when Imagine 3.0 will come out?

Anyone betting August of 1993, as originally promised, will be laughed at.



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #185 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Thanx...
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 14:06:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

Try flick.  I can't remember the exact name, but it should be in the
RECENT listing as the latest version was just upped a few days ago.  Also
try the latest version of MainActor.  It's shareware, but it handles flc
anims as well as conversions to anim7 format.

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel

            "...To Render:  By Any Means Necessary!!..."


On Mon, 28 Feb 1994 [e-mail] wrote:

> Greetings again...
>
> thanx for all the info on aminet - I thought I knew what it was, but
> haven't been able to log in anonymously because there's been too many
> people up there.
>
> One more question - is there a PD flc player for the amiga up there?
>
> thanx...                   sk...





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #186 ***************************************:-)

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 03:48:17 +1100
From: [e-mail]

On Tue, 22 Feb 1994 Dave Monacehllo wrote:

> I was wondering if there exists a object converter which converts from
> POV or VIVID object format to some amiga format (imagine, lightwave or
> sculpt)?

Dave,
Did you get an answer to this?  If so, would you mind forwarding it to me,
I'd be interested also.

   _________________________________  <<-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<<
  0______________________________   |  >>  Escher Rules!                >>
   _____________________________/|  | <<   Cliff Lee                   <<
  0_____________________________l|  |  >>  [e-mail]   >>
   _________________________________| <<   [e-mail]               <<
  0________________________________/   >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-->>




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #187 ***************************************:-)

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 04:14:39 +1100
From: [e-mail]

On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Michael Whitten wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, Worley's book has no tutorial for setting up animation, so
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If someone could please elaborate, I'd appreciate it.  What I'm mean is,
what exactly does "Understanding Imagine" contain concerning animation?
The main reason I want the book is so that I can learn how to do
animation.  Any info. appreciated.

Earl C.
[e-mail]





IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #188 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Jello
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:55:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Wilkinson)

[e-mail] said:
[snip]
> Still, an FX would be cool - but, maybe a bit tough.  I read a paper on
> jello dynamics that somebody was doing as a doctoral thesis using
> computer models a few years ago.  It was really interesting but the
> physical time-based model was very complex.  Damn - my pocket protector
> is showing.
[snip]

Check out "RayTracing Jell-O Brand Gelatin" in the ACM SIGGraph proceedings
in or about 1987(?). It's a paper from a Pixar dude on ray-tracing
gelatin. It's a riot and mentions our favorite computer ;^)

Stephen

____________________________________
Stephen Wilkinson     [e-mail]      "Programming is like pinball. The
Software Engineer                         reward for doing it well is the
LB&M Associates                           opportunity to do it again."
____________________________________
#define OPINION         myown
#define COMPANYOPINION ~myown

      This message created using 87% recycled neuro-transmitters


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #189 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: Thanx...
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:01:21 EST
From: [e-mail]

I have a correction on that flc player.  It is in gfx/show on aminet, and it is
called flick-1.2.lha.  Sorry 'bout that.

Nick


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #190 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: lights
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:16:30 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> > the lamp wouldnt work as i have it on cast shadows aswell as bright. I'm
> > not really after a halo effect as the tube is hidden under some cupboards
> > (above a sink) it just instead of a oblong emission of light from the tube
> > I'm just getting a spherical which doesnt look too convincing, but it sounds

> > like the rectangular lights could do the trick.
>
> For this application it sounds like making the tube bright, and the move
> the object axis outside the tube. Then make it a conic light source with
> extreme axis difference eg X 100 and Y .001 ,thus giving a planar effect.
>
A conic light source is still a point light source(right?).  So you still have
light coming from a single point making a sphere/cone of light.

Hmm, other than several lightsources, you may just have to wait for 3.0.  Or
if you want to be far fetched, maybe some elaborate mirror scheme to
"distribute" the light along a line.

Let us know if you come up with something.


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



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #191 ***************************************:-)

Subject: 'Tis March
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 11:42:50 GMT
From: Waland J F <[e-mail]>

OK, I'm not moaning about time or anything as unconstructive as that,
but is there a posible release date of Imagine 3.0 ?
I understand that Impulse are (rightly) reluctant to set a firm date, but
can they give a 'possible' date??

blitzkrieg (tanks in advance) [not my idea alas]

jon


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #192 ***************************************:-)

Subject: bevelling with imagine 2.9
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 16:23:17 +0100 (MET)
From: "Erik.Roosemeyers" <[e-mail]>

Hi,

I just got imagine 2.9 and wanted to try imported text (postscript) converted
to a beveled object.

I believe this could be done in the spline editor. (there I found a requester
with beveling parameters).

Now, the problem is how to do it.

Also when I want to make text with the postscript fonts, Imagine says
that there isn't a vector available. What could cause this ?

Last question : is there any help file available or some faq of Imagine
2.9 ? The only textfile that I have is a description of the new textures.

Hope somebody answers..

E.R.

[e-mail]
Antwerp - Belgium.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #193 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Wagering on the internet
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 09:28:03 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
> Anyone wanna start a betting pool as to when Imagine 3.0 will come out?
>
> Anyone betting August of 1993, as originally promised, will be laughed at.
>
>
I bet it will be out in a few short weeks(whats a short week?).

Hey, has anyone noticed the IML cutting off the headers of the mail?  All
I get is:

>From [e-mail] Tue Mar  1 09:12:08 1994
Origin: ssd
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 09:07:29 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Content-Length: 662

no subject, no senders real address, no nothing.  Whats up with that?  It
doesn't happen all the time either.  So, don't forget you .sig, so everyone
can know who you are:)

Dave?  You still out there? Can ya fix it?  Can ya, can ya?


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


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #194 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Imagine 2.9 Bugs....
Date: 1 Mar 1994   15:36:28 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

Hmm here are 2 small bugs I have found in 2.9   I don't think they've
been mentioned yet.   The first one is really dumb...


1] In 2.9, in the Project editor....when you choose to Open a Project,
the requestor is labeled NEW.  When you choose to make a New Project, the
requester is labeled OPEN.  The title just got switched....confused me for
a bit though...

2] Editing paths in 2.9 stage editor (and maybe detail too..).  Add a new
open path in the stage editor.  It will ask you for the filename etc....okay.
Now choose to Edit Path.  Select either endpoint.  Now use Amiga-T (or
choose Transformation) and try entering a new position for that end point.
The value is pretty irrelevent.  Choose okay.

    Okay...so far so good, the point has moved.  Now go back to pick groups
or whatever the other mode is called!  Zip!  the point moves back.

    A work around is to move the other point by hand (press m) and then it
remembers the change.

    I think what is happening is trans. req. doesn't notify properly that
the path has indeed been altered, so Imagine just assumes no changes have
been made.

    This was really annoying when I had to connect some paths...ie: look
at the end pt of one path, and then for the new path, set it first node
to be at the same point.



    Mike Comet
    [e-mail]




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #195 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Imagine crashes on PC
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 1994 09:43:23 -0800 (PST)
From: ANIEMANN <[e-mail]>

Sometime ago I posted that Imagine for the PC was crashing every 15 -20
minutes. Well, it wasn't Imagine's fault. We installed one of those CPU fans
and, lo and behold, it hasn't crashed since.
Also I finally had a chance to try out my Fauve Matisse paint program. Is it
ever great! It's a Windows true color paint and photo retouch program with
layers. The layers mean that you can reposition a 'brush' (they call them
'objects') as often as you like, you can use it as a stencil or manipulate
it with filters independantly from the rest of the image. You can cut out
an object from the background with the standard cropping tools including the
'magic wand' and bezier curves. You can keep these layers separated as long
as you wish, even saving them in a 'layered 'format, or merge them to the
background whenever you are ready. It has many surface textures and
simulates many natural media such as chalk, water color, felt marker, etc.
etc.(similar to Fractal Painter) It's speed seemed quite a bit faster than
OpalVision on an 040. It will paint to any size you want, although with many
repositionable 'objects' and a size of 2000x1500 it did slow down quite a
bit. I wonder if this is a Windows problem. I bought it for $99 from the
company that makes it. It's a steal -although I don't know if that price has
changed since then.
andy






IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #196 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: bevelling with imagine 2.9
Date: 1 Mar 1994   23:43:32 GMT
From: <[e-mail]>

> Last question : is there any help file available or some faq of Imagine
> 2.9 ? The only textfile that I have is a description of the new textures.
>

    Good question.  Actually....i have been brooding over this for a bit...
ie: what to add to the current FAQ.

    If anyone out there has a list of things....even just questions without
answers of things they would like to see on the FAQ regarding 2.9/3.0 please
email me!

    I haven't posted a new FAQ since i haven't added  anything!

    Mike Comet
    [e-mail]




IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #197 ***************************************:-)

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:32:16 +1100
From: [e-mail]

     Autocad DXF support seems to be unfinished in 2.9.

     DXF import works only for 3dface objects.

     I couldn't get DXF export to work at all.

     Will this be fixed in 3.0?  I would like to import 2D and 3D
     lines, arcs, circles, etc.  This capability would greatly enhance
     the power and flexibility of Imagine.


IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #198 ***************************************:-)

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:33:37 +1100
From: [e-mail]

Bandwidth apologies etc,

Would some local kindly give me an idiots guide?  I assume I put something +
a .readme somewhere onto sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk

I want to put up a neat particle anim.

Do people like/want the project too?

Is 2MB too big for most people?  What size will people happily download?


All input greatfully received :-)

Jay
[e-mail]



IMAGINE ARCHIVE MESSAGE NUMBER #199 ***************************************:-)

Subject: Re: postscript fonts that work
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 21:24:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin Hobbs <[e-mail]>

>
> > Also when I want to make text with the postscript fonts, Imagine says
> > that there isn't a vector available. What could cause this ?
>
> I have found that many of the postscript fonts found in aminet/text/font/
> return this error... basically it's trail and error until you find fonts that

> load correctly. I've found that about half of them load correctly.
>
> Paul.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Paul Batten     Science & Computing Dept.    Christchurch Polytechnic
>  [e-mail]           Christchurch      New Zealand
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
  Would you mide listing a couple that you've found to work?

  Kev