Hello Everyone!

Just want you all to know that I just emailed a survey to all the EITG newsletter members. This is a short survey with some questions about the future of EIM. Please take a moment and check your email and answer the 5 brief questions. Thank you!

Brad

I think the last question is a bit of a bad question…
You’re going to have a big split between new and old users with that one

It seems the Newsletter database again won’t remember me. I’ve re-subscribed again: would you be so kind to check for “Juan Gómez Martín” and see if I could receive that survey message?

I’ve answered the survey and emailed it back - I definitely vote for the resurrection of EIM ! Such a beautiful interface - great for simple architectural work.

Dear Brad,

I answered the survey, but I have some suggestions.

First of all I’m very glad to hear that EIM may be still alive and is not dropped at all.

I think EIAS needs a good modeler. A SDS-modeler may be very helpful for animators, because the learning curve isn’t that steep. On the other hand you have a relatively robust toolset in the old modeler combined with the fantastic ÜberNurbs. So I would go this way.

If you will go with the ACIS-Kernel this gives you an advantage over Cinema 4D 3D Studio Maxx and LightWave: compatibility to professional CAD/CAM Tools.

For the features:

• I would suggest to integrate total numeric control over every aspect of modeling.
• Construction history would be the key to real professional modeling.
• Blending functions even on trimmed surfaces
• Real and reliable C2 continuity (Class A surfaces)
• Volume calculation
• graphical curvature plot

If you could address all these features you could offer a unique toolset.

After EIM was discontinued I searched for an alternative.
Since I’m Industrial Designer I usually work with exact numeric input. I do no modeling for visualisation only, but for production, so STL export is extremly helpful for me.
I tried every ACIS-based competitor to EIM, but none of them convinced me in the way it works or in the toolset it provides.
Finally I bought SolidThinking form evoque.
The workflow is not as good as EIM provides, but ok. The GUI is awful and the whole software is buggy, but workable.

I payed 2.200 $ for it (modeler alone) and in any case if it is possible I jump to EIM because of it’s straightforward workflow and ease of use. Of course Solidthinking gives me much more possibilities than EIM.

I’m not sure if know what brilliant software sleeps on your harddisk.

Last word:

For a simple featured EIM I would pay 200 - 300 $.
For an EIM as suggested I would pay much more and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

May be you could provide EIM light and professional.

This would be a dream.

Best regards

Frankg

Hi y’all

Just filled in the questionnaire. I’ve always been interested in having a modeller within EI so that edits to geometry can be done as you construct a whole scene with all the shaders and all.

I know there are plug-in products that allow you to create a lot of geometry inside EI and then access them for editing purposes but my workflow has always been build in FormZ, import and light/texture etc. in EI, then go back to FormZ for geometry updates. If you’re really organised (which I’m not) you can then just re-launch the EI file with an updated fact from FormZ and hey presto everything is already set right. But this falls down if you start adding in new objects to that fact file or changing the order of things etc. Working on architectural projects I find myself going to and fro a lot and it quickly gets messy unless you’re really on the ball.

But I can’t imagine the complex issues relating to building modeller into EI so it runs as one app. I’m sure its been looked at before and decided to keep them separate.

Just thought I’d mention it though.

Cheers

James

Definitely I don’t seem to be receiving the survey email, so please take these answers into consideration:

1. Would you be in favor of the return of EIM (Electric Image Modeler)?
- Yes, bring back EIM

2. If EIM did return would you like it to include the ACIS engine?
- I don’t care.

(as long as it keeps on being primarily a solids/surfaces/sds modeler. No objection to adding poly modeling. Whichever engine works best. I understand this could be an issue in certain fields: perhaps these users could tolerate purchasing an extra ACIS import/export plugin?

3. Would you like to see a lower-cost SDS (subdivision surface) version of EIM without ACIS?

AN ISSUE HERE: would it be EIM in name only, just another SubD modeler, or would it keep EIM’s current tools or equivalent ones too?

It’s just that there are lots of cheap SubD modelers out there already, so I wouldn’t care much unless it had some EIAS-specific features (such as being able to texture groups inside the modeler, mark certain groups as cages to subdivide in EIA, some way of being able to add and substract groups from FACTs in the modeler without EIA freaking out, etc.).

4. If you are a current EIAS user what do you think would be a fair upgrade price to get EIM back with UB code, upgraded ACIS engine, multi-core aware, and a few new features?
- Yes, between $100 and $200
- Yes, I would pay more then $300 for EIM if its new features were übermindblowingly superduperstupendous.

5. Customers since version 6 didn’t receive EIM with their purchase. Do you believe they should get EIM for the same price as users from 5 and older?
- I don’t care too much.

Actually, these ought to pay a bit less, as they had no choice at all but get a third-party modeler, while pre-6 users still have a working EIM (it still works in Rosetta on Intel Macs), unless there was a price difference between versions taking EIM into account (I really don’t remember)

I’ve just subscribed : please check for “Arthur Steijn” and send that survey message.

Really like EIM, use it for animation and also .STL 3D print, Export as ACIS and then .stl from Rino or FormZ.
I have even been teaching it at a glass and ceramics school here in denmark. Would like to use it again, for glass sculpure experiments combined with 3D print.

Arthur Steijn
Denmark

One frequent argument against resucitating EIM is that it diverts precious resources EITG could make better use of. I’d like to know, at the very least, if reviving EIM up to a “nominal” status (just working natively on OS X Leopard and Vista, or Tiger on Intel and WinXP given how inmature the most recent OSes are, same features as last issued version) would be that terribly resource-intensive and costly, developer efforts-wise (and if the ACIS engine still is such a grievous expense). Would doing it be a path of least resistance? Because it seems to me that any alternative to resurrecting EIM and building things on top of it (a few features, nothing major, simply to restart the engines) would be even costlier in time and resources short to midterm. And we all know EIAS HAS TO HAVE A MODELER to become an all-round package marketing-wise, so resources have to be spent on a modeler, whichever modeler it turns out to be.

I am aware a company cannot be too candid about the paths it is exploring, but one would like to know how EITG weights each of the options it is proposing in its survey and their consequences.

For example: keeping on using ACIS or not. Would dropping ACIS mean that we lose parametric solids/surfaces modeling and EIM becomes a polygonal-based modeler? Or is it simply that you would use another engine of similar capabilities and lower or zero license costs? What would be the time-to-market impact?

It’s just that, the way these questions have been formulated, we don’t know where our answers would lead EIM to, really.

Hello, gentlemen

We’ve to say almost nothing new, generally our opinion coinsides with what’s already said, and (especially) with what Christobal wrote. Let us add few details only.

>>4. If you are a current EIAS user what do you think would be a fair upgrade price to get EIM back with UB code, upgraded ACIS engine, multi-core aware, and a few new features?<<

As we see, the talk is only about “internal” using of EIM.  It’s quite reasonable cause after several years of sleeping no one can be competitive with Silo, Rhino, Hypo and others who have been worked intensively during all this time. BTW: we don’t know what is a “multi-core aware” in this context.

Ok, a logic/approach kinda “solid 3d app should have a modeler” is not original but absolute not bad itself. But here is the question: what’s next step? Ok, imagine “point 4” is implemented. Upgrade money are charged, a wave of nostalgy/enthusiasm is gone. But the obligations remain. Need, as minimum, to fix actual bugs. Need to declare at least a minimal EIM progress in each new EI vers. What if EIM will be “a stone on neck” (as one “guy” wrote at 5.5 times) again?  What if this prj/piece will be a subject of constant critique and displeasure of users? What’s changed since 5.5? It’s not a stone more? Why?

And another one: Brad’s letter/test proposition is 100% objective. We personally see NO any promises, declarations, plans etc. there but only asking users’ opinion. But.. people see what they want to see So, maybe it would be better to emphasize that’s “test only” and absolute nothing more (just for enthusiasts who runs with red flag ahead train

I would like to see a ‘time base’ EIM back to make it more useful for animator similar to Form Z. I also hope the updated EIM and EIAS can functions at least similar to Lightwave’s Modeler and Layout so that we do not require to keep trashing/swaping fac files after every changes in geometry. Just my 2 cents.

I’m certainly in favour of it coming back, one the one condition that it has a direct bridge to Animator for updating models. I personally wouldn’t use it otherwise.

Ian

Why not using the core of say Silo 2, hire a visagist so that it “fits” in the future UI of EIAS and there we have a not too expensive, quite solid and very useful modeller.
That foregoes the need to develop a modeller anew, to acquite an existing company or to resurrect a dead modeller. It might save a lot of time as well.

Just my 2 eurocents…

Cheers
Albert

If EITG is dependant on other companies for development, they are no longer in control of their future. Personally, I’m totally against bundling other modelers with EIAS. An enhanced EIM is the way to go.

Besides...Silo is looking after Silo...not EIAS.

AMAPI 8 promised to combine AMAPI 7’s NURBS+Poly surfacing with Hexagon’s fully tooled SDSs and UI. I wonder if EIM could evolve into that (in the sense of letting us collapse ACIS objects into polys and go on from there)

Anyway: again, is resurrecting EIM inexpensive enough to make it do some marketing magic for the EIAS package and so let EITG have some respite to think what to do and where to go?

(By the way: whatever happens, please don’t turn it into one of those single viewport only modelers such as the current ViaCAD)

Paralumino - 07 November 2007 02:13 PM

If EITG is dependant on other companies for development, they are no longer in control of their future. Personally, I’m totally against bundling other modelers with EIAS. An enhanced EIM is the way to go.

Besides...Silo is looking after Silo...not EIAS.

There are numerous examples of independent companies working together on a shared product(line), and doing it mutually beneficial and succesful (the very succesful Carl Zeiss/Kyocera example springs to mind but there are others). There is nothing against taking a few good products from various producers and turning them into a highly versatile suite of products, under a common label. It is just the next step from offering independent plug-ins and might mean the next step quality-wise as it takes the guerilla element out of working with small independent outfits.
Working on a SHARED product(line) foregoes the argument of being out of control of ones own future as both companies will be looking after themselves AND each other out of sheer necessity. I personally prefer using a good and proven third party product that is interwoven with another product (in a suite) over using a myth from the past. I never cared much for the story of Lazarus either.
What I do fear is that (re-)developing EIM might be a long-term project with all associated risks and negative variables, while integrating an existing and proven product might be a shorter term project and give EIAS a much needed kick-start. Opinions on this, however, may and no doubt will differ.

Cheers,
Albert