•••• how difficult is it, and how many resources would it take, to implement eps support within EI and for that matter, within a plug in?
Hi, Scott, All
We’ve a some experience (negative) with EPS. December 2006 our client asked us to extract geometry from EPS files (a task very similar to what you ask). So, during 3-4 weeks we’ve been learning all this.
First off, “EPS” is a “PS” (PostScript). EPS is just limited with a single page, it does not make programmer’s life easier . Anything from PS can be in EPS. Ok, what is a PostScript? It’s enough advanced language. The Adobe’s PS documentation is almost 1000 (one thousand) of pages. With not large font and seldom pictures only. PS readers apps typically require several aux folders and megabytes of aux files.
Well, we learned PS open source software. We remember really cool one “ghostscript\” - very nice written. Unfortunately they don’t do what we needed. They are mainly concentrated on PS/EPS “render”, i.e. convert PS into output bitmap. There are also commercial solutions. For example, http://www.visual-integrity.com - converting PS into DXF. But it’s not cheap, provides limited amount of licenses and for Windows platform only. NOTE: it’s info 1.5 years old, something can be obsolete/changed.
Ok, after all we said to client: it needs 3 month of work and 2-3 months of beta-testing and polishing. Such terms (and sum) was too expensive for our client, we understood his reasons. Thus we considered together how to “fit” the task into client’s abilities.
In first view it’s attractive: let’s implement a “limited” import. Let’s assume EPS contains only a limited set of primitives (like curves, arcs etc.) but not all possible PS hooks. In many (or even most) cases it’s really so. And it needs much less time and money. However, a defect of this way is obvious. “This or that” EPS file cannot be imported. What it would mean for us - easy to imagine a mail from Scott with a text like: “Guys, I’ve bought your software to import EPS but it does not work etc. etc”. And WHAT we can answer???
Another one potential PITA is a futher tech support. What if Adobe announces next PS version(s)? It definitely can happen. It’s easily can be a “stone on our necks”.
What? “.. but other apps..”. Hmm.. really? As we remember, 3ds has not. But instead it has “ai” import. And IMO it’s a really clever and practical solution. Because although (maybe) “ai” has less abilities but also much, much less probs for developers and users as well. Maya - yes, it has. But not all eps files can be imported. Please don’t get us wrong, we talk about only our personal tests.
So the prob is not “we like EPS or do not”, but just amount of work. “Like plug-in” = out of the question. At least for us. In host.. well, that’s we don’t know (and it depends not on us) but, be honest, here our opinion is negative too. Why?
We know well, eps is really-really wanted. But each feature is a “ratio” where “numerator” is how it’s wanted/usable and “denominator” is amount of work. And with this denominator a ratio can be “not good” (said softly). In other words, yes, you want EPS, but.. as a nice little shader Like $20. Or, better yet, free Or “just a little option in one of plug-ins”. Sorry, but IMO it’s not possible. So what? A plug-in $200 or more? Oooh, no-no, let’s omit comments, here you know all yourself. Or maybe a vers of host with a main feature = EPS import? But hey, how about using RAM over 2Gb, all processors, faster and better illumination and many, many other things? What? “Instead” we’ve EPS import? It would be a very poor “compensation” IMO.
It would be nice if Tesla provides a good, stable “ai” import. That’s all we can say.
Thank you for such a quick and detailed response.
....
I would not compare EI to Maya, or Max or XSI. If people say to you, “but other apps”
I agree with you, its unrealistic to try and make EI ‘like other apps’. EI is too far behind with
its character tools and a few other areas to try and catch up to them. I think we should just
make Ei’s strengths even STRONGER.
.....
I think it is much more realistic to target Tesla as “eventual” competition at the high end. Just my opinion.
.....
I see EIAS as competition to c4d and for use in motion graphics and as a hard surface animation tool. Plug ins like simcloth are great, but the core program does not need a ton of work in my opinion to make it a motion graphics
powerhouse. Why compete against 5 apps in a saturated field, when EI is so good and so close to the ability to
grab a large market share of motion graphic designers and entry to mid level 3d artists. Not all 3d apps need to be alike. Hopefully Brad and whoever else is dictating EIAS development see this like I feel is the most obvious and
best future of EIAS, in motion graphics and effects. Focus on Tesla and build the best hi end app EITG can over the next few years.
.....
With that all said guys, tell me if this is realistic. I see EIAS only 2 major features away from touting itself as THE
#1 Choice for Motion Graphics and hard surface animation. And that is
••••#1 a multithreaded Camera
••••#2 meaningful acceptance of ai files at the plug-in level such as Paraluminos Products OR as an addition to
the Ubershapes Plug in for example. A simple ai import and bevel is not that useful in general. But opening
up the app to accept ai files in a way 3rd parties can take advantage of would be INCREDIBLE! Remember,
not EPS, but just the outlines and ‘cut holes’ you can make in illustrator. Nothing more needed.
.....
Question - Can this be done in 6 months or less?
.....
I realize it can be frustrating to hear so many voices wanting so many things, believe me, I feel for you on that. What I, and I believe is a very large segment of potential clients are interested in is the easiest way possible to create geometry in EI using an ai file. Like EPS invigerator did years ago inside EI?
.....
The closest application to perfection in this area is Zaxwerks Invigerator Pro Modeler.
.....
I may have mis spoke about EPS. I mean more ai. support. As I understand it, older versions of adobe illustrator is much less code to deal with. And we DONT have to worry about it becoming obsolete, because Illustrator has and will continue to have the ability to save older versions of your file. So no worries on that issue.
.....
I appreciate your input and time guys. Lastly, who tells you WHAT to work on next.... or is that private information.
Thx for good words and understanding. Let us answer compactly.
1. About EPS-dream. We think
a) “ai” import is much more realistic and (finally) effective solution.
b) it should be addressed to coming Tesla. First off, Kishore understands here much more than we are. Secondly any “plugin-importer” creates a users’ unsatisfaction. Always. And it’s clear why.
2. About your other questions: sorry, Scott, but all this is a private information we can’t say. If EITG prefers do not announce development plans - we must be in tact.
We can say only: EVERTHING is based on users’ requests. There never was any feature developed “just because Matt, Blair or Igors want” . But, of course, it’s going not literally/directly. There are hundreds of opinions, (and everyone is reasonable) they are changing in time. Thus implementation should include not what’s said “now and here” but what was suggested in recent several years.
“softer shadow please!”
“16-bits displacement”
And many, many others. “I can continue and continue” (also from user’s lexicon . A rational balance between featuring, time and resources = what any development needs and does, EITG is not an exception.
For me and, I’m pretty sure, for most users, being able to import EPS in EIAS workflow meant importing Illustrator files…
Even thought I can save the file as Illustrator (.ai) or in EPS (.eps) I personally did not see a real difference. Until you pointed it.
I wonder how many of these terms differentiations makes artists and programmers communication difficult…
EIM is the only piece of 3D software I use which requires an EPS version of vector files....this is a bit of a pain. Everyone else uses .ai which, from what was previously written, is a better solution. I’m constantly having to reformat my clients vector files from .ai to EPS.
Please make it possible to import .ai files into EI so that pluggin can see the results and work off of those files.
Yes, Tesla will have much more capability that a geometric pluggin but let’s look at the motion and still graphics crowd. They want to make something a little more dimensional - 3D. They don’t want to learn all of the new technology connected to a full blown 3D suite. I speak from experience in talking with some of my friends who are graphic designers.
Right now, this minute, EI doen’t do this very, very basic function in 3D with out having to also buy a modeler. They want to give their client’s designs a little depth...maybe add a bevel or two.
Without, .ai import into geometric pluggins how can this be accomplished?
Two solutions -
Buy a modeler which exports Fact....the only one I know is ViaCad and way, way too complex for a newbie designer.
Buy a 3D suite which has these basic tools and import....buy C4D.
I’ve grown so accustom to working in Illustrator and exchanging data between .ai and .eps files that the two formats just became sunonomous. I’ve always known that they are different, but yet when I’ve been screaming at the top of my lungs for “eps” support I’ve really been saying I want to import illustrator files into EI and Trestle.
I’m sorry Igors for all the frustration I’ve put you through over this issue. Once again, it came down to misunderstanding and communication. If .ai import could ever become a possibility I think several people would be quite pleased.
We had doubts about should we answer for recent 2 posts. No “hi”, avoiding to call us by name etc. - all this is really confused for russians. It sounds agressive/pressured for us. Ok, after all our cultures are very different and no one should teach another. So let us answer.
If we understood well, a short formula is: “oh, yes-yes, .ai file, we need it (now!), do it!”. IMO not all is so simple. Let’s try to investigate.
First off, there is EIM/Tesla. AFAIK ai/eps import always was there and IMO it’s good and right. For us, developers: why we should start unneeded (and totally unproductive for all) “competition” with another one app that’s also under EITG? For users: why they should pay extra $ for what was always in EIM? Can you explain all this reasonable? Or just “I need it and for ME-E-E it’s not a difference who provides a necessary tool”? That’s we know well but AFAIK we are not aux programmers in your studios.
Secondly, where is a place of Paralumino plug-ins at all? Brian, we always enjoy with your English, we almost never look in dictionary when we read your posts, all is perfectly clear. But your minds are 100% opposite, they jump from one to another, we see zero logic (or at least it’s out of our understanding . If Tesla coming.. so.. what are Paralumino plug-ins? Or what? Or how? See above, what a user should think? EIM provides all Paralumino plug-ins plus more: champher (that Dave asked at least 10 times), birailing etc. Can you answer for this very obvious Q? What? “Plug-in can be animated, plug-in is integrated etc.” Know-know. But in real life it’s a poor argument. “If a tool is here - why it should be there?” - that’s what a user thinks - and he’s right.
Just when I thought we were making progress. lol. It is extremely clear to me that we are all passionate EIAS users that want to see progress. The hardest part for the Igors is seeing redundancy in a workflow/pipeline. It has been their standard argument since the beginning. No one wants to spend time and effort constructing something that wont sell. This has been their concern to begin with..and their entire reason for limiting the further expansion of the Paralumino line. Though sales of the Paralumino line have been sluggish, I will accept my level of responsibility and commit to trying even harder to get the point across that these plugins are needed (and are worth buying). However, it should be noted that “success” doesn’t rest entirely on my shoulders. It also lies in having the right feature set. The plugins are so close to meeting the need they were intended for, but we need the last 10% to really make them shine.
Here is what I wrote on CGTalk:
My position on the Paralumino plugin lineup is to provide a tiered approach to 3D modeling and animation through the EIAS inventory. My discussions with Brad reveals that he too wants to tier the EI product line to provide 3D capabilities to all users. Both novice and advanced alike. He wants “consumer/prosumer” customers and “professional” users...and each tapping into specific markets. Broadcast Design, Film VFX, Architecture, and 2D/3D Graphic Design.
Knowing this I can extrapolate what the future of the EIAS lineup might look like even though I am not EITG’s marketing manager.
EIAS will add Tesla into the mix and that will in turn increase the price of EIAS. This increase in price may push EIAS out of range for some users. Believe it or not folks, increasing the value of EIAS base price isn’t a bad thing. But, to stay competitive EI could potentially continue to offer EIAS sans Tesla as an entry level product. Tesla is expected to be sold as a stand alone product as well. This is a classic “Trojan Horse” tactic to get EITG technologies into potential markets because its new and modern and eventually be capable of tapping into Camera as well. From what I can tell, Camera is still a desired technology by users of other 3D applications. And if you think Tesla’s price will remained fixed...well I’d say think again. As Tesla’s feature set increases, I would predict its price tag will increase too.
Within the EIAS product line up you can expect to see Camera as the center of the EIAS world. A lot of effort has been placed in keeping Camera current and competitive as a renderer.
As Tesla evolves, technologically it will eventually outshine Animator. A determination must be made by the EITG administration on how to deal with this. Either continue to retrofit Animator or re-reroute animation responsibilities to a more modern package (Tesla). There is a third option in this scenario. Don’t abandon anything, develop both applications, but eventually position them to address the hobbyist to professional divide.
This is where I believe the Paralumino product lineup could be positioned. I will be the first to admit that the technologies within the Paralumino lineup are primitive in comparison to Tesla, but that doesn’t mean they would not be desired.
The Paralumino products, especially with Illustrator (and Telsa wire) compatibility, would provide entry level EIAS users with a methodology to create 3D geometry within the animation package without having to learn a sophisticated 3D modeling application. The additional bonus of the Paralumino product lineup is it possesses animation channels that Animator can use to modify and animate geometry on the component level. Something that Tesla cannot do, and something even Animator can’t do when importing static models.
Thus, and in conclusion, if the Igors would permit a bundled package of the Paralumino plugins, (with an improved Trestle) it could:
1. Serve as a logical 3D bridge for 2D graphic designers embracing 3D for the first time.
2. For Broadcast Designers who want to integrate 3D into their workflow within a single package.
3. For Animators and VFX artists who want to expand their animation capabilities within Animator.
4. To provide a means of integration for all plugins that utilize geometry in their pipelines. This ranges from Placer Deposit, to Dante, to Bebel, to Encage, to Pathfinder, to Contortionist, to Power Particles and so on.
Trestle, I believe, can be the key to it all. Especially if Illustrator and Tesla wires can be imported into the Trestle drawing editor. (In addition to improved drawing tools within Trestle itself)
Thanks for the support. Idealistically, the Igors and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum, (which tends to clash at times) but I hope thats what made our collaborations effective. Sometimes I read things from them that do hurt, but I don’t think its on purpose. At least I hope its not. I will continue to try and make my position clear to them while all the while trying hard to bring about positive changes in the EIAS product lineup.
I see a major point of differentiation for your Paralumino plugs when compared with what we expect in Tesla.
Trestle, Swage, etc. geometry can all be animated and dynamically altered. These are tools not just for modeling, but for animating...i.e Motion graphics. Plus the “stacking” modeling paradigm gives tremendous flexibility for creation and experimentation. Most hard body modelers simply do not have the same level of “interactivity” when modeling. This provides a very different and powerful workflow.
I seriously doubt that Tesla will bring animate-able geometry into EIAS any time soon, probably never. It will be a great hard body (and maybe SDS) modeling package, but will have limitations on how that geometry is handled in Animator (just like every other external modeler).
The Paralumino plugs have such great potential, but anyone who sees them as just “modeling plugins” is not seeing their unique advantage.
So again why should .ai be imported into Trestle? The answer is simple. As Scott has said many 2d graphic designers may want to move into 3d Motion graphics. They surely will know illustrator. With the addition of EIAS and your plugins they would have any easy path for moving their art into Animator, and then be able to edit/control that art in the plugin interface.
This is much easier for an artist than learning a new 3d application, and Tesla is going to have quite a steep learning curve compared to your plugins, which have simple but effective interfaces.
The point is that your plugins could have significant advantages in 3 areas for Motion Graphics work (animated geometry, easy to learn, and supports .ai file import). Nothing else can do what your plugins do in EIAS, and .ai support would make them even more powerful.
Scott Novasic is the MoGraph expert here (certainly not me), but after reading his posts I really think you have a unique product that would sell very well as a “total solution” for Mograph modeling in EIAS. I think all the plugs should be bundled and be available together in a special Mograph pack (at a small bundle discount).
As for duplication of tools.... I have multiple modelers that all do extrude along a path. But some are better than others. In fact the workflow for creating and editing complex path extrusions has kept me from dumping formZ and using something else. At other times formZ totally lets me down. Sure it seems to have powerful boolean operations, but at some point they fail to work and other pieces of software can do what formZ cannot.
The point is… not all extruders are equal. Nor are bevelers, or lofters. Each has it’s strengths and limitations. Your plugins offer some things that ARE NOT AVALABLE ANYWHERE ELSE!
I hope that’s clear for you. You and Brian have created something powerful and unique and those products should be developed further.... even if I never see “pseudo beveler”
(or maybe that can be part of Paralumino modeling plugins v3 )
I have gotten to a point where i will use other 3d modeling packages if i want to bring any particular model into my 3d scene but what you guys had achieve is add some of that organic feel that EI needed. I am not considering buying Tesla i am more waiting to see where EI is going to and Paralumino plugins. Tesla is gonna take me some time to learn i dont have time for that. But i sure have time to learn an interface inside Animator. And i will suggest making a bundle with all the plugins like code name motionbundle. There you go now you can work in ways to make a better product. Like Bezier curves inside of trestle.Or the ability to attach to deformer surface surfaces and this can be edited at the same time.
Hope this helps, Edgard
Hi Brian, Hi Igor’s, ---- (Paul, keep posting your views. Your an amazing talent, your comments are valuable.)
.....
zdorovo—very well said. I echo your comments.
.....
I understand completely the need to not ONLY want a feature, but to need it to help sell more copies
of EIAS. I listed a few reasons why in my previous posts.
.....
As a ‘life long’ user of EI and someone who relies on it daily to make a living, I assure you I am not asking for a feature that is for ‘me’. I am writing a review of EI that will be seen by close to 100,000 digital artists. As I have been writing it a number of things have occurred to me. The number ONE thing was where EI is positioned in the market place,
and realistically, what it could use to become a top choice for Motion Graphics professionals. I dont even bother to
equate EI with Maya, XSI, MAX except as it comes to ease of use and Cameras render quality\capabilities.
.....
Tesla is a different product all together guys. It helps address the ‘hi end’ of the 3d spectrum. I applaud its development. But motion graphic artists, a HUGE market, are not quick to adopt a complicated modeling solution
for the often quick turnaround work they do. C4d markets itself as the KING of easy to use motion graphics apps.
I happen to disagree with that claim. They are still a complicated app with all kinds of render quality issues (motion blur, antialiasing etc) and a bloated swiss army knife set of features that tries to be everything to everyone. Not
to mention, its complete version costs around 6 TIMES what EI + Paraluminos Plug ins cost.
.....
Igors, Your area of expertise is obvious, and GREATLY appreciated. Please respect that in MY case, my expertise is
in motion graphics and visual effects using a LOT of 3d. I can tell you that in my market which includes a huge number of potential NEW users. AI functionality (especially for Paraluminos products) and a little bit of marketing,
(like reviews and tutorials on websites etc. Will equal a lot of new sales. I know how creatives in my field think and use software. I know what the work environments and ‘software politics’ tend to be like. They are nothing like mid to large studios who have software workflows where artists share files and all need to know the same packages. Some of the best places do work that way, but they are less than roughly 5% of the total worldwide user base for motion graphics. Motion Graphic artists are the largest block of available NEW USERS out there. And they are underserved in the 3d marketplace. They have C4d (too complicated for most entry level users) and Zaxwerks invigerator (great for modeling ai files but horrible at animation and image quality)
.....
All I am saying guys, is if you implement ai support simply in Paraluminos products alone, you SIMPLIFY their use
hugely! That makes EIAS INSTANTLY a great motion graphics option to a huge market. At EI’s price its an impulse buy
for a ton of people.
.....
Tesla is EITG hi end future. It is separate from what I am talking about.
.....
thanks again for all your hard work for EITG and us users.
“Let’s write ai import, it’s a main bottleneck in EI !” (or “huge bottleneck” ? )
We totally agreed with bottleneck/actualness but not with a way/implementation that you recommend. Be sure, it’s not a big happy to “duplicate” a product (for who duplicates - too ). IMO it’s very natural if a modeler implements ai import. At least it’s much more natural than a third-party commercial plug-in.
Also we said many times: “a plug-in” is not a best place for import. For any import, not ai only. We will hear and hear “why I need to pay for O2F?”, no matter it really deserves to be paid.
A possible point of view: “hmm… there is an import inside Animator. There is import in modeler. There is Transporter. There is O2F. There is AI2F. Hey, guys, not too much? Which one does work?” Funny but true
We can’t explain well but intuitively we feel like it should be “more organized” and “more near to host”. Anyway it seems a rational idea to wait for Tesla release and to see on what things it concentrates. If Tesla covers this - it would be ideal for all (count us).
Same/similar with Paralumino plug-ins. We like them too, but there is a lot of work on render side and IMO it will be more productive if we apply more efforts there instead of creating tools that normally are modeler’s area.
. Anything from PS can be in EPS. Ok, what is a PostScript? It’s enough advanced language. The Adobe’s PS documentation is almost 1000 (one thousand) of pages. With not large font and seldom pictures only. PS readers apps typically require several aux folders and megabytes of aux files.
and tutorials on websites etc. Will equal a lot of new sales. I know how creatives in my field think and use software. I know what the work environments and ‘software politics’ tend to be like. They are nothing like mid to large studios who have software workflows where artists share files and all need to know the same packages. Some of the best places do work that way, but they are less than roughly 5% of the total worldwide user base for motion graphics. Motion Graphic artists are the largest block of available NEW USERS out there. And they are underserved in the 3d marketplace. They have C4d (too complicated for most entry level users) and Zaxwerks invigerator (great for modeling ai files but horrible at animation and image quality)
