Back to original Scott’s idea. Essentially (as we understand, correct us if we wrong) he said:
- I should be able to open ai file (with few clicks) and get its data into inside editor
- I edit (if nedded) the data and use all EI potential to have a fast, well-rendered result for my logos
We think the idea is NOT stupid. But it should be “in context” of EI politics/features. A third-party plug-in here = to laugh people only Yes, most probably, as Dave pointed out (and as Brian showed in his video) there are a lot of workarounds that produce same result finally. But it looks as “a long/involved way to go” - it’s absolute NOT suitable to catch logos market. And should EI do this or not - we don’t know, really. “Easy to say - hard to do”. It should be EITG solution, we can say our opinion only
Why would you want to give up that kind of functionality in exchange for simple static FACT import? Trestle has so much already there...further v2 enhancements only make sense. Giving direct AI import into the host that provides CV point editability and animation will take several upgrades to accomplish. Why reinvent the wheel when Trestle is so close already?
Hi Brian-
I am not trying to imply that Trestle should not be used or that a version 2 is not a good idea.
This was just meant to be a how-to guide to get art from Illustrator to Animator without the need for a $100 plus translation utility which you showed in your workaround tutorial.
As you also showed in your tutorial trestle can use these imported lines as a base and they can be edited with trestle.
Admittedly it’s not “the perfect end-all be-all Ai import for EIAS”, but it seems to work, it’s a solution that’s available right now, and I thought some users (especially users of Paralumino’s plugs) would find this helpful.
BTW- I fully support the development of advanced import of AI files into Animator and Trestle. I look forward to this being available one day, hopefully soon.
Back and forth but once it hits EI and if Transporter is required, everything grinds to a hault.
So how do you use the holes in EI then?
Transporter is finicky- but I have been using it to translate 2d lines from dxf into EIAS for a couple of years now (formZ and other modelers will not save 2d lines into fact so transporter is necessary)
As for what you do with the lines once they are there- that’s another issue
I don’t have the Paralumino plugs (yet) so I cannot do further testing with the imported AI/dxf lines.
But this should provide a fairly simple process for getting Illustrator art into EIAS.
As for how hard this is- It is not hard at all.
It took me less than 30 seconds to do this with a logo made up of 7 different complex spline curves, so I think this is a viable workflow.
If anyone has any problem AI files they would like me to try- I will make some time to do some more experimentation and problem solving. Just e-mail me the AI file and I will give the translation a shot.
Glad you have had success with transporter...in my hands, it usually just crashes. As it did here repeatedly. I stopped trying to get it to work in any predictable manner.
My comment on holes was tongue in cheek as there is nothing one can do with the holes if it happens to be the inside of a ‘P’ for example.
I use EIM to handle any .ai imports and for the most part it behaves. Then a surface goes out to MrsBebel which works fairly well on simple geometry but if any editing is needed...and usually is, it’s a constant back and forth. At times all I need to do is just nudge a vert to hide some flaw which shows up dramatically using Bebel.....that means a trial and error remeshing in EIM. Completely inelegant way to work.
So I am using a discontinued nurbs modeler to generate fac files which cannot edit it’s own output...and neither can EIAS. I have no actual control over my surface edge density other than to rely on EIM’s mesher to give me what it feels like....hit and miss.
I stop and look at this situation. I have to wonder at times why do I actually use these tools:-)! I give up control to discontinued software and the only real hope of editing profiles in EI is being fought by the ones who probably could actually do it.
It may be helpful to examine the workflow that currently exists within the traditional EIAS pipeline.
EIAS uses a separate workspace paradigm where the animation product (Animator) is separate from the modeling product (EIM/Tesla/FormZ/Silo/C4D/Maya/etc). Its this separation that causes our primary headaches. Without the integration of geometry generation in Animator, Animator is limited to only animating on an “object” level. No forms of “component” level animation are possible. Model construction history is also not available. Once you import a model, you have a vertex locked dataset that is really quite limited.
Here’s the traditional approach summarized for review:
1. Open an outside modeling application. (EIM/Form Z/Silo/LW/MAYA/C4D)
2. Model geometry.
3. Export as FACT or OBJ (depending on the application).
4. Directly import geometry into Animator or convert via Transporter.
5. Static model now available for object level animation within Animator.
Through Paralumino we are attempting (even if on a limited level) to change that work paradigm by permitting Animator access to the construction history of a piece of geometry within Animator itself. Access to the “components” that make up a piece of geometry gives us another tier of animation support that never has existed with Animator before. Alter the “components” and change the geometry on the fly. This concept frees the artist to be more creative and it improves overall efficiency and speed for objects that are simpler in design. The broadcast design market significantly typifies the type of hard surface construction and geometry we want access to inside of Animator. Do I want to replace Tesla? Heck no. Tesla will still be the preferred method to generate more sophisticated and organic geometry with greater efficiency. Nobody wants to model a human with Paralumino tools. What we do want, however, are the means to integrate or bridge Animator to other outside sources for the sake of having access to the construction history of a model.
The alternative Paralumino pipeline would be:
1. Construct “components” in an outside 2D or 3D application that can be read into Trestle directly OR permit construction of “components” internally within Animator using the Trestle drawing editor.
2. Stack the resulting Trestle “components” to various plug-ins that permit the generation of actual geometry (scrim, bebel, swage, etc) or utilize Trestle polyline components to achieve their visual effects. (Pathfinder, Dante, Flexpath, CableCraft, Psunami and so forth)
3. Allow near realtime alterations to geometry within Animator on the fly. If something isn’t quite right, tweak the Trestle “component” immediately to alter the model without having to jump all the way back into the original modeling package.
4. Animate the construction history of Trestle “components” / CVs to provide an additional tier of animation support beyond the object level.
5. Mix and match plug-in stacks to create unique effects.
All the other “older” geometry generators like Fact importing, EIM/Tesla, Mr. Font, and so forth all use the old work paradigm of static importing.
--------
As for the Igors protest that this is out of bounds of a plug-in is ridiculous because there are no internal means within Animator to draw, alter, tweak, or construct geometry on the fly. Perhaps by adding “Mesh” and “Hidden Plugs” this could be over come, but that would mean at least 2 years before it would really be useable. Trestle is available now...and could be improved upon to provide true holes and multi chain support which only logically suggests that Illustrator import would be supported. Why Illustrator? Because Illustrator has a huge product base and most 2D designers are looking for means to create rapid 3D versions of their designs in an animation package. They want the process to be simple and fast… both of which are not being addressed through the convoluted, antiquated, static import approach currently being utilized by EIAS.
All this battling against the gurus and developers isn’t very productive, equals moving backwards. Is a really bad time all over the world as in the USA people is saving and not spending any money on tools and if they do is because they believe in what they are investing in , they commit to support the tool he or her uses for their everyday work. They depend on the knowledge they have acquire during the years in a specific product.
We all know 3D business is getting more and more competitive,too many choices, and many of them are free. I believe that EI stands on top of most of them but is getting behind in basic ideas. Maybe is time to start working on a non CV locked product , because Paralumino even offering animation tools is not enough for a designer, i am sorry but i could do the same with a free application. It might not render 30k images but the very basic gets done.
I guess EITG wants a product that is just specialist in 3d that has tons of tools and just hit render when they go into EI.. true IBL, GI all this sounds very good but what about a basic shape that you can modify without going back into your modeler of choice.
EITG is getting very old for the new users. Yes OBJ2FACT for what i have read has being doing a great job supporting all the other app to bring geometry without problems. But there we go again always depending in another product to finally get it done. And sometimes it just doesnt work.
In conclusion maybe is time to work on a CV free product, i rather have that than new features, do a rewrite of Animator, how many years do we have to wait for these to happened. WHAT..No resources or cash well i am not the business man, you people are the specialized ones. Get some credit like everybody does in the states.Give the idea to the bank… otherwise is gonna be a slow death of Animator. Or licensed Camera to be used for other application as a plug in.
Like they say, my 2 cents!
EITG is working on a non-CV locked product...its called Tesla. Perhaps one day the animation responsibilities found within Animator will be passed on to the more “modern” Tesla and then our world will be greatly changed. But the question I have is: What do we do in the meanwhile?
EIAS is a solid, viable product that still has plenty of life in it provided we look towards ways of catering to its strengths and improving upon its workflow. At one point in time I was strongly in favor of enhancing Animator with exotic Character Animation tools and huge framework enhancements that would finally give Animator the foundation it needs to compete against more modern applications. But in this current environment and the resources we have, such advocacy would be wasted energy. So, I’m turning back to pushing for more realistic things that can, unquestionably, increase the value and productivity of Animator and its users without loosing out on what already exists. As PaulS states, its ridiculous that such a simple request (AI Import) requires so much effort to get passed....and I agree. If this is so difficult, I would only imagine that an act of Congress would be required to get stronger Character Animation tools in place.
The Paralumino line of plug-ins are are not dependent on translating any geometry like OBJ2FACT nor are they reliant on any other outside sources. They simply work on their own (with hopefully the option to tap into specific outside resources). v1 proves the concept works, but many find v1 incomplete. When a potential buyer of Paralumino plugins finds out they can’t create holes in objects, it really curtails the products desirability and purchasing appeal.
The v2 enhancements that I am suggesting are simply:
1. Multi-chain support
2. True holes
3. Illustrator / Tesla Wire import
4. Support for multi-chain Trestle polylines within the rest of the Paralumino plugin line up where needed.
Could I think of more features? Of course I can. I could see special animation, duplication, and instancing modules or maybe other unique tools to manipulate the editable CV points… But the Igors don’t like long lists of features. They want to stick to the basics. So there are the basics. Multi-chain support would allow for creating more complex 2D shapes in a single Trestle instance. Multi-chains would also allow true holes within objects and Illustrator support provides the vehicle for broadening EIAS and Paralumino’s appeal to a greater and much larger market. (Not to mention gaining access to all of Illustrators drawing powers).
Can no one see what I am advocating here? Can no one see the benefit these tools can provide to the user?
Oh yeah, where is it than? For sure not invested, not in tutorials nor in marketing their product or perhaps in a new EIAS. Why dont they gather people like AVTpro and pay him to work on tutorials for the EI community, or guys like ScottFox to work on techniques for Mographers or PaulS for bringing EIM tutorials for modeling and lightning. You did your part bringing video tutorials to the EI but is not enough for the intermediate user.
I dont see the money anywhere if you ask me.
Sorry for talking for evryone that i did mentioned but i bet you be more than happy to offer your work experience at a price, off course.But i bet they wil be happy to do so.
yes, please contact EITG and demand those (good) features. They are the people to ask and decide.
Jens ----
---------
Hi Jens, I politely disagree with you, These forums ARE the place for our ideas, questions, concerns AND praise.
Not bothering Brad (EITG) every other day. Also, don’t just pick on me when Brian is heavily pushing this same concept
in these forums.
...........
I agree with you Jens on one of your points. EITG are the ones to decide! Thank you! Not the Igors, they are the programmers, NOT marketers or professional users. Jens you are so right that the igors should “implement” features.
NOT come up with them. That is a large part of what Brian and I are running into when trying to bring these capabilities to EI. I\We have stepped to the plate as far as even spending our own hard earned money on this. Not just ASK for a feature, but help FINANCE that happening. Thats how ridiculous this has gotten with them. And frankly, the finger has pointed at them because they CHOSE to publicly tell us our IDEAS were wrong/ stupid/ not well thought out (thats amazingly wrong) and a ton of other ‘nice’ things they so politely say to all of us Evangelists as Brian has put it. This is no russian misunderstanding.
.......
I am still amazed that they tried to silence me and my Passion for EI’s success. I know they live in Russia, but in America you dont\can’t silence people who disagree with you..... I am still getting over that. I emailed Phil a HUGE email on this topic. So, let me just say this, my email to Phil and how they responded yet again to a request is sadly
very typical. Sadly........
.......
Paul S said ----- Scott, it’s easy to see you love EI and just want it to a better app...how-ever that gets done. Nothing wrong with that - I do too. If the Igors don’t want to program what you need....well, it’s their time and their decision - they have the right to say no. No one should fault them in how they decide to procede.------
......
Paul, Paul, Paul I love you man, your a great talent. I appreciate your opinion. I just think the second part of your statement is very wrong and is hugely part of the overall frustration Brian, I and others are having. you said “its
their decision, they have the right to say no. No one should fault them in how they decide to proceed.----
Paul, thats exactly whats WRONG with this process. Frankly, they need to butt out of this whole thing. Let us users
come up with a consensus. Lobby EITG/Brad (which we are trying) let EI as a COMPANY, (NOT an individual) review our issues, facts, proposals, business models and logic. Then EITG should approach the IGORS with what EITG wants done, based on whatever formula EITG wants to use. Its Brads money at this point.
.....
Hi Scott,
I too support the idea for better AI import. Especially for the Mograph market and for Paralumino’s plugs. The need and benefits are plainly obvious.
I also think it’s great to share your passion for EI and want to see it thrive.
But I have to say these rants are becoming too much.
Especially when what the Igors are saying (at least publicly on this forum) is being misrepresented.
Specifically they have said they do NOT think this is a stupid idea. They said so explicitly.
What is being missed here is that the Igors would like to see AI import too, it’s good for the platform. They obviously see that the current workflow from Illustrator through DXF to EIAS could be greatly streamlined. But this is a “serious work” not some little shader that gets pumped out over a weekend. It would require a great deal of research and then a great amount of time to program properly, and the Igors would NEVER intentionally program something sub standard.
A plugin is “just a plugin”. It needs support from the host application. From what I understand, part of what the Igors are saying is that for Illustrator import to be done properly, some sort of support needs to be built into the host application. With a plugin alone we would at best have yet another “workaround” solution.
Some sort of overhaul of Trestle would be needed too to support holes properly. Again more serious programming time, but this seems more reasonable since this is “just plugin” architecture changes (as stated, the font importer does this already). Illustrator art CAN be brought into Animator even if the process seems a little convoluted at first. But with this existing process AND hole support you would have much MORE capability than just a more convenient way to import AI lines. I think hole support in trestle, etc. should be your priority over AI import.
Please remember that the Igors interact with the beta testers on a daily basis and have lengthy discussions with them about features, both in process and proposed. To pigeonhole them as “just programmers” who “do not understand the needs of professional users” belittles them. In fact they have suggested and implemented MANY features already in EIAS. Who knows, maybe some of the features you use on a daily basis were originally conceived by the Igors
Beating them over the head with these posts is not going to suddenly motivate them to do what you say. Bringing these issues to their attention and to EITG is the proper thing to do. This has been accomplished. Discussion is a good thing but this is not discussion. You are just re-hashing the same arguments over and over and appear to be insulting the people you are trying to motivate in the process. In every post I have read the Igors have been very polite with you. You don’t seem to see that they actually AGREE with you on many of your points, and you continue to argue your points with them.
I honestly think you care about EI and the user base. I think you have the opportunity to be one of EI’s greatest evangelists. But you are spending too much energy focusing on what EIAS does not have rather than evangelizing what it DOES have. Your demo reel is truly impressive. it shows what EIAS can do NOW, without any extra features.
Why not show everyone how you are using EIAS tools for Mograph.... just basic processes or workflow or tricks. Do some tutorial videos like Ian, Alonzo, and I have done, free or for sale. It does not matter- these things would benefit the user base and inspire people to be more creative and see EIAS as a viable competitive 3D tool.
I think doing these kinds of positive things will get us much farther than endlessly arguing about the importance of a few features.
Sorry for the long post.
I have said my peace.
Dave
......
Paul, Paul, Paul I love you man, your a great talent. I appreciate your opinion. I just think the second part of your statement is very wrong and is hugely part of the overall frustration Brian, I and others are having. you said “its
their decision, they have the right to say no. No one should fault them in how they decide to proceed.----
Paul, thats exactly whats WRONG with this process. Frankly, they need to butt out of this whole thing. Let us users
come up with a consensus. Lobby EITG/Brad (which we are trying) let EI as a COMPANY, (NOT an individual) review our issues, facts, proposals, business models and logic. Then EITG should approach the IGORS with what EITG wants done, based on whatever formula EITG wants to use. Its Brads money at this point.
.....
Hey Scott.
I completely agree in what you have to say here...all except for the point where there is disagreement on someone having the right to say no. This may be just fine-line wording but it is important to me.
There are basic rights we have as individuals - freedom to express our ideas without being subjected to ridicule and also freedom to decide for ourselves which course of action to take in life. If the Igors say no - as far as I’m concerned they have that right. I may not like it but I do respect that right.
In this particular case I agree in what you say about EITG working out with the Igors how it should be done.
Anyway, I know this sort of forum stuff can get a little frustrating and ‘charged up’ - it will eventually sort itself out.
David, defend the igors all you want. They have done great things in the past.
you just are not aware of the private conversations we have had, long private
back and forths on this. You do not know what they have said to Brian and I.
Before you, or anyone says anything more to me about this, take a minute to
email Brian and here what I have heard about your heros, the igors.
.........
Ei tried to get Brian to do PR for them, what would keep him from accepting that? I wonder.....
The road is littered with EX EI users who have left EI because of ..........
I care that these things have happened, they need to be programming, thats their area of expertise. If thats
a rant, then I guess I am ranting.
Paul, of course they have a right to say no. My problem is simple.
When have you heard me or anyone else tell them that “to program efficiently, you should really do A.
or, You programmers need to use a better keyboard to enter your data......” Why, because myself and many others
could not program ourselves anything. Its not our area of expertise. We, as a group, politely NEVER tell them how
to program. However, they constantly chime in, WHEN NOT ASKED, about issues related to what a mograph artist needs.
Have they ever spent a day inside a hi end 3d studio to observe the workflow? Have they ever seen first hand the tools broadcast designers use. NO way. This is simply logic. Where I am working with Brian now, if we have a question about the engineering of something, guess what, we go to the engineers, if the front desk gal gives us her opinion, you try to be polite and continue on to the engineers. I have a print design issue, I ask our senior print guys opinion.
This is the way “EFFICIENT” communication works. We may very well have questions related to “if” something CAN be
programmed. I would say\ask Hello Igors, is it possible to program this utility?
I am comfortable with my stance on things because Brian supports me. We talk about these things, and if he told me
that the points I am trying to make are not on topic or correct. I would no longer write them.
Putting my moderators hat on for a moment; it might be best to wrap this thread up, we’re going in circles and starting to fall out with each other. Perhaps it’s time to change tack.
Yes, most probably, as Dave pointed out (and as Brian showed in his video) there are a lot of workarounds that produce same result finally. But it looks as “a long/involved way to go” - it’s absolute NOT suitable to catch logos market. And should EI do this or not - we don’t know, really. “Easy to say - hard to do”. It should be EITG solution, we can say our opinion only
