Hello Igors,

Thank you for your willingness to listen. I truly want you to know that I, in particular, am not stirring up this issue just to have you write a mere importer. Nor am I doing this to goad you into working for Paralumino again.  I believe your understanding of this request just may be a bit too rudimentary or simplistic. When I write, “Trestle is the Key”, I mean a vast methodology of workflow that has ramifications across the entire EIAS product line. As dramatic as that sounds, it is the foundation of my belief as to why the Paralumino plugins exist in the first place. I intend to place new efforts into selling this product line so I can return to your good favor, but I want you to understand how important the right feature set is to making the sales of this product truly successful. Its been hard selling these plugs because they’re just not quite finished yet. I know you want to write rendering products and quite frankly, I don’t want to distract you from that, however, what we’ve made up to this point is really just the beginning.

Ok...enough preaching. Importing for the sake of importing is not what Scott, Dave and I are speaking about here. Obj2Fact can be considered a true importer and I agree with you that that kind of functionality truly should be the responsibility of the host. It is silly to pay that amount of money to convert a file format. However OBJ2Fact was written out of need because the internal OBJ importer was just simply deficient. It also implemented certain functions that improved upon the host’s solutions and just plainly did it better. However OBJ2Fact does not actually affect workflow to the degree that is being championed by the three of us.

We do not merely want a crude AI importer that brings in a non-editable wire/spline that’s converted to a polyline for use with the Paralumino lineup. Realistically one could use an outside 3D application to import an AI file into it, convert it to a polyline there, export it out to a dxf file, and convert it to a fact file by transporter to then import into EI for use as a child object for the Para tools. That is so much hassle. Your suggestion, though “beneficial” is only one step better but it remains short sited.

We are suggesting enhancing Trestle’s functionality by leaps and bounds by giving it the ability to import a single or multiple AI splines or Tesla wires directly into its drawing editor for direct manipulation. This has monumental implications over a simple import on the host’s level or even a tiny importer plugin. Trestle becomes not only the hub of the Paralumino plugin lineup, but also the hub of multiple applications for EIAS. Once this process begins, it could evolve into even greater things. By taking advantage of advancing API & infrastructure enhancements, Trestle’s host interaction will continue to evolve. It could become the central means by which Animator “talks” to Tesla or other outside packages. Ultimately we’ll need several bridges to Tesla to really make things work...Trestle could be one of those means.

Now factor in Trestle’s component level animation abilities. Those abilities could be applied to the CV points of polyline, or to the Bezier handle points of an AI curve. New tesselation settings within Trestle could allow artists to variate the profile’s resolution on as as needed basis or like Path2Line, lock the resolution so it doesn’t have to be evaluated on a frame by frame basis. More modules could be written as to how Trestle handles those CV points. Clusters of CVs is possible. Perhaps one day the Trestle drawing window could be expanded to directly reflect an Animator construction window and points could be placed in 3D space in a fully rotatable 3D interface. Image templates could be implemented if the API would allow for it that would allow people to bring in reference pictures for tracing in Trestle. The amount of what’s possible is so vast that it will profoundly affect the way people use EIAS in conjunction with other applications.

Try not to think of this as a mere importer issue. Its not. Not by a long shot. It is an entirely new way of thinking for Animator and its sorely needed.

Oh...and don’t forget 2D booleans. Being able to construct shapes with true holes in Trestle could also mean big things. Am I trying to replace Tesla? No...not even. But when combined with the animation abilities Trestle possesses and the geometry and animation producing powers of Scrim, Swage, Revolver and Bebel… you’ll be able to create dynamic, fully animatable, non destructive, geometry in Animator.

Advanced modeling tools in Tesla will still be necessary to create more sophisticated hard surface geometry or through SDS more organic objects, but once its imported into Animator, they will be static and locked meshes until (and IF) infrastructure tools like “Mesh” are completed.... and I stress the word IF.

Hi, Brian

As always, you wrote a series of really interested/creative ideas (no irony). Yes, Bezier knots/handles (in Testle editor), booleans, AI import etc. etc. - all this is really interested, usable and needed.

But, also as always, a realistic component = 0. Let us ask you a very prosaic/silly Q: what $ we would have for several serious things (see above) implemented? For several months of work? A perspective to sell a super-cool plug-in Trestle? We don’t trust in this perspective. Just because all our experience (13 years with EI plugs) says so. Imagine even we can have a solid piece of modeler “as a plug-in”. So what? It does not gurantee any success yet.

And another one. All this discussion looks misplaced/untimely in context of soon Tesla release. First let’s see what Tesla does and where it goes. Then think. Otherwise - just more noise/disorder without any benefit

Yes that is the problem in todays society we are always waiting for a savior that will solve our problems, few months ago with the announced of Tesla (we hope it is gonna save EI from not selling as it should). Now is EPS files, it has always been there just because you can import .ai files doesnt mean that the whole $$$ is gonna change.

There are many issues to be updated to the host application but it seems that the product is perfect, it just need .ai or EPS files to be the next generation tool. Yes Camera is very good but is an animation package not a renderer alone.You dont start constucting a building from the roof.

••••••Just because all our experience (13 years with EI plugs) says so. Imagine even we can have a solid piece of modeler “as a plug-in”. So what? It does not gurantee any success yet.•••••
.....

Yes it does Igors.  It makes EI available to the huge motion graphics crowd that WILL NOT attempt to learn Tesla.
Did you read my post.  You do not respect my knowledge on this?  This is not 1995 when EI had a certain reputation.
Most users I talked to feel most of the plug ins developed early on DID NOT WORK WELL.  My credit card is littered with
tools that were not artist friendly and never delivered on their promises in EI fully. 
.....
A basic integrated ai ‘gateway” with trestle would open the door to thousands of new users who WONT or CANT learn or purchase Tesla.  Most
animators, guys, are not as smart as you!  This new group of users CRAVE simplicity in model creation.  What is ubershape, by the way, its a PLUG IN.  That plug in could be advanced as well.  No where near a Tesla, just allowing
artists to import their ai logos and shapes that they create or are given by their bosses.  Do you see that for the FIRST TIME EVER in EIs history, it could be looked at as the #1 tool for a huge category of animators in Motion Graphics.
I love you guys (igors) just please think outside the box and look at where 3d is in 2008, there are MULTIPLE
markets out there.  We are weeks and months away from being the #1 Mograph 3d app out there.  With Tesla, we are still years from having a package that can compete with Maya and Max etc.  2 separate goals can be reached.
.....

•••••And another one. All this discussion looks misplaced/untimely in context of soon Tesla release. First let’s see what Tesla does and where it goes. Then think. Otherwise - just more noise/disorder without any benefit •••••
.....

this discussion IS well timed BECAUSE of Tesla.  We want to sell a lot of Tesla copies, for sure.  But that still does not
address huge market of users that dont have the time or money to buy a dedicated modeler JUST TO WORK ON THEIR ai logo designs.  There is a need for both because they address 2 DIFFERENT sets of 3d artists.  If EITG wants to sell MORE COPIES OF EIAS and TESLA appeal to 2 huge user bases, 3d pros, and 3d designers.  Designers want and need simplicity using their formats ai PROS want a powerful modeler, 64 bit etc etc.  The more 3d customers you deal with the more sales you make.  Double your potential buyers, IM SURE BRAD would rather have a
larger group of potential buyers than a much smaller group.  Its that simple.  Tesla does NOT address a wide open
market of 3d artists who WANT cameras quality and all the shaders and pro lighting and dynamics that EI has.
Igors, do you realize that the closest competitor to EI in this field is Cinema 4d, and they cost roughly 3 times
what ei costs?  I CAN SELL THAT rather easily.  Give me and others a chance to sell EI to this market.  A high end modeler is what a motion graphics animator GROW INTO over time, they hate to have to start with it and all its complexities.

I can see both sides of this argument. The Igors over the years have seen a declining return on their investment in EI plugins and are reluctant to spend time developing something that they feel may not be a best seller. At the same time, EI needs to have certain new tools developed to appeal to the potential new users. Potential users. That’s the rub. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that anything developed, Telsa included, will be received by the marketplace to the point where money and profit is realized. It’s the risk-reward scenario. If the Igors feel that the plug-ins are a deadend, perhaps they would release the code so that another developer could take a whack at adding the features that the are needed. Or, if Paralumino feels that the plugin would “take off” with the added features, they should raise the funds for developing the new features.

Just my 2 cents. Take with a grain of salt.

Hi, Scott

Thx for really cool, impressive posts, we like such style. Not everything we can answer (just cause we don’t know) and not with everything we agreed. Please appreciate our considerations below as a constructive considerations no matter they can sound sceptical.

Even attracting hundreds of new users is a big deal (not say about thousands). But we know well: there are huge niches, where, however, is no even a millimeter of space for us Why a potential user would prefer EI (instead of what he used before)?. A market analyzing is a serious
thing where we can’t help cause we are incompetent here.

What are basic points/steps of the prj? What features should be implemented to attract new users? (see “1") How many programmers the prj needs? Who is a manager? What is an approximate timeline? What is a planned time of beta-testing? Who are beta-testers? What is a budget of the prj?

Please save your time and do not answer for numerous Q above (we don’t know A too But be sure, ANY serious prj requires all this (and much more). A SERIOUS prj (like you wrote) should have a solid, professional basement. We appreciate a term “enthusiasm” really well, but just enthusiasm is absolute NOT enough for works like that.

For us it’s 100% clear: it can be only as a solid prj of host. Of course, in this case the host can count on any kind of our participation (though we aren’t best candidates, Blair and Patrick are more experienced with importing). But anyway: please forget ASAP that “someone” can done this “himself” (like a pretty plug-in/shader). It’s a really unneeded/harmful illusion, sure.

We aren’t becoming “reluctant” (a new word we learned today ), just we begin to understand (slowly) what we can do and what cannot

thanks for your 2 cents JoeV, heres where I think it isnt such a 50 - 50 thing.
.....
#1 I politely argue that those plugins were not well done. (i here from lots of frustrated users on that topic)
I own virtually every one.  Plus, they were selling to a dwindling user base.
......
#2 V7 is the BEST version I have ever used of EI in 14 years.  EI did not have a real good run from the
late 90’s until arguably version 6.0.  And even then they had to fight the bad press from losing modeler.
Not to mention more users leaving us as a result of that.  Fewer and fewer people to sell to.
.....
#3 in the earlier days EI was VERY expensive, as were the plug ins (OUCH I know that first hand)
It is NOW the best price to performance 3d package by far in the market.  That news, if known
by new users is a big draw. (my review is a start) Check out the daily visitors to the Cow, its
enormous.  Having a presence there is huge publicity and a big “we still exist” to a lot of people
who think EI went under.
.....
#4 Why cant we hire the Igors to do a task?  Pay them, thank them. And get to marketing and selling.
Why do they need to be tied to sales for their compensation.
.....
#5 I believe that I understand the markets better than the Igors frankly.  I have worked in a variety of
environments and know how budgets work at a lot of places.  3 separate times I was called on to spec all of
the software for an art department.  In LA as animation manager at CBS I did it as well.  Cinema existed
in those environments, but was barely used at all except for long turnaround jobs, which are rare.  Cinema
has a hi learning curve in the workplace. (motion graphics) 3d pros can get it just fine, just not the NEW user.
.....
#6 And this is my last shot. I believe in this so strongly I am considering investment options myself.  Why, because
I know what will make EI easy to use for mograph artists.  sorry, but the igors dont.  They know traditional 3d
and typical workflows.  Thats great for Tesla and for the application that Tesla WILL grow into over the next few
years.  But its a myopic view of EI as it stands today.  Brian GETS IT.  I feel like I too, GET IT.  Its the first
time in 14 years I feel this strongly about a certain single capability.  I dont ask for this and that every few weeks
as the Igors claim some of us do.  I also personally am finding avenues where I CAN expose EI to large numbers
of NEW potential users.  When, If EVER could EI claim that close to 100,000 eyeballs would at least see the Electric
Image name in a headline, and possibly, if intrigued, read more about it.  Im sorry, but that is very cool.  Word of
mouth helps some, but exposure in high traffic areas on the web are invaluable. 
.......
I just saw your post guys, Thank you for the discussion.  Trust me, I KNOW enthusiasm alone wont get me anywhere, but that enthusiasm turns INTO hard work!  Throw in some money and a marketing plan and give it
a shot.  But guys, it has to be more than ai imprt into ei.  A plug in with some features will be the KEY. 
Paraluminos ideas are GREAT.  But they need simpler everything, simpler names, simpler way to activate geometry
ai ai ai ai!!  The difference between THEN and NOW, is we have a great product with v7 AND the potential for a LOT
of exposure.  I only have a window to do this for so long, I just want to help EI succeed.  I want to see it creep into
production pipelines slowly over time. (motion graphics \ vis effects places) Plus I hear v8 will be even better.

Im tired, Thanks for listening, I need a pillow......

I forgot, Brians review on CG talk was awesome exposure.  The big difference
between his review and my upcoming review is the audience.  CG talk is
a MUCH more 3d savvy audience than the cow.  A lot of experts mill around
on CG talk.  Unfortunately, some of these pros have some strong anti EI
opinions and arent shy about it.  I think Brian gave a fair and strong review for
that audience.
.....

“my” audience will consist of a massive amount of curious new users and design
pros.  Their opinions on 3d packages are not set in stone. Not to the extent that a
cg talk members might be. (there are always exceptions) Plus I can follow up
with virtually unlimited tutorials, how tos and feature profiles.  CG talk is much more
impressive as a pro site.  But the Cow is very open and friendly to new creative tools.
I am in a sense RE-introducing EI in my review, basically AS a new app.  To many
20-30 yr olds it IS a new tool to consider.  At EI’s price, people will try it out.
.....

Enthusiasm and passion are absolutely needed to be successful in any field and I wouldn’t minimize it at all. If everything had to pass the “good-for-business” test, very few new ideas/products would ever reach consumers.

I agree that v7 of EI is a great value and the news needs to be sent to the corners of the 3d, motion graphics and designers (web)worlds. There are samples in the Gallery that would convince anyone about the professional capabilities of EI. Someone just has to tell them.

Hello Igors,

Your response was wonderfully predictable. True Igors fashion. Capable of complementing and yet seemingly insulting someone in a single breath. lol You can not tell me with a serious straight face that these ideas don’t have a realistic component or practical application. We have existing artists, particularly Peter and Doug and those at CBS who purchased our lineup specifically for the Mograph potential alone. Peter tells me every day he uses Trestle and Swage in practically every shot he constructs for the TV shows he works on but he’s begging for further development. Like Scott, he is the target audience. I’ve had to answer several emails from potential customers who have turned us down because of the very reasons Scott, Dave and I have elaborated. Its not about competing with Tesla its about providing a multi leveled approach that addresses different markets. Let me also state up front that I do not wish to distract you from v8 development nor do I think it isn’t prudent, as you suggest, to see what happens with Tesla a bit. (At least take a look at its capabilities when the alpha is released to see how it operates.) But Tesla could be the next Zbrush & Modo killer as far as we know...and possess the greatest static modeling toolset in existence. It still wont address the animation needs of Animator we’ve identified or the Mograph potential those artists request for some time. I tried to get that point across to you when we first started this venture, but I don’t think it sunk in.

Your question on money, however, is quite fair and needs to be answered. As I stated, you should not work on something that you believe will not sell. Maybe your analysis of the situation is perfectly accurate. However, if you fear the risk of developing these products further, then simply hand over your majority of your ownership, reduce your royalty, and allow myself and potentially other investors to pay you up front at your normal work rate in between your development on Camera & EI this time. No more risk for you...problem solved. Isn’t that the same work paradigm you have with EITG?  Perhaps I could also provide you with a new Mactel machine to program it on. (The last two efforts to get you a machine seemingly fizzled) But in so doing, you’d have to be willing to allow us to decide what is best for this lineup. I respect your experience with the plugin market, but quite frankly, EI continues to loose artists because we’ve grown stagnant from a singular vision for EIAS. If the AI compatibility idea wasn’t a good one, Zax would have never forged an entire company around the concept. Its proven to work.

I also agree with Scott in that further development on the Paralumino line could be extremely well timed if positioned not as a competitor to Tesla, but rather the key technology that begins to bridge the “old” and “new” together. Hey, if I’m wrong and this all fails, its me and those who invest in the product that loose out on the money, not you...you’ll be paid up front and you can point your finger at us and say “We told you so”.

Say yes or say no...but don’t just squash this kind of potential simply because “you” think its right to do so. That puts a lot of responsibility on just one set of perspectives and that contributes to that singular vision problem that’s limiting EI’s success overall.

Hello, gentlemen

All we wanted to say = serious things should be done seriously. No way to replace a fundamental host’s politic/strategy with something other.  You can “play in development” so long as you want, but.. without us please We’ll not more answer in this thread. Good luck.

Hello Igors,

What I don’t understand Igors is why you even care in the first place if we “play” in development.  We’re offering you a chance to make money with no more risks attached. You just simply have to program and collect a check.  Yet you resist. You know as well as I do that you are critical to the effort. But I think the two of you like being in that position.  If the concept is so defective, then why not consider just selling the code out right? I just don’t understand.

Well, it seems that I may be a bit late to this dance… but here are my 2 cents.

I think I understand both sides of this discussion and am a bit dismayed that it has gotten to this point. I think that the real issues that need to be discussed have not been and I will attempt to focus in on those.

As a long time Paralumino product user, I see them as invaluable to what I do on a daily basis. I’ve used at least one and many times every Paralumino plug on the dozens of shots that I’ve done since purchasing them and they have allowed me to bring a level of visual interest to my shots that are not possible without them.

This discussion started out by asking what can be done to enhance the plugs functionality in order to set up a realistic upgrade path to a v2. I have many suggestions along these lines which I won’t go into at this time as to address the key issues as I see them.

Issue number one appears to be the request for vector art import (ai import) which seems like something that Trestle could do well. The main issue here is that there are other ways to get AI objects into EI, I just used EIM for that purpose today. Was it the most convenient workflow? no. As far as I’m concerned, convenience is a nice reason to put this feature into Trestle but that does not seem to be the point to me.

The point that has been missed is that there is a lot of talk about what features people want to see in EI and it’s plugs but talk is cheap. Whether Trestle can import AI files or not has nothing to do with what the Paralumino line offers the EI community. Talk of possible new customers based on a feature like this is speculation at best.

The Paralumino line of products is one of the best packages of plugs for EI ever written, yet most people haven’t purchased them. It’s hard to justify future feature requests and discussions of programming time based on user enthusiasm for those feature requests alone.

For those who can use basic modeling tools in EI that are fully animatable, buy the suite. Use the suite. Appreciate what it does, then we can talk about enhancements. Why would Igors be excited about a new version when the brilliance that is in the current version hasn’t been accepted by the community at large?

This brings me to my second issue. Why would Igors decide to be contract programmers for software that they have already put so much time into? Say they sell off majority ownership and add AI import. Say the plugs take off and sell well. What position does that put them into? They put blood, sweat and tears into software that others make most of the money off of? That would be great for the EI community but Igors are not philanthropists. I can understand fully them not wanting to be in that position. I can also understand why that have no enthusiasm for v2 when so many have overlooked v1.

AI import is not what these products are about although it would be nice to have. It is not necessary and just convolutes the basic fact that if people bought and used these products as-is, they would have more of an appreciation for how they add to the EI experience. When that happens, the users will be happy, Igors will be happy and Brian will be happy.

If you want these products to move forward, vote with your pocketbook. Buy them. Use them. Understand them. When v1 of the suite is a success, we’ll discuss what cool things we should request for v2.

Peter

The problem Peter is the Igors wont put a price tag on it. If they’re so concerned that they’ve lost time and money, then why not tell those who’s interested how much it would take to compensate them for their lost effort.  If they’re concerned the plugins wont sell, then they should have no qualms about selling the technology and then being compensated for it. Then they can be hired on and make even more money by just programming and only programming there afterwards....no more risk. UNLESS they still have some reason to believe the plugins possess a certain level of potential. (I’d even ensure they still got a percentage after all of this) That’s the risk you take. Its like selling a lottery ticket… someone might buy it for a $1000, but you’re surrendering your chance at perhaps millions. Which is more important to you? The $1000 now or the potential for more later. Yes.. there is no insurance for success...but I can tell you these plugins will only reach a certain level of success with their current feature set.

Peter...I’d be all for what you suggest...letting the users decide with their pocketbooks, but I tried a quota system with Igors already and even though I met it, they still won’t develop things further.  It makes no sense to me. How many more copies will it take Igors? What will get you to take action?

To hang on to the plugins and not development them because they think there is 0 potential and then not make the technology available for those who want to buy it and expand it just doesn’t make sense. Unwillingness to cooperate has to be coming from somewhere. If the Igors could give me a logical reason as to why this can’t happen, rather than just saying “No” and marching off the thread.. then I’d be satisfied. So far I feel we’ve only be handed excuses.