LP feature set

I understand fully.

I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but Caligari has entered the andquot;game-makerandquot; market with a new product called andquot;gameSpaceandquot;. andnbsp;It’s a off-shoot of trueSpace 6.6 that has features removed and other features added to make it more useful for polygon-modelling, character animation, and import/export for just about every format out there, etc. andnbsp;It still has pretty serious rendering capabilities as well… which is likey why it sports a $300 SRP tag for v1.0. andnbsp;

I’d love to see 3DC LP evolve into something focused for game-development like that… with a better price-point, of course <!– s;-) –><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!– s;-) –>. andnbsp;In contrast, for Pro users there are many features that don’t really fit the LP bill that they’d be wanting… like better support for renderers, i.e., better use of the POV language, including radiosity features, the POV -specific material descriptions and their nuances (I noticed that it’s hard to make andquot;glassandquot;-type surfaces in 3DC that get rendered like andquot;glassandquot; would get rendered in POV, for instance), and possibly NURBS and other similarly coveted andquot;primitivesandquot; that lend themselves to mathmatical rendering rather than polygonal representation. andnbsp;Pro users must also want a way to make use of the procedural texturing that is available in POV and others.

There is a disparity between these two feature sets.

Yes, a single product with a big price tag and all the whizzy features of everthing all wrapped into sounds nice, but it could also wedge the product into even more of a andquot;nicheandquot; market, to it’s possible detriment.

It’s late, I’m rambling… basically, consider LP as a stand-alone, spin-off product – built specifically for the andquot;game-makerandquot; purpose. andnbsp;That’s the suggestion. <!– s;-) –><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!– s;-) –>

And one more… make 3DC andquot;modularandquot;… i.e. andquot;feature packsandquot;. andnbsp;Some base product, kinda like the existing freeware version of 3DC… and then sell andquot;feature packsandquot; for users to buy exactly what they need.

It’d be nice for the LP version to support 2 features that only Pro supports:

1) Multiple named animation sequences (convenient for the game-maker to have all the andquot;behaviorsandquot; in a single file)
2) Scripting (instead of just plug-in support)

I think both of these features fit well with the andquot;make low-polygon models for gamesandquot; intention. andnbsp;The rest of the features seems to be well positioned between the andquot;I want to make LP animated models for gamesandquot; and the andquot;I want to make high-poly scenes for rendering and animating and to model for my favorite ray-tracerandquot;.

As an LP user, I find that I don’t really want to pay twice the price to get these 2 extra features (I really don’t have any use for the other features of Pro). andnbsp;I expect there are many potential users out there who might decide 3DC LP is too good and too well priced to pass up, if it were to include these 2 extra features, but are also put off by the prospect of paying twice the price for somewhat andquot;escotericandquot; features they don’t need. andnbsp;More users (whether they pay for the full Pro or just LP) translates into more contributions and feedback, and that translate into better product.

These features will not be added to the LP version. There has to be an incentive for people to purchase the more expensive version and these are desirable features that many people are willing to pay $35 extra to have.

Richard