Why do that? You'd lose all the things that makes South Park look the way it does - paper textures, realistic shadows, and so on...
It's much better that they do the show in Maya. Not only do you get the photorealistic rendering that gives it that low-tech "animation stand" look, you get Maya's great animation and scripting tools, which make the animators and tech directors happy.
I'm sure at least a billion of that is "real," however you want to define it.
As for the money Bezos has in Amazon stock - Amazon had sales of over $8 billion last year, is turning a profit, and is growing at 30% a year. Owning a sizeable chunk of that action is about as "real" as it gets.
A VTOL rocket in the Delta Clipper mold can park itself inside a one-and-a-half diameter chalk circle.
You forgot to mention that the Delta Clipper exploded while trying to land. A landing strut failed, causing it to tip over, busting a fuel tank open. The ball of flame was quite large.
When you land with a parachute, the tanks are empty.
Setting down into the white-hot exhaust of a burning rocket engine sure looks cool in the movies, but is it really safe? I mean, the kickback of the exhaust can cause all sorts of heat related problems on the underside of the craft, plus the control mechanism requires extra hardware, plus you have to carry a lot of extra propellant -- adding unnecessary weight and complexity.
Parachutes, on the other hand, are lighter, much cheaper and a lot safer.
Apparently a good part of Mauna Loa did collapse and the resulting tsunami was a few hundred meters high.
Bad news is that if it happened again, it would decimate Hawaii, but the good news (if you can call it that) is that this sort of tsunami would attenuate before reaching the mainland.
I wonder if advertisers will use this permission to call as a way around the "do not call" law.
John Doe just gave company X permission to call... little does he know company X is a telemarketing company (that now has explicit permission to call him.) So company X proceeds to call John Doe to plug it's 500 other products.
This happens every time Slashdot has a post on this topic, someone posts articulartly saying how much success they've had with the service, the timing is very convenient.
Well... would have posted my success story in the thread about the Hayabusa Probe, but I didn't think it was appropriate....and no, it's not a shill. Believe me, I went through WAY too many coffee dates with women who looked nothing like their picture for that to be the case.
Match is not a perfect service, but you can find success if you have realistic expectations, are honest about yourself and don't give up after the first bad date.
I met my girlfriend on Match. She's very attractive, but more importantly, she's very smart and drop dead hilarious.
I've met a lot of other attractive women on Match as well. I'm sure those women could just go to bars and find guys, but they chose Match instead. Perhaps because a lot of guys who hit on women in bars tend to be jerks (at least that's what I've been told.) The ones I've met use Match as a screening service to weed out the jerks.
I met a great girl on Match, and it's the best relationship I've ever had. I had to go through a lot of "coffee dates" and meet a lot of non-compatible women to get there. I don't think Match puts up fake profiles, but a lot of users do falsify information on that site, but then again, those people would lie about themselves in the real world as well.
I think where people go wrong is that they expect way too much. They just look at the photos and only email the women who put up the hot bikini shots... then supidly expect a reply. Every other guy on the system emails the girl with hot bikini shot, so your chances are pretty slim. Stick to women who are more your speed and you'll do just fine.
If you go into it with lower expectations and take the time to actually read the profiles rather than look at the pictures, you can meet some very nice people. I know I have.
So... Apple has a developer version that can install on any machine, but they'll restrict it to Apple-only at release.
Apple is playing with fire. Those developer releases will certainly get out in the world. I'm also certain someone will find a way to get around the Apple-only requirement once the x86 Macs start shipping, cutting into Apple's hardware revenue.
If I want to leave my data connection open for any number of reasons, that's my business. If I want to leave my front door open or not lock my car, that's my business too...
I think having the robots drive would be much safer than having to deal with drunks, rageaholics, and senile citizens who can't tell the difference between the gas and brake.
Animanium, Character Animation Toolkit, - and look for Modo, ZBrush and Silo to develop very cool animation tools.
All niche players. CAT is a plug-in for the other packages. Z-Brush is cool, but is just modeling and is a starting point for work finished in the larger suites such as Maya.
I was at the "big" Modo show at Siggraph and they showed exactly what they showed me in private meetings the year before. Their development is not happening at lightning speed. I do like Modo, but I fear they're about 5 years late and lagging behind.
Softimage has some terrific stuff, I think they're the best chance of keeping competition alive in this market segement.
Actually, Alias was founded in 1983 as an independant company.
SGI bought both Alias and Wavefront as a response to Microsoft's 1995 purchase of Softimage.
Alias separated from SGI a few years ago and has been looking for a sugar daddy ever since. There were rumors that Apple was going to buy them, but those were just rumors.
I prefer working in Max's interface, but I prefer Maya's power.
Hopefully:
Maya will become a little more user friendly. Even after 10 years, it's still a kludge. (I really don't want to have to render particles in a separate pass, for example, and the polygonal modeler must go.) The discreet people have done a really good job with making 3ds max a very easy to use program, and the Mental Ray integration they did far surpasses Alias' anemic implementation. Let them streamline the interface.
Max will get some more advanced features. Paint Effects and Artisan immediately comes to mind, but perhaps cloth, fur, and fluids will also make the leap. Max has a good core, but it still comes up short on the high end.
I also hope that the two can exchange data more easily.
I doubt they will change the price, but even if they do, it will not affect game prices at all. The big cost is the talent.
A seat of Maya and/or 3ds max costs a few grand for the seat and about a grand a year to keep it current.
The person who uses this software costs many tens of thousands of dollars per year, some cost hundreds of thousands. The talent is orders of magnitude more expensive than the software.
But it may be about the death of innovation in the area of 3D animation.
Autodesk bought Discreet quite a while ago and is actively supporting and developing *nix and OSX versions of the Discreet products. Autodesk's AutoCAD may not be so friendly, but the Media and Entertainment division goes where the money is, and a lot of the creative types are on platforms other than Windows. Judging from history, I suspect that will continue to be the case.
The thing that frightens me is that the two most popular 3D applications will now be under one roof. This could mark the beginning of Autodesk staging a Microsoft-like dominance of the 3D market, and the marginalization of the remaining players.
As someone who owns seats of both 3ds Max and Maya, I should be happy, but instead I have a pit in my stomach. I'm not sure if this is a good thing at all for the 3D community.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do that? You'd lose all the things that makes South Park look the way it does - paper textures, realistic shadows, and so on...
It's much better that they do the show in Maya. Not only do you get the photorealistic rendering that gives it that low-tech "animation stand" look, you get Maya's great animation and scripting tools, which make the animators and tech directors happy.
Seeing as though The Simpsons are still drawn by hand, I would imagine "storage needs" involves warehouse space in addition to digital storage.
I'm sure at least a billion of that is "real," however you want to define it.
As for the money Bezos has in Amazon stock - Amazon had sales of over $8 billion last year, is turning a profit, and is growing at 30% a year. Owning a sizeable chunk of that action is about as "real" as it gets.
A VTOL rocket in the Delta Clipper mold can park itself inside a one-and-a-half diameter chalk circle.
You forgot to mention that the Delta Clipper exploded while trying to land. A landing strut failed, causing it to tip over, busting a fuel tank open. The ball of flame was quite large.
When you land with a parachute, the tanks are empty.
Setting down into the white-hot exhaust of a burning rocket engine sure looks cool in the movies, but is it really safe? I mean, the kickback of the exhaust can cause all sorts of heat related problems on the underside of the craft, plus the control mechanism requires extra hardware, plus you have to carry a lot of extra propellant -- adding unnecessary weight and complexity.
Parachutes, on the other hand, are lighter, much cheaper and a lot safer.
Keep it simple.
They're OK for now...
I do worry about all the other tab sites.
Apparently a good part of Mauna Loa did collapse and the resulting tsunami was a few hundred meters high.
4 .htm
Bad news is that if it happened again, it would decimate Hawaii, but the good news (if you can call it that) is that this sort of tsunami would attenuate before reaching the mainland.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/kohala-tsunami-sep0
I wonder if advertisers will use this permission to call as a way around the "do not call" law.
John Doe just gave company X permission to call... little does he know company X is a telemarketing company (that now has explicit permission to call him.) So company X proceeds to call John Doe to plug it's 500 other products.
Ya think?
This happens every time Slashdot has a post on this topic, someone posts articulartly saying how much success they've had with the service, the timing is very convenient.
...and no, it's not a shill. Believe me, I went through WAY too many coffee dates with women who looked nothing like their picture for that to be the case.
Well... would have posted my success story in the thread about the Hayabusa Probe, but I didn't think it was appropriate.
Match is not a perfect service, but you can find success if you have realistic expectations, are honest about yourself and don't give up after the first bad date.
I met my girlfriend on Match. She's very attractive, but more importantly, she's very smart and drop dead hilarious.
I've met a lot of other attractive women on Match as well. I'm sure those women could just go to bars and find guys, but they chose Match instead. Perhaps because a lot of guys who hit on women in bars tend to be jerks (at least that's what I've been told.) The ones I've met use Match as a screening service to weed out the jerks.
I met a great girl on Match, and it's the best relationship I've ever had. I had to go through a lot of "coffee dates" and meet a lot of non-compatible women to get there. I don't think Match puts up fake profiles, but a lot of users do falsify information on that site, but then again, those people would lie about themselves in the real world as well.
I think where people go wrong is that they expect way too much. They just look at the photos and only email the women who put up the hot bikini shots... then supidly expect a reply. Every other guy on the system emails the girl with hot bikini shot, so your chances are pretty slim. Stick to women who are more your speed and you'll do just fine.
If you go into it with lower expectations and take the time to actually read the profiles rather than look at the pictures, you can meet some very nice people. I know I have.
K.I.T.T. had a V8 engine... what did C3PO have... a fuel cell?
You may be on to something there.
So... Apple has a developer version that can install on any machine, but they'll restrict it to Apple-only at release.
Apple is playing with fire. Those developer releases will certainly get out in the world. I'm also certain someone will find a way to get around the Apple-only requirement once the x86 Macs start shipping, cutting into Apple's hardware revenue.
What ever happened to personal choice?
If I want to leave my data connection open for any number of reasons, that's my business. If I want to leave my front door open or not lock my car, that's my business too...
Ridiculous.
I want to see them do it with a Chihuahua
X,Y, Z... as well as Q and U
Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Katrina, Lee, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Vince, Wilma
How about... Quincy, Ulysses, Xander, Yoda, and Zack?
I think having the robots drive would be much safer than having to deal with drunks, rageaholics, and senile citizens who can't tell the difference between the gas and brake.
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
Animanium, Character Animation Toolkit, - and look for Modo, ZBrush and Silo to develop very cool animation tools.
All niche players. CAT is a plug-in for the other packages. Z-Brush is cool, but is just modeling and is a starting point for work finished in the larger suites such as Maya.
I was at the "big" Modo show at Siggraph and they showed exactly what they showed me in private meetings the year before. Their development is not happening at lightning speed. I do like Modo, but I fear they're about 5 years late and lagging behind.
Softimage has some terrific stuff, I think they're the best chance of keeping competition alive in this market segement.
Actually, Alias was founded in 1983 as an independant company.
SGI bought both Alias and Wavefront as a response to Microsoft's 1995 purchase of Softimage.
Alias separated from SGI a few years ago and has been looking for a sugar daddy ever since. There were rumors that Apple was going to buy them, but those were just rumors.
Comparing the two is like comparing Quark to Vi.
Autodesk already did this with Max - the development was all over the globe, but after the Discreet merger they consolidated in Montreal.
Same with Alias/Wavefront after the merger 10 years ago. Santa Barbara, Toronto, London, it was all over the map but finally settled in Toronto.
At least both companies currently do their development in Canada...
I prefer working in Max's interface, but I prefer Maya's power.
Hopefully:
Maya will become a little more user friendly. Even after 10 years, it's still a kludge. (I really don't want to have to render particles in a separate pass, for example, and the polygonal modeler must go.) The discreet people have done a really good job with making 3ds max a very easy to use program, and the Mental Ray integration they did far surpasses Alias' anemic implementation. Let them streamline the interface.
Max will get some more advanced features. Paint Effects and Artisan immediately comes to mind, but perhaps cloth, fur, and fluids will also make the leap. Max has a good core, but it still comes up short on the high end.
I also hope that the two can exchange data more easily.
I doubt they will change the price, but even if they do, it will not affect game prices at all. The big cost is the talent.
A seat of Maya and/or 3ds max costs a few grand for the seat and about a grand a year to keep it current.
The person who uses this software costs many tens of thousands of dollars per year, some cost hundreds of thousands. The talent is orders of magnitude more expensive than the software.
But it may be about the death of innovation in the area of 3D animation.
Autodesk bought Discreet quite a while ago and is actively supporting and developing *nix and OSX versions of the Discreet products. Autodesk's AutoCAD may not be so friendly, but the Media and Entertainment division goes where the money is, and a lot of the creative types are on platforms other than Windows. Judging from history, I suspect that will continue to be the case.
The thing that frightens me is that the two most popular 3D applications will now be under one roof. This could mark the beginning of Autodesk staging a Microsoft-like dominance of the 3D market, and the marginalization of the remaining players.
As someone who owns seats of both 3ds Max and Maya, I should be happy, but instead I have a pit in my stomach. I'm not sure if this is a good thing at all for the 3D community.