Multimedia Toolkit 2/Multimedia Toolkit 2.iso/imagine/text/archive.18

Text File | 1993-03-12 | 116.9 KB | 2,883 lines

IMAGINE archive: collected off of [e-mail]

ARCHIVE XVIII
Jan. 8 '92 - Jan. 21 '92

If you have questions or problems with this file, email Marvin Landis
at [e-mail]

note: each message seperated by a '##'

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Subject: Imagine 2.0 retail
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 14:28:57 EST
From: [e-mail] (John J Humpal)

Louis D'ambrosio writes:
>
> P.S.  Does anyone know if Imagine 2.0 is out at the stores
>       yet and the $$?
>
    I don't know if it is in the stores yet, but an ad in AmigaWorld
(for PP&S's 040 board which is bundling Imagine 2.0 with their board)
claimed that Imagine 2.0 was "a $450 value"

-John

John J. Humpal -- [e-mail] -- short .sig, std. disclaimer

##

Subject: Autoscaling of textures in im2.0?
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 13:22 MST
From: VAX Headroom <[e-mail]>

I have an object with a linear texture on it that I would like to
have the texture rescale with the object.  This feature was mentioned
in the newsletter as being in 2.0.  I load the object into the stage editor
and then rescale it, but the texture does not rescale.  How do you turn this
feature "on"?

p.s.  I hope its an optional feature as there are times when I don't want
      to rescale the texture with the object.

p.p.s I too would like to know what the SHIFT button does, while I have not
      read the manual word for word yet, I have searched extensively for
      both SHIFT and the autoscaling and could find no mention.

p.p.s Does anyone elses manual refer to a Appendix A-DCTV, or an appendix B
      with every menu item explained, and yet not have either one?  Also
      in the preferences section, after EYES, there is ASK ZACK FOR MORE
      HERE.  Is this a common problem, or did I somehow end up with a
      pre-release manual?  (There IS an appendix A and an appendix B, but
      no mention of DCTV, or every menu item explained;  I don't think the
      release notes mentioned these errors in the manual either.)

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

##

Subject: 2.0 Stuff
Date:    Wed, 8 Jan 92 16:00 EST
From: "Marc Rifkin" <[e-mail]>

"Jim Lange" <[e-mail]> had some questions about Imagine...

It seems that the auto-texture-rescaling only takes place in the
detail editor and won't autoscale textures of children objects if you
resize a parent.

The SHIFT button is supposed to be like the shift key, but it doesn't
always take effect.  (Shift-M,R,S will move rotate or scale the AXIS
of an object- to make SHIFT work reliably, turn it on (or off and
back on if it is already on) before you want to use it.  Or just don't
use it and use the keyboard.

As for DCTV, all I could find was a doc file on the FP/INT disks saying
to make sure you copy the DCTV.library (on those disks) to your LIBS:
To use it, just pic DCTV file format.  I wish it were a display mode
rather than a file format so I could render 24bit and view it in
HAM, Hires, DCTV, FC24 or whatever.

Also- once you render a quick render and say "NO" to "Delete quick render
file?"- can you re-display that pic from Imagine?

NOTE: I am in no way representing or speaking on behalf of Impulse, I am
merely stating my observations from using Imagine and trying not to
piss them off. B-)
Marc Rifkin
Integrative Technologies Lab, Penn State University
5F Mitchell Building, University Park, PA 16802
814-863-8062 or for you normal people, [e-mail]
"Say, that's a nice triangle normal disturbance!"

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 Stuff
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 9:42:26 EST
From: [e-mail] (John J Humpal)

Marc Rifkin writes:
>
> Also- once you render a quick render and say "NO" to "Delete quick render
> file?"- can you re-display that pic from Imagine?
>
    As far as I know, no you can't re-display it from within Imagine.
Which is a minor pain in the ass, because I've found that if I'm doing
something else on another screen while Imagine quickrenders, when the render
finishes, it displays the image for a millisecond and immediately drops
back to the Imagine editor and asks for the delete.
    You *can* re-display the image using IView (for RGBN/RGB8 renders)
or your favorite viewer for IFF images.  The quickrendered image is called
Quickrender and its default path is RAM:, which can be changed in the .config
file.

-John

John J. Humpal -- [e-mail] -- short .sig, std. disclaimer

##

Subject: Re:  When will Imagine produce a real manual??
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:22:42 EST
From: [e-mail] (John Rosner)

I too was a little disappointed in receiving a major tutorial instead
of a referance manual, but take it in the spirit it is given and you
will get a lot out of it.  Just skim over the areas you know.  Oddly
enough I have a friend who, not being very technical, enjoys this style
of being led by the hand, there are probably many others who don't
admit it.

##

Subject: So, what am I missing..?
Date:     Thu, 9 Jan 1992 12:16:35 -0500
From: Yee Tom <[e-mail]>

Now that it seems that a fair number of people on this list have
actually tried out Imagine 2.0 can someone please tell me about
the new F/X that have been added to the new release?  How does
Fireworks differ from explosion?  What is flash?  I'll assume
that tumble is true to its name and that it tumbles objects like
words or titles (among other things).  Just to make sure that
I haven't missed something (the 1.1 manual is soooooo thin!)
does 2.0 (or even 1.1 for that matter) support "glowing" objects?
By that I mean, can I create a sphere and render it so that it
actually sets off a glow, making it look like a lamp or something?
This would be nice for glowing warp engines too I suppose.

                                              Tom.

##

Subject: Imagine 2.0 documentation
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 14:55:56 EST
From: [e-mail]

Now that Imagine 2.0 has been released, a lot of people are
discovering its new tools and abilities. The reference manual in
particular IS improved, but some recent posts to the list show that it
still isn't really adequate.


 On Thu, 9 Jan 92 07:25:49 CST, [e-mail] said:

Tom>   When I heard that Imagine 2.0 was going to have a big manual
Tom> book, I had visions of a book like the Amiga Workbench 2.0 manual
Tom> only a little smaller.  But instead I got a book written in the
Tom> same loose style as all the rest of the documents that come from
Tom> Imagine with page after page of chatter mixed in with various
Tom> pieces of information that you might be lookin for.
Tom>   Good luck! There are hardly no headers in the book! For example,
Tom> in the section describing the Detail Editor, there are 43 pages of
Tom> text with a few diagrams scattered around and only 2 headers in all
Tom> these pages. The Detail editor can do a Lot of things! The only
Tom> hope that you have to see how something works is to hope it's in
Tom> the index or table of contents. And from the mail that I see on
Tom> here about

[e-mail] said:

Mike> The manual does seem to be somewhat confusing, and the index is
Mike> definitely poor.  It seems as though the manual tries to take up more
Mike> room in order to make things clearer, but to me it is as if they are
Mike> just not getting straight to the point.

Stratocaster said:

Strat> I just got Imagine 2.0 in the mail.  I am very depressed about the
Strat> quality of the manual, for one thing... the Index is only two sheets
Strat> of paper, difficult to read, and DIFFICULT TO FIND.  The "Pick Sharp"
Strat> pull-down is not mentioned anywhere in the manual, for example.
Strat> Imagine 2.0, there are a lot of omissions in the index.

---------------

The following is a commercial message: However, I feel it is quite
appropriate for this mailing list, especially considering what it is
discussing.

---

You might have noticed that I have been very quiet on this mailing
list in the past few months. Also, several people have noticed that I
haven't written any tutorials for nearly six months! This is because I
have been very busy, indeed.

I am proud to announce the completion of my latest project, a book
describing Imagine (Imagine 2.0 in particular) in complete detail.
The book, _Understanding Imagine 2.0_, began shipping this morning.

The book is a complete guide to the Imagine software. It has two
sections, the main section being a true reference manual for each and
every editor and menu command. The commands are discussed in context
as opposed to a simple list of commands or a vague tutorial bouncing
from topic to topic.

The second part of the book consists of appendices of extra
information that can help you USE the menu commands described in the
first part. There is a long essay on object creation techniques. One
appendix lists the most common problems users have with Imagine and
the solutions to those problems. Another appendix has descriptions of
third party programs and hardware like ADPro and Pixel 3D which might
be useful companions to Imagine. Yet another appendix lists a variety
of tricks to use in your own renderings, ranging from motion blurring
to making widescreen "scope" animations. Another example illustrates
warp drive "glow" and using Fog to make clouds, and visible light
beams.

Perhaps the most useful aspect of the book is its index (over 10
pages!) and system of cross references. The index is EXTREMELY
detailed, which is really a necessity for a manual documenting a
complex program like Imagine.  Frequent cross references in the text
itself direct you to related commands or information, so you might
know to look at the "world size" when you are selecting your rendering
method to be Trace.

This book is as complete as I could make it, and really no aspect of
using Imagine has been omitted. The book itself is hefty: it is 230
full sized 8.5 by 11 pages and contains much more text than the
Imagine manual itself. It is comb bound, so you can open the book and
lay it flat.  The book is not a tutorial (too much information in it
already!), but it still comes with a companion disk, mostly of toys
like some new brushmaps and objects to play with (including a
photorealistic "Luxo" desk lamp of mine not in the Public Domain.)

You may have read some of the tutorials I have written about Imagine
before.  This commercial venture is much more polished and contains
over a megabyte of text, (as compared to the less than 100K of
tutorial text I have released in the past!)  and contains figures,
cross references, and a complete index. It even has a short preface by
Amiga artist Louis Markoya.

The book retails for $30, and is shipping as of this morning. (I had to
wait for the final Imagine 2.0 to be released to make sure that all of
the functions and options were described.) It is not at dealers yet,
but you can order the book directly.

I am VERY proud of the text, and am certain it will address many if
not all of the demands for better Imagine documentation. Buying a book
sight unseen is a tough choice, since you don't have any guarantee
other than faith that the book will be worth the cost you pay for it.
I'm confident enough in the text that if you purchase the book
directly, you are welcome to return the book for a full refund if you
aren't satisfied with it for any reason. I honestly don't expect any
returns.

The book retails for $30, but for members of this mailing list, (my
loyal friends!) you can purchase it for $24, including the shipping
costs.  (CA residents unfortunately have to add 8.25% sales tax, and
international orders are $5 for shipping.)

You can order the manual by sending a check or money order to:

               Apex Software Publishing
             405 El Camino Real Suite 121
             Menlo Park CA 94025.

The book is shipping, so turnaround time for mailing is only a couple
of days.

I apologize for the commercial nature of this message, but again, I
feel it is quite appropriate. I am really proud of the book and hope
that it satisfies the urgent need for decent Imagine documentation.
Now that this project is wrapped up, I'll finally have time to become
more active on the list again!

-Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Worley                                       [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: 3-D Glasses and Imagine 2.0
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 15:09:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

    Question: I know someone out there has those neat-o 3D glasses
which Imagine 2.0 now supports for rendering.  Is it good.  I have heard
the quality is "okay".  Also, does it really give you 3D, or just a
bunch of flat objects in different planes of view, such as 3-D comics?

    It seems that it should give you true 3-D, thus a sphere at the
center point would be closer than at its edges, but this would mean
actually rendering 2 different angles, does Imagine 2.0 do this?  (I
can't tell, I rendered for 3-D but without the glasses it looks like
mush).

    Also, how close and far can the object appear to be?  Can you
make 3-D objects appear to fly right in front of your nose?


        Thanks in advance.

               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re:  When will Imagine produce a real manual??
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 15:22:48 EST
From: [e-mail] (Linda J. LeVan)

Im glad to read your comments about Imagine's 2.0 manual. I read their
literature several times, trying to convince myself to part with the $100 for
the upgrade but I realized that my excitement about the pgrade was really for
the wonderful new & improved manual.  I'd been waiting since the 1.0 version
for enough documentation to really enjoy (and use) all the nifty features (or
even most of them).  Most of Imagines improvements are either too hardware
specific to excite me or eelse just bug fixes. I'd buy the upgrade (at a
reasonable price) just for the manual, but if the manual isnt even great I'm
glad to know about it now.Thanx

##

Subject: Translating Amiga Animations
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 16:28:23 CST
From: camelot![e-mail]

    Imagineites,

    A friend of mine wanted me to produce some animations for him to
    run on his PC.  Being new to animation in general I'm not sure how
    I would take an animation created on my amiga and translate it
    into a format to be run on his PC.  Would I have to create the
    still images on the Amiga, translate them into a PC format and
    then build an "anim" with a comparable PC tool?  Is there an easier
    way?  What PC tools would I use to accomplish this?

    Thanks,

    Dale


        ____________________________^__________________________________

        dale r. rogers               Email:  ingr!b24a!camelot!dale
                                     Internet:
                                     ingr!b24a!camelot![e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 documentation
Date: Thu Jan 09 16:35:45 1992
From: [e-mail]

|I am proud to announce the completion of my latest project, a book
|describing Imagine (Imagine 2.0 in particular) in complete detail.
|The book, _Understanding Imagine 2.0_, began shipping this morning.

This is VERY GOOD news.

Unfortunately, it also means that the Amiga now shares something
with many PC software packages -- third party manuals that are better
than the manuals shipping with the products.  Hell -- an entire publishing
house, Que, has made a lot of money doing just that.

Maybe Impulse should ship your book with Imagine 2.0...

At any rate, you'll be getting a check from me.

dave

##

Subject: Re: Can you view QuickRender pic over again in Imagine 2.0?
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 20:13:11 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

    Actually, there is a round about way to re-view it.  Make
project on your harddrive, and then in preferences, tell it to save the
picture to the proper path (therefore make a subproject in the
appropriate mode).  Then before hand, IMPORT pic.0001, and also tell the
preferences to save it as pic.0001.  Then, anytime you don't erase the
picture, you could go back to that project and look at, or if you have
enough memory, run an extra copy of imagine in the background to view
it.  (Still this is a major pain - don't know why they didn't add this
feature, would be nice.)


               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject: Imagine 2.0 and DCTV
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 19:33:17 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])

I can't seem to change the depth or resolution of the dctv images that
Imagine writes. Is there any one out there who has been able to change it?
I seem to only be able to use full overscan resolution, and 4 color planes.

                    thanks,
                        Tom the Smith

##

Subject: Re: Screen size
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 19:31:00 MST
From: HURTT CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL <[e-mail]>

>
> Imagine 2.0 appears to only allow a 640x400 user window, this is not
> exactly in the spirit of Amigados 2.0.
>

    I too was disappointed in this. I have my WB at Max Overscan and would
enjoy working in that mode. I'm sure 3000 owners would like to work in the
Productivity & Super HiRes modes. Hopefully next time.

    Chris Hurtt

##

Subject: Re: Can you view QuickRender pic over again in Imagine 2.0?
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 19:39:50 MST
From: HURTT CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL <[e-mail]>

    My suggestion is to have some sort of macro to view the QuickRender pic.
Imagine seems to like to buffer the mouse button clicks and I never get to see
my QR when its done. Therefore I've set mine up to render to disk and have a
pulldown on ToolManager that views it. For people with 1.3, perhaps use MachIII
or some other utility?

    Chris Hurtt

##

Subject: Re:  Translating Amiga Animations
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 22:54:20 AST
From: Darren Reid <[e-mail]>

    To transfer Imagine anims to IBM PCs - Render your animation as
stills (24 bit). Use an AREXX batchfile to automate AdPro and convert the
whole directory of pics to 256 color VGA 320x200 PCXs (still named
sequentially "pic.####"). Use Cross-Dos to put the pics on IBM diskettes.
Load the pic files onto your IBM HD. Run Deluxe Animate on the IBM, and load
the pics by pulling down the Pict/Load menu and selecting "Sequence", select
the first file, put the total # of frames in the "# Frames" box, and select
"Load". The pic files will load sequentially, and can now be saved as an IBM
Deluxe Animate file.


Shockwave Surfer
[e-mail]

##

Subject: Translating Amiga Animations
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 20:00:19 EST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Lindabury, SysAdm)

rutgers!uunet.uu.net!sisd!kodak!tokugowa!camelot!dale writes:

>     Imagineites,
>
>     A friend of mine wanted me to produce some animations for him to
>     run on his PC.  Being new to animation in general I'm not sure how
>     I would take an animation created on my amiga and translate it
>     into a format to be run on his PC.  Would I have to create the
>     still images on the Amiga, translate them into a PC format and
>     then build an "anim" with a comparable PC tool?  Is there an easier
>     way?  What PC tools would I use to accomplish this?
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Dale

Ok, I haven't done this but I think it will work.  Render your frames
in a VGA or SuperVGA resolution and Pixel Aspect ratio.  Once your
frames are rendered in 24bit IFF, I *believe* you can just load the
IFF images into Autodesk Animator Pro.  Since I don't have the Pro
version and I only have an older version, I'm not sure of this.  If
you have ADPRO you are all set as you can just batch convert them to
PCX and then load them into Animator or Animator Pro.  From there you
can create anims without much further ado.

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject: Re: Starfields in LightWave
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 17:55:05 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

>      I was wondering what the easiest way to create a starfield or even
> just several stars in LightWave to be used in animations with a space
> theme.

The method I use is to create a 3D volume of stars. This 'universe' is MANY
times larger (100x to 1000x) than the 'ship' that is flying through it.
The stars are a combination of single point polygons (particles in LightWave)
and crude spheres (20 or less polygons). To make the creation task less
tedious, I'll create a couple small star volumes and randomly replicate
them (with various amounts of scaling and rotation) all over the universe.
The only tricky part is making sure you don't fly into anything in your
animation :-) If the ship will be merely flying straight, The starfield
can be greatly constrained to reduce polygon count. In both cases, a "distant
stars picture" can be mapped to a surface at the universe limits to emulate
bodies your ship will never reach. This allows your star volume to be less
dense while still yielding a visually interesting "galactic view".

> I tried using just single points but they rendered as 'nothing'.
> Do I have to use tiny spheres, and if so what size is recommended?
> Every second LightWave animation I see has this type of effect,

How did you create your single points? In the modeler, select Points and
create a point. With only that point selected, hit Make or the P key to
create a polygon. Provided the surface attrubutes are viable, this point
will show up in all resolutions at any distance. And it is definately an
overused effect.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  |
| --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   |
|      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   |
|     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   |
|                                                                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

##

Subject: imagine/DCTV questions
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 07:57:28 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])

I made an animation with the camera going between some clouds and the ground
in DCTV. First I wrote the animation in imagine format, and it worked fine.
Then I tried writing it in ANIM5 format and it came out garbled.

Has anyone done this? Is it another bug? <<sigh>>

                        Tom the Smith

##

Subject: Imagine - QuickRender and Manual
Date:    Fri, 10 Jan 92 10:17 EST
From: "Marc Rifkin" <[e-mail]>

For the Quickrender problem I set up an icon on my Workbench (which I
"Leave Out" under 2.0) that is an iconx script running a show program
on "RAM:quickrender."  It works nice.

As for the manual, and also the user interface (to this day I still can't
figure out why pick points and drag points are two separate options...),
I have concluded that Impulse is not a perfect company, their products
are not perfect- sometimes barely acceptable- but those products DO
work- they do what they say their supposed to do.  I've decided if I'm
gonna do all those 3D animations I've wanted, I've gotta learn how
to get Imagine to do them, even if it means doing things that may not
make sense, the "Imagine Way." (As long as they aren't time consuming and
tedious! B-).

Marc Rifkin
Integrative Technologies Lab, Penn State University
5F Mitchell Building, University Park, PA 16802
814-863-8062 or for you normal people, [e-mail]
"Say, that's a nice GUI!"

##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 documentation
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 09:09:06 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Edward Chadez)

As a footnote to Steve Worley's announcement about his new book, I just
want to add that I was lucky enough to see a pre-release copy.  Steve
pulls trick after trick out of his 'Imagine hat', giving you in-depth
information on each of the editors, as well as carefully explained
modeling techniques.  Steve's knowledge of the program is quite apparent
in his companion manual, and his well-known style of prose is comfortable
reading.  My check is already in the mail for this one, and I will review
it to our local Amiga Graphics users group (SAGA) here in Denver.

-->Edward Chadez  =Amiga3000=
   Computer Animation/Pixel Pusher and
   Intuition WB2.0 NewLook Programmer.

--
  //                                                               ()__()
\X/ [e-mail]/Edward Chadez     CARL Systems(303)861-5319    (  )
                                                                    M.M.

##

Subject: Manual
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 01:34:31 CST
From: fnordbox![e-mail] (Loyd Blankenship)

    I got 2.0 today. Words cannot express how poorly written the manual is.
Yes, it is a dramatic improvement over 1.0/1.1. Unfortunately, the author
does not have a basic command of grammar, spelling and punctuation. This
detracts from the value of the product, and obfuscates the directions in
several places to the point of incomprehensibility.

<sigh> Why is it that programmers attempt to write their own docco when
they obviously lack the skills? This isn't always the case -- I've read
good programmer-generated docs (and like to think I've written some decent
instructions) -- but generally, a company should invest in a good technical
writer.

    I'm not even going to bother detailing the problems with the layout and
typesetting. I'm sure their reply would be "this isn't meant to be a desk-
top publishing example." What they don't seem to realize is that the
simple use of good headers, consistent capitalization and italics and some
vague interest in graphic design would have improved the manual leaps and
bounds.

    Oh well. At least the program didn't guru. :-)


    Loyd

***************************************************************************
*                 Once you pull the pin,  *    Loyd Blankenship  *
* GEnie: SJGAMES        Mr. Grenade is no longer *    PO Box 18957      *
* Compu$erve: [73407,515]     your friend!         *    Austin, TX 78760  *
* cs.utexas.edu!dogface!fnordbox!loydb             *    512/447-7866      *
***************************************************************************

##

Subject: Impulse and documentation
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 11:33:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Geoff F. Potts)

    Two Amiga products that I have owned and upgraded for several years
are PageStream and Turbo Silver/Imagine. I got the first release of Pagestream
on the Amiga and Turbo Silver V3.0 to start with and have upgraded ever since.

When PageStream initially shipped it was nearly two years late, had documentthat was apparently poorly translated from Portugeese and run off in someone's
garage. The program could not make it through the tutorials without crashing
the machine. It was a major dissappointment. Over the years, SoftLogic has
upgraded the software and documentation several times. It is now a fine and
stable program. Only one upgrade cost anything, $75 from 1.8 to 2.0. Most
relevant to this discussion is the manual. PageStream now ships with one of
the most professional, clear, and well laid out manuals I've seen. It comes
with two books, one a stapled book that has the "getting started" and tutorials,
the other a spiral bound, fully indexed reference manual. Individual pages
are well laid out with lots of white space and 2/3s of the page with text
and the other 1/3 with notes and examples. It just shows that documentation,
like code CAN improve from the abysmal to the exemplary if the company wants
to put out a proffesional product.

Impulse, on the other hand, seems to have an attitude like "we have a great
program that is too complicated to document well so we aren't going to bother".
The physical appearance of the manual bears this out. If I got something like
that from a typesetters, I'd send it back. It has nice margins and lots of
white space but it looks like it was put together by some guy in his garage
still. Words run into the margins, letters missing from words, and an index
that looks like a clumsy afterthought.

I love the program Imagine. It has allowed me a medium for creative expression
that I never had before. It is a reasonably priced package on an inexpensive
platform. My issue is, is it a professional product -- if it is, it deserves
a professional manual and if it doesn't have a professional manual, then it
isn't a professional product.

What is perhaps most disturbing is that the president of Impulse is a past
president of the Amiga Developers Association and is thus a example to other
developers.

I will continue to buy and support the products of both Impulse and SoftLogic;
I just wish someone at Impulse would take a look at the PageStream manual to
see that it can be done.

There, I feel better.

--geoff
[e-mail]

##

Subject: RE: ftpmail
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 08:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (Manjit Bedi)

I have been successful in using [e-mail]  .   I heard
about this from a posting in one of the Amiga news groups.
I have sent requests to HUBCAP with this mailer but alas I get stung
majorly because I have a daily free limit on UUCP mail which
is easily exceeded doing this stuff.

Manjit

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 Stuff
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 12:59:28 CST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Linton)

-> Also- once you render a quick render and say "NO" to "Delete quick
-> render file?"- can you re-display that pic from Imagine?

Well, I don't know about re-displaying it from Imagine, but you can use
Iview to look at it.  But, make sure that in the prefs you have the
"qucik rendering file format" set to RGBN-12 bit, or something like that,
unless you have a 24 bit card...Actually you could copy it into the
subproject PIX drawer, and rename it Pic.0001, or 0002 etc.  Then import
the picture into the desired frame.  That might work too.  But that sort
of defeats the purpose of the quickrender.  Anyway, give that a try and
let me know what happens...TTYL

--- (Michael Linton) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
E-mail: [e-mail]
system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8

##

Subject: Most effective place to send bug reports
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 18:31:43 EDT
From: Frank McPherson <[e-mail]>

I've been noticing a few problems with Imagine 2.0.  What would be the best
place to send bug reports?  I may post them to the nets at some point, but
I think it'd be better to tell Impulse about them first.
Do they have an email address for that sort of thing, or will I have to
resort to the U.S. Mail?

Thanks.


--
Frank McPherson                          Internet: [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 documentation (fwd)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 9:01:59 CST
From: camelot![e-mail]

Forwarded message:
> From uucp Thu Jan  9 18:14 CST 1992
> To: [e-mail], ingate![e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Imagine 2.0 documentation
> Date: Thu Jan 09 16:35:45 1992
> From: ingr![e-mail]
> Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
>
>
>
> |I am proud to announce the completion of my latest project, a book
> |describing Imagine (Imagine 2.0 in particular) in complete detail.
> |The book, _Understanding Imagine 2.0_, began shipping this morning.
>
> This is VERY GOOD news.
>
> Unfortunately, it also means that the Amiga now shares something
> with many PC software packages -- third party manuals that are better
> than the manuals shipping with the products.  Hell -- an entire publishing
> house, Que, has made a lot of money doing just that.
>
> Maybe Impulse should ship your book with Imagine 2.0...

    Maybe that would be a good idea.

    I have been reading Steve's tutorials for a while now and
    have always been pleased with the information I have received.
    I asked myself why hasn't this guy written a manual yet.  When I
    read about his book offer... needless to say... my check is in the
    mail.

    I'm not sure why manufacturer's don't put out good manuals.  I
    work for a company that has a complete department dedicated to
    technical writers.  People get juggled around to meet the various
    needs that arise.  So you may have a writer skilled in an
    architectural program bumped to write for an engineering program
    due to a time crunch.  The writing skills may be there, but the
    mastery of the program may be missing.  The writers have to
    interface with the programmers and support personnel in order to
    learn the program and then write about it.  The support personnel
    are too busy supporting the product.  The programmers are too busy
    making fixes and adding enhancements.  The disadvantage is that
    the people that understand the products are two busy supporting
    the product to take the time to write the manual.

    It's understandable that 3rd party publishers would put out better
    documentation.  They're publishing documents written by users who
    have been working with the software for years and know every inch
    of it.

    I don't know how big of a company Impulse is... but it seems to be
    the general trend that the software production houses are too busy
    writing software.  The users out there, working in a production
    environment, are the ones learning to master the program.  They
    are the ones with the tips, and work arounds, the insights.  They
    are the ones who, given the time, can write some excellent docs.

    I'm glad Steve finally took the time to write a manual.  I hope
    his efforts are rewarded sufficiently to keep them coming. As for
    me, I'm new to animation in general.  Many concepts were taken for
    granted in the 1.0 manual of Imagine.  The Imagine Companion helped
    a lot. So has this mailing list.

    I'm looking forward to getting over my learning curve
    and animating.  My Imagine 2.0 is in the mail.  Steve's manual
    will be soon.  I'm on the edge of my seat.

>
> At any rate, you'll be getting a check from me.
>
> dave
>


--

        ____________________________^__________________________________

        dale r. rogers               Email:  ingr!b24a!camelot!dale
        afme training                Internet:
                                     ingr!b24a!camelot![e-mail]

        INTERGRAPH CORPORATION       Phone
        HUNTSVILLE, AL 35894-0001    Direct: 205 730 8294 (Messages)
        MailStop: LR24A4             Fax: [phone]

##

Subject: extrucing along a path
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 23:34:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ramin Taraz)

I was trying to extrud a 2D object along a path and imagine would do it.
the error message I got was 'Illegal parameter'.
I created the path using two axes and calling make path.
the object was just a disk called from the premetive menu.

I couldn't find the problem in the manual and I also looked through Steves'
tutorials but still couldn't find it.

any suggestions?

rtaraz

##

Subject: Re: extruding along a path
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 11:14:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>I was trying to extrud a 2D object along a path and imagine would do it.
>the error message I got was 'Illegal parameter'.
>I created the path using two axes and calling make path.
>the object was just a disk called from the premetive menu.
>
>I couldn't find the problem in the manual and I also looked through Steves'
>tutorials but still couldn't find it.
>
>any suggestions?
>
>rtaraz
>
>
    Try making sure that the Path Name = AXIS or whatever you named
your path object in the detail editors' Attribute Requestor.  (The
default name for your path is AXIS - not PATH which is the default name
in the Extrude requestor).

               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: 3-D Glasses and Imagine 2.0
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 12:47:59 PST
From: [e-mail]

>     Question: I know someone out there has those neat-o 3D glasses
> which Imagine 2.0 now supports for rendering.  Is it good.  I have heard
> the quality is "okay".  Also, does it really give you 3D, or just a
> bunch of flat objects in different planes of view, such as 3-D comics?

>     It seems that it should give you true 3-D, thus a sphere at the
> center point would be closer than at its edges, but this would mean
> actually rendering 2 different angles, does Imagine 2.0 do this?  (I
> can't tell, I rendered for 3-D but without the glasses it looks like
> mush).


The 3-D that this produces is made to be used with the Haitex 3-D
flicker glasses. This is true 3-D, as true as you can get outside
the real world :-). The glasses are Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)
flicker glasses. They are plugged into the joystick port of the
computer and the flicker occurs at a specific rate controlled by
the computer (I believe it is 60 times a second, 30 for each eye).
This flicker rate is matched by the interlace display on the computer
screen. What happens is the Imagine renders the frame (or each frame if
you are doing animation) twice, from two different angles. This effectively
mimics the way we see in the real world. We have two eyes, 2 1/2 inches
apart, and our brain puts the two different angles together which
gives us depth cues. So Imagine renders the frame once, basically moves
the camera over a bit (I believe the amount is user definable) but still
pointing at the same 'target' and re-renders the frame from that angle.
The larger the difference in the camera positions, the more exaggerated the
3-D effect. Again, true to life is approimately 2 1/2 inches. You can pull
them way apart to get what's called a "hyper-stereo" effect (the true
term for 3-D is "stereoscopic") this would be like shooting clouds or
landscapes out of a plane window and waiting a long time between shots
(great effect). After rendering the two frames it interlaces them. The
odd lines contain the right eye view, the even lines contain the left
eye view. When the software displays the new interlaced frame, it controls
the glasses to flicker at the same rate as your standard flickering
interlace display (the flicker we all hate when working on the standard
Commordore monitor). The liquid crystal for the right eye is blacked
out while the even lines are on, and vice versa. This way, each eye
sees one half of the image and you see in true stereo.

This really looks incredible with 3D renderings. You do get full effect.
Someone already pointed out here that you can generate DCTV renders and
display them in stereo. This is great because you can essentially look
at your 24 bit animations in true stereoscopic. To view the images
you do have to have the glasses on or it will just look like a terrible
picture. If you don't have the software to make it flicker (that comes
with the glasses) then all you see is a jumbled picture which is really
two pictures stuck together. You can hook up as many pairs of glasses
to one computer as you want (or have available) via standard stereo
mini adapters and plugs. We have had as many as 10 pairs running at
once. We also show this stuff to large tours and it DOES work with
standard TV's. All you have to do is pipe your regular output, via a
genlock, to a normal TV and plug your glasses into the computer. The
TV flickers at the same rate as the glasses. We have multiple monitors
chained together so that a large group can all view at once.

On other note on this. Obviously the multi-sync monitors are designed to
get rid of flicker by flickering at a very high rate. This includes
the standard Amiga 3000 1950 monitor. The older version of the Haitex
glasses software didn't support this. But the current version DOES
support multi-sync monitors. So you CAN view this stuff on a 1950
or other multi-sync monitor.

Good luck finding the glasses however. I was told about a year ago
that Haitex went out of business. And their support has always been
less then zero. I occasionally hear the they might have gone back into
business, or not. I also occasionally hear of stocks of the glasses
showing up in various places. Last time I heard about it we picked up
10 pair of the glasses, just in case they didn't show up again.

It is a lot of fun viewing in stereoscopic. It looks real, it gives you
a whole new view on your models. It would be great to be able to use
the program and fully model in 3D, with the glasses. You wouldn't need
the tri-view screen. Someone did come out with a PD 3D modeler that
worked like this, but it wasn't a very good modeler.

=========================================================================
Sean Schur                        INTERNET ADDRESSES:
Assistant Director Amiga/Media Lab               [e-mail]
Character Animation Department                   [e-mail]
California Institute of the Arts
=========================================================================

##

Subject: Re: 3-D Glasses and Imagine 2.0
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 14:25:44 PST
From: [e-mail]

>
>Good luck finding the glasses however. I was told about a year ago
>that Haitex went out of business. And their support has always been
>less then zero. I occasionally hear the they might have gone back into
>business, or not. I also occasionally hear of stocks of the glasses
>showing up in various places. Last time I heard about it we picked up
>10 pair of the glasses, just in case they didn't show up again.
>
>
>=========================================================================
>Sean Schur                        INTERNET ADDRESSES:

I believe haitex is back IN biz again... if memory serves, they
showed up with a booth & their glasses at a recent East Coast
Amiga show.. but I don't have their address/phone info handy right now.
Should be gettable by getting in touch with any of the major Amiga
magazines, though.

A couple years ago, Impulse themselves were selling a small pill-box
sized interface for the Amiga to which one could connect Sega
3D glasses. This is the setup I have. I got the interface from
Impulse and went to a toy store and picked up the Sega glasses for
about $40. Those glasses might be out of production now.. I'm not
sure. And I have no idea if, since they've put stereo-3D rendering
back into Imagine 2.0 (after adding it in Turbo Silver SV (which
stood for "Stereo Vision) and then taking it OUT of Imagine 1.0
(for a reason I don't even want to get into here), they intend to
again sell this little interface or not. Could be a moot point if
the Sega glasses aren't available anymore.

There are a number of other nifty toys that can be used with these
LCD shutter glasses on an Amiga, not the least of which is a
3D lunar lander game, and I've put up tons of Stereo 3D pictures
into our file library on Portal.

One neat trick I discovered a while back was that I could make
"real-life" Stereo 3D pics with my Canon Xapshot still video camera
by shooting at the same centered target, first with the viewfinder
at my left eye, then at my right, then digitizing both shots
with DCTV (in non-lace mode) and merging them together into a
single stereo laced frame with a Haitex merging program designed
to do exactly that. Voila - full NTSC color stereo 3D snapshots
on my teevee :) Now I need to find some willing models. :grin:

By the way, Impulse's old "IView" IFF ILBM displayer was built
to toggle the signal on to the glasses.

Harv

##

Subject: 24 Bit wraps and 2.0!!!
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 17:22:13 PST
From: [e-mail]

Well, I just got Imagine 2.0!  And the biggest new feature I've seen is that
they've fixed the bug that I had with global brushes and 24 bit wraps!  I neve
used to be able to use these in 1.1 and now they work fine in 2.0.  I love it!
The manual could use a little work.  I wish there were some headers!  Every
time I go to look through the thing I just give up!  Atleast theres something
that resembles an index!  :-)

##

Subject: Global Brush Wraps
Date:    Sat, 11 Jan 92 21:35 EST
From: "Marc Rifkin" <[e-mail]>

Could someone  explain how the global brush is wrapped onto objects-
with respect to the other methods of brush wrapping in Imagine (wrap X,Z?)
How is the image projected onto surfaces?

I tested out a ubiquitous wine glass and it seemed to only wrap onto
horizontal surfaces like the inside bottom and "foot."  The sides
were not covered.

Marc Rifkin
Integrative Technologies Lab, Penn State University
5F Mitchell Building, University Park, PA 16802
814-863-8062 or for you normal people, [e-mail]
"Say, that's a nice henweigh."

##

Subject: Haitex 3-D glasses
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 22:07:52 MST
From: [e-mail] (Ben Scott)

I've been reading all the talk here about these gadgets, and it seems like
it'd really be interesting to look at a 3-D rendering with them.  However,
one thing occurs to me - unlike "true" 3-D, or holographic images for
example, you can't lean over and see further around an object.  But o
other than that I'm sure it's great.

It suddenly occurs to me, and I know it's not wholly relevant to the Imagine
list, that one could design a font to use in a standard CLI or WP screen
which would appear to be floating an inch or so in front of the screen when
viewed through the glasses... or imagine the layered icons in a WB window
you could make.  If these were to start coming standard with the Amiga,
or any computer, you'd no longer need to rely on color coding or flashing
areas to highlight something - just make it bounce forward once or twice.
Instead of ghosting a menu item or gadget, just send it back several
inches, "beyond" where your mouse can reach.  Furthermore, imagine
playing with the mouse pointer to add 3-D mouse movement, say by using
a third button which would, when pressed, make the normal front-back
movements of the mouse translate into Z coordinate translation.

Well, enough of this - it's not relevant, but it's darned interesting
to me, and I had to spout off about it for some reason.

(What the Atari ST's built-in MIDI port did for its music software market,
a standard pair of 3-D glasses could do for the Amiga 3-D market.  I know
it's been though of before, but think about the 3-D modeler you could make
to work with one of those... forget those quaint old triview or rotating
windows.  I'm not talking about VR, yet, I'm talking about real-world
market advantages that nobody else has tried to capitalize on yet)

.                            <<<<Infinite K>>>>

--
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Ben Scott, professional goof-off and consultant at The Raster Image, Denver|
|Internet [e-mail], or call the Arvada 68K BBS at [phone]|
|--------------------------------------..-----------------------------------|
|"My brothers and sisters all hated me,||The Raster Image IS responsible for|
|'cause I was an only child!"--Weird Al||everything I say!  ** Amiga Power**|
`--------------------------------------'`-----------------------------------'

##

Subject: Re: Stereo 3-D
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 10:56:59 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

    Thanks for all of the info.  Sounds really cool.  However, I
don't quite understand how you could record the 3-D pictures onto tape,
and then view them again in 3-D..... this would be great, since I keep a
n S-VHS tape of all of my animations for reference.  (My dad also has a
big screen TV - I know I can hook my genlock to the projector, wonder
what 3-D renderings look like on a 10 foot screen?).

    Also, am I to understand that you CANNOT view the 3-D images
directly from the SHOW command in Imagine?  Does this mean that I can't
play an Imagine anim with all the nice scripting features, and see it in
3-D?

            Thanks alot.
               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: 3-D Glasses and Imagine 2.0
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 09:39:34 EST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Lindabury, SysAdm)

rutgers!isi.edu!schur writes:

> The 3-D that this produces is made to be used with the Haitex 3-D
> flicker glasses. This is true 3-D, as true as you can get outside
> the real world :-). The glasses are Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)
> flicker glasses. They are plugged into the joystick port of the
> computer and the flicker occurs at a specific rate controlled by
> the computer (I believe it is 60 times a second, 30 for each eye).

Alot of explaining deleted...

Now, if what you say is true, that one eye sees the even scans and
the other eye sees the odd scans, then that means you are effectively
seeing a lower-res image.  If you were looking at an interlaced
display of 400 lines that means that your effective image will now be
reduced to 200 lines.  Right?

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject: Re: 3-D Glasses and Imagine 2.0
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 09:45:03 PST
From: [e-mail]

>
>Now, if what you say is true, that one eye sees the even scans and
>the other eye sees the odd scans, then that means you are effectively
>seeing a lower-res image.  If you were looking at an interlaced
>display of 400 lines that means that your effective image will now be
>reduced to 200 lines.  Right?
>
>-- Bob
>
Correct-o-mundo, Bob. When rendering for X-Specs (using ANY software,
not just Imagine) you have to render in low-res height. 200 lines
(or 240 or whatever for overscan). Then the stereo-making part of
[the program] merges the two non laced pictures, every other scanline,
into a single laced image 400 or 480 lines high.

So uh... yeah I guess each eye is seeing a low-res picture, 30 times
each second, but you really don't notice much resolution loss, if
any.  I'm no opthamologist and can't explain why this is but
Stereo 3D LCD glasses pictures always look just as sharp to me
as a regular interlaced picture would.  Maybe other folks have a
different perception of this effect.

Well... you be the judge.

Harv

##

Subject: 2.0 questions
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 18:05:56 PST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

a few questions about 2.0...Has anyone successfully gotten transparency
maps to work correctly ? I created a two bit plane image, black and white,
and mapped it as transparency-i should see just the black areas, the
white becoming invisible...however, i can still see a faint darker area of
the white parts of the map...I had this problem with 1.1, and was told to
change the full value to 240 (dpaint's white value). no go with 2.0.

also, could someone explain just how to use fog objects for creating light
beams ? and how pastella is supposed to enhance fog objects ?

there has been some discussion about lightwave discussions and their
"appropriateness" on this list, being an imagine mailer....Personally I
enjoy hearing about any and other 3d related subjects discussed here,
ESPECIALLY comparisons, critiques, methods etc...besides, i believe steves
original intent (steve?) WAS for other 3d related subjects to be discussed.

well, now that there is a lightwave specific mailing list....

of course, i can't resist a bit of lightwave talk :) has anyone seen the new
2.0 demo tape (not revolution) there are some *incredible* animation clips
on it, space ships, planets, an example of nonlinear fog, and a cool underwater
scene. also of note, two features of modeler, bend and twist, which are
IMHO even better (looking of course, this was a demo :)) than imagine's imp
improved interactive scaling of points. check it out if you can...

kevin kodama
[e-mail]

##

Subject: 2.0 docs
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 21:13:46 PST
From: [e-mail]

Urg. A friend just showed me the Imagine 2.0 docs and boy, do they suck.
Steve! How do we order your book???

By the way, the bitching about Impulse being less than satisfactory with
their support of Canadian customers (that's me!) is totally accurate.
My friend has received the newsletters and the notification of the 2.0
upgrade availability, and I have received diddly. I even sent a letter
with helpful suggestions etc. No reply. If only they were Black Belt....

Speaking of which, BUY Imagemaster!!! It's indispensable. I have a Toaster
and since Toasterpaint is the most useless programme ever written, I needed
a 24 bit paint programme. Imagemaster is that, and so much more. Processesing
out the wazoo, conversions, batchfile processing (I put motionblur on my
Imagine anims with a flick of Arexx) and gadzillions of FX. And support?
They've got new processes, upgrades and suppport on an almost weekly basis.
Free. Totally free (well, shipping). Unbelievable.

Well, one positive comment out of three ain't bad... I do love Imagine
(it crushes Lightwave, although we
will see how Lightwave2.0 stacks up) but Impulse seem kinda like
Commodore... great product, lousy company. But hey, that's just my
opinion.

Peter Bowmar, TO

##

Subject: IMAGINE 2.0 and more...
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 11:36:18 +0100
From: [e-mail] (LACOMBE Bruno)

    Hello everybody! This is my first mail (ever). I am a specialist of IMAGINE
in FRANCE, I have already make 10 Public Domain Disk for IMAGINE, a video tape,
a hot-line and some commercial IFF24 brush-maps.
I'll try to send some objects, brush-maps,TTDDDD programs and pictures for
your marvellous directory IMAGINE. And now , my first question :-)

    WHERE IS IMAGINE 2.0 ?????? Is anyone receive it ??? Is anyone SEE it ??
Is everybody receive IMAGINE LETTER from IMPULSE  ?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease , send me a response ! I haven't read the news for 2 months
:-( ( due to some stupid pirats on mail :-|
It is very very very important 'cause of the diffusion of my video tape.
Menphis Computer ( the german import for IMAGINE ) said me they have only a
pre-release , and they said that 2.0 is not as good as it should be ... :-(
Is it ready in PAL ( include with PAL DCTV)? , or only in NTSC ?

    Here my second question : Animation:JOURNEYMAN and Animation:*.* . Here in
FRANCE, we have obsolutly NO information on these soft ! so , Do they work in
PAL ? What they exactly do ? AmigaWorld say they are very impressive and all
are must have ...

    Now , a technical question : What exactly does the IMAGINE animation
module ? I have recently made a animation, convert all frame to DCTV, put it
on a special sub-project in IMAGINE ( with IMPORT ), and make the animation,
and glups ! The average size of the IFF-ILBM was 35 kb, and the average delta
size for the anim was 95 kb ! And it play SLOWER than ANIM OP5 ! :-(
Since this adventure, I only use the OP5 anim ...

   How about speaking of news ? I were at the AMIGA Expo KOLN, it was realy an
IMAGINE festival, I saw almost 40 modules for it. Some was rather common ,
like WOOD or MZARBLE BRUSHES, 3D objects like plane or cars. But there were
some incredible ones! Like beveled 3D FONT, plants with all you need for making
them grow with the GROW FX, and flowers with path and morph for opening them.
Realy impressive .
CHRISTMAS ... Commodore-Revue, a french magazine, give us a marvelous christmas
gift: a FREE 24bit Slide SHOOT !!! Dommage pour vous ... :-( I can't join you
at time.

    The last question : RADIANCE ! Is it ready ??? I want it . :-|    'cause I
want everything that make beautiful pictures.

                             Amigalement votre ....
                            Seul l'AMIGA le permet.
                  Y a t-il un(e) quebecois(e) dans la salle ??

join me at:     Frangois GASTALDO
                4 , rue des vignes
                33270 FLOIRAC
                FRANCE
                  tel: [phone]
                    email: [e-mail]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\\_______________\            F.G.P.              /_________________///
///               /  Frangois.Gastaldo.Productions \                 \\\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 questions
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 11:29:48 MST
From: HURTT CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL <[e-mail]>

>
>
> a few questions about 2.0...Has anyone successfully gotten transparency
> maps to work correctly ? I created a two bit plane image, black and white,
> and mapped it as transparency-i should see just the black areas, the
> white becoming invisible...however, i can still see a faint darker area of
> the white parts of the map...I had this problem with 1.1, and was told to
> change the full value to 240 (dpaint's white value). no go with 2.0.
>
    Weird. I've gotten them to work. I did change the Full Scale Value to
240, and did the same basic thing. All I can think of is to double check the
Value again. If problems persist I could mail you an object that I've done
successfully, I find having something to look at that works helps out alot.

>
> there has been some discussion about lightwave discussions and their
> "appropriateness" on this list, being an imagine mailer....Personally I
> enjoy hearing about any and other 3d related subjects discussed here,
> ESPECIALLY comparisons, critiques, methods etc...besides, i believe steves
> original intent (steve?) WAS for other 3d related subjects to be discussed.
>
    I agree. The more the merrier, I'll absorb anything people care to add.

    Chris Hurtt

##

Subject: Imagine1.0 Crashes
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 23:43:17 EST
From: [e-mail]

Hello all, got a couple of questions regarding Imagine.  I purchased Imagine
1.0 about 1 month ago and love it (won't get into the Great Manual Debate)
anyway I seem to have problems with it crashing.  My system is a A500 with .5
meg chip ram and 3meg fast ram, OS2.0.  Small objects it won't crash but
larger objects, I almost always get a system error.  An example would be the
Enterprise 1701-D.  It always crashes when rendering.  I originaly thought I
was running out of memory but it always shows some avail chip and fast ram.
Help!

Joe Cotellese

ps.  Does anyone know how to achieve a pouring effect.  Like water or liquid
metal?

##

Subject: DCTV question (off topic?)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 0:46:15 CST
From: [e-mail] (Steve W Davis)

This may be off topic, but since the readers of this mailing list are probably
the only group of people in the world who would know...

Where (or) is there a utility to convert DCTV into a standard IFF24 image which
I can use without having to buy DCTV itself?

Stratocaster

##

Subject: Re: Imagine1.0 Crashes
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 12:49:37 MST
From: [e-mail] (Steve Koren)

> Hello all, got a couple of questions regarding Imagine.  I purchased Imagine
> 1.0 about 1 month ago and love it (won't get into the Great Manual Debate)
> anyway I seem to have problems with it crashing.  My system is a A500 with .5
> meg chip ram and 3meg fast ram, OS2.0.  Small objects it won't crash but

How much stack space do you give it?  It tends to like a lot.  I always
use around 50K, and don't seem to have any trouble.  The default CLI
stack size is 4K, if I remember right, and that tends to be too
small.  Try increasing your stack and see what happens.

     - steve

##

Subject: rendering
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 13:47:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]


for those of you who cannot get enough of 3d rendering, check out the
latest Macworld, for a roundup of what is currently available on the Mac.
Some nice packages, especially ElectricImage, only +7000 dollars, mac
not included :-), Stratavision, Infiniti 3D...

The article covers general modeling techniques available, seems like Imagine
and Lightwave stack up pretty well in terms of features, although lacking
spline objects. Interesting to note that ole sculpt is in there, one of the
only mac programs with vertex level editing ?!?

The article also claims ElectricImage can't do shadows, although the
image shown does seem to casting shadows...Personally, I like the Stratavision
image the best...this program apparently has radiosity ! (and unlike the
Imagine 2.0 manual's claim, i don't think Strata's radiosity takes weeks to
render...)

What is interesting about Macworld's approach (they did this last year also);
the vendor is given a dxf file, and is allowed to render the image as best
they could. This really shows off the potential of the package. As opposed to
Amigaworlds rather limited cube/mirror sphere/check floor test a while back,
which didn't do ANY of the programs justice, IMHO.

Imagine would be considered a low end (in terms of cost), at $450, in the
Mac market.


kevin kodama
[e-mail]

##

Subject: Imagine 3.0 wishlist
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 14:06:54 -0800
From: [e-mail]

While I know it is a bit early to be thinking about Imagine 3.0, since
some people still haven't even received 2.0, but...

...in addition to a hide points command, an "invert hide points" command

...a way to quick render in hide points mode, i.e. render only the stuff you
are currently working on.

...an easy way to change selective face attributes, ala lightwave...

...editing in perspective window...

...a procedural fractal bump texture, in addition to the existing
brush-altitude map, more textures...

...altitude brush mapping without having to depend on the y axis for both
   bump depth AND brush extent...

...fractal trees, more csg objects (how about another editor, similar to Real
3D,CSG boolean stuff only !)

(others add here...:-))

a final note: there has been some controversy about the Imagine 2.0 release-
some saying it is revolutionary, others being disappointed that it wasn't
*more*...I think my current description would be "evolutionary", i.e. the
program doesn't have a whole lot of NEW features or approaches (except forms),
but it is a LOT easier to get at and use the existing features than before,
making it VERY valuable to those who liked the basic feel of 1.1, and perhaps
more of a disappointment to those who envisioned a whole new approach to
modeling, such as the jump from Silver to Imagine.

##

Subject: 3D glasses for 40 bucks?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 18:07:24 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])

I remember reading a posting about getting 3D glasses for Amiga for $40. I could
only find the X-specs glasses for $140. Where you talking about the Nintendo
glasses? If so are they any good?

                            Tom the Smith

##

Subject: Re: 3D glasses for 40 bucks?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 18:20:56 PST
From: [e-mail]

>I remember reading a posting about getting 3D glasses for Amiga for $40. I cou
l
>d
>only find the X-specs glasses for $140. Where you talking about the Nintendo
>glasses? If so are they any good?
>
>                            Tom the Smith

No, I was speaking of the SEGA LCD shutter glasses which I found at
a local mall toy store for $40 a couple years ago but which also
required the Impulse specs interface at additional cost. I don't know
if the Sega glasses are still made, tho toy stores may still have
old stock, and further I don't know if Impulse has any plans to
start selling their interface box for the glasses again, which they
discontinued doing a while back.

Harv the Harv

##

Subject: Forms editor?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 23:28:44 CST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Linton)

Has anyone noticed that old forms objects created with Imagine 1.1, don't
exactly load right?  I loaded up an object I started a while back, and in
the front and side views every thing looked ok, but from the top view the
object was just a mess of lines.  I guess since they added new features,
I can't load old files properly...Or, I could be wrong, and my objects
are screwed?  Can someone give this a try and let me know?  Thanks.

--- (Michael Linton) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
E-mail: [e-mail]
system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8

##

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 12:38:44 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])

Subject: Holy hydrogen Batman!

Hey guys, check out the nukeblast.dctv picture on hubcap in the
imagine/PICTURES directory. I used some fog attributes on parts of it
and tried to add some of the blast wave below it.

                        Tom the Smith

##

Subject: Re: Forms editor?
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 10:45:39 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

>
> Has anyone noticed that old forms objects created with Imagine 1.1, don't
> exactly load right?  I loaded up an object I started a while back, and in
> the front and side views every thing looked ok, but from the top view the
> object was just a mess of lines.  I guess since they added new features,
> I can't load old files properly...Or, I could be wrong, and my objects
> are screwed?  Can someone give this a try and let me know?  Thanks.
>
You are absolutely right, not only do forms created with Imagine 1.1 not
load properly into Imagine 2.0, but they don't render properly, either.

I tried to render an emerald I had created in 1.1, using 2.0, and it came out
looking kinda like a tesseract must look - warped and partially inside-out.

_john

##

Subject: 2.0 Menu Font
Date: Wed Jan 15 10:55:49 1992
From: [e-mail]

Am I seeing double, or is the font used in the menus shadowed?
Or maybe I'm supposed to use 3d glasses :).  Yea it's kind of cute;
a 3D program with 3D fonts, but it's hard to read and after a short
time becomes annoying.  Minor point, but does anyone know how to turn
this off?  Is it possible?  Thanks.

Scott Pack
<EndOfHeader>

##

Subject: Re: Impulse's phone number
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 19:43:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (rollins david alexander)

>
> Would someone mind posting Impulse's phone number, please?
>
> Thanks.
>
Impulse, Inc.
6870 Shingle Creek Parkway
Suite 112
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430
[phone]

##

Subject: Steve's manual !
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 17:41:43 PST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

It's here ! I just received Steve Worley's "Understanding Imagine 2.0,
a Complete Imagine Reference" today ! considering that I just mailed
out for it Friday, this has to qualify as quality service ! thanks, Steve.

Since I just tore open the envelope, a full review will have to wait :)
but...it looks to be a winner ! screen shots, diagrams, complete table of
contents, very complete looking index, lots of appendixes, page headers,
big 8 1/2 x 11 format, spiral bound for ease of use, disk-o-stuff,
etcc....

looks very complete, very professional, written in a similar style as his
excellent online tutorials (of course), i can't WAIT to get going on
Imagine again !

more details to follow...:-) congratulations, Steve, and thanks !

kevin kodama
[e-mail]

##

Subject: Roughness??
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 18:18:10 PST
From: [e-mail]

Did they fix roughness in 2.0? Like, no more crawlies?

##

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 20:42:03 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])

Subject: Nukeblast

I just put on a nukeblast.iff picture in hubcap at imagine/PICTURES for
those who don't have dctv. I tried compressing it but it came out bigger,
go figure!

                        Tom the Smith

##

Subject: Pouring H2O
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 00:43:39 EST
From: [e-mail]

Someone asked a while ago how to create pouring water...
Here's one feeble attempt.

Assuming you are using a cut off sphere inside the pitcher to represent the
water then take the object and elongate it into a sort of eplictal and twisted
in half at the center of the long eplise part.  Then take the orginial water
object and have shape into the final glass.
Okay then have object one morph into the second object then have the second
object morph into the final and third object.  The key here being keeping the
same amount of points and faces in each of the three objects.
Also adding the ripple effect to the objects.  This should work with some fine
tweening here and there.  I had pretty impresive results better than any 2d
repsersentation.  hope this helps.

Mike_Mooney.

##

Subject: X-Specs
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 01:51:45 GMT-0500
From: Scott Matthew Krehbiel <[e-mail]>

I have a pair of S-Specs, and here's some basic info that I didn't
see mentioned ( i think ).  An X-Specs image is, as was pointed out,
an interlaced image whose odd scan lines are one eye, and the even
lines the other eye.  This lets your eyes see the two separate
images WHEN THE GLASSES FLICKER!!

Should you decide that you would like to use good ol' DPaint III
to edit an image, you need to make two stencils, one blocking the
even lines, one blocking the odd, AND you need the glasses to be
flickering.  Haitex will SELL you some code examples of how to
make the joystick port control the 'specs, but I'm no guru, and
don't feel like paying the fee when I've already spit out about
a hundred for the hardware.

Here's the trick.  Run something in the background that will cause
the specs to flicker, and you can use "non X-Specs compatible"
programs.  You may even be able to show movie format anims this
way.  I use DigiPaint III, with the "Stereo - both views" option.
( I forget the keyboard command for this, but DigiPaint III does
support X-Specs - too bad it can't animate ).  Basically, anything
that makes 'em flicker should work in the background ( I think ),
so here's a strategy.  USE VIEW TO SEE AN X-SPECS IMAGE, AND RUN
A MOVIE IN THE FOREGROUND.

Actually, I never use view, so I don't know if it will actually
go to the background peacefully, but you get the picture.

Scott Krehbiel  -  An Apple a day makes your files go away!!

##

Subject: Question about extruding objects...
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 12:42:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (David R. Williams)

Is there any reason that in the tutorial booklet provided with Imagine
1.1, they use the "A" outline for the extrusion instead of the "A" face?
Is there something within Imagine (bug/feature) which makes this the
"right" thing to do?  Will my rendering be any slower if I extrude the
face of an object instead of an outline?

'Nother question:  Is Imagine 2.0 worth the upgrade price?

<dougie>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| David R. Williams                 \ That's the thing about people who think |
| Internet: <[e-mail]>  \ they hate computers.  What they really |
| UUCP:   mit-eddie!mit-athena!dougie \ hate is lousy programmers.            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Hell, my mother won't even stand behind anything I say; MIT sure won't...

##

Subject: Brushmap and "stenciling"
Date:    Thu, 16 Jan 92 16:46 EST
From: "'Bish' (Doug Bischoff) EMT-MAST" <[e-mail]>

     Okay: imagine (old pun intended) this:

       A light blue plane on light red background (how picturesque.)
       A color wrap (flat x flat z) of a name (say, "DOUG") made in DPaint III.

     How do I get the background of the brushwrap (white) to keep showing up
as an outline on the blue plane?  I've tried a transparency map with the name
done in black and the background in white, but I still get that background.

     For starters, how do I make sure that the white is 255 white not DPaint's
16 white?  I have ADPro (not the brand-spankin' new version).  Perhaps a "pure"
24 bit white done in that and a superimposition of a black silhouette of my
object composited over it?  I dunno.  Thanks for any help!
                                                             |\
                                                             | \
------------------------------------------------------------\|  \  /----------
Douglas Bischoff     | [e-mail]  |                   \/
Alpha Community      | 121 S. Buckhout St.   |       Save 'em all.......
Volunteer Ambulance  | State College, PA     |             Parts is Parts.
Service   EMT-Mast   | 16801                 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: Re:X-Specs Confusion
Date:    Thu, 16 Jan 92 09:17 PST
From: Ivan I                               <[e-mail]>

Sorry, but in all the discussion I'm a bit confused - is Haitex the maker of
X-Specs?  Haitex is mentioned in the manual, but not X-Specs, and until Scott's
letter I don't recall the two being mentioned in the same posting.
Additionally, the X-Specs pictures that I've gotten out of the archives looks
substantially different from the Stereo images I get from Imagine, although
it's quite likely that something must be done to combine the pictures I've
downloaded.

Please, help me to blow another $100 on this toy!

Thanks a bunch -
Ivan
-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------
To: [e-mail]
Subject: X-Specs

>>>  Haitex will SELL you some code examples of how to
make the joystick port control the 'specs, but I'm no guru, and
don't feel like paying the fee when I've already spit out about
a hundred for the hardware.

Scott Krehbiel  -  An Apple a day makes your files go away!!

##

Subject: Re:X-Specs Confusion
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 19:09:42 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Kirby A. Heintzelman)

>
>Sorry, but in all the discussion I'm a bit confused - is Haitex the maker of
>X-Specs?  Haitex is mentioned in the manual, but not X-Specs, and until Scott's

Haitex is indeed the "maker" of the X-Specs....
I might add that here in the store (we are an Amiga dealer) we've had the
glasses, and the box that connects to the joystick port has a second connector
to which we have connected Sega glasses! The Haitex glasses are a bit more
useful as they can be worn over regular prescription glasses easily, which
is not the case with the Sega variety. If anyone is having a hard time
locating a supplier for the Haitex glasses, I will be glad to help procure
them. They come with a great 3D game called Space Spuds, as well as several
very nice demos of things like 3D molecular modeling amongst others.

--
 Kirby A. Heintzelman
 Somers Photo & Computer -> (Amigas only!)
 [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: Re:X-Specs Confusion
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 17:09:29 PST
From: [e-mail]

>to which we have connected Sega glasses! The Haitex glasses are a bit more
>useful as they can be worn over regular prescription glasses easily, which
>is not the case with the Sega variety. If anyone is having a hard time
>locating a supplier for the Haitex glasses, I will be glad to help procure
>them. They come with a great 3D game called Space Spuds, as well as several
>very nice demos of things like 3D molecular modeling amongst others.
>
>--
> Kirby A. Heintzelman

Although the form factor of the Haitex X-Specs are something like
"Nerd welder goggles from the planet Mongo" (highly rubberized
things with straps), the Sega glasses (which more closely resemble
Snoopy's "Joe Cool" shades) fit fine over MY prescription glasses
which have rather large-ish squarish-lenses and plastic frames.
So the fit and comfort of the Segas will vary from face to face.
I actually prefer the Segas to the X-specs since I find them easier/
quicker to put on and take off cuz their smooth plastic doesn't
grab at my hair the way the rubbery X-Specs do.

##

Subject: Re: 3D glasses for 40 bucks?
Date: Thu Jan 16 16:40:34 1992
From: [e-mail]

Harv writes:

| No, I was speaking of the SEGA LCD shutter glasses which I found at
| a local mall toy store for $40 a couple years ago but which also
| required the Impulse specs interface at additional cost. I don't know
| if the Sega glasses are still made, tho toy stores may still have
| old stock, and further I don't know if Impulse has any plans to
| start selling their interface box for the glasses again, which they
| discontinued doing a while back.

I was looking in the manual last night and Impulse does hint that the
interface is still available.  They mention suitable glasses as being
manufactured by Nintendo and Sega.  Look on page 179.

Scott Pack

##

Subject: Re: 3D (that is stereo vision) and graphics
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 10:41:57 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

    Just thought since there is a small discussion on 3D viewing of
the amiga and graphics, that I would mention an article I came across in
this months (or maybe it was last) Electronic Musician.

    It seems a company has created a new monitor which doesn't
require 3D glasses to view as 3D.  It uses an LCD screen.  The way it
works is it shows one picture with a certain contrast settings, and then
the other with a different contrast setting.  Those familiar with LCD
screen know that if you are not at the proper viewing angle, the picture
disappears.  Seems they have found a use for this after all!  Anyways,
there is a "sweet" spot where you should view it from, but it is
supposed to allow about 3 people to view it with the full effect at
once.

    Perhaps the future of 3D graphics is not far.  Unfortunately the
$10,000 price tag does put a damper on  this.

    Well,  more food for thought.


                Mike C.
                [e-mail]

##

Subject: Anniversary, and welcome.
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 12:22:27 EST
From: [e-mail]

John Grieggs posted the 2000th message to this mailing list one day before
the first anniversary of the list's creation. That's an average of 5.5
posts per day! Congratulations everyone.

-Steve

The monthly welcome...

Welcome to the Imagine Mailing List! This is a periodic posting to inform
new users about what the list is and how it works.

I am Steve Worley, a just-graduated MIT student, and I created and
maintain this list. The list began in of January 1991, about 3 weeks
after I got Imagine and wanted a forum to discuss problems, questions,
and tricks for this wonderful piece of software.  [Wonderfully
frustrating, sometimes!] The list is alive and well, with roughly 6-12
posts a day.

Membership of the list is at 294 as of this morning, and I add about
one person a day. As of today, there have been 2019 posts to the list,
and a total of maybe 6 megabytes of text.

Anyway, for those new to the list, you probably realize that this is a
discussion group about Imagine, Impulse's ray-tracer and modeler for the
Amiga. Tips, questions, answers, comments, complaints, bug-workarounds,
and anything somewhat pertaining to Imagine is fair game. This includes
DCTV/Colorburst questions (what a thread!), Lightwave comparisons
("Ask Mark Thompson"), removable media drives (for big anims), and reviews of
Vista (Virtual landscapes in a box), which are just a few of the tangent
subjects that I remember seeing discussed on the list. They're all fair
game, though baseball stats are probably a bad thread to start.

Probably the highest volume traffic is question and answer- "My objects
don't all render in trace mode, but it's fine in scanline. Whats up?"
There are a lot of people on the list at different experience levels,
and if you've been reading you realize there is a lot of support out
there. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO POST TO THE LIST! Even the most experienced
users might not have thought of your idea or question before, and
everyone benefits from the discussion. Odds are you'll get help and
advice.

How do you send something to the list? It's pretty easy. You just send
mail to "[e-mail]" as the recipient's name. Your letter
is copied 200 times and mailed to everyone on the list. That's it! If
you want to deal with administrivia like adding/subtracting a name on
the list, mail me personally, [e-mail], and I'll try to
help out.

One danger- if you REPLy to a mail message from the list, you are
probably NOT sending a copy to the list, but only to the original
owner. To post a  followup to the list, either compose a new letter,
or remember to change the "To:" line in the reply to
"[e-mail]", unless of course you WANT a private reply.

Occasionally when you post, you might get a very strange bounce message,
from a place you've never heard of before. These are problems caused
by users with buggy/lame/confused mailers that I've added to the list.
When the mail sent to them is bounced, their brain-dead mailer doesn't
send the bounce to the SENDER (the Imagine server) it sends it to whoever
is in the "From:" line (you!). If you get these when you post, you can
ignore them. (If you're worried, wait until you see your message appear,
usually about a 24 hour turnaround)

One way of eliminating these bad bounces is to include the line
"Errors-To: [e-mail]" in the HEADER of your message, where
you specify the Subject: and  To: lines. You can also send me personal mail
if you like- I keep culling the bad addresses (from users I've just
added) and it might help. Summary, though- don't worry about the bounces
from stuff you send, as long as you see your message appear on the list.

There is a complete archive of this mailing list (maintained by Marvin
Landis) at the FTP site hubcap.clemson.edu. In addition to these
excerpts, there are also a couple of megs of Imagine objects (That I
converted long ago) as well as many megs  other fun things, like a Vista
landscape, a new Imagine icon, and a complete project called "Castle"
by Helge Rassmussen, and many pictures.

One last note- this list and its messages are completely
distributable. A couple of BBSes carry our discussion, and a few
"members" of the list are actually mailing lists in their own right.
Feel free to copy or distribute the info on the list, as long as you
1) credit the authors of individual messages (keeping their names is
all you need) and mentioning the source, the Imagine Mailing List,
[e-mail]. That's it!

Remember, don't be afraid to post! It's free! It's fun!

Keep on rendering,

-Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Worley                                           [e-mail]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: Sphere-to-Skull update
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 11:20:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Geoff F. Potts)

I just thought I'd update folks on my sphere-->skull morph. Following
suggestions received here, I created a sphere with the same number of points
and faces as the skull object. I then did a 30 frame morph from the sphere
object to the skull. The effect I was hoping for was a sort of vac-u-form
effect fo the skull features appearing on the sphere. What I got was a sphere
that smoothly morphed to a jagged object for 29 frames and then "popped" into
a skull. My guess is that the mapping of points to faces changed on that last
frame, i.e. the same three verticies that defined a face on the sphere did
not define a face on the skull and those definitions remapped all at once on
the last frame.

My only other solution was to conform the skull to a sphere but that gives a
rather lumpy sphere and the morph is more of an unwrapping effect than one
of molding.

Ah well, if I find a solution I'll let you know and if anyone has suggestions,
I'd be glad to hear 'em.

BTW, someone asked if the skull was a PD object. Sorry, no; it is from the
human skeleton object disk published by Antic software. I think it is still
available from Creative Computers and contains both male and female skeletons.

--geoff
[e-mail]

##

Subject: 2.0 Laced HAM Qtrrscrn problems
Date: Fri Jan 17 10:30:18 1992
From: [e-mail]

Unusual rendering problems are occuring on my A3000 with this mode, in
both Quickrender and Project render.  In the Stage, I have six objects,
a plane (the floor), two side walls, and three walls with arched doorways.
The walls are all set upon the floor and the ends of the side walls are
flush with the front of the end doorway-walls.  The floor is much larger
that the walls of the building.
                    (Crude ASCII Diagram)
                  as modelled   as rendered
top view ->        +------+      +------+
                   |      |      | |  | |
                   | |--| |      | |  | |
                   | |--| |      | |--| |
                   | |--| |      | |--| |
                   |      |      | |  | |
                   +------+      +------+

When this is rendered in Laced HAM Quarterscreen, the side walls appear
to extrude lenght-wise to the ends of the floor.  And the third door-way
wall is not rendered at all.  Rendering is correct in hires and HAM.
Objects are not grouped or joined.  Has anyone else seem similar problems
with rendering in this mode, or others?  Any ideas why this is happening?
Thanks.

Scott Pack
<EndOfHeader>

##

Subject: 2.0 Laced HAM Qtrrscrn problems
Date: Fri Jan 17 10:39:30 1992
From: [e-mail]

I forgot to mention that this occurs in Trace mode.  Thanks.

Scott Pack
<EndOfHeader>

##

Subject: Re: Sphere-to-Skull update
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 14:01:05 CST
From: [e-mail] (Steve W Davis)

> I just thought I'd update folks on my sphere-->skull morph. Following
> suggestions received here, I created a sphere with the same number of points
> and faces as the skull object. I then did a 30 frame morph from the sphere
> object to the skull. The effect I was hoping for was a sort of vac-u-form
> effect fo the skull features appearing on the sphere. What I got was a sphere
> that smoothly morphed to a jagged object for 29 frames and then "popped" into
> a skull. My guess is that the mapping of points to faces changed on that last
> frame, i.e. the same three verticies that defined a face on the sphere did
> not define a face on the skull and those definitions remapped all at once on
> the last frame.
>
> My only other solution was to conform the skull to a sphere but that gives a
> rather lumpy sphere and the morph is more of an unwrapping effect than one
> of molding.
>

Well, you could make a second key object with the skull's points moved around
so that it's more or less convex in shape.  From there, morph to a sphere.
The resulting anim should be of a perfect sphere (well, more or less) morphing
into the thing you created, which then morphs into the skull.  Heck.  It might
even look cool, though not quite what you're looking for!

> BTW, someone asked if the skull was a PD object. Sorry, no; it is from the
> human skeleton object disk published by Antic software. I think it is still
> available from Creative Computers and contains both male and female skeletons.
>

Well, that's your problem!  :-)

Stratocaster

##

Subject: Tree4D
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 14:58:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (BRANHAM,JOSEPH FRANKLIN)

Has anyone managed to succesfully unarc the Tree 4D program (Fish 586) that
is now on ux1.cso.uiuc.edu?

And for anyone at Impulse who might be listening--my wish list for
Imagein features.

1) DCTV 3-bit support. Makes anims run LOTS smoother.

2) Brush WRAPPING-that is to say following the contours of an object. This is
the one feature that Raydance has that makes it look SO interesting.

3) Source code and a description of how to write effects and textures. (Tectu in Turbo Silver DID have some source and a page or two of documentation.)
 But then we could have all sorts of c hackers releasing PD effects for
 Imagine.

4) In the Cycle Editor, it would be nice if there were a toggle to restrict
 use of the MOVE command to the entire object, just beeping if you try to move a part. (I've been animating a skeleton with nice results, but when I moved
 the entire skeleton to keep up the foot positions on a walk cycle, I kept
 leaving the MOVE on.) I kept having to start over because I lengthened his
 leg using the MOVE.)

5) Some way of dealing with Cycle objects in the Stage that makes it easier
 to move a cycle object along a path. Perhaps a number (CYCLE LENGTH) could
 be entered into a requester in the CYCLE editor. And when you work with an
 object in the Stage Editor, this number could be used in a special editing
mode which would create a path with a number of "STEPS" or cycles. Thus, you
could work with a set of points which you would know to be the ends of each
cycle of that cycle object.

The last 2 are pretty picky. The first 3 are the only major things that I
see Imagine needing. (Shadows is arguable, since it would be fairly hard to
implement, and the time-saving over ray-tracing isn't TOO drastic (say on
the order of 2-3 times maybe?)

Moo
Frank Branham

##

Subject: Re: Sphere-to-Skull update
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 12:16:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis ~)

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 92 14:01:05 CST, [e-mail] (Steve W Davis) said:

Steve> Well, you could make a second key object with the skull's points
Steve> moved around so that it's more or less convex in shape.  From
Steve> there, morph to a sphere.  The resulting anim should be of a
Steve> perfect sphere (well, more or less) morphing into the thing you
Steve> created, which then morphs into the skull.  Heck.  It might even
Steve> look cool, though not quite what you're looking for!


    It just do happens that I have been messing around with morphing
using my TTDDDLIB (which is on hubcap).  I haven't included the latest
morph code with the library yet, as I am still working on it.  Maybe
I'll turn it into a commercial product instead of releasing it as
shareware... who knows?  :-)

    Anyway, if the original person (sorry... I lost the original
message) who wanted to perform the morph wishes to send to me an object,
I will warp it to a sphere, with identical face/edge/point topologies
such that you can use this new object in your morph without any of the
problems you were seeing before.  In other words, the object I send you
should identically correspond to your original such that you can let
Imagine perform the in-between steps without edges flying all over the
place.

    Sound fair?  This is made possible by my original shareware
project called "TTDDD".

                            -- Glenn

##

Subject: Re: Sphere-to-Skull update
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 12:21:02 PST
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis ~)

>     Anyway, if the original person (sorry... I lost the original
> message) who wanted to perform the morph wishes to send to me an object,
> I will warp it to a sphere...

    I just noticed that it sounds like I am promoting piracy, which I
definitely do NOT!

    If you send me an object, it must be freely distributable.

    The thing is that I am not releasing my code, so you will have to
send me an object.

    Since the Skull is copyrighted, you will have to send me something
else.  Sorry.

                            -- Glenn

##

Subject: Re: Sphere-to-Skull update
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 15:56:12 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> My only other solution was to conform the skull to a sphere but that gives a
> rather lumpy sphere and the morph is more of an unwrapping effect than one
> of molding.
> Ah well, if I find a solution I'll let you know and if anyone has suggestions

What you need to do is a simultaneous morph and cross dissolve. The cross
dissolve allows both objects to look perfect at either end of the process
eliminating the "lumpy sphere" you mentioned. If the conform to sphere
does not produce suitable in between frames, you will have to manually
create a sphere shaped object from your skull. This should not be too
difficult and the cross dissolve will hide a lot of problems. This
is pretty easy in LightWave but you may need ADPro to do a cross dissolve
with Imagine (unless you can animate surface transparency).
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  |
| --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   |
|      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   |
|     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   |
|                                                                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

##

Subject: Re: Sphere-to-Skull update
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 13:01:47 PST
From: "Jim Lange" <[e-mail]>

In-Reply-To: WRPYR:[e-mail]'s message of 01-17-92 11:20
Errors-To: unix:[e-mail]

Geoff,

Byte-by-byte's Sculpt-animate had a feature called Make Sphere that did exaclty
what you are trying to do.  If you or someone you know has any one of the
programs in the series (Sculpt 3D, 3DXL, Animate 3D, Animate 4D) you could use
Interchange or Pixel 3D to convert between formats and turn your skull into a
sphere with the Sculpt editor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lange                [e-mail]
Oracle Corporation            {uunet,apple,hplabs}!oracle!jlange
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: Re: Tree4D
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 13:14:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)

> And for anyone at Impulse who might be listening--my wish list for
> Imagein features.
>
> 1) DCTV 3-bit support. Makes anims run LOTS smoother.
>
I recommend rendering in 24-bit, then using IFFTODCTV to convert your
frames - this lets you choose the parameters YOU like, and gives you
the opportunity to try again with different ones until optimal.  Unless,
of course, you`re one of those pitiful waifs trying to run Imagine with
a stock 500 and half a floppy!  :)

_john

##

Subject: Re: skull to sphere morph.  IDEA
Date:    Fri, 17 Jan 92 16:46 EST
From: "'Bish' (Doug Bischoff) EMT-MAST" <[e-mail]>

     A tedious but probably workable way to do that particular morph is to
that just barely encompasses the skull, then drag the points directly away
from the center towards the sphere, and when it morphs, all the points will
just have a simple line to traverse, and imagine won't have to guess which
point goes where, so to speak.  :-)

Give it a try and let me know if it works out!

/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| -Doug  Bischoff- |    *** ***    ====--\         | "Paramedics save |
| -DEB110 @ PSUVM- |   *  ***  *     ==|<>\___     |      LIVES       |
| -The Black Ring- |    *** ***        |______\    |      -but-       |
| --- "Wheels" --- |      ***           O   O      |  EMT's save the  |
| Corwyn Blakwolfe |     T.R.I.     -------------  |   Paramedics."   |
\---- [e-mail]  D.BISCHOFF on GEnie  THIRDMAN on PAN -----/

##

Subject: Re: skull to sphere morph.  IDEA
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 15:18:42 PST
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis ~)

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 92 16:46 EST, "'Bish' (Doug Bischoff) EMT-MAST" <[e-mail]> said:

Doug>      A tedious but probably workable way to do that particular
Doug> morph is to [...missing text...] that just barely encompasses the
Doug> skull, then drag the points directly away from the center towards
Doug> the sphere, and when it morphs, all the points will just have a
Doug> simple line to traverse, and imagine won't have to guess which
Doug> point goes where, so to speak.  :-)

Doug> Give it a try and let me know if it works out!

    Well, the missing text is crucial to your explanation, but if I
assume that you meant to create a sphere "that just barely encompasses
the skull", then the person will get the same results.

    The problem is that Imagine uses a very simply "morph" algorithm
where two objects must have the identical number of points, edges, and
faces, *AND* they must correlate.  This enables Imagine to simply
interpolate all points in object1 smoothly to the points (with the same
indices) in object2.  The big challenge in general-object morphing is
not interpolating the points, but is creating two objects whose
point/edge/face topologies are identical while retaining the original
objects' geometries.  Soon I should have some code working that will
take two general objects, and spit out two new objects whose topologies
are identical and whose geometries are identical to the original
objects, thus allowing Imagine to load them in and simple-mindedly morph
between the two with fabulous results.  Of course, I will let this list
know when I get it working.

                            -- Glenn Lewis
---
[e-mail] | These are my own opinions... not Intel's

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 Menu Font
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 19:08:38 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Kirby A. Heintzelman)

>
>
>Am I seeing double, or is the font used in the menus shadowed?
>Or maybe I'm supposed to use 3d glasses :).  Yea it's kind of cute;
>a 3D program with 3D fonts, but it's hard to read and after a short
>time becomes annoying.  Minor point, but does anyone know how to turn
>this off?  Is it possible?  Thanks.
>
>Scott Pack

I have to second the motion, I find it makes the text harder to read, esp
after you have been staring at the CRT for a couple hours.
Has any one noticed in their attempt to make the buttons look like version
2.04 OS, they put the bright side of the button on the wrong side? This also
makes it hard for me to see the present state of the user programmable buttons
, although the feature is great! I have no real complaints, but I could
register several suggestions, the new version of imagine is great!

--
 Kirby A. Heintzelman
 Somers Photo & Computer -> (Amigas only!)
 [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: skull to sphere morph.  IDEA
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 19:27:26 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Kirby A. Heintzelman)

 This may sound totally off the wall, but as another approach this might be
interesting, if not feasable. Sometimes there are situations where making
the anim (or morphing process) in reverse, then reassembling the frames in
a reverse order can create effects not though possible. This is a technique
I have used to perform the Tumble effect as documented by the  new V2.0
manual.

--
 Kirby A. Heintzelman
 Somers Photo & Computer -> (Amigas only!)
 [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: skull to sphere morph.  IDEA
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 16:39:11 PST
From: "Jim Lange" <[e-mail]>

Errors-To: unix:[e-mail]

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 92 16:46 EST, "'Bish' (Doug Bischoff) EMT-MAST" <DEB110@PSU
VM.PSU.EDU> said:

Doug>      A tedious but probably workable way to do that particular
Doug> morph is to [...missing text...] that just barely encompasses the
Doug> skull, then drag the points directly away from the center towards
Doug> the sphere, and when it morphs, all the points will just have a
Doug> simple line to traverse, and imagine won't have to guess which
Doug> point goes where, so to speak.  :-)

Another idea would be to place a sphere of the same surface color, but smaller
than the skull, inside the skull.  Then expand the sphere so that whe walls of
the sphere pass through the surface of the skull.  This would produce the
effect of all the indetations filling in first until it is a perfect sphere.
Reverse for sphere to skull morph.  This could be combined with the
skull-to-lumpy-sphere (manually manipulated skull) morph for a more convincing
effect.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lange                [e-mail]
Oracle Corporation            {uunet,apple,hplabs}!oracle!jlange
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 Laced HAM Qtrrscrn problems
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 21:01:26 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>Unusual rendering problems are occuring on my A3000 with this mode, in
>both Quickrender and Project render.  In the Stage, I have six objects,
>a plane (the floor), two side walls, and three walls with arched doorways.
>The walls are all set upon the floor and the ends of the side walls are
>flush with the front of the end doorway-walls.  The floor is much larger
>that the walls of the building.
>                    (Crude ASCII Diagram)
>                  as modelled   as rendered
>top view ->        +------+      +------+
>                   |      |      | |  | |
>                   | |--| |      | |  | |
>                   | |--| |      | |--| |
>                   | |--| |      | |--| |
>                   |      |      | |  | |
>                   +------+      +------+
>
>When this is rendered in Laced HAM Quarterscreen, the side walls appear
>to extrude lenght-wise to the ends of the floor.  And the third door-way
>wall is not rendered at all.  Rendering is correct in hires and HAM.
>Objects are not grouped or joined.  Has anyone else seem similar problems
>with rendering in this mode, or others?  Any ideas why this is happening?
>Thanks.
>
>Scott Pack
><EndOfHeader>
>
    1] Are you in Trace or Scanline?  If you are in trace, the
object may disappear if it is out of the worlds coordinates.  The
default I believe is 1024 in both X,Y,Z.  An easy way to change this is
to add a SIZE bar from frame 1 to 1 of GLOBALS in the ACTION editor.
LEAVE the X,Y,Z sizes = 0.  Zero forces Imagine to calculate what global
size it needs, rather than having to make you actually figure it out to
enter the numbers.

    2] The other possibility is that you do not have enough RAM to
render the objects.  This would also cause the objects disapper as well,
the solution: obtain more RAM (If you can't run out of RAM rendering or
animating, you not trying hard enough!)

    As for the objects actually being disfigured, that is not the
proper length, that may be some fluke with 2.0.  Try moving your scene
around, or doing another project with different objects.

               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 Menu Font
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 08:31:13 EST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Lindabury, SysAdm)

rutgers!cleveland.freenet.edu!ae386 (Kirby A. Heintzelman) writes:

> I have to second the motion, I find it makes the text harder to read, esp
> after you have been staring at the CRT for a couple hours.
> Has any one noticed in their attempt to make the buttons look like version
> 2.04 OS, they put the bright side of the button on the wrong side? This also
> makes it hard for me to see the present state of the user programmable button
> , although the feature is great! I have no real complaints, but I could
> register several suggestions, the new version of imagine is great!

The highlight on the buttons is on the wrong side??  C'mon now, it
wouldn't be Impulse if it wasn't totally backwards and
non-conforming! <grin>

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject: Piracy
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 12:05:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Rob Borsari)

Glenn:  I don't think its piracy if he sends you the object, you fix it, and
send it back without keeping a copy.  Its like sending your car to a mechanic
, the mechanic hasn't stolen your car, he just has it while he fixes it.  If he
never gives it back then he has stolen it.  (well a reasonable period of time)
  It wont even violate anyones copyright as long as he dosen't keep an active
on-line copy of the object.  He is entitled to backup the object.  Lets not
start putting up walls that don't exist because of the spector of 'Copyright
Violation.'  Having reread what I just typed in haste, let me add that even
objects released into the public domain should be credited to the creator.
I in no way condone spreading around commercial products (includeing or especi
ally objects.)  In most cases if you need an object for a project you can afford
to pay the guy or gal who sweated over it for there time.  Or you can make your
own. Or you can ask someone on the net if they will do it for fun (how is that
monitor working Strat?)  In any case unless Glenn starts selling the skull and
morph pair I don't really see a problem.  (hmmm objects with Morph Partners((TM)
what a concept)   Note this was not intended as a flame at anyone just my
 2 rubles        -R-

[e-mail]  Rob Borsari    "Bourne to be Wild"

##

Subject: Piracy
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 22:22:15 PST
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis ~)

>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 92 12:05:02 EST, [e-mail] (Rob Borsari) said:

Rob> Glenn: I don't think its piracy if he sends you the object, you fix
Rob> it, and send it back without keeping a copy...
Rob> Note this was not intended as a flame at anyone just my 2 rubles
Rob> -R-
Rob> [e-mail]  Rob Borsari    "Bourne to be Wild"

Rob -

    I agree, and of course, I wouldn't keep or use it if it were
sent to me.

    I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that my purpose was
not to get a commercial object, but to simply help out a fellow
Imagineer.  I do not condone or practice piracy and from reading my
first message, that was not clear, so I wished to make it undeniably
clear.  Thanks for your feedback in the matter!

                            -- Glenn

##

Subject: Object-->Sphere
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 0:00:02 PST
From: Daryl T. Bartley <[e-mail]>

Would the same process work on objects that are even less spherical? Like a
group of 4 letters or some such?

BTW, how is the any object-->any object going? Or is this just another subset
of the process?

Just interested.

Daryl Bartley
[e-mail]

##

Subject: Object-->Sphere
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 00:19:52 PST
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis ~)

>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 92 0:00:02 PST, Daryl T. Bartley <[e-mail]> said:

Daryl> Would the same process work on objects that are even less
Daryl> spherical? Like a group of 4 letters or some such?

    I don't think that this would work too well...  Having a single
object morph into 4 distinct objects would give some interesting
results.  But I haven't tried it yet, so I probably shouldn't spectulate.

Daryl> BTW, how is the any object-->any object going? Or is this just
Daryl> another subset of the process?

    It is going quite well, thank you.  I assume you were addressing
your question to me... I don't recall seeing any other messages on the
list about people creating general-object morphing programs for Imagine.

Daryl> Just interested.

    I'll definitely let the list know when I have code that is ready
to test out...  It looks like this will be within the next month or
two...  I have another hot Imagine project on the burners that will take a
fair amount of my time in the upcoming weeks that will severely limit the
time available to work on the morphing algorithm.

                            -- Glenn

---
[e-mail] | These are my own opinions... not Intel's

##

Subject: Explosions?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 15:50:03 PST
From: [e-mail]

Will somebody please try to explode an object in the radial and linear
fashions?  I cannot seem to get these to work and they are rather
important in an animation I am creating.  Note also that I am using version
1.1 on a 68000 machine.  i know that 2.0 users have had to use their 1.1
version of explode and that there were some differences between the FP and
68000 versions of 1.1 (namely transparency mapping and reflection mapping)
If anyone has any comments, they are welcome. Thanx!
    Shadowmar
    [e-mail]

##

Subject: Imagine Crashes part II
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 18:33:44 EST
From: [e-mail]

Well I upped the stack size to 50k and Imagine still crashese then I upped it
to 100k and still know luck, I'm seriously p**sed.  Is it wrong to expect the
program to work?  Has anyone out there had the same problem as I have.  Let
me recap,  I have an Amiga 500 with 2.04 OS .5 meg chip ram and 3 meg ram
supplied by the Baseboard mfgr by Expansion Systems.  When I try to render a
object of mild complexity I get a software error.  The error I get the most
is Software Failure 8000 0003           00C87290.  I wish I knew what it
meant.  I hope when I call Impulse tomorrow they don't give me the same ttype
of answer as my last conversation.

me: "Hi, I have Turbo Silver and just bought OS2.04 and TS crashes"
them:  "Buy Imagine"
me: "Do you mean there is nothing I can do to get it to work"
them:  "Buy Imagine"

So I did- now what are they going to tell me to buy a 030 board with 16meg
32bit memory,  although that is nice to have this program should work with
that I got now.

Joe Cotellese -exasperated consumer

##

Subject: lights,camera,2.0
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 22:14:48 PST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

1. Imagine 2.0 has what it calls "Sun" lighting, using spherical and no
diminishing of intensity. however, this leads to some problems. unless the
"sun" object is placed waaay off screen, the light rays will not be parallel,
casting strange shadows at times. so i tried cylindrical lighting, with a
long "y" and "x" axis, and tracked to a point below the ground. the
rays *still* are not parallel, the closer the lamp moves to the object....

so, the question is, CAN you model parallel rays of light in imagine easily
and will imagine ever have a true sun model ala Lightwave ? :)

2. so, put the lamp waaay off screen...hmmm. the scene: an interior of a room.
outside the window, a vistapro scene mapped to a plane. the lightsource, to cast
rays of light thru the window, must be between the plane and the window.
I tried using "backdrop", but Imagine does *NOT* render backdrop thru glass...

so, is there a way out of this, or do i just import the whole scene to
Lightwave 2.0, when it comes out ?

##

Subject: Tips&Tricks
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 14:25:23 MET
From: Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

Hallo everybody out there.

I write for the first time to the list asking to you all help for a new project.
Well, I'd like to open a new series of articles on an italian paper (Amiga
Magazine), talking about Imagine's "Tips & Tricks".

I'd like also let italian people who cannot access this list, know about
features and hints that I'm getting from you all.

So please help writing me or to the list everything you think can be
interesting or just funny about Imagine features and utilities.
Italian Imagine users will appreciate it !

                                        Thanks in advance.

                                        CIAO
--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject: Re: 2.0 Laced HAM Qtrrscrn problems
Date: Mon Jan 20 08:59:01 1992
From: [e-mail]

Thanks Michael.  Over the weekend I figured ou that my objects were way
too big, and thus exceeding the univers size.  When I scaled them down,
all is fine.  By the way this problem only seems to appear in Trace mode.
Erroneously, my problem had nothing to do with the screen resolution, just
Trace mode.  I'm happy now :).  Thanks.

Scott Pack

##

Subject: Review of 'Understanding Imagine 2.0'
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 09:48:29 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Edward Chadez)

This review of Steve Worley's book, _Understanding Imagine 2.0_ was
posted to Compuserve.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Compuserve Information Systems...

#: 34042 S4/Impulse
    20-Jan-92  00:22:40
Sb: A Real Imagine Manual!
Fm: Pete Gould 71240,2152
To: ALL

Although it has already been mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to add a bit to
the description of Steve Worley's new book, UNDERSTANDING IMAGINE 2.0. I
have spent the last few days reviewing my copy, which arrived last week.

This is the book we all wished was packed with Imagine in the first place,
and then some.  Not a "Tips & Tricks" book (although there is a chapter
devoted to that topic), UNDERSTANDING IMAGINE 2.0 is an exhaustive
reference on the most recent release of Imagine.  Worley explores the
program point by point, meticulously describing each menu, slider and
gadget.  The book is extensively cross referenced, with a generous index.
It even has notes in the margins, steering you to other parts of the book
that relate to the current topic.  Even better, the various functions are
described in context with each other, providing a clear and lucid picture
of how the different components can be used together (something I always
had trouble with).

An MIT graduate, Worley clearly has a firm grasp of the underlying
technology behind the program's internal workings, but instead of rubbing
our noses in arcane jargon he uses his understanding to our advantage in
writing a clear, easy-to-understand reference.  Far from the terse, dry
kind of presentation that often makes this kind of material hard to stay
with, UNDERSTANDING IMAGINE 2.0 is not only quite readable but has its
moments of wit.

The book is 8-1/2 x 11", 221 pages (yes, it will lie flat!), and includes a
disk of objects and other goodies. No one wanting to use Imagine and keep
their sanity at the same time should be without it. UNDERSTANDING IMAGINE
2.0, $32.42 (including CA state tax), Apex Software Publishing, 405 El
Camino Real Suite 121, Menlo Park, CA 94025. It should be available at your
local dealer soon or you can order direct.

Please note that this review is based solely on my own observations and
opinions.  I am not in any way connected with Apex or Mr. Worley.

Pete

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I, too, am in no way connected with Apex nor Steve Worley (although I do
read eMail from him on the imagine mailing list).

-->Edward Chadez  =Amiga3000=
   Computer Animation/Pixel Pusher and
   Intuition WB2.0 NewLook Programmer.

--
  //                                                               ()__()
\X/   [e-mail]/Edward Chadez     CARL Systems(303)758-3030       (  )
      [e-mail]                                               MM

##

Subject: When will Imagine produce a real manual??
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 07:25:49 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])

  I normally don't like Imagine bashing, because I think it's a GREAT product,
and I'm not going to compare it to Lightwave because I've never used it.

However...
  When I heard that Imagine 2.0 was going to have a big manual book, I had
visions of a book like the Amiga Workbench 2.0 manual only a little smaller.
But instead I got a book written in the same loose style as all the rest of
the documents that come from Imagine with page after page of chatter mixed in
with various pieces of information that you might be lookin for.
  Good luck! There are hardly no headers in the book! For example, in the
section describing the Detail Editor, there are 43 pages of text with a few
diagrams scattered around and only 2 headers in all these pages. The Detail
editor can do a Lot of things! The only hope that you have to see how something
works is to hope it's in the index or table of contents. And from the mail
that I see on here about Imagine 2.0, there are a lot of omissions in the index.

  Impulse, Imagine is a wonderful product, please give us a real manual so
we can use it to its full potential.

Wel that's all I have to say, Keep on Imagining!!

                            Tom

##

Subject: Imagine 2.0 bug? 1 more thing
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 00:38:12 -0800
From: [e-mail]


 Also, just did an experiment and this appears to happen only in the project and
stage editors (those editors where it DOESN'T bring up the 'Quickrender
lighting' requestor)

  ___________________________________________________________________________
 /  [e-mail]                                       |     //         \
|Oh, you're just gettin weird...and that results in creativ-|    //Only Amiga |
|ity" -Joel MST3K|Virtual Reality is the future of safe sex.|\\ //  makes it  |
 \__________________________________________________________|_\X/___possible_/

##

Subject: Imagine 2.0 bug?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 00:33:07 -0800
From: [e-mail]


 I think I've found a major bug in Imagine 2.0. I can't get an object which is
'glass' (Index of refraction > 1.00, filter greater than 1 ) to render in trace
mode for which the light rays must pass through twice. By this I mean that a
plane will render fine, but spheres and tubes will error. The error ranges
from a guru (80000006), to freezing up, or occasionally it stop rendering and
slow the machine down so much that you can hardly move the mouse pointer.

 Has anyone else had this problem? Again, this only happens with rounded glass
objects in trace mode.

  ___________________________________________________________________________
 /  [e-mail]                                       |     //         \
|Oh, you're just gettin weird...and that results in creativ-|    //Only Amiga |
|ity" -Joel MST3K|Virtual Reality is the future of safe sex.|\\ //  makes it  |
 \__________________________________________________________|_\X/___possible_/

##

Subject: Re: Explosions?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 2:39:30 PST
From: Daryl T. Bartley <[e-mail]>

Hmm. I kind of zipped through the mail from the list today, so I don't know
if someone else already answered this question, but what the heck.

I'm using 1.1 on a stock 2000, and explode works just great. It does tend to
use up more memory, but I think all the F/X do (i.e. I find I can render/animate
larger objects without effects than I can with them)...Radial and Linear
explosions work just fine. What settings are you using? Could be some little
thing messing it up.

Hope this helped, and wasn't redundant if your question was already answered.


Oh, and speaking of questions, I have one while I'm at it. I was wondering ig
(ack, IF) rendering in IFF takes like a truckload more ram than RGBN. I seem
to be able to do RGB without a hitch, on any object I can render, but IFF
chokes up. I set it up (usually overnight), and it starts the palette calc...
then the next day the first thing I see on the screen is the 'Error rendering
frame XX' message. I have even once waited for the palette pass to be done to
see what goes wrong. It seems to _try_ and put another message box up before
the 'Error rendering' comes up, but it doesn't. Am I just seeing things? What
could be the problem? Have I over-explained this enough? ;)


Daryl Bartley
[e-mail]
ObQuote:"Sure I live in my own little world. But it's okay, they know me there."                   -- Steven Wright