Quick Suggestion for Hexagon Next.0

Blackbirdx61

I've only recently started any 3D modeling, but my Favorite program so far is Definately Sculptris; but even for me its limits are all to obvious.

The thing I like best though is that Sculptris uses the language of an Artist; so I dont have to run commands through an internal Nerd - > Artist Convertor.

I think it would be a Huge step in the right direction for Hexagon to take a step towards Artist friendly names.

http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/50926/create-a-face-from-selected-vertices

In the attached thread one user descirbes how he overlooked the fill command in Hexagon for years because its just oddly named and not at all apparent

what its doing. I very like the idea of treating the mesh as virtual clay that you can Push, Pull add more Putty; and work with as an Artist would.

I think its pretty obvious that most if not all your potential users think of themselves at some level to some degree as Artists; and so adopting a more Artistic language in describing commands, techniques would make the program more intuitive.

Blackbirdx61

Another Quick Comment, You might change your Name to Like Hexagon3D or somthing;

It's really hard to Google for Hexagon and get hits that are relavent to your product. Seriously.

A3DLover

Blackbirdx61 said:

Another Quick Comment, You might change your Name to Like Hexagon3D or somthing;

It's really hard to Google for Hexagon and get hits that are relavent to your product. Seriously.

Thats true that google seems to ignore hexagon search criteria. Btw there is a program already called hexagon3d its not daz appropiated though. Hexagon is at its end and no one really know why except the code owners. Theres been many smart ideas suggested for hex but fell on deaf ears. To be completely honest i dont its possible to take hexagon any higher simply cause the coders failed to foresee the the code implimentation of it a failure. I also like sculptris but if you mixed with hex then you'd have a real crashup app.

Morkonan

Blackbirdx61 said:

 

I think its pretty obvious that most if not all your potential users think of themselves at some level to some degree as Artists; and so adopting a more Artistic language in describing commands, techniques would make the program more intuitive.

This can work well for some types of programs, not so well for others. There are a variety of different bases for 3D modeling applications. Here's a really nice run-down: http://jordanpelovitz.com/?p=609

Sculptris is, as you have guessed, focused on a more "physical manipulation" approach to 3D modeling that emulates virtual "clay." It does that fairly well. (I've only had experience with the very first versions.) But, as you have also noticed, it has certain limitations and, perhaps not so oddly, those limitations are also found in clay sculpting - Great for organic shapes, not so great for inorganic shapes. (From my limited experience with Sculptris and some experience with clay sculpting)

Sculptris is specifically focused on this sort of "clay-based" approach to 3D modeling. But, while many sculpting terms can or are used in 3D modeling, they don't always translate very well, especially across different bases of 3D modeling. One doesn't "add more blobs/clay" to a polygonal based model. That makes no sense. One can "extrude" in a polygonal based model, but one can't "paint" more faces on it. (Well, that depends, really, because it's not necessarily helpful to call retopo'ing a 3D model "painting" and tool-based sub-d isn't really "painting", though it could work much like it.)

As with any subject, especially ones that are complex and have a large cadre of professionals who work within it, profession-specific terminology arises. It's necessary, really, so that the professionals can understand each other and can agree, at the very least, on what the actual subject of conversation is. ) I know what a bruise is. You probably know what a bruise is. But, to a doctor, it's a "hematoma" or an "ecchymosis" or, perhaps, a "contusion." (Or, something notably worse, simply because the patient can't understand the term being used.) I'm sure there are reasons for physicians (Not all doctors are physicians... Again, a matter of specific definition. :) ) developing a secret language. It's probably something to do with money and making themselves feel important and mysterious at parties.. :D

Sadly, the core components of Hexagon are no longer being developed. DAZ3D will, very likely, continue to update the DS Bridge so that Hexagon can be easily accessible for DS users. But, because of it's somewhat archaic construction/language, the expense to update the core components, or even expand upon them in order to produce a Hexagon 3.0, the cost is likely prohibitive.

But, I can say with full confidence, for it's price and its capabilities as well as, especially, its ease of use for a novice 3D modeler, Hexagon is the best value in the market. I'll keep using it as long as my OS will run it.

Eric3ddd

As Morkonan explained, the basic methodology of Sculptris (FormZ, and similar programs) is very different than Hexagon's. Hex was designed to manipulate polygons directly, optimizing edge loops, etc. All of those skills that were really important when computers were less powerful, and continues to be important where polygon count matters (games, etc.).

Standards are hard to define and, until a market leader stands out, each developer makes his own rules. In the 2D raster market, Photoshop has established the rules and others (Painter, Affinity, Pixelmator) adopted similar nomenclature, keyboard shortcuts, etc. because that's what users got accustomed to. That has not (yet) happened to the 3D market. Just look at XYZ coordinates in different programs. XY sometimes represents the ground plane and sometimes the back plane. It's all a matter of perspective and where you come from. An architect could think of XY as the floor plan, with Z being the height of the building. A painter could think of XY as the vertical plane and Z as the additional depth. Naming tools based on one field may not be intuitive to users who have never worked in that field. For example, "burn" and "dodge" and their related icons make sense to people who used an actual darkroom (which is fewer and fewer), but not to newcomers.

Finally, it is very unlikely that Hexagon will see an update. It would have to be recoded from the ground up and I don't see any evidence that Daz has an appetite for that endeavour.

Silver Dolphin

If it was opensourced we could start seeing some updates.

cdordoni

Hexagon has always had in my opinion one of the better interfaces in a poly modeling app. Perhaps that's because its a modeler only, and does not have to accomodate all the additional functions that come with an app like Carrara, Blender, etc. Even among modeling only apps like Silo or Wings, Hex's interface is superior.

If its is ever recoded into a 64 bit app, with no other changes, it would be one of the best, if not the best, modeler

 

Richard Haseltine

Eric3ddd said:

Finally, it is very unlikely that Hexagon will see an update. It would have to be recoded from the ground up and I don't see any evidence that Daz has an appetite for that endeavour.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We are none of us in a position to make a definitive pronouincement as to what would be required for an update.

Silver Dolphin said:

If it was opensourced we could start seeing some updates.

Open-sourcing is not a panacea, theer are plenty of projects that have floundered. Even if Daz was prepared to consider trying it (and see part one of my reply above) it is (despite part two of my reply above) qyite possible that the code includes code that is licensed under terms that would not permit opensourcing.