Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of 3D computer graphics software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yappy2bhere (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 23 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revised the version numbers of some of the software as stated on their webpages, as of this writing.

misc shortcomings

I just removed some erroneous data regarding Linux systems, especially since it is trivial to extract a package built for one distro and run it on another - although satisfying dependencies may take a little work.
Should the Operating System section (or a new section) also mention on what CPU architectures it runs?
Is someone planning on filling in the "features" section? Some random thoughts on that:
Command-line?
Polygon/Basic Curves/NURBS
Something really exhausting: import/export formats?
74.85.42.110 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the idea was behind adding that section. Someone put it in and never developed it. The problem with something like that is where do you draw the line on features? The first challenge would be deciding if after market plug-ins count as features?BcRIPster (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Comparison of vector graphics editors article has a similar structure to what I'd like to see here. 74.85.42.110 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the available architectures the software runs on sounds like a necessary thing in such a comparison. Maybe it's best to draw the line to what's delivered when installing. And not counting plug ins that can be installed at any time but don't get delivered when the program is installed. Plugins that come with the software but are packaged and have to be unpacked or 'installed' should also count. Plugin's that have to come from the CD internet or any other place where the program gets installed in a seperate or integrated into the install procedure way should be flagged with something. Features are a tricky question here.
Maybe this can give some clues: http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools
Saw it a while ago on BlenderNation: http://www.blendernation.com/cg-society-3d-comparison-chart/
Thelennonorth (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pointless article, should be deleted

Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, it's an encyclopedia, and the information here cannot ever be complete and up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.141.122 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree that it's pointless, do agree that it cannot be complete and up-to-date. Thelennonorth (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a shopping guide? I've been using it as a Consumer Reports for software all these years. I'm too young and pretty to go to Wikijail!! Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchup

Sketchup Basic isnt mentioned (freeware) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.198.201 (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imports/exports

The comparison should mention which imports and exports can be done with the programs. This allows the reader to see which program combinations are possible. Eg sketchup http://sketchup.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=36217 can import 3ds; allowing blender, ... to be combined with it. This program combination is eg handy for when GPS data is to be imbedded to a model —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.210.145 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info, but it appears it will get crowdy fast, perhaps imports and exports column are best divided into subheaders where file formats are placed. A simple yes/no can then be placed per program for each format —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.210.145 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good approach would be to use the column headers for the programs and rows for the file format.
Because there are a lot of file formats, this can be a good way to structure the support.
Then in each cell, there can be yes, no or some extra info.
Thelennonorth (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not putting the file formats on a separate table if there are so many? Thelennonorth (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The melange of formats suits me fine, but then I only scan for particular formats I need and the formats I want, and ignore the rest. Sorting them into a large, sparse table would only make it more difficult to compare more relevant features in the existing tables. Still, it would be helpful if 3D formats followed 2D formats in the laundry list (though evidently not so helpful that I'd take the time to do it myself). Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the Features table

Formally, that is. It was waaaaay too skinny to be useful, so I twiddled field widths a bit and let the table fill the display width. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how it's done - does anyone know of a policy or rationale addressing this.

Also, does anyone know what the DDF file format is, or why Google included it in SketchUp?

Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_3D_computer_graphics_software&oldid=321507951"