Talk:3D computer graphics software

message: Can someone confirm this statemount about Maxwell Render under the Renderers heading:
"Maxwell Render is a multi-platform renderer which forgoes raytracing, global illumination and radiosity in favor of photon rendering with a virtual electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in very authentic looking renders. It was the first to market."
The first section of the sentence seems to be copied from the description of Fryrenderer:
"Fryrender is a multi-platform renderer which forgoes raytracing, global illumination and radiosity in favor of photon rendering with a virtual electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in very authentic looking renders."
The article on Maxwell Render does not contain the word 'photon' once and the renderer's website states that it is a ray-tracer and not a photon-tracer.
--MessiahAndrw (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxwell Render - a photon tracer? 

message: I am engineer and I was rather surprise to see Solidworks at the same level of Maya! Indeed they do 3D modelling but it would made clearer to the reader that Solidworks is an engineering tool and pursue far different goal from other modellers...
I suggest a differentiation like : 
* Engineering Tools :
- Solidworks
- 3ds max Autodesk
- Catia (very more known in the industry than Solidworks)
- there are many others...
* Creative Entertainement Tools :
The other ones, even if we need to repeat 3ds Max...
Just a suggestion, it was also previously mentionned but there was not changes after...
Of Maybe a link to engineering tools with a proper list of them...  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrusader 440 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your thoughts, the reality is that this list could be sliced and diced to accommodate any given industry's perspective on how these tools are used. The list as it stands is a clean separation between applications that let you construct and or manipulate 3-D models, and applications that let you perform specialized activities with 3-D datasets. Additionally while some people clearly use the tools as they are marketed, that's not always the case. In your example if we had 10 or 100 categories, applications like 3DS, Blender and Maya would end up being argued into every single one of them. Then we would have the he religious wars of these applications fans. I think the list works pretty good as it is as an impartial list of applications.BcRIPster (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Your edits to your suggestion really don't change the underling issue behind why it would be a bad idea and didn't really address any of the concerns. You're looking at opening up a huge can of worms by adding a subjective classification system as you've suggested.BcRIPster (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would rather propose a differenciation of Virtual engineering tools and Creative & Entertainement tools  

message: Maybe we address this issue by creating a secondary page like CAD community has done on this page: Comparison of CAD software. This could potentially eleminate the POV/COI fight risks from the primary page. Granted their column selection isn't optimal or even translatable to these products, but this might be a great way to separate out version data, etc... Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought I'm working on the page now Comparison of 3D computer graphics software. BcRIPster (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested solution for this comparison problem. 

message: In response to the justification for the recent of this page, as described on your comment in my talk page.
:Just looking at your sorting of "Major 3D modeling package" vs. "Other commercial packages", it appears arbitrary and POV. How did you even quantify this? Your edits also lead me to suspect COI. BcRIPster (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This list of 3D modeling tools is based off of CG Society's Comparison of 3D Tools, where you can find a more detailed comparison of them. You can also find additional information on these tools in the TDT3D 3D applications 2007 comparisons table.."
I would consider CG Society an authority, or at least reasonable benchmark, as to what products would be considered major packages. Especially since this was reinforced by other referenced article from TDT3D, which mentioned the same products (though fewer of them). As to the use of "modeling" in the section title, it is due to these packages being referred to as "Modeling Tools" by this CG Society article.
Though there are certainly other major tools beyond these, they are not described in that CG Society article, or in any other way justified as being a major package or one that should be listed alongside the packages listed on CG Society's comparison of packages with "Modeling Tools."
Also, what are your thoughts on the inclusion of Types of Applications Produced under the Usage section. As you suggested, it may have been better to make that and other edits separately, such as with the See Also section. In the future, I will attempt to break up my edits in such a manner.
Beyond my changes in this article, I would propose that Serious Games, Virtual Worlds, and/or Visualizations be included as primary uses of 3D graphics in the sidebar template. What are your thoughts on the inclusion of those, and where would you suggest discussing that?
--dlee3d (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dlee3d's edit discussion 

message: In response to BcRIPster's revert comment ("Woah pardner, under who's oppinion are you stating these were added as spam and under who's athority are you to say what is or is not major. That's a pretty big change to make without discussion.")
* I removed several of the packages under the "Major packages" because they either (a) had no article (b) no concrete assertion of notability (like with a ref).  They looked like they were added by the person/people/company responsible for developing them.  I'd have no objection if they re-added them with verifiable refs as to their widespread use and how "major" they are.
* As an expert in the entertainment industry, I've heard of the others and know they're widely used.  So I left them in.  I left a few in that I hadn't heard of but wasn't sure of non-notability.
* The article had turned into a bunch of lists, so I moved everything to a new list.  At least that way, readers would be aware that they were looking at a list.
* As a Senior Editor, I'm a pretty good judge of what sucks and what doesn't in a Wikipedia article.
* I was being bold.
I thought that my new, improved, trimmed article looked much better.  Like a little boy, back from a visit to the barber.  But, whatever.  I'm not in the mood to fight about it.  This article is back to being biased, spammed and unwieldy. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Woah pardner!

message: You forgot ZModeler or Zanoza Modeler used for addons for MM2 and Gta
http://www.zmodeler2.com/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.221.60 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You forgot ZModeler 

message: I admit that I'm just not going to have the time to implement the major overhaul to this page that we've discussed in the past, but I am up for a clean up pass to be sure.
To that end, at one point I went through quite some time ago and re-organized the Major packages so that only software with citeable references showing that they are being used by the industry were included. Everything else was moved to Minor packages. I am now noticing that with the constant incorrect adding of non "Major" tools to the Major list that some of the citations have been removed as well.
I propose as a way to force a limit to what is included in the Major group that we add the requirement of showing at the least one citation of significant commercial use by the software, eg, used for all of the CG in a movie, or some kind of citeable endorsement by an industry organization. Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major packages need citations showing significant commercial use/endorsement. 

message: I was looking for this in the list, but couldn't find it obviously. Should it be included?
https://www.alibre.com/
75.72.179.230 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean Alibre Design.  Should it be on the list?  Well, compared to what else is on the list, sure.  But the list is in a sorry state right now; it's little more than a list of links to articles within the 'pedia. An arbitrary list of too many products is not helpful to anyone. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alibre? 

message: Does 3D Canvas warrant a mention here? --TraceyR (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[3D Canvas]] 

message: Would anyone mind if I add VizUp polygon reducer to the list of "Related To..."? It's a decent mature product (available from 2005) and they recently issued new version as SDK. My company uses VizUp for a few years and I could write an article about VizUp if necessary. --Three1415 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking! VizUp will need an article to remain in the list. Writing an article on a software package isn't easy, since it will need plenty of information from verifiable sources and not just primary sources (such as information from the publisher of the package). If you can do it, great! Go ahead and add it back in. But if the article is nothing more than a marketing pitch, it will likely be deleted, as will its entry in this list. Good luck! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[VizUp]] 

message: Merge with 3D modeling software, 3D modeling software, which describes the same thing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.130.91 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. 3D modeling software is already proposed to be merged with 3D modeling. I think that is a more suitable merge target. See . Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Computer graphics is more than just 3D modeling though, so I'm not sure if it's an appropriate merger candidate. At best 3D modeling is a subset of 3D computer graphics. BcRIPster (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm going to suggest that before any set of mergers occurs that a process to thoughtfully map out concept relationships be worked out to see how it might best flow. BcRIPster (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'd say that's an overkill effort without much results but I am listening. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 3D modeling software?