3D / 4D software

4d, um thats nothing to do with what your talking about - thats integrating 3d charts etc into a 3d model for architecture etc (according to a google anyways)

Most of the things you're talking about are quicktime 3d or flash based, look for programs that can export to stl files as these can be imported into flash etc.

there are some other plug in type programs that have slipped my mind that can be integrated into the windows only program 3ds max.

If I am understanding you correctly, you would want a 3D design application, such as 3D studio max, maya, cinema 4d, or the free alternative blender. You would have to model your image in 3d and then export it as a quicktime vr. that would allow you model to be rotated, zoomed in/out, etc. Good luck.

Hmm, not quite sure what you intend to do.

There is a vast amount of 3d software on the market. Some for very specific purposes, some are very general tools. Prices range from free (Blender) until incredibly expensive (Maya).

As a general purpose tool available for a very reasonable price I'd recommend Carrara (http://www.daz3d.com/carrara). It covers a vast array of fields from modelling to animation and is probably the best value for money in this area. It also has flash export which might cover the export you were looking for.

Right now it's on sale with a free update to the next version which is scheduled to be released 'soon'.

Hope this helps.

Wirelessly posted (SonyEricssonK800i/R1EJ Browser/NetFront/3.3 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

To the person who questioned what 4D meant, I assume he is referring to time. So looking for an animation package.

Cromulent said:

Wirelessly posted (SonyEricssonK800i/R1EJ Browser/NetFront/3.3 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

To the person who questioned what 4D meant, I assume he is referring to time. So looking for an animation package.

Click to expand...

Animation is not 4D, I should know I do animations within my work and its just a form of 3D work.

I know that in the sciences 4D is space/time but this is the design and graphics forum so it probably isn't anything to do with relativity etc is it

LeviG said:

Animation is not 4D, I should know I do animations within my work and its just a form of 3D work.

I know that in the sciences 4D is space/time but this is the design and graphics forum so it probably isn't anything to do with relativity etc is it

Click to expand...

Cinema 4D XL is badly named then

bartelby said:

Cinema 4D XL is badly named then

Click to expand...

yep very
As a point in proof all the high end apps (3ds max, maya, alias and even rhino) are still classed as 3D apps

although as a user of cinema 4d i find it to be a very good app in learning 3d design, animation, etc.

I don't think its a bad name for Cinema 4D when its quite true that all the 3D apps have the extra time dimension so they can be classified as 4D as well. Its just a matter on how you interpret it.

I use Lightwave 3D myself

D

LeviG said:

Animation is not 4D, I should know I do animations within my work and its just a form of 3D work.

I know that in the sciences 4D is space/time but this is the design and graphics forum so it probably isn't anything to do with relativity etc is it

Click to expand...

If 3D refers to three dimensional space (a science / maths term) then by logical extention 4D must refer to time as it is the fourth dimension. Animation is technically 4D (as long as you are animating a 3D object) as it has an X, Y and Z axis as well as moving along a timeline.

4D may also refer to other things in the graphics world, but 4D would be a correct term for 3D animation.

Cromulent said:

If 3D refers to three dimensional space (a science / maths term) then by logical extention 4D must refer to time as it is the fourth dimension. Animation is technically 4D (as long as you are animating a 3D object) as it has an X, Y and Z axis as well as moving along a timeline.

4D may also refer to other things in the graphics world, but 4D would be a correct term for 3D animation.

Click to expand...

maybe in a scientific sense but cad animation is just a lot of individual images (note I say images as the resultant product of a cad animation is currently 2D) which are rendered and stuck together in an order to produce a 2D representation (video, which could be deemed 3D depending on your use of the 4th dimension reference) of a 3D object in motion. So technically due to the 2D nature of the 3D modelling on computers it can never be 4D in the scientific sense

LeviG said:

maybe in a scientific sense but cad animation is just a lot of individual images (note I say images as the resultant product of a cad animation is currently 2D) which are rendered and stuck together in an order to produce a 2D representation (video, which could be deemed 3D depending on your use of the 4th dimension reference) of a 3D object in motion. So technically due to the 2D nature of the 3D modelling on computers it can never be 4D in the scientific sense

Click to expand...

When you say it is technically a 2D object you are wrong as mathematically the computer has assigned an X, Y and Z axis to it which makes it 3D. All you are seeing is a graphical representation (which based on current technology is shown in 2D) of the object on screen. In fact the object could quite easily (and just as correctly) be displayed as a matrix.

It is all about maths, not the graphical representation of the object that you see.

Cromulent said:

When you say it is technically a 2D object you are wrong as mathematically the computer has assigned an X, Y and Z axis to it which makes it 3D. All you are seeing is a graphical representation (which based on current technology is shown in 2D) of the object on screen. In fact the object could quite easily (and just as correctly) be displayed as a matrix.

It is all about maths, not the graphical representation of the object that you see.

Click to expand...

But animation (and the actual 3d modelling on the computer) is a graphical representation of the object it has nothing to do with the maths. The object being modelled is 3D but the end result is not as it is restrained within a 2D environment. A mathematical equation does not make an object 3D.

True 3D is physical, you have to be able to touch it (you may have to move obviosuly from a current position as its say in the distance and then theres things like molecules which are too small for us), anything produced on a screen can never be touched with current technology, its a simple fact of physics that a screen is producing a 2D representation of a 3D object (well apart from at a molecular level).

A matrix unless actually physically modelled in 3D (say balls on sticks) is still only going to be 2D as unless there is a third plane coming off of the page it will only be shown on 2 planes.

I think you are looking at this in a purely mathematical sense, when you combine the maths with the limitations imposed by physics (and design) you will understand what I am trying to say a little better.

I can't say enough good things about Blender. You should definitely try that.

samwich said:

although as a user of cinema 4d i find it to be a very good app in learning 3d design, animation, etc.

Click to expand...

Cinema is an awesome app. I love it. I wish I could afford to upgrade but alas, I'm no longer a student.

I've switched to Blender, but it's proving hard to unlearn the Cinema way of working...