? I don't Know about bugs but if you have some constructive input Ill be the first to read.

Hi yannada,

> ? I don't Know about bugs but if you have some
> constructive input Ill be the first to read.

The forum was offline for a while earlier today due to a server glitch, that's what Burr was referring to.

- Michael

I took his massage as sarcasm. I should then apologize to BurrMan.

>> As us programmers say,
>> "The last bug is gone when the last user is dead."

Nice one :)

Hi Yannada,
I was teasing Michael that he probably loves to work on MoI, and would hate to fix the Forum software. (knowing him he probably enjoys both!)

No need to apologize as Its easy to misinterpret in a forum setting, and I also have an odd sense of humor that can be taken wrong at times.

I meant no disrespect.

Burr

Cool BurrMan, back to the topic, Honestly don't give a monkey's were the code comes from as long it does the job, the same way I don't care if someone believe that Parasolid is better than Solid++ etc.
I have been to few conference lately including Shape to Fabrication in London UK and Architectural Geometry in Vienna, Austria. Without doubt There is big demand for Sofware that combine Nurbs and Subds.

Hi yannada,

> Honestly don't give a monkey's were the code comes
> from as long it does the job,

Certainly! The "as long as it does the job" part is pretty important though.

You can't really be sure about that part until you actually use it and test it - a few screenshots is not enough to make a judgment that something is going to do the job well.

It's nice to be optimistic! But I can't really build a product only on optimism...

There are several promising things going on though, at some point I do expect to be able to leverage them. Some may need a bit more time to mature and also it will take me time to evaluate them as well, in addition to the time for integrating it in a coherent way into the UI.

- Michael

I had thought I read about that on the Integrity site and it required the integration with their tesselator which was a reason why Michael couldnt even consider it, but he pointed out I was wrong.

I must have been confused!

I've been puching points in MoI alot latley with the patch surface show points thing. Its really good for creativity but very hard to control. I've been trying to figure out a means to get a more precise "definition" of points as opposed to a standard parallel pattern.

Hi Burr, actually even if it did depend on their tessellator I would be able to use it - that tessellator is in the library and I can use it if I want to.

I don't use it not because it is not available, but rather it did not do what I needed it to do, like wasn't fast enough for display meshing, didn't generate n-gons for export meshing, had problems like triangle leaks too often, and some other things...

But yeah a subdivision surface would be a new kind of surface construction method that would be used in addition to things like sweeping, lofting, etc... It would be like "make surfaces from this point cage". It doesn't really have anything specific to do with the tessellator.

- Michael

As long as I learn something new everyday, I am a success!

Thanks.

>> As us programmers say,
>> "The last bug is gone when the last user is dead."


Or more likely (as in with Softimage) "The last bug is gone when the last user has left for another package..."

-Will

PS - Either way, it would be great to eventually have this in MOI Michael, especially if it can be done - I feel that would be the feature that brings to fruition "build it and they will come" for MOI...

Problem then is do you prefer to be comfortable with a million bucks or way less comfortable with 20 million bucks?? (More customers, more support etc...)