Career: the niche for modellers/renderers?
Leth
No offense, but if we listened to people like you, we'd still be using
the abacus. Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
talent. Although Max has a sharp learning curve I would never tell
anybody with a speck of interest to give up...
Brandon Van Every
While contemplating career changes, it has been pointed out that 3d
animation can take years to learn to do well. Playing devil's advocate
I'll take that comment at face value. Let's assume I turn out to be a
shitty 3d animator, but a gifted 3d modeller and renderer. I may not know
anything about making things move, but I'm very confident in my visual
acumen, creativity, and love of art.
Are there niches in the film, TV, and/or games industries for people that
do great still work? Is it reasonable to specialize exclusively in such
work, particularly writing one's own modellers and renderers to heighten
output quality? And, how's the money and who will pay good money for the
work? I'm not saying this as a matter of greed, I really love art, but
frankly as an erstwhile Sr. SW engineer I have no interest in careers that
pay peanuts. We all need to be empowered to do what we really want to do,
and part of that equation is financial. Animators are attracting all these
headlines about how good ones are in short supply and how they make big
$$$$$, but I hear no such glamour stories about modellers/renderers.
And of course I have to throw in the usual yadda-yadda question about what
the best low-end modeller would be. I'd put Ray Dream and TrueSpace on the
list of contenders, although I'd like your opinions on whether they're
cheesy or not.
Rendering I'm not as worried about since I can write my own. From past
research, on the low-end I hear that TrueSpace has a crappy renderer, Ray
Dream has a decent one, Lightwave has the best, and 3D Studio MAX
aficionados say they can render anything as well as Lightwave but I bet
they put more effort into it. Sound like a fair breakdown?
Any career advice appreciated.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
JavaHead Jones
Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
> Are there niches in the film, TV, and/or games industries for people that
> do great still work? Is it reasonable to specialize exclusively in such
> work, particularly writing one's own modellers and renderers to heighten
> output quality? And, how's the money and who will pay good money for the
> work? I'm not saying this as a matter of greed, I really love art, but
> frankly as an erstwhile Sr. SW engineer I have no interest in careers that
> pay peanuts. We all need to be empowered to do what we really want to do,
> and part of that equation is financial. Animators are attracting all these
> headlines about how good ones are in short supply and how they make big
> $$$$$, but I hear no such glamour stories about modellers/renderers.
Besides Animators a lot of studios use separate people for modelling,
lighting and texturing. You sound to be best suited for a career as a TD
(Technical Director) This is the person that tests out the kniemtaic
poses; makes sure the models don't break in different poses etc... As in
most creative professions average workers get lowly paid; if you're
really good you can make a lot of money indeed. It all depends on you.
> And of course I have to throw in the usual yadda-yadda question about what
> the best low-end modeller would be. I'd put Ray Dream and TrueSpace on the
> list of contenders, although I'd like your opinions on whether they're
> cheesy or not.
Best 'low-end' modellers are probably AMAPI, RHINO (Still in beta,
freeware, uses ALIAS Kernel) and Lightwave (Or inspire 3D) for polygonal
work. None of these are Low-end per se; they are just cheaper than a
CATIA setup.
> Rendering I'm not as worried about since I can write my own. From past
> research, on the low-end I hear that TrueSpace has a crappy renderer, Ray
> Dream has a decent one, Lightwave has the best, and 3D Studio MAX
> aficionados say they can render anything as well as Lightwave but I bet
> they put more effort into it. Sound like a fair breakdown?
If you really want quality and are such a good programmer write an
exporter for RIB or get Polytrans and render in BMRT.
Hajo
Brandon Van Every
JavaHead Jones <smul...@tc.net> wrote in article
<35200B64...@tc.net>...
>
> Besides Animators a lot of studios use separate people for modelling,
> lighting and texturing. You sound to be best suited for a career as a TD
> (Technical Director) This is the person that tests out the kniemtaic
> poses; makes sure the models don't break in different poses etc...
No no no I'm an artist struggling to emerge! Maybe I've wasted the past 10
years of my life on technical matters when I should have been painting.
Why does everyone stereotype programmers as being hopelessly obsessed with
the minutiae of technical boredom? Granted I have those skills and I would
like to leverage them, but I'm *SICK* of this division of "ok all you
artists go over here and have fun, all you tech people crank out some
boring gruntwork so the artists can have fun." I want to do both. Well,
actually I don't really want the coding to be gruntwork. :-) Sad to say,
real-world coding is usually not interesting because companies refuse to do
anything truly daring or risky. (Or maybe I just shouldn't have been
working for DEC?)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Pandaman
Brandon,
Seek advice in the LightWave newsgroup, and ye shall receive it: Buy
LightWave! (Did you expect maybe something else??)
The above may sound facetious, but it's sound advice, too; lots of people
are making a living with LW who used to be garbage collectors, fast food
employeees, and/or students. And yes, there is a niche for modelers. In
fact, many companies hire separately for modelers and for animators, since
the skill sets are not necessarily found in the same person.
--
Regards,
Doug Graham
Panda Productions
Pandaman
Yeah, that's the problem all right...DECadence. Learn LW, learn its
shortcomings, then go work for NewTek on rev 6.x...that'll be exciting, and
I'll bet they'll let you do pictures, too.
Leth
Craig McPherson wrote:
>
> Leth wrote:
> >
> > Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
> > talent.
>
How would you know you moron? I didn't ask for you 2c.
Leth
Mark Collen wrote:
>
> Leth wrote in message <351E893C...@idirect.com>...
> >there is no such thing as
> >talent.
>
>
> No way I'm gonna touch that one, except to say -- sure, Michael Jordan's
> just a fast learner and Muhammad Ali was just lucky.
> And Rembrandt, Rodin, Michelangelo and DaVinci had no particular exceptional
> gift for what they did, 'cuz that would be talent, and that's imaginary,
> right?
>
> Snort, chortle.
>
> MC
>
> (On the other hand, the talents you DO have are not always obvious...
> whether you like his work or not, Oliver Stone is unquestionably
> successful -- and his first screenplay was rejected more than forty times in
> a row, just as one example.)
Let me clarify something, I was NOT talking about sports, I was talking
about art. DaVinci made paintings that many people liked, yet we all
have different taste's when criticizing a piece of art. He didn't paint
anything a lot of other artists couldn't have done, or can't do today.
Just because you might think his paintings are good, does not mean I do.
If I spent my whole life as a painter you would think I'm an idiot if I
told you I couldn't paint a human face without looking at a picture of
one, or having someone stand in front of me to use as a reference. This
is why I'm saying there is no such thing as talent. It's all technique
and experience that allows an artist to do what he or she does. Some
are just better at art because they pick up the technique faster or have
more experience. Period.
Mgdesign
You could make big bucks in this job, but you must have talent, skills,
experience and luck. And lots of people are pushing hard to get to the place
where the sun is warmer.
I think it's a dream for most of them. There is not enough room for
everybody. The same occurred with graphic design and
photoshop/illustrator/xpress. 5 or 6 year ago, people started having dreams
about making lots of money out of graphic design. Today, who cares ? It's
not even a career, but for the guys who know their job real well.
The same applies to 3d. It seams to be another Eldorado, but i can tell lots
of people are going to be disappointed. If you have the talent, that's a
pretty good point. If you don't, forget it. If you know real well how to use
max or softimage(...), good point. If you don't, forget it. If you are
willing to spend days and nights working hard, knowing that it will never
stop due to the permanent evolution of technology, you are ready to get
experience. Good point again. If you dont...forget it.
The last thing is luck. If you don't have luck, you'll have to be the best.
Kinda difficult. ;))
Anyway, it's a difficult job, but its rewarding. If you know that's the only
thing you want to do, do it and nothing's gonna stop you. But remember it's
not all about techniques and button-pushing ; it's about ideas and
inspiration. For the bucks, who knows...
Cheers
MG
Brandon Van Every wrote<>...
>While contemplating career changes, it has been pointed out that 3d
>animation can take years to learn to do well. Playing devil's advocate
>I'll take that comment at face value. Let's assume I turn out to be a
>shitty 3d animator, but a gifted 3d modeller and renderer. I may not know
>anything about making things move, but I'm very confident in my visual
>acumen, creativity, and love of art.
>(snip)
they can render anything as well as Lightwave but I bet
>they put more effort into it. Sound like a fair breakdown?
>
Knight Gfx
>Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
talent.<
Wrong, at least in part. There are some things that some individuals just
cannot pick up and do with reasonable competence. Now I'm not saying that
people should stop trying - I'm just saying you have to assess your progress -
if you're actually making progress then that's great - keep it up. If you're
not, why continue ramming your head against that brick wall?
Talent to me is the ability to learn something specific quickly and do it well.
Learning to do something well can certaily be achieved in many cases, it may
take longer without "talent."
In any case, I think anyone interested in 3D should definately give it the good
college try - give it a year and at the end of the year ask if progress was
made or not, then go from there.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Kip Knight
Craig McPherson
Leth wrote:
>
> Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
> talent.
Leuey
stop being ridiculous you guys. Of course there is such a thing as talent.
But someone with little "natural" talent can become quite good with practice
and dedication. It's true for sports, it's true for music, writing, dancing -
you name it. and it's definately true for 3D...
- Greg
Mgdesign
Leth wrote<351E893C...@idirect.com>...
---------
I would never do that - telling them to give up-
If they stick to learnin Max or any other package, it's great. We need good
professionals;
If they don't, they already give up before I have time to suggest.
And don't tell me about those learning curves : either you master the tool,
or you don't. It can take years before one can say he's an artist, I see no
difference between the brush and the computer. No matter how many people
come to 3D art : there will always be room for talented ones, and sorrow for
the others.
Best regards
MG
Brandon Van Every
Craig McPherson <cr...@banffcentre.ab.ca> wrote in article
<35213E8E...@banffcentre.ab.ca>...
> Leth wrote:
> >
> > Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
> > talent.
>
Maybe it would be fair to say that everything can be learned, but without
talent it often takes longer than people have time to spend in the real
world? I think of my Mom as a potter, she had no particular gift for art,
but she just kept throwing pots for years and years and years and now she's
good. Probably couldn't have made a career out of it in the traditional
school-and-get-paid-for-it sense, but she didn't have to, so she was able
to stick with it for a long time. And my kung fu teacher (my "Sifu")
always tells us he was the sorriest student his sifu ever saw. But he was
rabidly dedicated to learning, and thus he became extremely good. Other
students did not go the distance because although more talented, they were
insufficiently disciplined. In fact, "wasted talent" is often a truism,
there's something to be said for less-than-talented sticking to a task and
working hard for a long period of time.
All said though, I personally prefer to leverage what I'm talented at.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Unknown
>No offense, but if we listened to people like you, we'd still be using
>the abacus. Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
>talent. Although Max has a sharp learning curve I would never tell
>anybody with a speck of interest to give up...
Nearly everything can be learned, true.........but with a little talent the threshold at which you *stop_learning* (is
there really such a thing) is much closer; the better you do "what you learn". Just because you can paint doesn't mean
you paint well...some can paint better than others, and usually the former are those with such non-existent talent.
Besides, I like my abacus.
Mark Collen
fugitives
>
> Leth wrote:
> >
> > Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
> > talent.
Craig McPherson wrote:
Obviously said by someone with none.
here here!!!
JToves6580
>Some
>are just better at art because they pick up the technique faster or have
>more experience. Period.
I don't know if you've heard the expression "talent is little more than pursued
interest" - I guess you would agree. But your last statement merely indicates
your perception of talent is predicated on limited experience of the range art
has to offer. I agree with your statement that we all have different tastes,
why then is it impossible for you to accept that their might also be value in
how we experience talent? Have you never been inspired or truly been moved by
anything in your life that you actually consider art?
I think that when that time comes you will be staring at the very thing you
deny exists - talent. I hope you aren't merely insecure at the level of
technique others have and you do not possess - it is too large a world for
there not to be reminders of our own limited expereinces. I would encourage you
to experience more of art, technique and most importantly its effects on us
all. And yes, we would not be discussing Da Vinci - a man dead for hundreds of
years - if he did not do something very important in the eyes of a great many
people.
Pandaman
<<Let me clarify something, I was NOT talking about sports, I was talking
about art. DaVinci made paintings that many people liked, yet we all
have different taste's when criticizing a piece of art. He didn't paint
anything a lot of other artists couldn't have done, or can't do today. >>
Oh, boy. So the great Leonardo (a man notorious for not finishing his
commissions) kept getting royal commissions from guys who could hire anyone
they wanted because he was just one of many available painters? I think
not. Just because YOU can't see the genius in his work does not mean it
isn't there. Or I guess, for you, it isn't. (And I'm not putting myself up
on a pedestal; my own "artist's eye" is pretty myopic. But at least I am
aware of my shortcomings.)
There IS such a thing as talent, and genius. Yes, many people can learn a
skill such as drawing or painting and be technically competent. But no
matter how long you study and practice, you will not be a daVinci without
talent as well. The world will be a more wonderful place for you if you can
accept that, and learn to see and appreciate it in others. You seem to live
in a bland and boring landscape, where everything can be dismissed with a
shrug and the thought, "I could do as well if I cared to."
Do the best you can, and strive to improve. But don't turn away from
genius. Works from the masters (in any field, including LightWave) brighten
life for all of us.
Brandon Van Every
Leth <lethN...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<35202C91...@idirect.com>...
>
> If I spent my whole life as a painter you would think I'm an idiot if I
> told you I couldn't paint a human face without looking at a picture of
> one, or having someone stand in front of me to use as a reference. This
> is why I'm saying there is no such thing as talent. It's all technique
> are just better at art because they pick up the technique faster or have
> more experience. Period.
You seem to be describing craft, not art? Craft is indeed learnable by
most folks, they'll just take different amounts of time to master it.
I tend to think of "Art" as that creative glue in the brain that recombines
all the elements of craft and makes them actually interesting to look at.
It does take creativity for this, and I think it's a combo of genetics and
how you were raised (Nature as well as Nurture.) Judging by my own "weird"
behavior I'm sure I have extra chemicals in my brain, in fact I think this
is the main reason I don't find drugs terribly interesting. I'm whacked
out enough as it is! :-) But surely if I'd been raised in a repressive
household, my mind would not have been free to roam.
Some people might have always had the genetic disposition, but their
barriers of cultural training may not be lifted until much later in life,
when they are in charge of their own destiny, and have the time to find out
who they are and what they can be.
Also, the culture of the USA does not encourage artists. Children of every
aptitude produce art up until about 9 years of age or so, then most stop
for some reason. Only specialists continue, and one must ask why this is
so? Everyone has a creative potential but we as a culture do not value it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Michael Strickland
In article <01bd5dcf$4ab792c0$5483...@hammurabi.blarg.net>,
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>
> You seem to be describing craft, not art? Craft is indeed learnable by
> most folks, they'll just take different amounts of time to master it.
>
> I tend to think of "Art" as that creative glue in the brain that recombines
> all the elements of craft and makes them actually interesting to look at.
> It does take creativity for this, and I think it's a combo of genetics and
> how you were raised (Nature as well as Nurture.) Judging by my own "weird"
> behavior I'm sure I have extra chemicals in my brain, in fact I think this
> is the main reason I don't find drugs terribly interesting. I'm whacked
> out enough as it is! :-) But surely if I'd been raised in a repressive
> household, my mind would not have been free to roam.
>
> Some people might have always had the genetic disposition, but their
> barriers of cultural training may not be lifted until much later in life,
> when they are in charge of their own destiny, and have the time to find out
> who they are and what they can be.
>
> Also, the culture of the USA does not encourage artists. Children of every
> aptitude produce art up until about 9 years of age or so, then most stop
> for some reason. Only specialists continue, and one must ask why this is
> so? Everyone has a creative potential but we as a culture do not value it.
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon Van Every
>
is going. Rudolph Koch, a gifted calligrapher in the late 1800's-early 1900's
made a profound statement about the difference between craft and art. Loosely
translated from memory, "The scribe [calligrapher] is a servant. His master is
the poet or the poem. If this subordination [bringing the poem to life through
illuminating it by calligraphy] is forced by outward necessity, then he is a
craftsman. If it is done willingly, from his heart, then he is an artist."
There are many opinions about what art is. I happen to agree with Rudolph
Koch's end of the spectrum, which draws its definition from a person's
motivation to express something greater than themselves, rather than the
opposite end, where a person may define art as little more than expression of
self, or only define art in terms of craft.
Picasso said something about this as well. When he was old, he reminisced
about how he and all his young artist friends had told themselves they were
working on "content, content, content." But as an old man, he admitted that
"we weren't working on content. We were working on technique." In a perfect
world, techniques would not be confused with content. And all of us who are in
creative businesses must work on our techniques. But art is created when a
person is motivated to employ techniques (whatever they are) to express
something bigger than himself.
Michael
http://www.StricklandGraphics.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Brandon Van Every
Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com> wrote in article
<3522E3B9...@tippett.com>...
>
> Lose the cultural relativism. While art criticism certainly suffers from
> pompous elitism, it's loony argue that the musings and tastes of an
> inexperienced and ignorant art viewer are just as valid as those of
> someone who actually knows something.
I dunno about that, I'm told that I was fascinated by Claes Oldenberg's
"Giant Ice Bag" as a 3 year old child, and I still think it's pretty nifty
as an adult. Validation is indeed a matter of cultural product.
Minimalism was validated by the art world and frankly most minimalist works
do nothing for me, they're too boring. Whereas I like Dada and others do
not. Relativism in art cannot be escaped, so why try to invent elitist
explanations for how/why art should be valued? Answer: it depends on
what's at stake for you, the viewer.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Sam J. Bowling
Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
> Leth <lethN...@idirect.com> wrote in article
> <35202C91...@idirect.com>...
> >
> > If I spent my whole life as a painter you would think I'm an idiot if I
> > told you I couldn't paint a human face without looking at a picture of
> > one, or having someone stand in front of me to use as a reference. This
> > is why I'm saying there is no such thing as talent. It's all technique
> > and experience that allows an artist to do what he or she does. Some
> > are just better at art because they pick up the technique faster or have
> > more experience. Period.
>
> most folks, they'll just take different amounts of time to master it.
I agree. Being able to look at a blueprint and build a house out of it
isn't so much an art form as a craft. Designing a building from scratch
(esp. the way Richard Myer does it) would be considered an art form. I can
sit down and copy measurements from an(y) object(s) sitting on my desk and
transfer them into my computer and that doesn't take any talent. This is
something I learned in HS drafting class. You can't tech someone to think
up and create something that doesn't exist. That takes talent.
<Snip stuff about glue in the brain>
> Also, the culture of the USA does not encourage artists. Children of every
> aptitude produce art up until about 9 years of age or so, then most stop
> for some reason. Only specialists continue, and one must ask why this is
> so? Everyone has a creative potential but we as a culture do not value it.
? I was involved in art through my entire time in school and so were many
others (my classmates). I_could_be_wrong_, but by looking at you sig, I
kind of doubt you grew up in the USA. My art teachers were very supportive
of my work in art. Hell, if it wasn't for art I probably wouldn't have
made it through school. It was my only interest.
> Cheers,
> Brandon Van Every
--
Sam J. Bowling
----------------
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/5565/
Atomic Skull
In article <35213E8E...@banffcentre.ab.ca>, cr...@banffcentre.ab.ca
says...
>
>Leth wrote:
>>
>> Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
>> talent.
>
>
>Obviously said by someone with none.
Anyone can learn to draw, but not everyone can draw with creativity and
imagination equally well. To one person, it will be a chore, to annother,
somthing they enjoy. (and the latter will be better at it)
--
-=Atomic Skull=-
See my 3-D anime character page, www.ns.net/~Argus-1
Wouter Schreuders
Hi Brandon
Well I have to say that the best modeller out there for PC would definitly
be Rhino. Nothing compares to it in PC. Check it out at www.rhino3d.com.
And for the best renderer look no further than BMRT
(http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/gritz/bmrt.html). And the best thing is
that both these programs are free.
Cheers
Wouter
Brandon Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> wrote in article
<01bd5c1c$f9090700$0b83...@hammurabi.blarg.net>...
> While contemplating career changes, it has been pointed out that 3d
> animation can take years to learn to do well. Playing devil's advocate
> I'll take that comment at face value. Let's assume I turn out to be a
> shitty 3d animator, but a gifted 3d modeller and renderer. I may not
know
> anything about making things move, but I'm very confident in my visual
> acumen, creativity, and love of art.
>
> Are there niches in the film, TV, and/or games industries for people that
> do great still work? Is it reasonable to specialize exclusively in such
> work, particularly writing one's own modellers and renderers to heighten
> output quality? And, how's the money and who will pay good money for the
> work? I'm not saying this as a matter of greed, I really love art, but
> frankly as an erstwhile Sr. SW engineer I have no interest in careers
that
> pay peanuts. We all need to be empowered to do what we really want to
do,
> and part of that equation is financial. Animators are attracting all
these
> headlines about how good ones are in short supply and how they make big
> $$$$$, but I hear no such glamour stories about modellers/renderers.
>
> And of course I have to throw in the usual yadda-yadda question about
what
> the best low-end modeller would be. I'd put Ray Dream and TrueSpace on
the
> list of contenders, although I'd like your opinions on whether they're
> cheesy or not.
>
> Rendering I'm not as worried about since I can write my own. From past
> research, on the low-end I hear that TrueSpace has a crappy renderer, Ray
> Dream has a decent one, Lightwave has the best, and 3D Studio MAX
> aficionados say they can render anything as well as Lightwave but I bet
ShadowOA
>Well I have to say that the best modeller out there for PC would definitly
>be Rhino.
I'm not so sure about that, rhino is only a nurbs modeller, and I've yet to see
any really good characters out of it. Nurbs are much more limiting than you
think, you can't do many of the functions that you can with polygons, the only
thing is, that they are easier to surface and animate. But my bet would be
that head to head, Lightwave's modeller would beat it out anyday.
Can't argue with the BMRT, I've never used it, and from what I've seen, it does
very good output.
OA
Shad...@aol.com
Animator for Sale
keith talbot
Anyone can learn to use a 3d rendering package, but it takes skill,
talent and artistic ability to use the 3d software to produce something
of any great quality.
Art is a natural talent, it can be learnt, but someone with a natural
artistic talent will always be more creative than those with none.
This is my personal opinion, please don't bombard me with a load of mail
accusing me of be a pretentious artist or whatever else springs to mind.
Keith Talbot
http://freespace.virgin.net/keith.talbot
Leth wrote:
> Craig McPherson wrote:
> >
> > Leth wrote:
> > >
> > > Everything can be learned, there is no such thing as
> > > talent.
> >
> > Obviously said by someone with none.
>
Brandon Van Every
Atomic Skull <Bl...@Blanknet.com> wrote in article
<6g7d1h$3u1$2...@aurora.ns.net>...
>
> Anyone can learn to draw, but not everyone can draw with creativity and
> imagination equally well. To one person, it will be a chore, to
annother,
> somthing they enjoy. (and the latter will be better at it)
Actually, people are capable of enjoying things they aren't intrinsically
talented at. And over periods of years, remarkable progress can be made.
I don't think my Mom was ever particularly artistically inclined, she
avoided drawing, but she loved throwing pots. Her first works were nothing
to write home about, but after many many years her work has become quite
good. I don't know that she'll ever be the creme de la creme of the
artworld, but the number of potters who are better than her gets smaller
every day, and she certainly doesn't have any problem producing good work
and moving inventory. (No she doesn't do $10 soap dishes, either.) Her
work has now reached the level of being unique and if you want a vase for
your dinnertable, it's a matter of whether you like her style. Quite
remarkable for someone who didn't have any obvious artistic talents once
upon a time!
I'm saying that I agree with your observation about enjoyment. I don't
think talent is the deciding issue, more like enjoyment + persistence for a
fair number of folks. Talented people often lack discipline and squander
their potentials (geez, am I guilty of this? :-o )
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Pandaman
It's like Edison said: "Genius is 1 per cent inspiration and 99 per cent
perspiration".
Your mom's developed her talent (whether it be great or small) through
practice. Bravo!
And, as you say, for some to whom things come "too easily", it's easy not to
invest the time to develop their talent.
For me, the bottom line is that we all need to keep working, keep learning,
keep developing whatever talents we may have.
Smeggy
Amen to that.
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead! :] www.mindspring.com/~orsino/
For tutorials, plugins and info on 3ds and Max..... try here:
http://modeling.3dreview.com/bobo/ipas/
http://modeling.3dreview.com/no1.shtml
http://web.dreamsoft.com/travis/3dsmax.htm
http://www.max3d.com/
For general help, read the FAQ at
http://www.trinity3d.com/3dsmxfaq.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Pandaman wrote in message <6g91sk$cv9$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...