Well written. The review described the software''s features in a fairly positive light. This was good, but I would have preferred some more information.

How does the product compare versus other similar products in terms of features and price?

Does the software come with adequate training material for the new user?

What features have been removed from the flagship product in order to make this lesser version, and why, as a game creator would I want or not want those features? In other words, is this missing something that I would find very useful from the higher priced version?

The company recently (last year?) gave out free copies of a previous version of their flagship software (version 3, I believe). How does this software compare?

Some of the features mentioned in the review are not yet part of the software. If they don''t arrive in the near future, is the product still worth it?

Does the program work with plugins created for the flagship product, and if so, is there a sizeable community of plugins already out there?



Some of the statements were ... odd. "gameSpace has the usual tools available in every other low-poly modeler, with a Caligari twist: all are usable in the "first person" perspective view."

Umm, what? This sounds a bit ... enthusiastic. And I don''t really see how this ''feature'' is unique. It seems common enough in most graphics proggys (or demos) that I''ve toyed with.


All in all, it was good to have this review, since it covered the strengths and features of the software. Not perfect, but a decent review.

JSwing

Interesting review, I did find it odd that it mentions the frustrations of game developers having to use a collection of freeware/shareware tools and then it seems that gameSpace is just these tools brought together with some customs tools (based on trueSpace) and sold for $299.

I''d like to be able to try it out, but I doubt I could afford the price they''re asking so I''ll make do with my freeware tools.

If you pre-order gamespace before it comes out, it cost $199. Still a lot higher than Milkshape, but it has a huge amount of modeling tools that Milkshape doesn''t have. This might not be the tool for a hobbyist mod maker, but would be good for an independent game developer. I think it fills a slot between Milkshape and Maya. I already preordered a copy.

Rather than just reply to every post in a seperate message, I'll do it all here:

quote:

---

Especially when you're paying for a program that "isn't complete" and will be fixed in a future update that will never come. For users that don't have other programs to animate and texture in, this doesn't cut it, escpecially with a price that high.

---

The program IS complete. It can export to every major game model/animation format, and the texturing tools are more than adequate; in my review, I simply stated that I, personally, prefer a plugin that is available for trueSpace & works in gameSpace, mostly because I am more familiar w/ that plugin and because I prefer the interface of that plugin. The skeletal animation tools are also adequate for low-poly animation, though I think they could be improved upon, and Caligari has said they will be doing this. From past experience, they keep their promises.

quote:

---

I did read the review. I've also visited the site a few times over the weekend. I meant thse features "may never come", not "will never come". 299$ is allot, and for that I would expect them to have already overhauled the skeletal animation system, not give a promise that it will come somewhere down the road.

---

The feature WILL come. As I've said above, if they say they're going to do something, they will. The skeletal animation system is ALREADY being rewritten as we speak, as are more tools to export directly from the program, so users will not have to use to the MilkShape exporter, and then the included special version of MilkShape to get to their desired format (and this isn't necessary for most of the major game formats already). $299 is not a lot, when compared to its competition - it is NOT competing w/ MilkShape/CharacterFX. Why do I say this? Because it is so much more advanced modeling and animation-wise, that there is no competition from these programs. In fact, I don't think ANY program, including 3DSMAX & Maya, has as many tools specifically developed for low-poly game modeling, and I've used both of those programs extensively.

quote:

---

Lots of things may happen down the road, including them deciding to halt the whole project of they don't sell allot of copies. And would this even be in a patch? Most of these 3d programs don't usually get big new features in patches within the same version, they come in completly new versions that require you to purchase an update.

---

They won't be halting the whole project any time soon. They've already dedicated substantial resources to improving the program, and these resources are already at work on the tools that will do so. Don't be surprised if big new features ARE released in patches in the same version (which will be released for free).

quote:

---

ROFL, Myopic Rhino, they arent even in the same league, its like comparing apples with oranges.

---

For low-poly modeling & animation, yes, they are. In fact, I think gameSpace is a better choice for this kind of work. I am NOT saying it's a more advanced program overall, but for low-poly stuff, it has more tools than any other 3D program out there for this kind of stuff.

quote:

---

obviously MS3d is a low-budget solution, and i think this
is where gameSpace is aiming, and failing misserable.
$20 for a quality complete solution, or $299 for a good looking bag of promises.

---

You think it's failing, yes you haven't even tried a demo of the program. MilkShape is FAR from being a complete solution, especially when compared to a program like gameSpace that has dozens of more tools geared towards low-poly modeling, texturing and animation. Don't knock what you don't know, that's typical newbie behavior.

quote:

---

For 299$ it shouldn't rely on other programs to do some of it's work. It also should be exporting skeletal animations without converting them to vertex animations. (Which is kind of a waste)

---

EVERY 3D program relies on another program - either in the form of plugins or external programs like in this case - to get stuff from the program into a game engine. Plus, they will be creating more direct exporters from gameSpace, removing the need to use MilkShape, and these exporters will be released for FREE. Converting skeletal animation to vertex is necessary for most of these game formats anyway, since they don't actually support bones in the format. This includes QuakeII, QuakeIII (I think), Unreal and Unreal Tournament - their animations are converted to vertex when exported from any program. Some of the newer engines (and even Half-Life) DO save skeletons, and in a not-too-distant future release, so will gameSpace. Until then, trust me, vertex animation is NOT that big of a deal, since the people playing the game will NOT be able to tell anyways.

quote:

---

How does the product compare versus other similar products in terms of features and price?

---

WAAAAY more features. More than MilkShape/CharacterFX, which it blows away in terms of features geared towards low-poly modeling/texturing/animation, less than 3DSMAX/LW/Maya, but still has more tools geared towards low-poly modeling/texturing/animation.

quote:

---

Does the software come with adequate training material for the new user?

---

More than adequate. Every tool/features/exporter is explained in detail, as is how to use them.

quote:

---

What features have been removed from the flagship product in order to make this lesser version, and why, as a game creator would I want or not want those features? In other words, is this missing something that I would find very useful from the higher priced version?

---

Just some shaders that were geared towards high-poly rendered animatin, such as the post process shaders (not needed for low-poly stuff), and the Facial Animator, which was - obviously - for facial animation, but IMO, not very good at it. If you need to do facial animation, there's a plugin called SpaceTime Morph that does it WAAAY better, and is pretty cheap.

Plus, a number of tools were added in (in addition to the game exporteres) that trueSpace DOES NOT have, so gameSpace is more geared for low-poly modeling. I mention a few of these features in my review. A few 3rd-party plugins are also included, such as Puppeteer, for skeletal animation - which means that you don't have to buy these plugins. Really, the cost of these plugins ALONE totals more than $299, so if you consider that, you're basically getting the program for FREE.

quote:

---

The company recently (last year?) gave out free copies of a previous version of their flagship software (version 3, I believe). How does this software compare?

---

No comparison. Way better.

quote:

---

Some of the features mentioned in the review are not yet part of the software. If they don't arrive in the near future, is the product still worth it?

---

Absolutely. They will definitely be there at the final release anyway, so it isn't an issue.

quote:

---

Does the program work with plugins created for the flagship product, and if so, is there a sizeable community of plugins already out there?

---

The plugins/material shaders developed by 3rd-party developers all work in gameSpace (at least, the ones I tried did, and they were all of the major ones, as well as some of the useful utilities). There are hundreds of plugins available for trueSpace that will work in gameSpace, and a lot of them (including some of the really, REALLY advanced/useful ones) are free. This tool is extensible BEFORE it's EVEN RELEASED.

quote:

---

Interesting review, I did find it odd that it mentions the frustrations of game developers having to use a collection of freeware/shareware tools and then it seems that gameSpace is just these tools brought together with some customs tools (based on trueSpace) and sold for $299.

---

This isn't the case at all. Where did I say this?

The fact of the matter is, you can use gameSpace for everything - the only reason MilkShape is included is so that you can get your models to more game formats - they didn't HAVE to do this, and it's done strictly as a convenience for developers - and eventually even this won't be necessary as more game formats are added directly to gameSpace.

I think that answers everyone's questions.



-Nick "digisoap" Robalik
Web & Print Design, 2D & 3D Illustration and Animation, Game Design
http://www.digital-soapbox.com
nick@digital-soabox.com

[edited by - digisoap on October 3, 2003 7:55:00 AM]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Some comments:

There were several responses that criticized the need for future updates. This is a valid concern, if written rather poorly.
There are two main concerns.

One is that the company will not provide or complete the addons mentioned in the feature list and review, or will insist on extra money for them at some point in the future. This tactic is not an uncommon occurence in the software industry as a whole, often driven by budgets rather than intentional malice.

This particular company has been around for several years, and, as far as I know, has a pretty good reputation. I can't see them intentionally screwing over their customer base, so I'm not worried about the features not being created, although it's impossible to evaluate those pieces or their relative worth.

The second concern is reviewer objectivity. It's fair to mention that the company is working on addons and expansions. It's also fair to mention the company has a reputation for reliability (if it does). The review is rather fair in detailing, for example, the weaknesses of the animation system and the company's intention to improve it.


But statements like this:

quote:

---

Original post by digisoap

... As I've said above, if they say they're going to do something, they will. The skeletal animation system is ALREADY being rewritten as we speak, as are more tools ...

... Don't be surprised if big new features ARE released in patches in the same version (which will be released for free).

... they will be creating more direct exporters ... and these exporters will be released for FREE.

---

come across as defending or supporting the company rather than an objective view. Perhaps it's just the vehemence. But understand that you're asking me to treat the product as the product plus future developments of unknown scope and quality when considering the purchase price. I don't think that's a good idea.


And things like this:

quote:

---

Really, the cost of these plugins ALONE totals more than $299, so if you consider that, you're basically getting the program for FREE.

---

Are just silly. I don't want a sales pitch, I want a review.

Likewise, the response to my question

quote:

---

quote:

---

If they (features) don't arrive in the near future, ...

---

... They will definitely be there at the final release anyway, so it isn't an issue.

---

Of course it's an issue. If they aren't in the review copy then you can't evaluate them. And unless you work for the company, you can't really make that claim.

If you assume a positive outlook on the company and the product, then I have to give your review less weight, because it's hard to distinguish between the strengths and weaknesses of the actual software and any allowances you might give them.

quote:

---

You think it's failing, yes you haven't even tried a demo of the program. ... Don't knock what you don't know, that's typical newbie behavior.

---

Although the posts were derisive, ad hominem attacks are not a good response.


The competition:

quote:

---

... $299 is not a lot, when compared to its competition - it is NOT competing w/ MilkShape/CharacterFX. ....

---

Of course it is. They are both competing for the dollars of the low polygon modeller. In fact, you later make compare the two yourself.

The question is whether the significant price difference is worth it. From browsing the sites, but not using either software, I think the answer is 'probably yes'. The dependence on the other, cheaper software for some functions (importing/exporting) is unfortunate.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How does the product compare versus other similar products in terms of features and price?

---

WAAAAY more features. More than MilkShape/CharacterFX, which it blows away in terms of features geared towards low-poly modeling/texturing/animation, less than 3DSMAX/LW/Maya, but still has more tools geared towards low-poly modeling/texturing/animation.

---

So it's better than the cheap stuff, not as good as the expensive stuff. What about other things at the same price range?

How does it compare to Animation Master, which also costs $299?

Or Carrara, which seems to have many more features and only costs $100 more?

quote:

---

(training material)
More than adequate. Every tool/features/exporter is explained in detail, as is how to use them.

---

Tutorials? Manuals?


JSwing

[edited by - JSwing on October 3, 2003 5:57:53 PM]

quote:

---

come across as defending or supporting the company rather than an objective view. Perhaps it''s just the vehemence. But understand that you''re asking me to treat the product as the product plus future developments of unknown scope and quality when considering the purchase price. I don''t think that''s a good idea.

---

Well, no, it''s not defending nor supporting, it''s a statement resulting from both substantial experience w/ the company and known facts:

1. Having used trueSpace since version 2, if Caligari says they will be adding a specific feature to their software, then they will.

2. I''ve been in constant contact w/ Caligari for the past two months or so. I know for a fact the skeletal animation system is being worked on.

3. Other than the skeletal animation system, there are other features that are planned as additions to v1 as point releases. While at this time the program''s tools are more than adequate for low-poly modeling, the planned features will make such taskes move even faster, and make modeling easier, not to mention a few of the features will be totally unique to this product (as in no other program has them at this time)

4. If they say they''re going to release exporters for free, they will. Again, from past experience, while ALL companies exist to make money, Caligari is one of the few 3D application developers that often releases major point updates for free. For example, the differences between trueSpace5.1 and 5.2 are staggering, with a completely rewritten Key Frame Editor, which became the Scene Editor, which had improved keyframe handling, sound support (for general and facial animation syncing), and in a later release, non-linear animation abilities - which was until recently were not even implemented in 3DSMAX, and even then it''s not implemented in such a straigh-forward, easy-to-use way).

quote:

---

Are just silly. I don''t want a sales pitch, I want a review.

---

Well, this statement wasn''t part of the review, was it? And it isn''t silly; it''s a fact. The combined price of the 3rd-party developer tools included w/ gameSpace total more than $299.

quote:

---

Of course it''s an issue. If they aren''t in the review copy then you can''t evaluate them. And unless you work for the company, you can''t really make that claim.

---

No, it isn''t an issue. From the quality of what I was able to review, I have no reason to believe that these additional exporters won''t be of a high quality, and - again - from past experience dealing w/ the company (most likely more than any individual who does NOT work for the company has), I expect these added exporters to be of high quality. The reason that I was not able to review these exporters for the GD.Net review was that I recieved an early release candidate (RC2), and not the gold master - not a SINGLE OTHER PERSON received this version to review. All other reviewers, to my knowledge, have still NOT received a version to review - I was given special priveledge because of my relationship with the company, and because they believed (and still believe) that GD.Net was/is the best place for the "first look" to appear. Do not be surprised if in a few weeks you see an new/updated as 30-45 days after the inital release they plan to release to owners, for FREE, yet another set of exporters.

I do NOT "assume" a positive outlook on the company/product. I HAVE a positive outlook on the company, and not because of gameSpace. As you''ve said, they''ve been around for a long time (longer than you may think - Caligari was originally an Amiga developer called Octree, and their 3D package at that time was called Caligari/Caligari24, and was geared towards broadcast animation like bumper titles, news show openings, etc. As for "assuming" a positive outlook on the product, no - I EXPECT it to be good. I could be wrong, but pessimism doesn''t do any good. ONCE AGAIN, from past experience, I do NOT expect Caligari to give up if sales do not take off initially. They get most of their sales through word-of-mouth these days, and if they''re getting sales, that must mean that this word-of-mouth is GOOD. And while this word of mouth may currently be for trueSpace, gameSpace is basically the same thing, with a few less features geared towards pre-rendered 3D and MORE features geared towards realtime 3D (and even then the pre-rendered features that have been removed do NOTHING to lower the potential quality of pre-rended sprites for 2D games).

quote:

---

Although the posts were derisive, ad hominem attacks are not a good response.

---

It was not an attack; it was a statement. Newbies, or those who think they know more than they really do, or those who are so loyal to one program/developer that they knock everything else, are all-too typical of game artists. I know professional game developers who have worked on multimillion-dollar budgeted titles that use 3DSMAX that regularly knock programs like SoftImage|XSI and Maya, and while I don''t personally care for Maya (I LOVE XSI and wish I had more opportunities to use it), it is head-and-shoulders above MAX in every respect (except maybe in the number of choices available for what rendering engine to use). Such behavior is immature, close-minded, and just plain ill-informed and/or lazy, as some people would rather knock an app than try it out.

quote:

---

Of course it is. They are both competing for the dollars of the low polygon modeller. In fact, you later make compare the two yourself.

The question is whether the significant price difference is worth it. From browsing the sites, but not using either software, I think the answer is ''probably yes''. The dependence on the other, cheaper software for some functions (importing/exporting) is unfortunate.

---

I compare the two because in addition to replacing the need to buy applications such as 3DSMAX which simply have more features than are needed for low-poly model development, it replaces the need to acquire freeware/shareware tools as well. The number of features is so far and above something like MilkShape, that even if it was the competition, and WOULDN''T be a competition. As I''ve already said numerous time, EVERY 3D app used 3rd-party plugins or standalone apps for importing/exporting when it comes to games. And, again, many of the major formats do NOT require the use of MilkShape. And, in the near future, almost ALL of the major (and some of the minor, like DarkBasic, 3D GameStudio, and BlitzBasic3D) will be accesible directly from gameSpace. And, yet AGAIN, Caligari didn''t even have to include MilkShape, and did so simply as a "favor" to buyers of the program: the only reason MilkShape can export to the number of formats it can is because of 3rd-party developers; these exporters were not created by the developer of MilkShape. Caligari could have, if they wanted to, expected 3rd-party developers to create the exporters that are included with MilkShape; instead, they included MilkShape so buyers of gameSpace wouldn''t have to develop these exporters or also buy MilkShape. They paid for a license to include it, and they''re paying programmers to develop exporters that are already in MilkShape, AND exporters that are not currently in either program, while in the case of MilkShape, these exporters were developed for free. And, even though they''re paying programmers to develop these exporters (and importers, I shouldn''t forget to mention those - now name a major 3D app that imports game-format 3D models/animations out of the box), they''re giving these tools away for free. Even if I DIDN''T have a relationship with this company, I''d be impressed that they are doing what they''re doing.

In fact, it is BECAUSE of what they''re doing that I HAVE a relationship with them again - for the past few years I have NOT had a relationship w/ them, as I had a BIG falling out with the owner of the company. It is because of gameSpace that I (we, really - he and I) have decided to forget the past and work together to build up this application and get the word out about it.

quote:

---

So it''s better than the cheap stuff, not as good as the expensive stuff. What about other things at the same price range?

---

No, see, you''re wrong. You can''t say "not as good" as the expensive stuff. Feature-for-feature, considering only those related to low-poly modeling, it is either on par or better than the more expensive applications. These are the only features that are relevant. Can it export to Renderman? Not currently, though it could if someone wrote an exporter, but this is irrelevant - it''s got nothing to do with creating 3D models/animations for games. Does it have kick-ass particle systems? Again, no, and again, someone could write one, and again, it''s totally irrelevant because kick-ass particle systems have nothing to do with creating 3D models/animations for games. Do 3DSMAX, Lightwave, Maya, etc. have more features than gameSpace? Yes. Are these "extra" features even remotely related to low-poly modeling for games? NO. Do these programs have more features than gameSpace geared towards low-poly modeling? NO. So WHY PAY FOR FEATURES YOU DON''T NEED?

quote:

---

How does it compare to Animation Master, which also costs $299?

---

Animation:Master is useless for realtime 3D models. Anyone who tells you otherise is lying. While you can convert the models to polygons and there are poly-reduction tools, the resulting meshes are ugly as hell. They''ve recently tried to incorporate a "Complete Game and Export SDK," as their site says, yet in the modeling section the first line says, "No more inefficient polygons! Model with flexible Hash patches" - what does that say to YOU about their dedication to game artists and developers, who deal w/ polygons for character models 100% of the time? And, I don''t know if you''re ever used A:M, but I can''t even IMAGINE trying to build a low-poly character in it, let alone a level map, despite their claim that it''s possible (and I''m sure it is, just as I''m sure it''s a total nightmare to even attempt it). Useful for maybe pre-rendered stuff, but most definitely NOT realtime 3D.

quote:

---

Or Carrara, which seems to have many more features and only costs $100 more?

---

Pain in the ass to create low-poly models for games. Animation system is sub-par. Same for the texturing system. No game exporters. Hardly any SDK to speak of to create them. Same as A:M: useful for maybe pre-rendered stuff, not realtime 3D.

{quote]
Tutorials? Manuals?

---

Let''s look at what I said again in reference to this the FIRST time, in my LAST message:

quote:

---

More than adequate. Every tool/features/exporter is explained in detail, as is how to use them.

---

Now, let''s analyze this second sentence:

quote:

---

Every tool/features/exporter is explained in detail, as is how to use them.

---

First, we''ll start with, "Every tool/features/exporter is explained in detail"

To me, that would mean, "yes, there is a manual, and it explains "every tool/feature/exporter is explained in detail."

Now, the second part would mean, "yes, there are tutorials, or at least detailed descriptions, as is how to use these tools/features/exporters."

So, to answer your question: YES, dammit, there''s a manual (printed if you buy the box version, PDF if you don''t - assuming there ARE two versions, and this I don''t know; there may only be a boxed version, there may only be a PDF version).

And again, any features that are NOT in the program, and which Caligari may NOT add, which are few to none, and just about every modeling tool you could hope for is in there already, I can''t think of a single modeling tool that I would need that isn''t in gameSpace, and while I like a plugin better to do it, all the texturing tools you may need are in there as well (I only use the plugin because I prefer the interface of the plugin), and as I said in my review, the animation tools are adequate for low-poly character/object animation, though an improved system will be available in the near future (DO NOT ASK MY HOW "NEAR" THAT FUTURE IS, FOR CHRIST''S SAKE) can be added by 3rd-party developers - like YOU. If there''s some bizarre feature that only you or your team of artists want/need, you can add it all by your damned self - plugins, exporters, modeling/texturing/animation tools, particle systems, Renderman exporters, Maya exporters, freakin'' DOOM3 exporters, WHATEVER.

Obviously, I''m getting a little (A LOT) sick of explaining and REPEATING repeating repeating repeating myself, so I''m not going to do it again. All of the information anyone would need BEFORE EVEN TRYING THE DAMNED PROGRAM is contained in my review and these message in this thread, as well as the messages in the thread connected to the review. If one of your questions is not answered in one of these THREE DIFFERENT PLACES, then you will just have to test the program out for yourself when the demo is released - next week or the week after, I think. As for now, I am DONE with explaining this, and dealing with uninformed naysayers. If you want to knock it, go ahead; you''ll just look like an idiot once you realize it''s exactly the kind of program you need, and reduces - and soon to eliminate - the need to jump around to different programs, all of which are not nearly as full-featured as this application is.

-Nick "digisoap" Robalik
Web & Print Design, 2D & 3D Illustration and Animation, Game Design
http://www.digital-soapbox.com
nick@digital-soabox.com

Thank you for the response. I agree that no further discussion of the review would be useful. You have made clear your opinion of the product, your relationship with the company, and your response to critique and/or requests for clarification.

JSwing

Yeah, thanks for the review. It helped me to decide it''s the right tool for me. The fact that it works well with Milkshape is a plus as far as I''m concerned. Milkshape is fast becoming a standard for low poly actor models in many engines, along with 3ds of course, but I want something that I don''t have to steal.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Thank you for the response. I agree that no further discussion of the review would be useful. You have made clear your opinion of the product, your relationship with the company, and your response to critique and/or requests for clarification.

JSwing

---

I do not mind critiques - as long as they're informed, and none have been so far. I also do not mind making clarifications - but I have having to repeat myself over and over again. Most of the questions asked in this thread were already answered in one form or another: either in the review, in the thread attached to the review (the "Discuss this Review" link in the upper right-hand corner on the review page), on the gameSpace website, or earlier in this thread. Assumptions were made about the product that had no basis, and my reaction would be the same to assumptions made about ANY product, be it game-related hardware, software, or even a freakin' toaster oven that someone saw a picture of in a WalMart coupon catalog and and responded to with, "I bet that $50 toaster isn't as good as that $10 one," because the $10 one doesn't require a 3-prong convertor to use in MY house.

If someone has a question that has not been answered elsewhere previously, I will gladly answer it; if it has been answered elsewhere, I will NOT answer it again from this point forward. I will also NOT tolerate blatantly false statements being made by people who can't possibly know that what they're saying is true, and I will NOT tolerate uninformed, negative-minded statements such as "yeah, but it uses another program to convert models to SOME formats," because as I've already said - see, I've had to repeat myself AGAIN - it's a FACT that EVERY other major 3D package, no matter their price, also takes advantage of 3rd-party tools, be they plugins or standalone.

And one more thing, JSwing: stop hiding behind the "Anonymous Poster" account to make statements/posts you think you may be disciplined for. Your IP can be banned from posting just as easily as a regular user account. If you're going to make such statements, at LEAST stand behind them, rather than attempting to hide behind anonymity.

-Nick "digisoap" Robalik
Web & Print Design, 2D & 3D Illustration and Animation, Game Design
http://www.digital-soapbox.com
nick@digital-soabox.com

[edited by - digisoap on October 5, 2003 1:14:39 AM]

You falsely accuse me of cowardice (ad hominem) and then threaten to use moderator force (ad baculum) because I think you've been uncivil in this thread? Don't be an ass.

Oh, wait, perhaps you think I'm the original AP who criticised the price point and skeletal animation? False assumption.

But as I said in my last post, you've answered all of my questions about the software, and your review.

JSwing


[edited by - JSwing on October 5, 2003 7:17:34 PM]