ttrw wrote:No Tom, you have completely missed my point, (and it seems misunderstood me). Shark FX does not have to have 'advanced animation' facilities and it doesn't need to add anything else. As a matter of fact, the basic ones that it already has are fine as they stand. What I am saying is that software like Director and Unity, understands where for example a door opens allowing a demonstrator or operator to give a real-time interactive representation of a model that is about to go to the production line. It allows engineers or designers (or both) to be absolutely sure that they understand how a product functions. But more importantly, it demonstrates to all those who cannot visualise in 3D, like those who are about to fork out for tooling costs and investment etc. VR can also be used as a powerful advertising and marketing tool.
Have you read the article about Virtalis in MCAD magazine?
True enough on SharkFX animation, but I'm having difficulty seeing exactly what Shark brings to the table with regards to modeling for said packages. You are advocating that by pushing SharkFX towards this functionality, that this will increase marketshare, but there are already established applications, as an example 3DS Max that you describe, that are a better fit for this, and there are many, many facet modelers that would work as well at a much lesser price (example: Modo) than Shark.
I admire your grit in attempting to convince me that this is something that SharkFX should aspire to, but again, I'm saying that it's taking the focus off of the evolution that is planned and will establish SharkFX well in its existing niche; an easy to use yet powerful modeler.
I have Maxwell Render, and in Solidworks, I have a plugin. I haven't asked for a plugin from Tim for Maxwell Render, because I know that there are very few users of both Maxwell and Shark, and it dilutes his resources to chase niches that really aren't germaine to what he sees his market as. (I don't want to assume any particular market, but I can assume that Tim has his hands full just evolving ViaCAD and Shark).
I have full kinematics, dynamics, and animation (modest) in both Pro/e and Solidworks, so you could argue that there isn't much purpose in having
Shark around, but I use Shark as it is fast and easy for creating models that I can readily import for machining, and any of these can be easily imported into either of the higher end packages.
I haven't read your noted article on Virtalis, but I glanced at it. I do understand where your coming from, but I just don't see that creating an export function to Director is going to have any impact at all in Shark's marketshare. That's all that your asking for isn't it?
Maybe things are different in England, but here, I don't know any engineers or designers that uses AutoCAD (excepting the RF guy that I build stuff for), some use Inventor or Solidedge, most use Solidworks or Pro/e.
I do see that lots of folks that machine and fabricate things would adopt ViaCAD for its price, and some of those would upgrade to the functionality of Shark. Obviously, Shark appeals to Industrial Designers, but I would suspect that most are individual users, who like the capabilites and ease of use, but especially the pricing. Adding functionality for MCAD use (3D parametrics, sheetmetal, advanced assembly), which is what I advocate, is beneficial for the whole product line.
