Yup. I have most of the toys from over the years. Microscribe devices, monkey, various tablet technologies, Measureand Snake, lots of fun stuff. 
So where is the work done with the SpacePilot that is going to woo us all over? Been 3 weeks, nothing yet? I really was hoping to be proven out of step…
Measurand snake = shapetape? I’ve been drooling over that one for a few years as well.
Ultimately, I think I need to take some electronics classes and string something together with inexpensive sensors and microprocessors. That’s the only way I’ll be able to afford any of this.
I did get my Cintiq monitor, though. So, life’s still pretty good. 
Hey Ctrl-Z, the electronics knowledge needed is on the web. The devices, depending on what you want, can be aquired peacemeal from electronic and hobby stores (combined). USB drivers are pretty simple, a lot of open source work available. I recently gave several chats to high school students and they had some pretty cool stuff to show me within a few weeks of each presentation. You’ll do fine.
Would love to see some drivers for Z-Brush from 3D Conn.
I have a Spacemouse 5000 that I use with Softimage | XSI and Rhino.
All the buttons are fully configurable to whatever keyboard equivilant
you’re currently using. Imagine being able to rotate your mesh via the
Space( pilot/mouse/whatever you have ) while using the Wacom to
sculpt without having to grab some empty space to move your mesh.
It would speed things up quite a bit. Would be a Godsend actually. . . .
No more Alt + drag to move it around, no more ctrl-alt-releasectrl to scale
etc. etc. Scaling it in and out would be as simple as pulling or pushing on the
controller. . . .
Pixologic is screwing themselves. They act like they don’t have the resources to have somebody to create a driver. Well it won’t be long before MUDBOX will be integrated in MAYA now that AUTODESK has bought SKYMATTER. That’s pretty awesome news though I would have prefered zbrush integration, oh well. Once mudbox is integrated into maya and we can finally use our 3dconnexion devices with “zbrush-like” functionality INSIDE of maya, who’s going to bother buying zbrush? 3dconnexion no longer has to worry about making a driver for zbrush. Remember what happened when sony was being stubborn with betamax? For some reason they thought their product was so good that everybody would just conform to their tecnology. Lucky for sony they had many other products to offer to keep them alive when everybody decided to conform to the much more accessable VHS. Don’t get me wrong, I think zbrush is really unbelievable and I am amazed by its power. Well mudbox is pretty damn cool too and it will be very interesting to see what happens pixologic in the not too distant future. You should be doing EVERYTHING possible to appease users/potential users. PIXOLOGIC, the longer you wait, the harder you will fall. It should be in your best interest to provide these drivers ASAP.
Nice first post. I’m sure the community will take it very seriously.
But to address your logic for a moment, if ZBrush-like functionality inside of Maya means the death of ZBrush, surely it doesn’t matter whether Pixologic ever supports 3Dconnexion devices. The exodus you speak of is inevitable, and nothing can stop it.
Unless, of course, the overhead of a full-blown animation suite doesn’t lend itself to the kinds of optimization ZBrush and Mudbox require. Or if Pixologic continues to introduce new features a year or more ahead of the competition, that too might put a crimp in your prediction.
Meanwhile, if the average Maya user actually owned a 6DOF device, you can bet ZBrush would support it.
I have one myself, and it’s frustrating, but the honest truth is that application support in more casual markets is what’s going to drive 3Dconnexion sales, not the other way around. It’s very one-sided. Nobody chooses one app over another because of the Spacepilot. They choose the Spacepilot because of the applications that support it.
Put another way, this oversight will not deter a single ZBrush buyer. It will annoy an increasing number, but as long as there are obvious benefits to working in ZBrush, the users will settle for nothing less.
If you look at my post a few back you can see that I was a little annoyed too, but the fact that Autodesk is buying mudbox means that Zbrush will be both the best organic modeling app on the market, and the only affordable one. Do you think that Autodesk will include free updates to it’s software for registered users?
I’m still a little clumsy with the hotkeys in Zbrush, but I can move the model just fine. I see that 3Dconnexion has a $40 version of thier mouse out, maybe it will appeal to more people. If use increases, so will the desire to integrate it into the application.
Right, if mudbox is integrated in maya it means the death of zbrush…
and monkey might fly out of my butt…
Think about it … that’s a stupid idea.
Maya will cost a hell of a lot more than zbrush… and a lot of people buy zbrush because they want to do sculpting or illustration… not animation, rigging, dynamics, rendering etc…
You’re comparing apples with pears.
I have a spacetraveler, at use it all the time… in maya, cinema 4d , rhino, even photoshop.
Support for it would be nice in zbrush but I don’t think it would really add that much… the way you navigate your model now is great, simple a reall no brainer.
Still if they claim they don’t have the recources to write a driver… they should make some sort of sdk available so other people can do it for zbrush.
If anyone thinks having a product acquired by Autodesk is a good thing, you had best rethink your logic. Historically this has been a bad thing. Those of us who have been in the industry long enough to see things evolve get the willies when this happens. Monopolies are never better for the end user. Not once in history. Maya is not better, nor is MotionBuilder better due to the ‘acquisition’. The end user got lame updates at increased costs, usable and much used versions (MotionBuilder) were dropped altogether. Yes MudBox is going to get what’s coming to it alright.
But if you think that one input device will rule them all, you have been reading way too much fantasy.
This thread is hilarious though, keep it going.
hehe… You’re right Jason.
I’ve been in this insdustry for 10 years now… I’ve purchased Maya 1.0 the day it came out… Before that even worked with good ole Poweranimator on sgi.
In the beginning Alias|wavefront already lost part of their face to the outside world when Chris Landreth didn’t want to do any promo stuff for them we can only guess what happend there.
Not long after that they closed a couple of support centers and even chased away people who made up the face of the company that time like Tom Kluyskens.
For me the fact that autodesk bought Alias was reason enough to not use Maya anymore… I hate big monopolies… and what Autodesk does is stupid…
I also felt kinda sad that Mudbox was also acuired by autodesk, doesn’t look like progress to me… just another great package down the drain.
I came across SpaceNavigator at a vendor site and immediately wondered if it would work with ZBrush. It would be very helpful.
This Thread seems to be going in circles and now it’s complaining about Autodesk…
Back to the point: if it’s relatively easy to adapt an existing program or driver or create a ZScript to do the job, isn’t there someone out there who can steal a bit of time and just do it? I think there would be a lot of grateful people.
Cheers.
Greg
Not easy, the Pixologic’s are the only ones who can do it.
Lemo
I take exception to that statement.
They’re the only ones who can do it well…
We can download or create GlovePie scripts to map SpaceNavigator output to a series of keystrokes. And inside of ZBrush, we can map those keystrokes to a series of commands.
The problem is this: there aren’t commands available to directly address the “camera”. ZBrush captures and interprets your mouse strokes internally, and those functions aren’t exposed yet for us to play with.
We can, however, physically move and rotate your model through the Tool>Deformation controls, forever changing it’s position and alignment. This solution is awkward, at best.
I find that movement is responsive enough, but the sheer amount of processing involved in rotation makes this impractical for realtime control. Still, twisting your model around in 15 degree increments might work, and a clever use of markers or morph targets could mitigate the otherwise irreparable damage to multi-platform workflows.
What I’m describing is a poor implimentation. You would have far greater control simply using ZBrush’s interface in the way it was designed. And the truth is, a good driver wouldn’t change that. 'cause, let’s face it: ZBrush uses a ton of hotkeys. You’re just not going to do well without one hand on the keyboard.
But, yes. It can be done.
Hi, i have a spaceexplorer, and i can choose to rotate around,
or have the object rotate, much like ZB navigation,
i would really like to see support for 3Dconnexion device.
This statement is dangerously misleading. The spaceexplorer doesn’t give you that choice; the driver inside of Max or Maya does. The driver inside of Photoshop acts very differently. The good news is that developers aren’t limited to any preconceived notions of what the device should be used for. The bad news is that it isn’t always possible to accomplish in one app what seems simple in another.
much like ZB navigation,
It’s actually nothing like ZB navigation, but I see why you’d believe that.
The distinction is subtle, but important: the virtual camera metaphor where you’re moving around through a 3D scene has no meaning in ZBrush. ZBrush doesn’t have cameras, or scenes. It has a 2.5D canvas.
In Max or Maya, it’s a choice between manipulating the camera or manipulating a pointer to the object, if that makes any sense. You’re applying a transformation to it’s root position an orientation relative to the world or it’s parent object. But you’re not actually moving and rotating the object. Meaning, if you export the model from your scene and open that separately, your model will appear at world’s center, facing forwards and sized appropriately. There are ways to permanently change your model, but those aren’t what you’re using with the space navigator. Because that would be stupid. Both if the options you list are non-destructive.
The equivalent choice in ZBrush would be rotating your currently selected object vs rotating your currently selected subtool. Rotating your currently selected object is like orbiting your camera around it in that non-destructive “you can still snap to your various reference views” way. Rotating the subtool will permanently change it every time, no matter what. Which is appropriate inside of ZBrush, but would be horrifying behavior in Max or Maya.
There might be a way to avoid that; transforming multimarkers and redrawing the subtools as needed. But, lord only knows what all you’d break in trying to accomodate it.
I described in my previous post a way that some manipulations could be done by ZScripters right now. I hadn’t considered this in my tests, but it would only manipulate the currently selected subtool. It’s very slow, and very destructive, and 99% of the time, you’re going to want the whole object anyway.
Which brings us back to “for all intents and purpose, Pixologic alone can bring us support for these devices”
i would really like to see support for 3Dconnexion device.
We all would. Just understand that it’s not a casual proposition.
Hi Ctrl-Z, you think that my " rotate around and object rotate " is
dangerously misleading, and then say that i dont have that choice ???
I use my spaceexplorer to navigate in my Cinema 4D, and yes, also in
photoshop, but where did i say what application i use ??
I replyed to this thread only to say, i would also like a support to ZB,
is that not how the topic started ?
I am not an expert on forums, or any 3D application, and not english
speaking, so sometimes it gets a little wrong or maby short.
But is not you, a little bit misleading ??
Would it surprise you to learn that this is not what I think?
(Rule of thumb: If it’s worthy of three question marks, the misunderstanding is probably on your end.)
I thought that the “i have a spaceexplorer, and i can choose to” part of your sentence was dangerously misleading. The cause/effect relationship was missing an important step or two, which influenced everything thereafter.
I use my spaceexplorer to navigate in my Cinema 4D, and yes, also in photoshop, but where did i say what application i use ??
Why do you feel that my arguments hinged on which applications you use? You’re riffing off the same misunderstanding.
(Two question marks this time. Deep inside, you knew I couldn’t have been saying whatever you thought I was.)
I was at that point illustrating why I thought that the cause/effect relationship you described was missing an important step or two, because it seemed the simplest way to bridge that gap before I got overly technical in brainstorming toward solutions.
I replyed to this thread only to say, i would also like a support to ZB, is that not how the topic started ?
I agreed with that point, and said so. Why are we arguing about it?
I am not an expert on forums, or any 3D application, and not english speaking, so sometimes it gets a little wrong or maby short.
Your language was fine. But I think you have an overly simplified understanding of how ZBrush and 3DConnexion devices operate, which leads to the very common frustration of “why doesn’t Pixologic do this simple thing?” when in fact, it is anything but.
I’m aiming for a more complete understanding of the issue, in part because this whole thread can benefit from it, but more because I hope to stumble on an angle that much smarter people than myself might not have considered yet. My conclusions haven’t been completely positive, but that’s part of the process. It’s not enough to know what doesn’t work – we need to know why.
But is not you, a little bit misleading ??
(Two question marks again! You need to pay attention to your own clues here. Deep inside, you already know it is not me, a little bit misleading)
I believe that people are generally reasonable, and that when we assume they’re acting unreasonably, we’ve made an unreasonable assumption. Why would I mislead you? What’s to gain? That doesn’t make sense.
If the native English-speakers following this thread agree with you that I’ve unfairly twisted your words around, this would be a good time for them to speak up. Otherwise, please consider that in your struggle to understand what I’m saying, you might have failed at it.
Meanwhile, I apologize for whatever offense you’ve read into my words. Whatever it was, it was not intended.
This thread has become an argument and is therefore being closed. If two or more people feel the need to argue, they should take it to private messages or email. The public forum is not the correct place for it.