But you're missing the point.
Its gimmicky and faddy and... looks good on Sci-Fi movies (visually stunning example comes to mind though irritatingly egotistic and useless if you don't have an impressionable audience to pose it all off to) Iron Man.
Yes, you too can look like a right plonker!
""Someone give me a mouse for Gods sake. My arms are crippling me.
That's why I need a robot suit because they don't work anymore.
Great if you want to invite your impressionable friends round and say, "Look how I developed chronic tennis elbow... by doing THIS 12 hours a day for a few months."
Useless Outdated Gadgets from 1995 redesigned with high sales psychologies to sell them.
This 3DSpace Navigator should be called "Smooth boredom & downward gliding non-productive instigator."
I've used one of these at a demo.
Sure you can smoothly glide across to google earth (for some inane reason its always the No. 1 place to go with gadgetry. Probably because its still intriguing to zoom into grandmas back garden and see her washing from space.) and you can
smoothly glide up above your props and
smoothly glide across the set and
smoothly glide round and
smoothly glide each turn and
smoothly glide through doorways as if,
HEY,
No!!.
But surely YES... it's just like being in a space ship hovercraft. WOW!
One thing going for this device... Yes... you can
Smoothly Glide.
You cant replace the mouse.
Steering a smoothly gliding anything and aiming for some control or object is time consuming and irritating and innacurate as well as chronically non productive which is why the idea died when it was tried out in 1994.
After a few minutes I was annoyed with this thing.
I got tired of the decelerative and accelerative "smoothing" which was worse than mouse acceleration. I had to concentrate and aim for everything crawling about like a mine detector in treacle.
WHY WOULD YOU NEED THAT???
I was told how "heavy" it was and how "Smooth" the finish was and how "Sensitive" it was and how "beautifully designed" it was AND, amazingly, how jealous my friends would be when they saw it?????
I really p*ssed him off by saying , "My social circles aren't that shallow."
But that's just me. I Don't suffer idiots. I Don't idolise.
This is a gimmick.
HENCE the mouse has not been replaced for over a QUARTER OF A CENTURY.
Wake up someone and try and give the set editing basics.
CLOUDS that DO smoothly float about in random directions.
LAND MASSES that can be pulled about and reshaped for caverns and realistic cliff faces.
CLOTHING that crumples in the same way it did in 1994 in Toy Story.
LIGHTING that's worthy of sitting beside PIXAR's decades old superior system.
And now because of some companies say-so you're going to develop the program to handle "smoothly floating" navigation which, incidentally, STILL NEEDS A MOUSE for any degree of efficient and speedy productivity.
God give me some patience please.
Have you used one of these for any given period?
And compared it to someone using a mouse?
No?
Try it.
They win.
If I sound insulting its because I'm intelligently stunned that for some weird reason, way beyond my understanding, the basics, which are missing with all the subtlety of hands ripped off a babys bleeding arms, seem to get bypassed for inane faddy gadgetry and the worst of it is....
... its NOT the software that's supposed to be impressive but its OUTPUT.
Its NOT a case of "Everyone to their own" before the defenders get on their band waggon.
It is NOT an efficient way to manipulate software.
Its SLOW and LETHARGIC. (That word means tired and weakened with dulled response in case there are those who didn't know that.)
All the work you do to make this software efficient, time saving, cost effective, commercially viable, price beneficial....
And then you install productivity sloths.
"I'm computeristically a sloth, that's why I need a robot suit to make up
for my inefficiency everywhere else."
(Patronising sigh of intolerance!)