This might be a dumb question, but I actually looked in the Online Help and searched YouTube tutorials before asking this...

QUESTION:  How do I apply an image to one face of a cube?

WHAT I DID:

1. I decided to make a TV remote control.
2. Scanned my remote to make my Diffuse map, and I even created a normal map for the buttons.
3. Added a 3D Cube and scaled it to the approximate dimensions I needed.
4. Applied my scanned image as a Diffuse map, and aligned the Y-Axis so it had the right orientation

PROBLEM:  I have "buttons" on ALL SIX sides of my remote control... front, back, ends, everywhere.

So... What's the best way to put my "buttons" only on the top surface of my remote?

What if I wanted to apply something else to the bottom?  I think it'd be like applying stickers or decals (but with corresponding Bump and Specular maps too).

Do I have to laboriously create my remote from six separate 2D planes?

Here's the front...

The back looks like the front...

I started thinking something along those lines, but I looked AFTER I replaced the default diffuse map with mine, so I guess that threw me off.

I clicked on the Diffuse Map and then clicked on the button for "Edit in external editor" (sorry, I don't have the exact term) which is now mapped to GIMP.  I also opened the UV map.  I did that after seeing the help pages that show a surf board and an example.  But all I saw was what looked like my original image, not an unwrapped "six-surface" image.  Maybe I did something wrong.

I'll look at it again this evening (I hope).

It sure would be handy (eaiser) if I could apply my texture map to a specific face.  But I probably shouldn't complain too much until after I get it working.

Each face on the cube is mapped to a different spot on the map. You can see how each face is layed out by looking at the original defuse image. Also keep in mind that because it's a cube, the remote image will be stretched unless you actually go into an image editing program and fit the remote image to the size of the face by scaling it. That way you can scale the cube in iClone and it'll look correct.

The mapping system in iClone I find rather inferior to actually mapping the face of the cube (Remote in your case) with a correctly formatted graphic the exact size of the remote required. That is, I take a flat plane (NOT a cube squashed flat because this is still six faces) and make it lay a pixel above the surface of the remote body. That way I can get a far higher definition image in place and alot smaller to boot without having to pad out the definition at the cost of filesize.

In this case, download the remote, I added a glow map in there quickly so that you have several buttons come alive and lights etc. I made the graphics about 2000px in size because any lower, because of the way the graphic for the remote has to get stretched, (You'll see here... ) the definition dies horribly. 

So you can see. That graphic panel has to stretch out and screw itself up a lot. But making it about 2000px/2  it kind of does a dirty get-by.

This is the six sided one panel graphic remote.

Download it HERE.

If you want one with rounded edges it can be done in iClone.

But in a one piece solid format ask Swoop and he'll make one with working buttons, that beeps and blinks with free chilled cola.

Here's the actual Graphic in HD if you decided to make a secondary upper surface predominant on the model.

WELCOME TO THE FORUM TUMBLE WEED:)

I love it:D:D:D

Yes, I see the 6-panel "UV map" now.  As I mentioned earlier, I looked at it, but AFTER I applied my own single-map, so when I looked at the UV map it was the single-panel image I applied.  Duh.

Adding a map to a plane "1 pixel above the cube" isn't such a bad approach, especially if you're only decorating ONE side.  It'd be an annoying chore (it seems) to have to do it all six sides, and then attaching those planes to each other (or to a dummy cube/prop).  But then again, mapping the six images into a single map also sounds annoying.

No free lunch, huh?

I haven't gotten to play with it more than 5 minutes today.  Busy trying to finalize a decision on a major purchase, and that's consuming all my time.  Hopefully I'll finish the purchase tomorrow and can then resume playing with iClone.

Thanks for the tips and support everyone.  I'll let you know how it goes once I play with it again.

P.S.

Adding a Glow Map is a cool idea.  :)

I added a simple cube (Props --> 3D Blocks --> Box_002).

Originally I added my simple image and mapped it with UV Settings of "Box", Tiling=1.00, and simply had to Align the correct axis.

The image size is 280x1033, and is only 26KB.

The result was beautiful, except I have buttons on all six sides.

See Figure 1 (the bottom remote).  You can see the squashed/stretched buttons on the side and bottom end of the remote in Figure 1.

For my second attempt, I tried to be more sophisticated.

I added Box_002, selected the Diffuse map, and did a "Launch" to open it in Gimp.  Then I figured out which end was which.  With that "mapping" in hand, I added my picture of my remote control to the Diffuse map and "stretched" it to fit the correct face.

See Figure 2.

I was very unhappy with the first attempt because the entire image was only 512x512 pixels.  So I increased my canvas to 3600x3600 pixels.  That was I do not have to shrink my scanned image at all, but I do have to stretch it sideways.

Now my image is 846KB (vs. 26) and I still have much poorer image quality.  See the fuzziness and lack of detail in Figure 1.

QUESTIONS:

Is my process all wrong?  How can I get the nice quality results of my original method, but treat each side individually?

If I have to attach a Plane to each of the six sides, and turn the original cube into an invisible dummy prop, will it scale, rotate, and in general be a nicely behaved prop, just like the cube?  I don't want to have to be burdened with six planes forever.

Also, I sort of understand what the "UV Ref." is showing me, but I don't see the value of it.  Maybe that's because I'm using a simple cube, and it would be more valuable on a sculpted surface (like an avatar's face).  But you can't edit directly on the UV Ref, can you?

................................

FIGURE 1:

.................................

FIGURE 2:

.........................

P.S.

What's the difference between the 3D props Box_001, Box_002, and Box_003?  Since I can scale them anyway, what's the difference?

Cool.  That made a huge difference.  Thanks!

I was at the default of 1024x1024, so I guess that means my 3600x3600 image was being scaled by iClone.  I could see a bit of blur at 2048x2048, but a setting of 4096x4096 is working great.

I have a feeling this method (using the "map layout") is the "correct" way to do it, but:

• It seems like the bitmap sizes will get unnecessarily large - To get the same pixel density, my "mapped" file is 30 times larger than my original image!
• It seems a lot easier to edit a simple rectangular image and not have to worry about it being backwards

I don't know, if I was going to decorate a lot of "box" things (let's say I making cereal boxes) I think I'd build my own "cube" by carefully matching up 6 planes, attaching them all to a cube of similar size, and making the cube invisible.  Then I could EASILY paste on an image to each side individually, with a much smaller total file size (at least in terms of .jpg files).  I could even un-check "2-sided" so there's only one side (the "exterior" side) of the planes for iClone to deal with.

Or am I missing something that will make life more difficult for me later?

Thanks again for the tip.  It did work.  :)

I wish I could sit next to you for about 10 minutes... that would be SO much more efficient that trading posts on a forum.

I do want to figure this out, because I don't want to send the next 5 years doing it the hard way, or fighting poor quality results, or (least concern) being really inefficient in terms of resources.  As I kept cranking up my image pixel count, I kept thinking about how much "wasted space" there is on the image.  There's a lot of white space (which I know compresses very well).

Was my basic process of fitting my scanned image over the desired area of the Box's original Diffuse image correct?

I'll attach my original scanned file (parts of it a slightly blurry), if you want to play with it and use it as an example for your new student.

Please remember, I'm working with blocks...

Observation = iClone breaks this rule.  The Diffuse maps and UV Refs are both 512x512, at least for the 3D Boxes.

Do you recommend integer (whole number) multipliers (Image 2x, 3x, 4x larger than UV) or simply "larger"?  Does it have to be the same in both directions?  If UV is 512x512, is an image of 1337x809 okay?

I was so lost on that section, but maybe I figured it out.

Does this have to do with the "Pivot" (at the top of the prop's Modify panel)?  If not, I'm lost and I don't understand.

When I reiterated that I'm working with blocks, it was another way of saying, "Please be gentle, I'm new at this."  ;)

My problem, simply put, is this:

• I believe I understand the basic concept of what the UV Map is for.  I know what it does.
• But I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with the UV Map itself.
• Do I ever do anything in Gimp (or Photoshop) with the UV Map?
• Shouldn't I simply "paint" my Diffuse image in a way the corresponds to how the 3D object was unwrapped?

So if we go back to "Box_002" and I want to turn it into a good-looking remote control, what would be my steps?  Something like this?

1. Collect images for the front and back (I'll let the sides be plain black for now).
2. Make a better UV Map
   a) Click on "UV Ref" and change the resolution from 512x512 to 2048x2048
   b) Save my Hi-res UV map
   c) Open/use my new UV Ref
3. Edit my Diffuse map and add the front and back images of my remote control
   a) Stretch them as needed to fill the "front panel" and "back panel"
   b) Save it, and drag it onto my Box_002 prop
4. Use the Scale handles (Shortcut = "R") to make my Box_002 be the right proportions for a remote control
5. Save my prop, and enjoy over and over again!

I sure I've made several mistakes and oversights.

<<< INSERTED >>>
Hmm... my UV Ref seems stuck at 512x512.  How do you upgrade the UV Ref resolution?
<<< end of insert >>>

Please teach.  :)

See pictures, below.  (I re-used my older images, so if you look closely you'll see resolutions don't match my instructions above.)

FWIW & as I recall, there's a Reallusion Tut somewhere for applying a Remote Control Image to a 3D Block. I expect I have it in my Library of Tuts on my HDD.

There's also a Stuckon3D Freebie Tut re; Texturing as part of his General Freebie Tut re; building a Castle Scene from 3D Blocks. I'll see if I can Link you to it.

ADDED - Link (Part 2). https://forum.reallusion.com/Topic31003-33-1.aspx

I'm using GIMP as my external editor.  It's supposed to very Photoshop-ish, and the price of "free" is wonderful.

About aspect ratios, when I place my "tall" remote control image onto the Box_002 map, I have to stretch and squash it to fit one of the box's faces.  Then I after applying the image to my box, I scale X-Y-Z in iClone until my remote control appears to be the correct size.  I am not stretching the actual map image (though I did try scaling it uniformly - changing the "canvas size" with X-Y linked so they scaled together.

I'm still stuck on how to make the UV Map a higher resolution than the Diffuse image.  I can't find a way to replace the UV Map for Box_002.

I'll check it out.  Thanks.  :)

ADDED LATER >>>>

Colour - The tutorial was good, but I was familiar with what he covered.

My "problem" (challenge) is that his interior wall surfaces are the same as the exterior wall surfaces, just like when I have buttons on every side of my remote control.  What if he wanted to leave the outside exactly like what he made, but wanted a different texture on the inside of the caste, such a stucco, white-washed surface?

Thanks for the clarification.

Most of my Blender knowledge is a result of my son playing with it.  Sometimes I watch him, and sometimes I watch some tutorials just because it's such an amazing tool.  (I could have a lot of fun with it, but then I'd never have time to play with iClone, or sleep, or go to work.)

More and more I'm thinking that "real prop building" (even "advanced" texture mapping like I'm trying to do) should be done in Blender (or similar) and then use 3DXchange to turn it into an iProp.

Since I can legally run iClone on two PCs, I've been telling my son I should put my second copy on his machine.  He likes to model stuff, and I'd love to have him build props for me.

It's possibly I am suffering from false expectations.  I just thought there'd be an easier way to map an image to one side of a cube in iClone without having to use the unfolded UV Map, and certainly without resorting to another software package like Blender.  It sounded like it would be so simple.

It's too bad iClone doesn't have a "Box" object with 6 material surfaces.  Then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I don't want to use a plane for my remote control prop.  It'd be a bit too thin.

But now that you mention it, how do I put a different texture on each side of a plane, using only iClone?

OLD QUESTION:  Does anyone have any idea what the main difference is between Box_001, Box_002, and Box_003?  The UV Maps seems a bit different, but not drastically.

Right now I think I'd rather have just two boxes.  One like the boxes I've been using, and one with 6 individual materials (one for each side).

Right-Click / Drag & Drop your Image. Select Plane . Attach it to one face of your Prop. Resize it to fit.

Job done in 5 minutes;)

Although I want to be able to work on custom props, that's not my primary goal.  So I think it's time for me to move on to a new topic.  I still have about 17,384 other iClone features to explore.

Thanks to everyone for your kind assistance.

I believe what you recently posted was fundamentally the same as what I was proposing; attach six individual planes to a cube.  For existing iClone materials, your method provided a nice shortcut in that it created and textured the plane in one operation.  But for a custom texture, it's about the same was what I did.  Good tip though.  I got so wrapped up in custom textures I started to neglect the ones that come with iClone.  Thanks for the reminder.

@sw00000p -

I appreciate that you're trying to make me think for myself by not providing those "E-Z Button Tutorials," but it's not working well for me.  The problem is probably at my end.  As I said before, I think it would be so wonderful to be able to sit with you and watch you work for a little while.  Then I could observe which tool you use, and when, and you could fluidly explain why.

I don't think this forum lends itself to subtle hints.  But don't give up on me entirely.  Not yet anyway.

@Animagic -

My original goal wasn't so much to create a remote control, but simply to learn some useful functions in iClone.  Recently I was playing with manually creating a seamless texture (with moderate success), followed by revisiting Normal Maps.  So as I looked for something to practice on, I saw a remote control with raised buttons, and thought, "Hey, a nice normal map should be a nice (and efficient) way to give them a bit of a 3D look," and that's what lead me to trying to put different textures on different sides of a cube.

As for using Sketch-up, I'm sure simple shapes are not complex at all, but... sigh... yet another application to learn.

I think I'm going to have to decide what's more difficult... learning more applications, or getting my son to do the modeling for me.  I think I know the answer to that.

I used to work for a CAD (Computer Aided Design) company a long time ago, so I know I can learn something like Sketch-up.  And Blender amazes and fascinates met.  But I'd rather make an iClone movie.  At least I think that's the case.

@Everyone -

I managed to make my "6 planes attached to a box" prop fairly easily, and then I scanned a paperback book and it did not take long at all to make a very acceptable book prop.  After setting up the planes, I should have "shrunk" the cube by 50% or so before attaching the planes to it.  Sometimes when I zoom out I see some of the underlying cube bleeding through, even though it's supposed to be invisible.  Turning the prop's visibility OFF, and then clicking each plane ON fixes the problem.  But I believe having the core cube smaller would have prevented it entirely.

You CAN just with iClone for petes sake.  
Being sarcastically exacting NOT a plane as a plane only has 2 dimensions (Actually three, because it needs duration to exist in our plane within the constraints of light-speed governed time and physics-crisis continuum restriction. Which, identifying Einstein's argument of "If a plane has only width and height and duration, when viewed exactly side on does it exist at all?"

(A similar argument of physics-crisis definition regarding the same as voiced in the time machine, "If an object has width depth and height but no duration does it exist at all?"
The answer seemingly NO, actually is YES, by argument only to another object of zero duration at an identical point in the time continuum AND that has awareness. All duration is dependant on the mental sense of time.)

THIS is a six sided object.

THIS is its image map.

And as far as I can see this is editable by exporting from iClone and importing back into iClone after editing.

This wall would be superb for a TV remote control.
Lets not get bogged down with filesize, because unless you're using an Amstrad 1512 with 1 meg onboard ram and a 20 meg hard drive, it really doesn't matter unless you've created a remote control object of three gigs. (Which even then iClone has the power to open.

So, why is this NOT a solution for iClone and why do we still need to toy about with UV's simply to get something as basic as a TCV remote when I have never edited UV's and have made THIS....

iClone can do this. iClone has been made so simple to use that any newcomer into the animation and half-way-modelling world it allows can produce.

But coming into this thread as a newbie I would walk  away again. There probably ARe more adept methods and professional means to edit textures on objects but not to the extent that we need to remodel the actual primitives.

I don't understand all the complexities in this thread though I do appreciate the informational value to me as I learn by reading the same such, but not for a bog basic gran'ma made TV remote surely??????

Lets slow down a bit and realise that by definition we're looking at something about three centimetres on screen and there for about two seconds (Give or take)

Do we really need something where we can see the avatars hair lice crawling around the gaps between the buttons?

@Armstrong - About the insane level of detail - You make good points, and I don't argue.  But it really annoyed and frustrated me when my 1st method (buttons on every side) looked great and preserved all the detail without any fuss, and then all the more sophisticated and labor-intensive methods turned out blurry.  It just seemed wrong and unfair and backwards.

@Everyone -

Wow.  I tried the Wall_001 object, and it worked MUCH better than Box_001, and I believe the reason is the proportions of the "areas" on the normal map are much more similar to the proportions of the faces of the remote control.

I first tried the 512x512 resolution, and it was reasonably acceptable.

Then I tried again, and first doubled the of the Diffuse map to 1024x1024, and then added in my scanned image which is 280x1023, so I did have to shorten it slightly, but not so drastically as I had to on the Box_002 object.

(@sw00000p - I did not do anything to the underlying UV Map, which I assume was still 512x512.  Nor did I change the iClone setting for Max Real-time Map Size.)

The results were very acceptable.  Even better at 1024x1024 that what I got before at 3600x3600.

LESSON LEARNED:

• Explore the UV Maps of the primitives and find a map that is close to the proportions you intend to use.
• Enlarge the object's Diffuse Map (if needed) to minimize the amount of scaling you need to do when adding in your custom image

In this case, a Wall worked much better than a Box.  I think the Door_001 would probably work well too.

I was really being turned off from using the "maps" because of the bad quality I was getting, but my improved results this morning have really helped improve my attitude about that method.

If anyone wants a more detailed step-by-step approach of what I did, just ask.

Final results:

• Bottom remote - Simply apply scanned image to Box_001, set UV Type to Box
• Pro - Easy
• Pro - Best visual quality
• Con - All six sides are the same (buttons on all six sides, so not good for this prop)
• Middle remote - Apply image to Box_001 based on UV Map layout
• Pro - Each side can be have a different graphic
• Neutral - Requires slightly more editing work, but pretty easy after the first time
• Con - Really blurry results, even with a high-resolution Diffuse Map file
• Top remote - Same as middle remote, but using Wall_001 (instead of box)
• Pro - Good quality (compared to Box_001) even with lower-res Diffuse Map
• (See how clear "Dynex" is, compared to the middle remote?)
• (I suspect a slightly larger Diffuse Map size would be even better, but this is very acceptable to me.)

P.S.

@Armstrong - What primitive did you use to make the curved walls?  I can't find one like that.  Did you use a pipe, and make 80% of it transparent using an opacity map?

That's about the size of it but.... I didn't like the way I had to "trial and error" my way about making the holes off set and odd sizes so that it worked as an equidistant width-height window.

I tried many objects but nothing worked.

I didn't tile the upper window opening because I just thought this was 5 six sided pieces I could save memory and cpu on. I use about 50 of these walls so clipping a little I thought I could get away with regarding authenticity of design. 

ALSO:

Pay attention to fine tuning the Modifications. I also have to use the  Alpha Threshold at about 70--75%. The primitives seem to generate transparency artefacts which appear as graphic edges in fine hard black lines. I cannot quite kill these more efficiently than using Alpha Threshold.

Sw00000p would know more about the Why's, all I can do are the "Trial and errors" but normally I come up with the right result as in this case and also make your object 2 sided. In THIS instance it really needs it because otherwise the ends of the walls look terrible.

I can't speak for the others, but I'm not ignoring your advice.  Even with my somewhat limited experience, I knew that I'd have to use UVs for complex shapes like characters.

But you are entirely correct; all I wanted to texture today was a simple box, and I didn't think that would require UVs.

Using UVs to texture a shoe box (or remote control) seems analogous to installing and using Excel rather than picking up a pocket calculator to find the square root of 30.  It just struck me as over-kill for THIS activity.

Are UV's of any worth to iclone at all.

Or do we have to use UV's outside iclone in other wsoftware?

Also, why can we shape and warp and morph and deface and paint and reorder and mould the complexities of an avatars face in iClone and still cant edit a lump of gound to have a hill and dip in it?

Why give us UV's if we need model editign software to change them.

We all appreciate the developers advice.. but there are some of us who want to animate, not spenf the world modelling to animate.

The simplicities of a packet of cigarettes or a coffee mug.... hours and god knows how long learning how... when, for about 20 points, we can buy a really ornate one created by someone who has modelled all their lives.

Can iclone utilise a UV isnide itself or not?

Can iclone use a UV for anyting but outputting it or not? Or do we need more software4 and more time and more learning curves and more skills before we can colour the side of a box?

Let me say, "Wow!"

And it's free.

I'm not sure yet how to move "textures" yet, but here is a head I made in 15 or 20 minutes, and it is the first time I ever touched the tool.   It's fun.

It's so lifelike!  I feel like I'm looking in a mirror.  (I do not look like Chuck.  :D  )

However, we (I) have strayed from the topic of this thread, which is "Texturing a box."

ADDED...

This time I added the Texture map in 3DXchange (I still had to export it separately in Sculptis), and then I also applied the "Auto Smooth" function in 3DXchange, and you can see how it improved his complexion.  Lastly, I scaled his head a bit more than I did the first time, just to make him less round.

Can we edit UV's in iclone.
No!

Are UV's of any worth to iclone at all.
No! Only external software.

Or do we have to use UV's outside iclone in other software?
That's about the size of it.

Also, why can we shape and warp and morph and deface and paint and reorder and mould the complexities of an avatars face in iClone and still cant edit a lump of gound to have a hill and dip in it?
No ones given it the degree of attention its worth.

Why give us UV's if we need model editign software to change them.
Modellers use them. Animators do not.

We all appreciate the developers advice.. but there are some of us who want to animate, not spend the world modelling to animate.
And there lies the division of output. One makes, the other utilises.

Can Iclone utilise a UV inside itself or not?
NO!

Can iclone use a UV for anything but outputting it or not?
No!

Or do we need more software and more time and more learning curves and more skills before we can colour the side of a box?
Animators are served perfectly with Iclone. It's exactly what it says on the box. It animates. It DOES however give the facility to create cpu-memory-expensive models but not to any fine degree of primitive-warpability.

Iclone animates but it also allows access to the modellers to market the avatars and props they create.

Both demand a high degree of expertise and both also demand years of dedication to their arenas not just for the specific output but also for the contacts and networking AND addresses of tool urls required to stay at the cutting edge of their abilities.

Trying to be both is like trying to build Concorde so that you can go to America in it.
It's too expensive, its too technical, it requires masses of people effort/research/testing and you're a traveller, not an aero-architect.

Creator inventory/abilities.

• Design avatars and props with a high degree of understanding for market demand/need - ability to create need.
• Access and understanding of marketing arenas for sale of output.
• Fluency with software for quick time-efficient delivery of products.
• Imagination to develop unique model-style suite for product continuity and theme settings.
• Ability to understand the atmospherics and arena restrictions of animator's environment.  
• Ability to create motion sensitive elements of props and avatars.
• Ability to efficiently and quickly deliver time-efficient products to match speed of development of Animators Environment.
  
  

Animator inventory/Abilities.  

• Forsee/imagine/conceptualise/Design storylines and psychologically oriented message promotion either through film output or commercial psycho-design whether subliminally delivering emotive influence or creating want for future marketing of Creator business-models.
• Access and understanding of marketing arenas for sale of output.
• Fluency with software for quick time-efficient delivery of products.
• Imagination to develop unique film-style suite for product continuity and theme settings.
• Ability to understand the limitations and arena restrictions of developers/modellers environment. 
• Ability to deploy motion sensitive elements of props and avatars. 
• Ability to efficiently and quickly deliver time-efficient Animations that match speed of development of Modellers output. 

As we can see by segmentation of activity modular the workload of each almost exactly mimics the other and where this is not so, it role-reverses creating dependency on all time-output equation.

One should always have a brief understanding of the other in order to se where the possible and impossible margins lay.
But regarding the massive universal degree of variation in effective output, one should not  cross the boundaries of the other but rather should find a mirroring-symbiosis of activity in order to succeed in their vein of progress.

" 'Jack of all trades' never win. They are always average middle-zoners."

"To win you don't do what everybody else does. You do what you do best and then do it better."

For now, I've learned what I want to know.

The next step is to somehow motivate my "Blender Head" son to make similar progress on UV Unwrapping in Blender, and then use 3DXchange to reliably get the desired end-result in iClone.  But that's the eternal question, isn't it; How to motivate a teenager?

I made the "bottles with graphics" in iClone.

My son made the "bumpy" bottle in Blender, but initially had a really poor bump map (good enough to prove the process, but the artwork was lacking.  I've slowly been improving my GIMP skills and improved the "geometry" of the bump map.  But my purpose for learning GIMP is to make it less painful to do the iClone work that is my real goal.

I'll admit when I read Sw0000ps posts Im quite fascinated to see the degree of technicalities on the other side of the fence. Assembling all his (and other modellers) output takes half my life as it is. But my issue is that the UV output from iClone is very good, just that you need some other software to reshape the UV's it creates/defines.

Its good to have a basic understanding. Each watching the other. Else how to know what to make; how to know what CAN be made?

As animators we can only do what we see works; can only do what we see makes an improvement when we look for it.

As modellers you see our mistakes in modelling, but this is because there's a failing in the quality of what we require AT THAT TIME.

As animators we see your mistakes in modelling but ONLY because of the diversity of NEED regarding a global variation of each production.

They'll never work together.

1. Modellers see a basic structure of what COULD be required by the Animator.

2. Animators have to improvise and restructure what HAS been made and progress accordingly.

1.b. Modellers WATCH this deployment strategy of whats been made and re-design accordingly.

Mapping a texture to a box has technical laws not fully understood by the animator but which, by experimentation, DOES display improvement through resolution toying even if not wholly accurate.

ISSUE: How long would it take a modeller to create a TV Remote control even with a flashing button on it (even I can do that) and then stick it up on the market for a few points, give a link to it to the struggling animator?
Barely any time at all.  For the Modeller this is an embarrassingly easy task of no complexity done with his eyes shut. 

For the animator???

Well, while I await the next 40 minute render for 4 minutes....  I thought Id say something from MY perspective.

Currently I NEED modellers.
I need them to make the complexities I cannot .......YET.
Because I need to get some simple demos out for some people to see according to what theyre after. They pay money. Spendable stuff.

Having to learn new software at this time is not something I have time for. Money has to be made, bread has to be bought. :)

Back in 1994 I used IMAGINE (Good old days... ToyStory and etc...) Imagine came on a  floppy disk and was 1.2 megs compressed with DOS PKZip.
We made Robots walk and spaceships with planets on using a DX4 66Mhz and 8 megs of ram which then came in at about £1100:00 - $2000:00 just for the ram.

I don't know what the best software would be now. I don't like the cost or complexity of 3DSMax nor know how much I could roll off as a business expense.  All I know IS that there are some stunning modellers out there, but this day and age you have to be BOTH.

I recall a telephone conversation with an agency in France this year where the guy was defiant as hell that one was not the other. I asked him if he'd ever heard of iClone or knew of its efficiency regarding output and regarding its ability to simplify making props internally. 

He said it was either one or the other. Partially he is right but I argued that Iclone had the capacity to create props to a detailed degree that would save the budget incredibly re: Client prop / theme demand and that aside from clunky MoCap its evolution was such that it was time Companies realised that their animated commercials could better be realised within ever more tightening budgets because the cost effectivity of IClone meant that quality output was within financial reach now, leastways in the US medical markets and Europe's industrials. Where I am.

I would say I have a couple of years down the line full time in some modelling software. But it would be time well spent because I know what I want. Fiddly bits that are always missing when ever I turn in IClone. Always some stupid thing not there that you would have assumed was from the beginning.

That would be my focus. Modelling to get the set right for the client. NOT for sending it to a shop online. If THIS is what you mean about what people are doing in the animation World....... I agree.

I have always admired the "in house" output of companies that write their own software let alone model their own props and characters.

But I cant sit here for fifteen hours watching all the video output. Hence stills.