It's probably just snobbery. DAZ3D has had major issues over the years such as sudden incompatibility with other software and I wouldn't really call it suitable for animation. You can do keyframe-based animation in iClone so you are not limited to canned motions. Anyway, I don't consider Renderosity's endorsement or lack there of as a big deal...

On one angle you could imagine a "cultivation" of interest in applications favoured by the site manager (theoretical example by observed result assessment theory only, dont slay me yet!) and a focussed directive for disinterest by not proposing applications that threaten the 'familiar' and associated user count in so far as it stalls the propogation of future genrations external to the dominating applications thereby maintaining the harvest of accessory input and concentrating attentions to what's known, as opposed to what's (fast becoming) superior? ... or at worst 'alternate' equaly?

The extra box used for "Othe Apps" suffices the self declararion of software used but doesnt make 'accepted inclusion' because the gate is still locked but offers a token key of recognition.

Personally I find the arena stunning for inspiration and imagination expansion; Renderosity. John martin also posts some works in there I saw, some early ones also. I wonder if I can write to the controllers and ask them why after so long iClone is still immovably orphaned in the field.

However..... To end on a Cheerful note...

iClone Content in Renderosity.
Very much an impresive array and, sadly, I dominate the stills side of iClone ( I never really know if I offend the big "R" by promoting the Comic/Stills Side of iClone, I just think it kicks such serious *** it should be as equally hailed as its animation abilities, ) but there are many more entries aside of this including FreeStuff, Forum Threads and Blogs.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/rrsearch/index.php?search=iclone&d_search_current=0

Without that simple inclusion; without that simple word "iClone" there on that small membership initial list,  Reallusion, moreover iClone, doesnt get that curiosity delivery, thereby potential custom is stunted and those who may benefit from time efficient / cost efficient animation output pass by oblivious.
That's my gripe.
Armstrong.

The price of poserpro 2010 is $499.99

(just incase anybody wanted to know)

Well, this is excelling anyway. I'm not implying globally there's an "Ignore" game, I was just surprised thats all.

We all need to approach our projects as if we are making them for the big screen, sadly iClone is let down by the hundreds of poor quality videos and films.  Unfortunately just pop "iClone" into Youtube and you will need to flick through pages of garbage before you find anything worth watching.

This maybe the case with other software but we are seeing Max, Maya, poser and the like everyday in our homes and cinemas, that's why those software products are more popular.

Cape!

In fact, none of the more recent packages are mentioned, such as the various game SDKs, which makes me think that the list was created about 10 years ago and never updated. It mentions WorldBuilder, for example, which is quite ancient and maybe even defunct. JASC Paint Shop Pro is now Corel Paint Shop Pro. So there's no reason to feel too bad, it's Renderosity that's (a bit) stuffy.

Also, if I bought the PRO version of iCLone (which I did), then I'm going to assume I can do some PRO things with it... Windows movie maker has a timeline... that's not PRO... it's just a timeline. When I buy PRO, I expect PRO things... like 3D import and stuff like that.

RL, I don't think you have to worry about content sales going down. As stated before, 3DS Max and maya (and everything else) can make everything under the sun... and even things over, around, and no where near the sun... and heck, even the sun iTSELF... and there are TONS of content and models that cost WAAAAAYYY more for it and PEOPLE BUY THEM! So I don't think you'd have much to fear here. 

So if the next iClone had all this, I'd happily pay for it... considering I had the money.

I have to agree. There's always an opportunity cost involved in building things from scratch. I do (or close to it) because I have gobs of time now and very little money. That's not the case with most people, and I dare say it won't always be the case with me.

Yeah and renderocity sounds like it's lacking a lot of the newer software in thier list so it's not that they're snobby... just lazy and didn't update it, so I wouldn't be too hurt by it.

Considering that iC is for the most part a Consumer rather than Professional Prog, with Users from a variety of backgrounds with various Editing skill levels on a variety of PCs, IMO, anything more than 5 minutes would tempt those Users to Input more Objects than their PCs are capable of Rendering. That also applies to pre-recorded Video 2D Editing with Background Rendering & not Real-Time Rendering, which is even more PC Hardware demanding.   

WMM, like all other NLEs, is for the most part, a Prog for Editing Pre-recorded Video & Image Files, with no Object Input PreviewScreen. Therefore, there's no comparison to be made with iC.

That being said, if you apply eg; too many Video Effects (Which are applied as Uncompressed RAW AVI) & your PC Hardware is insufficient for Rendering all of those Effects in one pass, rather than Rendering the Scenes they are applied to, to individual DV-AVI Files & then Importing those back-into WMM, for furter Rendering, WMM will "Hang".

Therefore, your PC Hardware is the limiting factor for NLE Video Editing, just as it is for iC.

IMO, reather than placing the "Limiting factor" on the Hardware, iC have placed the "Limiting factor" on the Timeline. That's the point I was attempting to make, in my Post.        

Yeah because if I had a good enough card, I'm pretty sure I could render a lot of polygons if I had better hardware (GFX card)

Although I was just thinking and when things are rendered in OpenGL, they move much smoother... which also makes me think that if open GL had all the effects that DX had (which it does, no one uses it though) then things would work much better.

Also, I don't think iClone should decide how long I want to render. ... especially if I got the PRO version... I should be able to make it longer. Maybe the standard version should have the timeline, but your limited to five minutes on that or something.

So no big deal.... well no big deal yet anyway... until you wanna make a 10 minute walkthrough.

Does it really matter if iClone is recognized or not by the International Graphic Artists Arena?  As long as the results are what the user wants is what's important.    

As far as the timeline , I personally like the timeline, it's a paradigm that I'm use to.  My only complaint about iClone's timeline is that one must select from a dropdown menu to place an object on the timeline and I've worked with a timeline where every item on the stage is on the timeline and one selects the object on the timeline to work with.

There is no time limit for the final movie however, as I understand it,  a finished movie is composed of a series of short segments edited then spliced together to make longer scenes and that most of the short segments are no longer 2-3 mins. This is done to keep the audience attention.  The only director that I know that used the technique of using one camera to shot a movie as one lone scene is Alfred Hitchcock in "Rope". (Some one correct me if I'm wrong).

As stated befoer though, it looks like Renderocity just didn't update their list, that's all.

The "pros" use the software they use, not because it's "pro" but because it has the tools they need.

For example, I'm thinking of buying Lightwave.All the "pros" use it... sure I COULD use Blender and get very similar results or something... but I don't want to use Blener. I got into LW's interface a lot easier, they had a SLEW of videos RIGHT on the site that were easy to find and understand. The modeling tools are very clever and easy (and dare I say, FUN) to work with.

So I like using Lightwave (so far), and want to buy it, not because it's PRO, but because it's doing what I want... oh and it exports things correctly too which is a big one for me. I don't really care if it was noticed or not, but because it does everything so nicely, it is mentioned and noticed.

Blender is mentioned and recignized as well though too.

Same here, I think the longest I've ever output from iClone was around 20 to 30 seconds, what's that about 2000 frames?

I discovered Iclone about 2 years ago when I bought my first copy of CrazyTalk.  I studied Iclone until it got to the 3.2 version and then, about a year ago, I created an original post up here in an effort to find a team of Iclone animators that would be interested in making a slate of 10 animated films for theatrical release.  I assembled that team and like all involved very much.  A couple of the team members have contributed to this very thread.

I also had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Charles Chen, the CEO of RL and had a greater pleasure and honor to attend a 5.5 hour meeting with him in Silicon Valley in the early fall of last year.  Two of the members of this forum were also present.  During the long meeting, I had the pleasure of having Iclone 4, in beta at the time, personally shown to the meeting room by Charles Chen himself.  It was a wonderful presentation and very encouraging.

When it came time for me to present my film slate idea to Mr. Chen and the fact that the films in our slate were intended for theatrical release, I was informed that Iclone output would not conform to theatrical release standards.  This was a little shocking however our discussion continued and Machinima was discussed as well as the making of a "parser" that may make the Iclone output acceptable for theatrical release.

While Machinima films were not interesting to me, for they are still in an early stage of development of the new format, and still are....the parser was indeed interesting.  Personally, I was still convinced that Iclone had the ability to turn out theatrical release quality....using a parser to render.  The parser became a major topic between all of us for several months.

Having issued a Private Placement Memorandum for investors/investor groups to provide funding for the films, we soon learned that a combination of things caused the original Memorandum not be to accepted by investors.  First, the tough economic situation, worldwide, was an issue and, secondly, the investors/investor groups did not believe that Iclone could turn out a theatrical release product.  We continued to believe in Iclone.

In Jan. 2010, we pulled the Memorandum from the public due to lack of interest.  A few days later, we re-released it due to the fact that three investors had suddenly expressed an interest in our slate.  After months of talking to the parties,  we again had no takers, due again to the economy and the disbelief in Iclone. Last week, in our annual company meeting, my fellow members in our LLC specifically stated that after a year of trying, they saw no reason to continue believing that Iclone would lead us to success.  Reluctantly, I agreed and we signed a deal memo with a high end animation company that would give our films a theatrical release quality comparable to Disney or Pixar.

It was like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for, immediately, investors came forth with a serious interest in our slate.  In my 57 years in this industry, I've never seen smiles and excitement like I saw exhibited once we went to the high end animation software.  I even saw a high powered NY lawyer smile.  That's unheard of.

Charles Chen is a great guy, an honest man, and a true leader of his company.  I know, in my heart, that sooner or later he will get IClone to where it is a major contender and a high end animation product.  I'll be back when he does.  I believe in IClone.

Bob
www.bigchief.tv

What is meant by this phrase "theatrical release standards"?? 

As to walking, I'm currently working on a walking scene based on a converted CMU file (walking with a painful left knee), which turned out to be quite a good conversion (from trailerpark.com). It's a personalized walk for sure, which tells me that it is possible.

If you want to see quality you will have to do it yourself. Typing iClone in YouTube won't help: I got 5,190 responses, which is a lot to go through. Over time, I have seen some work from others I really like and that would look good as well if I had a faster internet connection and could watch in HD. I do like my own films: they're not perfect, but I'm still learning.

I guess I'm getting a bit tired of these glass half empty discussions.... for some it will never be good enough... If you want a masterpiece, start working on it.

Pretty much expected that response from the investors.  Don't know if the parser will be available to everyone as I’m sure it could be implemented?

I could go on and on about the things iClone could have to make it a better program, but I think we already have the point. THe important things on the graphical side are the animation, lighting, and rendering effects. Modeling has already been taken care of with 3DX.

So hopefully someday soon, iClone can render out some very VERY good things.

Oh, and it can already render some very nice looking things now, it's just that you don't see too many of them.

With CG software... it COULD be the software's fault for not being able to support this or that... however in most cases it's not and people just don't use it. That's a shame too.

I'M TELLING YOU GUYS, HDR MAKES THINGS LOOK AT LEAT...  oh... 5% BETTER... remember to turn OFF glare though... keep bloom on.. just a BIT though.

Ok that's just my opinion, but from my tests, it does improve things just a bit.

Hitchcock's film "Rope" is famous for its long takes. From Wikipedia: Hitchcock shot for periods lasting up to ten minutes (the length of a film camera magazine), continuously panning from actor to actor, though most shots in the film wound up being shorter.

If I remember correctly, "Rope" did not catch on with the audience.  I don't think Hitchcock made another film like "Rope".  Correct me if I'm wrong. 

As as was posted earlier, only on rare occasions would one need to render a 5 minute scene. 

Think of how long it would take to render a scene this length and if at say minute 2.5, something is not correct, one would half to go back, make the corrections to that particular part, ensure that the before and after match up then render again.  A lot of time can be "lost"!

Things like MachStudio Pro are used more for this and that's a realtime software.

Things like ArtLantis and Octane nonbiased renderer are not realtime, but they use the graphics hardware to render so you get very nice renders in a shorter ammount of time. (look these up and you'll see.)

So if you want to render something very good looking in realtime or near realtime with hardware... you will NEED A GOOD GRAPHICS CARD. There's no way around it.

I just keep stressing this because I continuously hear people saying they don't want to upgrade their hardware and thigns like that... well... the sad fact is, if you want really high quality, you have to do something to get it.

When they rendered out the graphics for Avatar, they weren't doing it on one desktop I can assure you of that...

Heck, when SEGA's Sonic Team rendered out the gloobal illumination for the levels in Sonic the Hedgehog Unleashed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, they used around 100 computers and it STILL took a day or two. You probably won't need to wait that long or need that many computers, but at the very least, iClone could start trying to handle higher poly models and people can start getting better cards.

(NVIDIA 9800 GT or one of the newer ATI cards)... and that 9800 isn't new, but it can render some pretty nice things.

I think if iClone had a global illumination solver, that'd still be better than nothing. Yeah, the characters wouldn't have it, but it can be sorta faked. Games do it a lot and it's somewhat believable. ... OR... you can have a very nice realtime preview and then when you hit render, it actually does the real calculations.

That, I wouldn't mind because I have a VERY good idea of what it will look like. In normal 3D appls like 3DS, Maya, and Vue, I really dont' know what it looksl ike till render time, but at render time, it takes so long that I don't feel like waiting for it, just to see how a shader or something will look with shadows and things.

So a realtime preview, with a very good renderer... Hey, how about iClone be able to export it's scene files to other renderers.

That should help... you may still need higher poly models though.

Gee, I could go on and talk about DX11 and stuff but I think I'm getting a bit off topic. So I'll stop.

dreamcube, maybe RL can introduce network rendering for iClone. Some of us have more than one computer and all networked. You know, the ones from the wife and the kids could be put to use... "DADDY!!! It's sooo slow!!!"

I'm a fan of Hitchcock but not a connoisseur.  If you watch his films, you'll see that he used many of the camera techniques used today.  Mainly, his films relied on the "story" and not the special effects.  The one movie that did use special effects as a main ingredient was "The Birds", because one could not get the large number of trained birds in any one scene, especially the last scene.  By today's standards, they don't hold up, but the story does.  Hitchcock relied on the story and the camera was used to tell the story. 

As for this thread, most audiences have fairly short attention spans and if they are looking at a scene that goes on and on without some type of change, they lose interest.  

I think we agree