What 3D software will be supported?

Bombzilla · Post by **Bombzilla** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:26 pm

I'll be at the front of the line to but a Space Navigator if you will be making Macintosh drivers for:
Lightwave
ZBrush
Poser
Vue 6 Infinite
Photoshop

Many Thanks,
B

pht · Post by **pht** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:38 pm

you can add Modo from Luxology and Archicad from Graphisoft

znissan · Post by **znissan** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:32 pm

Hello:

Thanks for the feedback and the requests. I agree that these would be great applications in which to have 3Dconnexion device support -- our hope would be that the vendors of these apps would adopt support using our SDK, as most applications are supported in this way and the development effort is short in time and straightforward.

Please, if you have the time, make your wishes known to these vendors as well. As always, we take these requests to heart and will do what we can to make this happen for you!

Ziva Nissan
3Dconnexion, Inc.

chromerhino · Post by **chromerhino** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:44 am

The only problem with asking to software people to use the SDK and program compatability is made clear by Pixologic. They stated that it was expensive to pay the programmers to spend time adding compatability for a device with "limited market penetration". (Although they were also adamant that they weren't ruling out support, just that they hadn't decided.)

I just don't see how it is in e frontier's or Pixologic's or Adobe's interest to write compatability into their programs. It costs them money in programming man-hours that they get virtually zero financial return on. Isn't it more in the device-creator's interest to provide the support for programs? They are, after all, the ones who stand to gain from increased functionality (and wider application range).

I'm not trying to point fingers here, it just seems like there's a lot of tail-chasing going on, and I get a little discouraged when both sides think the other should (and will) provide the support wer're all waiting for.

lmop · Post by **lmop** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:27 am

chromerhino wrote:They stated that it was expensive to pay the programmers to spend time adding compatability for a device with "limited market penetration".

Yes it is expensive to do it one device at a time but then 3Dconnexion's SDK drives all of their controllers so the market penetration is probably deeper than they may realise. It's up to them to track their customers' purchasing decisions and support requirements. If their feature-support feedback loop is good enough I'm sure you'll see some movement on this front as these types of controllers become more widespread.

chromerhino wrote:I just don't see how it is in e frontier's or Pixologic's or Adobe's interest to write compatability into their programs. It costs them money in programming man-hours that they get virtually zero financial return on.

The benefit is that your customers, always seeking to improve their productivity, don't migrate over to a competitor who does support the product. Adding support later on may not bring those customers back. In many design studios, the incumbent software workflow has a distinct advantage in future purchasing decisions. You need clear productivity/cost advantages to break that inertia.

chromerhino wrote:Isn't it more in the device-creator's interest to provide the support for programs?

Yes but they don't have access to the application's source code so they are pretty powerless to do anything unilaterally. 3Dconnexion need to:

- demonstrate to the developer studios the wide range of interactive possibilities that these devices allow when fully supported by a software application

- provide an easy to use SDK to allow developers to quickly integrate those device features into their software with the minimum of work (i.e. reduced time/cost for the other party)

- provide rapid and accurate engineering support when the SDK needs enhancing/fixing

- supply software that provides input-mapping translation for the device's actions to other keyboard/mouse combinations in order to allow users to achieve partial control in applications that do not yet (or never will) have integrated support

3Dconnexion has done all of those things and I've been impressed by the level of feedback they've provided on this forum and the ease of use with the Mac Beta drivers/software. About the only thing 3Dconnexion can really do to change developer studios minds regarding direct support is ship units - lots of units.

On this front, I think I've spotted a weakness. These devices are naturally marketed for use by 3D CAD applications. Whilst that's a pretty large market to be in, the hardware/software investment cycle times are relatively long so it will take time to get a market penetration such that software developers sit up and take notice.

What they need is integration with a best-selling real-time strategy game.

Real-time strategy games these days are pretty much all fully 3D with an orbiting/zoom camera view (sound familiar?) of the battlefield. Controlling the view quickly and accurately is critical to winning. The demographic who play these kind of games tend to be hard-core gamers who have disposable income to throw at anything that will give them an advantage. Monster graphics cards; dedicated keyboards; mice with insane refresh rates; you name it, if it gives them an edge they will buy it. They are even more likely to buy one, if the guy that's keeps handing it to them is using one. The SpaceNavigator is in the price range where consumers can afford one and not worry too much if they only end up using it for one thing - it's less than the price of modern console games for example.

So, if I were on their marketing team, I'd spend some of the budget on a batch of SpaceNavigators and send them to some major game development studios (ones known for real-time strategy games or have such a game in the pipeline for which there is a lot of buzz) and try and get them integrated. Even if they aren't integrated and simply handed over to the graphics design department its still hands-on advertising in 3Dconnexion's currently targeted market. I'd bet that even a moderately hit title would generate a noticable shipment spike. Once you're over the initial market penetration hump, additional application support naturally follows.

ettore · Post by **ettore** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:02 pm

lmop wrote:What they need is integration with a best-selling real-time strategy game.

any specific game in mind?

lmop · Post by **lmop** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:44 pm

No, not really. Supreme Commander and Command & Conquer 3 were the big ones but they've just come out. I dare say there are others in the pipeline but I haven't been keeping track as much as I used to. You might still try and see if the folks behind Supreme Commander are interested though as there is a lot of zooming and scrolling it that game and they've shown a willingness to support enhanced gameplay through hardware (like using multiple monitors and multi-core processing).

GTWillemsen · Post by **GTWillemsen** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:16 am

IMHO The game market is a huge potential usergroup who are willing to spent a lot to get some advantages (in both results and rsi).

Doesn't matter what games, in almost all games on the pc platform is can be interesting to have a motion controller.

And as said somewhere bofore, I think logitech should take the time to have support in huge engines like unreal, quake,.. etc. (if already not?)

And then the potential is there and a minor investment for more developpers to support motion controllers.

IMHO offcourse, but I really think there is a big market untouched right now.

regards, GT

PS motionbuilder already supported?