Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

              It appears this plugin doesn't work with Shade 14 but it does with earlier versions right up to V13.

But the py files do seem to work individually when run from the "run" command in the "Scripts" folder.

I am trying to go through them one by one to see what they do, and rename them so we can see what they are.

I have put in a feature request that this plugin become standard fair in Shade as a basic modeling toolset.
Shade and 3rd party integration / Help with meshtoolsplus plugin
« Last post by foff44 on October 20, 2014, 02:53:08 AM »
Can someone help me please?
I download the meshtoolsplus plugin from this site

Its a zip file,
in the zip file there is a folder called meshtoolsplus 
in that folder there are 5 files

1/ A folder called "images"
2/ A Folder called "pyc"
3/ index.html
4/ shade widget.css
5/ shade widget.js

I assume that the images in the images folder are the icons that go with the py files in the pyc folder.

 I unzipped the meshtoolsplus folder and put it in the Shade 3d plugins folder,
I then restarted Shade
went to the scripts menu and the meshtoolsplus folder was there, in that folder was the pyc folder, but when I clicked on that folder all I see is the list of *.py files (which are numbered), so again I assume that the css file and the js file have to go somewhere in shade so the icons go with the py files.
But I have no idea how or where.
Can someone help please?
My 2c.

Imo think the main advantage over Blender, apart from the gui and scene organisation which is frustrating for many (including me), is the rendering pipeline.

Shade's renderer has the quality of yafaray, but is much faster and has a lot more features (passes, render comparisons, easier shaders,  can save the irradiance cache, can view the gi dots while rendering, real-time view a'la keyshot etc. etc. etc.). All this makes workflow much easier  and faster. The raytracer is extremely fast as well.

I also love how you can render out lightprobes using your scenes, and layer ibl's in the background. It means I can have easy light setups (a map for rim lighting, another for fill, reflections etc.) and multiply them together. This can slow down shade, but if you keep the maps a reasonable size it doesn't matter, and it makes for quick presentation lighting setups.

I won't bother comparing Shade with Blender's internal renderer which is fast, but dated.

Cycles is good quality, but I couldn't resolve noise in on my machine without taking hours. Same problem with Octane, although Octane is very nice, especially it's path tracer. Shade is almost noise free and I can render same scene in minutes on an 8 core AMD chip. This is simply not possible with Blender imo with the current options.

Octane is a different "type" of renderer than shade and is very pretty, but the standalone version drove me nuts. If I used Blender, I would also use Octane. Simple as that.

So basically along with the core stuff, Shade much better for me than Blender for stills. I had the option to upgrade Octane also. This meant 200 euro for upgrade and plugin (probably for Carrara). At least a thousand dollars for a gpu to make rendering feasible with my precious time. Instead I spent 200 bucks on a competitive upgrade for Shade. No brainer for me.

Blender also has a few features I would like to see in shade. Mainly the uv tools and the painting app. Blender excels if you want an end-to-end solution in the one app, and you are willing to make compromises in workflow, but you can get amazing results as is evident in their short movies.

However, the core rendering options are too slow for me, and I don't want to fork out for a titan to make it as fast as Shade for the same output. Blender isn't free. You need to buy good hardware, pay for training (unless you want to be a permanent noob), and deal with the fact that blender changes things often, sometimes making older training redundant/ difficult.

Where Shade falls down for me is the viewports. I find modeling in Shade a struggle sometimes as I can't seem to get the cameras to behave how I expect. When you rotate above the 360, the interface flips and rotates, rather like gimble lock. When you zoom in or are viewing a model at certain angles, "eye and target" seems to zoom instead. It sometimes feels like a shopping trolley when you want to zoom around your model and look at it at different angles quickly.

There are also no maya controls. For me, if I got to pick ten upgrades to shade, maya controls and a dedicated modelling viewport (similar to hexagon ideally) would be my top nine. More training would be my tenth.

I could go on about many other things I like (and some things I don't like) about Shade, but for me it gives vray-max quality and speed (more or less), for much less money, and I really like Shade's scene organisation far more than other apps as well (the Browser is genius imo).

To be honest, trolling forums like this about Blender being "free and more powerful" also presents the single biggest downside of Blender. That is, the fact that it's users routinely troll forums like this........I don't get it.

General Discussion / Shade 3D for Unity Free Download
« Last post by kmyumeka on October 08, 2014, 06:54:12 PM »
Available for both Mac OS X and Windows version in Shade3D website.

Best regards,

I think we'd all be happy to hear your detailed comparison of Blender and Shade 3D, specifically how Blender is better in features or usability. Other than the standard FOSS argument, what are 10 ways in which Blender is better than Shade 3D?

I am discounting the standard FOSS arguments because while there are merits to FOSS, they have not proven in themselves to be enough to make a product viable for any particular use (sourceforge and other locations are littered with abandoned FOSS projects).
I don't see any wall-writing scheme here. It would be too expensive to dump a program which you will then go to Siggraph Asia to show off, right?

Whether using Shade, which is not-free in it's complete and pro form, or use Blender, which is not free, is a personal preferential choice, IMHO.

Just as something you paid for with a lot of money does not make it automatically great (I think of oh-so-many useless gravy train projects touted by politicians), having something free does not making it automatically suck (sunsets come to mind).

There must be a reason why 3dsmax, maya, houdini, lightwave, zbrush, modo, Shade are still out there, when there is Blender, which feature-wise pretty much shames all other 3d suites AND are not free.

In my case, I use Shade because of how they implement it's features. It just clicks with me. And for the same reason, why I don't use Blender. I have tried, numerous times, but the way it works just is not for me.

So, regarding Shade, it DOES NOT have the same feature set that Blender has.
Can it be improved? Certainly.
Is it for everybody? No. Just like any other 3d program out there.  That is why you have trial versions, to help you choose the program you like.

I have no problems with diversity of opinions. I do have problems with trolling.
Please, no trolling.
Looks like its heading for the dead heap pile.  From what I am reading E-Frontier dumped it after owning it forever.  Apparently they can see the writing on the wall.  Now it appears Shade 3D is going to be employee owned or at a minimum owned by a few former employees.
So does that mean Mirye is no longer going to manage the English version?
Quite simple InfoCentral, more and more people discover how cool Shade 3D is price/performance wise and prefer it over Blender due to it's better UI and easier worklflow! :P
Since you always tell people to choose Blender, people might also wonder why you always recommend it? Convince us with some cool models and renders, you made with Blender, and we might consider using Blender...

Best regards
So does that mean Mirye is no longer going to manage the English version?

I don't know but I don't see why someone would choose to spend the cash for Shade when Blender is FREE and probably more powerful. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10