nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/11/91)
I thought the following was interesting.
In the latest issue of ENR ( Engineering News Record) there is an add
for a new software product called WALKTHRU developed by Bechtel Software
Inc. It is the same Bechtel who is the large (largest) construction co.
in the world.
This is what the add says:
Design engineering isn't what it used to be!
Real-Time Animation Adds Value to Your CAD/E System
Add WALKTHRU to your design system, and...
- Eliminate on-site design changes
- Make design reviews more productive
- Eliminate plastic models
- Insure that you build a maintainable product
- Train construction and maintenance workers
- Sell your design to prospective clients
- Minimize you project life-cycle costs
It says that it runs on Silicon Graphic workstations, IBM workstations
and PC-DOS.
The idea behind the software is that you could fully construct the building
with CAD and then animate movement through (walk thru) it.
Qestion: Isn't Amiga more well suited for this than a workstation or an
PC-DOS (?) system?kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.130015.24076@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >In the latest issue of ENR ( Engineering News Record) there is an add [...] >It says that it runs on Silicon Graphic workstations, IBM workstations >and PC-DOS. > >The idea behind the software is that you could fully construct the building >with CAD and then animate movement through (walk thru) it. > >Qestion: Isn't Amiga more well suited for this than a workstation or an > PC-DOS (?) system? It is very clear that you haven't used an SGI machine... This stuff is available on MS-DOS machines which have the SGI graphics engine installed in them. The local SGI user's group here in San Antonio was given a demo of the PC hardware last week. It is pretty nice. Too bad you have run MS-DOS to get it. When asked "Why on a PC?", the SGI rep explained that their surveys showed that MS-DOS users stay with MS-DOS & will simply do without the capabilities before they would buy a SGI workstation. Thus the SGI graphics engine (sort-of) on a PC. ===================================================================== Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu "What will happen to our memory now that we can keep it on paper?" =====================================================================
reeses@milton.u.washington.edu (Feltch Master) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.130015.24076@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >I thought the following was interesting. > >In the latest issue of ENR ( Engineering News Record) there is an add >for a new software product called WALKTHRU developed by Bechtel Software >Inc. It is the same Bechtel who is the large (largest) construction co. >in the world. > >This is what the add says: > >Design engineering isn't what it used to be! > >Real-Time Animation Adds Value to Your CAD/E System > > > >It says that it runs on Silicon Graphic workstations, IBM workstations >and PC-DOS. > >The idea behind the software is that you could fully construct the building >with CAD and then animate movement through (walk thru) it. > >Qestion: Isn't Amiga more well suited for this than a workstation or an > PC-DOS (?) system? Well, the SGI and IBM workstations can grind through 1 million 3d vectors per second, and display 24 bit color in 1280x1024 resolution...42MIPS and 13 MFLOPS...doing far more than any amiga, but of course, at an obscene price...SGI machines commonly run in the 175 G range... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reeses@milton.u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle "Reality is a cop-out for people who can't handle drugs"
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/12/91)
Expires: References: <1991Apr11.130015.24076@ariel.unm.edu> <2314@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Keywords: In article <2314@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: > >It is very clear that you haven't used an SGI machine... > >This stuff is available on MS-DOS machines which have the SGI graphics >engine installed in them. The local SGI user's group here in San >Antonio was given a demo of the PC hardware last week. It is pretty >nice. Too bad you have run MS-DOS to get it. How much money are we talking about? ...for SGI? Is it really better than an Amiga where Amiga was designed for graphics with the blitter and all? What about a low end system that might cost much less on Amiga? What about the potential of this with the Toaster? > >When asked "Why on a PC?", the SGI rep explained that their surveys >showed that MS-DOS users stay with MS-DOS & will simply do without the >capabilities before they would buy a SGI workstation. Thus the SGI >graphics engine (sort-of) on a PC. Are you sure that this WALKTHRU software used SGI? Nothing in the add mentioned it. (although I wondered) There was no mention of price for this software, but judging from other software advertized in ENR I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't in the thousands of dollars. You could bundle the softare with an Amiga. >===================================================================== >Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu > "What will happen to our memory now that we can keep it on paper?" >===================================================================== NCW
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.185903.20701@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >Expires: >References: <1991Apr11.130015.24076@ariel.unm.edu> <2314@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> >Sender: >Followup-To: >Distribution: >Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque >Keywords: > >In article <2314@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: >> >>It is very clear that you haven't used an SGI machine... >> >>This stuff is available on MS-DOS machines which have the SGI graphics >>engine installed in them. The local SGI user's group here in San >>Antonio was given a demo of the PC hardware last week. It is pretty >>nice. Too bad you have run MS-DOS to get it. > >How much money are we talking about? ...for SGI? Lots of $$. The lowest end Personal Iris is in the $10-15K, and a decent Personal Iris setup will run 25-40K. Of course there are also large file servers with the unbelievable VGX graphics system for about 500K. >Is it really better than an Amiga where Amiga was designed for graphics with >the blitter and all? The "graphics" in Silicon Graphics is there for a reason. Nothing tops them, period. Their geometry engine is so good that IBM licenced them for the RS6000 series. The movie industry has been using them for a while to create increadible F/X (ie. the water creature in the Abyss). To give you an idea of the speed of these things, imagine lightwave 3D, if the renderings were in real time. >What about a low end system that might cost much less on Amiga? If this is possible, I'd love to have one. The closest thing like it is Videomaster 32 (whenever it gets released). On the plus side, Videomaster 32 will have true 24 bit double buffering, the SG's go to 12 bit to do double buffering ( at least up to the GTX graphics line, I don't know about VGX) >What about the potential of this with the Toaster? An SG with a toaster? Not practical, because it would cost too much. It is possible to send the output to video, if you add an expensive board. Rick
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (04/12/91)
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >In article <2314@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: >> >>This stuff is available on MS-DOS machines which have the SGI graphics >>engine installed in them. > >How much money are we talking about? ...for SGI? Dunno if this is the same card, but from <comp.graphics> the other day: Q: The other day I was told of a card for the PC which will have a built in Z-Buffer. I was told SGI will be/has come out with this. A: I just saw an ad for Iris Vision board set from Silicon Graphics, if that's what you were talking about. It is a two-board set for PC/AT or MCA, and contains hardware for 2D and 3D graphics. It also supports SGI's GL. They say the price starts at $3,495. That would be the hardware side of the package, at least. - kev
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.185903.20701@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >How much money are we talking about? ...for SGI? The real SGI machine prices have been discussed. It appeared that you could get the SGI graphics engine & basic software to get things up and running for about $8k-$10k on a PC. ===================================================================== Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu "What will happen to our memory now that we can keep it on paper?" =====================================================================
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.185325.22834@milton.u.washington.edu> reeses@milton.u.washington.edu (Feltch Master) writes: > >Well, the SGI and IBM workstations can grind through 1 million 3d vectors per >second, and display 24 bit color in 1280x1024 resolution...42MIPS and 13 MFLOPS...doing far more than any amiga, but of course, at an obscene price...SGI >machines commonly run in the 175 G range... > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >reeses@milton.u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle >"Reality is a cop-out for people who can't handle drugs" Looking at the add I doubt the software was using 24 bit color. In fact I guessed that it was in 16 colors (4 bit ?). After all, it animated AutoCad stuff or a least used AutoCad to create its files. The add also boasted output to video so that I doubt that high reselution was a major selling point. As I said, the idea is that you could use this software to get a feel of what a building/structure will actually be like in use. You could walk through it. From my own experiences in construction, I know that a major problem is that the owner will come out to the site and will want changes after he walks though the damn thing. These changes cost thosands of dollars even in small buildings. I know that expensive animation systems have been around. But it seems like Amiga could make anmation of buildings/stuctures affordable to the typical design office. Amiga might also use its powers of animation to get its foot in the CAD door. Is an 030 or 040 system fast enough to animate object oriented 3d graphics in 16 or even 256 colors? NCW
galetti@uservx.afwl.af.mil (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.130015.24076@ariel.unm.edu>, nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > I thought the following was interesting. > > In the latest issue of ENR ( Engineering News Record) there is an add > for a new software product called WALKTHRU developed by Bechtel Software > Inc. It is the same Bechtel who is the large (largest) construction co. > in the world. > > This is what the add says: > > Design engineering isn't what it used to be! > > Real-Time Animation Adds Value to Your CAD/E System > > > Add WALKTHRU to your design system, and... > > - Eliminate on-site design changes > > - Make design reviews more productive > > - Eliminate plastic models > > - Insure that you build a maintainable product > > - Train construction and maintenance workers > > - Sell your design to prospective clients > > - Minimize you project life-cycle costs > > > > It says that it runs on Silicon Graphic workstations, IBM workstations > and PC-DOS. > > The idea behind the software is that you could fully construct the building > with CAD and then animate movement through (walk thru) it. > > Qestion: Isn't Amiga more well suited for this than a workstation or an > PC-DOS (?) system? Well, of course it is! Many people complain about the Amiga's lack of built-in 24-bit color, or VGA compatibility, etc., but these same limitations allow the Amiga to have a higher bandwidth to the video memory, making the Amiga the BEST personal computer for animation, IMHO. Check out a recent thread in comp.sys.mac.programmer: "Can the Mac really do animation?" Well, in short, doing animation on a Mac is worse than pulling teeth. As I read through all the problems that Mac programmers have doing animation, I soon realized that the Amiga really is best for animation. The IBM PC is perhaps a little easier to use for animation, but most PC animations I've seen aren't as fast or as smooth as stock A-500s running demos. Hopefully people who use animation, such as these CAD people, will someday realize this, but my hopes aren't real high. ___________________________________________________________________________ / Ralph Galetti Internet: galetti@uservx.afwl.af.mil \ | PL/LITT Interests: computers, music, computers | | Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-6008 and music, golf, sleep. | \__"No, they couldn't actually prove that it was HIS vomit" - Nigel Tufnel__/
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.103442.21794@uservx.afwl.af.mil> galetti@uservx.afwl.af.mil writes: >> Qestion: Isn't Amiga more well suited for this than a workstation or an >> PC-DOS (?) system? > >Well, of course it is! Many people complain about the Amiga's lack of >built-in 24-bit color, or VGA compatibility, etc., but these same limitations >allow the Amiga to have a higher bandwidth to the video memory, making the >Amiga the BEST personal computer for animation, IMHO. Check out a recent >thread in comp.sys.mac.programmer: "Can the Mac really do animation?" Well, >in short, doing animation on a Mac is worse than pulling teeth. As I read >through all the problems that Mac programmers have doing animation, I soon >realized that the Amiga really is best for animation. The IBM PC is perhaps >a little easier to use for animation, but most PC animations I've seen aren't >as fast or as smooth as stock A-500s running demos. Hopefully people who >use animation, such as these CAD people, will someday realize this, but my >hopes aren't real high. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > / Ralph Galetti Internet: galetti@uservx.afwl.af.mil \ >| PL/LITT Interests: computers, music, computers | >| Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-6008 and music, golf, sleep. | > \__"No, they couldn't actually prove that it was HIS vomit" - Nigel Tufnel__/ Well, I don't know... business people are stuck on IBM but I am not so sure about engineers. Engineers are are a very 'honest' crowd. (I've read that engineering is the most honest profession.) I also think engineers are more orientated to change, especially technological change. ...I mean, they are exposed to a lot of it. About every other lecture I attend the prof. will reminisce about the way things were done in his day or even about how things were done just ten years ago. Engineers are prepared for change and even expect change ...much more so than people in business. And I doubt that software like WALKTHRU would need a lot of colors. Most of what is changed by the owner is changed after he walks thru a building or structure during construction ...before any painting or carpeting or anything like that. You could animate in 16 colors and then maybe have cetain perspectives fully rendered with plants, furniture, people, etc. Besides, it would be to much work to fully paint, decorate, and people an entire model. ...although the model might be used by an interior decorator. You know, time is a very imporant in construction. Even a small commercial building will cost an owner two million dollars. And until that building is occupied, it sits there and cost the owner interest on his money. For two million dollars, that's nearly a thousand dollars per working day. NCW
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (04/14/91)
From article <1991Apr11.185903.20701@ariel.unm.edu>, by nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham): > How much money are we talking about? ...for SGI? EXPENSIVE. I don't know how much the IBM add-on board costs, but it isn't cheap. > Is it really better than an Amiga where Amiga was designed for graphics with > the blitter and all? SGI's stuff makes the Amiga blitter look like a stone knife. A SGI workstation can display more 3-D vectors in a second than the Amiga can even dream of. In resolutions that make Amiga resolutions look silly. > What about a low end system that might cost much less on Amiga? About the only thing that the Amiga has to offer is a fast 32-bit bus. SGI already has that on their workstations. The only reason they released a board for the IBM PC is because so many people refuse to give up their IBM PC's in order to have a REAL workstation on their desk. >>When asked "Why on a PC?", the SGI rep explained that their surveys >>showed that MS-DOS users stay with MS-DOS & will simply do without the >>capabilities before they would buy a SGI workstation. Thus the SGI >>graphics engine (sort-of) on a PC. > thousands of dollars. You could bundle the softare with an Amiga. Not hardly! -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within...
thad@btr.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (04/15/91)
In article <00671581385@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >From article <1991Apr11.185903.20701@ariel.unm.edu>, by nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham): >> How much money are we talking about? ...for SGI? > >EXPENSIVE. I don't know how much the IBM add-on board costs, but it isn't cheap. >[...] >> Is it really better than an Amiga where Amiga was designed for graphics with >> the blitter and all? > >SGI's stuff makes the Amiga blitter look like a stone knife. A SGI >workstation can display more 3-D vectors in a second than the Amiga can >even dream of. In resolutions that make Amiga resolutions look silly. > >Not hardly! > [...] >Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 >elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg > Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within... Wellll, my company recently acquired an SGI IRIS. Nice system, and NOT noisy (re: fans). What with all the audio/video inputs/outputs, the suggestion is that this is a machine with which one can produce theatre-quality movies. That's NOT the purpose for which we're using it, though! :-) In terms of raw calculation speed, the IRIS screams (it's SO fast); runs BIG circles around ANY of our VAXen. The graphics displays are simply mind-boggling. Though many in my company commented the display wasn't bright enough and "Gee, those characters are small and difficult to read." (They obviously don't understand long-persistence phosphors, scan rates, etc.) HOWEVER. In terms of menu popups, selection, resizing, and "click" speed, etc. the Amiga runs CIRCLES AROUND THE IRIS. Since we're trying to get WORK DONE AROUND HERE, the Amiga is by FAR a better platform for fast interaction with the user. For doing WORK, no-one NEEDS 3-D buttons, tiny (unreadable) type, etc. There's a humongous amount of material appearing in the comp.unix.* newsgroups recently concerning the efficiency and speed of X regarding the ability to get work done, so I'm not going to reiterate those arguments here ... other than to say the Amiga is by faster in USER INTERACTION than ANY other computer I've seen recently, and I've got Suns, SGIs, NeXTs, MicroVAXen, PS/2s, and other boxes at my disposal against which to compare performance. Granted, the windowing/menuing interface isn't everything, BUT that IS with what the user "sees" and interacts, and it's the PERCEPTION of speed that counts (from informal interviews I've conducted). Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]