trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post Reply
zzador
Marine
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Sep 2019, 08:47
Type the number ten into the box: 10

trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by zzador » 06 Sep 2019, 09:15

Hello everybody,
I'm new here and a long time ago I was an hobbyist trueSpace user in the 90ties. Since I got my hands on a trueSpace 1 Demo in 1994 I was very much in love with the software and especially it's colorful and well designed user interface. Over the years I got my hands on trueSpace 3.2 and trueSpace 4.2. It seems that every version that came after 4.3 was very unstable due to many bugs and after version 6.6 Caligari came up with this "Workspace"<->"Modeller" duality which is/was imho very quirky and unelegant. I personally don't like to work with trueSpace 7.61 as it seems to be developed by devs without personal love for the product and I think that there are some guys out there who think like me.

Now, because Caligari doesn't exist anymore and Microsoft has abandoned trueSpace wouldn't it be possible to also provide the old versions as a download? I would even gladly provide V3.2 and V4.2. Both are compressed around 20MB in size (-> what a time :lol: ).

Both versions run without any problems even unter Windows 10.
The installer of version 4.2 however doesn't work, but a portable version of it (zipped install) works just fine.

I think it is just a shame that these powerful 3D tools just vanished from the market so why not put them as historic downloads onto this site?

User avatar
trueBlue
Captain
Posts: 1980
Joined: 06 Jul 2009, 22:50
Type the number ten into the box: 10

Re: trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by trueBlue » 06 Sep 2019, 15:28

zzador wrote:
06 Sep 2019, 09:15
I personally don't like to work with trueSpace 7.61 as it seems to be developed by devs without personal love for the product and I think that there are some guys out there who think like me.
Welcome to United 3D Artist.
You should try tS7.6 with the Bridge set to Off and only work on the Model side. Lots of bug fixes from the AWESOME Caligari Developers on the Model side, which is basically tS6.7.

Personally I prefer the Workspace Point Editing tools! Very ELEGANT!
There are several members here that have made Workspace's tools even more powerful.

zzador
Marine
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Sep 2019, 08:47
Type the number ten into the box: 10

Re: trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by zzador » 06 Sep 2019, 16:45

That's exactly what I would call "unelegant". To glue the old trueSpace 6.6 to a new Software as a tab. There is not even a clear technical separation like for example in Lightwave where you have a "modeller"-tab where all the modelling is done and then you have a "animation"-tab where all animation is done. That is clean and elegant but to just glue the old trueSpace onto a new one and call it a day is bad practice. Im a professional software developer so I have a little bit of understanding what is good and what is bad practise when developing software packages. I understand the reasons behind it. The devs may had not enough time or weren't paid enough for trueSpace7, maybe because it was already known that caligari would be closed. I'm also confronted with situations where a complete rewrite of an application would be the only sane way to go but time and money constraints force you to do some ugly patchwork instead. This isn't even critics on the devs as they did their best. I just wanted to state that I think trueSpace 7.61 is a really ugly mutant compared to trueSpace 4.2 for example and I think that there are other people who share my opinion but still have love for the old trueSpace versions. So since trueSpace is gone free now maybe it would be possible to provide the old versions too so everyone can choose for themselves.

User avatar
bitkar
Commander
Posts: 1401
Joined: 16 Mar 2010, 07:14
Type the number ten into the box: 0
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by bitkar » 09 Sep 2019, 09:34

wasnt the latest 4 version the 4.3, not 4.2? I think the last pure and well working tS is the 6.6. But as trueBlue said - the 7.61B8 is pretty stabile and working well. The modeler side is still the old good tS and you dont have to use the "workspace" side. I do it this way. No need to work in superold 4.3 or 3.2.

I suggest you to use either 6.6 or the latest beta but only the modeler side. if you dont have vray or some workspace renderer, you can swith the bridge off in preferences.
Michal aka bitkar
tS freak since tS2 (1998) and forever (tS7.61 modeler)

User avatar
Steinie
Captain
Posts: 2779
Joined: 21 May 2009, 17:38
Type the number ten into the box: 10
Contact:

Re: trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by Steinie » 10 Sep 2019, 10:40

I agree, trueSpace 4.3 was also my favorite version and I felt later changes didn't feel right. Is there a portable version of 4.3?
I would be interested in that.
ZZador glad your visiting!

User avatar
Emmanuel
Master Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 544
Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 06:47

Re: trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by Emmanuel » 11 Sep 2019, 19:20

TrueSpace 4.3 was the best version indeed in terms of ease of use, and I miss its full-screen interface with no borders/frame around the 3D view.
Its Material editor with the 4 preview spheres and layer system was a delight. I also sticked with tS4.3 until tS6.6 came.

tS7.6 version is a good compromise though. You can still customize your interface at will and configure the software to suit your needs just like in tS4.3 good old days.
tS7.6 is much more stable, has HDRI, VRay, and many new features I can't live without.

User avatar
marcel
Captain
Posts: 2238
Joined: 21 May 2009, 19:52
Type the number ten into the box: 0
Location: paris - France
Contact:

Re: trueSpace 3.2 & 4.2

Post by marcel » 12 Sep 2019, 06:41

I use TS 7.6 model side. The only part really finished.
Because TS 6.6 have not hdri render and TS 7.61 have a problem with the model side (setting of the hdri not saved on the .scn)
It is not a problem to work on model side and forgot the other side with bridge off. Multithreading with Lightwork on win10 work well.
Design - illustration - Animation
http://www.crea-vision.fr

Post Reply