League of Legends - An Example of Today's Game Industry Practices

Otherwise known as LoL, League of Legends is a game made by a startup company called Riot. The business is made of many individuals who are apparently quite experienced in various aspects of the industry, from programmers, to financial experts, to web designers, graphic designers, and more. League of Legends is a game that pits up to 5 players against another 5, each of which can choose one of around forty champions called Summoners. The game is free to download and play, but there is a pay model available for those who wish to have slightly different looking Summoners, or to gain experience to level up faster, etc. What is interesting is how this game is an example of how the game industry in general has (please excuse the term), bastardized their offerings.

Please allow me to offer my experience with this game. I have a level thirty account, the max level you can achieve. I did it solely through effort, no pay involved. That was a nice feature of this offering, in that I didn't have to pay to play. I've leveled faster than most (as I have a ton of gaming experience), even those who have payed to gain levels faster. I play about 10 or so Summoners well, and a few others decently. I have about fifty players on my buddy list, and I can easily find a game with many of them. Now, I'm not trying to talk myself up, but to say I know what I'm talking about with this game. I've been playing computer games, since I was a young lad, so I consider myself an expert.

Credibility having been established, I will now explain what I mean by the game industry "bastardizing" their offerings. Long ago, game companies would develop entertaining products that offered little in graphics and sound, but more than made up for what they lacked, in quality and entertainment value. Over the years, quality and entertainment value seem much less important than graphics and sound. Don't get me wrong, graphics and sound are crucial to the experience, but if the program crashes often, the controls are too hard to learn or too complex, or the game simply isn't fun, then what's the point?

This is where League of Legends comes in as a prime example. They offer the game free, likely due to the $8 million in funding they managed to procure. They make up for it being free by offering new costumes for your Summoners, experience boosts and more for actual money. This isn't a bad model, as they will gain popularity fast by offering it free. The problem is that just about every time they have to patch the software, it takes quite a long time for the servers to be brought back up, and most of the time Riot is giving its users estimated times when their servers will be up that they don't meet by a long-shot. Most of the patches appear ("on paper") to concentrate on fixing critical balancing issues between Summoners and features, game performance, etc. However, in my opinion, most of the patching seems to change the User Interface (UI) around, unnecessarily and concentrate on the graphics and sound more than actually fixing any real errors.

For example, they changed the game announcer's voice several times and they offer only two real maps to play on, despite promising more. When the Store was supposed to become active for people to pay for additional things for the game, they had to bump it's opening date twice to get it working and it didn't work well, even then. Some people who paid for things had trouble getting what they paid for to show up or work. Patching appears to cause more crashes every time I play, and the much-toted matchmaking system (which is supposed to balance out the teams' player makeups) doesn't work well either. I find myself on teams with very inexperienced players, which would be fine if the other team had a level thirty and other inexperienced players, but then we end up competing against a team of mostly very experienced players.

I can't complain much, as I play for free, and I'm glad I don't pay anything for the game. If I did, I would be livid by not being able to use the products I've paid for or by not being able to use them as intended. I see people constantly complaining on the forums about what's happening, while others simply insult them for their concerns. I look at it like having bought a car and it not working or not coming with tires. I would treat my customers better. Do I understand how hard it is to program a game like that? Yes. Do I understand that patching software for thousands of people can provide unexpected results? Yes. Was the product ready for launch at the end of it's beta phase? No, and I was a beta tester, since closed beta.

Behavior like this from game companies is fairly commonplace these days and very inexcusable. If I were asked to provide an example of a good game company that actually does provide quality products (with few hiccups), that have great graphics, sound, gameplay value, and controls, I would instantly say, "Blizzard." Considering some of the top people over at Riot come from Blizzard, makes me all the more unsympathetic to the problems they have.

Windows 7 Is Better, According to What Exactly?

I just read an article by Walter Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal, that frankly made me question the viability of his words. You can read the article here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107925/a-windows-to-help-you-forget?mod=career-worklife_balance

I found this review of Windows 7 rather awkward. While Mossberg starts out saying that Win 7 is a worthwhile upgrade, he eventually makes the case that Win 7 is better than Vista (not hard to do) and probably not worthwhile enough for XP users to want to install. Perhaps he should have been more clear from the start, but most Vista users will likely want to upgrade to anything from what they have. When Vista was less than a year out, I saw what was coming...a landslide of people trying to upgrade to something that merely provided a better-looking user experience and promises of better security. If you're a Vista user, XP user, or any kind of Windows user, you already know that security patches galore are coming or available. Vista promised to be more secure and hackers proved it wrong. Is Win 7 likely to be any different, after all these years of Microsoft re-branding the same lemon?

In his article, Walt Mossberg states, "Windows 7 introduces real advances in organizing your programs and files, arranging your taskbar and desktop, and quickly viewing and launching the page or document you want, when you want it. It also has cool built-in touch-screen features." Is Microsoft still trying to fix things few are really asking for, when security and stability ought to be their #1 task? I can't tell you how many times in my career I've been approached by users, frustrated by the fact that the interface to their favorite Microsoft App (which tends to either be Excel or Word) has been changed by a new version and they can't find the thing they use most. Why not fix pagination in Word, which has never worked entirely well, since it's inception? Why not concentrate on TRULY making sure the program runs in it's on dedicated space, and stop blaming third party programs for the crashes?

Yet, as Mossberg writes, Microsoft made sure to spend time on Windows 7 to provide touch screen capabilities (what?...who has one of those?), something called Aero-Peek (which sounds strangely like the lesser-known capability of XP, known as the Quickbar), and jumplists (right-click an taskbar icon for recent documents, etc. OK that one sounds pretty useful). He mentions how you can, say, shake an application window and make the others hide. He talks about Windows 7 provided easier sharing tools.

I can already do all of these things with my XP machine and even make it look much like Vista, Windows 7, or just about anything I want. There are third party programs, like StrokeIt, or WindowBlinds, Fences, ObjectDock, etc. Stardock is a company that provides a ton of programs that make Windows much easier on the eye and to use. I remember when Win 98 and Win 2000 came out, already having better sharing capabilities. You can get programs that can assist with this far cheaper than doling out $120 for a Windows upgrade. Many are free.

Back to Mossberg's article, he continues, "It (Windows 7) removes a lot of clutter. And it mostly banishes Vista's main flaws -- sluggishness; incompatibility with third-party software and hardware; heavy hardware requirements; and constant, annoying security warnings." However, he also mentions, "If you have a standard PC, called a 32-bit PC, you'll need at least one gigabyte of memory, 16 gigabytes of free hard-disk space and a graphics system that can support Microsoft technologies called "DirectX 9 with WDDM 1.0." You'll also need a processor with a speed of at least one gigahertz. If you have a newer-style 64-bit PC, which can use more memory, you'll need at least two gigabytes of memory and 20 gigabytes of free hard disk space. In either case, you should double the minimum memory specification." How are those requirements not heavy? Most people only have 1-2Gb of memory, even on newer machines, so this means they would only have the minimum to run certain versions of Windows 7. In addition, I think it's too premature to say that third party software and hardware will work well with it. He's one guy, having run tests on 11 machines, all of which are major computer manufacturers that try to ensure their products run most things. Time will tell if his statement is true.

Another thing I found interesting is how he compares Windows 7 to Apple' Snow Leopard. He does say that Snow Leopard is slightly better in most aspects, but I don't think you can say that for what you get in Snow Leopard for $29 vs a $120 upgrade to something not much better is a worthwhile upgrade. Many people have told me that the only reason they wouldn't purchase an Apple computer is that it costs so much more. In fact, I have a colleague who recently purchased a pretty decent Dell laptop for $500. $500 vs $1400 or so is definitely cheaper. I asked him what came with it and, my having worked with PCs for 30 years or so, I knew what costs were coming. Maintenance, updates, crashes, hardware problems, time, software for security, productivity, leisure, maintenance, updates, crashes, more hardware problems, time. In the end, you'll spend more on that laptop than you likely will on the Mac.

I have both, and I have never had to fix my MacBook Pro or reinstall the OS in the last year and a half. It has actually frozen on me a couple of times, but a simple reboot and a little frustration later, I was back in business. In contrast, my Windows machine has had to be reinstalled twice, and crashes on almost a monthly basis. When I heard that Macs run Windows better than other PC's, I balked. I figured it was simply because the Windows was hardly being used and a newer installation. I've had it on my MacBook Pro for most of the time I've had the laptop. I don't use Windows on it as often as my main PC, sure...but it still runs much faster than my statistically more powerful desktop.

I hope Mossberg is listening, as I think the more qualified experts can tell you...don't upgrade to anything Microsoft, unless you have to. I've seen it's history over a long period of time. A lemon with chocolate chips in it is still a lemon.

Excuse Me, I Just Need to Make a Call

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there sick of being pushed cell phones that want to do everything? Last time I purchased a cell phone, all I wanted was something that could make calls easily and that I could hear, especially via speakerphone. Unfortunately, I had to pay a huge amount of money for the phone, because it has all those other features I never use.

We could reduce the amount of money spent on cell phones and contracts if providers would simply listen to what I hear others say, also. We just want to make a phone call. If I wanted to take a picture, I would get a camera...the cell phones just don't cut it either in quality or adjustment. Real cameras give you the ability to adjust shutter speed, light settings, delay, format, etc. I have to admit that there is software from onOne that is also offered via Apple's App Store and will allow you to adjust just those settings on your iPhone. Yet, I don't even care. I'm not trying to sound negative at all, but to say, can I just have the basic, good quality phone option, please?

I would rather spend as much as I do on these phones, whose biggest features I never use, and have that extra money go to better networks or better customer service. The basic, good quality phone that I managed to get some time ago, has pictures, video, music, and even TV? I can even text if I want. Do I use any of it? Not really. I want to hear the person on the other end more clearly and have them hear me. I want to be able to hear the device, in the car, without having to purchase and use yet another device (E.g. Bluetooth speaker). If any of these company's are watching, please please please give us a basic, good quality phone. No fluff. Either offer same price, where the money is put to good use, or price it lower to match the usefulness of the product and service.

Your Bandwidth Gone In a Flash

I've been looking at Adobe's efforts to put Flash on mobile devices for a while now (E.g. http://www.adobe.com/products/flashlite/ and http://www.adobe.com/mobile/). It's been slow going and adoption by mobile device makers and cell providers has also been long and drawn out. Yet, Adobe is making headlines recently, concerning their efforts to bring this dominant web media player to that beloved handheld of yours. I like Flash for certain things (playing music, videos, etc.), but I don't prefer it for most. What you'll find is that having it on your cell is not going to make you as happy as you think.

There's a reason this effort has taken so long. It's because Flash can be a huge bandwidth hog. Adobe has had to make something that has proven to be quite heavy on networks, lighter. Cell providers don't want to, and shouldn't have to, accommodate this, just so you can have animated icons and ads. Videos and music already play on their networks just fine. Even if you could get this thing to work adequately, it still isn't the same as having a movie saved on your handheld media player and playing from there, instead of over a network. That said, of course you can use Flash as a player for media that is local to the device. Eye-candy has a place in sales, after all.

Yet, I still don't see the need. I've been in IT for a long time. I generally know what I'm up against, even if I've never seen it before. I've learned to look past the sales pitches and client-facing corporate PR to get to the meat of things. I've seen way too many sites that use Flash and not only offer little significant features by this, but also take forever to load.

Here's a test. Look up web design awards on the net. Most are given to Flash-laden sites that anyone with an average machine would have to wait ages to bring up on screen. Do these sites deserve awards? Certainly from an artistic standpoint, etc., they do.

But I'm not here to debate about merits of web design...simply to say that Flash really ought to be used on music and video sites. Personal sites are fine too. But why bother with it just to say something that could be said much faster and easier and not create bandwidth bloat?

I like Flash for the aesthetics and some functionality, but I most certainly DO NOT want it on my handheld. Perhaps this is why Apple doesn't want it on the iPhone, either.

Snow Leopard - Benefits and Drawbacks

I bought the Snow Leopard upgrade today (first day of official release). In short, it's a really quick install and just as much of an improvement in the speed up of application and OS start times and shut downs. Yet, it's not without problems.

PRICE:
$29

INSTALLATION:
The installation was extremely easy. Simply insert the disk, ensure there is only one person logged in (main account or one with administrative rights) and run the install. It said it would take about 40 minutes, but it took slightly less. After a quick reboot (which was faster than normal), it greeted me with a slightly different background than that which came with Leopard.

PERFORMANCE:
Applications loaded much faster and behaved faster, as expected. After all, it's supposed to be a migration of the OS from 32-bit to 64-bit.

PROBLEMS:
I noticed the lighter colors looked even brighter than the already impressive display used to provide. However, green color saturation was off the chart. For example, I ran Cheetah3D, only to find that the previous renders I created that normally can be seen in the render manager had all disappeared (extremely unfortunate). After re-rendering a scene I had done before, I found it was overly saturated with green.

You can see the samples below. The first image is what the render should look like, and the second is the one done after Snow Leopard was installed.





As far as any other problems, I can't say, yet. If I find other things wrong, I'll update this article.

5 October 2009 - UPDATE
{
Relatively soon after I notified Dr. Wengenmayer about the problems I was having with Cheetah3D and Snow Leopard, he released an update that solved the colorization issue, along with some other problems. However, PLEASE SAVE YOUR CHEETAH3D CACHE FOLDER. That folder holds all of your renders. You don't want to lose those, now do you?

Another problem I found with Snow Leopard was the fact that my wireless Lexmark Inkjet X6570 drivers weren't working anymore. I had to find the wireless automation wizard install files on Lexmark's site and run those again to get it working.

Cyberduck FTP program also would not work. I used a beta version, until recently.

Inkscape has also ceased to load. I think I might know why, but I'll have to look into a bit more to be sure.
}

CONCLUSION:
Other than being 64-bit, none of the other enhancements of Snow Leopard are really useful or of interest to me. You can read up on Snow Leopard here. You can also read about the color issues from earlier postings from beta testers here.

Windows 7 - Initial Comments

I've been holding off on bothering to download this massive 2.4Gb pre-release. I will be testing both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. I'm not holding my breath though. I've been using PCs with various OSs, on them for over 30 years. I just read a few reviews on Windows 7 pre-release, and it appears that Microsoft is still trying to dupe the world.

Now, in all fairness, this is a test version, but I found this text on the pre-release download site:

"# If you've installed Windows 7 Beta on your PC, you'll need to back up your data, and do a clean installation of the RC. Then you'll need to reinstall your programs and restore the files, settings, and other information you want to use for testing.

# While we consider this a stable and high-quality pre-release version of Windows, the RC is not the finished product. It could crash your computer or cause you to lose important files or information."

What I found rather hilarious is the fact that that last statement sounds a huge amount like their finished products over the years. They crash and lose your valuable information. Why else do you have so many backup software vendors and hardware solutions? Now, of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't back up your data for any OS, but hey...it rings so true in the case of Windows.

Having seen a review at http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/first-look-windows7, I found it quite laughable. Before reviewers compare Windows 7 to Mac OSX, they should actually use both. This reviewer stated how similar the taskbars between the two look, and they're no where close. Take a look:

WINDOWS 7 TASKBAR:


MAC OSX TASKBAR:


The reviewer continued, stating that memory management is better in Windows7. I've been hearing this since the inception of Windows. He states that Windows7 only puts applications you can see in the memory space, not the ones that are minimized. If this is indeed true, how does this work for applications that are supposed to be running in the background (E.g. virus scanners that provide always-on real-time.). Perhaps those programs will be left in their own memory space and only the ones that appear in the taskbar will be managed. Regardless, if this is true, it's at least a long-overdue move in the right direction. What I found, again, laughable is that OSX has no problem with this at all regardless of having multiple applications open and maximized or not.

The reviewer also talks highly of the backgrounds that come with Windows7 pre-release. It's a sad attempt at artistic vision. I bunch of cats, worms, toon doodles, and 3D faces that make it difficult to see your icons. They look much like I would expect from an artist in the 1980s. I guess it's not for me.

The other comments were about how you can have one Windows7 machine gets files and folders from another Windows7 machine on the same network. You can do that already. What did they add? Apparently, it can also get drivers for a device from another machine, such as a printer. Again, you can already do that (as in WindowsXP). It comes with a slew of updated drivers (more bloat in your OS than you'll ever need, which again, is already in earlier Windows releases dating back to 3.1

Also mentioned was the ability to stream media to your WiFi TV. How many people actually have these or can afford them? I bought an HP TV that does WiFi and I was HIGHLY unimpressed with its performance and how hard it was to get connected to the network (which is a function of my network, also). Let's not ignore the fact that Windows Media Center has been a half-baked solution for media fanatics in the past. Trust me, do yourself a favor and buy a non-OS specific media streaming solution, or at least, get an AppleTV. Most of these solutions cost between $150 and $300, and you won't need to fork out another $2k-$3k for a WiFi TV.

More to come...

Google OS

The internet is a-buzz about the just-announced Google OS, expected to be released in 2010. This is a major contender to Microsoft's dominant Windows OS, found on PCs world-wide. One article I read mentioned that this is the first effort to de-throne Microsoft's OS, but that certainly isn't true. Is it the first viable effort? Perhaps.

I have been saying for many years that Microsoft is and has been in a position to make your lives easier, but is a company committed to its profits. Any company not committed to its profits in some manner is probably hurting itself. However, Microsoft has held the dominant position in this space for over a decade. Why not make an OS that doesn't need constant, bloated updates that (in some cases) cause more problems than they solve? Why not make it load considerably faster than it does after a 5-year redevelopment cycle? Why not make it easier to simply get on with what a user wants to do on the computer, rather than have them wait for simple instruction executions and have to fix weekly (sometimes daily) computer glitches?

This is what appears Google is trying to address for the common user with their new Chrome OS. It should simply work. Not everyone is a gamer, a hardcore computer user, or has time to fiddle with computer issues. In fact, one might even say that Microsoft should be sued for causing world-wide waste of time and money. That may be a bit extreme and, certainly, one could say that Microsoft's products, for all their faults, have also opened up markets for IT professionals who fix such issues. Google is taking a very different approach.

Some say that Google shouldn't have any more dominance than Microsoft. I don't disagree, on many levels. Yet, I can't help but feel that we're better off. I don't pay for Gmail, Google Docs, or pretty much anything Google has managed to push out to the web community. That's a very benevolent push for what I've been able to do with those services on a daily basis. Even this very blog is evidence of a Google service that I don't pay for, but allows me to do what I need to.

The Chrome internet browser may be a good contender for the browser market, to some degree. However, Firefox and Opera have a much better design for rendering pages, keeping web standards in place. For me, they have provided better web security than any other browsers. I don't need another one. As far as I can tell, Chrome acts more like Internet Explorer in how it renders web pages. That's a bad thing, as web designers struggle to keep web pages looking the same for every user. Sorry...I'm digressing.

I would say don't bother focusing so much on the Big Bad Google as a monopoly, but on pressuring Google to finish what it starts. Google has a history of starting many services and applications that never seem to finish in development. Let's hope Google makes it to the finish line with their upcoming OS.

Home Sweet Home 3D

It seems that open source has become more mainstream these days, and while the open source operating systems are still struggling, the applications are thriving. One of my recent favorites is Sweet Home 3D. It's a great interior design application that allows you to model the inside and, to some degree, the outside of a home or building. It favors the home user or interior designer, but for a free app, it's very powerful.

Few 3D modeling applications are easy to use, are free, and can perform architectural renderings to scale. Sweet Home 3D can do all of those things and more. You can use the existing library of 3D furniture, windows, doors, and more. You can even export your creations in a few popular formats, for use in other 3D apps. You can export your floorplan and/or your 3D rendering of it as an image. I rely on this app to help me create rooms to scale for use in Cheetah3D, my 3D app of choice.

Another huge benefit to this wonderful gem, is the fact that it can run on Windows, the Mac OS, and/or Linux. I have successfully added 3D models of furnishings from Cheetah3D to Sweet Home 3D and back again. You can add textures to the floors, walls, and other items in Sweet Home 3D to give them a more realistic feel. The rendering isn't quite as sophisticated as most 3D applications, but it doesn't need to be. I have included a picture of a quick 10 second mockup of a bedroom, to show you what this thing looks like. Draw the walls in the floorplan view using an intuitive snap-to-and-measure user interface, drop in furniture, which automatically turns appropriately towards the inside of the room, and simply save the file either in native format, as an obj, or as an image.

There's much more to this application, but I suggest you try it out for yourself. This one goes down as one of my highly recommended apps of all time. Find it at http://www.sweethome3d.eu

Flash CS3 Quick Tip #1 - Changing the Pasteboard (Area Around the Stage)

I ran into a slight problem, while working on a Flash file the other day. I couldn't easily distinguish between the stage and the area around it, also known as the pasteboard.

In order to get around this problem, I was changing the fill color of the stage. Yet, I knew this was a pretty asinine way to fix the issue. Having just stumbled upon the fix, here it is...simple and sweet:

• 1) Choose a desired fill color for the pasteboard


• 2) Hold Ctrl+Alt+Shift and double click the pasteboard

That's it! I assume that a Mac user would hold Command+Alt+Shift in Step 2, but if anyone finds this not to be the case, please let me know.

Winner of the Chandelier Challenge

I've been using a great and valuable, yet inexpensive 3D modeling and animation program called Cheetah3D. Of course, my review can be seen on my last post. Naturally, I find myself on the forums quite a bit for advice and general information, often. Late last month, I posted a challenge to the Cheetah3D community to create a chandelier...something I noticed while watching Shrek and thought to myself that it must have been a rather difficult task.

Apparently, it was quickly dealt with by the experienced. Hiroto, who is a master at scripting for Cheetah so that the rest of us can perform functions it wasn't readily designed to do can get on with our projects in easier ways managed a wonderful result. I say congratulations Hiroto, for winning this competition!

I'm so envious of his talent that I have posted the result here and will be moving it to a new site that I'm creating about general computer graphics (CG). I have permission not only to post his result, but to also post the actual Cheetah file he created. Have fun with it for those who can use it. Here's the master file: chandelier.jas

Is Your Site Cushy?

I was informed of a new CMS (Content Management System) the other day by a friend. It was called Cushy CMS (http://www.cushycms.com/). Anyone familiar with Wordpress, Drupal, Blackboard, Joomla! and other sites of the like will know what a CMS is. The difference here, is that Cushy allows a web designer to plug in editable areas of their existing and/or future sites with a simple copy and paste of code. As if that wasn't cool enough, there is a free account and a paid accout (which enables custom branding).

I personally feel that this is an excellent way to go. It allows a designer to make certain areas of a site or page editable by anyone, with an easy-to-understand form. Another benefit is that this system works through Cushy CMS, so there's nothing else to implement or install. It gives the designer and the client(s) easy access to areas of the site(s) that need changes, with little to no technical challenges. Another advantage is that moving an existing site to another host can cause some problems in certain cases, especially when moving from one system to another. Cushy CMS avoids this problem by allowing the designer to move the site and have the functionality of the CMS in place. No version control is necessary, as in the case of Joomla!

OK, so that's a short rant about a great idea in practice. It certainly merits a good mention, and I wish them well.

Review of Cheetah3D

For many years, I've been an avid gamer and extremely interested in 3D graphics. When Unreal Tournament came out, I got my hands dirty with this first-person shooter's level editor. It was a bit of a learning curve, but for those who understand object oriented languages, the editor was simply a watered down interface to plug in variable values. It took me around 2 months, working off and on, to create a level that had two adjoined hallways. Each hallway represented our best and worst worlds, heaven and hell. There was a hand on each level. If your character jumped on the hand, it would raise you up, like an elevator, to a more devastating weapon. That was quite a few years ago, so now I'm back at it, but with a true 3D modeling application called Cheetah3D.

When I was creating my game level, I had to concentrate on weapon placement, polygon counts (for faster rendering of animations), sound, lighting, texture (those pictures placed onto objects in the room to make them look more real), spawn points (where enemies and players would "pop up") and much more. Cheetah3D isn't very different in its capabilities, other than the spawn points and sound. However, it is a great 3D application for modeling architecture, characters, furniture and more. There are many other 3D applications out there that either do as much if not more, but few are within the price range of a novice (think $500 to a few thousand on average). One exception is Blender, which is open source and a great competitor to many high-end 3D apps, such as 3D Studio Max and Maya.

So how does Cheetah stand out? Foremost is its ease of use and small learning curve. Blender can be a real beast for any novice to get a handle on. Sure, it's very powerful, but it also has way too many options that can take months to learn how to use and/or what they mean. Cheetah is also very powerful, but pushes a lot of advanced stuff out of view, such that you get a clean compiled interface. It literally took me a few days to figure out how to create a castle, with landscape, lighting and water. I also created glass effects and animations. I was so impressed with how quickly I pulled everything together (despite being rather amateur to what a trained 3D modeler can do). Putting this into perspective, I can honestly say that I didn't use any training references, at that time.

Of course, I was missing out without any training. As I began to learn some of the basics, I felt it was good idea to record what I was doing, so that I wouldn't forget. I now offer a range of training videos on my computer graphics site www.cgvertx.com and also at www.cgcookie.com. I am much better at modeling, texturing, lighting and animating with purpose than I was then. My portfolio can be found at www.guardpostonline.com/wp. Cheetah excels on value, as well.

At the time of this posting, you could pick up a copy of Cheetah3D for $99, which includes a free upgrade from version 4 to the near future release of version 5. Version 5 will carry with it a much more robust texture creation tool and quite a few other features. Cheetah may not be free, but for that price and what you get, it's a super great value! Please note that it is for the Apple mac only!! For an even more detailed review of Cheetah3D, please visit my review on www.epinions.com.

What is the best shopping cart?

I've been doing a lot of research on shopping carts. I have reviewed the following:

Shopping Cart Creator (CoffeeCup)
ZenCart (open source)
CubeCart (CubeCart)


These are my assessments:

Shopping Cart Creator (horrid customer service, no refunds, PayPal function did not work, despite my meeting all requirements and having paid for the pro version)

ZenCart (great for open source, more complex than some to configure from a web designer's standpoint)

CubeCart (I really like this one, although it's not free...$179 on the high end. Also it appears to send emails even for orders not completed...there may be a way to turn it off.)


Alternatively, there are many other carts to choose from and even some that host and perform all cart functions elsewhere.

Activa (Active Media Architects)
eMartCart (eMartSolutions)
Volusion (Volusion Inc.)

...of those, I liked how Activa integrates with a site, such that it doesn't appear to be a separate function. I can't speak for the price. Volusion looked like a close contender. eMartCart is also appealing, primarily due to its price point.


Have any of you had good/bad experiences with shopping carts and can relay helpful info to the rest of us? Feel free to drop me a line at contact@guardpostonline.com