Talk:3D computer graphics software

See archive for [ August 2006 – December 2007].

Maxwell Render - a photon tracer?
Can someone confirm this statemount about Maxwell Render under the Renderers heading: "Maxwell Render is a multi-platform renderer which forgoes raytracing, global illumination and radiosity in favor of photon rendering with a virtual electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in very authentic looking renders. It was the first to market."

The first section of the sentence seems to be copied from the description of Fryrenderer: "Fryrender is a multi-platform renderer which forgoes raytracing, global illumination and radiosity in favor of photon rendering with a virtual electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in very authentic looking renders."

The article on Maxwell Render does not contain the word 'photon' once and the renderer's website states that it is a ray-tracer and not a photon-tracer. --MessiahAndrw (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would rather propose a differenciation of Virtual engineering tools and Creative & Entertainement tools
I am engineer and I was rather surprise to see Solidworks at the same level of Maya! Indeed they do 3D modelling but it would made clearer to the reader that Solidworks is an engineering tool and pursue far different goal from other modellers... I suggest a differentiation like :

- Solidworks - 3ds max Autodesk - Catia (very more known in the industry than Solidworks) - there are many others...
 * Engineering Tools :

The other ones, even if we need to repeat 3ds Max...
 * Creative Entertainement Tools :

Just a suggestion, it was also previously mentionned but there was not changes after...

Of Maybe a link to engineering tools with a proper list of them...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrusader 440 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While I understand your thoughts, the reality is that this list could be sliced and diced to accommodate any given industry's perspective on how these tools are used. The list as it stands is a clean separation between applications that let you construct and or manipulate 3-D models, and applications that let you perform specialized activities with 3-D datasets. Additionally while some people clearly use the tools as they are marketed, that's not always the case. In your example if we had 10 or 100 categories, applications like 3DS, Blender and Maya would end up being argued into every single one of them. Then we would have the he religious wars of these applications fans. I think the list works pretty good as it is as an impartial list of applications.BcRIPster (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits to your suggestion really don't change the underling issue behind why it would be a bad idea and didn't really address any of the concerns. You're looking at opening up a huge can of worms by adding a subjective classification system as you've suggested.BcRIPster (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3d Modeller vs. 3d Software
I'd debate whether these terms should be interchangeable; the use of 3d package under the opening heading is appropriate to cover the diverse range of 3d software discussed, yet the use of 3d modeller for the next two sections suggests that the article relates exclusively to 3d modelling Software. There is a marked difference between discussing a 3d modeller and 3d software packages as a whole. As can be seen in the list of Major Packages, 3d Modelling is either a class of 3d software or a component of a 3d software package.

The Features and Uses headings relate only to a simplified and non-technical description of 3d modellers and fail to describe the overall scope of 3d software packages. For example, there is a glaring omission of mainstream 3d animation packages, such as the industry standard Motionbuilder package from Autodesk. There is also no mention of renderers/render engines until the list at the end, with no explanation of what a Render Engine is nor how it relates to the article in general.

I propose, for the sake of clarity for those wishing to learn about the subject, the removal of Uses and Features so that the article can be redrafted to include a basic breakdown of 3d software types and their relationship to each other. The breakdown I would propose relates to the workflow of creating 3d assets -

1. Modelling Software (Asset Creation) containing links to 3d modelling, Mathematical Modellers, Digital Sculpting, etc.

2. Animation and Rigging Software (Manipulation of Asset) links to computer animation, skeleton animation, etc.

3. Rendering Software (Creation of finished product, whether still image or animation/real-time presentation of the manipulated asset) links to rendering, real time graphics engines, etc.

Manipulation is probably a bad term to use but I hope you can see where I'm trying to go here.

These three distinctions should cover all 3d productions from Industrial modelling to Film to Video Games. With a brief description of each software type and how each typically relies on the last for assets and data should help to explain the basics. Then simply a mention that the most *popular* of the Major packages typically combine all three of the main software distinctions into a single package should aid understanding of the rest of the article.

The main reasons I feel that these distinctions are important is reflected not just in the post from the engineer below but also in the *Major Package* list itself. Whilst the biggest packages (such as 3ds Max, Maya, XSI et al) offer comprehensive modelling, animation and rendering tools, the fact is that the vast majority of 3d software cater only to one specific task; from Modelling or Animation to Fluid Dynamics or UVW Unwrapping to Crowd Simulation and Render Engines. Most of the packages on the "Major Packages" list fall into these more specialised roles already.--Stabbington (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See my other comment to the last person who inquired about a page restructure page. While I agree with you in principle I think that maybe we can have a middle ground here. The reason the listings are the this way is to avoid the holy wars that exist between the hard core users of Max/Maya/Blender/etc... And as you mentioned the last guy who brought this up, I think your inquiry here proves my point about differing opinion.


 * As for the areas above the software lists, it sounds like you have a good idea for an alternate introduction. Why not take a stab at re-writing it while keeping your information application agnostic, and leave the lists as they are. Trust me, not to point fingers, before this page was restructured this way there was a constant fight with the Blender guys trying to put kept putting Blender in every part of the page and reworking the page so they could have Blender at the top. Mind you, I think Blender's an OK program for some things, but sheesh. We've actually had peace on this page coming up on a year now (yay!).


 * If you'd like, add the suggested re-write here for feedback first.BcRIPster (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested solution for this comparison problem.
Maybe we address this issue by creating a secondary page like CAD community has done on this page: Comparison of CAD software. This could potentially eleminate the POV/COI fight risks from the primary page. Granted their column selection isn't optimal or even translatable to these products, but this might be a great way to separate out version data, etc... Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought I'm working on the page now Comparison of 3D computer graphics software. BcRIPster (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

dlee3d's edit discussion
In response to the justification for the recent of this page, as described on your comment in my talk page.


 * Just looking at your sorting of "Major 3D modeling package" vs. "Other commercial packages", it appears arbitrary and POV. How did you even quantify this? Your edits also lead me to suspect COI. BcRIPster (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)"

I believe this was quite clearly explained at the top of the "Major 3D modeling packages" section, as quoted below:


 * This list of 3D modeling tools is based off of CG Society's Comparison of 3D Tools, where you can find a more detailed comparison of them. You can also find additional information on these tools in the TDT3D 3D applications 2007 comparisons table.."

I would consider CG Society an authority, or at least reasonable benchmark, as to what products would be considered major packages. Especially since this was reinforced by other referenced article from TDT3D, which mentioned the same products (though fewer of them). As to the use of "modeling" in the section title, it is due to these packages being referred to as "Modeling Tools" by this CG Society article.

Though there are certainly other major tools beyond these, they are not described in that CG Society article, or in any other way justified as being a major package or one that should be listed alongside the packages listed on CG Society's comparison of packages with "Modeling Tools."

Also, what are your thoughts on the inclusion of Types of Applications Produced under the Usage section. As you suggested, it may have been better to make that and other edits separately, such as with the See Also section. In the future, I will attempt to break up my edits in such a manner.

Beyond my changes in this article, I would propose that Serious Games, Virtual Worlds, and/or Visualizations be included as primary uses of 3D graphics in the sidebar template. What are your thoughts on the inclusion of those, and where would you suggest discussing that?

--dlee3d (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry it took so long to get back to this...

Based on past experience your behavior upon creating you account seemed a bit suspicious hence my note. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though but I think if you had read this talk page before editing it could have saved you some work... and on that point.

Yes those URLs are certainly sites that have good information about much of the software also listed on this page which is why they have been there for so long as they do provide additional information to readers.

On the edits in general, please look at the other conversations about this above. As I think you'll see your opinion on page redesign completely reinforces my concerns as I have expressed them previously and I would hope this also clarifies the need to carefully consider any changes of this nature to the page as everyone has a strong opinion in the matter. This is now the third suggestion to a major overhaul where the suggestion is supported by opinion and perspective on a best way to reorganize the page. Three different opinions... and which of these is right? Maybe all of you. Maybe none of you. Which of you is pursuing a personal agenda to get your favorite modeler featured in a favorable light? I can't say, but that clearly has happened repeatedly in the past and serves no one but the person making that specific edit.

To illustrate, the fights frequently consist of "hey, this application X does this feature Y (via plugin), or was used by this company to do BLAH so it should be classified under Z" until nearly every application is duplicated in every area making the page woefully unmanageable and top heavy with "citeable POV". :(

The benefit with this more neutral format for the page is that it eliminates these fights of opinion (which were frequent prior to the rewrite to this current version). The page has been stable for a year now since this revision which implies to me that more often than not people are getting what they need from it without feeling compelled to revise it.

In a more direct answer to your inquires though. I would say that if we need to provide information about lists that endorse or refer to these applications then maybe that could become a column on the new Comparison page as long as we're careful not to add columns such as "features" which are going to start a fight among editors.

As for your point that an application might not be blessed to be "major" simply based on it's appearance on the CG Society Wiki I would like to note that, 1) that site is a specialized public wiki run like Wikipedia which does not have editorial review of it's content, thus making it not an authoritative source for citation purposes and 2) the page by your own admission the page is not all inclusive of applications indicating in my mind additional reasoning for it not to be considered authoritative.

In regard to a "Types of Applications Produced" area within the Uses section, I think expansion here would be a great idea from a high level description perspective, only naming any specific applications in a limited fashion and only to illustrate a point.

As for the sidebar I would say that Virtual Worlds, and/or Visualizations are already covered in that sidebar now by the terms currently in use. I would not include Serious Games as it is a subset of the Video games category that does not warrant special notability in this context.

I hope that addresses your questions.BcRIPster (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Woah pardner!
In response to BcRIPster's revert comment ("Woah pardner, under who's oppinion are you stating these were added as spam and under who's athority are you to say what is or is not major. That's a pretty big change to make without discussion.")
 * I removed several of the packages under the "Major packages" because they either (a) had no article (b) no concrete assertion of notability (like with a ref). They looked like they were added by the person/people/company responsible for developing them.  I'd have no objection if they re-added them with verifiable refs as to their widespread use and how "major" they are.
 * As an expert in the entertainment industry, I've heard of the others and know they're widely used. So I left them in.  I left a few in that I hadn't heard of but wasn't sure of non-notability.
 * The article had turned into a bunch of lists, so I moved everything to a new list. At least that way, readers would be aware that they were looking at a list.
 * As a Senior Editor, I'm a pretty good judge of what sucks and what doesn't in a Wikipedia article.
 * I was being bold.

I thought that my new, improved, trimmed article looked much better. Like a little boy, back from a visit to the barber. But, whatever. I'm not in the mood to fight about it. This article is back to being biased, spammed and unwieldy. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Frecklefoot edit discussion
Let's talk here about what you're thinking is behind this overhaul. The "Major" packages list is essentially unchanged for quite some time now and comes out of the research I did in the last major overhaul on the page. I believe everything there is considered Major by one industry or another and if there is an exception I would like to see the thinking behind that exception.

As for the WP:NOT, I may agree with you on the sub categories, but again we need to talk this through before making such a huge revision to the page.BcRIPster (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I penned my comment above before BcRIPster posted this, I just hadn't saved it yet. So I'll respond here.


 * As I stated above, none of the packages had independent verifiable refs. If you did research to prove they were widely used, please include them so obnoxious editors like me don't go and remove them.  I stand by my changes, but like I said, I'm not in the mood to fight about it.


 * I still elect to remove all the packages I removed, unless verifiable refs can be added that prove they are "major". And I also elect to remove all the sub-lists, because they've been spammed beyond belief and were to the point of uselessness.  They all go moved to the list anyway, so nothing was completely lost.  Just moved from this article which is supposed to be an article, not a bunch of lists. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'm agreement about the Other Packages lists and below to a degree and having them just on the List seems reasonable enough.


 * As for major packages, I was alarmed if nothing else by what you left on the list as "Major" after your edit. As for what is currently there and considered Major I'll have to go back and backtrack my research but I revised most of those entries to make sure that anything left in Major was either cited for significant use in some industry (aerospace, movies, videogames, archetectual, etc...), or is commonly recognized as a critical application in one of those industries. Of all of them I would say the ones that come closest to "questionable" would be SketechUp, Silo, Modo, FormZ and Hypershot. Two of which you left after your edit. I'll review though and get back to you.


 * Additionally you removed the link that carried users over to the comparison page which I was a bit surprised over as that page is the one thing that has helped reduce the number of edits and fights over the primary page since it's addition.


 * Anyways, I'll remove the sublists but add a notation that there are other limited scope/narrow use applications out there that can be found on the List. BcRIPster (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the extern links in the heading because I thought I saw them already in the external links section and linking to extern sites like that—inline—is poor form on Wikipedia and discouraged. At the most they should be provided as refs.  If I removed a wikilink to another page on Wikipedia, it was an oversight and can be replaced with no objection from me.


 * You can replace the "Major packages" I removed, but it really looked like they were added by blatant proponents of the packages (e.g., Inventor has a link to the product page at the end of its description. The link is already on the Inventor article and if such links are necessary, they should at the very least be included as refs, not linked inline like that). Some didn't even have articles or refs, so I found it hard to believe they were "major" in any way.  For example, Hypershot has no article and no ref to validate its inclusion in the "Major" section.  If you've already done the research, go ahead and re-add them, but they really need refs. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Let me tackle this over the weekend. I'll look at all of the entries again and see if we can expand the primary article as well while I'm at it. A few items were a mashup of previous generations of the page so let me see what I can come up with and see what you think. Thanks! BcRIPster (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're in agreement about nixing the lists except for the "Major" section. Since I already have those in the List of 3D graphics software, can I go ahead and remove them now without any objection? &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry... I was sick the last few days and wasn't able to sit down a deal with this. I'll help out today.BcRIPster (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the swine flu I hope. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ha hah. No, it's an abscessed tooth =X I'm slated to go get it pulled tomorrow morning though. I missed work at the start of the week from it that been my first priority to catch up on and this just comes later down on the list unfortunately. Yesterday ended up a wash so I'm hopeful tonight will have some spare time for me to do this. BcRIPster (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of major packages needs a revision
I think that the list of major packages needs a revision. This list looks ad hoc to me, or something that reflects personal reference. There should be consensus on what is considered a major package. A large userbase? A de-facto industry standard? A pioneering attempt (or historical significance)? Of course sourcing statements like these are not easy, but then the current list does not seem to have solid sourcing, either. But please point me in the right direction if I'm mistaken.

If such solid sourcing cannot be made, than it's no point in having this list here. Perhaps links to the lists of main categories should be introduced instead.

In a footnote, I would not consider software that has it's userbase on the Amiga platform major anymore. Chromecat (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither would I. We were actually talking about this same topic, above, in Frecklefoot edit discussion.  BTW, whenever you start a new topic on a talk page, it should always go at the bottom, not somewhere in the middle. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like one interesting reference: http://www.blendernation.com/2007/06/04/blender-no1-animation-packaged-based-on-number-of-installed-copies/ Chromecat (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been in the process of working on this. It's take longer than I had planned as I had some medical and work load pressures that have been getting in the way. As for this Blender thing, # of installed copies has never been a valid metric. It's like saying X # of people came to my home page. Is everyone who installed blender actually using it? Personal experience says no but that's another issue. BcRIPster (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. Perhaps installed base for expensive packages correlates better with actual usage, but I agree that it is very hard to get accurate data on this topic. I've found reference to relevant business reports on the net, but they cost many thousand dollars. It would be nice to see data you gathered. Chromecat (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal for what would constitute a "Major 3D application" it must 1) Be actively developed or used (No amiga apps). 2) Have animation tools. 3) Have IK and FK systems. 4) Ship with a renderer capable of GI in some form. 5) Have modeling tools.  6) Have a particle system built in. 7) Ship an SDK or scripting language for extensibility.    This would include 3ds Max, Blender, Cinema4D, Houdini, Lightwave, Maya and XSI just off the top of my head. If it can't do Modeling, Animation, FX and Rendering then I don't consider it a major 3d application I consider it a specialty app.  I would group modeling applications as tools such as  Modo and ZBrush etc as modeling apps since they don't offer animation and rigging tools.   I would bundle AutoCAD, Rhino and Solid Works etc as NURBS/Engineering apps.  Specialized Simulation tools could get their own category such as Realflow and MASSIVE (massive doesn't have a modeling component although it otherwise almost meets the "major app" criteria.  And then specialized Animation packages such as Motion builder in another.  Im.thatoneguy (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I never was able to follow-up the activity from before. But to save beating a dead horse I have so no. Besides there's nothing on this list that is an Amiga ap, and all of the list apps as far as I last saw are actively developed! Nobody's created an Amiga ap in over a decade. The Amiga references literally are related to pedigree to provide historical context. As for #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 how are you going to qualify this when applications have one or more of these provided in 3rd party support, or designed specifically to plug into a workflow that integrates with other applications to facilitate one or more of those functions? Ok, let's forget about that. What about some of these that have large commercial buy-in as 3-D applications but just aren't used for IK/FK, particles, etc... how does that now disqualify them. Not everyone uses these products exclusively for their original purpose (ZBrush is a good example). I believe that if the application has citeable commercial use in the industry for 3-D work that it qualifies.
 * Furthermore, as I've noted previously. The reason we have everything in one category is because ANY categorization you do is going to be nothing more than subjective at best, and then there will be the endless fights (not to pick on a specific product) with people like the Blender fans who will come in and pitch that their application does EVERYTHING, so it should be indexed in every single possible category you can think of. Next thing you know the page is like a mile long with applications listed over and over and over again. This was the direction this page was going in a long time ago and there were constant fights over it. Once the page was move into this format, the fights ended short of someone dropping in and offering to go category crazy.
 * Sorry for the rant here, I just wish people would read the older comments on this page before making suggestions like this. To that end, I would like to point to this new suggestion along with the several above as illustration to my point. BcRIPster (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read all of the above discussion and I simply disagreed with it. :)  Blender does do a lot it's definitely a monolithic app.  Blender,Houdinin,Maya,Max and XSI are definitely a different class from Z-Brush, Wings, Mudbox or Modo.   I can't see anyone disagreeing with that assessment.    As it stands there is NO definition of what is considered a 'major app' since Mudbox isn't on the list but ZBrush is. It's completely random.  I also don't think you'll find anyone disagree that Autocad, Solid Works and Rhino aren't NURBS packages.   Nor will someone argue that MASSIVE is a modeling package.  75.151.103.181 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are applications that can be added or removed from this list (everyone can edit the page after all), but in my mind one qualifier is if the application has cited commercial or significant usage. I also think the last thing anyone wants to see is this page to become a shrine to a couple of monolithic applications. I would say if anything this makes the case for contextual details to be added to accompany an applications entry but I also see that Frecklefoot has deleted some of that information along with info that may be superfluous under the guise of spam, so... meh... :p BcRIPster (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... one other point just occurred to me, I think one other qualifier for status to make it into Major Packages is for the application to also have it's own page (if nothing else but to support it's notability). This requirement works well over at the Webcomic page... granted they have a far greater inclusion problem than this page will ever likely have. BcRIPster (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot ZModeler
You forgot ZModeler or Zanoza Modeler used for addons for MM2 and Gta http://www.zmodeler2.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.221.60 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Major packages need citations showing significant commercial use/endorsement.
I admit that I'm just not going to have the time to implement the major overhaul to this page that we've discussed in the past, but I am up for a clean up pass to be sure.

To that end, at one point I went through quite some time ago and re-organized the Major packages so that only software with citeable references showing that they are being used by the industry were included. Everything else was moved to Minor packages. I am now noticing that with the constant incorrect adding of non "Major" tools to the Major list that some of the citations have been removed as well.

I propose as a way to force a limit to what is included in the Major group that we add the requirement of showing at the least one citation of significant commercial use by the software, eg, used for all of the CG in a movie, or some kind of citeable endorsement by an industry organization. Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alibre?
I was looking for this in the list, but couldn't find it obviously. Should it be included?

https://www.alibre.com/ 75.72.179.230 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you mean Alibre Design. Should it be on the list?  Well, compared to what else is on the list, sure.  But the list is in a sorry state right now; it's little more than a list of links to articles within the 'pedia. An arbitrary list of too many products is not helpful to anyone. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we give a list of the "popular" CAD packages? The thing about that is what defines popular. Just tying this to my account- I wasn't logged in.Ahlfi006 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

3D Canvas
Does 3D Canvas warrant a mention here? --TraceyR (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

VizUp
Would anyone mind if I add VizUp polygon reducer to the list of "Related To..."? It's a decent mature product (available from 2005) and they recently issued new version as SDK. My company uses VizUp for a few years and I could write an article about VizUp if necessary. --Three1415 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking! VizUp will need an article to remain in the list. Writing an article on a software package isn't easy, since it will need plenty of information from verifiable sources and not just primary sources (such as information from the publisher of the package). If you can do it, great! Go ahead and add it back in. But if the article is nothing more than a marketing pitch, it will likely be deleted, as will its entry in this list. Good luck! &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Chapters, order
I think this list shouldn't just put the commercial applications up front without even giving them a chapter, as if they were the only ones worth really mentioning. Also, making a difference between free and open packages would help. Then, you could sort after accessibility for the reader: (or some better term for the latter). --Julian Herzog (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Open
 * 2) Free
 * 3) Commercial


 * I don't have a problem with a change like this. This lists have gotten really long, so putting them in a sortable table would be a boon. Like this:


 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

!Name !! Year !! class="unsortable" | Platforms !! class="unsortable" | Description


 * Aaargh!
 * 1988
 * Ami
 * A monster fighting game
 * A monster fighting game


 * Abrams Battle Tank
 * 1988
 * DOS, SMD
 * a.k.a. M-1 Abrams Battle Tank, a 3D vehicle simulation of the M1 Abrams tank
 * a.k.a. M-1 Abrams Battle Tank, a 3D vehicle simulation of the M1 Abrams tank


 * }


 * The example above is from a list of games, but you get the idea. Instead of separating them into "Commerical", "Free" or "Open", we could just make that a column in the table, like this:


 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

!Name !! Type !! class="unsortable" | Platforms !! class="unsortable" | Notes


 * Super3DModelerExtreme
 * Commercial
 * Windows, Mac OS X
 * The first 3D modeler to include sound effects associated with editing tasks.
 * The first 3D modeler to include sound effects associated with editing tasks.


 * 3D Modeleriffic
 * Open
 * DOS
 * Only modeler to automatically generate accurate 3D models of people solely from photographs, including texture mapping from source photo
 * Only modeler to automatically generate accurate 3D models of people solely from photographs, including texture mapping from source photo


 * }


 * Something like that. Anyway, go ahead and make the change! :) &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That, of course, would be even better. I'll see if I find time for this. --Julian Herzog (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just found this article, which is more appropriately titled for what it contains. I think the list in this article should be merged into that article. Then that article can be converted into tables. This article should just discuss 3D computer graphics software in general, not list all the available packages. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 13:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge with 3D modeling software?
Merge with 3D modeling software, 3D modeling software, which describes the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.130.91 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. 3D modeling software is already proposed to be merged with 3D modeling. I think that is a more suitable merge target. See . Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Computer graphics is more than just 3D modeling though, so I'm not sure if it's an appropriate merger candidate. At best 3D modeling is a subset of 3D computer graphics. BcRIPster (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to suggest that before any set of mergers occurs that a process to thoughtfully map out concept relationships be worked out to see how it might best flow. BcRIPster (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'd say that's an overkill effort without much results but I am listening. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)