On   2010-01-15 06:13:27, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	Hello Everyone! I just wanted to let you all know that VoluMedic has been updated to version 2.0 now. It has a ton of new features including new selection tools, filters, a Wizard, measurement tools (for all the scientists out there) and much more. I would also like to add, since someone asked below: Since Version 1.5 there are tools for conversion of polygon objects to volumetric objects. Thanks to everyone for their continued support!
On   2007-09-17 04:32:05, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	Glad it helped :) BTW, for anyone interested, VoluMedic was used to great success during the production of "Inside the Living Body" for National Geographic Channel. They even have a small section about VoluMedic in the press area of the National Geographic Channel Homepage. I dont get NGC here, but if you have time make sure to check it out. It was quite a big production (more than 200 MDs, radiologists and surgeons were involved) with lots of CG(not just VoluMedic).
On   2007-09-11 19:09:09, wrote:
	Excellant, thanks for that tip. It works. As long as I can render with the demo properly and see how to use it, the realtime I can deal with like this.
On   2007-09-03 00:31:44, wrote:
	Here is a small tip if you have problems with the realtime preview and OpenGL: Open you VoluMedic config file (config.txt) and set the entry: "si DefaultRTDisplayMode 3" to "si DefaultRTDisplayMode 1". That way the Realtime Display Mode will default to a polygonal preview. It is not as pretty as the volume rendering, but it should also work on older graphics cards. Hope that helps. CU Elmar
On   2007-08-31 02:15:33, wrote:
	Nevermind, the opengl prob is mine. My crappy onboard doesnt have opengl 2. I need a real graphics card I think.
On   2007-08-31 02:09:16, wrote:
	Excellent, thanks for the info! I'm trying the demo, and with the thorax vol file, when I click create for the scalar object, I get a microsoft visual c++ runtime error. assertion failed. "opengl/gl/glprocs.c" I just have 64MB onboard video ram. Could that be the problem? Or my visual c++ needs to be newer?
On   2007-08-29 03:49:43, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	Hello! I dont know about Dynamite, but VoluMedic supports the medical imaging standard DICOM format. If you do a search on altavista for DICOM files or DICOM and download, you should be able to find a ton of free datasets online.
On   2007-08-27 14:29:20, wrote:
	So where does one find volumetric data to use with this (or the Dynamite Pro plugin as well)?
On   2007-06-05 05:36:05, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	We now have a freely downloadable demo version for VoluMedic 1.5 This Demo does have limitations, but is not timed and it even works with the demo- version of LW.
On   2006-08-03 02:15:24, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	There are no limitations, other than it stops working after 30 days and that it must not be used for commercial work
On   2006-08-02 21:56:48, wrote:
	What's the limitation of the demo version?
On   2006-07-16 21:16:21, wrote:
On   2006-07-14 08:23:00, Ren wrote:
	don't visit the website while eating... ;o>
On   2006-07-08 09:48:27, Tess wrote:
	BTW, I should add that for this product $3,500 is DIRT CHEEP!!! We use the http://www.vaytek.com/guide.htm suite at the school I taught at and it doesn't do such a great job I think but costs more than 20 times what Volumedics is going for. That's the full price of every major CG application on the market combined. So actually for the market that Volumedics it targeted at that price is UNBELIEVABLY low.
On   2006-07-08 09:31:01, Tess wrote:
	Congrats on the release of Volumedics Elmar! Looks like a fine product! BTW, with that free boolean plugin in layout you can produce plates that may be acceptable for use with Volumedics. This may be the answer to Sweet Modeling question below.
On   2006-07-07 08:50:33, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	We are looking into that... Until then there is a workarround to do that with LWs own tools. Make a series of flat planes, then do a boolean intersection with your object (or a solid drill). Then render this in LightWave with the orthographic camera and animate a clipmap through it. Sure, it is not the ideal way to do it, but one way to do until we come up with a tool for that. Right now VoluMedic only allows to do it the other way round (turn volumetric objects into geometry).
On   2006-07-07 06:15:11, wrote:
	would be sweet to model something and convert it to a volumetric instead of only medical 2D image layers that way it would be usefull for lotsa production studios i bet
On   2006-07-06 19:56:11, mrq@pixelsmack.com wrote:
	Been using this now in pre-production, if you have it within your budget and have the specific need for this kind of VFX, you NEED TO GET THIS! Personally I'd rather you didn't and then have you wonder why we're getting all the contracts for this kind of work. HAR!
On   2006-07-01 14:58:25, William wrote:
	Amazing tool. Easy to use and very powerful. One medical illustration or animation and the tool is paid in full. Thanx for developing this to work so easily with LightWave. I love how everything is controlled by gradients ....the same setup I'm usded to working with daily!
On   2006-06-30 14:41:03, Franklin wrote:
	For the most part, I think there are 2 kinds of Lightwave users. First are enthusiasts or people just starting out in 3D and are at the learning stage. Needless to say these people are not going to be buying a lot of plugins, certainly not a very specific plugin like this one. So what they think of the cost of it is pretty-much irrelevant. The other group of users consists of professionals who (hopefully) do buy all their software and are still able to do work that makes them a decent profit. These people will gauge the cost of a plugin against the benefit it can bring them and act accordingly. If it makes sense to buy it, they will. If it doesn't, they won't. And because they're professionals, they won't whine about it if they think its overpriced. Instead, they'll just tell their client that the plugin needed is X amount of dollars and if they want this very specific thing done, they need to allow for it in the budget.
On   2006-06-30 14:18:56, Flay wrote:
	Naw, it was Bill's comment below I was referring to. As to one other comment of his regarding Lighwave 9. I'd much rather have a dead solid release of this package than wait for the first two patch releases until I can move my staff over to it. I say let it bake away until it's right. Lightwave 8.3 is working great for us until then.
On   2006-06-30 14:03:03, dren wrote:
	Flay: i hope your not commenting on my post.. my point is the same as yours...these are inexpensive tools that make us a bunch of money. in the 12 years that i have been doing this stuff, my cost of doing business has been 1000 to 1. (that’s 1000 in receivables and 1 in payables) and that includes my machines. we need more support for the developers out there. I challenge the naysayers and whiners to develop a software program, design the gui, market the idea support the program, build a website for the program…etc, etc. and then, try to make a dime back from it.. the development alone can cost tens of thousands of dollars.. all told there could be a million spent, and in the end, the developer gets trashed on Flay for wanting to the market a new, faster way of getting YOUR job done, and maybe in the end.. payback a little of his debt and maybe… just maybe, make a profit (god forbid)
On   2006-06-30 10:51:06, Flay wrote:
	I totally disagree with the user below commenting on pricing in the Lightwave world. Lightwave is very inexpensive. It's also, in the grand scheme of things, very cheap to add-on to. You buy the base package of Lighwave at a good bang for the buck and add onto it as your needs dictate. Having third party developers is a good thing, and I wouldn't change it for the world. Having every function built-in isn't what I want for my work. Too limiting. As for overall pricing. You can equip a entire 8 person department with Lightwave plus essential plug-ins and amortize the purchase in one single visual effects shot. It's pretty damn amazing.
On   2006-06-30 09:03:05, dren@yahoo.com wrote:
	this thing looks amazing.. Congratulations! as far as price? let's look at it this way. lightwave, 900 bucks, mule, 75 bucks, sasquatch, 200 bucks, random plugs, another couple a hundred bucks, and this fine plugin, a couple of grand. NOW, one good logo animation, 5 to 10 grand. if your in any kind of animation business, you can generate a couple of hundred grand in a year... and i'm speaking on the low end. do the math! THANK YOU TO ALL PLUGIN DEVELOPERS FOR MAKING ME LOOK GOOD!
On   2006-06-30 09:02:19, dren wrote:
	this thing looks amazing.. Congratulations! as far as price? let's look at it this way. lightwave, 900 bucks, mule, 75 bucks, sasquatch, 200 bucks, random plugs, another couple a hundred bucks, and this fine plugin, a couple of grand. NOW, one good logo animation, 5 to 10 grand. if your in any kind of animation business, you can generate a couple of hundred grand in a year... and i'm speaking on the low end. do the math! THANK YOU TO ALL PLUGIN DEVELOPERS FOR MAKING ME LOOK GOOD!
On   2006-06-29 23:55:52, Mike wrote:
	Bill, go buy another package and quit yer crying. As for the plugin, this looks awesome. I do occasional medical work, this looks like it will fit the bill perfectly.
On   2006-06-29 23:38:57, Bill wrote:
	At those prices why bother. The majority of lightwave users wont be able to afforded. Maybe if 3rd party developers would go away newtek would be force to develop its tools properly, instead of coming out with half baked barely usable tools every upgrade and living it to 3rd party developers to milk us for more money. Lets see, Newtek gave us bones, Messiah or motion builder if you want to use them efficiently. Newtek gave us unlimited rendering nodes, BNR or Mule if you want to use them efficiently. And so on and so on... It gets very expensive. I'm not saying that your product is a bad product or that it is not worth the price but so far, and I have been working with lightwave since the amiga days the only plugin that was worth is price many times over was macroform and after all this years since they stop selling it Newtek still haven't develop anything that come close to it. Maybe my frustation is with Newtek. I think I am reaching the end of the line as far as they are concern. They were selling LW9 a year ago, putting on the final touches, fixing the little bugs. A year later they still don't even have a completed manual. Frustations, expensive frustrations. Any way back to your program, because it works with lightwave is even more of a reason not to pay the amount of money that you are asking. What's to guarantee that it will work with the next verion of lightwave. And what about upgrade prices. Anothe few thousand dollars. And if you stop developing, thousands down the drain. Maybe the Economy is great in Austria with the Euro's and all but it doesn't look that good over here.
On   2006-06-29 09:06:24, Elmar Moelzer wrote:
	Thanks for the kind words everyone. In reply to bill: The visible human project is something different. It is basically a dataset, that can be used with VoluMedic. It was created by CT- scanning and slicing up a dead person. VoluMedic allows to render any dataset (not just the visible human project), be it generated from a human, an animal, or any media, even wood. These datasets can be created by CT, MRI, PET, SPECT and 3D- US- scanners, or other measurement tools that create volumetric data. Besides the visible human project does not work inside LightWave if you dont have a tool like VoluMedic to render it with. There are viewers for it, but these are hard to compare to VoluMedic in any regard (output quality, featureset, anything). The price of VoluMedic is high yes, but the price of VoluMedic and LightWave together is still lower than the price of some other 3d- apps (which then still dont do what this combination of tools does). It is complaints and a mentality like this that are responsible for the sad truth that many high profile 3rd party developers dont develop for LightWave anymore. Kindest regards Elmar Moelzer
On   2006-06-29 06:23:24, bill wrote:
	A plugin for lightwave for twice the price of lightwave. I think not. 3D Doctor maybe, look at the visual human project for free tool for volumetric rendering.
On   2006-06-29 06:02:09, Sebastian wrote:
	Looks really cool! Webpage link works fine here. Maybe you should copying and pasting it into your browser.
On   2006-06-29 05:33:41, wrote:
	the web page link is dead it seems.
On   2006-06-29 00:31:08, mrq@pixelsmack.com wrote:
	Well I know what new VFX I'll be whipping up for CSI this next season now! ;)
On   2006-06-28 21:50:31, etherdragn wrote:
	There goes the vfx budget lol.
On   2006-06-28 15:33:05, wrote:
	Expensive ... yah think?