It is a shame. I can understand the reasons for no export, but is disappointing, because FlowScape is such a fantastically easy tool to use to get superb landscapes from. It totally knocks the socks off every other 'proper' 3D modeller I have seen for this task. They are not a patch on FlowScape, and if FlowScape were ever to get export capability, the more traditional modellers would be totally overwhelmed by the competition from FlowScape in this relatively limited (but important, and often overlooked) area of landscape generation. It is possible to do in 5 minutes with FlowScape what it takes 5 hours or more in 'proper' modellers (assuming, of course, that they have the libraries to play with in the first place). The very randomness of the heights, angles, density etc of painting trees & things makes it so much more realistic than plonking a single model at a time in a defined place. Brilliant idea, superbly extended to the other plants & animals. Using physics to drop rocks & branches so they drop in realistically random positions - I have never seen that implemented elsewhere. Genius idea, and almost impossible to replicate in traditional modellers.
Have to confess I cannot really regard FlowScape as a 'toy' or a 'game' , it's just too good at what it does to be dismissed like that. The interface is usable by people unfamiliar with 'proper' modellers, but it comes with so many novel ideas for creating the landscape that traditional modeller's interfaces look archaic & way behind the curve. Being able to export would enable its productivity boost to be enjoyed in other programs.
I didn't start this comment intending to write a paean to FlowScape, but that's what it seems to have turned into.
Regards,
Richard.
I totally understand where you are coming from
I currently have a huge list of features ill be adding over the coming months, once ive exhausted these, who knows, i might get bored and add export :)
but for the moment it is a huge undertaking that would take many months and benefit so few.
i have to keep my core group happy
As Richard mentioned, the ease of use (translation = time savings) and quality of the scenes from FlowScape blows away any other 3D modeling program. I wouldn't be surprised if you doubled your user base once you had export capability, as most 3D users dabble in multiple programs to come up with the optimum 'pipeline' for producing their finished products. I'm sure many 3D'ers would add FlowScape to their pipeline in a heartbeat.
i disagree that it would be used by so few honestly i think your selling things short here you do realize adding the export could double your audience? its not a matter of weather or not current users will use the feature but rather a matter of future users using this feature not to mention the thousands of content creators that know how to use blender i think you are thinking too small here. i know how to use blender but would rather use flowscape and i think you will find a huge percent of the blender and other software users of the same type start using your software in tandem with there current software's
I just wanted to mention that lack of exporting is the main reason this has remained on my wishlist for so long. I'll probably wind up buying it eventually, but if I saw exporting was added it would be an immediate purchase. I suspect you're underestimating how much people want the feature.
Just my 2c but if Flowscape could be used for export to Unity or any other modeller I would pay $50 for it. Probably more if I'm honest as it's ease of use in creating landscape surpasses anything aside from high end software like Lumion, or Twinmotion even though it is now free from Unreal.
Being able to use the landscapes in unity or unreal engine would probably alter the whole job sector of game level designers, esp. outdoor scene specialists. Then the price would be way too low. Look at adobe how they cash in with photoshop., on a monthly fee basis. A further alternative would be if you provide it with a sciptable rendering engine, so people can use it to make games, but only with your licensed engine (eg. sales-dependent royalty). I must admit, it's tempting to use your tool for level design.
I used to us Photoshop...since version 3, iirc (yeah, I'm old). Use PS and Adobe products up until they started to do the "CS stuff" and hinted at 'subscription'. I got out then. It wasn't easy...PS was THE program to use for what I did (worked at a print shop as a digital photo 'toucher-upper'; what is called "Photoshopping" nowadays).
Now though, and for years, I've been using Serif....now "Affinity" programs. Check them out if you want a Not-Photoshop-Photoshop program. Affinity Photo actually does a lot of stuff BETTER than Photoshop. Affinity Photo is really starting to be a thorn in Adobe's side from the looks of things. Affinity Photo ('photoshop'), Affinity Designer ('illustrator') and Affinity Publisher ('in-design').
Just FYI if you were looking for a single pay, own forever, PS-Alt. :)
Thanks. These days I use the free version of Artweaver (tho, it has a weird 17 seconds "initialization" pause when run), which substitutes PS 5 pretty well. I miss the .dss export plugin (intel or nvidia) tho, so I also have paint dot net, which is actually pretty good. And then there's Gimp and PhotoGimp. It's a miracle Adobe is still in business.
I hear you, and I get everything you're saying, and... for what it's worth, the idea of the number of polys and textures and the filesize involved... I don't even know how enormous that would be. I don't know if you created all the assets, or if they're licensed, and there would be issues with that. I know there would be a lot of challenges and hurdles, no matter what.
And yet... I really want to add my name to the list of people who'll buy it if you ever include it.
Buy the ability to export, I mean - maybe as a paid add-on, to make it a little more worth putting in the dev time, once you have some to spare? - I'm absolutely buying the 'game' as it stands. Even if the only way I can get art out of it is with a screen shot, you deserve huge support for this. :)
I first heard of it less than fifteen minutes ago, and I knew I was buying it halfway through the first intro video I saw. And the first two questions that popped into my head were "I wonder if you can import?" (then I saw the 1.4 video and rejoiced) and "Wow. It'd be amazing if you can export, but there's no way... Right?"
Then I saw this thread, and I had to create an account to reply before even buying it, because I think you're maybe missing it's potential as an art tool. Process is so important to creative effort. Yes, flexibility and creative freedom is important, and I can make a much wider variety of things in, for instance, Blender. True. But the more freedom and flexibility you have, almost always, the more complexity you have. It takes longer, and there are more opportunities for the process to get in the way of your creativity.
Maybe I'll feel different after buying and playing with it, but from the videos,it looks like the -no pun intended - flow of creativity is just so easy and pure, I'll be really, really surprised if it doesn't become one of people's favorite ways to create.
Heck, do you want to know where I heard of it? Someone is offering a tutorial on how to use it for sale ($19.95 US, on sale for $13.97) on an art market website that gets about 2 million hits per month. Obviously, you're enjoying a lot of success already (though "enjoying' might be an optimistic term - it's got to be a little overwhelming, too!) but I think this is going to be huge. :)
Who knows where it'll go - a community of artist/users producing content optimized specifically for it (sign me up) seems very likely, if you allow it. Even by version 1.5, this is already effectively what millions of users were dreaming of when they bought software like Bryce and Vue and a dozen other programs. I mean... My god... You know how huge this is going to be, right? My head is spinning with how many people I have to tell about this, and in what order I'm going to tell them.
If you need a hand, at very least a beta tester with 25 years experience, including a lot of paid, in-house testing, I'd be happy to contribute.
I disagree. There are many...many...many of us using 3D software for a lot of different projects.
Along with Photoshop (3D) and Cinema 4d I would love to use Flowscape in creating backgrounds, or at least background images to use in my artwork. Those of us that "Do" know how to use 3D Software, are always looking for little Gold Nuggets like FlowScape to roundout our arsenal of tools and speed-up or enhance our designs.
Please reconsider this request. I think you will be blessed with a whole new market place that would appreciate your hard work. I know I do.
You certainly can import multiple objects into FlowScape and place them anywhere.
The "import"ant thing is to make sure the origin of the object is at the centre of the object and the scale (height) are relatively small.
I use Vue to create and export models and Blender to set the origin.
The Ortho mode (O) in FlowScape is the best way to arrange multiple objects.
I believe the issues lies much more with copyrights than anything. As a developer, you can purchase 3D models to use in your commercial game. However, only to be used within that software. The dev has most likely bought some or many of the assets being used in Flowscape, which each comes with different copyrights.
People often sell a small set of game engine ready for about 20-50$ or more. You can't honestly expect to have all those assets to use within you own unity/unreal projects for 15$.
And why does 3D models, rigged and ready to be used in game projects costs as much? Because it takes hours to make.
I suggest looking into tutorials for open-source softwares for 3D-modeling like Blender. There's also many free textures to use online.
