RE: Surfacer vs IcemSurf vs....

From: Brian Kissel (
Date: Tue Jun 22 1999 - 06:49:44 EEST

Hi Anshuman and fellow RPers,

Thanks to Steve Chapman of Gentle Giant and Jason Dickman of Hasbro for the
words of support for Paraform. As some of you may know, we at Paraform have
been working on a software application that we hope will help designers,
modelers, and engineers with some of the more challenging issues associated
with building CG models of complex organic shapes.

For the past year we've been working with a small group of "pre-release
development partners" to extend and refine our product. We'll be
demonstrating the software at Siggraph ( in LA
this year, so please stop by our booth and take it for a test drive. If
you'd like to be on our mailing list for future product announcements,
please sign up on our website at (bottom left corner of the

Thanks for the interest. We're working hard to produce a product we hope
will be a good solution for a number of RP and RE applications.



-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Anshuman Razdan
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 9:54 AM
To: RP Mailing List
Subject: RE: Surfacer vs IcemSurf vs....

Perhaps Brian/Ashim/Venkat from Paraform should shed a light on this issue
for majority of people who have not seen Paraform in action. However, to be
fair to them they are in the process of releasing the software - which is a
hectic time !! But would love to hear from them nonetheless !!


-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of
Bert VandenBerg
Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:47 AM
To: Jason Dickman
Subject: Re: Surfacer vs IcemSurf vs....

Jason Dickman wrote:

> I agree with Steve about Paraform. It seems for years there really hasn't
> been a surfacing
> package that converts polys into NURBS... enter Paraform.

For more information about the rp-ml, see

For more information about the rp-ml, see

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:51:55 EEST