A plea for texture painting

[Ian McBean]

I've been a Lightwave user (on and off) since V5 but these days, despite my long-standing loyalty to the software and the general feeling of being 'at home' when I'm using it, I find myself having to cross over more and more into other applications to get things done. Now I know this is a sign of the times and that the days of one program to rule over all are over. I also would not expect LW to get into something very specialist like landscape generation or state-of-the-art displacement painting (at least not for a while).

But...

To my mind, there is one gaping hole in the feature set which really needs filling right now. Of course, everyone has their own 'missing key feature' but for me the most obvious problem is that you have to leave the program to do any texture painting (I mean painting directly onto the model, not onto a photoshop template). This is utter madness, as it compromises the model-texture-animate-render workflow completely. What Lightwave effectively does is drive users (like me) into the arms of its competitors - commercial madness. The final mad thing is, I don't actually want to buy x or y software; I want to use Lightwave, because I have an understanding of how the program works, and how any new feature fits into the overall structure and shape of the software.

I know this or that feature (instancing, uv-unwrapping etc.) is due for the 9.x cycle, but I've not heard any rumours about texture painting (maybe I've missed something) and for me the real-time interaction of 3d geometry with brushes and textures is what this software is crying out for.

So please, Newtek, have another look at the 'priority tree' and bump this one up a little.

Ian McBean

[GregMalick]

Well said, Ian.

:thumbsup:

[T-Light]

We're not the only one's wanting this but I've yet to hear :newtek: mention it :(

[Anti-Distinctly]

Agreed. However, for me at least, for this feature to be of proper use, it would have to be available in Layout and used in combination with a good previewer. As far as I'm aware, VIPER doesn't account for geometry changes, just surface changes.
This then implies work on several areas of LW and is hence a much larger job for NT.
Also, weight map painting should be available in Layout, but this poses the same problem with previewing. It would be great to see such tools available to us but with limited feedback they would not reach their potential usfullness.

[oDDity]

I'm not bothered. Nothing beats photoshop for real, serious, detailed texture painting. I've no interest in the halfassed texturing tools other apps currently have.

[parm]

A good incremental step toward this. Would be, to make painting weights a more refined process in itself.

Seeing as weight maps, are already a very useful way to drive texture placement. Why not make the weight creation tools more refined, for example, brushes, to paint lines and strokes across your geometry. And rather than be limited to vertexes, we should be able to paint weights relative to any spot on our objects surface.

[Yog]

I have no idea if Newtek are contemplating this or not, but I would point out it is probably one of the hardest things to add to an established 3D program.

Even adding a new rendering system would be much simpler, because at it's most basic it is "just" a matter of redirecting mesh details and passing on material descriptions. However 3D Painting would require a complete change in how the host program interacts with both geometry and texture maps at quite a basic level. Then you have to impliment realtime (or close to) feedback for updating texture maps that could be anywhere up to 4k in size, then address the calculations involved in projection painting across UV seams, and at least add the ability for another viewport type to give you the option of painting on the unfolded mesh as well as the 3D model.
The simplest way for Newtk to acomplish this would be through a third modul integrated via the HUB (i.e. Modeler, Layout, Painter), but if you are going this route you might as well go the 3rd-party route like Bodypaint that at least has a track record in the field.

This sin't to say that Newtek wont introduce it sometime, just that there are easier things that could be done first.

[Anti-Distinctly]

Anyone got any experience with Bodypaint? It seemed to be (from the screens at least) a kind of 3d photoshop.

[toonafish]

Check out BodyPaint, it's not perfect but the best you can get for LW I think. In modeler you can simply hit "paint" and you're all set.

It supports SDS, ProjectionPaint, PSD's with layers, you can paint on multiple channels with a single brush and teh RayBrush is great for painting reflection and specular channels.

[frantbk]

Remember Newtek had Aurora as a painting/composit tool. I think they sold that off and Aurora was renamed by the new buyer? Therefore, I don't think NewTek will be jumping at the chance to add painting to lightwave, but then who knows.

[gerry_g]

I think if LW ends up as an ap. that does everything it'll end up with a price tag for an ap. that'll do everything, pretty much like Max, also a lot of the budget users with fairly modest specked hardware complain enough about performance speed as it is, if you've ever used Bodeypaint to any extent you'll know it needs pretty descent hardware to run properly.

[JMYoung]

What all-in-one 3d app out there does 3d painting well? None?

I'd rather they focus on bringing the rest of the program up to speed, particularly in rigging/setup tools before they start adding all new facets to the program.

[gerry_g]

C4D has Bodypaint, albeit as a module, Max acquired Deep paint and built it in, also it has the Photoshop bridge plug in, so does ZBrush, Hexagon2 has 3D Paint, as does Modo, but apart from that your right, no one does

[JMYoung]

C4D has Bodypaint, albeit as a module, Max acquired Deep paint and built it in, also it has the Photoshop bridge plug in, so does ZBrush, Hexagon2 has 3D Paint, as does Modo, but apart from that your right, no one does

Zbrush, Hexagon, and Modo aren't all-in-one 3d apps. No rigging, animation, etc. As far as I know, Max doesn't have painting tools that rival that of photoshop or any of the above mentioned specialty apps.

I think it's silly to expect Lightwave to include texturing tools that are robust enough to replace the need for photoshop or 3d painting apps. None of the other major apps(again, we're talking programs that do it all) do it out of the box.

[CMT]

I think that trying to incorporate 3D texture painting into Lightwave would be a waste of Newtek's time at this point. Even more specialized programs like ZBrush will rise up and be incorporated into the workflow to enhance the model with sculptural details and textures. They will likely be as varied as the Lightwave, Max, and Maya. And who knows? Maybe Newtek will develop one themselves, but I doubt it would be PART of LW. It would probably be another module like Layout or Modeler.

Sure Photoshop by itself can be used, but you have to go through tedious UV layout steps to avoid distortion to get the map just right. But these days with these specialized programs coming out, it's becoming more artist friendly rather than 3D guru friendly and the need to UV unwrap and point move, etc. are almost over. Nothing beats painting directly on the model to see exactly what you are getting.

[Panikos]

If you plan to do something, either do it well or dont do it at all.
Competitors will laugh on or admire you, it depends on you.

[Ian McBean]

I don't think you can simply ignore features that your competitors are implementing just because you can't or won't do them. This raises a couple of questions:
1. If it's too difficult to implement, how has company x managed to do it?
2. If it's not on your agenda, why have company x decided to put it on theirs?

Ian McBean

[bryphi7]

I don't think you can simply ignore features that your competitors are implementing just because you can't or won't do them. This raises a couple of questions:
1. If it's too difficult to implement, how has company x managed to do it?
2. If it's not on your agenda, why have company x decided to put it on theirs?

Ian McBean


I took me a while to figure this out...

If you want something that company X has, go buy the X, because you will be dead before LW gets it. You may get a half ***** implementation of a feature that you want, but after using it you will just wish you had bought the X.:devil: :devil: :devil: :lwicon: :thumbsdow

[Nicolas Jordan]

Ive gotten so used to painting my textures in programs like Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro that I don't feel like anything is missing. As long as I have nice UV map exporting tools to paint on a clean UV template I'm set!

I doubt this type of feature is high on Newteks priority list but who knows once they are done with implementing new animation system and have everything else in place something like this may implemented.

[Yog]

I don't think you can simply ignore features that your competitors are implementing just because you can't or won't do them. This raises a couple of questions:
1. If it's too difficult to implement, how has company x managed to do it?
2. If it's not on your agenda, why have company x decided to put it on theirs?The main reason it is difficult for Newtek is that Lightwave was originally designed as a polygon modeller with a basic animation and a (at the time) state of the art raytracer. Whilst the program has gone through many revisions since, this has remained it's core principle.
Company-X on the other hand (who's program I like a lot), designed there program just reciently with an eye to adding this specific feature.

It's like spending 10 years designing and building a simple but effective and reliable car that the masses can afford, then having someone complaining that it doesn't have 4 wheel drive like a Land Rover does.

It's not like Newtek wouldn't want to add a paint program, just that it would be very, VERY hard to incorporate "properly" into the existing architecture. And IMHO not as urgent as some other urgent matters, especially when 3rd-party alternatives are available to use.

[bryphi7]

The main reason it is difficult for Newtek is that Lightwave was originally designed as a polygon modeller with a basic animation and a (at the time) state of the art raytracer. Whilst the program has gone through many revisions since, this has remained it's core principle.
Company-X on the other hand (who's program I like a lot), designed there program just reciently with an eye to adding this specific feature.

It's like spending 10 years designing and building a simple but effective and reliable car that the masses can afford, then having someone complaining that it doesn't have 4 wheel drive like a Land Rover does.

It's not like Newtek wouldn't want to add a paint program, just that it would be very, VERY hard to incorporate "properly" into the existing architecture. And IMHO not as urgent as some other urgent matters, especially when 3rd-party alternatives are available to use.

I feel the same way, but I would love to know what NT is talking about when they say "core rewrite that will allow rapid development of features that we could only dream of ". I don't see it happening either...

[gareee]

"And IMHO not as urgent as some other urgent matters, especially when 3rd-party alternatives are available to use. "

I think the BIGGEST issue to Newtek, is turningus on to other 3rd party applications.

So if I mainly use lightwave for modeling, and I buy modo for texture painting, then remind me why I'd want to use lightwave for modeling again?

If I buy C4D or Hexagon for displacement painting, remind me again why I'd need lightwave in my workflow again?

By not adding cutting edge features, they are driving people to purchase and learn other applications, and in many cases, these do the same (or better) then many of lightwave's features.

In 1-2 years newtek might find they've driven off half their user base because features that made deveopement easier were already in other applications, and people moved on to them to increase productivity, and to utilize these new cutting edge tools.

Many other companies have daily or weekly blogs, at least keeping customers abreast of developement.

We've had Lw9 gold now for over 2 months, and there has been almost no word at ALL from newtek on when we'd see a new bug fix or point release.

It almost seems like they are hiding under a rug somewhere, and makes me really concerned for Newtek's survival at all.

[SplineGod]

Im not concerned about Newteks survival. Software isnt like endangered animals that cant be brought back once theyre gone.
I agree with Oddity and several others about 3d painting. I personally dont like it that much. Painting on a 3d object is much more of a pain then its worth. Im more for better UV mapping tools. I also feel that Newteks time would be better spent fixing and improving core issues over adding features that can be gotten using plugins or apps like bodypaint.
Theres a couple of cheap or free 3d painting utilities you can check out such as FIs UV Chalk and Tattoo.
I mainly use UV chalk the way a tailor uses chalk to make marks on cloth to help give me better UV templates to paint over in a standard paint app.
BTW Newtek never owned Aura :)

[Yog]

I think the BIGGEST issue to Newtek, is turningus on to other 3rd party applications.Two things, first, if you don't provide a market where 3rd-party developers can survive, they tend to die off, and then you find yourself in a position where there is only one hair solution (good in it's time, dated now) available to Lightwave, or where you and up with merely a moderately good inbuilt particle system because the developer of the much better particle system can no longer aford to develope it.

Secondly, you cannot honestly expect Newtek to develope and include (I assume you would want it free with the base package), a 2D painter to rival Photoshop, or a 3D painter to rival Bodypaint or Modo, perhaps they could develope a displacement generating program better than Zbrush or Mudbox ? They could at the very least include animation tools better than Messiah or Motionbuilder.
The point being that if you want to have the best of all worlds, then you are going to have to buy more than one program. It's just not feasible for one company to develope the best of all sections of such a diverse industry.

[oDDity]

Exactly, next you'll be asking for newtek to ship lightwave with incorporated compositing tools to rival combustion or shake.
I think we're already getting as much as can be expected from a 3d app in lightwave's very low price range.
Wanting any more is just greed.
All professional texture artists use phototshop in their pipeline, even with apps such as bodyaint available. 3d paint has limited uses, such as fixing seams or projecting photos, but none of them match the power of photoshop.

[gerry_g]

All professional texture artists use phototshop in their pipeline, even with apps such as bodyaint available. 3d paint has limited uses, such as fixing seams or projecting photos, but none of them match the power of photoshop.

Exactly, though I have Bodypaint and value it, Photoshop handles about 80% of my uv work, sure many other aps have them (3D paint tools) but they are not a patch on Bodypaint and for that matter Bodypaint isn't a patch on Photoshop.
I think if anything a good Lightwave native pelt tool would be a better candidate for inclusion in a future release, it would be quicker, and easier to implement and prove far more useful for the users. it strikes me that the 3D paint thing has only really arisen because people have an aversion to uv unwrapping, give them better uv tools and they'll be happy to paint in Photoshop

[CMT]

3d paint has limited uses, such as fixing seams or projecting photos, but none of them match the power of photoshop.

Totally disagree. I use Photoshop WITH ZBrush, but mostly ZBrush to texturize my models. There are a few things that ZBrush can't do that PS can pick up the slack on. But ZB works seamlessly with PS so it's all good.

[bryphi7]

I disagree too... I have done stuff in BP that would have taken much more time in photoshop.

[parm]

How about, keeping texture making within the realm tools like photoshop and painter etc. But make the tools for applying our textures more precise and refined.

I know lots of people find UV maps helpful, and don't mind the paint it on a template and wrap it around an object approach. I personally find everything about them to be a real pain. Very convoluted and not even all that satisfactory, on complex organic shapes.

A precise weight map based/type system for defining texture placement could really be the way to go. For those more inclined to paint their way over an objects surface.

[theo]

All professional texture artists use phototshop in their pipeline, even with apps such as bodyaint available. 3d paint has limited uses, such as fixing seams or projecting photos, but none of them match the power of photoshop.

ALL digital artists utilize Photoshop to a large extent in their production pipelines.

But in spite of Photoshop's pretty significant standing, it does actually exhibit some pretty solid weaknesses that a heavy user of BP will pick up on rather quickly. And heavy users of Painter IX (myself included) will see some glaring holes in PS's armor.

I said all this to agree with the chorus stating that to move texture painting INTO LW would not be ideal. Frankly, it takes practically two to four outside high powered tools (I use three) to create surface shebangs in a total 3D environment and even these powerful tools, individually, have their shortcomings.

So to translate this into a workable solution within the LW workplace ANYTIME soon is a pure pipedream. The only way painting within LW will be plausible is if it combined the best of PS, Painter and BP....that hurts my brain veins to even think about it.

A rudimentary painting tool in LW will mean zip, zero...a basically good painting tool in LW will mean zip, zero....WHY?- because there are several much better than "rudimentary" and "basically good" digital paintng solutions available at this second.

Build bridges I say...and leave the cities to tend to their own troubles.

[gareee]

Let me rephrase my statement.. it's not just about adding 3d texture painting.

It's about NOT adding the exact same tools competitors are adding, and in some cases (hexagon 2 and silo2) in MUCH cheaper products.

Lightwave 9 is about a year behind other 3d applications, regardless of price in a lot of aspects.

And lightwave didn't used to be this inexpensive, as most of us will remember. I think they dropped their price, because they realized they were inable to keep up feature wise with other 3d applications, and knew if they maintained the higher pricepoint, they were going to loose a lot of customers.

With the way things are going, Lightwave 10 will be $200-$300, and will be eaten up by all the other lower end 3d applications on the market that are hungry for customers, and are really adding very innovative tools.
(Carerra Pro, C4D, Hexagon2, Silo2, Modo 202, ect. ect...)

[Panikos]

Lightwave 9 is about a year behind other 3d applications

A year ?????

[blabberlicious]

I'm not bothered. Nothing beats photoshop for real, serious, detailed texture painting. I've no interest in the halfassed texturing tools other apps currently have.

Could not agree more.

I bought into Bodypaint, thinking I could cut out PSP

Boy, what a crappy app that was - it's claims to be Photoshop compatible were true - so long as you were running Photoshop 5.

Brush tools were rank, too.

Maxxon was kind enough to offer a refund.

Bottom line is - why paint that way?

Projection painting was ok, but total overkill and a terrible resource hog.

I use Photoshop, with the DStorms Update Image Plugin.

I paint the map in PS, then hit a key it in LW and see the texture instantly update - with GI if need be.



He who can't stop agreeing with Oddity

[oDDity]

Never heard of the update image plugin, I'll check that out.
ALL digital artists utilize Photoshop to a large extent in their production pipelines.

But in spite of Photoshop's pretty significant standing, it does actually exhibit some pretty solid weaknesses that a heavy user of BP will pick up on rather quickly. And heavy users of Painter IX (myself included) will see some glaring holes in PS's armor.


Let's say you were only allowed one painting app though- which one would you choose?
The answer everyone would give would be photoshop, for it's versitility.
I think the best solution would be for adobe to give us phototshop 3d, or even a plugin for it that allowed 3d painting on import models. There woud be a pretty good market for that, so it's not impossible, but it's even less likely then lightwave paint tools.
The closest thing to that is zapplink for zbrush, but that's a pretty convoluted workflow.

[blabberlicious]

Here's my Bodypaint Killer.

Free with every copy of LW and Fprime ;-)

[Ian McBean]

It seems the consensus of opinion here is that Lightwave is probably better off leaving 3d painting alone for the time being to focus on other, apparently more important areas for development. Well, fair enough.

I still think this would be a mistake, however. From my own perspective, once I'd started to get the hang of Zbrush's extra-terrestrial interface and could begin painting complex textures in real-time on high-poly models, there was no going back to Photoshop and overpainting 2d templates... that is, until I found myself being driven to the point of insanity by the utter weirdness of pixols and the constant battle to unravel the workflow from Zb to Lightwave. Zbrush quibbles aside though, my feeling is that once people start using a well-featured, well executed 3d painting system, they will feel the same way; the whole immersive experience just seems to me to bring me that much closer to the subject I'm working on.

Of course, this is all entirely subjective, and maybe Oddity et al are right - photoshop forever! I just don't see it that way, but what do I know. I'm not a professional artist and stand in awe of the work done by people here (Michelangelo's David, anyone?).

But what if 3d painting goes the way of displacement painting in becoming a must-have feature for the CG artist. How would a feature-challenged Lightwave find its relevance to tomorrow's artist? Ignoring trends in the industry might be a dangerous game to play.

So anyway I'm hoping Newtek listen to me instead of their more experienced and talented users and implement the feature anyway!

[Mercuryrex]

Here's my Bodypaint Killer.

Free with every copy of LW and Fprime ;-)

3D texture painting doesn't interest me.....

..but what you've just shown me where Photoshop is linked to a live update in Lightwave interests me very much.

That way things such as bump maps and spec maps can be painted with more precision and less guesswork.

[oDDity]

Well,I don't even think a plugin like that is required, I'm quite happy just saving in PS, hitting replace in the image editor, and fprime updates just fine.
How much easier do you need it to be?

[JamesCurtis]

Been trying to find the plugin mentioned in a previous post thread:

Nitisara's Match Perspective plugin

The page with download link is dead 'not found'. Can anyone help me to get it?

[SplineGod]

Again. Ill mention FIs UV Chalk. All I really need from 3D painting is the ability to mark (like with chalk) certain areas so that I know where to precisely paint things in PS. UV chalk is free. :)
You can download it here:
http://www2.ocn.ne.jp/~fis_junk/plug/win/FIsUVChalk-i-0_8_4.zip

[parm]

If one thing seems to be clear from this thread. It is that no one would be averse, to a better easier method of texture placement within Lightwave.

And if Newtek took on board the issue,(which, for all anyone knows, they may well already be addressing), it would at least be a cross platform solution.

[blabberlicious]

Well,I don't even think a plugin like that is required, I'm quite happy just saving in PS, hitting replace in the image editor, and fprime updates just fine.
How much easier do you need it to be?


I guess, I'd prefer not to have to do the fandago with opening the Image editor, navigating to a file, confirming, etc.

Particuarly if there are multiple files involved.


Like I said, because I often paint multiple surfaces (Each Surface map = a separate PS Layers Comp) all stored on a single PS file - I minimise the bookeeping and concentrate on the matter in hand.

When I'm being paid for my trouble, I also use PShops Version tracking too. So I keep various versions with mark up and comment, as the client eventually gives up wasting everyone's time and agrees to something.

One File,
One PS Hot key (Save Layers Comps to File)
One LW Hot Key (Update Image)


Less clickin' and more painting - I say.

Do a search for Nitisara on the forum, and I'm sure he'll sort you out with that invaluable plugin.

[Anti-Distinctly]

...One PS Hot key (Save Layers Comps to File)...
This is the kind of thing that I'm looking for. Any chance you could give some pointers about how to set this up? (even if its just the name of the PS feature(s) htat enable you to do this)

I've been feeling the need for these kind of tools for quite a while now. It would be much appriciated.
I think, out of all the painting tools there are, the ability to paint weight maps in layout would be the most beneficial.

[CMT]

Well, if I had to pick one program to work with for texture painting and if I was ONLY working with 3D files, I'd have to say ZBrush. Because As far as 3D texturing, ZBrush can do just about everything that PS can plus sculpting detail to boot.

[blabberlicious]

Create a Group Folder in Photoshop called: Bump, Colour, Spec, Reflection - each group can have as many layers as you like.

Grouping them keep things managable, and allows you to concentrate on each surface map. Colouring layers makes it even easier to spot errant layers.

Create Identically names Layers Comps and name them the same as the groups (These will be the evental names of your image files.

Each Layers Comp needs to know which layers to 'turn on' when it's activated.

You do this by....er.. turning them on, and then hitting refresh to tie those layers to a layer Comp. (this is the bit that confuses people, occasionally). All layers comps are just sets of layers switches.

Start Painting your Maps.

Add as many layers as you want, if you want to 'borrow layers from other goups - do so. I often work on a master greyscale map, and just create adjustment layers for spec, refelcetions, etc.... That way I making sure that the map relate perfectly to each other. Which is what you want.

When you are done -go to File>Scripts>layer Comps to Files

It'll ask you what format, etc...

Point it to your textures folder.

It'll save out each Layer Comp as separate 'Flat' File, with the name you gave it them you set them up.

Assign them in Lightwave

You're done...


Now you are in 'sync', make 1000's of changes to any of surface textures, hit Export layers to comps again and your are cookin'


The beauty of this, is that you can use also Version tracker to Step forwards and back through diffrent version of the texture maps, and because you are working of the one master file, it's easy.

Spent years ignoring Photoshop's new(ish) features. The 20 minutes I spent figuring this out was time well spent.

:tongue:

[Emmanuel]

I think that asking for LW to have texture painting abilities is like...asking Blender to have compositing abilities, ha, ha, ha...ha...wait a minute...

[SplineGod]

ROFL! That is funny :)

[hrgiger]

I don't care if Newtek ever puts in a 3D paint solution...like has been said above, just give me much better UV tools to elminate the problems that would have forced me to look for a 3Dpaint solution in the first place. Improve the UV tools to minimize or elminate texture stretching, pinching and discontinuous UV coordinates.

Now displacement painting on the other hand....

[lilrayray77]

Does the SDk allow the creation of a body paint plugin?

[kmaas]

OK, question: I'm already working on the hair/fur plugin. Should displacement/texture painting within Modeler/Layout be the next thing on my list?

[Emmanuel]

Let me put it this way:


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

[blabberlicious]

OK, question: I'm already working on the hair/fur plugin. Should displacement/texture painting within Modeler/Layout be the next thing on my list?

While you are at it, could you sort out the situation in the middle east?

[bryphi7]

lol, but don't start on that till the plugs are done...:D

[gareee]

Actually, while you are at it, maybe doing a proper uv template plugin would be good, and also an obj export that doesn't loose grouping from time to time.

I'm getting kinda tired of having to go back to lw8.5 all the time, because of lw9 issues.

[kmaas]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

You want a Subsurface Scattering plugin too? LW9 already does that! :D

[Emmanuel]

Why have one if You can have two ;)
But seriously, I would wait until 9.1 comes out.For displacement painting, You need a modeler that can handle several 100,000 polygons.

[Sekhar]

I don't care if Newtek ever puts in a 3D paint solution...like has been said above, just give me much better UV tools to elminate the problems that would have forced me to look for a 3Dpaint solution in the first place. Improve the UV tools to minimize or elminate texture stretching, pinching and discontinuous UV coordinates.

Now displacement painting on the other hand....
What do you think of the recently-discovered PLG tools for this (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53778)? Seeing all the vocal support there, you'd think they're the best thing since sliced bread...

[munky]

Hi there,

anybody seen this?

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57436


regards

paul