Interesting Speed Comparrison

[Tesselator]

This is one of the auto loaded scenes that modo loads to show off how fast is
renders. I recreated everything in LW from scratch with as many of the same
settings as is humanly possible.

I thought it was pretty interesting anyway. ;)


.

[Captain Obvious]

It's utterly inconclusive, though. The modo one looks a lot better, in my opinion. And if you wanted it to be as close as humanly possible, why didn't you use the same camera position and geometry?

[Tesselator]

To me the modo one looks totally incorrect. But then again my eyes and brain
can't really do mental ray-tracing to actually figure out which is nearest to
reality. ;) I just have a hunch that bright blue doesn't reflect as deep dark
gray.

[Stooch]

To me the modo looks much more correct. the absorbtion and the specular reflections in lw are off. I would rather wait for the modo render. maybe you can adjust the settings to match the modo more and see whats faster then?

[Lewis]

Maybe would be best to Export LWS now and load it in Modo (modo loads old LWs format if I'm not mistaken?) so that camera angle is totally same and then adjust setting sin modo insead trying to mimic same camera position in LW?

[sliceadjust]

After some testing of 9.2 renderer I must say Lightwave is coming along nicely. Having Modo users comment on Lightwave renders is well.......Like hardcore lightwavers commenting on Modo renders. You can't seem to get an honest assesment.

[Stooch]

I use both. I like both. But modo looks better. Honestly.

[Tesselator]

When I get another 15min. free I'll try to get it more
close to the original scene and post it up.

[Chrusion]

NO... LW looks better. I much more prefer the lighter and far less saturated internal reflections and the lighter reflections in the table. But will wait for identical images from both to A/B compare them.

[thekho]

I think the modo one looks better, honesty.

[sliceadjust]

I was teasing. I have seen some renders in both Modo and Lightwave that have blown me away. Its a cool time to be doing 3d. Software is coming down in price and getting more powerful. Add hardware to the mix and it really is coming down to limitations in imagination and not software or hardware. Very cool stuff. Now If only I had time to create.

[gerry_g]

Think the Modo one has more internal refractive stuff going on and that’s why it looks better (and why it took longer), but honestly, every time I go render in Modo I think yeah, that's better than what I get in LW, then I go render in LW and think the converse

[Captain Obvious]

I've been thinking about writing a basic LWS exporter for modo. Would anyone be interested? Nothing advanced, just stuff like item positions, cameras and lights. Just to get the basic stuff into the same position, essentially.

[MooseDog]

Think the Modo one has more internal refractive stuff going on and that’s why it looks better (and why it took longer), but honestly, every time I go render in Modo I think yeah, that's better than what I get in LW, then I go render in LW and think the converse

I was teasing. I have seen some renders in both Modo and Lightwave that have blown me away. Its a cool time to be doing 3d. Software is coming down in price and getting more powerful. Add hardware to the mix and it really is coming down to limitations in imagination and not software or hardware. Very cool stuff. Now If only I had time to create.

both you summed things up afaic. 9.2 has made such discussions akin to discussing how many angels are there on a pinhead. in the end, it's imagination that now matters. artistic freedom.

[gerry_g]

I've been thinking about writing a basic LWS exporter for modo. Would anyone be interested? Nothing advanced, just stuff like item positions, cameras and lights. Just to get the basic stuff into the same position, essentially.

Sounds interesting, Modo imports scene files from LW but though camera positions are correct FOV/focal length are usually way off, they must be using a different scale

[Tesselator]

Ok, I took 20 min on this. Too much really. :p I need a lot of time to tweak
for those over-bright blue pixels. The object has 2 meter thick walls and the
new LW materials just don't want to let you be silly to set them as if they were
2 centimeters thick like that.

Just exporting from modo and applying dielectric to the surf plus some
env setup here's what I got. Still nearly two times faster than modo.

I think this shows the new LW team is pretty awesome!

[Tesselator]

Also something to keep in mind on the above times. An AMD64 X2 4800+ would
take 2min. 11sec. in modo and 1min. 8sec. in LW. Through a series of render
tests we figured this machine is 2.7 times the speed of an AMD64 X2 4800+.
So if you're getting 1min+ times it's prolly just the proc speed.

[parm]

It's utterly inconclusive, though. The modo one looks a lot better, in my opinion. And if you wanted it to be as close as humanly possible, why didn't you use the same camera position and geometry?

I think that it is conclusive. That there's not enough in it, to justify a purchase of Modo if you already own LW 9.x.

To my eyes at least. The first, recreated LW scene. Is the stronger render of the three. Both of it's surfaces look more substantial and believable, with better reflections and handling of Fresnel.

But like I said, not a lot between them. Except for the speed :D

[Captain Obvious]

Sounds interesting, Modo imports scene files from LW but though camera positions are correct FOV/focal length are usually way off, they must be using a different scale
In all the tests I've done, modo imports focal length/FOV just fine.

[Captain Obvious]

You cannot compare render times unless the end result is comparable. Currently, it is not. You cannot say "that image would take two minutes to render in modo," unless you can actually render it in modo.

[Andyjaggy]

I agree it's not really that conclusive. There are too many variables going on here. Still, that said, it is undeniable that LW's speed is now up to par, or close too.

[Captain Obvious]

Still, that said, it is undeniable that LW's speed is now up to par, or close too.
The only undeniable thing is that it's a boatload faster than it was before. :)

[Mrjack]

To be honest the lighting in the modo render is better
but the correct raytrace is the lightwave render nothing to say and no comparison

[wavk]

the lw ones looks flat in comparison, something i always struggled with...
somehow when i render in other progs, the output looks like actual 3d, dimension-wise, depth perception... hmm hard to discribe..

is it the cams?


mlon

[Lewis]

Tess - you made one crucial mistake :) :D. You should post just images without render stats panel and then ASK which one is better or even better write render time on images and ask which one is Modo and which one LW - that would be interesting to read ;) :D.

[Intuition]

I've been thinking about writing a basic LWS exporter for modo. Would anyone be interested? Nothing advanced, just stuff like item positions, cameras and lights. Just to get the basic stuff into the same position, essentially.

I'm in and will make $$$ contribution for that.

The Lightwave render could be further tuned to look more like the modo render.

I think Modo has better refraction/reflection GI interaction but the Lightwave one could be fine tuned to match it with some material settings.

Modo will render faster though by the time the Lightwave one gets to that same quality. Still, lightwave is so much better in 9.2 that Its now the "modus operandi" at home and work for me.

With Fp3 I essentially have a way of previewing the nodes the same way I preview in Modo.

I'll try this scene in 9.2 native and with Fp3 tonight. Its a good comparison benchmark.

[Lewis]

Can anyone post both Scenes then so that we all can test :) :)?

[omeone]

Also something to keep in mind on the above times. An AMD64 X2 4800+ would
take 2min. 11sec. in modo and 1min. 8sec. in LW. Through a series of render
tests we figured this machine is 2.7 times the speed of an AMD64 X2 4800+.
So if you're getting 1min+ times it's prolly just the proc speed.

:confused: !

What do you mean by the last line there Tess? (to someone who does pay as much attention to this kind of stuff as he should)

[Lewis]

It means that Tess is probably using Quad core or maybe even 8 core machine :)?

[Captain Obvious]

Tess - you made one crucial mistake :) :D. You should post just images without render stats panel and then ASK which one is better or even better write render time on images and ask which one is Modo and which one LW - that would be interesting to read ;) :D.
Considering how many times I've stared at modo rendering those blue glass things, I don't think I'd have a hard time recognizing them... :p


I'm in and will make $$$ contribution for that.
Cool. I'll try to start working on it this weekend.

Keep in mind, though, that it will NOT be very advanced. It'll just keep item transforms. I'm way too busy and not skilled enough to develop something more advanced.

[Lewis]

Considering how many times I've stared at modo rendering those blue glass things, I don't think I'd have a hard time recognizing them... :p


We will never KNOW now :p, "modonauts" are very sensitive to their renders ;) :p

[Lewis]

As are LW fanatics, who can't just enjoy the best of both worlds. :)

I agreee but i think "modonauts" are worst :). I really don't understand why they constantly have urge to comment and explain about modo on LW forum like you are doing now :) :p :D. Why wouldn't be possible that LW be faster in this particular render/scne , just about 1 seconds if not more :) ? why constant urge to prove something :D? Why you can't say OK LW is faster in this scene and done. Modo will be faster in other scene and and it's fine by me :). Why constant XXX vs YYY ?

[Lewis]

YES i understand and YES i tested modo and YES it's good and YES LW is good so i still dont' see the point :p. I just say that it'll be funny if he didn't show render stats ;).

[Tesselator]

I agree it's not really that conclusive. There are too many variables going on here. Still, that said, it is undeniable that LW's speed is now up to par, or close too.

Yep! I agree whole heartedly! There are still a few places where they"re
working on it but to a huge degree "up to par" is a good summary phrase
for the current LW renderer in this release.

[Tesselator]

Tess - you made one crucial mistake :) :D. You should post just images without render stats panel and then ASK which one is better or even better write render time on images and ask which one is Modo and which one LW - that would be interesting to read ;) :D.


Yup! you're absolutely right!!! What should have been a nice commentary
on LW's speed increase and renderer improvements turned into a battle of
loyalists. Which really doesn't make too much sense to >me< but what the
heck, if that's fun for some - let them have fun. It's all good.

I would like to point out however that the title of this thread does not contain
nor imply the word "conclusive". ;) I believe "interesting" is the word used. :D

[Tesselator]

:


Also something to keep in mind on the above times. An AMD64 X2 4800+ would
take 2min. 11sec. in modo and 1min. 8sec. in LW. Through a series of render
tests we figured this machine is 2.7 times the speed of an AMD64 X2 4800+.
So if you're getting 1min+ times it's prolly just the proc speed.

confused: !

What do you mean by the last line there Tess? (to someone who does pay as much attention to this kind of stuff as he should)


Well, I just meant that my machine is running 2 xeon 5150 chips. Those are
each dual core chips. Also the AMD64 X2 seems to be a little slower per
clock cycle than the xeons. In all, over a series of tests done between my
system and 2 other users with AMD64 X2 4800+ chips the system I'm on
rendered all the benchmark scenes we gave it at an average of 2.76 (to
be precise) times the speed that the AMD did.

Since my render times were someting like 50sec. for modo and 25sec. for
LW it would stand to reason that someone with the X2 4800+ would get
138sec (2min. 18sec) in modo and 69sec. (1min. 9sec.) in LW respectively.
So anyone on an AMD like that should not be expecting to render that
exported modo scene in half a minute or less.

I specifically picked on the AMD64 X2 4800+ because I think it's a popular
hardware spec among LW users and speed demons. BTW, my machine is
the $2,400 2.66 MacPro.

[Roger Harris]

HI all,

I think both these renders look very nice. In under a minute! Cripes! I remember having to let LW render stuff like this over a weekend, hoping it wouldn't crash, and still not getting anything this pretty! You lot should be thankful you can even do this stuff.. I don't know... the young people of today.. don't know they're born! tut tut... now where are my teeth..

Also, I use Modo every day for production and I love the modelling, however, much as I love the rendering too I lose loads of time fixing niggles like broken bump mapping and regular crashes. I've just started evaluating 9.2 beta with fPrime 3 and I love it. The best thing is that all my texture maps work just like they should yayy! So I think it's model in modo and render in LW for me from now on.

Hey captain, I'll buy your LWS exporter! sounds great.

now I need a nap
Roger

[Intuition]

So I think it's model in modo and render in LW for me from now on.

Hey captain, I'll buy your LWS exporter! sounds great.

now I need a nap
Roger

Yep, :agree:

Modus Operandi for me is Model in Modo, bring it in to Lightwave, and now with 9.2/Fp3 combo, texture/surface in Layout and get animating and rendering.

Although I must admit that I do like how modeler can handle much higher levels of geometry then modo and that modeler has a much lower system resource footprint.

I also remember telling a client, back in Sept of 1995, that if he wanted a glass ball that had reflections and refractions that I would need a week to render the 4 second animation. I spent 20 minutes setting up the surface and lighting and then let the cutting edge pentium 100mhz machine tear into the animation. after 6 days of rendering I had 120 frames @ 720x486 where a glass sphere was magnifying a line of text.

;D

[Lewis]

Hehehe Intuition, now try to imagine how long it would take to render 120 frames on speedy Motorola 68020 at 14Mhz back then in 92/93 :) :).

[CAClark]

Also, how reliably can you take a model in to modo and back to LW and keep every aspect of the shading on the model the same? I'm just wonering, I don't have modo, or have any intention of getting it..... just curious.

Cheers!

Yep, :agree:

Modus Operandi for me is Model in Modo, bring it in to Lightwave, and now with 9.2/Fp3 combo, texture/surface in Layout and get animating and rendering.

Although I must admit that I do like how modeler can handle much higher levels of geometry then modo and that modeler has a much lower system resource footprint.

I also remember telling a client, back in Sept of 1995, that if he wanted a glass ball that had reflections and refractions that I would need a week to render the 4 second animation. I spent 20 minutes setting up the surface and lighting and then let the cutting edge pentium 100mhz machine tear into the animation. after 6 days of rendering I had 120 frames @ 720x486 where a glass sphere was magnifying a line of text.

;D

[CAClark]

I specifically picked on the AMD64 X2 4800+ because I think it's a popular
hardware spec among LW users and speed demons. BTW, my machine is
the $2,400 2.66 MacPro.

I find the X2 4800+ with 4gb Ram pretty good for LW all in all. Sure i'd like a tower full of quad core madness, but it's not happening for me for a while!

Cheers!

[Lewis]

You can't have it 100% same Craig, especially if you use Nodes since modo don't have them but main surfacing/diffuse/transparency/specularity is very similar (afterall modo was made on LW code and procced to advancing it's shader tree from there).

[Intuition]

@ CaClark ... I don't do any surfacing in Modo, or very little like coloring.

It is really about using Modo for the modeling aspect.

If you have a Lightwave model and you adjust it in Modo you should, as long as you don't change any of the surface properties be able to bring it back into Lightwave with no trouble,

I've been using Modo for 6 months now and couldn't live without it....Yet I do fire up Modeler and even in the latest betas see that Modeler has alot of the tools that Modo has but there is the workflow and layout that makes Modo so much easier and faster for most of the modeling I need. A recent example is a demolitin of a bridge we are doing...The model is such a high poly count 800,000 that Modo will have trouble with it. Slap that sucker in modeler 64 bit and its smooth sailing again since modeler has a smaller resource footprint. So there are plus and minuses to Modo/Modeler.

I think modeler could be made much better with much of the new tools and edge functions it has. When Newtek get finished putting touches on the 9.x cycle Jay Roth stated that making the interface and work flow much better.

To me its not about having one or the other. I must have both. Some are not fortunate enough to spend that kind of money on CG since they don't rely on it for lively hood but even in a possible future scenario when modo may have animation and everything else I doubt that Lightwave will suddenly be useless.

As long as there is a Lightwave for sale I will own its latest upgrade.

I seriously have to get this Modo scene into Lightwave...guess I'll do it this weekend.

[Captain Obvious]

modo has a setting for locking surfaces for LWOs. Open an LWO, model it a bit, and save it out again, and the surfaces will be the same. If you turn that off, all the non-supported stuff will be stripped (I think).

[Lewis]

I'm not sure how is it now in modo 203 but back then when i was testing 201 modo couldn't properly read LWs CC subD smodel (it shows only points liek Lw 8.x) so there is some things to remeber as those Intuition and Captain Obvious mentioned :).

[gerry_g]

Loading native LW CC objects with subs on is fine in Modo 203, but going back the ngons act up, you have to toggle subs of and on again to fix them, if you're Mac based Modo is a must have second app, fixes all your obj mtl i/o problems, terrific uv unwrap and relax, glitch free baking and so on, it won't replace LW (yet) but it solves an awful lot of problems you can't fix in LW so easy

[Stooch]

I agreee but i think "modonauts" are worst :). I really don't understand why they constantly have urge to comment and explain about modo on LW forum like you are doing now :) :p :D. Why wouldn't be possible that LW be faster in this particular render/scne , just about 1 seconds if not more :) ? why constant urge to prove something :D? Why you can't say OK LW is faster in this scene and done. Modo will be faster in other scene and and it's fine by me :). Why constant XXX vs YYY ?

you sound like the biggest "naut" here.

[Lewis]

you sound like the biggest "naut" here.

Care to explain this better ? What did I say and it's not TRUE ?

[gerry_g]

Whoops. I meant to say CC's import no problem so long as they come in subs off (activate them in Modo)

Lewis if speed was everything, LW's FG solution would win, but it's volatile , uses way too much memory and frankly looks second rate compared to Modo's solution, which is rock solid for stability and doesn't complain if you throw half a million polygons at it

[Lewis]

Loading native LW CC objects with subs on is fine in Modo 203, but going back the ngons act up, you have to toggle subs of and on again to fix them, if you're Mac based Modo is a must have second app, fixes all your obj mtl i/o problems, terrific uv unwrap and relax, glitch free baking and so on, it won't replace LW (yet) but it solves an awful lot of problems you can't fix in LW so easy

That's nice to hear but then Lux guys cnanged something in algorithm on CCs in modo recently ? I see it's progressing nice but when i sent model to one of my clients few weeks ago in LW subds CC he said he don't have ANY polygons in modo while he see layers and their names ? When i converted it to subPatches in LW then it worked fine in Modo also ?

gerry - can you test this two models i'm uploading now and le tme know do they both work fine in modo 203 - thanks.

[Lewis]

Ahh i was to late with My files :). I had to find them on HDD somewhere. So basicaly modo doesn't read LW CCs. If they are "unTAB" then they aren't SubDs yet - right , they are just polys then :) :). I'll remember that workaround jus tin case i need to export something to modo again - thanks.

P.S. LWs Montecarlo Interpolated now according to my recent tests uses 4-5x times less ram than FG so it's very friendly to million of polys ;).

[Tesselator]

From the little bit of testing I've done in modo 203 I would have to say that I/O
to/from modo and lw isn't very good. Environmentals are all way off, LW has
many surface setting modo doesn't know about and can't reproduce, and visa
versa. I think if one is going to model in modo and use LW for the rest then
the modeling has to be kept really simple and strictly modeling ONLY. That
said XSI is cheaper than modo (go figure!) and the modeling tools in it are
dang sweet! I won't say "better" even though I personally think that, because
so much of it is personal preference. Then of course there's Silo which is
1/4 the price of modo and quite a few LWers say that it's better than both.

Shrug. I'm not doing modeling exclusively for a living so LW Modeler can
do almost everything I want and for sure everything I need. I'll be stoked
when LW has a construction history (something sorely missing in modo as
well) like Hexigon, XSI, Maya, and etc. Then it will have everything I "want"
as well.

Ummm, but how did we get off into "modeling" in a render test thread? :p

[omeone]

Well...

Thanks for the explanation Tess :)

(and yup, one of my own machines has that same processor)

[Tesselator]

Tesselator, you seem to have skipped right past my long post on the topic of comparison... was it uncomfortable? :p

Seriously, I'd really like to know the GI settings used in the LightWave render :)

I dunno. It's whatever the closest settings were to the modo original scene.
I've already trashed all the scenes and files but if you want to recreate just
translate over the modo settings. The only thing that didn't make a direct
translation nicely was the AA settings. Modo had AA set to 8 and as you can
see from the render is incredibly noisy (unacceptable imo!). When I set LW
to 8 it was too anti-aliased and didn't match the modo one at all. So I
settled for an AA of 1 and used AS to clean up the edges while leaving
almost as much noise as was in the modo result. Other than that however,
most of the settings come over and fit about right.


My guestimate is than when LightWave's GI matures with a generation more (9.3?), that allows more control and has intelligent placement of samples - together with a new Lighting system, which has directional area lights, soft shadows on all lights etc. and a speed boost from an all new lighting code, then LightWave will kick @ss on most anything else available. :)

For modeling, Modeler doesn't compare anymore, trying other solutions I've gotten used to being able to model exclusively in the perspective viewport and that speeds up workflow by so much. This is not currently possible in Modeler as it has no means of constrained workflow in perspective view (manipulator gizmo) - Rove and TranslatePlus just don't cut it as they're cumbersome to work with at best. It also lacks edge sliding and other tools to speed up pushing those vertices around. Don't get me started on the CC implementation we got in 9.0, it's still pretty much unusable.

I hope the next point release will have a major focus on Modeler as it's probably the part which is most left behind these days. (Apart from CA tools, which we will probably first see close to the end of the 9.x cycle - but the next point release could be the last, depending on when it ships and what's in it - who really knows. I'm just talking 9.3... 9.5... as that's the way I see the progress optimally.

I'm not really doubting that we'll see all these things! It's the speed of delivery I'm most concerned with. Other packages have had these features for quite a while and we don't even know when we'll see them, only that it'll most probably be many months from now. I think that is the most frustrating bit of being a LW user these days, particularly for modeling.

Yeah? I dunno. I stopped hoping for what might be and just limit myself to
what Jay says in his public announcements. That guy is a pretty straight
shooter. Of all of the promises or "feature plans" that he's made public
since he came on board I think only one didn't actually make it all the way
in as he/we had hopped. And that would be the "Modeling tools in Layout"
plan - and he's still angling for a way to get that to happen. So since he's
had such a good record of following through with what he has stated - often
no more and almost never less - I just use those to predict the LW future
these days. It works and I'm never disappointed. Additionally if I were
running a studio, I would know just how to tool the facility based on what
Jay has said is coming or is already here. He makes it very easy to read
the difference between absolutes and the abstract directions LW "may" be
headed in. From among all the new LW features we have breathing life into
it the Jay Roth feature is one of the best if not thee best!

Well, maybe the node editor... hehehe :D

[Tesselator]

BTW, I would like to add a little to this discussion since we seemed to have
veered off into modeling. Topically not unexpected given the comparison
posed I guess.

But I want to say that modeling is so much about personal preference and
knowing all the details about each tool that you have available to you that
it's really hard to compare different modeling applications to each other
between different users. For example I personally would much rather use
the LW modeler over modo - and not for any of the political reasons that
one might think. I know modo fairly well but I model by keyboard. The
few rare times I take a tool interactive is often just to see what numeric
values are sensical or etc. I've pitted myself head to head against other
"good" modelers in LW and for me my way is faster and produces better
results almost every time. One of the very few guys that profess to using
most tools interactively that I haven't been able to at least match was
PiSONG - but he's in XSI now and caricatures have never been my forte.
That's not an excuse - unrehearsed, the guy just kicks my butt in a speed
challenge hands down. But what I'm trying to say is that modeling in
particular seems to be the one aspect of CG that is the most biased and
reliant on personal preference and tool familiarity. As an example of this
I believe that anyone can animate in MotionBuilder faster than in LW no
matter the usage style or preference. Efficiency in CA (Character Animation)
seems to be very very tool-centric. Modeling is more-so a different story.
With extremely few exceptions there's nothing I can't do in LW modeler that
can be done in any other app - and just as fast or faster.

And don't mistake this as being a seal of approval for the current state of
LW's modeler either. It needs work and especially in support of those who
would use its tools interactively and not numerically - which is I believe, the
vast majority of users these days. I know for example, that we are in dire
need of a construction history and better/more mature edge tools.

I just wanted to make the point about modeling being so much about personal
preference and that there is no APP X is better than APP Y conclusively when
discussing it. I hope I was able to communicate that here.

[gerry_g]

Trouble is Modo and Lightwane are both modelers fighting over the same patch, soft organic form modeling, neither lends it 'self to more Cad like modeling ( look at most people doing archvis in LW, not many actually author, just render there, won't mention animation but rendering is a big deal, LW is crisper more color saturated, GI seems to bias a scene less than in Modo, but Modos has got lighting right, area lights have much wider range settings, that actually make a dramatic difference when you crank them up, and don't impact on render times anything like as much as you would think, soft shadows on everything means less of a CG look, and that's what I discerned from you're original post, the Modo one looked more natural

[Tesselator]

Yeah, I guess there's a bunch of personal preference in render results too. See,
not as an argument to you're observations, but I looked at the modo one and
saw bright blue reflections where there was no possible realistic source for
them. I saw realistically impossible refractions to my mind. And I saw so much
noise in the render that it almost looked like it was a texture map of some
kind. The next thing >I< noticed was that a very dark patterned floor had
been used to hide the terrible GI splotches that those modo settings produced.
I saw floor reflections that were just plain wrong by all I know photographically
speaking.

Then I said to myself hey, here's an opertunity to show a place where LW is
not only more accurate but also faster. People will be happy with this
discovery. Well, that's what I thought anyway. Naive me. :p

[Tesselator]

So I kinda discovered the right formula to near match by accident? Heh, that's
pretty cool. :)

[Lewis]

Trouble is Modo and Lightwane are both modelers fighting over the same patch, soft organic form modeling, neither lends it 'self to more Cad like modeling ( look at most people doing archvis in LW, not many actually author, just render there,

Sorry but i just have to jump in here :). In last 10 months (with other projects in between) I modeled 62 Hi-detailed BUILDINGs (still doing them so nuber will go higher this year :)) in LW modeler and i'm talking about many different buildings and my favourite (hardest IMHO) are OLD buildings 200-300 years old and churches with all kind of stuff at front faces. LWcad is fantastic plugin for modeling that but i've done few of them without it also ;). If you don't see them it doesn't mean nobody is modeling Architecture in LW :). Here is few TEST renders (no final surfaces - all buildings are from 80k - 500k polygons depending on structure lenght/heights and detials - NO textures - no bumps maps - pure geometry). Lw modeler really CAN model everything you imagine, it's just user and his way of knowing the tool as Tess already mentioned somebody is comfortable in other tools and someone like LW for modeling.

cheers

[colkai]

As an example of this
I believe that anyone can animate in MotionBuilder faster than in LW no
matter the usage style or preference.

Could not agree more, I just couldn't wrap my head around CA in LW, but within a short time of playing with MB, I was (very badly I grant you), animating a person walking. It was dire, oh my stars it was dire, but I did it and could tweak it, alter the length copy poses etc in no time at all. Now, am I saying you can't edit a walk cycle in LW, of course not, but as Tess says, CA is more tool-centric and really, MB is right up there at the top of that chain in my opinion, (albeit a limited exposure one).

[colkai]

As for Lw and buildings in modeller, I love LWCAD dearly as a tool now and would not be without it. That said, the lack of it never stopped me from building quickly in modeller prior to it's arrival.

Methinks, as Tess says, a huge amount really is personal preference, if you feel comfy with something, you will always work better / faster.

[Stooch]

haha i just love it when people post up their stuff as if it somehow proves that the tool is responsible for the work. No offense but those models dont make me scream and shout. Infact most are bland in the modeling department and a bit too hard edged. You really should be careful about posting things like that when trying to make a point you are aiming at. Unless your stuff is flawless you will end up shooting yourself in the foot. also the point im making here is that its not the tool, its the artist. You can have a shmuck carve david with a nail file, but even though the statue is brilliant, the process isnt.

Sorry but i just have to jump in here :). In last 10 months (with other projects in between) I modeled 62 Hi-detailed BUILDINGs (still doing them so nuber will go higher this year :)) in LW modeler and i'm talking about many different buildings and my favourite (hardest IMHO) are OLD buildings 200-300 years old and churches with all kind of stuff at front faces. LWcad is fantastic plugin for modeling that but i've done few of them without it also ;). If you don't see them it doesn't mean nobody is modeling Architecture in LW :). Here is few TEST renders (no final surfaces - all buildings are from 80k - 500k polygons depending on structure lenght/heights and detials - NO textures - no bumps maps - pure geometry). Lw modeler really CAN model everything you imagine, it's just user and his way of knowing the tool as Tess already mentioned somebody is comfortable in other tools and someone like LW for modeling.

cheers

[Lewis]

haha i just love it when people post up their stuff as if it somehow proves that the tool is responsible for the work. No offense but those models dont make me scream and shout. Infact most are bland in the modeling department and a bit too hard edged. You really should be careful about posting things like that when trying to make a point you are aiming at. Unless your stuff is flawless you will end up shooting yourself in the foot. also the point im making here is that its not the tool, its the artist. You can have a shmuck carve david with a nail file, but even though the statue is brilliant, the process isnt.

Are you willing to put some money on BET that models are hard edged and don't have Bevels at edges :)? Man you really are pushing too much and you don't know what you are talking. I just sent some of TEST examples (you can't see final renders since is modeling only job) of BUILDINGs and I've done more than 60 of them in LW which proves that LW can do buildings/architecture (that was question). I think it would be best that you go to modo forum now if you don't have anything to say but bashing LW :). Good luck.

P.S. Also it would be nice that you learn how to QUOTE properly (below TEXT) since ti's messy to read this way.

[Exception]

LW's modeling lacks mostly for organic stuff.
For architecture it's great. I tried modo for a while but its emphasis on anamporphic stuff made me cringe. I'm not saying LW could stand some serious improvement, but, it looks like that's happening.
The correct tool for each job, I say.

LWCAD is certainly a very powerful addition.

[gerry_g]

anthropomorphic even......??.........think all anyone is doing here is stating a preference for this modeler as opposed that modeler because for them it suits their particular style of working or subject matter in hand, lets face it you can model a lot better in a modeler you know well even if it has limitations, than one with a far better tools set that your les conversant with

[Lewis]

Exactly my point Exception - architecture modeling in LW - no problem.

gerry_g - you are right ofcourse it's always personal preference but to say that LW modeler isn't used for modeling architecture is totally wrong so that's why I sent few models done in LW. I can send churches and more models done in LW but i don't see point since Scootch will not change it's mind so why not continue to use other program(s) and leave us to model in LW if we want WITHOUT incorrect asumptions :).

Afterall client is aways right and if client is happy with building modeled in LW why to argue :) :D.

cheers

[toby]

For those of us that don't know about Lewis's modeling, his cars are at least as good as the scanned cars we got a Digital Domain, a studio that's known worldwide for car commercials.
http://www.lewis.tomsoft.hr/index.php
Before buying this model a few years back, I tried to find out if I was being scammed with real photos

[Captain Obvious]

I really don't know where you guys are getting the idea that Modeler is better than modo for architectural modeling.

[zardoz]

I never understand this kind of discussions...if, for someone here, some other software is better than LW then use it and get your work done! I've seen stuff modeled in blender that looks great! I've seen stuff rendered with PovRay that looks great! So stop comparing softwares...that is so useless.

[Lewis]

I really don't know where you guys are getting the idea that Modeler is better than modo for architectural modeling.

Are you using LWCAD ? That thing is great for Arch modeling and AFAIK i didn't see nothing similar in modo ?

I really don't know where you get idea that modo is better for Arch modeling :) :D - see i can say that also :). As gerry_g said. it's personal preference.

I think it's time to drop modo from topic at LW forums ?

[Intuition]

I really don't know where you guys are getting the idea that Modeler is better than modo for architectural modeling.

Uh oh, thems words herd of steel!

huh... oh wait, I keep checking back here to see if you have any news on the scene converter.

:confused: :tongue:

[Stooch]

Are you willing to put some money on BET that models are hard edged and don't have Bevels at edges :)? Man you really are pushing too much and you don't know what you are talking. I just sent some of TEST examples (you can't see final renders since is modeling only job) of BUILDINGs and I've done more than 60 of them in LW which proves that LW can do buildings/architecture (that was question). I think it would be best that you go to modo forum now if you don't have anything to say but bashing LW :). Good luck.

P.S. Also it would be nice that you learn how to QUOTE properly (below TEXT) since ti's messy to read this way.

no one said that you cant do buildings in modeler. my point is that its pointless to show a product when talking about how easy or how well suited the tool is at making that product. both will get you a result and btw i have both lw and modo so ill go to any forum i want thanks :)

[Captain Obvious]

Are you using LWCAD ? That thing is great for Arch modeling and AFAIK i didn't see nothing similar in modo ?

I really don't know where you get idea that modo is better for Arch modeling :)
Notice how I never actually said that modo was better, either. ;)

[Stooch]

yeah. its funny to be called a troll when you have been around since the start of the software. but oh well.

[Lewis]

Who told you are troll Stooch ?? I never said that nor do I think that, I respect your opinion but you could show some respect to other/different opinions too - just a bit :) :D. I was Answering to question that someone mentiponed that LW Architecture is moustly rendered ONLY in LW and not modeled so I sent 4 exaples od MODELING (out of 60+ I've done recently) to backup modeling story nothing more - what is wrong with that except you thinked it's final renders and not particulary good ones :)?

CaptainObvious - you are right :) but then I'am too ;).

P.S. I think we need to start working now in our SW of choice instead playing this crazy VS game, deadlines are comming fast :).

cheers guys and NoHardFeeling

[*Pete*]

When we were kids, the arguments went like "My dad can beat your dad" or "My dad can do this/that".

now as we are adults the arguments are like "My car can go at XXX km/h" and "My 3d program can beat your 3d program".

still...what our dads, cars or 3d programs can do, is not as important as what we can do by ourselfs, driving the car at those speeds (and surviving), or using the programs the best possible ways they can be used.

[mav3rick]

the God voice :P

[dballesg]

still...what our dads, cars or 3d programs can do

Wel our dads take part making us no? They didn't make a good job? :devil:

[*Pete*]

Wel our dads take part making us no? They didn't make a good job? :devil:


My dad was sloppy, he is 50+ and has long thick hair, im 32 and bald.

[Tesselator]

We got into kids, bald guys and architecture huh? :D

I think LW Modeler and Modo are equally suited for kids and bald guys. But
neither would be my choice for Architecture as neither one has a construction
history. So let's say you make this building, and it has 100 stories, it spires
inward for each 5 stories and there are 50 or more windows on each floor.
You finish it all up and hand it to your customer and he says I want all the
corners more softly rounded and different style jams for every window. In
LW and Modo you're pretty much screwed. In a modeler with a construction
history just change the base for rounder corners and modify a few steps
for the jams and you're all done. 15 Min. if you know the modeler. Less?

You can do something kinda like this in LW modeler with the smartigon tool
or whatever it's called but setup is a bit of a pain and editing the attached
scripts requires a lot of trial and error.

Just a single static building? I don't know of any modeler that can't do that
well except maybe Rhino without Facade and even then, it's still doable.

But there are some good points in this back-and-forth. And I think they
illustrate how familiarity (prior knowledge and experience) with an app
often if not always, takes precedence over the associated tool-sets. I
guess you can see the point in its extreme: With 10 years experience
in one app and zero in another which app will you use when handed a
job for a building that's due next week? ;)

All this said did you guys knw that ALL of the architecture models for
the entire Marlin (architectural) library was created by just one guy
using LW 7.x ? About 6 weeks to two months each disc.

http://www.3d-shop.net/Details.cfm?ProductID=404
http://www.3d-shop.net/Details.cfm?ProductID=427
http://www.3d-shop.net/Details.cfm?ProductID=489
http://www.3d-shop.net/Details.cfm?ProductID=337

And about 1/3 or 1/2 of the DOSCH 3D collection was also made in LW 7.x
by the same guy. https://doschdesign.com/products/3d/ Pretty much all
of the Architectural sets in the DOSCH 3D library were made by this same
guy. HE'S A BOT I TELL YA... A DANG MACHINE! :D

[Captain Obvious]

I'd just instance / clone as much as possible. Also, I usually try to write scripts for window beveling and such. Macros and scripts will save you hours.

Also, I feel that modo is smarter about doing things to several areas at once. For example, a while ago I noticed that the metal blinds on a building I was working on lacked polygons at the ends (a crappy boolean job), causing them to render incorrectly. I just selected all the edges at once (about 150,000 in total), hit the P key to create polygons, and went out to lunch. Came back to find that modo had created some 25,000 perfectly aligned and planar polygons. I don't think Modeler would've done such a good job at it, to be honest.


Construction history isn't a universal solution. They're definitely not infallible.

[richcz3]

...But there are some good points in this back-and-forth. And I think they illustrate how familiarity (prior knowledge and experience) with an app often if not always, takes precedence over the associated tool-sets. I guess you can see the point in its extreme: With 10 years experience
in one app and zero in another which app will you use when handed a
job for a building that's due next week? ;)

Yes, that's what it boils down to, Familiarity. I think allot of us working with modeler have learned to leverage its strengths to our advantage. We have a set of tools that can get the job done.

With that said, there's always a plugin, specialty app, or another app altogether that can do more intuitively in less steps. 3D modeling apps with very innovative features have seemingly popped out of the woodwork. It really is hard to ignore. Although 90% of my modeling is done in Lightwave, I use Zbrush and just purchased Modo last week. I'm not parting with familiarity simply using the best app for any given part of a project. :)

Most applications play well together....so should we.:beerchug: