PDA

View Full Version : User friendly Lightwave interface?



jaxtone
07-24-2009, 04:03 AM
The more I read threads on this forum I guess that the whole idea with LightWaves user interface is wrong from the beginning... Written by code monkeys for technically interested people sounds like the opposite of creativity to me! I know that CORE is on the way but have a little worry about that it is still the same old think incorporated in the interface.

The latest ten years I believe that questions and frustration over easy creations have at least consumed thousands of real mens life. If you then add all hours for getting answers even for the easiest setup and add the weakness of LW in character and dynamics we could add time for a couple of thousand lifes more. :D

I donīt get why each part of the interface crave that you actually are forced to being very skilled to create easy stuff? I believe it would have been better if presets for common stuff like physical elements and character rigs already was there. With a few clicks you could get a result that fixed scenes that managed production cases that doesnīt smell like a Hollywood budget. Actually I believe that most jobs that are done by LW users are far away from Hollywood but still craves that you get into the depth if you wanīt to add some fancy features. And of course there should be a possiblity to get deeper in settings and options if your project demands you doing so.

An example is the FFX that I wanted to create an easy lawn with. God damn it, I know have spent 12 hours to even get the grass look ok. This is ridiculous since the problem isnīt that I am stupid but rather that the FFX doesnīt do what it is expected to!

My suggestion for this and all other parts of LW is that presets with very basic text where included in the program. Let say that "Ozone3" that creates skyscapes can be a role model. If there would be at least 20 presets of grass available with thumbnails when you start any program part I would think we can start mention the interface as user friendly. Of course you should be able to affect these settings and save your own previews, but what I request are user friendly preset start kits in each part of the Lightwave software.

Since time is valuable I guess only the most skilled technical guys have an advantage to get things done. But IMHO these guys are mot only gifted with a deep interest in technical 3D solutions, they also wanna force me to feel the same. For most other users I donīt believe that the technical aspects are the highest demands on their agenda of creating fancy, realistic or other stuff.

And no... I donīt think that cheaper and crappier 3D-programs are the alternative since I still feel like Lightwave is good in many aspects but can be better in many more. But most of them cheap ones have very user friendly interfaces and you can get easy things done in minutes instead of weeks.

I wonder why LW and the technical skilled part of their users always have been so stubborn and negative when someone like myself suggest a new and user friendly interface that are able to create delicious presets that saves time for their users? I feel that suggestions to is received as a threath instead of a possiblility.

Just some thoughts from a guy that automatically doesnīt salute the old Amiga nostalgia!

probiner
07-24-2009, 04:31 AM
I like interface has it is. Only the poping windows everywhere can be really annoying. But i also need an extra screen for that :P I like Adobe Workspaces.

As long they don't take the text buttons and put toon buttons, fine by me :)

There are far more important concerns for LW than interface, imho.

Cheers

RebelHill
07-24-2009, 05:06 AM
Look... its a trade off... If u want easy access and super intuiveness, with preset everything, you wind up with a program that winds up producing a largely homogenous output, with the occasional exception when the odd individual really "digs in"... just like poser.

Otherwise, its the computers that are stupid, and if you want to create original content, then you have to describe eveerything in very precise terms that a comp can interpret, and this is gonna require a technical understanding of how the computer is interpreting your inputs, and an interface thats lets you actually input them in a sensible, and organised way.

LW strikes a fair balance imo, and for the price, you cant expect it to have preset, built in solutions for everything

doimus
07-24-2009, 05:20 AM
After seeing what Microsoft did with Office and what Autodesk did with AutoCAD, I say PLEASE NO! Please forget about "user friendly" interfaces and stick to the textual UI.

Don't know why, but in the minds of "User Friendliness Experts" friendly UI equals acres of unused space, with meaningless icons and endlessly nested menus.

Matt
07-24-2009, 05:28 AM
Don't know why, but in the minds of "User Friendliness Experts" friendly UI equals acres of unused space, with meaningless icons and endlessly nested menus.

Let's be clear ...

_Some_ spacing is needed to avoid a cramped UI, which does make things difficult to locate. So, not "acres of space", just _sensible_ spacing.

_Some_ icons make sense, and work better than text only, such as the viewport gadget icons.

People always assume it has to be text based command line only, or full icon based UI, there can be a happy medium of logical layout / powerful flexibility.

TheDude
07-24-2009, 06:34 AM
I'm not so concerned about the user friendliness of the interface, more the poor design and execution. Windows are not consistent, some resize, others don't. Some are true "OS" windows while others are not.
I really hope CORE will address these issues and present the user with a consistent, predictable and well designed interface as the current bodged together interface has always been an issue for me.

As for user friendly software, a skilled artist will get more completed more quickly if they are not having to fight with the interface. Yes it's true that easy to use software breeds average artists using presets and producing lots of very similar work...who cares. I just want software that's been designed to make my life easier and more productive.

Weetos
07-24-2009, 06:38 AM
People always assume it has to be text based command line only


>make sphere name=MySphere size=1m center=[0,0,0]
>texture MySphere color=145,30,30 diffuse=.7 specular=.4 glossiness=.7
>new light name=Light type=spot color=255,255,255 intensity=100%
>edit Light position=3,10,3 target=0,0,0
>new camera name=Camera type=pespective
>edit Camera position=20,5,5 target=0,0,0
>render single option=realistic frame=0 output=frame_000.png format=PNG32
: . . . . . . . . . . . . done.
:File Render/frame_000.png successfully saved.
>

Phhheeeewww ! Sounds like much fun ! :D

johncmurphy
07-24-2009, 07:05 AM
For me, the sensible interface is what makes Lightwave easy to use. I have other 3D programs with a more "user friendly" interface, but I always feel like the program is fighting me when I try to get things done.

bobakabob
07-24-2009, 07:49 AM
I donīt get why each part of the interface crave that you actually are forced to being very skilled to create easy stuff? I believe it would have been better if presets for common stuff like physical elements and character rigs already was there. With a few clicks you could get a result that fixed scenes that managed production cases that doesnīt smell like a Hollywood budget. Actually I believe that most jobs that are done by LW users are far away from Hollywood but still craves that you get into the depth if you wanīt to add some fancy features. And of course there should be a possiblity to get deeper in settings and options if your project demands you doing so.

An example is the FFX that I wanted to create an easy lawn with. God damn it, I know have spent 12 hours to even get the grass look ok. This is ridiculous since the problem isnīt that I am stupid but rather that the FFX doesnīt do what it is expected to!



You need to distinguish between interface and content.

IMO Lightwave's plain English and intuitive interface is one of its greatest strengths. Its workflow is pretty neat too and fast compared to so many apps if you have a job to do in a hurry.

As for content, like presets, they're always welcome and the present ones don't always show off Lightwave's full capabilities. Interesting that the Modo dev team is presently doing a very good job here - their new presets both demystify the program for newbies and serve as eye candy for publicity. Still wouldn't you rather have Newtek focus their energies on getting the program right?

Core is perhaps a good opportunity for Newtek to collaborate more with the community and get them to share preset character rigs and textures. Once it's ready...

jaxtone
07-24-2009, 08:04 AM
Well!

Iīve read your input and respect your point of view. However I believe that this is exactly one of the reasons why Lightwave havenīt improved it functions dramatically during the years. Believe me I have been Lightwave faithful through the years and its more like an insane love/hate relation than anything else. I guess many users are afraid of changing the old fashioned style/thinking when it comes to future possibilities of a software.

Please donīt misunderstand my intentions to at least give my opinion of how this software can be better, and if you thought that I wanted to mix two things such as "function" and "interface" in the same pot I might have written my message in a very strange way!

1. From my point of view a products "functions" shall be exactly what itīs promised to be when purchasing, without any discussions or excuses! (Fact is that my experience tell me that at least since v.4. NT has realeased versions that hasnīt been 100% ready for the users. Which of course cause you problems when youīre in hot piped production cycles.)

2. The interface is IMO something that shall increase itīs values during the lifetime of a product. In this case not much have happend to create faster and more creative ways in the LW interface working process, at least not during the latest 10 years.


You need to distinguish between interface and content.

IMO Lightwave's plain English and intuitive interface is one of its greatest strengths. Its workflow is pretty neat too and fast compared to so many apps if you have a job to do in a hurry.

As for content, like presets, they're always welcome and the present ones don't always show off Lightwave's full capabilities. Interesting that the Modo dev team is presently doing a very good job here - their new presets both demystify the program for newbies and serve as eye candy for publicity. Still wouldn't you rather have Newtek focus their energies on getting the program right?

Core is perhaps a good opportunity for Newtek to collaborate more with the community and get them to share preset character rigs and textures. Once it's ready...

Matt
07-24-2009, 08:13 AM
Believe me I have been Lightwave faithful through the years and its more like an insane love/hate relation than anything else.

Trust me, you're not the only one! Some days I adore LightWave, other times I could punch my monitor in frustration!


I guess many users are afraid of changing the old fashioned style/thinking when it comes to future possibilities of a software.

Not at all, change it where it needs it, keep the good stuff, and there are a number of areas where LightWave got it right, probably one of the reasons many people have stuck with it for so long.

Lightwolf
07-24-2009, 08:26 AM
Trust me, you're not the only one! Some days I adore LightWave, other times I could punch my monitor in frustration!

Than again, that's pretty normal if you work intensely with any complex app.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
07-24-2009, 08:29 AM
Well since you mention Poser I must remind you that I wrote that I wasnīt interested in alternative simplified 3D-programs.

The price issue isnīt optional for me to judge since I havenīt got a clue of the total revenue or how many copies NT sells of LW each year. Therefore itīs impossible to say if itīs realistic or not to add the features I requested.

Eh... of course computers are stupid, otherwise they would never spend so much energy trying to acchieve the users creative intentions with softwares that work against the user with bugs and errors! :D

I am not saying that the interface shall be an amusement park of ignorant blinking and colorful buttons, I just want it to increase itīs user friendly environment and have preset options for fast creations that doesnīt crave that you get into the depth of each program part.

P.S. Have you even looked at OZON3īs interface? Thatīs how it could be done in many of Lightwaves modules! Personally I donīt like OZON3 but thatīs another discussion. I am talking about a clean and helpful interface with an artistic high ambition that of course can be edited into the neutrons for anyone who would like to do that!

I donīt expect built in functions for everything but as it is now there are actually no good built in preset functions at all, for anything!



Look... its a trade off... If u want easy access and super intuiveness, with preset everything, you wind up with a program that winds up producing a largely homogenous output, with the occasional exception when the odd individual really "digs in"... just like poser.

Otherwise, its the computers that are stupid, and if you want to create original content, then you have to describe eveerything in very precise terms that a comp can interpret, and this is gonna require a technical understanding of how the computer is interpreting your inputs, and an interface thats lets you actually input them in a sensible, and organised way.

LW strikes a fair balance imo, and for the price, you cant expect it to have preset, built in solutions for everything

jaxtone
07-24-2009, 08:33 AM
Well Matt, tell me then why the user interface is still designed almost the same as it was 10 years ago?




(Jaxtone wrote: I guess many users are afraid of changing the old fashioned style/thinking when it comes to future possibilities of a software.)

Not at all, change it where it needs it, keep the good stuff, and there are a number of areas where LightWave got it right, probably one of the reasons many people have stuck with it for so long.

Lightwolf
07-24-2009, 08:37 AM
Well Matt, tell me then why the user interface is still designed almost the same as it was 10 years ago?
I thought that presets were the main issue, not the GUI itself ;)

And it's not, if you want to see what the original developers (who were responsible 10 years ago) have been up to, then look at modo.
The new ones haven't been working on LW for that long, and if you want to see where they're heading, look at Core.

Cheers,
Mike

Matt
07-24-2009, 08:41 AM
Well Matt, tell me then why the user interface is still designed almost the same as it was 10 years ago?

Because it's old, and apparently a complete pain to change to any great degree, in order to do a lot of things we now take for granted in other apps it needed re-writing completely, hence CORE.

Matt
07-24-2009, 08:42 AM
Than again, that's pretty normal if you work intensely with any complex app.

Cheers,
Mike

Oh definitely, there's this one app called exrTrader that's a nightmare! :D

:p

CC Rider
07-24-2009, 08:52 AM
Maybe an add-on like 3D Arsenal might be something to think about...
lots of prebuilt objects and scenes that you can use as a starting point to customize or use as is.

:beerchug:

jaxtone
07-24-2009, 12:56 PM
Well you might be right there... but if I look at CORE I donīt see a lot nowadays! The massive precampaign for itīs first presentation on the web that almost made the whole world stop running were not much to see.

The program feature they mentioned as "Lightwave history" might have been hot news at NT but as I remember Maya had this feature already in 1998.

So up to date nothing says that this new Lightwave version CORE is gonna be more user friendly than earlier. After what Iīve seen itīs more like a rip off from other softwares, not a dumb idea if this also open up the Lightwave format to co-operate with other systems as well.

Hope not anyone takes me for a lazy idiot just because I am lazy, and by the way I might be an idiot as well, but still, thereīs a lot to improve when it comes to a user friendly interfaces with more and better features for the users. :D


I thought that presets were the main issue, not the GUI itself ;)

And it's not, if you want to see what the original developers (who were responsible 10 years ago) have been up to, then look at modo.
The new ones haven't been working on LW for that long, and if you want to see where they're heading, look at Core.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
07-24-2009, 01:02 PM
This is exactly what I am talking about. The system might be how complex and deep it wantīs to be. But why must the whole complexity being thrown in the face of anyone as soon as he/she tries to be creative?

This is where I find systems like Maya almost just as weird, itīs like being captured in a tunnel without a bottom and becomes very frustrating when you just have the ambition of being creative without the ambition of being a technically skilled user that spend years of mastering the softwares inner core.

I was dragged into computers in the 80īs and remember DOS in the early versions of Windows. But if I compare the user friendly system Windows became today if looking back I salute the improvement of Microsofts OS even if it hurts saying so.

I was never interested in programming, DOS or anything else under the surface of MS so why should I be interested in digits and codes when trying to be impulsive and spontanous in a 3D program. Every second I have to use for understanding of technical issues kills a second of raw creativity.

I guess the time is not right to discuss this but in the future 3D-artists would probably look at us the same way as we look at them guys that spend months in the past creating a colorful image in Windows 3.1. or a ray-traced render on an Amiga 500.


Than again, that's pretty normal if you work intensely with any complex app.

Cheers,
Mike

jay3d
07-24-2009, 02:42 PM
Now imagine that,

Somebody was working at a firm, then he worked on a project but he did not finish it, during this time some conflict happened then eventually he kicked out/retired/left, and the firm hired somebody in his place to continue his work that so many people demanded it over the years, and the new guy brought his trusted gang in, and he was not an ordinary guy, he is a veteran as good and experienced as the one who left and even more, and he is known for a breakthrough he made before ... now imagine this guy is taking all the blame from the community for some mistakes HE DID NOT DO IT, in fact he was the savior and worked hard enough to punch in a new technology into the old guy's design, and it was an incredible success,

Now he could not take it anymore to be blamed for others work,
and started his own project, and this time insisted that nothing can beat it.

Oh boy that was so epic :)

Direct your blames here : http://www.luxology.com/support/contact.aspx :devil:

probiner
07-24-2009, 05:37 PM
LW, like anything in life could much better, but i hope that HARDCORE members ( sounds like a porn subscription ) that have lot of LW experience, share they thoughts and have good influence in the developlment of CORE, i hope.

Cheers

(Lets all go back to pencils and watercolors :D)

TheDude
07-25-2009, 08:13 AM
I just hope CORE actually addresses the functionality problems with LW as well as making it look like Modo :D

But the best news I've heard from NT in years was that LW was FINALLY going to be a single app...how I HATE jumping from Modeler to Layout.

jaxtone
07-25-2009, 01:08 PM
Ehrm.. the situation with handling two softwares at the same time is probably just as delicate and strange as having a relation with two wifes on distance at the same time. I guess the tech team of today isnīt responsible for the old mess but listen to this. I have a software that I recently updated to the latest version, itīs named Lightwave 3D and the retailer is Newtek. Even if you say so I guess not whoever at the Modo was involved in building the old Lightwave foundation will take me seriously. If I have an old car developed ten or twenty years ago itīs still on the shoulders of the manufacturer to serve me with spare parts and service.

Excuse for saying this but what freightens me most is that the developers do the same mistake as the old NT teams, by only listen to the most technical users that many times reminds me of the ultra christian oral majority when it comes to new ideas or possibillities. They who pronounce it like this: Let things be as they always have been, and if anyone even mention this old fashioned way as complicated or odd, they are probably idiots!

So letīs say I am an idiot, but still I add this because my love/hate relation to Lightwave.

I truly believe that things must change to reach the masses. If anyone think LW will stand upright and survive in competition against AutoDesk I say that LWīs only chance to survival in the long run is by reaching more registered users. The way to success and survival will probably reach the best result if many of the old and stubborn traditionalists will not set the rules of how the new interface, functionality and marketing will end up and look like.

Experienced users will of course have a lot to add but in my opinion their input would probably make most impact in the world of binary codes and scripts, reachable if wanted but mostly well hidden for the rest of the world.

:D



Now imagine that,

Somebody was working at a firm, then he worked on a project but he did not finish it, during this time some conflict happened then eventually he kicked out/retired/left, and the firm hired somebody in his place to continue his work that so many people demanded it over the years, and the new guy brought his trusted gang in, and he was not an ordinary guy, he is a veteran as good and experienced as the one who left and even more, and he is known for a breakthrough he made before ... now imagine this guy is taking all the blame from the community for some mistakes HE DID NOT DO IT, in fact he was the savior and worked hard enough to punch in a new technology into the old guy's design, and it was an incredible success,

Now he could not take it anymore to be blamed for others work,
and started his own project, and this time insisted that nothing can beat it.

Oh boy that was so epic :)

Direct your blames here : http://www.luxology.com/support/contact.aspx :devil:

Dexter2999
07-25-2009, 01:20 PM
I still don't understand people who are hung up on how it looks.
Power, flexibility, and workflow are more important to me.
I do probably 80% by keyboard shortcuts anyway so most of the time I am looking at the model and not the menus or buttons.

So whenever I read "look like Modo" or "look like XSI" I really just don't get it.

jaxtone
07-25-2009, 01:47 PM
Believe me Dexter it isnīt the fancy look of an interface I am talking about!

Itīs functionality in combination with a new way of using the workflow in a 3D-software I am thinking of.

Let me ask you this, when you as an example use dynamics, particles, FFX or anything else and wanīt to acchieve a fast first foundation for tweak and twists without needing to get on the depth of the software, how do you do that?`

If you say, "no problem I have shortcuts for that to", the discussion probably ends here since you are one of these super-brainers that donīt need a learning curve for anything at all. But think of this this, as it is now, there are no short cuts at all to get a basic accurate result that can be increased or detailed later if necessary. You alway have to reach level two or three to even get things started. Thatīs kind of annoying if you donīt have exeptionally easy for learning by white papers or are gifted with loads of time, a secured financial situation or a super-brain.

I still think that most of the actions that till now have been calculated, typed or scripted can be done much easier without time consuming work arounds or steep learning curves. Ok, I understand that if you wanīt to get into the depth the door shall be easy to open but as it is now the door is kind of closed if you donīt want to take a detour across a landscape of white papers.

I must add that this isnīt a specific problem for LW alone and if we take a look at Sasquatch much could be done there as well. What about preset scalps and hair that are adapted to the shape and size of a head and where dynamics are applied by automation with a fast preview window that show exactly what happens. Maybe something to think about for plug-in developers as well.


I still don't understand people who are hung up on how it looks.
Power, flexibility, and workflow are more important to me.
I do probably 80% by keyboard shortcuts anyway so most of the time I am looking at the model and not the menus or buttons.

So whenever I read "look like Modo" or "look like XSI" I really just don't get it.

Dexter2999
07-25-2009, 11:06 PM
I will agree with interface changes that streamline workflow. I dislike there being two separate resolution controls for render resolution and camera resolution and they are not directly linked together by either a tab or a button hotkey to zip between the locations.

I also dislike that if I use particles that I have to go through like five more clicks to make them active. These areas should be directly linked. I think it is logical if you are working with particles that you would want them active yes? So, why isn't the "Activate" button right where you are already working?

To be honest I just do spinny logos so I don't even begin to tap the advanced functions as much as many users do. But I think a hard look to link the obviously necessary steps into a streamlined interface should be a priority. Particles, resolutions, lighting and global illumination, etc...

jaxtone
07-26-2009, 09:14 PM
I have the deepest respect for your spinning logos and would like to say that spinning logos needs all your attention and creativity to not look like amateur productions.

Even if I have produced and delivered productions and events that have been displayed globally, from the White House in Washington to the Emirate of Dubai I would never even think of calling myself an expert. I compare this with my background where I have been a professional guitarplayer for more than 40 years. The day I call myself an expert and are drowned in my own self-esteem I guess pieces of possibilites to grow as a musician are limited. I often listen to or play with beginners because I believe that they also have something to teach me. It could be an unexpected passage, a borderless way of thinking or that the begginger havenīt had time to setup limits for whatīs possible. These are things and situations that deeply inspires me.

Even if I have a full portfolio of productions and spent some years in creating film, Visual FX, soundscore and 3D for major productions I would never consider myself as anything else than a beginner. (God knows I am one and for sure if we are talking about technically advanced stuff or scripts because I really, really hate them. These are items that limits my spontanious creativity in any process.) So compared with many more tecnically advanced and script friendly users on this forum I am still a rookie and thatīs ok with me. The sad thing is that as soon as I request program change that can get a chance for more users to get their hands on the programs inner features without spending months to get a reasonable result. The funny thing is that there are more statements of why things shall be as they always been than positive reactions on how the softwares inner core can be revealed to all of us.

Im not interested in spending months or years to investigate the underlaying secrets in a software if it isnīt absolutely necessary for a certain issue. But thatīs probably why, I more than many ascetic users would like to have a better interface that offers start-up previews with more program features and possibilities for all users to do the good stuff instead of spending months pondering how it would be done.

I can assure you and anyone else that my intentions have never been to lock the software in a frozen cheap and limited 3D-software position. Of course all doors will stay wide open to the inside of the softwares binary codes and scripts for anyone motivated or skilled doing so. But what I donīt get is why so many skilled users become so undfriendly and clearly show that they donīt want me or anyone else to get our hands on the programs full capacity without taking an exhaustable detour along their side?


I will agree with interface changes that streamline workflow. I dislike there being two separate resolution controls for render resolution and camera resolution and they are not directly linked together by either a tab or a button hotkey to zip between the locations.

I also dislike that if I use particles that I have to go through like five more clicks to make them active. These areas should be directly linked. I think it is logical if you are working with particles that you would want them active yes? So, why isn't the "Activate" button right where you are already working?

To be honest I just do spinny logos so I don't even begin to tap the advanced functions as much as many users do. But I think a hard look to link the obviously necessary steps into a streamlined interface should be a priority. Particles, resolutions, lighting and global illumination, etc...

Stooch
07-28-2009, 12:22 PM
lightwave was designed to animate flying logos and text, everything else is tacked on.

dont you forget that.

toby
07-29-2009, 03:00 AM
lightwave was designed to animate flying logos and text, everything else is tacked on.

dont you forget that.
When you're right, you're right.

I'd add that it was probably the fast raytracing (probably still faster than renderman's), good modeler, ease of use, and a renderer that came out great, that started everyone down the road of expecting the world from LW.

plankton
07-29-2009, 03:22 AM
I came over from 3DSMax to lightwave, because it was the only 3d program i could get on a mac.. i found that the user interface was much easier to use and navigate in 3DSMAX, as the buttons have little diagrams / cues which visually show you what the tool can do.

I found it took much longer to learn all of the tools and where they are in lightwave.. if this kind of thing was introduced into Core, it may make it much easier for users.

Im sure everyone that has used lightwave for years will disagree, but i think a lot of new users would switch to other programs, because they are much easier to learn.

my 2 cents..

jaxtone
07-29-2009, 03:55 AM
Damn! Thruth can be painful! :D


lightwave was designed to animate flying logos and text, everything else is tacked on.

dont you forget that.

Lightwolf
07-29-2009, 04:00 AM
Damn! Thruth can be painful! :D
Then again, everything is just a flying logo nowadays anyhow ;)

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
07-29-2009, 04:14 AM
Itīs fun to read your input. This is one point of view that reminds me of a very special occasion.

I produced a huge 3D-project about 11 years ago. We were a few guys involved in that project and my role was to create 3D-animations but also as a team leader and responsible for all customer communications to reach a solution before deadline.

I was the only Lightwaver and all the other guys working under me were actually 3D-Studio guys. In every moment I experienced that the 3D-studio interface had so many adequate solutions for problems in the project.

Where I had to type in strings of information with text the 3D-studio guys just had to press a few clicks with the mouse and they were done. Since then I have tried to at least once a year get attention of the LW users and NT. But I must say there are a lot of traditionalists and reactionaries among us.

Negative aspects of that period was that 3Dstudio was way behind LW in 1998 in how to rig the render farm setup and that they had a much less render capacity than Lightwave when it came to output quality.

(As told earlier I didnīt have a clue about the lousy foundation in Lightwaveīs basement. I did put all my trust in NTīs marketing campaigns where they promised new features in every new update.)

Well, this was years ago so what am I yelling about?

Itīs not the latest news that not much actually have happend with the LW interface since the described above from 1998, and thatīs a pitty, at least if I may judge!

Some say CORE! I say maybe!


I came over from 3DSMax to lightwave, because it was the only 3d program i could get on a mac.. i found that the user interface was much easier to use and navigate in 3DSMAX, as the buttons have little diagrams / cues which visually show you what the tool can do.

I found it took much longer to learn all of the tools and where they are in lightwave.. if this kind of thing was introduced into Core, it may make it much easier for users.

Im sure everyone that has used lightwave for years will disagree, but i think a lot of new users would switch to other programs, because they are much easier to learn.

my 2 cents..

jameswillmott
07-29-2009, 05:12 AM
Let me ask you this, when you as an example use dynamics, particles, FFX or anything else and wanīt to acchieve a fast first foundation for tweak and twists without needing to get on the depth of the software, how do you do that?`


I don't know about anyone else but I go to my collection of presets ( scenes, nodes, FFX files, Multishift profiles etc ) that I've built up and load them in as needed.

Whenever I create something that has potential reuse value, I save it in my presets folder.

Are you suggesting NewTek should create all these presets for us?

toby
07-29-2009, 05:19 AM
I came over from 3DSMax to lightwave, because it was the only 3d program i could get on a mac.. i found that the user interface was much easier to use and navigate in 3DSMAX, as the buttons have little diagrams / cues which visually show you what the tool can do.

I found it took much longer to learn all of the tools and where they are in lightwave.. if this kind of thing was introduced into Core, it may make it much easier for users.
Whaaa??? Oh HELL no. I took max classes before I ever heard of lightwave, and so I never thought I could *enjoy* making 3d, only enjoy looking at it.

Are you seriously saying that you can understand what a button does from these icons better than if they're in english?? There is NO way to tell what these even relate to by looking at them. Icons are for cryptographers. Max's UI is among the worst I've ever seen.

I think you learned max too well before trying to learn something else. That's *never* easy, no matter how much better it is.

toby
07-29-2009, 05:25 AM
Itīs not the latest news that not much actually have happend with the LW interface since the described above from 1998, and thatīs a pitty, at least if I may judge!
Same is true of Max and Maya. Max still has that ridiculously bad material editor for example, and no nodes. Do you know the term "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"... it would save you a lot of headache to learn what that means.

jaxtone
07-29-2009, 05:47 AM
I attended courses of education in MAYA already -97 and -98! I didnīt appreciate that interface then and I donīt do that now, so why should I even ask for improvement in MAYA?

Itīs kind if heartbreaking to see how you seize each opportunity to definitely "not" understand what I mean. Do you really think you can convince me of Lightwaveīs indisputable and optimal interface by "green grass comparizons?

I am a waver and my negative inputs of LWīs lack of improvement through the years donīt automatically make me an Autodesk anal slave! :D

P.S.

My head ache is easily treaten with loads of digitalized morphine!


Same is true of Max and Maya. Max still has that ridiculously bad material editor for example, and no nodes. Do you know the term "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"... it would save you a lot of headache to learn what that means.

jaxtone
07-29-2009, 05:57 AM
Well I was thinking beyond a stage of personally made presets.

The future vision I wish to see is probably more related to upcoming possibilities with the CORE engine. My new experienced knowledge is that the old LW is kind of stucked to itīs lousy foundation.

I would like to see that all featured modules in LW shall be transparent and possible to co-operate in the processes you chose.

In the firts hand more interactivity and closer ways to reach basic results in short projects were no one pays you for the effort in searching for depthz or bugz in a software.

... I probably have to add this once more to not being misunderstood by traditionalists. Of course the door shall be wide open for twists and tweaks, scripts and scraps when you wanīt to personalize the outcome of a hopefully new transparent interface.


I don't know about anyone else but I go to my collection of presets ( scenes, nodes, FFX files, Multishift profiles etc ) that I've built up and load them in as needed.

Whenever I create something that has potential reuse value, I save it in my presets folder.

Are you suggesting NewTek should create all these presets for us?

probiner
07-29-2009, 06:06 AM
Jaxstone, I'm sorry but english is not my first language, but seems to me that you are criticizing 2 things at same time over the name "Interface" (correct me if im wrong). Seems you're unhappy with with LW controls presentation (buttons and so on) and LW mechanics design.

As for the look, i think most ppl like how it is now, when compared to icons from other packages that in my opinion can be handy and save space, but consist in visual polution most of the times. In LW you can have shortcut that hides/shows the Toolbar and floating window, leaving just you and the model ( and your keyboard shortcuts and mouse button menus, otherwise, no use).
Still, on thing i don't like in LW its the ammount of windows poping, that can literaly cover the view from your model or scene. In this department i think Adobe After Effects or so is a good reference for Workspace Management.
(In the attachement check the "docked" palletes, i copyed that from what i saw in JefferySG videos :))

As for mechanics, i think most people, like you, want a more reliable, mindreading and with less workarounds piece of software. There are thousands of complains here at the foruns, so i'm not gonna start poiting stuff in this area.

So don't say ppl have closed minds for mechanics improvement :P

As for spinning logos, CORE will be the best spinning logos software.;D

PS: Helps a lot to add images to your words so ppl can understand you better, i think.

Cheers

jaxtone
07-29-2009, 12:28 PM
No problem with your English mate!

I am unhappy with a lot of things but when it comes to 3D programs in general but especially Lightwave since itīs the tool I use. Of course I can add an image that describes parts of what I would like to speed things up.

I will also attach Mattīs idea of a more interative and helpful interface!

But honestly Iīd like to ask you a question:

Do you actually have functional presets for when you wanīt to create realistic fluids in Lightwave? :cry:




Jaxstone, I'm sorry but english is not my first language, but seems to me that you are criticizing 2 things at same time over the name "Interface" (correct me if im wrong). Seems you're unhappy with with LW controls presentation (buttons and so on) and LW mechanics design.

As for the look, i think most ppl like how it is now, when compared to icons from other packages that in my opinion can be handy and save space, but consist in visual polution most of the times. In LW you can have shortcut that hides/shows the Toolbar and floating window, leaving just you and the model ( and your keyboard shortcuts and mouse button menus, otherwise, no use).
Still, on thing i don't like in LW its the ammount of windows poping, that can literaly cover the view from your model or scene. In this department i think Adobe After Effects or so is a good reference for Workspace Management.
(In the attachement check the "docked" palletes, i copyed that from what i saw in JefferySG videos :))

As for mechanics, i think most people, like you, want a more reliable, mindreading and with less workarounds piece of software. There are thousands of complains here at the foruns, so i'm not gonna start poiting stuff in this area.

So don't say ppl have closed minds for mechanics improvement :P

As for spinning logos, CORE will be the best spinning logos software.;D

PS: Helps a lot to add images to your words so ppl can understand you better, i think.

Cheers

adamredwoods
07-29-2009, 12:35 PM
There is NO way to tell what these even relate to by looking at them. Icons are for cryptographers. Max's UI is among the worst I've ever seen.


Quoted for agreement. Icons CAN be designed so they constitute a meaning, but 3dsmax does not do that. Cinema 4D does it a little better.

I started on 3DSMax when I first started modeling, but now I cannot imagine using it. There are better packages out there, like Cinema 4D. 3DSmax has a lot of features, but for simple, common tasks, not so good.

Chuck
07-29-2009, 01:51 PM
lightwave was designed to animate flying logos and text, everything else is tacked on.

dont you forget that.

Flying logos and doing text came late to the party actually. Modeler wasn't designed with any particular bias as to what was being modeled, although most consider polygonal-approach hard-surface modeling it's strength. Text tools were a late addition to the tool set and have ever since remained pretty limited, actually.

With Layout, if you insist on animation as the focus, the likely best description would be "designed for vehicular animation and everything else is tacked on." Flying logos would be a free by-product of that basic design. However, "designed to render beautiful pictures, and everything else is tacked on" might hew a stroke closer to the bone, provided you observe the fact that in a lot of cases the "tacking on" was actually pretty well designed and executed for the day.

toby
07-29-2009, 02:59 PM
I attended courses of education in MAYA already -97 and -98! I didnīt appreciate that interface then and I donīt do that now, so why should I even ask for improvement in MAYA?

Itīs kind if heartbreaking to see how you seize each opportunity to definitely "not" understand what I mean. Do you really think you can convince me of Lightwaveīs indisputable and optimal interface by "green grass comparizons?

I am a waver and my negative inputs of LWīs lack of improvement through the years donīt automatically make me an Autodesk anal slave! :D

P.S.

My head ache is easily treaten with loads of digitalized morphine!
I'm just trying to tell you that you're smashing your head against a wall expecting LW to be better than Max, Maya and every other package available today.

toby
07-29-2009, 03:02 PM
I came over from 3DSMax to lightwave, because it was the only 3d program i could get on a mac.. i found that the user interface was much easier to use and navigate in 3DSMAX, as the buttons have little diagrams / cues which visually show you what the tool can do.

I found it took much longer to learn all of the tools and where they are in lightwave.. if this kind of thing was introduced into Core, it may make it much easier for users.

Im sure everyone that has used lightwave for years will disagree, but i think a lot of new users would switch to other programs, because they are much easier to learn.

my 2 cents..
Hey plankton, sorry I flew off the handle, I was just shocked at the idea of Max's ui being better than lw's, but I overreacted.

jay3d
07-29-2009, 03:22 PM
LW to be better than Max, Maya and every other package available today.

It will be ... it will be ... :yoda:

Mr Rid
07-29-2009, 04:27 PM
Innovative interface examples and discussion going on here also-
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100657

dballesg
07-29-2009, 04:42 PM
Do you actually have functional presets for when you wanīt to create realistic fluids in Lightwave? :cry:

Hi Jaxtone,

If you are trying to do "realistic fluids" (aka Realflow, Glu3D, etc..) with the current Particle FX in LW. You are aiming to auto disappointing yourself.

LW sadly doesn't have a fluids solver, neither a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothed-particle_hydrodynamics) (SPH), or a Lattice-Boltzmann Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_Boltzmann_methods) one (LBM).

So therefore it is impossible to have presets that'll give you a good starting point.

If you need to add fluids on LW, your best route and FREE (as in beer) is Blender. It has it's own LBM fluids solver.

And Splotchdog created a nice plug-in to load the results back into LW.

Blender Fluid Support (http://www.splotchdog.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=39)

And of course Cageman made a tutorial about it! ;)

Blender Fluids - Crash course on how to get them into LW... :) (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91152)

And sadly I do not think we will see soon a 3D application so intuitive that you do not need to experiment, investigate and read it's manual at least 500 times! :D

David

Andyjaggy
07-29-2009, 04:57 PM
People seem to have really polar opinions when it comes to icons.

I feel like icons are usually useless for telling you what a button actually does, BUT, I think they make it much quicker to actually use the program. Your eye catches them easier and comprehends them quicker then text. So in actual usage, once you all ready know the function they seem to speed things up. For me at least.

probiner
07-29-2009, 07:01 PM
People seem to have really polar opinions when it comes to icons.

I feel like icons are usually useless for telling you what a button actually does, BUT, I think they make it much quicker to actually use the program. Your eye catches them easier and comprehends them quicker then text. So in actual usage, once you all ready know the function they seem to speed things up. For me at least.

Yup just like Photoshop (Tools icons altough it has text menus). Icons use more compact space. Normally you can put mouse button over them and it will tell fuction, or even funcionalities(3DCoat).

But notice Modo. Uses icons and text along side by default. Text tells the operation, icons replaces text when your mind/eyes look for that opeation after some regular use. You can also select the "Simplified" version in Layouts: Icons only in the Tools.

It requires skill to represente 3D operations in a small 2D icon.

Cheers

CC Rider
07-29-2009, 07:36 PM
commit to learning the keyboard shortcuts and forget the icons/buttons...
at least the commands you use the most anyway...

Mr Rid
07-29-2009, 10:47 PM
People seem to have really polar opinions when it comes to icons.

I've been using Photoshop all these years and I still get confused by the icons. What does the little picture of two dutchmen hanging each other do again? :)

I have preferred text ever since using Autodesk Animator back in '89 (before evolving into Max).

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 05:00 AM
During a lifetime I have been struggling to produce an output that seems to be a well mannered normalized truth but where no artistery, images, music, art, sound or math is what really I see, feel or calculate on the inside.

I create what people expect for not disturbing their vision of reality. Lies donīt come easy but by the years you learn how to avoid conflicts. I know I am not alone with this defect/phenomena since loads of creative persons in the past have used this defect/phenomena to produce fantastic cases of art, math or music. But in my case I donīt want to be forced to explain my inner creativity and therefore keep it simple for "four dimension" limited humans. Get me right here though I am not think of myself like unique or try to compare my transparent existence with their exclusive brilliance in any way, just mention this to not being sorted out as a total loser. Itīs not an excuse but I have to explain that I have a proven record of international productions for and with huge companies for successful events and broadcast productions which I canīt blame only on my luck. Itīs rather like my white lies have been more successful than my conscience. God knows Iīve produced so much crap only for money and survival during millons of excellent and exciting creations fades away in silence.

At this forum some inputs from might have been misunderstood, especially when I dizz off many parts in the software because I experience that it rather send your creativity into fields of printing numbers, typing digits or reading manuals than open up gates for better and immediate solutions.

A few people are gifted to seamlessly use both parts of your brain without limiting either creative or logical functions. I guess the written word is a relative new experience for the human mankind since less than 150 years ago many citizens of the western world still couldnīt read or write though it was a privilege for the wealthy and rich.

How was it possible to survive for hundreds of thousands of years without any white papers or manuals and before a school system that excludes parts of our inner skills? Compared with hundreds of thousands of years in an evolutionary process, (if one is not stucked with the fairy tale of the 6000 year evolution process in the Holy Bible), the latest 150 years seems are not to be neglected but still in an inferior position. I am convinced of that real senses that comes with the package helped mankind to experience and develope functions such as dynamics, physics, pain and hopefully even sexual improvements! :D

I truly believe that each and everyone of us have a narrow perspective when it comes to looking out of our own little square boxes and so am I from time to time. When music collegues that been working as conductors or educators for decades reveal that there are a minority of people that actually "can" handle true creativity and sheet music at the same time. I know that this may sound like a totally different story compared to 3D but in my eyes and ears as a musician, film maker and 3D guy itīs the same vision.

I know I cannot create improvised music on intuition if I have tons of music sheets in front of my ears and eyes, and I know I am not unique since this disadvantage/possibility is a gap between the old intuitive way of learning and the new theoretical way of obtaining knowledge.

Are some of you aware of the "door opener" Synesthesia? Im not sure of if I have it more than partial but when I have experienced the full impact of it this have opened up a whole new world to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Especially look at what kind of people that have this phenomena:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia#People_with_synesthesia

The "Lucid Dream" is another stage in the creative process that makes me feel very calm, sensitive and creative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

Technical theorems:
http://prometheus.kai.ru/probl_e.htm
http://www.doctorhugo.org/synaesthesia/art/index.html

Itīs not an excuse, just a gloomy and dull explanation of why I believe I see possibilities that are neglected by many others.

The easiest thing to say would be: Read the manuals and shut the f... up! :D

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 05:10 AM
The easiest thing to say would be: Read the manuals and shut the f... up! :D
No, the easiest thing to say is: Bring on some concrete examples and suggestions. :D

And "I want to do fluids easily" isn't one of them... it's like saying "I want to make a movie" ;)

Cheers,
Mike

probiner
07-30-2009, 05:28 AM
commit to learning the keyboard shortcuts and forget the icons/buttons...
at least the commands you use the most anyway...
Rider, you must have missed my last post in this thread


Bring on some concrete examples and suggestions. :D

Mike you must have missed jaxstone last post in this thread




And "I want to do fluids easily" isn't one of them... it's like saying "I want to make a movie" ;)

Yeah kind of. Don't we dream with mind-reading software? :)

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 05:29 AM
Since I am not a technician I cannot express the technical aspects of how a fluid thing will be programmed in the best of ways!

I only want the fluids to be realistic, fast and easy to use so it donīt force you into reading thousands of sheet in a manual to even make it look wet. I guess most people knows what as an example water, blood or beer, high octane petrol or shampoo looks like.

Then I guess stage two is to let people that are dedicated programmers, code capable and script compatible transform what we see into a functional 3D-module!

What can I say more this that to make it obvious?


No, the easiest thing to say is: Bring on some concrete examples and suggestions. :D

And "I want to do fluids easily" isn't one of them... it's like saying "I want to make a movie" ;)

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 05:39 AM
10 years ago I made an action sequense with cars and people!

Everyone told me not to... since I had no script, budget or planning. It was just a shot in the dark project.

After the first editing was done one of the camera men "who happends to be one of the most negative but also one of the most educated said:

I didnīt know you could make film this way!

Im not saying that this was a fantastic production and during the years I actually have learnt to plan everyting from the smallest piece to the largest in a film production. I still do stuff on intution even if both team, cast and budget are huge, but only when I am strong enough to handle 25 persons and a customer at the same time...

So my reply to you according to your movie comparison would be:

To keep things in order is for cowards, chaos is for the genius! :D




No, the easiest thing to say is: Bring on some concrete examples and suggestions. :D

And "I want to do fluids easily" isn't one of them... it's like saying "I want to make a movie" ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 05:44 AM
Since I am not a technician I cannot express the technical aspects of how a fluid thing will be programmed in the best of ways!
Erm, that's not the point.

What can I say more this that to make it obvious?
I don't see anything that is obvious here. There's a mock-up from Matt (which I've discussed with him when he created it) and a collage of images form your with overlaid images that basically only tell one story: More.
More as in more CPU power for more interactivity. That's a long cry from actually changing the interface.

Honestly, the posts really puzzle me and I stil wonder what you actually want...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 05:46 AM
To keep things in order is for cowards, chaos is for the genius! :D
That's what I keep saying as well.
It's a great (and lazy) excuse for being messy and not organizing things ;)

Cheers,
Mike

dballesg
07-30-2009, 05:54 AM
Since I am not a technician I cannot express the technical aspects of how a fluid thing will be programmed in the best of ways!

I only want the fluids to be realistic, fast and easy to use so it donīt force you into reading thousands of sheet in a manual to even make it look wet. I guess most people knows what as an example water, blood or beer, high octane petrol or shampoo looks like.

Then I guess stage two is to let people that are dedicated programmers, code capable and script compatible transform what we see into a functional 3D-module!

What can I say more this that to make it obvious?

Hi Jaxtone,

That is why I posted those links, so you understand it is not easy to do a "realistic, fast and easy to use" CFD plugin.

I was trying to give you a technical help so you could "at least" give a try with blender + LW.

And Blender fluids are not "so complicated". In fact you can google about them and you will found a lot of tutorials for them.

But I can see you do not get the differences between the fluids you posted as example.

Water it is totally different to blood, different density, viscosity, and even color. And both react very differently to temperature changes. Add to that for example water on gaseous form (steam).

So whomever program a CFD needs to include ALL those (and even more) variables so the user can tweak them "a la carte".

There it is when things start to be complicate. Made an intuitive interface with so many controls it is not easy, unless you limit the user access to many parameters needed to "express" all the different kinds of fluids.

And them you will have the users complaining that the system it is not "adjustable" enough.

Presets at the end it is simply store a table with those values adjusted for a given situation.

Seeing all the frustrations you have with the technical part of 3D I will suggest that you find someone on your area that control that and with whom you can get an arrangement to solve those doubts or problems.

Not trying to be patronizing ok?, only trying to help you.


David

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 05:55 AM
Thank you for the advice!

Iīve downloaded Blender and watched some videos on Youtube and must say that they looks both brilliant and terrible of course depending on who the author!

This preview looks great!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AiLyQWXjIg&feature=related

Blender Boids seems to be exciting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgcjqrPxdJU&feature=related

Questions:

Have you tried it yourself!

How fast is it to work and with compared to LW?

How fast is the output render enginge compared to LW?

Have you tried Blender Boids and in that case is this a separate module in Blender?

J


Hi Jaxtone,

If you are trying to do "realistic fluids" (aka Realflow, Glu3D, etc..) with the current Particle FX in LW. You are aiming to auto disappointing yourself.

LW sadly doesn't have a fluids solver, neither a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothed-particle_hydrodynamics) (SPH), or a Lattice-Boltzmann Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_Boltzmann_methods) one (LBM).

So therefore it is impossible to have presets that'll give you a good starting point.

If you need to add fluids on LW, your best route and FREE (as in beer) is Blender. It has it's own LBM fluids solver.

And Splotchdog created a nice plug-in to load the results back into LW.

Blender Fluid Support (http://www.splotchdog.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=39)

And of course Cageman made a tutorial about it! ;)

Blender Fluids - Crash course on how to get them into LW... :) (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91152)

And sadly I do not think we will see soon a 3D application so intuitive that you do not need to experiment, investigate and read it's manual at least 500 times! :D

David

toby
07-30-2009, 06:00 AM
Since I am not a technician I cannot express the technical aspects of how a fluid thing will be programmed in the best of ways!

I only want the fluids to be realistic, fast and easy to use so it donīt force you into reading thousands of sheet in a manual to even make it look wet. I guess most people knows what as an example water, blood or beer, high octane petrol or shampoo looks like.
Fluid/dynamic simulations for the Day After Tomorrow and GI Joe took months of programming/scripting in the unmatched (and VERY technical) dynamics of Houdini, each sim took days to process on the best hardware of the time, and took TERRAbytes of hard drive space to store once calculated. So NT should be able to whip that out, and make it real-time and as artist-friendly as a paintbrush, in one upgrade, right?

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 06:03 AM
So NT should be able to whip that out, and make it real-time and as artist-friendly as a paintbrush, in one upgrade, right?
One could argue that "proper" artists shouldn't use simulations anyhow ;)

Cheers,
Mike

toby
07-30-2009, 06:08 AM
One could argue that "proper" artists shouldn't use simulations anyhow ;)

Cheers,
Mike
That's right, make a morph target your-own-damn-self. Hell, paint it, if you're such an artiste.

dballesg
07-30-2009, 06:14 AM
Hi again,

I tried Blender fluids a few weeks ago (before my computer started to play with me, so you are not alone lost on technicalities, I am writing this from my laptop while my main computer is doing a LONG chkdsk of the drives :( )

As ANY CFD out there (Realflow included) calculate a scene with fluids IT IS NOT fast. Depends of course on your setup! :)

As well as memory available and processor power. Sadly Blender fluids do not do use the GPU to accelerate the calculations.

The Blender render engine it is ok to my taste, but I've seen quite good renders from people that knows how to use it. I think if I needed to do fluids I will use the plugin by Splotchdog that I posted before. And try the integration with LW. I think it could have a problem with Motion Blur, so read that other thread I pointed about how to blur the fluids exported.

I will suggest to download Blender 32 and 64 bits version 2.49a. As LW both versions can be installed on the same computer.

And start with something very simple, like a simple emitter for fluid inside a box. Nothing more complicated. In fact follow the example on the blender docs website, that was I made when I started with it.

I recommend you read the navigation first. So you can move yourself around Blender panels and viewports. It is a bit ackward but easier than it sounds once you know how Blender "thinks".

Documentation (http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual)

Blender Fluids Docs (http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual/Physics/Fluids)

Blender Art Magazine (http://blenderart.org/issues/) number 16 has a good content about particles and simulation in blender as well.

And from the top of my head that city animation took quite a long time to calculate. I think there was a thread on Blenderartists were they talked about the calculation times.

David

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 06:16 AM
That's right, make a morph target your-own-damn-self. Hell, paint it, if you're such an artiste.
Stupid example (and too few particles in some place): http://www.wicked-images.com/2009/07/karcher-water-cooled-motor/ - no sim used, and I'd argue that actually building this and simulating it would have been a real killer as well.

Heck, and I'm not even an artist ;)

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 06:24 AM
I still donīt understand what you wanīt me to say more than what already been said? I am going to ask and suggest so you might accuse or excuse me when doing so, but I just canīt get down on this as a cry baby! Maybe itīs not possible to rid things out but I wanīt at least give it a chance before all adult manner is totally blown away.

If you mean that I am underorganized because I randomly let my inner creativity take over my production cycles it might be true, but shy would that bother you more than some of the worlds largest industrial companies that doesnīt seem to have any problems with it? I guess not a co-operation as a sub-developer production company wouldīve been possible if I was just as messed up as you insinuate! So this canīt be the real problem, right?

Thereīs something else behind this and let me guess that it has something to do with something like, "donīt change the world I know", or why would anyone suggest such low level crap?

I wonder how come you miss each and every sentence in what I am trying to express? I just wanīt an easier and more direct way reach a basic solution for each module and also an instant interactive connection between the modules. This is a wishlist not a technically solution. It would been a sad story if I have to write a bunch of technically advanced white papers or a newly designed manual to make you understand what I mean? This isnīt the things I usually do since unlike you I donīt have this delicate need. What I do need is to hear other peopleīs views, but not on the behalf of dignity!

If I am not qualified to communicate with you can there also be a chance that you are overqualified for what I try to express with future visions, feelings, desires or other humanized appendixes?

Well, I might have misunderstood what you mean and that would be really sad since I really enjoy to read you inputs and take part of your experience. But now I suddenly get a feeling that tells me that you are taking out frustration on me as a person here and to me it seems a bit strange and uncomfortable.

In case this is true letīs call it a day and let the discussion end here before itīs getting nasty! Just let me know so other users wonīt be bothered or damaged on the way to Hades! :question:


That's what I keep saying as well.
It's a great (and lazy) excuse for being messy and not organizing things ;)

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
07-30-2009, 06:25 AM
i could get around lightwave 7.5 just fine...thesedays with 9.6 i find there's just too many text buttons to read, re read and again re read when hunting down a tool...the layout of the tools is also really annoying, on occasion i had to swith to a 7.0 layout just to FIND a tool as i could not locate it in 9.6 layout/modeler to me the sheer number of grey text buttons is not helping at all.

there's a lack of color coding buttons, logical splitting and logical tabbing..yes i know i can customise my u.i. so it makes SENSE to me but i don't HAVE TO do this in other apps so that just hi light's there IS a problem...

take this idea on board...

if you MUST stick with text buttons how about making each tabbed set of text buttons a different base color...than once i find a tool even if it's layed out poorly as now at least i can register it was in the green tab not the blue tab 'somewhere'

i also see this growing in CORE, lessons are not being learned in the layout of the u.i.

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 06:52 AM
I still donīt understand what you wanīt me to say more than what already been said?
Well, the thing is:
Easier, faster, better is always a given. Everybody wants that.
The How and Why (as in "why like that") are (imho) the questions that move things forward.

If you mean that I am underorganized because I randomly let my inner creativity take over my production cycles it might be true, but shy would that bother you more than some of the worlds largest industrial companies that doesnīt seem to have any problems with it?
I was talking about myself here ;)
Having said that, the looking at the people I've worked with that I admire most for their artistic vision they've all been extremely well organised.

Thereīs something else behind this and let me guess that it has something to do with something like, "donīt change the world I know", or why would anyone suggest such low level crap?
It's got nothing to do with that, as I said at the top of this post.


I wonder how come you miss each and every sentence in what I am trying to express? I just wanīt an easier and more direct way reach a basic solution for each module and also an instant interactive connection between the modules. This is a wishlist not a technically solution.
Yeah, but that's what everybody wants. But there is a point where you have to turn a wishlist into a vision, design that and then see if it can be implemented.
I wish for world peace as well ;)

But now I suddenly get a feeling that tells me that you are taking out frustration on me as a person here and to me it seems a bit strange and uncomfortable.
No, not at all. I suppose I've read too many wishy-washy "I want it better" posts with no substance beyond that.
I guess an analogy would be a customer looking at your work, saying: Hm, no, make it better. That doesn't really help either, does it?

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 06:54 AM
take this idea on board...
For all I care, get rid of all of them and give me a global search function á la Blender 2.5, plus a shelf for quick access buttons. :D

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 06:57 AM
Gi Joe is a kind of newbie compared with "Day after tomorrow" that was released in 2004 but planned and produced years earlier. If the release was five years ago that gives me information of that the production process might have been most hectic in 2003. Thats six years ago and I guess as ususal in the aftermath of each fantastic production the tools and softwares required to this ends up like standard tools in each minor production house some years later.

I also is aware of that LW has been announced as a faithful participant in many feature productions through the years. The teams behind these technical and artistical successes have of course been just as qualified as them you mentioned in "Gi Joe" and "The Day After Tomorrow"!

(... "why would anyone invent the wheel once more"? Itīs already there, circle shaped and beautiful but then re-designed with rubber on or as minimal parts in technical solutions to fit different needs, occasions and budgets...)

This is what should happen if we were living in the best of 3D-worlds! That for example Lightwave hired skilled guys that could implement software elements similar to them you talk about in Lightwaveīs inner core. Because if it took your golden teams months, (and probably years to master), to get a decent result, why should I as a user spend probably half of a life time at my own trying to do whatīs already done?

Add what this would cost on the purchase of the product. In reality this would save enough time to be affordable because as a producer you could offer better solutions for your customers.

Do you see or hear the point in what I am writing/saying?


Fluid/dynamic simulations for the Day After Tomorrow and GI Joe took months of programming/scripting in the unmatched (and VERY technical) dynamics of Houdini, each sim took days to process on the best hardware of the time, and took TERRAbytes of hard drive space to store once calculated. So NT should be able to whip that out, and make it real-time and as artist-friendly as a paintbrush, in one upgrade, right?

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 07:10 AM
Nice to hear we are ok... :thumbsup:

Most of the time I work as a Creative Director/Producer with full responsibilty for success or failure, so my mind and hands are pretty much free as long as they move and act inside the limits of my customers expectations.

But in case I would work under someone that couldnīt direct me to what he expected me to do I would probably knock him down!

I have actually added an image that describes the easiness I would prefere in a user interface! I rather prefer images and slides than unecessary complicated fields for text or numbers. To get into properties there could of course be another box! Havenīt you seen this native suggestion yet?

I might be damaged by my background as an industrial CAD/CAM resource in the 80īs where I designed engine parts for heavy trucks for the car industry. That job included loads of script strings and nano detailed precision as well as F.E.M. but in my opinion thatīs not what Lightwave or other Visual 3D Soft does. Visual 3D-softwares as Lightwave that have no natural connection to industrial standards is more like a fantasy tool where not much are applicable/cordinated to manufacture or assembly lines.

I almost said "thanks god" but then I would lie since I remember I asked Newtek the first time in 1998 when I requested better import/export tools for Lightwave. I know the new support/techteam at Newtek are not the one to blame for being ignored in the old days but at the same time itīs kind of funny that they still havenīt answered after 11 years!!



Well, the thing is:
Easier, faster, better is always a given. Everybody wants that.
The How and Why (as in "why like that") are (imho) the questions that move things forward.

I was talking about myself here ;)
Having said that, the looking at the people I've worked with that I admire most for their artistic vision they've all been extremely well organised.

It's got nothing to do with that, as I said at the top of this post.

Yeah, but that's what everybody wants. But there is a point where you have to turn a wishlist into a vision, design that and then see if it can be implemented.
I wish for world peace as well ;)

No, not at all. I suppose I've read too many wishy-washy "I want it better" posts with no substance beyond that.
I guess an analogy would be a customer looking at your work, saying: Hm, no, make it better. That doesn't really help either, does it?

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-30-2009, 07:19 AM
Nice to hear we are ok... :thumbsup:
Oh yeah, no worries. I might have some strong convictions at times... but no hard feelings.


I have actually added an image of the easiness I would prefere in the user interface! Not unecessary text fields or similar but to get into properties there could of course be another box! Havenīt you seen this native suggestion yet?
http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=75794&d=1248891960
This one? I see that as less than a general mood board - and even considering its simplicity it already doesn't adress a lot of the issues that come up even in that simple state.
I.e. first image, "Direction" - as a bar? What kind of direction do you want to control with one dimension?

By looking at them I could see something like that work as a set-up from a TD for a _very_ specific situation. But to be frank, in the past 15 years I've rarely had to create the same effect twice (except for different shots within the same project).

Cheers,
Mike

Cageman
07-30-2009, 07:21 AM
When you're right, you're right.

I'd add that it was probably the fast raytracing (probably still faster than renderman's)

Well, if LWs Raytracing would be slower than Renderman, we would really have to look around for alternatives, because Renderman is a scanline render that can do raytracing, but painfully slow.

I have to assume that Mental ray is the renderer you were reffering to?

:)

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 07:27 AM
I will definitely check up on Blenderīs interface and render times.

Thanks for helping!

P.S. I hope not it was the installation of Blender that soaked you computer? :D


Hi again,

I tried Blender fluids a few weeks ago (before my computer started to play with me, so you are not alone lost on technicalities, I am writing this from my laptop while my main computer is doing a LONG chkdsk of the drives :( )

As ANY CFD out there (Realflow included) calculate a scene with fluids IT IS NOT fast. Depends of course on your setup! :)

As well as memory available and processor power. Sadly Blender fluids do not do use the GPU to accelerate the calculations.

The Blender render engine it is ok to my taste, but I've seen quite good renders from people that knows how to use it. I think if I needed to do fluids I will use the plugin by Splotchdog that I posted before. And try the integration with LW. I think it could have a problem with Motion Blur, so read that other thread I pointed about how to blur the fluids exported.

I will suggest to download Blender 32 and 64 bits version 2.49a. As LW both versions can be installed on the same computer.

And start with something very simple, like a simple emitter for fluid inside a box. Nothing more complicated. In fact follow the example on the blender docs website, that was I made when I started with it.

I recommend you read the navigation first. So you can move yourself around Blender panels and viewports. It is a bit ackward but easier than it sounds once you know how Blender "thinks".

Documentation (http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual)

Blender Fluids Docs (http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual/Physics/Fluids)

Blender Art Magazine (http://blenderart.org/issues/) number 16 has a good content about particles and simulation in blender as well.

And from the top of my head that city animation took quite a long time to calculate. I think there was a thread on Blenderartists were they talked about the calculation times.

David

dballesg
07-30-2009, 08:23 AM
P.S. I hope not it was the installation of Blender that soaked you computer? :D

Nope it wasn't! :D A stupid glitch on Vista (soft restart after a hang up) altered the partition on the drive C:. After a couple of chkdsk on each partiton and redone the permissions on the D: partition looks like it is working again! :)

David

Stooch
07-30-2009, 12:13 PM
Flying logos and doing text came late to the party actually. Modeler wasn't designed with any particular bias as to what was being modeled, although most consider polygonal-approach hard-surface modeling it's strength. Text tools were a late addition to the tool set and have ever since remained pretty limited, actually.

With Layout, if you insist on animation as the focus, the likely best description would be "designed for vehicular animation and everything else is tacked on." Flying logos would be a free by-product of that basic design. However, "designed to render beautiful pictures, and everything else is tacked on" might hew a stroke closer to the bone, provided you observe the fact that in a lot of cases the "tacking on" was actually pretty well designed and executed for the day.
i know marketing speak when i see it.

i hope everyone else does too.

lightwave was made for video toaster. we all know what video toaster was used for...

anyway, chuck, i think your best bet is to trumpet core. to say that LW interface wasnt tacked on is silly. lscript being a perfect evidence of lightwaves "foundation"

modeler was tacked on to layout or layout was tacked on to modeler. you can have either. was it done in an exceptionally good way? hell no.

did people create some stunning work in spite? of course. there are advantages to everything, if you want to convince us with excellent integration and design, CORE is your proving ground. words are not.

as far as what makes a good interface?

customiseability.

I dont care what color it is, i dont care if you use icons, i dont care if you use menus.

All i care is being able to see what is fired off with every command and how to make the UI fit my needs. ill worry about usability.

Matt
07-30-2009, 01:02 PM
I will also attach Mattīs idea of a more interative and helpful interface!

Whoah, that's a blast from the past! I did that 'LightWave 8 Dynamics Usability Report' PDF way back in 2005!

:D

Mr Rid
07-30-2009, 04:21 PM
Fluid/dynamic simulations for the Day After Tomorrow and GI Joe took months of programming/scripting in the unmatched (and VERY technical) dynamics of Houdini, each sim took days to process on the best hardware of the time, and took TERRAbytes of hard drive space to store once calculated. So NT should be able to whip that out, and make it real-time and as artist-friendly as a paintbrush, in one upgrade, right?

I dont know that NT should even bother putting time into developing things like complex particles/dynamics when there are plenty of 3rd party support tools already handling it much better. If they could at least do something about being supported by apps like Thinking Particles, Particle Flow, FumeFX/Afterburn, RealFlow Renderkit (Benjamin Button water), RayFire (2012 destruction), Endorphin, Craft Tools, Shave & Haircut. First they need to get basic Collada and FBX I/O working right. But LW is so often left in the cold. Since Dynamite exploded, what are we left with?

toby
07-30-2009, 06:56 PM
Gi Joe is a kind of newbie compared with "Day after tomorrow" that was released in 2004 but planned and produced years earlier. If the release was five years ago that gives me information of that the production process might have been most hectic in 2003. Thats six years ago and I guess as ususal in the aftermath of each fantastic production the tools and softwares required to this ends up like standard tools in each minor production house some years later.I'm sure the makers of Houdini learned a bit from feedback from the studio, but that's about it. None of tools or techniques that the studio may have come up with would go out to software companies. A smaller, lightwave house did fx for "The Guardian" and they used Realflow for the dynamics, plus a lot of python scripting.

You seem to be saying "it should be easy"... well, it is easy for some people, so they'd be aggravated if any time was spent making it even easier, instead of more powerful. Does your desire for more ease of use take priority over someone else's desire for more control, flexibility, speed, whatever? And who knows whether you're in the minority or not, maybe there's 10 technical people for every artistic person who wants it easier.



I also is aware of that LW has been announced as a faithful participant in many feature productions through the years. The teams behind these technical and artistical successes have of course been just as qualified as them you mentioned in "Gi Joe" and "The Day After Tomorrow"!

(... "why would anyone invent the wheel once more"? Itīs already there, circle shaped and beautiful but then re-designed with rubber on or as minimal parts in technical solutions to fit different needs, occasions and budgets...)

This is what should happen if we were living in the best of 3D-worlds! That for example Lightwave hired skilled guys that could implement software elements similar to them you talk about in Lightwaveīs inner core. Because if it took your golden teams months, (and probably years to master), to get a decent result, why should I as a user spend probably half of a life time at my own trying to do whatīs already done?

How in the world can you determine that they've already done the work that you need? Or do you think that since someone else has mastered something, that you wouldn't need to? I don't understand this one.



Add what this would cost on the purchase of the product. In reality this would save enough time to be affordable because as a producer you could offer better solutions for your customers.
And if they had to raise the price to $20,000 just to break even?


i could get around lightwave 7.5 just fine...thesedays with 9.6 i find there's just too many text buttons to read, re read and again re read when hunting down a tool...the layout of the tools is also really annoying, on occasion i had to swith to a 7.0 layout just to FIND a tool as i could not locate it in 9.6 layout/modeler to me the sheer number of grey text buttons is not helping at all.

there's a lack of color coding buttons, logical splitting and logical tabbing..yes i know i can customise my u.i. so it makes SENSE to me but i don't HAVE TO do this in other apps so that just hi light's there IS a problem...

take this idea on board...

if you MUST stick with text buttons how about making each tabbed set of text buttons a different base color...than once i find a tool even if it's layed out poorly as now at least i can register it was in the green tab not the blue tab 'somewhere'

i also see this growing in CORE, lessons are not being learned in the layout of the u.i.
Why don't you leave it in 7.0 style? Or is it more because of the colors (I loved lw7's style myself) or because there's so many more tools?


Well, if LWs Raytracing would be slower than Renderman, we would really have to look around for alternatives, because Renderman is a scanline render that can do raytracing, but painfully slow.

I have to assume that Mental ray is the renderer you were reffering to?

:)
I don't know if LW's is faster than MR, MR screams, so maybe not. might be worth a test -

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 08:53 PM
If thinking of what fresh new solutions NT has not come up with tha latest 10 years I consider to see your idea as late news anyway! :D


Whoah, that's a blast from the past! I did that 'LightWave 8 Dynamics Usability Report' PDF way back in 2005!

:D

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 09:00 PM
In one way I think itīs sad that all fancy features in LW are so distanced even from visions and desires, but I totally agree on the fact compability, import/export and capability to adapt with the rest of the world is something that NT would prioritize though it should have been solved years ago.

Everytime I mentioned this issu like a request the ignorant answer has been marinated with a very negative attitude and contained explanations about that there actually excists third party suppliers that handles stuff like that.


I dont know that NT should even bother putting time into developing things like complex particles/dynamics when there are plenty of 3rd party support tools already handling it much better. If they could at least do something about being supported by apps like Thinking Particles, Particle Flow, FumeFX/Afterburn, RealFlow Renderkit (Benjamin Button water), RayFire (2012 destruction), Endorphin, Craft Tools, Shave & Haircut. First they need to get basic Collada and FBX I/O working right. But LW is so often left in the cold. Since Dynamite exploded, what are we left with?

jaxtone
07-30-2009, 09:12 PM
I'm sure the makers of Houdini learned a bit from feedback from the studio, but that's about it. None of tools or techniques that the studio may have come up with would go out to software companies. A smaller, lightwave house did fx for "The Guardian" and they used Realflow for the dynamics, plus a lot of python scripting.

You seem to be saying "it should be easy"... well, it is easy for some people, so they'd be aggravated if any time was spent making it even easier, instead of more powerful. Does your desire for more ease of use take priority over someone else's desire for more control, flexibility, speed, whatever? And who knows whether you're in the minority or not, maybe there's 10 technical people for every artistic person who wants it easier.

Unfortunally that could be a truth... and maybe thatīs why so many productions are totally streamlined and have no life in them!



How in the world can you determine that they've already done the work that you need? Or do you think that since someone else has mastered something, that you wouldn't need to? I don't understand this one..

Because I wanīt to! Since they probably have used it for good I canīt see any reason to place it in a place where it collect dust! And since everything has a price they could make profit on it again!

The great "Orphanage" actually gave away stuff theyīve used in sharp productions and it was well appreciated by many I must say!



And if they had to raise the price to $20,000 just to break even?


That sounds as a wild guess so I have to do the same:

What if they wouldnīt do that?

What if the price was nice enough to to be affordable and that you knew that these solutions saved loads of time in your production cycles?

toby
07-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Because I wanīt to! Since they probably have used it for good I canīt see any reason to place it in a place where it collect dust! And since everything has a price they could make profit on it again!
You mean like a preset? Like a particle explosion they might've made for testing? Odds are it wouldn't work for you, too fast, too slow, accelerates too fast or too slow, etc. so you'd have to learn the controls anyway.



That sounds as a wild guess so I have to do the same:

What if they wouldnīt do that?

What if the price was nice enough to to be affordable and that you knew that these solutions saved loads of time in your production cycles?
Well I assumed that's what you were thinking, that's why I brought up the possibility of it being impractical.

digefxgrp
07-31-2009, 02:19 AM
lightwave was made for video toaster.Actually it wasn’t.
I contacted Allen after seeing his test piece in the first Amiga World video and over the course of a couple of months we had a few conversations regarding this new software program he was developing. It was going to be much more powerful than VideoScape and something he was doing to allow himself to be able to produce higher quality effects work than what could be done with VS. It wasn't until sometime later that Newtek got interested/involved and the software was rolled into the first Amiga Toaster.
Same thing with Modeler. It started out as Aegis 3D Modeler and was upgraded and redesigned to be part of the Toaster's suite of tools. It never started out as "Toaster Modeler".


modeler was tacked on to layout or layout was tacked on to modeler. you can have either.
It was neither. They were always separate programs but now with some plumbing to allow them to work in conjunction with each other...a common file format and the ability to swap geometry ala the ol' "Put" and "Get" functions, and later the Hub.

Chuck was correct regarding LW’s use for doing logo tosses. It wasn’t until 3 that the Text Tool was added, so pre-3, it was a b***h doing logo work. Sure, you could buy some of the pre-made 3D font sets but the pickin’s were always pretty thin. Building a logo by hand was hideous since Modeler didn’t have the toolset needed to make it simple. Sculpt 4D was far better suited for building font geometry but it still was a time consuming and painful process… and programs like Pixel 3D just outright sucked.
Actually I don’t remember many LW’ers back then doing logo work. I remember far more guys flipping in logo pages using the Toaster’s DVE effects than doing them in 3D. I did a couple of tosses with the early versions but it was mostly industrial video work that made LW really shine. I knew plenty of guys that were up to their necks doing that kind of stuff. Good projects and killer money.:D

jaxtone
07-31-2009, 10:12 AM
Very interesting story! Great to hear stuff from the beginning of Lightwaveīs origin!

As I remember there were tons of raytracing and nowadays low status tryouts in the beginning. Today many people laugh and dizz that but at the time that new and fancy possibility must have been a cracker compared to airbrush and pen works.


Actually it wasn’t. I contacted Allen after seeing his test piece in the first Amiga World video and over the course of a couple of months we had a few conversations regarding this new software program he was developing. It was going to be much more powerful than VideoScape and something he was doing to allow himself to be able to produce higher quality effects work than what could be done with VS. It wasn't until sometime later that Newtek got interested/involved and the software was rolled into the first Amiga Toaster.

Same thing with Modeler. It started out as Aegis 3D Modeler and was upgraded and redesigned to be part of the Toaster's suite of tools. It never started out as "Toaster Modeler".

It was neither. They were always separate programs but now with some plumbing to allow them to work in conjunction with each other...a common file format and the ability to swap geometry ala the ol' "Put" and "Get" functions, and later the Hub.

Chuck was correct regarding LW’s use for doing logo tosses. It wasn’t until 3 that the Text Tool was added, so pre-3, it was a b***h doing logo work. Sure, you could buy some of the pre-made 3D font sets but the pickin’s were always pretty thin. Building a logo by hand was hideous since Modeler didn’t have the toolset needed to make it simple. Sculpt 4D was far better suited for building font geometry but it still was a time consuming and painful process… and programs like Pixel 3D just outright sucked.

Actually I don’t remember many LW’ers back then doing logo work. I remember far more guys flipping in logo pages using the Toaster’s DVE effects than doing them in 3D. I did a couple of tosses with the early versions but it was mostly industrial video work that made LW really shine. I knew plenty of guys that were up to their necks doing that kind of stuff. Good projects and killer money.:D

Matt
07-31-2009, 03:03 PM
I still maintain this idea was my best concept!

Lightwolf
07-31-2009, 03:09 PM
I still maintain this idea was my best concept!
Silly|Rig? Yup the best!

The minimum requirement of a 6MBit DSL line or higher for the licensing might put some people off...

Cheers,

Mike

oobievision
07-31-2009, 03:17 PM
It would be nice if Lightwave supported Multi monitor setups cause I would gladly have all my pop up on a separate monitor

Lightwolf
07-31-2009, 03:21 PM
It would be nice if Lightwave supported Multi monitor setups cause I would gladly have all my pop up on a separate monitor
What do you mean by pop-up? I work with a dual monitor set-up all the time.... Panels on one monitor, the main window on the other.

Cheers,
Mike

Stooch
07-31-2009, 03:25 PM
I don't know if LW's is faster than MR, MR screams, so maybe not. might be worth a test -

when you are right, you are right lol

mr has very fast GI + FG + AOC + MIAx shaders combination. once you learn the bsp settings and FG + GI tuning, and use light linking and depth shadow maps wisely, even full 3d motion blur becomes more than manageable.

combined with maya render layers, you can hack a scene into very manageable chunks and do so quite easily.

i think if core wants to compete, it really needs to focus on render layers and multipass output and do so with minimum fuss and more reliably than maya.

i want to see standard, one click jobs for all common production passes, including color coded object ids that respect transparency and motion blur natively.

Core doesnt have to duplicate every single tool that maya has, but basic capabilities should be the envy of all.

Lightwolf
07-31-2009, 03:29 PM
...including color coded object ids that respect transparency and motion blur natively.
Erm, out of curiosity... how do you create them now, how are they saved and how to you handle them in compositing?
These are proper IDs, right, not RGB Mattes?

Cheers,
Mike

toby
07-31-2009, 04:15 PM
mr has very fast GI + FG
I have tested MR's gi vs. LW, MR smokes LW. But that was 3.5, using 3.6 beta was another story, 1/6 as fast (and verified by an mental images programmer I know). Hopefully that's been fixed.

Stooch
07-31-2009, 06:13 PM
Erm, out of curiosity... how do you create them now, how are they saved and how to you handle them in compositing?
These are proper IDs, right, not RGB Mattes?

Cheers,
Mike

look up megaTK mental ray shaders.

also look up docs for maya 2009, you have to add an id attribute to the transform nodes for all items yuo want to pass the object it assign a value to it. mr will then assign a color to each instance of item transforms.

this isnt like using RGB mattes because you are only assigning one shader and MR does the rest.. you can get really fancy here and tie the object ids to your comp package to automate things.

Lightwolf
08-01-2009, 02:25 AM
look up megaTK mental ray shaders.
I had a look but didn't find much regarding Ids...


this isnt like using RGB mattes because you are only assigning one shader and MR does the rest.. you can get really fancy here and tie the object ids to your comp package to automate things.
So, is it one exported buffer per ID then, as a per item matte as opposed to a proper id pass?

I was just wondering how an id pass should work with AA and motion blur. I can see a per item matte work.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
08-01-2009, 03:15 AM
Mental Ray, isnīt that developed for almost any software but Lightwave?

toby
08-01-2009, 03:26 AM
Mental Ray, isnīt that developed for almost any software but Lightwave?
Yes it's been a lifesaver to programs with crappy internal renderers. (max, maya)

Matt
08-01-2009, 06:39 AM
Yes it's been a lifesaver to programs with crappy internal renderers. (max, maya)

Good comeback! :D But actually, true!

jaxtone
08-01-2009, 08:41 AM
... and since Lightwave is out of the MR game, whatīs the best alternative supposed to be for us who are allergic to anything connected to the greedy world of Autodesk?

jasonwestmas
08-01-2009, 10:53 AM
One could argue that "proper" artists shouldn't use simulations anyhow ;)

Cheers,
Mike
Or use the sim and then try to stylize it to fit the production.:jam:

Artists not excluded.

Stooch
08-01-2009, 10:14 PM
I had a look but didn't find much regarding Ids...

So, is it one exported buffer per ID then, as a per item matte as opposed to a proper id pass?

I was just wondering how an id pass should work with AA and motion blur. I can see a per item matte work.

Cheers,
Mike

no its a single buffer for all ids, and then each object id gets its own matte color.

http://www.minning.de/software/minshaders

there are lots of variations.

mental ray for maya comes with mia_x shaders, mia_X and its variants allow you to output to custom buffers via the buffer output node, object ids being one of many.

just fire up maya 2009, open up "create mental ray" shaders section and look for any mia derivatives with a _x suffix. they are all buffer enabled shaders and all are VERY useful for advanced compositors.

im sure mr dennis pontonier can whip up something similar. however what im asking for is a simple checkbox, currently the mental ray approach requries some setup, which to me shouldnt be necessary. also there are limitations with motion blur and refraction. in general maya layer system is a love-love-hate relationship.

toby
08-02-2009, 12:24 AM
... and since Lightwave is out of the MR game, whatīs the best alternative supposed to be for us who are allergic to anything connected to the greedy world of Autodesk?
Kray, fprime, fry, maxwell

Lightwolf
08-02-2009, 03:18 AM
no its a single buffer for all ids, and then each object id gets its own matte color.
...
im sure mr dennis pontonier can whip up something similar. however what im asking for is a simple checkbox, currently the mental ray approach requries some setup, which to me shouldnt be necessary.

Yup: http://forums.infinimap.com/index.php/topic,414.msg2281.html#msg2281
(now you know why I was wondering all the time, I was expecting a magic trick that allows you to use IDs with motion blur - or any other sampled effects).

also there are limitations with motion blur and refraction. in general maya layer system is a love-love-hate relationship.
That's a given for anything ID related though and not really the fault of the renderer.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
08-02-2009, 03:30 AM
Ok, I have heard about Maxwell and by what I have heard it considers it to be slow and expensive.

I have used FPrime earlier in a customer related project but experienced it as quite useless. Some scenes processed by FPrime that contained external plugs and stuff that didnīt come with Lightwaveīs own features didnīt render out the excpected result from the render farm.

Kray and Fry doesnīt tell me much yet, just been scratching on the surface of the information that followed some e-mailed newsletters.

But I guess thereīs someone who have tried īem all and could tell if thereīs any traps connected to them...

By the way, has anyone heard if CORE possible will outrun those rendering optimizers by adding some fancy speed-up rendering engine to itīs new features?


Kray, fprime, fry, maxwell

jasonwestmas
08-02-2009, 07:26 AM
Ok, I have heard about Maxwell and by what I have heard it considers it to be slow and expensive.

I have used FPrime earlier in a customer related project but experienced it as quite useless. Some scenes processed by FPrime that contained external plugs and stuff that didnīt come with Lightwaveīs own features didnīt render out the excpected result from the render farm.




Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath-water.8~

Cageman
08-02-2009, 07:58 PM
just fire up maya 2009, open up "create mental ray" shaders section and look for any mia derivatives with a _x suffix. they are all buffer enabled shaders and all are VERY useful for advanced compositors.

They don't offer enough for us though, so we tend to use our own custom built shader that outputs a hell of alot more than mia x does. ;)

However, in our recent project, Maya/MR choked too much on some stuff, and after 1 day of intense resurection attempts by our most die-hard Maya/MR guys, we moved the stuff over to LW, which could handle the polycount so much better. The shading/lighting was a breeze as well...to be honest, I was chocked at how well LW could handle the stuff we threw at it, and rest assured that everyone else were amazed as well...

Goes to show that no product is failsafe, and for us, in this case, it happened to be Maya/MR that wasn't up for it. LW to the rescue.

:D

(I know that Stooch will explode about this...and that is the reason I post it).

LOL

:)

Stooch
08-02-2009, 09:16 PM
They don't offer enough for us though, so we tend to use our own custom built shader that outputs a hell of alot more than mia x does. ;)
:)

i already mentioned mega tk shaders. im only talking about miax because the guy who i was responding to couldnt find mega tk online. but nice to see you still suck at reading. ;)

and you arent worth exploding over.

oh and btw, as i type this im rendering a maya scene with mental ray.

this is a disney project that has seen 2 studios and 3 "hardcore maya guys" fail to deliver. including a drumroll.... lightwave house....

the scene was taking 45 minutes to render before i got my hands on it.

as it stands now, its taking 10 minutes, looks exactly how the client wants it to look and it took me about 4 days of my time to get it right.

goes to show you that maybe your "hardcore maya guys" arent as hardcore as you think they are ;)

remember, its not the tool, its the fool holding it. and your little lightwave fanboy song is getting old.

i heard you the first time, thanks. i know what lightwave can do, thats precisely why im not using it lol.

Mike_RB
08-02-2009, 10:10 PM
Ok. I just read through this thread a couple beers deep. I had a good laugh, and am kind of confused.

Jax... In time you will be able to wave your hands and the world will bend to your will. Not today, today we have clunky software that we wrestle to give us rendered 2d images that look like something photographic.

But, imagine the days of TRON, where people were typing in vertex locations from graph paper drawings, from there perspective this intuitive artistic software is here, it's LW, its XSI, it's modo.

And once you get the ability to direct your fluid sim in realtime like a director directs actors.... you'll be sad you can't pipe it right into their brains so they FEEL the effect of the blood/ocean/shampoo splashing in their eyes.

So for now, suck it up and drink the houdini koolaid, or come along on the 'almost does what I want' trip with maya, max, LW, XSI, modo with the rest of us.

Cageman
08-02-2009, 10:37 PM
i already mentioned mega tk shaders. im only talking about miax because the guy who i was responding to couldnt find mega tk online. but nice to see you still suck at reading. ;)

and you arent worth exploding over.

oh and btw, as i type this im rendering a maya scene with mental ray.

this is a disney project that has seen 2 studios and 3 "hardcore maya guys" fail to deliver. including a drumroll.... lightwave house....

the scene was taking 45 minutes to render before i got my hands on it.

as it stands now, its taking 10 minutes, looks exactly how the client wants it to look and it took me about 4 days of my time to get it right.

goes to show you that maybe your "hardcore maya guys" arent as hardcore as you think they are ;)

remember, its not the tool, its the fool holding it. and your little lightwave fanboy song is getting old.

i heard you the first time, thanks. i know what lightwave can do, thats precisely why im not using it lol.

So nice for you, and... yes... I did read your post about Mega TK shaders, which, in turn, did cause even more problems for us in the past. I think we played with those 1 year ago, at the least.

IF we need to go outside of our custom shader, we tend to use the Mia X shaders, since they haven't really caused any problems for us yet (except that they don't output the stuff we want).

Regarding your cute little Disney thing... well.. good for you, but I have to ask.. which LW-studio did it go through before ending up at you?

As you say, it is about he people using the software, and I wonder who you are claiming your victory over...?

:)

Cageman
08-02-2009, 10:52 PM
as it stands now, its taking 10 minutes, looks exactly how the client wants it to look and it took me about 4 days of my time to get it right.

LOL

I talked with a VFX Sup at a very large facility and he told me a story about Maya/MR costing tons of money because of bad shader artists who couldn't create a shader that looked like the one the VFX supervisor I talked to had whiped out in 15-20 minutes using LW and FPrime. So, idiocity (or politics) forced this scene to be rendered in Maya/MR despite the fact that what the director wanted was around the corner.. instead even more money was spent to hire even more shading artist to get the job done.. about a month after the fact...

Of course you guys make money... you have to spend several days on things (maybe not so simple, but for a VFX-sup it may very well be simple).

:)

jaxtone
08-03-2009, 04:30 AM
Stooch and Cageman!

I who thought that all verbal fights were more like my kharma in here?

To me it sounds like the never ending debate whether your dad is stronger than mine or if a karate-ka beats a judo-guy.

I guess the only way to sort this out is that you produce something that have exactly the same condition. Then I believe many people could learn a lot from this project no matter who is the winner. Thatīs what they call a win/win situation isnīt it?

Give each other a big hug now just because as I see it you are both overqualified for low level fights! :bangwall:

Cageman
08-03-2009, 07:42 AM
Give each other a big hug now just because as I see it you are both overqualified for low level fights! :bangwall:

True, true!

I'll give it a rest...

:)