PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave to GoZBrush connection



paulhart
08-02-2009, 11:46 PM
Special request to integrate the pipeline between ZBrush and Lightwave. Now that Pixologic has pushed the release of ZBrush 4.0 a ways out and made the 3.5 release the priority, I would encourage Lightwave to work out the pipeline kinks between themselves and ZBrush, so that when they release it in late August, Lightwave will be right there, in the "thick" of it.
Some "other" programs have already made the connection, but it only works on Macs at the moment. This should also be made to connect to CORE, but that is another development story and different forum thread. I tried search here, couldn't find any other threads about this topic so, make the move Newtek, stay in the game, I like the development and the videos, make this work also...
Paul

cresshead
08-03-2009, 12:09 AM
i have a feeling lightwave will not be on the list somehow..it didn't make the mac osx GoZ list
but..layout does support obj loading..and a script could be made to create the nodes for displacement...so 'maybe'

i'd like to be proven wrong though!

realgray
08-03-2009, 12:13 AM
putting in my vote for a lightwave goZ connection :agree:

gordonrobb
08-03-2009, 07:04 AM
Is there a way to get an answer form Newtek about this. I am not even sure who has to do what. However, with 3.5 (updated) being released in August it means that GoZ is really the only new thing (from 3.5 PC anyway).

I would love to be able to use the new features, and don't want to have to get Modo, however I may do if it will let me have this pipeline improvement.

lwaddict
08-03-2009, 09:42 AM
Pixologic hasn't let us down yet...
might be awhile but I've got a feeling they may be working on how to integrate with LW9 if not just going directly into CORE.

IMI
08-03-2009, 10:23 AM
I tried search here, couldn't find any other threads about this topic so, make the move Newtek, stay in the game, I like the development and the videos, make this work also...
Paul

That's because the ZBrush stuff got moved to the "LW - Third Party" forum.
I know... "third party" in LightWavese typically refers to LW plugins, but apparently the PTB at NewTek Forums consider everything that isn't LightWave to be "third party".

But there's a large thread HERE (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99419) about ZB 4 new features. The GoZ discussion begins a couple pages in.

I personally hope we don't have to wait for CORE to have GoZ in LightWave. I think it will be nothing short of a slap in the face if we can't use GoZ in LW 9.6, while every other 3D program on the planet gets GoZ, and LW and its users get ignored.

I'm also not clear on who has to do what - meaning, is it up to Pixologic or up to NT, or do they both have to work on it? If it's a matter of only needing the LW 9.x SDK to make it happen, I would expect Pixologic to get on it, since alot of people are going to be using LW 9.x for a good while. If it's up to NT to make it happen, well, I'm sure it will be in CORE, but then again, they have little motivation to make it available for us non-CORE types, and plenty of motivation to prevent it.

I guess we wait and see. ;)

IMI
08-03-2009, 10:30 AM
I'm not holding my breath for LightWave integration.

Nor am I.
M*** keeps looking better as time goes on. ;)

bandito
08-03-2009, 12:14 PM
Ok Newtek I know you're listening! I've stuck with you guys for ten years whilst around me everyone else has turned to Maya. Lets help those guys at pixologic get this working. And not just in Core we need this in Lightwave.

Many thanks

Bandito

www.bandito.co.uk

cresshead
08-03-2009, 12:33 PM
if/when newtek drop the ball on getting GoZ for lightwave 9.6 would you PAY for a 3rd party to pick up that ball and create the GoZ link for lightwave 9.6?

if so how much is it worth?

FREE
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50

i would say if lightwave came out with a 9.61 for hardcore that adds GoZ then this would get some more people on Hardcore maybe...some actual tangible move forward
to use NOW and not wait till the later beta builds of core that could be usable for production etc.

IMI
08-03-2009, 01:50 PM
i would say if lightwave came out with a 9.61 for hardcore that adds GoZ then this would get some more people on Hardcore maybe...some actual tangible move forward
to use NOW and not wait till the later beta builds of core that could be usable for production etc.

That's what I'm worried about - that they'll use GoZ as a means to get more people buying into CORE, and intentionally avoid allowing it for good old regular LW 9.6.
As it is, right now I have zero interest in CORE, and I doubt GoZ in it would change my mind. I have other software purchases planned for the near future and am planning on not being interested in CORE until version 2 or maybe even 3, or when it can stand alone.

I'm sure there are a whole lot of us out here who will be quite irritated if we have to watch every program other than LightWave 9.x get GoZ.

gordonrobb
08-03-2009, 02:34 PM
I will be more than irritated, I will by buying Modo!

gerry_g
08-03-2009, 03:30 PM
I will be more than irritated, I will by buying Modo!
You'd pay around $800 (going from memory here) just to get that, OK the plugins great and works really well I have it and I've used it but apart from the interactive back and forth thing it's not a whole lot of trouble to do this manually certainly not $800 less trouble or better

beverins
08-03-2009, 03:46 PM
Something tangentially related, perhaps, from Autodesk

http://vimeo.com/5911560

edit - third-party plugin. Maybe he can be convinced to make a Lightwave 9.6 and/ore CORE version

gordonrobb
08-03-2009, 04:50 PM
You'd pay around $800 (going from memory here) just to get that, OK the plugins great and works really well I have it and I've used it but apart from the interactive back and forth thing it's not a whole lot of trouble to do this manually certainly not $800 less trouble or better

Nah, I actually wouldn't, especially after forking out for Core. However, I am only a hobbiest. My point is that if the interconnectivity is to be believed (adn you would know better than I if it is), then the ability to make, sculptt, and swap back and forth between applications at the press of a button, especially updating topology, and adding geometry without loosing detail, must be work $800 for someone in the business.

My main concern is that Newtek is trying to re-vitalise its position amongst the big-boys (my term not theirs), and ignoring GoZ (and I mean for 9.6), is not a very smart way to do it.

We'll see though. All I want is a definitive answer from Newtek.

cresshead
08-03-2009, 05:33 PM
Something tangentially related, perhaps, from Autodesk

http://vimeo.com/5911560

edit - third-party plugin. Maybe he can be convinced to make a Lightwave 9.6 and/ore CORE version


looks like a fbx/obj scripted importer/exporter
the same could be done for lightwave i reckon.:thumbsup:

jin choung
08-03-2009, 11:53 PM
you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

it's pixologic you have to convince, not newtek.

and despite the fact they're using .obj files for interchange, considering that in the decade+ that we've been working with 3d software, this level of interoperability hasn't been achieved until now... not even for NATURAL partners like mudbox and maya/max (or something like deep paint), i would imagine that implementing such an interchange system is non trivial.

and as i've said before, in terms of lw itself, it's in a period between 9.6 "HAS BEEN" to CORE "YET TO BE". so would i blame them if they decided NOT to expend that effort to pick between those two sophie's choices? no.

finally - they've listed goz for maya, modo and c4d. only maya is available. but they've announced the other 2 that they are planning to release and presumably working on currently.

lw's not on that list.

so would i imagine it is likely to be coming at all soon even if it will eventually (hypothetically speaking)? again - no.

but, as a small, quantum of solace, max, xsi and houdini are ALSO not on the zb list. but then, alas, i must take that quantum away (sorry) by pointing out that it's more likely that they would develop goz for xsi and max before lw. maybe lw would get it before houdini. it might be a wash with blender though.... : )

anybody find this evaluation flawed?

jin

p.s. but at whatever point pixologic releases an SDK for either individualy users or 3rd party software makers like newtek to implement it THEMSELVES - THEN you can start b1tching for newtek to get on the horse and do this. but not yet. and not now.

cresshead
08-03-2009, 11:58 PM
you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

it's pixologic you have to convince, not newtek.

and despite the fact they're using .obj files for interchange, considering that in the decade+ that we've been working with 3d software, this level of interoperability hasn't been achieved until now... not even for NATURAL partners like mudbox and maya/max (or something like deep paint), i would imagine that implementing such an interchange system is non trivial.

and as i've said before, in terms of lw itself, it's in a period between 9.6 "HAS BEEN" to CORE "YET TO BE". so would i blame them if they decided NOT to expend that effort to pick between those two sophie's choices? no.

finally - they've listed goz for maya, modo and c4d. only maya is available. but they've announced the other 2 that they are planning to release and presumably working on currently.

lw's not on that list.

so would i imagine it is likely to be coming at all soon even if it will eventually (hypothetically speaking)? again - no.

but, as a small, quantum of solace, max, xsi and houdini are ALSO not on the zb list. but then, alas, i must take that quantum away (sorry) by pointing out that it's more likely that they would develop goz for xsi and max before lw. maybe lw would get it before houdini. it might be a wash with blender though.... : )

anybody find this evaluation flawed?

jin
yes i find it flawed due to the fact your drawing conclusions for windows apps based on the release of mac apps...odd doesn't even start to say flawed!:D

Jin, have you hit your head recently??:hey:

jin choung
08-04-2009, 12:01 AM
yes i find it flawed due to the fact your drawing conclusions for windows apps based on the release of mac apps...odd doesn't even start to say flawed!:D


huh?

i don't get your point. are you saying that max and xsi are not mac apps?

why is mac centrism part of the discussion? because of pixologic's tremendous dedication and devotion to the mac platform throughout zb history? : )

and even on the mac, the situation is the same - 9.6 has been or core yet to be. not a tantalizing prospect for a developer.

jin

gordonrobb
08-04-2009, 12:19 AM
Jin, do you 'know' catagorically that it is for Pixologic to do? rather than Newtek I mean. Mos of the chatter over at the thread on this subject on ZBcetnral is saying that it is for the 3D app's company to do.

jin choung
08-04-2009, 12:21 AM
Jin, do you 'know' catagorically that it is for Pixologic to do? rather than Newtek I mean. Mos of the chatter over at the thread on this subject on ZBcetnral is saying that it is for the 3D app's company to do.

no.

but i assume that AUTODESK who happens to develop BOTH MAYA and MUDBOX did not have ANY PART WHATSOEVER in developing goz.... again, if you perceive a flaw in that logic, let's hear it.

also, not sure how modo feels about a sculpting app butting into a sculpting featureset that they apparently seemed to have worked hard in implementing... or if c4d wants an app that can obviate some of body paint's functionality....

jin

Silkrooster
08-04-2009, 01:10 AM
I would more likely believe that any 3D app that can connect with Zbrush will depend on how easy and accessible their SDK's are. Therefore I would assume that they would make a connect with 3d apps that they use themselves first. As for the rest I would think it would depend on the programming language the SDK was written with and has hooks for, and what type of license garbage is attached to it.

artstorm
08-04-2009, 03:55 AM
also, not sure how modo feels about a sculpting app butting into a sculpting featureset that they apparently seemed to have worked hard in implementing...

The modo <> ZBrush GoZ is working fine and has done so for a while (only released on the mac platform so far, as the Windows ZBrush version wont be GoZ enabled until 3.5)
GoZ for modo was developed with the help from Luxology, and Lux were excited about this.

As GoZ is currently only available for Maya, modo and C4D is because GoZ is at the moment only available on the mac and those are all mac apps. XSI and 3dsmax is not available on the mac and I'd bet they will announce GoZ for them when ZB3.5 is released for Windows.

LW9.6 is available for the mac though, and that's a bit worrisome for the availability of GoZ for the LW9 series - as that wasn't announced at the same time as the other available mac apps got their GoZ released.

IMI
08-04-2009, 05:35 AM
no.

but i assume that AUTODESK who happens to develop BOTH MAYA and MUDBOX did not have ANY PART WHATSOEVER in developing goz.... again, if you perceive a flaw in that logic, let's hear it.


On the surface it would seem really obvious to assume Autodesk would have nothing to do with GoZ for Maya.
Then again, a whole lot of their loyal customers have been using ZBrush with Maya for a good while, and their official training partners have been making tutorials for Maya and ZBrush, too. Quite a few, actually, far far more than for Maya and Mudbox.
The fact seems to be, Mudbox hasn't stripped ZB of its crown like I think they thought it was going to do. If it IS up to the 3D app developer to implement GoZ (which it seems nobody really knows for some odd reason), Autodesk may very well have had far too much pressure to do so, to be able to ignore.
Just a theory. I have no idea how it all works. :)



also, not sure how modo feels about a sculpting app butting into a sculpting featureset that they apparently seemed to have worked hard in implementing... or if c4d wants an app that can obviate some of body paint's functionality....

jin

Perfect examples... and if you ask me, goes a long way towards adding to the confusion over GoZ. ;)

jin choung
08-04-2009, 11:29 AM
another reason why i don't think autodesk helped goz....

http://vimeo.com/5911560

nice and it supports max, maya and... photoshop and aftereffects!

jin

cresshead
08-04-2009, 02:11 PM
'MudWalker' Wayne Robsons new plugin for Mudbox 2010 looks like a GoZ for mudbox more or less..it's V1.0 so should get better once he get's some feedback on it...he rushed it out to meet the siggraph 2009 date.

re GoZ i believe pixologic 'needed' luxology to make the import/export as modo has nr zero SDK or scripting capability.

of course maya, cinema and others 'have' SDK and scripting.

jasonwestmas
08-04-2009, 02:48 PM
That's what I'm worried about - that they'll use GoZ as a means to get more people buying into CORE, and intentionally avoid allowing it for good old regular LW 9.6.
As it is, right now I have zero interest in CORE, and I doubt GoZ in it would change my mind. I have other software purchases planned for the near future and am planning on not being interested in CORE until version 2 or maybe even 3, or when it can stand alone.

I'm sure there are a whole lot of us out here who will be quite irritated if we have to watch every program other than LightWave 9.x get GoZ.

The only thing that will sell CORE will be its workflow between the tools themselves. Tools that bring the user outside the confines of cubic and linear forms thinking(Thinking outside the box ;) ) and into more flexible pipes with curves and elasticity/ durability. How well Core plays with specialized apps is important but that isn't a foundation for sucess of course. NT knows this I'm sure. And as far as priorities go, I would rather NT provide us with workflows that outclass the competition than dwell on what other apps are doing.

gordonrobb
08-04-2009, 03:26 PM
I'm not interested in GoZ for Core, it's nowhere near ready. I am however intersted in GoZ for 9.6.

paulhart
08-04-2009, 03:32 PM
My emphasis in raising this is directed towards 9.6, as I know that CORE is a bit away from "prime time" let alone, "playing with others" but my understanding is that the SDK is available from Pixologic and that the connection is to be made by those who want to connect. That "other" software put an engineer "on it" and worked out the kinks. I was not under the impression that Pixologic was doing anything special for them, just willing to assist with the communication to get the pipeline working. It would put Lightwave 9.6 right back in the "thick of it" which it deserves to be....
Paul

Nemoid
08-05-2009, 07:43 AM
Well i think Nt should do the effort to make Go Zbrush possible for 9.6.
Right now there are just too many users of the current version, which is at least production ready, than CORE ones.

CORE will see a real life when it will be officially released, hopefully in Q4 this year.
Right now it's still in beta, and non hardcore users saw quite nothing of its capabilities and tools a part for some ones.

CORE will surely be a better solution than LW 9.6 due to its modern structure, and fit better with ZB, but right now we don't even know if when it will be released it will have rendering too, or only modelling tools or what.

So: i'd make gzbrush possible for 9.6 now, and possible for CORE when it will be the case.

beverins
08-05-2009, 09:43 AM
I think Newtek should do what it can to make the GOZ connection a reality for 9.6 because of it's ability to convert objects with textures between applications without any of the headaches (well, so the advertising would have me believe).

Of course, you know, that in addition to all the marvelous power that Zbrush offers. All those sculpting and texturing things that nobody uses. ;D :D

cresshead
08-05-2009, 09:49 AM
don't even think to mention FBX with lightwave..it totally sucks, just brings in the poly model, no camera, animation, bones,
the fbx format handles deforms, cameras, lights, animation uv....but not in lightwave importer!...just the mesh.
boo hoo!

Tranimatronic
08-05-2009, 10:02 AM
until there is a goZ for LW you could always export the .obj & disp & texture maps load them into LW.
Takes all of about a minute
:D

IMI
08-05-2009, 10:05 AM
until there is a goZ for LW you could always export the .obj & disp & texture maps load them into LW.
Takes all of about a minute
:D

Well we KNOW that. That's what we've all been doing anyway, all this time. ;)

I may be mistaken, but I believe the whole point of GoZ integration is that ZB automatically takes care of all the settings for the normal maps and displacements and everything.
It takes quite a bit of work to get a displacement map correct in LW - all models are different, and you can't just use the same settings for everything.

cresshead
08-05-2009, 10:13 AM
well maya, modo and cinema4d all seem to handle it just fine....why not lightwave?

IMI
08-05-2009, 10:25 AM
well maya, modo and cinema4d all seem to handle it just fine....why not lightwave?

Are you asking me that?
Lightwave does handle ZB normal and displacement maps just fine - it's just a matter of getting the settings for the maps and the model right.

But you already know that. At least you should by now. ;)

But if you're asking why not LW for GoZ... good question, and for the life of me I can't come up with a good answer that isn't unacceptable in my opinion. ;)

Tranimatronic
08-05-2009, 10:32 AM
does anyone know if the zBrush SDK is available for download, or is this thing written only by pixologic ?

Exporting from zBrush isnt too hard. I find that if you build the base mesh in LW and import that into zBrush its easier, because you know the scale of the object, and can set the scale of the displacement accordingly. It all gets messy when you export an object that was generated in zBrush and have to scale it ESPECIALLY when using normal maps.

Mind you, I have only my own observations as proof and might be talking out of my mudbox here...:D

cresshead
08-05-2009, 10:46 AM
Mind you, I have only my own observations as proof and might be talking out of my mudbox here...:D

are you a mudwalker?
http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/mudbox/mudwalker-relight/intro.html

gordonrobb
08-05-2009, 02:02 PM
To my mind the issue is nothing to do with being able to get your sculpt into LW. Any one of us that is using ZB with LW can do that (although it can be a bit tedius to get displacement maps to look right).

The point is that it would apear you can create a base mesh, press a button and it goes into ZB, sculpt, painte etc, press a button and it's in LW. Wait a minute, I want to add an edloop here, and a cut there, and a whole new arm there, press the button and your changed mesh is back in ZB complete with all your detail and all updated. Now if that kind of functionality is already there with ZB and LW, I don't know about it, so I would love it if someone could point me to it.

artstorm
08-05-2009, 02:47 PM
The point is that it would apear you can create a base mesh, press a button and it goes into ZB, sculpt, painte etc, press a button and it's in LW. Wait a minute, I want to add an edloop here, and a cut there, and a whole new arm there, press the button and your changed mesh is back in ZB complete with all your detail and all updated. Now if that kind of functionality is already there with ZB and LW, I don't know about it, so I would love it if someone could point me to it.

That's precisely how GoZ works. I've tried GoZ with modo on the mac and it was sweet. Taking a character from modo into ZB with a button press, making some detailing in ZB and then send it back to modo. Spin around some topology and add a few bevels and back to ZB again, details kept where possible.

That kind of workflow doesn't exist with the current obj i/o and texture export with zb/lw9.6 in any easy 1 minute method.

Can't wait for the windows version of GoZ coming in august. (GoZ, and the hair styling, was the only reason lux got my money and made me update my modo 201 to 401).

kfinla
08-05-2009, 05:51 PM
As much as I would like to see LW AND CORE (more likely around ZB 4.0 at xmas) get a GoZ plugin.. (i'm enjoying the Modo version) .. I think the fact that LW9.6 has functionality goZ touches spread across 2 apps is the issue. Though I would be happy to see just the a geometry exchange version that works with modeller and forget the shader setup.

robpowers3d
11-29-2009, 04:34 AM
don't even think to mention FBX with lightwave..it totally sucks, just brings in the poly model, no camera, animation, bones,
the fbx format handles deforms, cameras, lights, animation uv....but not in lightwave importer!...just the mesh.
boo hoo!

Cresshead,
I'm sorry to say that you are wrong about these comments on the FBX plugin for lightwave. It actually works quite well for importing animation to lightwave. I use it all the time.

cresshead
11-29-2009, 05:23 AM
Cresshead,
I'm sorry to say that you are wrong about these comments on the FBX plugin for lightwave. It actually works quite well for importing animation to lightwave. I use it all the time.

did i say 'plugin'?
no....
i said the fbx importer...

the fbx importer for lightwave just loads up a mesh...same as obj...no lights, camera, animation, bones..nowt but a mesh.
the old fxb 'plugin' for lightwave 7 does indeed load up animation etc...but it doesn't ship/install in lightwave 9.6 when you install lightwave 9.6
...you have to go hunt it down from the net and see if it installs okay in 9.6 or not..
it's old version too...not current...

the inbuilt fbx impoter is just very basic.

robpowers3d
11-29-2009, 05:43 AM
Actually they are both plugins and the new "importer" works great and does many things that the old FBX plugin didn't do. So I wouldn't call it basic.

robpowers3d
11-29-2009, 05:49 AM
After thinking about it the new FBX importer may not be a plugin in the typical form but it is by no means basic or unable to import animation. That is the point.

We-Co
12-31-2010, 11:49 PM
Okay, now that LW 10 is here. Where is GoZ?

IMI
01-01-2011, 06:03 AM
Where is GoZ?

In Maya, 3ds max, and Modo. ;)

cresshead
01-01-2011, 08:26 AM
it's "not arrived-z"
:D

lwaddict
01-01-2011, 08:34 AM
Okay, now that LW 10 is here. Where is GoZ?

As Rosana Rosana Dana would say, "It's always something" huh? LOL

KScott
01-01-2011, 09:02 AM
+1 for Lightwave to GoZBrush connection

Thanks Paulhart for the original post. :)

MR robpowers you posted 3 time to this thread only to comment to cresshead on something you disagreed with. and that's fine. but post something on the reason you too looked at this thread.

Lightwave to GoZBrush connection

its a new year, give us something to go on that is fact.

Kevin

paulhart
01-01-2011, 09:38 AM
Just FYI, there is development going on the 3DCoat forum for the equivalent AppLink between Lightwave and 3DCoat, a powerful alternative to ZBrush, with a little more ease of interface, IMHO... ;>) Now back to your regular station.

We-Co
01-01-2011, 05:38 PM
paulhart Just FYI, there is development going on the 3DCoat forum for the equivalent AppLink between Lightwave and 3DCoat, a powerful alternative to ZBrush, with a little more ease of interface, IMHO... ;>) Now back to your regular station.

I remember reading on ZBrush forums they were going to have LW to ZBrush. I guess it was all lies.

IMI
01-01-2011, 05:51 PM
I remember reading on ZBrush forums they were going to have LW to ZBrush. I guess it was all lies.

I always thought they were talking about LW CORE.
So eventually LW will probably have GoZ.
Of course by then it will have been in every other 3D program in existence for a long time and won't be new anymore. I bet anim8or will have GoZ before Lightwave does. ;)

jasonwestmas
01-01-2011, 08:40 PM
That's precisely how GoZ works. I've tried GoZ with modo on the mac and it was sweet. Taking a character from modo into ZB with a button press, making some detailing in ZB and then send it back to modo. Spin around some topology and add a few bevels and back to ZB again, details kept where possible.

That kind of workflow doesn't exist with the current obj i/o and texture export with zb/lw9.6 in any easy 1 minute method.

Can't wait for the windows version of GoZ coming in august. (GoZ, and the hair styling, was the only reason lux got my money and made me update my modo 201 to 401).

You can do this without GoZ just by importing a new obj file but it doesn't give me clean results ime. It is also a time consuming process waiting for the high poly details to transfer to the new poly cage.

We-Co
01-01-2011, 10:15 PM
The problem is not the obj. It's the files and work flow. Why import and export objs when you can just click a button and have one file and better work flow. But if it's not coming out till CORE then I guess well just have to wait.

IMI
01-02-2011, 05:23 AM
The problem is not the obj. It's the files and work flow. Why import and export objs when you can just click a button and have one file and better work flow. But if it's not coming out till CORE then I guess well just have to wait.

Well yeah, that is of course exactly the entire point of GoZ - speed and efficiency. I was recently playing with the Maya 2011 demo and it worked amazingly well with Maya.

I would think that NT would want to make the effort now and have one more feature to add to LW 10's list. Which would bring the new features list up to 3 - VPR, Matt's new interface, and GoZ. Hey, 3 new features is better than two. ;)

Well, 8 years from now when Core 1.0 is released with GoZ we'll all look back fondly at our No GoZ days and laugh about it... "Yeah, I remember back when you still had to do all this manually... It's just just too bad it only works for ZBrush 4 and we're up to ZBrush 7 now" ;)

cresshead
01-02-2011, 05:34 AM
hi there, i'm using goZ with 3dsmax and have to say it's pretty darn cool and would love to have GoZ for lightwave 10 modeller...that would at least show that modeller hasn't been totally abandoned in development and isn't too hard to implement...

basically when you Goz a subtool in zbrush it lowers it'self down to the lowest poly level...exports and imports into the host app...in that app you can change/edit the model adding removing polys ect then yo hit goz in your host app and it imports and updates the subtool you sent out this then can update any hight density levels [or not..you get a requester on that when it comes back in]

jasonwestmas
01-02-2011, 08:34 AM
The problem is not the obj. It's the files and work flow. Why import and export objs when you can just click a button and have one file and better work flow. But if it's not coming out till CORE then I guess well just have to wait.

Right, the problem is not being able to take full advantage of GoZ with Lightwave. I would suspect GoZ for classic lightwave would be up to bat first.

gordonrobb
01-02-2011, 08:44 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the 'enhanced interchange with Zbrush' is that was promised for LW10.

jasonwestmas
01-02-2011, 09:39 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the 'enhanced interchange with Zbrush' is that was promised for LW10.

Are you talking about GoZ? That wasn't promised and they never said it would be ready for LW10.0. NT rarely promises anything. They might have been talking about improved obj features.

We-Co
01-02-2011, 09:58 PM
Well, 8 years from now when Core 1.0 is released with GoZ we'll all look back fondly at our No GoZ days and laugh about it... "Yeah, I remember back when you still had to do all this manually... It's just just too bad it only works for ZBrush 4 and we're up to ZBrush 7 now"

I don't understand... Is it really going to take that long? When is CORE coming out? I thought it was supposed to be released a little after LW 10.

hrgiger
01-02-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't understand... Is it really going to take that long? When is CORE coming out? I thought it was supposed to be released a little after LW 10.

It is. Although how soon after nobody knows. I'm guessing it won't be within the next few months.

gordonrobb
01-03-2011, 11:37 AM
Are you talking about GoZ? That wasn't promised and they never said it would be ready for LW10.0. NT rarely promises anything. They might have been talking about improved obj features.

No, not GoZ, I mean what was described as enhanced interchance with Zbrush, I have yet to have this explained, and the Zbrush Object Mode has been here since 9.6 at least.

jasonwestmas
01-03-2011, 12:28 PM
No, not GoZ, I mean what was described as enhanced interchance with Zbrush, I have yet to have this explained, and the Zbrush Object Mode has been here since 9.6 at least.

Not sure what can be improved outside of GoZ connections. I guess better UV border accuracy, it's about 98% there but it still isn't perfect. We have the surface=>parts for obj=>Zbrush poly-groups. That part of exporting to ZB works fine.