PDA

View Full Version : Noooo better than LW ....?....!!



Hervé
09-14-2003, 11:11 PM
I am sure Jordebo got screwed on that...

http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/Article195.asp

there is no renders in this page that could not be made even better in LW, so what's the point ? the DWG importer I guess.... ?

Go see the site and give me your opinion in you're in the pre-viz market....

Hervé

Hervé
09-14-2003, 11:30 PM
Maya better than LW for archi-viz...? let me laugh a bit as I wet my pants....

GO HERE... ( you have to..)

http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/newsfeed.asp?nid=1481

and watch this incredible LW'ers.... too cool 8, we have nothing to complain about....

Hervé
long live to LW after all, if I am in 3D business (well at least I try a little) it is because of LW !!

EyesClosed
09-14-2003, 11:36 PM
I'd say Maya is better for pre-vis.:

- Some modeling/snapping tools better suited to it.
- Mental Ray integration. LightWave's raytracing, radiosity, caustics, HDRI, etc. are poor, nearly unusable, compared to Mental Rays.

LightWave is very capable, though.

takkun
09-15-2003, 02:20 AM
LightWave's raytracing, radiosity, caustics, HDRI, etc. are poor, nearly unusable, compared to Mental Rays.

LightWave is very capable, though. LOL! Nearly unusable but very capable ;). You have to work on your "sugar-coating" skills, CIM. :)

cresshead
09-15-2003, 03:50 AM
i think some posters have a dual personality! ;^)

lightwave really struggles to make plastic, rough looking, non realistic renders..that's maya's strength here....!

okay..really?..they are both very capable apps...in the right hands..they are tools of which both can do either great renderer or real poor modeling or rendering...depends on the artist driving the app.

steve g

Mylenium
09-15-2003, 04:02 AM
EyesClosed, I disagree. On the contrary, I think MRay's implementation of HDR is a pain and global illumination is very difficult to set up. Sure, there is alot of potential but parameters and settings are somewhat cryptic and difficult to understand (an MRay problem in general - it's too "scientific"). LW is much more straightforward in these things.

Mylenium

Matt
09-15-2003, 04:24 AM
In the right hands LW can be made to do pretty much anything. In order to really compare you need to look at it from a 'average' user viewpoint, how simple can Joe Render create the image.

It's like saying "look, LightWave can do realistic human faces" and then show a rendering done by Ripper! Not everyone is that capable! Having said that, it shows LW is capable but not most users!

But back to architectural renderings. Those images from Maya are pretty average to some of the stuff I've seen LW do, but I'm sure in the right hands Maya could do much better!

If you want to get serious look at renders done by Lightscape, they are as photoreal as I've ever seen.

For me LW needs improvement (for interior and architectural renders) in these areas: (actually these would benefit everyone!)

1) Much, much faster working speed with complex scenes, I have a scene at the moment with 265 objects totalling 915,320 points 1,034,796 polygons 138 surfaces, 30 images, 42 lights and it's crawling along when I move stuff about. (Dual Xeon 2GHz, 1GB RAM)

2) Faster, more accurate lighting

3) Faster, improved GI

4) Much better layout tools, snapping, aligning, spacing, grouping, cloning (instancing)

Nemoid
09-15-2003, 08:07 AM
VIZ is da best for arch-viz.

BTW i sawe great guys doing astonishing works,
with the great Lw renderer.

juanjgon
09-15-2003, 09:45 AM
Any actuall 3D package could be used to create realistic architecture images .... but quiestion is: in what time ? ... you can model and render buildings in Maya .... or you can draw it with Photoshop .... but LW modeller and workflow is by far faster ...

LW render is slow ... but i think that i want use less time modelling, surfacing, lighting, etc ... and more time in render. You only need more computers ...

I think that i can get similiar results using any software ... but with LW i work faster than with any other. In visualization, like in any other 3D work, artist work is perhaps more important than render algorithms ....

Regards,
Juan J. Gonzalez.

Zach
09-15-2003, 06:06 PM
I really have to say that maya's renderer crawls when making a comparable render in LW.

I freelance at a maya house, and they love it, I can't say I blame them. They know how to get around the weird quirks in maya that make most lw users cry (like me, I just hate looking at the maya interface. I'm not into this symbolic iconagraphy, just put text there for me to read).

Ofcourse, lw has it's own quirks and workarounds. loading semi-large textures in layout is pretty annoying.

The thing is, I like Bud Light and Jack Daniels, but I have friends that like Pabst and Jim Beam much better. Both preferences get us where we want to go, and they both get us there with our individual enjoyment.

Some people, when flying to Hawaii from Oregon prefer flying in 747's, and some like DC-10's much better, but most don't care cause they know they will still make it to the island in relatively the same amount of time.

The guys I work with were trying to texture a football, and it took them a while to get it to look right. This is mostly because they were not used to doing these things in Maya or in any other program. I could have probably done it in 2 hours using lw, but that wasn't an option since they don't have it there, and I wasn't about offer up myself to do it in Maya.

Anyway, now that they've done it, I'm sure they can do it in relatively the same amount of time as me doing it in lw. Unfortunately, I personally regard Maya as a specialists application. It offers many different areas for people to specialize into one thing. The reason why is because each area is friggin deeper than I (a lazy artist) would ever want to go. I can model, texture, light and render in lw and get a pretty good result in very little time. Doing the same thing in Maya requires more check boxes and sliders to be paid attention to.

LW is the lazy artists tool. There is no reason why you should have to spend a couple years learning a program just to get a decent image (barring paid instruction). I learned lw from buying books and surfing this forum. I couldn't do that with Maya even though there was the same amount of support out there. This is because I like Bud Light while others like Pabst. Not everyone is the same, and I'm sure someone could make the same argument why they like Maya instead of LW.

Wade
09-15-2003, 10:33 PM
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5933

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6356

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6520

Lightwave is my choice - I could afford to buy it, and it has paid my back and then some.

Hervé
09-15-2003, 11:15 PM
Hey Wade I know your good damn work, fast and efficient, you're a good example of what could be avhieve with LW in no time...

Hervé

mercz
09-16-2003, 09:30 AM
I never used Maya ( I could afford to buy it), so I can not poll.
But I have used LW two years for ALL my work (http://render.cz/visualization/) and I am (and my client too) very satisfied with its capabality. I can not imagine how I can do things faster because almost all in LW is soooo straightforward.

big "+" is modelling
big "-" is GI for interior flytrough animation

Maya will be better than LW for my work in case of the same or BETTER MODELLING WORKFLOW , FASTER MR GI interior solution and, of course,
the same or CHEAPER.

Martin