PDA

View Full Version : Lw 11...



IMI
03-03-2012, 05:55 AM
Okay, first I have to say this:
Seems kinda funny that I came here to read about LW 11 and the first threads I see are about Modo 601 and Houdini. :D

Anyway, I watched the videos and it looks like NT is getting there - LW finally seems to be catching up somewhat, although I have to say that until they also bring Modeler into the development process it's still a no-go for me at least.

I'm not complaining though. The new features look quite impressive and it is *really* good to see that it looks like LW isn't going to die off after all. I really never expected to see a LW 11 after that whole CORE fiasco.

Nice job, Newtek, and congratulations!
Now please give some major lovin' to Modeler. :)

jasonwestmas
03-03-2012, 07:21 AM
Yeah, it's certainly shaping into something far more robust. We just have to get away from the design that forces animators to use animation tools in modeler. Vmaps for example. Modo is being talked about as a compliment to Lightwave in many ways, not some alien thing that needs to be excommunicated and hopefully point oven will help that along even more so we can use ikinema animation with LW more easily.

HenrikSkoglund
03-03-2012, 11:27 AM
Okay, first I have to say this:
Seems kinda funny that I came here to read about LW 11 and the first threads I see are about Modo 601 and Houdini. :D

Anyway, I watched the videos and it looks like NT is getting there - LW finally seems to be catching up somewhat, although I have to say that until they also bring Modeler into the development process it's still a no-go for me at least.

I'm not complaining though. The new features look quite impressive and it is *really* good to see that it looks like LW isn't going to die off after all. I really never expected to see a LW 11 after that whole CORE fiasco.

Nice job, Newtek, and congratulations!
Now please give some major lovin' to Modeler. :)


I can only agree. It all feels so very much more polished to me. I kinda feel sorry for the dev team because this huge Modo release had to happen right now. As I also have a background as a programmer I would just like to wish the Newtek dev team a big good luck in the future and to say, please keep FIGHTING for Lightwave and love what you do. We do.

caesar
03-03-2012, 05:54 PM
Yeah, it's certainly shaping into something far more robust. We just have to get away from the design that forces animators to use animation tools in modeler. Vmaps for example.

I think both modo 601 and houdini 12 threads here are a spectacular feedback to NT of what the tools we want for work. It's make it ease to understand the user needs and shape the future of LW.

In my opinion until lightwave have all the 90's in it, it won't shine. I mean leaving the 90's behind: modeling in Layout (no hub), that cool history stack and new features like lw 11's fracture: really good implemented. Hope that comes with LW 12.

IMI
03-03-2012, 10:00 PM
I think both modo 601 and houdini 12 threads here are a spectacular feedback to NT of what the tools we want for work. It's make it ease to understand the user needs and shape the future of LW.

In my opinion until lightwave have all the 90's in it, it won't shine. I mean leaving the 90's behind: modeling in Layout (no hub), that cool history stack and new features like lw 11's fracture: really good implemented. Hope that comes with LW 12.

I would assume that they're still planning on that eventual unified app that CORE was supposed to eventually become. At least I would hope so.

Really really really need the interactive modeling tools. I can't even bring myself to use Modeler anymore, so when I want to use Layout for rendering (still on 9.6), I just model in Softimage or Modo and export. After a few years now of doing it that way, I can no longer stand Modeler's way at all. Even something as simple as using the scale tool with the numeric panel has become a pain in the ....

I definitely agree that those threads are great feedback that NT should seriously consider for the future of LW. I have to worry though that I sort of have the impression that the current plan is to make LW the go-to app for pre-visualization, with only the bare minimum of extra features. I think NT still has that Babylon/Avatar mind frame, where LW can be more than good enough for certain tasks, but might not have much plan for filling it out.

And I guess as long as it's staying in the $1500 price range, we shouldn't expect it to become Maya or Softimage any time soon.


I would like to have that LW excitement back like I used to, where I couldn't imagine not having it. But all the other apps moved forward while LW stagnated and rested on its 90's laurels, like as if time had stopped for NT, and there was no competition.

Anyway, not to turn this into a complaint thread, so I'll end this by again saying that NT, in particular Rob Powers, seem to have a definite plan now for LW, and I'd like to say I have confidence that their plan is a good one. ;)

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 07:48 AM
I would assume that they're still planning on that eventual unified app that CORE was supposed to eventually become. At least I would hope so.

Really really really need the interactive modeling tools. I can't even bring myself to use Modeler anymore, so when I want to use Layout for rendering (still on 9.6), I just model in Softimage or Modo and export. After a few years now of doing it that way, I can no longer stand Modeler's way at all. Even something as simple as using the scale tool with the numeric panel has become a pain in the ....

I definitely agree that those threads are great feedback that NT should seriously consider for the future of LW. I have to worry though that I sort of have the impression that the current plan is to make LW the go-to app for pre-visualization, with only the bare minimum of extra features. I think NT still has that Babylon/Avatar mind frame, where LW can be more than good enough for certain tasks, but might not have much plan for filling it out.

And I guess as long as it's staying in the $1500 price range, we shouldn't expect it to become Maya or Softimage any time soon.


I would like to have that LW excitement back like I used to, where I couldn't imagine not having it. But all the other apps moved forward while LW stagnated and rested on its 90's laurels, like as if time had stopped for NT, and there was no competition.

Anyway, not to turn this into a complaint thread, so I'll end this by again saying that NT, in particular Rob Powers, seem to have a definite plan now for LW, and I'd like to say I have confidence that their plan is a good one. ;)


This is why I keep saying that the only market that hasn't been fully fleshed out in 3D are specialized ways of perfecting workflows and why NT has focused a lot on interchange tools these past few years. I really believe the concept of a do it all app for small companies is a dead end idea.

If a company like NT keep trying to fill every hole, they'll end up a with a tasteless watered down piece of whatever. Then really nobody will want to use it because so much competition is starting to pop up.

Even Lux is doing this. They just had a huge release of features but it's clear their goal for financial support is to have companies integrate their software into pre-existing pipelines so it must play nice with others.

caesar
03-04-2012, 09:42 AM
Really really really need the interactive modeling tools. I can't even bring myself to use Modeler anymore, so when I want to use Layout for rendering (still on 9.6), I just model in Softimage or Modo and export. After a few years now of doing it that way, I can no longer stand Modeler's way at all. Even something as simple as using the scale tool with the numeric panel has become a pain in the ....

I still think that modeler+lwcad are outstanding. If modeler had lwcad's mass offset, snap and bevel tools only and real edges it would be a lot nicer.


I definitely agree that those threads are great feedback that NT should seriously consider for the future of LW. I have to worry though that I sort of have the impression that the current plan is to make LW the go-to app for pre-visualization, with only the bare minimum of extra features. I think NT still has that Babylon/Avatar mind frame, where LW can be more than good enough for certain tasks, but might not have much plan for filling it out.

I'm eager to watch Iron Sky, whose shows that NT is trying to put LW in higher level productions.


And I guess as long as it's staying in the $1500 price range, we shouldn't expect it to become Maya or Softimage any time soon.

That would be sad, charging 3000 or 6000 for LW :(...but I still think why NT gives away 999 render nodes AND free support. I think they should give like 6 months of support and charge an annual subscription. The community is the free support ;)

IMI
03-04-2012, 03:23 PM
This is why I keep saying that the only market that hasn't been fully fleshed out in 3D are specialized ways of perfecting workflows and why NT has focused a lot on interchange tools these past few years. I really believe the concept of a do it all app for small companies is a dead end idea.

If a company like NT keep trying to fill every hole, they'll end up a with a tasteless watered down piece of whatever. Then really nobody will want to use it because so much competition is starting to pop up.

Even Lux is doing this. They just had a huge release of features but it's clear their goal for financial support is to have companies integrate their software into pre-existing pipelines so it must play nice with others.

Okay, I can see that, but it doesn't explain why they've pretty much ignored Modeler. After all, it IS still a part of the program, and as long as it's there they ought to be trying to use it to strengthen LW's efficiency.

Sure, interchange and all that, but it seems silly to leave such outdated tools in the program when they could probably update them. I am by far not the only one to complain about Modeler's shortcomings. Everyone always says, "oh use x.plugin", or import from Modo or whatever, but as I say, since Modeler is already a part of LW, it should be getting updated to at least bring it up to some sort of industry standard level. I really can't think of any modern 3D modeling programs that are as tool-deficient as Modeler is, which is a real shame when it's sitting next to Layout, which gets all the love.

And then there's the issue of just how useful the interchange formats are. Last I heard, Collada was woefully incomplete, and FBX was only a mere shell of what FBX should be. Which leaves OBJ, which is really only a facet/vertex/color format, and not any kind of real interchange.

MDD and all that, yeah, but that's been good for a while now. How's the new FBX? Has Collada been updated?
From all I've read, it seems FiberFX is still fairly FUBAR too.

Ennny-waaay... it's all good. I know they're not gonna try to turn LW into a Maya or Houdini, and I do have confidence in their direction.

EDIT-
I'm going to make some time this week to try out the LW 11 demo and see how well I can fit it into my Softimage/Mudbox/ZBrush pipeline before I form anymore opinions. I never did find the time to try the LW 10 demo this past year.

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 03:40 PM
Okay, I can see that, but it doesn't explain why they've pretty much ignored Modeler. After all, it IS still a part of the program, and as long as it's there they ought to be trying to use it to strengthen LW's efficiency.

Sure, interchange and all that, but it seems silly to leave such outdated tools in the program when they could probably update them. I am by far not the only one to complain about Modeler's shortcomings. Everyone always says, "oh use x.plugin", or import from Modo or whatever, but as I say, since Modeler is already a part of LW, it should be getting updated to at least bring it up to some sort of industry standard level. I really can't think of any modern 3D modeling programs that are as tool-deficient as Modeler is, which is a real shame when it's sitting next to Layout, which gets all the love.

And then there's the issue of just how useful the interchange formats are. Last I heard, Collada was woefully incomplete, and FBX was only a mere shell of what FBX should be. Which leaves OBJ, which is really only a facet/vertex/color format, and not any kind of real interchange.

MDD and all that, yeah, but that's been good for a while now. How's the new FBX? Has Collada been updated?
From all I've read, it seems FiberFX is still fairly FUBAR too.

Ennny-waaay... it's all good. I know they're not gonna try to turn LW into a Maya or Houdini, and I do have confidence in their direction.

EDIT-
I'm going to make some time this week to try out the LW 11 demo and see how well I can fit it into my Softimage/Mudbox/ZBrush pipeline before I form anymore opinions. I never did find the time to try the LW 10 demo this past year.

Right. . .but I actually understand the modeler hold up. Even if I found modeler useless (I don't, especially with LWCAD) I don't understand what NT is going to do about it. Modeling in Layout? Bleh, that environment would need a major overhaul for anything modeling wise. I know, I know, more questions that don't have answers but that's how I feel about it.

I wasn't thinking that modeler would be kept in the state that's it's in and certainly not from an animation perspective, many of the modeling tools functionality needs to be in layout anyway. There's a place for core functionality (no pun intended) to be improved in-house and there is a place for more specialized 3rd party improvements. The core improvements are definitely lacking in the animation dept too and modeler or core platform developments will have to be involved somehow.

FBX and FFX seem fine so far but I'd have to put it under more stress. Alembic format would be better than collada.

But I'll just refresh here by saying the main goal should be to provide companies with features that they don't have, not play catchup all day long and copy pre-existing ways of doing things for a third the cost. Then, when there is time and budget, start filling in the workflow holes but don't loose the originality and specialized nature that everyone craves.

IMI
03-04-2012, 03:48 PM
I dig what you're saying, man, and I agree, mostly.
Although I'm more for the idea of one unified app. I never had a problem with the Modeler/Layout/Hub idea in the past, but now I just don't like it... especially after Hub ruined a few of my projects in the middle of them, due to my carelessness. ;)

Well, I was psyched to sign up for the demo, but I can't get the LW product page to load to save my life right now. I've been trying ever since I last posted, and it just doesn't load. :(

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 04:00 PM
I dig what you're saying, man, and I agree, mostly.
Although I'm more for the idea of one unified app. I never had a problem with the Modeler/Layout/Hub idea in the past, but now I just don't like it... especially after Hub ruined a few of my projects in the middle of them, due to my carelessness. ;)

Well, I was psyched to sign up for the demo, but I can't get the LW product page to load to save my life right now. I've been trying ever since I last posted, and it just doesn't load. :(

I guess if I need a lot of complex character stuff I've got SI, that's where having modeling tools in the animation environment really count imo. I guess i don't mind the divide until I have to do animation, but if hub is screwing you over then yeah there is something definitely wrong.

yeah the website is super slow, hopefully because NT is raking in the cash for next release. =)

IMI
03-04-2012, 04:12 PM
I guess if I need a lot of complex character stuff I've got SI, that's where having modeling tools in the animation environment really count imo. I guess i don't mind the divide until I have to do animation, but if hub is screwing you over then yeah there is something definitely wrong.

yeah the website is super slow, hopefully because NT is raking in the cash for next release. =)

Well, Hub wasn't screwing me over - we've always gotten along in the past, but I got careless a few times, and Hub and carelessness don't work well together. ;)

I don't do particularly complex CA in SI, although I greatly appreciate the ease of use in the rigging tools, and particularly character key sets and custom parameter sets. Man, that's the shizzit. :D
Not to mention things like being able to animate NURBS parameters and the history between a curve and a mesh.

I'm more into ICE and Lagoa these days, and Bullet and Syflex in ICE are great.

Finally got the LW 11 download started, although it's coming in at only 70 kb/s. Looking forward to trying it out, especially since I have a lot of free time - this week at least.

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Exactly :D ;)

I just started playing with ICE this week so I haven't made too many break throughs yet. :D Maybe soon. I gotta get more elemental special FX under my belt, that's definitely something I've always wanted to try a lot more of.

IMI
03-04-2012, 04:21 PM
Exactly :D ;)

I just started playing with ICE this week so I haven't made too many break throughs yet. :D Maybe soon. I gotta get more elemental special FX under my belt, that's definitely something I've always wanted to try a lot more of.

ICE has come a long way since XSI 7. It's far more intuitive these days, although the work flow has changed somewhat.
I am by no means an ICE guru yet, but once you wrap your head around it, it's all pretty logical. It's just amazing what all you can do with the simpler and more common nodes, but it seems like virtually anything is possible with it, as far as VFX goes. And mental ray does a nice fast job of rendering it, although I'd stll love to have a LW render engine plugin for SI. ;)

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 04:30 PM
I plan on seeing if I can get some mesh sequences (made with lagoa) out of SI and into LW for render. Hope it works out, supposedly the Layout performance for processing large amounts of verts has improved over the years but I really haven't pushed it too far yet.

IMI
03-04-2012, 04:42 PM
Yeah, Polygonizer is what you want, (optionally with Lagoa Fluid Shaper) if I'm understanding you correctly.

Great idea - I'm going to try that too. It will be a great test.

Edit-
Well, time to go - my download has finally finished. :D

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 09:07 PM
Yeah, Polygonizer is what you want, (optionally with Lagoa Fluid Shaper) if I'm understanding you correctly.

Great idea - I'm going to try that too. It will be a great test.

Edit-
Well, time to go - my download has finally finished. :D

Yep polygonizer, thanks. Yeah give it a shot!

http://softimage.wiki.softimage.com/xsidocs/poly_topomod_MeshingPointCloudsandOtherThings.htm

IMI
03-04-2012, 09:16 PM
Installed it, but haven't registered it yet. I couldn't stop playing with the VPR. ;)

I haven't tried any serious tests yet, but I was happy to see a painted mesh I exported from Mudbox as FBX loaded up fine, textures intact.
I'll try out some heavy stuff soon enough, but I can't stop playing with VPR right now. That's a seriously nice previewer. :D

Yeah, polygonizer is great. A little goes a long way with those controls, too, but if you use Fluid Shaper with it you should turn down the polygonizer mesh controls to improve performance.

jasonwestmas
03-04-2012, 10:03 PM
Glad you like VPR. I don't really notice any real issues with it except it does slow down a lot when you activate reflections everywhere, hehe.

IMI
03-07-2012, 03:56 AM
Yeah, VPR is very cool. :D

I haven't had a chance yet to do any test with rigged FBX figures or MDD, but one thing I can say is I'm highly disappointed that Modeler is still as pathetically slow with high poly models as it ever was.

I was testing with a 4 million poly object. Yeah, that's a bit extreme, but the point being, I can easily work in Mudbox and Softimage with a model of that size, and even 2 or 3 times that size, but in Modeler, it's just so slow that working with it isn't even an option. Same thing with low poly objects with high res textures. And it really eats up the RAM too, far more than necessary. Some serious optimization needs to be done there.

Point being, since Modeler is in fact part of LW, I find it shameful that nothing has been done to improve it. Until they do something with Modeler, or until it's all just one app, I'm afraid I can't be too interested in it. They ought to just sell Layout on its own for half price. ;)

Anyway, yeah, there are ways of getting around having to use Modeler at all, so it's still worth evaluating just to ascertain the current state of Layout, so I'm not ready to write it off totally. Especially since the render engine is so damn nice. :)

It's nice that they now have GoZ, but it's too late for me. I've become a Mudbox junkie. ;) Although I still use ZB for much of my sculpting needs, but I've come to rely on Mudbox for its ability to easily deal with objects with multiple UV regions, plus the "send to" feature for SI, and being able to export layers as shapes and/or blendshapes. Plus painting is easier in Mudbox, IMO. Not as convoluted a process as in ZB.

I also read in a recent thread here that some features of FiberFX got broken at the last minute before release of LW 11, and a patch is soon to be out. WTH is up with that? If it had been me, I'd have held off on the release, especially since FFX is a feature they tout heavily. I certainly wouldn't have released a demo before a fix.

But I guess in business the show must go on, whether it makes you look bad or not. ;)

jasonwestmas
03-07-2012, 07:52 AM
Yeop, I'm pretty attached to the LW renderer, especially when I'm on my own. Like you said my main gripe is the RAM hogging that's going on.

And that "Send To App. X" methodology AD has going on is pretty darn cool. It's a Hub methodology done better imo. The tools are in the correct environments and you can have access to any app. and exchange data and files between them.

Some people don't like the "HUB thing" but when it is done right it's the best solution for the "real" business world.

BTW I got some object sequences into layout all fine and dandy. Only now I need to figure out an easy way to apply the motion blur in a composite app.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ5Q2tDAV1Q&context=C306a5d3ADOEgsToPDskL_E4vKsG7Wyvqa6NsEfhaT

IMI
03-07-2012, 09:22 AM
Jason, I've been watching your video as I sit here and eat lunch.
Very cool, man, nice work! :D
I'm looking forward to trying that out. I have a few of my own nice Polygonized ICE and Lagoa sims I can practice with, just have to let them cache first.

I also want to test it with a fully rigged character with shapes applied, see how much of that carries through via FBX.

If nothing else though, I'll repeat that I'm glad to see LW moving forward. Its progress is a little slower than I would like, but any progress is better than none. I know it's going to develop into the greatness it can and should be.

Anyway, back to the video. Thanks for making that!

jasonwestmas
03-07-2012, 09:30 AM
Sure thing! I learned quite a bit by doing that.

As for characters and other non-particle cloud sims, those can be brought into lightwave quite easily I've found. Plus MDD motions have Vector information by default, unlike the object sequencing method. I haven't figure out how to get the cached motion vectos into lightwave yet, I'm not sure it's possible without a script or plugin being made. I'll keep looking into it.

FBX is ok, but of course you would have to tweak the weighting a bunch for your character in lightwave. But after that is done it'll work for simple deformations just fine. I like MDD because all deformations are then brought into lightwave from SI or whatever apps you export the mdd from.

IMI
03-07-2012, 09:42 AM
Okay I'll check all that out too. I thought I read that FBX was greatly improved in LW 11. MDD has been around for awhile, so I was hoping FBX was up to AD standards.

Anyway, I'll get back to you. Still watching the video - had to pause it to blab on the phone. ;)

jasonwestmas
03-07-2012, 09:47 AM
Okay I'll check all that out too. I thought I read that FBX was greatly improved in LW 11. MDD has been around for awhile, so I was hoping FBX was up to AD standards.

Anyway, I'll get back to you. Still watching the video - had to pause it to blab on the phone. ;)

FBX animation should work fine for you, it's just that the way that Lightwave weights the mesh is going to be different from the way that Softimage and other apps. weight their meshes. So the chances of that weighting data to cary over perfectly into LW (in my tests for games) is rather slim. It's a not a huge mess but you will have to tweak your weighting maps around the joints especially. But after the weights are fixed, you no longer have to tweak the weights for that character.

Back to the motion vector thing. I've actually found that in blender for example, it has a compositing node called "vector blur" that can look at the speed of the alpha without a vector mask and instead just blur the speed according to that. Not sure how that looks for water but I think I might try that.

IMI
03-07-2012, 09:55 AM
Well I figured as much on the weighting anyway.
I'm just mostly curious to see how much of what I typically do could be easily transferred to LW if I wanted to use the LW render engine for certain things.

IMI
03-07-2012, 09:58 AM
BTW, did you know the sound cuts out on your video somewhere right around the 8 minute mark?
Just wondering if that was intentional or if You Tube lost it when uploading.

jasonwestmas
03-07-2012, 10:03 AM
Yeah sorry about that, I uploaded the last part again with sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8pllZxRvM&context=C3b36b90ADOEgsToPDskKmKdp6almbnSUj2XkgxLtj

Greenlaw
03-07-2012, 10:18 AM
I have to admit I was a doubter when VPR was first introduced...at the time I used fPrime religiously so I didn't see the point. Boy was I wrong about that!

Now I use VPR every day and almost take it for granted. I think a big deal for me was that the new Skin shader in 10.1 works with it. I've been using this node for a lot of things lately. And being able to preview volumetric plug-ins was a huge plus too.

G.

IMI
03-07-2012, 03:15 PM
It's all good Jason, I got the gist of it.
I tried out your polygonizer method and it works nicely. I wanted to do some FBX tests but I couldn't resist trying that out first. ;)
Thanks again man!

IMI
03-08-2012, 02:46 AM
Okay, sooo....

What's the trick to getting SI Shapes and Mudbox/Maya Blendshapes and bones into LW via FBX?

I tested it with a figure of mine I exported from SI 2012 as FBX (latest version) and none of the Shapes or bones show up in Layout at all. All I get is the geometry and textures.

As a test I imported this object into Mudbox 2012 and my shapes showed up as sculpt layers, as they should, and the bones are there as well.

Either I'm doing something wrong or Layout's "new" FBX isn't quite working as implied.
I assume it's on my end since I know that Newtek would *never* exaggerate when it comes to the extent of usability of LW features. ;)

But I can't figure out what might be wrong. I know the export from SI is just fine since it all shows up correctly in MB. And I know that it would be fine in Maya 2012 too, from past experience, although I don't have Maya 2012 and I already used up my demo time with it on all 3 of my PCs. (Come on 2013 already!)


It would seem simple to me - FBX obviously stores the bone's locations relative to the mesh, so LW should be able to look at it and say "Hey, them's bones! Let's replace 'em with our joints and bones!"
And as for shapes from SI or Blendshapes from Mud or Maya, that information is also obviously stored in an FBX file, so I don't see why LW couldn't just convert them to its typical endomorphs and toss 'em in the Morph Manager.

Any ideas?

lino.grandi
03-08-2012, 09:01 AM
Would be great to have your FBX (or a simplified version) to test.

IMI
03-08-2012, 10:27 AM
Hi Lino. I saw you on that recent video where you were doing the CA and the voice for the alien dude on the park bench. Fun stuff. :)

I can't upload that particular figure, but I also tested this with some simple objects that I quickly rigged and enveloped and saved out, with the same results. I'll upload something, maybe later today or tomorrow morning, soon as I get some time.

Thanks for the reply!

IMI
03-08-2012, 07:12 PM
Alright, I'm attaching something here.

It's not one of my figures - I can't upload one of them, but it's the same idea anyway - a mesh with some bones and shapes, about as simple of an FBX file you can get with no implicit objects or controllers or anything too terribly unusual.

Just a multi-segment cylinder with 6 or 7 bones in it, enveloped to the mesh, with 3 simple Shapes/Blend Shapes/Morph Targets added to it.

This was made in and exported from Softimage 2012 SAP with the FBX 2012.2 version (7.2). I tried FBX 2011 (7.1) as well, with the same results in LW, so it didn't seem to matter any.

As I wrote earlier, my FBX exports from SI load fine into Mudbox 2012 with the bones and the shapes intact and working fine. I know from past experience that it all works just fine with Maya 2012 as well, but I also had someone confirm for me that this object loads into Maya 2012 with the bones intact and the shapes as blend shapes and everyhting working as it should.

Again, in the LW 11 demo, this object - as well as all my other tests - loads the geometry only - no bones, no shapes. Well, it loaded textures fine on another FBX test of mine, but this object has no textures.
Come to think of it, I'm not even sure if LW 11's version of FBX is even supposed to recognize the shapes/blend shapes/morphs in an FBX file, but I'm assuming the bones should at least show up.

I saved the FBX as ASCII so as to make it easier to read through it if need be. There's no difference in LW though whether it's ASCII or binary.

lino.grandi
04-08-2012, 02:39 AM
Thank you for posting the file!

lino.grandi
04-08-2012, 02:57 AM
I can only agree. It all feels so very much more polished to me. I kinda feel sorry for the dev team because this huge Modo release had to happen right now. As I also have a background as a programmer I would just like to wish the Newtek dev team a big good luck in the future and to say, please keep FIGHTING for Lightwave and love what you do. We do.

Thank you so much. We'll never stop fighting for LightWave, and never stop to love what we do for sure!

About Modo, no need to be sorry. I wouldn't expected Luxology to release their update so soon. But, you know, sometimes you have to rush, especially if others are showing some good progress. ;)

The problem is that rushing often leads to unstable code due to the limited testing time.

We're working very hard to make our software always more stable and improve the user experience.

We want LightWave to be always more powerful, and our users always happier about it.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 06:36 AM
This is one of the reasons I love Lightwave. I want all the "goodies", but without this one factor the rest is a melting marshmallow.





We're working very hard to make our software always more stable and improve the user experience.

Mr. Wilde
04-08-2012, 06:43 AM
I would love to see extensive updates to Modeler in LW12. Modeling in modo is so much more refined, interactive and stable. I'd use it as a full replacement for Modeler if I had the money for it.

lino.grandi
04-08-2012, 08:39 AM
I would love to see extensive updates to Modeler in LW12. Modeling in modo is so much more refined, interactive and stable. I'd use it as a full replacement for Modeler if I had the money for it.

This is true. Modeling in LightWave needs a lot of attention, and for sure some innovation. We're aware about this, and wil do our best to make it happen.

hrgiger
04-08-2012, 10:07 AM
About Modo, no need to be sorry. I wouldn't expected Luxology to release their update so soon. But, you know, sometimes you have to rush, especially if others are showing some good progress. ;)

The problem is that rushing often leads to unstable code due to the limited testing time.


Are you suggesting that Modo rushed their release out the door because good progress was being made on LightWave?

They are roughly on an 18 month release schedule so I'm not sure about seeing anything rushed about it. Espeically when you consider that LW 11 was released only 12 months after LightWave 10.

Fadlabi
04-08-2012, 10:35 AM
This is true. Modeling in LightWave needs a lot of attention, and for sure some innovation. We're aware about this, and wil do our best to make it happen.

That's good news Lino, come on LW 12!:thumbsup:

ianr
04-13-2012, 09:33 AM
For Lino Grandi please

Quote IMI said
'Hi Lino. I saw you on that recent video where you were doing the CA and the voice for the alien dude on the park bench. Fun stuff.'

I too liked the love-struck Alien. Would like tell us all how you did it?

I have a mind that a fast workstation was used,if so What.
I know that a cheap [saitech]Game controller can control morphs in LW11
So spill the beans- or tell that a relative real-time multi puppetry device will be in LW11.5
If not then make a tut for the forum.

Thanks for the show again

Lewis
04-13-2012, 10:29 AM
I would love to see extensive updates to Modeler in LW12. Modeling in modo is so much more refined, interactive and stable. I'd use it as a full replacement for Modeler if I had the money for it.

I'd extend that question to "modeling" not just "modeler". Big difference (hint - unification) ;).

Looking forward to see what they plan for 12, hopefully Lino thinks about that in 12 also not in distant future.

Thanks for time for replies Lino.

BeeVee
04-13-2012, 01:39 PM
I too liked the love-struck Alien. Would like tell us all how you did it?

I have a mind that a fast workstation was used,if so What.
I know that a cheap [saitech]Game controller can control morphs in LW11
So spill the beans- or tell that a relative real-time multi puppetry device will be in LW11.5
If not then make a tut for the forum.

Thanks for the show again

It was done using Virtual Studio that is in LightWave 11 together with any of the devices it works with. You can use a 3D Connexion 3D mouse or a PlayStation Move controller as described in the addendum manual.

B