PDA

View Full Version : LightWave vs Cinema4D



ige
01-18-2013, 01:40 PM
I have seen this Cinema4D-tutorial:
http://greyscalegorilla.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-model-and-render-a-realistic-bedroom-in-cinema-4d-part-1/
He is making a bedroom and use a CLOTFX to make a blanket. It is perfect an easy and elegant!
I have tried ClothFX to make the bed/ blanket/ like this, but it is complicated in LW and the result is "poor"!
Can it be done in a better way- like C4D?? Is LW11 better to do DYNAMICS than LW10?

50one
01-18-2013, 02:42 PM
Bullet is still a "work in progress", soft bodies ar coming in 11.5 which is just around a corner, since you're asking I suppose you're not 11x user? Blender cloth sim is quit good and easy to use, if you really need something urgently.

ige
01-18-2013, 02:44 PM
No. I 'm a LW10 user. Should I upgrade? I use LWCAD a lot , too.

50one
01-18-2013, 02:50 PM
If you don't mind spending additional money i would definitely upgrade, checkout the nice siggraph videos from 2012 that showcase some 11.5 features and there is also the lightwave3d.com website with some of the upcoming features.

OnlineRender
01-18-2013, 02:58 PM
you are over thinking it mate , you really need weight maps to control the blending correct regarding cloth , when the wife goes to bed and if I can find my headset I will spit out a tutorial.


however LW11.5 softbodies would help...

ige
01-18-2013, 03:09 PM
So LW11 is a real step upwards?

ige
01-18-2013, 03:13 PM
I have downloaded LW11 DEMO to try it. But it runs in discovery mode. As I understood in the download site I should get a "scrap" view when running first time getting a 30 days license, but I get right in to LW11 Discovery. What is wrong?

OnlineRender
01-18-2013, 03:31 PM
110471was just messing around........ edit LW should be 60 days free!

if I am honest it looks like cloth calculated a lot faster in c4d however that is a variable and his pc might be top of the range , but there is nothing LW cloth cant do! " that I am aware " that c4d can...

there both similar "not a c4d user but I reckon I can replicate it pretty spot on to that video"


ps this is with no weight maps and its far from complicated , I cant see any real differnce regarding both simulation/controls

OnlineRender
01-18-2013, 03:54 PM
also remember once you have a decent look you can save transpose take it into modeler and tweak to your needs or go all out take it into Zbrush and really give it that detail , or run a displacements , bump . normal map whatever turns you on...

I do wish LW had sculpting tools however

UnCommonGrafx
01-18-2013, 04:07 PM
Motion designer could do that if you grokked the docs.

Sure, 11.xx can do it; should we get 11.5 with Bullet softbodies, there, too.

DigitalSorcery8
01-18-2013, 05:12 PM
So LW11 is a real step upwards?

Compared to LW10, LW11 is FAR better.

jeric_synergy
01-18-2013, 05:51 PM
Motion designer could do that if you grokked the docs.
Are you suggesting they are hard to understand? ;)

Sure, 11.xx can do it; should we get 11.5 with Bullet softbodies, there, too.
I'm always wary of the "this new unpreviewed feature will solve that problem in a trice!" ideas. Maybe they will maybe they won't. We'll see.

OnlineRender
01-18-2013, 06:07 PM
ahh too drunk to record , however cloth fx will do the same job as C4D so......its not really matter of LW vs [inserts app here]

torturebori007
01-18-2013, 07:22 PM
To be honest I was trying C4D for a minute, and man, it just seems like Lightwave is easier to make a lot of things...From simple modeling. Although Im no expert at any one app...I always come back to lightwave...modeling is just too darn easy....

The only thing I liked better from C4D was the texturing method, which like a Modo method in a way...in that drag and drop kind a way...

Celshader
01-18-2013, 08:38 PM
I have seen this Cinema4D-tutorial:
http://greyscalegorilla.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-model-and-render-a-realistic-bedroom-in-cinema-4d-part-1/
He is making a bedroom and use a CLOTFX to make a blanket. It is perfect an easy and elegant!
I have tried ClothFX to make the bed/ blanket/ like this, but it is complicated in LW and the result is "poor"!
Can it be done in a better way- like C4D?? Is LW11 better to do DYNAMICS than LW10?

Consider layering additional displacements on top after you get a nice base with ClothFX.

Here's an example of ClothFX that I did in LightWave 9.x:

http://celshader.com/gallery/md/cerealCover-comparison.mov

Content:

http://celshader.com/gallery/md/cerealCover.zip

For 9.x, I used a third-party plug-in (MDD MetaPointer Node (http://perso.orange.fr/dpont/plugins/MDD_Pointer.html)) to load the MDD file in the playback scene. In LightWave 10.x, this is not needed. You can use the native MDD Displacement node instead, which was introduced in 10.0.

Rayek
01-18-2013, 09:20 PM
To be honest I was trying C4D for a minute, and man, it just seems like Lightwave is easier to make a lot of things...From simple modeling. Although Im no expert at any one app...I always come back to lightwave...modeling is just too darn easy....

The only thing I liked better from C4D was the texturing method, which like a Modo method in a way...in that drag and drop kind a way...

What I liked about C4D best is its incredibly flexible interface - the GUI is arguably the easiest one to learn of all 3d apps. However, at the same time I found the modeling and handling very clunky for some reason. Lightwave and Blender feel much more 'direct' for lack of better words.

CaptainMarlowe
01-18-2013, 10:57 PM
What I liked about C4D best is its incredibly flexible interface - the GUI is arguably the easiest one to learn of all 3d apps.

Arguably is the word. I guess it depends on your frame of mind (a friend of mine had made studies on that, and explained to me that somme people have more a "picture" understanding, and some other a "word" understanding). When I decided, a few years ago, to buy a "big app" licence, I tried at the same time Lightwave and C4D. I understood Lightwave immediately, when I never understood anything to C4D GUI. So after 30 days of testing, I bought Lightwave, despite the fact at first glance I was thinking I would buy C4D, just because of the GUI thing.

jwiede
01-19-2013, 12:36 AM
110471was just messing around........ edit LW should be 60 days free!

if I am honest it looks like cloth calculated a lot faster in c4d however that is a variable and his pc might be top of the range
In my experience with C4D softbodies, they are extremely fast to calculate, impressively so. I don't believe his machine is particularly top of the line, because while mine isn't either, it's closer to top, and C4D softbodies on mine are substantially faster (my machine specs are in my sig). Different programs have different strengths, and C4D's dynamics engines' performance (both their bullet hardbodies integration, and their own softbodies engine) are definitely strengths.

That said, while you might not be able to get as detailed a sim done in similar time, LW's ClothFx should be able to come close enough to usefully emulate, you'll likely just need to lower sim detail or accept a longer sim for equivalent detail.

jwiede
01-19-2013, 02:38 AM
Arguably is the word.
Well, you can adjust C4D's UI/UX to use text buttons, etc. just like Lightwave's, so I'm a bit doubtful there's much (legitimate) room for argument there, at least based on the reasoning stated. C4D's UI/UX is extremely adjustable/programmable in that regard, and there have been text-based C4D UI/UX presets floating around the net for a while, but few seem to use them.

prometheus
01-19-2013, 04:03 AM
Thereīs also an option to simulate on lower resolution object, then use metalink to transfer deformation to a higher resolution.

Cinema4d has gotten my attention for a while now, mostly because of what I believe to be great handling of micro polydisplacement, and new scultpting tools, and itīs reputation for being
good software for exterior set extensions and landscapes.

Problem is that Im not in the mood of spending more money right now and I believe it is over three times more expensive for the full studio version, have to check the different versions
and upgrade option, and also get a new job before speculating in this.

One thing I would need to come to conclusion about, that is If I ever will get turbulenceFD for Lightwave, or start to look what else cinema4d can provide, and buy TurbulenceFD for cinema instead.
but I think it will take some time before I make such a choice, have to evaluate cinema demos first, and LW 11.5 and following statementīs regarding road maps for future Lightwave.

Michael

Danner
01-19-2013, 07:18 AM
The bottom line is that they are both very good apps, very capable if you take the time to know them. But dismissing lightwave for the current way that it handles cloth dynamics is like dismissing a certain car because the globebox is too small.

gravin
01-19-2013, 08:47 AM
I think it might make sense to put this comparison into context based on price as well. It should be more like "LW vs C4D prime or Broadcast" and "C4D studio vs Maya, 3ds Max, Softimage, or Houdini".

Surrealist.
01-19-2013, 12:32 PM
For something like that bed LightWave cloth would be definitely adequate. If you really need a high end app, then that is one thing. But for something like this, just use a fairly dense mesh, set both the Spring and Sub Structure very high. Like 1,000 to 3,000 Play with the collosion offset based on your scene scale and you should get something very nice.

Settings
Default: Cotton Thin
Spring 1,000-3000
SubStructure (same as spring)

Collision Object:
radius level (based on the scale of your scene. These are real units 1= Meter etc)

This is the collision distance field around the collision object. It will help the bed from poking through.
(you can turn this down on the cloth object Collision - Collision Offset and just use one parameter to adjust the distance if you want)

On the Geometry tab. If you have the cloth as a subdpach surface object, (a good idea for the render) make sure and set the order to Last. Otherwise you will calculate the points after the fact and you don't want that.

You want to calculate the points on the base mesh. You can have Sub patch on or off for display but definitely render with subds on. Set to last. this will give you a nice smooth cloth.

On the bed (collision object) think about using a Subpatch object here as well. It will make the cloth conform to the surface much easier and no poke throughs etc. Set the bed object collision type to Object Subdiv. That way it will calculate the smoothed points.

this will take longer to calculate. But it will be much much less hassle. And you'll get a nice looking sim.

Good luck.

jeric_synergy
01-19-2013, 12:55 PM
To be honest I was trying C4D for a minute, and man, it just seems like Lightwave is easier to make a lot of things...From simple modeling. Although Im no expert at any one app...I always come back to lightwave...modeling is just too darn easy....

The only thing I liked better from C4D was the texturing method, which like a Modo method in a way...in that drag and drop kind a way...
In my exploration of C4D I'm stuck at using NURB primitives, which at least it HAS. Haven't tried to model anything of even basic complexity yet. Like others here, Modeler just seems very 'direct'-- like having a small machine shop inside your computer.

BUT, i like the organization of the data in C4D, their "Scene Editor", MANY times better than LW's. You can actually FIND things and don't have to search all over Hell's half acre-- it's all neatly centralized and you can SEE the relationships between elements.

Also, their use of color in the UI far outstrips what LW and/or Maya use.

Their 'Surface Editor' seems a bit arbitrary and too "tab-alicious", but it's all there, you just have to spelunk for things a bit. 'Graph Editor' is a clear win over LW. Render speeds seem a bit poky.

SOME of the c4D ui stuff Matt should definitely be eyeing and swiping where appropriate.

jeric_synergy
01-19-2013, 12:59 PM
But dismissing lightwave for the current way that it handles cloth dynamics is like dismissing a certain car because the globebox is too small.
Said like a man who doesn't travel with his globe. :D :jester: :ohmy:

jwiede
01-19-2013, 04:51 PM
The bottom line is that they are both very good apps, very capable if you take the time to know them. But dismissing lightwave for the current way that it handles cloth dynamics is like dismissing a certain car because the globebox is too small.
While poor cloth dynamics or limited HBD might not be a reason those here would dismiss Lightwave (at times I get the impression nobody here would admit any such reasons exist, though they obviously do), for folks who hugely rely on dynamics, it is quite plausible that'd factor significantly into their buying decision. Dynamics are a major feature area for modern 3D pkgs these days, and pretending such feature areas' deficiencies don't play significant roles in choosing or dismissing a pkg is just another flavor of denial.

dwburman
01-20-2013, 06:14 PM
I have downloaded LW11 DEMO to try it. But it runs in discovery mode. As I understood in the download site I should get a "scrap" view when running first time getting a 30 days license, but I get right in to LW11 Discovery. What is wrong?

You need to register the app and get a temporary license key either via email or downloaded from your lightwave3d.com user account page.

mike_stening
01-21-2013, 08:03 AM
i work with both apps as my company used cinema before i joined and i brought in lightwave. Like said they are both excellent apps and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Cinemas interactive modeling is very nice and does things that are hard to do in lightwave (deformers and spline based meshing) but actual modeling in cinema feels very clunky and awkward. Lightwave just feels natural. So i do work between the 2 as cinema opens lwo and lws files and exports fbx. Nevr really liked the gui in cinema but i'm used to it now.
though to just pick one i would probably stick with lightwave as i find the renderer so much better and natural looking and easier to tweak.
You just need to decide if its the right tool for the job.

realgray
01-21-2013, 11:41 AM
i work with both apps as my company used cinema before i joined and i brought in lightwave. Like said they are both excellent apps and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Cinemas interactive modeling is very nice and does things that are hard to do in lightwave (deformers and spline based meshing) but actual modeling in cinema feels very clunky and awkward. Lightwave just feels natural. So i do work between the 2 as cinema opens lwo and lws files and exports fbx. Nevr really liked the gui in cinema but i'm used to it now.
though to just pick one i would probably stick with lightwave as i find the renderer so much better and natural looking and easier to tweak.
You just need to decide if its the right tool for the job.

:thumbsup: Very nice comment and the way I feel. I'm wondering how far the GUI can be pushed. Has anyone ever tried to create a LW theme? I don't like how small the viewport is in C4D under most setups. I feel LW does the best job at getting the buttons out of the way and the focus on the viewport. It's especially awesome under dual screen setups where you can stick your most used palettes in the second screen.

Celshader
01-21-2013, 12:59 PM
In my exploration of C4D I'm stuck at using NURB primitives, which at least it HAS. Haven't tried to model anything of even basic complexity yet.

...sounds like you're about to get a harsh, important lesson in the usefulness of NURBS. :D There's a reason Maya why added a SubD workflow.

jeric_synergy
01-21-2013, 01:06 PM
oh god, ANOTHER harsh lesson? ::sigh::

:cry:

Nicolas Jordan
01-21-2013, 01:27 PM
...sounds like you're about to get a harsh, important lesson in the usefulness of NURBS. :D There's a reason Maya why added a SubD workflow.

Yep back many years ago I modeled organic objects using nurbs in Softimage 3D 3.8. Not long after I was introduced to Meta Nurbs/ Subdivision surfaces in Lightwave 6 and never looked back at nurbs again.

Danner
01-21-2013, 01:51 PM
jwiede: I'm not in denial, I work in an office where Max, XSI and Lightwave are used and we tease each other daily on every weakness the other app has. They can't understand why it's separated, why we don't have good snap tools out of the box, why it starts to choke after a million polygons, etc. But I tease them about a lot of things too, and they can't argue with results, I am constantly churning out high quality renders. I am not a fan-boy but I do root for LW because it's the app I am most comfortable with and I hope it continues to be competitive so I don't have to switch.

prometheus
01-21-2013, 02:17 PM
i work with both apps as my company used cinema before i joined and i brought in lightwave. Like said they are both excellent apps and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Cinemas interactive modeling is very nice and does things that are hard to do in lightwave (deformers and spline based meshing) but actual modeling in cinema feels very clunky and awkward. Lightwave just feels natural. So i do work between the 2 as cinema opens lwo and lws files and exports fbx. Nevr really liked the gui in cinema but i'm used to it now.
though to just pick one i would probably stick with lightwave as i find the renderer so much better and natural looking and easier to tweak.
You just need to decide if its the right tool for the job.

thanks for feedback..

Im curious to how do you analyze it being so, that is why cinema feels clunky and awkward etc, could be important to know for newtek dev team to avoid pitfalls here.

I feel the cinema and modo has the same issue, modo has a so many nice subd options and functionality, but for me it feels clunky too compared to Lightwave, and I guess the same
can be said about cinema. mainly you have the Ui shrinking the workspace in cinema and modo, even though you perhaps can change that.
Lightwave has what I think ...the largest viewport work area in both layout and modeler which I feel very comfortable with.
You could of course rig two screen setup for those who can afford it etc.

Then thereīs a question why some tools in modo and cinema might feel clunky/slower than Lightwaves? and could that mean that if Lightwave adapt similar tools like new subdiv types or
introduce parametric history modeling then it will start to slow things down? or is it the configurable UI type that is a sort of bottle neck in speed here?

Itīs been a long time since I tested cinema4d though.

Michael

Celshader
01-21-2013, 03:20 PM
jwiede: I'm not in denial, I work in an office where Max, XSI and Lightwave are used and we tease each other daily on every weakness the other app has. They can't understand why it's separated...

Max/XSI artists have a separated workflow, too. The separation just happens in a different spot, when it comes time to actually render their work. Then they're not only using a separate piece of software -- they're using software made by a non-Autodesk company.

When all goes well, they don't think of their workflow as separated. The fun usually starts when they have to migrate assets from one render engine to another (ex: mental ray to VRay) or have to debug what went wrong with a render (ex: "Do I report this problem to Autodesk or Chaos Group?")

jasonwestmas
01-21-2013, 04:10 PM
Max/XSI artists have a separated workflow, too. The separation just happens in a different spot, when it comes time to actually render their work. Then they're not only using a separate piece of software -- they're using software made by a non-Autodesk company.

When all goes well, they don't think of their workflow as separated. The fun usually starts when they have to migrate assets from one render engine to another (ex: mental ray to VRay) or have to debug what went wrong with a render (ex: "Do I report this problem to Autodesk or Chaos Group?")

In an animation context though, I hardly see as much as a gap between animation toolsets as lightwave has. Just saying that is why the people I know avoid lightwave and I have nothing prove their assumptions wrong, especially for video game animation. LW is harder to use in this regard.

jeric_synergy
01-21-2013, 04:31 PM
Im curious to how do you analyze it being so, that is why cinema feels clunky and awkward etc, could be important to know for newtek dev team to avoid pitfalls here.

I LOVE thinking about those issues!!! Too bad I can't find anybody to pay me to do so.....

++
At least one person on this topic stated while his main software IS integrated, in years of use he's never used it in any advantageous way. FWIW.

jeric_synergy
01-21-2013, 04:33 PM
Ooops. (doublepost)

mike_stening
01-22-2013, 07:35 AM
:thumbsup: Very nice comment and the way I feel. I'm wondering how far the GUI can be pushed. Has anyone ever tried to create a LW theme? I don't like how small the viewport is in C4D under most setups. I feel LW does the best job at getting the buttons out of the way and the focus on the viewport. It's especially awesome under dual screen setups where you can stick your most used palettes in the second screen.

i have ripped all the menus out of cinema and made it more LW like as i have 2 monitors but i still don't like the icons, and changing it to text just doesn't really work, you loose half the words, just seems like a stuck on after thought.

mike_stening
01-22-2013, 07:49 AM
thanks for feedback..

Im curious to how do you analyze it being so, that is why cinema feels clunky and awkward etc, could be important to know for newtek dev team to avoid pitfalls here.

I feel the cinema and modo has the same issue, modo has a so many nice subd options and functionality, but for me it feels clunky too compared to Lightwave, and I guess the same
can be said about cinema. mainly you have the Ui shrinking the workspace in cinema and modo, even though you perhaps can change that.
Lightwave has what I think ...the largest viewport work area in both layout and modeler which I feel very comfortable with.
You could of course rig two screen setup for those who can afford it etc.

Then thereīs a question why some tools in modo and cinema might feel clunky/slower than Lightwaves? and could that mean that if Lightwave adapt similar tools like new subdiv types or
introduce parametric history modeling then it will start to slow things down? or is it the configurable UI type that is a sort of bottle neck in speed here?

Itīs been a long time since I tested cinema4d though.

Michael

the nurbs primitives are nice to have (so you at least know it is nurbed rather than LW's on or off with tab) LW could benefit from this as it would allow reworking of the underlying mesh/spline and when in layout you'd know you had turned on nurbs it would also allow you to toggle it on/off.

modeling in LW just feels natural, its hard to pin down exactly what it is but it does feel like i sometimes have to do a lot of clicking around to get it to do what i want (is it in the right mode, co-ord system etc) So if i am poly modeling then LW is my main choice but i would love some of those interactive nurbs and deformers. With LW once its done its done. So i do ping between the 2 to do certain things.
the wire frame views in c4d seem too harsh and editing meshes can be tricky because of this.

not sure if i've just confused it more

jwiede
01-22-2013, 11:11 AM
modeling in LW just feels natural, its hard to pin down exactly what it is but it does feel like i sometimes have to do a lot of clicking around to get it to do what i want (is it in the right mode, co-ord system etc) So if i am poly modeling then LW is my main choice but i would love some of those interactive nurbs and deformers. With LW once its done its done. So i do ping between the 2 to do certain things.
the wire frame views in c4d seem too harsh and editing meshes can be tricky because of this.
It sounds like you expect to be able to use your LW modeling workflow in C4D and have it function just the same, instead of learning efficient modeling workflow in C4D, but that's just not a reasonable approach. Different apps have different efficient workflows. If you try to model in LW using the efficient modeling workflow from C4D, you'll constantly run into obstacles and missing functionality that make lots of tasks seem nigh-impossible -- yet once you learn efficient modeling workflow for LW, it's obvious the tasks are doable and LW is quite capable as a modeler.

As for NURBs, having them available for path curves, and as the basis for various loft and extrusion functionality is very, very nice. If I actually had to do any sort of extensive modeling using them, I'd probably switch to Bonzai3D/FormZ or Rhino, but C4D does offer some nice, inexpensive third-party plugin extensions to the built-in NURBs support (Heyne's Spline Patch, for example) which do allow for efficient use of NURBs for modeling when needed, by simplifying the splne->patch/surface creation/editing process.

I've done entire ships composed of NURBs patches in C4D with Spline Patch, and it wasn't that awkward (certainly, a heck of a lot more efficient than trying to do the same with sub-d surfaces). I just have added better tools since then explicitly for doing NURBs/CSG modeling, but with the addition of a plugin like SplinePatch, it's quite workable to efficiently model with NURBs patches in C4D.

mike_stening
01-22-2013, 11:27 AM
It sounds like you expect to be able to use your LW modeling workflow in C4D and have it function just the same, instead of learning efficient modeling workflow in C4D, but that's just not a reasonable approach. Different apps have different efficient workflows. If you try to model in LW using the efficient modeling workflow from C4D, you'll constantly run into obstacles and missing functionality that make lots of tasks seem nigh-impossible -- yet once you learn efficient modeling workflow for LW, it's obvious the tasks are doable and LW is quite capable as a modeler.

As for NURBs, having them available for path curves, and as the basis for various loft and extrusion functionality is very, very nice. If I actually had to do any sort of extensive modeling using them, I'd probably switch to Bonzai3D/FormZ or Rhino, but C4D does offer some nice, inexpensive third-party plugin extensions to the built-in NURBs support (Heyne's Spline Patch, for example) which do allow for efficient use of NURBs for modeling when needed, by simplifying the splne->patch/surface creation/editing process.

I've done entire ships composed of NURBs patches in C4D with Spline Patch, and it wasn't that awkward (certainly, a heck of a lot more efficient than trying to do the same with sub-d surfaces). I just have added better tools since then explicitly for doing NURBs/CSG modeling, but with the addition of a plugin like SplinePatch, it's quite workable to efficiently model with NURBs patches in C4D.

on the contrary, it would be foolish to expect that. I am more comfortable modeling in lightwave than c4d, i have alot more time invested in it, but like i say there are many things about c4d that i like too, i just use what i need when i need it.
horses for courses

jeric_synergy
01-22-2013, 11:03 PM
I really appreciate that users who are proficient in BOTH programs are chiming in here. THANKS.

prometheus
01-23-2013, 12:51 AM
Yes ..subidivs are great, but there are thingīs you just canīt do with them that nurbs would handle the best, I remember fiddling with max many years ago just lofting cross sections curves along a profile curve, and how easy it was to switch out the cross section curves from circle to star shaped and thus giving the extruded pipe shape very interesting forms, this is something that I havenīt been able to reproduce
in Lightwave at all.

surface blending and exact continuity in degrees canīt be acheived either with subdivs, rhino is sweet for that.

Introducing nurbs could expand on Lightwaveīs abilities to be a workhorse for prototyping models with a high level of proper measurements in the details.

Michael

mike_stening
01-23-2013, 03:36 AM
Yes ..subidivs are great, but there are thingīs you just canīt do with them that nurbs would handle the best, I remember fiddling with max many years ago just lofting cross sections curves along a profile curve, and how easy it was to switch out the cross section curves from circle to star shaped and thus giving the extruded pipe shape very interesting forms, this is something that I havenīt been able to reproduce
in Lightwave at all.

surface blending and exact continuity in degrees canīt be acheived either with subdivs, rhino is sweet for that.

Introducing nurbs could expand on Lightwaveīs abilities to be a workhorse for prototyping models with a high level of proper measurements in the details.

Michael

hehe, that's kind of what i meant but said in a much better way.
Lightwave= great for poly modeling and spline patching (yes i know c4d has that as an extra plugin but I'm talking out of the box)
Cinema= nurbs modeling is very interactive, adjustments can easily be made (LW would require you to do alot of undoing and redoing to tweak)

jwiede
01-23-2013, 10:33 AM
Lightwave= great for poly modeling and spline patching (yes i know c4d has that as an extra plugin but I'm talking out of the box)
Um, how are you working with spline patches in LW "out of the box"? Perhaps adding a plugin like TrueArt EasySpline or Bezier, but I fail to see how that's different than using SplinePatch with C4D.

mike_stening
01-23-2013, 11:28 AM
well to be honest i havent even looked at spline patching in c4d and assumed from your post about heynes spline patch that it wasn't there at all, i have always used the draw spline in modeler, connect, select 3 or 4 splines and patch, LW's just isn't interactive like say c4d lofting or nurb extrude.

prometheus
01-24-2013, 11:26 PM
modeling tasks such as bridging segments from two surfaces based on a projected curve upon each of those two surfaces and making a complete smooth surface blend, that is practical
impossible to do within Lightwave, you would have to go through a lot of mesh clean up,poly and point fixing to get something decent after such bridging/skinning.
With loft and nurbs tool, you just do it, and finished.

extruding a pipe that is also curved with starting and end profile curves, and also middle profile curves of different shapes and sizes is something that cant be done with lightwave
modeling tools today, ergo complex pipe structure have to go through some careful planning and thinking, cm_loft or curv form from pictrix gives some modeling options, but it aint
close to what I am talking about, now I really hate max ..but some stuff like drawing a spline and nex to ut draw out different shapes and use those as lofting profile curves was nice, and
you could swap out or change a 6 point star profile, go in and edit it and change to a square or 8 point star, that would yield completly different pipe structure.

Implementation of nurbs or solid tools would only empower lightwave more, and with upcoming home desktop printers..the market will grow for those who wantīs more capable
exact tools able to yield desired results.

and No.. LwCad canīt do this type of extrusions, even with itīs profile tools etc, and thereīs poly limitations in order for it to work correctly.

Michael

prometheus
01-24-2013, 11:38 PM
hereīs an old curve pipe extrude tool, but how do we add shapes and cross sections within such extrusion, just canīt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzsqJqxaEHE

CruiserMori
01-25-2013, 12:19 AM
Prometheus - what about Pictrix C_Worm http://www.pictrix.jp/lw/C_Worm/

jwiede
01-25-2013, 05:25 AM
modeling tasks such as bridging segments from two surfaces based on a projected curve upon each of those two surfaces and making a complete smooth surface blend, that is practical
impossible to do within Lightwave, you would have to go through a lot of mesh clean up,poly and point fixing to get something decent after such bridging/skinning.
That's kind of my point: I see nothing "great" about working with LW patches when each patch is effectively "frozen" after creation, making even the most basic operations involving multiple connected patches horribly inefficient.

mike_stening
01-28-2013, 03:45 AM
That's kind of my point: I see nothing "great" about working with LW patches when each patch is effectively "frozen" after creation, making even the most basic operations involving multiple connected patches horribly inefficient.

very true, which is what i meant by c4d 'interactive' tools, where cinema gets clunky is when its frozen or 'made editable'. Yep having these kind of tools in modeler would greatly improve its appeal to a wider market but i have a feeling that modelers age is its limiting factor, by that i mean it needs re-writing to be able to implement these kind of tools. sigh

mike_stening
01-28-2013, 03:47 AM
That's kind of my point: I see nothing "great" about working with LW patches when each patch is effectively "frozen" after creation, making even the most basic operations involving multiple connected patches horribly inefficient.

very true, which is what i meant by c4d 'interactive' tools, where cinema gets clunky is when its frozen or 'made editable'. Yep having these kind of tools in modeler would greatly improve its appeal to a wider market but i have a feeling that modelers age is its limiting factor, by that i mean it needs re-writing to be able to implement these kind of tools. sigh

50one
01-28-2013, 03:57 AM
Having used cinema for a while, i could only hope that someone from LW3D group will eventually look at some of the tools that are in it(I'm talking about the bread and butter of this industry - editable and extensive text tool, something like interactive modifiers that can be animatable and stacked, connected whatever - something like mograph module) and bfew other tools that are the foundation of motion graphics industry.

prometheus
01-28-2013, 04:29 AM
Prometheus - what about Pictrix C_Worm http://www.pictrix.jp/lw/C_Worm/

yes..that was what I was trying to mention, but the words came out wrong ..I said curveform from pictrix, but ment C_worm
C_worm is a great plugin, an you can edit segments by node order as long as you do not drop the tool, so you can scale rotate etc to get bulges along the
pipe, and that is great, but it can not change the shape of an intersecting segment so called cross sections, because there is none, only divided segments and thus
not editable in the same way.

Lofting with nurbs is a different approach ..and with that you can have several cross sections dividing the pipe and swatch out circle shapes to quadratic or star shapes, change the star shape number etc, with this comes a powerful way of shaping pipes that arenīt possible in native LW modeling...or with plugins either for that matter.

You could try cm_loft but that is dependent on polynumbers etc, and you cant change cross section segmenst/shape once it is active ,or go back and edit a history stack with shapes.

C_worm and pictrix bezier curve is absolutly great addition to lightwave, and I think the bezier curve might as well replace native spline curve or belong as native.
But itīs not the same thing as lofting/nurbs and the power with that.



Michael