PDA

View Full Version : Rob is out praising the merits of the dual app workflow...



Pages : [1] 2 3

Snosrap
05-31-2013, 09:23 PM
.... see for yourself here:https://www.lightwave3d.com/news/article/from-rome-to-barcelona-with-3d/?utm_source=may_newsletter_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter It looks like it's here to stay. For the most part it works well for me except for that 20% of the time it doesn't. :) I thought with the cancellation of Core the goals remained the same - one of those was a unified app. It's getting to look more and more that that is no longer the case. :(

SquishyAni
05-31-2013, 10:09 PM
This has always been an ongoing subject with many differing opinions. I was trained on Maya (Unified app), and used LightWave for my personal projects. I use LightWave for all my work now. ;) Seeing both types of workflows, there are benefits to both. I PERSONALLY like the separate apps workflow for MY animation and work, and therefore am glad it's looking like it's staying. I cannot speak for everyone else, and will not try to do so. And personally, I feel that no matter which workflow used (unified or separate) it's never gonna be perfect. Just maybe throwing in a different view on the matter. Thanks for the post, good to see Rob is out there getting the lightwave community built.

realgray
05-31-2013, 10:22 PM
Hmmm.

Nicolas Jordan
05-31-2013, 10:52 PM
They could simply be marketing the product as it is in it's current state and putting a spin on what some may see as it's weakness as a strength. But then one has to ask if it's weakness is really a strength than why unify it.

bobakabob
06-01-2013, 01:25 AM
This has always been an ongoing subject with many differing opinions. I was trained on Maya (Unified app), and used LightWave for my personal projects. I use LightWave for all my work now. ;) Seeing both types of workflows, there are benefits to both. I PERSONALLY like the separate apps workflow for MY animation and work, and therefore am glad it's looking like it's staying. I cannot speak for everyone else, and will not try to do so. And personally, I feel that no matter which workflow used (unified or separate) it's never gonna be perfect. Just maybe throwing in a different view on the matter. Thanks for the post, good to see Rob is out there getting the lightwave community built.

+1 Agree, and personally like the workflow in Lightwave. However if the Dev team are staying with the 2 app model, I hope they are working on point manipulation in Layout to give greater control over deformations. Also in these days of giga poly sculpts, Modeler also needs seriously beefing up to better accommodate apps like ZB in the workflow. Modeler is still great because of its intuitive simplicity but there was a time it was the most advanced in the industry :)

MSherak
06-01-2013, 01:38 AM
+1 Agree, personally like the workflow in Lightwave. However if the Dev team are staying with the 2 app model, I hope they are working on point manipulation in Layout to give greater control over deformations. Also in these days of giga poly sculpts, Modeler also needs seriously beefing up to better accommodate apps like ZB in the workflow. Modeler is still great because of its intuitive simplicity but there was a time it was the most advanced in the industry :)

I agree, if they add some details towards point manipulation in layout there really would be no need to merge them. Basically weights and deformations. If you run the hub there is a button that switches between layout and modeler. This keeps things in sync if you want that unified workflow feel.

Hail
06-01-2013, 02:48 AM
yikes!!! :(

geo_n
06-01-2013, 05:00 AM
I saw the video yesterday. When was it mentioned?

erikals
06-01-2013, 06:11 AM
basically it's the same that was mentioned in the "NAB - The Latest in LightWave 3D" video...

so nothing new, i like the split workflow too, but Rob's word still goes >


i'm just gonna say we have quite different opinions on the model-through-camera hype thing.
not sure how i should elaborate it more clearly than i already did.

if the guy that made a commercial said the limitation was a nightmare, i believe him, as i've done similar things myself.

08-29-2012


I will say that we are aware of the limitation caused by not being able to model from a camera perspective. I myself was frustrated by this a few times. As I mentioned at Siggraph there are strenghts to having a clean focused modeling workflow separte from the "Shooting Stage" Layout workflow but this is one of the weaknesses. I am aware of it and want a solution for this....so....I'm just saying LOL :)

08-31-2012

Matt also mentioned they are fully aware of it, i don't worry about if Modeler tools in Layout will happen, it will.
i'm more worried about when... :l

Snosrap
06-01-2013, 09:37 AM
I saw the video yesterday. When was it mentioned? Scroll down on the main page.

evenflcw
06-01-2013, 09:39 AM
As has been said hundreds of times before a unified application and dual app/enviroment workflow need not be contradictions. What is a contradiction is thinking Modeler+Layout, two very different (and antiquated) architectures, could give you the efficiency and power, in development and usage, of a unified app. If that is not were LW is heading, we will still not see the speed up development cycle we have been promised for years now, nor alot of the features the split has denied us for decades.

geo_n
06-01-2013, 10:32 AM
Scroll down on the main page.
Ah this
"Discussing the workflow and object referencing in LightWave 11.5."
Not really a lightwave only feature. Its a bit old referencing system because of the way lw is split but its the only one lw has for now so I guess its half glass full. I'm pretty sure Rob, as a maya user, knows maya has an advance referencing system but he's showcasing lw not maya. They can't showcase what lw doesn't have yet. Hopefully in the next lw versions.

shrox
06-01-2013, 10:41 AM
I agree, if they add some details towards point manipulation in layout there really would be no need to merge them. Basically weights and deformations. If you run the hub there is a button that switches between layout and modeler. This keeps things in sync if you want that unified workflow feel.

Yes, point manipulation in layout.

Ryan Roye
06-01-2013, 10:46 AM
The only issue that affects me with the split app workflow is rigging characters for proper deforming. There needs to be a way to paint and test weights entirely in Layout instead of having to jump to modeler repeatedly. Also, there are some instances where modeling and rigging intersect; like ensuring optimal placement of geometry so you can get clean joint bending.

Other than that, a unified application wouldn't really affect my workflow. When I'm modeling, I don't want Layout's tools in my way, and vice versa.

shrox
06-01-2013, 10:57 AM
The only issue that affects me with the split app workflow is rigging characters for proper deforming. There needs to be a way to paint and test weights entirely in Layout instead of having to jump to modeler repeatedly. Also, there are some instances where modeling and rigging intersect; like ensuring optimal placement of geometry so you can get clean joint bending.

Other than that, a unified application wouldn't really affect my workflow. When I'm modeling, I don't want Layout's tools in my way, and vice versa.

I pretty much have the same view too.

probiner
06-01-2013, 11:13 AM
Snosrap, I don't see anywhere on the text or the video any praise on such subject, could you point it out?

Cheers

safetyman
06-01-2013, 11:55 AM
My feeling lately is that we won't see a unified app, ever. A two-app system is what makes LW unique (for better or worse), but I don't find it to be a hangup usually. If you have a dual monitor setup, as most pros do, there's very little lag with updates in Layout. As long as people can get their work done with as little hassle as possible, so be it. Rigging, as was said, is a major downer, as is the modeling-from-camera-view thing.

I have a solution for those that believe a unified app is the way to go: Put a renderer in modeler. It doesn't have to be a full-blown camera/light/skytracer/yada yada setup like Layout has, but maybe just a simple VPR viewport or something. Folks have been asking for Modeler tools in Layout, so what about Layout tools in Modeler? You can't stop me... I'm gonna run with scissors later.

geo_n
06-01-2013, 12:00 PM
Other than that, a unified application wouldn't really affect my workflow. When I'm modeling, I don't want Layout's tools in my way, and vice versa.

That was my thinking before learning another app. Hundreds of thousands of maya, max, xsi, houdini, c4d users must be on to something. Don't think there's a request to split those appz into a modelling and scene stage app. I personally wouldn't want 3dmax, maya broken in two appz.
I think modo is also a good example of how to do it right in a lightwavy modern app. Its really coming along after over a decade.

prometheus
06-01-2013, 12:09 PM
1. Painting point clusters/instances.
2. Painting weight maps controlling everything that is controllable with it.
3. Sculpt paint brushes to edit landscape in scene context.
4. Direct creation of subpatch grids/objects for deformation/terrain purposes, and also voxel work on the same.

Thatīs Some of the weaknesses I find affecting the speed I work with in a non unified app, or lack of modeling tools in layout, many of those simply would be faster workflow vise to access on creation time, and work with in Layout directly.

Michael

geo_n
06-01-2013, 12:12 PM
Genoma would have been uber powerful if done in layout. :D

Surrealist.
06-01-2013, 01:39 PM
I think that the only reason there is any debate about this is because they made a bad decision at the start of development. Just a bad idea. And because people used it for so long and because it is here, somehow I think people feel the need to justify it. There is no justification at all. None of the reasons I have seen put forth have any real value. They just don't hold up against the reality of actually using a unified app from my experience. The only real advantage I see is that it must have been easier to develop it by the 2 guys who started it. One working on one app and one working on the other. I believe even they realized eventually that it was a short-sighted mistake. The rest is of course well-known history.

The only other advantage of 2 apps is the fact that it is here now and it works. Tools can be developed on this platform. Tools can not be developed on a platform that does not exist. The option that Newtek seems to have chosen now is to simply embrace it and move forward developing the tools that can be developed on these two apps. I think that's what you will see. And any unification will be only in small bits if at all. I think it is a massive project to unify. And if they are working on this behind the scenes as has been intimated, well, just have to wait and see. But I think it is a long-range project.

hrgiger
06-01-2013, 01:42 PM
There are no benefits to a 2 app workflow that can't be enjoyed by a unified application. Absolutely none. But there are many benefits to a unified application over the split model.

The suggesion that a unified application would have a cluttered interface or that all of your layout and modeling tools would be on a single screen constantly in your way is fallacy. This is a GUI issue, and is effectively handled with effective workspacing.

shrox
06-01-2013, 02:03 PM
There are no benefits to a 2 app workflow that can't be enjoyed by a unified application. Absolutely none. But there are many benefits to a unified application over the split model.

The suggesion that a unified application would have a cluttered interface or that all of your layout and modeling tools would be on a single screen constantly in your way is fallacy. This is a GUI issue, and is effectively handled with effective workspacing.

I don't know...seeing as that comes from a long time expert and cult figure. I suppose the interface is really the key to how it "feels". But, I fear change I am not even in a political party!

bobakabob
06-01-2013, 02:25 PM
There are no benefits to a 2 app workflow that can't be enjoyed by a unified application. Absolutely none. But there are many benefits to a unified application over the split model.

The reality, as the passage of time has confirmed, is that LW is never going to be XSI, probably the most advanced and unified of all the 3d apps. However LW is a very capable and fast environment to work in despite shortcomings. So it would make sense for those users truly frustrated by the Layout/Modeler split to simply switch. Problems solved. Personally I would if I could justify the cost or stomach paying expensive subscriptions to a half hearted corporate developer. Modo is another alternative but that is surely a classic grass is greener scenario, what with issues about stability and the shader tree. The Lightwave Dev team are undoubtedly talented and enthusiastic and have made great strides with the latest releases. If they develop good modelling tools combined with animateable point manipulation in Layout and a more efficient environment for handling giga poly counts LW would continue to grow.

hrgiger
06-01-2013, 02:29 PM
If they develop good modelling tools combined with animateable point manipulation in Layout and a more efficient environment for handling giga poly counts LW would continue to grow.

They will be unable to do these things without a new architecture in place. And if they're bothering to write a new architecture, why waste time doing such a monumental task without unifying the code base?

Newtek assured us that the goal of their current direction was no different then it was with CORE. If they have changed their ideas and plan to keep LW seperated, they should let us know so that we're not hoping for a direction that's never going to happen. Switching software is always an option. Currently most of my work revovles around modeling and for that, LW suits most of my needs. But if I were looking to do animation, I would be looking elsewhere and undoubtedly will eventually if Newtek decides to stay in the stone ages and continue with 2 seperate applications.

digitaldoc
06-01-2013, 02:40 PM
Adding weight map painting in Layout world be a huge benefit.

I really like being able to easily swap assets, add only assets I want to a scene from another scene because of the duality.

bobakabob
06-01-2013, 02:47 PM
They will be unable to do these things without a new architecture in place. And if they're bothering to write a new architecture, why waste time doing such a monumental task without unifying the code base?

It's all speculation. I suspect the team have been working to improve Layout under the hood, though the reality is it's likely to be short of a total rewrite (sadly we all know about The last one). Who knows? It makes commercial sense to enhance Layout by adding modelling tools and improving deformations. This is what corporate clients surely want, not just freelancers and hobbyists. Interestingly Point manipulation was possible in LW 7 few years back, I recall using a Japanese plugin (was it minimo?). Bottom line I do think the Dev team are listening and really want to improve Lightwave seriously, not just add bells and whistles.

Lewis
06-01-2013, 03:14 PM
I agree, if they add some details towards point manipulation in layout there really would be no need to merge them. Basically weights and deformations. If you run the hub there is a button that switches between layout and modeler. This keeps things in sync if you want that unified workflow feel.

What aobut parametric? If we want to change segments of already animated and bent BOX what then in split app with destruction modleing system and no history or modifier stack? Also how to select polys in layout and change their surface on few polys, or how about animated modelign tools (i want to animate bevel, how's that in split app??) or What about memory usage ? I have mesh that uses 6.8GB in modeler so in split app i need about 10 more GB to load/render it in layout while workign/syncing in modeler, what a WASTE of resources and speed. So NO, "some point manipulation" in layout wouldnt' be solution by a long shoot, that would just be hallf assed semi-feature with crippled and akward workflow.



They will be unable to do these things without a new architecture in place. And if they're bothering to write a new architecture, why waste time doing such a monumental task without unifying the code base?

Newtek assured us that the goal of their current direction was no different then it was with CORE. If they have changed their ideas and plan to keep LW seperated, they should let us know so that we're not hoping for a direction that's never going to happen. Switching software is always an option. Currently most of my work revovles around modeling and for that, LW suits most of my needs. But if I were looking to do animation, I would be looking elsehere and undoubtedly will eventually if Newtek decides to stay in the stone ages and continue with 2 seperate applications.

Agreed, they should stop giving false hope if they are uncertian (or even worse, long time decided not to follow that goal) about direction and if is still on tabe then spill the beans - WHEN ? Soon is not really working anymore and "can't happen over night" is starting to get old. 3+ years is not overnight and yet we've not seen anythign on unification in that period, nothing, zero, zilch.... :). They don't even TALK about that anymore :(.

What I can't believe is tha we are still debating aobut split/unified app and what is evne more silly is that some people still think that if you have unified app that means that ALL buttons/tabs from layout and modeler will be on screen and crowded. Jezz guys, look around a bit and inform yourself, there is tons of stuff how that can/should be solved with ease. You wouldn't even know you are in unified app if you don't want to know. All the panels/shortcuts etc. can be context sensitive, you can have saprate Animate/Model tabs so all the buttons/tabs would handle at your need so you can see only buttons you want at once. Heck you alos can make your own custom MIX of menus/TABs, keys (sticky keys, context sensitive keys - you can have sam key for two or more different operations depending on where you are at in application if you wish) you can disable eneable any widnow, turn on/off timeline (in case you want full modeler only look).......

Really there is no benefits of split app, NONE, those who think otherwise just kid ourself 'coz they think about LW unified as Layout+Modeler bolted on in same window, that's not how unified app looks/works (nor do you have to fear NT would do just that if they ever do unification, they know better than that, that was tried around LW 9 and it didn't work), that's just GUI but what counts is under the hood when everyhtign works with everythign internaly and you don't have to use 5 similar tools for same thing but with slight difference (like now when we have dozen of bevel tools or shift tools etc. etc.), you'd use 1,2,3 simple tools programmed in the heart of code and combine them on your own (or use natively combined tools as advanced ones) to make new tool and save that as macro/new tool as you want/wish, basically in perfect paramteric/nodal environment you could change how tool works (evne if is just modeling tool) since you could combine/adjust it as you wish, think about Photoshop Actions for modeling i.e. you could save your complete modelign session within single button and just click it and get "eagle in a barrel" on single click again....:).

OnlineRender
06-01-2013, 03:33 PM
I secretly hope CORE is still being developed behind the scenes even if its just a ONE dev taking it home and tinkering in there spare time "it would be a shame to waste" and all the new tools you are seeing are wrote native for Core and being implemented as we speak and perhaps 3 years down the line they go SHA_BANG take this for a spin...

wishful thinking

Megalodon2.0
06-01-2013, 03:45 PM
I secretly hope CORE is still being developed behind the scenes even if its just a ONE dev taking it home and tinkering in there spare time "it would be a shame to waste" and all the new tools you are seeing are wrote native for Core and being implemented as we speak and perhaps 3 years down the line they go SHA_BANG take this for a spin...

wishful thinking

Yeah, but that's a WONDERFUL wish! :thumbsup:

OnlineRender
06-01-2013, 03:57 PM
Yeah, but that's a WONDERFUL wish! :thumbsup:

I think it would be ignorant from any developer to throw code out the door like that and I would imagine its probably used as a test bed, perhaps pushing Core as they did was wrong and perhaps pulling it was the correct direction at the time and I honestly do not count LW10 as a release , LW 11 is where everyone hit the mark and you could finally see what influence ROB & others had on the software including the marketing team , there seemed to be this dexterity shown towards the product and 11.5 was delivered PRO which admittedly had not been seen since version ?? 9 ?? ...as for unification Lewis is spot on there is no down side for being all in the one package

COBRASoft
06-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Personally, I think a history stack and a non-destructive workflow are much more important than a unified workflow. Being able to add more segments to a box after bending it is just a sample of this. Being able to animate those settings is the next thing 'I' hope for. Add a superb text tool to that list, also non-destructive and with animation.

A unified app is a dream for LW at this moment and I don't see it happen any time soon. I don't require it (yet), but better/faster bullet, hypervoxels, ... are things I do require today.

Lewis
06-01-2013, 04:18 PM
A unified app is a dream for LW at this moment and I don't see it happen any time soon. I don't require it (yet), but better/faster bullet, hypervoxels, ... are things I do require today.

So then what's your idea hows it supposed to work (modifier stack, history, parametric modeling) in split app sstem that are so different like Laoyut and Modeler are? So they should develop two separate stacks, modifiers, history, undos (rela undo not silly one we have now), everythign two times to incorporate one at layout and one at modeler ?

As for you don't need unified app , well by your upper comment i can say that IMHO you just don't know that you actually do need it 'coz things you described belong to unified app and not to split apps (modeler nad layout are very different in nature) ;).

shrox
06-01-2013, 04:44 PM
I don't care for a modifier stack when sharing work. When I had to work with Max on files that someone else had created, it was sometimes maddening to see how they arrived at what I found. Files in Lightwave are what they are, no bizarre loops or dead ends of work to figure out.

geo_n
06-01-2013, 04:56 PM
Adding weight map painting in Layout world be a huge benefit.

I really like being able to easily swap assets, add only assets I want to a scene from another scene because of the duality.

You can swap assets in any other app more efficiently. You can even swap animations because of the unified environment.


I don't care for a modifier stack when sharing work. When I had to work with Max on files that someone else had created, it was sometimes maddening to see how they arrived at what I found. Files in Lightwave are what they are, no bizarre loops or dead ends of work to figure out.

Lw nodes could be the same thing if somebody doesn't understand them. Have you opened really complex nodes in lw? That could be maddening for people who don't know nodes.

shrox
06-01-2013, 05:02 PM
You can swap assets in any other app more efficiently. You can even swap animations because of the unified environment.



Lw nodes could be the same thing if somebody doesn't understand them. Have you opened really complex nodes in lw? That could be maddening for people who don't know nodes.

I don't know nodes.

I want to know nodes, but nodes turns away every time I approach.

Nodes beckon with a siren call of wonderful textures and alluring normal deformation properties, but alas, nodes slips away in the night of twisted trees and obscuring branching layers...sigh.

Oedo 808
06-01-2013, 05:05 PM
I vote Shrox for Official LightWave Group Spokesperson.

Danner
06-01-2013, 05:20 PM
That was oddly poetic, yes.

cresshead
06-01-2013, 06:12 PM
all a bit of a tenuous link to leap form a photo to the conclusion that lightwave will never be unified...
If there were a statement of such intention then yeh...i'd be saddened by the news but this is just a storm in 2 tea cups at best.
I'll hope to stick to my goal of only updating from 10 to the next lightwave when Newtek/lightwave 3d group ship a product that
looks like some of the tools from modeller make an appearance in layout or when camera's and lights appear in modeller.

of course i'll keep the door open to an upgrade if lightwave 12 comes out with something amazing and must have even though it's still a 2 app deal.

never say never!

geo_n
06-01-2013, 06:26 PM
I don't know nodes.

I want to know nodes, but nodes turns away every time I approach.

Nodes beckon with a siren call of wonderful textures and alluring normal deformation properties, but alas, nodes slips away in the night of twisted trees and obscuring branching layers...sigh.


mod stacks and nodes
its a path to many roads.
not really madness.
not enough to cause baldness..maybe some
learn to be adequately so so...like me
atleast not totally zero.
those who can't, TEACH
those who can, DO.
and now I bid you adieu

shrox
06-01-2013, 06:46 PM
mod stacks and nodes
its a path to many roads.
not really madness.
not enough to cause baldness..maybe some
learn to be adequately so so...like me
atleast not totally zero.
those who can't, TEACH
those who can, DO.
and now I bid you adieu

Word.

Spinland
06-01-2013, 06:54 PM
As in so many things, there are multiple viewpoints and agendas. As regards whether upgrading to 11 is/was currently worth it, as LW stands now, 11.5 and Genoma paid for my upgrade already several times over. Being able rapidly to prototype a rig and get an animated demo out the door so quickly has been an amazing boost for my fledgling little studio.

I'm sure many of the improvements being debated here are wonderful, and I'd love to see them and learn to leverage them...but for me the question of whether the current state of LW is worth buying into has been well answered in the affirmative.

shrox
06-01-2013, 07:07 PM
I vote Shrox for Official LightWave Group Spokesperson.

Excellent recommendation.

shrox
06-01-2013, 07:09 PM
...even though it's still a 2 app deal.

never say never!

I say embrace the twapp. (2 apps, 2 apps in one!)

Snosrap
06-01-2013, 07:21 PM
Snosrap, I don't see anywhere on the text or the video any praise on such subject, could you point it out?

Cheers Okay maybe I should have used "selling" and not "praising". :) Either way it looks like he is preparing us for the continued separation, otherwise why try to sell it so hard these last few months. He was selling the same Kool-Aid at NAB.

COBRASoft
06-01-2013, 07:29 PM
@Lewis: a shared history stack is surely possible when the stack is saved 'within' the object or as a seperate file linked with the object/scene. A unified app is simply not for today or tomorrow. This doesn't mean some functions/properties can't be 'unified' (read shared) across the 2 apps. Hence, Windows is also not a unified 'app' but exists of some kind of messages system between the different 'apps'. Message Queueing is just one example Windows uses.

So yes, I clearly know what I want and I'm convinced this is easier to do than the unified app thing so many people are begging for. Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasons why people ask for this unifying and I want it too, but it's too far away from reality right now.

gcbotas
06-01-2013, 08:43 PM
Just put cameras in Modeler. That would be enough for me.

jwiede
06-01-2013, 09:37 PM
Newtek assured us that the goal of their current direction was no different then it was with CORE. If they have changed their ideas and plan to keep LW seperated, they should let us know so that we're not hoping for a direction that's never going to happen.
I wholly agree with this, but have very little hope for it happening. Newtek's withholding of "bad news" announcements (ones they know will upset significant numbers of customers) is historically quite reliable, if disappointing.

At least as time and actions have nearly reached an "obvious beyond question" point w.r.t. LW unification. We'll know soon enough regardless of whether Newtek explicitly states it. They've had more than enough development time to make visible and substantial progress with unification, so its absence or presence in LW12, IMO, will be a clear answer.

Surrealist.
06-02-2013, 12:45 AM
I think the reason many people fear integration is because Modeler for one is a convoluted mess. Actually so is Layout. But in Modeler you already have half or more of the tools that would be integrated in a unified app.

Then also for instance just the poly creation and editing tools alone are spread across multiple tabs. There only needs to be one manipulator and 3 modes, TRS. Then only one set of options for all modes. Soft Select, Tweak, Custom centers and work planes etc. Right there that gets rid of about 10 or more separate tools, buttons and interface clutter. Add to the fact that this same manipulator and TRS modes are also used for all of your animation then, right there, it is all that more efficient. So you toss out all of the overlap, then you've cleaned up quite a bit.

Just going through Modeler in this way and getting rid of all of the overlapping functions and you can reduce the clutter by 50 percent at least.

Now you have reduced the modeling tools just to modeling. Here is what you would have:

Mesh/Object Creation-

Poly Primitives/Curves etc.

Mesh Object Manipulation-

(same tools used for animation)
TRS
Soft select(proportional edit) (Mesh only)
Work Planes
Centers

Mesh Editing-
Extruding splitting adding edges ans to on.
Fliping normals etc.
Any other manilulation or editing of a mesh.

And that's it. That is all of the modeling tools.

The rest of it is deformation - bending and so on. Those are all actually also animation tools.

The rest of the tools fall within the following categories:

Texturing:

UV mapping
Per vertex painting and clusters for assignments of things like Materials (surfaces) - using the same paint interface as you would for painting weights.
Materials and shader nodes and all of the tools for this basic workflow

Animation:

Rigging
Skinning (paint tool for weights same as other vertex painting)
Constraints expressions and so on
Deformation - basically all other forms of deforming a mesh - bending/latices wrap deformers and all of the other tools here. Can have access to textures and vertex clusters and so on as well.

Dynamics:

Without going into this further, it would also be tied into other animation tools as well as use clusters and texture maps.

Obviously I have skimmed this over. But that is a general idea.

So yes, if you simply combined LightWave as it is, it would be a mess alright.

This is why it is not something you can do part time. It has to be a code base that underlies this from the start. And it is why it is a long range plan and it likely why we may never see it in LightWave.

Emmanuel
06-02-2013, 01:08 AM
To me it was like this: 7.5 worked well for me, when I transitionned to 9.6 the HUB caused loads of inconveniences, it wasnt updating Layout object layers, didnt synchronize morphs etc, basically I was thrown back to the LW 5.5 workflow of load and save. I think Modo is a good example to get a unified app working LW-style.

probiner
06-02-2013, 03:54 AM
Okay maybe I should have used "selling" and not "praising". :) Either way it looks like he is preparing us for the continued separation, otherwise why try to sell it so hard these last few months. He was selling the same Kool-Aid at NAB.
See, I think that was a bit unfair to Rob and misleading to the forum audience reading title. Well, he is selling it, because it's what he has to sell NOW. So it's quite normal :) But if I understand your point correctly: This could be a feared sign that there will be no unification soon (LW12), and I can follow you there. Though, something like Siggraph might the propper place to that than college class :D. Still, I am sitting on my hands waiting for LW12 info to know where to invest.


Now on the topic of unification itself, to get all things done we all use several apps. Still, when it's possible we of course prefer to use the minimum amount of them (with the given power and access needed) so we can avoid transit files, split interaction or have slower iteration cycles on a project.
LW is great and allows to kick a lot out of the door and fast, but... I do not like the split workflow nowadays. It was fine when I learned it in college, but when want to play with all the tools in the box or raise the level of complexity, it becomes a drawback: longer setup times and re-runs, a lot of brain power foreseeing how to workaround things instead of just doing them and lack of direct and crossed access.

I don't know about you guys, but I model in Layout too (every deformation is potentially modeling)... I keep my models centered and aligned to axis in Modeler because there are many advantages doing so and use layout to pose the pieces into proper place and have some clones, so I just need edit one and not go into silly cycles of duplicating the mesh and reposition it in Modeler every time there's an update. Then there's Displacement and Dynamic ops that simply cannot be done in Modeler, even if the end model will be static.

Wouldn't be nice to be able to do that in the same place? So it's not "modeling to camera hype" like Erikals says, it's actually being able to edit the mesh either in it's final deformation or intermediate one, not just the source and then have go back and forward for updates...

I've been using SI at the studio lately and it is facepalming how much sense the app makes in many aspects, everything is easily at hand there. I'm not going to unroll a big list of features I like in it, but while I might still be faster in LW modeling the source, I manage everything else faster and with more control. And almost every time a asked it "Ah ah! But what about this and that?" it answered back "Here it is"... Anyway two things shocked me while at it: You can't just copy and paste polygons like you do in Modeler and... Render Tree and ICE Tree don't share most of the nodes... There goes unification :D (though the access through ICE is sick)

We had these on the forum before and when we reference other app it's not about copying them verbatim, it's about when you see other power access levels, streamlined mindsets, the ease and rationality of usage, that you think "Hey... I want that too please, it does better for me".

One last comment would be how development also goes. Plugin devs say they don't have access and new features reflect the split. Both come out sort of isolated, building up their own set of tools and mindsets. Examples: Transform Gizmos, new to Modeler and very different from Layout. Instances only in Layout, so you can't model while seeing them. Imagine LWCad praised system in Layout or having Dpont Nodes to generating geometry. The list goes on. I'm not surprised that many people on this thread are comfortable with the split workflow, and it's fine. But by now most of those who weren't comfortable are somewhere else :/

Cheers

geo_n
06-02-2013, 05:13 AM
Anyway two things shocked me while at it: You can't just copy and paste polygons like you do in Modeler and...



Maybe XSI guys haven't asked it from Autodesk. Or maybe its something XSI guys don't miss because they haven't used an app like lightwave that does it. Kind of like people not missing the benefits of unified app since they haven't used one long enough, minimum 500 hours. :D
Copy paste of polygons is easy to do in any app I assume because I asked it from a developer for 3dmax,which doesnt have it natively, and another app we're developing, didn't take that long to implement.

fazi69
06-02-2013, 05:24 AM
! admit it. I`m SEPARATIST too.

safetyman
06-02-2013, 05:27 AM
NT would have to praise the 2-app system, because that's what they have now. You can't get up in front of current/potential users and say, "well we have 2 apps that work together, but we know it sucks." I was really excited when the CORE stuff came up, but I understand why they chose the current path (you can't leave the mega-users who rely on LW everyday out in the cold). Maybe it's a correct assumption that CORE is still being developed behind the scenes and the current version of LW is being used as a test bed, but if it's not then I hope the changes that are coming down the pipe are enough to keep people from switching. Here's the good news (IMO): Autodesk is a huge steaming pile of corporate nonsense.

Red_Oddity
06-02-2013, 06:27 AM
So we can expect more half arsed band aid tools to give both applications some tools individually the other application already has. Great.

UnCommonGrafx
06-02-2013, 07:12 AM
Look up "Osbourne Effect" to see what is going on.

It should/could not be any different.

Anyone wanting them to not tout the present case is, for lack of a better word/concept, delusional in that they would have people selling a product say, "No, don't buy this one; a better one is right around the corner!"

Such pronouncements prior to SIGGRAPH suggest a PR campaign of some kind. Now to see what that event will yield for the "extremists" to go on about.

prometheus
06-02-2013, 07:34 AM
Update of missing modeler/layout cooperation..

I wonīt state much more about the if/when unified app will happen or if it should etc...future will tell, I beleive it would be best to clear the air with some sort of statement from Rob Powers in all honesty naming something about what the plans are?( even if it only may be..we donīt know yet) (maybe I missed such comment?)

That would be outmost honest towards the Lightwave community, and should not be held in the dark...especially not with background story of the core release & Marketing.
People will by that know what to expect, and we can then produce more great artwork with lightwave for their showcase rather than speculating and writing on these forums about it.

My update now under section 5...

1. Painting point clusters/instances.
2. Painting weight maps controlling everything that is controllable with it.
3. Sculpt paint brushes to edit landscape in scene context.
4. Direct creation of subpatch grids/objects for deformation/terrain purposes, and also voxel work on the same.
5. Update...direct drawing of spline paths for motions, particles...best approach in layout directly when
the scene has multi scene objects and where the paths are supposed to travel through.
I probably got more coming:)

Thatīs Some of the weaknesses I find affecting the speed I work with in a non unified app, or lack of modeling tools in layout, many of those simply would be faster workflow vise to access on creation time, and work within Layout directly.

Michael

erikals
06-02-2013, 09:22 AM
regarding copy / paste polygon limits in xSI
same goes for Maya, same limitation.

it's rather strange, after all these years with costly updates,
they still haven't got it...

erikals
06-02-2013, 10:17 AM
Vital Layout modeling functions >

-select/move points
-select/move polygons
-edit morphs
-edit weightmaps
-edit move with weightmaps
-edit move with falloff
-edit rotation with falloff
-edit scale with falloff
-edit bend with falloff
-edit subd edge weight
-edit extend edges (points) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxSA0kYbu4Y
-edit normal move http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ndJPtEfNwk
-edit blur weightmaps

-subdivide individual polygons
-merge polygons
-split/knife polygons

-create polygons
-create morphs
-create weightmaps
-copy/paste polygons

-lasso points
-lasso polygons
-loop edges
-loop polygons

-paint (integrated) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RLszqWUKUA)

MSherak
06-02-2013, 10:31 AM
The only issue that affects me with the split app workflow is rigging characters for proper deforming. There needs to be a way to paint and test weights entirely in Layout instead of having to jump to modeler repeatedly. Also, there are some instances where modeling and rigging intersect; like ensuring optimal placement of geometry so you can get clean joint bending.

Other than that, a unified application wouldn't really affect my workflow. When I'm modeling, I don't want Layout's tools in my way, and vice versa.

Do most people not know that VertexPaint works in Modeler and Layout for painting weights??


Genoma would have been uber powerful if done in layout. :D

How so?? I think the only thing Genoma is missing is the ability to keep animation intact when updating a model.


What aobut parametric? If we want to change segments of already animated and bent BOX what then in split app with destruction modleing system and no history or modifier stack? Also how to select polys in layout and change their surface on few polys, or how about animated modelign tools (i want to animate bevel, how's that in split app??) or What about memory usage ? I have mesh that uses 6.8GB in modeler so in split app i need about 10 more GB to load/render it in layout while workign/syncing in modeler, what a WASTE of resources and speed. So NO, "some point manipulation" in layout wouldnt' be solution by a long shoot, that would just be hallf assed semi-feature with crippled and akward workflow.

mmm LW is the best package out when it comes to object replacement. So adding segments to the model and saving it does not destroy the animation. I use Maya and the one thing I hate in it, History, slows the app down to a crawl on a halfway decent scene. Animate modeling tools are basically morphs with frames tied in. Memory is cheap and unified packages like Maya and Max are worst on usage than LW. And access to points and the ability to manipulate them is what Modeler does, so having access to points data in Layout would be a solution towards better "Animation/Modeling" tools. Think about this, how many destructive features are in Layout to a object? Surfacing and .......


you'd use 1,2,3 simple tools programmed in the heart of code and combine them on your own (or use natively combined tools as advanced ones) to make new tool and save that as macro/new tool as you want/wish, basically in perfect paramteric/nodal environment you could change how tool works (evne if is just modeling tool) since you could combine/adjust it as you wish, think about Photoshop Actions for modeling i.e. you could save your complete modelign session within single button and just click it and get "eagle in a barrel" on single click again....:).

Not getting this with other packages either. (Maya, MAX, XSI, C4D, Blender) Modo is about the only one that does this, but there are major pains in that package also. And one can already make USER commands in Modeler that strings tools together with parameters to make that "PS Action" button for the "Eagle in a Barrel" button click.


So we can expect more half arsed band aid tools to give both applications some tools individually the other application already has. Great.

One thing I can say to/for the future artists out there going to use any 3D art package, start learning Python.

3DGFXStudios
06-02-2013, 10:35 AM
I so hoped LW12 would be one single app.
I'm learning Houdini now.

erikals
06-02-2013, 11:09 AM
hm, Houdini... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif
nice, but a totally different workflow... i've looked at it too, but it's certainly not a LightWave replacement.

the closest/best LightWave match currently is xSI... but AutoDesk seems to be letting it die... :devil:

shrox
06-02-2013, 11:12 AM
...Anyone wanting them to not tout the present case is, for lack of a better word/concept, delusional...

Really?

Surrealist.
06-02-2013, 11:18 AM
regarding copy / paste polygon limits in xSI
same goes for Maya, same limitation.

it's rather strange, after all these years with costly updates,
they still haven't got it...

In LightWave remember that you are always editing on the mesh level in Modeler. You are never working on the object level. This is fundamentally different than how all of the other apps work. And the layers system in LightWave is unique in that you are copying a mesh at the mesh level to the same layer within that object container or to another Layer into a unique object container. So in essence that is really all a layer is, a container.

But in both Maya and XSI you are working with object containers at the same time that you are dealing with the mesh within that container. Blender is basically a Maya clone in most of its terminology and basic work flow. And not surprisingly has a similar object and mesh container system as Maya and XSI. But also limited in that those containers can not be true instances.

LightWave on the other hand does not allow you to access the Object container at the same time other than through the hub.

So in Maya and XSI you use commands to duplicate a mesh selection and have options to extract it from the Object container or keep it within the same container right there in the interface and then have access to that Object container (in the case of a new extracted one) to do work on the object at that level if needed. Again Blender works the same way.

It is actually faster and more direct in XSI or Maya to actually perform many of the functions you are trying to accomplish from copy and paste in the first place. To copy and paste - one command - duplicate. That is after all what you are doing. And you can duplicate by extraction to a new object and you don't even have to put it in a layer (mesh container) because it is already a new object (mesh container) so it is less steps really. Just one command, done.

I think there are probably some cases where copy and paste command would be faster. But for me the benefits of working in a mesh container system outweigh it in my opinion. And I think if you broke down what the end result you want to be in most cases it would not actually be faster or as direct and in many cases a kind of odd workaround.

geo_n
06-02-2013, 11:19 AM
How so?? I think the only thing Genoma is missing is the ability to keep animation intact when updating a model.



If you tried rhiggit then you will see the advantage of having it in layout. Setup and testing is faster than genoma. Deformations which is a time consuming task when rigging is just more straightforward when everything is right there. Adjusting any rig is time consuming enough even with rhiggit, the deformation is not optimal with the first, second, third try. The back and forth with modeller and layout to adjust genoma is even more time consuming.

Edit-not saying genoma doesnt speed up rigging because it does since it lays down a good rig with all the controller, etc needed. But thats just half the battle.

erikals
06-02-2013, 11:21 AM
Surrealist,

still.. i could smack up a Maya AHK script that worked much faster than the current copy poly solution.
if i used Maya that is... been a long time though, can't recall all the details.

i definitely prefer the LightWave way...

erikals
06-02-2013, 11:29 AM
If you tried rhiggit then you will see the advantage of having it in layout. Setup and testing is faster than genoma. Deformations which is a time consuming task when rigging is just more straightforward when everything is right there. Adjusting any rig is time consuming enough even with rhiggit, the deformation is not optimal with the first, second, third try. The back and forth with modeller and layout to adjust genoma is even more time consuming.

Edit-not saying genoma doesnt speed up rigging because it does since it lays down a good rig with all the controller, etc needed. But thats just half the battle.

yes, i'm pretty sure Genoma was made because it was a somewhat easy and secure way to develop it.
even with it's M/L limitations, it's still very powerful for many creature creations, no doubt.

geo_n
06-02-2013, 11:33 AM
I so hoped LW12 would be one single app.
I'm learning Houdini now.

That's probably not realistic. Maybe some progress to show its happening in lw 12. Please newtek!
Without showing anything though lw is just losing more users and also non-lwvers are just not going to look at a split app. They pretty much think its end-of-life software even though it can still do amazing visuals. "Lightwave, wow people still use that?" yeah its annoying for me, too.

erikals
06-02-2013, 11:52 AM
from a marketing point of view, is showing the split LightWave workflow a good idea?

probiner
06-02-2013, 11:58 AM
regarding copy / paste polygon limits in xSI
same goes for Maya, same limitation.

it's rather strange, after all these years with costly updates,
they still haven't got it...

Hr hrmmm... while it's not streamlined, I can still do it fine in SI with workarounds. Symmetrize Polygons (for the same object container) and Boolean Union (for a different object container), I was just pointing out that is not there like in LW or Modo... It's hardly a thing.



hm, Houdini... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif
nice, but a totally different workflow... i've looked at it too, but it's certainly not a LightWave replacement.

the closest/best LightWave match currently is xSI... but AutoDesk seems to be letting it die... :devil:
We all know what app is LW replacement in terms of modeling and creeping up. In terms of Layout the offer is quite widder, and Houdini is one. You can certainly send objects from Modeler to a unified app and do some tweaks there without needing to come back to Modeler. The other way around is not possible. I have been modeling assets for an SI pipeline and sometimes there are small tweaks and updates required. But I don't need to go back in Modeler to do them; someone just does it right there.

3DGFXStudios
06-02-2013, 12:26 PM
That's probably not realistic. Maybe some progress to show its happening in lw 12. Please newtek!
Without showing anything though lw is just losing more users and also non-lwvers are just not going to look at a split app. They pretty much think its end-of-life software even though it can still do amazing visuals. "Lightwave, wow people still use that?" yeah its annoying for me, too.

I agree it's not realistic but NT should hurry up with their unified app because LW is rusting away fast because of these stupid restrictions. I had to explain this split app thing last week to one of my maya colleagues. I don't have to explain his reaction.... Making modeling tools for layout and layout tools for modeler isn't a solution.
The other problem we have in our studio is that here in the Netherlands there aren't any freelancers that use LW. Oh and if there are any, please let me know. We are looking for some LW freelancers.

stobbs
06-02-2013, 12:29 PM
from a marketing point of view, is showing the split LightWave workflow a good idea?

What I don't understand is why Rob has suddenly started to promote LW being two distinct apps when AFAIK before NAB, he's never even mentioned it before. I can only assume that prior to that they were undecided on the subject of unification but have since voted to keep the status quo and hence try and convince everyone its in fact a selling point. I hope I'm wrong though....

erikals
06-02-2013, 12:40 PM
it might very well mean that we won't see it change any time soon...

3DGFXStudios
06-02-2013, 12:49 PM
Making a flaw a selling point can be a good idea, but this is such a big flaw that it feels more like the stupidest thing you can do. Even a lot of the current users don't like the split app.
I think a lot of old lightwave users don't like big changes to their app. If they want to keep LW alive for a bit longer they need to hurry up and fuse it to one solid rock of code.
Newtek should listen carefully 'who' says 'what'.

shrox
06-02-2013, 01:15 PM
Making a flaw a selling point can be a good idea, but this is such a big flaw that it feels more like the stupidest thing you can do. Even a lot of the current users don't like the split app.
I think a lot of old lightwave users don't like big changes to their app. If they want to keep LW alive for a bit longer they need to hurry up and fuse it to one solid rock of code.
Newtek should listen carefully 'who' says 'what'.

Since the Hub can pass info between Modeler and Layout, can't it be made to automatically do so? And is it possible to "fool" us into believing we are using one app by displaying the changes I make in Modeler instantly in Layout, but display it as one window? Maybe some kind of bizarre hybrid frame rate manipulation technique that doesn't exist yet?

erikals
06-02-2013, 01:21 PM
nope, the M/L Hub traffic is too slow... (heck, even Modeler / Layout on their own are slow) http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

3DGFXStudios
06-02-2013, 01:27 PM
I agree that would be to slow and eat your computers memory like cookie monster in a cookie store. Maybe it's good idea to make modeler work in a tab integrated in to layout. Probably not doable but this way every body can get used to the idea of one app ;)

shrox
06-02-2013, 01:39 PM
I was thinking that perhaps individual point manipulation could be kind of faked in that way. Maybe even as a plug in.

Serling
06-02-2013, 01:44 PM
I don't think the extract/duplicate faces workflow is faster in Maya than the simple copy/paste workflow in Lightwave. In school, we were constantly taught (at the risk of getting a failing grade, no less) that we had to use unique, common sense names for every piece of mesh we created. Any combine/extraction/duplication action performed on the mesh renamed all the affected mesh, essentially meaning you spent a lot of time renaming objects. Maya also has a "Hypergraph Hierarchy" (and an "Outliner" window, both of which serve somewhat similar functions) that we would have to spend a lot of time in "cleaning up" all the bits of history and left over mesh and "transforms" created that weren't needed. And the layer system is only marginally connected to the HH system (show/hide.)

It was also drilled into us that there was to be nothing in the scene in Maya that wasn't intended to be there for animation/rendering purposes. So, if you wanted to save extra pieces of a model for later use, you would have to create a wholly separate scene file in which to store it. And this brings me to the point of this thread: I prefer the 2-app approach Lightwave uses. I can create as many extra pieces for any model I need, store them in layers, hide those layers so they are not shipped off to Layout, and they are always associated with my model when I go back in six moths to remodel/reuse them. I think it's a faster way of working. Importing one scene into another in Maya creates the potential for different objects to possess the same name, which - according to our instructors - would create problems in Maya.

With Maya, we had to do a lot of little "administrative" things while modeling that actually took our focus away from modeling (I would end up spending a couple of hours in the HH cleaning up projects for the "pipeline" that was time not spent actually improving the look of my models!). Not so in Lightwave. Lightwave is simply faster to use than Maya for these and many other reasons not mentioned. And most people with experience in both will tell you the same thing: Lightwave is simply faster (and easier) to use. My opinion as to why this is rests in the belief that this is because Lightwave is a two-app interface with one app strictly dedicated to modeling.

The only reason I see to unify the app is to make it more user-friendly to people already using unified interfaces! But simply unifying the interface won't grab market share for Lightwave until other issues are addressed first (some of which have been discussed at length in other threads.)

Maya's workflow is definitely geared to big houses with lots of spoons in the soup. The irony is, in a world where VFX houses are having to scale back or go broke, Lightwave represents a tool that fits the small house/generalist paradigm much better than Maya: Lightwave is faster and production is all about doing good work on time and on (or under) budget. Why VFX houses aren't using Lightwave in their pipelines for this reason alone is quite beyond me. Just my $.02. :)

hrgiger
06-02-2013, 01:54 PM
Most users of other applications most likely take for granted that the software they use is one piece of software, not two. Its just when LightWave is the only full 3D app out there that has a seperate modeler from the layout portion is when it sticks out like a sore thumb. IMO, its a mistake for Rob to promote the strengths of a 2 application workflow when if one stopped to consider the full implications, they would realize that the disadvantages far outweight any perceived advantage to keeping them seperate. And I say perceived because I still maintain that there isn't an actual single advantage to having 2 seperate codebases to accomplish the same tasks that most everyone else in the industry is doing under one.

shrox
06-02-2013, 02:01 PM
Most users of other applications most likely take for granted that the software they use is one piece of software, not two. Its just when LightWave is the only full 3D app out there that has a seperate modeler from the layout portion is when it sticks out like a sore thumb. IMO, its a mistake for Rob to promote the strengths of a 2 application workflow when if one stopped to consider the full implications, they would realize that the disadvantages far outweight any perceived advantage to keeping them seperate. And I say perceived because I still maintain that there isn't an actual single advantage to having 2 seperate codebases to accomplish the same tasks that most everyone else in the industry is doing under one.

Coding wise sure, in use for me it's more of "mental" issue. I generally keep Modeler in the quad view, moving the dividers as needed, occasionally expanding out one viewport. In Layout I generally use one viewport, and expect things to move as wholes or layers rather than the parts or vertexes of a whole or layer.

Under the hood is not my specialty, riding strapped to the hood is.

probiner
06-02-2013, 02:06 PM
I was thinking that perhaps individual point manipulation could be kind of faked in that way. Maybe even as a plug in.

Well there's EditFX Edit tool trick I remeber Larry talking about. But that won't cut it :(

shrox
06-02-2013, 02:09 PM
Well there's EditFX Edit tool trick I remeber Larry talking about. But that won't cut it :(

Larry was able to use a straightened out paper clip to move vertexes...

erikals
06-02-2013, 02:10 PM
Jay Roth stated they were working on a unification, that was 8-9 years ago (!)
then problems occurred, as it was trickier to fix than they first though.
then it was abandoned.
then Core happened, then Core was abandoned.
then we heard about unification again...

...i can see why people are loosing a bit patience...

...still not 1 integrated tool...

erikals
06-02-2013, 02:14 PM
Larry was able to use a straightened out paper clip to move vertexes...

...with two hands behind his back :O

(damn, all the tricks he had... learned tons from that guy...) :/

Serling
06-02-2013, 02:31 PM
Under the hood is not my specialty, riding strapped to the hood is.

+1. Classic! :D

Serling
06-02-2013, 02:39 PM
And remember: Rob has to sell seats of Lightwave NOW in order to make money. As Lightwave is a two-app interface NOW, he has to sell it as it exists, not as many wished it would be. If Lightwave's 2-app interface sticks out like a sore thumb, dress that thumb up in a pink dress, put lipstick on it, and call it "pretty." But you don't simply ignore something that some perceive as a glaring weakness. You sell the product as is by spinning its perceived weaknesses into strengths. That's at the heart of all good marketing.

erikals
06-02-2013, 02:44 PM
not so sure, sometimes a weaker workflow cannot be defended without the other side making fun of it.
i believe that's what can happen here...

even though there is a good side, the bad side just can't be hidden, and the subject is therefore better left alone (imo)

Serling
06-02-2013, 02:55 PM
the bad side just can't be hidden, and the subject is therefore better left alone (imo)

But we have the luxury of seeing the "bad side" because we don't have to sell it. Everything changes when you have to promote the product to sell the product. The issue of a two-app interface will always be raised (especially by people coming from other workflows) so it will always have to be addressed and not in a negative way, either.

jwiede
06-02-2013, 02:57 PM
It was also drilled into us that there was to be nothing in the scene in Maya that wasn't intended to be there for animation/rendering purposes. So, if you wanted to save extra pieces of a model for later use, you would have to create a wholly separate scene file in which to store it.
This is in no way a Maya requirement, there is no harm to keeping around spare mesh containers with "spare parts", etc.. Your teachers aren't mind readers, so they had you do this so they could know with certainty that everything in the scene was there to be graded as part of the scene -- that was a rule they made for their convenience, not something Maya requires of users.

You make similar misinterpretations throughout your post, implying that somehow Maya requires organization but LW doesn't. In reality, you can make things as disorganized as you want in Maya, just as you can in LW. You seem to have missed your instructors' point, which is that organization itself adds value, regardless of package. You shouldn't work without organization in LW any more than in Maya. You can do so in both pkgs, but it will eventually cause you problems in both packages, in LW at least as much as in Maya (esp. in complex animation scenes).

Further, at least Maya gives pretty decent tools to take a chaotic, disorganized scene and "impose order". Doing so in LW is much more difficult, IME, because even in scene editor view there are still many "entity namespaces" not shown, nor do those outside the scene editor typically offer tools for orderly renaming, etc. In many cases you're just stuck with what's there, and the only way to fix problem name overlaps (for example) is to rebuild the entire scene.

erikals
06-02-2013, 03:06 PM
The issue of a two-app interface will always be raised (especially by people coming from other workflows) so it will always have to be addressed and not in a negative way, either.

no/yes. it will be raised in a negative way if the potential LightWave user asks an AutoDesk user. something that is likely to occur.

also if AutoDesk users sees the video it will raise more eyebrows than lowering them, which in turn will cause negative comments from AutoDesk users.

-------------------------

then again, i guess it's important to address the M/L split, instead of making the potential user run into a surprise.

Serling
06-02-2013, 03:15 PM
This is in no way a Maya requirement...Your teachers aren't mind readers, so they had you do this so they could know with certainty that everything in the scene was there to be graded as part of the scene -- that was a rule they made for their convenience, not something Maya requires of users.

First of all, I never suggested this was a requirement of Maya. This was a requirement of the instructors teaching us a specific production pipeline.


You make similar misinterpretations throughout your post, implying that somehow Maya requires organization but LW doesn't. In reality, you can make things as disorganized as you want in Maya, just as you can in LW. You seem to have missed your instructors' point, which is that organization itself adds value, regardless of package. You shouldn't work without organization in LW any more than in Maya. You can do so in both pkgs, but it will eventually cause you problems in both packages, in LW at least as much as in Maya (esp. in complex animation scenes).

No, I'm a huge believer in organizing my projects and was doing so in LW before ever touching Maya. Many of us new Maya users in the class, however, were simply overwhelmed by the amount of time spent simply organizing projects! And - as noted in my earlier post - any change to the mesh after the fact would toss your organization right out the window, forcing you to redo what organization you had already done (if you wanted to keep things organized, that is!)

I have misrepresented nothing about my experience with Maya. And in the future, a little less accusatory language would certainly aid any further discussion. Thanks.

erikals
06-02-2013, 03:20 PM
from my limited tests with Maya i somewhat agree, misc Maya organization techniques definitely had holes.

Serling
06-02-2013, 03:21 PM
And again, there is no hiding the fact that LW has a 2-app interface. It's been around that way for a while. As long as Rob has to sell a 2-app UI, he needs to extol the virtues of a 2-app UI, along with everything else good about LW.


then again, i guess it's important to address the M/L split, instead of making the potential user run into a surprise.

Agreed. :)

erikals
06-02-2013, 03:24 PM
yep, edited my first post on this page.

but like discussed, the M/L split must be dealt with, now.

i've waited 9+ years for Layout integrated modeler tools, i don't feel like waiting any longer...

i don't expect magic, but heck, at least give us something...

--------------

anyway, 50 days until Siggraph, maybe we will see something.
(wait, i said that last Siggraph too...)
(wait, i said that the year before that year too...)
(wait...)

...i think you get the point :/

shrox
06-02-2013, 03:29 PM
And remember: Rob has to sell seats of Lightwave NOW in order to make money. As Lightwave is a two-app interface NOW, he has to sell it as it exists, not as many wished it would be. If Lightwave's 2-app interface sticks out like a sore thumb, dress that thumb up in a pink dress, put lipstick on it, and call it "pretty." But you don't simply ignore something that some perceive as a glaring weakness. You sell the product as is by spinning its perceived weaknesses into strengths. That's at the heart of all good marketing.


So this is Lightwave...

114674

Serling
06-02-2013, 03:32 PM
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :D

jwiede
06-02-2013, 03:53 PM
But we have the luxury of seeing the "bad side" because we don't have to sell it. Everything changes when you have to promote the product to sell the product. The issue of a two-app interface will always be raised (especially by people coming from other workflows) so it will always have to be addressed and not in a negative way, either.
There's a line between trying to make the best of a bad situation, and compromising ethics just to make a sale. I just believe some of the LW marketing occurring appears to be veering needlessly close to that line, and really doesn't need to be. I'll leave it at that.

Lewis
06-02-2013, 04:01 PM
mmm LW is the best package out when it comes to object replacement. So adding segments to the model and saving it does not destroy the animation.

How do you add more segments to Bent Box/Cube in modeler without remodeling it ??? Or let's go one step further - how do you "unbend" BOX whcih is bent 2 times in modeler let's say 13 degrees each time (which pile son top of each othe rso it' snto smae as 26 degrees at once)? I n MAX it's modifier so you can always un-bend to zero or any other value or just disable/enable it on the fly (or animate). In LWM you can only remodel it from scratch once it's saved/closed and you loose undo. So no, it's nto even close to that.



Memory is cheap and unified packages like Maya and Max are worst on usage than LW.

Maybe for Maya but for MAX vs LW completely NOT true, you are speaking for Maya and throwing in MAX out of boloom wihtout any proper testing and it's obvious you don't use it (or not enough to know it properly). I just loaded same OBJ mesh (1.6 mil polys FLAT gray surface no textures no anything just goemetry) in Layout 64b and in MAX 64b. Layout use 1.31Gb and MAX uses 1.13 Gb (200Mb LESS). So as you can see MAX uses less RAM for SAME mesh (whcih is completely opossite of your claims) and on top of that you can edit it there and you won't double RMA usage like if you would need to edit it in LW sicne you need to load it AGIAN in modeler to edit anything and then sync through HUB (BTW Modeler uses 1.42 GB for that mesh so LW combined uses 1.31+1.42=2.73GB vs MAX 1.13Gb - that's HUGE difference and huge WASTE or Resources, and NO, RAM is not cheap (FYI RAM is now much more expensive than it was last year (i just bougth another 32Gb week ago sicne LW was "eting" my 24Gb in Render Slaves too fast so i had to replace kits to get up to 32:)), prices were gone up double).

so All in all you are wrong about both you quoted me :D.

shrox
06-02-2013, 04:31 PM
How do you add more segments to Bent Box/Cube in modeler without remodeling it ??? Or let's go one step further - how do you "unbend" BOX whcih is bent 2 times in modeler let's say 13 degrees each time (which pile son top of each othe rso it' snto smae as 26 degrees at once)? I n MAX it's modifier so you can always un-bend to zero or any other value or just disable/enable it on the fly (or animate). In LWM you can only remodel it from scratch once it's saved/closed and you loose undo. So no, it's nto even close to that.

You don't. You plan ahead. I'm sorry, that was a smart *** answer...

I can start with a low poly object, a multi layer car, animate it, then make the detailed model, and it can pop right in with no upset to the animation.



Maybe for Maya but for MAX vs LW completely NOT true, you are speaking for Maya and throwing in MAX out of boloom wihtout any proper testing and it's obvious you don't use it (or not enough to know it properly). I just loaded same OBJ mesh (1.6 mil polys FLAT gray surface no textures no anything just goemetry) in Layout 64b and in MAX 64b. Layout use 1.31Gb and MAX uses 1.13 Gb (200Mb LESS). So as you can see MAX uses less RAM for SAME mesh (whcih is completely opossite of your claims) and on top of that you can edit it there and you won't double RMA usage like if you would need to edit it in LW sicne you need to load it AGIAN in modeler to edit anything and then sync through HUB (BTW Modeler uses 1.42 GB for that mesh so LW combined uses 1.31+1.42=2.73GB vs MAX 1.13Gb - that's HUGE difference and huge WASTE or Resources, and NO, RAM is not cheap (FYI RAM is now much more expensive than it was last year (i just bougth another 32Gb week ago sicne LW was "eting" my 24Gb in Render Slaves too fast so i had to replace kits to get up to 32:)), prices were gone up double).

so All in all you are wrong about both you quoted me :D.

I have used all three as an art director. I prefer Lightwave.

pinkmouse
06-02-2013, 04:39 PM
One tool can never do every single job. You use the tool for what it's good for, then when it isn't appropriate, you discard it and use another. Some tools try to do lots, but don't really succeed at anything. Take a Swiss army knife or Leatherman. Great for a camping trip, but you wouldn't use one to strip down and rebuild your car.

LW is one tool amongst many. It can never be perfect, and neither can any other. I would much prefer that the developers spent time improving what makes LW unique, and not slavishly copying other SW - that can only lead into a pit of mediocrity.

Lewis
06-02-2013, 04:40 PM
I have used all three as an art director. I prefer Lightwave.

And that has nothign to do with Unification in LW, that's just your personal preference but proves nothing contra to unification. You obviously didn't need parametric and highly adjustable/editable stuff at later pahse of project (or clinets wish changes ;)) so split app workflow worked for you - great, still as I said that doens't make it better (split approach) nor faster/easier. And on top of that it doens't have anyhtign to do with my text/test you quoted (or you want to say that oyu are happier when machine uses more RAM than it should/could with certiain operations ;)?) i.e. RAM usage and fact is that MAX in theese scenarios use way less RAM than LW. It might seem insignificant with single mesh and only 3-4 GB of RAM but I work on daily basis with scenes what use 20+ GB of Ram in layout so i constantly need to CLOSE layout to be able to open mesh in modeler (for changes, edits, fixes, clients wishes etc. etc.) since my 32GB machine at work can't have them both open/loaded due that doubled RAM usage i.e. two apps loagin smae meshes = wasting of RAM :(.

shrox
06-02-2013, 04:58 PM
And that has nothign to do with Unification in LW, that's just your personal preference but proves nothing contra to unification. You obviously didn't need parametric and highly adjustable/editable stuff at later pahse of project (or clinets wish changes ;)) so split app workflow worked for you - great, still as I said that doens't make it better (split approach) nor faster/easier. And on top of that it doens't have anyhtign to do with my text/test you quoted (or you want to say that oyu are happier when machine uses more RAM than it should/could with certiain operations ;)?) i.e. RAM usage and fact is that MAX in theese scenarios use way less RAM than LW. It might seem insignificant with single mesh and only 3-4 GB of RAM but I work on daily basis with scenes what use 20+ GB of Ram in layout so i constantly need to CLOSE layout to be able to open mesh in modeler (for changes, edits, fixes, clients wishes etc. etc.) since my 32GB machine at work can't have them both open/loaded due that doubled RAM usage i.e. two apps loagin smae meshes = wasting of RAM :(.

We got! Geez! Go use another then. I just get tired of complaining and playing victim.

jwiede
06-02-2013, 05:29 PM
Go use another then.
Most already have, more are now, and if you believe encouraging further attrition helps Lightwave... well, good luck with that.

erikals
06-02-2013, 05:31 PM
Lewis, i assume you are using this trick to speed things up? >


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czWBYThz-Zo

shrox
06-02-2013, 05:56 PM
Most already have, more are now, and if you believe encouraging further attrition helps Lightwave... well, good luck with that.

Constructive criticism is one thing, belly aching is another. When I see a problem that I believe can be fixed, I try doing something, like the Hypervoxel Cottonball mailer. I have no idea if anyone sent a single one, but I did something other than complain.

geo_n
06-02-2013, 05:57 PM
Advising go away and use another app. Thats just going to bite lightwave in the @ss. Shrinking userbase will be the end of life for lw then all dogs that can't learn new tricks are out of luck. New versions won't come out just to support a few LA lightwave studios and a few thousand freelancers around the world. Little money coming in and it won't be worth developing. How much to pay one dev, 60K usd minimum? Lightwave needs to sell a lot of licenses and it isn't easy in its current form.

shrox
06-02-2013, 05:58 PM
Advising go away and use another app. Thats just going to bite lightwave in the @ss. Shrinking userbase will be the end of life for lw then all dogs that can't learn new tricks are out of luck. New versions won't come out just to support a few LA lightwave studios and a few thousand freelancers around the world. Little money coming in and it won't be worth developing. How much to pay one dev, 60K usd minimum? Lightwave needs to sell a lot of licenses and it isn't easy in its current form.

Ok, see one sentence and ignore all previous posts. Looking only for bad is a sure way to see things as bad.

probiner
06-02-2013, 06:00 PM
Just saw the video "The Latest in LightWave 3D" from NAB. Doesn't address what is being in discussion here, but I don't see any praising of the split workflow, just what the app can deliver. To be honest, apart from the technical problems and rush, that was a very kickass presentation, well done NT!
http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/the-latest-in-lightwave-3d-about-nab-2013-on-waskul-entertainment used a proxy to be able to see.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't turn into one of those threads where SBowie ends up having to intervene :D I know from time to time there seems to be the need for one, still... the room is more than enough :p

erikals
06-02-2013, 06:01 PM
i both agree and disagree.

when such a extremely long time has passed, without change, then i certainly feel like making an outburst once a year.
on the other hand it's important to through in some constructive criticism also.

so, did that at least once in this thread > http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?135790-Rob-is-out-praising-the-merits-of-the-dual-app-workflow&p=1324596&viewfull=1#post1324596

erikals
06-02-2013, 06:04 PM
Just saw the video "The Latest in LightWave 3D" from NAB. Doesn't address what is being in discussion here, but I don't see any praising of the split workflow, just what the app can deliver. To be honest, apart from the technical problems and rush, that was a very kickass presentation, well done NT!
http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/the-latest-in-lightwave-3d-about-nab-2013-on-waskul-entertainment

yes, saying Rob is praising the split workflow is absolutely way off track.
it's important to think twice before writing a headline.

same video, on youtube, the Modeler split part > www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyS-SyQza0s#t=23m15s

shrox
06-02-2013, 06:05 PM
Whenever anyone says, "why isn't X just like Y?" I think "why don't they just get X?"

If X and Y combine to make XY plus the added feature of Z, that's good. If I have to forget what I learned about X and/or Y to have Z, that's not so great.

erikals
06-02-2013, 06:06 PM
because X doesn't have Z... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/wink.gif

shrox
06-02-2013, 06:08 PM
You probably missed my edit.

erikals
06-02-2013, 06:14 PM
yep, missed the edit. what you say is true, and maybe we b**** a bit too much about these these things.
but we worry that it won't happen. so once in a while (unfortunately) this problem needs to see daylight again...

COBRASoft
06-02-2013, 06:24 PM
This is actually a problem that cuts in both ways. LW should inform us more about their plans (unification, implementations, integrations, ...). They did in the past and the LW user base went crazy when feature X or Y wasn't implemented as 'promised'. So, LW stopped giving this information completely. Result, the LW user base is nagging again because we're left in the dark. Finding a good balance between the 2 possibilities is not easy for LW. Either way, the LW user base will keep nagging IMO :(.

shrox
06-02-2013, 06:37 PM
This is actually a problem that cuts in both ways. LW should inform us more about their plans (unification, implementations, integrations, ...). They did in the past and the LW user base went crazy when feature X or Y wasn't implemented as 'promised'. So, LW stopped giving this information completely. Result, the LW user base is nagging again because we're left in the dark. Finding a good balance between the 2 possibilities is not easy for LW. Either way, the LW user base will keep nagging IMO :(.

Nagging is OK, it's often more motivating.

erikals
06-02-2013, 06:40 PM
Either way, the LW user base will keep nagging IMO

LightWave users are a gang of old farts so they know what to complain about. (me included)

i tried to complain about a sucky Maya feature once, the answers i got? "it's fine"
no Sir, i'll rather stick around here, where i can nag once a year.

AD people are good about nagging about non-AutoDesk apps, not sure if that qualifies as being better :/
they basically ruined the CGtalk LightWave forum.

if you are quiet you can hear the wind blow > http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5

hrgiger
06-02-2013, 06:59 PM
And again, there is no hiding the fact that LW has a 2-app interface. It's been around that way for a while. As long as Rob has to sell a 2-app UI, he needs to extol the virtues of a 2-app UI, along with everything else good about LW.





Except what I was getting at earlier is that there are no virtues of having two applications instead of one. Any "perceived" benefits of having modeler and Layout split can also be enjoyed with a single application. But the same can't be said about the other way around.

COBRASoft
06-02-2013, 07:01 PM
Hehehe, nagging from time to time is ok I guess. But we must stay open-minded and give the new team the time to show their gems in the making.

LW11.5 was a proof of their qualities IMO. I'm sure LW12 will disappoint a lot of people if not being a unified app, but I'm also sure Rob and his team will show new stuff and fix some long overdue issues. Thinking of it, I'm wondering when 11.5.x will be shown and what we can expect :).

MSherak
06-02-2013, 07:04 PM
If you tried rhiggit then you will see the advantage of having it in layout. Setup and testing is faster than genoma. Deformations which is a time consuming task when rigging is just more straightforward when everything is right there. Adjusting any rig is time consuming enough even with rhiggit, the deformation is not optimal with the first, second, third try. The back and forth with modeller and layout to adjust genoma is even more time consuming.

Edit-not saying genoma doesnt speed up rigging because it does since it lays down a good rig with all the controller, etc needed. But thats just half the battle.

I would never make a rig in Layout from nothing only because it would not be stored in the model. If I did this the bones are seen as a scene item that references a model. Hence why Genoma was adapted to make sure you model you bones. Though I have very rarely ever had to go back and move the rig around in modeler after I have defined it, even before Genoma. As for deformations (weights) they take time in any 3D package. Selecting a whole limb and assigning that weight to a bunch of bones is a bad practice, and one that can not be done easily in other 3D packages, most clamp to the 0.0-1.0 per joint(bone). Really good skinning takes a very large amount of time to get it right no matter what package you use. I don't know what most people use to weight things in LW, but I personally only use VertexPaint for bone (joint) weights. Nice thing is it runs in both Layout and Modeler. Some things need to be addressed since currently VertexPaint does not read joints from layout and does not understand the new scene file format for the animation loader. Course these issues could be updated I think if more people used it and complained. Try VertexPaint in Layout, this MODE type would be the starting line of unified tools that I would like to see.


Making a flaw a selling point can be a good idea, but this is such a big flaw that it feels more like the stupidest thing you can do. Even a lot of the current users don't like the split app.
I think a lot of old lightwave users don't like big changes to their app. If they want to keep LW alive for a bit longer they need to hurry up and fuse it to one solid rock of code.
Newtek should listen carefully 'who' says 'what'.

I use Maya at work everyday, along with Lightwave now, and there many times I wish that they had a seperate file format for objects and scenes. The unified .ms/.mb file is a pain in the *** when it comes to something as simple as replacing a object with another. Lots of planning has to be in place for thinking of the referencing needed. When you deal with 1600 characters that are all referenced you start to see the mess that Maya can become. One wrong save can ruin a lot of data. So one piece of code has it's disadvantages also.


Most users of other applications most likely take for granted that the software they use is one piece of software, not two. Its just when LightWave is the only full 3D app out there that has a seperate modeler from the layout portion is when it sticks out like a sore thumb. IMO, its a mistake for Rob to promote the strengths of a 2 application workflow when if one stopped to consider the full implications, they would realize that the disadvantages far outweight any perceived advantage to keeping them seperate. And I say perceived because I still maintain that there isn't an actual single advantage to having 2 seperate codebases to accomplish the same tasks that most everyone else in the industry is doing under one.

Now how about this for outside the box of thinking, for full video editing with an Adobe product you need two apps, AE and Premiere. (and for those out there that think AE is a video editing tool, it can not load an EDL file and edit). Placing Modeler and Layout into the MODE functions (Hub running) and it looks like you just switch screens for what mode you are in. Kinda like five that Maya has which stems back to the days of Power Animator on the SGI's. Just the viewports don't change when you move between them now. Heck even the new Adobe products now have options to make things look different for their modes of operation. So as an industry standard of late they are trying to make it look different.

LW users either love it, hate it or want it to be like the others. In depth try a project with other software out on the market, won't take long before you are back in Lightwave since you know it and it's ease of use. Knowledge of Lightwave is a ace in ones pocket and in my 23+ years of computer graphics it is the one package that always performed when I need it to. If one needs to have a ONE piece of software then they know where to go buy it. (Get ready to spend some cash) In the end I don't think that NTDev team is fighting to be number one in the world. They are saying that we are here and having something different that you might like. As for industry standards, personally no such thing since it is all a comparison issue of keeping up with the jones.


How do you add more segments to Bent Box/Cube in modeler without remodeling it ??? Or let's go one step further - how do you "unbend" BOX whcih is bent 2 times in modeler let's say 13 degrees each time (which pile son top of each othe rso it' snto smae as 26 degrees at once)? I n MAX it's modifier so you can always un-bend to zero or any other value or just disable/enable it on the fly (or animate). In LWM you can only remodel it from scratch once it's saved/closed and you loose undo. So no, it's nto even close to that.

You have tools to add segments to something bent, edge loops. Unbend, looks like you know now many times you did it and what degrees, run those numbers in reverse. And in MAX (which I have used a lot and dislike it) to me that means you made a mistake in the first place by not thinking ahead.

Course you have to understand that the MAX does not have a file format at all, hence why you do not see 3D conversion tools for .max files, they would need the core of MAX to export. MAX is nothing but commands STACKED on each other which rely on the base. Many problem with that type of system also. Replacing something in that stack messes everything else up above it. Want to talk about redo's and messed up data. And when you collapse that stack everything goes away and is not re-adjustable. Problem is very large scenes unless you start to collapse that stack you start to run into errors between items. MAX is also, even Maya, are what I call single state function programs. You are in this mode till you move to another. Try editing a Camera, Light and Object at the same time in MAX or Maya, not easy since you have to select them individually to edit. Easy in LW, bring up all their panels and edit.


Maybe for Maya but for MAX vs LW completely NOT true, you are speaking for Maya and throwing in MAX out of boloom wihtout any proper testing and it's obvious you don't use it (or not enough to know it properly). I just loaded same OBJ mesh (1.6 mil polys FLAT gray surface no textures no anything just goemetry) in Layout 64b and in MAX 64b. Layout use 1.31Gb and MAX uses 1.13 Gb (200Mb LESS). So as you can see MAX uses less RAM for SAME mesh (whcih is completely opossite of your claims) and on top of that you can edit it there and you won't double RMA usage like if you would need to edit it in LW sicne you need to load it AGIAN in modeler to edit anything and then sync through HUB (BTW Modeler uses 1.42 GB for that mesh so LW combined uses 1.31+1.42=2.73GB vs MAX 1.13Gb - that's HUGE difference and huge WASTE or Resources, and NO, RAM is not cheap (FYI RAM is now much more expensive than it was last year (i just bougth another 32Gb week ago sicne LW was "eting" my 24Gb in Render Slaves too fast so i had to replace kits to get up to 32:)), prices were gone up double).

so All in all you are wrong about both you quoted me :D.

Which takes up more memory on launching? Or better yet what is the total memory size for both with that model loaded? And if you have MAX why use Lightwave if it is so much better?

I personally finish modeling then animate no matter what package I use and no need for a history (Maya) or launching modeler while animating. But that is me. Just cause Maya has a history does not mean I need it in Lightwave. With the latest versions of Lightwave Maya is getting launched less in my world. Even at work I can do more in Lightwave than Maya in a lot less time, and other artists are taking notice. Fun fact, there are more features that came with 11.5 for free than Maya has had in the last three updates. About the only thing I wish I had in Lightwave from Maya is the new CG shaders. Oh and on ram, it cost me less to upgrade to 32gb's than last year for 16gb's when I built my machine. Heck an eight processor CPU costs the same for what I paid for a four processor CPU last year, crazy.

MSherak
06-02-2013, 07:16 PM
Lewis, i assume you are using this trick to speed things up? >


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czWBYThz-Zo

Hence why I would like to see Vertex Normals come to Lightwave instead of just a smoothing angle. Basically this trick sets the vertex normals to a fixed number. No need to calculate them over different angles. With smoothing off the card has to make them all and slows down the viewport since video cards expect them at the core level for draw polygon.

MSherak
06-02-2013, 07:26 PM
This is actually a problem that cuts in both ways. LW should inform us more about their plans (unification, implementations, integrations, ...). They did in the past and the LW user base went crazy when feature X or Y wasn't implemented as 'promised'. So, LW stopped giving this information completely. Result, the LW user base is nagging again because we're left in the dark. Finding a good balance between the 2 possibilities is not easy for LW. Either way, the LW user base will keep nagging IMO :(.

I think when the 11.5 leak happened there was a lot of people that came back and bought Lightwave again since they had not seen features like this in years. I know a couple artists that did.

Serling
06-02-2013, 07:29 PM
Placing Modeler and Layout into the MODE functions (Hub running) and it looks like you just switch screens for what mode you are in.

I actually run dual monitors on my desktop system and load Modeler on one screen and Layout on the other. Hardly feels like two apps when run this way.

erikals
06-02-2013, 07:44 PM
might be, but not for Camera View tweaking


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IYmspJP1Zk


and not for CA tweaking (morphs/weights) and misc other stuff.

erikals
06-02-2013, 07:46 PM
another minus >


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1crpvJ41RyI

BokadCastle
06-02-2013, 08:12 PM
I use Maya at work everyday, along with Lightwave now, and there many times I wish that they had a seperate file format for objects and scenes. The unified .ms/.mb file is a pain in the *** when it comes to something as simple as replacing a object with another.



CORE had separate formats, it follows that the unified LW will do so also.

BokadCastle
06-02-2013, 08:16 PM
Whenever anyone says, "why isn't X just like Y?" I think "why don't they just get X?"

If X and Y combine to make XY plus the added feature of Z, that's good. If I have to forget what I learned about X and/or Y to have Z, that's not so great.

Forget what you've learned? That's a big assumption to the negative.
It will still be LW.

shrox
06-02-2013, 08:27 PM
Forget what you've learned? That's a big assumption to the negative.
It will still be LW.

It's not an assumption, it's a concern.

BokadCastle
06-02-2013, 08:41 PM
It's not an assumption, it's a concern.

...and you have a similar concern with LW12?

forget what you've learned, that is.

shrox
06-02-2013, 08:52 PM
...and you have a similar concern with LW12?

forget what you've learned, that is.

I don't know, can you hold my hand when I first open the program?

cresshead
06-02-2013, 10:08 PM
lw is what it is..either put up or...try something else..or ADD something else at least of you need stuff.tools/workflows

i'm sure newtek are 100% aware of all of these issues and have been for many many years.

Oedo 808
06-02-2013, 10:14 PM
lw is what it is..either put up or...try something else..

Great, maybe NT can make that the new LW slogan.

Snosrap
06-02-2013, 10:34 PM
yes, saying Rob is praising the split workflow is absolutely way off track.
it's important to think twice before writing a headline.

same video, on youtube, the Modeler split part > www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyS-SyQza0s#t=23m15s I stand by my thread title. :) And thanks for posting the video, if he isn't "praising" - I'm sorry- "selling" the workflow than I don't know what he's doing.

probiner
06-03-2013, 01:10 AM
You don't. You plan ahead. (...)


(...)to me that means you made a mistake in the first place by not thinking ahead.

I've seen this argument thrown around many times around here to excuse the lacks of undo system or parametric system or other non-destructive workflows. It's vile in a way...

You're trying to pin down on people, not even disorganized beginners, the app incompetence to adapt time invested in to even slight changes.
You can't foresee everything and the more there's thinking ahead the longer will be the testing and setup times and the more brain power will be allocated to technical matters, instead of artistic matters.

Plus, it punishes the same way anyone that planned ahead A, B and C, but didn't thought about D when doing A, because it wasn't on the table back then. It also feels quite silly to have to go into repetitive cycles of operations just to get a slightly different result in the end, evaluate, then do it again, until it's right...

The things we see in apps X Y Z and would like to see in LW are not the end of all things, one will still have to repeat things at times, but it sure takes quite the load of your head to focus on goals.

Now, I can agree there are some levels of bitching that rise from time to time and even though many good artists had they're bitching pitch before vanishing, there were certainly people doing tremendous work that haven't complained once around here.

Cheers

geo_n
06-03-2013, 01:10 AM
I would never make a rig in Layout from nothing only because it would not be stored in the model.

You are in this mode till you move to another. Try editing a Camera, Light and Object at the same time in MAX or Maya, not easy since you have to select them individually to edit. Easy in LW, bring up all their panels and edit.


If lw was unified that rig storing issue won't be an issue.

Sorry this is misinformation. You can edit camera, lights, objects at the same time in many ways. Light lister panel, graph editor. With objects you can even instance modifiers to other objects and adjust just one mod stack and all object is edited. Try editing hundreds of greek columns in modeller. Ah there's no mod stack or any sort of history, graph in modeller for that. Everything is destructive workflow. Working with splines and lofts, extrusion ,etc. All destructive tools.

Serling
06-03-2013, 01:26 AM
ADD something else at least of you need stuff.tools/workflows


My wish list going forward...

1. Scroll wheel support for zooming in viewports.
2. Backdrops that load with their associated object files. If you save an object with a backdrop, the backdrop should load with the object.
3. Smooth/Relax. I actually miss these tools from what little time I spent learning them in Maya. Soft selection would be nice, too.

That's all I want. :)

wesleycorgi
06-03-2013, 01:51 AM
http://www.cgchannel.com/2011/06/rob-powers-on-lightwaves-three-year-roadmap/

Unless things have changed since this article:

... and that one of the package’s thorniest legacy issues -* the separation of Modeler and Layout into separate applications -* was finally due for resolution.

“Ultimately, I can’t see a future trajectory of our product not including a unified interface for modelling and animation,” he said.

Serling
06-03-2013, 02:00 AM
Personally, I think a history stack and a non-destructive workflow are much more important than a unified workflow. Being able to add more segments to a box after bending it is just a sample of this.

Maya 2013/14: create a cube. Change it (bend it, move points around, etc.) Go into its history (input in the channel box) and try to add segments. Depending on how you changed the original object, simply going into the history to add segments will trash it. To preserve the changes to your object, you'll have to add segements using Maya's other tools for that purpose. The history stack isn't "all that" especially when we were told to delete it often or it could cause Maya to become unstable (i.e. crash: something that happened all-too-often on the PCs at DAVE.)

There is no more destructive workflow than a crash, and I saw plenty of those using Maya 2013.

By the way...Our instructor there at DAVE had written a book or two on Maya and was pretty well tied in with Autodesk on software issues with Maya. (Don't know if he was a beta tester or consultant, but he really knew his stuff.) Guess what: Maya has its own set of problems its users complain about, too. Newtek is not unique in this regard. Just thought a little perspective might be in order. :)

lino.grandi
06-03-2013, 03:27 AM
If you tried rhiggit then you will see the advantage of having it in layout. Setup and testing is faster than genoma. Deformations which is a time consuming task when rigging is just more straightforward when everything is right there. Adjusting any rig is time consuming enough even with rhiggit, the deformation is not optimal with the first, second, third try. The back and forth with modeller and layout to adjust genoma is even more time consuming.

Edit-not saying genoma doesnt speed up rigging because it does since it lays down a good rig with all the controller, etc needed. But thats just half the battle.

You're comparing tools that are really different. With Genoma you can rig anything, not just bipeds. You can use any modeler tool to edit, mirror, copy any part of the rig. And of course have custom weight maps automatically assigned. Adapting a rig to a character is fast, because yuo can move multiple items at once, without any limitation. And once you have your character working, then you can edit the mesh and the rig at once, so you can easily create new versions of your character, with different proportions.

Anyway, this whole thread assumption is wrong. ;)

We're perfectly aware of the fact that integration is important.

3DGFXStudios
06-03-2013, 03:40 AM
You're comparing tools that are really different. With Genoma you can rig anything, not just bipeds. You can use any modeler tool to edit, mirror, copy any part of the rig. And of course have custom weight maps automatically assigned. Adapting a rig to a character is fast, because yuo can move multiple items at once, without any limitation. And once you have your character working, then you can edit the mesh and the rig at once, so you can easily create new versions of your character, with different proportions.

Anyway, this whole thread assumption is wrong. ;)


We're perfectly aware of the fact that integration is important.

Haha Nice! :D Sounds like good news is coming in the future ;)

Surrealist.
06-03-2013, 03:42 AM
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that in order for LightWave to survive unification will take a back seat. And I do understand the feeling that "There is no other way for LightWave to survive other than to unify". The problem with that sentiment is that it is unrealistic for LightWave. And the truth of the matter is that at the end of the day it is the tools that LightWave offers that will sell it. Not if it is a unified application.

Putting things into perspective, every other app out there is unified. The reason they work well is because they were designed to work that way from the ground up. For LightWave that is a monumental uphill battle.

So get LightWave into this state is a 2 fold project. They have to keep adding new features and squashing bugs. And then they'd have to keep working on unification. If they are able to add features such as weight painting in Layout or whatever they do, I think it would have to be based on a new underlying code that goes on along with writing this new tool. That is double the work right there.

And so they say they are hard at work making the Kinect thing happen. Well how much time is going into that? Is it being done based on a new underlying code? Or is it being planted on top of existing Layout code? And how does this fit in with unification? It doesn't really. It is just a new tool. And if it is based on new code, then that code has to be in place first right? I mean it is kind of a mess.

And Genoma? Does that mean that Modeler will become the new Layout? Where is this going? And then there is a new manipulator tool. Is that based on a new code so that it is exactly the same in Layout and in Modeler? Where is this going exactly? I don't think anyone is saying.

So regardless of what is going on underneath, there is a strong demand for features. People want rigging tools now. They got it. It uses the Skellegon tools and some clever coding from what I understand. It is a nice feature.

And that is what I am talking about. How do you add Genoma, Kinnect, Bullet Cloth, new modeling tools, and other new features and keep things rolling along and still unify?

I think if you really need unification. In my opinion you should. Then you look elsewhere. Keep LightWave for what it is, use it and the new tools that come out. But do not hold your breath. Any signs on unification will be relatively small I think. It is just completely unrealistic to assume a wide release of unified LightWave. I mean just look at Layout, it is a friggin mess. All of the deform tools, nodes, surfaces, constraints, expressions and modifiers, keyed animation, it is all still from what I understand based on the old code. They do not even have a decent undo yet in dope sheet and layout. It is really a large project. I mean just replacing the rigging and animation system alone would be monumental. A layout painting tool. How long would that take? That is just one feature. And how many man hours to get that working?

Surrealist.
06-03-2013, 04:03 AM
Anyway, this whole thread assumption is wrong. ;)

We're perfectly aware of the fact that integration is important.

I'll speak for myself and not try and be the voice of "the many".

I get it. I don't have any doubts that you guys understand this. But I don't see it happening very soon. Because I don't think it is realistic.

Now I could be wrong on this, but as I understand it, not really a lot has been said. And I think it could be much more.

For instance, as great as Genoma is, how does that exactly relate to unification? Was is built on some new code? Or was it just you being the clever dude you are with the existing code (or even SDK for that matter) and writing a great plugin that uses skellegons and the existing code? I think people need to here stuff like this. Not... "well we can't say but trust us, there are things going on underneath". That's me anyway. I think I can handle the truth more or less without getting too specific.

Perhaps borrow a page from Blender development. Very frank discussions about a road map and a timeline. It is never perfect, but it is well organized and open. Sure, far more open than a commercial product can be. But much more frank discussion could happen I believe.

And consider a new approach to the tired complaint from developers about expectations. More communication not less. You make a promise you can not keep. Less communication and promises is not the answer. More communication and interaction with the community is a better approach.

You don't want threads to get started with the wrong assumption? Start a blog and open up to us. Get us involved in what you are doling, ask for feedback, give us some credit for being smart and being able to track with you. The minority will carp but the majority will be with you and tracking.

How about a series of pod casts, anything. Get us more involved.

No one expects you guys to divulge things you can not. But a lot more could be said a lot more clearly a lot more often and you guys might even find you enjoy interacting with us on that level.

It could happen. And I think it would benefit both parties greatly.

That's my opinion.

lino.grandi
06-03-2013, 04:27 AM
Perhaps borrow a page from Blender development. Very frank discussions about a road map and a timeline. It is never perfect, but it is well organized and open. Sure, far more open than a commercial product can be. But much more frank discussion could happen I believe.


I agree.

50one
06-03-2013, 05:56 AM
I'll speak for myself and not try and be the voice of "the many".

I get it. I don't have any doubts that you guys understand this. But I don't see it happening very soon. Because I don't think it is realistic.

Now I could be wrong on this, but as I understand it, not really a lot has been said. And I think it could be much more.

For instance, as great as Genoma is, how does that exactly relate to unification? Was is built on some new code? Or was it just you being the clever dude you are with the existing code (or even SDK for that matter) and writing a great plugin that uses skellegons and the existing code? I think people need to here stuff like this. Not... "well we can't say but trust us, there are things going on underneath". That's me anyway. I think I can handle the truth more or less without getting too specific.

Perhaps borrow a page from Blender development. Very frank discussions about a road map and a timeline. It is never perfect, but it is well organized and open. Sure, far more open than a commercial product can be. But much more frank discussion could happen I believe.

And consider a new approach to the tired complaint from developers about expectations. More communication not less. You make a promise you can not keep. Less communication and promises is not the answer. More communication and interaction with the community is a better approach.

You don't want threads to get started with the wrong assumption? Start a blog and open up to us. Get us involved in what you are doling, ask for feedback, give us some credit for being smart and being able to track with you. The minority will carp but the majority will be with you and tracking.

How about a series of pod casts, anything. Get us more involved.

No one expects you guys to divulge things you can not. But a lot more could be said a lot more clearly a lot more often and you guys might even find you enjoy interacting with us on that level.

It could happen. And I think it would benefit both parties greatly.

That's my opinion.



Absolutely agree with you!:)

safetyman
06-03-2013, 08:17 AM
The current version of LW obviously works for folks, professionals who rely on it everyday included. I'm not saying that NT should rest on their laurels and just keep the status quo. But you can't just drop what's working now and what ppl need now for a totally new workflow. It's a difficult thing to do, obviously, and it's hard to say, "be patient" because we all want our Oompa Loompa now, but we have to trust that NT is doing things the right/best way.

NT and the LW3d Group are unique in that they actually listen to the people that use their products on a regular basis. Just try and get AD or Adobe to read their own forums and actually listen to what their users are saying.

lino.grandi
06-03-2013, 08:38 AM
The current version of LW obviously works for folks, professionals who rely on it everyday included. I'm not saying that NT should rest on their laurels and just keep the status quo. But you can't just drop what's working now and what ppl need now for a totally new workflow. It's a difficult thing to do, obviously, and it's hard to say, "be patient" because we all want our Oompa Loompa now, but we have to trust that NT is doing things the right/best way.

NT and the LW3d Group are unique in that they actually listen to the people that use their products on a regular basis. Just try and get AD or Adobe to read their own forums and actually listen to what their users are saying.

Where is the "I Like" button for this?

hrgiger
06-03-2013, 08:39 AM
Agree with surrealist. More can be done to work with the community in terms of ongoing development. The last few years I have signed up for the 3DS max webinars. They talk to users about changes they have made and then get people to vote on how useful those particular changes will be for them. They show them mock ups of possible future changes and again ask users if they like those ideas. Surely NT can do better then revealing stuff at siggraph and saying hey this is what you will be getting like it or not.

Surrealist.
06-03-2013, 08:43 AM
Just try and get AD or Adobe to read their own forums and actually listen to what their users are saying.

That is not a true statement. Actually many people from Autodesk visit the forums regularly and actually I find it very refreshing. I see posts almost on a daily basis at times from some of them. And these are not just some dudes in the office. Duncan for one is a great resource and he is always helping and even submitting bugs from the forums or even just simply taking the initiative to squash them.

Autodesk also set up a voting system for all of their software to initiate and vote on feature requests and bug fixes. They do listen to their customers. Actually, factually, all software companies do. They have to. Newtek is not on a island here. This is the reality of development. It can not happen in an ivory tower.

As a result of the system that AD set up I got involved and as a result, I was asked to join in a Beta program of one of the software's I use. Is it a perfect system? No. Has it been carped? Yes. But it is something. And you gotta give credit where it is due here.

Could all companies do a better job? Absolutely.

But reverse the roles. These are shark infested waters. I mean some of us are real turds out here and we spew some of the most outrageous trolling rants at times full of assumptions and untruths. And some of us are never satisfied with any answer given. It is a miracle that these companies try to continue to deal with the masses at all. Sometimes we deserve what we get - as a group.

But I think if we start respecting these people for the smart professionals that they are and grant them some humanity and mistakes, and use some manners on our part, maybe we can help to bridge this gap and improve on the relations.

It takes two to tango as they say.

hrgiger
06-03-2013, 08:46 AM
NT and the LW3d Group are unique in that they actually listen to the people that use their products on a regular basis. Just try and get AD or Adobe to read their own forums and actually listen to what their users are saying.

Well if you see my last post you can see that NT is not unique in listening to its users.

50one
06-03-2013, 09:48 AM
That is not a true statement. Actually many people from Autodesk visit the forums regularly and actually I find it very refreshing. I see posts almost on a daily basis at times from some of them. And these are not just some dudes in the office. Duncan for one is a great resource and he is always helping and even submitting bugs from the forums or even just simply taking the initiative to squash them.

Autodesk also set up a voting system for all of their software to initiate and vote on feature requests and bug fixes. They do listen to their customers. Actually, factually, all software companies do. They have to. Newtek is not on a island here. This is the reality of development. It can not happen in an ivory tower.

As a result of the system that AD set up I got involved and as a result, I was asked to join in a Beta program of one of the software's I use. Is it a perfect system? No. Has it been carped? Yes. But it is something. And you gotta give credit where it is due here.

Could all companies do a better job? Absolutely.

But reverse the roles. These are shark infested waters. I mean some of us are real turds out here and we spew some of the most outrageous trolling rants at times full of assumptions and untruths. And some of us are never satisfied with any answer given. It is a miracle that these companies try to continue to deal with the masses at all. Sometimes we deserve what we get - as a group.

But I think if we start respecting these people for the smart professionals that they are and grant them some humanity and mistakes, and use some manners on our part, maybe we can help to bridge this gap and improve on the relations.

It takes two to tango as they say.


Yes, Autodesk had some polls asking their users what they want....but the answer to those polls was "You're not getting it..." for various reasons, 3ds max rewrite is/was a total fiasco so no XBR on a horizon for a long time, feature request for Maya? They only added Nex, some of the very old bugs are still there....

Thomas Helzle
06-03-2013, 09:57 AM
Well, IMO, the main weakness is Modeller itself.
Without any history or modifier stack, a lot of things can not be done or are very complicated.
Modelling with Splines is only fun if you are able to continue to move the spline after a lathe or extrude - that's the real fun.
If you're then able to animate that spline as well as the extrusion etc., a lot of things is possible.

The new 11.5 Modeller tools go in the right direction, I only hope the basis of the app can be brought into this century as well, so that working with large models and other things will become more feasible.

The camera modelling could basically be solved with a new view-mode that can load cameras from the scene. Add some UV sliding etc...
Don't know what hinders Newtek doing that. Sounds easy (a point in space, a direction and a view angle?), but maybe it's not?

A major problem IMO is the pretty imperfect sync between the apps and the regular crashes many people see when the two apps sync.
That relatively random but consistent bug is so old it stinks and NewTek seems never able to reproduce it. :-(

The other big area where we really lose out is editable splines in Layout. Several kinds of splines (not only the not so hot flavour in Modeller) , NURBS, Catmul, Bezier, etc. would be super helpful for many things, from smooth animation paths to deformations to particle goals and -guidance to animated extrusions, texture guides...
IMO one of the main drawbacks of the division.

For pure modelling and pure animation there's little problem, but there are tons of things that could be done much better and easier with either a unified app or a completely new approach to the connection between the two.

I bought into Core because of the unification.
I still wait for that, or something just as good.

Cheers,

Tom

erikals
06-03-2013, 10:07 AM
Just do it...

Surrealist.
06-03-2013, 10:52 AM
Yes, Autodesk had some polls asking their users what they want....but the answer to those polls was "You're not getting it..." for various reasons, 3ds max rewrite is/was a total fiasco so no XBR on a horizon for a long time, feature request for Maya? They only added Nex, some of the very old bugs are still there....

Completely and utterly false and misleading information.

Autodesk has poles and are continuing to act on them. And as a beta tester I do now have access to some "insider" info. And the poles are used and I saw that some of those features have already been addressed in the latest release I got. Also you have to balance this with the fact that these guys are not stupid. And they don't sit and wait around for suggestions about what to do next from the user group. These things are planned and priority given for a number of reasons and then there is the co-incidence that any given major feature may have been in the works long before the polls. The polls are another way to gather information along with the other efforts to reach out to users that have been in place already.

I don't care for the system, but it is something, it is there, it is how they decided to go about it. It works. Anyone can go there and vote to make a difference. Or you can sit on your hands and just wine about stuff. That's up to you.

As for bugs.... every program suffers from this. Again, report them or sit on your hands. Not fixed? report them again and stay on it. In the mean time, same as every other app. Work around them.

Serling
06-03-2013, 12:30 PM
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that in order for LightWave to survive unification will take a back seat.

To read some of the arguments here, it sounds like the only way LW will survive is to unify ASAP.

So which is it? :stumped:

Nicolas Jordan
06-03-2013, 12:39 PM
There are plenty of issues that still plague Lightwave and even some of the new so called improvements I see as a step backwards rather than forward.

Clips Maps: I would really like to see things like "Clip Maps" stored with the object and it should be a entry in the surface editor just like Specular, Transparency etc.

RGBA: Another thing that Lightwave should support is RGBA. A user should only have to reference 1 file for both the Color and Alpha. These are all things that need updating.

Unified Sampling: I'm not a fan of the new unified sampling either. I see that it has advantages but at the same time it also has disadvantages. What if I prefer to set samples on some lights to a lower quality and some at a higher quality? The same applies to shaders. Users should never be forced into doing something only one way. Settings should still have the option to be controlled locally instead of only globally.

I get the feeling that Lightwave is being tailored and customized for certain studios out there that have special requests and then it is being assumed that these improvements will automatically benefit and work for everyone else. Some of them do but not all of them. This is ok but only if users aren't forced into one way of doing something. Lightwave feels more rigid with each release.

One feature that I absolutely adore is the color space presets. This gives the best of both worlds. It can be customized and toggled very quickly. This is one thing that Lightwave currently does better than Modo. :thumbsup:

I would really like to see more development focus on making Lightwave more flexible both with it's UI and features like rendering. I hope that all these things I have mentioned are part of the road map for unification and future development.

Lewis
06-03-2013, 12:55 PM
Which takes up more memory on launching? Or better yet what is the total memory size for both with that model loaded?

I knew you'd pull that one 'coz you always do it when you have no proper agruments. Let me ask you counter question. Who cares how much RAM app uses up on launch? Do you use apps wihtot loaded meshs in it or what :D?

Total memory size was exactly what I wrote i.e. MAX wins by 200MB (That's toal mem usage not just for model) over laoyut and in total layout+modeler vs MAX it's huge difference as i already showed so YES that's cummulative RAM usage with mesh LOADED not just after app run.



And if you have MAX why use Lightwave if it is so much better?


Calssic No-argument answer :D. Who said i don't use MAX ? I use ti for all thasks LW can't hande or dont' have features for.

So by your standards is it wish for LW to get them (missing features) so bad or what ?

Also for once you could just admit you were wrog and stop arguing with no arguments or trying to showft topic? I proved you that RAM usage in MAX is not bigger than in LW (with some decent polycount models for todays standard) so can't you just skip answering if you are to proud to admit you were wrong ? Is it so hard or unbelievable that you could be wrong at something ?

hrgiger
06-03-2013, 01:18 PM
To read some of the arguments here, it sounds like the only way LW will survive is to unify ASAP.

So which is it? :stumped:

ASAP? As in rush it? No. Done correctly taking the time necessary yes.

But I don't see how LightWave will remain relevant the more time goes on without the eventual unification it needs. Of course that's just my opinion but for me personally, I can't see continuing to use LightWave if there was no eventual plan to make it one application.

Surrealist.
06-03-2013, 01:43 PM
To read some of the arguments here, it sounds like the only way LW will survive is to unify ASAP.

So which is it? :stumped:

I Like ASAP. Actually I like starting it 15 years ago so we'd have had it 5 years ago. But I don't run the show.

But ASAP is just not realistic. And I think LightWave can and will survive in the meantime. There is little choice really.

The exact timeline is not clear. I can only speculate based on some kind of logic. If Newtek wants to start talking with us about the plans, with realistic specifics and not marketing speak, I am sure we'd all love to hear about it.

probiner
06-03-2013, 01:56 PM
ASAP? As in rush it? No. Done correctly taking the time necessary yes.

But I don't see how LightWave will remain relevant the more time goes on without the eventual unification it needs. Of course that's just my opinion but for me personally, I can't see continuing to use LightWave if there was no eventual plan to make it one application.

While I wouldn't put it in these terms, because... cmon, it's in me now... It will certainly not be relevant to me it if it won't allow me to land on projects (given I'm not independent and there's a strict pipeline to fill in) to which I have to take time to learn and prepare. To me would be more of by attrition as I would blend into something else, and suddenly it's off me.
And this is another layer to the whole design issue.
Cheers

Surrealist.
06-03-2013, 01:56 PM
ASAP? I can't see continuing to use LightWave if there was no eventual plan to make it one application.

It must be frustrating now knowing and having to speculate all over. I mean, I really think Newtek needs to open up.

For me though it was not lack of unification that has driven me to other tools. It is the workability of certain tools within current LightWave. Mainly dynamics cloth and hair. If all of those things were working to my satisfaction I would have continued with LightWave as my main tool and stuck it out. Even in 11.5 it is not there yet for me. Then there are a host of animation improvements that are desperately needed for me to take LightWave seriously as an animation tool. None of which would require unification. I mean completely aside from rigging issues which unification would fix.

And that is what I mean about LightWave surviving. These things really need to get working as they should. (as well as the addition of more tools) It will drive more people to LightWave.

I see unification as a long term goal and getting these other things improved as more immediate milestones.

So LightWave remains as it is for me just another a tool in my box. Comes in handy when I do work for people who use it.

OnlineRender
06-03-2013, 02:01 PM
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/ab5/4f3/1e8/resized/creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-forum-noob-starts-argument-with-strongplay-rest-of-forum-gets-popcorn-ae8acc.jpg... CLASSIC NT THREAD

erikals
06-03-2013, 02:08 PM
Popcorn is nice, kinda healthy too... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/popcorn.gif

shrox
06-03-2013, 02:18 PM
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/ab5/4f3/1e8/resized/creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-forum-noob-starts-argument-with-strongplay-rest-of-forum-gets-popcorn-ae8acc.jpg... CLASSIC NT THREAD

Why is Wonka withholding the choc? Popcorn comes from Monsanto.

cresshead
06-03-2013, 02:21 PM
roll on siggraph to see what's been brewing in the lightwave factory!

OnlineRender
06-03-2013, 02:29 PM
roll on siggraph to see what's been brewing in the lightwave factory!


exactly ...

Serling
06-03-2013, 02:32 PM
roll on siggraph to see what's been brewing in the lightwave factory!

Have a specific link in mind?

cresshead
06-03-2013, 02:35 PM
Have a specific link in mind?

http://s2013.siggraph.org/

floorplan
http://s2013.siggraph.org/sites/default/files/Exhibits%2010-30-12.pdf

erikals
06-03-2013, 02:49 PM
Nice, once again, front row! :king:

http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/lwicon.png

Serling
06-03-2013, 02:53 PM
http://s2013.siggraph.org/

floorplan
http://s2013.siggraph.org/sites/default/files/Exhibits%2010-30-12.pdf

Cool. Thanks!

Second link is very cool. Between Canon and Newtek, is there any reason to go any farther in than the front door? :)

Lewis
06-03-2013, 02:56 PM
Yep, good location, same as last years (different city but same great front row spot). Good choice LWG :).

Nicolas Jordan
06-03-2013, 02:59 PM
http://s2013.siggraph.org/

floorplan
http://s2013.siggraph.org/sites/default/files/Exhibits%2010-30-12.pdf

The almighty Autodesk doesn't have their booth reserved yet?

Megalodon2.0
06-03-2013, 03:18 PM
Hehehe, nagging from time to time is ok I guess. But we must stay open-minded and give the new team the time to show their gems in the making.

LW11.5 was a proof of their qualities IMO. I'm sure LW12 will disappoint a lot of people if not being a unified app, but I'm also sure Rob and his team will show new stuff and fix some long overdue issues. Thinking of it, I'm wondering when 11.5.x will be shown and what we can expect :).

I don't think that anyone is SERIOUSLY expecting LW12 to be unified - but they do NEED to show that they are moving in that direction.

So far I've seen nothing that shows this. LW12 will show us - one way or another - where they are heading. Unification or continued 2-app monster.

cresshead
06-03-2013, 03:32 PM
I don't think that anyone is SERIOUSLY expecting LW12 to be unified - but they do NEED to show that they are moving in that direction.

So far I've seen nothing that shows this. LW12 will show us - one way or another - where they are heading. Unification or continued 2-app monster.


http://fightinwordsusa.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/drama_queen1.jpg?w=550

it's a monster!

....this one?

http://onthedotcreations.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55055bbe288330120a64bd60d970c-800wi

Megalodon2.0
06-03-2013, 03:51 PM
http://fightinwordsusa.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/drama_queen1.jpg?w=550

it's a monster!

....this one?

http://onthedotcreations.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55055bbe288330120a64bd60d970c-800wi

More like this. Too big and too old that it needs diapers. :dance:

114692

MSherak
06-03-2013, 03:59 PM
I knew you'd pull that one 'coz you always do it when you have no proper agruments. Let me ask you counter question. Who cares how much RAM app uses up on launch? Do you use apps wihtot loaded meshs in it or what :D?

Total memory size was exactly what I wrote i.e. MAX wins by 200MB (That's toal mem usage not just for model) over laoyut and in total layout+modeler vs MAX it's huge difference as i already showed so YES that's cummulative RAM usage with mesh LOADED not just after app run.

Calssic No-argument answer :D. Who said i don't use MAX ? I use ti for all thasks LW can't hande or dont' have features for.

So by your standards is it wish for LW to get them (missing features) so bad or what ?

Also for once you could just admit you were wrog and stop arguing with no arguments or trying to showft topic? I proved you that RAM usage in MAX is not bigger than in LW (with some decent polycount models for todays standard) so can't you just skip answering if you are to proud to admit you were wrong ? Is it so hard or unbelievable that you could be wrong at something ?


app launch, footprint my friend. LW and Maya at app launch and a .obj load from http://www.3dscanstore.com/index.php/default/free-samples/free-male-skull-3d-scan.html. As you can see from the images attached, Maya uses more memory up even with this is a simple model. This is what I can prove since this is what I have on my machine. Maya being an Autodesk product now I would assume that all Autodesk products do this, and maybe that is my bad to the MAX users. On super large scenes there is an exponential use in memory for Maya. Even in command line. Lightwave does not have this exponential memory usage. Now MAX might be better. I don't have it, but I bet screenshots would sure prove me wrong. Screenshot Layout and MAX with the model loaded and task manager up showing total memory. To me that is proof other than a statement.

Yes I am tired of the unify LW or it's dead. Add a history or stack or its dead. Bring back CORE or its dead. They are all whining comparisons of look how the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Where there is a will there is a way if something needs to get done, and nine times out of ten in LW you can come up with a cleaver way to do it without the need of a button. I don't understand why if MAX has what you want and you don't just use it?? What keeps you in LW and complaining??

Things will happen in time with Lightwave. Always has and always will. For now know that it as two apps and that might change or not in the next rev. That is when you decide to stick with or move on. Personally I will stick with it either way, two apps or one, it's my staple when I need something done, period. The NTDev team that is in place now is fantastic and I am very happy with the direction they are going and will ride along with them. It's a tool, I accept it for what it is and don't feel the need to complain that it does not have A, B and C like another package. And they do listen and I bet when they want to have A, B and C they will come up with a better way than what you are comparing too at the moment.

-M

safetyman
06-03-2013, 05:13 PM
Agree with surrealist. More can be done to work with the community in terms of ongoing development. The last few years I have signed up for the 3DS max webinars. They talk to users about changes they have made and then get people to vote on how useful those particular changes will be for them. They show them mock ups of possible future changes and again ask users if they like those ideas. Surely NT can do better then revealing stuff at siggraph and saying hey this is what you will be getting like it or not.

I don't think that's what NT does at all. I agree that once a year at SIGGRAPH isn't near enough, but they do get out to NAB and other conferences throughout the year, talk to the users and get feedback, solicited or not. Most of the changes that they've made -- I'd be willing to bet came directly from user feedback, not "well we'll make the changes that we want and THEN ask users if they like them".

safetyman
06-03-2013, 05:21 PM
That is not a true statement. Actually many people from Autodesk visit the forums regularly and actually I find it very refreshing. I see posts almost on a daily basis at times from some of them. And these are not just some dudes in the office. Duncan for one is a great resource and he is always helping and even submitting bugs from the forums or even just simply taking the initiative to squash them.

Autodesk also set up a voting system for all of their software to initiate and vote on feature requests and bug fixes. They do listen to their customers. Actually, factually, all software companies do. They have to. Newtek is not on a island here. This is the reality of development. It can not happen in an ivory tower.

As a result of the system that AD set up I got involved and as a result, I was asked to join in a Beta program of one of the software's I use. Is it a perfect system? No. Has it been carped? Yes. But it is something. And you gotta give credit where it is due here.

Could all companies do a better job? Absolutely.

But reverse the roles. These are shark infested waters. I mean some of us are real turds out here and we spew some of the most outrageous trolling rants at times full of assumptions and untruths. And some of us are never satisfied with any answer given. It is a miracle that these companies try to continue to deal with the masses at all. Sometimes we deserve what we get - as a group.

But I think if we start respecting these people for the smart professionals that they are and grant them some humanity and mistakes, and use some manners on our part, maybe we can help to bridge this gap and improve on the relations.

It takes two to tango as they say.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty lumping AD in with Adobe, so forgive me. And no, not all SW companies listen to their users. If that were true, Adobe wouldn't have killed off Freehand and Flash (soon), pissed off all the Apple users by making certain programs Windows only, and continued to roll out a full-price Illustrator with only minor fixes and features.

cresshead
06-03-2013, 05:23 PM
app launch, footprint my friend. LW and Maya at app launch and a .obj load from http://www.3dscanstore.com/index.php/default/free-samples/free-male-skull-3d-scan.html. As you can see from the images attached, Maya uses more memory up even with this is a simple model. This is what I can prove since this is what I have on my machine. Maya being an Autodesk product now I would assume that all Autodesk products do this, and maybe that is my bad to the MAX users. On super large scenes there is an exponential use in memory for Maya. Even in command line. Lightwave does not have this exponential memory usage. Now MAX might be better. I don't have it, but I bet screenshots would sure prove me wrong. Screenshot Layout and MAX with the model loaded and task manager up showing total memory. To me that is proof other than a statement.

Yes I am tired of the unify LW or it's dead. Add a history or stack or its dead. Bring back CORE or its dead. They are all whining comparisons of look how the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Where there is a will there is a way if something needs to get done, and nine times out of ten in LW you can come up with a cleaver way to do it without the need of a button. I don't understand why if MAX has what you want and you don't just use it?? What keeps you in LW and complaining??

Things will happen in time with Lightwave. Always has and always will. For now know that it as two apps and that might change or not in the next rev. That is when you decide to stick with or move on. Personally I will stick with it either way, two apps or one, it's my staple when I need something done, period. The NTDev team that is in place now is fantastic and I am very happy with the direction they are going and will ride along with them. It's a tool, I accept it for what it is and don't feel the need to complain that it does not have A, B and C like another package. And they do listen and I bet when they want to have A, B and C they will come up with a better way than what you are comparing too at the moment.

-M

1. Ram is not expensive in comparison to the app's purchase/suscription cost 16GB of ddr3 ram is Ģ99 so how much ram it uses is a non issue.
but yeh also take into account what the app can do..smaller footprint means less code.

2. I personally use max, lightwave, modo and zbrush depending on #what' i'm doing, I used to render out in max with mental ray for most things other than space scene projects where i preferred lightwave as it has some good workflows for space scenes including stars, nebulas and in the opengl viewport lens flares..

I added Modo for my now preffered renderer for other stuff such as character animation going forward with exporting animations from max to modo via mdd as it has a great renderer with a previewer (unlike 3dsmax) plus fantastic material library to use.

3.I hope to see lightwave moving towards solving long standing issues due to the 2 app workflow, if that's by making a unified app or by building tools in layout or modeller...i care not which as long they solve the issues we have.
I have high hopes for lightwave 12 and it's kinect based mo cap system.

dsol
06-03-2013, 05:45 PM
I'm looking forward to Siggraph. The LW dev team is packed with smart people and they definitely have a plan. 11.5 was good, right? And unexpected. Hopefully we'll have some more pleasant surprises before the year is out.

shrox
06-03-2013, 05:55 PM
The last two times I went to Siggraph, my employer "assigned" some meetings to me, so I missed most of the Lightwave stuff. That would be neat to go again and spend the time as I wanted to.

erikals
06-03-2013, 05:58 PM
Modo is nice, i just wish it had better Node flow, Hardbodies, RealFlow compability, Turbulence compability, Flocking, DPont plugins, etc etc...

i can see how Modo can be a preferred render engine for some, (not saying you said that) but it certainly has big lacks as well.
personally i wouldn't blink, if i had to choose one, i'd go LightWave.

but yeah, for CA renders and misc other stuff i guess it could be good...
to me it'd be like an extra wheel, not quite sure if i would care enough for it... :/

hrgiger
06-03-2013, 06:12 PM
I don't think that's what NT does at all. I agree that once a year at SIGGRAPH isn't near enough, but they do get out to NAB and other conferences throughout the year, talk to the users and get feedback, solicited or not. Most of the changes that they've made -- I'd be willing to bet came directly from user feedback, not "well we'll make the changes that we want and THEN ask users if they like them".

I'm not suggesting that NT does not listen to users or even solicit user input while they are out and about at various events. But what about those of us who do not get to such events or have an opportunity to have any kind of discussion or opportunities for mutual feedback? They have gotten rid of the OpenBeta and LightWave is no longer really a collaborative process with the community at large. And for most of us, it is a matter of here's what you're getting whether you've had an opportunity to give your opinion or not.

hrgiger
06-03-2013, 06:16 PM
And as far as Siggraph goes, I doubt that we're going to hear much if anything at all about LW12. They haven't even released a service pack for 11.5 yet which is certainly needed. I'm guessing if anything there will be a bugfix for 11.5. Maybe they will even put together another small update for LW11 but probably no news about LW12 yet.

erikals
06-03-2013, 06:24 PM
from what i've seen mini-updates and major updates are coded at the same, so 11.51 not being released doesn't need to mean anything. that said, that doesn't mean we're gonna see 12 at Siggraph.

i do expect some new previews though, just like last year,... but the content is anyone's guess...

prometheus
06-03-2013, 06:47 PM
Modo is nice, i just wish it had better Node flow, Hardbodies, HyperVoxels, RealFlow compability, Turbulence compability, Flocking, DPont plugins, etc etc...

:/

Didnīt they adress volumetrics with itīs new voxel system, that surpasses hypervoxels in some areas?

Some thoughts on the praise of dual app workflow as selling point, I do not have technology experience to
talk about the reference importance from that stand point, I was just thinking about how Rob talks about filmmaking and how they make assets somewhere else and then bring it in to the studio, I would say it may sound right at the first glance, but then again not really...the thing is that in reality it makes no sense due to limitations of practically/physicly items, moving around,location and other craft tools needed at those places, but donīt think that should be compared to the computer world...so I would disagree with Rob here.

In fact I would say that it is so important to paint on your canvas directly, because at the very creation moment in time and scene space, you need to see all of the canvas where other items themself affects the very item you are creating.

Creating a model or assets purely in itīs own environment will loose that option, therefore I vote for unified tools ..but with an option to have standalone model sessions.

However..I have No other clue to how that would affect the other benifits of object referencing, or ascii based formats.

Michael

erikals
06-03-2013, 06:54 PM
forgot about that one, i'll edit that one out...

edit: done, 6 to go...

prometheus
06-03-2013, 07:00 PM
forgot about that one, in some aspect it does...

probably faster speed, more interactivity, and more options to use fractals, along with the volumetric item/mesh..
However, after some questions at the forum and from what Ivé seen, the setup process is more difficult in terms of acessing and get going as fast as possible.

Thatīs where I think hypervoxels is one of the fastest systems to work with in terms of UI, but that said..always room for more improvement in there.

Same thing might be said about particles..modo now has put some great stuff in to what can be done with particles, that
lightwave isnīt near of, but here again...the process of acessing some stuff is more complicated than acheiving the same within
lightwave.

Thatīs what I like about Lightwave..the ease of accessing most stuff, right down from finding your cameras,lights etc..where in other systems you have to do research to find the stuff at some times:)
Or stucked in a shader tree:)

Michael

erikals
06-03-2013, 07:10 PM
yes, i've read several places about neat Modo features not being so neat after all, lacking features, lacking updates, or new stuff being abandoned. so not all that, but i guess we could say this about just any 3D app out there, including LightWave http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/aiwebs_001.gif


In fact I would say that it is so important to paint on your canvas directly, because at the very creation moment in time and scene space, you need to see all of the canvas where other items themselves affects the very item you are creating...l

agree, and theses are some of the features i propose for them to work on first >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?135790-Rob-is-out-praising-the-merits-of-the-dual-app-workflow&p=1324596&viewfull=1#post1324596

jwiede
06-03-2013, 07:35 PM
but here again...the process of acessing some stuff is more complicated than acheiving the same within
lightwave.
Can you give specific examples of this?

prometheus
06-03-2013, 07:52 PM
Can you give specific examples of this?

process of particle birth from images or procedurals, compare how you have to delve in to the node editor and
acess that in modo, compared to going to the texture button and add texture in the birth rate channel in lightwave.

Find the camera & lights in modo,...where is it..item shader, in lightwave..direct acess buttons.
Maybe thatīs changed now..or better config in UI?
Michael

geo_n
06-03-2013, 11:47 PM
You're comparing tools that are really different. With Genoma you can rig anything, not just bipeds. You can use any modeler tool to edit, mirror, copy any part of the rig. And of course have custom weight maps automatically assigned. Adapting a rig to a character is fast, because yuo can move multiple items at once, without any limitation. And once you have your character working, then you can edit the mesh and the rig at once, so you can easily create new versions of your character, with different proportions.

Anyway, this whole thread assumption is wrong. ;)

We're perfectly aware of the fact that integration is important.

I didn't mean that genoma and rhiggit are exactly similar tools. I meant that genoma would learn something from rhiggit even if its not modular rigging. I could have mentioned characterstudio which is modular rigging with a lot of extra tools because its in a unified environment, but might not be helpful if its not accessible to lw users. But in comparison, rigging implementation like rhiggit is faster because its in layout.
This whole thread probably assumes too much about Rob pov, I agree.

Surrealist.
06-04-2013, 12:40 AM
Perhaps I was a bit hasty lumping AD in with Adobe, so forgive me. And no, not all SW companies listen to their users. If that were true, Adobe wouldn't have killed off Freehand and Flash (soon), pissed off all the Apple users by making certain programs Windows only, and continued to roll out a full-price Illustrator with only minor fixes and features.

You are just taking the idea a little too far. All companies have to listen to customers. Nothing would get developed if they didn't. No software would even get initiated if it did not fill a need. But at the same time they are not bound do consult the community for each and every move and decision they make. Every business is this way. Sometimes decisions are made that no one else has the right to even complain about. It is their business to do with what they want. If it pisses people off, so be it. It is their loss. And perhaps they have assessed that the loss is worth the gain. Maybe they miscalculate. But that is the whole point of why it is not easy to run a business. Tough decisions need to be made.

But just because business make these tough decisions that also include other factors that does not mean they don't listen and develop things based on input from customers. That is a far far stretch to make. They might blatantly ignore input if they feel going in that direction would be too costly to continue.

Sound familiar?

So that brings us back to this thread I think. CORE is gone. We wanted that. NewTek will do what they feel is in their best interest despite what users think and want. That was a tough decision for them to make. And it pissed a lot of people off.

So now are we to assume that NewTek does not listen to feedback from the community?

bazsa73
06-04-2013, 12:40 AM
The last two times I went to Siggraph, my employer "assigned" some meetings to me, so I missed most of the Lightwave stuff. That would be neat to go again and spend the time as I wanted to.
At least you attended, if I wanted to go I should walk to France and from there swimming to the US and again a long walk would wait me.

realgray
06-04-2013, 01:12 AM
Anyway, this whole thread assumption is wrong. ;)

We're perfectly aware of the fact that integration is important.

Well I'm a happy camper.

allabulle
06-04-2013, 03:57 AM
I was at the Barcelona meeting, and I can say first hand that Rob didn’t sell the two apps paradigm per se. He honestly pointed out benefits and weaknesses of the system. And compare it quite fairly to others. It wasn’t exactly a used car salesman speech. Of course he prefers his, but that’s OK if one is aware of what’s needed nonetheless and plan to do something about it. I specifically asked a few questions on the matter and he was only happy to answer and develop on the issue. I really want to play with some of the tools and workflows that are coming. I'm sure that most of you will too.

lino.grandi
06-04-2013, 06:46 AM
I didn't mean that genoma and rhiggit are exactly similar tools.

They're very different, really.


I meant that genoma would learn something from rhiggit even if its not modular rigging.

The opposite is also true. But modularity makes a huge difference here, as being able to use any modeler tool to edit/build the Genoma rig. ;)



I could have mentioned characterstudio which is modular rigging with a lot of extra tools because its in a unified environment, but might not be helpful if its not accessible to lw users. But in comparison, rigging implementation like rhiggit is faster because its in layout.

CharacterStudio is not modular. ;) Maybe you wanted to mention Kat.


This whole thread probably assumes too much about Rob pov, I agree.

Yes, really too much!

Finally, what we all want is to get our job done in a very short time with a very good quality, and possibly in a very simple way. That's the most important thing.

Integration can guarantee this? Well, the answer, imho, is related to the way you integrate. The priorities should always be workflow and speed. Always imho, of course.

Ztreem
06-04-2013, 07:01 AM
Finally, what we all want is to get our job done in a very short time with a very good quality, and possibly in a very simple way. That's the most important thing.

Integration can guarantee this? Well, the answer, imho, is related to the way you integrate. The priorities should always be workflow and speed. Always imho, of course.

I agree! Integraition is not the important thing it's the workflow, speed and limitless environment thats matter. If we could do all the things you could do in a integrated environment and as fast or faster then I don't mind if it's not integrated. Just make it fast and interactive! :)

erikals
06-04-2013, 07:05 AM
Jay Roth stated they were working on a unification, that was 8-9 years ago (!)
then problems occurred, as it was trickier to fix than they first though.
then it was abandoned.
then Core happened, then Core was abandoned.
then we heard about unification again...

...i can see why people are loosing a bit patience...

...still not 1 integrated tool...

just wanted to correct myself here, as for Jay Roth, i meant Layout modeler tools integration, not unification...
can't remember after Core, if NT said integration or unification...

prometheus
06-04-2013, 09:38 AM
just wanted to correct myself here, as for Jay Roth, i meant Layout modeler tools integration, not unification...
can't remember after Core, if NT said integration or unification...

Think that was stated as a unified environment, so some nostalgia marketing here..
http://newteknews.blogspot.se/2009/02/lightwave-core-technical-details.html

The most important is for the Lightwave team to be aware of what shortcomings non unified tools poses to us, so they can make the change, then we should help as much as possible with feedback and hope for the best and that they Really really work hard to adress those things as soon as possible...the more time that passes with negative rumours, the more it will affect sales and reputation.

Again...even though the currently shortcomings in the non unified tools, I still prefer the way the
progress change was made from when Rob took over sort of, rather than the to much different look
of the core and what Jay talked about.


Michael

erikals
06-04-2013, 12:45 PM
no, it was 2006 and earlier, quote >


Future work we still have to do will focus much more attention on Modeler: we will continue to consolidate similar tools, and include more modeling functions in Layout. This will require changes to the way that Layout handles selection, as well as giving Layout the ability to make sub-object selections. This turned out to be a much bigger task than we thought, which is why the v9.0 implementation is limited.

Jay Roth

from > http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?49791-Status-Update-on-LightWave-v9-from-Jay-Roth-President-NewTek-3D-Division

...so i guess it's more like 2005 or so...

geo_n
06-04-2013, 01:51 PM
They're very different, really.



The opposite is also true. But modularity makes a huge difference here, as being able to use any modeler tool to edit/build the Genoma rig. ;)



CharacterStudio is not modular. ;) Maybe you wanted to mention Kat.



Yes, really too much!

Finally, what we all want is to get our job done in a very short time with a very good quality, and possibly in a very simple way. That's the most important thing.

Integration can guarantee this? Well, the answer, imho, is related to the way you integrate. The priorities should always be workflow and speed. Always imho, of course.

They're both autoriggers in the general sense. Rhiggit being the quicker and cleaner one for bipeds.
CS is modular. You can rig biped, quads in different shapes with adjustable skeletal structures. You can add tails, etc. Its more limited to cat ofcourse but many used cs than cat until recently.
CAT is even more advance rigger and multi legged support for footsteps, etc.
Integration..what can it guarantee..maybe working on one app is more efficient than working on two crippled apps.

erikals
06-04-2013, 02:30 PM
just to add some history >



Structural Changes and a New Workflow in 9.0:
The changes that have been made for the initial 9.0 release complete the necessary reconstruction of LightWave to begin implementing the desired new workflow. Modeling capabilities have been implemented in Layout by extracting the mesh-editing core from Modeler, and moving it into a common location where Layout and Modeler both have access.

so, it started a long time ago, i wonder what happened.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050805000203/http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/lwfuturedev.php

Lewis
06-04-2013, 02:37 PM
just to add some history >



so, it started a long time ago, before Core, i wonder what happened.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050805000203/http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/lwfuturedev.php

Long story short they failed to add modeling into layout back then so they gave up and started new code/core (LW 9 was uspposed to be rewrite similar as Lw 6.0 was supposed ot be Total rewrite long ago).

Granted, many DEV Team members are changed from back then to now so.....

RebelHill
06-04-2013, 02:42 PM
Setting up rigging in layout is VASTLY superior to setting up in modeler (RHiggit or no RHiggit btw)... the action of going back and forth between the 2 apps is a real blow to workflow. In the case of genoma, this disconect becomes even more apparent, as adjustments made in modeler cant be previewed in modeler (you cant operate the rig in there) and when you go back to layout you have to wait (20secs to a minute depending) for the rig to be rebuilt... its a slow clunky process who's only saving grace is that its far slower to build thing from scratch by hand.

The other BIG problem is that you have to handle all your item orientations in modeler, which has no snapping tools... this leads to you easily getting minor discrepencies in the orientation of parts that will propagate down a chain causing ill behaviour.

So...

Layout needs weight painting tools... modeler needs snapping (and the ability to operate/test rigs)...

Screw it... unification ftw.

erikals
06-04-2013, 02:45 PM
anyway, sometimes i'm just afraid they're not taking it seriously, it being 8 years since NT promised it,
and probably 15 years since people requested it.

it's a long time...

Lewis
06-04-2013, 02:55 PM
app launch, footprint my friend. LW and Maya at app launch and a .obj load from http://www.3dscanstore.com/index.php/default/free-samples/free-male-skull-3d-scan.html. As you can see from the images attached, Maya uses more memory up even with this is a simple model. This is what I can prove since this is what I have on my machine. Maya being an Autodesk product now I would assume that all Autodesk products do this, and maybe that is my bad to the MAX users. On super large scenes there is an exponential use in memory for Maya. Even in command line. Lightwave does not have this exponential memory usage. Now MAX might be better. I don't have it, but I bet screenshots would sure prove me wrong. Screenshot Layout and MAX with the model loaded and task manager up showing total memory. To me that is proof other than a statement.

Just few corrections "my friend".

1. I never said anything about Maya's memory usage (can you qote me on that?) 'coz i don't argue about stuff i didn't test/try. I believe you that Maya is more memory HOG than LW if you say so. No arguing there.
2. You asume too much, I'm not contra LW at all, i love LW and teach it her elocaly, had few apprentices so far and managed to convince few "converts" from other packages to LW :).
3. It's silly to me that you are unable to admit when you are wrong and keep insisiting on something you do not know/use (it's obvious you don't believe me, otherwise you wouldn't seek for screengrab proof but let's hope vidoe will convince you enough, do you see me arguing/making false asumptions about Maya which i don't use? No)
4. "Complaining" aobut something what's Bad/Broken/tedious workflow in LW with constructive ideas/stuff (i make fogbugz out of my ideas/bugs with examples/comparisons so if you didn't see them in here it doesn't mean i didn't do them constructive and sent them to NT directly). Also that don't mean that I'm agianst LW. I use it 20+ years and will use it forward too but that doesn't make me ignorant and thinking that all in LW is best and just play Fanboy role nd hoe they (DEVs) will think aobut all worklfows that exist and i'll get my features IN even if i don't mention them. I praise and give kudos to the team when somethign is good/great (and lots of feedback with videos/content - again most of that is in Fogbugz where is official channel for that) but i do say it when i see something it's wrong too 'coz I'm strong beleiver that it has to be both (pros & kudos) for software to move forward quickly. If you wish to keep your head in sand and pretend that LW is best in universe and nothign is ever wrong or that there is no chance that some other app has somethign better and we could learn/steal from that and suggest to DEVs to do somethign similar (or work up on that to make it even better) in LW please do that but don't tell me what i should do. I'll do what I think is right for me and my workflow and I'll always suggest and correct things when i see wrong like your statement abtu mem usage in MAX. If you don't like it then please skip my posts or put me on ignore list, thanks.




I don't understand why if MAX has what you want and you don't just use it?? What keeps you in LW and complaining??


Who said i don't use it? I use it in parts where LW can't do some things and that's it, what's wrong in me wishing that Lw catchup with MAX in those areas ? Why is it bad to wish some feature to get more productivity from LW?



I accept it for what it is and don't feel the need to complain that it does not have A, B and C like another package. And they do listen and I bet when they want to have A, B and C they will come up with a better way than what you are comparing too at the moment.
-M

And ? what's your point ? Everyone shold be like you or NT knows everything best ? I'm not sure i follow what you want to say? They said they want feedback, if only feedback aloowed is "great", "awesome", "that's so cool".... then LW would never catchup and let aloen surprass. Like i said "my friend" you assume too much and agian if you don't like reading my posts then SKIP them, don't reply, move on, simple as that, why do you have urge to reply all the time (and on top of that many times with incorrect asumptions like this time about MAX mem usage) if it bothers you that much if other people dont' share your thoughts/workflows/ideas?

cheers

and YES I almost forgot, here is video made for you (and anyoen else who want's to watch it ofcourse) which hopefully clears some stuff , PEACE :)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5s6jaywyu2v2j0/Ram_Usage.rar

cresshead
06-04-2013, 03:30 PM
anyway, sometimes i'm just afraid they're not taking it seriously, it being 8 years since NT promised it,
and probably 15 years since people requested it.

it's a long time...


it certainly has been a long time brewing!

realgray
06-04-2013, 07:35 PM
it certainly has been a long time brewing!

Hopefully there will be a sign this summer.

VonBon
06-04-2013, 08:36 PM
:grumpy: Unification? who needs that?............:jester:

I geuss its harder to get Modeler and Layout to talk than we think.
Probably even harder to unify them into one.

I've used Maya and Max but never as indepth as LightWave.
Im sure the Apps AutoDesk "bought" are popular for a reason.

I wonder if it is "Programmably" possible to make Layout and Modeler
function as a unfied app with all the functions that are claimed not to
be possible unless it is unified?

I still think they buildn a MONSTER in the basement.
and 11.5 feeds it :devil:

jwiede
06-04-2013, 08:57 PM
it certainly has been a long time brewing!

Brewing, fermenting, festering... it's difficult to tell yet precisely what it's been doing. :devil:

probiner
06-05-2013, 12:54 AM
Clips Maps: I would really like to see things like "Clip Maps" stored with the object and it should be a entry in the surface editor just like Specular, Transparency etc.

Unified Sampling: I'm not a fan of the new unified sampling either. I see that it has advantages but at the same time it also has disadvantages. What if I prefer to set samples on some lights to a lower quality and some at a higher quality? The same applies to shaders. Users should never be forced into doing something only one way. Settings should still have the option to be controlled locally instead of only globally.


I think I would prefer the surfaces to be stored in the scene and assigned to objects. This is yet another split where you have to apply surfaces in Modeler (though in the current state I don't see how it could be different)
As for unified whatever I think their only missing overrides in quite a few places. A Cascade Style Sheet alike properties for objects, materials, shaders, lights, passes would be quite nice to make local settings, material overrides, render passes(different render and scene settings), etc, without destroying the base and also not feel constrained by it.

Cheers

Emmanuel
06-05-2013, 12:59 AM
The question is: what are You guys gonna do if LW never EVER gets unified ? And what happenedto all the CORE prototypes ?

jwiede
06-05-2013, 01:30 AM
The question is: what are You guys gonna do if LW never EVER gets unified?
IME, such hypotheticals rarely yield anything useful, mostly producing strife and hurt feelings.



And what happenedto all the CORE prototypes ?
Still have one here. I suspect many of us who had access kept a copy around just for nostalgia.

geo_n
06-05-2013, 01:46 AM
The question is: what are You guys gonna do if LW never EVER gets unified ? And what happenedto all the CORE prototypes ?

The answer is obvious. Users move to other software. Reluctantly I would but I've already invested 6 years of my profession in lw and personal plugins bought from my pocket. Now maybe the small pictures is, so what just another user moving to another software. The big picture is, small userbase can't afford to get even smaller. Even though 3dmax, maya is more or less what's used at work, I sneak in lightwave.
The sales of TFD had what, 20-30 users who bought in? Development for such plugins is not cheap but only few bought in. Software can't be profitable and develop further without users money. Unified app would get some attention of non lwvers money :D

Netvudu
06-05-2013, 05:27 AM
So a few weeks ago you were all (or most of you) praising how great 11.5 was, and here you are again complaining about the whole package, uh? I really understand why Moses broke the tablets every time I visit the forums.
As a regular user which works professionally with Lightwave, I just hope Rob, Lino and the rest of devs will ignore all of you and simply keep on doing what theyīve been for the last few years: making Lightwave a wonderful 3D software which doesnīt copy broken Autodesk workflows but creates its own groundbreaking ones.
Just remember that some of us arenīt complaining because we like how things are being done, not because we donīt care.

erikals
06-05-2013, 06:20 AM
it's good that you don't need it, but what you have to remember is that we all have different needs.
if you are not an environment artist or a professional CA rigger, great, you won't need it.

but the "i don't need it" vote doesn't really help those of us who do, and have done so for years and years.
we have asked for it for about 15 years, NT has promised it for 8 years.

so what would you have us do? stop requesting it?

after 8+ years of that NT promise, i do think i'm entitled to raise my voice a bit, as not one single Layout modeler tool has been added...

not trying to step on Rob's feet here though, as he has only been with NT for about 2-3 years...
the title of this thread should've been changed.

for me, this is a message to NT, worrying about the subject being somewhat neglected.

and don't say the Modeler / Layout split doesn't count, i possibly lost a job over it (seriously!)

erikals
06-05-2013, 06:27 AM
The sales of TFD had what, 20-30 users who bought in?...

40 http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?135453-TurbulenceFD-did-you-buy-it

hrgiger
06-05-2013, 06:40 AM
So a few weeks ago you were all (or most of you) praising how great 11.5 was, and here you are again complaining about the whole package, uh? I really understand why Moses broke the tablets every time I visit the forums.
As a regular user which works professionally with Lightwave, I just hope Rob, Lino and the rest of devs will ignore all of you and simply keep on doing what theyīve been for the last few years: making Lightwave a wonderful 3D software which doesnīt copy broken Autodesk workflows but creates its own groundbreaking ones.
Just remember that some of us arenīt complaining because we like how things are being done, not because we donīt care.
Why can one not praise the hard work of the developers on the 11.5 release and also believe strongly about the importance of the issue of unification?

And broken workflows seriously? How much more broken can workflow be then jumping back and forth between modeler and layout to accomplish various important tasks?

wesleycorgi
06-05-2013, 06:50 AM
40 http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?135453-TurbulenceFD-did-you-buy-it

Probably more than that, given that not everyone took the poll.

prometheus
06-05-2013, 06:57 AM
Why can one not praise the hard work of the developers on the 11.5 release and also believe strongly about the importance of the issue of unification?

And broken workflows seriously? How much more broken can workflow be then jumping back and forth between modeler and layout to accomplish various important tasks?

Exactly..I see no conflict in that.

erikals
06-05-2013, 07:53 AM
a note, when it happens, don't expect unification, expect integration.

i know some here expect unification, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

so rather prepare for Modeler tools integration in Layout...

------------------

it, might even be possible to go the other way around >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?130264-Please-I-beg-you-develop-a-way-to-match-the-layout-camera-with-modeler-perspective&p=1267974&viewfull=1#post1267974

erikals
06-05-2013, 08:14 AM
well, i'll put it to rest for a bit.
note, currently the focus is on integration. (which is fine by me)

i'll end it with linking some NT comments >

Jay > http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?49791-Status-Update-on-LightWave-v9-from-Jay-Roth-President-NewTek-3D-Division&p=372662&viewfull=1#post372662
Rob > http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?129590-Lightwave-11-5&p=1268963&viewfull=1#post1268963
Matt > http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?130264-Please-I-beg-you-develop-a-way-to-match-the-layout-camera-with-modeler-perspective&p=1268399&viewfull=1#post1268399
Lino > http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?135790-Rob-is-out-praising-the-merits-of-the-dual-app-workflow&p=1324756&viewfull=1#post1324756

jasonwestmas
06-05-2013, 08:29 AM
The question is: what are You guys gonna do if LW never EVER gets unified ?

I already did it a while ago. . . .anyway I appreciate the additional innovations for animated stuff in general but there has to be greater levels of controlling deformation with or without modeler.


In order to really compete with other animation packages out there:

1) There has to be a way to create vertex maps in layout.

2) There needs to be a deformation stack at the vertex level in layout.

3) I think NT should think about more powerful ways to create (and drive) endomorphs while characters are in a pose (IOW post-rig morph creation)


Tension morphing for morphs and animated displacements are cool but the core functionality needs to be rocksolid before we can really use the advanced stuff more fully.

jasonwestmas
06-05-2013, 08:33 AM
Why can one not praise the hard work of the developers on the 11.5 release and also believe strongly about the importance of the issue of unification?

And broken workflows seriously? How much more broken can workflow be then jumping back and forth between modeler and layout to accomplish various important tasks?

True, these are broken things to a rigger/ animator.

shrox
06-05-2013, 09:03 AM
The answer is obvious. Users move to other software. Reluctantly I would but I've already invested 6 years of my profession in lw and personal plugins bought from my pocket. Now maybe the small pictures is, so what just another user moving to another software. The big picture is, small userbase can't afford to get even smaller. Even though 3dmax, maya is more or less what's used at work, I sneak in lightwave.
The sales of TFD had what, 20-30 users who bought in? Development for such plugins is not cheap but only few bought in. Software can't be profitable and develop further without users money. Unified app would get some attention of non lwvers money :D

Well, I'll say good bye now then. Will we continue to see you on the forums as a user of another program, returning to tell us all how backwards and untalented we are?

Your sig has a link to a program that is fairly useless to me, shall I diagram what it can't do for me?

jasonwestmas
06-05-2013, 09:05 AM
I agree! Integraition is not the important thing it's the workflow, speed and limitless environment thats matter. If we could do all the things you could do in a integrated environment and as fast or faster then I don't mind if it's not integrated. Just make it fast and interactive! :)
Yup,

Plus, I can agree with the notion that layout doesn't necessarily need the same tools as modeler. However, there needs to be some kind of rigging/modeling/deformation functionality that is animation specific in layout one way or another. This is to offer more control at a vertex level that can be keyframed. . .which btw such functions are much easier to setup in other packages.

shrox
06-05-2013, 09:08 AM
...And broken workflows seriously? How much more broken can workflow be then jumping back and forth between modeler and layout to accomplish various important tasks?

Broken entails that something worked in a certain way before, but no longer does. Lightwave is not "broken" in the regard of two apps. It was made that way, and we have all know that for a very long time.

jasonwestmas
06-05-2013, 09:14 AM
and we have all know that for a very long time.

Well SOME of us have, yes. Others just don't understand it for various reasons and that's ok. It's not as if we all have the same needs but it's not really a bad thing to offer more levels of control to the software in order to compete more in the animation market.

cresshead
06-05-2013, 09:17 AM
Broken entails that something worked in a certain way before, but no longer does. Lightwave is not "broken" in the regard of two apps. It was made that way, and we have all know that for a very long time.


how about "fit to bursting with workarounds" rather than a production proven smooth workflow?

Please note:
This isn't on all fronts, there's plenty Lightwave excels at and even leads on but character rigging, set up, fixing, testing and animation tools is not one of them...not yet anyhow.

Snosrap
06-05-2013, 09:34 AM
So a few weeks ago you were all (or most of you) praising how great 11.5 was, and here you are again complaining about the whole package, uh? Not really - just concerned that unification might possibly be off the table. Lino so much as declared otherwise. Yay!

shrox
06-05-2013, 09:39 AM
how about "fit to bursting with workarounds" rather than a production proven smooth workflow?

Please note:
This isn't on all fronts, there's plenty Lightwave excels at and even leads on but character rigging, set up, fixing, testing and animation tools is not one of them...not yet anyhow.

Those workarounds make us all better people....other than that I got nothing.

geo_n
06-05-2013, 09:39 AM
Well, I'll say good bye now then. Will we continue to see you on the forums as a user of another program, returning to tell us all how backwards and untalented we are?

Your sig has a link to a program that is fairly useless to me, shall I diagram what it can't do for me?

Not yet. Because I'm a paying customer. Don't think you own the forums or newtek for that matter.
Did I say you're backwards or untalented? Foreseeing what a person might do or say could be a talent or a really special gift. :D

shrox
06-05-2013, 09:44 AM
Not yet. Because I'm a paying customer. Don't think you own the forums or newtek for that matter.
Did I say you're backwards or untalented? Foreseeing what a person might do or say could be a talent or a really special gift. :D


I don't like your constant railing on the same point.

We know that you don't like that fact that Lightwave is a split app.

Some of can deal with that fact, and not find our hands tied...

geo_n
06-05-2013, 10:32 AM
I don't like your constant railing on the same point.

We know that you don't like that fact that Lightwave is a split app.

Some of can deal with that fact, and not find our hands tied...

You can dislike my post all you want. And? Maybe request a like or dislike button like in 3coat forums. I think I want to request a registered customer badge for the newtek forums. Its a pretty good badge in octane forums.

If you read the whole thead its about "Rob is out praising the merits of the dual app workflow"
which was not completely accurate imho. More like doing his best to sell a product in its current state.
And the discussion is about the split app and many users including one developer, lino, also posted the awareness of the flaw in this workflow. Guess that's all other users want to hear so they can forget what Rob is trying to sell for now, in the present.

shrox
06-05-2013, 10:34 AM
You can dislike my post all you want. And? Maybe request a like or dislike button like in 3coat forums. I think I want to request a registered customer badge for the newtek forums. Its a pretty good badge in octane forums.

If you read the whole thead its about "Rob is out praising the merits of the dual app workflow"
which was not completely accurate imho. More like doing his best to sell a product in its current state.
And the discussion is about the split app and many users including one developer, lino, also posted the awareness of the flaw in this workflow. Guess that's all other users want to hear so they can forget what Rob is trying to sell for now, in the present.

May I ask then why you use Lightwave?

hrgiger
06-05-2013, 11:04 AM
a note, when it happens, don't expect unification, expect integration.

i know some here expect unification, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

so rather prepare for Modeler tools integration in Layout...


Frankly I think we should expect a little more then some integration of modeler tools in layout. First of all they tried that already in lw9 and that never quite worked out. Secondly rob already stated that they know users want to handle larger amounts of data. they also have made it known that they are aware of the limitations that a split app causes. To do any of those things is going to require some new architecture in place to allow those things to be possible. If they're really adding modeling tools in layout that means there is going to have to be a componenet selection system in place. All of this will not be simply an addition to layout its going to mean a reworking of layout.

hrgiger
06-05-2013, 11:08 AM
I don't like your constant railing on the same point.

We know that you don't like that fact that Lightwave is a split app.

Some of can deal with that fact, and not find our hands tied...
Its fine you are ok with the way LW is. I would say this discussion is not for you. It is for those who want to see exactly these types of changes\improvements to the way LightWave works.

shrox
06-05-2013, 11:21 AM
Its fine you are ok with the way LW is. I would say this discussion is not for you. It is for those who want to see exactly these types of changes\improvements to the way LightWave works.

I want discussion about better software, not whining about the same thing over and over. I never said I don't want unified software. I am fine with and want things like individual point manipulation, etc. I DO NOT want to have to learn a whole new way of doing things, AGAIN!

NO CRYPTIC ICONS!

jwiede
06-05-2013, 11:47 AM
Broken entails that something worked in a certain way before, but no longer does. Lightwave is not "broken" in the regard of two apps. It was made that way, and we have all know that for a very long time.
For many of us, the Modeler/Layout interchange mechanisms are broken, as in they're supposed to work but do not, and haven't for some time. :devil:

shrox
06-05-2013, 11:51 AM
For many of us, the Modeler/Layout interchange mechanisms are broken, as in they're supposed to work but do not, and haven't for some time.

Hub is wonky for sure.

erikals
06-05-2013, 11:56 AM
broken workflow, a matter of definition i guess...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1crpvJ41RyI

shrox
06-05-2013, 12:17 PM
I look at it this way. Lightwave is a drill that you have to switch from drill bit to screwdriver bit. Maya and Max are like other drills than can be flipped from drill bit to screw driver bit, or even drill and screw at the same time, but those cost a lot more. Plus the controls on the Maya and Max drills require learning a new hieroglyphic language of icons.

erikals
06-05-2013, 12:42 PM
but we do look at it that way.
that doesn't solve the M/L issue the LW environment artists and LW riggers currently have.

these concerns stated are requests, nothing else.

erikals
06-05-2013, 01:20 PM
video from 2010 >

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSyCoEgB6oo#t=0m55s

shrox
06-05-2013, 01:26 PM
video from 2010 >

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSyCoEgB6oo#t=0m55s

You've been holding out! Thanks for the link.

erikals
06-05-2013, 01:32 PM
http://erikalstad.com/smiley/holdbreath2.gif

MSherak
06-05-2013, 01:50 PM
broken workflow, a matter of definition i guess...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1crpvJ41RyI

mm This has not bothered me since I know that is one object with layers. Makes sense the way the file format is. Yes hub linking is direct, so loaded attributes do not get adjusted (ie. eye flag). File saving and switching apps will update to the new attributes without a reload, the hub does not need to be running for this.

erikals
06-05-2013, 02:06 PM
it's not a huge issue, but it's not exactly user-friendly.

newbies don't like this, and me neither.

jasonwestmas
06-05-2013, 03:51 PM
video from 2010 >

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSyCoEgB6oo#t=0m55s

Creating some morphs (based on a character pose) in layout with simple tools like that can go a long way. Unfortunately there is currently no way to do that. :(