PDA

View Full Version : multiply features of same thing... bad designed



mav3rick
11-18-2013, 03:22 AM
Well not one of my best days in LW but i really have to rant in public now since i am really fed up of this...
Can i get one logic explanation of multiply tools that does same exact thing in modeler?
Honestly Newtek instead doing Chronosculpt... you could put some extra BRAINWORK into fixing modeler and modeler tool sets....

and while you were doing BRAINWORK in modeler and make another NEW tool for it that will do exact same thing like the one before.. you could at least make it work properly.

speaking of that. for example. it is really freaking annoy when you use NEW WELD 2.0 in symmetry mode and you select 2 of points in center (dead center 0) of X axis and press weld.. you get instant crash....
now that wouldn't be problem if this is just for weld 2.0 but modeler suffer from A LOTT of crashes like this one specially in symmetry mode... should i blame bad engineering , design , code or betatesters.. i am really not sure but man is it annoy i experience this kind of things from version to version to version to version.

again my honest advice to newtek... get your heads together.. think out of your little box and start working from ground up.. lw died 10 years ago and we need new carefully build architecture and not this fragile piece of j**nk.

rant mode off...

Andy Webb
11-18-2013, 06:51 AM
Well not one of my best days in LW but i really have to rant in public now since i am really fed up of this...
Can i get one logic explanation of multiply tools that does same exact thing in modeler?
Honestly Newtek instead doing Chronosculpt... you could put some extra BRAINWORK into fixing modeler and modeler tool sets....

and while you were doing BRAINWORK in modeler and make another NEW tool for it that will do exact same thing like the one before.. you could at least make it work properly.

speaking of that. for example. it is really freaking annoy when you use NEW WELD 2.0 in symmetry mode and you select 2 of points in center (dead center 0) of X axis and press weld.. you get instant crash....
now that wouldn't be problem if this is just for weld 2.0 but modeler suffer from A LOTT of crashes like this one specially in symmetry mode... should i blame bad engineering , design , code or betatesters.. i am really not sure but man is it annoy i experience this kind of things from version to version to version to version.

again my honest advice to newtek... get your heads together.. think out of your little box and start working from ground up.. lw died 10 years ago and we need new carefully build architecture and not this fragile piece of j**nk.

rant mode off...

+1 :thumbsup:

Lewis
11-18-2013, 07:02 AM
+100

Please no more workarounds and multiple tools for same/similar stuff instead updating old tools.

Andy Webb
11-18-2013, 07:11 AM
+100,000 :d

inkpen3d
11-18-2013, 07:41 AM
+1 x 106

Whilst filling out that questionnaire that NT sent us a few days ago, I highlighted the fact that long-standing bugs were not being fixed across multiple versions (e.g. Hub communication is STILL causing Modeler/Layout crashes) and that this really pissed-off long-term users of LW. Likewise, some bugs raised more recently, but which have serious consequences if not fixed, are still languishing as being open on FogBugz (e.g. the bug-ridden misbehaviour of the Layout "Save and Clear" option in the "Save and Clear Options" panel, which could result in messed up scenes - see https://fogbugz.newtek.com/default.asp?62558_17mjs3ggs5j3nuvp).

Of course, being somewhat cynical, I don't expect anything to happen as fixing these bugs isn't glamorous and, unlike say the excellent Chronosculpt, doesn't in the short-term bring in the dollars!

Regards,
Peter

Andy Webb
11-18-2013, 07:54 AM
What questionnaire?

I've not seen anything :-(

inkpen3d
11-18-2013, 08:00 AM
The email was titled "LightWave 3D Group - Help Us Build a Better LightWave Experience for You!". Here's the link to the questionnaire: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/lw3dg_november2013

Regards,
Peter

Andy Webb
11-18-2013, 08:22 AM
Thanks for the link.

What good it will do I don't know but worth a try.

Cheers

Sensei
11-18-2013, 08:47 AM
Do you really don't get that old tools are here just for some people not complain that thing they were using for ages is removed?
Tools that are not clicked by user are not loaded to memory and are not taking any significant computer resources.
Remove button with them from GUI, and forget about their existence.

In Layout it's worser- if you f.e. have tool that's attached to scene or object, they can't just like that remove it, change to completely different the way they want, because old scenes won't load anymore.


now that wouldn't be problem if this is just for weld 2.0 but modeler suffer from A LOTT of crashes like this one specially in symmetry mode...

Apparently you are not reporting crashes, so they have no idea about them..
Crash must be reproducible to be fixed.
NewTek devs have habit to close fogbugz with unreproducible crashes, writing reply "probably fixed if we don't see crash". Then you have to reopen again, and again, and again such report. Making videos of crash, etc. Otherwise it will never be fixed!

mav3rick
11-18-2013, 11:01 AM
Do you really don't get that old tools are here just for some people not complain that thing they were using for ages is removed?
Tools that are not clicked by user are not loaded to memory and are not taking any significant computer resources.
Remove button with them from GUI, and forget about their existence.

In Layout it's worser- if you f.e. have tool that's attached to scene or object, they can't just like that remove it, change to completely different the way they want, because old scenes won't load anymore.



Apparently you are not reporting crashes, so they have no idea about them..
Crash must be reproducible to be fixed.
NewTek devs have habit to close fogbugz with unreproducible crashes, writing reply "probably fixed if we don't see crash". Then you have to reopen again, and again, and again such report. Making videos of crash, etc. Otherwise it will never be fixed!

1st ... why on earth should they keep OLD TOOL that works exactly as new tool minus symmetry support for example?
2nd i am not reporting bugs since i am not beteatester.... and i receive final product. they either miss good betatester either none of them are using modeler anymore.... this is repeatable crash you can test on your own.. but even that that is not point... point is they do not plan, design , engineer lightwave the way it should be done.
Every tool should have reason to exist but that does not mean i need to have 10 bevel tools, 10 translate tools, 10 weld tools etc.... that just looks bad ....
also engineering new tools like TRANSLATE TOOLS should work with same mesh system.. now i have undo system insinde undo system??
how ironic is that to have undo inside undo.. thats insane.. i can have separate undo inside translate tools in modeler that works for itself until it is dropped... :(

it would be better to have proper undo in both layout and modeler.... whatever... beating dead horse... the best that can happen is..... they got master code/backups corrupted and forced to do lightwave from ground up.... Core to the rescue.

prometheus
11-18-2013, 11:29 AM
Well not one of my best days in LW but i really have to rant in public now since i am really fed up of this...
Can i get one logic explanation of multiply tools that does same exact thing in modeler?
Honestly Newtek instead doing Chronosculpt... you could put some extra BRAINWORK into fixing modeler and modeler tool sets....
.

How can you expect a logic explanation of multiply tools doing exact the same thing in modeler, when you donīt define which tools?

I suspect you are right about some tools, but please say B after A...:)
anyway..I believe there also might be difference not obvious to you at first glance, thus tools seemingly doing the same, are not working the same.

On a side note, Im concerned about proper naming of same tools in layout vs modeler, create sphere in layout, create ball in modeler, create box in modeler, create cube in
layout shortcut for surfaces was different from modeler, (think that is corrected now and the same)

Michael

probiner
11-18-2013, 11:34 AM
It has been pointed and argued about it... Anyways removing tools without proper replacement is bad within the same system. It would be great if instead this thread was about that: people finding out that they don't need the old tools anymore. It's not true, unfortunately. New tools add quite the bunch of functionality, but they feel somewhat experiments for a system and not in a consolidated system themselves. "Splitification" does also present issues when dealing with acess to mesh elements, object/render properties, locators; non-unified development/rules/mindset, etc, so I get your "Core to the rescue.", I just don't push as much these days... If they are going to do a full revamp of mesh and modeling in LW, they are going to do it, and if not, not.
Not the best answer, but you either re-organize the menus for what you need only, or if you think there are better toolsets out there, grab one, until "they do it".

Anyways the replacement doesn't need to be fully complete for a new system, as it is never going to be as mature as a old one with an army of plugins, but if it has a better rationale and looks promising, then one could consider to drop the old big bag for the new small one. There are live examples of that.

Cheers

mav3rick
11-18-2013, 01:39 PM
@prometheus well at moment of ranting maybe i didnt pick right words but you get the point. i have given perfect example of weld 2.0 .. since DF weld the only 3rd party that worked (to some level) in symmetry i wanted to switch to reliable 1st party solution. it worked for a moment and than it crashed... after second try it crashed again at exactly same manner... weld 2.0 is actually doing just the same (enlight me if not) as weld but with symmetry support. so now why would i need old weld solution that is doing same thing but with no symmetry support?

@probiner... turning tabs that i dont need and switching to new experimental ones or even 3rd party is actually problem....
Neither i want to keep tools from last century neither i want to replace them with experimental new features or 3rd party solution (you know how 3rd party in LW usually ends - Dynamite , Fprime etc.) .. i need carefully designed, tested, reliable and working new features that will be able to accommodate both new and old school artists and integrate tight into system.. and if i read what i just said i think it is impossible to happen in current lw system and all that is left is wait for better days to come... hopefully... but than i am getting really old and i am afraid i will drop 3d before i experience artist friendly application.


and just to correct one of my states... i didnt want to point out chronosculpt as bad application... but reminds me a lott about core .. rushed out with limited set of features for 1.0 release... just wanted to tell instead time they have put into it we could get better lightwave 3d product and maybe one day when they build solid structure develop chronosculpt as module for LIGHTWAVE and not separate app.

hrgiger
11-18-2013, 04:09 PM
Concerning Chronosculpt, as has been mentioned by its developer, it allows for a new geometry engine to be built and tested within its own environment without the fear of breaking or causing instabilities in already existing system like LW modeler. Supposedly this new geometry engine (Hydra engine) will eventually make its way into LW and allow for faster manipulation of exceedingly higher poly counts then currently allowable in LightWave. So if that brings a new geometry engine to LW sooner, I can't fault for any reason the new development of Chronosculpt. Concerning whether it was rushed into a 1.0 release light of features, I'm not sure. I mean, it does everything that LW3DG promoted it as which is pretty much working with geometry cache files such as dynamic simulations.

But as far as the criticisms of modeler... + a Googolplex

probiner
11-18-2013, 04:44 PM
Concerning Chronosculpt,(..) will eventually make its way into LW (...)
What I've read pointed nothing in that direction maybe I've misread. I understood that there were no strings attached. CS is a side project to which there are no explicit plans of bring it to LW. Did I read it wrong?

Cheers

spherical
11-18-2013, 04:50 PM
2nd i am not reporting bugs since i am not beteatester.... and i receive final product.

Well, then it appears that situations that you happen to encounter will never get fixed. You can't expect us to go out and clairvoyantly discover what you have. Programmers cannot be expected to know all about all systems, workflows and users. They do their best to cover all of the bases but, inevitably something will be missed. If you don't help the process by being part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

hrgiger
11-18-2013, 05:15 PM
What I've read pointed nothing in that direction maybe I've misread. I understood that there were no strings attached. CS is a side project to which there are no explicit plans of bring it to LW. Did I read it wrong?

Cheers

No, there is no connection or string between LW and Chronosculpt, for all intents and purposes they are two (well three if you're counting Layout and Modeler separately) separate programs and will remain that way for the foreseeable future so no, you did not read anything wrong. However, you may have missed some of the discussions a few months back between the developer David Ikeda and LW users. He spoke a lot about the development of Chronosculpt and some of the thought processes behind it. One of the things mentioned was the development of the Hyrdra Geometry Engine which is really just a plug-in for Chronosculpt (everything in Chronosculpt is a plug-in which allows for parts to be added or removed without the risk of breaking other systems). As you may have heard, Chronosculpt can push polygons well past the 10 million polygon mark without much loss of performance and that's due to the Hydra Engine. Well it was mentioned that this is the one technology from Chronosculpt that they would like to bring into LightWave. He also discussed the sense of building a new geometry core outside of LightWave so as not to break internal structure of LightWave in the process. So if we get a new geometry core inside of Lightwave, it will most likely be because of Hydra.

Edit: By the way, I just loaded a 27 million polygon object into Chronosculpt. Took several minutes for it to load (file size for the .obj is 1.82GB) and its a little slow to work with but considering I can't work at all with anything in Modeler even approaching 1 million polygons, I'd have to say that's pretty good.

Snosrap
11-18-2013, 06:17 PM
Also of note is that David mentioned that the new Sequence tools was an attempt to get some of the Hydra Engine into Modeler. But he also stated the he somewhat regrets that attempt as there were just too many issues that arose during implementation, which may be the reason why they have not received any attention since their introduction. Further reading of David's comments reveal that they are on the right track with future development. Too bad those links were removed. (PM me if you would be interested in reading it as I saved most of if it in a Word doc.) I think David and the team are well aware of the issues with Modeler, both as a bloated tool fest and the geometry performance issues, and I'm sure they are working fervently to correct those long standing issues as well as others. If Chronosculpt is any indication of what can be done in a few short months than I'm fairly confident that next years SIGGRAPH will shed new light on Modelers' future.

mav3rick
11-18-2013, 06:18 PM
Well, then it appears that situations that you happen to encounter will never get fixed. You can't expect us to go out and clairvoyantly discover what you have. Programmers cannot be expected to know all about all systems, workflows and users. They do their best to cover all of the bases but, inevitably something will be missed. If you don't help the process by being part of the solution, you are part of the problem.



i dont report BUGS since they were introduced to me once final product is out... means i cant do much once product is out since only CLOSED beta testers get their hands on final builds....
while we are debating this iv asked friend of mine that is betatester to ask about this and they have addressed weld/avarage weld 2.0 bug i have pointed out in this topic
however this doesnt fix reason of this topic and hopefully they will switch focus to root of lw problem in lw 12.

spherical
11-18-2013, 06:41 PM
Or 11.6.1 or 11.7. Just because the "final product is out" does not mean that things don't get fixed and deployed to the userbase during a given product cycle.

hrgiger
11-18-2013, 07:01 PM
By the way, loading that 27 million polygon object in modeler and Chronosculpt...what a difference. With the object loaded, CS used about 5GB of memory. Modeler used around 20GB. Tumbling that object in CS, smooth. In modeler, not even possible without waiting.

probiner
11-18-2013, 07:26 PM
No, there is no connection or string between LW and Chronosculpt, for all intents and purposes they are two (well three if you're counting Layout and Modeler separately) separate programs and will remain that way for the foreseeable future so no, you did not read anything wrong. However, you may have missed some of the discussions a few months back between the developer David Ikeda and LW users. He spoke a lot about the development of Chronosculpt and some of the thought processes behind it. One of the things mentioned was the development of the Hyrdra Geometry Engine which is really just a plug-in for Chronosculpt (everything in Chronosculpt is a plug-in which allows for parts to be added or removed without the risk of breaking other systems). (...)

Also of note is that David mentioned that the new Sequence tools was an attempt to get some of the Hydra Engine into Modeler. But he also stated the he somewhat regrets that attempt as there were just too many issues that arose during implementation, which may be the reason why they have not received any attention since their introduction. Further reading of David's comments reveal that they are on the right track with future development. (...) I think David and the team are well aware of the issues with Modeler, both as a bloated tool fest and the geometry performance issues, and I'm sure they are working fervently to correct those long standing issues as well as others. If Chronosculpt is any indication of what can be done in a few short months than I'm fairly confident that next years SIGGRAPH will shed new light on Modelers' future.

See this just points out that if Hydra becomes involved with modeling it will be a re-write. Why spend time building up a structure free of such structural inter-dependencies like Hydra, where apparently the Geometry Core is just another plugin, to then make it fit inside the Modeler bucket? Why have 2 developments onto how axis, origins and snapping should be handled if you can develop one that serves both mesh elements and objects? Anyways this is just speculation an will be left at this, previous solutions stand :)

Hrgiger... 27 milion polygons into Modeler. Why? :D You brave man...

hrgiger
11-18-2013, 07:30 PM
Hrgiger... 27 milion polygons into Modeler. Why? :D You brave man...

Yeah, I knew it was a foolish move but just wanted to compare the difference between geometry handling in Modeler vs CS. Turns out there's quite a bit.

akademus
11-19-2013, 01:07 AM
Truth is, Modeler hasn't been properly tackled in a long long time. There's just tools added on top what was there before. Even path setting and color picker can't be done in Modeler, and its OpenGL is slow. I just hope one of the next LW iterations will deal with it in a proper manner.

jwiede
11-19-2013, 04:10 AM
Programmers cannot be expected to know all about all systems, workflows and users. They do their best to cover all of the bases but, inevitably something will be missed.

Which is the whole justification for, and purpose of software testing / quality assurance. What accountability do you put on LW3DG QA for defect detection/reporting? You seem to be giving them an undeserved free pass.

Kuzey
11-19-2013, 04:44 AM
As far as catching bugs..some...if not many, should have been found and fixed before release..like these bugs I reported:

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?138265-Build-2717-GUI-Major-Bugs-%28fix-them%29

colkai
11-19-2013, 10:04 AM
Truth is, Modeler hasn't been properly tackled in a long long time. There's just tools added on top what was there before. Even path setting and color picker can't be done in Modeler, and its OpenGL is slow. I just hope one of the next LW iterations will deal with it in a proper manner.

I wouldn't hold my breath on modeller getting the attention it requires, been waiting on this since pre LW9.0 and I have long since given up on expecting them to do anything substantial to modeller, it just doesn't seem to be in their focus anymore. It's not that they don't know what's wrong, it's just they have continually chosen to ignore it, which of course is their perogative, I just wish they'd stop saying they are going to "upgrade" it, when all you get is more redundancy and half-baked and tested tools. Thank the Gods for LWCAD.

akademus
11-19-2013, 11:13 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath on modeller getting the attention it requires, been waiting on this since pre LW9.0 and I have long since given up on expecting them to do anything substantial to modeller, it just doesn't seem to be in their focus anymore. It's not that they don't know what's wrong, it's just they have continually chosen to ignore it, which of course is their perogative, I just wish they'd stop saying they are going to "upgrade" it, when all you get is more redundancy and half-baked and tested tools. Thank the Gods for LWCAD.

Well... I'm just hoping. Hope dies last :)

spherical
11-19-2013, 12:31 PM
Which is the whole justification for, and purpose of software testing / quality assurance. What accountability do you put on LW3DG QA for defect detection/reporting? You seem to be giving them an undeserved free pass.

Geeez, I'm not giving anybody a "free pass". I'm stating reality. Can YOU know all things that someone else will do? Can YOU simulate all operating conditions and equipment? Good, get on the team and show them all how it should be done. Further, it was in response to a person who thinks that whatever he finds doesn't work doesn't need to be shared with the people who CAN fix it; just because he's entitled to perfect software and is miffed that it has a problem. Wow. I'm as disappointed as much as anyone at the lack of attention that Modeler has received. It is what it is and I do what I can to give feedback by reporting issues to the devs and helping develop new features with the knowledge that I happen to have in specific areas; like glass. If someone wants to drive on a one way street, that's fine. Just don't complain that you're not getting where you want to go.

And, no, I'm not hijacking the thread.

Lewis
11-19-2013, 12:44 PM
Guys, it's not aobut bugs in tools per se (every softwar ehas them (BUGs) i believe this was just one example/last straw in day to day fiddling wiht LW workaorunds).

Problem is mostly in duplication of the tools what do very similar and yet slightly different and they always choose to make new tool instead fixing/updatign old one we already use (If anyone needs explanation about what duplicated tools we have just let me know, I can type in tons of text aobut that (for Nth time by now) and I've did it in past and i've let them know also in the Fogbugz system so it' officially reported. It's not like they can't fix it 'coz they don't know or somene didn't report. It's been reported and said many times (by several user snot just me) so it's NOT about users/testers).

Matt
11-19-2013, 01:03 PM
Thanks for the link.

What good it will do I don't know but worth a try.

Cheers

We wouldn't have gone to the trouble of sending one out if we planned to ignore the information.

Andy Webb
11-19-2013, 06:19 PM
We wouldn't have gone to the trouble of sending one out if we planned to ignore the information.

I'm not suggesting that you will ignore the results of the questionnaire.

But will you act on it?

As has already been mentioned in this thread, some people have been concerned about the state of modeller since about version 9,
and still nothing substantial has been done, just lots of tinkering.

Some additions have been good but a lot needs to be done to make it the modeller we would all wish for. :)

Cheers

Dodgy
11-20-2013, 06:28 AM
The thing is modeler is a leaky boat with a rusty Hull at the moment. It's all very well fixing the horn, but it's still sinking quickly. The hydra engine is going to replace the hull, so I would prefer all work to go into that so we get that in modeler as soon as possible. Sure fix bugs, but modeler is as capable as it's always been, but not really up to todays high poly expectations. Do you really want devs spending time amalgamating tools or getting on with sorting out the underlying structure people have been saying should have been done for years now?

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is modeler is a leaky boat with a rusty Hull at the moment. It's all very well fixing the horn, but it's still sinking quickly. The hydra engine is going to replace the hull, so I would prefer all work to go into that so we get that in modeler as soon as possible. Sure fix bugs, but modeler is as capable as it's always been, but not really up to todays high poly expectations. Do you really want devs spending time amalgamating tools or getting on with sorting out the underlying structure people have been saying should have been done for years now?

Lewis
11-20-2013, 06:41 AM
Cool, now can you point us to that statement where Hydra means new modeler or hull as you say :)?

Or hows Hydra engine "gradual rewrite" as they said in past they are going for ? If is new engine it'll surely require new tools = full rewrite = loooong wait.

unstable
11-20-2013, 07:18 AM
I just want to interject a couple of thoughts. First off, I'm a project manager for software development and in regards to knowing what the users will do and testing for it, yes it can be done up to the 80 to 90% range. However, the more complex the software and more features available, the more difficult it is to identify and document all test scenarios. But if this is done from day one when the software is smaller, then each release is increnmental in size. At this point it would probably take 2 years to document and test all features which means they rely on us to find and document the bugs.

The more important thing I keep in mind is that Chronosculpt is brought to you by the same makers of that unstable software called Lightwave. So why on earth would anyone expect good things from CS? Give it 3 years and I think you'll start seeing the same comets about CS because its made by Newtek.

That's my two bits.

Snosrap
11-20-2013, 07:37 AM
Cool, now can you point us to that statement where Hydra means new modeler or hull as you say :)?

Or hows Hydra engine "gradual rewrite" as they said in past they are going for ? If is new engine it'll surely require new tools = full rewrite = loooong wait. David said he was working to make the Hydra engine 100% compatible with the existing LWO format and once that was complete it would take a mere two lines of code to drop it into Modeler. With a compatible engine all the existing tools would work, but with an improved and compatable engine the tools over time can be rewritten to better take advantage of the engine as well as improve workflows. It's also why those threads were taken down as they didn't want to promisse anything prematurely.

mav3rick
11-20-2013, 07:49 AM
Guys, it's not aobut bugs in tools per se (every softwar ehas them (BUGs) i believe this was just one example/last straw in day to day fiddling wiht LW workaorunds).

Problem is mostly in duplication of the tools what do very similar and yet slightly different and they always choose to make new tool instead fixing/updatign old one we already use (If anyone needs explanation about what duplicated tools we have just let me know, I can type in tons of text aobut that (for Nth time by now) and I've did it in past and i've let them know also in the Fogbugz system so it' officially reported. It's not like they can't fix it 'coz they don't know or somene didn't report. It's been reported and said many times (by several user snot just me) so it's NOT about users/testers).

+1000000000000000


My take on Hydra is... nice we had Core, now we have Hydra... for me it can be called whatever you want but it is just another mesh system show off that works on very basic level for now (moving vertex in timeline).
What i would like to see is HYDRA in real environment with all scene elements, deformations, IK, instances , bullet , hair , modifier stack , history stack... than we will be able to judge the real power of HYDRA.... and than comes Core.. that was almost all that ... and than they decided it is so bad it need to be buried...

other than that..... i am really not sure modeler or layout can be INJECTED with hydra just like that... if it was the case... we would see serious improvements from lw 10 to 11.....

personally.... i hope they close themself into room for next 2 years and come back with serious HYDRA CORE LW whatever... and dont name it lw 12 cause it will carry on that bad taste of Lightwave past ....


if they put so much time into CORE as much they have put into lw 10/11 we would already be able at least to model / paint and chronosculpt in Core 1.0..... but i just feel we are goin to end back to core 0.1 with lw 12 again...

ironically Jay was visionare ... that was kick out of dev team..not that i liked all about his vision but at the end... looks like he was right about one thing LW NEED clean start.. and for that i give him hat down.

Snosrap
11-20-2013, 07:59 AM
I just want to interject a couple of thoughts. First off, I'm a project manager for software development and in regards to knowing what the users will do and testing for it, yes it can be done up to the 80 to 90% range. However, the more complex the software and more features available, the more difficult it is to identify and document all test scenarios. But if this is done from day one when the software is smaller, then each release is increnmental in size. At this point it would probably take 2 years to document and test all features which means they rely on us to find and document the bugs.

The more important thing I keep in mind is that Chronosculpt is brought to you by the same makers of that unstable software called Lightwave. So why on earth would anyone expect good things from CS? Give it 3 years and I think you'll start seeing the same comets about CS because its made by Newtek.

That's my two bits.I totally disagree on all counts. LW is very stable (PC) and this is a complete new team and now it's own business unit. - Still owned by NT but not run by NT. - Modeler has old architecture and they are in the process of changing that. One can only look at Modo and it's development over the dozen years and see that starting small and gradually building with modern architecture, doesn't necessarily mean a stable product. That's not a bash on Modo - I love it - but stability is not it's strength. Modeler has issues - no doubt - but's still works pretty darn good.

Kuzey
11-20-2013, 08:00 AM
David said he was working to make the Hydra engine 100% compatible with the existing LWO format and once that was complete it would take a mere two lines of code to drop it into Modeler. With a compatible engine all the existing tools would work, but with an improved and compatable engine the tools over time can be rewritten to better take advantage of the engine as well as improve workflows. It's also why those threads were taken down as they didn't want to promisse anything prematurely.

Did David mention how far along he was with the Hydra engine & lwo format 50%...75% or 90%?

Can't they drop the Hydra engine into LW now and have an internal converter to convert LWO objects into what ever hydra uses & then export it back to LWO format if the user chooses?

Snosrap
11-20-2013, 08:07 AM
ironically Jay was visionare ... that was kick out of dev team..not that i liked all about his vision but at the end... looks like he was right about one thing LW NEED clean start.. and for that i give him hat down. But it was a clean start they could not afford. XSI has yet to recover from it's clean start. I was a Core believer for the most part, but in the end it would have bankrupted LW. IMO the only mistake NT made was making LW10 a paid upgrade - dumping Core will probably prove to be a smart decision.

Snosrap
11-20-2013, 08:30 AM
Did David mention how far along he was with the Hydra engine & lwo format 50%...75% or 90%?
He gave no number but said he was very far along. And by %100, he said even things you wouldn't have in a new modern modeling application like single and two point polys need to be implemented so that it is indeed %100 compatible.

Can't they drop the Hydra engine into LW now and have an internal converter to convert LWO objects into what ever hydra uses & then export it back to LWO format if the user chooses? Thats kind of whats happening with the new Sequence tools in 11.5 and 11.6. When you fire those tools you notice that you go into those different modes. (The Hydra engine is not being used with those tools - most likely an earlier subset.) He also stated that that was a mistake to try to attempt as there were just too many issues to resolve as each tool had to be written specific to it's intent.

mav3rick
11-20-2013, 08:50 AM
But it was a clean start they could not afford. XSI has yet to recover from it's clean start. I was a Core believer for the most part, but in the end it would have bankrupted LW. IMO the only mistake NT made was making LW10 a paid upgrade - dumping Core will probably prove to be a smart decision.

think about it again... core was developed quiet long... if they have put 2 years extra into it for sure it would be a lot better app and potential lw replacement by now.

now think about lw future.... what will happen in 12 is more or less what have happened with core but with one extra problem...how to break it, inject hydra, open architecture and make it stable for 12.0 release.... i can see this happen with some kind of semi hyrid system that will need to double itself to be compatible with old and new tools and eventually drop old technology in lw 13... but that is for me really risky task... it will need serious coding and it could break a lott of things pretty bad.... i think newtek does not have that engineering power as they really lack of programmers.

for me... clean start is only way to go...

alexos
11-20-2013, 09:11 AM
think about it again... core was developed quiet long... if they have put 2 years extra into it for sure it would be a lot better app and potential lw replacement by now.

Perhaps we should all forget about CORE already. Yes, it was fun (and what fun it was!) for a while, but in the end it crashed and burned, and there's nothing we can do about it anymore - except perhaps the usual "learning from past mistakes" which hardly anybody ever does anyway. You may be right when you say that with two more years it could have turned into a good product, but the way it looked, it could have gone either way and most important, Lightwave wouldn't have survived two more years. If CORE had worked (both in functionality and workflow) right from the start, maybe... But no company can stay in the market with one obsolete product (which is what LW9.6 was becoming) and a defective, we-are-working-on-it vague promise for a better future. Unless of course they can afford to throw enough resources behind them both, which didn't seem to be the case here.

Having said that, I, too, would welcome a more... rational... toolset and I keep wondering why we still have stuff such as Skytracer and Virtual Darkroom and all those other antiques; but on the other hand I am rather satisfied with the 11.x cycle, so, you know. Optimism and all that.

ADP.

Surrealist.
11-20-2013, 09:13 AM
Edit: (Agreed) All of these arguments have been made over and over.

NewTek knows LightWave better than anyone here and they have their direction and priorities clearly which are out of our hands.

I think development lately has shown that they are doing what they can and also making smart financial moves given the situation LightWave is in technically.

Every software has this issue. At some point you have to just dig in and use what is there, give feedback on the proper channels if that is important to you.

If these things have not been hashed over endlessly before I would not be saying this.

But it has. So, I don't know. Maybe put our energy into helping each other understand the tools when there is a weakness in understanding. Give feedback to NewTek on the proper channels and let them get on with it as we do the same with creating.

VonBon
11-20-2013, 09:53 AM
We all want something. When operations cost money, certain things must be prioritized if the funds are not sufficient, that’s just the way a capitalistic society works. If your car is broken down and you need rotors, brakes, hub assemblies, Tires, Alignment, valve cover gaskets, heating core, spark plugs & wires, etc….. You in a way need a “Total Rewrite” and if you can’t afford it at the time, you need to first replace the parts that are going to keep you mobile so that you can continue to make money so that you can eventually repair all the things that need to be fixed. In LightWave’s case, if most companies/people are using it for rendering then those are the areas that have to be addressed first because that is where the money is coming from. Who wouldn’t like a whole rewrite in a timely manner? The truth is that it just isn’t possible at this time, so the next best thing is to prioritize and keep the ball rolling.
I do think that old Tools should by default be place in a “Legacy” menu button.

stobbs
11-20-2013, 10:21 AM
The thing is modeler is a leaky boat with a rusty Hull at the moment. It's all very well fixing the horn, but it's still sinking quickly. The hydra engine is going to replace the hull, so I would prefer all work to go into that so we get that in modeler as soon as possible. Sure fix bugs, but modeler is as capable as it's always been, but not really up to todays high poly expectations. Do you really want devs spending time amalgamating tools or getting on with sorting out the underlying structure people have been saying should have been done for years now?

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is modeler is a leaky boat with a rusty Hull at the moment. It's all very well fixing the horn, but it's still sinking quickly. The hydra engine is going to replace the hull, so I would prefer all work to go into that so we get that in modeler as soon as possible. Sure fix bugs, but modeler is as capable as it's always been, but not really up to todays high poly expectations. Do you really want devs spending time amalgamating tools or getting on with sorting out the underlying structure people have been saying should have been done for years now?

+1


We all want something. When operations cost money, certain things must be prioritized if the funds are not sufficient, that’s just the way a capitalistic society works. If your car is broken down and you need rotors, brakes, hub assemblies, Tires, Alignment, valve cover gaskets, heating core, spark plugs & wires, etc….. You in a way need a “Total Rewrite” and if you can’t afford it at the time, you need to first replace the parts that are going to keep you mobile so that you can continue to make money so that you can eventually repair all the things that need to be fixed. In LightWave’s case, if most companies/people are using it for rendering then those are the areas that have to be addressed first because that is where the money is coming from. Who wouldn’t like a whole rewrite in a timely manner? The truth is that it just isn’t possible at this time, so the next best thing is to prioritize and keep the ball rolling.
I do think that old Tools should by default be place in a “Legacy” menu button.

+1

dsol
11-20-2013, 10:36 AM
There's no need to bicker over this. The future direction of LW is clearer right now than its ever been, going by what we know already.

CORE was going nowhere - it would have needed years of development to get it to anything like a production-ready tool. NewTek would have binned LW by that point (it was a money vampire with no return on investment). Many of the interesting bullet-point features mentioned in the original launch were either not there, or badly implemented (in hindsight).

The new management team have refocussed on Lightwave (classic) with a laser-like intensity and eliminated a lot of bugs, and added a ton of new features (11 cycle has been glorious).

While this has gone on, they have been developing a new Poly engine (Hydra), which is currently nowhere near 100% compatible with all of Lightwave's features (no sub-d's, 2-point polys etc.), but is BLAZINGLY FAST - and enabled the creation of Chronosculpt (a very impressive app). Hydra is being worked on to add the remaining functionality to enable it to work as a drop-in replacement for Layout and Modeller. There is still a lot of work to do though, so it could still be a year away at least.

The only thing that is not clear yet is will LW12 fix the longstanding issues mentioned by some people on this thread:

(a) Unification of modeller/layout
(b) Unified undo system
(c) consolidation of tools

Plus all the other features that would bring it up to feature equivalence (or better) with rival apps:

(d) scene/object/node referencing
(e) modelling/deformation stack
(f) sculpt/paint tools

Anything else?

Lewis
11-20-2013, 10:51 AM
There's no need to bicker over this. The future direction of LW is clearer right now than its ever been, going by what we know already.
----------

The only thing that is not clear yet is will LW12 fix the longstanding issues mentioned by some people on this thread:

(a) Unification of modeller/layout
(b) Unified undo system
(c) consolidation of tools

Plus all the other features that would bring it up to feature equivalence (or better) with rival apps:

(d) scene/object/node referencing
(e) modelling/deformation stack
(f) sculpt/paint tools

Anything else?

You seem to be contradictory here, First you say it's CLEAR(er) then it's NOT CLEAR ? So which one is it then ?

If is not clear or known are they making unified app or not (which we wait for like 10 years by now since first try from 8.x to 9.0 rewrite atempt/fail for modeling in layout), what's clear then ?

That's kinda BIG change/difference which dictates everythign else (unod, stack, hostory, modifiers, animated modleign tools, unified nodal approach, referencing....) so if THAT is not clear yet nothing else can be clear then - right? And NONE of that was confirmed officially (not even All this Hydra talk and how is it going to be put into Layout/modeler, remember that was Davids' vision how he thinks it should be done BUT no-one officially said that or confirmed and David always said that's his personal POV not company statement so you guys were readign too much in it so it's no wonder why they deleted that topic)

So all in all it's NOT clear at all and they aren't telling or showing us direction with work on LW, for now we had several dead ends (aparently 9.0 modeling in layout was fail, Core was fail, mesh system with new tools in modeler was fail....) :D. So where do you see direction there ? I see several different approaches/tries but none of them show me clear direction especially 'coz all of them so far were been abandoned for some new/next idea. Do they try and work hard ? Sure no doubt there we got soem awesome stuff but evne thos enew fetures still dont' solv emain problems/weaknesses we are waiting to be solved looooong time :(. I'd like to know direction (that would also help me to report/send feature stuff and some ideas) but it's hard to know it if you look at past examples/tries and silence they are giving us.

dsol
11-20-2013, 10:57 AM
You seem to be contradictory here, First you say it's CLEAR(er) then it's NOT CLEAR ? So which one is it then ?

If is not clear or known are they making unified app or not (whcih we wait for like 10 years by now since first try from 8.x to 9.0 rewrite atempt/fail for modeling in layout), what's clear then ?

That's kinda BIG change/difference which dictates everythign else (unod, stack, hostory, modifiers, animated modleign tools, unified nodal approach, referencing....) so if THAT is not clear yet nothing else can be clear then - right? And NONE of that was confirmed officially (not even All this Hydra talk and how is it going to be put into Layout/modeler, remember that was Davids' vision how he thinks it should be done BUT no-one officially said that or confirmed and David always said that's his personal POV not company statement so you guys were readign too much in it so it's no wonder why they deleted that topic)

So all in all it's NOT clear at all :D.

Ah, yes you're right. I didn't phrase that well. I meant that the LONG TERM future of LW was clear (Rob's already said that points A to C are definitely the goal) - but I wasn't sure if these things would happen by LW12. I certainly hope so though!

Lewis
11-20-2013, 11:00 AM
I certainly hope so though!

Well that's not in question, we all (or at least most of us here :)) hope for best (and lov eLW) but we "hope" for soo long by now that our hope is fading out slowly and their silence is just making it more hard to believe :(.

I have high hopes for 12 but already fearing it'll could dissapoint us there ('coz frankly we always hope hight :)) 'coz it's sucha big task to make current LW in somethign similar to the GOAL from CORE features/projections back then (that 3year plan is long gone into past by now and we didn't get much if any of that unified direction/signs) .

mav3rick
11-20-2013, 12:45 PM
if i can be pessimistic.... i am afraid we will continue to suffer in good old fashion with lw.... but thats not problem for me. i am 35 yo... earning money with lw. it can do just about all i ask from it with more or less pain as far as i dont have fancy production requests..... if it ever happens it will be too late for me as i will move on to something else in my life and i cant see much of young newcomers to lw so ... you make conclusion :) hope i get surprised but after all this years... not sure... it must be economy crisis take over just about anything.. noone like to reveal long term plans as noone knows how economy will react and lightwave user base is really low.

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 01:23 PM
He gave no number but said he was very far along. And by %100, he said even things you wouldn't have in a new modern modeling application like single and two point polys need to be implemented so that it is indeed %100 compatible.
Thats kind of whats happening with the new Sequence tools in 11.5 and 11.6. When you fire those tools you notice that you go into those different modes. (The Hydra engine is not being used with those tools - most likely an earlier subset.) He also stated that that was a mistake to try to attempt as there were just too many issues to resolve as each tool had to be written specific to it's intent.

They should dump junk like 1 and 2 point polygons.

bobakabob
11-20-2013, 02:32 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath on modeller getting the attention it requires, been waiting on this since pre LW9.0 and I have long since given up on expecting them to do anything substantial to modeller, it just doesn't seem to be in their focus anymore. It's not that they don't know what's wrong, it's just they have continually chosen to ignore it, which of course is their perogative, I just wish they'd stop saying they are going to "upgrade" it, when all you get is more redundancy and half-baked and tested tools. Thank the Gods for LWCAD.

Funny how there was a time when Modeler was the future. Then came Zbrush. The former app may have stalled but today they're a strong combination. For all its greatness, Zbrush's clunky interface can't match Modeler's elegant simplicity in manipulating the basics: points, edges and polys. LWCad has also kept Modeler relevant. Good to see Chronosculpt innovating and leapfrogging over Zbrush as an animateable sculpting app.

Sensei
11-20-2013, 02:35 PM
They should dump junk like 1 and 2 point polygons.

Do you mean removing them entirely from application?

One of mine feature requests was adding support to 0 point polygons..
Currently it's possible to create 0 point polygons, but after saving and loading such lwo, it's crashing LW in loader routine.
I am using such special 1 point polygons for everything, but would prefer to not have even this 1 point.

bobakabob
11-20-2013, 02:38 PM
They should dump junk like 1 and 2 point polygons.

No way, they're great for daft sci fi effects. Also essential for characters with hair...

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 03:09 PM
Do you mean removing them entirely from application?

One of mine feature requests was adding support to 0 point polygons..
Currently it's possible to create 0 point polygons, but after saving and loading such lwo, it's crashing LW in loader routine.
I am using such special 1 point polygons for everything, but would prefer to not have even this 1 point.

Yes, I mean removing them entirely from application. I know it won't happen. LW3DG seemingly refuses to do anything that will break any type of backwards compatability even if it stands in the way of progress.

Other applications seem to get by fine without them. Technically anyway, a 0, 1, or 2 point polygon isn't really a polygon by definition anyway. No face, no polygon. Poly means many, gon means angle. Its BS to call anything less then three sided a polygon.

And Bobakabob, not essential for hair. Just essential for the way LightWave does hair. We should be using curves or generated geometry or something other then junk geometry like strings of 2 point edges.

Sensei
11-20-2013, 03:13 PM
But then you need 2 point line object. So what is sense making two different kind of objects that can be handled by polygon?


Yes, I mean removing them entirely from application. I know it won't happen.

Good. Because it's one of the most stupid requests I have heard.
Requesting feature should extend application by something useful, not degrading it.

Other 3d apps users that don't have 2 point polygons have to make triangles that share one point, or have point in middle of two others to simulate what we have as 2 point polygon.. That's ridiculous!

Lewis
11-20-2013, 03:16 PM
Exactly, 1-point and 2-point polys are JUNK geometry. Only LWavers think that things can't be made without them, but realit yis that they were made long ago as workaround for LWs inability to render splines (whcih sadly LW still can't do). So it can be done withotu JUNK geometry ust fine (other apps surviwed all those years wihtotu them) and on top of that neither of these as hrgiger mentioned already should be called POLYGONS 'coz techically polygon can't have less than 3 points.

- - - Updated - - -



Other 3d apps users that don't have 2 point polygons have to make triangles that share one point, or have point in middle of two others to simulate what we have as 2 point polygon.. That's ridiculous!

Not true, they just use Splines, 2 points connected with edge in between are SPLINE not a polygon, actually calling it a polygon is ridiculous.

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 03:23 PM
But then you need 2 point line object. So what is sense making two different kind of objects that can be handled by polygon?



Good. Because it's one of the most stupid requests I have heard.
Requesting feature should extend application by something useful, not degrading it.

Other 3d apps users that don't have 2 point polygons have to make triangles that share one point, or have point in middle of two others to simulate what we have as 2 point polygon.. That's ridiculous!

I didn't request a feature, I suggested that we get rid of something that serves no purpose. Most of the time I am dealing with 1 or 2 point polygons is when I'm cleaning them up off my models. And I'm pretty sure that other apps don't generally have use for strings of 2 point polygons or strings of triangles or whatever you say they use. Every time I've seen tutorials on hair creation in other apps, they're using spline guides.

Edit: And I see Lewis just posted. Thank you.

Sensei
11-20-2013, 03:25 PM
Spline is polygon too, in LW and in the most of applications.

Developer is calling scanPolygons() function,
then checking whether returned polygon has face type, spline type, cc type, or sub-patches, and then filtering out what he is not interested in.
To learn about spline attributes or points they have, we use polygon functions.
Spline object is natural extension of polygon object. They share the same dataset.

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Yeah but I don't have to clean up splines after I perform certain modeling operations like I do with 1 or 2 point polygons so I could care less what function it calls internally.

Cageman
11-20-2013, 03:35 PM
Not true, they just use Splines, 2 points connected with edge in between are SPLINE not a polygon, actually calling it a polygon is ridiculous.

No... a Spline offers interpolation between the points, or knots, which 2-point polygons do not. The term "2-point poly" is exactly what it is, and in the context of comparing it with Splines, it certanly shows that the two are very different things. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spline_%28mathematics%29

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 03:36 PM
Funny how there was a time when Modeler was the future. Then came Zbrush. The former app may have stalled but today they're a strong combination. For all its greatness, Zbrush's clunky interface can't match Modeler's elegant simplicity in manipulating the basics: points, edges and polys. LWCad has also kept Modeler relevant. Good to see Chronosculpt innovating and leapfrogging over Zbrush as an animateable sculpting app.

I really think that's not really an accurate assessment of Modeler vs Zbrush capability and elegance of handling geometry. Besides the fact that I can adjust my brush size and resolution of my mesh in Zbrush and adjust individual vertices if I wish but when you consider that I can cut up my mesh with clip brushes, bevel with polish or trim brushes, instantly retopo my mesh with Zremesher and numerous other modifiers, modeler starts to look not so elegant in Zbrush's shadow. Hard surface modeling has become increasingly more elegant, especially over the course of the version 4 lifecycle.

And just to be clear, Chronosculpt has in no way leapfrogged Zbrush. It is not, I repeat, not a sculpting application. It has sculpting tools which are used to manipulate point cache from dynamics and animation but it is not an application geared towards making a model. It has no primitive tools and no way to generate its own geometry. Zbrush and Chronosculpt are about as different as LightWave and Notepad.

Sensei
11-20-2013, 03:38 PM
I suggested that we get rid of something that serves no purpose.

Nonsense.


Most of the time I am dealing with 1 or 2 point polygons is when I'm cleaning them up off my models. And I'm pretty sure that other apps don't generally have use for strings of 2 point polygons or strings of triangles or whatever you say they use. Every time I've seen tutorials on hair creation in other apps, they're using spline guides.

Who said about hair creation? Not me. It's Worley who created his hair guides as 2 point polygons. I have no idea why he designed it this way, because splines are working for this purpose much better. Actually using 2 point polygon is making plugin working slower because renderer has to search for the all segments back, when they are splines, dataset is in one place, and there is no need to searching anything.. Easier to code, faster code is with normal splines.

I have seen tutorials for other apps, there they were complaining about lack of 2 point polygons, and proposed workarounds like I wrote in #57 post.

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 03:44 PM
I have seen tutorials for other apps, there they were complaining about lack of 2 point polygons, and proposed workarounds like I wrote in #57 post.

Lol. They're probably former LW users. :)

So what purpose do you have in mind that you think LW needs 2 point polygons for?

Sensei
11-20-2013, 03:53 PM
So what purpose do you have in mind that you think LW needs 2 point polygons for?

This is what I used them the last time:
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=118309&d=1384987753

(actually it's the simplest touch detector ;) if you have transistor and Breadboard you can try by yourself- touch wire going to base will turn on LED)

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 04:02 PM
Well first I would say that's a snap (literally) with LWCAD. Secondly, this kind of thing seems more suited to some type of CAD program if you're doing wiring/circuit diagrams. I was hoping you might suggest something that's commonly used (besides Hair Guides) in LW that we need 2 point polygons for.

Sensei
11-20-2013, 04:41 PM
Well first I would say that's a snap (literally) with LWCAD.

I don't have LWCAD. Don't know what do you mean by that. And what it has to do with 2 point polygons.

If 2 point polygons would not exist, then lines would have to be replaced by 2 triangles or 1 quads at least. Thickness of quads cannot be changed in Layout. 2 point polygons (or splines if they would be renderable) can be changed.


Secondly, this kind of thing seems more suited to some type of CAD program if you're doing wiring/circuit diagrams.

I am writing plugin for LW for making circuits. Pick up resistor tool, place it in viewport, move handles, pick up transistor tool, choose NPN/PNP, etc. place, pick diode tool, whether it's LED, Zener, or fotodiode, place etc. etc.

I see no sense in getting rid of 2 point polygons and replacing them by need to have 2 point spline, which will be simulating straight line.

Splines are quantized. When renderer starts they are frozen to 2 point lines with defined accuracy, that are easy to find out by rendering functions. So, from 2 point spline it'll end up 20-100 2 point lines.

Tobian
11-20-2013, 04:41 PM
Bicker bicker bicker :D

Point of clarification: Hydra is actually the name of the platform that ChronoSculpt is built on the back of, the engine which allows the entire thing to built out of plugins: Aka the metaphore, cut off one head, and a new one grows back, refers (one presumes) to the ability to swap out one head (plugin) with another. It is not the name of the new Geometry core that David originally developed in Modeler, and used as the principle geometry core of CS. I think somewhere along the way several of us conflated those facts, but David I never actually said the geometry core was called Hydra.

Anyway, back to the topic. I think until tools are fully ameliorated, they need to stay, if in a deprecated 'more' menu. Trouble is every time they add a new tool it never fully replaces the old one, or does so in a way in which you sometimes want the old one. Point in case, Chamfer simply doesn't replace rounder, yet, and it is a bit buggy on occasion. the edge tools replace the need for tools like band glue, however band glue remains lighting fast in super poly-heavy models, whereas edge dissolving slows down the more polys you have. A new geometry core and polished tools would resolve those issues, but I hate hanging things on hypotheticals... I don't want the tools removed until they are replaced COMPLETELLY. Hopefully if David does get his open heart surgery finished, then some things can finally be retired!

Still sadly this is just another of countless threads where users just chew on each other and dredge up old fights, and old issues which should have been fixed years back, but haven't... and LWG say nothing concrete, so we don't actually learn anything, and everyone just comes away from it all a little sadder.

hrgiger
11-20-2013, 05:01 PM
I don't have LWCAD. Don't know what do you mean by that. And what it has to do with 2 point polygons.

If 2 point polygons would not exist, then lines would have to be replaced by 2 triangles or 1 quads at least. Thickness of quads cannot be changed in Layout. 2 point polygons (or splines if they would be renderable) can be changed.



Sorry, what I mean is that with LWCAD's snapping tools (which is why I said literally a snap), its very easy to draw out diagrams like that with LWCAD's Nurb's Curves which can be drawn as either straight (line) or curved (curves). You can say snap to the center of the circle, snap to each end of the line to connect, and also do projection snapping to line up with a point elsewhere in your drawing. Then you can trim lines and create the gaps in the circuits. As far as adding thickness, you can use LWCAD's profiler tool to add thickness with any profile shape you want. You can't do it in Layout, but the ability to use custom shapes for profiles makes it ultimately more flexible then simply adding thickness to a 2 point polychain.

erikals
11-20-2013, 11:17 PM
- Modeler tools are being worked on, and the new tools are great.

- Modeler Speed is being worked on, by implementing Hydra.

- Unification, i'll let LW3DG chew on that one, though modeling/tweaking/weighting in camera view is important for many of us.

Unified undo system
personally, no thanks, slow, so make it optional. and yes, fix undoes.

Sculpt / Paint tools
this will come with the Hydra engine (they already made the feature in ChronoSculpt) though no, it won't match 3DC / ZB etc...

- Personally i like 1-points, just remember to call the Janitor.
https://www.lightwave3d.com/assets/plugins/entry/cp_janitor
maybe make the point-workflow optional? (!!!)

- Yes, a better rounder tool would be nice.

- An awesome rounder tool would be awesome. (yes please) ;]

- even without Hydra, LW3DG sped things up in LightWave 11.6


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKXYRIUYFTc

...though Hydra is gonna make that selection work much-much faster. (Patience)


all this said, i think some tend to forget how great the new LightWave really is...
and yes, things still needs to be fixed in LightWave, just like with application XYZ...

Lewis
11-21-2013, 12:32 AM
Yeah but I don't have to clean up splines after I perform certain modeling operations like I do with 1 or 2 point polygons so I could care less what function it calls internally.

Maybe i should say "LINE" without SP (to avoid nitpicking) but check your link and you'll see that there is Straight splines too and spline don't have to have more than 2 points, sure it can (and many do mostly B-splines) but it can be 2 points (sp)line also. Check diagrams beside Irwin-Hall spline and you'll clearly see knots on each break so you can just delete all but 2 points and have (sp)line with 2 points, same as in 1st grade school geometry class when teached draws 2 points (A and B) and draws line between them and calls it (sp)line :).

2-point polys are relict/workaround for LW's inability of rendering actual (sp)lines like other apps do. Did LWavers got to use them, sure we god many workflows developed out of them (like MettaLink or similar tricks to animate 2-point polys and use that to deform higher poly objects etc. etc.) but you have to work with what you have and since we didn't' have render-able or usable (for animation) splines in layout we had to do it other way :). Some even think stuff wouldn't be possible without them but hey lot of LWavers think only LWway of doping things is the "right way" so that's normal around here (and expected) but doesn't mean it's true/fact ;).

BUT then again, none of that has much to do with this TOPIC, we all (well at least most of us who tried somethign else than LW ;)) know tons of workarounds (som of them ar nowdays called workflow ;)) and Lw shortcomings. Thing is that we are not getting cleaned tool set when they add new tool and new tool sadly don't replace (or update in first place instead write new) old tool fully so they are pileing-on on to already big pile :(.

erikals
11-21-2013, 02:25 AM
and while on it >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdxwWKBy4gU

this OpenGL speed would be nice...

prometheus
11-21-2013, 08:32 AM
I don't have LWCAD. Don't know what do you mean by that. And what it has to do with 2 point polygons.

If 2 point polygons would not exist, then lines would have to be replaced by 2 triangles or 1 quads at least. Thickness of quads cannot be changed in Layout. 2 point polygons (or splines if they would be renderable) can be changed.



I am writing plugin for LW for making circuits. Pick up resistor tool, place it in viewport, move handles, pick up transistor tool, choose NPN/PNP, etc. place, pick diode tool, whether it's LED, Zener, or fotodiode, place etc. etc.

I see no sense in getting rid of 2 point polygons and replacing them by need to have 2 point spline, which will be simulating straight line.

Splines are quantized. When renderer starts they are frozen to 2 point lines with defined accuracy, that are easy to find out by rendering functions. So, from 2 point spline it'll end up 20-100 2 point lines.


So whatīs the inspiration for the writing of an Lw electronic circuit cad plugin?
Just wondering ..I donīt see any benifit of it except for free uses and maybe something for your own, But thatīs maybe what you thought?
I beleive there is some free electronic cad software out there with quite a lot of options and librarys and general UI adapted for best handling this, better than lightwave would do, and I believe there wouldnīt be any difficulties to export it either.

Just curious....I would rather see you spend time on some hair styling tools, which you seem to have done before:) ..and I thought it looked way better than fiberfx tools,
but I have no right to decide and shoulnīt open my mouth att all to were you spend your development time of course:) just questioning if there will be any decent amount
of interest for electronic cad tools in Lightwave.

Interesting to hear you talk about hair guides and the fiberfx guides etc, I would like to see improvements more close to cinema4d hair styling, which seems to be nurbs guides..
or at least the option to use that, and the styling of the guides seems fast and also with options to actually cut style the guides..working with hair guides in Lightwave layout is a pain in the..

Drawing of spline guides, spline motion paths, spline particle velocity path directly in Layout is something for drool for, but you all know the issues of lack of layout
modeling tools...I am not that fond of the new spline tool for layout and how you have to set that up, with goals and parenting,
Itīs a nice addition, but could be better.

nor do I like the wind dynamics animation path tool or the lack of simply drawing a spline motion path in layout, the workflow would be much faster if modeling tools like that would work in layout.
adding and cloning null and move them individual is an inefficient way to set it up, drawing a spline along select bone chain, or just pick bone chain and add a spline guide
script to create it all from scratch is better, maybe that might have been written in a python script somewhere..or it may show up?

Same goes for wind dynamic animation path, why just donīt draw a spline path, then a connect tool that connects it to an emitter and off you go, node controls auto setup
...if the draw spline velocity path is developed that way of course, I hate to add nulls and worry about wich null to move and scale etc.

Michael

bobakabob
11-21-2013, 12:39 PM
It depends on the kind of stuff you do but I LOVE 2 point polys, especially for sci fi modelling and rendering. There's enormous control over the thickness of them, they're versatile and can be rendered out as pipes wires or hair, example below.

I agree with Sensei, they're far from junk and make Lightwave unique. I haven't seen an easy way to replicate in Max or XSI (correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see the point (excuse the pun) of dumping them. If you don't need them, deleting is a cinch.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8424/7709587326_369bc5ed14_h.jpg

mav3rick
11-21-2013, 03:51 PM
well making some 3d app UNIQUE geometry is not good ..... imho if you target for studios standardization is priority.... so 2 point poly is defo crap

mav3rick
11-21-2013, 04:31 PM
double post

Lewis
11-21-2013, 04:45 PM
It depends on the kind of stuff you do but I LOVE 2 point polys, especially for sci fi modelling and rendering. There's enormous control over the thickness of them, they're versatile and can be rendered out as pipes wires or hair, example below.

I agree with Sensei, they're far from junk and make Lightwave unique. I haven't seen an easy way to replicate in Max or XSI (correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see the point (excuse the pun) of dumping them. If you don't need them, deleting is a cinch.


Ofcourse you can do that without 2-point polys in MAX, you just choose rendererable splines or like in C4D you can even choose what profile (out of any geometry/mesh) you want to follow/snapt to spline and what size/thickenss to be rendered so you can get this kind of stuf very eas , eaven better 'coz you can choose shape of profile (like LWCAD profiler but better 'coz it's LIVE/interactive and adjustable on the fly wihtotu destructive modeling like in LW). Evne modo can render splines nowday and modo creators made LW also so i guess they also decided that enderign spline sis mor eimportant than 2-point polys :).

Also deleting 2-point polys 100 times each day ain't fun at all so it's nto that easy as you think/say. Weld and merge tool leave that junk geometry behind all day long so when you model A LOT , especialyl in subPatches or CCs it gets in a way very much and you get constant error messages form modeler or even all kind of openGL glitches/creases (with CCs).

So all in all let's NOT keep LW a "unique" as you say but i'd say it's more an "island" than unique (when speakign aobut junk geometry) ;).

Surrealist.
11-21-2013, 06:57 PM
Bringing something like Hydra in would be a boost.

Junk geo is not the big deal you guys are making of it. You can get Junk geo in many apps. I do. Blender definitely. Maya all the time.

And I am pretty sure if they bring something like a new engine in it will be bye bye to 2 point poly chains as a feature but it will not likely be bye bye to junk geometry if you are sloppy. It can be avoided in LW once you know what makes it. And of course as mentioned that is why we have the happy w menu. Because none of us are perfect. Maya has a mesh cleanup feature as well.

hrgiger
11-21-2013, 11:35 PM
Bringing something like Hydra in would be a boost.

Junk geo is not the big deal you guys are making of it. You can get Junk geo in many apps. I do. Blender definitely. Maya all the time.



Big deal? No. Just think its completely unnecessary to have a geometry type like 1 and 2 point polys which only LightWave seems to make use of, yet all the other apps have alternatives that make 1 and 2 point polys completely unnecessary. And I doubt very much that even if they put new geometry engine in LW, that they will be getting rid of 2 point polygons.

Its unfortunate in any event that we don't have options to render splines.

erikals
11-21-2013, 11:46 PM
again, LightWave could have both options available.

so those who like it can use it, those who don't do not need to.

makes everybody happy... (almost at least) :P

Surrealist.
11-22-2013, 03:48 AM
Big deal? No. Just think its completely unnecessary to have a geometry type like 1 and 2 point polys which only LightWave seems to make use of, yet all the other apps have alternatives that make 1 and 2 point polys completely unnecessary. And I doubt very much that even if they put new geometry engine in LW, that they will be getting rid of 2 point polygons.

Its unfortunate in any event that we don't have options to render splines.

lol well to me that sounds like making it a bog deal.

There are a lot of things that need addressing. This is more a case of old tech that Modeler is built on than anything so I'd have to disagree. It won't be around with a new engine.

And all other apps also make this kind of junk. I think XSI is the only one I have not encountered this with- yet.

So even with a new engine there is a strong possibility you will be able to create junk just not use it.

But regardless LightWave has them. Most apps create junk. Best to learn how to use and avoid them when you don't want or need them. Part of learning to model in any app I have ever used.

The rest of the issue will be handled by NewTek as they see fit. And I will wager that that will mean replacing the old tech with e new tech that will make them obsolete.

However a decision would have to be made to drop the bridge to this as a legacy feature. They have done that before. In the interest of progress I can guess they'd do it again.

Surrealist.
11-22-2013, 05:06 AM
Speak of the devil.

Working today. Usual case, forgot to merge points or a Maya bug with extrude I don't know. Doesn't matter. Junk. In this case it was easy to see but not always and there is a clean up function that will find it.

So I can not think with this idea that LightWave is unique in that it creates junk whereas "industry standard" software does not.

The usual workflow for modeling in any app is to clean things up as you find them. LightWave is not unique in this regard. And you can learn to avoid it in most cases in LightWave.

That you can use some of this "junk" to render with is an efficient feature in LightWave's current state and will not likely survive technology enhancements in the future.

Does not mean it is the best way to have such a feature. But it is there. And there are dozens of things like this in LightWave that will hopefully not survive major technical enhancements.

hrgiger
11-22-2013, 07:30 AM
Does not mean it is the best way to have such a feature. But it is there. And there are dozens of things like this in LightWave that will hopefully not survive major technical enhancements.

We agree on most things Richard so I'm not worried that you think I'm making a big deal of it. I don't think I am. I just think this is one case (and there are dozens more) where I think LW users get so used to working one way or with one feature, that they think that they cannot achieve the same result without that feature and so everyone is like NOOOO, don't get rid of 2 point polygons because I absolutely need them. I think if spines were renderable, and they could be used for guide hairs, or you could use them as lighting effects like some other software can, then I think people would start to view 2 point polys like currently people see the 8 track player.

As far as 1 and 2 point polygons, David Ikeda has already said they won't be getting rid of them so having a new engine (possibly) coming to LW in the nearish future doesn't seem to negate this fact.

And I am not suggesting that LightWave is unique in creating junk geometry. I'm sure others do, never doubted that. And I'm quite familiar with modeling and know what operations cause junk geometry and if I really wanted to I could avoid them. However, I find that some modeling operations that cause junk geometry are sometimes the quickest and most efficient ways. Lewis must also feel the same because he says he's deleting junk geometry quite a lot and I think Lewis is probably one of the better modelers in the LW community so if you can't take my word for it, take his.

Surrealist.
11-22-2013, 09:28 AM
lol well why would I have to take anyone's word for anything?

I don't really ever care what other people think and say about the use of software. It is nothing I can qualify. That sounds harsh I know. But if I based any of my conclusions on what people say about software on the forums - and I don't care if it is William, Lewis, Lino or God himself, I would have a very slanted view of things that has nothing to do with my own experience. And I am not into that at all. And then what does that make my input? +1 to what joe said even if I have no point of reference based on experience from my use?

And I don't even care if people see me as a good bad or great artist and I am sorry if you make the mistake of looking at that as some kind of guide as to who to listen to. It is not the measure.

For me, the measure comes from my relationship between my but and the screen. And I never consider that less important than another person's take on it.

So yeah I think all you guys are making way too much out of junk geometry. I am not even singling one guy out here or pointing fingers. I just kinda find it hard to get my head around why it is such an issue for people. Period. In any software.

From my point of view, from using more than one software, it is my experience that Junk Geo happens everywhere.

In LightWave they have 2 point poly chains. Great. It is a present feature. They may or may not be replaced. Having them is not holding LightWave or its users back. About a dozen more far more important missing features are.

Please tell me there are more serious issues to discuss about LightWave.

That is more or less where I am coming from. That is if you think NewTek is listening. I can't imagine they are sitting in the cubicle pondering the significance of 2 point poly chains and junk geo when the are zillion other things to tackle and in the mist of an overhaul that is apparently in the works.

Just me and my input should they be listening. And sorry if that offends others here in the process.

Just my 2C.
EDIT: qualified by one thing. I model for a living. Pretty what I do daily. Full time. And I have used a few different packages in this capacity. This this is my view from my experience as a modeler.

Sensei
11-22-2013, 09:48 AM
If we have 5 point polygon and will select one of point, hit delete point or remove point, there is created 4 point polygon.

If we have 4 point polygon and will select one of point, hit delete, there is created 3 point polygon.

If we have 3 point polygon and will select one of point, hit delete, there is created 2 point polygon.

If we have 2 point polygon and will select one of point, hit delete, there is created 1 point polygon.

That's how you are getting 1-2 point polygons the most of time!
You WANTED to have them- instead of deleting triangle, you pressed delete point on triangle, and done- you received what you requested.
If you selected edge, pressed 'e' to Extend, then changed mind and dropped selection, quad polygon with 0 edge length and 0 area is still there, on your own request. After Merge Points it will be 2 point polygon in future.

1-2 point polygons are invisible in viewports if they're sharing edge/point with other >=3 point polygon. But they are at least visible in Statistics window (unlike polygons with 0 area)!

If polygon with any number of points is using exactly the same points multiple times, it has edges with 0 length, and might have area equal 0.
That's exactly what is on Surrealists screen-shot
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=118338&d=1385121264

In other apps you can have thousands of triangles with 0 area, which would look like straight line, when they have vertexes v0,v0,v1 (shared two vertexes), and have no bloody idea that you have such mess.

hrgiger
11-22-2013, 10:20 AM
Sigh. As I mentioned earlier, its all a moot point because they're in all likelihood not going to get rid of them. So, not intended to be a debate. I simply made a single statement asserting my opinion that there is no need for 1_2 point polygons and that they should just eliminate them from LightWave. Then Sensei said it was a stupid feature request, Richard said that LW is not the only software that produces junk geometry (which I never said otherwise- just that LW is the only software that seems to make use of them) Bobakabob said that he couldn't do sci-fi stuff without them, said we needed them for hair chains so I continued the discussion on those points. This is a discussion forum after all yes?

And Richard of course there are more important things to address in LightWave. Again, not something I argued. But this is a thread about modeler and its issues. And there are more important things to addess in modeler specifically then 1 and 2 point polygons by far. But as I mentioned earlier, it amazes me to see something like 1 and 2 point polygons held up as if they're something unique and powerful in LightWave that apparently no other software had the genius to come up with. They may be unique, but there are just better ways to do things sometimes.

Tobian
11-22-2013, 10:33 AM
Junk geometry is always going to be an issue: even if you did get rid of 1 & 2 point polies, you can easily make non-manifold geometry, which even the stats window has a hard time detecting... In the short term a good solution would be to have a simple shortcut which cleaned 1 & 2 point polys, stray points and non manifold polys, and slowly introduce more tools which just don't make as many of them... most of the edge pack tools for example don't...

I agree we also need spine and curve rendering and primitives... handled like line rendering, as that is really nice now..

bobakabob
11-22-2013, 12:11 PM
I think if spines were renderable, and they could be used for guide hairs, or you could use them as lighting effects like some other software can, then I think people would start to view 2 point polys like currently people see the 8 track player.

Fair point, renderable splines would certainly be an improvement. In LW at present you can only freeze splines into 2point poly chains which only appear smooth if the resolution is high.

I mainly model characters and organic stuff in LW Modeler and encounter problems with junk occasionally. Unwanted 2point polys can usually be identified in the Poly -> Stats window and zapped. True as there are rare situations where there seems to be "hidden junk" which is particularly bothersome when working in subDs and for some reason doesn't appear in the Stats window. If specialist hard surface modellers are really getting annoyed using tools like extrude perhaps there should be a facility to automatically dump it, say a default "delete 2point polys" tick box in the numeric panel to ensure a junk free Modelling experience. Btw, Call me sad but it's an interesting debate :)

Surrealist.
11-22-2013, 12:39 PM
Sigh. As I mentioned earlier, its all a moot point because they're in all likelihood not going to get rid of them. So, not intended to be a debate. I simply made a single statement asserting my opinion that there is no need for 1_2 point polygons and that they should just eliminate them from LightWave. Then Sensei said it was a stupid feature request, Richard said that LW is not the only software that produces junk geometry (which I never said otherwise- just that LW is the only software that seems to make use of them) Bobakabob said that he couldn't do sci-fi stuff without them, said we needed them for hair chains so I continued the discussion on those points. This is a discussion forum after all yes?

And Richard of course there are more important things to address in LightWave. Again, not something I argued. But this is a thread about modeler and its issues. And there are more important things to addess in modeler specifically then 1 and 2 point polygons by far. But as I mentioned earlier, it amazes me to see something like 1 and 2 point polygons held up as if they're something unique and powerful in LightWave that apparently no other software had the genius to come up with. They may be unique, but there are just better ways to do things sometimes.

Dude I never quoted you and intended to say you said all of that. Just making a statement of regarding the lot of points made on this thing that I have seen. Not going to read the whole thread and did not even read your initial post.

Sorry if it was taken directly at you in particular, it wasn't. At least not until you quoted me and responded... :D

More like, so a guy makes a comment about 2 point poly and that goes into this heated debate?

Wow.

Sorry if you felt singled out. :)

hrgiger
11-22-2013, 12:54 PM
I'm not worried about it Richard. I'm a big boy, I'm not concerned about everyone having to agree with me. But I still don't see it as debate, just a discussion as far as I can see it.

As far the 2 point poly thing, this goes back to early CORE days. One of the promises of CORE (which is pretty much meaningless now) was that it would not introduce junk geometry. So when its mentioned now, its just another one of those things that CORE set out to do that we're still waiting for concerning legacy issues.

Surrealist.
11-22-2013, 01:55 PM
Interesting. Actually I did not know that they said that about CORE.

So I can kinda see your point a little clearer now. :)

Lewis
11-23-2013, 05:24 AM
Problem with LW junk is that it comes as a side effect with regular tools. I don't mind having 2-point and 1-point polys as an option (although i still stand at claim they aren't polygons techically) but what i DO mind is that LWM is creating them on it's own will and not just when user may want it.

Biggest culprit in my wokrflow is Weld/Weld Average tools which i use a LOT and when you weld 2 pairs of points twice in a row you get 2-point poly in between = unwanted JUNK. If there would be and OPTION/Checkmark to stop LWM from creating them automatically I'd be happy with that "solution". Rigth now i literarly need to select in stats window and delete them hundred of times each day, especiall when workign with SubD, so every time you hit TAB LW argues about JUNK (why does LW argues abotu it if is sooo needed/good, why doens't Subpatch or CCs ignore them instead giving an Error Message every time ?? If somethign is so important to LW workflwo why can't LW own tool recognize that and not make openGL errors(CCs) and stop arguing about it :)?).

In Max WELD tool (Target Weld actually) don't crate junk at all, you can weld all day long and it wont' make you 2-point polys - all clean geometry. As a matter of fact if you make junk geo on a mesh and export that as *.OBJ from LWM and try to import that in MAX, MAX will tell you you have and error and refuse to import that geometry. BUT if you export from LWO to FBX then it'll work fine BUT (here it comes good part) LW epoxt to FBX deletes Junk geometry automatically wihtout asking so when you load that same LWM exported FBX to LWM again it has no JUNK geometry so you "lost" your precious 2-point / 1-point polys :). So all in all many "industry standard" file formats don't support Junk geometry ('simply 'coz it's Junk ;)) so if they can surviwe industry without Junk geometry then we sure can do too. Granted that requires LW to actually start using splines for renderign and for other stuff whcih LW cant' do at the monemt and it developed this weird workarounds since forever so that's why we are stuck in LWmindset way of thinking ther eis no other/better way to solve that.

hrgiger
11-23-2013, 06:14 AM
Biggest culprit in my wokrflow is Weld/Weld Average tools which i use a LOT and when you weld 2 pairs of points twice in a row you get 2-point poly in between = unwanted JUNK. If there would be and OPTION/Checkmark to stop LWM from creating them automatically I'd be happy with that "solution". Rigth now i literarly need to select in stats window and delete them hundred of times each day, especiall when workign with SubD, so every time you hit TAB LW argues about JUNK (why does LW argues abotu it if is sooo needed/good, why doens't Subpatch or CCs ignore them instead giving an Error Message every time ?? If somethign is so important to LW workflwo why can't LW own tool recognize that and not make openGL errors(CCs) and stop arguing about it :)?).



:bowdown:

Surrealist.
11-23-2013, 07:12 AM
Biggest culprit in my wokrflow is Weld/Weld Average tools which i use a LOT and when you weld 2 pairs of points twice in a row you get 2-point poly in between = unwanted JUNK.

We have a different approach I guess. At any time I need to do this I delete the poly first. The most tempting is the triangle because you just want to close it.

For this reason I have developed a certain discipline in other apps I model in. Perhaps a good thing as it makes me aware that can create junk so beware...

In LightWave's current state it would probably be a more direct approach to create a tool that allows you to dissolve points. I don't think it would be that hard to create a plugin that would do that. Because the real issue is you don't want to be deleting polygons 100 times per day either if that is your workflow.

Not an issue for me because I don't do it 100 times a day. I use other approaches or simply not annoyed by using the stats window.

I just don't see this as a fair argument for junk geometry, tied in with industry standards, other apps etc. etc. etc. To me it is just not an issue for modeling. If I am going 2 point polys I do it intentionally only to use in LightWave and there is no reason to be exporting them.

Although I certainly respect the workflow of other people I am also a modeler. I do it for a living. My feed back on it is what I have stated thus far.

And I don't think you can lump all these things together and try to make a case about something that I think in the broader scope is fairly insignificant.

My approach is to always embrace the tool I am working in. When in Rome kind a thing. When in LigthtWave delete the poly first.

hrgiger
11-23-2013, 09:03 AM
Richard im not suggesting they get rid of 1 or 2 point polys before they put in something that can take its place. You said in your previous post that you dont see any of this as an argument for junk geometry. But what im asking is, if something were introduced to replace 2 point polys, what is the argument for keeping them? Because thats the way it has been done in LightWave for years?

tischbein3
11-23-2013, 10:07 AM
As said before in similar thread, I want 2 point polys beeing extended to be able to subpatched and the general support of most of the tools on them
(knife subdivision etc): They a great for helper lines and perfect for shaping out topology... and beeing just a (one dimension less) version of a 3d polygon would make them (in their subpatched format ) even more valuable,flexible and interoperable then a simple spline would ever be.

But yes I'm pretty alone with that pov...(using blenders edges* wich do feature this functionality and enjoying it.)

(* omg a edge without a poly)

erikals
11-23-2013, 10:31 AM
i think i can make a AHK script that solves some of that Lewis... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/047.gif

Surrealist.
11-23-2013, 10:55 AM
Richard im not suggesting they get rid of 1 or 2 point polys before they put in something that can take its place. You said in your previous post that you dont see any of this as an argument for junk geometry. But what im asking is, if something were introduced to replace 2 point polys, what is the argument for keeping them? Because thats the way it has been done in LightWave for years?

I don't care about them one way or the other. They don't bother me when modeling any more than any other junk does I can and do get in other apps. It is just a fact of life. Lewis likes to decimate polygons by deleting points (in order to achieve a particular result with regards to merging points which is a valid approach). OK workflow noted. You can do that in some other apps no problem. Not my approach when I model in LightWave knowing ahead of time that is just going to give me junk. In other apps there are other sequences I have to avoid using that give me junk.

I just don't see LightWave as unique in this industry in regards to Junk. XSI apparently is because I don't seem to recall ever getting junk there. But it is likely because I have not pushed it far enough yet. But from what I have seen it seems to be fairly solid. I can not say the same for Blender or Maya.

Modeling with edges in Blender as mentioned above is not really the same. You get into a different workflow in Blender because of the fact that it lets you use edges as primitives. (similar to extruding splines) And also because of other limitations that kinda force you into working with Blender on an edge level. But Blender can also give you junk edges. Not in the same way as LightWave but you can get them easily.

Maya has its own version of junk.

I don't know about other apps than these.

So what are we left with?

Nothing. Not really much to discuss other than some people like to model in a way that gives them junk and others don't. Most apps have junk, so what? Why is this an issue and why is it tied in with using a present feature of LightWave?

Because you can use 2 point polys in LightWave. And the only argument I can think of to keep them after new tech is introduced to replace using them would be as a legacy feature for backwards compatibility.

My take on that would be loose them. If possible. Great. Why not?

As long as it does not make a huge development cycle (time) out of it. Otherwise leave them alone and move on to making LightWave Modeler something I would not mind modeling in again on a regular basis.

Junk geo happens in Maya and there are tools to get rid of them, I don't see a huge push to get rid of this and it does not seem to be holding back large studios from using Maya. Not that it is the best modeling app mind you. But it has to be way down the list of importance and likely not that easy to do. Otherwise why would there be a clean up tool?

So bringing Modeler out of the stone age to me has nothing to do with junk geometry. Not everyone will agree. Just chiming in with my take on it.

Snosrap
11-23-2013, 11:00 AM
Isn't it really just a matter of keeping the next generation of LW compatible with older content? And wouldn't that be in the best interest of NT and it's users so that the latest version of LW be compatible with older content? If at a later time NT can develop tools that don't make unwanted junk - won't that meet everyone's needs? Users that want and use the junk will be satisfied and those that want to use tools that don't make junk will be happy too.

jeric_synergy
11-23-2013, 11:17 AM
wait a minute: here's giger (once again banging on about freekin' CORE, jfc) saying there's no need, ie. USE, for 1 & 2 polys, and here's several other users saying they use them all the time.

So, which IS it: pointless or useful?


ADDING spline capabilities seems like a good idea (esp for lights), but SUBTRACTING capabilities just seems both pointless and stupid. Esp considering how easy it is to find and delete 1&2 point polys-- how long is that script?

hrgiger
11-23-2013, 12:52 PM
wait a minute: here's giger (once again banging on about freekin' CORE, jfc) saying there's no need, ie. USE, for 1 & 2 polys, and here's several other users saying they use them all the time.

So, which IS it: pointless or useful?


ADDING spline capabilities seems like a good idea (esp for lights), but SUBTRACTING capabilities just seems both pointless and stupid. Esp considering how easy it is to find and delete 1&2 point polys-- how long is that script?

Eric im not saying 2 point polys are useless. And the whole reason they are useful in Lightwave is becasue we dont have a viable alternative to them right now. If we did have a spline solution for rendering lines then my argument would be at that point 2 point polys would no longer be useful.
And YES we should be subtracting capabilities from Lightwave as we add new and better solutions. One of the many things many people complain about modeler is the fact that we have a lot of repetition in the tools. There needs to be some consolidation in the toolset.

And as far as freekin CORE goes, i will stop banging away on that when i start to see this change in development from that time bear fruit towards that idea of a unified framework.

jeric_synergy
11-23-2013, 02:05 PM
Then call it "unified framework", not that abortion CORE.

I don't see what all the typing is about: so WHAT if we have 2point polys-- people have found a use for them, and getting rid of them will cause whoKnowsHowMuch legacy issues. Ignore them.

Lewis
11-23-2013, 02:31 PM
Lewis likes to decimate polygons by deleting points (in order to achieve a particular result with regards to merging points which is a valid approach). OK workflow noted. You can do that in some other apps no problem. Not my approach when I model in LightWave knowing ahead of time that is just going to give me junk. In other apps there are other sequences I have to avoid using that give me junk.


NOT at all. where did i say I'm deletign points ? I total am not doign that. Do i really need to make a video so you understand what I'm talking about or you really never used weld average on 2 pair of points in a row and got "line" i.e. 2-point poly in between as leftower ? Banglue dont' help 'coz i don't want loop, dissolve/delete edges isnt' solution 'coz i want to keep similar curvature so I want new edge to be in between and also dissolve/deletign edge leaves points at open edges whcih is another bad idea (in MAX you can use Delete or Backspace depending do you WANT to left points (all no just open edge) or not so it gives user flexibility and power of both modes, LW just does half job there :(. I just want/need par tof mesh (I use it a lot when creatign LODs for games 'coz i need to create one from hi-poly to low poly version so weldign average is my best firend there to get less polys and yet keep similar curvature sicne we dont' have backgroudn snap in LW so i coudl modle over it, granted line pen helps a bit now but it ha sit's own set of problems so that workflwo still can't replace weldign and welding is just faster 'coz it keeps same shape of model wihtotu backgroudn snap whcih we don't have anyway :)).

And as i said MAX dones't create junk wiht Welding so why do you keep naming other apps as excuse and total yignoring that ther eis tools that does not create junk after welding, doe smaa create 2-point poly after welding like LWM?

Also, arging that some other apps create junk and leftowers so that's reason why LW should have it is just...... well nonsesne :). So in other words ist sounds lik if any other app has somethign broken we should have it broken in LW too then just to follow along and say it's same, God forbid we have it better or properly done - right :D?

Lewis
11-23-2013, 02:33 PM
Isn't it really just a matter of keeping the next generation of LW compatible with older content? And wouldn't that be in the best interest of NT and it's users so that the latest version of LW be compatible with older content? If at a later time NT can develop tools that don't make unwanted junk - won't that meet everyone's needs? Users that want and use the junk will be satisfied and those that want to use tools that don't make junk will be happy too.

Sure, that's the whole point, but part of LWavers (mostly those who don't use uther apps) think that 2-poitn polys is something they couldn't live without and that would be truth IF they remove 2-point polys but not include renderable/tweakable (SP)Lines whcih should be there from day one so we woudln't even have this debate at all, but then it would be boring here :D ;).

Lewis
11-23-2013, 02:43 PM
Then call it "unified framework", not that abortion CORE.

I don't see what all the typing is about: so WHAT if we have 2point polys-- people have found a use for them, and getting rid of them will cause whoKnowsHowMuch legacy issues. Ignore them.

Do you even read the topic or what ? What part of fact that renderable splines woudl be able to do all what we are doing with 2-point polys now is not clear to you ? Can you show me use where 2-point polys is better than proper deformable/animatable/editable/renderable spline would be lackign comparing to 2-point poly workaround we need to do now ? show me an exampel where spline woudlnt' work and 2-poitn poly would, please.

Also please rearead the posts, It's not problem in 2-point polys per se, problem is that LWM creates them WITHOUT user will, they are created as side effect of using some other tools whcih then requires user action to remove them on and on dozen of times to prevent LW own tools (TAB) to argue about junk geometry and make errors at screen (try to activate CCs wiht 2-point poly and see how model looks teared).

Even if there is tool that removes them at just one click it's still 20,30,50,100.... unnecesary clicks on modeling session that could be avoided wiht simple FIX of weld/weld average tools. And we did got Weld 2.0 and Weld Average 2.0 as better than original Weld tools (which are still there included - who knows why? 'coz 2.0 does all same and also works on symmetry so it's better than 1.0 and old weld should have been removed from day they coded weld2.0 which should just become Weld so all shortcuts and tools would still work and look same and we would have cleaner app with updated Weld tool instead duplication of tools as is now.)

Kuzey
11-23-2013, 03:03 PM
Avoiding the creation of unwanted 2-point polys would be the best option...having tools extended, so it automatically deletes 2-point polys at the end of use, would be a workaround..still, better to avoid them :)

If you create a ball and select half the polygons and then use "Merge Polys" you are left with a hole bunch of 2-points you don't want or need...I never understood why deleting/merging polygons did not delete the points as well...grrr

Anyway :) :)

Surrealist.
11-23-2013, 03:15 PM
NOT at all. where did i say I'm deletign points ? I total am not doign that. Do i really need to make a video so you understand what I'm talking about or you really never used weld average on 2 pair of points in a row and got "line"

Come on Lewis, I am not taking this bait. You read my other post. You know I know exactly what you are taking about. Even if you didn't you know me. But nice try. :D

I don't have an issue with your workflow. But explaining how you are using LW for LOD sheds a bit of light on things that's for sure. No wonder you are getting so much junk! I am Thinking, why is Lewis complaining about junk so much...? Wow. OK. I understand. I would never use LW for Level of detail... but I do understand why you are using that tool for it.

Makes sense.


I do think a script or something would be warranted in your case and for anyone doing this kind of decimation a lot. But I really think that Modeler could use better LOD tools in general.


XSI is very solid in regard to junk geometry and has nice LOD tools and Maya even got one recently. Does not do it all automatic but gets you dialed in pretty close. Doesn't Max have something like that?

But yeah making reference to other apps in this case is completely relevant. I am sure you know I am not saying keep it around just because other apps have it.

But I am saying that in view of the fact that Modeler has sooooooooo far to go to get up to speed, it is just my opinion it goes waaaaayyyyy down the list.

Stating that other apps have it is only illustrating the proper importance to me.

That is my opinion.

Lewis
11-23-2013, 03:16 PM
Avoiding the creation of unwanted 2-point polys would be the best option...having tools extended, so it automatically deletes 2-point polys at the end of use, would be a workaround..still, better to avoid them :)

If you create a ball and select half the polygons and then use "Merge Polys" you are left with a hole bunch of 2-points you don't want or need...I never understood why deleting/merging polygons did not delete the points as well...grrr

Anyway :) :)

Exactly, and you showed another example which just confirms that tool was not designed well as the topic title says afterall. I'm pretty sure that 95% of cases when you delete poition of ball as you explained you don't want all those 2-point polys :). And if somene wants then better option woudl be to select edge(s)= and get tool called 2make 2-point poly" so you woudln't nee dot use tricks as edge estend or Bevel+RMB click+merge to create them :).

Workflow poeple, we need faster workflow and we need non desturctiv eone.

BTW for those who still don't think splines are better option than 2-poin tpolys check out some Cinema4D Spline videos and notice it's non destructive workflow i.e you can change what you did withut undo/remodel ;).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5TRSukJTCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kGZ5fGQ8SI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTwBRyMwhK0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9yE8pJTy9o

Oedo 808
11-23-2013, 03:25 PM
BTW for those who still don't think splines are better option than 2-poin tpolys check out some Cinema4D Spline videos and notice it's non destructive workflow i.e you can change what you did withut undo/remodel ;).

They look terrible, we don't want any of that rubbish.*









*May not be true.

Sensei
11-23-2013, 03:33 PM
If you create a ball and select half the polygons and then use "Merge Polys" you are left with a hole bunch of 2-points you don't want or need...I never understood why deleting/merging polygons did not delete the points as well...grrr


LW v11.6
create > ball
polygon mode
select half ball polys
detail > polygons > merge polys
I don't have any 2 point polygons
There are just 1 points, without any polygons.

Lewis
11-23-2013, 03:39 PM
LW v11.6
create > ball
polygon mode
select half ball polys
detail > polygons > merge polys
I don't have any 2 point polygons
There are just 1 points, without any polygons.

Do this now:

1. Create a ball and go to POINT mode
2. Select like half of ball points
3. Hit delete key
4. Let us know how many 1-point and 2-point poly junk you got :D

Kuzey
11-23-2013, 03:39 PM
LW v11.6
create > ball
polygon mode
select half ball polys
detail > polygons > merge polys
I don't have any 2 point polygons
There are just 1 points, without any polygons.

Yeah well...you still have to delete them after you delete the polygons :)

ps..why do they call them 0 polygons anyway?

double ps..there should be a check box somewhere to not create 0-point, 1-point or 2-point polygons

Sensei
11-23-2013, 04:02 PM
Do this now:

1. Create a ball and go to POINT mode
2. Select like half of ball points
3. Hit delete key
4. Let us know how many 1-point and 2-point poly junk you got :D

1. Learn how read in primary school
2. Read what I posted in post #86
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?138769-multiply-features-of-same-thing-bad-designed&p=1354909&viewfull=1#post1354909

You ASKED to have 2 point polygons on your own REQUEST.

ps. Result of Merge Polys is completely different from deleting points. Result from 1st is at least closed geometry.

How to not screw up your own object? Instead of deleting points, delete polygons...
And you don't have to remove unwanted (wanted, because it was created on your own request) 2 point polygons..

Lewis
11-23-2013, 04:08 PM
Sensei, What are you talking aobut now ? Can you be litle more polite instead insulting? Whad does your post have to do with my procedure to show you how to get mor eunnecesary junk geometry? You always just go away from topic or bang around some irrelevant way of working whcih is not evne on the topic when somene whows you how wrong you are, you never can admit when you are wrong - can you?

Can you answer my question instead insulting ? Please repeat my steps and answer - just that, no need for some extra different explanation, just answer why do we get so many junk geo if we delete point(s) from simple sphere, that simple, thank you.

Sensei
11-23-2013, 04:52 PM
Insult? I found you ignorant a long time ago.. Mine personal opinion. Simple as that.

Half of your posts, I have to resist to not comment them..

If you have quad polygon, selected 2 points of quad, pressed delete, or remove points, selected points stop existing, or are removed from polygon.
It's becoming 2 point polygon.
You WANTED this on your own REQUEST.
You didn't delete polygon, you deleted/remove points from existing polygon. Polygon is only deleted when it has 0 points attached.
If you have 2 points polygon, select 1st point of it, press delete, it's removed, and 2 point polygon is becoming 1 point polygon.
I have showed this all in #86 post. If you would bother reading it with understanding it, you could be enlightened, and stop creating crap geometry.

The same is with sphere: create sphere, select half sphere in point mode, press delete, when 2 points are used by quad, 2 other points of quad are remaining, and producing 2 point polygon..

Select half of sphere in polygon mode, press delete, and there will be no single 2 point polygon!

Rendering engine capable to render splines is FREEZING splines at every single initialization of rendering routine to 2 point lines. That's all behind scene.
Splines in native form are NOT possible to be found by rendering engine (it would need to regenerate spline points every single ray-trace through bounding box of spline object, causing dramatic slow down).
Freezing routine is generating so dense 2 point lines that you have no idea it's just 10,20,50 etc. straight lines. It's cleaned up after renderer is finishing renderer. And regenerated again after starting rendering. Which is increasing overall rendering time.

What is sense having 2 point spline, that is straight line, over having 2 point polygon that's exactly the same.
Except 2 point polygon is possible to render as is, when spline is not possible to be found by renderer, until it's frozen to 2 point lines by internal code.

Surrealist.
11-23-2013, 05:06 PM
Come on guys! We all are on the same page we all know how to make junk GEO!

You can not, grown men that you are, be carrying on a serious discussion and trying to accuse the other of not knowing how to use LightWave in this capacity. What a waste of energy!

Leave it alone already!

Since we all know how to make them , how to avoid them, why they are there it leaves only two topics of discussion in opinion.

1) Should any app make junk?

In a perfect world no. But in reality many apps do. And it is my opinion that it is not an easy thing to avoid. I could be wrong. But it is my experience using other apps. You may disagree. That's OK.

2) Are there better workflows that LightWave could embrace?

Yes. Many. But in my opinion junk geo is way down the list.

2 Point polys is not the same thing as "junk" in LightWave because currently it is something LightWave can use, like other apps use splines etc. There are better workflows for 2 Point polygons. LightWave does not have them yet. Also so many things in Modeler need changes and upgrades. If they can clean up geometry creation in the process. Great. If not. Move on to other things.

Lewis
11-23-2013, 05:11 PM
Insult? I found you ignorant a long time ago.. Mine personal opinion. Simple as that.

Half of your posts, I have to resist to not comment them..

Only half ? Jezz I have same urge for 99% of your posts :) :p.

Please resist in future 'coz you obviously are ignorant about what good modeling workflow actually is, One day if you actually start serious modelng you will understand what good modeling workflow means and why users tend/strive for LESS clicks, not more clicks :). Thank you.



It's becoming 2 point polygon.
You WANTED this on your own REQUEST.

I think you didn't read my posts correctly then 'coz you are Quoting and linking to Richards' (Surralist) post and not mine , you relaize you are qouting him and showing his Maya screengrab not mine - righ? I didn't request 2-point polys, I don't need them but then i actually model in LW unlike you so you don't understand the problem whcih is visible from your posts.
And as usually with your post you didn't answer the question (How many junk polys oyu got after my 3 steps procedure?). I don't care what's going on under the hood (you need to stop thining aobut enginering if oyu plan to debate about Artistic workflows 'coz artist need workflow not numbers how it works under the hood) and why i just gave you reproducing steps for when LW creates unwanted junk geometry whcih is very simple to follow and has no use in 99% of cases = requires user to select/delete leftower goemetry every time = bad/slow workflow.

Its really that simple, SLOW Workflow

Sensei
11-23-2013, 05:34 PM
Only half ? Jezz I have same urge for 99% of your posts :) :p.


Good that you didn't read mine tutorial how to create cosmic ray particle detector posted on physics forums capable to detect muons, pions and kaons mesons...
Obviously you couldn't understand it either how it works.. ;)

ps. If you can't understand subject, it doesn't mean you're right.. Rather reverse.

ps2. To some point, I can understand your frustration. 2 points are produced by you all the time. And you are pissed on LW for making them. But it's you who created them. The sooner you will understand #86 post, the faster you will eliminate creating them during modeling.

Lewis
11-23-2013, 05:47 PM
Good that you didn't read mine tutorial how to create cosmic ray particle detector posted on physics forums capable to detect muons, pions and kaons mesons...
Obviously you couldn't understand it either how it works.. ;)

ps. If you can't understand subject, it doesn't mean you're right.. Rather reverse.

So you again can't answer the question ? You quoted wrong post, won't answer my simple 3 step thing and you will try to change subject AGAIN - Typicaly for you when you are lost of any sensible arguments, can we go more off topic than you do on regular basis :) :D?

BTW just for your info in MAX you can use visible in OGL and renderable spline at any time (on the fly/editable - not destructive) thickness, smoothness and few other parameters of spline so you just pick any point on spline and animate it and it works and best part is you can use adaptive mode so that corncers can have perfect smoothnes (it has adaptive polygon adding) at any time if you want to fillet them. But you wouldn't knwo 'coz oyu are stuck in destructive 2-point poly mindset.

Here is some video if you can't understand benefit over LW way of working : http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/dl/item?siteID=123112&id=13922598&linkID=9241177
or this chinese video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzj-XewFVY

Adn yes you can select ANY of those points on spline and chamfer/fillet/adjust at any given time and you can animate position also, good luck with that in Lw 2-point poly way :).

people have given you numerous of exmaples where LW creates unnecesary Junk goemetry whcih then have to be deleted manually to have clean mesh and yet oyu ingonrantly try to ingore all that by some nonsensee reasoning and you cant' accept simpel fact that renderable splines like in MAX and few other apps coudl replace 2-point polys with ease and with much better options/workflows.

Sensei
11-23-2013, 06:07 PM
There was no question in the first place.
If you create sphere, select half of points, press "delete points", polygons which have 0 points will be deleted together with their points (because polygons with less than 1 point cannot exist), polygons which are on edge, have 2 points selected and 2 point not selected. Polygon is not deleted, just their quantity of points is decreased. From quad polygon on edge, there are "created" 2 point polygon (in reality they might be the same polygons as before removing points from them).

I am saying "you created 2 point polygons on your own request". If you would select half of polygons (instead of half of points), then press delete, you would not have any junk!

That's not quantum physics, so you can't not understand it..

prometheus
11-23-2013, 09:43 PM
1 Point or 2 points? whats the point here really?
pointless discussion maybe?

Thereīs no point in beeing insulting from any point of view, It is doomed to follow a path of communication pointing nowhere.
Get my point?

Good, Big smile..Big smile:)
Once upon a time, a long..long time ago, there was this group of people from lotīs of different countries, trying to build a tower to reach God, unfortunatly ..they didnīt spoke the same language and they couldnīt understand each other, and thus...the tower couldnīt be completed.

By the way, a video showcasing the workflow process, and the issues here, might help getting us understanding the argument? might work better than scrambling with words, which is ultimatly a description translation from another process, and it isnīt always accurate depending on the persons abilities to translate the process properly.


Michael

hrgiger
11-24-2013, 02:59 AM
As Lewis said, I use merge and weld average a lot. In almost everything I model. As a result it causes 2 point polygons that require cleanup. Maybe if your particular workflow doesn't cause you to create 2 point polygons, it may not seem like a big deal to you and you don't know what the fuss is about. Obviously, Lewis and I and probably others see it differently. And that's fine. It is a pain to constantly have to go to statistics panel and delete unwanted geometry. Just thinking of a typical model I build for my LWCAD presets, I would say for any particular model, I'm probably doing it 20-30 times per model. Whether you think you could avoid that with your particular workflow is irrelevant. I have found the fastest method for me to work. The weld and merge tools were put into LW for a reason and maybe if common usage of those tools is causing unwanted geometry, maybe options should be put into the tools to delete unwanted geometry automatically.

This wasn't intended to be a debate, just a discussion and it was just my opinion. There's no need to insult one another.

Lewis
11-24-2013, 03:02 AM
T
I am saying "you created 2 point polygons on your own request". If you would select half of polygons (instead of half of points), then press delete, you would not have any junk!
.

If an user wants to delete point(s) it should be properly deleted instead leaving JUNK. Many oher apps have no problem with that, only LW.

So all in all when you start understandign difference netween Wokrflow and Workaroung let me know (or start modelign to understood why is important to not have junk geometry when software wants it), then we can continue discussion.

Here is a puzzle for you (hopefully it's not too hard for you to model that :)?). I know you probably won't answer (or as usually you will skip parts when proven worng and start beating on somethign completely different) but at leaset people will relaize part of a problem little better. And NO, nobody cares why is this done under the hood so no need for you to start explaining under the hood stuff which is pointels shere 'coz it's nto workign properly anyway, point is that nobody (in 99% of cases) needs this 2-point polygon happening in these cases, so it sholdn't be made in the first place, especailly not autmatic on it's own. And as you see this can't be done by deletign polygons (you would know tha that there is certian shapes that are not doable just by deletign Quad polys if you actually model in LW) 'coz they are Quads not Tris so you can't select polys in that direction to get tilted hole that way wihtout further remodeling = SLOWer. Or try my other example with welding you can't avodi Junk if you are welding since LW inssist on creatign it on it's own, And BTW try to switch to Catmul-Clark SubDs and you'll even get openGL/render errors also unless you delete JUNK first :( (you can weld that in MAX and won't give you any JUNK geometry). Any yes, I know worakaorunds very well to do it in poly mode and with some other tools but that's just not the point - point is that welding, merging and deleting POINTS in LW leaves unwanted JUNK and it shouldn't. It's one thing to create2-point pols if you need it ('coz we can't render (sp)lines like most other 3D software) but doing it aotomatic (liek LWM does) on it's own is not a good workflow.

mav3rick
11-24-2013, 03:32 AM
are we really going to end debating junk geometry beeping good for 3d app ? weird

geo_n
11-24-2013, 04:16 AM
Modeller is on its last legs. Only lightwave among the mainstream 3d packages doesn't even have a viable retopo toolset, can't handle millions of polys well. Effort should not be focused in modeller imo. Putting hyrda engine in modeller is a bad idea. It should be in a unified layout. But david ikeda doesn't develop for layout so....

Emmanuel
11-24-2013, 07:55 AM
Well, its true, I guess, but still, I work with it daily, although Blender sneaks in more often nowadays. Thing is, if I need to get a job done, I do it, doesnt matter if things take an hour longer all in all, I have even been using edgemodeling a lot yet.
I could use some basic sculpting for furniture,cloth, environment modelling, and yes, unified LW would be great, just today had the problem that I deleted a layer of an lwo in layout, but resyching between layout and modeler took several workarounds and tries, so that is definitly nothing to be proud of.

Surrealist.
11-24-2013, 08:54 AM
Frankly I have modeled easily as much or more than most people here in LightWave and I have never had this issue with 2 point polys you guys are talking about so all of this is news to me. As I said before as a matter of habbit I don't work that way because I know what it does.

And it proves that not all of us work the same way and for unique reasons.

The problem with the argument about LightWave junk is that it is tied into how LightWave works. Not just that the 2 point polys can be used, but because this is at the core of the program itself. If you remove the way it creates junk you remove a "feature" as well as how the entire system hangs together.

So what do you do?

Write a plugin, develop yet another tool to add to the pile. Because right now it is the only solution that has any hope of happening. So discussing it with any kind of meaning is not going to go anywhere. We can discuss this till we are blue in the face and it won't change anything.

I believe there are other things more important.

For those that do find this important I feel you have only one choice realistically and that is to start focusing this energy on a realistic immediate goal which would be to get someone to write a script or p that will do this automatically.

It is not ideal.

But if you are really finding this a need and there are others that feel the same way, start a lobby for a new tool or script.

Reaching for the stars and trying to seek out some kind of new LightWave that fixes all of this not very realistic. What is accomplished? Nothing. NewTek is gonna do what they do with LightWave. And right now or any near time in the future they are not going to be able to rip apart modeler and replace it. Realistically that is what we are asking here.

And then add to that add what would be a fairly significant feature change to render splines is a long way off.

hrgiger
11-24-2013, 10:06 AM
Modeller is on its last legs. Only lightwave among the mainstream 3d packages doesn't even have a viable retopo toolset, can't handle millions of polys well. Effort should not be focused in modeller imo. Putting hyrda engine in modeller is a bad idea. It should be in a unified layout. But david ikeda doesn't develop for layout so....

I dont know if I'd go so far as to say Modeler is on its last legs. If by that you mean that it is falling behind the times on how a lot of people model today then in that I'd partially agree with you. Youre right retopo tools are becoming increasingly common and the fact that Modeler is extremely slow at mid to high polygon counts. It also lacks any parametric modeling, history/modifier stack and its CC subdivision leaves a lot to be desired. It also needs a workplane. But for most things day to day its good for what it does. Adding GoZ in LW11 as well as the tools in LWCAD, it still has a lot of value. But its lack of development over the past several years makes it feel quite old when you are wishing it had one of the features listed above. Part of the hope of having modeling in a new unified framework might not only give us some of the above benefits but also the ability to keyframe modeling operations.

probiner
11-24-2013, 07:29 PM
-A) Junk geometry
-1) 2-point-polys and 1-point-polys
"You need to plan ahead" or "Model carefully" does not stick. The problem with these types of polygons is not that they are possible, its more that their generation is not explicitly decided by the user, instead, it's most times a collateral from his actions. At work I give models to other people and I've had Softimage crash and Max OBJ importer not detecting anything geometry because there where 2-point-polys. You can argue that it's those softwares problem. True, but I didn't also wanted those special polygons there in the first place either.

I like how plastic geometry is LW deals with geometry and these shouldn't be removed, just properly accommodated and not interfere with common modeling routines. It's just that. There should be a preference in Modeler to simply turn of polygons with less than 3 vertices. So if you knew you wanted hair guides or render-able edges you would turn those ON, but 90% most ppl would leave it OFF since all they care about are polygons with area. And yes curves would be much better than 2-point-polys as they have much more uses across the whole 3D application and not even just in Modeler.

-2) Other junk geometry
Even with the statistics panel which can help to find some buggers, there are quite other issues to which LW is blind, so the comparison with other apps is a bit moot:
-Non-Manifolds like 0 area polygons, flipped polygons (on double sided meshes), vertices that are the only thing two or more polygons share. Example (http://i.imgur.com/uCFA3Eb.png)
-Polygons that pass on a vertex or edges more than once. Example (http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2563/efz0.png)
You have to simply spot these by yourself. And further more many times one has to clean-up outsourced geometry, so again the "Model carefully" doesn't stick.

B)Opening Topic
-1) Modeling paradigm in Lightwave.
Always a hard topic because some people are content and can keep flowing fine with remedies like LWCAD ,TrueArt or Pictrix, while others wish for more stuctural improvements to get modern workflows. And then there's the dev side, that actually dictates the outcome from which communication is slim or shut.

Understanding that Hydra is just docking bay of plugins one starts wondering why not dock the rest of them and make it the new LW. I think no one will say the recent and future improvements are bad (The new Modeling tools. Spline Control. Modeler getting to handle millions of polygons easy), it's just they go short in changing the paradigm and are another islands in the archipelago that is LW workflow.

-2) Multiple tools
Some of us stress for unification because it's also a factor of multiplication of development (check gizmos, splines and deformers in Modeler and in Layout).

But even leaving this aside there are several operations that could be contained into monolithic operators. Extrude, Bevel, Bridge, Subdivide, Merge, Transform and Tweak (Rotate, Scale, Translate), Bend, Relax, Jitter. These would intersect Soft Selection system (weight maps on the fly), Falloff system, Origin and Axis system, Snapping system, Constrain system (retopo) and could also work in UVW space.

Than every editor panel could have these 2 buttons http://s21.postimg.org/a20s06iz7/rsz_file_save.png http://s2.postimg.org/hnb26nnbp/rsz_file_load.png so one can save all properties' options to a file and load them later either through the properties panel or even through assigned shortcuts that call the operators with the options in place.

A Brush system is also needed to have Deformers and Tweaks on a stick with a radius, paint Vmaps, Sculpt mesh for Morph Target setups, but I don't think a full blown sculpting and painting would be good, just an " adjustment mindset" would work fine for a 3D Scene Layout application.

Simple universal rules that interact to create complex and unique outcomes.

Anyways, like before, if someone needs these right now, better look somewhere else, until, maybe, they take place in LW.

Cheers

geo_n
11-24-2013, 10:39 PM
I dont know if I'd go so far as to say Modeler is on its last legs. If by that you mean that it is falling behind the times on how a lot of people model today then in that I'd partially agree with you. Youre right retopo tools are becoming increasingly common and the fact that Modeler is extremely slow at mid to high polygon counts. It also lacks any parametric modeling, history/modifier stack and its CC subdivision leaves a lot to be desired. It also needs a workplane. But for most things day to day its good for what it does. Adding GoZ in LW11 as well as the tools in LWCAD, it still has a lot of value. But its lack of development over the past several years makes it feel quite old when you are wishing it had one of the features listed above. Part of the hope of having modeling in a new unified framework might not only give us some of the above benefits but also the ability to keyframe modeling operations.

With all the features you listed I'd say that just makes developing modeller further even more wasteful. :D
I forgot to mention studio setting. Studios are doing fine modelling in maya, max and seldom need a specialist modelling tool. Basic needs of modelling and feature set vary indeed. If the needs are basic then modeller will do for some but again I don't see modeller used in studios. At best I see modellers younger brother, modo, being used a bit more. I'm seeing demand for uber highpoly capabilities, sculpting and painting features even in small studios to be in the 3d package these days. Not to the extent of zbrush and 3dcoat capabilities but good enough to be useful in production like what other 3dpackages have been adding lately.

erikals
11-25-2013, 02:08 AM
yes, agree Lewis that those two examples shouldn't happen, by default.

it can be fixed by using an AHK script, or NT should be able to add the option to delete it quite easily.
yep, it annoyed me 1-2 times as well...

VonBon
11-25-2013, 03:01 PM
Technically the computer is giving the correct result although not the expected human result in most cases.
The best way (to avoid junk) is to delete polygons instead of points and as far as the welding you need to delete the in-between polygons first.

In what situations is it better to delete points instead of polygons, when working with a mesh?

Lewis
11-25-2013, 03:10 PM
In what situations is it better to delete points instead of polygons, when working with a mesh?

Check my first screengrab more closely, you can't get that effect (tilted hole) if you delete polys instead points wihtout extra work before to make some triangles. So it's all about speed/workflow/less clicks.

And NO it's not techically correct, it's just the way LW works (and that's why some of us want a change/option to not create junk) but not other 3D softwares, or you want to say that only LW is techicalyl correct while others not 'coz they don't create JUNK in that simpel porcess as welding or deleting points :)?

Sensei
11-25-2013, 03:30 PM
If we have 4 point polygon, select 2 points on it, delete them, 2 points are removed from polygon, polygon is still existing, and now it has 2 points. That's exactly the same polygon as before removing points from it. Nothing new is created.

VonBon
11-25-2013, 04:37 PM
And in the weld example you never delete the middle polygon, you just collapsed it, so technically its still there.

probiner
11-25-2013, 04:40 PM
If we have 4 point polygon, select 2 points on it, delete them, 2 points are removed from polygon, polygon is still existing, and now it has 2 points. That's exactly the same polygon as before removing points from it. Nothing new is created.


Yes and no. It's the same polygon, but now it has 0 area :) Like Lewis said. It's the way LW works. 90% of the time one doesn't need it to be like that, so 2-point-polys outcomes should be more explicit and not side-effects.

Cheers

VonBon
11-25-2013, 04:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygon I can understand why yall say its Junk Geo

So how does the programer "Code" an "Edge"

Lewis
11-25-2013, 04:52 PM
We should just have dedficated tool for creating 2-point polys as we have tool for creating 1-point polys currently (Create 1-point polys). THAT would be good workflow, so let's say if you would wan't to have 2-point polys for some reason ('coz we still can't render splines now we still need them but like i said renderable splines could replace them easily but for sake of debate let's keep them for now) you would just select edges you wish and hit "Create 2-point poly" and that should work just fine as does it work with 1-point poly tool now and it would be sensible WORKFLOW not workaround as now you need to make workarounds to create 2-point polys at position where you want. All other side-effects should be removed/deleted from tools and no tool should create 2-point or 1-point polys unless user told it to do. I dont' really see how you guys can argue about those WORKAROUNDS we have to do to avod 2-point polys or evne to create them at places we want, that's NOT workflow at all if tool does stuff on it's own :(.

VonBon
11-25-2013, 04:56 PM
i dont' realyl see how you guys can argue abotu those WORKAROUNDS we have to do to avod 2-poitn polys or evne to create them at places we want, that's NOT workflow at all if tool does stuff on it's own :(.

Cause we like to argue ;D

Lewis
11-25-2013, 05:02 PM
Cause we like to argue ;D

Yeah, sad but true, but then that's the part of reason why LW is so behind competition (esp in modeling or polygon performance) 'coz many LWavers are so afraid of changes , Sigh... :( :(.

hrgiger
11-25-2013, 05:05 PM
We should just have dedficated tool for creating 2-point polys as we have tool for creating 1-point polys currently (Create 1-point polys). THAT would be good workflow, so let's say if you woudl wan't to have 2-point polys for soem reaosn ('coz we cant' render splines now we still need them but liek i said renderable splines could replace them easily but for sake of debatelet's keep them for now) you would just select edges you wish and hit "Create 2-point poly" and that shodlu work just fine as does it work with 1-poitn poly tool and it woudl be sensible WORKFLOW not workaroudn as now you need to make workarounds to create 2-point polys at position where you want. All other side-effects should be removed/deleted from tools and no tool should create 2-point or 1-poitn polys unless user told it to do. i dont' realyl see how you guys can argue abotu those WORKAROUNDS we have to do to avod 2-poitn polys or evne to create them at places we want, that's NOT workflow at all if tool does stuff on it's own :(.

+1 as well as to your comment that LW'ers are afraid of changes. Even at the cost of a better solution.

erikals
11-25-2013, 05:39 PM
not afraid of changes if it's for the better, and yes, Lewis does have some points here.

...wouldn't a weld/merge tool that deleted 0,1,2 points fix this?

Snosrap
11-25-2013, 07:52 PM
'coz many LWavers are so afraid of changes , Sigh... :( :(. I'm not so sure about that Lewis. I think those of us that make our living with Modeler strongly want changes compared to the more casual users.

Oedo 808
11-25-2013, 09:26 PM
Yeah, sad but true, but then that's the part of reason why LW is so behind competition (esp in modeling or polygon performance) 'coz many LWavers are so afraid of changes , Sigh... :( :(.

It depends on what the change is, you are a talented chap, why do you even use LightWave, is it purely habit or because you like it?

If it's the latter then surely there are some changes even you would be afraid of, if it's the former then I guess the world is your oyster.

Lewis
11-26-2013, 12:51 AM
not afraid of changes if it's for the better, and yes, Lewis does have some points here.

...wouldn't a weld/merge tool that deleted 0,1,2 points fix this?

Sure (I've been asking for that for years), faster workflow and less clicks is better - right :). As for that fix in those tools YES those would solve unnecessary clicks and 99% of accidental Junk but like i said then we would either need renderable splines (my prefered) or dedicated "make 2-point poly" tool 'coz if those tools are fixed you wouldn't have way to create 2-point polys anymore :).


I'm not so sure about that Lewis. I think those of us that make our living with Modeler strongly want changes compared to the more casual users.

Sure, there is some exceptions as yourself and few of us :).


It depends on what the change is, you are a talented chap, why do you even use LightWave, is it purely habit or because you like it?

If it's the latter then surely there are some changes even you would be afraid of, if it's the former then I guess the world is your oyster.

I work in LW 'coz i know it best and it's hard to let it go after so much time invested in it but i do work in other apps too more and more due lack of some very important tools/features in LW but tat doesn't mean i shouldn't want LW to be better :). And YES I do post those feature requests/bugs to FogBugz so it's officially sent, not only on forum.

erikals
11-26-2013, 01:00 PM
Lightwave idea - Delete Junk Geometry


http://youtu.be/RlzJwocco24

Lewis
11-26-2013, 01:31 PM
Thing is that those tools shouldn't evne create junk gometry in the first place and dedicated "create 2-point poly" tool would be much better option (since we already have one for 1-point polys) 'coz if they delete it after creation (Delete, merge, weld...) then they potentialy could delete ones you maybe wat to have/create on purpose (again due lack of renderable splines) so you'd have to use tricks to prevent that. Granted for me that wouldn't be a problem 'coz i rarelly use 2-point polys but wolul hinder somene elses workflow then and that's not great solution either (untill we get renderable splines then they (1/2-point polys) can dieeeeeee ;) ;)).

Really i think dedicated 2-point poly tool is best option but thanks for video and effort i appreciate :)..

VonBon
11-26-2013, 01:39 PM
what we need is a "Legacy" Mode/Config for when people need compatibility for older Projects,
and the default mode for all the new additions and tool replacements.

erikals
11-26-2013, 01:39 PM
it's one of those things that annoyed me that i just kept accepting... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

so hope to see a fix... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/047.gif

hazmat777
11-26-2013, 01:52 PM
what we need is a "Legacy" Mode/Config for when people need compatibility for older Projects,
and the default mode for all the new additions and tool replacements.

I've been following this thread for days now and might have missed something, (try not to bash me over the head too hard! ). I don't "get" the idea of "Oh we can't "break legacy code" when all my LW versions are in my account to download whenever I might need them. I mean to say, break it with the past and let's get on with it. You can always load an old version of LW if you need to, right? :)

Lewis
11-26-2013, 02:01 PM
I've been following this thread for days now and might have missed something, (try not to bash me over the head too hard! ). I don't "get" the idea of "Oh we can't "break legacy code" when all my LW versions are in my account to download whenever I might need them. I mean to say, break it with the past and let's get on with it. You can always load an old version of LW if you need to, right? :)

Fully agreed with this statement, enough with Legacy, that's draging us behind so much and DEVS "waste" so much time on keeping the legacy stuff working adn keepeign it alive a smuch as possible and can't really advance so much wihtout brekaign some legacy stuff as users would like with keeping old and new tools/features in same time (we have tons of cameras (actually different render engines) for backward compatibility and some already don't work with new featues). For new users/purchases they could just allow to users to download older versions just in case to be compatible with some content like major changes LW 6.x and LW9.x and then 11.x and more... Although it's questionable would that even work today 'coz if user gets software license only then he has no option to go below 11.0.3 anyway.

hrgiger
11-26-2013, 02:27 PM
I mean to say, break it with the past and let's get on with it. You can always load an old version of LW if you need to, right? :)

+1

Surrealist.
11-26-2013, 05:01 PM
They have proven in the past that they will when they need to. I don't see an issue with that so much as I see an issue with the reality of overhauling modeler to get that far.

And that is a recurring theme in these threads over the last year at least. There is so much angst and anticipation. And a lot of unrealistic expectations. Not because there is not an issue with LightWave, but if you are depending on LightWave then you better brush up on your patience.


And I can already tell you what you are going to say... yeah but it has been long enough... 2 decades ... and we have been promised this and that .... and NewTek can not afford not to.... and the market will not allow...

On and on.

But none of that changes the 3 unchangeable facts.

1) NewTek Knows this already.

2) It is something that will take a lot of man hours to fix

3) All of this has to be balanced with completing features (and plugins now) that can be marketed

I know no one wants to hear this, but the brand new overhaul of LightWave is still a ways off.

realgray
11-26-2013, 05:17 PM
"I mean to say, break it with the past and let's get on with it. You can always load an old version of LW if you need to, right?"

+1

bobakabob
11-26-2013, 05:17 PM
What some people here perceive as 'junk' others actually find very useful in modelling and illustration. It's inappropriate to argue 2 point polys should be scrapped outright as LW needs a facility to create renderable lines. As yet splines can't be rendered unless they're 'frozen' in advance. Also 2 point polys can be created very conveniently and simply in LW if needed.

A good feature request to avoid unwanted geometry would be for key Modeler tools to have a default tick box "auto delete 2 point polys" - or a global control in Preferences. But as Sensei has suggested, some modellers need to be aware of how they are unwittingly creating so called junk geometry by deleting points instead of polys.

To suggest most users of LW are afraid of change is a sweeping assumption. Where's the evidence? These days most serious modellers use a variety of apps not just limiting themselves to LW. IMHO I'm not going to wait for LW Modeler as good as it is to catch up with ZBrush when I can use ZBrush.

Until splines can be rendered in Lightwave as straight lines or curves, 2 point polys have to stay.

realgray
11-26-2013, 05:18 PM
That actually would have been a nice survey question regarding the focus between maintenance of legacy code vs. moving forward.

Oedo 808
11-26-2013, 06:35 PM
I work in LW 'coz i know it best and it's hard to let it go after so much time invested in it but i do work in other apps too more and more due lack of some very important tools/features in LW but tat doesn't mean i shouldn't want LW to be better :).
Well if it changed too much then it wouldn't be so difficult to let go, would it? Yes I'm just being facetious :D I understand that there is some resistance to change, but this isn't something special to the LW community and I've not seen anything over that which might commonly be expected. I think in Core we had a few observations made about it, I'm sure Matt had a video on how the viewport handles rotation, and I'm sure there was some input from yourself, are we to say this is also what killed Core? No, Core didn't die because of any resistance to change or the view that its UI was too unfamiliar or less functional, it died because it was an amazing proof of concept and not much more. Any finger pointing to the community is erroneous in this regard, a sick man needs no murderer.



And YES I do post those feature requests/bugs to FogBugz so it's officially sent, not only on forum.
That is not something I would moan about anyway, I don't like it when a tracker can be described as official as opposed to 'only on a forum', I'm no stranger to bug testing, and I have lengthy opinions about the handling of feature requests and bug squashing and the motivations behind different methods, but I'm not going to bother with any of that now.



I've been following this thread for days now and might have missed something, (try not to bash me over the head too hard! ). I don't "get" the idea of "Oh we can't "break legacy code" when all my LW versions are in my account to download whenever I might need them. I mean to say, break it with the past and let's get on with it. You can always load an old version of LW if you need to, right? :)
It depends on how much was broken, I would love to see an increase in Modeler's performance, sometimes it would be nice just to bring a model in without having to chop it up or retopo it, but if tomorrow I could get that performance but at the same time the contents of my third-party folder was rendered useless, I'd run straight to Modo as LightWave isn't in its Flay heyday any more, an increase in performance wouldn't be much use if I had to keep jumping versions to model something with legacy tools and I'm not sure I see them being covered any time soon. It's amazing how quickly a someone can respond to a request for something, but I think that the LightWave group won't ever have anyone to spare that's not working on the next big thing, and that would need to change depending on how much you are willing to see broken.

Having said that, generally I would agree with not worrying about needing to be able to load past versions and am happy to see them "break legacy code" if that's all it means, but there is a limit to what I would see broken at this time.


What some people here perceive as 'junk' others actually find very useful in modelling and illustration.
I think that way things have been brought up has been quite poor, I don't think anyone is ready to see them gone before an alternative is in place, and even then people are quite happy to have them so long as they don't interfere with their workflow thereafter, it just come across badly at times... people losing patience.


That actually would have been a nice survey question regarding the focus between maintenance of legacy code vs. moving forward.
It would depend greatly on what was meant by moving forward and what time scale.

erikals
11-26-2013, 10:00 PM
please remember that some of these things have been implemented in LightWave 11.5/11.6


request 1, by Lewis, select path tool
-fixed (this was actually included in LW10)

request 2, by Lewis, fixing the edge bevel tool
-fixed, the new chamfer tool

request 3, by Lewis, adding an edge slide tool
-fixed, added in LW11.5 (still needs a point slide function though)

request 4, by erikals, improving the point selection speed
-fixed in LW11.6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKXYRIUYFTc

request 5, by erikals, improving translate plus
-fixed, the new translate tool, 11.5 (great implementation)

request 6, by erikals, add a polyfit tool
-fixed, the new heat shrink tool, 11.5 (great implementation)

request 7, by erikals, add a thickener
-fixed, the new thicken tool, 11.5 (great implementation)

request 8, by Dan Dulberger/erikals, new paste behaviour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkGJeh-od5k
-fixed, the new paste behaviour, 11.5

request 9, a PLGUV-like tool, requested by many
-fixed, the ABF Unwrap, 11.5

request 10, by probiner, aligning object to an object
-fixed, the Align tool, 11.5

request 11, by probiner/erikals, aligning tools
-fixed, the Align Rotate/Translate/Scale tool, 11.5



plus all the other great tools we got >

-Line Pen
-Tweak
-Place Mesh
-Slice
-Straighten
-Select by Normal
-Pick Surface



not saying that Modeler doesn't need further improvement (check my videos)
but it's important i think to remember the great upgrades we got in the LightWave 11 cycle.


...and they are implementing Hydra into Modeler.

Snosrap
11-26-2013, 10:24 PM
You are too kind erikals. The only really great implementation is the new thicken tool and ABF Unwrap being pretty decent too. The others you mentioned are average to poor (mostly poor) implementations at best.

erikals
11-26-2013, 10:28 PM
The others you mentioned are average to poor (mostly poor) implementations at best.

not sure i understand, can you emphasize that?

what is poor about them?

Surrealist.
11-26-2013, 11:03 PM
Well implemented well or not you have to admit that this is the most love Modeler has gotten in quite a while.

Not sure about the translate tool because I have not used it yet. Does it interact at all with any other tools and soft selection as well as work planes?

The translate tool is this is something that needs to ideally come along with a new Modeler or unified application which is a ways off. You need a new unified system where there is one manipulator. Then a unified fall off (soft select) feature and various snapping modes as well as ability to set a work plane or at least working axis. But it is a universal implementation not a tool oriented thing. or at least work in the same unified way as all of the tools.

Personally I like the new tools that came along at some point where all of the transform tools were written as modes that all derived from the same base trio - TRS.

What I don't get is the disconnect between that system and something like the Translate Plus tool.

Not sure about the new translate tool.

But what I would like to see if they are going to do anything at all with Modeler is to connect these bridges or write a new set of tools that all work together like there is now, but that you add to them the ability to set an angle and keep soft selection the same between them as it is, but also add to this a manipulator that also works with snapping.

I am gradually loosing touch with some of these newer tools so correct me if I am off base.

Lewis
11-27-2013, 12:33 AM
request 3, by Lewis, adding an edge slide tool
-fixed, added in LW11.5 (still needs a point slide function though)


Sorry but NO, we don't have SLIDE tool and Edge Tweak is not what it should be (And i've rpoerted tha tin first days of when it appeared and made them 2 separate vides on their request sand explained where and how it's useful to have SLIDE). "Edit Edges" can slide only LOOP or SINGLE polygon and it's not respecting Selections so if you select 2,3,4,5... edges it won't work as user expected and it's not working with LW paradigm aynway 'coz it's not respecting selections so it's nowhere near SOLVED for edges and for points not even tried so we have like 25% of tool I requested and it was left as it is in 11.6 regardless of them "know about it" :(.

Also as far as i love some of new 11.5 modleign tools (great work and ideas at some of them and fact that i can create/model my own GIZMO for each one just like in Core is great) still have one major workflow issue. If you want them to be fast (use fast preview or deformation modes) and you need that with anything little more heavier like 250k+ polys you are doomed to wait 5-10-15.... seconds until tool STARTS (it's translating geometry into new mesh system) so sometime you need like 20+ seconds to move single point or edge with translate tool and that is not good (esp for me who work with very hi-poly stuff on regular basis). And as of 11.6 they seem to abandoned that idea of injecting new geometry in modeler when it's done with modern/interactive tools 'coz as you can see they didn't continue work on that idea 'coz Ikeda itself said it was not good idea after all :(.

And NO, they are not implementing Hydra in modeler (can you show me where they said that :)?. Peopel often read in between lines and read too much and that's how people got idea that Hydra is new Mesh system). Hydra is not and engine/mesh system, that's Developement platform (let's say similar like modo have/had Nexus lot fo years ago and people thought modo 301 will have great CA 'coz they showed some man walking/flipping video form Nexus back then:)) from what they created ChronoS but that' doesn't mean they will insert that into modeler (they tried somethign similar already in 11.5 modeler and abandoned new mesh idea as you can see in 11.6, they need different approach obviously so who knows what will happen, maybe they will create completely new modeling 'coz even if they make a way of adding that mesh system to modeler they'll still need all the modleign tools redesigned and modeler has a LOT of tools with LOT of redundancy and none of modeler tools really/fully understand Timeline/stack/parametric....:)).

erikals
11-27-2013, 12:51 AM
1- oops... yeah, hmm... guess they forgot about fixing multiple selections for Edge Slide...
+ Edge Slide / Point Slide should be made to be one tool.

2- yes, Modeler still needs a heavy speed improvement...


injecting new geometry in modeler
not sure i understood that one...

Lewis
11-27-2013, 01:06 AM
not sure i understand, can you emphasize that?

what is poor about them?

Well for a start:
- they work as it's own island when copying geometry to it's own mesh system you need to wait to start
- then none of them have or respect falloffs
- transform tool for instance can't work on really small objects, if you have 10m cube and 1cm cube and you zoom in to 10cm and want to transform few points you wont' be able to select handles until you un-zoom :(
- none of axis tools can work with multiple loaded objects (you cant' snap to different object so you must copy it to same to do it :(.
- transform tool often forgets it's choosed pivot point location
- there is no background/foreground snapping toggle so even wireframe background object interfere with you trying to select pivot edge/point/poly like its full solid i.e. not respect LW way of working with BG layer.
- and Many unfinished things sadly :(. Still they are way better than we had before and i LOVE transform tool

i wouldn't called them poor 'coz they are quite better than what we had before but they are left UNFINISHED, like halfway and that+s the saddest part regardless of what they plan to do in next LW we still have to work with current one :(.


Well implemented well or not you have to admit that this is the most love Modeler has gotten in quite a while.

Not sure about the translate tool because I have not used it yet. Does it interact at all with any other tools and soft selection as well as work planes?

Hmm so wait a second, you don't even use Lw to model anymore then or :)?. Basically transform tool although nice it works only with paste (if you had copy before you fired tool), everything else you still have to drop the tool, select polys/points/edges again or other tool and restart the tool again so answer would be NO sadly :(.




The translate tool is this is something that needs to ideally come along with a new Modeler or unified application which is a ways off. You need a new unified system where there is one manipulator. Then a unified fall off (soft select) feature and various snapping modes as well as ability to set a work plane or at least working axis. But it is a universal implementation not a tool oriented thing. or at least work in the same unified way as all of the tools.

Exactly that shouldn't be just a tool, that should be universal manipulator which works with other tools in conjunction so you could add/remove form selection while you are in transform mode and it should respect work-planes (which we still don't have anyway), falloffs etc. etc. Bot for that LW needs to abandon it's destructive way of modeling.

hrgiger
11-27-2013, 06:07 AM
I think in Core we had a few observations made about it, I'm sure Matt had a video on how the viewport handles rotation, and I'm sure there was some input from yourself, are we to say this is also what killed Core? No, Core didn't die because of any resistance to change or the view that its UI was too unfamiliar or less functional, it died because it was an amazing proof of concept and not much more. Any finger pointing to the community is erroneous in this regard, a sick man needs no murderer.



Well everything Ive heard is quite contrary to that view. Its irrelevant now so its not worth dragging back out and rehashing or mentioning names but i find this idea of CORE being a proof of concept (which was also mentioned by David Ikeda) quite suspect. After all, everyone was convinced that to make LW a next generation application that it would have to be rewritten. Yet when CORE was killed, Rob Powers said that the LW architecture is not as unyielding as once thought and next gen technologies could be offered through it. So if thats true, maybe CORE is not as unyielding as simply a proof of concept. But again, its really irrelavent now and im hoping that Rob is right and that the proper significant changes can be made in the current architecture.

But i still think that LW users in general are resistant to significant change. They say they want the newest tech, yet they still want it to look and act just like LW works now. Not sure how thats supposed to work if they were to implement something like a modifier stack. I suggested on Facebook the other day the idea of dockable panels as part of LW GUI and another LWaver told me not to touch "his" LightWave. I dont find this response all that uncommon around here.

prometheus
11-27-2013, 06:23 AM
Well everything Ive heard is quite contrary to that view. Its irrelevant now so its not worth dragging back out and rehashing or mentioning names but i find this idea of CORE being a proof of concept (which was also mentioned by David Ikeda) quite suspect. After all, everyone was convinced that to make LW a next generation application that it would have to be rewritten. Yet when CORE was killed, Rob Powers said that the LW architecture is not as unyielding as once thought and next gen technologies could be offered through it. So if thats true, maybe CORE is not as unyielding as simply a proof of concept. But again, its really irrelavent now and im hoping that Rob is right and that the proper significant changes can be made in the current architecture.

But i still think that LW users in general are resistant to significant change. They say they want the newest tech, yet they still want it to look and act just like LW works now. Not sure how thats supposed to work if they were to implement something like a modifier stack. I suggested on Facebook the other day the idea of dockable panels as part of LW GUI and another LWaver told me not to touch "his" LightWave. I dont find this response all that uncommon around here.

I think your quote about the users "yet they still want it to look and act just like LW works now." isnīt conflicting with them/us wanting to have latest tech.

well ..I thought the core approach was to alien for what lightwave was, completly new ui and pushing away functionality that was there in Lw...procedurals etc, so Im glad it didnīt go that way...I do lack the bend tool introduced, and the sculpt tool though:)

the modifier stack should be implemented so you can choose when you start your model, to either have it active or not, the object would be more complex and slow with modifier stack I guess...so having it the old way sort of with the option of modifier stack would be ideal.

dockable panels is something I want too..and that can be made without getting anyone upset touching his lightwave:) what we have as module popups should for a starter be dockableas they do it in adobe software, and that would be any negative compared to as we have it today..having to hide or keep dragging or minise them in order to see t hem all or see the viewports, these module dockable panels would need expand/collapse functions too in order acess menus for efficient workflow.

dockable rescalable UI as blender, modo etc? ..that might be so much different and might need too much change, not sure...depends if they could keep the UI as it is today as default, Lightwave UI is giving the by far largest, cleanest workspace when working with models or working on the scene, by default in other software they are overloaded with menus leaving little workspace, though they have the option to hide panels too or configure workspaces...I am not sure thatīs the way to go.

So the Lightwave UI is quite good, but nothings perfect..but I think improvements must take place in some small introduction steps with the UI..otherwise you would confuse everyone with a brand new completly different UI.

Im constantly annoyed over how panels are placed at the lower bottom of the screen when minimized, resulting in obscuring object,camera,light buttons,
Ivé heard that I could install additional windows tools to avoid that..but I really donīt want to install additional things for something that should be in the UI, an option to have them stay at the top for instance when minimized, and
drag and stick to eachother when placed underneath another panel, as adobe has it.

the UI in modeler had some small changes, not sure I like it...but it was pretty simple, the move of the selection buttons from the lower panels to the left panel..Im not sure
I like them there, seem to think they are harder to locate somehow, as they were before they were the same as many other software selection mode UI, now they
went a different way which doesnīt seem logic..to place them where many modeling commands are performed.

Michael

Lewis
11-27-2013, 06:34 AM
dockable panels is something I want too..and that can be made without getting anyone upset touching his lightwave:) what we have as module popups should for a starter be dockable
as they do it in adobe software, and that would be any negative compared to as we have it today..having to hide or keep dragging or minise them in order to see them all or see the
viewports, these module dockable panels would need expand/collapse functions too in order acess menus for efficient workflow.


Not really, you have to look at bigger picture, Other app users can model in Single/perspective view, in LW you can't do that due lack of gizmos/tools/workplanes.... so you have to use QUAD view for most task and even if there is more spacace occupied by dockable windows in other apps like mod/max/blender.. you still have bigger "perspective" window than you can have in LW due fact that you have three other views most of time ;). Every window should be dockable, fully resizeable at any size (unlike many LW windows which have fixed sizes) and when we get full ability to model in single view little more screen occupied by tools won't be a problem, and eventually 4K monitors are just around corner so i'll just buy bigger monitor :D :D ;).

prometheus
11-27-2013, 06:44 AM
Not really, you have to look at bigger picture, Other app users can model in Single/perspective view, in LW you can't do that due lack of gizmos/tools/workplanes.... so you have to use QUAD view for most task and even if there is more spacace occupied by dockable windows in other apps like mod/max/blender.. you still have bigger "perspective" window than you can have in LW due fact that you have three other views most of time ;). Every window should be dockable, fully resizeable at any size (unlike many LW windows which have fixed sizes) and when we get full ability to model in single view little more screen occupied by tools won't be a problem, and eventually 4K monitors are just around corner so i'll just buy bigger monitor :D :D ;).


I donīt follow you here, look at bigger picture, not really? about what..I think we are talking about different things? I suspect you are refering to the modelers viewports? and how they only can be resizable in relation to eachother,and not undockoed or scalable individually..thatīs of course true..and I might have been focused on the layout UI rather than model UI...still the UI in Lightwave Layout feels cleanest and largest in workspace by default.

I can agree about the fully rescalable window option too, for module panels.

about modeling..you say we cant model in single or perspective view? of course we can..so enlighten me more about that, I must be missing something you mean here.

prometheus
11-27-2013, 06:50 AM
Ahh..you mean you can model in perspective single view...but it is very limited due to the lack of gizmos,tools and workplanes?..that would be a different thing though.

Lewis
11-27-2013, 07:08 AM
Ahh..you mean you can model in perspective single view...but it is very limited due to the lack of gizmos,tools and workplanes?..that would be a different thing though.

Exactly that, most tools don't have gizmos so you can't constrain movement when you are at different angle than 90 degrees and for that reason in modeler we work 95% of time in QUAD view while in other apps you can use Single perspective view and do all (ok let's say 99%) work there just fine 'coz they have gizmos/workplanes and tools are designed that way. As for clean layout well when you open all the panels you actually need for work (scene editor, global panels...) screen estate rapidly becomes crowded so you anyway need more monitors or space. In most other apps you can UNDOCK windows and also move them where you want so you get same effect or screen space like in LW anyway. thing is that they CAN work LW way 8undocked non modal windows) but Lw can't work their way (dock-able windows at user request) well for most parts.

Let alone GUI customizations ad LWs crazy system "exit to save" position of windows instead common "Save Workspace" option so use rc ould select many workspace instead have to use hacking way of redirecting configs to different folders to be able to start LW in several different window configuration/positions 'coz when you exit LW saves last used and all your window re-arrangement is gone :(.

Kuzey
11-27-2013, 07:19 AM
Ahh..you mean you can model in perspective single view...but it is very limited due to the lack of gizmos,tools and workplanes?..that would be a different thing though.

Hence the need to select half the polygons of a sphere & use "merge polys"..you're left with a disc that you can bevel without much hassle.

Now, if we had those gizmos etc. you could delete half the sphere and just work with open edges..no junk..0..1 or 2-point polys to worry about :)

Snosrap
11-27-2013, 08:55 AM
i wouldn't called them poor 'coz they are quite better than what we had before I say poor when stacked up against other apps and not much better than we had before. Thicken is the lone standout of the bunch - it easily outperforms Modo's (601- I'm no longer upgrading :)) thicken tool.

jeric_synergy
11-27-2013, 10:39 AM
Certain things, like "Exit to Save" have persisted SO LONG I can only surmise they are so deep in the code it's just impossible to root them out.

Surrealist.
11-27-2013, 11:15 AM
Hmm so wait a second, you don't even use Lw to model anymore then or :)?.

Well no. But I would certainly be playing with the new tools anyway if I had them. Currently running 10.1 or whatever the latest there is.

I have not used Modeler for modeling in ages. But it works great for doing things like converting obj to .lwo, adding surfaces and so on, in prep for clients who use LightWave. In fact LightWave is the best .lwo conversion app on the market.:hey: I hear the way that it handles the .low format is superb. As if you actually created it in LightWave. And I have found what they say to be true. From what I have read it is because LightWave was the original program for the .lwo format. Makes sense. Kinda like MotionBuilder and fbx. The wonders of technology. :D

Other than that, I have no reason to touch it and am happy with other solutions until NT gives me some good reason to upgrade. But likely for something I can not do anywhere else. As it is now I can do everything I once did in LightWave only better, some cases faster, certainly with more modern tools etc. And in most cases, things I can not even do in LightWave.

For me I can not think with sticking with LW because it is familiar. That would be like a living hell for me and I lived it long enough thank you. If you do this for a living why would you stick with only LightWave? Makes no sense to me. If you mainly do 3D the time you save and money you can make by having the right tools for the job is priceless IMHO.

So if they did add some new tech then that would perk my interest. Because then, I'd have a reason to add it to the tool bag. If CS was included in 11.6 I'd upgrade for sure likely.

Lewis
11-27-2013, 11:25 AM
For me I can not think with sticking with LW because it is familiar. That would be like a living hell for me and I lived it long enough thank you. If you do this for a living why would you stick with only LightWave? Makes no sense to me. If you mainly do 3D the time you save and money you can make by having the right tools for the job is priceless IMHO.


Ok now where did you see that I said i use LW only ? I use MAX also for parts LW can't do. But funny thign to me is that you are debating with us aobut what LW can and can't do (or shoudl and shouldn't) and yet you actually don't have latest verison to be objective and test it on your own :). Soure you don't need to have LW to know that it's not history stack enabled or proepr undo (will that ever work ;)) but then agian lot of good features happned in layout since 10.x series. Actually 10.x was probably thinest upgrade since long long time (maybe ever) :) :).

BTW, what do you use nowdays for modeling/texturing work ?

bobakabob
11-27-2013, 12:27 PM
Well everything Ive heard is quite contrary to that view. Its irrelevant now so its not worth dragging back out and rehashing or mentioning names but i find this idea of CORE being a proof of concept (which was also mentioned by David Ikeda) quite suspect. After all, everyone was convinced that to make LW a next generation application that it would have to be rewritten. Yet when CORE was killed, Rob Powers said that the LW architecture is not as unyielding as once thought and next gen technologies could be offered through it. So if thats true, maybe CORE is not as unyielding as simply a proof of concept. But again, its really irrelavent now and im hoping that Rob is right and that the proper significant changes can be made in the current architecture.

But i still think that LW users in general are resistant to significant change. They say they want the newest tech, yet they still want it to look and act just like LW works now. Not sure how thats supposed to work if they were to implement something like a modifier stack. I suggested on Facebook the other day the idea of dockable panels as part of LW GUI and another LWaver told me not to touch "his" LightWave. I dont find this response all that uncommon around here.

I think there are plenty of Lightwave users who have faith in LW3D group to develop this great but rather underrated creative tool and take it in the right direction. This will take time but it's great to see brilliant innovative spin off products such as Chronosculpt being created along the way. In the meantime there are apps out there that do all the things you want such as XSI so why not use that? If you want LW to be a XSI clone just use XSI. Like many others I use Lightwave as it's good for working quickly with the fundamentals and combine with other apps like Zbrush for things LW can't do like poly painting. Where once Modeler was cutting edge it is still a very capable app and despite its flaws in handling huge poly counts it's quicker and sharper in my experience than using say Max and XSI in addressing the basics of modelling. It's all subjective and personal and depends on what you want to do of course. But LW has a distinct identity and purpose - fast economical 3d modelling and animation - which is why so many people here like using it. Otherwise why are there expert modellers still here?
The two point poly issue isn't trivial and if it's pi**ing off good professional modellers like Lewis it needs addressing E.g "auto delete" in Preferences. But don't dismiss two point polys as "junk" out of hand when others are finding them useful in illustrative work in the absence of renderable alternatives.

Oedo 808
11-27-2013, 01:02 PM
Core was a proof of concept because of what it was, not because if what its intent was, of course a clean slate provides great potential, but realizing it would have taken more time and effort than was remotely plausible. With LightWave the necessity of a rewrite had been widely accepted, but perhaps that's because it was the excuse used for Modeler having been abandoned for so long. When Rob joined... or when he was promoted and asked the question, it doesn't sound like the team were convinced about this rewrite vision. Outside of the LW community it certainly wasn't seen as the way forward from what I heard, I was told I must be mistaken about the Core rewrite because it was too implausible a direction for a development project like that.

I don't see that wanting the newest tech is exclusive to wanting LW to look and act just like it always has, on the contrary I think it would be damned stupid to have it any other way. I like the LW UI and what I want to see are changes that fit in, now the Facebook chap hrgiger mentions sounds like a bit of a twit but really, that isn't unusual, you'll see them on most every forum for various products, though perhaps people might not be so precious about change if others weren't so cavalier about it.

I may not have been chuffed with the interface in Core but this didn't stop me from wanting things like a pop out panel as with my bookmarks in Opera, or for the lasso to mix solid lines with free hand and snapping in the way GIMP does or agreeing with a great deal of what Intuition talked about back then. And it certainly had no impact in Core being dropped, it might well have done for a UI change but anything else is making a link with the demise of Core where there is none. Also I think people are getting confused between wanting consistency with the UI and absolute preservation.

I model mostly in the Perspective view with the exception that I have three viewports pushed to the side to click in when I can't get the adjustment I want in perspective, so I know what is being talked about and I want the same, I just hope good viewport-space tool manipulation isn't forgotten along the way, though in some ways I even feel reluctant to make mention of it because of someone mistaking it with resistance to change and then start whinging about it.

Ultimately I share the same trepidation that spur many comments, that both the destination and vehicle have changed despite the assurance it's just the vehicle. What I disagree with is the idea that the Core vehicle was gonna take us to that promised land given the real life constraints of product development or that even the most ardent moaning held sway over such a massive change in direction, that was all down to inevitability.

In an ideal world I would rather see more work go into the infrastructure and for the LightWave group to be engaging about the progress to cover a lesser output in tool development, but I guess there is trepidation that even eeked out there may not be enough to satisfy even those looking for that direction or if it would be a wise move considering the wider audience.


I use MAX also

I've probably asked this before, but do you find yourself spending more time in MAX? Could you say what you would miss if you only had this to use, is it just familiarity and comfort?

Surrealist.
11-27-2013, 01:06 PM
Ok now where did you see that I said i use LW only ?

Where did I say I was speaking to you directly and only? This is a forum. And it is just an opinion. A lot of people stick to LW only for various reasons or choose to use it over other apps they have and also use. You did say you used Max but have reasons to use LightWave because it is comfortable and familiar. That is up to you. Not here to debate that, just stating I can not think with that logic when there are other tools that save you time and time is money. Especially in a game workflow

In the process of debating this I have found that you and others have a drastically different workflow than me. And some kind of plugin or tool to remove junk automatically is needed aparently.



But funny thign to me is that you are debating with us aobut what LW can and can't do (or shoudl and shouldn't) and yet you actually don't have latest verison to be objective and test it on your own

If you must know I had version 11 but sold it. Was really looking forward to having it. There are posts way back when I was testing it and using it. But it let me down. Also I have not debated one point that I did not know was in the LightWave I am familiar with or could and did test that I know had not changed. And in particular, I was making points about Junk. That has not changed. And when it came to tools I had not used, (things that came out since I sold LW 11)I did not make assumptions, I asked questions.

I don't make statements about stuff I do not know from direct experience. And if I do I clearly point out I don't know, or ask.

I do not remember debating with you on new tools did I? Comments I made on the transform tool is fairly obvious, yet I had questions to clarify.

And my general statements about what LW can do now, how long it is going to change are as valid as they can be regardless. Not too much of a stretch.

Recently I picked up v 10 for peanuts mainly to have as a way to prep objects for clients and have as something to upgrade from when I feel there is something worth spending on.

Financially speaking it is a wash once I do upgrade. But not willing to invest those funds again until I have a reason.



BTW, what do you use nowdays for modeling/texturing work ?


Maya
XSI
Blender
Zbrush
Mudbox
LightWave for obj or fbx conversion to lwo or lws
dDo
PS of course

In the light of all of this come my opinions. Why are you going on about Lightwave handing of Junk geo when there is so much ground to cover? Then you say well you are using merge average for retopo work. Well that tool is interesting but I would not use it for that.

That is mainly because I would not use Modeler for hat work in the first place.

That is my opinion.

You do. Fine. Understood and you don't have to defend it. A way to remove junk automatically is a good idea.

Lewis
11-27-2013, 02:59 PM
I've probably asked this before, but do you find yourself spending more time in MAX? Could you say what you would miss if you only had this to use, is it just familiarity and comfort?

Yes i do more and more sadly. I don't particularly like MAX way of modleing but there is some brilliant stuff inthere also so it's not all bad for LWaver either, especialy when you realize you can undo everything ;). For game stuff I need to finish in MAX 'coz LW down't have tools for smoothGroups/Vertexes so there is no way or trick or workaround how to do it in LWM - nada, not possible :(. Also i find MAX lot better at memory handling (same files use 50% of RAM on what layout or modeler use). For my ultra Hi-poly meshes (that's 300-500k all SubDs stuff modeld up to tinyes details) i also need to check meshes in MAX 'coz LW CCs are damn slow (with those ultraHi-poly meshes when i hit TAB with CCs at level 3 it takes like 50-70 seconds for LWM to respond so it's useles in those situations so then i model in SubPatches and then need to fix/check stuff in MAX for CCs to be sur eti'll look good wiht no pinching or any kind of weird errors. There is few more things but woudl take too long to explain every situation where LW fails comparign to MAX :(.

As for 2-point polys Junk it's not just aobut that, that's just tip of iceberg and i do have tool/ways to remove them faster than default toolset but Point is tha thtey shoduldn't be created automatically never so it's not thing that we need Automatic DELETION (that would be another workaround - under the hood but still workaorund, similar to when they tunred off Interactive preview of CUT ool back in LW 8.2 'coz they coudln't fix one BUG in it so they retracted functionalty and mede it non interactive instead solving the actual BUG :(). We need fixed tools which don't even create them (junk) 'coz if is automatic deletion then it needs to automatically select them and that can take some time which will then lead to slowdowns on hi-poly stuff. So like i said earler, they need to create 2-point poly TOOL for creatign that and remove side effect of automatic creation of these in extender+, merge, weld, weld average.... and other tools that possibly create them by accident.

hrgiger
11-27-2013, 03:18 PM
I think there are plenty of Lightwave users who have faith in LW3D group to develop this great but rather underrated creative tool and take it in the right direction. This will take time but it's great to see brilliant innovative spin off products su ctfuch as Chronosculpt being created along the way.

I'm sure there are. But meanwhile, modeler continues to stagnate under a severe lack of development. I was hopeful when they added some new promising modeling tools in 11.5. But 11.6 comes and goes and some of those tools sit somewhat unfinished. Will it be another thing that makes its way into LW and then sees no further development? And while I'm all for LW3DG branching out with new products like CS and Nevron to grow the 3D division at Newtek, even David Ikeda said that his work on Chronosculpt has taken him away from working on Modeler.


In the meantime there are apps out there that do all the things you want such as XSI so why not use that? If you want LW to be a XSI clone just use XSI.

When did I ever say that I wanted LW to be an XSI clone? Why because I want some industry standard workflows injected into the modeling process in LW? Maybe because I would like to see a non-destructive workflow or see some modeling developments that have become popular among most apps in the last 10 years that still don't exist in Modeler? And case in point, I did use XSI. At least until Autodesk Swallowed Avid and they got rid of Foundation. I use LW because of price, feature range, and because I'm fond of working in it. LWCAD is another reason that I continue to use Modeler. I have also been doing more and more of my modeling in Zbrush so the fact that I can use GoZ to send my objects back and forth between LW also keeps modeler as a useful tool. But that doesn't mean that that there aren't things I would like to see improved in LW. I'm so tired of making suggestions on ways that I would like to see LW improved and then just have another user tell me if I don't like the way it is in LightWave, why don't I just go use XSI or Max or Maya. Why does it have to be an insult to LightWave modeling when users suggest ways that it can be improved?

- - - Updated - - -


:(. Also i find MAX lot better at memory handling (same files use 50% of RAM on what layout or modeler use).

Hey Lewis, speaking of memory, I find that loading the same object in modeler and Chronosculpt, modeler uses up 4 times as much memory as CS does.

Lewis
11-27-2013, 03:44 PM
Hey Lewis, speaking of memory, I find that loading the same object in modeler and Chronosculpt, modeler uses up 4 times as much memory as CS does.

Yeah that's good news (asuming that has anythign to do with future LW upgrades at all ;)) I remember seeing that in my test although CS don't realy have Uvs, textures, vertexmaps, materials or anythign really complex what ocudl drain more RAM yet - right?

hrgiger
11-27-2013, 03:50 PM
Yeah that's good news (asuming that has anythign to do with future LW upgrades at all ;)) I remember seeing that in my test although CS don't realy have Uvs, textures, vertexmaps, materials or anythign really complex what ocudl drain more RAM yet - right?

True. But given that the model I used had no vertexmaps or materials assigned to it, I suppose RAM usage would go up in both applications once applied. Would be interesting to test if CS did ever contain that information.

bobakabob
11-27-2013, 04:14 PM
Hrgiger,
Most of the discussion has been how to constructively improve Modeler. You've made some really good suggestions about how Modeler should be improved but some features you don't like e.g. 'Junk' come in useful to other users. Your request for renderable splines should definitely be actioned by the Dev team but this probably won't be available in a while. I suggested a Preferences setting to auto delete 2 point polys to help modellers like yourself who find they impair workflow. My suggestion to use XSI in the meantime is serious, it's a unified app with a very good modeller. Most serious artists / pros use multiple apps these days, it's pretty limiting just supporting one team no matter how good they are. It's true Modeler needs more tlc and should ideally be beefed up to load mega poly models, but how soon will that realistically happen? What's unfortunate is there's a lot of huffing and puffing about Modeler being 'stagnant' or 'on it's last legs' which is a misrepresentation as it's still a very capable intuitive app which has been updated of late. Modeler shouldn't be underestimated especially when combined, as you say with apps like LWCad and ZBrush.

Kuzey
11-28-2013, 05:10 AM
please remember that some of these things have been implemented in LightWave 11.5/11.6




request 6, by erikals, add a polyfit tool
-fixed, the new heat shrink tool, 11.5 (great implementation)



Speaking of heat shrink, that like many LW tools, it's needs the object to be in world center (XYZ) for it to work properly. Now, if they could fix that and add the ability to only effect selected polygons instead of the whole mesh..that would be awesome...wink..wink..LW3dG :P

Lewis
11-28-2013, 07:39 AM
Speaking of heat shrink, that like many LW tools, it's needs the object to be in world center (XYZ) for it to work properly. Now, if they could fix that and add the ability to only effect selected polygons instead of the whole mesh..that would be awesome...wink..wink..LW3dG :P

What do you mean "to work properly" ? Mine works off center and works with selected polys also. Can you elaborate bit more ? I'm using it very often and i requested it since Lw 9.x (not sure when ekrikals asked for that but i was using Heatpress and ko_point fit so i requested for native one due lack of 64b support form heatpress and they made heatshrink which is great now after few fixes/bugs changes ;))

Kuzey
11-28-2013, 11:48 AM
What do you mean "to work properly" ? Mine works off center and works with selected polys also. Can you elaborate bit more ? I'm using it very often and i requested it since Lw 9.x (not sure when ekrikals asked for that but i was using Heatpress and ko_point fit so i requested for native one due lack of 64b support form heatpress and they made heatshrink which is great now after few fixes/bugs changes ;))

Oh look at that...you're right :P

I think Placemesh was the one that needed the background mesh to be dead center for it to work...don't prove me wrong this time :)

Lewis
11-28-2013, 12:01 PM
Oh look at that...you're right :P

I think Placemesh was the one that needed the background mesh to be dead center for it to work...don't prove me wrong this time :)

Nope, you re right this time, Place mesh works best if "cloning" background is in center of BG layer :).

As for HeatShrink only limit i found is that backgroudn layer can't be from another object, it must be within same object. Rest works fine :).

jeric_synergy
11-28-2013, 12:17 PM
LOL, don't you love those moments, Kuzey?

Thanks for the reminders about these tools, guys: it's so easy to forget the new-ish tools. There should be a list of "Top Ten Most Neglected LWM Tools".

Emmanuel
11-28-2013, 02:15 PM
Why do I select objects best with MMB in Layout, but can not select stuff with MMB in graph editor or node editor ?

Oedo 808
11-29-2013, 01:19 PM
Yes i do more and more sadly. I don't particularly like MAX way of modleing but there is some brilliant stuff inthere also so it's not all bad for LWaver either, especialy when you realize you can undo everything ;).

Thanks for you input Lewis, yeah, even though I wouldn't say no to undo being added to some subtool operations, it's lovely using the undo slider in ZBrush. I might think someone just knows of LightWave, but then they'll say they liked the UV Viewport mode or something and I'll know they must have seen it in action at least, funny you should mention smoothing groups because this is something invariably mentioned, and unwelding isn't the same.


But i still think that LW users in general are resistant to significant change.

I said I didn't think that LightWave has more than I've seen elsewhere, and I still feel that's true, I reckon you're lucky not to see them rather than vice versa. But I'll happily concede that LightWave evangelists are certainly some of the nuttiest you can get.

hrgiger
11-29-2013, 01:27 PM
. But I'll happily concede that LightWave evangelists are certainly some of the nuttiest you can get.

And that's all I'm saying. :)

Emmanuel
11-29-2013, 03:40 PM
Well, i guess we can close this thread now ?