PDA

View Full Version : MODO 3D VS LightWave



simonlion
11-27-2013, 10:00 PM
Hello Everyone.

I been hearing so many things about MODO 3D. Would you please explain the different between MODO and LightWave.
Also, what Is it you can do In MODO that you can not do In LightWave.
Thanks

Surrealist.
11-27-2013, 10:42 PM
Modo has Painting and Sculpting....LightWave does not

Modo is basically a unified application with all of the tools under one roof and separated into modules. LightWave is separated into 2 apps and they do not work much at all together. Where as Modo the tools are more or less integrated.

Modo has some interesting and new technology being implemented for character animation. LightWave still relies on its old system of rigging and animation. Even the new animation tools are basically built on the old system.

Modo just got some very interesting particle effects. LightWave still uses its old particle system but did get Bullet for hard body and instancing.

Modo is a newer application in terms of years and technology but is very much a work in progress. LightWave still relies on an old system that has been fully fleshed out for years and is tried and true. But is itself in a sort of WIP stage as they try and inject new technology into a relic.

For modeling Modo has a more advanced system than LightWave which still holds onto tools that have been outdated for years forcing people into a certain workflow and some limitations. However although I have not used some of the new LightWave tools yet, they do look like an improvement. Modo is still kinda too much like LightWave for me in that regard which is part of why I passed. But the tools are based on more modern ways of doing things.

Modo has a very different way of handling materials and surfaces. Something I have not used, but many people seem to think it is not such a great idea, very hard to use and limiting. Whereas LightWave does have a fairly advanced system for texturing if you are using nodes. Overall a very easy application to do surfacing in.

Modo just got some kind of soft body dynamics. I am not sure how well it works with characters. But LightWave cloth is a very tried and true system that is not the greatest but it works and is designed fairly well for character work. It also has Bullet Softbody. But from what I have seen in posts here not very optimized for a character workflow.

Rendering is pretty much on a par I think between the two with perhaps the exception of the Modo shader tree I eluded to earlier.

There are a lot to things to cover. But that is the basics of how far I got with it when testing it over a year ago. Others will have more information.

spherical
11-27-2013, 10:57 PM
Modo has a very different way of handling materials and surfaces. Something I have not used, but many people seem to think it is not such a great idea, very hard to use and limiting.

Can you elaborate on this, please?

One point to note is that the Modo developers used to be LightWave Devs and split off. Puts a little bit of perspective on it.

simonlion
11-27-2013, 11:31 PM
Dear Surrealist.

Thank you very much for your Info.

motivalex
11-28-2013, 12:07 AM
Modo currently has better modelling tools. It is easier to get nice looking renders in Lightwave, but Modo has a nice renderer too. Modos surfacing is not very good compared to Lightwaves nodes. There is a Modo version for Linux but not for Lightwave. Lightwave is more fully featured but by next release of Modo that will likely not be the case. These are my intitial impressions so far. I was going to leave Lightwave for Cinema4d, but the great updates from 11.0 to 11.6 have kept me onboard. The new features in 11.5 and 11.6 alone have saved me days of extra work compared to previous versions. So I am looking forward to what the Lightwave Group bring to version 12 and I will keep evaluating Modos latest releases for consideraton to add to my tools.

50one
11-28-2013, 01:01 AM
Personally I'm finding Modo shading and rendering to be much easier for beginners to get better results faster than in LW, true the shader tree is not perfect, but it works the same way as old LW system, where you would stack procedurals or images and blend them(or photoshop), render outputs(masks) are so easy to use too. From animation point of view I'm using the nodal tools in Modo and the rock, possibly you could get similar effect in lightwave, but there are only two or three people in this world that understands nodes and math enough to do this. Having said that, i think both app complement each other and there are really nice additions in 11.6 like raycast for instance.

Depends what you do really, but if it's product type renders I would go with modo, hope that helps.

Simon

Waves of light
11-28-2013, 02:58 AM
Richard, you're clearly a top modeler, so I would be interested to gain your perspective (speed, ease of use) on the workflow differences between LW and Modo when it comes to:

a) hard surface modeling
b) organic modeling

hrgiger
11-28-2013, 02:59 AM
Surrealist's post is fairly accurate but I feel it paints Modo in a little better light then maybe it should. There are some disadvantages to Modo that I don't see.

Large scene management is a pain in Modo.

While it's true that Modo is a unified application, not all attributes are animatable. A lot are, but they didn't think to include modeling operations in that. Which is strange considering it started as a modeling operation with the intent to eventually become a full application.

I find the shader tree to not be the most intuitive to work with. I'd like to see them go with a nodal shading system eventually.

While a lot of Modo's modeling tools are great, I really dislike their implementation of spline patch modeling. I just single that one tool out because its something I use a lot.

Luxology in the last year or so merged (acquired?) with the Foundry. While some may see this as a good thing, it makes me wonder just how independent the original creators still are in developing Modo. Just makes me wonder how it will affect the application long term.

Nice that they added painting and sculpting. But when stacked up against Zbrush, there's just no comparison and so for me, they might as well not be in there. Never used them but people on the Lux forums used to complain all the time about how slow paint was.

But not meant to paint Modo in a negative light. Just pointing out some things I discovered while I was using Modo. I have not used the latest version 701 so I can't say how it is now. The new particles look nice and the fact that they work with Bullet is great. I can't say exactly why, but I didn't find Modo to be as easy to work in as LigthWave. Probably just not as much time in using the application. In the terms of 3D applications, its relatively new and I guess in a way it just still feels a little immature yet. I always watch the new releases in the event I might want to pick it up again one day.

50one
11-28-2013, 03:38 AM
Surrealist's post is fairly accurate but I feel it paints Modo in a little better light then maybe it should. There are some disadvantages to Modo that I don't see.

Large scene management is a pain in Modo.

While it's true that Modo is a unified application, not all attributes are animatable. A lot are, but they didn't think to include modeling operations in that. Which is strange considering it started as a modeling operation with the intent to eventually become a full application.

I find the shader tree to not be the most intuitive to work with. I'd like to see them go with a nodal shading system eventually.

While a lot of Modo's modeling tools are great, I really dislike their implementation of spline patch modeling. I just single that one tool out because its something I use a lot.

Luxology in the last year or so merged (acquired?) with the Foundry. While some may see this as a good thing, it makes me wonder just how independent the original creators still are in developing Modo. Just makes me wonder how it will affect the application long term.

Nice that they added painting and sculpting. But when stacked up against Zbrush, there's just no comparison and so for me, they might as well not be in there. Never used them but people on the Lux forums used to complain all the time about how slow paint was.

But not meant to paint Modo in a negative light. Just pointing out some things I discovered while I was using Modo. I have not used the latest version 701 so I can't say how it is now. The new particles look nice and the fact that they work with Bullet is great. I can't say exactly why, but I didn't find Modo to be as easy to work in as LigthWave. Probably just not as much time in using the application. In the terms of 3D applications, its relatively new and I guess in a way it just still feels a little immature yet. I always watch the new releases in the event I might want to pick it up again one day.


yup, shader tree is unforgiving if you won't pay attention to keep things tidy while working on massive scenes(half-*** solution to this was implementing the "Library" folder where you can keep your material tree), I don't see the Foundry as a new owner a bad thing, to be honest I could see that the Lux/Modo started to have the same problem as Lightwave(yes, modeling tools are great but there are bugs since 401 that were never fixed or "various improvements" that introduced new bugs or never really worked in 100% and Lux were not really bothered to fix those - Render Booleans is prime example) spline modeling is quite simple - thats true. Hopefully Foundry will give them more resources to fix bugs(well, this is already happening) and make sure that all the new shiny toys are working as expected.

S

Surrealist.
11-28-2013, 03:43 AM
Surrealist's post is fairly accurate but I feel it paints Modo in a little better light then maybe it should.

I agree. There are other negative sides to Modo as well. My general impression summed up, Modo is far more modern in general than LightWave which is more mature. The extent of my experience is taking both 501 and 601 for a spin on the trial versions - very methodically mind you and reading the manual both times. I gave up on it twice for the same reasons. Not quite there yet. But 601 and 701 are major leaps ahead. I have had no reason to check out 701 because I ended my 2 year research/trial period with other software and settled on other solutions before it was released.

@waves of light

I am not the guy to ask about that because I have about 0 hours in the chair with Modo production wise. But from a run through the tools I can only surmise that it is a similar advantage to other apps with more modern workflows than LightWave. Also I have not used any of the new tools in LightWave which would shed a different picture for sure.

But from using LightWave for many years and then Blender about as long and then XSI and Maya for about a year or so, I can say this:

What you need from any modeling application is a way to snap a manipulator to any location in the scene, point. object center bone etc, and use it as a center. Then be able to set up scaling rotating and translating from any plane, world, local or custom user defined. And have a universal fall off (soft select) system or at least one that works universally the same between tools, a way to mirror your mesh and work with all tools while mirrored and a host of other things like being able to work while constrained to a surface for things like retopo to another mesh. Then of course good UV unwrapping tools.

Additionally you ideally want to be able to model, rig, paint weights and animate within the same interface.

LightWave has made improvements on some of these issues in the last year.

But that is more or less how I stack it up.

@simonlion

You are welcome and good luck in your quest.

Surrealist.
11-28-2013, 03:50 AM
Can you elaborate on this, please?

Not really, I was just kinda reporting what I have heard. Will leave details/comparisons up to other people who have used both.

Kuzey
11-28-2013, 05:00 AM
Modo has a very different way of handling materials and surfaces. Something I have not used, but many people seem to think it is not such a great idea, very hard to use and limiting. Whereas LightWave does have a fairly advanced system for texturing if you are using nodes.


I almost bought Modo when they had that end of Core special (upgrade price instead of full price) for LW users...the texturing system scared the hell out of me and I passed.

3dWannabe
11-28-2013, 02:43 PM
?If? Modo has better modeling tools, how does LW+LWCAD compare to the current release of Modo?

And if Modo still has non-nodal surfaces (tried them a few years ago), gag me with a spoon.

bobakabob
11-28-2013, 02:52 PM
Why not try out the Modo trial version? Looking at the Gallery it's capable of incredible work in the right hands as is Lightwave. You may love it or loathe it, it's all subjective

prometheus
11-29-2013, 07:37 AM
Modo has some significant features that has been developed a little further on some areas...where Lightwave is behind, and vice versa...this will be a little biased towards what modo has as opposed to what lightwave has and modo not..but I start with that.


modo has sculpting, and painting.
Modo has implemented pixar subdivision, more advanced and better performance.
Modo has implemented a volumetric item, which means it can render objects in volumetric mode, where lightwave hypervoxels only can render points,particles,vertices.
This is good for nature objects like stones,rocks..and clouds not looking like puffballs, this is similar to houdini cloudfx tools which also uses volumetric objects.


Modo recently implemented a particle system which is more advanced, you can sculpt particles in time(like chronosculpt type, but for particles) and those particles also affect
modoīs bullet engine (recoil) so a particle stream can push bullet dynamic objects to fall etc.
The particle engine is also node based so advance noise fields can be applied in ways lightwave currently can not, you can also spray particles.
The modo previewer allows for individual window preview that isnīt stuck to the workports like lightwave VPR.

modo imports solidworks sldasm,sldprt files directly, useful if working in a construction company or product design with other engineers and exports
the cad work to modo..not available in any form in lightwave


I would rather work within Lightwave though, inspite of the stuff mentioned above, the UI of modo is graphicly pleasing, but in the end also confusing, the shader tree feels unatural to mee, when I would like to work on a scene, I want fast acess to lights,camera, objects..and itīs quite a difference how you acess that in modo vs lightwave(
hate the shader tree in modo where you need to find your lights and cameras, should be an optional universal scenelist, but have it directly acessable as in lightwave).

So when Lightwave getīs enhanced subdivs, improved hypervoxels with volumetric objects, improved particles working with bullet and nodes/noise fields etc, apply additional modul panel for the previewer...it will please me on those areas.

As I said, there are loads of things you would rather do within lightwave I guess, to many to actually count here.
And I can not really give that much fair comparable facts on it, since I havenīt tested it enought, the problem I have with modo trials...15 days, itīs to short to even bother.
I have also felt that working in modo feels Clunky/slower for many parts compared to lightwave.
I have heard from some that Lightwave bullet feels more solid than modoīs, or more stable.
same goes for the general performance stability of lightwave vs modo.
Lightwave is probably easier to use and set up stuff for, feels like modo needs wrestling with a deeper understanding and nodes etc.

I really would like sculpting tools, both modeler and layout...there was development time invested in it with the old core, but were either abandoned or is still
under the development cycle to come, even if thereīs GoZ for zbrush, not everyone has zbrush, and you always face interoperability and cpu performance strain
working in two different apps for it, and besides it doesnīt give you a fluid feedback when changing a model in zbrush, and switch to lightwave to see the change within
the scene.
Modo has enhanced the sculpting performance, and cinema4d has done that too..I d onīt think it would be wise not to implement it, it is giving another
dimension to editing scenes, or models within the scene without worrying about zbrush and also doing so more effective in terms of overview and direct feedback on
the scene/model

Donīt have to wait for zbrush to start up and initialize, no messing with switching and leaving the lightwave work/viewports etc...
If you are working solely on a high res sculpture/character for high res polywork etc..zbrush is prefered, but there are lot of sculptin in mid sized poly level or
scene editing of terrain etc..that could use a built in sculpt tool.
Michael

Phil
11-29-2013, 07:51 AM
It's easier for you to grab the demo versions and find your own answer. Since you're posting in the LW forums, I guess you're familiar with LW, so here's a few things to consider re. modo :

- Sculpting and painting are built-in. That means that you can paint corrective morphs, adjust weightmaps or refine textures in-place. In practise, there are some headaches with performance - painting on a mesh that is being deformed can be slow. However, the ability to tune things on-the-fly is very welcome compared to LW's back-and-forth workflow to Modeler for morphs/weightmaps.

- The construction plane implementation is powerful and welcome.

- The dynamics system is well done. Constraints, caching, etc. Deforming meshes aren't correctly handled, however. The in-frame playback can also be very helpful in debugging your dynamics set-up.

- The particle system is lovely. Really. It's a joy to use and their inspired in-frame playback means that you can just noodle around with settings and see the effect on a live running simulation. There are some scenarios where this won't work (moving emitters) because you need to have the keyframed animation, but the basic setup is made much simpler with the in-frame playback.

- Rendering setup can be a real chore in modo. Like LW of old, they have sampling values scattered through the various areas of the application (lights, shadertree, GI, AA). It's not as simple as LW's approach (since 11.0) of setting high and low sampling values and then using the adaptive sampling to collect more or less of the noise.

- Undo. Glorious, glorious undo.

- If you can live with the quirks, there is also scene referencing (so you can have an external asset library and just reference those rather than include them into the main scene).

- Render proxies (low poly/low demand proxy assets that are replaced for the true render - keep the scene navigable when animating)

There is also something to be said for the single file format (which is documented, but I'm not aware of any 3rd party component for reading LXO files in other applications, unlike LWO). I have a stress test scene here from Maya that, exported to FBX, is intended to demonstrated weaknesses in other applications. The stress test is due to the sheer number of items, various of which are animated. Importing into modo causes a pretty large slow down (almost unusable). Getting it into LW is actually pretty much impossible unless you want to wait hours. Why? There are 36,000 individual objects created from that FBX. Layout, loading the scene, has to read in each of those objects. The time taken to load in the first 100 of those is much less than the next 100 and so on. I waited 2 hours and only 3% of the scene had been loaded.

dsol
11-29-2013, 10:00 AM
I like quite a lot about Modo, but haven't really used it since 401. The hard surface modelling tools are great - it feels like a very refined and modernised version of LW's modeller, with flexible falloff settings for almost all tools and really great support for workplanes. The bucket-based renderer is excellent too, and even supports multi-machine single image rendering.

I *hate* the shader tree though, and - having finally started getting my head around it - would really miss the nodal texturing in LW, which is awesome. I've also found Modo, even its latest iterations (after downloading trials), to be quite crash-prone. LW isn't perfect in that regard either, but it's really improved and seems to be pretty stable these days. Incidentally, that's also one of the best things I've heard about Cinema4D - it's supposed to be rock-solid!

jeric_synergy
11-29-2013, 11:45 AM
One point to note is that the Modo developers used to be LightWave Devs and split off. Puts a little bit of perspective on it.
That was QUITE a while ago: I think the impact has now been diluted sufficiently to ignore.

Snosrap
11-29-2013, 04:31 PM
I've been a Modo user from 101 thru 601, it's a really nice app but I have decided to stop at 601. I've also been a LW user from 5.6 thru 11.6 and will continue to upgrade based on that I'm really liking their new direction and the 11 series has just been fantastic. If you are modeling guy, Modo is more modern and may be the better choice, but if you are a rendering guy LW is the one to go with. If you are a generalist, either one will fill the bill nicely, but I've decided to use LW as my go to 3D tool.

tburbage
11-29-2013, 05:38 PM
?If? Modo has better modeling tools, how does LW+LWCAD compare to the current release of Modo?
I don't think it makes for a very good comparison. LWCAD significantly expands the LW modeling toolset, but more in an engineering/CAD oriented direction, but still very much with a straight polygonal workflow in mind. I think it is a uniquely powerful combination for hard surface modeling, especially for those with a more "engineering" view of modeling. But LWCAD isn't really thinking in terms of a Subdivision Surfaces or organic modeling workflows at all. To me, LWCAD makes LWM more like a Form*Z than a Modo...

chikega
11-29-2013, 10:58 PM
I started using modo (101) along with Silo3d about 10 years ago ... I find that modo has done a fairly good job consolidating their modeling tools and workflow compared to Lightwave's modeler. For instance, you can bevel a vertex, edge or polygon in modo using the same keyboard shortcut 'b'. I tried to bevel an edge in LW the other day and realized I needed to use the new Chamfer tool instead. LW is moving in the right direction with the introduction of their new modeling tools in 11.5. In modo, you can just use the Delete key to delete a polygon, edge or vertex ... in LW, you have to use multiple approaches to delete the different components such as using "K" to kill a polygon, but you can't kill a point or vertex. Lightwave's modeling tools are rather redundant and spread out all over the place so unless you have years of experience in LW, you'd have a tough time coming to grips with a proper workflow. I would say modo's modeling paradigm is more in line with what's considered industry standard. I still think Silo3d is one of the best examples of a clean efficient workflow paradigm. It uses industry standard terms to describe basic functions like "Normal scale" and "Normal move". Modo uses "Push" to describe "Normal move", the term isn't industry standard, but it is at least descriptive. In LW, you have to remember that using the right mouse button with "Move Plus" will allow you to move vertices along their normals. This is a great example of a rather hidden feature that a beginner may or may not happen upon. I believe there are some other tools in LW that do something similar but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

In modo, you can select a blank space in the viewport to deselect. In Lightwave, you STILL have to click on the the 'frame' around the viewport to deselect or use the keyboard shortcut.

You can undo, undo and undo in modo. In LW, you can save incrementally, incrementally, incrementally. :)

One thing that has hurt me in LW recently on a project was the inability to use basic modeling tools in Layout. In modo, I can modify an object during an animation for the utmost in precision because all the modeling tools are just there. Also, modo has not only a pivot point but a center, both of which can be animated for some complex effects.

The other thing that is missing in LW is support for Vector displacement maps. modo has it.

modo has a one of the best toolsets and workflow for creating UV's and retopology. LW is lacking in this area.

modo has sculpting and painting ... but depending on your graphics card, these can be painful to use. It's best to use 3dcoat, Mudbox or Zbrush.

modo has a great physical sky (light clamping, etc..)

I do not like modo's shadertree. I don't even know why they use the term 'tree'. I remember using DarkTree years ago and it was nodal based with branching, etc... modo should call it shaderstrata since it's layer based. I much prefer the nodal workflow.

I believe both LW and modo compliment one another and I use both, each for their strengths. I much prefer to render in LW since I can get a beautiful render with minimal fuss.

blugenwitz
11-30-2013, 06:07 AM
Hello!

I think there is quite fair comparison of both, but I will just put my 2 cents:
1. Shader tree isn't that bad. Lot of peoples hates it, that true, but other half seems to be pleased. I like it a lot, always liked LW layers and this is very smart evolution of this system - and it's constantly reinveted.
2. As cool as modeling in Modo is, LW cad and it's snapping system is still far more advanced than Modo's snapping.
3. I found it really strange that modo and lightwave choose opposite approach in sampling values - unified and "scattered" I think both have pros and cons.

regards!

stiff paper
11-30-2013, 07:41 AM
The particle system... and their inspired in-frame playback means that you can just noodle around with settings and see the effect on a live running simulation.
If you mean what I think you mean by this then LW's pFX has always done this. Really. Try it.


In modo, you can select a blank space in the viewport to deselect. In Lightwave, you STILL have to click on the the 'frame' around the viewport to deselect or use the keyboard shortcut.
I asked for this in LW Modeler THIRTEEN years ago, when a couple of LW people visited the place where I was working. Of course, the people I asked are now working at... umm... yeah.

Modeling: I still do hard surface modeling in an entirely "engineering" kind of way. I can't even perceive hard surface modeling as anything other than a basic engineering task. I set a lot of numerical values. When I want to, say, bend something, I just select the points I want to affect instead of using the visusal doohickey. You can say LightWave's modeling toolset and style is dated, but the truth is LW is still flexible enough to allow me to model in that brute force engineering style if I want to, and modo absolutely is not. With modo it's doohickeys only, there's not the tiniest bit of flexibility left. If you really like the way the modo team thinks about modeling tasks, then I'm sure modo is fantastic for you. Me, I'm not really convinced.

I like the modo shader tree just fine. Dislike nodal surfacing in LW. Also, I think that modo's renderer produces slightly nicer images than LW's. Their renderer is also quick enough with brute force GI that you can actually think about using it occasionally.

I also find that modo feels slower to use, although I'm not sure that it really is... it just feels that way. It feels more laborious, somehow. It might be the way everything's arranged, or it might be their interface (which I don't much like).

Their retopo tool is lovely, though. (When it works.)

chikega
11-30-2013, 08:05 AM
Also, hair/fur shaders in modo and LW are not up to the standards of Vray 3.0, Shave and a Haircut, Houdini mantra, Ornatrix, Lagao etc...

Hail
11-30-2013, 09:30 AM
I'm not very sure about this so I stand to be corrected but I think the animation/Mograph toolset in modo are still somewhat far behind that of lightwave.
Complex mograph animations such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdrnhaSKZE seem somewhat impossible to do in modo currently(might be wrong though)
Modo also lacks a dedicated flocking system although you could get something going with particles but that somehow feels like a work around rather than a dedicated flocking tool such as the one in lw.
Does modo have a spline deformer yet?

prometheus
11-30-2013, 09:36 AM
I'm not very sure about this so I stand to be corrected but I think the animation/Mograph toolset in modo are still somewhat far behind that of lightwave.
Complex mograph animations such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdrnhaSKZE seem somewhat impossible to do in modo currently(might be wrong though)
Modo also lacks a dedicated flocking system although you could get something going with particles but that somehow feels like a work around rather than a dedicated flocking tool such as the one in lw.
Does modo have a spline deformer yet?

Spline deformer, I think so...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=modo+spline+deformer&sm=3

Yes...It seems lightwave has more advanced mograph tools than modo has with itīs node implementation.
modo particles are node based it seems and thus it seems they are more advanced in how much can be tweaked with nodes, but also harder to set up for simple stuff.
and flocking is a tool specially dedicated for flock motions, so modo has nothing like it, and as you mentioned, workarounds with nodes for acheiving similar stuff.

Michael

jwiede
11-30-2013, 09:51 AM
When I want to, say, bend something, I just select the points I want to affect instead of using the visusal doohickey. You can say LightWave's modeling toolset and style is dated, but the truth is LW is still flexible enough to allow me to model in that brute force engineering style if I want to, and modo absolutely is not. With modo it's doohickeys only, there's not the tiniest bit of flexibility left.

So by "doohickeys only", I presume you mean no numerical input?

118452

For that bend, I selected points and entered values, no doohickeys needed. Can you be a bit more specific about which tools lack ability for numerical input, or what "doohickeys only" meant if not that?

Phil
11-30-2013, 09:56 AM
If you mean what I think you mean by this then LW's pFX has always done this. Really. Try it.

This is what I meant : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qISbqBhIP0E

It's not offered by LW - you have to play back the entire timeline, which may not be helpful in large scenes.

I also forgot to mention the particle sculpting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU2OeNQcwSM

jasonwestmas
11-30-2013, 10:08 AM
I've been a Modo user from 101 thru 601, it's a really nice app but I have decided to stop at 601. I've also been a LW user from 5.6 thru 11.6 and will continue to upgrade based on that I'm really liking their new direction and the 11 series has just been fantastic. If you are modeling guy, Modo is more modern and may be the better choice, but if you are a rendering guy LW is the one to go with. If you are a generalist, either one will fill the bill nicely, but I've decided to use LW as my go to 3D tool.

as a semi generalist who is doing his best to focus more animation and rendering it I can't see only using LW for 3D stuff in general. But perhaps LW only people don't do much animation.

jwiede
11-30-2013, 10:51 AM
and flocking is a tool specially dedicated for flock motions, so modo has nothing like it, and as you mentioned, workarounds with nodes for acheiving similar stuff.

Except flocking sims are just a subset of particle systems, underneath it all. Most pkg's particle systems (incl. modo's) put "flocking" as a particle behavior modifier, because that's all it really is internally -- an arbitrary set of behaviors assigned to geometry-less* but PSR-tracked data entities (aka particles). LW's flocking system is a particle system as well, it's just separately implemented from pfx, LW's "main" particle engine. This isn't a "good thing", as it forces LW to implement two, separate sets of particle behavior constraints, particle forces, tools, and so forth.

*: While most pkgs' particle systems allow geometry/instances to "track" particles (incl. modo's), the particles themselves are typically geometry-less entities.

stiff paper
11-30-2013, 10:56 AM
This is what I meant : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qISbqBhIP0E
Ah, I see. It's a kind of... evolution of the way LW does it. It does seem nice. I'm sure the LWG is paying attention to that kind of thing. Well. I say I'm sure. I guess what I really mean is "I hope." Naah, I'm sure they are. Maybe. Kind of.


For that bend, I selected points and entered values, no doohickeys needed. Can you be a bit more specific about which tools lack ability for numerical input, or what "doohickeys only" meant if not that?
Well, it has been quite a while since I sat down with modo. I didn't actually remember that you could numerically set the doohickey (you could tell me what the "doohickey" is called in modo - I don't remember that either.) Still, what I actually meant was more that one thing I do remember is that I couldn't simply select the vertices (or polys, whichever) I wanted to bend and then just drag my mouse onscreen to bend those points... You know, you might be right to defend modo on this. The more I think about this now and the more I think I might have made the wrong complaint. I'm trying to think back and I think my main problem with modo was to do with precision and accuracy, and the feeling that I wasn't in control of it on the same - and I'm going to use that word again - engineering level kind of way. I think I felt that, if I want to affect these six verts right here, then having to define an influence to do that was loose and woolly in comparison to just selecting the six verts themselves. I mean, you can define an influence in LW too, it's just that in a lot of instances I choose not to because it's not really helpful.

Feel free to tell me there's a way to use modo that feels just as engineering-y as modeling in LW, if there is one. Believe it or not I'm genuinely not trying to start a fight over it. It just didn't feel at all like that to me when I tried it.

arail
11-30-2013, 12:02 PM
I don't think it makes for a very good comparison. LWCAD significantly expands the LW modeling toolset, but more in an engineering/CAD oriented direction, but still very much with a straight polygonal workflow in mind.

I'm not a LW user yet but it seems to me that, with LWCAD, LW has both organic and 'engineering / CAD' capabilities. Modo doesn't - it's snapping is over engineered to the point of uselessness (although there are rumors of snapping improvements in the next release) and it has nothing like LWCAD. I am considering switching from modo to LW because of LWCAD.

jasonwestmas
11-30-2013, 12:05 PM
Except flocking sims are just a subset of particle systems, underneath it all. Most pkg's particle systems (incl. modo's) put "flocking" as a particle behavior modifier, because that's all it really is internally -- an arbitrary set of behaviors assigned to geometry-less* but PSR-tracked data entities (aka particles). LW's flocking system is a particle system as well, it's just separately implemented from pfx, LW's "main" particle engine. This isn't a "good thing", as it forces LW to implement two, separate sets of particle behavior constraints, particle forces, tools, and so forth.

*: While most pkgs' particle systems allow geometry/instances to "track" particles (incl. modo's), the particles themselves are typically geometry-less entities.

yes, I interpreted the new flocking system as just another particle system. I hope it keeps developing, but yeah the duality of LW can be frustrating.

jeric_synergy
11-30-2013, 12:32 PM
Modo uses "Push" to describe "Normal move", the term isn't industry standard, but it is at least descriptive.

Except, if you are "pulling", no?


In LW, you have to remember that using the right mouse button with "Move Plus" will allow you to move vertices along their normals. This is a great example of a rather hidden feature that a beginner may or may not happen upon. I believe there are some other tools in LW that do something similar but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

This is exactly why I've been ranting for YEARS (decades?) for "owner-moderated/user extended" documentation-- there's NO WAY to adequately bring all these little tricks to the users attentions in the traditional documentation paradigm, ----but allow users to add reference and pointers like "Normal Move" pointing to "Move Plus", and suddenly at least users have a CHANCE to discover all the little tricks that make LW usable.

There's ALWAYS "ommisions and errata" -- user extended documentation allows them to be fixed in an actual USEFUL way.

Very good points in your post here, thanks.

dsol
11-30-2013, 04:30 PM
Except, if you are "pulling", no?

This is exactly why I've been ranting for YEARS (decades?) for "owner-moderated/user extended" documentation-- there's NO WAY to adequately bring all these little tricks to the users attentions in the traditional documentation paradigm, ----but allow users to add reference and pointers like "Normal Move" pointing to "Move Plus", and suddenly at least users have a CHANCE to discover all the little tricks that make LW usable.

There's ALWAYS "ommisions and errata" -- user extended documentation allows them to be fixed in an actual USEFUL way.

In a related area - adding descriptive metadata (keywords and a description) to all tools in LW would help as you could use it with a universal search tool built into the app to find any tool, even if you couldn't remember the exact name. So, for example, the Move Plus tool could have the keywords "Normal" "move" "slide" "push" "pull" (and more) attached to it. This would really help make LW massively easier for newbies (and people coming from other 3D apps) - and would even help old-timers like me I reckon!

Phil
11-30-2013, 05:00 PM
This is exactly why I've been ranting for YEARS (decades?) for "owner-moderated/user extended" documentation-- there's NO WAY to adequately bring all these little tricks to the users attentions in the traditional documentation paradigm, ----but allow users to add reference and pointers like "Normal Move" pointing to "Move Plus", and suddenly at least users have a CHANCE to discover all the little tricks that make LW usable.

There's ALWAYS "ommisions and errata" -- user extended documentation allows them to be fixed in an actual USEFUL way.

Very good points in your post here, thanks.

Ranting generally achieves very little, it has to be said. At the same time, LightWiki has been around for a while and provides the perfect venue for user contributions like you suggest. However, by and large, few contribute to it. I fail to see how that would change in the scheme you propose. Given the level of spam that these forums also attract, I'd also be concerned by vandalism from that crowd.

jeric_synergy
11-30-2013, 06:09 PM
Hey, my ranting got "Save All Objects" added. (Yep, the original Lightwave didn't have "Save All Objects".)

No, as admirable as LightWIKI is, its format AFAICT is not really useful for reference. I would say it is an excellent MAGAZINE.

But it's not a LW3DG sanctioned reference, and doesn't have the kind of keyword facility dsol mentions above (good idea). A lot of the problems with PAPER references was inadequate indexing-- the info was there but you couldn't find it. SEARCH eases that a bit, but SEARCH is not indexing, and user-extended indexing would be a great help to all users, if it were made convenient.

prometheus
11-30-2013, 06:11 PM
yes, I interpreted the new flocking system as just another particle system. I hope it keeps developing, but yeah the duality of LW can be frustrating.

yeah..concerns or questions are raised with particle systems, we now got dual particle systems nativly..and I wonder how the thought process or road map was thought of when implementing
flocking?

Im pretty sure most of us would like to see a particle system working with bullet hardbody and softbody, as well as working with the new forces, it would feel awkward if we would
get a third particle system seperate from flocking, I mean if you have a swarm of bats, birds or insects moving in flocking behavior, but you then want external forces like a swirl wind or
heavy force affecting it, you would want a flocking system working with bullet completly.

And further on, fluid particle advection from turbulenceFD pushing the particles? that is supposed to arrive before v2 of turbulenceFD, but that will be on nativly particles I guess, would
be great if it works on flocking particle system too, but we will see.

Michael

Surrealist.
11-30-2013, 06:18 PM
Well the Blender docs are on a wiki as well. But do people even bother to edit the manual?

By and large, not really. It is not the answer. Even Pixolic tried this for a whole and had to shut it down. I complained about the very thing and found that out.

The best approach is to stay active and alert use google the forums, make your own notes and if yo discover something significant, make a tutorial and share it.

That is the best way for information to get around. It is how things are getting done. There are these wikis that are tired but they are not the answer. You can hope that the manual will cover everything, but usually they don't. Kinda the way it is. Learning software is more of a group effort that comes from individuals putting in time and testing and sharing what they find.

Of course actually understanding what you read always helps. That has bit me more than once.

Phil
11-30-2013, 06:29 PM
No, as admirable as LightWIKI is, its format AFAICT is not really useful for reference. I would say it is an excellent MAGAZINE.

It's a wiki. It's what its contributors make it. It sounds like you have a design in mind. There's a wiki out there. I look forward to what you accomplish with it to set the trend and blaze the trail.


But it's not a LW3DG sanctioned reference, and doesn't have the kind of keyword facility dsol mentions above (good idea). A lot of the problems with PAPER references was inadequate indexing-- the info was there but you couldn't find it. SEARCH eases that a bit, but SEARCH is not indexing, and user-extended indexing would be a great help to all users, if it were made convenient.

Not true. A whole bunch of information was absent or just plain incorrect. Having reported all of these issues, with corrections, during 9.0 Open Beta and having been totally ignored, I tend to point the finger at the documentation owner.

Anyway, it sounds like you have designs and ideas. All power to your elbow.

jeric_synergy
11-30-2013, 09:45 PM
What I'd like to see is a PAID position that uses the existing manual as a starting point. Why not? LW3dG has already paid for all that typing (and research). AND that is tightly tied to the software (i.e., "F1").

What'd be nice is if LW3dG gave LightWIKI permission to wholesale cut & paste sections of the existing PDFs.

Then someone, most likely BeeVee, would continually vet, add, and OK contributions (from this forum, for example) to it. But it starts with what we already have. Or hell, just make the PDFs editable and commit to letting the best contributions percolate up.

I do NOT think this should be a volunteer thing: it's a legitimate task the the software maker should just include in their budget.

You'll know I got the job when it starts looking like THIS.

:D

spherical
11-30-2013, 10:35 PM
Priceless!

Phil
12-01-2013, 12:07 AM
What I'd like to see is a PAID position that uses the existing manual as a starting point. Why not? LW3dG has already paid for all that typing (and research). AND that is tightly tied to the software (i.e., "F1").

What'd be nice is if LW3dG gave LightWIKI permission to wholesale cut & paste sections of the existing PDFs.

Then someone, most likely BeeVee, would continually vet, add, and OK contributions (from this forum, for example) to it. But it starts with what we already have. Or hell, just make the PDFs editable and commit to letting the best contributions percolate up.

I do NOT think this should be a volunteer thing: it's a legitimate task the the software maker should just include in their budget.

You'll know I got the job when it starts looking like THIS.

:D

I'm confused. You're asking for community contributions, but are now asking for money. I'm not able to understand this at all. Why should one person be paid and everyone else donate their efforts freely? LW3DG have a documentation author working on material in Ben Vost. Based on the material to-date, he's making good headway.

I'd rather expect that any such position and project would also be based on merit. If you build it, they will come (as it were). For all these years that you've been ranting, to use your words, what might have been if that energy were used to construct an example of what you desire, using LightWiki as a base.

OnlineRender
12-01-2013, 06:42 AM
"Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy
No, as admirable as LightWIKI is, its format AFAICT is not really useful for reference. I would say it is an excellent MAGAZINE""

Glad I caught this thread ... I think jeric raises a valid issue although I am slightly offended about the magazine reference considering the people who do actually generate content spend there free time and are willing to help a fellow artists out,an excellent example of this would be http://lightwiki.com/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Subpatch_Modeling
but I can understand Jerics perspective.

but first I must expand further to give people with the same opinion a little of the inner working and perhaps there mindset might change!


firstly we are the only ones to implement and write a unified login for the wiki and main site. "that means one easy login for all aspects including forums,gallery,download section *served over 20k files *and so forth, the positives of this being it cuts the mediawiki spam down to 0 which was a huge issue with the old site".

secondly we brought the wiki back rather than let it die & I wish we had done the same for FLAY.com

however it does have that magazine aspect but I have just re_built the site *Version 3 <> not launched* and my main goal is to implement and give a clear coherent wiki although I see this being a pointless exercise because I believe NT/LW3DG will have this covered in due course "it's a must for any company" and I know Ken,Matt,Ben and others will have it spanked up and looking lovely if they decide to make it.

re_money aspect ... It cost's time and money to run any site let alone Lwik and if it was not for the generosity of the LW Community it simply would not be there. again FLAY.COM

The thing being, media is moving at an alarming rate... the Lwiki Facebook page hit 500+ members and the artwork that gets posted there is top notch in fact I would say there is more feedback on artwork and posts being delivered there than on the official Newtek Forum "I blame no thumbnails for that" but I digress


I'm I on the defensive regarding Lwiki? ...damn right I am , if you spent half the amount of time as "WE" have on the site you would do the same
If you have a suggestion regarding LWiki please let me know...118461"

OnlineRender
12-01-2013, 06:59 AM
back on track regarding MODO ...

If I had the money myself I would purchase modo it's a great tool ,solid roadmap great community and with the foundry backing the options are endless ,I think you would be silly to ignore it however the emphasis is on "TOOL" it really is the monkey behind the keyboard that drives.

although I like to place bets on the outsiders and I believe LightWave will come out the traps and really kick it up a gear.

jeric_synergy
12-01-2013, 10:40 AM
OnlineR, I must stress "EXCELLENT" magazine, nothing wrong w/that at all-- there's great content on LW. I've really appreciated the subd stuff. But nobody mistakes the LW manuals for a magazine. (AND, your efforts should be compensated somehow, why not NewTek?)

Phil, whoever administers the forum website GETS PAID, and here we are making content for it every day. AFAIConcerned, it's the same damn thing, esp. when people say repeatedly that the best info is on the forum. If the forum is the defacto documentation, why not turn it inside out, with somebody PAID to take the best of the forum info, ORGANIZE IT, make it FINDABLE, and incorporate it in an ongoing fashion into the official documentation?

For example: Greenlaw just posted a TON of great info about FFX. Now, wouldn't it be nice if, at the very least, there were appropriate links from the official manual to those posts? Also, the forum is where the documentation person can determine which parts of the manual are lacking and/or confusing. Without actual data about where users dwell in the PDFs over subjects (indicating lack of comprehension), questions on the forum show where people just aren't getting the info they need to use a given feature.

prometheus
12-02-2013, 06:40 AM
Except flocking sims are just a subset of particle systems, underneath it all. Most pkg's particle systems (incl. modo's) put "flocking" as a particle behavior modifier, because that's all it really is internally -- an arbitrary set of behaviors assigned to geometry-less* but PSR-tracked data entities (aka particles). LW's flocking system is a particle system as well, it's just separately implemented from pfx, LW's "main" particle engine. This isn't a "good thing", as it forces LW to implement two, separate sets of particle behavior constraints, particle forces, tools, and so forth.

*: While most pkgs' particle systems allow geometry/instances to "track" particles (incl. modo's), the particles themselves are typically geometry-less entities.

I donīt see it as a subset of particle systems, I think I see it as a new diffent particle system with different tools to work with, the question should rather be how different in structure

is the flocking system opposed to the older lightwave particle system, rather than discussing what flocking is or not, of course flocking it is a particle system donīt understand how anyne could fail to see that...if the code for the flockin "subset" particle system is pretty much the same as the old one, then it shouldnīt be that much problem to have it working with native wind forces...I suspect it is a different engine somehow and thus not working with wind forces?

jeric_synergy
12-02-2013, 06:30 PM
I guess the issue would be: are tools for BOTH systems better off in ONE system? Would particles benefit from a unified particle system that had features of both?

erikals
12-02-2013, 11:55 PM
being a LightWaver, it's easier for me to write what Modo is less good at...

-Mocap editing, LightWave can edit mocap fairly easily, Modo can't
-with LightWave Rhiggit 2, Modo character animation seems like a junior
-Animation techniques in general is better in LightWave imo
-IKBooster also adds great power to certain animation tasks
-Modeling, well, i'll give Modo some points here, even though i personally prefer Modeler
-Surfacing / Nodal > LightWave wins
-Render Engine, not sure, i think it's about a tie. LightWave gives you 1000 free nodes though
-Dynamics. LightWave seems to be slightly more powerful when it comes to dynamics.
-LightWave has an ok particle engine, but i think Modo's is better. (from what i recall)
-Modo sculpting is nice, but can't compare at all to 3DC/ZB/MB... (good for tweaking though)
-some simple painting inside LightWave would be nice, but currently there is only 32bit "UV Chalk"
-Undos in LightWave Layout can be quite limiting
-having a split Modeler/Layout can be a drag, but it's manageable. (afaik NT is working on it)
-Despite hick-ups/lacks, LightWave has a very fast workflow
-Modo, select a blank space to deselect. Lightwave, click a 'frame' to deselect
---i dislike both methods, like Lewis i've set LightWave deselect to the middle-mouse button > solved
-while LightWave can't create Vector displacement maps, you can use a DPont plugin to apply them.
-LWCad is superb if doing CAD modeling
-many great Mograph-alike animations are quite doable in LightWave, but there are few tutorials on it
-the LightWave plugin Turbulence is a nice addition


to me LightWave is by far the best choice, talking as a Generalist
still keeping an eye on Modo though...

btw, LightWave is on sale now, (https://www.lightwave3d.com/buy-lightwave/) you can get a full version for $999 - [the deal is closing soon...]

jwiede
12-03-2013, 01:07 AM
I guess the issue would be: are tools for BOTH systems better off in ONE system? Would particles benefit from a unified particle system that had features of both?

Lots of reasons why it is worse, among them: Two systems means more code to maintain, more surface area to test, inconsistent UX workflows, and so forth.

hrgiger
12-03-2013, 02:56 AM
being a LightWaver, it's easier for me to write what Modo is less good at...

-Mocap editing, LightWave can edit mocap fairly easily, Modo can't
-with LightWave Rhiggit 2, Modo character animation seems like a junior
-Animation techniques in general is better in LightWave imo
-IKBooster also adds great power to certain animation tasks
-Modeling, well, i'll give Modo some points here, even though i personally prefer Modeler
-Surfacing / Nodal > LightWave wins
-Render Engine, not sure, i think it's about a tie. LightWave gives you 1000 free nodes though
-Dynamics. LightWave seems to be slightly more powerful when it comes to dynamics.
-LightWave has an ok particle engine, but i think Modo's is better. (from what i recall)
-Modo sculpting is nice, but can't compare at all to 3DC/ZB/MB... (good for tweaking though)
-some simple painting inside LightWave would be nice, but currently there is only 32bit "UV Chalk"
-Undos in LightWave Layout can be quite limiting
-having a split Modeler/Layout can be a drag, but it's manageable. (afaik NT is working on it)
-Despite hick-ups/lacks, LightWave has a very fast workflow
-Modo, select a blank space to deselect. Lightwave, click a 'frame' to deselect
---i dislike both methods, like Lewis i've set LightWave deselect to the middle-mouse button > solved
-while LightWave can't create Vector displacement maps, you can use a DPont plugin to apply them.
-LWCad is superb if doing CAD modeling
-many great Mograph-alike animations are quite doable in LightWave, but there are few tutorials on it
-the LightWave plugin Turbulence is a nice addition


to me LightWave is by far the best choice, talking as a Generalist
still keeping an eye on Modo though...

btw, LightWave is on sale now, (https://www.lightwave3d.com/buy-lightwave/) you can get a full version for $999 - [the deal is closing soon...]



Modo now offers unlimited render nodes. Personally I don't understand why NT limits to 999. Seems like an arbitrary number. I mean its been a good selling point, but if they're going to offer that many, they might as well say unlimited.

I wouldn't list IKB as a benefit over Modo when Modo has a full time IK solver that works like IKB which is just a part time solver.

50one
12-03-2013, 03:04 AM
Even tho I've been LW user since version 6 and use Modo/LW/Blender mostly at work, I think that it all depends on what what you're doing, if you want get up to speed quickly(simple and not-so-simple animations, materials, shaders, assets) than I think Modo is the best choice.


-Modo sculpting is nice, but can't compare at all to 3DC/ZB/MB... (good for tweaking though)

Really? thought we're talking about the out-of-the-box systems? Sculpting & painitng in Modo is good(I would give it 4*5), but since Foundry owns Mari too, I don't see any improvements coming to it soon(what would be the point to sell Mari then at x2 the Modo price)


-Undos in LightWave Layout can be quite limiting

"Quite Limiting"? I'm gonna call you an optimist since now on:) F knows how many times I banged my head against desk when realizing that I need to start something from scratch because the Undo pretty much don't exist.

As I said earlier on, render outputs and creating masks in Modo is fun and easy, but once you're shader tree get complex it might be quite confusing sometimes, but as I said earlier on, If you're good at PS layers then Modo's shader tree shouldn't be a big problem as it works in the same way (Groups, masks and item above - let say a shader if not assigned to any mask will overwrite properties of the shaders below - it's quite straightforward imho)

jwiede
12-03-2013, 03:13 AM
-Dynamics. LightWave seems to be slightly more powerful when it comes to dynamics.


How do you figure? modo has a full Bullet implementation, incl. constraints/forces/motors/etc. well-integrated with SBD (which also has constraints, etc.) and particles. Even if LW's Bullet implementation were fully fleshed-out, lack of integration with other sim systems would still be an issue.

W.r.t. surfacing/rendering, modo's renderer has environmental importance sampling, interruptable/savable progressive renders, and a generally more physically-calibrated/energy-conserving material model. modo's renderer is a bucket-renderer as well, so isn't nearly as memory-bound as Lightwave -- might not be glamorous, but it is important. modo's integration and support for Allegorithmic's Substances is a pretty big deal as well, for gamedev and other markets. It gives modo richer and more flexible procedural texturing support than what LW can offer, and even better, Substances are "portable" to gamedev pkgs and (other) 3D pkgs.

Last I checked, modo's policy on render nodes is essentially the same as LW's, so not sure why you're calling that a LW advantage.

some other less-shiny but (IMO) valuable modo benefits:

- modo is much, much better at dealing with mega-/giga-poly objects and scenes, esp. modo 701.
- Pixar subdivision surfaces, benefit both as better sub-d's, and in the cross-package compatibility they allow.
- modo's UX is extremely customizable/programmable allowing much better use of additional displays, workflow customization, etc.
- modo's in-app preset/content-management systems are better than LW's in just about every conceivable manner.
- speaking of presets, modo's "kit" system allows much easier third-party content/plugin/etc. installation.
- third-party plugins can integrate themselves into modo's UX at same level of "first-party" functionality, even overriding if desired.
- modo's documentation is much more current and well-maintained, incl. "live" integration within the app's help system, editable online version, etc.
- Luxology invested heavily in providing and leveraging online training content for modo, including training videos directly integrated into the app's help system.

Personally, I'd suggest both LW and modo, as I believe they complement each other well. If I had to choose just one today, though, I'd choose modo 701.

jwiede
12-03-2013, 03:18 AM
As I said earlier on, render outputs and creating masks in Modo is fun and easy, but once you're shader tree get complex it might be quite confusing sometimes, but as I said earlier on, If you're good at PS layers then Modo's shader tree shouldn't be a big problem as it works in the same way (Groups, masks and item above - let say a shader if not assigned to any mask will overwrite properties of the shaders below - it's quite straightforward imho)

modo 701 also added functionality for shader tree organization, and large-scene mgmt (item shaders, better grouping, etc.). I'm not convinced the "shadertree is worse for large scenes" still applies as of 701. modo offers significant benefits in "visibility" into scene contents as well, esp. (again) modo 701.

50one
12-03-2013, 04:05 AM
modo 701 also added functionality for shader tree organization, and large-scene mgmt (item shaders, better grouping, etc.). I'm not convinced the "shadertree is worse for large scenes" still applies as of 701. modo offers significant benefits in "visibility" into scene contents as well, esp. (again) modo 701.

IMO, when the scene has more than 50 shaders and you're not paying too much attention to keeping things tidy then you're asking for headeches, if there is lot's of outputs enabled and some passes. But it all comes down to one thing "being organized" struggling with this sometimes haha.


Edit.

Ohh and the previewer in Modo is detachable and resizable...when we're gonna get similar functionality with VPR?

erikals
12-03-2013, 04:31 AM
IKB as a benefit over Modo
i never stated this, and never would. i was refering to the advantages of IKB.
(a chapter of it's own, i advice to buy Ryan's IKB video tutorial for more in-depth info)
as for CA, again, take a look at Rebel Hill's new Rhiggit 2.


Sculpting & painting in Modo is good (I would give it 4*5)
i would give it nowhere near that.


Undos in LightWave Layout can be quite limiting
quoting myself here. guess it depends on your workflow just how big of a problem it gets to be.
for me, not so much, i basically know what mistakes to avoid. for others, sure, i can see why they hit the wall.


Modo has a full Bullet implementation, incl. constraints/forces/motors/etc. well-integrated with SBD (which also has constraints, etc.) and particles. Even if LW's Bullet implementation were fully fleshed-out, lack of integration with other sim systems would still be an issue.
i was a bit fast there, indeed Modo Dynamics is better overall. i still like the LightWave Editfx, Sew, and Bone-Dynamics though. but yes, forgot about those constraints lacks etc...


but hey, download both, try them, and see what you like

http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

Danner
12-03-2013, 04:40 AM
Modo now offers unlimited render nodes. Personally I don't understand why NT limits to 999. Seems like an arbitrary number. I mean its been a good selling point, but if they're going to offer that many, they might as well say unlimited.

It should say unlimited, the 999 limit is no longer true. There is no limit anymore, I tried.
Just kidding! Rob Powers said there was no limit any more.

Phil
12-03-2013, 06:44 AM
being a LightWaver, it's easier for me to write what Modo is less good at...

-Mocap editing, LightWave can edit mocap fairly easily, Modo can't

Given that their IK system is built around IKinema's middleware, I would hope that mocap support isn't too far off.


-with LightWave Rhiggit 2, Modo character animation seems like a junior

RHiggit 2 does look fantastic. My continuing issue with character animation/setup in LW comes down to underlying fundamental problems that RHiggit2 doesn't appear to overcome. Those include weightmap adjustments on-the-fly and handling of corrective morph shapes. There's a big thread about the latter elsewhere in these forums - Layout doesn't really work in the correct manner to enable corrective morphs without a *lot* of manual back-and-forth to Modeler where, surprise, you can't see the deformation you're trying to tweak.

modo doesn't have the sculpting/deformation performance to make this a fluid process on dense character meshes (sometimes unavoidable due to frozen assets), but the toolset is there and 3rd party components like ACS (since we're talking about 3rd party addons) make it incredibly easy to set up corrective morphs based on joint angles. It couldn't be any easier.


-Animation techniques in general is better in LightWave imo

Up to now, the only thing I miss in modo when animating is something like Relativity. I like expressions rather than nodal networks for animating. However, there is genius in the assembly concept.

-Modeling, well, i'll give Modo some points here, even though i personally prefer Modeler


-Surfacing / Nodal > LightWave wins

That's a tad simplistic. The ShaderTree allows for scene-wide surfacing - if I want to override some/all surfaces, I can do so trivially. LW's surfacing doesn't work that way out-of-the-box. You'd need something like PassPort Renewed or ShaderMeister to override surfacing like this. Nodal is a closed box to the SDK from the outside, so automation and overriding/adjusting of nodal components in surfaces is impossible. Nodal's implementation is also very much silo-based. There's no apparent way to send information from the deformation area to the surfacing area. I don't see those kind of limitations in modo's infrastructure.

That said, yes, nodal surfacing would be nice. The Foundry (née Luxology) have commented in their modcasts that they are aware of it and they want to make sure that they do it correctly.


-Render Engine, not sure, i think it's about a tie. LightWave gives you 1000 free nodes though

This one is interesting. For convenience, for me, LW wins out. The simplicity since the use of Universal Sampling is a joy. However, LW is insatiable for memory and the inability to use network nodes to help out with the heavy lifting of F9 is unfortunate. VPR is not yet reliable enough to trust (I've found it losing elements in large scenes, usually instances) and doesn't match F9 output in some cases.

As 701 has matured with its Service Packs, it has closed the gap with LW on render performance. I'm seeing ~equivalent memory footprint and I have actually had faster renders some times than LW has offered.

Tiled EXRs in modo seem to give it more trouble than infiniMap in LW has, for both memory and render time (particularly when distributed rendering is involved). Part of that appears to be the way that modo operates - there's no content folder like LW, so there's a lot of network overhead as the entire set of tiled EXRs are pushed around the network.


-Dynamics. LightWave seems to be slightly more powerful when it comes to dynamics.

Couldn't disagree more, but you note that. I've had so much fun with modo's dynamics. Just noodling around in it. That's largely due to the workflow and the availability of constraints.


-Modo sculpting is nice, but can't compare at all to 3DC/ZB/MB... (good for tweaking though)

Performance is pretty iffy. I do really like the particle sculpting, though. That's a beautiful idea.


-some simple painting inside LightWave would be nice, but currently there is only 32bit "UV Chalk"

There was a Japanese plugin to do something similar, but it was also abandoned. Jen Hachigan has pointed at VertexPaint, but I'm not enamoured with it.


-Despite hick-ups/lacks, LightWave has a very fast workflow

That depends. The back/forth across applications can be a real workflow killer. Trying to tune character deformations, etc. is a real chore. If you stay within the same application, some things can be fast, but I'm not convinced it's as efficient as old hands tend to believe. I've achieved modeling tasks in modo in far less time than LW. I have had renders out faster in LW. It's horses for courses. I don't think blanket statements make sense here.


-Modo, select a blank space to deselect. Lightwave, click a 'frame' to deselect

Or hit escape, in modo.


-LWCad is superb if doing CAD modeling

It's not exactly cheap, though, and there's mARCH for modo for parts of that system. It's worrying that a fair number of people are only using Modeler because of LWCad, though.


-the LightWave plugin Turbulence is a nice addition

Sure. I wish it wasn't quite so buggy (updates tend to break other areas of the plugin). He does indicate that modo is in his sights for version 2.


to me LightWave is by far the best choice, talking as a Generalist
still keeping an eye on Modo though...

btw, LightWave is on sale now, (https://www.lightwave3d.com/buy-lightwave/) you can get a full version for $999 - [the deal is closing soon...]



Having both is really advantageous. With some of those recent heavy discounts, it was close to being an expensive plugin for LW.

One thing I would really like to see is a clear direction for LW - the areas of work seem rather scattered. For modo, I'd like a bug fix and refinement cycle to hammer on performance with large scenes.

hrgiger
12-03-2013, 07:04 AM
Part of what has impressed me about Modo over the years has been their well rounded updates. Modeling, texturing, animation, rendering, workflows, simulation...all seems to get enhanced with each new version. LW3DG could take a lesson here. LW11 is an improvement in that area but modeling is still in need of more work.

i would like to see some basic sculpting brushes in LW for some general shaping and mesh manipulation but an extensive toolset is not needed. LW or Modo will never be as specialized as Zbrush or Mudbox so i dont see the point in going crazy with it. Really glad for GoZ interchange now in LW.

prometheus
12-03-2013, 09:49 AM
Part of what has impressed me about Modo over the years has been their well rounded updates. Modeling, texturing, animation, rendering, workflows, simulation...all seems to get enhanced with each new version. LW3DG could take a lesson here. LW11 is an improvement in that area but modeling is still in need of more work.

i would like to see some basic sculpting brushes in LW for some general shaping and mesh manipulation but an extensive toolset is not needed. LW or Modo will never be as specialized as Zbrush or Mudbox so i dont see the point in going crazy with it. Really glad for GoZ interchange now in LW.

Yeh...I seem to request that too in every post nowadays, a midsize level for sculpting, preferably directly in scene context editable, so that means in layout too.
Not necessary to reach zbrush level, midlevel like modo or perhaps cinema4d would do fine, If I get the time I would really like to try cinema4d out with sculpting etc.
Cinema4d also has so much nice stuff implemented specially for environment creation which I find interesting.
Goz is fantastic, but you always have to switch between interfaces and also wait for update so you do not get a fluid workflow, and you cant model in scenecontext with zbrush.
Ideally I would like to perform fractal displacements with all those nice Lightwave fractasl, but also able to sculpt deform and refine with a brush tool.

Michael

Surrealist.
12-03-2013, 03:30 PM
Yeah there are a lot of things I would do in the host 3D app with Sculpting and Painting if I could that would not require going to Zbrush or Mudbox. In Maya for example there is a sculpt geometry tool. Not a tool that stacks up to any of the other offerings of course. But it is there. I use it to paint smoothing on my objects all the time. With just the right setting is is perfect. In other apps it requires selection of faces or points and using a smooth tool like in Modeler Shift M.

Another handy feature is painting attributes. You can do this on points like a weight map or you can actually paint image textures that can be saved and reused as maps for dynamic attributes. To do this in LightWave it requires going to Modeler and painting or creating a weight map and then using that on the object in Layout. It is so very cool to be able to paint things in the interface and to use that immediately in the simulation, do corrections and so on. Also using image textures allows you the freedom to change the topology as long as you maintain the UV map space and then not have to repaint your maps.

At least if you have the ability to paint, it opens up a lot of possibilities for tools. And in Maya for example there are lots of ways to use the image painting functions that have nothing to do with texturing.

In Modo, which I do not use by the way, there is a really nice looking feature that was very attractive to me and it was painting with AO maps. And a few other things that to me looked very cool. I could see myself doing some painting there of some basic things. Speed of performance would be a big issue for me though, if that was real slow, no I would not bother.

But to me, that Modo even has painting and sculpting is a real huge plus and certainly not to be discounted just because other apps do it better.

creacon
12-03-2013, 04:08 PM
999 limit on the render nodes? There never was one !

jeric_synergy
12-03-2013, 05:00 PM
IIRC, 999 was what the dox said. Did you assemble 1,001 cpus and try it?

hrgiger
12-03-2013, 05:05 PM
999 limit on the render nodes? There never was one !

Straight from the LightWave Product Page:

LightWave 3D combines a state-of-the-art renderer with powerful, intuitive modeling, and animation tools. Tools that may cost extra in other professional 3D applications are part of the product package, including 999 free cross-platform render nodes, support for Windows and Mac UB 64 and 32-bit operating systems, free technical support and more.

probiner
12-03-2013, 05:26 PM
Agree with Surrealist. Have mentioned before too, I would certainly focus any painting and sculpt features to 3D stuff only. Sure tweaking a texture map in camera is cool. But a full blown system no no. Right now you might even go to a full blown sculpt app just to get more organic control while doing Morph Target than just pushing points in Modeler. Modo has a nice toolset, Softimage as a Slide on Normal toggle that it's really cool too. Essentially having deformation on a stick, which LW doesn't have right now (Push, Smooth, Crease, Twist, Slide, etc)

On Objects and Instances and Particles.
A brush system doesn't need to be constrained to mesh, could be very powerful if you could brush aways some objects positions or instances or particles. Or if you wanted to apply a White Matte properties you could brush it over a group of objects, or brush the velocity on particles or brush the offset on instances.

Cheers

prometheus
12-03-2013, 05:52 PM
Yeah there are a lot of things I would do in the host 3D app with Sculpting and Painting if I could that would not require going to Zbrush or Mudbox. In Maya for example there is a sculpt geometry tool. Not a tool that stacks up to any of the other offerings of course. But it is there. I use it to paint smoothing on my objects all the time. With just the right setting is is perfect. In other apps it requires selection of faces or points and using a smooth tool like in Modeler Shift M.

Another handy feature is painting attributes. You can do this on points like a weight map or you can actually paint image textures that can be saved and reused as maps for dynamic attributes. To do this in LightWave it requires going to Modeler and painting or creating a weight map and then using that on the object in Layout. It is so very cool to be able to paint things in the interface and to use that immediately in the simulation, do corrections and so on. Also using image textures allows you the freedom to change the topology as long as you maintain the UV map space and then not have to repaint your maps.

At least if you have the ability to paint, it opens up a lot of possibilities for tools. And in Maya for example there are lots of ways to use the image painting functions that have nothing to do with texturing.

In Modo, which I do not use by the way, there is a really nice looking feature that was very attractive to me and it was painting with AO maps. And a few other things that to me looked very cool. I could see myself doing some painting there of some basic things. Speed of performance would be a big issue for me though, if that was real slow, no I would not bother.

But to me, that Modo even has painting and sculpting is a real huge plus and certainly not to be discounted just because other apps do it better.

I really would like to see a weight paint brush..in layout, that would open up a much faster workflow and also a much easier way to perform distributed density of
hypervoxels on subpatch grids, so you simply paint you pool puddle of voxels and see it directly in vpr, or paint rocks, vegetation..and also painting density of hv clouds, with vpr on you can directly see how the cloud density will look like in context to camera view, and in context with terrain etc.
if adapted right the weight paint can be used for constrains in bullet, fiberFX density, instances directly sprayed at a rock, or even particle emission if that shows up:)
When painting weight maps for particle emissions..you would really like to see that directly in the scene, since particles and itīs look will be so dependend on the camera view.

The workflow right now of doing it in modeler Does not empower you with a good vision on how the scene and objects are directed when painting weight maps, not only
do we not have a weight display mode in layout, we would constantly have to switch between modeler and layout for every tiny tweak in order to see firstly the modelers
weight painted areas..then switch to layout to see attached volumetrics or fiberfx or instances...it is undoubtly and truly a shortcoming due to the lack
of implemented modeling tools in layout.

Houdini has the sculpt tool as well, helps for terrain editing or basic rock formations...I followed a tute quite some time ago about attaching L-system treeīs to displaced grid, and instance the lsystem, then connect the brush tool to spray paint the size of the L-system trees, that tutorial is probably still up on sidefx forums somewhere.

Surrealist.
12-03-2013, 06:01 PM
Actually the unlimited nodes thing may have changed arbitrarily more recently, and I don't know why, a technical thing where it was never actually "unlimited"? Because as far back as I can remember and yes folks that is way back... version 2 at least, it has been unlimited. I have never heard of it being limited.

Even a 9.0 advert has it as unlimited:


LightWave 3D is a complete solution right out of the box that includes three different operating systems to meet your particular production requirements: WindowsŪ 32-bit, Windows 64-bit and MacintoshŪ. LightWave for each operating system comes with unlimited render nodes.

http://www.lantechpc.com/view_sercats.php?nSctId=150

jeric_synergy
12-03-2013, 06:05 PM
Okay, as a practical matter, are people actually running 999-node render farms???

I mean, "Iron Sky" had, what, 48??

Surrealist.
12-03-2013, 06:07 PM
I really would like to see a weight paint brush..in layout, that would open up a much faster workflow and also a much easier way to perform distributed density of
hypervoxels on subpatch grids, so you simply paint you pool puddle of voxels and see it directly in vpr, or paint rocks, vegetation..and also painting density of hv clouds, with vpr on you can directly see how the cloud density will look like in context to camera view, and in context with terrain etc.
if adapted right the weight paint can be used for constrains in bullet, fiberFX density, instances directly sprayed at a rock, or even particle emission if that shows up:)
When painting weight maps for particle emissions..you would really like to see that directly in the scene, since particles and itīs look will be so dependend on the camera view.

The workflow right now of doing it in modeler Does not empower you with a good vision on how the scene and objects are directed when painting weight maps, not only
do we not have a weight display mode in layout, we would constantly have to switch between modeler and layout for every tiny tweak in order to see firstly the modelers
weight painted areas..then switch to layout to see attached volumetrics or fiberfx or instances...it is undoubtly and truly a shortcoming due to the lack
of implemented modeling tools in layout.

Houdini has the sculpt tool as well, helps for terrain editing or basic rock formations...I followed a tute quite some time ago about attaching L-system treeīs to displaced grid, and instance the lsystem, then connect the brush tool to spray paint the size of the L-system trees, that tutorial is probably still up on sidefx forums somewhere.

Yeah you have just described the various places you can paint attributes in Maya. Everything from weights to stiffness of cloth (as well a most of the other attributes of cloth) to particle emissions, liquid shapes, hair growth, hair color, on and on. Each time I dig in an learn a new feature I am discovering new places painting is implemented. Not to mention of course paint effects where you can paint geometry into a scene.

hrgiger
12-03-2013, 06:18 PM
Actually the unlimited nodes thing may have changed arbitrarily more recently, and I don't know why, a technical thing where it was never actually "unlimited"? Because as far back as I can remember and yes folks that is way back... version 2 at least, it has been unlimited. I have never heard of it being limited.

Even a 9.0 advert has it as unlimited:



http://www.lantechpc.com/view_sercats.php?nSctId=150

Hmm, that's weird, I'm pretty sure I just heard Rob mention in the latest presentation in Japan that it was 999 render nodes (which is the way I have thought it was for some time now) but maybe it was somewhere else I heard him say it. Maybe someone from LW3DG should clarify.

I just wonder anyway how many places utilize more then 1,000 render nodes of LightWave. Using Pixar as an extreme example, the last time I heard they have about 3,000 full time on their farm and another 2,000 get turned over to the farm after hours. But of course that's Pixar.

Surrealist.
12-03-2013, 07:42 PM
I would assume that any house that does serious rendering has something along those lines or more for film production.

I wonder if the figures you heard came from here:

http://www.slashfilm.com/cool-stuff-a-look-at-pixar-and-lucasfilms-renderfarms/


The campus has a 13,500-square-foot data center, which houses a render farm, file servers and storage systems. The set-up includes more than 3,000 AMD processors, proprietary render-management tools, allowing desktop workstations to be added to the render farm pool after hours, expanding the processing capacity to more than 5,000 processors.

And here is some interesting info:


http://www.geek.com/news/dreamworks-animation-used-80-million-compute-hours-creating-the-croods-1544214/


As for hardware, DreamWorks relies on 3,000 HP BladeSystem c-Class server blades combined with a server render farm consisting of 20,000 processors.


http://gizmodo.com/5813587/12500-cpu-cores-were-required-to-render-cars-2


As usual, Pixar is pushing boundaries when it comes to the CGI in Cars 2. Making the film required a render farm containing 12,500 CPU cores. And on average, it took 11.5 hours to render a single frame.

So 3,000-5000 average at least seems the norm. I am guessing quad core so that would be around(12/4) 3,000 to (20/4)5000 CPUs.

allabulle
12-03-2013, 09:09 PM
So at least they may need to buy three, as in three, LightWave licenses to use the full render farm? I still don't get it.

Ernest
12-03-2013, 10:52 PM
Using Pixar as an extreme example, the last time I heard they have about 3,000 full time on their farm and another 2,000 get turned over to the farm after hours. But of course that's Pixar.

But they're probably not using all the nodes on a single scene at any one time. If there are five artists rendering, they'd fall within their node limits.

hrgiger
12-04-2013, 03:00 AM
So 3,000-5000 average at least seems the norm. I am guessing quad core so that would be around(12/4) 3,000 to (20/4)5000 CPUs.

Well yeah of course. But I guess I was referring to those rendering with LightWave.

@Ernest- Yes, I hadn't considered that.

But in any event, if there is a 999 limit, that seems kind of pointless. That many, and it should just be unlimited. I just don't know why they came up with the 999 number.

Phil
12-04-2013, 05:45 AM
I assumed that the 999 nodes comes from an internal limit in the number of nodes that can be tracked by Layout's primitive ScreamerNet control panel. There's no licensing system to police the number of nodes in-use, however, and 3rd party systems such as Deadline are built to handle any number of nodes that you care to throw at them (given sufficient licenses for the controller system).

Netvudu
12-04-2013, 07:27 AM
Itīs not 999 anymore. Itīs unlimited. At least, that is what LWG told us at SIGGRAPH.

allabulle
12-04-2013, 07:46 AM
Yet in https://www.lightwave3d.com/overview/ it's stated "(...)including 999 free cross-platform render nodes"

50one
12-04-2013, 09:42 AM
I guess for some, this might be useful?

MODO on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/244290)

S

dsol
12-04-2013, 10:02 AM
I guess for some, this might be useful?

MODO on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/244290)

S

Very interesting. So this is a cut-down version of Modo tailored specifically for modders (using the Source engine)? Neat niche to get into.

Danner
12-04-2013, 11:33 AM
Been using Steam for games and I really like it, I wait for things to be on sale =D (just bought Bioshock Infinite for 7 euros) besides being a store it's a DRM (digital rights management) system for games and lately apps, I find it straight forward and convenient to use, I've been real close to buying 3d coat there.

jeric_synergy
12-04-2013, 12:36 PM
Yet in https://www.lightwave3d.com/overview/ it's stated "(...)including 999 free cross-platform render nodes"
Probably just lagging in getting current info out.

For everybody but the largest producers, 999 nodes is effectively unlimited anyway.

allabulle
12-04-2013, 05:44 PM
I guess so too, jeric_synergy. I just don't know what the 999 limit is about, how and why it came to be and if it's still really there. Not that I could check it anyway, I lack a few machines to do so. :)

But I thought that Rob stated the [render nodes] limit was no longer there and yet in the new web for the new version it's present again. I'm more curious than concerned, though. If anything it would worry me that the LW3DG can send contradictory statements, but it doesn't [worry me].

jeric_synergy
12-04-2013, 09:14 PM
Probably just an old document. No big deal.

999 is such an odd value I suspect it was that there was only 3 display places in the UI. :eek:

prometheus
12-04-2013, 11:41 PM
I just noticed this feature in modo.... the feature is called substance, and It seems to be a new dynamic way to work with texturing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-iPexmJ1g

Michael

geo_n
12-05-2013, 12:12 AM
Modo Steam Edition.
This is a gamechanger for very low budget and indie devs. I am tempted to buy a personal copy to handle models that modeller can't handle anymore. If this edition doesn't strip down modo's powerful modelling features, this is a solid app.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/244290

The exposure on steam will be big. The community is huge.
Newtek really needs to target game devs. Smartphones producing homebrew quality games, AAA games, free games, the devs don't need a big expensive app like 3dmax, maya. Modo will make an impact with a cheaper price.
Plus there's Substance designer and Substance Painter compatible with Modo.

prometheus
12-05-2013, 12:22 AM
Ahh..Im not reading up on latest tech, vagely heard of substance designer as Itīs own platform, and I didnīt know it was intergrated to work with Modo now...I guess I have to read up on this.

Michael

jwiede
12-05-2013, 03:14 AM
Ahh..Im not reading up on latest tech, vagely heard of substance designer as Itīs own platform, and I didnīt know it was intergrated to work with Modo now...I guess I have to read up on this.

Yep, modo's integration of Substance support is potentially a pretty big deal, as Substance usage spreads into archviz, and other non-game markets.

hrgiger
12-05-2013, 04:06 AM
Substance looks pretty awesome i have to say.

djwaterman
12-05-2013, 05:59 AM
Someone showed me Substance a few months back and I almost didn't want to look at it because it was so good.

erikals
12-05-2013, 06:06 AM
I just noticed this feature in modo.... the feature is called substance, and It seems to be a new dynamic way to work with texturing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-iPexmJ1g

Michael

i can pretty much do that in LightWave mixing textures and procedurals...
adding the http://www.shaders.org/ifw2_textures i can replicate that.

but maybe it has other feature as well?...

50one
12-05-2013, 06:28 AM
i can pretty much do that in LightWave mixing textures and procedurals...
adding the http://www.shaders.org/ifw2_textures i can replicate that.

but maybe it has other feature as well?...


Substance is not only procedurals:) it's a platform.

erikals
12-05-2013, 06:37 AM
yep, was talking about the result though...

if the goal is to make something similar inside LightWave...

dsol
12-05-2013, 06:48 AM
i can pretty much do that in LightWave mixing textures and procedurals...
adding the http://www.shaders.org/ifw2_textures i can replicate that.

but maybe it has other feature as well?...

Did you watch the video? It's using particles and physical collisions to generate natural looking weathering (and other organic textures) taking geometry into account. Pretty amazing stuff and I'd love to have a play with it. I have IFW2 too, and it's cool - but it's just procedural textures (nice ones though!). This is something much cleverer. It's a complete surfacing toolset - and it'd be awesome if there was native support for it in LW.

erikals
12-05-2013, 06:57 AM
Did you watch the video? It's using particles and physical collisions to generate natural looking weathering (and other organic textures) taking geometry into account.
no, didn't see any particles in this one> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-iPexmJ1g maybe it was another video?
(you can use particles in LightWave to create a surface too, though that app might be faster at it)


Pretty amazing stuff and I'd love to have a play with it. I have IFW2 too, and it's cool - but it's just procedural textures (nice ones though!). This is something much cleverer. It's a complete surfacing toolset - and it'd be awesome if there was native support for it in LW.
yes, looks to be fast, so that's nice. http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

chikega
12-05-2013, 07:01 AM
QUIXEL's dDo software has features that overlaps with Substance Designer. They're more than just a set of procedural textures such as Imagine for Windows (IFW2).

http://quixel.se/ddo/

erikals
12-05-2013, 07:09 AM
yeah, dDo looks mighty nice.

also have a look at this slightly unknown LightWave procedural, Anything Goos
http://www.digitalcarversguild.com/plugin.php?ProductId=17

prometheus
12-05-2013, 07:25 AM
Yeah I need to check in t o quixel too, I saw it some time ago with some rock texturing looking awesome.

Mehh...I would like to get world builder or geocontrols erosion filters in a procedural form for lightwave displacements, that would be cool,
mixing the lightwave procedurals with overlay of naturalistic realistic erosion filters.
Dpontīs rock procedural is nice, but itīs not enough.
Have been wanting some better tools for landscaping and naturalistic outdoor scenes for quite some time..but not much happening there.

Maybe premade subdiv grids, that are editable at any time and with a good No edges flattening, and premade continent,mountain and ridge settings..something
like cinema4d has maybe, and massive improvement in polyhandling with displacements, micro displacements maybe, and even true volumetric objects for infinite detail.

The displacementīs looks good in the modo-substance samples.
Cant see either where the part is about particles?

Michael

jwiede
12-05-2013, 01:39 PM
i can pretty much do that in LightWave mixing textures and procedurals...
adding the http://www.shaders.org/ifw2_textures i can replicate that.

but maybe it has other feature as well?...

I think you're grossly underestimating what all can be created with Substance Designer, but so be it. One major advantage is being able to move surfaces between Substance-enabled apps (3D apps, game engines, etc.) and know the surfaces will appear the same regardless of app retaining parametric editability where desired. Even if you could replicate the surface with IFW shaders, it's still "stuck" in LW -- you can't migrate the surface to other packages or game engines while retaining the parametric nature of the surface.

hrgiger
12-05-2013, 02:21 PM
Yeah, substance goes way beyond the way procedurals and textures work in LightWave.

erikals
12-05-2013, 02:47 PM
I think you're grossly underestimating what all can be created with Substance Designer, but so be it.

i was writing from a LightWave point of view, as the waver mentioning it basically works in LightWave only, afaik.

sorry that that was a bit unclear.
sure, it's very good for what you just mentioned.

indeed, so be it... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/wink.gif

jeric_synergy
12-05-2013, 05:29 PM
So, it's the Acrobat (PDF) of Surfaces? Finally.

prometheus
12-05-2013, 11:23 PM
Just been checking the featurette on the modo 701 tour, check the Effects featurette video, shows particles,dynamics etc.
Sculpting of particles are cool, dynamic intergration with recoil dynamics, creating curves to emitt and particles to follow curves...Amazing job they have done here.
They have some type of flocking attributes implemented too, do not know how that compares to lightwaves flocking...I suspect lightwave flocking is a bit more advanced regarding the AI engine behind it..then again
the modo particles are implemented to work with so much more advanced and intergrated other tools.

http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/modo/explore/

If I only could get my hands on a demo version lasting longer than 15 days, I would download it at once.

prometheus
12-06-2013, 02:28 AM
workflow and UI featurette is nice too, the drag and drop of preset materials on to objects is a much faster and efficient workflow than selecting object click on surface preset, get the request"load settings confirmation.

But that I have been ranting about for lightwave quite some time ago.

jwiede
12-06-2013, 02:51 AM
Somewhere on the modo website, there's an excellent short video about the new pie menu workflows for viewport mgmt and tool control. It's not a "huge" feature, but once you get used to them, it's pretty impressive how quickly you can navigate around and get work done.

geo_n
12-06-2013, 03:30 AM
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128706&page=2

Discussion on Modo Steam Edition. Still no price yet.
"The Foundry is seeking pro gameart to be included in an upcoming Modo reel. Check The Foundry forunm's News & Announcements for info, release form and contact person."

Looks like they are trying to get some traction with the game industry. If they can sell Modo Steam Edition cheap(less 300usd would be nice) its possible they can take blender out of the indie game equation. Modo standard to compete with 3dmax, maya in the pro game dev.
Lightwave needs some presence in the game industry.

50one
12-06-2013, 04:12 AM
Somewhere on the modo website, there's an excellent short video about the new pie menu workflows for viewport mgmt and tool control. It's not a "huge" feature, but once you get used to them, it's pretty impressive how quickly you can navigate around and get work done.

It's the crash'n'burn on Foundry TV, that's how I work, really allows you maximise the screen space. Love it.

aquinde
12-06-2013, 12:25 PM
Substance is not only procedurals:) it's a platform.

Wow. I may have to take another look at Modo. Its surfacing is mainly what held me back.

jeric_synergy
12-06-2013, 01:30 PM
workflow and UI featurette is nice too, the drag and drop of preset materials on to objects is a much faster and efficient workflow than selecting object click on surface preset, get the request"load settings confirmation.
The CONFIRMATION really slows you down (I'm serious, it's fracking annoying).

Of course, if we had a better UNDO system, we wouldn't need the g.d. confirmations. :devil: :devil: :devil:

chikega
12-06-2013, 06:53 PM
How about actually painting wear and tear using physics?


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

Surrealist.
12-06-2013, 07:38 PM
Substance Designer definitely has a lot of advantages over dDo, which is very cool, but also limited.

And this right here is huge:


DX11 & Tesselation
The 3D View supports DX11 and tessellation with nVidia GPU.

http://www.allegorithmic.com/products/substance-designer-4#features

Also lots of other features that seem to make it much more real time than dDo.

geo_n
12-06-2013, 09:27 PM
Modo Steam for 149usd. That's super sweet!

http://www.pcgamesn.com/dota/s/dota-2-deathsickle-showcases-modo-steam-edition-s-upcoming-launch

jwiede
12-07-2013, 12:18 AM
How about actually painting wear and tear using physics?

Yeah, Substance Painter looks awesome. I'm hoping it'll be less pricey than Mari (or have a non-commercial option that is, anyway), and will likely buy it (unless ridiculously costly). Even though I already have ZBrush & 3DCoat, Substance Painter's scope of function looks interesting enough to be worth the overlaps that'd be present.

prometheus
12-07-2013, 01:10 AM
The CONFIRMATION really slows you down (I'm serious, it's fracking annoying).

Of course, if we had a better UNDO system, we wouldn't need the g.d. confirmations. :devil: :devil: :devil:

absolutly agree


How about actually painting wear and tear using physics?


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

yes ..that is some future feature stuff, and ultimatly gives an edge of applying materials based on real world dynamics that actually tears or colors materials.

Ivé been shouting for a particle and physics system that could go even longer, a system that will sculpt erosions or actual terrains, or having water flow to cut and shape geometry.
might be easier to apply erosion filter for that natural look in geocontrol or world machine, but I am talking about a system not only limited to erosions.

CaptainMarlowe
12-07-2013, 06:01 AM
Yeah, Substance Painter looks awesome. I'm hoping it'll be less pricey than Mari (or have a non-commercial option that is, anyway), and will likely buy it (unless ridiculously costly). Even though I already have ZBrush & 3DCoat, Substance Painter's scope of function looks interesting enough to be worth the overlaps that'd be present.

+1 if it is affordable, I will certainly go for it. I can see a wide range of use for texturing mechanical or architectural stuff.

CaptainMarlowe
12-08-2013, 01:42 AM
Modo Steam for 149usd. That's super sweet!

http://www.pcgamesn.com/dota/s/dota-2-deathsickle-showcases-modo-steam-edition-s-upcoming-launch

Yep, but it is very unclear on the steam website about what it really does. I understand that export is limited to DOTA2, which would be quite a show stopper !!

erikals
12-08-2013, 03:55 AM
somewhat related, modeling in Maya, still too slow for organic modeling imo...
(i know this guy makes some mistakes here and there, but i'm talking overall workflow)

that said, Maya still has some modeling tools that i like...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7U1bcVezio

geo_n
12-08-2013, 04:58 AM
Yep, but it is very unclear on the steam website about what it really does. I understand that export is limited to DOTA2, which would be quite a show stopper !!

Yep that could be limiting. But its always possible to extract game models :D
So if you make something and upload it into the engine you can extract it into usable form for other appz.
As long as this version can handle the gigapoly, modern uvtools and baking like the standard version then its good enough.

[QUOTE=erikals;1356969]
somewhat related, modeling in Maya, still too slow for organic modeling imo...
(i know this guy makes some mistakes here and there, but i'm talking overall workflow)

that said, Maya still has some modeling tools that i like...


Maya, max, etc are not really slow at modelling. Its the person that is doing the modelling that can be slow depending on his experience with an app. Most of the high definition, AAA quality models are done in maya and max anyway where high poly models and sculpts are workable.
Modo's target is to compete with 3dmax, maya in creating game assets. Making it easy to model, bake, export game ready assets.
If they succeed in a few years people will be creating this stuff that is usually done in other soft.
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?162670-Gears-of-War-3-Character-Art-Dump-%28new-images-posted-on-Pg-17%29/page11

erikals
12-08-2013, 05:15 AM
Its the person that is doing the modelling that can be slow depending on his experience with an app.

better faster tools > faster finished. just my opinion.

take LWCAD as an example.

geo_n
12-08-2013, 05:26 AM
better faster tools > faster finished. just my opinion.

take LWCAD as an example.

Yeah but most poly modelling tools are pretty similar now. The factor now is higher poly count and tools that actually work.
I don't miss lwcad when using max since it has cad tools built in and more.
What is missing in modeller to be competitive, the minimum - high poly handling, modern uvtools, seamless export to game engines.

erikals
12-08-2013, 06:43 AM
Yeah but most poly modelling tools are pretty similar now.

we'll have to agree to disagree...

geo_n
12-08-2013, 07:56 AM
The market Modo is targetting is huge. 500k usd sales from a single artist in a year from TF2 Steam Workshop sales.
I don't make that much on passive income from Turbosquid but I understand the potential firsthand.
So its definitely a big consideration when choosing which app to get into, Modo vs Lw.
http://www.pcgamesn.com/tf2/tf2-steam-workshop-sales-broke-paypal-gabe-newell-explains
While Newtek is targetting the low profit vfx and previz, Foundry has a solid hold on the highend market$$$ while modo is high volume market$*∞. What if c4d and adobe merge :thumbsup:

50one
12-12-2013, 01:13 PM
Vray coming to Modo:

https://ftp.chaosgroup.com/vlado/vray_modo/vray4modo_3.png

For me, that's exciting. finally I could ditch the 3dsmax completely.

prometheus
12-12-2013, 01:59 PM
Vray coming to Modo:

https://ftp.chaosgroup.com/vlado/vray_modo/vray4modo_3.png

For me, that's exciting. finally I could ditch the 3dsmax completely.

Uhh..that will probably be huge, if Lightwave canīt get vray, Im afraid it will be left further back in a wake, as to what many companies requires in their toolset...as I mentioned
in another thread, I saw so many 3dmax, sketchup, vray job ads.

Michael

Ryan Roye
12-12-2013, 02:02 PM
After the last 5 pages of this thread it feels like a big modo advertisement. This should really be in the general section since it isn't really about Lightwave at this point.

prometheus
12-12-2013, 02:19 PM
After the last 5 pages of this thread it feels like a big modo advertisement. This should really be in the general section since it isn't really about Lightwave at this point.

Yeah...that is unfortunate, but most likely a result of people finding many features in modo so attractive and want them badly within lightwave ..more so than actual lurking here on behalf of the foundry to advertize for modo.

a reflection of what many of us would want to be stealed or for the Lightwave group to simply follow the stream to enhance Lightwave by looking at stuff such as mostly modo stuff since the topic thread was started out that way, but also other stuff as substance designer.

It could be for both good and bad, all the elements are there for that.

Michael

Waves of light
12-12-2013, 02:21 PM
So, you're saying that because of Modo getting Vray, you could dump 3DS Max and have a LW + Modo pipeline, or just a Modo pipeline?

50one
12-12-2013, 02:23 PM
So, you're saying that because of Modo getting Vray, you could dump 3DS Max and have a LW + Modo pipeline, or just a Modo pipeline?

I'm a modo/lw/blender user and nothing will change this I think:)

Matt
12-12-2013, 02:52 PM
After the last 5 pages of this thread it feels like a big modo advertisement. This should really be in the general section since it isn't really about Lightwave at this point.

I agree. It's lost it's focus, healthy discussion is one thing, no problem with that, but this has become something else.