PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave 12 straw poll



cresshead
03-07-2014, 05:33 PM
see poll here

http://strawpoll.me/1275388

I know we're some time away but would be interesting to see your thoughts.

Andy Webb
03-07-2014, 05:53 PM
Some good UV tools in modeller and layout would not go amiss as well.

Fed up having to open modeller just to do anything UV related.

AbnRanger
03-07-2014, 07:43 PM
I think it's high time to add some type of fluid/fire/smoke simulation system, natively...that works well with VPR. Time to stop relegating VFX tools to just 3rd party vendors.

realgray
03-07-2014, 08:02 PM
Text tools, Text tools, Text tools and motion graphics toolset.

robertoortiz
03-08-2014, 07:22 AM
Text tools, Text tools, Text tools and motion graphics toolset.
Yep, the straw poll needs that.

JohnMarchant
03-08-2014, 07:53 AM
4 Things for me. 1) Some Modeler Love, interactive tools,combine some,update or delete others. 2) Hypervoxels Needs allot of love,meaning a complete re write. 3) Particles needs updating sorely. 4) Multi thread everything, there should be no part of LW that does not take advantage of multi threading.

- - - Updated - - -


I think it's high time to add some type of fluid/fire/smoke simulation system, natively...that works well with VPR. Time to stop relegating VFX tools to just 3rd party vendors.

I would have said this but i don't realistically think we can get that in 12, that's why i chose HV and Particles as this will bring us allot closer.

50one
03-08-2014, 08:59 AM
yup, must be this time of the year...another thread with people dreaming about stuff they won't get in the next version ;)

hazmat777
03-08-2014, 09:07 AM
I seem to remember a statement from NT around the time of LW 9 and CORE where they said they didn't want to "go dark" in the development process like XSI. "Cross development" or something like that. Not a lot of input coming from the users is getting any response. Oh well...

I voted for one unified workspace, modeling from camera view and better motion capture support.

cresshead
03-08-2014, 10:15 AM
we can have apart b poll from the 'others' listed here once we have more than 10 to list..

alperocak
03-08-2014, 10:56 AM
Most important, undo in Graph editor, and working properly multiply undo action in layout.
Please speed up Catmull clark in modeler and layout.
Must adding Render and animation layers in layout.

VIDandCGI
03-08-2014, 11:33 AM
I would guess Modeler portion of the application will get the lions share of any update for v12 with a few sparkles thrown at Layout (Shiney!).
I can't visualise LW moving forward in a healthy state without this being the case.
There are lots of additions or tweaks I would like to see, we all probably have differing lists regarding this. I feel however that although a really
easy to use application to model in, that LW's Modeler is seen as perhaps being a bit of a crutch, its not that you can't do things in it, just a little slower and with less finesse.

colkai
03-09-2014, 04:01 AM
I would guess Modeler portion of the application will get the lions share of any update for v12 with a few sparkles thrown at Layout (Shiney!).

I would not put any money on that, the lack of modeller attention is a very long running thing and frankly, i think it's more likely further focus will be on the layout part of LW12.

battery555
03-09-2014, 05:24 AM
I think it's high time to add some type of fluid/fire/smoke simulation system, natively...that works well with VPR. Time to stop relegating VFX tools to just 3rd party vendors.Very keen in this. Plus one!

Ernest
03-10-2014, 01:05 AM
Wow, all the top 7 are within 3%. Less than the margin of error. This doesn't make choices simpler for the devs!

Mastoy
03-10-2014, 03:19 AM
As I said before, the main thing that bugs me EVERYDAY, and that EVERY user could enjoy, is a huge boost of opengl speed in modeler.
It's evolution, we deal with more and more polys, and a simple action like moving points could become a p** in the a** when dealing with just a few million polys.

gerry_g
03-10-2014, 04:52 AM
think there is a difference between rotating and moving stuff on screen as in nothing to do with moving object x-y-or z coordinates just screen position orientation etc, a typical open GL function, and translating things in x-y-z space with a tool which requires the objects directory to be read, in other words the problem is due to the nature in which the directory is written which is old and slow and was devised in an age when people did not build on the scale they do today.

Silkrooster
03-11-2014, 12:40 AM
Colkai --- "I would not put any money on that, the lack of modeller attention is a very long running thing and frankly, i think it's more likely further focus will be on the layout part of LW12. "


I am hoping you're wrong. As we all know modeler needs the love. But if history has taught us anything, Newtek prefers layout.

erikals
03-11-2014, 04:46 AM
like in 11, i think we'll see updates to both M/L in 12...

Andy Webb
03-11-2014, 05:09 AM
I'm sure we will see lots of love directed at modeller in LW12...

Wait a minute, I seem to remember thinking that for 10 and 11 :foreheads

Lewis
03-11-2014, 06:47 AM
Unification. that would be good start for 12 :).

erikals
03-11-2014, 08:13 AM
I'm sure we will see lots of love directed at modeller in LW12...
Wait a minute, I seem to remember thinking that for 10 and 11

there were many good Modeler updates in 11...


Unification. that would be good start for 12

ain't gonna happen any time soon, Rob stated this in his last Japan D-Storm presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRu_R3RubYI
still, very good to see they are taking care of it... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

hrgiger
03-11-2014, 09:53 AM
there were many good Modeler updates in 11...



Well there were some new tools added in 11.5 but the modeler system itself as in performance, falloffs, constraints, scene managment, etc.. pretty much untouched. Modeler doesnt suffer from lack of tools, it suffers from poor polygon handling, lack of interactive tools, lack of global handles, minimal action centers, broken CC subdivision, lack of a constraint system, etc...

Andy Webb
03-11-2014, 10:00 AM
Well there were some new tools added in 11.5 but the modeler system itself as in performance, falloffs, constraints, scene managment, etc.. pretty much untouched. Modeler doesnt suffer from lack of tools, it suffers from poor polygon handling, lack of interactive tools, lack of global handles, minimal action centers, broken CC subdivision, lack of a constraint system, etc...

Pretty much my thoughts too.

zapper1998
03-11-2014, 11:22 AM
All Panels Windows non modal, [so you can resize all windows and panels].

Modeler ability to use all cores .......

Mike

:)

kfinla
03-11-2014, 04:05 PM
I think (hope) we'll see some of the chronosculpt tech make its way into modeller (brush tools, hydra engine). That said I'd still prefer the bulk of the focus be on Layout. I just have no use for modeller, its like windows XP getting new features. So it is in this crazy place where it is so behind, do you use resources to close the gap of how far behind you are, or do you nearly abandon development because all your clients only care about what goes on in Layout, and modelling can be replaced cheaply.

I'd love to see through the Layout camera in modeler 3 versions ago though.

I predict LW13 we will start to see some unification of modeller and layout.

allabulle
03-11-2014, 05:13 PM
I'd like them to build modeler tools in ChronoSculpt while they develop tools to improve ChronoSculpt as a separate application. Then release the two with a different set of tools, one as a new Modeler and the other like it is now, with a focus on FX. In time, Layout would merge there, in my mind. Or do it the other way around, I don't care as long as we get rid of the limitations of the present architecture.

They have a good foundation, so build on that! Test in ChronoSculpt, whatever, but port the engine to something we can call LightWave. Until then, well... perfect a bit here and there, add something in the middle, improve this and that; in fact like they are doing (very well, I might add, all things considered) the last few iterations.

I really hope something substantial is happening architecture-wise, and until it's ready we see additions and refinements. I'm not inclined to think such raw improvement will happen in v12, but I do hope it will not be that much far away.

So, if they polish and add features, great. I'll be happy to be surprised, and I still use LightWave regularly, but I don't see next version as the foundation of a new LightWave as much as I wish it to be.

Sebasvideo
03-11-2014, 09:52 PM
yup, must be this time of the year...another thread with people dreaming about stuff they won't get in the next version ;)

Finally a realistic post.

But since dreaming is free and I'm waiting for a bullet simulation, here it goes:

1) Fix the horrible undo, or lack thereof in many places. I'm really tired of trying things out and then having to go back manually to the last few values, instead of pressing CTRL+Z a few times.

2) Fix the horrible dope editor. Put all the commands available when you right click, not going through more menus. If you are sick of using menus for everything in life, raise your hands. See? People hate menus.

3) Include all the DP tools, lights, etc, as part of the install. Pay the guy a ton of money for them, I'm new to this but I read that many people rely on them.

4) Apparently LW doesn't have constraints for dynamics like hinge, point, etc, all those things that Modo has, but dynamics in Modo is really flaky, it's much better in Lightwave. So bringing the extra things from Modo's implementation (without bringing the bad ones) would be great.

5) Gang minisliders, it's a waste of time to have to type in a number, tab, same number, tab, same number. Gang control like Modo, with the option of sliding by ratio (for example if you are modifying resolution, grabbing 1280 and going up to 1920 also takes the height from 720 to 1080 and anywhere in between) or by all values equally.

6) Stick minisliders to certain values like zero, multiples of ten or a hundred, etc. Another thing that Modo does very well. In Lightwave trying to slide to a specific number is so frustrating that I just type it in.

7) Fix the horrible trackball mouse navigation in Modeler, or put an option to enable or disable it, and make it the same as layout. And since we're talking about Layout and orbiting, fix that ridiculous thing where orbiting with Alt pressed goes in one direction but if you use the orbit button on the top right, you orbit the scene in the opposite direction. That's just really stupid.

8) Also about mouse navigation in Layout, make the sliding navigation (the one you get when you press Alt+Shift) the same speed as zoom and orbiting. It doesn't make any sense and it's really frustrating that you zoom in and orbit pretty fast and then when it comes to sliding around the scene you have to move your hand around a lot.

9) Essentially, Lightwave is great in features, but poor in usability features like the ones I mentioned and some more. So make the quality of the user interaction as high as the features are. Make life easier for the user, save the user time.

10) Implement an easy to setup and use network rendering system. The type Modo has, press F9 and all machines in the network are rendering the same frame. Modo's network rendering has its problems, but setting it up and using it is a breeze in most cases. Lightwave currently has Amleto saving the day, but only for as long as the author is kind enough to keep updating it. And as great as Amleto is, it's not the same thing as pressing F9 and off you go.

hrgiger
03-12-2014, 03:32 AM
I'd like them to build modeler tools in ChronoSculpt while they develop tools to improve ChronoSculpt as a separate application. Then release the two with a different set of tools, one as a new Modeler and the other like it is now, with a focus on FX. In time, Layout would merge there, in my mind. Or do it the other way around, I don't care as long as we get rid of the limitations of the present architecture.



Chronosculpt is not a modeler so i would very much doubt we will see modeling tools put in there. It is for loading and editing of animation cache so I think we will see more tools in CS dealing with generating animation, not models.

erikals
03-12-2014, 08:19 AM
from Sebasvideo post, i'd especially like 1 to 5 >

1) Fix the horrible undo
2) Fix the dope editor (not sure about this one though, maybe he refers to the baking)
3) Include all the DP tools, lights, etc, as part of the install. Pay the guy.
4) Apparently LW doesn't have constraints for dynamics like hinge, point, etc
5) Gang minisliders, it's a waste of time to have to type in a number, tab, same number, tab, same number.

Mr. Wilde
03-12-2014, 08:26 AM
I would love to see all the basic tools in Modeler updated, tidied up, merged and brought in line with the new tools like Chamfer, Transform, or Tweak. Turn all of them into interactive tools.

Bevel with group beveling, segmentation and profiles (basically merging Bevel, Smooth Shift, Router and Multishift into one tool). Chamfer/Edge Bevel with a rounding option (merging Chamfer, Edge Bevel and Rounder into one tool). Interactive Clone, Array, Absolute Size. A ball tool with the options Globe, Tesselation and Quad. Merge all those transform tools into one. A better font/text tool. Band Saw with both percentage and metric input (essentially merging my current workflow: Add Edges, input the metric value, copy the percentage into Band Saw Pro). Basically, merge functionalities of Band Saw, Add Edges and Cut into one tool: Add Loop(s). UV support for Catmull Clark subdivision.

Stuff like that.

erikals
03-12-2014, 08:42 AM
I would love to see all the basic tools in Modeler updated, tidied up, merged and brought in line with the new tools like Chamfer, Transform, or Tweak. Turn all of them into interactive tools.

Bevel with group beveling, segmentation and profiles (basically merging Bevel, Smooth Shift, Router and Multishift into one tool). Chamfer/Edge Bevel with a rounding option (merging Chamfer, Edge Bevel and Rounder into one tool). Interactive Clone, Array, Absolute Size. A ball tool with the options Globe, Tesselation and Quad. Merge all those transform tools into one. A better font/text tool. Band Saw with both percentage and metric input (essentially merging my current workflow: Add Edges, input the metric value, copy the percentage into Band Saw Pro). Basically, merge functionalities of Band Saw, Add Edges and Cut into one tool: Add Loop(s). UV support for Catmull Clark subdivision.

Stuff like that.

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

allabulle
03-12-2014, 12:24 PM
Chronosculpt is not a modeler so i would very much doubt we will see modeling tools put in there. It is for loading and editing of animation cache so I think we will see more tools in CS dealing with generating animation, not models.

Right, let me rephrase it then.
To my understanding ChronoSculpt is, roughly, a set of plug-ins (tools) around a new geometry engine (Hydra I think it's called). That geometry engine is what I want in Modeler and Layout. Or some derivative engine that can handle deformations in a massive scale. And then some sort of new architecture to implement tools and communication between them is what I want in a unified LightWave. So I don't know if that is feasible just like that, of course, but I'd like something in the lines of porting that system or our present system or a recoding of the best tools of the present tools to that new one (or an hybrid of the findamentals of the product ChronoSculpt) is what I really want.

sandman300
03-12-2014, 01:59 PM
I would like to see all the FX tools to work with each other.

cresshead
03-13-2014, 01:51 PM
over 700 votes in now

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t31/1911244_10152315040102871_1106309184_o.jpg

Sebasvideo
03-13-2014, 02:11 PM
Unification. that would be good start for 12 :).

Don't be so sure unified apps is such a good thing. I only know Modo and Lightwave (and a small portion of Blender) but two separate apps may have a lot of drawbacks but has one thing that is a huge advantage: saving time for large projects. In Modo, if you have a scene with tons of objects and geometry, let's say a 700 MB scene, it takes ages to save. And at least in my case, Murphy's law always follows me around like a dark angel. My amount of saving is OCD like, because I know that the moment you get careless and let it go several minutes without saving, the app will crash, call it Modo, Lightwave, After Effects, you name it. When I save all the time, I go all day without a crash.

With that said, working in Modo with a large scene, I can't save so often because it will take about 30 seconds to save, sometimes more if the scene is really huge. In a comparable scene in Layout, I hit Shift+S and it takes less than a second to save an incremental version. And even when I hit Alt+S in a scene with hundreds of objects, it takes a little longer, but it's only a few seconds. That to me is a huge plus. If unified Lightwave will bring a really long saving time they can keep it as it is.

erikals
03-13-2014, 02:36 PM
If unified LightWave will bring a really long saving time they can keep it as it is.

sucks to have to wait 30 seconds in Modo,
but in LightWave, i'm quite sure they can keep the .lws and .lwo method... shouldn't be a problem

Tranimatronic
03-13-2014, 02:48 PM
let's say a 700 MB scene, it takes ages to save.
At work we fequently load Maya scenes that take upwards of 2 hours to load. 10 or 12 MB, but they reference assets that are gigabytes in size. Single threaded file loading. You dont really know until you try to load them.
Life is like a box of chocolates.

Sebasvideo
03-13-2014, 02:50 PM
I would also introduce a change to home user or freelance user licensing. I would institute a one user/two machine concurrently usage. For example, you can have a scene where you need to run a lengthy dynamics or FiberFX simulation. So you work on it on your main machine, send it over to your second machine to run the simulation, freeing your main machine to keep working on other parts of the scene. In the meantime, on your second machine you're testing different parameters for simulations. Sure, you could open two instances of Layout on your main machine, but it would eat up CPU cycles, while your second machine is doing nothing. So if you test settings on your second machine, ten when you have the results you want you can copy the values to the project on your main machine, that would save a lot of time.

Currently, if you try to open Layout on your second machine it will tell you that you can't because it's being used on another machine in the network. That makes sense if you're a company and two users are trying to use one license, but I think one user should have the right to use more than one instance of Lightwave on more than one machine. I mean, you can open more than one instance in the same machine, why shouldn't you be able to open those instances in two machines, if you're the only one using them?

Silkrooster
03-13-2014, 11:20 PM
Don't be so sure unified apps is such a good thing. I only know Modo and Lightwave (and a small portion of Blender) but two separate apps may have a lot of drawbacks but has one thing that is a huge advantage: saving time for large projects. In Modo, if you have a scene with tons of objects and geometry, let's say a 700 MB scene, it takes ages to save. And at least in my case, Murphy's law always follows me around like a dark angel. My amount of saving is OCD like, because I know that the moment you get careless and let it go several minutes without saving, the app will crash, call it Modo, Lightwave, After Effects, you name it. When I save all the time, I go all day without a crash.

With that said, working in Modo with a large scene, I can't save so often because it will take about 30 seconds to save, sometimes more if the scene is really huge. In a comparable scene in Layout, I hit Shift+S and it takes less than a second to save an incremental version. And even when I hit Alt+S in a scene with hundreds of objects, it takes a little longer, but it's only a few seconds. That to me is a huge plus. If unified Lightwave will bring a really long saving time they can keep it as it is.
Thing is there is a big difference between saving from modo or modeler and with layout. Both modo and modeler you are saving the mesh. In layout your just saving a text file. Though that maybe over simplifying it a bit when you add in fibers, hypervoxels, bullet, etc. With those I am not exactly sure if just the settings are saved or compiled data.

Silkrooster
03-13-2014, 11:24 PM
As for a unified app, I don't mind if it takes a few versions as long as that is where they are headed. I can see a few benefits of having it unified, like checking a render while pushing the mesh into shape. I always set up a scene in modeler instead of layout, I just prefer it. Its much easier when I need to move a few points to make things fit if necessary.

jwiede
03-14-2014, 01:07 AM
As for a unified app, I don't mind if it takes a few versions as long as that is where they are headed.

Right, seems like there should be a choice "Doesn't need to unified by 12, but needs visible, substantial infrastructure progress in that direction by 12." "Some modeling tools in Layout" is _not_ the same thing, IMO.

sami
03-14-2014, 05:26 AM
there were many good Modeler updates in 11...



ain't gonna happen any time soon, Rob stated this in his last Japan D-Storm presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRu_R3RubYI
still, very good to see they are taking care of it... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

OMG OMG! I just fell in love with Rob Powers in that video.

He had me at "Sometimes the 'cloud' brings rain" and "When you buy Lightwave, you own it." and "No forced subscriptions!"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRu_R3RubYI#t=7m10s

Seriously, +1 :thumbsup:

regardless of what is in v12, that kind of commitment to not succumbing to that evil cloud trend in this day and age has my money for next versions and cemented me as a loyal customer.

allabulle
03-14-2014, 12:53 PM
Right, seems like there should be a choice "Doesn't need to unified by 12, but needs visible, substantial infrastructure progress in that direction by 12." "Some modeling tools in Layout" is _not_ the same thing, IMO.

Well, while they implement what's needed a few modelling tools in Layout wouldn't hurt, wouldn't they? If possible, while they are preparing the arduous and time consuming task of modernizing the guts of the thing, we could use some key tools in Layout to help with the impatience. :)

Oedo 808
03-14-2014, 02:39 PM
Well, while they implement what's needed a few modelling tools in Layout wouldn't hurt, wouldn't they? If possible, while they are preparing the arduous and time consuming task of modernizing the guts of the thing, we could use some key tools in Layout to help with the impatience. :)

So long at those tools are transferable to advances within the framework, I have the vague thought that the extra work from that tools are designed on the Core test-bed and then patched onto LightWave without hooking in that which is beyond the current architecture's ability, to be augmented as changes to the guts of the program allows. Though that is just one of the daydreams I make up about LightWave when I wonder what is happening.

If it's just a case of layering on a few crumbs to keep us happy because the former is too complicated, I'd rather they save the effort and just reassure me that progress is being made with bringing what we saw in Core to LightWave proper, that would make me happier and cost nothing, at least not in development time, but perhaps there is a reason I have not yet grasped for the LWG's current level of engagement with Q&A, beyond the obvious.

realgray
03-14-2014, 03:37 PM
I'm kinda surprised yet happy that an update to the renderer is so high on the list. A micropoly disp. addition would help me stay with LW over modo. Right now I prefer the look and nodes of LW but I have a big feeling that nodes will be in Modo 801.

50one
03-14-2014, 03:52 PM
I'm kinda surprised yet happy that an update to the renderer is so high on the list. A micropoly disp. addition would help me stay with LW over modo. Right now I prefer the look and nodes of LW but I have a big feeling that nodes will be in Modo 801.

Judging by the devs responses on Foundry forum I highly doubt there will be as powerfull node editor as in LW, probably just bit more nodal power, but not something that will blow your socks off.:)

allabulle
03-14-2014, 04:03 PM
So long at those tools are transferable to advances within the framework, I have the vague thought that the extra work from that tools are designed on the Core test-bed and then patched onto LightWave without hooking in that which is beyond the current architecture's ability, to be augmented as changes to the guts of the program allows. Though that is just one of the daydreams I make up about LightWave when I wonder what is happening.

If it's just a case of layering on a few crumbs to keep us happy because the former is too complicated, I'd rather they save the effort and just reassure me that progress is being made with bringing what we saw in Core to LightWave proper, that would make me happier and cost nothing, at least not in development time, but perhaps there is a reason I have not yet grasped for the LWG's current level of engagement with Q&A, beyond the obvious.

In the scenario where the modernizing of the architecture of the software takes a few years, I wouldn't mind if they were diverting some resources and time to implement key but discrete features into the existing platform to keep it functional, and even polish the application here and there as needed. Disappearing for years won't help them or us. So how's the 'meanwhile' is the thing to me. All that would be fine with me assuming something structural is being made, thought or implemented during that time, obviously. Otherwise, to me, they would just be applying some life support and care until the thing dies.

That didn't came out very cheerful, right? Well, in any case I think I expressed at least the gist of my thoughts on the issue nonetheless. :)

Oedo 808
03-14-2014, 05:01 PM
Yes of course, most of my chatter has been to say that I imagine Core was put to one side to allow for updates without going dark for too long a time. I guess I seized upon the modelling tools in Layout bit just thinking that if it was too early to see those I'd rather they just added whatever features they could with (relative) ease than to patch on any old modelling guff to try and stop us from getting restless about integration.

It may not come out very cheerful and my thoughts are often the same, I think there are two reasons for that, the first is that it is better to communicate and have a few mouthy users that are unhappy than say nothing and have a silent majority that are unhappy. The second is that if the talking that resulted in people's unrealistic expectations makes them think they are better off silent, I can moan much, much more to make them think it might actually be easier to go back to communicating with us. :)

realgray
03-14-2014, 05:10 PM
Judging by the devs responses on Foundry forum I highly doubt there will be as powerfull node editor as in LW, probably just bit more nodal power, but not something that will blow your socks off.:)

That's really too bad but great for LW :) Watching purely Foundry vids they seem extremely pro nodal and the Modo strawpoll has nodal shading at #2. I guess the lack of Nodal Shading in Modo might be architectural.

allabulle
03-14-2014, 05:18 PM
Yes of course, most of my chatter has been to say that I imagine Core was put to one side to allow for updates without going dark for too long a time. I guess I seized upon the modelling tools in Layout bit just thinking that if it was too early to see those I'd rather they just added whatever features they could with (relative) ease than to patch on any old modelling guff to try and stop us from getting restless about integration.

It may not come out very cheerful and my thoughts are often the same, I think there are two reasons for that, the first is that it is better to communicate and have a few mouthy users that are unhappy than say nothing and have a silent majority that are unhappy. The second is that if the talking that resulted in people's unrealistic expectations makes them think they are better off silent, I can moan much, much more to make them think it might actually be easier to go back to communicating with us. :)

I'm confident they are doing something, and something right this time. If it takes a while, so be it. Not that we can do something else about it anyway. We'll all see later on. Yet, I'm fine. I can use LightWave now. I want better and new tools, but I can use it now. When and if I can't use it any more, we'll part ways until I can again. But I feel optimistic this time around. I have no clue that my optimism is founded, but then that's the nature of the thing. I guess from what I've seen, from what they have already done with the current architecture and the new things they produce without it. So I take that as a basis for my unreliable feelings. Hah!

That being said, we'll all have to be patient (or not) to see what will come next.

50one
03-14-2014, 05:23 PM
That's really too bad but great for LW :) Watching purely Foundry vids they seem extremely pro nodal and the Modo strawpoll has nodal shading at #2. I guess the lack of Nodal Shading in Modo might be architectural.


Well, Foundry is, Luxology never considered nodes for some reason, speaking of architecture you might be right, even tho they said that Nexus is soo great architecture there seems to be something 'wrong' with it, the nodal interface is not very exposed and the SDK is really poor(Not a programmer but I keep hearing this quite often) interface in many places just needs a lot of love - especially the scene/material management. I really hope that Foundry gonna help with this, but by looking at the Nuke progress it took them few versions before the Nuke interface got more streamlined...right! Back on topic! Is LW group going to siggraph this year?

hrgiger
03-14-2014, 06:42 PM
Is LW group going to siggraph this year?

I've not heard any chatter about it which I take as a sign that LW3DG is either not going to have a presence or it will be very small. From the last few years that they've put on a show, they've made it clear that Siggraph takes a lot of planning and time which is frankly time taken away from development. And considering how long now we've been in LW11, I'd rather they keep the focus on moving towards LW12. I doubt there will be any Siggraph unveiling of LW12 or anything like that this year.

Concerning Modo's architecture, the one thing that bothers me is that they started off with a modeler. Is their approach simply procedural, as in one thing following another or did they build a proper foundation from the start to build a unified application. It surprised me when they did introduce Animation (was it 3.1?) that everything was not able to be animated (such as modeling operations). And now 4 versions later and that much hasn't changed. They also decided to not go with a modifier stack which is fine I suppose but it makes me wonder again, how much they built the application with the future in mind. Part of LightWave's issues stem from the fact that it was built as two separate applications and new features were generally just piled on top of old instead of actually having tools communicate across the application. So I wonder if Modo, maybe to a lesser degree, will end up in a similar position. Maybe, maybe not.

As far as LW development goes, I am very dubious that there is any "CORE test bed" as was mentioned a few years ago. Whatever LW3DG is working on, I would guess that its all new work and not based on any CORE architecture even if some mistakes were learned from it.

Oedo 808
03-14-2014, 07:15 PM
I'm confident they are doing something, and something right this time. If it takes a while, so be it. Not that we can do something else about it anyway. We'll all see later on. Yet, I'm fine. I can use LightWave now. I want better and new tools, but I can use it now. When and if I can't use it any more, we'll part ways until I can again. But I feel optimistic this time around. I have no clue that my optimism is founded, but then that's the nature of the thing. I guess from what I've seen, from what they have already done with the current architecture and the new things they produce without it. So I take that as a basis for my unreliable feelings. Hah!

That being said, we'll all have to be patient (or not) to see what will come next.

I think many people feel similarly who have used LightWave for any length of time, but I think the problem was LightWave surviving indefinitely on Core betas. If a benefactor wanted to give them resources beyond imagining to work without having to release anything, then that might be different, but even then I think we have seen that it doesn't automatically follow that being the next XSI guarantees anything.


As far as LW development goes, I am very dubious that there is any "CORE test bed" as was mentioned a few years ago. Whatever LW3DG is working on, I would guess that its all new work and not based on any CORE architecture even if some mistakes were learned from it.

Really? Hmm, I never even thought that this would be plausible, but then there's the problem with being left to speculate, it shows it is quite plausible for users on the outside to assume that this is the reality, and well I guess it may well be.

erikals
03-14-2014, 08:17 PM
Concerning Modo's architecture, the one thing that bothers me is that they started off with a modeler. Is their approach simply procedural, as in one thing following another or did they build a proper foundation from the start to build a unified application. It surprised me when they did introduce Animation (was it 3.1?) that everything was not able to be animated (such as modeling operations). And now 4 versions later and that much hasn't changed. They also decided to not go with a modifier stack which is fine I suppose but it makes me wonder again, how much they built the application with the future in mind. Part of LightWave's issues stem from the fact that it was built as two separate applications and new features were generally just piled on top of old instead of actually having tools communicate across the application. So I wonder if Modo, maybe to a lesser degree, will end up in a similar position. Maybe, maybe not.

i've read some time back that Animation was not something they considered.
not sure what made them change their mind.

seem to remember Modo is based on some old code, yes, and might very well run into the same problem LightWave has.
so far the speed in Modo looks to be alright though...

LightWave Modeler will get some speed-up using the new Hydra engine.

if NT is focused on dragging Layout functions into Modeler after that, i'm not sure. what i do know though, is if so, it ain't going to happen any time soon.

that said, we'll probably see several M/L issues being solved in LightWave 12, based on what is said in the D-Storm video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRu_R3RubYI
and what Rob and Matt stated earlier on...

no guarantees though..., just strong indications... :]

cresshead
03-14-2014, 09:52 PM
i've read some time back that Animation was not something they considered.
not sure what made them change their mind.

seem to remember Modo is based on some old code, yes, and might very well run into the same problem LightWave has.
so far the speed in Modo looks to be alright though...

LightWave Modeler will get some speed-up using the new Hydra engine.

if NT is focused on dragging Layout functions into Modeler after that, i'm not sure. what i do know though, is if so, it ain't going to happen any time soon.

that said, we'll probably see several M/L issues being solved in LightWave 12, based on what is said in the D-Storm video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRu_R3RubYI
and what Rob and Matt stated earlier on...

no guarantees though..., just strong indications... :]

take a listen to this week's modcast on the history of nexus and modo.

hrgiger
03-15-2014, 03:05 AM
take a listen to this week's modcast on the history of nexus and modo.

Well that shows they were thinking of more when they created Modo and makes me feel better about the system but I do notice that when they were talking about animating properties they say that 'almost' everything can be animated. But no modeling operations which I would think would have been a natural thing especially since they started with modeling.

kfinla
03-15-2014, 10:17 AM
Well watching the Dstorm presentation.. to me implies we might see animatable modeling tools (which we saw in Core briefly), and get a camera, or VPR of some sort in Modeler - something I wish I had in LW7. Camera mapping is ridiculously time consuming in LW (a VFX package), and it should not be.

cresshead
03-15-2014, 12:07 PM
Well that shows they were thinking of more when they created Modo and makes me feel better about the system but I do notice that when they were talking about animating properties they say that 'almost' everything can be animated. But no modeling operations which I would think would have been a natural thing especially since they started with modelling.

yeh amazing that they didn't think animating modelling operations was a top priority in Modo which mush be THE latest 3d app to come to market.
On a side note not sure that blender 2.69 can animate modelling actually all that much either and that had a re write only a couple of years back...what is it with these NEW apps not seeing the potential of animated modelling?

such things are easy in 3dsmax, xsi, houdini and maya..probably cinema4d too (not used it)

I'm hoping for big things with the next 3d app from Newtek be that lightwave 12 or some other new app along the heritage we saw from CORE with Cronosculpt last year.

Snosrap
03-15-2014, 11:01 PM
Well that shows they were thinking of more when they created Modo and makes me feel better about the system but I do notice that when they were talking about animating properties they say that 'almost' everything can be animated. But no modeling operations which I would think would have been a natural thing especially since they started with modeling. Brad Peebler actually showed a Nexus/Modo demo back in the day where he animated extrusions and other modeling functions. Why animated modeling functions are not in Modo at this point in it's development is hard to understand, especially since that demo was more than 10 years ago. I remember when Core got a timeline the first thing I tried was to make a 1 meter box at frame 0 and move the time slider to 20 and stretch the box and make a key expecting to created a simple animation - no worky. Isn't that how it should work? Why would it be any more complicated than that? Modo basically went the Endomorph route like LightWave. :stumped:

hrgiger
03-16-2014, 02:35 AM
Brad Peebler actually showed a Nexus/Modo demo back in the day where he animated extrusions and other modeling functions. Why animated modeling functions are not in Modo at this point in it's development is hard to understand, especially since that demo was more than 10 years ago. I remember when Core got a timeline the first thing I tried was to make a 1 meter box at frame 0 and move the time slider to 20 and stretch the box and make a key expecting to created a simple animation - no worky. Isn't that how it should work? Why would it be any more complicated than that? Modo basically went the Endomorph route like LightWave. :stumped:

In CORE, animating modeling operations was done via the connection editor(nodal). You could drive things like divisions and lathes and extrusions with the time input.

kfinla
03-16-2014, 06:11 AM
I assume we don't see animated modeling operations in lw or modo because of performance overhead. Neither of these apps have a history, or deformer stack. So it keeps file sizes small and interactions fast. I remember very clearly years ago in maya needing to delete history every hour or 2 because interactions would begin to crawl. Uving was a good cause of this, lots of small actions to store.

cresshead
03-16-2014, 03:32 PM
I assume we don't see animated modeling operations in lw or modo because of performance overhead. Neither of these apps have a history, or deformer stack. So it keeps file sizes small and interactions fast. I remember very clearly years ago in maya needing to delete history every hour or 2 because interactions would begin to crawl. Uving was a good cause of this, lots of small actions to store.

modo does have a deformer 'stack' actually in 701 i believe, they're known as motion modifiers and include things such as twist and taper...so they can be animated to effect a deform on geometry over time...they are not however i believe available on a sub object level like a cluster of points or polys...correct me if i'm wrong though!

Snosrap
03-17-2014, 08:35 AM
In CORE, animating modeling operations was done via the connection editor(nodal). You could drive things like divisions and lathes and extrusions with the time input. Well that's kind of my point - why so convoluted? Create box at frame 0, move time slider to frame 20, stretch box and create a key. So simple. :)

Hail
03-17-2014, 09:02 AM
why so convoluted?

Because they want to make a rocket scientist out of you.. so simple :D

hrgiger
03-17-2014, 09:32 AM
Well that's kind of my point - why so convoluted? Create box at frame 0, move time slider to frame 20, stretch box and create a key. So simple. :)

It really doesnt get much simpler then plugging in a single node, no keyframing necessary. But ideally a solution like XSI would be my preference. Each property of a tool has a keyframe button. Make your change, make a keyframe.

Snosrap
03-17-2014, 04:08 PM
It really doesnt get much simpler then plugging in a single node, no keyframing necessary. But ideally a solution like XSI would be my preference. Each property of a tool has a keyframe button. Make your change, make a keyframe. Both an XSI like solution and node based would be the way to do it. :)

cresshead
03-17-2014, 10:46 PM
'a solution' would be the way to go... :)

VonBon
03-18-2014, 10:49 AM
Well I just hope that LW3DG doesn't forget about the Artist with LW12 and Beyond.
I mean all the fancy stuff is great to have, but I don't wanna have to have a
Doctorate in LW in order to get something done. Node Editor still hurts my head cause
I waste more time trying to figure out what a word means and how to use it than
creating something, I'd rather use a shortcut (I am lazy tho ;D). I know what some of
them mean but most i have no idea. Maybe it could be fixed with better examples or
explanations but really I just wanna make ****. I remember SplineGod saying to me
"Just start Animating", and I was working so hard to make a great rig that hell, after
I finished the rig I didn't feel like animating it. :D (I did say I was Lazy)

So I just hope LW doesn't lose its simplicity on the road to becoming "BIG TIME".
Don't forget about the Artist such as myself.

If we learn anything from XSI, let it be that just because your great doesn't mean
your going to succeed in this industry.

kfinla
03-18-2014, 11:29 AM
I don't think being mediocre does you any favors either.

NOT being comfortable with a node graph really isn't an option these days. They are everywhere, and a way more powerful paradigm. In many cases they are more illustrative to debug than a stack.

Photoshop and After effects are about the only apps I can think of without them. Many times I wished they had nodal connections, Substance designer is the node based Photoshop I wish existed.

hrgiger
03-18-2014, 12:09 PM
Well i think every software designers goal should be to make results as easy as possible to get and make it user\artist friendly. But at the same time, its a mistake to limit the software just for the sake of keeping it simple to use. The more features and options come with the cost of added complexity. I will take a little more time learning the software if it means more flexibility every time.

allabulle
03-18-2014, 12:28 PM
Nodes make difficult things easy. You can still use a direct approach to many functions nonetheless. I don't understand this kind of pleas. Spcially talking about LightWave.

gerry_g
03-18-2014, 01:09 PM
I think the gist of the negativity surrounding nodes boils down to the fact that when doing things by more orthodox means any dialogue panel you open constrains you to options solely related to what you are trying to affect where as the node editor is a big box of every thing with no particular starting point and often no clue as to where to start, yes this vast array of options is great but it feels undisciplined and badly laid out with next to no explanation of what's what or why its there, because just about anything can be plugged into anything else I find it harder to troubleshoot and work out what actually is and isn't having an effect (which is not helped by the unreliability VPR), honestly I have downloaded other peoples nodal set ups just to se what they have done only to discover 50% of it is redundant because a material node is overwriting it

VonBon
03-18-2014, 01:24 PM
I would not want to limit LW in any way. I guess what i mean is to have a choice in the level of detail
as to how I work in LW. For example the Node editor. I like the old way of the surface editor where I
have a "visual" panel and layer system to create my textures, for me its just easier to grasp.
(I know nodes aren't limited to textures) I would like LW3DG to not forget about the panel based system
but instead add as much "Node" based functionality to the panel system as possible. Would be great if
I could build a texture in the panel system then have it translated to a Node based setup when i click on
Nodes (would help me understand whats going on). Its easy to mimic what others are doing from a tutorial
but to actually understand how, when and why to use a node in certain situations is a bit more overwhelming.
(at least for me it is) So, give me as much as you can in a GUI fashion and if i need to go deeper then i have
the option of using the Node based setup to get the extra functionality if needed. I still just wanna drive the car,
yea i might know a little bit about the workings but i don't want to have to know as much as the mechanic to race.

VonBon
03-18-2014, 01:28 PM
I think the gist of the negativity surrounding nodes boils down to the fact that when doing things by more orthodox means any dialogue panel you open constrains you to options solely related to what you are trying to affect where as the node editor is a big box of every thing with no particular starting point and often no clue as to where to start, yes this vast array of options is great but it feels undisciplined and badly laid out with next to no explanation of what's what or why its there, because just about anything can be plugged into anything else I find it harder to troubleshoot and work out what actually is and isn't having an effect (which is not helped by the unreliability VPR), honestly I have downloaded other peoples nodal set ups just to se what they have done only to discover 50% of it is redundant because a material node is overwriting it

What he said :beerchug:

Hail
03-18-2014, 03:22 PM
VonBon has a point!
Please LW3DG we don't want another houdini/Core:D

kfinla
03-18-2014, 04:17 PM
Accept Houdini people are highly paid, and always in demand :)

I've taught lots of artists to embrace nodes. After learning just a few nodes, and what they do.. its really just basic math most of the time, 0 to 1 .. and black to white.

You really just have to spend time using them, and you add more and more nodes to your comfort zone, then its all downhill. There is nothing magical, no cheat sheet, just time.

bobakabob
03-18-2014, 04:26 PM
Lightwave users have the best of three worlds for surfacing, nodal, Photoshop style layers and hybrid. A major strength of the package especially combined with VPR.

Snosrap
03-18-2014, 06:29 PM
Lightwave users have the best of three worlds for surfacing, nodal, Photoshop style layers and hybrid. A major strength of the package especially combined with VPR.

Yep - and no Shader Tree! :) I just wish NT would expand on the surface presets- both nodal and layers. Other apps have tons of presets - no artist or mathematician needed - just drop it on and view the results. Don't like it try another one. :)

geo_n
03-19-2014, 07:27 PM
Top 1 is rendering update again. hehe. Wonder if thats still a good idea...

erikals
03-19-2014, 08:31 PM
Top 1 is rendering update again. hehe. Wonder if thats still a good idea...

agree, haven't said it, but hope to see a better LightWave Render Engine...

better quality...
better speed...

Snosrap
03-19-2014, 08:43 PM
agree, haven't said it, but hope to see a better LightWave Render Engine...

better quality...
better speed...
Unbiased render engine. :)

erikals
03-19-2014, 08:54 PM
is it possible? http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

without a rewrite i mean... (?)

geo_n
03-19-2014, 09:08 PM
Actually I was thinking lightwave renderer is already capable. If some need unbiased renderer there's octane, for vray quality stills there's kray.
Lightwave needs to attract other users and the renderer is not the way.

Snosrap
03-19-2014, 09:39 PM
Actually I was thinking lightwave renderer is already capable. If some need unbiased renderer there's octane, for vray quality stills there's kray.
Lightwave needs to attract other users and the renderer is not the way.Yeah in the scheme of things the renderer is about the last thing that needs work. But on the other hand what would Mark be doing otherwise if he wasn't working on rendering technology.

Julez4001
03-19-2014, 09:56 PM
I agree, the render has gotten a lot of love lately. I really love the Rendering Engine and foe whatever it needs ..it still blows other 3D apps native render at no additional cost.

Lightwave needs some of "ease of use" procedural animation ala Cinema4d / Modo, Fume FX-like volumetrics rendering upgrade and particle system,
More Modeling tools in Layout, More upgrade to UV-ING in Modeler, Rock Solid Fur and Hair Shader (just buy Sasquatch and upgrade to true raytracing, etc

geo_n
03-19-2014, 10:36 PM
Yeah in the scheme of things the renderer is about the last thing that needs work. But on the other hand what would Mark be doing otherwise if he wasn't working on rendering technology.

Mark is probably not limited to coding renderers only. Considering newtek hired him to develop for lightwave he must be top caliber dev. There are also other aspects of lightwave related to the renderer that needs some work like the compositing and surfacing side of it.

bobakabob
03-20-2014, 12:23 AM
Yep - and no Shader Tree! :) I just wish NT would expand on the surface presets- both nodal and layers. Other apps have tons of presets - no artist or mathematician needed - just drop it on and view the results. Don't like it try another one. :)

Absolutely, a refresh of surface presets is long overdue - they look ancient and don't convey any sense of Lightwave's power to first time users.

(I always assumed Modo's Shader tree was similar to lightwave's layers... Is that not the case?)

Also agree particles and Hypervoxels could really do with an update.

djwaterman
03-20-2014, 02:44 AM
And any new surface presets need to be divided into two catagories, energy conserving and non energy conserving, it's really pointless using a preset if you don't know from the start if it's energy conserving or not.

VonBon
03-20-2014, 08:16 AM
"Custom" Game Engine Exporters for "Major" "AAA Title" Game Engines.

Snosrap
03-20-2014, 04:38 PM
(I always assumed Modo's Shader tree was similar to lightwave's layers... Is that not the case?) Not really. It's powerful, but convoluted IMO. Also I struggled to wrap my head around it mainly because it was so darn buggy in the 201 and 301. I just avoid rendering in Modo altogether now as it's just not worth the pain. :) To me Modo is a modeler and not much else and I have stopped upgrading at 601.

Tranimatronic
03-20-2014, 04:44 PM
Not really. It's powerful, but convoluted IMO. Also I struggled to wrap my head around it mainly because it was so darn buggy in the 201 and 301. I just avoid rendering in Modo altogether now as it's just not worth the pain. :) To me Modo is a modeler and not much else and I have stopped upgrading at 601.

Quoted for complete agreement. I thought it was just me. Glad to know I'm not alone ;)

jasonwestmas
03-20-2014, 06:01 PM
I gave up on anything other than rendering improvements. Anything other than rendering improvements is a definite bonus. I voted for cool high-end tools that nobody else has.

jasonwestmas
03-20-2014, 06:37 PM
Not really. It's powerful, but convoluted IMO. Also I struggled to wrap my head around it mainly because it was so darn buggy in the 201 and 301. I just avoid rendering in Modo altogether now as it's just not worth the pain. :) To me Modo is a modeler and not much else and I have stopped upgrading at 601.

Lately, for model design I've been a Maya, LWCad, Zbrush user. I bought modo 601 to get some nice subD tools back when it was released and I was hoping that modo would turn into a one stop shop for retopo, texturing, modeling and sculpting. However, I just don't see it happening and I decided that I have more power and efficiency using three applications anyway. Nex is really good for precision modeling and ZRemesher is a huge time saver when concepting ideas with dynamesh. LWCad is of course good at quickly building man-made structures and ornamental designs.

Mr. Wilde
03-27-2014, 07:33 AM
You know, now that I fiddled a bit with lights and caustics, I have to say a full volumetric lighting system including caustics and radiosity would be cool.
All types of lights being volumetric would be neat as well. Use an area light, and you can see the light spreading out realistically, for example. The light hits a mirror ball, and you can see the reflected light spreading out. The light hits a glass ball, and you can see the caustic beam spread out. The beams hit a nearby wall, and you can see how they bounce off that one.

VonBon
03-28-2014, 08:49 PM
https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/animation-rigging-toolkit-in-ue4

VonBon
03-28-2014, 08:56 PM
Eventually, Game Engines will take over and "Rendering"
in the classic sense will be obsolete. I doubt that 3D apps
will be able to catch up to the companies that make these
engines.

lo0per
04-01-2014, 06:31 PM
Is it possible only so many people voted in the poll? Realy...

RTSchramm
04-01-2014, 07:40 PM
I think the modeler needs to be updated, or even replaced with a completely rewritten core ( no pun intended ). Modeler in too slow, doesn't handle large number of polygons very well, the tools are too archaic and need to be unified, UV tools need to be more efficient with a better interface, and the modeler needs to be integrated with layout; maybe a tab on the layout menu. Currently I use Modo for modeling and texturing. 3d painting and weighting would be nice.

For layout I like to see a FULL implementation of bullet code with constraints and such. Better fluids, cloth, and fur. Maybe rewrite the entire dynamics features into one unified systems that is node based. A scene editor where I can see every property of the models in abbreviated form without opening the model's properties menu.

All items saved in a scene or model should be saved with the hierarchy, and not need the be manually saved separately.

I'd be willing to pay $2000 for these features.

Rich

ncr100
07-28-2014, 01:17 AM
I think the gist of the negativity surrounding nodes boils down to the fact that when doing things by more orthodox means any dialogue panel you open constrains you to options solely related to what you are trying to affect where as the node editor is a big box of every thing with no particular starting point and often no clue as to where to start, yes this vast array of options is great but it feels undisciplined and badly laid out with next to no explanation of what's what or why its there, because just about anything can be plugged into anything else I find it harder to troubleshoot and work out what actually is and isn't having an effect (which is not helped by the unreliability VPR), honestly I have downloaded other peoples nodal set ups just to se what they have done only to discover 50% of it is redundant because a material node is overwriting it

@gerry_g this is an interesting point - I like complexity but I see your point. I see how it's more direct to have all the common options grouped and laid out in a list so you just (1) configure settings, while with nodes, although super powerful and in LW not terribly complex, one has to (1) drag out a series of nodes and (2) connect them and (3) configure them in order to make any changes.

With nodes there is much more to engage with the user concerning the relationship between settings.

I don't have a solution to make this 'relationship configurator' that is the node editor more like the conventional surface editor (e.g.) however it helps me to think of the node editor as a relationship editor.

MAUROCOR
07-28-2014, 11:10 AM
It wasnīt there but I would add a NEW FUR/HAIR system that works perfectly fine. It includes feathers too.

Dan_Ritchie
08-01-2014, 03:24 PM
Let's face it, Lightwave is all about blowing up spaceships. Fluid and gas simulation, heavy on the explosions, some sculpting tools, and a start on a modeling API in layout.

Dan_Ritchie
08-01-2014, 03:32 PM
I don't have a solution to make this 'relationship configurator' that is the node editor more like the conventional surface editor (e.g.) however it helps me to think of the node editor as a relationship editor.


The node editor needs to link into the traditional texturing system, and not just replace it.
For example, I want my nodes to know about the color, diffuse, illumination, reflectivity, and specular settings the user has selected in the surface editor, so my nodes can make use of them. Somebody 7 cubicles down shouldn't have to look at my nodes and try to figure out what they do just to change a surface color. It's too easy to break something in a node by making random changes. It's like a non-programmer randomly changing your source code, without knowing how it works or what it's for.

Samus
08-01-2014, 06:58 PM
Hi All!!!

A Feature most needed is GPU CUDA/OPENCL hybrid VPR engine for Lightwave 12 We Cannot fall Behind with this being all realtime emerging RT renderers !!
that with a Layout modeler tool with Gizmo on every tools to model in viewport including that acceleration in the new modeler tool as a standard viewport .
That with a cloth engine like "Syflex" or "Marvelous Designer". That being said syflex could be added to LW like XSI does now that it's 200 bucks.
Fur needs on going work (It has progressed but still...)
Graph editor need's Speed like maya's...
Instancing need to be faster and have HD instance independant animation offset!
loading of sequences in background is still hell, as it still slows down LW horribly.
Voxels still absolete to use as fluid generator.
Actual FD like TurbulenceFD .

Lightwave is a nice 3D software but has a lot to go for improvement to be on par with the leading softwares. Shockingly Blender is killing it with inovation every year. Lightwave must'nt fall behind as it has for the last few years not to say decade!

lightscape
08-02-2014, 06:36 AM
Some modelling tools needs to be in layout in 12 - need to see this soon
New node workflows - to extend lw much further - a renderlayer system using nodes. Renderlayers like maya and cinema4d
I need to be able to model looking through the camera - yep

Chronosculpt and nevron didn't really impress with its new tech for lightwave. Guys who bought it must be regretting chronosculpt developer is now gone.

robertoortiz
08-02-2014, 06:40 AM
Some modelling tools needs to be in layout in 12 - need to see this soon
New node workflows - to extend lw much further - a renderlayer system using nodes. Renderlayers like maya and cinema4d
I need to be able to model looking through the camera - yep

Chronosculpt and nevron didn't really impress with its new tech for lightwave. Guys who bought it must be regretting chronosculpt developer is now gone.
Really he is gone? What happened? If true this is a huge loss for NT. We need that kind of lateral thinking.

cresshead
08-02-2014, 07:20 AM
Really he is gone? What happened? If true this is a huge loss for NT. We need that kind of lateral thinking.

some things just don't work out...he's now busy putting demo's of ideas together some of which look really cool actually over on his facebook pages.

xevious2501
08-14-2014, 04:02 AM
MY request for LW 11.7 / 12 ?
HYPERVOXELS
User definable Hypervoxel volume bake resolutions. (no longer max'd out at 400x400x400)
Use of layouts image editor instead of local load function for importing hypervoxel bakes. (would give imported bakes all the functionality of image editor to further tweak imported bakes on the fly)

OPENVDB for LW
Developed by Dreamworks for there feature animated films (including. HTTYDragon2, puss and boots, etc) would be a great addition as it would also add much needed new procedurals to LW and function
as a great platform for Fluids as seen in (The Croods)

GPU PROCESSING optional across the board.
As seen in PRESTO pixars animation software, Dramatic speed was given to animators when Presto's processing for feature like Particles, Fur, Instancing, voxels was switched from CPU to GPU.
The speed gains were so dramatic it would be foolish not to adapt the functionality into LW. Would also be great as an option for VPR and renderer.

Samus
08-14-2014, 05:50 AM
Plus to That!...a frost feature like 3ds Max or realflow freezing of voxel geometry. And why create a third software like chronosculpt...why not add it to Lightwave layout and turn it to a beast of a tool...instead of dividing the tools.
Newtek donyou hear us!!!



MY request for LW 11.7 / 12 ?
HYPERVOXELS
User definable Hypervoxel volume bake resolutions. (no longer max'd out at 400x400x400)
Use of layouts image editor instead of local load function for importing hypervoxel bakes. (would give imported bakes all the functionality of image editor to further tweak imported bakes on the fly)

OPENVDB for LW
Developed by Dreamworks for there feature animated films (including. HTTYDragon2, puss and boots, etc) would be a great addition as it would also add much needed new procedurals to LW and function
as a great platform for Fluids as seen in (The Croods)

GPU PROCESSING optional across the board.
As seen in PRESTO pixars animation software, Dramatic speed was given to animators when Presto's processing for feature like Particles, Fur, Instancing, voxels was switched from CPU to GPU..
The speed gains were so dramatic it would be foolish not to adapt the functionality into LW. Would also be great as an option for VPR and renderer.

GandB
08-14-2014, 09:44 AM
I would love to see all the basic tools in Modeler updated, tidied up, merged and brought in line with the new tools like Chamfer, Transform, or Tweak. Turn all of them into interactive tools.

Bevel with group beveling, segmentation and profiles (basically merging Bevel, Smooth Shift, Router and Multishift into one tool). Chamfer/Edge Bevel with a rounding option (merging Chamfer, Edge Bevel and Rounder into one tool). Interactive Clone, Array, Absolute Size. A ball tool with the options Globe, Tesselation and Quad. Merge all those transform tools into one. A better font/text tool. Band Saw with both percentage and metric input (essentially merging my current workflow: Add Edges, input the metric value, copy the percentage into Band Saw Pro). Basically, merge functionalities of Band Saw, Add Edges and Cut into one tool: Add Loop(s). UV support for Catmull Clark subdivision.

Stuff like that.

Agree fully here. Modeler MUST be attended to in a meaningful way; not just a few token things here and there, so they can put it on the bullet list. Rob and Crew need to stop screwing around in that arena; while the other apps excel at it.

I'll also add my usual call for better support for game artists. ;)

lightscape
08-18-2014, 06:52 AM
Let's face it, Lightwave is all about blowing up spaceships. Fluid and gas simulation, heavy on the explosions, some sculpting tools, and a start on a modeling API in layout.

A new hair system, updated hypervoxels, start on a modeling API in layout, would be a big and worthy upgrade for lightwave 12.
Some minor updates to screamernet, bullet, to come with so its a well rounded upgrade across workflow functions in lightwave.

MAUROCOR
08-18-2014, 07:03 AM
New hair system including fur and feathers.

erikals
08-18-2014, 07:40 AM
what should the new hair system contain?

jasonwestmas
08-18-2014, 07:50 AM
what should the new hair system contain?

Better shading and more predictable control over the shading.
Overall stability.

MAUROCOR
08-18-2014, 08:05 AM
Better shading and more predictable control over the shading.
Overall stability.

And Combing by surface, just like Sasquatch.
More control over the fiber and render speed optimization.
A better distribution of the fibers around the surface ( to get off the hair doll effect ).

erikals
08-18-2014, 08:52 AM
you forgot > thinner minimum setting for hair thickness http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif
right now the only way is to pump up the render resolution, then tweak the FFX settings

from my tests FiberFX has been behaving alright, though could be better

didn't they improve the doll problem?...

jasonwestmas
08-18-2014, 09:28 AM
you mean the doll hair look? Not from what I can see. The overall blurriness in the shading is a problem.

jwiede
08-18-2014, 09:29 AM
Better shading and more predictable control over the shading.
Overall stability.

Much clearer workflow, as well. FFX's workflow is highly non-discoverable in too many areas. Reference Sas for how to keep it concise, direct and discoverable.

Heck, at this point the most efficient route might be to contact Worley and license Sas. They'd have to redo the UI for Mac in Cocoa (Dave ought to be able to do that quickly), sure, but it's already very capable, endlessly production-tested, etc. We might lose a few features compared to FFX, but it'd provide a much more stable foundation, and then they could examine re-adding the missing features (ideally with Worley's bespoke help). Sas has a world-class hair shading engine, and I'm just not convinced FFX's hair shading (which has improved very little since first release, IMO) will get anywhere close anytime soon.

That might also open the door to acquiring some of the other useful stuff from Taft, Polk, G2, etc. There's a heck of a lot of really useful, heavily production-tested stuff in those two "collection" plugins.

jwiede
08-18-2014, 09:31 AM
you mean the doll hair look? Not from what I can see. The overall blurriness in the shading is a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure Greenlaw will be here momentarily to disagree with everyone, but black hair (or cartoon fur) uses aside, most human hair colors in FFX still look very unrealistic, blurry and muddy. FFX might be better than Sas at "generating" hair (arguably, stability and repeatability counts a lot in my book), but Sas remains miles ahead of FFX at shading hair.

erikals
08-18-2014, 10:09 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngjasonwestmas
you mean the doll hair look? Not from what I can see.
no, referred to the distribution of the fibers issue


The overall blurriness in the shading is a problem.
it could be better, also the sharpness of the tips of the hair could be better. but in several cases it's better to just make the hair thinner, though this means you would have to pump up the camera resolution, increasing rendertime.


http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngjwiede
...but Sas remains miles ahead of FFX at shading hair.
i don't feel Sas was any better. what i found was that i had to turn to adjusting the hair in post, or other tricks.

erikals
08-18-2014, 10:21 AM
btw, nice hair shading example from Mike Green >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?130206-FiberFX-pulling-my-hair-out&p=1267753&viewfull=1#post1267753
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=106511&d=1345946945

jwiede
08-18-2014, 12:02 PM
btw, nice hair shading example from Mike Green >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?130206-FiberFX-pulling-my-hair-out&p=1267753&viewfull=1#post1267753
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=106511&d=1345946945

They are both beautiful examples, agreed, but they're also both "mostly black hair".

sampei
08-18-2014, 12:35 PM
i don't feel Sas was any better. what i found was that i had to turn to adjusting the hair in post, or other tricks.http://www.worley.com/E/Products/sasquatch/sas_gallery.html

do you really need some side-by-side comparisons to see it? this is another dead horse, for anything other than stylized hair or non close-ups ffx is inadequate at best. Results speak for themselves so there's nothing much to argue. Users have been rightfully complaining about the same things for years and nothing has happened. So to think of it, there are 3 possible reasons for the state of things since 6 years have passed and the ffx dreadful look still plagues all of its moderately close-up renders:

1) NT feels the system is "good enough"
2) NT does not possess resources to fix it
3) NT does not care

in which case, what they should do is:

1) buy Sasquatch from WL
2) get HairFarm to make a LW plugin

and in the meanwhile whoever is interested in realism for their hair/fur will find it elsewhere, whether it be sasquatch or some other native system like the ones by Joe Alter in 3dsmax or maya which are excellent on all fronts.

jwiede
08-18-2014, 12:45 PM
http://www.worley.com/E/Products/sasquatch/sas_gallery.html

do you really need some side-by-side comparisons to see it? this is another dead horse, for anything other than stylized hair or non close-ups ffx is inadequate at best. Results speak for themselves so there's nothing much to argue.
QFA. I have yet to see an example from FFX that even approaches the realism of either the first set/first panel Sasquatch gallery shot (1 of 38), or even the second set/third panel test shot (9 of 38).

erikals
08-18-2014, 12:50 PM
i do own Sas and have used it quite a bit so it's not about that.


do you really need some side-by-side comparisons to see it?
see what? is that supposed to be better shading than FiberFX?

i was definitely one of the number 1 complainers on FiberFX, so it's not about that either.

MAUROCOR
08-18-2014, 01:34 PM
i do own Sas and have used it quite a bit so it's not about that.


see what? is that supposed to be better shading than FiberFX?

i was definitely one of the number 1 complainers on FiberFX, so it's not about that either.

They should get the best of SAS. Of course it has limitations, mainly after so many time of its creation. But there are some very good stuff they should get. Combing by surface is one of them.

sampei
08-18-2014, 02:51 PM
see what? is that supposed to be better shading than FiberFX?

what is "that" ? are you implying none of the pieces in the sasquatch gallery look better than the examples you've been posting in this and similar threads? Compare this (http://www.worley.com/E/Products/sasquatch/p7hg_img_1/fullsize/hairtests.jpg) to the last picture you linked. If you really can't see the difference then I can't help you with that but the fact you own sas or criticized ffx has zero relevance, so I don't know why you'd bring it up. Pictures are all that matter and even someone that's not in cg could tell you which fur/hair looks more real, especially if the gap is substantial like in this case.

QFA. I have yet to see an example from FFX that even approaches the realism of either the first set/first panel Sasquatch gallery shot (1 of 38), or even the second set/third panel test shot (9 of 38).
exactly.

erikals
08-18-2014, 02:58 PM
style? sure, nicer than default FiberFX.

shading? no way.

sampei
08-18-2014, 03:10 PM
alright, explain to me in what ways the examples you've posted have "better shading" then.

erikals
08-18-2014, 03:24 PM
none of them are excellent at it, but FiberFX is certainly not worse.

there is no explaining to do, we disagree. and i don't have a mathematical formula that explains why FFX is of the same quality or better than Sas.

and i honestly don't think you can explain why Sas is better than FFX. unless you think "look at this picture" proves it.

sampei
08-18-2014, 04:30 PM
arguing it sounds like a lot of trouble, but if you think shading can't be measured in terms of realism you are mistaken. Which has better shading could be easily demonstrated if the actual mass of individual fibers was equal in both systems. Then you'd take a photo of hair and you try and re-create it using matching parameters, whichever is closest to the reference material is better. However since ffx can't produce decent hair units this can stop here and we can agree to disagree, although I still perceive an obvious and considerable difference in quality between results from one pixel filter and the other.

zardoz
08-18-2014, 06:32 PM
here we go again.
I love these threads. what about a better way to handle scene items? grouping/layers whatever you want to call it? that would allow things like render passes, overrides etc. and avoiding to use those dreaded drop down menus? using some lists, with search, etc like a proper explorer?
This is way more important than all those fiberfx, fluids, fireworks, etc that you guys are asking for. More important things need to be done first, then all the secondary tools can be added.
cheers

jwiede
08-18-2014, 06:40 PM
and i honestly don't think you can explain why Sas is better than FFX. unless you think "look at this picture" proves it.

Erikals, are you suggesting that "black hair" shots offer the same qualitative ability to judge shading as other, more visible hair colors? Despite self-shadows generally not being visible, nor distinct fibres not receiving direct spec hits being visible?

sampei
08-18-2014, 07:06 PM
here we go again.
I love these threads. what about a better way to handle scene items? grouping/layers whatever you want to call it? that would allow things like render passes, overrides etc. and avoiding to use those dreaded drop down menus? using some lists, with search, etc like a proper explorer?
This is way more important than all those fiberfx, fluids, fireworks, etc that you guys are asking for. More important things need to be done first, then all the secondary tools can be added.
cheers
what's more or less important is subjective, look at how evenly the poll results are split. Perhaps that's why these threads get messy. Great portfolio by the way, is it all rendered in LW?

zardoz
08-18-2014, 07:51 PM
Great portfolio by the way, is it all rendered in LW? most is lightwave, some might be lightwave+arnold. where have you seen it?

sampei
08-18-2014, 08:19 PM
from the link in your signature..

lightscape
08-18-2014, 08:25 PM
Buying Sas is not up to NT.
Its up to Worley if he would sell his source code for the good of lightwave.
Since I assume he was well compensated from fprime and sas sales back then, it would be a generous gesture if he offered to sell his hair solution to NT.
The importance of a hair solution is not to be underestimated. You won't see much character/creature animation without a good hair solution. Octane renderer implemented a hair solution so early in their development cycle they know how important hair and fur features are to studios.

hrgiger
08-19-2014, 02:55 AM
Sas hair had its limitations but in terms of overall shading, there is absolutely no way that fiberfx stands up to it. Nor was Sas as finicky and hard to get usable results from it.

Megalodon2.0
08-19-2014, 03:36 AM
Sas hair had its limitations but in terms of overall shading, there is absolutely no way that fiberfx stands up to it. Nor was Sas as finicky and hard to get usable results from it.

Completely agree.

zardoz
08-19-2014, 03:39 AM
@sampei, ah ok. then that's all lightwave. I don't have anything rendered in arnold there

jasonwestmas
08-19-2014, 09:06 AM
Sas hair had its limitations but in terms of overall shading, there is absolutely no way that fiberfx stands up to it. Nor was Sas as finicky and hard to get usable results from it.

I agree that Sasquatch shading has much more control and looks better in regards to real human or long dog hair, although it's even more ideal for scruffy animal fur imo. Sas also has excellent response to spotlight strength. Very accurate in that regard but Shadow casting on the other hand was the most troublesome part of it. For heads I always had to create polygons for the shadows which adds another level of complexity.

erikals
08-19-2014, 09:15 AM
well, i'll consider myself seriously voted down in that shade-case...

...but damn if i will change my mind... :cursin:

jasonwestmas
08-19-2014, 09:31 AM
well, i'll consider myself seriously voted down in that shade-case...

...but damn if i will change my mind... :cursin:

hehe, I still think that FFX makes the best baby hair and peach fuzz.

lightscape
08-19-2014, 10:09 PM
Newtek please update screamernet. Its really that terrible.
Just 5 minutes watching from the video here http://www.pixsim.co.uk/video_tutorials/setting_up_screamernet.zip its like being transported back to the 90's and it gets worse after 5 minutes.

Try out any of the autodesk network renderer or c4d team render.

vncnt
08-19-2014, 10:36 PM
I agree that Sasquatch shading has much more control and looks better in regards to real human or long dog hair, although it's even more ideal for scruffy animal fur imo. Sas also has excellent response to spotlight strength. Very accurate in that regard but Shadow casting on the other hand was the most troublesome part of it. For heads I always had to create polygons for the shadows which adds another level of complexity.

Has Sasquatch been updated for 64bit/LW11 recently?
Would be nice to use them together.

vncnt
08-19-2014, 10:44 PM
Newtek please update screamernet. Its really that terrible.
Just 5 minutes watching from the video here http://www.pixsim.co.uk/video_tutorials/setting_up_screamernet.zip its like being transported back to the 90's and it gets worse after 5 minutes.

Try out any of the autodesk network renderer or c4d team render.

Or even Eyeon Fusion.

I donīt care if SN looks 15 years old.
My biggest problem with SN is the lack of control and strategic feedback during rendering.
Also, you canīt add render nodes during rendering.

Hmm, Legato already has preparations for a SN controller. I should finish that someday.

jwiede
08-19-2014, 10:46 PM
Newtek please update screamernet. Its really that terrible.
Just 5 minutes watching from the video here http://www.pixsim.co.uk/video_tutorials/setting_up_screamernet.zip its like being transported back to the 90's and it gets worse after 5 minutes.

Try out any of the autodesk network renderer or c4d team render.

Part of the problem is that the complexity of the layout of LW's config files, etc. makes it difficult to do "simple client node" scenarios like that. Those kinds of clients can be so simple because they can be told to get _everything_ from the network, and need little more from the client host than a bit of local tmp space (sometimes not even that) to run.

Without serious work to simplify and encapsulate how LW handles config info (needed anyway, and desperately, TBH), "simple install LW client nodes" are just not likely. BNR tries to simplify the setup and config for users as much as possible, but LW's render node config is still far and away the most complex of the node client apps it supports.

lightscape
08-19-2014, 11:51 PM
Or even Eyeon Fusion.

I donīt care if SN looks 15 years old.
My biggest problem with SN is the lack of control and strategic feedback during rendering.
Also, you canīt add render nodes during rendering.

Hmm, Legato already has preparations for a SN controller. I should finish that someday.

Don't mind the look either but when you have to create a lof of folders, shortcuts, input a lot of text entries into a batch file, etc.........:devil:
This could be automated.
This render controller sucks.

jwiede
08-20-2014, 03:08 AM
This render controller sucks.
The whole way render settings are handled, where you can't even easily save/load let alone select among sets and subsets of settings/overrides, is very primitive. Look at how C4D handles render settings, IMO, esp. how "subset profiles" are handled, LW needs that kind of thing for render settings (and most others, frankly). Janus or Passport obviously make a big difference there. The way Janus works is even somewhat similar to the way profiles/presets for settings work on C4D. Unfortunately, neither of those plugins are native, nor do much to cut down on setting file proliferation.

As noted, LW-as-rendernode also still needs its "full entourage" of config files, support libs, plugins and so forth (and all the plugins' config files, support libs, etc. as well). Until something can be done to condense that rats nest of dependencies, even the third-party render controllers can't really do much towards improving the render node experience.

jasonwestmas
08-20-2014, 06:55 AM
Has Sasquatch been updated for 64bit/LW11 recently?
Would be nice to use them together.

Yeah it was updated for 11.5 64 bit, it appears to work well in 11.6 so far. you have to switch your color picker to the old windows style to use this plugin though.

kfinla
08-20-2014, 07:26 AM
Yeah it was updated for 11.5 64 bit, it appears to work well in 11.6 so far. you have to switch your color picker to the old windows style to use this plugin though.

What build? I still just see Sasquatch 1.85 on the worleylabs site which is 2009 ish.

Nvmd.

I see the Windows build was updated to LW 11.5, the MAC version is still 2009 :(

Ztreem
08-20-2014, 09:32 AM
Newtek please update screamernet. Its really that terrible.
Just 5 minutes watching from the video here http://www.pixsim.co.uk/video_tutorials/setting_up_screamernet.zip its like being transported back to the 90's and it gets worse after 5 minutes.

Try out any of the autodesk network renderer or c4d team render.

Try Amleto its free and easy to use and need minimal install on every render node. I can say that before team render for C4D the network render for c4D was not that good and it was like a two hour install on every node. Do I need to say that it sucked big time compared to Amleto for Lightwave.

Ztreem
08-20-2014, 09:34 AM
LW3DG should consider to include Amleto instead of screamernet.

jwiede
08-20-2014, 11:46 AM
LW3DG should consider to include Amleto instead of screamernet.

As a Mac LW customer, not really a fan of that plan. If LW3DG's going to replace screamernet, the replacement needs to offer cross-platform compatibility.

vncnt
08-20-2014, 12:58 PM
Yeah it was updated for 11.5 64 bit, it appears to work well in 11.6 so far. you have to switch your color picker to the old windows style to use this plugin though.

Thatīs great news!

Ztreem
08-20-2014, 02:07 PM
As a Mac LW customer, not really a fan of that plan. If LW3DG's going to replace screamernet, the replacement needs to offer cross-platform compatibility.

Of course it must be a cross-platform solution, I agree. I didn't know that Amleto was PC only... As I try to avoid to use LW on Mac as much as possible as I think its not working properly and crashes a lot.

CaptainMarlowe
08-21-2014, 06:45 AM
Being on Mac also, and using LW a lot on it, I don't find it crashes that much (except Modeler with LWCAD's quad mapper where it can be a bit unpredictable). But yes, any replacement for ScreamerNet would have to be cross platform.

erikals
08-21-2014, 06:53 AM
Mac crashes was maybe mostly back in earlier LW-Mac versions?

CaptainMarlowe
08-21-2014, 09:23 AM
Yeah, 9.5 used to be very unstable, and even 10 with VPR, but at least for what I'm doing, LW 11 and above has been pretty robust.

jwiede
08-21-2014, 11:49 AM
Mac crashes was maybe mostly back in earlier LW-Mac versions?

Yes and no. 11.6.3 is oddly less stable than 11.6.2, kind of noticeably so -- it is an odd little backslide for a release otherwise containing so little. Otherwise, the 11.6.x's actually resolved many (though by no means all) of the 11.5-introduced problems on Mac (11.5 was a noticeable step down in stability from 11.0.3). In general, Mac quality has been improved with LW11 over LW10, no question, but in the new stuff, it's been a bit of a roller coaster ride w.r.t. quality.

(obv. all descriptions are w.r.t. my personal Mac LW experience, though I know others have echoed similar experiences w.r.t. quality/stability of LW on Mac)

CaptainMarlowe
08-21-2014, 02:22 PM
Dunno for 11.6.3, I kept to 11.6.2, but I'm quite happy with it in terms of stability. I didn't find that the 11.6.3 was worth the hassle of installing regarding what benefits it was bringing. On my MBA, I just kept 11.6 which is quite robust also, even if I just use it for modeling and some basic layout stuff when I'm off home.

Meshbuilder
08-21-2014, 02:42 PM
Same here. Using 11.6.2 on Mac and it's working great. Is there something new in 11.6.3 worth upgrading?

jwiede
08-21-2014, 04:16 PM
Same here. Using 11.6.2 on Mac and it's working great. Is there something new in 11.6.3 worth upgrading?

No, it was a license-oriented fix, and unless you're in the specific category who needs it (check release notes), on Mac you probably should not install it. I've found 11.6.2 better than 11.6.3, in terms of stability on Mac, as have others.

Cageman
08-21-2014, 06:20 PM
Amleto might be easy to setup and use, but man... it doesn't stream data from a server... it copies the whole content over to the local machines, instead of loading the data stright from the server. That wouldn't work well with larger datasets and it also breaks a bunch of saver-plugins that you've setup to store the data on the server. *sigh*

I prefer LWs very limited implementation of ScreamerNET controls just because it does exactly what I tell it do do (stream from server, save to a server path etc).

At work we use Muster, which can do a hell of alot more compared to the native ScreamerNET controller. But, in both cases they stream from the server and save to the server, no matter which saver-plugin I use.

lightscape
08-21-2014, 08:08 PM
Amleto is not mac compatible and copies whole project files....
I can't find a way for Screamernet to automatically detect the content directory from the lws file. The nodes seem to require to be hardcoded the -d content directory which is not practical when working with multiple projects.
So there is no free or native network controller that is as good as other appz have had for the past few years.
This needs to be addressed.

squarewulf
08-28-2014, 10:48 PM
I would like to see an animation ready procedural modeling toolkit for use in layout.

vonpietro
08-28-2014, 11:56 PM
that straw poll was probably one of the nicest voting websites i've seen.

is straw poll something anyone can set up? I didn't look.

i'm having trouble doing fiber factory stuff, like making princess liea hair buns,
something simple would be starter scenes included in lw 12 content - like a focus on starter scenes that have nicely set up stuff that can be built on.
like a nice hair rig.
that i could curl up or something.

jwiede
08-29-2014, 01:54 AM
i'm having trouble doing fiber factory stuff, like making princess liea hair buns,
something simple would be starter scenes included in lw 12 content - like a focus on starter scenes that have nicely set up stuff that can be built on.
like a nice hair rig.
that i could curl up or something.

You're talking about a intricately braided hairstyle, when even simple braids require significant effort to achieve. There might be easier ways to "fake it" using hair "wrapped" onto geometry surface somehow, but to create it as if it were real hair using a hair system's styling tools (and expect an example close enough to be "curled up" into such a thing) seems well beyond "example" territory, IMO.

erikals
08-29-2014, 08:48 AM
this gives you an idea how you can do it in Modeler, then select edges and convert them to work with FFX (LW Strandmaker)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6h8fB54XMQ

you might have to bend the curls either in Layout using SplineGuide,
or in Modeler using C bend > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNDbc5jXLw

MagicBevel could also be of use for certain "braids" as MB allows twisting the extrusion

you basically have to model the Leia braids, then make guides, but that would go for other 3D applications as well.

(FiberFX in Layout can also actually make some braid-like twists, but not that advanced)

vonpietro
08-29-2014, 04:56 PM
I'll try that out =)