PDA

View Full Version : Why C4D?!?



Pages : [1] 2

jamesl
06-12-2014, 10:27 PM
I'm looking at job postings, and it seems everyone has a hard-on for Cinema 4D. In fact, it's easier to get a job if you have C4D experience than if you have Maya, Houdini, LW, or Max experience (forget about XSI). What?!? What's going on here? I remember when C4D was an also-ran to LW. And I've used it! It's not awesome. The interface is constraining, obtrusive... kind of like Caligari would look like in the 21st century. It's being used primarily for motion graphics, but what is in their secret sauce? I mean, nearly every platform connects with After Effects now. So what's the deal? Is it their marketing? Education deals? Packaging? Is there a special surprise in the box? (That last one was for the Worley crew).

j

ernpchan
06-12-2014, 10:30 PM
Doing motion graphics is really easy in it.

jamesl
06-12-2014, 10:55 PM
Doing motion graphics is really easy in it.

Um, no. Not the point. Just don't understand why C4D is the holy grail of motion graphics, all of a sudden. I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I just don't get it.

jeric_synergy
06-12-2014, 11:39 PM
It's a well-thought out, consistent, modern application that really concentrated on doing 3d text well.

And it's more procedural than, say, LW, with dynamic effects that are easily applied and experimented with.

Its interface is POLISHED, colorful, and logical. It has tools like deformation cages that only recently became available in LW, and only as an extra.

jamesl
06-12-2014, 11:54 PM
Well, those are all subjective opinions, that I suppose you are welcome to have. Mine are no more relevant than yours, I guess. But I take exception with your 'more procedural' comment... effects in C4D just seem canned, like they are indeed easily replicated but seldom stray from the 'out of the box' category. Which may alone explain it's success. But you'd be hard pressed to say that their interface is better than Maya, Houdini, Max, etc. That's just subjective opinion.

Surrealist.
06-13-2014, 12:38 AM
I don't know why. But I would not mind having the time and opportunity to find out.

toeknee
06-13-2014, 12:38 AM
Hey James, I would have to agree with you on the subjective part. My guess as to C4D owning the Motion Graphics arena would have to do with them coming out with Mograph and the web site http://greyscalegorilla.com/blog/tutorials/
This site have a ridiculous plethora of free training. I ran the LW user group in Houston from 2002 to 2006 as well as the Softimage user group. Because I worked for a reseller at the time I was a trainer for C4D as well as 3DS Max. My point is that have been doing 3D for 20 years as well and I use LW Softimage Zbrush and Houdini because I personally connect with there work flows.

You know one of the really big things that added to holding LW back was the dongle. I came back from teaching in China in 2009 and in less than two year I sold about 150 seats of Lightwave into the educational market. The biggest issue was that they would lose the dongles. The Schools I dealt with wanted to teach LW because it was an easyer tool to teach on. The second thing was that it used real world measurments and the scientific parts of the tool in many cases is real world.
I just hope that they can grow and market LW so it can rise again in the market.

wesleycorgi
06-13-2014, 12:59 AM
Because with Adobe CC, you get the Lite version. I've had a colleague who has been threatening to learn a 3D app for five years. I've been steering him towards LW, but it just never made sense to him.

A couple of months ago, he spent a couple of hours learning the version in CC. Since then, he's been using 3D in all his projects.

jamesl
06-13-2014, 01:03 AM
Good points all. The dongle is quite silly, and is going away it seems. I believe the only reason 3DMax exists today is that it was easy to pirate copies in the early 90's, when LW had a 'dongle' called the Video Toaster. Maybe they'll learn eventually.

But still... why C4D over Max, Maya, Houdini, etc? Is it really just text handling? Really? I'm stumped.

jamesl
06-13-2014, 01:18 AM
I want to keep this on topic, as a LW user. Cinema 4D was a program that I experimented with (sounds suspicious) many years ago because it supported LW models and scene files. It just wasn't very good. It had a sub-standard renderer and it's animation paradigm just didn't fit with me. I know it's gotten better on these fronts, or at least I think it has. But I've never thought, "Oh boy, I hope LW/Maya/Houdini/XSI gets these features!" It's just always felt like the next app to fall off the bus, like TrueSpace, etc. Now I find that it's the most desired skill for hiring departments around the world. I feel like I just woke up in crazy town. What's next? Poser?

I did like Bodypaint, FWIW.

Danner
06-13-2014, 01:29 AM
I think they saw an opportinity to specialize on a market and went for it. People like to put things in little boxes, to put things in their place and to use the "best tool for the job". So if you are making games or arch viz they think it's Max or nothing, for movies it's Maya, for volumetric special effects like fire and smoke it's Houdini, etc. This leaves the all around apps ouside of any genre and that tends to short-circuit some peoples' minds. I know a few guys that love it, but they don't know any better ;o)

jeric_synergy
06-13-2014, 01:33 AM
For example, TEXT in C4D can be animated as to CONTENT, iow the actual letters. This is 'procedural'. In contrast, meshes in LW are basically "dead", frozen.

In addition, C4D will allow deformations, arrays & matrices, animated extrusions, animated booleans-- all these are useful and common mograph elements. IMO the c4d coders looked at what 2d designers were doing, and implemented it in 3d. It's designer friendly.

Doing most of this stuff is possible in LW, but requires a ton more experience, for instance, you must know how to create and accurately apply gradated weight maps to accomplish some things. Doable, but laborious, and not especially easily editable.

jamesl
06-13-2014, 01:50 AM
OK, but my point is that nearly EVERY 3d platform (Max, Maya, Houdini, XSI) is capable of this as well. I know what procedural modeling and animation is. Why C4D?

BTW, try shattering and exploding a mesh that isn't 'dead, frozen'. It can be done, with a huge hit on the stack, regardless of which platform you use. But give me a 'dead' mesh to manipulate any day of the week and I'll get out dozens of iterations quicker.

JohnMarchant
06-13-2014, 01:58 AM
C4D is very good for Motion graphics and text. The UI is not to bad as UI's goes. It certainly has taken market share. However look at price. There are 5 versions of C4D and the top one "Studio", is expensive for what it is. Looks alike they wanted to have a version at the AD price range but also one at the LW price range.

Yes LW has its issues and modeler needs an overhaul, but its better than Prime i think and cheaper than Studio. C4D has also managed to convince some good plugin developers to support it, this i think is one of the major reasons.

Overall C4D is excellent at mograph which is where it positioned itself, has a nice tool set, great support from 3rd party developers, however it comes at a price and for Studio that price is steep.

conzo
06-13-2014, 02:20 AM
Hi
I work with Cinema 4D since 2002. The discussions about why this software and not that software are so old like the softwares itself:) I have recorded two casts about why Cinema 4D and other casts about C4D. You can find it on my Homepage. BTW. I come from Cinema 4D and I starded with Lightwave since 2 month aswell.

http://www.conzo.ch/Podcast.html

There is nothing wrong to use a combination of different 3D Software if those help you to create you visions. I also have Modo 701, Z-Brush, Blender and Lightwave installed on my PC to be honest.

I often say: " The "Best 3D Software" is useless if you don't have talent and the eye for 3D.“

SaL CDA

jamesl
06-13-2014, 02:24 AM
So I can use different software? Thanks! (rolling eyes).

conzo
06-13-2014, 02:34 AM
So I can use different software? Thanks! (rolling eyes).

A question, Do you work at BlueSky Studios? If yes COOL!! So you know that Big Studios are working with Differend 3D Software aswell. There also use Inhouse made Software, yes but the combination of Software brings out the awesome Movies that we all like.
And yes, every 3D Software has plus and minus and if you are looking for a career in 3D, Film VFX and so on, it is always good to know more than one software. I think that Studios looking for Artists that have that skills.

conzo
06-13-2014, 03:11 AM
Good points all. The dongle is quite silly, and is going away it seems. I believe the only reason 3DMax exists today is that it was easy to pirate copies in the early 90's, when LW had a 'dongle' called the Video Toaster. Maybe they'll learn eventually.

But still... why C4D over Max, Maya, Houdini, etc? Is it really just text handling? Really? I'm stumped.

But lets go back to your Question that starts this thread:

Cinema 4D brings:


robust Modelingtools ,Sculpting , Texturing and Texture painting with Bodypaint, Character rigging system, Cmotion for automatic walkcycles and movements,Clothengine, Hairengine, Mograph, Dynamics, Particle System (Not the Best ;) ) Scatch and Toon, Physical Sky, Camera Crane, Expresso A Node based calculations System, C.O.F.F.E.E and Pyhton scripting, Cineware the Direct link to After Effects , Teamrender the Home Renderfarm over a Network, Physical Renderer, Global Illumination with Lightmapping
and much more

This maybe give you the answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBI0G8XfCU

Greetings SaL CDA

djwaterman
06-13-2014, 03:44 AM
I think it's a different approach, C4D is popular because it's used by designers to make motion graphics, so the market is made up of people that have little interest in spaceships, character animation, modelling or any of that stuff that leads the typical 3D artist into choosing an app. If you imagine your font obsessed hipster finding C4D as their first introduction into the world of 3D, a nice little user friendly app that makes it easy to play with text and simple (out of the box) solutions to making things look cool. Check out GreyscaleGorilla and his quite ham-fisted modelling with simple pre-made shapes, but turning out impressive looking cool stuff regardless. It's just become known among the designer community as the app that everyone else is using so that's it, there's no real technical reason why. I've been playing around with it lately to see if it's something I want to learn, I was quite pleased to find that it has some of the same edge bevel problems with the text creation tool as you get in LW, but the difference is that the text is all live and editable, that's exciting for a designer. If LW was able to put that function into Layout it would be unreal.

Of course I should add that C4D does do all that spaceship and modeling stuff as well as anything else out there.

Ztreem
06-13-2014, 03:55 AM
I you look at the fact that Cinema got more complete set of features, is easier to use, have better memory management and better performance... I would say, why Lightwave?

If I started fresh with 3D today I don't think I would choose Lightwave. It hurts to say so but it's a fact that LW is lacking in a lot of areas and it really have to get a new foundation with better performance otherwise it's impossible to continue to use the software even if I would love to. You can't justify the time when it takes 2-3 hours to load a model that for example Cinema loads in seconds or minutes. Time is money.

Lewis
06-13-2014, 04:01 AM
1. Unified environment (they started their full rewrite long ago and modernized app very much, that ain't old Cinema 4D style/workflow as some of use used in 90-es (i used it back then too :)).
2. Parametric modeling
3. NURBS, Curves.
4. Vray support
5. Great connection to AE (much better than LWs and available years and years before so it's deep in the industry). Motion Graphs is tons easier to achieve complex effects than in LW
6. Much more 3rd party support form content makers (evermotion, vizpark, viz-people....... professional models/content is very rarely available for LW but it's more and more available for c4D since they got VRAY long ago)
7.........

JohnMarchant
06-13-2014, 05:06 AM
I agree C4D is a very robust tool but in fairness i would like to balance the argument. Whilst LW has fallen behind the curve somewhat and is again playing catchup, you have to balance it out and it will always for most of us come down to price.

Check the Maxon UK Price for Studio http://www.maxonshop.com/uk/ps/product/1/code/130950/act/gpage now look at the add on for service agreement, this allows you the 12 months of updates and to use it on more than 1 machine, but still only 2. The grand total is Ģ3648, so this all come at a cost. Vray and all the other stuff are third party and also come at a price. For Broadcast its Ģ1656, which is closer to LW but still more expensive. Upgrades for LW are still way more cheaper and you can use it on more machines, up to 99 for rendering.

You gets what you pay for, if price was the only issue we would all use Blender, its free, has some features that even LW and C4D dont have native and some stuff done better than LW or C4D.

That's my take on it, LW has a long way to go to catch up, C4D has captured a very big part of the industry in motion graphics and i look forward to seeing where it and LW go in the future.

Ztreem
06-13-2014, 05:24 AM
I agree C4D is a very robust tool but in fairness i would like to balance the argument. Whilst LW has fallen behind the curve somewhat and is again playing catchup, you have to balance it out and it will always for most of us come down to price.

Check the Maxon UK Price for Studio http://www.maxonshop.com/uk/ps/product/1/code/130950/act/gpage now look at the add on for service agreement, this allows you the 12 months of updates and to use it on more than 1 machine, but still only 2. The grand total is Ģ3648, so this all come at a cost. Vray and all the other stuff are third party and also come at a price. For Broadcast its Ģ1656, which is closer to LW but still more expensive. Upgrades for LW are still way more cheaper and you can use it on more machines, up to 99 for rendering.

You gets what you pay for, if price was the only issue we would all use Blender, its free, has some features that even LW and C4D dont have native and some stuff done better than LW or C4D.

That's my take on it, LW has a long way to go to catch up, C4D has captured a very big part of the industry in motion graphics and i look forward to seeing where it and LW go in the future.

Sure, for individuals the price can be crucial but for bigger companies less so. But if I pay less for LW and have to wait hours to load models instead of minutes then it quickly becomes more expensive to use LW over Cinema or other more modern 3D apps.
I feel that the biggest issue with LW right now is not the features, its the performance. I just hope the get that hydra engine(or whatever the will call it) in there sooner then later...

Darth Mole
06-13-2014, 05:27 AM
I've been a LW user since v5.6 came out on Mac. I lived through the 6.0 and 7.0 era when the program was just awful - buggy and borderline unusable (for me at least). But I've had a lot of fun with it and I'll no doubt keep it up to date for as long as I can afford to. (FWIW I also bought into modo, but sold it a while back; couldn't stand the app).

I toyed on and off with C4D for a long time and a few years ago had the opportunity to buy into the Studio edition, and haven't looked back. It's slick, solid, has some great, easy-to-use features and very good support from the community and plug-in developers.

I think with both of these apps I have the best of both worlds. LW is the far superior modeller, especially when you learn its foibles and extend its functionality with things like LW CAD. LW also has a better renderer and realtime viewport. But C4D is easier and more flexible when it comes to parametric, procedural stuff; it's great to experiment with, where LW requires a degree of pre-planning and may need something to be remodelled (unless you invest in more plug-ins). I like C4D's modular, dockable UI, but love LW's streamlined interface. They both have pros and cons.

I have Octane 2.0 which is driven by the C4D plug-in, and if I want to make a scene, I'll most likely build it in LW and then texture, light and render in C4D/Octane.

Speaking of plug-ins, the ones for C4D are generally rock solid and really well implemented. I'm sure LW has improved but it wasn't always the case - I've been burned my many expensive plugins that quickly became obsoleted and no longer exist. I'm very wary of buying LW plug-ins now. C4D enjoys better external support with things like RealFlow and Krakatoa, and lots of renderers (I've already signed up for Renderman!), and some plug-ins, like Turbulence FD, are quantifiably better in C4D due (I assume) to some of LW's structural idiosyncrasies.

I guess I'm lucky to be able to support both apps. At the moment, C4D gets the bulk of my attention but who know, maybe LW 12.0 will be super-awesome and my allegiance will shift again.

As to why companies are leaning towards C4D, I don't think there's simple answer, but stability, ease-of-use, quality of output, extensibility, speed of development, community and reputation are all a factor. And it also feels like C4D is on a roll, and enjoying the fallout of Autodesk's self-harm policies too.

Surrealist.
06-13-2014, 08:02 AM
I'm looking at job postings, and it seems everyone has a hard-on for Cinema 4D. In fact, it's easier to get a job if you have C4D experience than if you have Maya, Houdini, LW, or Max experience (forget about XSI). What?!? What's going on here?

It depends where you are looking at postings and the market. I have definitely seen more C4D stuff. But I have not seen it taking place over the other apps you have mentioned.

Quick stats on the current postings at CGTalk are Max 6, XSI,2 C4D 2 and Maya 2. Primarily these are game production and game cinematic production pipelines. I would suppose if you were looking in a market where C4d is being used more, that would have an impact on the stats.

raw-m
06-13-2014, 08:11 AM
I think also worth mentioning, a lot of these companies ask for people that can do 3d work, the agencies that write the ads automatically assume C4d.

I'm lucky enough to have clients that hire me for what I can do and deliver, irrespective of software used. If I'm hitting the deadlines and everything is looking good, I'm a winning. If I have to fit into someone else's pipeline, however, that's a different issue.

C4d is fantastically simple for MoGraph - pretty much every modeling tool is keyframable - but AE plugins like the Trapcode Suite, Element 3d, Freeform, (has anyone seen the Yanobox stuff?!)... means I don't always need a dedicated 3d app to do 3d work - if you're on a tight deadline with little budget, full on 3d is out the question anyway!

jeric_synergy
06-13-2014, 08:16 AM
Overall C4D is excellent at mograph which is where it positioned itself, has a nice tool set, great support from 3rd party developers, however it comes at a price and for Studio that price is steep.
What you said: People will happily pay to avoid headaches, or even to avoid learning arcane procedures. Even at twice the price, C4D is a bargain (vs LW) for a working/getting-paid mograph designer because they want to make PRODUCT, not learn a series of bizarre work-arounds after saving a, in the final estimation, pretty piddling amount of dosh.

For a hobbiest, the difference is substantial. For a working production house? Lost in the noise.

robertoortiz
06-13-2014, 09:10 AM
C4D is a good program, but there is abit more on this.

The integration of C4D with the Adobe Toolset is REALLY good.
And it has been for years.

Adobe tools are the backbone of smaller graphic outfits whoe bread an butter are the Motion Graphics & Graphics Design industries.

Add to that that INDIVIDUALLY & COMBINED the numbers of working professionals in both the Motion Graphics & Graphics Design are bigger than the
traditional Commputer Graphics (mostly animation) market.
Hell there are estimates than less than a 1 MILLION people do professional animation at the big studios worldwide. (Source US Bureau of Labor estatitics)

Adobe KNOWS this, this is why they include a lite version of C4D as part of the Creative Cloud. Hell I would not be a ONE BIT surprised if adobe makes a play for Maxon in the future.

So the popularity of the Program is well downright logical.
-R
PS
Here are some US numbers from BLS:
Multimedia Artists and Animators
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/multimedia-artists-and-animators.htm
Number of Jobs, 2012 68,900
Graphic Designers
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/graphic-designers.htm
Number of Jobs, 2012 259,500

jwiede
06-13-2014, 01:11 PM
Check the Maxon UK Price for Studio http://www.maxonshop.com/uk/ps/product/1/code/130950/act/gpage now look at the add on for service agreement, this allows you the 12 months of updates and to use it on more than 1 machine, but still only 2. The grand total is Ģ3648, so this all come at a cost. Vray and all the other stuff are third party and also come at a price. For Broadcast its Ģ1656, which is closer to LW but still more expensive. Upgrades for LW are still way more cheaper and you can use it on more machines, up to 99 for rendering.
C4D render nodes use a different installer than the "main app" installer, so how many times you can install main app has nothing to do with how many render nodes you can have. Broadcast and Visualize each allow three render nodes (on top of the main app install), Studio allows unlimited render nodes.

As for the additional cost issue, how much is extreme app stability worth to you? C4D is a rock-solid application for me, the only crashes I've ever had were due to pre-release alpha/beta third-party extensions run amok (which were easily diagnosed and fixed). Using my normal configuration of plugins, it doesn't crash, ever, period. I find that a very significant advantage over LW, esp. when you also factor in time spent in LW regenerating corrupted scenes, prefs, etc. resulting from crashes.

jamesl
06-13-2014, 09:54 PM
Thanks guys. I think I got my answer... C4D has catered to the motion graphics crowd with Adobe's support.

OlaHaldor
06-14-2014, 02:06 AM
This discussion have made me interested in C4D and what it can do for me and motion graphics. I started digging and look at some tutorials.

W O W.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't change to C4D entirely. I still need my LWCAD. And icon less interface. But I'll definitely check out C4D for motion graphics only stuff.


They have an interesting pricing regime too, at least for the broadcast license. Sidegrades. "Requires proof of ownership of a competitive program" and "CINEMA 4D Broadcast Upgrade from After Effects CC". You save only $100 though. Not big enough of an incentive.

erikals
06-14-2014, 07:34 AM
i did a lot of digging on the subject some time back, and came to this conclusion,

for Motion Graphics... (only talking MG here...!)
C4D is better than LW at some things, but basically it's this >

C4D has a lot of great tutorials on Motion Graphics...
...that's it, it's that simple, of course C4D is better than LW at Motion Graphics over-all,
but C4D's tons of MG examples and LW's total lack of it puts LightWave in the shadow.

can LightWave/DP-plugins do the same kind of Motion Graphics stuff as C4D...?
yes...! sometimes less, but also often more (!)
(through in IKB bone dynamics as an example, or DPont's instancer with MDD offset)

and yes, C4D text tool is nice, but that's hardly a reason to choose C4D over LW alone...


LW's fall is basically (though not only) the lack of great LightWave Motion Graphics tutorials...
C4D with AE is easy to use, and that might well be worth the price to some...


that said, the L/M split does create some big challenges for LightWave Motion Graphics
not sure how NT will go about it... but this is what they said, so, let's see...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRu_R3RubYI#t=4m27s

raw-m
06-14-2014, 09:30 AM
The reason C4d has taken off for mograph can be demonstrated here in the first 10 minutes, an intro to C4d, Part 1, for beginners.

http://greyscalegorilla.com/intro-to-cinema-4d

A bomb with a fuse that burns away. This objects follows that path and animates along it and you can change the thickness of the tube at any point. Easy to understand and is setup in about 5 clicks, quick results, for beginners! This is not for beginners in LW. You can get it working in LW and arguably with more flexibility, but you have to know about bones, endomorphs..... not for the first 10mins of an intro to LW.

Surrealist.
06-14-2014, 09:37 AM
Real world units? This is an interesting subject and that part of the presentation sheds light on the real issue.

All programs use "real world" units. The problem is that artists do not understand this. Because they have been told - in complete error - that their program does not use "real world" units. And so there is a tremendous confusion about this subject. So saying that "unlike other programs" LightWave uses real world units and so this has never been a problem does not really help. Also it does not solve sending an object from LightWave to another app and back.

It is far more accurate to state that each program uses its own uniform arbitrary scale - by default. In many cases this can actually be changed. But to work with different apps in a pipeline all you have to do is first determine what the relative scale is between apps. And it is a simple math. It is either 100x or .01 or 10x and .1. That covers Maya, XSI, Motiontbuilder, Blender and LightWave. I don't know what it is in Max.

But in Maya one unit is 1 CM by default. So a 1 meter cube in LightWave exported to Maya will be 1CM. Exported to Blender it will be 1 Unit or 1Meter depending on who you talk to. But it will surely be the same size as it was in LightWave (though this can be adjusted on import). And so it is 1Meter. Importing a character from an app like LightWave or Blender into Maya means scaling up by 100X and going the other way by .01

Because internally all aps are tuned to a scale.

Maya has a quirk in that it is using 1CM for scale and nDynamics uses 1 meter. So you have to change the scale of the nucleus to .01.

The fact that you can adjust modeler to different unit measurements is not all that big of a deal and really is not a solution. Stating LW has real world units is true. But all apps do internally. They have to or none of the various settings will work. Such as lights, and any features that use distance and speed such as dynamics or even displacement mapping.

And of course it is not real world anything. It is just math that is relatively consistent in each app.

robertoortiz
06-14-2014, 09:44 AM
C4D has created this well deserved aura of a 3d Program that it is more geared towards Artists types
who prefer a more "get it done I don't care how" approach.

And those professional artist types, who outnumber 3D Animators 3 to 1 BTW, BUY MORE SEATS of the 3D app that lets them get things done.

LW has, fairly or unfairly, earned the perception of an app with a steeper learning curve, with older tools that does not listen to its user base and that is NOT as intuitive.
We used to be known for being the more intuitive alternative, but not anymore.

erikals
06-14-2014, 09:44 AM
well, the same result can be made in 25 minutes in LightWave and better looking,

though yes, some of those C4D tools are nice...

again, not questioning many C4D tools are nice and interactive,
but to me it's always been about the lack of knowledge on how to do these kind of things in LightWave

LightWave Motion Graphics need marketing / tutorials
and we need more interactive Modeler tools in Layout

erikals
06-14-2014, 09:57 AM
Surrealist, wasn't referring to the metrics part of that video, but that said, i sure miss metrics in Maya, and many do.
...but that's for another discussion / thread...

jeric_synergy
06-14-2014, 10:45 AM
[SIZE=1]LW's fall is basically (though not only) the lack of great LightWave Motion Graphics tutorials...
C4D with AE is easy to use, and that might well be worth the price to some...
I disagree that it's simply/mostly the EDUCATION aspect of C4D that gives it an edge .

There's mograph tutes online, like Bryphii's, and I can barely follow them, and I would certainly NEVER have managed to construct the effect myself. The level of technical knowledge required is just too high-- and I think I've managed to learn a couple things about LW over the years.

And regarding ease of use being "worth the price", well, YEAH, that's what we pay for, that's THE WHOLE FRICKIN' POINT.

Someone described the welter of panels required to operate LW as a "hot mess", and that's a good way to put it. Having to continually switch from poorly layed out panel to poorly layed out panel continuously is DISTRACTING and anti-conducive to a productive mind-set.

So there you are, switching panels constantly, and at the same time you have to keep in mind all the various inconsistancies, the GOTCHAS of the LW UI.... versus the well-ordered and logical layout of C4D? @[email protected] Yes, please, take my money.

robertoortiz
06-14-2014, 10:59 AM
Jeric I agree on everything you say.
BTW I was the one who called the LW LAYOUT interface a hot Mess.
I STRONGLY believe that part of the problem is that LW developers are talking too much to certain LW users who are ENTRENCHED in their view of their current workflows, and they hold to them with a DEATH GRIP
I makes sense for these specific users to ask more more of the same since the current workflows have worked well FOR THEM.

But outside that even shrinking bubble app development continues to evolve. The trend is to develop tools that allow for non technical minded people AKA ARTISTS, to develop content easily and quickly.
And for some God forsaken reason that I fail to fathom, the development of the tools sets in the LW have gone in exactly the OPPOSITE direction. Hell even a company as obtuse as ADOBE is following the right path.
Adobe is hellbend in making Powerful tools for Artists Not Comp Sci Mayors. Trust I know, I am happen to be one.

Maxon embraced this Artist user base, and now they are enjoying the fruits of these efforts.

LW3dG get people who have never used a 3D APP in their lives, in front of LW 11 and ask time to do SIMPLE ANIMATED content in less than 10 minutes.
Get artist who are used to doing Motion graphics in AE, it is not hard to find one, trust me.
And freaking record them.

raw-m
06-14-2014, 11:43 AM
A bit of frustration is lying in that LW3dg are seemingly doing an Apple, where they've gone underground to develop new toys but not talking to the outside world in the meantime. Hopefully, this will mean when they do surface with an update, they are going to 'knock that ball out the park' and address these issues! (I like to be optimistic :D)

stiff paper
06-14-2014, 11:45 AM
We used to be known for being the more intuitive alternative, but not anymore.
Exactly this. Painfully, for years and years now, this. Good luck changing things. Nobody's interested in complaints about ease of use. All you get is a lot of fools telling you everything is perfect and LW needs to get even more complex to use because (as far as I can tell) they feel oh-so special on the grounds that they can do something that's so woefully unintuitive that it automatically excludes 97% of users:
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?121900-Node-Displacement/page4


well, the same result can be made in 25 minutes in LightWave and better looking
Only after you've spent six months learning all the different tools involved along with all the particular quirks and tricks that allow all the separate tools to even work together. Brilliant.

Edit: Oh no, wait, you can't even learn all the tricks because the forum is still broken so you can't actually find any of that information.

There's no way I can afford the Studio edition of C4D. Unfortunately it's the only version worth having. But a blind man should be able to see that it has a nice, logical, connected, well thought out interface on top of a (mostly) nice, logical, connected, well thought out set of tools and processes. I don't even mind their (restrained) use of icons, which is a first for me. The reason C4D wins is that Designer types are very often not the most technically minded people (I know several of them), and C4D gives them a simple, easy to grasp way of doing things. In comparison, LW is a non-intuitive catastrophe for those users.

(I'm going to detour to MODO here, just because I want to, and just because I want to go on record as saying it has a DREADFUL interface. Utterly foul. Hopefully The Foundry will take them to task at some point and say "Your interface is clumsy as hell and hideous with it. Look at Nuke. Make the MODO interface like that." and then they'll bleat "But that'll make it look just like C4D! Waaaahh!" Yes. And it would be a big improvement.)

Oedo 808
06-14-2014, 12:27 PM
I've been watching some TurbulenceFD tutorials made for C4D and I don't see that the interface is better at all, like many things there are elements you would take away, such as mentioned in the speculation thread looking at the way the different editors come together. I think the many of the deficiencies with LW would fall under the need for modernization rather than design but overall there was plenty of "Err, no" to go with the "Oh cool" when watching C4D in action. Ultimately I doubt the LWG will make some sort of leap of faith in alienating the current user base in an effort to bring in new users on the vague hope that it was the UI all along. Some of the folk in the the LWG chose to use LightWave and know why they chose it and won't be in a hurry to abandon that, thankfully.

spherical
06-14-2014, 01:25 PM
Edit: Oh no, wait, you can't even learn all the tricks because the forum is still broken so you can't actually find any of that information.


Have you tried lately? Chuck and Steve have been completing the re-indexing after the new forum cane online and it works pretty darn well. I found all of my posts in the Old Beta sections with ease. Just go to the Search Single Content Type tab, instead of the one you land on when accessing Advanced Search. Works way better than the Search Multiple Content Types tab.

jeric_synergy
06-14-2014, 01:35 PM
I have a fair amount of confidence in Matt, Rob, and Jen for pushing LW in better directions, although to tell you the truth I think Rob's outlook may be TOO high-end for me (I have never needed some of the, say, FBX stuff for example).

For years, hell, literally DECADES, I've been pushing for a better documentation SYSTEM, which I regard as part of the interface, because IT HELPS YOU GET SH!T DONE.

I used to date a gal who was in charge of UI testing at Compaq, then Intuit, and now Google. She had a lab where they'd record people using the interface. Now, LW3dG is orders of magnitude smaller than those companies, and it's a painful and laborious process (like watching a noobie try to record a tutorial, but knowing it'll end badly), but YEAH, some testing with users of different levels would be a real revelation to some coders -- I'm thinking ESPECIALLY the guy who codes FiberFX.

stiff paper
06-14-2014, 01:54 PM
I've been watching some TurbulenceFD tutorials made for C4D and I don't see that the interface is better at all
There's nary a word of my post above that suggests, at all in any way, that I think the C4D interface is better than the LW interface. I much prefer the LW interface. What I don't prefer is the non-intuitive, disconnected and inconsistent mess that it's in control of, the mess that requires endless arcane, and at this point archaic, knowledge to operate properly. The mess that requires unspecified and increasingly forgotten tricks, cheats and workarounds to get results from.

The reasons why LW is now a non-intuitive catastrophe have very little to do with the interface and very much to do with the facts that a) many important parts of it were external plugins inserted into the main program with a mallet, having had very little work done to properly integrate them, and b) the documentation is simply terrible.


For years, hell, literally DECADES
Yeah. 1994 I started. Twenty years. Jesus. And I feel I must point out that the documentation for LW5 was completely fine. It got worse and worse over the years.


Have you tried lately?
Actually, no, I haven't. You might well be correct. I'm afraid I've given up. Learning something else.

robertoortiz
06-14-2014, 01:58 PM
I have a fair amount of confidence in Matt, Rob, and Jen for pushing LW in better directions, although to tell you the truth I think Rob's outlook may be TOO high-end for me (I have never needed some of the, say, FBX stuff for example).

Agreed.
As a formed developer I know as a fact that one can develop a developer "tunnel vision" when working on a tool for a LONG TIME. It is not like the developers are not working their asses off doing the best 3d program they can do.
The problem is more of being caught flatfooted in doing something in a overdeveloped fashion, when a more simple approach would do.
Let me give you some examples of that I am talking about based on real life projects I get all the time..

INSTANCING CARS ON A STREET.
Why in the name of GOD do i have to create a number of special nodes just to have the cars change colors?

DOING CUTOUT ANIMATION IN LW.
Has any of you ever tried to do cutout style animation in LW?
The kind of animation that was pioneered in South park using early version of Maya? It is snap on other apps.

How about IMPORTING A FREAKING LOGO in LW? CHANGING FONTS ON THE FLY IN LAYOUT?
How about ILLUSTRATOR STYLE GRADIENTS? Or VARIABLE LINE WEIGHTS?

And how about toon shading engine that behaves like ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR and does not make me have to open nodes?
CAN YOU RECORD A CAMERA MOVE ON THE Tricaster AND recreate it IN LW for Later Rendering (BUFFER STYLE) for Virtual set work? (WE could use that)
And the thing about high end Studio style CG Computer will be DEAD as a DOORNAIL in less than a decade.
The next frontier for CG tools honestly is Medium to indie studio work.

jeric_synergy
06-14-2014, 02:23 PM
When LW installs itself, are there ANY, in the same way that various plugins and scripts are installed, premade node networks and/or compound nodes installed at the same time?

I know there's CONTENT, but that's fundamentally and psychologically different than installed scripts.

erikals
06-14-2014, 08:21 PM
jeric
I disagree that it's simply/mostly the EDUCATION aspect of C4D that gives it an edge
just to re-inform, i said mostly, not simply...

There's mograph tutes online, like Bryphii's, and I can barely follow them, and I would certainly NEVER have managed to construct the effect myself. The level of technical knowledge required is just too high-- and I think I've managed to learn a couple things about LW over the years.
Bryan's tutorials are advanced Motion Graphics tutorials, not simple, as on can see in the C4D examples

And regarding ease of use being "worth the price", well, YEAH, that's what we pay for, that's THE WHOLE FRICKIN' POINT.
if it's worth it is of course up to the user. "worth the price" in this context meant > "worth your time and money"
should i add C4D to my arsenal? well, to me, that means LW+plugins + C4D+plugins + upgrades and would also cost me the time learning C4D... going C4D only is out of the question.

Someone described the welter of panels required to operate LW as a "hot mess", and that's a good way to put it. Having to continually switch from poorly layed out panel to poorly layed out panel continuously is DISTRACTING and anti-conducive to a productive mind-set.
well, it could certainly be better. too bad i missed that thread.

So there you are, switching panels constantly, and at the same time you have to keep in mind all the various inconsistancies, the GOTCHAS of the LW UI.... versus the well-ordered and logical layout of C4D? @[email protected] Yes, please, take my money.
it'd be nice if you did, that way maybe we would go deeper into the C4D/LW mograph discussion

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

roberto
I STRONGLY believe that part of the problem is that LW developers are talking too much to certain LW users who are ENTRENCHED in their view of their current workflows, and they hold to them with a DEATH GRIP
It makes sense for these specific users to ask more more of the same since the current workflows have worked well FOR THEM.
not necessarily, i think it's more about having ignored Motion Graphics in LightWave overall.
i don't think they cling on to one group. maybe a good thing would be to have optional UI workflows presets.

But outside that even shrinking bubble app development continues to evolve. The trend is to develop tools that allow for non technical minded people AKA ARTISTS, to develop content easily and quickly.
easier said than done, especially with some of the LightWave limitations, though i agree, it should be improved.

And for some God forsaken reason that I fail to fathom, the development of the tools sets in the LW have gone in exactly the OPPOSITE direction. Hell even a company as obtuse as ADOBE is following the right path. Adobe is hellbend in making Powerful tools for Artists Not Comp Sci Mayors. Trust I know, I am happen to be one.
i'm all for "Faster/Better/Stronger" can't say tools sets in LW have gone in the opposite direction though, not sure where that comes from...

Maxon embraced this Artist user base, and now they are enjoying the fruits of these efforts.
yes, making things more newbie friendly as well as easier would be a plus.

LW3dG get people who have never used a 3D APP in their lives, in front of LW 11 and ask time to do SIMPLE ANIMATED content in less than 10 minutes. Get artist who are used to doing Motion graphics in AE, it is not hard to find one, trust me.
And freaking record them.
ain't that much harder in LightWave than in other 3D apps, do you have a reference/example in mind?


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

raw-m
A bit of frustration is lying in that LW3dg are seemingly doing an Apple, where they've gone underground to develop new toys but not talking to the outside world in the meantime. Hopefully, this will mean when they do surface with an update, they are going to 'knock that ball out the park' and address these issues! (I like to be optimistic )
i hope so too, and that they have a Huge beta team... :]


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

cardboard
...All you get is a lot of fools telling you everything is perfect and LW needs to get even more complex to use because (as far as I can tell)
disagree...

Only after you've spent six months learning all the different tools involved along with all the particular quirks and tricks that allow all the separate tools to even work together. Brilliant.
not really, but you have to know how to create advanced Motion Graphics, like you would in any 3D app, and that's why i mention the lack of LightWave Motion Graphics tutorials...

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

roberto
instancing cars on a street.
why in the name of god do i have to create a number of special nodes just to have the cars change colors?
i'm sure it will be improved, though i certainly don't see this as a major pitfall.

doing cutout animation in lw.
has any of you ever tried to do cutout style animation in lw?
the kind of animation that was pioneered in south park using early version of maya? it is snap on other apps.
why is it a snap in other apps?
though the slow face-endomorph animation part should be improved in lw...

how about importing a freaking logo in lw?
to me it's no big deal, what would you like to see improved... ?

changing fonts on the fly in layout?
agree, hope to see some good solution...

how about illustrator style gradients?
it's a nice alternative, but that's about it...

or variable line weights?
did you mean, variable line width like illustrator?
if so, yes, that'd be welcome...




is C4D better at some Motion Graphics stuff, sure... is it tons better...? i wouldn't say so...

but yes, easier is better... and i too hope that the LW3DG will look more into this

i know i'm going a bit against the flow here, but hopefully it's to the benefit of this discussion

jeric_synergy
06-14-2014, 10:52 PM
If I were currently flu$h with ca$h, I would invest in C4d. After all, I'd still have LW, my first love, and I'd learn the market favorite.

Right now the cost is one huge advantage for LW3dG. I want them to prosper, so I hope very much that they can hold on 'til they can make some progress and raise their market share.

Learning another 3d program whilst having an extremely capable one already under one's fingers is extremely dis-motivating: although I've got C4dL due to owning, errr, RENTING AECC, I still can't get excited about slogging thru tutorials. It would be the Smart Move though.
++++

I just hope that, once a week, Rob forces the programmers to attempt to make an actual animation. 8~

spherical
06-15-2014, 12:37 AM
Why do people choose blue that's so dark? Used to be it was a Mac thing, with the 1.8 gamma that made the blues lighter on those screens. But now, with most monitors of artists being calibrated, and 2.2 gamma becoming the standard, it doesn't seem to make any difference. Now, I get that the default color choices in the text color panel for the more saturated blues are all pretty much the same but this blue (#5588FF) is way easier to read. I return you now to your regularly scheduled application comparison.

Surrealist.
06-15-2014, 04:11 AM
Surrealist, wasn't referring to the metrics part of that video, but that said, i sure miss metrics in Maya, and many do.
...but that's for another discussion / thread...

yeah I know, it was a conscious diversion. I am sure no one will be harmed.

For the record you can switch Maya between English or metric. By default a unit in Maya is 1cm. But the system in Maya is 100x as large as LightWave. Which makes neither LightWave or Maya built on real world measurements. It is just an arbitrary internal scale. So a 1 meter cube in LightWave exported to Maya will have to be scaled by 100 to equal 1 Meter in Maya "real word" version of scale.

spherical
06-15-2014, 06:06 AM
It's the same as having to up/down scale OBJ or STL files.

robertoortiz
06-15-2014, 06:31 AM
WHAT I THINK IS GOING ON

It had dawned on me that a big problem LW has right now is is that our wish to become Houdini Lite is beginning to come to affect the popularity of the app.
This approach is like drawing a traditional portrait without holding a sketch pad or pencils
Instead the art materials are being used by a another artist in front of us and we are yelling at him VERY SPECIFIC instructions of what to do.

In plain English

Do you prefer when doing design to to WYSIWYG (VISUAL) vs. Pure HTML Coding (ABSTRACT).
Most 3D developers prefer a hybrid approach, but most artists work using a VISUAL approach, specially the younger ones. And old school guys tended to be REALLY into abstraction

Part of the problem is that, by the nature of the beast, Lightwave is being developed by people who prefer to work in the abstract (Programmers using C#)
for people who prefer to work in he Visual (Aka visual Artists)




EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS THAT ARE EASIER IN OTHER 3D APPS
these are based on real life shots I have done.

Ok you guys asked for some examples of things that are here are to examples of what I am talking about:

* Both examples rely getting people to try these test who have NEVER used a 3D app but they are familiar with ADOBE toolsets.
* Both examples should be done in C4D and Lightwave.
* You got 1 hour per application. Bonus points for doing it sooner.



I might star a thread just for some of these examples...I bet the community has a ton of them.
EXAMPLE #1: COUNTDOWN TIMER
Channel Four at Baltimore will be celebrating the New years eve Party this year in the air.
For next year the station still reveal a new branding strategy.
that means a new station logo, new color palates and new typography.

The producer of the new years event wants to see a spinning digital clock that counts down from 60 to 0 seconds.
Every couple of seconds the station logo should spin and reveal another logo.
The logos are a transition of the older station Logos (from the 50's) to the present.
Also he wants the fonts to transition with the logos after each spin (This came from corporate, don't fight it).
When 0 is reached fireworks reveal the new station Logo.

Since the event is Tomorrow night, we need the scene ready to render in one hour.
We are providing:
10 historical station logos (from the 50 to the present) in Adobe Illustrator Format.
10 historical fonts sets (from the 50 to the present)in true type Format.



EXAMPLE #2: SHOT# 30 LAWYER CLONE
122390
We have been called to do an emergency shot.
For a animated project being done by our staff in the regional office in After Effects the managers in corporate have request a new shot.
In the office we don't have AE (after all we are the 3D Division) so we will be doing the project in a 3d using using 2D elements.

Here is what the script call for:
“ANIMATION: A sea of identical attorneys appears, with lawyers disappearing until only one remains….”
We have timed the voice actor recording of this scene to 5 seconds.

The producer of the shot wants to do a CG crane shot of a diverse group of lawyers. (About 2 thousand)
When the shot starts, they all pickup their suitcases in unison and then the camera should start to pan down and focus on one African American lawyer.
All the he lawyers around the lead should start disappearing at random(NOTE this might be art directed at the discretion of the producer). When the lawyers are about to disappear , they should have a worried fave and then the the 3D words "POP!" should replace them for one second.
When she is the only one left on screen she should smile.

The animation should be done in traditional cutout style.
We are providing:
Adobe Illustrator images of:
6 Lawyers - (3 Heads per lawyers for Default- Eye blink - Concerned Face 2 Bodies, Suitcase Down, Picking Up Suitcase, )
1 Lead Lawyer - (3 Heads Default- Eye blink- Smile. 2 Bodies Suitcase Down, Picking Up Suitcase)

We need the scene ready to render in 1 hour since the event is in 4 hours.

Surrealist.
06-15-2014, 07:11 AM
It's the same as having to up/down scale OBJ or STL files.

Yeah this is the reason these features are written into exporters and importers. For example the LW fbx importer lets you scale the scene as you see fit.

It is there because it is generally understood that there is a discrepancy between what each program wants as a scale. This scale feature is there in all apps.

wesleycorgi
06-15-2014, 07:13 AM
Countdown clock - funny, I've done that before in LW.

I started off my 3D pursuits with both C4D and LW, back when the two had much more common in the interface.

I ultimately chose LW, but have toyed with putting C4D in the arsenal but it has always been expensive even with any special promo. Instead I've maintained a Modo license.

Interface-wise C4D has changed dramatically, whereas LW hasn't changed much at all in the 15+ years that I've used it. I don't know if it is a curse or virtue. On the plus, I can use a tutorial that was made for a version that is over a decade old. On the minus, that tutorial is still relevant because of the many hoops you have to jump through with the trapped in the 90s LW workflow/interface.

robertoortiz
06-15-2014, 07:19 AM
Weslycorgi both examples are based in project I have done for work. and about the LW interface, well the funny this is that I not advocating with eliminating the current interface at all.
Lets keep the stuff that is already there, no problem.
I believe that single , Timeline & TAB based UNIFYING grid would work wonders for the usability of the app.
A grid that contains ALL THE SCENE information but its available by expandable attributes.

erikals
06-15-2014, 07:50 AM
Example #1: Countdown Timer
Example #2: Shot# 30 Lawyer Clone

good examples, and yes, especially #2 is a bigger challenge in LightWave,
if there was a tutorial for something similar, it could definitely be done faster.

maybe an idea would be to get Bryan to make such tutorials and upload them to Vimeo on Demand...

this said, without a tutorial, i personally would have problems doing that in C4D too...

raw-m
06-15-2014, 12:44 PM
Example 1, logos, oh dear (and check out the version 2 link)....
http://www.cineversity.com/vidplaylist/cv-artsmart

jasonwestmas
06-15-2014, 01:04 PM
Real world units? This is an interesting subject and that part of the presentation sheds light on the real issue.



Righton. . . I can measure stuff just fine in maya. The one and only reason why maya defaults to centimeters I think is because of the dynamics systems in it. They simply don't work as well when you convert your world units to meters no matter what scale adjustments you make in nucleus or bullet. Point being that LW's real world units ability is not really an advantage but maybe the way it handles dynamics scale is? lol

erikals
06-15-2014, 02:17 PM
Example 1, logos, oh dear (and check out the version 2 link)....
http://www.cineversity.com/vidplaylist/cv-artsmart

forgot about that one... yes, i'd very much like that in LightWave

jeric_synergy
06-15-2014, 02:31 PM
Dynamics may (or may not) work well at LW's default scale, but FFX works better if your meshes are ~10X RW size.

That blows.

motivalex
06-16-2014, 05:38 AM
Example 1, logos, oh dear (and check out the version 2 link)....
http://www.cineversity.com/vidplaylist/cv-artsmart

Oh no, that plugin made me go to the Maxon site. Looked up price for C4D and came back here. Can someone instead write a plugin like that for Lightwave. I would buy it and use it often. Plus if someone could write some decent non destructive text mo-graph tools for Layout, would be nice and I'll pay for that too.

Lewis
06-16-2014, 05:44 AM
Oh no, that plugin made me go to the Maxon site. Looked up price for C4D and came back here. Can someone instead write a plugin like that for Lightwave. I would buy it and use it often. Plus if someone could write some decent non destructive text mo-graph tools for Layout, would be nice and I'll pay for that too.

Well that's the thing, it's not just plugin, it's host app that has to be non-destructive workflow and LW modeling tools sadly aren't (and laoyut isn't suitable for goemetry creation) and most of them in LWmodeler are pure destrctive workflow :(.

robertoortiz
06-16-2014, 06:16 AM
Well that's the thing, it's not just plugin, it's host app that has to be non-destructive workflow and LW modeling tools sadly aren't (and laoyut isn't suitable for goemetry creation) and most of them in LWmodeler are pure destrctive workflow :(.
OK I HAve an idea on how to do this , but give me a minute on how to explain this...

OK here is one thing I always wondered.( Lets put my Comp Sci degree to work here)
What if you started giving more teeth to the LW HUB, and rewriting it it from the ground up and and effect making it the future STEALTH replacement for LW.
Bear with me.... I know it sounds nuts.

Ok lets see what the HUB is right now
It is a messenger tool that allows for communication between Layout and Modeler.
So what if was something more? Maybe a Home for Unified libraries..
Ok you need a new text tool.
Have INTERFACE libraries in BOTH LAYOUT and MODELER to call up a new Text tool.
Have those libraries call up the HUB and have the hub do the text creation process in memory, and then sending it back to whomever made the text creation call.
When a change is made, either in Layout (Timebase Based Modeling History) or Modeller (Modeling History Based), the hub takes the parameter and created the model in memory and sends it back.

Why do this?
Well the advantage of doing this is that it is that the HUB is blank canvas for future code, since whatever libraries are executed IN THERE can start talking to each other without any worries of LEGACY code.
You slowly start phasing RE-WRITTEN libraries into there, until you just get rid of both LAYOUT and MODELER.

What do you guys think?

Lewis
06-16-2014, 07:40 AM
What do you guys think?
I think HUB is worst idea EVER (costed me so much time and so many destroyed meshes that i don't want to touch it anymore) so i'd hate to see it expanded even more and keepign LW separate Apps :D. I use LW in Isolate (-i) mode just to prevent any kind of HUB or other communication/chance to destroy something :). But hey that's just me and hi-poly work, for some other situations it might work but for me it's not.

Hail
06-16-2014, 07:40 AM
The problem with the hub is that it is so freaking slow with heavy data

Edit: I absolutely agree with Lewis on this one
Life would be so much better without the hub

jasonwestmas
06-16-2014, 08:33 AM
Even if the Hub was super fast it doesn't replace the fact that we still need Vertex map editing inside of layout to be as efficient as the unified applications. Lightwave has a lot of great things going on inside it only to be shot in the foot by sloppy workflow design. Things like only putting vertex maps editing inside of modeler. No Hub will make that ok for serious animators.

jeric_synergy
06-16-2014, 08:35 AM
Sounds like w.mapping tools in Layout is the flavor of this week. ;)

robertoortiz
06-16-2014, 08:42 AM
Well we need a way to be able to get away from the limitations of the current architectures of both Layout and Modeler.
And we need a way to be able to share libraries between both apps in an efficient manner, that not involve compiling the code TWICE (Layout and the Modeler)
Lets say we need a new weight mapping tool in Layout. You either take the OLDER code from modeler and try to somehow jury rig it somehow with duck tape to work in the ANCIENT Layout infrastructure OR you find a way to make the tool universally compatible as an independent module that works in with BOTH Layout and Modeler.

The advantage of this approach is that the tool would work the same the tool it works EXACTLY the same way it does in both apps and eventually you could have other SHARED tools talking to it.

Lewis
06-16-2014, 03:14 PM
The advantage of this approach is that the tool would work the same the tool it works EXACTLY the same way it does in both apps and eventually you could have other SHARED tools talking to it.

If the ALL tools work same (hypothetic situation currently) in both apps (Layout and Modeler) why do we then need two apps ?

spherical
06-16-2014, 03:53 PM
Well, most don't seem to be getting it but I sure do. The idea just immediately made sense, once I got less than half way through the treatise. This has real possibilities. I'll approach this from another angle to see if some traction can be gained.


The Hub shouldn't be thought of in this context as, well, the Hub.
It's there.
Possible channels are open for development.
It doesn't have to stay around forever.
Expanding it doesn't mean that it necessarily will continue to work as it does now.
In fact, it could easily be made to do these new operations while using the i switch.
Two apps is temporary. This isn't going to happen overnight.
It is a way to phase in, without disrupting everyone's workflow, the Unified Application That Everyone Has Been Clamoring For.

Perhaps the new functions version should just be renamed, seeing as how there is such knee jerk reaction to even its mention.

Lewis
06-16-2014, 04:14 PM
The Hub shouldn't be thought of in this context as, well, the Hub.

If is not HUB it should NOT be named as it is :).



It's there.
Sadly


Possible channels are open for development.

Whatever is developed as TEMP solution which needs to be rewriten it's really questionably how good use of resources it actually is.


It doesn't have to stay around forever.

Then why expanding it afterall ? To have even more clutter, duplication, old code to be ditched ?


Expanding it doesn't mean that it necessarily will continue to work as it does now.

Still, if is TEMP solution for two apps why bother with that "solution" anyway :)? Why not spend resources onto more important things ?




In fact, it could easily be made to do these new operations while using the i switch.

-i switch is fully isolated mode and it should stay that way always (untill it's obsolete/unified), if is not isolated then it's not -i it's more -0 which deactivates HUB (currently) but still allows Layout to communicate with Modeler (and CORE) on save/updating files.



Two apps is temporary. This isn't going to happen overnight.

5+ years (and who knows how many more) isn't actually "overnight". That argument/excuse faded away few years ago :). Industry is changing, going forward at very fast rate nowdays so if merging layout and modeler will take 10+ years then it'll be too late anyway.



It is a way to phase in, without disrupting everyone's workflow, the Unified Application That Everyone Has Been Clamoring For.


Ask for unified app is long ago been on table so it's not like it's "surprise" suddenly and more and more people are seeign limits of split app as no workflow but workaround so it's hard to say workflow when we are actually using workarounds due split app nature :).



Perhaps the new functions version should just be renamed, seeing as how there is such knee jerk reaction to even its mention.

Perhaps, but perhaps it should just be forgotten as an option/idea and move on to long ago promissed Unification or let's call it UNIHUB for sake of keepign the HUB/nostalgia alive :D ;).

IMHO.

Ztreem
06-16-2014, 05:01 PM
If is not HUB it should NOT be named as it is :).


Sadly



Whatever is developed as TEMP solution which needs to be rewriten it's really questionably how good use of resources it actually is.



Then why expanding it afterall ? To have even more clutter, duplication, old code to be ditched ?



Still, if is TEMP solution for two apps why bother with that "solution" anyway :)? Why not spend resources onto more important things ?




-i switch is fully isolated mode and it should stay that way always (untill it's obsolete/unified), if is not isolated then it's not -i it's more -0 which deactivates HUB (currently) but still allows Layout to communicate with Modeler (and CORE) on save/updating files.



5+ years (and who knows how many more) isn't actually "overnight". That argument/excuse faded away few years ago :). Industry is changing, going forward at very fast rate nowdays so if merging layout and modeler will take 10+ years then it'll be too late anyway.



Ask for unified app is long ago been on table so it's not like it's "surprise" suddenly and more and more people are seeign limits of split app as no workflow but workaround so it's hard to say workflow when we are actually using workarounds due split app nature :).



Perhaps, but perhaps it should just be forgotten as an option/idea and move on to long ago promissed Unification or let's call it UNIHUB for sake of keepign the HUB/nostalgia alive :D ;).

IMHO.

+1

What we need is a unified LW with a new mesh handling system. Apple just showed how they can have a game with realtime dof and over 1.3 million polygons on an ipad and LW have problems with less polygons on a brand new top of the line pc.
I have several simple scenes at work that take LW over one hour to load and cinema, 3dsmax, rhino, unity and keyshot just opens it in seconds.

jeric_synergy
06-16-2014, 05:05 PM
Again, this makes me wonder about the datasets they're testing with.

spherical
06-16-2014, 05:28 PM
Whatever is developed as TEMP solution which needs to be rewriten it's really questionably how good use of resources it actually is.

Gotta start somewhere or nothing changes. CORE, as a sudden change to Unified, went the way of the Dodo Bird and everyone complained about it. The idea is a means to an end that can BE the end when it's finished and the then-redundant apps can be gone. It's temporary while development progresses and only while the two apps are still needed. Would YOU like to have a brand new, and buggy Unified app to do your daily work in thrust upon you or have something that doesn't break your current work to use while the new code is phased in?


Then why expanding it afterall ? To have even more clutter, duplication, old code to be ditched ?

Yes. Ditching the old code is the point. The New Code won't be clutter, it'll be transparent and appearing IN the two applications until they are no longer needed.


Still, if is TEMP solution for two apps why bother with that "solution" anyway :)? Why not spend resources onto more important things ?

Like? Geez, everyone's bitching about two apps and here's s pathway to Unified and it gets this much pushback?


-i switch is fully isolated mode and it should stay that way always (untill it's obsolete/unified), if is not isolated then it's not -i it's more -0 which deactivates HUB (currently) but still allows Layout to communicate with Modeler (and CORE) on save/updating files.

You're still not getting it.

Ztreem
06-16-2014, 06:32 PM
Again, this makes me wonder about the datasets they're testing with.

They know about it but the problem is buried deep down in the old core and needs a rewrite to be solved. That's why I think that it should be first on the list of fixes. I don't care for any features when I spend all day loading a file.

robertoortiz
06-16-2014, 08:00 PM
They know about it but the problem is buried deep down in the old core and needs a rewrite to be solved. That's why I think that it should be first on the list of fixes. I don't care for any features when I spend all day loading a file.

The thing about the idea I proposed of the "Super HUB" is that in effect is a stealth ground up rewrite of LW one module at a time.
It would not be a waste of time, sine we are assuming that the LW CORE code will be sunset because of it DAY 1 design problems in both Layout and Modeler.
And the cool thing about this approach that that EACH MODULE would be production tested and users could get NEW TWIN features (LIKE UV MAPPING/ Weight MAPPING, HELL MODELING HISTORY) that work the SAME in both Layout and Modeler.
In effect you would be rewriting an APP one piece at a time. Hell Use the HYDRA engine used in Chronosculpt as the basis for this code.

Think of it this way, it is like having a super 3rd program, that it grow more an more, and gain more functionally without any of the limitation of Modeler or Layout.
IN THE PRESENT you can send parameters from BOTH Layout and Modeler to this program (like the HUB DOES) and it could send back Geometry and or Data..


In compsci when you use C++ libraries and you are only limited on the coding environment of the program you are dealing with in terms on what you can do with them.

erikals
06-17-2014, 12:19 AM
breaking this sentence apart >

http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Powers, things like being able to edit your geometry from camera view is important, and we are aware of these limitations and we ARE going to come out with some unique updates and workflows, but we're gonna remain the strengths of LightWave, whatever direction we move in

read the underlines only... so, they are working on it...

i wonder if they might through in a camera into Modeler, with a timeline that scrubs a cache, but not sure...
it can be done, just not sure of the speed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1M_RsBFomM


that might be smarter that recreating / duplicating 100 Modeler tools/functions for Layout...


__________

Roberto, i did read about a "Super HUB" idea, different than yours, but the programer wasn't sure if it would be used, maybe, maybe not... but whatever they come up with i'm sure it's for the best based on the programing challenges they face... (no link, the info got removed, guess i shouldn't even mention it)

but once again, yes, there are some LightWave caveats that needs addressing

Lewis
06-17-2014, 02:44 AM
You're still not getting it.

You are right, you are only one getting it and smartest one around so nobody can go to that level to understand it :D, good for you. Luckily that's not hapening and SuperHUB is just this topic crazy "idea" :).

Cool

Lewis
06-17-2014, 02:51 AM
Think of it this way, it is like having a super 3rd program, that it grow more an more, and gain more functionally without any of the limitation of Modeler or Layout.
IN THE PRESENT you can send parameters from BOTH Layout and Modeler to this program (like the HUB DOES) and it could send back Geometry and or Data..


Di you forgot we had similar thing already tried on ? CORE was going and was released alongside with LwightWaveHC (Hercules) and Core was (still is if you have it installed) communicating with Layout and modeler if you wanted it to do but you coudl use just it if you wanted. IT missed a lot of features and yet had some bot Layout and modeler don't have even today. They obviously don't have resources/time/manpower or whatever to develop it that way so they abandoned that mode and going to who know what route now. So efectivelly that was alrad been tried on and it didnt succeded out of numerous reasons but bigges tone was 'coz most of LWavers were reluctant to any chnge in workflow/design so we are where we are now and no superHUB will solve it :). Luckily nowdays even the most stubborn ones from "split app camp" are seeing more and more how split nature is limiting their work also so i just hope they will be able to relaize that unified app one day when LW3DG hopefully makes it, is a better option for them too :).

robertoortiz
06-17-2014, 06:32 AM
Di you forgot we had similar thing already tried on ? CORE was going and was released alongside with LwightWaveHC (Hercules) and Core was (still is if you have it installed) communicating with Layout and modeler if you wanted it to do but you coudl use just it if you wanted. IT missed a lot of features and yet had some bot Layout and modeler don't have even today. They obviously don't have resources/time/manpower or whatever to develop it that way so they abandoned that mode and going to who know what route now. So efectivelly that was alrad been tried on and it didnt succeded out of numerous reasons but bigges tone was 'coz most of LWavers were reluctant to any chnge in workflow/design so we are where we are now and no superHUB will solve it :). Luckily nowdays even the most stubborn ones from "split app camp" are seeing more and more how split nature is limiting their work also so i just hope they will be able to relaize that unified app one day when LW3DG hopefully makes it, is a better option for them too :).


I see your point, but a bit problem with CORE it that, believe it or not, is belive it or not,that it had an interface.

Fair or not told people PONT BLANK NEW INCOMPLETE APP and that is what lost them the PR war.
What i am saying is that In order to introduce a change of this magnitude you have to warm up the water slowly...one module at a time.
You Start with things they cannot have right now, things like "Weight/ UV Mapping" in Layout and then slowly move to bigger things.

What I am proposing is more sneaky, under the table collaboration between Layout, Modeler and this "Super Hub".
For the user base these would seem like new features, for the LW developers they should be the FOUNDATION of as a NEW APP.

Ok let me try to explain how things work now.
Modules(Surface Mapping/ Bone deformations/ Particles)/ Libraries and Code are one in the same when the code is compiled.

Lets say "Weight Mapping routines " are compiled as part of a C++ (or C#?) library in in Modeler.
When the modeler code is compiled these routines become part of the DNA of Modeler and they cannot be executed by or Accessed AT ALL by Layout.
To get them to work in Layout you would have to take this library, take in consideration of the limitations the Layout infrastructure and try to jury rig it to implement it.

What I am proposing is to start having these working modules in the BRIDGE APP and the INTERFACES would he implemented in LAYOUT and MODELER.
Let the bridge app handle the execution of the CODE.

Lewis
06-17-2014, 07:18 AM
No, it was not the interface (CORE GUI/Interface is far supperior and customizable than LW one is even today, same goes for shortcuts = no hardcoded stuff, all was/is adjustable by user and you could have skins so you can make it look exaclty like LW if you wish or like some other apps and you have snapping, docking, resizing of all panels, workspaces..... all what LW users are asking for years/even today so many years after that shutdown) but workflow which was different, too different for reluctant LWavers (in many cases it was better/faster due unified environment but Lwavers were screaming without even trying) and unfinished product (too ealry in open beta, at least year too early) what killed CORE (for most part (if we don't count behind scenes stuff that was going on back then also ;)).

I understand what you are suggestign but really that's even more split app worflow if you have 3rd app in the mix whcih does what curent two aren't that's nowhere nearer unificiation what's been promissed back then, it's actually even further away than that regardless of possibility to be full featured app one day, they would still spend awfull lot of time to make all that communicate with each other and use same file formats/texturing, tools..... Not worth that effor IMHO so it better be full new app with all the fixes of problems we have in current ones than one what would like to do both ways slowly (5+ years). Laout would have to change it'self a LOT to be able to accompany any modeling tools and that will break compatibility with older stuff too much and we are back at beggining of "scared" LWavers to learn somethign new :) (Heck evne nwo with 11.5 and 11.6.x we had breakage of scenes/cmpatibility for soem new features liek instancing/flocking and stuff and it's nowhere near that drastic change we need to make Layout a modeling tools environment for "super HUB" app :)). It's really going to be hard for them (LWG3D) to hit the nail once they gave up on total rewrite, I'm really eager to see what's the plan for 12 and how closer to unification we are going to be (if that is the plan anyway/at all by now).

erikals
06-17-2014, 08:39 AM
speculation mode on >

- Hydra will be implemented into Modeler (confirmed)
- Modeler will become a much faster system as of this (confirmed)
- Modeler will get camera view / timeline / ability to tweak Layout animation via cache >> working example here << (www.erikalstad.com/cgtemp/Modeler-Animation.gif)
- Upgrades / new functions to Layout will be continued temporarily, more Layout functions will be added into Modeler
- Modeler will get VPR as a start
- Far future, all Layout tools will slowly in time be put into Modeler
- Far future, the slow Layout will be abandoned
- LightWave is now only one application (the vastly improved Modeler)

robertoortiz
06-17-2014, 09:35 AM
speculation mode on >

- Hydra will be implemented into Modeler (confirmed)
- Modeler will become a much faster system as of this (confirmed)
- Modeler will get camera view / timeline / ability to tweak Layout animation via cache >> working example here << (www.erikalstad.com/cgtemp/Modeler-Animation.gif)
- Upgrades / new functions to Layout will be continued temporarily, more Layout functions will be added into Modeler
- Modeler will get VPR as a start
- Far future, all Layout tools will slowly in time be put into Modeler
- Far future, the slow Layout will be abandoned
- LightWave is now only one application (the vastly improved Modeler)

That sounds like a good plan.
As I have said before, Layout as it is right now, is a Hot mess.

Surrealist.
06-17-2014, 10:34 AM
One thing that is fure sure, these guys absolutely have to come up with some new technology - inside LightWave.

They can not keep scraping the barrel at sales conferences and talking about LightWave's strengths with examples of the "advantages" of two apps. And "LightWave has real world units".

That last one really got me.

As for the advantages of two apps:

newsflash - there are none.

And since it has been already argued unanimously in favor of this fact several times over on these boards over the last decade there is no point in even bringing it up again especially at a sales convention. Although if the target audience is just a lot of new people to 3D then... hey maybe it works as a spin. Maybe I just don't know the demographic that well.

Mr_Q
06-17-2014, 11:03 AM
I'll chime in just so it's on record. :)

C4D makes motions graphics a breeze. The amount of things it does automatically for you with a few clicks is stunning. Also, modifying said FX is super easy. No multiple layers of hacks-and-loops to run through. If the client asks for the FX you have to do something totally different, it's a few clicks away. Spawning new layers of FX off an initial FX is a breeze. The program is engineered from the ground up for motion-graphics. Free-form 3D design and creation and never getting in your way.

Also, the obvious one, the integration with AfterFX is nearly symbiotic. Add to that, vRay, a solid soft/hardbody/particle system, it's a no-brainer for fast turn around designer driven 3D.

robertoortiz
06-17-2014, 11:15 AM
I'll chime in just so it's on record. :)

C4D makes motions graphics a breeze. The amount of things it does automatically for you with a few clicks is stunning. Also, modifying said FX is super easy. No multiple layers of hacks-and-loops to run through. If the client asks for the FX you have to do something totally different, it's a few clicks away. Spawning new layers of FX off an initial FX is a breeze. The program is engineered from the ground up for motion-graphics. Free-form 3D design and creation and never getting in your way.

Also, the obvious one, the integration with AfterFX is nearly symbiotic. Add to that, vRay, a solid soft/hardbody/particle system, it's a no-brainer for fast turn around designer driven 3D.
thanks for getting us back on topic...
And speaking of the market, Maya by killing Soft, has a lock of the hi-end market/character animation and Blender has taken over the niche for the begginner intro to CG Market.



My advice as a long time friend is to get as fast away as they can from the high end Film market (ITS DEAD) and talk to some old school Graphic Designers, fast.
I am not kidding.
Talk to the Maker community, talk to the people who use virtual sets.
Dont be afraid to talk, because right now a lot of us are frustrated.
In my humble it seem that the people who got NT ear are telling them that that "motion graphics" is a small niche, WYSIWYG is a design fad, and that the future is in the hi end film/TV maket.
Thus leading them to a cliff.

So what the heck can LW do to start digging out of this hole? What can it learn from Maxon?

jasonwestmas
06-17-2014, 11:39 AM
So what the heck can LW do to start digging out of this hole?

Doesn't matter which market we are in I think this question has been answered thoroughly on the forums at least twice a year, as far as I can tell. What can me learn from maxon? Uhh not sure but workflow is key.

erikals
06-17-2014, 11:47 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Surrealist
"LightWave has real world units"
That last one really got me

well, i disagree, but that's for another thread, if you want to open it...



http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Surrealist
As for the advantages of two apps:
newsflash - there are none

though there is an advantage to having two different modes



http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png jasonwestmas
workflow is key...

agree, for Motion Graphics, improved MG workflow is the key,
we might not be able to add stacking now, but that doesn't mean we can't add other semi-non-destructive features

robertoortiz
06-17-2014, 11:48 AM
Doesn't matter which market we are in I think this question has been answered thoroughly on the forums at least twice a year, as far as I can tell. What can me learn from maxon? Uhh not sure but workflow is key.

I am soory for the long rant before, things have been testy at work about LW.. Imagine trying to defend a small LW pipeline to someone who has never used it. And you happen to agree with 1/2 of his arguments.
Anyway...Streamlining should be theorder of the day.

jasonwestmas
06-17-2014, 12:11 PM
sorry that sounded snooty in writing, nevermind me. :) I forget I've been on these forums forever it seems.

Surrealist.
06-17-2014, 12:22 PM
well, i disagree, but that's for another thread, if you want to open it...


though there is an advantage to having two different modes



As to "real world units" I thought I explained it pretty well the first time. I use this stuff daily at my studio were we use these scale specs between LightWave, Blender, Maya, Softimage, MotionBuilder, Zbrush and Mudbox. If you want I can explain and give more examples. I'd be happy to if it was not clear. I know it is confusing as I was confused even at first. Took me a while to sort it out. However if I have confused something in LightWave I'd be happy to get it sorted on my end as well. As far as I know it is clear to me. But... you never know.

And regarding modes, there is not even a reason to talk about unification anymore. It has all been settled dozens of times. Not taking that bait. A waste of time really.

erikals
06-17-2014, 12:40 PM
well, like i said earlier, i'm jumping out of the unit discussion, as this is a C4D thread

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

as for modes, i somewhat i agree, i wouldn't use the M/L split from a marketing point of view, but that's not my call,
just my personal opinion, so i agree with you there... but it might have been meant for LightWave artists only,
still, i think old travelers of LightWave knows the pro's / con's...

this said, i'm not going to get too derailed on that matter in the future... unless it starts to be a "pro-LightWave-sale" trick,
which i seriously doubt the LW3DG will make it...

so i wouldn't worry about it, unless it gets brought up again and again,

also remember, it was not brought up at Siggraph, and i'm quite sure Rob Powers did that on purpose,
iow, he knew what he was doing, he left it alone at Siggraph.

anyway, i'm sure it was just "temporary info" from Rob

lastly, yes, there are advantages to the "different modes" workflow, but that can be done via an unified system as well.

some systems lack this though, like Maya for example, and i would've liked to see it there...

anyway, not using Maya much these days, the Maya development kinda stagnated,
like the previous chief of A/W said,... after he left, Maya took another turn...

( this might very well change though, as AutoDesk snapped SoftImage in half and are giving 3DSMax the cold shoulder... )

xevious2501
06-17-2014, 12:42 PM
Its very simple but theres some history behind it all.
First C4d is not a bad animation tool. Most people dont realise C4d has been around just about as long as lightwave 3D, they both started on the amiga back in the mid 80's.

Lightwave 3d had great success by monopolizing on lower budget broadcast television cgi based shows, like babylon5 onward to Battlestar Galactica many years later. But Newtek's focus in terms of LW,remained on broadcast, seldom film.
The film industry is dominated by Maya because of its roots. Back in the 80's there was such a thing as 'low-end' personal computers (Amiga,Pc,Mac) and High-end workstations (SGI,SUN,UNIX)
Lightwave, C4d, 3ds Max started on low-end personal computers, which for a time didnt have the processing speed to create significant work beyond broadcast level.
Animation tools that were created on High-end workstations did, Wavefront tdi explore, Alias, Softimage etc. But High-end SGI workstations and Risc processors were very VERY expensive.
Threw the years the intel and amd's processor wars created ever cheaper and faster cpu's, eventually surpassing the more costly risc processors. The low-end personal computers became far cheaper and faster there high-end counterparts,
and graphic card companies like nvidia also maximized the personal computers potential. Low-end animation packages became a real threat to high-end packages so the high-end animation companies consolidated ,Alias and wavefront merged becoming Alias-Waverfront, From Maya was created in the mid 90's but in 2k with so pc's being so cheap and powerfull in order to ward off the threat from the likes of Lightwave Max and even xsi, Maya's price was cut in half and ported over to the pc. a devistating move to low-end animation packages. Everyone that wanted to learn and used the so-called 'best tools in the industry now had access via Maya, but like all things no one package is good at everything, and sometimes the
learning curve is steep, so many people still used low-end packages alongside Maya. Maya's development in the film industry lead to tools that were better suited to a departmentalized environment many people. Low-end tools were better suited for the single individual type workflow. but moreso one program in particular had a wealth of third party plugins and was considered one of the best modeling tools around, 3ds max. Enter. AUTODESK... Autodesk was already a huge company with autocad being there flagship package. but autodesk didnt have a stake in film or broadcast and sought to remdy it by monopolizing on all the top tools in the film industry. They nab'ed just about everything including 3ds max.
And in a way Autodesk created a new highend by merging these companies together under one umbrella. One can only asume Newteks executives in charge of LW decided after autodesk great aquisition, seeking a stake in the film industry was folly. For years! lightwave's development lag'ed and other software packages improved. Newtek's focus was soley on hardware based tools for Broadcast, Tricaster, and Lightwave was left for dead.
Fed up with the direction of newtek, lightwaves key developers left the company to form Luxology, and they quickly created what could be consider the true evolution of lightwave in the form of MODO.
All the tools and changes Lightwave shouldve had in all those years found there way into Luxology's MODO, which quickly rose to fame. yet Lightwave itself drifted into obscurity, until the company finally decided to split the two entities apart
with lightwave now being under the helm of Rob Powers who's goal was to revamp LW as quickly as possible with its target once again being the film industry. But.. with Lightwave Lagging behind for so many years another company came up threw the ranks. C4D. Like lightwave, C4d also took the path of being a sorta stepping stone for people in the video industry. video editors etc. people that desired some 3d cgi elements to there video productions but didnt have the expertise to jump on a full blown 3d app like maya or even LW. INSPIRE, was a scaled down version of LW created specifically for those people albiet lightwave itself was always intended for such people as well. and it did work for a time, but Cinema focused specifically on the AfterEffects crowd. And its toolset was even more friendlier than lightwave and thus became the choice for most new AfterEffects motion graphics artist looking to gain 3D experience.
Cinema 4d grew as fast as AfterEffects motion graphics users, whos industry was booming. again lighwave was slumping behind, its toolset was slumping behind, but thankfully the company had a new direction and began to make big strides in revamping its toolset and fixing bugs that existed from its amiga days. Cinema4d was in a great position, it had no real rivals and a niche part of an industy all to its-self, Even Blender in many ways surpassed lightwave in various tools like fluid dynamics. Lightwave is now on a steady growth path, and is gaining ground as many people now shift from platform to platform, But it was newteks failure for many years 1999-2008 for letting lightwave fall behind. And yet many of the industries top innovations were first seen on Lightwave via its third party developers like Steve Worley and Fprime. The first Realtime renderer capable of rendering GI. Even then newtek didnt capitalize on such innovations. and many people back then didn't understand the potential power of realtime rendering. I remember people complaining! about realtime rendering!!! unbelievable thinking back on it. now all people want is realtime rendering.

so there ya have it, longstory yes but its history. Cinema got its start via the niche market in motion graphics at a time when no-other animation package was really focusing on and lightwave was sorely lagging behind. Cinema4d's developers were smart enough to jump on many
new features and open source utilities that even today Lightwave group still lag on acquiring. Like open VDB, PTEX and a host of others. Lighwave is making strides forward, and its user base is growing, and the pace of upgrade is now fairly decent, but theres still much to be done. Thankfully there appears to be staff at lightwavegroup that actually understand whats needed.

spherical
06-17-2014, 12:51 PM
You are right, you are only one getting it and smartest one around so nobody can go to that level to understand it, good for you. Luckily that's not hapening and SuperHUB is just this topic crazy "idea".

Thanks for the kudos. Made my day.

erikals
06-17-2014, 12:58 PM
CatFight mode > On...! http://vz.iminent.com/vz/a61403e9-1da5-4ba3-97f0-849d9d1a9ffe/2/cute-black-cat-scratching-the-screen.gif

robertoortiz
06-17-2014, 01:04 PM
Group hug?
I do have faith in the group...
Soryy guys it has been a rough week.

erikals
06-17-2014, 01:16 PM
Group hug mode > On...!

spherical
06-17-2014, 01:33 PM
Yeah, the tactic is, you can say anything you like as long as there's a smile on your face.

All I'm trying to do is support the guy. It's a brilliant approach to a seriously natty problem that no one has been able to solve. Certainly, a ground-up rewrite, that some think is so simple and should have been done since 5+ years, ISN'T. Tried it lately? Didn't think so.

I see all manner of possibilities in this approach. But, then, I'm a programmer and an engineer and an artist; with the benefit of all of those disciplines. I've built and done some wonderful things that surprise me when I step back and look. Things that others said were impossible. Can't dance worth a darn & I'm struggling to play the cello, so that makes me human after all.

Lewis
06-17-2014, 01:43 PM
Yeah, the tactic is, you can say anything you like as long as there's a smile on your face.


Luckily you even didn't bother to put a smiley, you just go to direct insult and that's it for your tactics, kudos to you again.

raw-m
06-17-2014, 01:54 PM
Please don't fall out on a C4d thread! Have you ever tried to do texturing in C4d - it's shite!

erikals
06-17-2014, 02:44 PM
well, reading the now deleted posts from NT programers, i've made my opinion,
if you want to know what that is, check the post, number #83

as far as C4D MoGraph animations, i cannot give any more suggestions,
but please post here if you find any feature request from C4D that you want LightWave to include

but please don't make that feature request be > make things easier!

rather, give a link to what kind of feature you would like to see in LightWave... (please...)

robertoortiz
06-17-2014, 03:59 PM
well, reading the now deleted posts from NT programers, i've made my opinion,
if you want to know what that is, check the post, number #83

as far as C4D MoGraph animations, i cannot give any more suggestions,
but please post here if you find any feature request from C4D that you want LightWave to include

but please don't make that feature request be > make things easier!

rather, give a link to what kind of feature you would like to see in LightWave... (please...)

Easy,
Straightforward Vector Import.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0VByObZ2Ds
And font controls that belong in this Century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKpLJchO_d8

jeric_synergy
06-17-2014, 04:26 PM
I think the OP's question has been answered (20 foot tall flaming letters saying "MOGRAPH!!!!11!!", appropriately easy to do in c4d), and unless this morphs into "What can we learn?", rather than rehashing history we should probably wrap it up b4 anybody else's feelings get hurt. 8~

---no, I can't resist! A couple big missteps were NT's misunderstanding of what the hell IKBooster IS, and the CORE direction of being "mini-MAYA", rather than "LW with a new engine." -whew. That HAD to come out. ;)

jeric_synergy
06-17-2014, 04:41 PM
Please don't fall out on a C4d thread! Have you ever tried to do texturing in C4d - it's shite!
In the tutorials I've followed in c4d, it's as convoluted and arbitrary as the worst of LW, or even Blender (yeahhh, that's right, I said it!!).

There seems to be plenty of power there, but for an old LW hand it seemed completely baffling. I'm not sure where the equivalent to nodes are either-- my book is pretty old.

+++++
"Easy Vector IMport" -- easy and accurate and FULL FEATURED, now there's a dream. Did anyone ever tell LW3dG that many many clients supply work in vector format? It'd be nice to be able to NOT say "Could you resave this in an ancient format?" Clients love it when you tell them their Illustrator files do you no good.

Y'know, like maybe having the COLORS come in with the file????

bazsa73
06-17-2014, 04:45 PM
yeah

jwiede
06-18-2014, 01:52 AM
and its user base is growing
Please cite your evidence for this?

JohnMarchant
06-18-2014, 02:50 AM
C4D render nodes use a different installer than the "main app" installer, so how many times you can install main app has nothing to do with how many render nodes you can have. Broadcast and Visualize each allow three render nodes (on top of the main app install), Studio allows unlimited render nodes.

As for the additional cost issue, how much is extreme app stability worth to you? C4D is a rock-solid application for me, the only crashes I've ever had were due to pre-release alpha/beta third-party extensions run amok (which were easily diagnosed and fixed). Using my normal configuration of plugins, it doesn't crash, ever, period. I find that a very significant advantage over LW, esp. when you also factor in time spent in LW regenerating corrupted scenes, prefs, etc. resulting from crashes.

Hi,didn't know about the render nodes and main app difference. Basically you sort of agree with me, it comes down to price. Its like the car argument, buy a Ford or Aston Martin, both do the basic same thing, its just you arrive in more comfort and style than with a Ford.

jwiede
06-18-2014, 05:56 AM
Hi,didn't know about the render nodes and main app difference. Basically you sort of agree with me, it comes down to price.
I keep hearing people saying the price argument, but the reality is that C4D is making record sales, quarter after quarter, year after year, despite the price. Apparently the price isn't such a deal-breaker for the market in general, and that's basically the same as saying most do not seem to consider it an issue. It's difficult to argue with demand, as it were.

I'm not really one for car analogies, but in the car market people definitely are willing to pay more for cars known to require less service, and retain value better -- the same arguments could be made for C4D over LW w.r.t. app stability.

robertoortiz
06-18-2014, 07:05 AM
I keep hearing people saying the price argument, but the reality is that C4D is making record sales, quarter after quarter, year after year, despite the price. Apparently the price isn't such a deal-breaker for the market in general, and that's basically the same as saying most do not seem to consider it an issue. It's difficult to argue with demand, as it were.

I'm not really one for car analogies, but in the car market people definitely are willing to pay more for cars known to require less service, and retain value better -- the same arguments could be made for C4D over LW w.r.t. app stability.

I would add the following elements.

EASE OF USE: A novice can do decent looking with a low effort.
COMPATIBILITY WITH TARGET INDUSTRY STANDARDS: The tool communicate VERY well with the Adobe Toolsets
LOW TRAINING OVERHEAD: Would you prefer a car that you car drive of the lot or a car that takes weeks of training before you can drive it?
WYSIWYG: For designers this is a BIG DEAL. one you tell a user that you need to use a mess of nodes to get a simple result(Like changing colors of Instanced objects in LW ) you will lose them.

JohnMarchant
06-18-2014, 07:32 AM
Agreed, but price is a factor depending on who you are, the more money you have to spent then price is less of an issue. Im not sure about the user base stats for LW of C4D so cannot say who has more or less. I see LW used in allot of TV work with high turn around. The user base for 3DS Max is massive, but as has already been said on other forums, how many of these actually own Max. Many own software that they use on sporadically use but are very active on that softwares forum's.

Low training overhead, not sure what you mean by this, if its training material i see lots for LW some paid and much free, i see some for C4D. Ease of use, well LW has that in spades, WYSIWYG well that's a bit hit and miss with LW but hopefully things are improving.

I tried modeling in C4D and didn't like it at all could not get my head around it. Its the same with Houdini and some others, there strengths are in the VFX side of things but modelling is terrible. I hear this on AD and SideFX forums all the time.

I like the fact that C4D is coming on, i want as much diversity in software and companies, its what keeps price down and drives innovation. I hate the idea that one company has it all, because they become a monopoly and can do what they want, not always what the customer wants, i mean in innovation and pricing.

jweide, can you show me your links to the sales figures for C4D, like their user base figures i cannot find anything about their actual sales figures for 2012/2013.

C4D seems to be getting allot of serious 3d Plugin support, that is the one thing that would concern me if i was at LWG3D.

jasonwestmas
06-18-2014, 08:33 AM
I keep hearing people saying the price argument, but the reality is that C4D is making record sales, quarter after quarter, year after year, despite the price. Apparently the price isn't such a deal-breaker for the market in general, and that's basically the same as saying most do not seem to consider it an issue. It's difficult to argue with demand, as it were.

I'm not really one for car analogies, but in the car market people definitely are willing to pay more for cars known to require less service, and retain value better -- the same arguments could be made for C4D over LW w.r.t. app stability.


Personally I'd rather overpay for top quality than pay less for mediocrity. I'm probably not unique to that idea.

JohnMarchant
06-18-2014, 08:54 AM
Personally I'd rather overpay for top quality than pay less for mediocrity. I'm probably not unique to that idea.

Agreed to a point. As long as you are getting what you paid for that's fine.

jeric_synergy
06-18-2014, 09:03 AM
For designers this is a BIG DEAL. one you tell a user that you need to use a mess of nodes to get a simple result(Like changing colors of Instanced objects in LW ) you will lose them.

Absolutely, and this is a case where, it's a total fricking hack, but AN EASY FIX: LW3dG should be shipping Preset NODE NETWORKS and COMPOUND NODES.

They can bang those out in a very short time-- the dox will take FAR LONGER -- but once a set of generically useful node networks are determined, no user should ever have to make one again.


AFAICT, they don't give us any except implicitly in the CONTENT files. This is no good, it must be EXPLICIT: it has to be INSTALLED just like scripts and plugins are installed with the distro.

robertoortiz
06-18-2014, 09:04 AM
I would not consider LW a mediocre app. That is not fair to the dev tem.
The problem is that they are fighting a war in two fronts, updating the codebase+ adding new features.

jasonwestmas
06-18-2014, 09:07 AM
I would not consider LW a mediocre app. That is not fair to the dev tem.
The problem is that they are fighting a war in two fronts, updating the codebase+ adding new features.

np, wasn't implying that but I understand why it was interpreted that way. I tend to just buy the tools I need at any given time when it makes sense to do so. That includes not buying things if it is filled with tools that are redundant or overkill.

Surrealist.
06-18-2014, 10:51 AM
I would not consider LW a mediocre app.

I will agree with this when we see some new long awaited tech come into LightWave. Until then that is exactly how I would describe it. I really feel like what is around the corner has to be something new and different. It has to be. They can not release another version of LightWave as is with something piled on. From what I have heard here it is coming and that is a good thing. It may only be the beginning. But, I think it will be going in the right direction.

I mean it is like... enough with defending LightWave already. It is beyond time. We all know it. Actually I don't think it is productive anymore. Up to a point yes, the dev team, great job so far, koodoos, way to go and all of that. But they really need to get the message that complacency is not going to work here.

That is why I brought up those points from the presentation.

This is not to say they should be badgered or nagged. I am pretty sure they get it. But if there is any idea they creeps in that the community will accept another version of LightWave of old (because of comments on a thread like this). We really need to get behind the idea that no. That is not what is needed and wanted here.

I mean do you guys agree on this main point?

jasonwestmas
06-18-2014, 12:15 PM
well I wouldn't want to label Lightwave as "High-brow or Low-brow" :) but I think the fact is that many LW artists have been looking elsewhere to make up for Lightwaves inadequacies or to use something to backup lightwave. I know that in the past people were either too nice to say anything (and left silently) or the people who did badger constantly are not on these forums anymore. There are a few that are good at making constructive points and have not been banned.

" This is not to say they should be badgered or nagged. I am pretty sure they get it. But if there is any idea they creeps in that the community will accept another version of LightWave of old (because of comments on a thread like this). We really need to get behind the idea that no. That is not what is needed and wanted here."

I agree with this^ I wouldn't want to be known as someone who doesn't "pressure" for big improvements, I definitely fit into that category. I do pressure and make suggestions, it comes with the territory.

spherical
06-18-2014, 04:26 PM
LOW TRAINING OVERHEAD: Would you prefer a car that you car drive of the lot or a car that takes weeks of training before you can drive it?

Weeks of training before I could drive it:
122444
More weeks of training before I could drive it really fast; just like any 3D app I've worked in.

spherical
06-18-2014, 04:31 PM
LW3dG should be shipping Preset NODE NETWORKS and COMPOUND NODES.

They can bang those out in a very short time-- the dox will take FAR LONGER -- but once a set of generically useful node networks are determined, no user should ever have to make one again.

This is essentially what Materials are. They're a step in that direction. Yes, you can make a node network to produce Dielectric or Sigma but compiled into one node that has its own set of tweak inputs is a really great advancement. People just don't think of them in that regard.

jeric_synergy
06-18-2014, 04:39 PM
This is not to say they should be badgered or nagged.
What would I do with my evenings?

I am not so sanguine: there are horrible UI decisions made everyday across our fair land by programmers too convinced of their correctness to listen to guidance. I live where Micro$oft was born, for buddha's sake!!! Many of my family and friends have to deal with the pigheaded recalcitrance of programmers Every. Damn. Day.

They're like doctors: they mastered one difficult thing, and believe they are then fit to determine the proper course on many other things. Like User Interface design. The fact that their designs fit exactly one person is often beyond them.

PLUS, they are not animators. They don't know in their guts what its like to deal with production idiots. The fact that directors can't seem to grasp that animation is not jazz: improvising is not a good idea.

So, nagging and badgering are very much the order of the day, until such time as we have no complaints. (Would anyone here say "don't badger Microsoft"?)

cresshead
06-18-2014, 04:51 PM
I'm on 10.1 and will only look deeply at lightwave upgrade once i SEE that modelling tools/workflows have arrived into layout, I seriously need to see stuff happen like that before I evaluate any update and will be comparing to
Blender and Modo at the time...I've stayed with 701 for now..801 didn't look worth it for me either.

long time 3dsmax user feeling left out...so looking around.

Cinema 4d?...I keep looking but too spenny right now

jeric_synergy
06-18-2014, 05:09 PM
Three PLUS grand is a lot of moolah for a hobbiest like myself. (It's been a while since I got paid....)

erikals
06-18-2014, 07:36 PM
I'm on 10.1 and will only look deeply at lightwave upgrade once i SEE that modelling tools/workflows have arrived into layout, I seriously need to see stuff happen like that before I evaluate any update and will be comparing to
Blender and Modo at the time...I've stayed with 701 for now..801 didn't look worth it for me either...

totally get this, if it wasn't for the cheap upgrades NT offered me after the Core-Story i might very well have done the same thing...

it was a bit disappointing not to see it happening in LightWave 11, so really hoping to see some camera-modeling-tools in LightWave 12...

crossing fingers, and toes... :°

Emmanuel
06-20-2014, 03:21 AM
I just added C4D studio along with a Wacom Cintiq to my arsenal, and I have to say that C4D is well BEYOND just being good at motion graphics. Its an excellent, flxible modeler (has all the tools I used for modelling in Lw and more) it has outstanding animation possibilities, a variety of great render engines. I took a long and hard look when I set up my new studio about LW and alternatives, having been a LW user since the mid 90s, mostly doing game stuff. I tried Max, Maya, modo, Blender, C4D, and for my new orientation (motion graphics, visualisation etc), I chose Cinema4D along with Lightwave.
VPR in LW is better than the C4D implementazion, but what really pushed me to C4D is the ease of animation. Dennis nodes are excellent, but I am just unwilling to go through all the effort of learning their ins and outs, with loads of math nodes and stuff, its just not my kind of workflow, I like it visual. The second big factor for C4D is Vray. NOT because I consider it a better render engine than LWs, reqlly not, but becuse it helps me get more jobs by beeing compatible.the third big factor: unified environment. It makes things SO MUCH easier not to have to jump through two separate modules, and adds so much flexibility. I tried modo, too, but that is just not my thing as it also splits the Ui in different environments, like Imagine did back on the Amiga. Newtek needs to get their workflow overhauled in LightWave, as there is almost zero advantage to this ancient framework, it just asks for work arounds without real benefit.

Emmanuel
06-20-2014, 03:26 AM
I tried modeling in C4D and didn't like it at all could not get my head around it. Its the same with Houdini and some others, there strengths are in the VFX side of things but modelling is terrible. I hear this on AD and SideFX forums all the time.


Dunno why that is so for You, I started modeling C4D a week ago, and it has the same capabilities as LW plus some more. Where is dragging vertices, adding edgeloops and spinning edges hard to understand ? Its easy and intuitive.

spherical
06-20-2014, 01:16 PM
As before with the MODO thread, we're crossing the line into advertising/advocation territory.

Surrealist.
06-21-2014, 05:12 AM
Well yeah as soon as they allow these threads, that is the risk. I think they do pretty good about it.

My opinion is frankly you can hardly talk about another software without sounding like you are selling it on these boards. And the simple reason is LightWave is that far behind. So all you have to do is point out the things that LightWave does not do or is behind on as compared to another app - and those are not hard to find - and then you are selling the software.

And another problem is directly the fault of hard core LightWave users who do not know other apps or workflow or worse think they do. And then make false statements about the other app as compared to LightWave. This is usually how it starts. Then users of the other app stop by. And because the LightWave users is being very specific (and wrong) about the other app the only way to answer is to be very specific and correct them.

And then this becomes - you are selling the other app.

And like that Blender thread - becomes a tutorial on Blender, because basically people don't know what they are talking about.

My take on it is don't make statements about other apps you can not back up. If you do, expect to be called on it.

So, again, my view.

Either ban all threads on other software or allow open discussion. You can not have it that we can talk about other software as long as it is spiteful (all Autodesk apps) and full of misinformation (pretty much any app), and yet not allow artists to be artists and discuss specifics to correct spiteful remarks or to instruct on misinformation.

For me as an artist this is the responsible thing to do for other artists. Because I think that we are here as artists first. And LightWave and/or other software users second.

I think the mods do a pretty good job of it so far.

But regardless of my opinion I am a member here. And I will play by their rules if asked specifically. All the other times I use my own judgement. 'cause I ain't no body's foo... lol :D

Emmanuel
06-21-2014, 05:38 AM
The best thing out of this is that if Lightwave listens, they can figure out what they can improve.

cresshead
06-21-2014, 06:04 AM
Newtek just need to bring modelling tools/workflows to Lightwave Layout - it's not rocket science is it?

Sanchon
06-21-2014, 06:05 AM
Four words from me : LightWave = slowest progress in the industry. Still MANY things are archaic. I could never understand how difficult can be to implement sorting images by name in Image Editor or other pop-up lists for example ( still no scroll bar !!! ). Working with 50-100 imeges is a pain. The same archaic problems than 8 years ago and no progress at all.

We don't have modern, advanced plugins like other softwares because all major big companies don't support LightWave.

erikals
06-21-2014, 06:09 AM
Newtek just need to bring modelling tools/workflows to Lightwave Layout - it's not rocket science is it?

for Motion Graphics, yes.

Motion Graphics is so heavily independent on constant Modeler/Layout adjustments there's really no way around it.

it's not that Pro Motion Graphics can't be done in LightWave, it's just much more tedious...

so i hope they do something like this >



speculation mode on >

- Hydra will be implemented into Modeler (confirmed)
- Modeler will become a much faster system as of this (confirmed)
- Modeler will get camera view / timeline / ability to tweak Layout animation via cache >> working example here << (www.erikalstad.com/cgtemp/Modeler-Animation.gif)
- Upgrades / new functions to Layout will be continued temporarily, more Layout functions will be added into Modeler
- Modeler will get VPR as a start
- Far future, all Layout tools will slowly in time be put into Modeler
- Far future, the slow Layout will be abandoned
- LightWave is now only one application (the vastly improved Modeler)

raw-m
06-21-2014, 06:48 AM
What's your reading of "far future", erikals?

Surrealist.
06-21-2014, 07:32 AM
Hand up in the air.... oh oh oh I can answer that one.

5-10 years. Probably even optimistic.

Modo is nearing its 15th year.

So put that side by side. On the one hand you have an app that started as a modeler and gradually got developed. It did not have to service a user base that was using other old tools it had to drag around while also updating the current program to add new features while at the same time developing the new tools. On the other hand you have an app that now after failing to start over 6 years ago, is now starting again and having to do all of that extra work and "still keep the existing strengths (things they are stuck with) of LighWave" while infusing new technology. And you can do the math of low long it will take.

The positive side is they are likely cooking up some real cool stuff and it will infuse new life into LightWave. But the longer-range ideal plan (unification) is a long way off.

I think the users who have stuck around will be rewarded. The people wanting to see some major changes will have a while to wait.

erikals
06-21-2014, 10:21 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngSurrealist
Hand up in the air.... oh oh oh I can answer that one.
5-10 years. Probably even optimistic

agree, more than 5 years before we see unification for sure...
a small plus > they would want to improve on those features while doing it

small integration however, i think we'll see it in LightWave 12...
(integration = modeler tools in layout, or, layout tools in modeler)


http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngSurrealist
The positive side is they are likely cooking up some real cool stuff and it will infuse new life into LightWave. But the longer-range ideal plan (unification) is a long way off.

yes, from what i remember (from now deleted posts) they are working on new "stuff"
what that is, besides Hydra, i have no idea, and if i did, i wouldn't be allowed to tell it here...

jeric_synergy
06-21-2014, 10:42 AM
Spline and point-level shaping tools in Layout would make a lot of folks very happy.

+ W.mapping tools: all these require so much back-and-forth.... prime candidates.

Emmanuel
06-21-2014, 11:59 AM
I think the users who have stuck around will be rewarded. The people wanting to see some major changes will have a while to wait.

Rewarded ?

jwiede
06-21-2014, 05:32 PM
yes, from what i remember (from now deleted posts) they are working on new "stuff"
what that is, besides Hydra, i have no idea, and if i did, i wouldn't be allowed to tell it here...

IIRC, David's statement at the time was describing how he _wanted_ to proceed, not how they _actually were_ proceeding. How did you confirm it was actually underway?

djwaterman
06-21-2014, 06:57 PM
You're right, Hydra was developed specifically for Chronosculpt, David speculated that perhaps maybe it could be implemented into LW, but only after it being suggested to him by eager users milking the moment before that thread was shut down. Best assume no Hydra if one wishes to avoid disappointment. But who knows.

erikals
06-21-2014, 07:50 PM
i gathered more info than that, but i'll leave it for now, as NT really didn't want to spill beans.
though maybe i shouldn't have used the direct word > confirmed.
this is of course because of possible system problems, and the danger of speculations getting out of hand.

i'll leave it at this, they are also working on the Modeler / Layout tools problem (not sure about unification) and like i linked and quoted earlier in this thread, Rob states this in his LightWave Japan presentation.

again, i'll leave it at this... (sorry)

robertoortiz
06-22-2014, 06:40 AM
One thing I do wonder is if, of the LW developers they are working on the USABILITY issue that Lw has.
Saying that LW has a dual app problem is something that honestly is too abstract for the majority of the people interested in doing 3d right now.


But they DO UNDERSTAND whne BASIC THINGS DO NOT WORK. Things like:
Why this program that cannot READ their Logo (Vector Files)
Why I cant find all the features of what I have on screen on a single place? (A simple SINGLE and EXPANDABLE composition panel)
Why it is so hard to copy attributes from one ASSET to another?
Can I do some basic font animation with this thing?
Wait a minute, NewTek makes the tricaster right? Why Lightwave does not seem compatible with it? Hell most of the Tricaster users I know do their virtual sets IN PHOTOSHOP.

(Keep in mind that these are comments from NON LW users with little understanding of 3d)


These are BASIC things that an APP like C4d Does well.
I honestly feel that sometimes the developers of LW OVER THINK the issues with the app.


The principle behind the ORIGINAL development of LW is that it would be an powerful little app that would be easy to use and would get results fasts.
The app for the little guy, not the big studios.

jeric_synergy
06-22-2014, 07:19 AM
(Keep in mind that these are comments from NON LW users with little understanding of 3d)
In my book, comments from those I like to call "naive users" are quite valuable, i.e. "the least contaminated with the mindset of an application." Essentially it's "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Once you start to use an application there's a tendency to make excuses for it, AND you get the blowback from your fellow users, --Look at all the crap that Andrew had to put up with once he started pointing out the problems with Blender!

RebelHill
06-22-2014, 10:38 AM
In terms of those stuck in the mindset of a given application... certainly agree... However, such input from those without understanding of 3D itself are pretty much worthless, as they will often want, or expect something could, or should work a certain way... when it just plain CANT. Its like one of us coming up with some gret ideas about how we think safety procedures on an offshore oil rig should be structured. More of a hindrance than a help.

erikals
06-22-2014, 11:00 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngRebelHill
More of a hindrance than a help

so as i suggested, someone with the interest and knowledge should make some Pro LW Motion Graphics tutorials on how to make the best out of it

ain't gonna be me... :l
but someone / anyone, fell free to jump on the task...


feel free to ask Ryan, Bryan, Rebel, Alban... or, jump on the task yourself...

RebelHill
06-22-2014, 11:06 AM
Which I do and have done... and which gets only 2 kinds of response...

"Brilliant, do more"... and "Its too hard/complicated, I dont understand".

There's nothing that can be done to help the latter any further.

erikals
06-22-2014, 11:27 AM
sorry, but i was referring to Motion Graphics tutorials specifically...

but again, i know what LightWave can / cannot do, so personally i don't need it, but i assume some LightWave artists in this thread would (?)

just how big that LightWave market is though, no idea...

RebelHill
06-22-2014, 11:33 AM
Well... as pointed out already many times in this thread... LW is far from the ideal app for pro motion graphics work, so theres little point.

Hail
06-22-2014, 05:54 PM
sorry, but i was referring to Motion Graphics tutorials specifically...

but again, i know what LightWave can / cannot do, so personally i don't need it, but i assume some LightWave artists in this thread would (?)just how big that LightWave market is though, no idea...


Doing mograph in lw is very unnecessarily and highly complicated and for those of us who are not maths freaks, it is pure rocket science!:(
I disagree with the lack of lw mograph tutorials comment.
There's plenty of such on bryphil's youtube channel illustrating how to accomplish various mograph projects and they are all free of charge. I'm quiet sure many folks here are aware of them but why aren't they viral?
Because they are too technical and involving.. definitely way too complicated for the average lw artist. I mean we are artists and we are supposed to be making art, NOT tinkering with rocket science!:(
I have also tried to follow Bryphil's tutorials a couple of times but failed miserably because it was way too technical for my brain.
I'm not faltering Bryphil for this though, indeed I appreciate his efforts but doing such stuff just can't get any less complicated in lw.
This is so because lw lacks a simplified dedicated mograph system and that why c4d is more appealing and artist friendly.

erikals
06-22-2014, 06:14 PM
there are easier ways to go about Bryphi's methods, but they are not realtime, so yes, i see the challenge.

and i agree, unfortunately, that LightWave is far from the best package to do this in...

for CA and Modeling however, LightWave is good, and sometimes great, depending on your demands / challenges.


Motion Graphics isn't a Number 1, in LightWave... unfortunately...

cresshead
06-22-2014, 06:31 PM
no editable text = non starter for motion graphics work as a regular gig.
one off mo graph work sure..most apps can do something but mo graph day jobs need editable text

that also rules out modo by the way.

want to change wording?
want to change font from arial to times roman?
want to copy paste in new text and have all the bevels and surfacing update?
want to animate 'typing' on the text?
want to change font size?
want to change to bold text?
want to change from normal type to italics?
want to change line formatting form left to center or to right justify?

jeric_synergy
06-22-2014, 06:41 PM
that also rules out modo by the way.
At least we can take comfort in that. :dance:

erikals
06-22-2014, 06:48 PM
htTP://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png cresshead
that also rules out modo by the way.

want to change wording?
want to change font from arial to times roman?
want to copy paste in new text and have all the bevels and surfacing update?
want to animate 'typing' on the text?
want to change font size?
want to change to bold text?
want to change from normal type to italics?
want to change line formatting form left to center or to right justify?


http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png jeric_synergy
At least we can take comfort in that. :dance:

exactly, then what optional apps are you left with ?

SoftImage ? > Killed by AD
3DSMax ? > Abandoned by AD
Modo ?
Houdini ?
Maya ?

i feel some are painting a too much of a black / white image here...

RebelHill
06-22-2014, 06:49 PM
...they are too technical and involving.. definitely way too complicated for the average lw artist. I mean we are artists and we are supposed to be making art, NOT tinkering with rocket science

And we're not tinkering with rocket science... we're doing 3D graphics, which, like it or not... IS a technical art form.

jeric_synergy
06-22-2014, 07:40 PM
exactly, then what optional apps are you left with ?
Hmmm, good question: what ARE the alternatives to 3D mograph besides C4d? Zaxwerks?

3dworks
06-23-2014, 12:12 AM
not sure if this has been posted already, as i did not read the whole thread. but one reason why maxon and C4D is spreading more and more in the archviz area is because their render engine is being embedded in key applications, like they did in after effects for the motion graphics area. latest result of this strategy: http://www.graphisoft.com/archicad/archicad-18/rendering/. also because the company is owned by a large CAD group they have been targeting the visualization market already for years, but with archicad they now round up with another large and popular package in this area.

i wonder why LW's brilliant render engine was never marketed like this, in the end it would probably bring also lots customers which appreciate the quality and speed of a plugin to buy a seat of LW. for instance, i'm working for many years with autodessys's formz for all of my basic architectural modelling needs (and doing some refinement work in LW modeler and LWCAD plugins) but currently, apart of a very integrated implementation of maxwell plugin, this application would really need a high quality biased render engine with great GI as option. the existing renderzone engine (using the lightworks engine) is not comparable to LW in terms of speed and quality. FZ has already an excellent LWO export, and version 8 (currently open beta) is about to introduce subdivision surface modeling options in addition to the strong NURBS and facetted modeling, which have been always among the best on the market. a vray plugin has been announced by chaosgroup years ago, but did not appear until now. so why not try to think out of the box and implement LW's engine as a plugin? the CAD and archviz market are potentially a very large market...

my 2 eurocents

cheers

markus

Wickedpup
06-23-2014, 12:26 AM
exactly, then what optional apps are you left with ?
Deliberately leaving out Blender?

erikals
06-23-2014, 02:20 AM
no http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif feel free to add it... http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/arteest.gif

Wickedpup
06-24-2014, 03:00 AM
http://vimeo.com/98397383
Impressive. And probably doable in Lightwave (at least according to some here though asked to prove it they canīt be botherered :D ).... I can not even imagine how cumbersome that would be in comparison.

erikals
06-24-2014, 03:27 AM
(at least according to some here though asked to prove it they canīt be bothered)

show me $ ... :°

lightscape
06-24-2014, 05:06 AM
show me $ ... :°

As the client would say. Show me what you can do.
http://erikalstad.com/

Wickedpup
06-24-2014, 05:44 AM
show me $ ... :°
Yup, there's always that excuse.....

But like lightscape pointed out...would you hire yourself? And you want money up front? ;D

erikals
06-24-2014, 06:00 AM
As the client would say. Show me what you can do.
http://erikalstad.com/

https://www.youtube.com/user/erikalst

erikals
06-24-2014, 06:05 AM
But like lightscape pointed out...would you hire yourself? And you want money up front? ;D

no, that would just be stupid, i'd much rather be hired by others... (!)

Wickedpup
06-24-2014, 06:19 AM
It probably should have said "if you were me.." (would you hire yourself?) But I did not know you had to be spoon fed. Or was it just a clever way of avoiding the answer? :stumped:

Edit: and your Youtube link begs the question to be asked again.....from an employer POV would you hire yourself?

lightscape
06-24-2014, 07:14 AM
https://www.youtube.com/user/erikalst

I didn't see anything there but tests and a personal video documentation of lightwave tools.

erikals
06-24-2014, 08:50 AM
hm, so i have no other choice than to make those tutorials, do i... ?

jeric_synergy
06-24-2014, 08:56 AM
I think he wants to see a demo reel.

robertoortiz
06-24-2014, 09:37 AM
http://vimeo.com/98397383
Impressive. And probably doable in Lightwave (at least according to some here though asked to prove it they canīt be botherered :D ).... I can not even imagine how cumbersome that would be in comparison.

Newtek could sell this as a feature for the Tricaster. After all its text engine its quite old.
I would develop this with the Hydra Engine elements and use real time rendering, When it works just fine for the tricaster i would make a version of this toolset for next gen LW.

Oedo 808
06-24-2014, 10:19 AM
I can not even imagine how cumbersome that would be in comparison.

No need for imagination, just demonstrate why it would be cumbersome in comparison. If people don't know what they're missing, show them.

raw-m
06-28-2014, 07:34 AM
Just uploaded a quick mograph technique in LW:

https://vimeo.com/99409339

Oedo 808
06-28-2014, 11:08 AM
Excellent, looks very interesting, I'll give it a watch later, thanks :thumbsup:

Hail
06-28-2014, 01:11 PM
Wow! Cool technique raw-m, this is exactly the kind of tutorials lw needs.
Thanks for sharing:)

raw-m
06-29-2014, 07:18 AM
Glad you liked it! There's a lot of power in that Instance Generator, especially when you can recreate models using it, it's my favourite part of LW. If LW3dG can build a procedural modeling app tied into the Instance Generator then you'd have some killer Mograph features right there.

ivanze
06-30-2014, 12:10 PM
Nice tutorial, raw-m.

Maybe if someone makes a plugin that controls the power of Dpont's Dpkit with artist friendly settings, that could be a powerful way of doing motion graphics in an easy way.

jeric_synergy
06-30-2014, 12:31 PM
Nice tutorial, raw-m.
Maybe if someone makes a plugin that controls the power of Dpont's Dpkit with artist friendly settings, that could be a powerful way of doing motion graphics in an easy way.
Denis's offerings are RIPE for more verbose and layman-like documentation: I think that would be a great project for LightWIKI.

There's so much power there, but I certainly can't access it because for me the documentation is just too technical and dry, --I could use a bit more hand-holding and examples tightly bound to the reference (that is: going hunting online for illustration of how some of the inputs/outputs are put to practical use breaks my concentration to the point where I don't learn anything).

tyrot
11-06-2014, 02:07 AM
I keep thinking - could DPKIT would be more - ready to go /user friendly mograph preset machine.. ? Even a commercial module like MOGRAPH

- cuz - C4D is really giving me pain - with its simplicity .. I am eagerly waiting for LW 12 before committing - any time or money..

But i guess Commercial Version of Dennis' DPKIT can become something what you think?

erikals
11-06-2014, 02:19 AM
wonder if some commercial Motion Graphics LightWave Preset Scenes could've helped out...

but someone would have to make them...

tyrot
11-06-2014, 02:29 AM
yes but i still think there mustbe a bit easier ..plug2go ..or press2go version of dpkit... dMOKIT..

erikals
11-06-2014, 03:03 AM
yep, LightWave has a long way to go when it comes to Motion Graphics...
as well as Max / Maya / Modo / Blender...

but i think LightWave is way back there, as it lacks the proper tools, plus the Modeler / Layout workflow
we'll have to wait and see what LightWave 12 does with the M/L flow... crossing fingers.

Ztreem
11-06-2014, 05:03 AM
C4D is maybe better at motion graphics but it still lacks render preview like VPR and have no real lens distortion on cameras. Just to balance it out a little. :-)

Hail
11-06-2014, 05:55 AM
C4D blows LW away in every department except rendering but hey they've got VRAY.
I took a bite at it and haven't looked back since.
I hardly touch LW now.

tyrot
11-06-2014, 06:40 AM
think about we cannot import camera view into modeler for a simple modelling task.....they have 3d camera tracker... !!!!

anyways lets resist temptation and wait for next lw..

by the way we should start DPkit presets thread..and add there all presets - scene examples we can find ..

Darth Mole
11-06-2014, 07:44 AM
C4D blows LW away in every department except rendering but hey they've got VRAY.
I took a bit at it and I haven't looked back since.
I hardly touch LW now.

Same here. Also, C4D has Octane, Thea, Indigo, Maxwell, Corona, Arnold (soon) Renderman, Krakatoa, native Keyshot support... I think it has access to more renderers than pretty much any other app. To be honest, LW is still better for some modelling tasks, and C4D's UV tools aren't great, but overall I find I get a lot more done in less time with less hassle. LW is now gathering virtual dust on my hard drive, but if v12 ever appears (and is good), maybe it'll see sunlight again.

Darth Mole
11-06-2014, 08:06 AM
Also, I don't agree that C4D's success is just down to motion graphics. Aix Sponza does some utterly amazing things with it…

http://www.aixsponza.com/projects/dreadnought/

As do many other studios. And it's not why I bought the app either.

tyrot
11-06-2014, 09:20 AM
i m planing to use C4D as lightwave's layout:) i am addicted to modeler- lwcad etc

erikals
11-06-2014, 01:32 PM
Also, I don't agree that C4D's success is just down to motion graphics.
agree, certainly not, thought it's a big plus for them

jeric_synergy
11-06-2014, 09:34 PM
I think C4D's background in the Mac world really helped, and Macoids seem to like that style of presentation.

motivalex
11-07-2014, 06:28 AM
C4D convert here, but still use a lot of Lightwave. I'll wait to see what LW12 brings next year before deciding where my money goes.

erikals
11-07-2014, 06:33 AM
motivalex,

what's your occupation ? what do you use C4D for, and LW for... ? http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

motivalex
11-07-2014, 07:30 AM
motivalex,

what's your occupation ? what do you use C4D for, and LW for... ? http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

2D/3D Motion graphics and editor. A bit of everything from low budget tv commercials to motion graphic promo/training vids to 3D engineering/medical visualisations. Lightwave main strength is the quality speedy renderer. Cinema 4D renderer is slower in comparison and not as nice (but fine for plenty mo-graph type stuff), but does have plenty 3rd party renderers to choose from. The After Effects plugin, bullet, instances, flocking, spline control and few other enhancements in LW 11.x stopped me from dumping LW. Though so much still needs addressing including such basic things as the 1990s UI with panels open everywhere inc the old fashioned scene and graph editor. Modeller is archaic but for organic modelling, prefer it over C4D, but everything else C4D. So easy to setup and modify text based mo-graph animations in Cinema.

If I was brand new to the industry and choosing a new 3D app today, it would not be Lightwave based on its current rep I read in forums as a old fashioned but very capable app on its way out. I have a nostalgia feeling for LW as first started using it at Uni in 1997 (ver 5). So hoping LW 12 will be a mjor modernisation. If not I will walk from it and Cinema 4D will become my main app, with an eye on Modo.

AbnRanger
11-07-2014, 01:20 PM
I think another reason why it may be gaining more popularity is because Autodesk is losing its popularity. It's pricing (especially upgrade or lack of upgrade) policies has been turning off a lot of folks. 3ds Max has been seeing paltry feature releases the past 3yrs or so....and XSI users are likely to hate AD so much, that even Maya's recent features aren't enough to keep them onboard. LW has been declining in the marketplace for some time, so it makes more and more sense.

Surrealist.
11-07-2014, 03:12 PM
That may be so, but also there is the upside which is with all they are doing - not just Autodesk - software is coming more accessible. It is a trend. Moving away from high-priced one-time payments to biting off smaller - pay as you go - models and even tiered models for smaller business.

Although there may be a perception of this as unpopular based on some forum responses. I am not 100% sure that the numbers actually add up to less popular when you look at the overall effect.

Just another way to look at it.

If anything there is more competition which is driving companies to look more tightly at the bottom line and even try and win over a market that otherwise has been ignored because it was too small.

Blender has had a huge impact on this factor in my opinion.

For me I will always use the tools I think are best for the job all around and at the moment that is the AD products I currently own. I will likely pass on this year's subscription and wait to see what rentals have to offer as an alternative. I am not decided yet though.

Emmanuel
11-08-2014, 12:55 PM
Why Cinema has no Preview renderer is geyond me, it makes LW so much more useful, IMO. I use both, and in Cinema its really like "What, I need to hit the render button to actually see what I am doing !?" LW is miles ahead in that area. Not so in others :(

Surrealist.
11-08-2014, 01:11 PM
Not a C4D person, but is this what you are referring to?

http://vimeo.com/70875095

New in R15.

No really nothing about C4D so I am not sure what the limitations are but apparently this is part of the PBR:

http://www.maxon.net/products/cinema-4d-studio/advanced-rendering.html

Hail
11-08-2014, 04:49 PM
Why Cinema has no Preview renderer is geyond me, it makes LW so much more useful, IMO. I use both, and in Cinema its really like "What, I need to hit the render button to actually see what I am doing !?" LW is miles ahead in that area. Not so in others :(

Not sure what version of C4D you've got there but I'm sitting on r15 and it does have a previewer. It isn't as elegant as vpr but it is there and it works. I use it all the time.

Darth Mole
11-08-2014, 05:15 PM
It's one of the last big puzzle pieces missing form C4D. If I could have something as fast as VPR, it would make working in the app so much nicer - although there are a few alternatives, like Magic Preview or to work using Octane.

Using C4D as a layout app to LW's Modeler is a good combination.

Emmanuel
11-09-2014, 01:38 AM
Yes, it sure does that, but not nearly as quickly as LW, unless I am doing something wrong :D

Surrealist.
11-09-2014, 11:01 AM
The difference is VPR is not a PBR it is just using LW rendering, so it would depend on what you are throwing at it. So it is really not the same thing at all. Real time is the way to go though for veiwport preview anyway, not a render solution. That is where technology is headed, not preview renders. That is technology to actually see what you get for a render progressively, which is good, but far too slow for basic texture set ups and seeing things animated with these things applied.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZazwvYc5o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-3L9BOTEtw

jburford
11-09-2014, 12:36 PM
So I can use different software? Thanks! (rolling eyes).


Lol, you do every day! It's called Modeler and Layout, and Hub, and Nevermotion, and Messiah Studio or Rhiggit Pro and so on and so forth. As well as Z-Brush and or 3D Coat.

jburford
11-09-2014, 02:39 PM
The Price Factor

I keep on hearing here about how expensive C4D is compared to Lightwave.

The problem is though, more, what is Lightwave costing you, and what is more the actual comparison in regards to price for what you get, or what you need to nail into Lightwave to get it up to par or working for what you need.

Lightwave . . C4D Broadcast . . C4D Studio
Base Price . . .$1500 . . $1700 . . $3700
LWCAD . . .$ 330 . . not needed . . not needed
Cage Deformer . . .$ 200 . . not needed . . not needed
Lattice Deformer . . .$ 80 . . not needed . . not needed
Ineractive Boolean. . $ 60. . not needed . . not needed
3D Camera Tracker . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. included
3D Painting . . .$300-700 . . Body Paint . . Body Paint
CA Tools . . .$ 60 -300 . . not needed . . not needed

( with that, your LW is hitting around $2500 or so easily)

And even after you nail on your add-ons and workarounds, there is still things that you can not even reach. No Unified App, no tools like CV Artsmart, No Mograph, no Non-Destructive editing, No simple animating of most all modeling tools/functions, No Proper Undo, No Full modifying of the entire Interface like you want, and a whole lot more.

Time is also money! How many times through the forum (and years) has one seen questions from users, “How can I recreate this in LW”. And then all of the nice workarounds and ways of trying to get there in manners like the 90's. And then the fun part as simple as Text or Logos. . . the customer comes, looks at it and asks you change something simple like Fonts, or Bevels, or Logos and such. Lots of fun in LW, rebuild, redo..... in C4D, for the most part, simply make change... presto, done!

I also get a lot of files that can not even be opened in Lightwave without it hanging, taking 20 minutes or stop working. The same files loads normally in seconds or perhaps a minute in C4D. Want the tightest integration with Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro, Vizrt, Unity, simple C4D.

Other folks say how they can not live without LWCAD. The fact is that you do not neet LWCAD at all with C4D. The tools themselves handle what you need without problem, and most of the ArchViz Profiles, etc. are to grabbed for free or internal. Will show the link to Spline-Profile, but even that is not needed with the standard sweep nurbs, spline nurbs and so on. Or, lets talk about Deformations. . .. it goes on and on folks, but please tell us that in the end that Lightwave is cheaper. It is, in my eyes, simply not the case.

http://www.josefbsharah.net/products/spline-profile/

Just my two (Euro) Cents.

Ryan Roye
11-09-2014, 04:11 PM
The price argument only has so much weight; people tend to forget that LW users actually have the option of having their application grow with their needs rather than having to buy/upgrade everything with every upgrade. For example, I don't do a whole lot of modeling work, so LWCAD isn't something I need for the stuff clients ask me to do. Cage/lattice deformers aren't very useful to people who don't do a whole lot of animated content (there are free modeler and layout lattice plugins, by the way). C4D also does not have relative motion loading capabilities as far as i've seen, nor does it have an IKBooster equivalent for rig manipulation to my knowledge... perhaps I'm wrong about that?

This isn't to say that the argument isn't valid... if a user did need every single 3rd party tool out there C4D has major advantages; I just don't feel that's a typical senario for most Lightwave artists. Instead of paying for stuff you might not need with $1000 small incremental yearly upgrades, Lightwave users instead get to choose what they need for their projects and in some cases end up with a product that greatly exceeds C4D's value. Again, it isn't the same for everyone and I understand the counter-arguments, I just wanted to point out that they don't apply to everyone.

cresshead
11-09-2014, 04:22 PM
I'm looking at job postings, and it seems everyone has a hard-on for Cinema 4D. In fact, it's easier to get a job if you have C4D experience than if you have Maya, Houdini, LW, or Max experience (forget about XSI). What?!? What's going on here? I remember when C4D was an also-ran to LW. And I've used it! It's not awesome. The interface is constraining, obtrusive... kind of like Caligari would look like in the 21st century. It's being used primarily for motion graphics, but what is in their secret sauce? I mean, nearly every platform connects with After Effects now. So what's the deal? Is it their marketing? Education deals? Packaging? Is there a special surprise in the box? (That last one was for the Worley crew).

j

Cinema4d is okay for motion graphics work..it's what it does best.

but as an all rounder...not so sure about Cinema4d

except for motion graphics it's an "also ran" for everything else....the new packaging tool looks nice n all but not convinced it's worth more than 3ds max or maya...yet it's the same price with higher yearly subs...
the only HARd thing i have for it is it's a HARD SELL...not convinced!

Cageman
11-09-2014, 04:23 PM
The Price Factor

You make a lot of assumptions here as to what users need in order to get things done in LW. Even then, with all those things you listed as "needed", how is C4Ds renderengine holding up compared to LW? Those that wants to do other things than motiongraphics are using VRay, as far as I've gathered (I know that Blizzard Cinematics team use C4D for 2.5D Mattepaintings, rendering with Vray).

So.. the question I ask you, if you would need at least 10 renderlics for Vray, where would that end up in the total price for C4D Broadcast?

jburford
11-09-2014, 04:49 PM
You make a lot of assumptions here as to what users need in order to get things done in LW. Even then, with all those things you listed as "needed", how is C4Ds renderengine holding up compared to LW? Those that wants to do other things than motiongraphics are using VRay, as far as I've gathered (I know that Blizzard Cinematics team use C4D for 2.5D Mattepaintings, rendering with Vray).

So.. the question I ask you, if you would need at least 10 renderlics for Vray, where would that end up in the total price for C4D Broadcast?


No Cageman, I am not making a lot of assumptions here as to what users need in order to get things done in LW.

Through the past number of years post after post of users asking for changes to Lightwave and the main tools keeping them in LW, one of the number 1 for those using Modeler is LWCAD! People stating time after time that they will no longer model in LW or use it for Archviz without it!

Users begging through the years for active Deformers and finally praising things with the likes of http://www.3rdpowers.com/index_store.html Deformers....

Or am I wrong here?

Why has so many LW users left to go to Modo, C4D, Maya or otherwise? If these things are not missing in LW???


The Renderengine(s) hold up more than well up against LW and have come a hell of a long ways ahead. Many even stating pretty on par against Vray.

Where LW here has an advantage is Texturing at the moment and with Nodal Textures.

If they think they need Vray that is good for them but not actually needed in many instances, not even for Archviz.... But a good point here is . . . .

With C4D, it IS possible to add Vray directly into it and full compatibility with others Vray scenes and the Industry Standard. In LW, this option simply does not exist. And, even with Prime, one can add Vray for a total out of pocket of around $1200-$1400 with Vray included.



PS. I have been with Newtek Products since the LW Digitizer on the Amiga and Lightwave since LW 2.0 all through the ages including LW 11.x. So, have been around all the through ages, and the split of the developers way back then regarding direction for future LW and to Unify the App ( Birth of Modo ), the post years, the CORE Years, and thereafter, and have been around the forums through the ages. So I would think that I might have some background knowledge on what are using or wishing for.

jburford
11-09-2014, 04:51 PM
Cinema4d is okay for motion graphics work..it's what it does best.

but as an all rounder...not so sure about Cinema4d

except for motion graphics it's an "also ran" for everything else....the new packaging tool looks nice n all but not convinced it's worth more than 3ds max or maya...yet it's the same price with higher yearly subs...
the only HARd thing i have for it is it's a HARD SELL...not convinced!


I am sorry, but as an all rounder comment or the "also ran" is just rubbish in my eyes and probably the majority of the rest of the world. But is ok......believe in what you believe in!

Subs??

No one forces anyone to have a MSA...... You do not want it, you do not buy it. It is as simple as that!

Cageman
11-09-2014, 05:18 PM
No Cageman, I am not making a lot of assumptions here as to what users need in order to get things done in LW.

Yes you are. Because you didn't list any of the third party tools I use. So, you are not presenting any true value of what LW-users need in terms of "getting things done".

jburford
11-09-2014, 05:29 PM
Yes you are. Because you didn't list any of the third party tools I use. So, you are not presenting any true value of what LW-users need in terms of "getting things done".


I apploud you!

Then please, show me not your third party tools you use, please show me what other LW Users are using and needing in order to "get things done" if you want to put up with your own medicine.

Because, if your analogy applies the other way around, then if you can not show what I use or need, then, you also can not say that you know what other LW Users need. So, how then can you state the same against me?? Getting a little confused here.


Sorry Cageman, but you can not have it both ways!! :-)

Cageman
11-09-2014, 05:43 PM
What you did, with your post was to generalize about what tools LW-users need in order to make it function, and made a point that, in fact it LW is more expensive than C4D.

These are the two commercial plugins I use in LW:

Janus
exrTrader

The rest of the third party tools I use are free.

Ryan Roye
11-09-2014, 05:50 PM
Then please, show me not your third party tools you use...

How about tools native in LW that aren't native in C4D, like being able to rig things with game controllers?


http://youtu.be/hKG9BjudOHs

Another quick controller test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omfU9KG2-lM

There's quite a bit that you pay extra for to have access to in C4D. Even so, if the price fits the needs of production, there's little reason to fret over things regardless of the application we're talking about. Just buy the tools you need that get the job done. Simple as that.

jburford
11-09-2014, 05:59 PM
Sure Chazriker,

The Door Swings both ways. But even so, there are some Basic things that one would have expected a decade ago, let alone in this day and age, and that is a Proper Undo System....

For Game Controllers, since I am only needing to use 1 Controller at a time, I use Control4D, which for 1 Controller usage is Free. If I would need more bells and whistles, then I can do so.

http://www.kvbarnum.com/control4d/


Quite an extra Pay to do so in C4D? The full price of Control4D for more support is $60, but perhaps that is too much extra for some.


Want to run a list by list of what is missing or not from one or the other, as well as some simple basic thoughts or workflows? We can surely get the both communities involved to make a pretty good actual comparison, but not certain if Newtek would really like that to stand or be presented here.


LW has something great in VPR, and it's Texturing side of the house, will say that definatly, and more than that.... LW was my main and only love that I had for Decades...... was also why I ever got into 3D way back when.....

jburford
11-09-2014, 06:03 PM
What you did, with your post was to generalize about what tools LW-users need in order to make it function, and made a point that, in fact it LW is more expensive than C4D.

These are the two commercial plugins I use in LW:

Janus
exrTrader

The rest of the third party tools I use are free.



Thanks for pointing that out! I should have said simply, what many need to make it function for their needs. Do not remember saying cost more than C4D there, the point is/was, that the base price of what the typical LW users states, is not the general price when he adds in his other tools he adds to get it going for what he/she wants.

yes, forgot exrTrader, have that also many years in the LW Arsenal.

Cageman
11-09-2014, 06:04 PM
How about tools native in LW that aren't native in C4D, like being able to rig things with game controllers?


http://youtu.be/hKG9BjudOHs

Another quick controller test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omfU9KG2-lM

There's quite a bit that you pay extra for to have access to in C4D. Even so, if the price fits the needs of production, there's little reason to fret over things regardless of the application we're talking about. Just buy the tools you need that get the job done. Simple as that.

Yep. No matter what tool you use, there is no reason to belittle one over the other. If C4D works for someone, that is great. If LW works for someone else, that is great too. Depending of what one does, LW might become more/less expensive compared to C4D.

One of the reasons I like LW is because it consists of a forum that is extremely helpfull towards users. I am trying to contribute to that positive way of thinking; if there is a problem, lets solve it. If that solution consists of workarounds, then that's it. At least these workarounds can be documented so that LW3DG can have a chance to deal with them and make things smoother.

:)

jburford
11-09-2014, 06:07 PM
In regards to Kinect (seeing used in part of controller motion), can one use it directly within LW without the Nevronrmotion App?

Sorry, perhaps should just do a search here.

Ryan Roye
11-09-2014, 06:13 PM
In regards to Kinect (seeing used in part of controller motion), can one use it directly within LW without the Nevronrmotion App?

The kinect, no, that's Nevron only. However Virtual Studio works with any device that uses HID to interface with the computer. That PS2 controller demo uses a controller adapter I got for $4, and the controllers were from someone who was about to throw them away... good thing too, because PS2 controllers are quality hardware devices with pressure sensitive inputs.

However, I will say that the workflow for rigging devices to be used in Lightwave for animation are largely undocumented. I hope to change this is in the near future... possibly January/Febuary; I have a lot of fish to fry with training content gaps :)

Cageman
11-09-2014, 06:14 PM
In regards to Kinect (seeing used in part of controller motion), can one use it directly within LW without the Nevronrmotion App?

Sorry, perhaps should just do a search here.

Not sure. Probably not. Maybe if a third party have made a plugin?

jeric_synergy
11-09-2014, 07:37 PM
However, I will say that the workflow for rigging devices to be used in Lightwave for animation are largely undocumented.

::dryly:: Imagine if all of LightWave's existing features were documented: it'd look like a new app. :grumpy:

erikals
11-10-2014, 12:17 AM
________________________LightWave_______C4D Broadcast_____C4D Studio
Base Price______________$1500___________$1700__________ ___$3700
LWCAD_________________$330____________not needed________not needed
Cage Deformer._________$200____________not needed________not needed
Lattice Deformer.________$80_____________not needed________not needed
Ineractive Boolean.______$60_____________not needed________not needed
3D Camera Tracker_________________________________________in cluded
3D Painting_____________$500____________Body Paint_________Body Paint
CA Tools._______________$200____________not needed________not needed

( with that, your LW is hitting around $2500 or so easily)


this list leaves out dynamics, which only C4D Studio has, a big minus unfortunately

there's also a Big If here...
LWCAD, nice, but i'm fine with the free plugins only
Lattice Deformer, nice but i only need the Cage Deformer
Interactive Boolean, nice but don't need it, and in Layout i use DP Boolean
3D Camera Tracker, cool, but i need a high quality tracker, SynthEyes
3D Painting, many will use for example 3DCoat
CA Tools, not necessarily needed

i'd lean to Octane instead of Vray myself, or alternatively Kray.


Users begging through the years for active Deformers and finally praising things
with the likes of http://www.3rdpowers.com/index_store.html Deformers....
agree, i thought it was strange to see this not included in LightWave, still do.


Why has so many LW users left to go to Modo, C4D, Maya or otherwise? If these things
are not missing in LW???
many LightWaver's got quite aggravated by the Core failure.


to Unify the App
the Modeler / Layout split i believe have frustrated some LightWaver's as well.


but it's a good thing you bring it up jburford,
it's certainly important to ask oneself "what tool is right for you"


LightWave Base Price $1500
guess we should also add that LightWave can be bought half-price on occasions, $800 something i never see with C4D
also not to forget, the C4D upgrade price, $1000, which is higher than the LightWave upgrades, $700
(actually bit surprised by the LW upgrade price, thought it was lower, but in LW one can always skip an upgrade)

Emmanuel
11-10-2014, 01:57 AM
I have to say that I actually love Cinemas physical renderer. Everythings 50% post anyway :D But Maxon sure does add useful things for their target audience, and as everybody else, carry on some unsolved issues ( symmetry painting in Bodypaint is a nogo). I find it always fascinating how simple things that in LW are so natural, like symmetry modelling, are so strange in most other packages, but good for us that LW exists :D On the other hand, stuff like deformers and modifier stacks are a big,big problem in LW.

erikals
11-10-2014, 03:44 AM
( symmetry painting in Bodypaint is a nogo)
yeah, to me BP was always waay over priced... :/

it should've been less than 3DCoat, at $400

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

but i sure do hope LW3DG keeps a third eye on C4D, especially when it comes to "ease of use"

Emmanuel
11-10-2014, 04:13 AM
Not totally unrelated since Maxon offers those cool quick tips videos: whats Cody up to these days, I loved his minituts !

jburford
11-10-2014, 04:52 AM
Erikals,

I know, many LW users do not wish for a Unified Package at all, many LW Users do not need a functioning Undo at all. Many LW Users Do not need Parametric Objects that can stay in that state the entire Scene or Animation. Many LW Users Do not need Non-Destructive Workflows through and Through. Many LW Users do not need Rock Solid Stability and Ease of Use. Many LW Users do not need the tightest integration with Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro, VizRT, nor Unity.

Nor do most LW users want or need to Animate through all of the Workflow including all Modeling Actions instead of being seperated into another App. And loading large scenes is also not a wish of them without their App locking up. Having Bevel as an additional Deformer (Non-Destructive Beveling workflows) are also not something the LW Users would want. Nor are any other dozens of real time Deformers wished nor needed.

I understand that and hear them and you!

But to me, this is just something that I can not live without, and, to me, is worth the price. As said time and time before, Time is also Money. We all know this, and deep down and so do you. Using your Tool, you can be a master and a whiz and power through with LW. I know that, LW was my only 3D Tool for over 20 years! And again, the Customer comes in and wants some simple basic changes, and you and all other LW users are simply hosed..... (Without Non-Destructive Editing, even if only for Basic Things like Text and Fonts)

Maxon also offers specials from time to time like Newtek, but yes you are right, you will not find it as cheap as Lightwave. Still a Competitor Upgrade saves you around $500, and most grab the MSA for $650 as opposed paying the full price for an Upgrade and with that you know that another full level comes with that at the least, and are allowed to install on a second machine.

I was lucky around 2 years back, Maxon had a special offer to upgrade to the current version at around 45% off even if coming back from 4-5 versions back. (I had picked up an older 10 version through ebay and voila) And, for me hard to believe, after being only a LW Die Hard, was after about 3 months of working my way in, have probably only been in LW for around 4 hours in the past 2 years)


Anyways, Yes, we all know that C4D Costs more than LW.

And although most are my points above are not pertinent to you nor others, I ask you, if Newtek does not at least reach that above which does not interest anyone for it's more value, for say the next 2 Versions. . .. how many of the die hard LW'ers will be staying around after that?

Cheers and Best Wishes,

tyrot
11-10-2014, 05:26 AM
lets see version 12 first..then we will see. by the way im buying every affordable training for c4d..right now.. just to be prepared.. as a die hard modeler fan.. i may use c4d as a secondary layout i guess.. but what if blackmagic buys lightwave..oh boy:)

jburford
11-10-2014, 05:51 AM
lets see version 12 first..then we will see. by the way im buying every affordable training for c4d..right now.. just to be prepared.. as a die hard modeler fan.. i may use c4d as a secondary layout i guess.. but what if blackmagic buys lightwave..oh boy:)

tyrot, depending on the Country that you are in, if you have an MSA with Maxon, you might get a complete year subscription to Cineversity (like Genoma, or others) for free. Should be that way in the US as well as Germany here (at moment), regardless if you have the Prime Version or through the Studio Version ($200-600 for MSA) and not pay the $330 Subscription Fee to Cineversity. Might save you money instead of buying too much training.

And anyways, like Lightwave and Blender, there is also a ton of free training available all over.

Darth Mole
11-10-2014, 07:03 AM
Another great reason to try C4D: X-Particles 3

http://www.x-particles.com

Upcoming version looks stunning.

jeric_synergy
11-10-2014, 09:25 AM
maxon also offers specials from time to time like newtek, but yes you are right, you will not find it as cheap as lightwave. Still a competitor upgrade saves you around $500, and most grab the msa for $650 as opposed paying the full price for an upgrade and with that you know that another full level comes with that at the least, and are allowed to install on a second machine.
"msa"?

erikals
11-10-2014, 10:09 AM
The MAXON Service Agreement (MSA) is ideal for companies working with fixed budgets - no more surprises when planning next year's expenses. All upgrades are automatically sent to MSA customers immediately upon release. In addition to the most up-to-date software version, MSA participants also receive preferred technical support service, an annual subscription to Cineversity and expanded use of the software.

http://www.maxonshop.com/us/ps//1/code/MSA-SB/act/gpage


Another great reason to try C4D: X-Particles 3
http://www.x-particles.com

meh, not all that, i can do lots of it in LightWave and better in Houdini Indie. good for some though i guess...
but agree, once again, C4D or a plugin does it with ease, while in LightWave you have to know how...

lightscape
11-10-2014, 11:03 AM
I have been with Newtek Products since the LW Digitizer on the Amiga and Lightwave since LW 2.0 all through the ages including LW 11.x. So, have been around all the through ages

Geez if you've been using lightwave for so long why does your work look like this??? Sorry to be harsh but comments like yours with work like yours have no weight whatsover.

http://jburford.cgsociety.org/

125430

"Primarily a hobbiest with focus on Modelling, long term Lightwave user. Created a lot of models here and there over the years but mainly did not show any as texturing was a weakness of mine. Will work on trying to get a Porfolio going and push myself more to show some work although it would not compare to artists. Goal is for me to push myself, and some day get to the Dave School! "






The Price Factor

I keep on hearing here about how expensive C4D is compared to Lightwave.

The problem is though, more, what is Lightwave costing you, and what is more the actual comparison in regards to price for what you get, or what you need to nail into Lightwave to get it up to par or working for what you need.


Lightwave . . C4D Broadcast . . C4D Studio
Base Price . . .$1500 . . $1700 . . $3700
LWCAD . . .$ 330 . . not needed . . not needed
Cage Deformer . . .$ 200 . . not needed . . not needed
Lattice Deformer . . .$ 80 . . not needed . . not needed
Ineractive Boolean. . $ 60. . not needed . . not needed
3D Camera Tracker . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. included
3D Painting . . .$300-700 . . Body Paint . . Body Paint
CA Tools . . .$ 60 -300 . . not needed . . not needed

( with that, your LW is hitting around $2500 or so easily)

And even after you nail on your add-ons and workarounds, there is still things that you can not even reach.


You're focusing too much on software features and not learning the basics and fundamentals of art.
Lightwave is pretty capable on its own and you haven't reached the roadblock you speak of yet. People like Chris Jones, Richard Mans, Paul Smith have done amazing work with lightwave past and present and they probably have reached that wall but it takes a lot of time, exceptional talent and production experience to get there.

Surrealist.
11-10-2014, 12:33 PM
That's not really a fair view. I think it is perfectly fine to hold a conversation about the technical side of software without getting into who is the better artist and who has or has not reached limits or why. Beyond discussion you have to investigate things for yourself and make up your own mind and that takes months and years. Not something that listening to what people say or look at what they do and how great of an artist they are can accomplish. Chris Jones is a great example. Who in his right mind in any production environment where deadlines and other pressures were a factor would attempt the things he does in LightWave?. It is great work to be applauded, but it is not a testimony as to LightWave's realistic limits in a production environment in any way.

Ryan Roye
11-10-2014, 01:11 PM
Geez if you've been using lightwave for so long why does your work look like this??? Sorry to be harsh but comments like yours with work like yours have no weight whatsover.

Criticisms, suggestions and thoughts aren't things you can just pair with someone's profile. Jbuford has valid points; some of which I agree with. It's a bit of a low blow to start bringing up their personal work into the argument when it has very little to do with what is being discussed. Better to keep the discussion focused on the topic and more importantly, encourage open discussion that should not try to exclude people from the conversation.

bazsa73
11-10-2014, 01:44 PM
I see a guy next to me in the office using C4D and what I saw in this last few days were better particles and cool looking animated boolean
feature where the subtraction was displaced so it was growing up as a liquid. It looked fantastic and free from workarounds. But on the other hand
his rendering took ages to finish and must say the same applies to vray. I see a guy handling vray renders and it's so slow. Some folks come by
and they wonder how fast LW renders. So yes, the grass is always greener on the other side.

Pavlov
11-10-2014, 02:23 PM
simply put: Cinema is one od the best arranged, more powerful, more complete 3d tools out there.
Its architecture is extremely clean and powerful, not as maya but more than max. It's module-based so you buy what you need.
It's well mantained and developed, and overall you feel the robust-ness of anything inside it.
That's why everybody cares about it.

Paolo

Cageman
11-10-2014, 05:38 PM
Geez if you've been using lightwave for so long why does your work look like this??? Sorry to be harsh but comments like yours with work like yours have no weight whatsover.

That is one of the most disrespectfull and ugly ways to belittle someone in a thread where we are talking about the tech behind any type of artwork. :/

I agree with Surrealist.

EDIT: As artists/technical people I think the LW-forum, mostly, stands for good morale and ethics, and as a LW-user myself, I feel angry when comments like this slips through. We are better than this.

I think we should all be a little bit more like the CEO of Blizzard Entertainment.

http://kotaku.com/blizzard-ceo-addresses-gamergate-saga-in-everything-but-1656029155

jeric_synergy
11-10-2014, 08:19 PM
FWIW, my work looks like crap, but I think I manage to ask some interesting questions.

And occasionally answer some too.

tyrot
11-11-2014, 01:56 AM
actually personal insults are not gonna help us here..

My only wish is to STEAL some ideas from C4D and add to LW - as exactly they were doing years ago.

One big problem i noticed after watching couple of tutorials. IN lightwave - you cannot know RIGHT away what's going on in the Scene. C4D came up with a great TAG - Modifier (icon) style system there. Right away with just a glimpse to right corner you DO understand what is happening in the scene.

Another issue,

Our P-PROPERTIES panel. DOnt you think it is terribly old - really MATT come on -. C4D Scene editor + property panel is just great. Select something - right under that pane ...there are panels of each Tag or object.

I think C4D has nailed so many aspects - deformers and UI .. We must really feel no shame to copy that.. right away

Some issue that i read - many LW users here - using lightwave a decade.. Ok. So we FEEL LW's way. I think it will be very hard for someone who comes to 3D right now - right away jumps into LW - when there is C4D over there - with its insane easy to use feature- and UI... Only price can be attractive but - people does not want to hear workarounds - for newcomers - the last thing is they want workaround..

Lets say i am watching Bryphi tutorials - he is saying POWER is there - ..yes power is there but it needs 3-4 hours to expose that power - with insane Nodal connections. I mean who would care about POWER if spend hours for it.

We can turn this thread into VERY constructive feedback - especially for MATT who has a great sense of style ...for UIs ..

I still say - NODAL displacement networks must be easily converted to button-Envelope based plugins. At least - ONLY those who want dive in node should dive in.

Darth Mole
11-11-2014, 03:31 AM
I had confirmation today that LWCAD is being ported to 3ds max, and C4D is also on their list.

Lewis
11-11-2014, 03:41 AM
I had confirmation today that LWCAD is being ported to 3ds max, and C4D is also on their list.

LWCAD for MAX has been available/in progress for quite some time
http://www.futurarch.com/

tyrot
11-11-2014, 04:22 AM
I still think - Modeler's layer system is unbeatable ...

Lewis
11-11-2014, 04:33 AM
I still think - Modeler's layer system is unbeatable ...

Unbeatable for what ? I have tons of missing features in that modeler layers panel/system in general (NATIVE).

- not being able to lock any layer(s)
- no way to re-arrange order them with keeping names (in list mode)
- selecting is slow (one by one, no drag paint or sel range)
- the more layers you have the slower it gets (1000 polys split across 1000 layers is much much slower than 1000 polys into single layer)
- scroll bar is too thick/fat
- no way to select BG layers only (it has to have one FG layer selected)

So although i use them all the time they are very very limited and not updated for very long time :(.

erikals
11-11-2014, 05:34 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngtyrot
Lets say i am watching Bryphi tutorials - he is saying POWER is there - ..yes power is there but it needs 3-4 hours to expose that power - with insane Nodal connections. I mean who would care about POWER if spend hours for it.
well, yes / no... look at Houdini for example, horrible to control, but lots of control. LightWave, lots of control, but so-so to manage.
C4D has done the right thing in making Motion Graphics presentations easy to do, by making "presets with adjustable settings"
this is great for fast broadcast smack-ups.

a somewhat similar idea has actually been made by LightWavers several times before,
called > Presets for Everything
but with Core scenario i'm sure NT had to prioritize differently.
it's time though to learn from C4D, and do something similar in LightWave.


http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngLewis
Unbeatable for what ?

for organic poly modeling LightWave is unbeatable. for tech modeling LightWave is great.

not saying it doesn't have lacks, but what app doesn't. for sure all the other apps have major modeling lack as well.

this said, i'm sure we'll see further great Modeler updates soon.

and yep, hope to see at least the 4- first points addressed.

Lewis
11-11-2014, 05:53 AM
this said, i'm sure we'll see further great Modeler updates soon.

and yep, hope to see at least the 4- first points addressed.

Why you are so sure? You have some inside info to share or confirm that :)?
So far their track record doesn't suggest regular modleign updates or some great interest in modeling in general and let alone big modeling paradigm (unification/stack/history/parametric) change which it's desperately needed.

"Soon" is thing I'm listening for about decade already in LW modeling developing and guess what, that soon still didn't come so, go figure.......

erikals
11-11-2014, 06:13 AM
mjeah, well, soon, as in next LW release, but no, no guarantees, and yep, i'll be disappointed too if there is nothing.

tyrot
11-11-2014, 06:14 AM
unbeatable - as a SYSTEM... Lewis. as a design work. Even for a long time with no - serious update - it is still unbeatable as a modeling app. I have seen couple of C4D modeling tuts. ..they are really having a hard time there .. Ok parametric bla bla .ok i get that but...come on :)

All the glory of C4D is lying at their deforming - and lets say -layout- features.

of course - needs serious update for many many areas. But i would never go and try to model somewhere else.

As a marketing focus, partnership, feature presentations etc.. I just have nothing but respect to their current status.

Also Erikals you mentioned about broadcast - but those effects are really so well thought and flexible and it can be used for ANY work.

jeric_synergy
11-11-2014, 10:42 AM
what tyrot said above: 'dissecting' a complicated LW scene is EXTREMELY challenging because there is no centralized location to examine all the dependencies.

Surrealist.
11-11-2014, 11:42 AM
Regarding the Layers in Modeler I am not sure how you can say it is unbeatable if you don't compare it directly to other options. Unbeatable exactly how and in what way? And compared to what?

And maybe this is a trick statement/question, because no other app I am aware of that allows (or rather limits) you to use layers only on the mesh data. And this is part of the problem with sequestering your modeling into another app. Layers, really ought to also be something you use in Layout, and available on the object level. And this is just a tip of the iceberg of the long list of limitations and drawbacks to having the apps split.

motivalex
11-11-2014, 12:11 PM
Modelers layers system was good in 1997. Interface design has moved on though.

tyrot
11-11-2014, 02:26 PM
Richard i do believe - i have never seen any other software ( i may be very wrong on that) you can put one layer to foreground and dozens of layers background - and switch back and forth - and control hundreds of versions of your object.

It is JUST an amazing piece of software. Of course some new things are missing ..but for me - ONE thing is a big headache - that i CANNOT have any camera view - for accurate modeling in modeler. It is simply a big loss. UV could have a separate window..

and many others..

But my concern is - modeler WONT have any update - since IKEDA's departure i do not think nobody will really do something about it.

Remember IKEDA was complaining something like this if i remember correctly "Modeler lost its architect..so it is so hard to change its core - " Like he was talking Modeler lost his father - actually now it has lost its step father too.
So now - UNCLE VICTOR :) is trying to save it .. he did something way better than its dads:)

My basic (could be idiotic) assumption is that modeler WONT see any love - or attention ...so PLEASE focus on LAYOUT ...

Lewis
11-11-2014, 02:34 PM
Richard i do believe - i have never seen any other software ( i may be very wrong on that) you can put one layer to foreground and dozens of layers background - and switch back and forth - and control hundreds of versions of your object.

just a quick answer - modo (plus there is somo stuff on layers what misses in LW).

you also can make as much as you want layers in MAX and turn on/off visibility for layers, lock them, isolate them , have multiple Foreground layers ON while working just at one etc. etc...

tyrot
11-11-2014, 02:44 PM
ok modo is out of question:)

lewis - are you modeling using max ? honestly?

Lewis
11-11-2014, 02:46 PM
ok modo is out of question:)

lewis - are you modeling using max ? honestly?

Some stuff yes, not much but some stuff what's not even possible to do in LWM i have to do in MAX.

Surrealist.
11-11-2014, 04:17 PM
Richard i do believe - i have never seen any other software ( i may be very wrong on that) you can put one layer to foreground and dozens of layers background - and switch back and forth - and control hundreds of versions of your object.

Well first: What is a background layer in Modeler? It is simply a wire frame reference of what is there. That's it. Then there are operations that you use the background layer for. But they are simply there because there are layers, which are sort of pseudo object containers and that's it. The operations that use BG layers could be applied in other more modern ways. So it is not an advantage really. It is just the way things work in Modeler. And yes for some things is it very quick and easy. Copy Paste etc.

So other than that what are you really getting? Not much. You have the very quick ability to switch between wire frame and solid on a per-object-layer level. With the limitation of the wire frame versions are not also editable. Which means you have no control on an object by object level of mesh display. To get that you have to be in Layout. And which brings us around to another taboo subject of integration...but this is unavoidable since as soon as you dissect what you actually get in Modeler Layers compared to other apps you can quickly see that it is more fraught with limitation than anything.

One of the limitations is not being able to edit an object and see the BG object in shaded view. This is real useful for modeling and I really found myself needing this in Modeler as I got more advanced into Modeling. It is taken care of in an integrated system automatically.


As Lewis mentioned you can not copy an "Object" from one layer to another an keep the name. This is because they are not really objects in the truest sense. They are pseudo object containers. They are separators of mesh data and really they are not even layers in the truest sense because you can not even re-arrange them as you can with other layer systems. This is just one of the many little things that can add up to more work. The pseudo object containers then become real object containers in Layout.

Now comparatively to an integrated system you have true object containers. And a true layer system. They are separate. And they should be. Blender's layers as far as naming and display are the worst there is. No way to name and change display level per layer. But in Maya and XSI you have much more control over layer visibility, naming and so on. You can even choose that a layer not be selectable and weather or not a layer can be rendered or not.

In an integrated system objects and layers being separate gives you all of the control you need. You can perform operations on objects in or out of a layer. Have virtually unlimited layers. Control on visibility of both a layer and or an object and also be able to edit either and switch back and forth with a click. LightWave's system here is a slight advantage in that it is very easy to toggle layers. But still limited.

Additionally mesh data in Blender, XSI and Maya are all accessible separately. Blender has probably got an edge here. Just in terms of simplicity in being able to swap out mesh data to another object container. In LightWave you do that in Modeler. So Modeler layers are really just mesh swapping, leaving the container names in place. And this is the basic limitation.

I don't use 3DMax or C4D. So I can not comment.

I hope this information helps shed light on what is available. This is what LightWave really needs to be up to speed with more versatile and robust workflows that are currently available.