PDA

View Full Version : I just want simple lightwave



rednova
08-21-2014, 02:30 PM
Hi:

All I want for next lightwave, is just to be simple to use, and enable me to model and animate, very simple.

MarcusM
08-21-2014, 04:50 PM
This is not apple product ;p

erikals
08-21-2014, 05:16 PM
LightWave might be quirky, but it's actually about the simplest 3D app out there...

but hey, things could always be simpler...

...1 sec, finding my magic wand...



http://www.sclero.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/fairy.gif

jasonwestmas
08-21-2014, 07:42 PM
Ummm, I thought 9.6 plus fprime plus G2 made things super simple and "nice" quality. I guess my first question is what isn't simple in lightwave? Nodes? Don't use em. 3 different scene editors? Just use one.

The hair system? Well no hair system is simple and yields good results.

Kaptive
08-21-2014, 08:55 PM
123824
(unofficial preview shot of LW12!)

Well, alright, maybe not. This is the version that my clients would like me to have. :)

shrox
08-21-2014, 09:05 PM
123824
(unofficial preview shot of LW12!)

Well, alright, maybe not. This is the version that my clients would like me to have. :)

Can you add an "oh yeah that's sweet" control, and make everything go to 11.

Kaptive
08-21-2014, 09:43 PM
123825

Version 12.1... I think the pop up menu might be a bit too much of a bottleneck in workflow though.

:)

shrox
08-21-2014, 09:56 PM
123825

Version 12.1... I think the pop up menu might be a bit too much of a bottleneck in workflow though.

:)

Excellent!

Ernest
08-21-2014, 11:20 PM
Version 12.1... I think the pop up menu might be a bit too much of a bottleneck in workflow though.

:)
HaHa
It's so strange. I don't know anyone who has actually seen the Spinal Tap movie but everyone knows that scene.

shrox
08-21-2014, 11:25 PM
HaHa
It's so strange. I don't know anyone who has actually seen the Spinal Tap movie but everyone knows that scene.

Not only have I seen Spinal Tap, I have lived it.

OnlineRender
08-22-2014, 06:40 PM
more advanced than Core :P ... but you did forget "MAKE ANIMATION AWESOME"

Davewriter
08-22-2014, 07:24 PM
more advanced than Core :P ... but you did forget "MAKE ANIMATION AWESOME"

That was the one... I'm sold! I've got my credit card ready!

Surrealist.
08-23-2014, 01:10 AM
Actually kind of an interesting topic.

I think it is intrinsically impossible to make any 3D program simple. There are a lot of tools that can be made simpler to use. But any tool that is worth using at a professional level is going to have flexibility/options and control.

So in the case of LightWave it probably has the error of not enough options in some of the key tools professionals need. So therefore - too simple in some areas.

I have been learning the hard way lately that 3D is about 5 percent being a good artist and 95 percent being a good technician.

So you have to be a great artist, but 100 percent of that talent only fits into 5 percent of the overall work involved in making 3D. There are literally thousands of little technical issues that can trip you up and some completely destroy your efforts if not adhered to. And this is not just about the simple function of a tool, but the understanding and knowledge of workflows which are separate from the tools. And for which the tools need to be made flexible enough to be used in a number of different situations and workflows.

This is why it is an absolute must to have a technical director. And if you are not on a team, you must also be your own technical director. And a technical director needs options which necessitates complexity and in some cases customization. Both cases require robust tools with options.

spherical
08-23-2014, 03:06 AM
I have been learning the hard way lately that 3D is about 5 percent being a good artist and 95 percent being a good technician.

So you have to be a great artist, but 100 percent of that talent only fits into 5 percent of the overall work involved in making 3D.

Unfortunately, not being a great artist and not being a good technician is largely obscured by being able to push a bunch of buttons, wait, change some stuff, push a bunch of buttons, wait ...ad infinitum... and churn out that which is acceptable to the masses (because it's cheap); thereby putting great artists and good technicians out of work—primarily because the buying public, supposed professionals included, aren't knowledgeable enough to be selective and recognize the output for what it is.

Surrealist.
08-23-2014, 05:51 AM
Interesting perspective. There is no single thing in any of the production pipelines I am aware of (or used) that only require what you have described. I mean sure you can find fun things that can be all automatic for quick simple effects, and there are processes that can be automated within a production pipeline. But a production pipeline and 3D/2D software requires things that all work together for a final output and that requires options and a knowledgeable artists and technicians. And it is extremely complex. And all of the work - cheap or not - requires all of these things to be working. I am not aware of any market for what you have described. Though I am always looking for ways to speed the process. dDo is a great example. But it still requires an entire pipeline to work and it requires a good artistic eye as well as being a technician at each step of the way or the entire thing breaks down. Even the modeling which must be in place before applying these "automatic" filters is rife with dozens of little points one has to have down to second nature in order for the rest of the work to fall into place to a final product. And to the point, 3D software has to support all of these things. And animation is one area that is even more complex and why, LW with is very limited options for rigging and so on is behind in that regard.

jasonwestmas
08-23-2014, 10:00 AM
I have been learning the hard way lately that 3D is about 5 percent being a good artist and 95 percent being a good technician.

So you have to be a great artist, but 100 percent of that talent only fits into 5 percent of the overall work involved in making 3D. There are literally thousands of little technical issues that can trip you up and some completely destroy your efforts if not adhered to. And this is not just about the simple function of a tool, but the understanding and knowledge of workflows which are separate from the tools. And for which the tools need to be made flexible enough to be used in a number of different situations and workflows.

This is why it is an absolute must to have a technical director. And if you are not on a team, you must also be your own technical director. And a technical director needs options which necessitates complexity and in some cases customization. Both cases require robust tools with options.

Yeah I tend to agree. Just to ramble about a bit. I would change "Great Artist" to "Great Concept Artist/Designer" (Perhaps Previz people). Concept art is the heart of good design and it is pre-production but it's not necessarily only 5% of the pipeline. The amount of actual design involved depends on various budgets.

The other parts of the pipeline tend to fall into highly technical "Craftsmen" (not designers) who can translate a nice design (given to them), replicate it and lay it out in 3 dimensions so that it looks pleasing in a camera. I would probably say that television and film work tends to fall more heavily in the technical translator/ craftsman realm yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to. The reason why it is that way is most likely because we humans don't want to spend the time concepting new ideas? We usually just pick out something that has already been popular and we simply alter it a bit because that is faster and cheaper I guess.

hazmat777
08-23-2014, 10:17 AM
jasonwestmas "We usually just pick out something that has already been popular and we simply alter it a bit because that is faster and cheaper I guess."

Point taken, but I would think that it depends on the scope of the project. Are we talking about taking a relatively famous piece of music and putting CA to it or a pharmaceutical ad where you can just grab a DAZ model and throw some HV's around?

jasonwestmas
08-23-2014, 10:21 AM
jasonwestmas "We usually just pick out something that has already been popular and we simply alter it a bit because that is faster and cheaper I guess."

Point taken, but I would think that it depends on the scope of the project. Are we talking about taking a relatively famous piece of music and putting CA to it or a pharmaceutical ad where you can just grab a DAZ model and throw some HV's around?

Yeah that was actually one of the points I was trying to make. ) Overall scope of the project = "Various Budgets".

Don't get me wrong, good creative design doesn't mean starting from scratch in all cases. Kit bashing is still a ligit way to start a design.

Surrealist.
08-23-2014, 11:15 AM
Yeah I tend to agree. Just to ramble about a bit. I would change "Great Artist" to "Great Concept Artist/Designer" (Perhaps Previz people). Concept art is the heart of good design and it is pre-production but it's not necessarily only 5% of the pipeline. The amount of actual design involved depends on various budgets.

The other parts of the pipeline tend to fall into highly technical "Craftsmen" (not designers) who can translate a nice design (given to them), replicate it and lay it out in 3 dimensions so that it looks pleasing in a camera. I would probably say that television and film work tends to fall more heavily in the technical translator/ craftsman realm yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to. The reason why it is that way is most likely because we humans don't want to spend the time concepting new ideas? We usually just pick out something that has already been popular and we simply alter it a bit because that is faster and cheaper I guess.

When I say great artist I mean that in the most broadest sense. Be that adopting concept art as a craftsman or any other aspect of the creative pipeline be it modeling painting and texturing or whatever. A person has to be a great artist to also be a great craftsman so I see it as one in the same. But that one has also to be a technician, and adhere to technical factors is where even the great craftsmen can break down, and do. And it brings a pipeline to a screeching halt. I have seen this happen. And the why is because the craftsman/artist does not understand the technical points. A model looks great, but when it is closely inspected it is crap. Not because it was not beautiful, but because it was technically unusable in the next phase of production. And in some cases this can render the creative work as partially wasted time and effort. In extreme cases have to be done again completely.

How this relates to the topic is that if you don't have the robust tools on a technical level that give you the options you need it can gradually start to break down the pipeline as you search for workaround after workaround and paint yourself in a technical corner.

jasonwestmas
08-23-2014, 11:23 AM
All true to some degree but a great concept artist with little technical ability is just as useful as a technically minded craftsman. It dpends on the project and size of your team. The craftsman who I've seen take technically unusable concepts in production (Although conceptually beautiful) and turn them into something completely tangible/useful in a 3d production. So no, a great concept artist/ designer doesn't necessarily need to be proficient in structural preparation for a software program. It depends on the context in which you are speaking.

jasonwestmas
08-23-2014, 11:38 AM
On the other side of the coin I'm sure we have all witnessed conceptually boring or cliche work that has been created in a technically perfect way. That doesn't mean software needs to be more simple or more complex in order to be more creative.

Surrealist.
08-23-2014, 12:59 PM
Oh Yeah... sorry... I totally agree with those points. I was not really talking about concepts. Just under the assumption that that has all been done, the technical factors that enter in once you start to send an asset down the pipeline. But yeah, good points indeed.

spherical
08-23-2014, 04:25 PM
Interesting perspective. There is no single thing in any of the production pipelines I am aware of (or used) that only require what you have described.

When did this get limited to "pipelines"? Wasn't talking in that aspect; nor am I sure where being "aware of any market for what I describe" fits in at all. Diluting the point. However, I do agree with all of the pipeline-specific points that you and Jason and others have cited. Very valid and on the mark.

The point is, if you are a good artist your evaluation of the work being produced is far less accommodating. That which you accept as being finished is of a higher quality than someone who doesn't have the talent or training to even realize that there is something that could stand improvement. OR, they do see it but don't give a ****.

On the technical side, (this would essentially be a one-person pipeline—to bring this into that side of the conversation, if you will) the accomplished artist having the better technical knowledge and training will be better able to produce a superior image that does fit within their own realm of acceptability.

However, and this is the overall point I was trying to make, software today has enabled hordes of people who have no artistic talent, no art training, no technical ability, no technical education to produce images that are acceptable to a non-discerning market. I have seen some renders that are hideously wrong on the covers of very well known magazines. Why? Because the art director either didn't care or didn't see/know that the work was crap. It looked slick and that's all that mattered to them. So, the uneducated, untalented can sit and push buttons until something kewl looking comes out, right or wrong, and there is a significant market for it. Why? Because these individuals usually work cheap and the buyers' standards are low.

To put it another way, to be an artist in traditional media, one must have the ability, training and experience required in order to wield a brush and place the colors where they need to go in the shape and nuance that they need to be to create the illusion. Handling the brush is the technical side of traditional media. Far different from digital, either in 3D applications or Ps. There's no undo, no Save As, no gradients, no paint bucket, no layer masks, and therefore more difficult. One tends to make careful decisions because of this. If you can't draw or paint with your hands, you choose another vocation.

Now, that barrier is removed. Sometimes, that is a good thing. People who don't have the ability can now create images, where previously they couldn't. This is good IF they have a sense of taste with which to make cogent decisions on what is and isn't acceptable as a finished image. That essential component lacking, you get mostly junk.

We got into a similar discussion with a fairly well known space artist some years back. He had just found 3D, working mostly in Terragen. People were complementing on how great his "paintings" had become. His command of light and shadow and attention to fine details had grown significantly. We knew just from looking exactly what it was. Being a long time traditional media artist, his assessment of the images was pretty well honed; coming from that background. But his output had grown almost exponentially; while becoming more detailed and rich. In traditional media, those two are diametrically opposed. He resisted the idea that TG removed a lot of the work involved in creating an image. I mean, come on, after making the specifications the box "paints" while you sleep. If the color doesn't look quite right, the star needs to be moved a few degrees, a mountain or crater removed or added, do it, hit Go and walk away.

Weeks later, he finally conceded: "Well, it's only easier physically." Exactly right.

To cite an example, Smithsonian Magazine published a cover of the Stardust spacecraft that was a study in "What's Wrong With This Picture?". The SC was rotated roughly 90° from the mission profile to a sexy angle, which created a lot of delicious reflections in glossy surfaces but rendered, not to make a pun, the image completely wrong in so many ways. The camera could not see the comet, the low, medium and high gain antennae were not aimed at Earth on the opposite side of the Solar System—so there would be no data flowing, but that didn't really matter because THERE WAS NO POWER. The solar arrays were facing parallel to the plane of the Solar System, looking out at the dim stars; only edge-lit by the Sun. Astounding. Pretty image but utter Bu****it and certainly not a way to credibly educate the readership.

So, as you say, one must have both in order to be good. Or, be in a team where both exist within an aggregate of individuals. On the other side of the coin, there are many, many artist who will not make the leap to 3D; primarily because of the steep technical aspect of it. They are fine with Ps but the intensity of all of the complex settings required by 3D applications scares the crap out of them.

jasonwestmas
08-23-2014, 04:42 PM
I would say. . . yeah absolutely, one must be physically accurate in his or her renderings if the subject matter is teaching or communicating something based on physically plausable stuff. Abstract or stylistic nonsense is also widely acceptable to many for its strictly aesthetic and visually formal qualities. More of an emotional sense than a physical sense. Both forms of expression are easily palatable when looked at in the correct "universe" so to speak.

spherical
08-23-2014, 09:09 PM
Agreed. I've been working on a style of NPR that is more along the lines of expressionism; just to see where it goes.

Surrealist.
08-24-2014, 01:13 AM
When did this get limited to "pipelines"? Wasn't talking in that aspect; nor am I sure where being "aware of any market for what I describe" fits in at all. Diluting the point.

When? When I made that post. That's when. That was what I was talking about. You quoted me to make a point not the other way around. So I kind of had the floor - if you will - on that particular subject.

You are talking about broad subject matter of art. Have fun with it. :)

Very heated subject I have lost interest in over the years.

jasonwestmas
08-24-2014, 08:50 AM
Very heated subject I have lost interest in over the years.

I still find this stuff interesting even though there is no end to it and we all sound like robots communicating with text. :D

Surrealist.
08-24-2014, 09:11 AM
It would be more fun to just copy and paste from another previous thread. Then you can pretend to be serious about it and when someone counters you, just go to that part of the previous thread where the same argument was made, copy and paste the best counterpoint to that counterpoint. And you could probably keep the discussion going for months and never say anything new.

A new kind of troll. :D

jasonwestmas
08-24-2014, 10:59 AM
It would be more fun to just copy and paste from another previous thread. Then you can pretend to be serious about it and when someone counters you, just go to that part of the previous thread where the same argument was made, copy and paste the best counterpoint to that counterpoint. And you could probably keep the discussion going for months and never say anything new.

A new kind of troll. :D

ROTFL! I'm waaaaay too lazy for that.

Surrealist.
08-24-2014, 12:45 PM
Me too.... But it sounds like more fun than regurgitation. :D

ncr100
08-24-2014, 02:21 PM
It would be more fun to just copy and paste from another previous thread. Then you can pretend to be serious about it and when someone counters you, just go to that part of the previous thread where the same argument was made, copy and paste the best counterpoint to that counterpoint. And you could probably keep the discussion going for months and never say anything new.

A new kind of troll. :D

CTRL ALT T - ThreadClone

spherical
08-24-2014, 03:09 PM
When? When I made that post. That's when. That was what I was talking about. You quoted me to make a point not the other way around. So I kind of had the floor - if you will - on that particular subject.

Ok. You appeared to be taking issue with what I posted. Without a quote, however, one is left to speculation as to whether you were forking my point or not.


You are talking about broad subject matter of art. Have fun with it. :)

I should just ignore this; patronizing smileyface and all.


Very heated subject I have lost interest in over the years.

Evidently not. Just love ramping things up, don't you? Why do you have to do that? :D Chill out and discuss.

shrox
08-24-2014, 04:04 PM
All you Lightwave are belong to us.

Ryan Roye
08-24-2014, 05:24 PM
... but you did forget "MAKE ANIMATION AWESOME"

I'd rather they implement an awesome slider control for precision awesomeness.

erikals
08-24-2014, 09:09 PM
like typing it in the viewport ?

jeric_synergy
08-24-2014, 09:56 PM
I think you should hum the level of awesomeness into your webcam.

(OT: does anybody else wish PShop had LW minisliders?? I detest the Adobe slider.)

Rayek
08-24-2014, 11:09 PM
I'd rather they implement an awesome slider control for precision awesomeness.

I think we only need one button in our lives and work: Magic Button (http://make-everything-ok.com/)

:)

Surrealist.
08-24-2014, 11:28 PM
Ok. You appeared to be taking issue with what I posted. Without a quote, however, one is left to speculation as to whether you were forking my point or not.



I should just ignore this; patronizing smileyface and all.



Evidently not. Just love ramping things up, don't you? Why do you have to do that? :D Chill out and discuss.

Hey sorry, nothing personal intended. I sincerely feel if you want to discuss that subject have fun with it. And also strongly feel I have heard and already discussed all that I have to say on it and I was just having a little fun with the concept, unfortunately a little at your expense ( I realized after), so accept my apology for that.

I merely had some thoughts that have originated from working with a small team at my studio, related to workflows with projects we have going for clients, and how that relates to the software as well.

I think I covered it fairly well in those two posts.

Broader subjects of art as I said... not really interested in discussion.

shrox
08-24-2014, 11:38 PM
Will there be an "art intern" button?