PDA

View Full Version : Monetizing Lightwave or, getting to the nuts and volts of the matter.



TheDynamo
01-28-2016, 09:51 AM
Hi all,

A little backstory, because of the local demand for work in Portland I switched over to Cinema 4D for the last few years and have used it for quite a few projects like product modeling and demonstration. I do quite a bit of Mograph as well which is why I drifted over to C4D. Like all software it has it's ups and downs but as a business I have to go with what pays. Most folks when asked if they know what Lightwave 3D is they give me a strange look and ask if that's similar to Blender 3D, not the most encouraging answer but really it adds up to the results on screen and how it works with After Effects. My only issue with C4D is that I have the Broadcast bundle and the upgrade to Studio would be pricey indeed.

Enter today, Lightwave 2015 does seem to have quite a bit of new items in there that really seems to update them to something I could use. I'm so rusty in the program that it would take some serious time to get back going in there though so that's a concern. The question I have for those willing to answer is how do you make money using Lightwave 3D? Is it something that makes the most sense for people who create their own product/content (like a youtube program)? Should it even be in a conversation regarding Mograph? Is it logical for someone like me to update to the new version for what amounts to the price of a new set of plugins for After Effects? I think that telling clients if they want source material after the project is done (something they can negotiate for) is a program that few use might have some negative drawbacks.

Either way, your input would be very helpful. Thanks for your time.

-Dyn

Kaptive
01-28-2016, 02:55 PM
Just from a personal point of view:

Lightwave to me, these days, is very capable. I mean, there isn't much that can't be done. Motion graphics is possibly the weakest aspect unless you are willing to put more time into it... though I don't really do much of that type of work so hard to say. But, on every other front I rarely feel restricted. I find most of the demands of commercial work easily managed by Lightwave, unless of course the client has unrealistic expectations and imagines that they can have hollywood levels of quality and finish for about 1% of the cost. In these cases it is easier to just explain the reality to the customer... or just give them an eye popping budget that forces them to get a grip on their expectations :)

Occasionally, a job will come up that requires specifics such as hair or liquids. If it looks like it is going to be beyond what is realistically possible, then I will occasionally knock them back... but that is rare. There are always solutions to these kinds of problems... short term hire of realflow perhaps (which you can budget for and hand over the cost if the client is willing to pay for it) or maybe using Blender. Hair has been a bit of a problem, but perhaps the new LW will make this less of an issue.
But really, unless you are planning on offering your clients hollywood level work (not that LW is a stranger to big budget films in any way!), there is little to restrict you in LW.

Put another way, minus maybe 1-2 jobs in 20 years, I have never let a client down and have been able to deliver what they asked for on time. Character work, arch vis, product demos/promos, vfx, you name it...

I think it is more to do with who your clients are and the intended audience.
Lightwave is amazing value for money... I mean really. So long as you are charging the correct amount, and you are a decent artist/technician (and have upgraded to the current version) then the subsequent upgrade price is really only 1-2 days worth of work. Though many of the 3rd party plugins are very useful and time saving, it is very rare that you actually "need" them. Most of the tools within Lightwave give you the ability to achieve the results you require. I'm saying this as someone who really has done pretty much most forms of 3d work over the years... minus games... so I can't speak on that front.. and as I said earlier I don't do much in the way of motion graphics unless it is part of a package of work that revolves around the other requests.

Combined with AE, you shouldn't have massive restrictions.
Now, I have zero idea how much it would have cost me over the years to do the work I have done in other packages. 3D max has always been pretty steep, and from it often seems that 3rd party plugs give you full abilities that LW has had out the box. Could be wrong. How it compares to C4D... also no idea. I've had a play in C4D, but barely stretched it beyond simple functions. So I cannot make any worthy comparisons... certainly regarding abilities. I'm sure someone on here is much better versed on how the two compare re: price/abilty.

However, the most vital aspect for you must be to analyse the kind of work you are doing and the speed at which you can make it profitable. If 60-70% of your work is motion graphics, then perhaps C4D is worth sticking with. If however you are doing a much broader spread of work, then LW is a great choice in my humble opinion, especially when weighed against the cost. Even in a bad year (like last year!!!!) LW allows me to remain in the game. No subscription problems etc... just one payment and all that ability remains waiting.
Quite frankly, I could do a large majority of work in LW 9.5 if it came to it, but I'm very glad I don't have to, because the 11 cycle into LW 2015 has been fantastic and filled many gaps in ability. Not to mention the new LW is seemingly shaping up to be a big step forward. There has probably never been a better time to jump back in.

Anyway, these are all personal opinions and I'm sure others would disagree on some points... but as a whole I find little to complain about.

Righty... I hope some of this helps.

Oh.. one last thing: source files. I rarely hand over source files. Most clients wouldn't know what to do with them what ever package they were created on... but that depends on who your clients are. If you are freelancing for a studio, then that is different. Clients are funny buggers. Most try to show a level of knowledge in 3d so as not to seem totally oblivious, and they see something in 3D and say "oh, are you using Maya.. or 3D max?" largely because that is the only 3d software they have heard of. You say, nope, Lightwave, and they have rarely heard of it... but that isn't suprising. Once you give them good results at a good price they soon bring Lightwave into their lingo.

Good luck in making a choice. Not sure I have helped, but I have tried at least :D

Kaptive
01-28-2016, 03:03 PM
Oh, one other thing regarding familiarity with Lightwave is to become versed in the more famous uses of it. Most people have seen the film 300, and the list of TV shows that use it is really long. So when a client scratches their head at the mention of Lightwave, a mention of where they can see it at work with films and TV that they are very likely to be familiar with... it gives them much more confidence that you aren't using some totally out there package. Lightwave is an industry standard no matter what anyone thinks or says, if it wasn't it wouldn't be used or exist, period.

One more note: LW probably isn't a prime choice for Arch vis... not that it can't be done... but it isn't its' forte. This is more to do with rendering than the actual components. But again, there are solutions to this also.

Danner
01-29-2016, 02:39 AM
I worked doing motion graphics with Lightwave for more than a decade but the last decade has been all Arch Viz and real-time (Unity mostly) I've dabbed into other packages and my mind is still open about this but for now they have all seemed either too expensive, too complex or too limited. And I would lose a big part of my know-how if I switched. I have developed methods and workflows that deliver very good quality in a short time. I haven't had a client ask me for my base geometry in over 10 years, altho I have asked for theirs many times and I have gotten Max files that after a friend converted them I was able to use. In one occasion it was to animate a scene where they only had a still image and in the other was to improve a previous render. I do think LighWave is very strong in Arch viz. The stand alone package is very capable and it has some great 3rd party tools for it too. (LW CAD, Octane render). Having said all this I have also learned to use Blender lately, not as a replacement for LW but to have access to some of it's cool tools.

lightscape
01-29-2016, 04:33 AM
The question I have for those willing to answer is how do you make money using Lightwave 3D?

-Dyn

The same way you make money with other software. You improve your skills and get hired by a studio, or get your own clients.

Monetizing with 3dstuff on youtube? No way. The general public are not interested in the how to.
Just look at any 3d related youtube videos they get less than 1000 views. Lightwave users youtube channels even less views.

Cooking channels are more interesting and monetizing does work for them. :D Some earning upwards 70k usd annually for blogging, etc
https://www.youtube.com/user/LauraVitalesKitchen/videos

TheDynamo
01-29-2016, 10:14 AM
Thanks for the responses. I know this is on the more practical side of the discussions that usually frequent this board. I would love to get into character animation more and the broadcast bundle of C4D has bupkus for CA tools or even rigging. It pretty much just has hard dynamics. I will say Maxon has done some really nice things with the render engine which left much to be desired a few versions back. I still have an old copy of Lightwave 11.6 (I think) that brings the price of an upgrade to After Effects plugin price range especially with the deal that's going on. To be honest, my real concern is the price of Lightwave 3D which scares me a little since it's so low. I know that sounds odd to say but a company needs that money to pay for development. In a weird way, the high prices of other packages tend to make me feel they are safer to invest in. I think I will start another thread based on that alone.

-Dyn

Kaptive
01-29-2016, 11:26 AM
To be honest, my real concern is the price of Lightwave 3D which scares me a little since it's so low. I know that sounds odd to say but a company needs that money to pay for development. In a weird way, the high prices of other packages tend to make me feel they are safer to invest in. I think I will start another thread based on that alone.

-Dyn

I'd embrace it. The development (if you haven't been following the dev blog) is looking really good for Lightwave Next/2016. They have a good plan in place it seems for taking LW forward. The price at the moment might reflect the whole CORE/LW10 debarcle... Lw has lagged a little behind because of that, but they are now gathering pace and have a really strong vision. The pricing is the last thing I'd look at when assessing what you can do with it or where it is going. I'd just take advantage before it creeps up again. Rob is stating (and I am not quoting exactly.. but just from memory) that LW is going to have some of the most modern architecture/features of many of the packages out there as we move into the future... maybe not all right away, but the next few releases are going to be big. All of the new foundation coding is more or less there. Should be a fun ride!

spherical
01-29-2016, 02:28 PM
To be honest, my real concern is the price of Lightwave 3D which scares me a little since it's so low. I know that sounds odd to say but a company needs that money to pay for development. In a weird way, the high prices of other packages tend to make me feel they are safer to invest in.

Or, the other companies are gouging you and you fall for it. It's the old marketing trick: If things aren't selling, double the price. And, please, don't start a "LightWave is too cheap" movement and spend my money. :) I appreciate all that NewTek and LW3DG do in regards to sane pricing, while delivering a great product. They are to be rewarded for their efforts to keep costs down.

Kaptive
01-29-2016, 03:29 PM
Or, the other companies are gouging you and you fall for it. It's the old marketing trick: If things aren't selling, double the price. And, please, don't start a "LightWave is too cheap" movement and spend my money. :) I appreciate all that NewTek and LW3DG do in regards to sane pricing, while delivering a great product. They are to be rewarded for their efforts to keep costs down.

+10 Abso-f***ing-lutely.

lightscape
01-29-2016, 09:48 PM
Or, the other companies are gouging you and you fall for it. It's the old marketing trick: If things aren't selling, double the price. And, please, don't start a "LightWave is too cheap" movement and spend my money. :) I appreciate all that NewTek and LW3DG do in regards to sane pricing, while delivering a great product. They are to be rewarded for their efforts to keep costs down.

That's possible. But looking at the development in a 5-10 year span the other companies have brought out more.
More money = more employee = more development

NT is in a hard place. They can't exactly raise the price while offering less.
Meanwhile the other companies have reached a ceiling where the software is so mature that the next version is not worth paying the high price for some. Now they are doing subscription or rental to keep revenue going.

The saying goes you get what you pay for applies. You're paying low for lightwave now so don't expect highend stuff or toolset comparable to other software.

spherical
01-29-2016, 11:13 PM
Heh. That's not what I'm seeing in LightWave Next. LW3DG may have been behind the curve for a few years, having to regroup after what turned out to be a false start, but the acceleration is ramping up and a quantum leap is in the offing. I know you aren't the greatest LightWave supporter, so I take your observation with a grain of salt. Just sayin'....

Kaptive
01-30-2016, 12:26 AM
More often than not, high costs can often relate to marketing... so you're paying for something to be sold back to you. This has an upside that it has large market recognition. When you have the highly marketed software, your clients are likely to have heard of it... as mentioned before. But that isn't a cheap thing to buy into. The more they market it (or the company behind it), the more they raise the price in alignment with the profile. But essentially, marketing has nothing to do with the actual functionality of the product.

Also, the bigger the company, the more costs there are. It magnifies.

You get an increasing array of products and properties, then you also need a much bigger support staff (not necessarily developers...)........ human resources staff; an increase in management; more board members; accountants; marketing staff, cleaners, receptionists, secretaries, PR guys, customer service, building maintenance... etc etc yadda yadda yadda. Oh and let's not forget premises. All those people need somewhere to work, and you want that big sexy building with the glowing logo on the front... that isn't cheap. (this is why items bought from your local shop are higher than online)

Just look at Autodesk. They have fingers in many pies... and they are innovators for sure... but you pay for that. You also pay for this:-
The NEW San Fransisco Office! (http://officesnapshots.com/2014/02/19/inside-autodesks-new-san-francisco-offices/) ...71,000 square feet of designer construction and interior design.
The Autodesk Gallery at One Market! (http://labs.blogs.com/photos/autodesk_gallery_at_one_m/1_lobby_jpg.html) 27,000-square-foot office space on Pier 9
Not to mention offices in Europe and Asia. All very cool, probably great for outreach and maybe customer service... but very expensive to staff and maintain! You pay for all of this when you buy into Autodesk.

These things also have little to do with the final product... Why do you think the 3D coat fellow (sorry I don't know his name) has achieved so much so quickly? From what I read he was doing most of it on his own, churning out updates and improvements at a rapid pace. This is because there is little red tape... meetings... or difference of opinions on direction; less time spent on discussions of what to do and more time actually doing. Also probably doing it from home, so no extra costs.

The bigger the machine, the more oil it needs. Money is oil.

It is also like sports cars... you pay stupid money for the potential of going 210mph (and 1550 for a carpet in the boot)... but in reality you can only drive at 70mph... and even if you could take it up to top speed, you better hope you're on a race track and a very capable driver otherwise it isn't going to be quite the experience you were hoping for. But hey, everyone would know you drive a Ferrari... but unless you reeeeally know how to drive it (and have the money to maintain it), you only own it for appearances sake and are wasting money better spent elsewhere. You have to justify spending.

Kaptive
01-30-2016, 12:44 AM
Monetizing with 3dstuff on youtube? No way. The general public are not interested in the how to.
Just look at any 3d related youtube videos they get less than 1000 views. Lightwave users youtube channels even less views.
https://www.youtube.com/user/LauraVitalesKitchen/videos

I think you misunderstood Dynamo on this one. I think he meant using Lightwave to create product.. not "how tos". As in short cartoons etc. I'd say that is one very valid use for it. As an example (though in this case they don't use Lightwave so far as I know) you have Rocket Jump on youtube. They make a solid living from shorts that lean heavily on CG effects and ideas mixed with live action. So yes, Lightwave is perfect for this platform and in a perfect price bracket vs ability.

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

Also...

don't expect highend stuff or toolset comparable to other software.

I have to raise this point as it bothered me. Of course they are comparable... what do you mean? Which other software? Are you talking about before or after 3rd party extras? The way you're talking it sounds like you're saying that all other 3d software spits out quality work like diamonds and yet Lightwave can only produce **** (and we know that isn't true). Where are you personally feeling the limits? If you are using Lightwave, is your work rubbish? Is it so bad that you daren't even compare it to something produced in C4D or Max/Maya? Is it the driver or the car? What are your requirements? Are you driving the right car? Or do you just want something that looks flashy and everyone has heard of?
Just sayin...

Chris S. (Fez)
01-30-2016, 01:02 AM
LW Next brings a brand new Arnoldesque interactive renderer, a suite of physically accurate materials boosting an arguably already best in class nodal surfacing toolset, bleeding edge volumetrics, next gen viewport performance...um, I think the doom and gloom guys need another hobby.

Spinland
01-30-2016, 05:28 AM
My only formal 3D modeling and animation training is in Maya. I still have a fully-functional student license for Maya 2011 and after I finished my coursework (instead of buying the commercial license) I went right back to Lightwave. I also have 3DS Max, Rhino, and (don't laugh) I still have a copy of trueSpace floating around somewhere. I decided to give LW a try when I learned how much it played a role at Zoic Studios in the production of two of my favorite TV shows ever (Firefly and the BSG reboot). I picked up a copy of [8] and Dan Ablan's courseware (said purchase getting me a student discount on LW at the time) and loved every minute of my time learning it and playing around with it. I've upgraded to every version since (v10 was a freebie as you probably knew) and around the mid-life period of v9 I decided I wanted to do this for a living and bought up to the commercial license.

Lightwave just clicks for me. The interface, style, workflow...they speak to me where the others do not. Yes, there have been times when I've had to work "harder" at getting some effect than if I were using another package, but those occasions are becoming ever more rare (especially with the panoply of amazing plugins the last couple of years have seen emerge).

As far as monetizing, I'm not rolling in filthy lucre but I make a decent living. My most lucrative gigs come from doing technical animations, explainer videos, and interactive 3D data visualization for industry (and military) clients. I make some money doing animated advertising shorts for local small businesses (who are often amazed at how cheaply I can produce quality content for them after they get sticker shock from the big city studios) but I do rely heavily on the tech stuff.

I've been watching the snippets concerning the next-generation LW release with a great deal of interest and, when it goes live, I will be dragging out the Studio credit card to pre-order the instant I can. I owe Newtek my current (very happy) professional status and I will never hesitate to vote for them with my dollars, nor do I have any qualms knowing that it will pay for itself with my very next gig.

Just my Zwei Pfennig Wert.

ianr
01-30-2016, 07:23 AM
Hi Dynamo,
This is the Skinny 4 my cents Worth

Depending on how 'LW 2016 Next' lands on the runway.

+ 3rd powers plug-ins : Go Pack & LW Brush
+ LWCAD 5
+ most of Dennis P's plug-ins.

For C/A for You.
+ TAFA plug-in for Head C/A
+ All Rebel Hill's Plug-ins & Vids
+ selected Liberty3D Vids (Ryan Roye's)

For Mograph.
All BryPhi77 Vids on YouTube


Optional extras: Octane Renderer
& Turbulence Plug-in ( Pyro)

GTX 980Ti 6 meg card. (sweet Spot GPU)

and Whooosh>>> off you go !

p.s. Do check out D. FUSION 7.5 +
it takes A.E. plug-ins & can trash
A.E. render times on a Xeon Mac.
+ Kat Myers Vids on Liberty3d.com

roboman
01-30-2016, 11:47 PM
It's mostly a hobby, but I do make a bit doing product demos for sales and trade shows. I also to woodworking stuff on cnc. The modeling gets done in solidworks, autocad, artcam and lightwave. I do some web page stuff also. Some graphics, but mostly little animated logos or other animated bits. Not a lot of money in those areas, but some. There were a few game projects, a couple low/no budget films and a couple animated shorts.... but as most group things with little or no pay, they didn't get finished before the group fell apart. Lightwave seemed enough for all of that.

hrgiger
01-31-2016, 09:01 AM
Or, the other companies are gouging you and you fall for it. It's the old marketing trick: If things aren't selling, double the price. And, please, don't start a "LightWave is too cheap" movement and spend my money. :) I appreciate all that NewTek and LW3DG do in regards to sane pricing, while delivering a great product. They are to be rewarded for their efforts to keep costs down.

Do you really believe LW's low cost is because lw3dg is so efficient or selling so many seats they can afford to keep the cost low? I think more likely is you lower the cost when you are trying to sell more seats then you currently are. They have pretty much said lowering the cost to $295 for current owners is to encourage people to buy each new version as it comes out. And there is nothing wrong with that, they should be encouraging people to upgrade either through the cost or the quality of the software improvements (hopefully both).

You say the other software companies are gouging but the truth is these are all larger companies with larger numbers of employees, larger r +d costs, well larger everything really. If LW3dg had the number of employees that autodesk or the foundry did, they wouldnt be offering $295 upgrades. Of course its pretty easy to see that the other software has larger numbers of features per release too typically. Of course thats not everything, quality of upgrades is important too and if the new geometry engine is truly that much better in lw 2016, I would take that anyday over a certain number of new tools or features.

But when youre not selling a product, you dont double the price, you lower it. But in any event, the autodesk user base is so astronomically larger then lightwave, clearly people dont have a problem with the price. If youre making money with the software, the cost is negligible and can be written off in the cost of business.

Having said all that, lightwave is an excellent pipeline tool so as far as monetizing lw goes, you can easily pay for any version (full or upgrade) with a single job in most cases so it seems like a non issue. The question is, do you enjoy using it and is it worth the low cost you.have to pay for it.

Spinland
01-31-2016, 09:12 AM
Hi Dynamo,
This is the Skinny 4 my cents Worth


A most excellent list, thanks for sharing! :thumbsup:

m.d.
01-31-2016, 10:37 AM
p.s. Do check out D. FUSION 7.5 +
it takes A.E. plug-ins & can trash
A.E. render times on a Xeon Mac.
+ Kat Myers Vids on Liberty3d.com

Fusion AE plugin support has been almost non-existent since FU5...just FYI

jwiede
01-31-2016, 07:17 PM
I would love to get into character animation more and the broadcast bundle of C4D has bupkus for CA tools or even rigging.

Cactus Dan's CA plugins are the common (and inexpensive) solution for adding CA to C4D pkgs lacking "native CA tools". Actually, the CD (Cactus Dan) plugins used to offer major benefits over the native C4D CA tools in performance, determinism, etc., until MAXON seriously improved the native CA tools circa R11/R13 leveling the field. One continued benefit of the CD CA tools is that their workflow is very similar to Maya's, which is a continued boon for those more used to or who just prefer Maya-style CA workflow. The CD CA tools also have a decent history of pro-production-level usage, contact Cactus Dan for such details.

Point is, CD CA tools might be a cost-effective way to enable CA in your C4D package: Cactus Dan's website (http://www.cactus3d.com/Home.htm)

BTW, the CD FBX plugin is quite useful as well, esp. if you want to efficiently move animations directly back/forth between FBX and CD CA-plugin-based rigs.

lightscape
01-31-2016, 08:16 PM
Heh. That's not what I'm seeing in LightWave Next. LW3DG may have been behind the curve for a few years, having to regroup after what turned out to be a false start, but the acceleration is ramping up and a quantum leap is in the offing. I know you aren't the greatest LightWave supporter, so I take your observation with a grain of salt. Just sayin'....

Nothing in lightwave next has been well received outside of lightwave fanboys. Do you get out of the lw forums? They're calling it Core 2.0.
I support lightwave and criticize stuff that sucks. You can't pamper developers. That goes for all software. I rip Modo a lot. I'm pretty balanced. :D
Looking at your website though I take your observation with zero grain of salt. Just sayin'.....

jwiede
01-31-2016, 09:31 PM
LW Next brings a brand new Arnoldesque interactive renderer, a suite of physically accurate materials boosting an arguably already best in class nodal surfacing toolset, bleeding edge volumetrics, next gen viewport performance

So you believe Rob's, Lino's and Jarno's statements conclusively indicate the above-stated deliverables will arrive in the next version?

Megalodon2.0
01-31-2016, 09:43 PM
So you believe Rob's, Lino's and Jarno's statements conclusively indicate the above-stated deliverables will arrive in the next version?

Why wouldn't we? Do you think they would give relative specifics about LW two versions from now? They've been very tight-lipped about the future and I seriously doubt they are stating details about anything BUT the next version of LW. Why do you think otherwise?

Surrealist.
01-31-2016, 11:39 PM
Hi all,

A little backstory, because of the local demand for work in Portland I switched over to Cinema 4D for the last few years and have used it for quite a few projects like product modeling and demonstration. I do quite a bit of Mograph as well which is why I drifted over to C4D. Like all software it has it's ups and downs but as a business I have to go with what pays. Most folks when asked if they know what Lightwave 3D is they give me a strange look and ask if that's similar to Blender 3D, not the most encouraging answer but really it adds up to the results on screen and how it works with After Effects. My only issue with C4D is that I have the Broadcast bundle and the upgrade to Studio would be pricey indeed.

Enter today, Lightwave 2015 does seem to have quite a bit of new items in there that really seems to update them to something I could use. I'm so rusty in the program that it would take some serious time to get back going in there though so that's a concern. The question I have for those willing to answer is how do you make money using Lightwave 3D? Is it something that makes the most sense for people who create their own product/content (like a youtube program)? Should it even be in a conversation regarding Mograph? Is it logical for someone like me to update to the new version for what amounts to the price of a new set of plugins for After Effects? I think that telling clients if they want source material after the project is done (something they can negotiate for) is a program that few use might have some negative drawbacks.

Either way, your input would be very helpful. Thanks for your time.

-Dyn





Thanks for the responses. I know this is on the more practical side of the discussions that usually frequent this board. I would love to get into character animation more and the broadcast bundle of C4D has bupkus for CA tools or even rigging. It pretty much just has hard dynamics. I will say Maxon has done some really nice things with the render engine which left much to be desired a few versions back. I still have an old copy of Lightwave 11.6 (I think) that brings the price of an upgrade to After Effects plugin price range especially with the deal that's going on. To be honest, my real concern is the price of Lightwave 3D which scares me a little since it's so low. I know that sounds odd to say but a company needs that money to pay for development. In a weird way, the high prices of other packages tend to make me feel they are safer to invest in. I think I will start another thread based on that alone.

-Dyn

My view on this in general is to stick to what is working for you as far as paying the bills. But adding LightWave to the mix could allow you to add some features you don't have. Something to enhance the pipeline for sure. I look at it as an enhancement not a replacement for things that are working for me elsewhere. But it is really on a case by case basis.

I would say you'd absolutely gain something by adding LightWave back into your pipeline.

Character animation is a large subject. But if you plan on doing it a lot. Spend some time researching it for LW. There are the RHiggit tools and of course Genoma and Nevron Motion. Then there is Messiah as a nice animation tool.

Chris S. (Fez)
02-01-2016, 01:05 AM
So you believe Rob's, Lino's and Jarno's statements conclusively indicate the above-stated deliverables will arrive in the next version?

Let's see:

Arnoldesque Renderer with new more physically accurate materials: https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/10/render-sneak-peek/

New hair primitive "with specified thickness in millimeters, perfectly integrated with the new PBR render and, of course, visible in VPR. Fibers can now be reflected/refracted and affected by radiosity, volumetrics, depth of field and motion blur. Fibers can be assigned any Material (which greatly extends FiberFX use well beyond simply rendering hair and fur), and a new dedicated Hair material has been created. https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/11/fiberfx/

Interactive state of the art volumetrics: https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/10/editing-volumetrics/

Volumetrics are "perfectly integrated in the render engine, and responding correctly to refraction, reflection and radiosity. Attributes such as Emission, Scattering, Absorption (among others) can be tweaked and animated to simulate nearly any real world volumetric effect, and combined with any image or procedural texture you can find in LightWave: https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/10/volumetrics-in-lightwave/

Render buffers that are visible in VPR and set the foundation for fast, flexible pass output: https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2016/01/render-buffers/

As for vastly improved performance: "Another relevant thing to point out is that the unified mesh system which we have implemented in LightWave Layout is an improved version of the modern mesh system which we developed for ChronoSculpt. Some of you may have witnessed the standing room only crowds that we had at SIGGRAPH when we demoed ChronoSculpt. Folks were amazed that we were manipulating such complex geometry so quickly and excited by the animated geometry deformation and sculpting tools. Because the unified mesh system now implemented in LightWave Layout was developed from the ChronoSculpt mesh system Layout will get the same advantages for memory usage and deformation speed as well as the benefits of reducing the overhead which was required for the previous two systems. That overhead impacted memory usage, performance, as well being much more complex to interface with when developing. Now instead we are able to work with one single proper modern mesh system which greatly simplifies the development process."

https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/12/unified-mesh-system-part-2/


If LW group truly delivers Chronosculpt viewport speeds for poly-heavy scenes and deforming meshes then it could well be massively faster than most all competing animation packages. I strongly disagree that such performance is a selling point that only interests "Lightwave fanboys". Granted, we have yet to see concrete evidence. I assume once everything is optimized and stable LW Group will post a blog video backing their claims.

Surrealist.
02-01-2016, 02:26 AM
Well to the OP it is something to look forward to. These features coming if also integrated to make use of the other features present, will prove to be a great advance forward for 2016 or Next or whatever they are calling it. Just in the things we know will be in 2016 which is all they have shown. That which we know will be present along with the fact that there is a new mesh system, means development can move forward faster with less things holding them back than in the last 15 years. That alone is significant. But you have to evaluate what is present. And that is enough to dramatically improve pipelines who use LW and interest those looking to comeback in one form or another.

Spinland
02-01-2016, 04:07 AM
I don't want to start a urination contest but the linguist pedant in me impels me to speak up.


Nothing in lightwave next has been well received outside of lightwave fanboys.

It's a logical truth that a single counterexample will disprove any assertion. I reject the notion I am any sort of "fanboy" and yet the stated features of "next" are, indeed, being very well received here.



Do you get out of the lw forums? They're calling it Core 2.0.

Who, exactly, are "they" and what are their credentials that their opinionated name-calling has any merit? I'm curious as to how what sounds like bashing on some other forum or forums qualifies as evidence against LW's next version being of value?

If there is factually-sourced evidence out there that LW's announced updates aren't real, or that some nontrivial problems exist in their process, I'm all for hearing what they are and how you learned of them. If you're just offering unsourced opinions based on past aggravation (yes, I fully understand the CORE debacle, I was there) then that's all fine and good but it's helpful to recognize that's all you're doing.

Just saying. :angel:

Kaptive
02-01-2016, 04:21 AM
Nothing in lightwave next has been well received outside of lightwave fanboys. Do you get out of the lw forums? They're calling it Core 2.0.
I support lightwave and criticize stuff that sucks. You can't pamper developers. That goes for all software. I rip Modo a lot. I'm pretty balanced. :D
Looking at your website though I take your observation with zero grain of salt. Just sayin'.....

Have you got a website we can look at?
Who are these "they" you are talking about? Care to share links to the 10s of thousands of 3d artists who are saying this? Maybe even a single link?
I take pretty much everything you say with a few kgs of salt, because you make statements with ZERO backup. You seem to imagine what other people think and then state it as some undeniable fact. I can't believe I'm saying this... AGAIN.
I'd be willing to take a big bet that
a) You don't share your website or examples of your work (ya know, to offer some validity to your "knowledge")
b) You don't share more than one link to the "they" calling LW Core 2.0

Until you are able to do this matey, everything you say is just meaningless noise. I've searched through google for the term core 2.0 and lightwave, and guess how many links I found? GO on... guess....

Yep, thats right. ZERO. Which hole are you visiting again? Which microcosm are you magnifying to come to your conclusions?
You support Lightwave like the Catholic Church supports Richard Dawkins... just sayin. :stumped:

Thomas Leitner
02-01-2016, 04:34 AM
...Arnoldesque Renderer with new more physically accurate materials: https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/10/render-sneak-peek/...

Hi Chris,
can you please explain the "Arnoldesque" of the new renderer? At least it would have to be unbiased. Is there any statement about this?

ciao
Thomas

Chris S. (Fez)
02-01-2016, 05:04 AM
Hi Chris,
can you please explain the "Arnoldesque" of the new renderer? At least it would have to be unbiased. Is there any statement about this?

ciao
Thomas


The new Lightwave renderer is apparently a progressive PBR renderer with controls that...judging from the few glimpses in the blog videos...appear to be as straightforward and streamlined as Arnold's.

" the next release users will experience complete unity between the render engine and VPR because in fact those are now the same thing entirely. Users will also have a state of the art and one of the most modern Physically-based rendering (PBR) engines of any leading full-featured pro 3D application in the industry along with all new lights and much more"

https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/10/lightwave-philosophy/

Spinland
02-01-2016, 05:19 AM
Yeah, that is very interesting stuff. I've not used Arnold but I can appreciate what this is bringing to the table. And I would offer this quote:


…and a very important point that I must mention is that what I am discussing here is not some future plan or a “Smoke and Mirrors” act but these are things that we have already implemented in the next version and which have been in testing for quite some time.

as evidence that either the Group is blatantly lying to us on a massive scale or this stuff is, indeed, going to happen—in fact, essentially already has happened. I am more than interested in getting my hands on this new release and starting to have serious play time with it.

Spinland
02-01-2016, 05:26 AM
Back to the OP and their monetizing question: I already shared some of my business model (that thus far is serving me well) but wanted to revisit something that's been quite lucrative for me wrt using LW to make money: interactive 3D data displays. I can't share my related work because it's all under military NDA (and some is classified) but LW works very well with the Unity3D engine and, when you couple that to a database, you can do all manner of crazy fun stuff that's not exceedingly difficult but wows the clients. When you can arrange stuff in 3D space, move around in it like a virtual world, make things clicky and animated...they eat that stuff up. I also have an up-coming gig involving a 3D virtual tour of a manufacturing facility where, again, stuff will be clicky and interactive. Unity again, and clients love that you can deploy it right on a web page.

If you have any affinity for coding at all I suggest looking into how you can leverage game engine stuff for non-gaming applications because that market is only going to get bigger. Unity rocks and plays quite well with LW if you just follow a few simple rules.

hrgiger
02-01-2016, 06:51 AM
In regards to lightscape accounting of how well the new stuff has been received, it's worth pointing out that one guy called it core 2. One guy. As far as the rest, well I guess outside the lw community just means the foundry boards where reactions have honestly been mixed. There are also a lot of modo users who are former lw users who always like to snipe at lw no matter the situation.

Spinland
02-01-2016, 07:16 AM
In regards to lightscape accounting of how well the new stuff has been received, it's worth pointing out that one guy called it core 2. One guy. As far as the rest, well I guess outside the lw community just means the foundry boards where reactions have honestly been mixed. There are also a lot of modo users who are former lw users who always like to snipe at lw no matter the situation.

Yep; exactly. I won't keep beating this drum because arguing is one of the fastest ways to derail a thread. I will say, however, that I do, indeed read many other industry forums and that's part of why I know the aforementioned gripe was merely trying to extrapolate isolated data points in an attempt to bolster what is nothing more than a personal opinion. As a trained debater during my younger years such appeals to logical fallacies bother me more than perhaps they ought. :D

Kaptive
02-01-2016, 08:34 AM
In regards to lightscape accounting of how well the new stuff has been received, it's worth pointing out that one guy called it core 2. One guy. As far as the rest, well I guess outside the lw community just means the foundry boards where reactions have honestly been mixed. There are also a lot of modo users who are former lw users who always like to snipe at lw no matter the situation.

That sounds a little more realistic. Maybe Lightscape is in the wrong profession... he should work in tabloid journalism where he can sensationalise to his hearts content! :thumbsup:

Spinland
02-01-2016, 09:06 AM
Just a very mild suggestion, delivered with no rancor: might be productive to focus on the statement to be refuted and refute it, and decline to add any barbs aimed at the one making it. :beerchug:

Kaptive
02-01-2016, 10:00 AM
Just a very mild suggestion, delivered with no rancor: might be productive to focus on the statement to be refuted and refute it, and decline to add any barbs aimed at the one making it. :beerchug:

Would love to do that, but you can't prove a negative. I've frankly run out of patience when it comes to Lightscape and his wild claims with no basis in any reality. If he is an adult, then he can defend himself and his statements with simple examples, that isn't really much to ask. Shrug.

Full Rancor:
http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/databank_rancor_01_169_251b682f.jpeg?region=0%2C0% 2C1560%2C878&width=768

Spinland
02-01-2016, 10:05 AM
It's all good. Ideally I'd love to gather both of you into my favorite local pub and buy you some beers while we talk about it like manly men. :hat: This whole Internet thing has a tendency to strip away the us and get in the way of understanding.

ON EDIT: Love the image! :rock:

Surrealist.
02-01-2016, 10:46 AM
Well to play the "in all fairness" card, Modo is a great piece of software. And while it was moving ahead, LightWave was basically going no where. So it is understandable that people on those boards are skeptical. Many of them who had left LightWave in frustration and moved to other software like Modo and XSI, some even to Maya.

But when all the talking is done and LW 2016 comes out you can bet most of them will be DLing the software to take it for a spin.

But regardless, in the grand scheme of things it is really no matter. The LW 3D group is doing a great job with the task at hand. LightWave is getting better. There is no magic bullet here. They just have to move ahead. And they won't please everyone.

To the OP, honestly coming from the line of work he is coming from Modo indie is worth checking out in addition to LightWave.

hrgiger
02-01-2016, 11:12 AM
Well to play the "in all fairness" card, Modo is a great piece of software. And while it was moving ahead, LightWave was basically going no where. So it is understandable that people on those boards are skeptical. Many of them who had left LightWave in frustration and moved to other software like Modo and XSI, some even to Maya.



Well yes and no. Modo is great software, no argument. But to say it was moving ahead while LW was going nowhere is a bit over the top. LightWave has added a ton of functionality over the course of Modos time of 'moving ahead'. I mean I certainly would never want to go back to LW 8 over what im working with now. And Modo is certainly not free of its issues either my number one beef right now being that for an app built in the 21st century to handle geometry only marginally better then lightwave Modeler? It goes to the trouble of putting very nice retopo tools but then forgets that it cant handle high poly meshes to retopo in the first place. And for them to boast pushing playback speed in 901 from 6 fps to 9 fps? Shameful really.

On the other hand, LightWave has a ton of stuff to address and its good to see them talking about architecture for once and addressing legacy issues. So architecturally, yes it doesnt seem to have been going anywhere until now. And of course we still dont have a release to guage for ourselves yet that it might be finally going somewhere.

jeric_synergy
02-01-2016, 11:27 AM
The various CUSTOMERS of 3d listed earlier is very interesting: by far the challenge for me is finding clients, not executing the animation.

To me, the work is getting the gig: the gig is the reward for doing the work. Oh, and some money.

bazsa73
02-01-2016, 12:29 PM
Let's flame the unholy one!

50one
02-01-2016, 12:30 PM
The various CUSTOMERS of 3d listed earlier is very interesting: by far the challenge for me is finding clients, not executing the animation.

To me, the work is getting the gig: the gig is the reward for doing the work. Oh, and some money.

Same here!It's especially hard if you;re dealing with small local economy and clients are more interested in budget eg. cheap stuff.

Surrealist.
02-01-2016, 12:47 PM
Well yes and no. Modo is great software, no argument. But to say it was moving ahead while LW was going nowhere is a bit over the top. LightWave has added a ton of functionality over the course of Modos time of 'moving ahead'. I mean I certainly would never want to go back to LW 8 over what im working with now. And Modo is certainly not free of its issues either my number one beef right now being that for an app built in the 21st century to handle geometry only marginally better then lightwave Modeler? It goes to the trouble of putting very nice retopo tools but then forgets that it cant handle high poly meshes to retopo in the first place. And for them to boast pushing playback speed in 901 from 6 fps to 9 fps? Shameful really.

On the other hand, LightWave has a ton of stuff to address and its good to see them talking about architecture for once and addressing legacy issues. So architecturally, yes it doesnt seem to have been going anywhere until now. And of course we still dont have a release to guage for ourselves yet that it might be finally going somewhere.

Modo has moved lightyears faster and farther than LightWave in the Time Modo was developed to now compared to LightWave since that time. Anyone on the Modo wagon would feel that way, if, and this is a big if, Modo has been giving them what they wanted. Which is to say a more modern workflow over all. Might not be cutting edge but tools and workdlows LightWave still can't even touch.

And since 601, I'd say it was a huge shift. And a lot of people went over to Modo from that time forward leaving LightWave behind for good. The rest went to XSI, Maya... etc. I was using Blender and passed on Modo and LightWave 11 for XSI. But I had already left LightWave behind at 9.6 seeing that there was no way LightWave was going to recover at its pace.

I don't see a huge fundamental change to the LightWave I was using at version 8 and 9 to what I had in 11 or even in 2015 now. Not really. Yes a lot of cool features have been added. But fundamentally LightWave has not changed really at all.
That is until now.

So all I am saying - and a lot of this comes from my own experience - is that LightWave has been really stalled in development. Really. I don't mean we did not see render improvements, bullet and the rest of it. But LightWave did not move forward fundamentally.

And at the same time, while Modo still has its issues, I see a much more modern workflow than LightWave by far. Easy to see that. And it had an archetecture that did allow them to break out 601 and beyond.

And this is all speaking to how I consider the Modo user base feels about Modo and LightWave. And I'd say most agree.

Where LightWave has the advantage is as you say. They have now made a fundamental change. The change we all wanted to see happen back in 2008-10 that never did. But it is modern technology. And this is a good thing.

But it is easy to see that Modo users, given their choice of software and why would be skeptical.

Time will tell.

But LightWave, in reality, development-wise, is only at the beginning. I don't consider all that happened up to now to be that significant. Not for me anyway. I still find myself having to use Maya, Blender and other tools to get buy. LightWave can not cut it as an only app for me at all. No way. I do like it in my pipeline and I have no complaints about that.

But LightWave's future is just that. A future of possibilities.

But in LightWave we still can't paint, paint weights in layout, sculpt, still two apps, Moeler still hindered by 20 year old workflow. No real native manipulator and proper snapping. On and on.

Modo on the other hand, while not having the best sculpting, actually has sculpting, painting and so on. All in one app. And the kind of work I do those and a few other aspects and tools, UV mapping for one, all packaged together in an app you can render and import alembic, is attractive. I could cut a lot of my work down by keeping things in Modo longer. I don't need Zbrush and Mudbox for everything.

Now of course LightWave on the other hand has a better sounding geo engine. But it is far from a reality as to being able to be used. It is years away from having sculpting and painting and all of the rest of the things we want to see at a level that is viable for production.

In 3-5 years we will be looking at a different landscape I think. And LightWave has the chance to be the sleeper no one saw coming.

But that is the future.

Until then I think Modo users will be skeptical, is all I am really saying.

jwiede
02-01-2016, 01:41 PM
The new Lightwave renderer is apparently a progressive PBR renderer with controls that...judging from the few glimpses in the blog videos...appear to be as straightforward and streamlined as Arnold's.

" the next release users will experience complete unity between the render engine and VPR because in fact those are now the same thing entirely. Users will also have a state of the art and one of the most modern Physically-based rendering (PBR) engines of any leading full-featured pro 3D application in the industry along with all new lights and much more"

A renderer can be "physically-based" while still being "biased" (both Vray and C4D Physical are examples). Statements about a renderer being "physically-based" are NOT valid basis to conclude a renderer is "unbiased" (per Arnold). All the citations you keep pointing at state "physically-based" but make absolutely no statement regarding "biased" vs "unbiased". The types of controls/UI seen for LW's new renderer much more closely resemble those for a "biased" renderer than an "unbiased" renderer. Even the quote directly above gives no evidence for concluding the new renderer is an Arnold-like "unbiased" renderer.

BTW, it is quite clear you see the attributes (simplified controls, etc) of an Arnoldesque "unbiased" renderer as beneficial, but you need to understand that those exact same attributes make such renderers inefficient / highly unsuitable for anyone doing NPR rendering, or otherwise requires the abilities "biased" renderers offer to step outside a hard-wired, physical model of surfaces and light behavior. Were LW to ship with just an Arnoldesque/"unbiased" renderer instead of a "biased" renderer (as it has today), it would basically force the substantial number of LW users who relied on such NPR capabilities in LW's existing renderer to seek other solutions (and as likely, other 3D packages).

hrgiger
02-01-2016, 01:47 PM
Modo has moved lightyears faster and farther than LightWave in the Time Modo was developed to now compared to LightWave since that time. Anyone on the Modo wagon would feel that way, if, and this is a big if, Modo has been giving them what they wanted. Which is to say a more modern workflow over all. Might not be cutting edge but tools and workdlows LightWave still can't even touch.



Well of course, but then that happens when you start from scratch, using much newer technology, and even have the benefit of avoiding mistakes you made the first time you did it (aka LightWave). Same developers getting a second chance to start over. LightWave is in a completely different position where they're still trying to ship an existing product while slowly making changes to the core of the program. So Modo has advantages in that way. But then of course, that just makes it all the more sad that Luxology couldn't seem to incorporate actual software performance into their designs from the beginning and get something that bests Modeler's performance which it barely does. Mesh Fusion is amazing, Modo's UV tools are great, some great workflows (not all of them and I'm looking at you Shader Tree), high quality renderer... I mean tons of great stuff about Modo. But performance and large scene handling, not a strong suit. I'm critical for different things about LW and Modo but I think the crux of it is that I have higher expectations for Modo because it's newer and has less excuses to suck. The one thing I'm glad about is that after this next release of LW, there can no longer be the excuse that LW's failings are due to its aging architecture. Of course, Modeler will be the same still but moving forward, we can finally judge LW on a similar playing field with them updating (or outright replacing) core LightWave systems.

Of course NT tried to start over with CORE but then for whatever reason (loud crybabies in the LW community afraid of change, inept management, poor planning and execution of said program, poor forethought, probably a combination of all of these), NT shifted gears and decided to alter LW from the inside and we're just seeing the results of that now. Despite how one felt about CORE positive or negative, in the end, what it amounted to was a huge waste of users time, and developers time. And is one more reason that LightWave has not moved ahead as fast.

Chris S. (Fez)
02-01-2016, 02:05 PM
I never said it was unbiased. I said it was "Arnoldesque". The exclusively progressive rendering, interactive work flow, pass display/output and global controls are virtually identical to Arnold. Biased or unbiased, the interactivity and results seem strikingly similar. All that matters to me is speed and results.

I don't expect the 2016 renderer to rival Arnold out of the gates but I do think there is endless potential to optimize and expand going forward.

bobakabob
02-01-2016, 02:14 PM
A renderer can be "physically-based" while still being "biased" (both Vray and C4D Physical are examples). Statements about a renderer being "physically-based" are NOT valid basis to conclude a renderer is "unbiased" (per Arnold). All the citations you keep pointing at state "physically-based" but make absolutely no statement regarding "biased" vs "unbiased". The types of controls/UI seen for LW's new renderer much more closely resemble those for a "biased" renderer than an "unbiased" renderer. Even the quote directly above gives no evidence for concluding the new renderer is an Arnold-like "unbiased" renderer.

As long as it looks good who cares? My 15 year old stepdaughter can tell the difference between a computer render and a real photo. No disrespect to the brilliant coders but in the end it's all simulated reality, smoke and mirrors. The latest LW sample renders are looking fantastic.

Chris S. (Fez)
02-01-2016, 03:27 PM
BTW, it is quite clear you see the attributes (simplified controls, etc) of an Arnoldesque "unbiased" renderer as beneficial, but you need to understand that those exact same attributes make such renderers inefficient / highly unsuitable for anyone doing NPR rendering, or otherwise requires the abilities "biased" renderers offer to step outside a hard-wired, physical model of surfaces and light behavior. Were LW to ship with just an Arnoldesque/"unbiased" renderer instead of a "biased" renderer (as it has today), it would basically force the substantial number of LW users who relied on such NPR capabilities in LW's existing renderer to seek other solutions (and as likely, other 3D packages).

Great point and certainly would be a showstopper, for me as well. I use NPR and stylized rendering all the time. Given the seemingly thriving NPR market that Lightwave caters to in Japan, I doubt they would undermine NPR pipelines but weirder things have happened...

Hopefully we get the best of both biased and unbiased worlds. Having said that, I still miss the idiot-proof Fprime days where there were no render settings.

Ztreem
02-01-2016, 03:47 PM
A renderer can be "physically-based" while still being "biased" (both Vray and C4D Physical are examples). Statements about a renderer being "physically-based" are NOT valid basis to conclude a renderer is "unbiased" (per Arnold). All the citations you keep pointing at state "physically-based" but make absolutely no statement regarding "biased" vs "unbiased". The types of controls/UI seen for LW's new renderer much more closely resemble those for a "biased" renderer than an "unbiased" renderer. Even the quote directly above gives no evidence for concluding the new renderer is an Arnold-like "unbiased" renderer.

BTW, it is quite clear you see the attributes (simplified controls, etc) of an Arnoldesque "unbiased" renderer as beneficial, but you need to understand that those exact same attributes make such renderers inefficient / highly unsuitable for anyone doing NPR rendering, or otherwise requires the abilities "biased" renderers offer to step outside a hard-wired, physical model of surfaces and light behavior. Were LW to ship with just an Arnoldesque/"unbiased" renderer instead of a "biased" renderer (as it has today), it would basically force the substantial number of LW users who relied on such NPR capabilities in LW's existing renderer to seek other solutions (and as likely, other 3D packages).


I don't know if the new renderer is unbiased, biased or both, but I know that Rob or Lino mentioned that they compared the render speed of the new renderer against similar render engines. They also said that Arnold was one of those render engines and that they were very very pleased with the render times of the new Lw render engine when compared. We can only wait and hope for the best...

Farhad_azer
02-01-2016, 07:03 PM
Of course NT tried to start over with CORE but then for whatever reason (loud crybabies in the LW community afraid of change, inept management, poor planning and execution of said program, poor forethought, probably a combination of all of these), NT shifted gears and decided to alter LW from the inside and we're just seeing the results of that now. Despite how one felt about CORE positive or negative, in the end, what it amounted to was a huge waste of users time, and developers time. And is one more reason that LightWave has not moved ahead as fast.

I agree entirely.

Surrealist.
02-01-2016, 08:09 PM
Well of course, but then that happens when you start from scratch, using much newer technology, and even have the benefit of avoiding mistakes you made the first time you did it (aka LightWave). Same developers getting a second chance to start over. LightWave is in a completely different position where they're still trying to ship an existing product while slowly making changes to the core of the program. So Modo has advantages in that way. But then of course, that just makes it all the more sad that Luxology couldn't seem to incorporate actual software performance into their designs from the beginning and get something that bests Modeler's performance which it barely does. Mesh Fusion is amazing, Modo's UV tools are great, some great workflows (not all of them and I'm looking at you Shader Tree), high quality renderer... I mean tons of great stuff about Modo. But performance and large scene handling, not a strong suit. I'm critical for different things about LW and Modo but I think the crux of it is that I have higher expectations for Modo because it's newer and has less excuses to suck. The one thing I'm glad about is that after this next release of LW, there can no longer be the excuse that LW's failings are due to its aging architecture. Of course, Modeler will be the same still but moving forward, we can finally judge LW on a similar playing field with them updating (or outright replacing) core LightWave systems.

Of course NT tried to start over with CORE but then for whatever reason (loud crybabies in the LW community afraid of change, inept management, poor planning and execution of said program, poor forethought, probably a combination of all of these), NT shifted gears and decided to alter LW from the inside and we're just seeing the results of that now. Despite how one felt about CORE positive or negative, in the end, what it amounted to was a huge waste of users time, and developers time. And is one more reason that LightWave has not moved ahead as fast.

Exactly.

A great recap of what I said in the first place that Modo has moved faster than LightWave over the same period of time.

So we have come full circle. Agreeing but using different words to say the same thing. :)

Welcome to the internet quote-battle syndrome.

I agree as well about performance. And I would go further to say that all apps are suffering from this in one way or another.

And this potentially puts LightWave in a good place down the road. We have to see what happens.

Maya is leveraging GPU right now though. And that will be interesting to watch.

But LightWave desperately needs to get painting - at the very least - in Layout.

They can't wait too long to make that happen in my opinion.

lightscape
02-03-2016, 08:10 PM
In regards to lightscape accounting of how well the new stuff has been received, it's worth pointing out that one guy called it core 2. One guy. As far as the rest, well I guess outside the lw community just means the foundry boards where reactions have honestly been mixed. There are also a lot of modo users who are former lw users who always like to snipe at lw no matter the situation.

Yes one guy named Thomad4d. Do know who he is? He's got more skills and talent than anyone on this thread, an ex-lightwave expert. Some have the same sentiments and some others are not even agreeing with the direction of lightwave next having a new renderer. Even bryph wants a better text tool rather than a renderer. And I agree.
When really skilled lightwave people, pooby, dballesg, phil , etc are not so active in this forum but are on the other forum, thats saying something.

Here's something to chew on.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/86/4b/4b/864b4b496426c6a933daecd0bb3f18ce.jpg



Btw bryphs newest video, hilarious! :dance:

Surrealist.
02-04-2016, 01:27 AM
When really skilled lightwave people, pooby, dballesg, phil , etc are not so active in this forum but are on the other forum, thats saying something.
[/IMG]

It says a lot. But it has all been said before a zillion times. You'd think we would not have to bring it up or even argue the point anymore. It is a given. Just like a split app idea is a definite given - bad idea. There is absolutely nothing to argue about anymore.

So moving on from the given facts, Lightwave needed an overhaul and people left tired of waiting for it, where do we go from here?

From here we all disagree on the direction to a greater or lesser degree. Again, this is a given and nothing new.

But regardless of what they do or how they have to rebuild from here and that is what they are doing. And that is about the end of it. Not everyone is going to agree based on their needs as far as priority, but again, a given.

I myself am happy with the choice of feature priority. It suits me fine.

But there is likely as much of a disagreement of priorities here as anywhere.

But I handy cap the Modo guys due to the fact that they are more cynical and skeptical, for an understandable reason.

Kaptive
02-04-2016, 02:19 AM
Wooooweee, that's a big they! All 5 of them eh!?... and the big one doesn't even use the software anymore. Worthy of listening to for sure. I'm packing my bags and going full Autodesk on the back of this new information. I've been such a fool!

Oh, hang on... I found it! https://luxology.net/discussion/post.aspx?f=4&t=115748&p=1000560
and the guy who posted it! http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/community/profile.aspx?name=Thomas4D

On second thoughts ...unpack the suitcases... I'm staying. Thomas' work is fine, but you had me expecting a modern day Van Gogh or something. (No offense Thomas).

Thing is, it is you LS making the noises, so rather than using someone elses opinion, how about this....
How about you let us see your work, and then we can gauge how worth listening to your opinion is? It is the metric by which you judge others clearly, so only fair right? :D
You prove to me that you are worth listening to, and I'll shut my 'orrible mouth... how's that for a deal? :)


Just to add a bit of context to Thomas4ds comment... he said "I'm never serious when i write anything here =) ,. I was just making a point with the Core V2 comment cause reading this thread it seemed so much was repeating."

When you spend time on any subject, it all becomes deja vu. He wasn't even being serious. In fact, having read through a lot of the thread, most of the Modo users agree that LW is really quite capable and that Modo isn't without problems either. So really, it's the same as has been said here... only with a few more Core victims with an axe to grind. Now that I can understand... but it doesn't really have much to do with the future.

Moving on, I just thought of a funny analogy.
Lightwave is approaching its 13th release... it's becoming a teenager! So it has to go through growing pains, as does any software. You have growth spurts. No wonder LW is shouting to join the rebellion!!! :D Them Rebellious Teens!!

Seriously though, all this nay saying is just silly. LW is doing just fine, progress is being made and LW isn't going anywhere any time soon. Some things are looking great, other things are still lagging behind. Same with anything really. If you get good with whatever tool you use, you'll probably be able to produce comparable work to that produced in something else. Unless you are pushing hard in a certain direction (like Bryphi with his motion graphics/fx stuff), the frontier is something that you rarely see. When you bump into it, for sure, it can be frustrating.. but it isn't the end of the world. How many people are at the frontier realistically?

If it is a percentage, then it isn't even going to be over 10%. That 10% could move on to something bigger which caters to them, and LW will keep on rocking with its core users doing the daily work.
But of course, I am happy that the 10% battle on (and I don't care if they are professionals, amateurs or hobbyists), because they help to push the frontier. But if (for arguments sake) they all jumped ship, it isn't going to spell the end of Lightwave, no matter how much noise they make or how upset they feel. The work goes on.

Surrealist.
02-04-2016, 02:36 AM
Wooooweee, that's a big they! All 5 of them eh!?... and the big one doesn't even use the software anymore. Worthy of listening to for sure.

But why does not using the software making the guy not worthy of listening to? If you don't agree with his choice of priority that is one thing. But discriminating against his feedback because he does not use the software anymore does not make sense either.

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine... lol

Rant over.

But yeah. They have to move on. And there is only one direction there. Up.

And people from different background and needs will come back to revisit LW at different times for different reasons.

Kaptive
02-04-2016, 07:17 AM
But why does not using the software making the guy not worthy of listening to? If you don't agree with his choice of priority that is one thing. But discriminating against his feedback because he does not use the software anymore does not make sense either.

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine... lol

Rant over.

But yeah. They have to move on. And there is only one direction there. Up.

And people from different background and needs will come back to revisit LW at different times for different reasons.

Heh, fair points and I wouldn't argue with that. I'm playing Devils advocate in part, as I feel Lightscapes input is always one sided... and a little on the sensational side. I'm actually not that militant in the day to day really.
It's more the whole thing of him making it sound like everyone outside the LW community is calling the next version a fiasco, when really it is just a few voices on the Modo forum. Nothing wrong with their opinions, I just think it needs clarifying how many there. That's all :)

Surrealist.
02-04-2016, 07:53 AM
Yeah well...lol

Oh and some guy was asking if LightWave was going to be a good purchase?

Hey.... come back... :D

hrgiger
02-04-2016, 08:45 AM
Yes one guy named Thomad4d. Do know who he is? He's got more skills and talent than anyone on this thread, an ex-lightwave expert. Some have the same sentiments and some others are not even agreeing with the direction of lightwave next having a new renderer. Even bryph wants a better text tool rather than a renderer. And I agree.
When really skilled lightwave people, pooby, dballesg, phil , etc are not so active in this forum but are on the other forum, thats saying something.



Yes, I know who Thomas4D is. Your assessment of his talent and skills is pretty much subjective and we'll just have to disagree there.

Its so silly your trying to make a case for a general feeling of disagreement among people for the direction of LW when you can simply say you're not happy with it. Everyone has different needs and everyone has a different idea of what they think LightWave needs and in what order it needs them so you citing a handful of Modo users (a lot of who have an axe to grind anyway) is simply silly. Bryphi wants weight painting in Layout, support for DP tools, non-destructive workflows in layout and these things have a higher priority for him then a new renderer but that doesn't negate the need that others have. People think rendering is already good in LightWave so focus on improving it? Why not fix the other stuff that isn't as strong? Its even as Bryphi mentioned in one of his later videos, a lot of features in LW are like Islands, they don't work together. So to get things to work together, it means you have to remake them to be compatible. Before volumetrics and hair weren't integrated strongly into the renderer, now they will be. Bryphi wants weight painting in layout but to do that, you need to paint directly on vertices and polygons and so that means a new geometry engine that is capable of recognizing points and polys. I mean, that is if you're interested in doing it correctly and not hacking it together which is why we have island features in the first place. The geometry engine and the render engine are pillars of LW architecture that a lot of other things feed into or feed off of so as Rob mentioned, if they are truly to modernize LW, it would pretty much be necessary to replace them.
I talk to Pooby sometimes on Skype and he still keeps his eye on developments with LW. He thinks the changes in LW 2016 look good but the work he does is not something he can do with LightWave. He would like to see them put low level editing in a global node editor in LW.

Spinland
02-04-2016, 09:01 AM
Same here!It's especially hard if you;re dealing with small local economy and clients are more interested in budget eg. cheap stuff.

Yeah, same here. Clients who want "The Incredibles" for a hundred bucks. I'm making inroads into getting these folks to understand the value added but most of my well-paying gigs still come from national corporations or the DoD. I keep working it, though.

Surrealist.
02-04-2016, 09:03 AM
Yes, I know who Thomas4D is. Your assessment of his talent and skills is pretty much subjective and we'll just have to disagree there.

Its so silly your trying to make a case for a general feeling of disagreement among people for the direction of LW when you can simply say you're not happy with it. Everyone has different needs and everyone has a different idea of what they think LightWave needs and in what order it needs them so you citing a handful of Modo users (a lot of who have an axe to grind anyway) is simply silly. Bryphi wants weight painting in Layout, support for DP tools, non-destructive workflows in layout and these things have a higher priority for him then a new renderer but that doesn't negate the need that others have. People think rendering is already good in LightWave so focus on improving it? Why not fix the other stuff that isn't as strong? Its even as Bryphi mentioned in one of his later videos, a lot of features in LW are like Islands, they don't work together. So to get things to work together, it means you have to remake them to be compatible. Before volumetrics and hair weren't integrated strongly into the renderer, now they will be. Bryphi wants weight painting in layout but to do that, you need to paint directly on vertices and polygons and so that means a new geometry engine that is capable of recognizing points and polys. I mean, that is if you're interested in doing it correctly and not hacking it together which is why we have island features in the first place. The geometry engine and the render engine are pillars of LW architecture that a lot of other things feed into or feed off of so as Rob mentioned, if they are truly to modernize LW, it would pretty much be necessary to replace them.
I talk to Pooby sometimes on Skype and he still keeps his eye on developments with LW. He thinks the changes in LW 2016 look good but the work he does is not something he can do with LightWave. He would like to see them put low level editing in a global node editor in LW.



Makes sense as he is heavy into ICE. (Which no way LW will touch in a long long time if ever) And it would be nice. Even Maya has a node base. Not comparing it to ICE. But it is there and few people even use it. It is just not in your face (nor nearly as capable) as ICE. But it being there opens up opportunities you would not otherwise have.

And I like the idea of it being under, but accessible on top only if and when you want it.

But I think the key to LightWave's success from here forward is in rendering volumetrics and hair. The reason is because those are low hanging fruit. And it has a triple pay off. 1)a You get a render engine tuned to the new geometry engine,b, and it is a modern PBR workflow 2) And in the process you get it immediately working with some of very important current features in LightWave. 3) It has to be in place before other features can be developed. Because you have to render whatever you create.

From there they can move foward to wieght painting and rigging in Layout next. To me that is the next immediate low hanging fuit, even if starting out with being able to paint on meshes rigged with Genoma or your own custom Sekellgon or Layout Rigs. They get that working along with other key animation improvements desperately need in Layout but the 2nd release and they will be doing real good.

And I hate to say this with such a strong background in modeling, but heavy lifting modeling in Layout can wait until they get Layout to be a modern environment to rig in. That with some basic basic modeling tools to work on meshes in the way of corrective morphs and other basic rigging tools like maybe even facial expression editing for endomorphs.

Once that is all wrapped up I think they could move into more modeling tools and even maybe some CS features.

That's my sideline view.

THIBAULT
02-04-2016, 11:26 AM
I don't know if the new renderer is unbiased, biased or both, but I know that Rob or Lino mentioned that they compared the render speed of the new renderer against similar render engines. They also said that Arnold was one of those render engines and that they were very very pleased with the render times of the new Lw render engine when compared. We can only wait and hope for the best...

+1