PDA

View Full Version : What keeps YOU from leaving Lightwave behind?



Chrizto
08-20-2016, 04:58 AM
Hi there people!

It is 2016.
I know many of you have invested a lot of time in learning Lightwave's ins and outs.
I'm still observing that many LW old-timers have made the switch to Modo, probably because of more agile development and more modern tools.

The price for a new LW license is $995 ($695 for a "limited time").
Upgrading from an older version to the latest sets you back $495 ($395 for a "limited time").

Modo 10 is $1.199 and now includes MeshFusion
Modo 10 "Indie" is $299.99 or $14.99/mo
First of all, this is NOT an attempt to create a app x vs. app y debate, but it may end up becoming one.

I'm just curious as of what keeps you artists from switching to a more "modern" 3D package like Modo?

If you can give me some of your "LW's unique feature x" that keeps you from switching I'd be happy to know, as I'm making a blog post / review about Modo 10 and Lightwave 2015 these days.

Personally I've used LW since version 8, but also jumped aboard Modo with the 302 release, so I like both applications.

I just want to hear from you guys what your strongest likes and dislikes are in this regard.

Personally I believe Newtek could benefit from having a subscription option in addition to the perpetual licenses, as it would bring a lot of more "indie" developers to the platform.
People that most likely uses Blender and/or Modo Indie today.

I also feel that a licence price of $499 would grab a fair amount of users from Modo as it would be less than half the price of a Modo license.
At least for a "limited time".

Looking forward for your replies!

gamedesign1
08-20-2016, 05:19 AM
I personally love the minimal look that LightWave has. The snapping tools of LW and LWCAD combined are better than Modo's. The tools seem logical and intuitive. I cannot justify buying full modo when LightWave does what I want anyway. I do use Blender and Modo Indie for things LightWave isn't so good at. I like being able to completely customize the button placements in LightWave. I do wish it had customizable panels as well. Also I have used Lightwave for so long that I model faster in that.

- - - Updated - - -

LightWave's UV unwrapping tool is not great, but usable. Which come to think of it is a plugin and not even part of LW.

OnlineRender
08-20-2016, 05:32 AM
What keeps YOU from leaving Lightwave behind?


Hope!

pinkmouse
08-20-2016, 05:36 AM
Habit.

js33
08-20-2016, 05:37 AM
LW is kinda like an old muscle car. It's kinda beat up and a little rusty but it can still get up and go. I sometimes have to render a lot of converted CAD models and LW can handle a lot of geometry better than other apps. Also it renders fast. Modo can produce nice renders but they take sooooo long.

hrgiger
08-20-2016, 05:38 AM
im curious why someone thinks of it as leaving lightwave. its called buying another app. i use LW, Modo, zbrush, 3D Coat, Unreal...

by the way unless theres a sale going on, modo is $1799 not $1199.

MichaelT
08-20-2016, 05:55 AM
I have Modo, Maya & 3DSMax, Blender, Lightwave & Houdini (I used to have C4D, but not currently) I use Lightwave mostly, because I find it more intuitive, and more snappy. The way things work in LW (for me) responds much better when I want to investigate an idea etc.. I still use all the others. If I have to rate usage it would be LW, 3DSMax, Modo, Houdini, Blender & Maya. I use Houdini for particle VFX only. Which I then import into LW for rendering. I use LW nearly 50% of the time, the remaining time is divided between the others. Note that this doesn't mean all the time during a day. Only time between the applications. I also use other software for other reasons.. like Visual Studio C++, Unreal 4, Unity, Photoshop, Premiere, After effects, Dreamweaver, FLStudio, Reason, etc..

Farhad_azer
08-20-2016, 06:12 AM
I agree with MichaelT a thousand percent. i dont have all programms he mentioned but i spend lots of my time in LightWave and i enjoy it a lot. dont know so much about modo but i can assure that it is much better,IMHO, than max or maya(specially on modeling) and has lots of benefits over Houdini.

There are a lot of threads like this and i say it loud LIGHTWAVE ROCKS.

vncnt
08-20-2016, 06:14 AM
I know many of you have invested a lot of time in learning Lightwave's ins and outs.
What makes you think that learning another application will be done in 1 hour?
Where to find the right controls and tools, parameter influence on render output, etc.
And as soon you learn Modo, there is always a reason to switch to Maya or something else.
And I didnīt even mention converting scripts.
There is more in life than 3D, adjusting to other applications is too much overhead for me. Iīd rather stay focussed on my goals.


I'm still observing that many LW old-timers have made the switch to Modo, probably because of more agile development and more modern tools.
Last time I looked, Modo was even worse for (character) animation than Lightwave.


Personally I believe Newtek could benefit from having a subscription option in addition to the perpetual licenses, as it would bring a lot of more "indie" developers to the platform.
I they (NT) will, I would stop upgrading. Just like many others I like to own my license - no matter how often I use them.


People that most likely uses Blender and/or Modo Indie today.
"Indie" users are usually looking for free rides or at least cheap software. You canīt pay software designers and developers when there is no cashflow. Blender is already there. I tend to download it now and then but I usually stop using it after a few tests.

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 06:19 AM
im curious why someone thinks of it as leaving lightwave. its called buying another app. i use LW, Modo, zbrush, 3D Coat, Unreal...

by the way unless theres a sale going on, modo is $1799 not $1199.

I see your point.
I didn't come up with anything more creative than the wording "leaving LW behind" and it does sound kinda stupid, but you understand what I'm saying I hope.
As for the price of Modo:
The page says "From $1199", but if I choose "Buy", a regular license is indeed $1799!

When I'm logged in to The Foundry it says 1199 for a new license and 499 to upgrade my existing license.
Don't know why...

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 06:27 AM
I they (NT) will, I would stop upgrading. Just like many others I like to own my license - no matter how often I use them.



I did say IN ADDITION TO the perpetual licenses. As in freedom of choice.

hrgiger
08-20-2016, 06:33 AM
No problem Chrizto, i find modo compliments LW well and i enjoy each for different things.

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 06:34 AM
Up until now, my list of positives looks like:

+ Minimal UI
+ good snapping tools
+ Great with LwCad
+ customizable
+ habit
+ hope
+ fast renderer
+ handles good with large geo
+ intuitive
+ snappy

Keep it coming!

As mentioned earlier, this is not an attempt to discredit Lightwave and its users, I'm a Lightwave user myself and will probably be for years to come.

gamedesign1
08-20-2016, 06:38 AM
A lot of 3D artists seem to be a bit like physicists trying to find the equation that explains everything, but instead they are looking for a software that does it all. I am guilty of this from time to time as well, as it would be nice to have a one stop software package. But I just don't think it will ever happen because every software team will have a slightly different focus. So we need to just choose the selection of software that best suits our needs :)

erikals
08-20-2016, 07:07 AM
GizmoFree modeling
this makes LightWave the speediest SmackUp program for basics

SubscriptionFree
need i say more?

The Community http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/lwicon.png
You can Always find an answer at the NewTek forums. LightWavers Rock.

The User Interface
believe it or not, the LW interface is actually often quite fast. Though yes, it needs an update for sure.
i hear Modo Ui is sexy, but slow. not sure if this is true or not.

VPR - i Love You

NewTek seeing the Light
we can finally see that NewTek is listening and bringing fixes to LightWave's shortcomings

Character Animation
with Ryan, Craig, Lino there is really no reason not to do CA in LightWave.
the only minus here is the lack of Layered animation, hopefully coming around in the next updates.

more info > http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=1388174

jasonwestmas
08-20-2016, 07:24 AM
Dude you don't have to leave anything to use another. Use what makes sense at the time for whatever project to get it done to standard and budget. I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand for some people.

Makes me wonder if people are just addicted to peer pressure. Am I in the group now? How about now? Am I now?

Fortunately nobody is married to software unless of course you develop it. But even then, as we know, things change.

tyrot
08-20-2016, 07:49 AM
thanks jason ... ending this topic...

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 08:08 AM
thanks jason ... ending this topic...

This was not my intention for this post. I'm trying to gather info for a review I'm doing, but some people have a tendency to pour stigma over posts if it happens to mention a product that does not equal what they use the most.

I USE MULTIPLE BRANDS OF SOFTWARE MYSELF AS FREAKING STATED THREE TIMES ALREADY.

Well, I knew this would turn out negative one way or the other.

erikals
08-20-2016, 08:23 AM
i'm quite Pro X vs X threads, as i always find interesting points about application X that i hadn't given that much thought.

so i agree, this should be read as informative, rather than not.


for me, it'd be nice to read more about Modo vs LightWave,
what is great about Modo, what is bad about Modo.


for example, how does M/LW deal with...

Rounding?
Thickening?
Translate?
Extrude?
Splines?
Move/Rotate?
Snapping?
Work Planes?
CA?
MoCap?
Dynamics?
Rendering?
3Dprint?
VFX?
Texturing?
UVing?
Sculpting?
Upgrade Policy?
History Stack?
Modifier Stack?
Endomorphs?
Ui?
Vertex Paint?
Stability?
Procedurals?
Post?
Plugin development?
Tracking?

how does the M/LW Community work?
what's the future challenge for M/LW?

jasonwestmas
08-20-2016, 08:33 AM
This was not my intention for this post. I'm trying to gather info for a review I'm doing, but some people have a tendency to pour stigma over posts if it happens to mention a product that does not equal what they use the most.

I USE MULTIPLE BRANDS OF SOFTWARE MYSELF AS FREAKING STATED THREE TIMES ALREADY.

Well, I knew this would turn out negative one way or the other.


Carry on. No negativity here, just expressing my thoughts on the matter. I wouldn't want to keep you from your opinions and searches.

Nicolas Jordan
08-20-2016, 09:22 AM
I really like the simplicity of the workflow especially for architectural visualization work. The rendering is pretty good quality and LWCAD is unmatched. I used Modo for a few years mostly for rendering but I grew tired of always having to manually update my models in Modo since I modeled with LWCAD. I also grew tired of managing the shader tree in large scenes so I went back to rendering in Lightwave again. It just kept everything simple for my workflow.

Spinland
08-20-2016, 09:25 AM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I accomplish what I need to do 3D-wise with LW plus various plugins so there's no need for me to add a different 3D app. If that changes, I will do so.

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 10:17 AM
i'm quite Pro X vs X threads, as i always find interesting points about application X that i hadn't given that much thought.

so i agree, this should be read as informative, rather than not.


for me, it'd be nice to read more about Modo vs LightWave,
what is great about Modo, what is bad about Modo.


for example, how does M/LW deal with...


Thickening?
Translate?
Extrude?
Move/Rotate?
Snapping?
Work Planes?
Rendering?
Texturing?
UVing?
Sculpting?
Upgrade Policy?
Modifier Stack?
Ui?


how does the M/LW Community work?
what's the future challenge for M/LW?

These are the areas I've found that are "same but different" in Modo/LW.

Thicken function in Modo is very clean and durable. Modo also has similar "extender" functionality as Lightwave for edge extrusions etc.
Snapping in Modo is an area where I feel that after 701 Modo went overboard into the "too much" realm.
It has ended up as an extremely complicated / advanced tool that I don't care about.
The Work-plane in Modo is based on a rather sensitive and complex system that relies on action center and axis direction to work.
All other tools are again linked to the way the axis and action center is combined and while this lends itself to being very flexible,
for me it turns out to complicated and you have to watch your options in the "tool pipe" all the time to know how a tool operates.
Tools may be combined and stacked and is extremely flexible, but again, to me, too complex.

Rendering is good quality, easy to set up, but can be slow compared to LW.
Texturing and UV'ing is one area I feel that Modo has a clear advantage over stock LW without plugins.
The sculpting toolset is simple but useful for sculpting / shaping of forms. Maybe not so much for details.
The Modo UI is very customization friendly, but not as minimalistic as LW's. It has Pie-menus and bells and whistles.
I like using less UI and more keyboard shortcuts anyway, so for me this is not a big plus.
In the latest revision Modo has gotten some procedural modeling toolset kinda stuff, but I haven't had time to check it out yet.
Upgrading Modo can be done for the same price no matter how many versions you've skipped. Currently the price is 499USD.

What I like about LW compared to Modo is the fact that it DOESN'T change all the time. For some this may seem strange, but I prefer stable tools with bugfixing over new functionality that is buggy even if those tools have been around since the 60's.
I also appreciate LW's stability and predictability. The tools work in a predictable, easy to define way.
In Modo this is not so much the case.

jeric_synergy
08-20-2016, 10:30 AM
As I try to make a living (again, SOON!) with advanced software, I often complain to my long suffering friends that it is much like a musical instrument: to be proficient, one must practice, practice, practice. For me, the energy threshold required to become proficient in another program is a HUGE adeterrent to learning another application, although the cost (sans Blender) is a factor. But the time involved is the overwhelming reason.

Nobody calls a cellist learning trumpet someone who is "leaving" the cello.

Also, it's not like I've plumbed the depths of what LW is capable of: the quickest look at what RH or RR or Mark Warner accomplishes shows that.

I also fear the "grass is greener" syndrome: it takes a long time to determine where the "dream packages" are lacking, and it can be a rude surprise. Again, to me this is similar to musical instruments: some things are easy on one instrument, but the same instrument may have oddball shortcomings that bite one unexpectedly.

Having flexible interchange facilities is probably key to future profitability, both for artists and software vendors.

Dan Ritchie
08-20-2016, 10:40 AM
realizing other programs aren't really as good as their bullet points make them look.

Exclaim
08-20-2016, 10:48 AM
Nothing seems hidden behind hotkeys or strange menu design. It's well documented, both online videos, books, and pdf manual. Layers work intuitively for modeling, at least better than other software I've tried. Stable enough to complete most projects.

Snosrap
08-20-2016, 11:35 AM
Yes I have been a long time user of LW going back to 5.6. I bought Modo101 and continued to upgrade through 601. I really thought I'd be making the jump to Modo permanently but that never happened. I like the modeling and the look of the render engine, but I found the rendering to be either too hard with the shader tree or too buggy. I followed tutorials to the T and it either didn't work as explained in the tut or it crashed. (I was just in Modo yesterday doing some simple retopo work and it crashed within 5 minutes. :)) I thought each new release would get better but it never did. 601 was, and will be my final upgrade. In the meantime LW has made some good (some great) strides. Node editor, VPR, Instances, Bullet, etc.. Modeler has lagged behind somewhat but LWCad easily makes up for any shortcomings. I also have loaded on my PC 3DS Max that's included with our Autodesk Inventor license, and while I very seldom need to use it (mostly for converting .max files. :)) it just seems old school to me. LW will continue to be my go to 3D app for quite some time.

DrStrik9
08-20-2016, 12:24 PM
What keeps me from leaving LW? Decades of familiarity. -- It's that simple.

CaptainMarlowe
08-20-2016, 12:55 PM
I can do almost all that I want in LW, most of the time in a quick and easy way. I don't say it's fantastic at everything, but certainly is good at a huge amount of things.
As long as it fulfills my needs and I feel comfortable with it, I don't see no reason to dump Lightwave. OFC, in certain areas, especially for sculpting or texturing, I've extended my toolset with other apps I thought useful like 3D-Coat or substance suite.

roboman
08-20-2016, 12:56 PM
I started out drawing pictures in the corners of books and moved on to 8mm and 16mm film. I fell in love with computers and worked at trying to do animations with them starting in the 70s. Amiga was finely enough hardware to do things really worth doing. Of all the software on the Amiga, Lightwave did what I wanted in a way that I liked, better then the others. Watching it slam one frame at a time onto supper vhs tape was still a bit reminiscent of shooting a frame at a time from the monitor to film :) Then Amiga started to do their slow death and 3DStudio Dos became the tool I liked best and worked well for me. I used the first ver of Max, but was never that happy with it. I tried every thing else on the market when it came time to upgrade to the next ver and liked the windows ver of lightwave. I used Max a bit, but mostly used just lightwave from ver 5 until 7. The animation is a side job/hobby for me and life got in the way during ver 8 and most of 9. At that point I tried Max, Maya and a whole list of others. Lightwave still felt the most comfortable and did all the things I needed it to. Still other things I wanted from other softwares, but after several years I could still just sit down and use Lightwave. I like the user interface and dislike the interface of many others with 2000 oddly shaped icons that you have to half guess at the functions of...

Alot of my modeling gets done in CAD or CAM software. All the basic lip sync gets done in DAZ 32 bit, so the rigging/morphs tend to lean that direction also. There is also the just huge market of objects in the DAZ / Poser world. So basically I'm most comfortable going from a bunch of semi textured models to finished animations and product demos with Lightwave. Blender still has the open source feel of software that is written for the programmers and not the end users. I guess the other animation programs feel more like a work environment. Lightwave feels more like I'm doing something I enjoy.

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 01:07 PM
What keeps me from leaving LW? Decades of familiarity. -- It's that simple.

Yes, as many have already said, this is likely the deciding factor for most of us.
I've tried to learn other applications, but I feel LW is the one that gives me the best "fine level" control and predictable results in the modeling process, and the shading and rendering tools also works very well.
It is still a package that CAN be mastered by one person (I'm just a hobbyist) and it is possible to produce good results with LW (and possibly some plugins) alone, without having to invest in many months or years of re-learning other tools just because they're "more modern".

I asked about this from a hobbyist perspective, but the more I read from your replies the more I feel that this was a stupid question to ask the way I asked it, but it was as I've said as part of a review I'm working on.

Thanks for your feedback.

erikals
08-20-2016, 01:11 PM
this said, Modeler needs lots of updates...

http://forums.newtek.com/archive/index.php/t-139159

bazsa73
08-20-2016, 01:30 PM
One does not simply leave LW behind.

erikals
08-20-2016, 01:38 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s1DUqzcmDFk/UPKsahmwyaI/AAAAAAAABCI/hXVQPDhyLms/s400/one-does-not-siply-walk-in-to-mordor-meme-template-blank.jpg

tyrot
08-20-2016, 02:05 PM
dude this question `What keeps YOU from leaving Lightwave behind?` is so stupid ... call me negative whatever ..

OlaHaldor
08-20-2016, 02:06 PM
I keep LW around for
+ TurbulenceFD
+ Easier setup (and my understanding) of dynamics
+ SyFlex (can get it for modo too, bud a simple MDD.. come on..)
+ Perfect Octane integration
+ LWCAD

All of my points, except LWCAD, are related to Layout. And that's probably where I feel some other apps fall short. The ease of use, how snappy and intuitive things are in Layout is just great.

And I'm not leaving LW. Ever. But I see myself spending less time with it now than before.

Chrizto
08-20-2016, 03:02 PM
dude this question `What keeps YOU from leaving Lightwave behind?` is so stupid ... call me negative whatever ..

Yup. I see that now.
Just rub it in a little more and we're good.

spherical
08-20-2016, 04:04 PM
Apart from some here, I don't feel that the original question is stupid at all; probably because I got the base meaning from the start. Face it, "leaving LightWave behind" is but one small step from "using a different application more and more". I find this tread to be beneficial in that the general growing consensus is that LightWave is, and has been, on a good path overall. Lots of people continue to grouse about and bring up old deficiencies that need "fixing". While these may be good to address, the general feeling seems to be that LightWave hasn't committed the sin of over-developing tools to the point of unuseability.

Like many, I have invested most of my time and energy into learning LightWave, so the inertia is there. I have many other applications that are in the same general category, in one way or another, but I use them to complement LightWave as my central application. I do need to invest more time into those peripheral applications, so that I become more proficient in them. In doing so, I will inevitably bring the "using a different application more" threshold closer to the tipping point, but I don't see a flash-over happening no matter how much I may eventually adopt another application. Again, the inertia is too strong and will continue to increase as I find new things in LightWave that the external applications open up to my 3D consciousness.

erikals
08-20-2016, 04:17 PM
there are so many things in other apps that i find lacking.

Maya, no $200 Syflex, tricky animated UVs. Bullet HardBodies is better in LW from what i read. Bugs. Subscription.
Modo, no good muscle simulation. Clunky Workflow? Bugs. Subscription.

+probably tons of other things.

always keeping an eye on the competition though. hence looking into Houdini Indie for VFX.

Greenlaw
08-20-2016, 04:30 PM
I've used LightWave at every studio where I've worked, big and small, since 1998 and continue to do so. For projects that must be knocked out very quickly and still look great, LightWave's workflow is very direct compared to most other 3D applications I use. This has been especially true when you're part of a small team of generalists who have to quickly adapt to new challenges and requests on a daily basis (sometimes hourly even.) Sure, we use Maya too, when we need it, but most of the time LightWave makes more sense given the tight schedules we face.

But even if I wasn't using LightWave to make a living, I would still be using it in my personal projects because 1.) I know it very well, 2.) I can afford it (two licenses actually), and 3.) it does what I need without too much fussing. That last bit is important because I actually have very little time for personal art projects but software like LightWave help me to get my projects done anyway.

(Well, okay, maybe except for the B2 project, but that's really more me dragging my feet or getting too distracted by other personal projects. LightWave will still help me get it done...eventually.) :)

jwiede
08-20-2016, 05:33 PM
Maya ... Bullet HardBodies is better in LW from what i read.
Modo no good muscle simulation. ... Subscription.


A few quick issues/questions:

Bullet HBD is stable/reliable on Maya, in contrast to LW's current implementation, which is demonstrably unreliable (w.r.t. dynacache, collision, and performance problems). Maya's Bullet HBD and SBD offer full manifestation of Bullet objects, constraints, properties (incl. aerodynamics support), forces (and fields) with nodal and scripting access to manipulate/modify them. Maya also offers both 2.8.2 and 3.x versions of Bullet solver engine for users, with both CPU and experimental GPU (OpenCL) solver support for both. (RefLink) (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/ENU/Maya/files/GUID-CC0BDE04-468D-4383-9553-14157E23D171-htm.html) So, with that in mind... can you please clarify in what way you believe LW's integration of Bullet HBD (or SBD, for that matter) is somehow superior to Maya's?


You labeled both Maya and MODO as "Subscription". As Maya only offers subscription-based licensing, yet MODO continues to offer perpetual license purchase, can you please explain why you view them as somehow equivalent in that regard?


Between Maya, MODO, and LW, only Maya actually offers native, proper muscle simulation. Using joint-controlled morphs to emulate muscles can be done in MODO just as in LW. Third-party PSOFT's muscle deformer is another means of muscle simulation/emulation in MODO, but doesn't appear to exist for LW. Please clarify what is it you believe LW has in terms of muscle emulation that MODO does not?


As for myself, I primarily use Lightwave as a means to access certain LWCAD or 3rdPower tools. It is not my "main" 3D app anymore, though I do still use it on occasion as noted.

Spinland
08-20-2016, 07:03 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s1DUqzcmDFk/UPKsahmwyaI/AAAAAAAABCI/hXVQPDhyLms/s400/one-does-not-siply-walk-in-to-mordor-meme-template-blank.jpg

Heh. :D

Ztreem
08-20-2016, 08:02 PM
I'm doing visualization and animation with lightwave on a daily basis. I use Lightwave because I have not come over a single project yet that I could not do in Lighwave. I use other software to fill out my needs of sculptibg/ painting, fire/smoke/liquid simulation etc, but thanks to the nodal tree in Lightwave most things lacking can be achieved with some clever node trees.

For example you see a new feature in application X (this time c4d). They just added inverse amb occlusion for fake sss etc. Then you just open up the node tree in Lighwave add a couple of nodes and do some wirering and you realize that Lightwave already have this feature, so no need to be jealous.

Surrealist.
08-20-2016, 08:34 PM
I agree with what a lot of people have said thus far regarding simplicity, familiarity, immediacy. There are a lot of the aspects of the material/rendering pipeline that are nice and straight forward. So LW always remains on my radar when I have projects where only the final rendered image is required. And that includes personal projects.

But I have been lucky enough over the last few years to come into some money and invest that as well as time into some other products that are now more or less at the center of my pipeline as far as animation and dynamics. So if I am using LightWave in the pipeline it is more for the rendering and shading. But for some projects that could come with some limitations.

Recently I have just come to the point where I am looking for more out of the rendering from LightWave. Particularly with hair and a PBR workflow. And so, if there is anything keeping me here - should you want to look at it like that - it is the next release. I want to see what that is about and get a chance to test the rendering pipeline. I think it has promise. And a new render engine to LightWave is long overdo.

Having an included free virtually unlimited node license with LightWave has been a huge selling point for LightWave over the years. And updating that feature is an absolute must. While many people have moved on to other 3P solutions for LW. None of those interest me. And additionally they come at a price and with extra money for more nodes. And that alone as a feature; more modern shading and with the better handling of large amounts of data, will alone be a huge selling point for LW. In my opinion :)

So for me that is about it in a nutshell.

m.d.
08-20-2016, 10:05 PM
Maya, no $200 Syflex, tricky animated UVs. Bullet HardBodies is better in LW from what i read.



been using maya since v 2006, but havent upgraded since 2008 as switched more to video and LW filled all my basic needs.

Maya dynamics were as good or better in 06/07 then lightwaves are now....and they have only gotten better. Particles interacted with soft bodies, RBD dynamics were Hollywood quality and fast. Full dynamics constraints....

No need for syflex at all....maya has nCloth which is fast and will effect nParticles and nHair etc.....
https://youtu.be/_21ghiJ9XL0?t=43

tburbage
08-21-2016, 12:44 AM
I've continued to use LightWave because of:
- its strong image processing / rendering pipeline, with good lighting and cameras support. I find the settings to set up for rendering to be compact and straight-forward, with good results, and relatively rapid iteration with VPR. It's nice not to feel the need, as it seems most Max and Maya users do, to buy another renderer to get their work done (Keyshot, Redshift, VRay, etc.). Nice to know Octane is there. Want to see what the new PBR rendering capabilities are before making other rendering investments.
- solid, stable animation pipeline, with good keyframing workflow, as well as good procedural animation capability.
- Modeler, though definitely needing a modernization pass, is still a strong polygonal and subd modeler. LWCAD really extends its capabilities. Most modelers are likely using ZBrush and/or 3DCoat anyway at this point, reducing the incentive to seek out a "Modeler replacement".
- good interchange functionality to move assets in and out such as .fbx. It actually partners fairly well with ZBrush, Maya, and game engines.

vncnt
08-21-2016, 02:28 AM
I did say IN ADDITION TO the perpetual licenses. As in freedom of choice.
I would not trust it on the long run.

Iīm a LW user since 4.5. Thatīs a long time and a lot of time spent working with the program. That has been the biggest investment - not the price of the software.

Confidence is more important than you think.

hrgiger
08-21-2016, 07:34 AM
its a legitimate question, no need to come down on Chrizto for it. We do want open discussion do we not? Some of the regular negative posters here have made me spend a lot less time on the forums. Besides, with the lack of communication from LightWave Group on the future or even current state of the product, its understandable when doubts arrive.

As far as why I still use LightWave even though I use other apps as well... For one LWCAD. With the lack of updates on modeler, it keeps working in modeler relevant. Right now Im working on assets that require precise measurements and without LWCADs snapping and measure tools, it would be much more difficult.
Familiarity. i just work faster in LW then other apps (for most things anyway). thats not to say that the workflow is perfect or that working in LW in general is faster, ive just used it more then anything else so im used to it.

To be honest i dont much have the mindset of this app vs that app anymore. Anyone that tells you that one app is better then another imo is full of crap. In my experience all apps have their good features and not so good features. i think in terms of functions. When i want to UV map or retopo something i think of 3D-Coat. When i need to sculpt, i go to zbrush. When i need to model a simpler hard edge model i use either LW, Modo or even zmodeler in zbrush. Rendering I use LW. All of them pass data to each other without fail.

Chrizto
08-21-2016, 07:34 AM
A few quick issues/questions:
Bullet HBD is stable/reliable on Maya, in contrast to LW's current implementation, which is demonstrably unreliable (w.r.t. dynacache, collision, and performance problems). Maya's Bullet HBD and SBD offer full manifestation of Bullet objects, constraints, properties (incl. aerodynamics support), forces (and fields) with nodal and scripting access to manipulate/modify them. Maya also offers both 2.8.2 and 3.x versions of Bullet solver engine for users, with both CPU and experimental GPU (OpenCL) solver support for both. (RefLink) (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/ENU/Maya/files/GUID-CC0BDE04-468D-4383-9553-14157E23D171-htm.html) So, with that in mind... can you please clarify in what way you believe LW's integration of Bullet HBD (or SBD, for that matter) is somehow superior to Maya's?



Ok, so is LW's implementation of Bullet really that bad?
Is it not considered "usable" by professionals?
Personally I haven't had much time to study the physics/fx part of LW but was thinking about following the Bullet courses on simplylightwave.com, but if it is as unstable and lacking features that I get an impression of I may re-consider.

When talking about adding a subscription based licensing option I get a lot of flame and I can understand that, but what about a model that's like Cakewalk Sonar's payment option, where you pay like $20 / month until you've paid for your full product license then you keep it for life?
If you cancel your payment before you've paid in full you have to start over, so one can think of this as renting a license if you don't pay for the full product.
This is a great way to get indie and hobbyists into the game without sacrificing the holy perpetual licensing scheme. It's basically down-payment.

I think that would be a great option to use for Newtek to maximize user counts and still make more $. Imagine all those who just pay for a few months, that's pure profit into pocket.

hrgiger
08-21-2016, 07:41 AM
Ok, so is LW's implementation of Bullet really that bad?
Is it not considered "usable" by professionals?
Personally I haven't had much time to study the physics/fx part of LW but was thinking about following the Bullet courses on simplylightwave.com, but if it is as unstable and lacking features that I get an impression of I may re-consider.



No, its not that bad. John is referring to some issues that have been reported in the 2015 version, most of which, supposedly anyway, have been addressed in the next version.

Spinland
08-21-2016, 07:44 AM
Ok, so is LW's implementation of Bullet really that bad?
Is it not considered "usable" by professionals?

No, it is not. It's certainly not flawless but in the use cases to which I've put it it's quite stable and useful.

samurai_x
08-21-2016, 07:58 AM
I'm just curious as of what keeps you artists from switching to a more "modern" 3D package like Modo?


In the CG capital, japan, arguably one of the places where cg is produced in insane amount, there are more lightwave jobs than modo jobs. Just the animation industry alone is bigger than the car industry.
Then you have the tv, web, etc industries that all have cg.

Aww167
08-21-2016, 08:02 AM
"What keeps YOU from leaving Lightwave behind?"

Capability of the modelling tools and output render quality. Availability of 3rd party tools to extend capability is definitely a consideration. Investment in learning the tools and development of an efficient workflow is really a matter of personal time and effort and I'm not persuaded of an advantage in using any other software for my admittedly limited needs . Price-wise, LW is really excellent value for what it can do. If it switched to a wholly subscription model, I would stick with the current version until it became obsolete in practical terms, then quite possibly leave it behind for something more viable for my needs.
Achieving the ultimate in photorealism along with any possible modelling and animation sophistication & complexity, is the direction it should be going imho and I hope it can continue to do that without needing to radically change the marketing approach. Greater ease and efficiency of the creation process in realising the desired objective is all that users really want I'm sure, making the whole process as simple and effortless and inexpensive as possible.
Not much to ask really, is it? :)

erikals
08-21-2016, 08:53 AM
different opinions on LW vs Maya Bullet it seems...
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=8220653#post8220653


Imatk - 07-28-2016, 05:06 PM
Bullet dynamics is badass and WAY more user friendly than Maya's rigid body system (and IMHO more robust)

Surrealist.
08-21-2016, 09:27 AM
Bullet Dynamics in Maya is not Maya's Rigid Body System. That predates even nDynamics. So it is not even clear that he is comparing the LW use of Bullet and the Maya Use.

Just from the wording. But I do find it hard to believe that any one package has that much better of a Bullet implementation than another, seeing how it is basically a library. LightWave did have a weak initial implementation but that was mainly due to lack of enabled features than anything. I think. I would say most programs are on a par as far as Bullet goes with maybe Houdini coming out ahead as it has Bullet enabled within the nodal system. And you can choose it or other systems when doing rigid dynamics. And the cool thing there is that anything you would normally be able to have interact with rigid bodies will work then with Bullet. Not an expert mind you. But that is my basic understanding of it from using it only a short time in Houdini.

But anyways from my use, which is somewhat limited, I have found Bullet about the same between LightWave and Maya as far as dependability. So I will guess that comment came out of context and was not leveled at a comparison between the two.

raw-m
08-21-2016, 09:35 AM
What keeps me with LW is the amount of time invested in learning it, AE interchange and, quite simply, DP Kit. If I go anywhere, it would be C4D but DP Kit is so good it means I don't have to (currently) - LW3dG should really be SHOUTING about LW capabilities with it (and build it in (Mac user gripe))! There's so many ways to do stuff in LW I find I'm learning all the time.

Ps. And the render quality!

UnCommonGrafx
08-21-2016, 10:00 AM
It is similar to walking, for me.
And since I am building things, printing them on 3d printers, cutting them on cnc machines, I need to easily be able to 'walk' that path.

It's a great tool. One I have augmented and supplemented but, almost daily, still use.
Robert

jeric_synergy
08-21-2016, 10:31 AM
I like the general positivity of this thread.

Pointing out the strengths of LW goes a long way towards curing the "grass is greener" syndrome.

++++++++++++

DP Kit is an amazing piece of gear, although I think I could utilize it better if the dox were more extensive. I think there's a commercial opening there, Kat Meyers. :caffeine:

Prince Charming
08-21-2016, 11:47 AM
I agree with most of what people have said here... I personally still use LW because of DP tools, and the rendering. And the years of practice that have made me so comfortable using it.
I do have a problem with the comparison between bullet and other apps. IT IS A CRAP IMPLEMENTATION. To claim otherwise is living in fantasy land IMO, or you simply do not have an understanding of what else is out there. I cant speak about maya, but compared to houdini and c4d the implementation is junk. I don't say this because I want to turn this into a bashing thread (there are tons of good things about LW)... I say it cause I want these tools to be improved so they are more useful than they are currently, and there is HUGE room for improvements.

erikals
08-21-2016, 01:43 PM
I do have a problem with the comparison between bullet and other apps. IT IS A CRAP IMPLEMENTATION.
To claim otherwise is living in fantasy land IMO, or you simply do not have an understanding of what else is out there.
I cant speak about maya,

well, the comparison he made was versus Maya.

anyway... word is much is fixed in LightWave 2017...

haven't tried Bullet Maya myself, though i know RBD was a pain in Maya in 2008. it was more like a WTF moment.

hence one of the reasons why i wanted to jump to xSI, but i think we all know what happened to Mr. XSI...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r77WyKNsIk

Surrealist.
08-21-2016, 01:53 PM
He still works fine a blows a lot of stuff out of the water - still. ;)

Should have bought it so you could be using it now.

m.d.
08-21-2016, 01:54 PM
different opinions on LW vs Maya Bullet it seems...
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=8220653#post8220653

That's called hearsay....I could google quotes from people that think the earth is flat. :D
Outside of houdini, maya has the best dynamics going. But much easier in Maya.

Bullet in Maya has full openCL GPU acceleration.....
Maybe the author is referring to ease of setup....


But as far as Lightwave.....why I stay is ease of use. Fast, and capable. Relatively cheap
LWCAD, turbulence, DPKIT, octane.....all big additions. The integrated bullet, and plugins like syflex make up for anything it was lacking compared to the competition.

jeric_synergy
08-21-2016, 01:56 PM
anyway... word is much is fixed in LightWave 2017...
Not convincing.

Prince Charming
08-21-2016, 03:50 PM
word is much is fixed in LightWave 2017...


I am willing to bet that not one of my issues with the the functionality of bullet have been addressed for this release. Where it falls down on its face is when you want to do things procedurally and/or on many objects at once. Most other apps like c4d and houdini (and probably maya). Have elegant workflows to deal with this kind of thing, or they at least give low enough level control that these circumstances can be dealt with by the user. In lightwave these types of fx are simply not possible because there is no tool that allows it, and there is not low enough level control to do it. It should be a nodal process IMO... If I want to set 1000 spring constraints for each bullet part in a mesh, I should be able to do it easily, and without 1000 nulls.

Not having bullet particles is another issue. Also, very poor instancing integration unless you can set it up nodaly.

Or even let NT go the c4d route, and make good tools to deal with these workflows, but to let the LW implementation continue to be so crippling is not doing any good for anyone.
I really hope you are right, and much has been fixed/updated in this version...

erikals
08-21-2016, 03:56 PM
i wouldn't bet on Bullet updates in this release, though i'd certainly welcome it.

Houdini is the way to go for VFX... and 'almost' free.

Greenlaw
08-21-2016, 03:59 PM
iSome of the regular negative posters here have made me spend a lot less time on the forums.
I know what you mean. The endless grumbling has made the regular forums less fun and less productive for me, so I don't drop in nearly as often these days. I know many friends/co-workers who are also avid LightWave users dropped out of participating in the forums a long time ago for the same reason.

I stick around because a few familiar names do still hang out here, and I like to help out new users when I can. Plus, every now and then, I pick up a new tip or trick for myself. :)


To be honest i dont much have the mindset of this app vs that app anymore.
Agreed. I don't understand this mindset either. It may have meant something years ago when few programs were able to share data but with today's interchange capabilities between so-called 'competing' software packages, why wouldn't you use multiple programs? Being able to share data with another program is a huge selling point these days.

Prince Charming
08-21-2016, 04:54 PM
Its not about this app or that app is better. Its about discussing features between the apps as openly and honestly as possible. How are we supposed to decide what app is best used for what tasks if comparing the feature sets honestly is not allowed?

MichaelT
08-21-2016, 04:55 PM
I think this pretty much sums up how everyone should handle forum "rages" ;) : https://youtu.be/nvule1cD_zk?t=340

erikals
08-21-2016, 05:30 PM
How are we supposed to decide what app is best used for what tasks if comparing the feature sets honestly is not allowed?
not sure if you are referring to me here, since i said Houdini is best for VFX.

i never meant / insinuated comparing features is not allowed. not sure why anyone would.

after all, people reading my other posts in this thread would soon see that this wouldn't make sense.

though, yes, i concluded Houdini was much better.


anyway, to me, this thread pretty much ran it's course.


so i'm continuing the LightWave <> Houdini road   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

jeric_synergy
08-21-2016, 05:57 PM
Anybody want to stray back onto topic? I was finding it pretty interesting.

Prince Charming
08-21-2016, 06:35 PM
not sure if you are referring to me here, since i said Houdini is best for VFX.

i never meant / insinuated comparing features is not allowed. not sure why anyone would.

after all, people reading my other posts in this thread would soon see that this wouldn't make sense.

though, yes, i concluded Houdini was much better.


anyway, to me, this thread pretty much ran it's course.


so i'm continuing the LightWave <> Houdini road   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wasnt directed at you Erik... But lets stay on topic as jeric says.
One other reason that I stick with LW is because of how fast it is do many things.

js33
08-21-2016, 06:49 PM
The main thing I like about LW compared to other 3D apps is the viewport navigation and being able to easily see the view from the camera, light or perspective. Now this seems like a simple thing but somehow it is weird in other apps and not straightforward like LW. The main thing I would hope for is somehow reducing the amount of clicks necessary and being able to apply actions in bulk easier so you don't have to manually go change 50 things that could be done once.

Signal to Noise
08-21-2016, 06:57 PM
The GUI (I still like the Model/Render environment split)
The GUI (I still like the button menus rather than icons)
Familiarity
Price
An "all-in-one" software solution
Community

Spinland
08-21-2016, 07:11 PM
Community


Quoted for over-the-top full agreement. This community is by far the best forum for creatives I frequent, warts and all.

js33
08-21-2016, 07:23 PM
Yes people freely share their thoughts, opinions, knowledge and overall goodwill.

Rayek
08-21-2016, 08:14 PM
For the most part I have switched to other applications for the bulk of my work and projects (Blender, 3dCoat), although I fire up Layout for the odd render now and then.

I suppose for me the main reason to keep Lightwave installed is a nostalgic one: I started doing 3d in Sculpt 3D on the Amiga (1986), played with VideoScape in 1988, and later had Lightwave on the Amiga. It harks back to a great time in my life with less worries, geek friends, demo parties, retro gaming, and so on.

Lightwave always has been part of my computing life.

Without the nostalgia factor, I would have left Lightwave a long time ago. And the (false?) hope that Newtek will surprise and amaze us all with a modernized consolidated (modeler/layout) version that kicks Max and Maya in the teeth. Or at least Modo. Newtek should have pressed onward with Core, in my opinion - water on the bridge, and all that.

Silly emotional reasons, but there it is.

jeric_synergy
08-21-2016, 08:32 PM
Rayek, LW+3dCoat users need their own clubhouse. :( <----(EDIT: the old "sad face" was more sad, less peeved)

I've found it very hard to get anywhere in it. ::sigh:: I think LWM may have channeled my neurons too completely.

samurai_x
08-21-2016, 09:15 PM
This is a directory with a few hundred pages of studios in tokyo alone. Not even counting other areas.
Hundreds of studios doing paid cg. Not indie, no budget companies.

https://s13.postimg.org/v4e405wcn/studiodirectory.jpg

Lightwave has 40+ studios using it by real companies. Not bad. There aren't that many listings for modo. Zero for blender.

What keeps people from leaving lightwave for more modern appz like modo, blender? Paying work. If people will leave they will go to Autodesk, not to software that's not really used much.

jwiede
08-21-2016, 09:23 PM
No, its not that bad. John is referring to some issues that have been reported in the 2015 version, most of which, supposedly anyway, have been addressed in the next version.

Whether the issues are a problem depends highly on the scale of RBD/SBD sim you're trying to run. Unfortunately, by the time you realize there's a problem (where you've exceeded the dynacache limit) it's too late to do anything, the disk version is already corrupted. It's that inability to tell until simulation how close you are to corruption which makes it a serious problem, esp. for time-sensitive professionals.

Saving often isn't really an efficient safeguard either, because the events which trigger the dynacache corruption are invoked during playback/simulation. What that means is you can be past the point of corruption, but until you trigger enough sim computation to exceed the dynacache limit there's no sign of a problem. As a result, there's no easy/quick way to distinguish "good saves" from "bad saves" after you've hit the problem, the only thing the user can do is load a save, trigger a (potentially lengthy) complete sim calculation, wait to see if it exceeds the limit, and if so, try another save.

A potential fix in the next version offers very little aid or comfort to anyone who's encountered the problem in the current release version of Lightwave, esp. lacking any notion when that fix might arrive.

Erikals made a blanket statement that LW's Bullet dynamics are somehow better than those in Maya (based on what he'd "read"). Maya's version_s_ of Bullet are significantly and demonstrably more current, production-stable, and fully-featured than the version in LW. Questioning the basis for his assertion is not, contrary to how some choose to portray it, equivalent to saying Lightwave's version of Bullet is "bad". For that matter, even if I HAD explicitly stated LW's version is inferior to Maya's, doing so would STILL not be equivalent to asserting that LW's is "bad" -- only that it is inferior to Maya's, which is NOT the same thing.

Snosrap
08-21-2016, 09:39 PM
The main thing I like about LW compared to other 3D apps is the viewport navigation and being able to easily see the view from the camera, light or perspective. Now this seems like a simple thing but somehow it is weird in other apps and not straightforward like LW. Amen to that!! That is where the work takes place and if the viewport navigation stinks so does the app IMO. :)

Rayek
08-21-2016, 11:06 PM
Amen to that!! That is where the work takes place and if the viewport navigation stinks so does the app IMO. :)

Am I weird if I state here that I really enjoy NOT having to press down any modifier key to orbit the viewport by merely holding down the middle mouse button? We can zoom the view. but not orbit.

Does anyone know how to set that up in Lightwave?

And many applications use the middle mouse button to pan the view - it would be handy if the graph editor and so on would allow us to do the same thing.

samurai_x
08-21-2016, 11:43 PM
Am I weird if I state here that I really enjoy NOT having to press down any modifier key to orbit the viewport by merely holding down the middle mouse button?

Personally I change that same type of navi in 3dcoat. Sometimes I accidentally orbit when I don't want to with that kind of navi.
As much as possible I use the maya navigation in all appz that I use maya, modo, lw.
Makes using multiple software more seamless.

Rayek
08-21-2016, 11:56 PM
This is a directory with a few hundred pages of studios in tokyo alone. Not even counting other areas.
Hundreds of studios doing paid cg. Not indie, no budget companies.

https://s13.postimg.org/v4e405wcn/studiodirectory.jpg

Lightwave has 40+ studios using it by real companies. Not bad. There aren't that many listings for modo. Zero for blender.

What keeps people from leaving lightwave for more modern appz like modo, blender? Paying work. If people will leave they will go to Autodesk, not to software that's not really used much.

Nah, Blender is used in production all over the world nowadays. Gone are the days of Blender 2.49, you know.

These guys switched a couple of years ago from Lightwave and Maya to Blender for various reasons:
http://www.barnstormvfx.com/
Chances are you have seen their work in 'the Good Wife" or "Silicon Valley". They are an all-Blender studio now (well, together with Nuke).

Another one: http://www.tangent-animation.ca/
Based in Toronto, their first feature length film is about to be released. (near 100% Blender studio)

Belgian studio Digital Graphics: Blender used partly in "Book of Kells".

Cartoon Saloon (Irish animation film and television studio) used Blender for the vehicles and a number of visual effects in "Song of the Sea".

MD Animation (Indonesia) - large animation studio based in Indonesia uses Blender as their main production tool.

Broadcast on Canal+
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzt9cPpoSnNzGk3ltUQxxqg

Gecko studio used Blender in Red Dwarf series 10 to blend traditional miniatures with digital effects.

Blender is one of the small number of off-the-shelf 3D applications that Pixar officially supports for use within the studio.

Many studios and artists in Asia, Inda, and South America have switched to Blender from cracked copies of commercial software.
And it is used by many artists at large games and visual effect studios, although they just don't tend to talk about it.

Perhaps not in Japan - but Japan has always been somewhat different in regards to the applications that are popular over there. Lightwave is traditionally popular in Japan. Japan is entirely unrepresentative for the rest of the world (not meant in a bad way! For example, even ToonBoom had problems getting "in" - finally now they are making some headway into animation studios in Japan).

Rayek
08-22-2016, 12:01 AM
Personally I change that same type of navi in 3dcoat. Sometimes I accidentally orbit when I don't want to with that kind of navi.
As much as possible I use the maya navigation in all appz that I use maya, modo, lw.
Makes using multiple software more seamless.

I work predominantly with a Wacom tablet - and I prefer to be able to navigate the view with as little modifier keys as possible. It would be nice if the option were available in software.

jeric_synergy
08-22-2016, 12:02 AM
Personally, I loathe using the mouse wheel as a button-- YMMV, but it's just really awkward. OTOH, it drives me nuts that I can zoom w/the wheel in Modeler, but not in Layout.

....come to think of it, I may be be using AHK to zoom in LWM....

samurai_x
08-22-2016, 12:08 AM
Lightwave is traditionally popular in Japan. Japan is entirely unrepresentative for the rest of the world.

Not really. Softimage was traditionally popular in japan for companies.
The blender list seems like a very small list of companies considering its a global list.
I'll stick with the list that involves top companies like Sony, Square, etc.
After more than a decade its perplexing why blender hasn't gained more traction considering its giveaway software. It should be number one by a wide margin but its not.
Maybe they should sell themselves to the Foundry like how krita almost did.

When companies like sony, square will list blender instead of maya, I will migrate to blender. :D

Sony
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/193629391?trkInfo=searchKeywordString%3ASony%2Csea rchLocationString%3A%252C%2B%2Cvertical%3Ajobs%2Cp ageNum%3A2%2Cposition%3A20%2CMSRPsearchId%3Aa2fb32 6e-36ce-482e-8527-f3ee0689aa27_1471847316164&refId=a2fb326e-36ce-482e-8527-f3ee0689aa27_1471847316164&trk=jobs_jserp_job_listing_text

Square
https://s14.postimg.org/ncxxvx8dt/square.jpg


The startrek tv show is listing lightwave which means lw is very capable with the right people.

Rayek
08-22-2016, 12:33 AM
Not really. Softimage was traditionally popular in japan for companies.
The blender list seems like a very small list of companies considering its a global list.
I'll stick with the list that involves top companies like Sony, Square, etc.
After more than a decade its perplexing why blender hasn't gained more traction considering its giveaway software. It should be number one by a wide margin but its not.
Maybe they should sell themselves to the Foundry like how krita almost did.

Ah, true, Softimage. You are correct. And sure, use whatever the studios use where you wish to work.

I only listed a couple of the top of my head, and you will have to concede your point that Blender is not used in production by studios (large and small) - it is. All over the place. And that is what counts: no matter the situation of Lightwave in Japan, Blender is on the rise globally, while Lightwave use is going down globally.

At least, that is my interpretation of what is occurring. I teach at a well-known 3d animation and VFX school in Vancouver: students know about Autodesk products, Zbrush, and Blender, while most have never heard of Lightwave.

That is the state of things over here. And it must change for Newtek.

- - - Updated - - -


Personally, I loathe using the mouse wheel as a button-- YMMV, but it's just really awkward. OTOH, it drives me nuts that I can zoom w/the wheel in Modeler, but not in Layout.

....come to think of it, I may be be using AHK to zoom in LWM....

Yes, it is a personal preference, and both workflows ought to be supported and accommodated by the software, in my opinion.

Ztreem
08-22-2016, 12:57 AM
Personally, I loathe using the mouse wheel as a button-- YMMV, but it's just really awkward. OTOH, it drives me nuts that I can zoom w/the wheel in Modeler, but not in Layout.

....come to think of it, I may be be using AHK to zoom in LWM....

buy a new mouse. :devil:

jeric_synergy
08-22-2016, 01:33 AM
buy a new mouse. :devil:

I like this one fine. >8^P'''

Heck, I'm still waiting for apps to support the WHEELTILT function. Hmmmm, tilting thru Items might be nice...

Ztreem
08-22-2016, 03:02 AM
I like this one fine. >8^P'''

Heck, I'm still waiting for apps to support the WHEELTILT function. Hmmmm, tilting thru Items might be nice...

Yeah, what's up with that? It was introduced like 10-15 years ago and still very limited support in apps for it.

hrgiger
08-22-2016, 03:17 AM
Erikals made a blanket statement that LW's Bullet dynamics are somehow better than those in Maya (based on what he'd "read"). Maya's version_s_ of Bullet are significantly and demonstrably more current, production-stable, and fully-featured than the version in LW. Questioning the basis for his assertion is not, contrary to how some choose to portray it, equivalent to saying Lightwave's version of Bullet is "bad". For that matter, even if I HAD explicitly stated LW's version is inferior to Maya's, doing so would STILL not be equivalent to asserting that LW's is "bad" -- only that it is inferior to Maya's, which is NOT the same thing.

Well I agree that Erikals statement was fairly blanket. Personally I don't use Maya so I can't address that. Have you used Maya for dynamics in production and found it to be superior to LW's implementation or are we just saying it because its Maya so it must be better? I have no problem in saying it is superior to LW's if that is indeed the case but if you also have not personally had experience in using it in production, then your assertion would be just as blanket. Merely saying it is demonstrably more current or production stable based on what I'm not sure of is not evidence for the case. For instance, Modo 901 demos demonstrably showed it to be more stable then it was.

erikals
08-22-2016, 03:23 AM
guess it's illegal to quote other people now a days. oh well, i kinda saw that one coming.

thought it was a peculiar statement, and wanted to see others' opinions on it.

and voilā, opinions shared.

Surrealist.
08-22-2016, 03:40 AM
Blender is on the rise globally...

This is an absolute fact. In some ways it is doing it quietly and through the back door - if you will. You definitely won't find it in some printed catalog in Japan as some measure to its use. But you will definitely find it used in more start up businesses and various industries that are not even listed anywhere really. You have to be in that business to see it.

Quoted from the video below at 7:00 in:


And another interesting thing, as we are going to these meetings with a lot of these really big names, that you've all heard, and a lot of you are wearing clothing that our clients manufactured with our stuff right now; sometimes the thing that actually seals the deal for us, is that we are using Blender.

They say you are developing a 3D Product, how is that going. And you say, oh, Really? Well yeah well, we'll sign up. 'Cause they already have people on staff who are their resident Blender experts. So in this weird way Blender has sort of gone gone viral in the manufacturing industry. To the point that it is like everywhere. .... so there's all these extra oportunities for career in Blender because of its application in manufacturing that you'll probably never hear about unless you travel in those circles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te9an_-fWTU&list=PLa1F2ddGya__l2Tk4zzq8c6CNGPCjQaS4&index=6

There is also an official Renderman for Blender.

But Blender is not being adopted in large studios for obvious reasons. If you've ever used Blender side by side with Maya, you'd know why. Or Blender side by side with LightWave you'd know why a TV show would choose LighrtWave over Blender for something like Star Trek. Blender can not touch LightWave still in certain areas.

But there is no real reason to discount Blender and continue to play it down and pretend it is not expanding at a rabid pace. It is almost scary.

Very popular now with kids. They are aware of it,using it. And I firmly believe this has scared Autodesk in to offering their products to teaching institutions for free. Before it was free to students. And now if you are a school you don't have to pay a license.

And this fact was supported - for me - as I walked into a prominent local uni last year and saw a teacher hired there and teaching a class in Blender.

My belief. You take Blender out of the equation; an app that a lot of start up companies were flocking to long before we even heard the buzz word, "indie" from, Side FX, The Foundry, Autopdesk, etc. and we don't have this new wave. There would have been 0 incentive to cater to this market in the way all of these companies have had to do if not for Blender.

And that is something hard for some people to believe I know. But I worked with Blender for a few years with some of these companies. I saw it happening first hand long before any of this "indie" buzz word stuff came about. SO it was very clear to me. Yep, I see where these companies are going and who they are targeting. It is a real industry. And Blender was there to take advantage of it while these other companies were sleeping.

kopperdrake
08-22-2016, 03:56 AM
Reasons for staying, in no particular order:

Familiarity - time invested in it (since 3.5)
Plugins bought and/or learned for it (LWCAD, TurbulenceFD, DPKit, AdvancedPlacement etc)
Libraries of objects built up over the years and invested in (Xfrog in particular, but Evermotion and multitude of own objects) - this is a big one.
The ability to get down and dirty quickly with points and polys when really needed.
Decent off the shelf render engine.
Good node render license system.
Decent upgrade prices.
Jack of all trades.
The community.


Reasons for getting into it in the first place and staying with it:

Only interface at the time to use language rather than ambiguous icons. Have used other design/3D packages over the years - Cinema 4D (a long time ago), Max, Vue, AutoCAD, in-house game tools, nothing felt as immediate as LW to my brain.

Spinland
08-22-2016, 07:11 AM
Heh. Just another anecdotal data point (because, of course YMMV): potential new VFX client sent me a 5-minute clip with storyboard to show them what I can do with object removal, green screening and creating/compositing 3D assets, and adding any fun VFX embellishments I cared to show off. Amusing little piece with a scared guy and a stalking demoness. Between Lightwave (and TFD) for the pyro stuff and 3D assets to composite in, and its very nice coupling with After Effects (for which I also have a metric crap ton of plugins), I banged out a demo piece over the weekend. Fast, and IMNSDHO good.

Maybe I could have done it even faster with, say, a Maya/Houdini combo but the point is I already have LW/AE plus plugins and, as I said way upstream: I already get the job done just fine with the tools what brung me to the dance and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;D

erikals
08-22-2016, 11:39 AM
bah... first experience... :grumpy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC_cKtvb3BU


edit:
ok, ranting a bit here, but i hope the Max road is better than this first impression.

bobakabob
08-22-2016, 12:02 PM
This is such a loaded question, another one of those "Is LW dead" types that unfairly conveys negative connotations about a strong economical to run pro 3D app.

Why "move on..."? All the big league apps have strengths and weaknesses. I've never understood this stuff about devoting yourself to a single app, as if it's a religion. LW has helped me enormously in my career over the years alongside Zbrush, Max, Maya, XSI... Even tools like Groboto and Fractal apps can be highly useful depending on your needs.

Just use the tools you need and enjoy being creative without breaking the bank if you can help it.

Oedo 808
08-22-2016, 01:54 PM
http://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png?fb

spherical
08-22-2016, 02:19 PM
while Lightwave use is going down globally.

At least, that is my interpretation of what is occurring. I teach at a well-known 3d animation and VFX school in Vancouver: students know about Autodesk products, Zbrush, and Blender, while most have never heard of Lightwave.

That is the state of things over here. And it must change for Newtek.

And being in a position to assist said change, are you?

m.d.
08-22-2016, 02:28 PM
guess it's illegal to quote other people now a days. oh well, i kinda saw that one coming.

thought it was a peculiar statement, and wanted to see others' opinions on it.

and voilā, opinions shared.

Nothing personnel Erik....I think we all value your contribution. :heart:
Just quoting someone 3rd hand does not make a statement true. Everyone here who had maya experience strongly disagrees with that statement made about LW bullet vs Maya bullet.
I love Lightwave....it is my go-to app of choice....I just loath utter fanboyism. (not directed at you)

There have been numerous studies done showing that the intrinsic personnel value of something increases once it is in your possession. Called the endowment effect.
Most of these studies conclude the personal perceived monetary value usually more than doubles once it is owned.

Meaning we are hard wired to think much more highly, and valuable of our possessions once we establish ownership.

A lot of people feel the need to justify their love of Lightwave to the point of ridiculousness....
I accept that Lightwave has strengths and weaknesses, and certain intangibles that add to it's value to me. Not to mention I have a certain amount of expertise (small....but measurable) and the endowment effect add to my overall adoration of the app.

- - - Updated - - -


And being in a position to assist said change, are you?

His duty is to his students and the school. They are there to eventually get jobs remember.

3dworks
08-22-2016, 02:34 PM
1. of course, the 'familiarity factor' is in the first row. but i would not hesitate to learn to use new workflows if one of the competitors would 100% convince me. one consideration adds to that: the interface of a new program is only the smaller mountain to climb in this case. if you think about all the experience accumulated over years with such topics as file conversions from and to LWO, the workflows part will be sure be more work to get adapted to than just to learn another program interface.

2. stability. i very rarely get LW to crash, even while using my older mac pro with all kind of non standard modifications nowadays, like geforce 980 ti card, SSD raids etc. also, LW likes massive imported geometry. apparently the next version will love it even more. i tried my largest scenes on the competition and none of them could handle such massive data as well - some even failed totally.

3. with all the obvious drawbacks which a 'non standard' solution implies, being in a 'niche' situation has also advantages. not only there is this incredibly helpful and inspiring community, but it is also true that unconventional workflows create unconventional results on the creative side. sometimes we may work harder to get results which others seem to have a mouse click away, but the results are above mainstream, most of the time if you are dedicated.

4. the great render engine *used* to be a reason to stick, but honestly, it needs an update to keep up with the latest developments in this area. as everyone knows, CPU's are not becoming faster every year anymore as it used to be until a few years ago following moore's law. but the GPU train took this development over and departed already. for now i stick to LW + octane which is perfectly integrated, thanks to juanjo's great plugin. also, a GPU based maxwell has been announced recently as well, not to speak of the phantomatic kray and who know's... a brand new and shiny native LW renderer - anytime soon?!

5. and not least, the good price for upgrades, plugins, scripts. did i mention the generous community developers which provide free scripts and plugins which are practically part of the package - just naming the denis pont plugins here... ? ;-)

voila', my 2 eurocents are put in the box, hope i'm not repeating what everyone else was already saying! :D

cheers

markus

samurai_x
08-22-2016, 09:31 PM
This is an absolute fact. In some ways it is doing it quietly and through the back door - if you will. You definitely won't find it in some printed catalog in Japan as some measure to its use. But you will definitely find it used in more start up businesses and various industries that are not even listed anywhere really. You have to be in that business to see it.

Absolute fact? Where's your concrete evidence? Where are the many many many listings for blender work like the many many job listings for maya?
I posted Senior Technical VFX Artist job from Sony, Los Angeles, CA, US previously. Not related to japan at all.


Here's some more.

jobs in UK https://www.glassdoor.ca/Job/london-3d-artist-jobs-SRCH_IL.0,6_IC2671300_KO7,16.htm
Jobs in VC https://www.glassdoor.ca/Job/vancouver-3d-artist-jobs-SRCH_IL.0,9_IC2278756_KO10,19.htm
Jobs in LA https://www.glassdoor.ca/Job/los-angeles-3d-artist-jobs-SRCH_IL.0,11_IC1146821_KO12,21.htm

In the business to see it? Not indie please or some small time studio in a quaint location. Talking real companies with quality work.

Working with studios in LA, London, Vancouver, Singapore, Tokyo, India where cg work is prolific, you have to be in that business to see blender is 404.


Inhance Digital seems to be looking for lw generalists btw its on the listing two days ago.

Surrealist.
08-22-2016, 10:29 PM
Look. Sorry. Not going to have this argument. It is pointless and goes nowhere. I never made any of the points you are trying to argue about. Those are your points. I feel no need to spar with you on it. In fact I don't disagree with much of what you pointed out. Only one problem. I never said anything that would warrant that response.

Now on the other hand if you want to talk about and share ideas about what I actually did say, in total, I am up for the conversation. And I am happy to give examples.

jeric_synergy
08-22-2016, 10:44 PM
... be in that business to see blender is 404.
???? Is that some new slang?

MichaelT
08-22-2016, 11:08 PM
If a company decides to go one one software only, good on them. But I can promise that they will loose out on opportunities because of it. The more common approach is that they use many different ones, depending on what they need to be done.

THIBAULT
08-22-2016, 11:13 PM
bah... first experience... :grumpy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC_cKtvb3BU


edit:
ok, ranting a bit here, but i hope the Max road is better than this first impression.

Yes, it's better ! And stability too ! 0 crashes in day VS 4/5 crashes for LW

Rayek
08-23-2016, 12:00 AM
@Samurai_Z:

Wow, back up, let's retrace our steps here a bit. First you asserted Blender is not used in any studio. I then refuted that assertion by listing a small selection of studios from all over the world producing work with it, or at least they use it in their overall pipeline.

Now you backtrack on that assertion and state that we should list studios that fall into the category of

"Not indie please or some small time studio in a quaint location. Talking real companies with quality work. Working with studios in LA, London, Vancouver, Singapore, Tokyo, India where cg work is prolific, you have to be in that business to see blender is 404."

While I already mentioned the largest animation studio in Indonesia that works predominantly with Blender, as well as other examples of high-profile work done with it (India as well, btw).

Which is all good - at least studios (small and large) have a choice of excellent 3d software. MichaelT is correct in saying a studio is way more flexible to have an array of software packages at their disposal. What I see is that Blender *IS* being adopted more and more in pipelines, slowly but surely. But so is other software.

And look, it is just software! If a client of mine requires me to use Maya, then I will use Maya (UUghhh!). Heck, Pixar and Dreamworks have a pipeline that is built on their own proprietary software. Skills are what matter.

Thing is, never get married to your software. I am pretty 3d software agnostic, and I had to be since I first touched Sculpt 3d on my Amiga 1000. Currently I prefer to do my work mostly in Blender and 3dCoat, since my freelance work allows me to choose the software that I do the jobs with. Lightwave I sometimes fire up for the odd render, but unless Newtek get their butts in high gear with the upcoming two versions, I really see no reason to return to LW for my work.

But it may change. The only thing certain in life and the universe is that things change. All the time. Which makes it all rather interesting.

And I sincerely hope Newtek pulls a magic pink My Little Pony out of their wizard's hat, and wows us all with a modernized super-duper Lightwave. I'll upgrade in an instant.

erikals
08-23-2016, 12:57 AM
never get married to your software.
i try not to, but every time i look elsewhere, the queen is watching.

http://img.comoconquistarlo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/amorimposible6.jpg

fablefox
08-23-2016, 01:40 AM
I haven't touched it for a long time, but I do visit this website from time to time to read the news (or these days, the lack of it).

One of the reason I purchased (back then the edu version) because I knew LW was battle tested all-in-one app.

Also, at that time Blender have massive changes in Renderer (moving from BI to Cycles) and also its modeller side. MODO was mostly modelling only (I own Modo 401 and I plan to model in there and animate in LW).

Well, MODO moves on with animation abilities, gaming, meshfusion, indie version (a godsend kind of), and Blender also moves on with Cycles (now used in a lot of app including Poser), its modelling improved, so on and so forth.

I would have upgrade from LW 10 if it was straight foward, but it seems that I need to communicate with local distributor, and something happened that left a bitter taste in my mouth.

The thing is that I loves LW.

Anyway, why I'm still here?

SoftImage was dead. AD product went subs. Houdini seems interesting. At least they allow conversion from data from Indie to full. MODO Indie allow me to use it to get familier, but file format issue made me wander if I should create a vast library in it should soon I move to Modo full (specially since I do have modo 401 full).

Also, the joke is that MODO Indie doesn't support ACS (due to plug-in and script) and it one of the thing that stopping me from owning a permanent license to MODO Indie.
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=125&t=124683

In the end, Blender was good enough for me. I've seen enough result by studios using it to realize that if it was good enough for them, it was good enough for me. Also, recent SIGGRAPH meeting shows that there is lots of company want to support Blender and this will help Blender going foward.

But I will come here once in a blue moon, because I still own LW 10 (that is the good thing about permanent license) and would love to see there LW is going foward.

Lack of blog post at blog.lightwave3d.com made me wonder.

If LW want me to look at LW again, I want good news regarding Character Animation and Unreal/Unity export. And Substance Painter support.

Danner
08-23-2016, 02:04 AM
I've perfected a workflow over the years, it includes third party pluggins, self made scripts and thinking about every step and how to optimize it. It would take mayor effort to switch all of this to a new app.

creacon
08-23-2016, 02:14 AM
In my tests PhysX was somewhere between 20 to 60 times faster for a RB simulation than bullet.
And I haven't even touched the GPU RB's in PhysX.

But then again a lot of functionality was removed from PhysX when they went from 2.8.x to 3.x.
There are no soft bodies anymore, only cloth.

creacon


Whether the issues are a problem depends highly on the scale of RBD/SBD sim you're trying to run.

ideart
08-23-2016, 03:38 AM
I make a living with Lightwave for quite some time 134145

I am a generalist but my main focus is in arch-viz.
Kray was one way street for my needs and that combination served me well so far.
But the thing is that Kray is showing it's age and the competition is far ahead.
Honestly the one thing that kept me from leaving LW+Kray is the lack of time to invest to learn something more suitable to my needs (Corona looks great).
Octane addition was refreshing but I was always feeling limited by the lack of all the market standard renderers.
Also, the lack of Newtek communication always made me feel worried about the continuity of LW, (don't get me started about the Kray development).
I can afford few months more to see the new version of Lightwave and hopefully the new Kray, but after that period I will have some decisions to make.

Amerelium
08-23-2016, 04:15 AM
Love the modeler - simple as that.

Back in the day was it far superior than anything else, and even if it isn't now, I don't care - not gonna switch to something new after 20 years

Spinland
08-23-2016, 05:23 AM
Even tools like Groboto and Fractal apps can be highly useful depending on your needs.

Just use the tools you need and enjoy being creative without breaking the bank if you can help it.

Quoted for enthusiastic agreement. Yes, I also have Groboto and have created some fun little effects with it. :D

hrgiger
08-23-2016, 05:23 AM
Love the modeler - simple as that.

Back in the day was it far superior than anything else, and even if it isn't now, I don't care - not gonna switch to something new after 20 years

youre not alone, i get the feeling that others feel much the same and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that with the lack of modeling improvements, many others have had to seek out other solutions that provide a more modern modeling experience.

For myself I still use modeler mostly because of LWCAD. But Ive also had to add Modo, zbrush/3DC because LW3DG is not keeping up with the times when it comes to modeling.

Spinland
08-23-2016, 05:30 AM
The problem is that with the lack of modeling improvements, many others have had to seek out other solutions that provide a more modern modeling experience.

For myself I still use modeler mostly because of LWCAD. But Ive also had to add Modo, zbrush/3DC because LW3DG is not keeping up with the times when it comes to modeling.

And another QFA moment in Spinland.

I might sound relentlessly positive but that's just my worldview (unless I let someone damage my calm :devil: ), but I am far from a fanboi or a shill for NT. I recognize there are problems with LW, and will grant the list is unfortunately long—but where the rubber meets the ramp it's still my bread and butter and that list has not grown to a proportion where there is value added for me to dump the app in favor of some other backbone for my workflow. Yes, I rely heavily on LWCAD, and Syflex, and 3rd Powers, and TFD, as well as 3D Coat and even zBrush, but the rug that ties the whole room together is LW and I will, so long as I am able, try to prevent the nihilists from urinating on it. ;D

This message brought to you by Metaphors-R-Us.

MichaelT
08-23-2016, 06:15 AM
I was going to make a point regarding Maya, so I loaded up a scene for Arnold (a sample scene) in Maya 2017. And came across something else.. so I'm not going to make that point. But instead remark on the utter failure of depending on Mental ray to support functionality in Arnold. Which probably wasn't apparent until they decided to drop Mental ray. Namely that the scene coming from SolidAngle doesn't work without Mental Ray. Despite being a showcase for their own renderer. That is hysterical... making a scene to showcase its awesomeness, and then depending on a competitor to do it. That is really priceless :D *chuckles*

Surrealist.
08-23-2016, 10:38 AM
Well it is not that way as far as I know. It is more likely that the scene had Mental Ray Nodes in it. If you try and load such a scene with Mental Ray not installed it will complain. Probably an oversight on their part. One solution might be to go to file Optimize Scene Size and it will delete any unwanted nodes. But I don't know of any dependency on Mental Ray. However it is true that Arnold can render other shaders like Maya and I suppose Mental Ray shaders as well. But of course you have to have Mental Ray installed for that to work. That is how I understand it.

By the way what scene was that? I'd like to check it out.

Greenlaw
08-23-2016, 10:39 AM
I think this is getting pretty silly. IMO, just use what you can afford and what works best for your needs. Unless it actually affects you're ability to get work, don't worry about what the other guy is using.

Regarding Lightwave, Blender, or any other 3rd party app and large studios: I've worked at Rhythm and now at Dreamworks, both studios widely known for their proprietary production software and pipelines, but there's been room for other software where it's deemed suitable, appropriate and cost effective. Personally, I've used LightWave at both studios, along with many other art and animation packages...it's a matter of using what works best in a given creative situation, schedule, budget, who's available to do the work, and who you will need to share data with.

In the Box at Rhythm, we occasionally used Blender to generate specific vfx elements, and R+H India routinely used Blender for commercials and music videos. They even created a ton of training videos which they shared with the studio in L.A. (Man, now I wish I kept some of that stuff.) :)

You leave something behind when it has nothing left to offer, and Lightwave 2015 is hardly in that position. And sticking with LightWave doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't expand your tool box to include other software. No single software package does everything equally well for every situation.

Surrealist.
08-23-2016, 12:17 PM
It is true. But you have to actually go through that to see it. And some people simply don't have the incentive/ability/wherewithal (which includes time) to do that.

Some people - unfortunately - judge other options as far as software goes on very poor or limited efforts.

It is not like you can just open up another package and in a few days be up and running and taking advantage of all it has to offer. That is just not real. Not with a 3D App anyway. So it means that to actually take advantage of other software it requires a commitment. Actually to the tune of years. You give yourself a few weeks or months, full time. Not enough. In my opinion and experience.

And there are various stages I find that I have been through with software. Even if I take the time to learn it well. There is always this point where everything seems to be falling apart and maybe it is bugs or user error or all of the above. The problem is if you hit a bug you may think it is user error. It takes a lot of time with any software to find out where the little gotcha's are. They all have them. Nothing is perfect.

So, to some people, the incentive as to be there. And leaving something else behind, closing the door on it might just be what it takes. I know that has happened to me. And even now when I learn something new, there has to be a reason. An incentive, a strong purpose to blow through the first growing pains.

So. I am of the opinion it is not that stupid of a question. I think there are people here who would look at it that way. Who would have to be so fed up, they left it all behind. It happened to me once. I can understand. But that was 8 years ago. And since then I have learned a lot of new things. So now I can look back at it and say, yeah, it is all relative. These are all just tools.

Some people can't yet. And I think the only reasonable thing to do is venture on that road to see for yourself. But don't do it half arse or you won't reap the benefits. And no it does not have to be leave this behind. But some strong incentive needs to be there.

And expect it to take years.

ActionBob
08-23-2016, 12:36 PM
Time and money invested (a lot of plugins bought) and frankly the straight forward nature of LW keeps it always installed and used on my computer.

It is funny. There seems to be a lot of grass is greener comments on here. I have felt the pull to cool looking features of other apps as well. I am currently learning Houdini. It is a great app, but completely different than what I am used to. Following some excellent tutorials on Houdini, I am excited at the possibilities to be able to do some things that LW would be hard pressed to do. That said, the more I see some basic stuff done (like modeling) in Houdini, the more I praise Lightwave for the straight forwardness and strength of its modeler (albeit, aging and in need of some updated tools). I understand now the power of procedural modeling and node networks, but sometimes, you need to do something quick - and Houdini is anything but.

You need to really consider your process if you don't want a nightmare of a node network. But like anything else, practice and organizational skills (which I need to exercise more) are keen.

So, while I was looking at moving more toward Houdini as a core app, I am more and more leaning toward using its strengths in FX when needed, but will be sticking with LW (since 3.5) for the foreseeable future. I am now excited more than ever to supplement LW with other tools to augment its obvious strength of a natural and fast working environment.

-Adrian

fishhead
08-23-2016, 01:17 PM
Okay, my 2 cents, even if late, I add them anyway:

I am very familiar with LW, that helps of course.
For cranking out models real quick, pretty much no other app beats good old modeler. Even more so since the 3rdPower tools are around and also LWCad which is a god sent for hardbody stuff.
But even without those, Modeler always felt so much more direct and fast than every version of Modo that I used (owning it from v 102 through 801) Not to mention Max, which I personally find absolutely terrible in that regard (I still have to use Max2014/2015 every once in a while for projects :-\ - I donīt know about newer versions, I have to admit... ).

There is one area where I clearly am very glad to have Modo in the arsenal: I do almost all more complex UV-ing there - havenīt tried the more exotic helper plugins that exist for LW outthere somewhere, though... Modo just does that in a way that I need it...

All stuff else - well, LW just lets me do it... I think LW is actually really flexible when it comes to texturing, shading, animating (for characters I still do like messiah, though :-} ...)
And still one of the major strengthīs it has: Lighting and rendering! Itīs fast, controllable, reliable and just delivers... Plus of course there is VPR! Is there anything more to say? That thing is just GREAT! ;-)
AND: its really tightly connected with the app; that is not to be underestimated. I do not know about Arnold, but I do know about VRay (for Max, that is) which I often enough have to deal with, you just canīt deny that its a plugged-in extra... There are tons of situations where that circumstance gets in the way. I find it far from perfect...

One big advantage also: it plays very well in a pipeline, much smoother than some of the A**desk tools, especially the already mentioned above...

Plus tons of other things, minor or major... And, well, the community: not bad either! ;-) (Even if you seem to meet a lot of those who post here also on, say, the foundry forums... So for that reason alone that one canīt be not that bad also, right? )

Bottomline: I for once do not see ANY REASON on the horizon to leave LightWave behind!

p.s. I wish there would be a new version soon and this version would be running on linux, so I could ask myself: what keeps me from leaving WINDOWS behind...

ksm357
08-23-2016, 01:35 PM
I am living to se stand alone LW RENDERER :)))

hypersuperduper
08-23-2016, 04:32 PM
Super efficient and direct modeling.

The ease of creating and juggling different sorts of ad hoc vertex maps for all kinds of modeling texturing and animation purposes. UVs endomorphs and weights can be used together in ways that don't seem nearly as easy to do in the other apps I've used.

Simple and Clear scene management. There is very little in the way of hidden data that is difficult to access in layout scenes. in Maya for example it is VERY easy to accidentally create unwanted connections between objects that are largely invisible without digging around in special editors. If you haven't explicitly connected one thing to another in layout they aren't connected. And if you DO forget how a scene works it is usually easy to figure out.

I love the nodal systems.

Plays well with other apps.

You can easily drive nearly anything with a texture which is weird and awesome.

Starts super fast (usually)

Most importantly, I know how to do stuff in it better than any other program.

ideart
08-24-2016, 05:38 AM
I am living to se stand alone LW RENDERER :)))

Well today we have some news from Kray, talking about future intergration to Lightwave
And if my memory serves me correctly, there were plans for a standalone Kray renderer, so there is a chance to see your expectation coming true, partly at least.
Kray's intergration to LW is a huge thing for arch-viz users. Let's hope for the best.

jwiede
08-24-2016, 11:03 AM
Well I agree that Erikals statement was fairly blanket. Personally I don't use Maya so I can't address that. Have you used Maya for dynamics in production and found it to be superior to LW's implementation or are we just saying it because its Maya so it must be better? I have no problem in saying it is superior to LW's if that is indeed the case but if you also have not personally had experience in using it in production, then your assertion would be just as blanket. Merely saying it is demonstrably more current or production stable based on what I'm not sure of is not evidence for the case. For instance, Modo 901 demos demonstrably showed it to be more stable then it was.

Sorry, not much time to reply these last few days, work intrudes, but as a quick rebuttal:

1. I provided specific cases whose UI/UX efficiency can actually be measured, w.r.t. bulk-editing. The absence of equivalent functionality (in the case of nodal access) is likewise objectively "measurable", in the sense that anyone is welcome to determine for themselves how LW nodal access to Bullet entities compares to Maya Bullet's nodal access to entities. IOW, because of the cases provided, you don't _need_ to take my word for it, go test them for yourself. Erikal's citation provided no such objectively-testable cases.

2. I was shown a workflow by a friend using Maya Bullet for destruction (with an actual cinematic scene from their production work that day), that happened to hit on relevant points to this discussion. So yes, I have witnessed firsthand the functionality cases in question being used in production. I was asking in a different context at the time (I was looking to see if their workflow could be transferred to C4D Bullet -- some can, some cannot), but that doesn't lessen the benefits cited.

m.d.
08-24-2016, 12:19 PM
Well today we have some news from Kray, talking about future intergration to Lightwave
And if my memory serves me correctly, there were plans for a standalone Kray renderer, so there is a chance to see your expectation coming true, partly at least.
Kray's intergration to LW is a huge thing for arch-viz users. Let's hope for the best.

I'm lost here.....
Somebody wanting LW standalone has a chance to see their dream come true because maybe a while back somebody said something about Kray stand alone?

And I don't think Kray is getting integrated into LW.....they said Newtek is going to help with integration....specifically talking about SDK changes
Just like they did for Juan and Octane for fiberFX....

Think about it....LW just rewrote their entire rendering lighting and shading system, you think they actually said "let's toss this and license Kray....we'll probably get proper AA around 2018"

I doubt that it was Newtek resisting co-operation at the pace of Kray development they probably just got the email last week.

ideart
08-25-2016, 02:20 AM
I'm lost here.....
Somebody wanting LW standalone has a chance to see their dream come true because maybe a while back somebody said something about Kray stand alone?

And I don't think Kray is getting integrated into LW.....they said Newtek is going to help with integration....specifically talking about SDK changes
Just like they did for Juan and Octane for fiberFX....

Think about it....LW just rewrote their entire rendering lighting and shading system, you think they actually said "let's toss this and license Kray....we'll probably get proper AA around 2018"

I doubt that it was Newtek resisting co-operation at the pace of Kray development they probably just got the email last week.

Yes, you are not wrong saying that based on what I have written. I should be more clear with what I had in mind.

For sure Newtek wouldn't and shouldn't throw away their new renderer in favor of Kray. I was thinking Kray as an additional integrated renderer.
It is very early to speak without a large amount of speculations but from what I hear about LW's new renderer and it's similarities with Arnold it is not very promising for arch-viz LW users because this sector isn't Arnold's stronger suit. So why not a second renderer that is strong in that area just to fill the gaps. I mean I don't see Vray or Corona having any intention coming to us.
But you are probably right as the following info from Janusz that came after my post here drives us to your conclusion.

As a LW user I would like to have more options of solid, productive renderers as integrated as they can be.

m.d.
08-25-2016, 03:09 PM
Yes, you are not wrong saying that based on what I have written. I should be more clear with what I had in mind.

For sure Newtek wouldn't and shouldn't throw away their new renderer in favor of Kray. I was thinking Kray as an additional integrated renderer.
It is very early to speak without a large amount of speculations but from what I hear about LW's new renderer and it's similarities with Arnold it is not very promising for arch-viz LW users because this sector isn't Arnold's stronger suit. So why not a second renderer that is strong in that area just to fill the gaps. I mean I don't see Vray or Corona having any intention coming to us.
But you are probably right as the following info from Janusz that came after my post here drives us to your conclusion.

As a LW user I would like to have more options of solid, productive renderers as integrated as they can be.

Well comparing LW renderer to Arnold based on what exactly?
This is conjecture on top of conjecture.

I am a Kray customer, but Kray users have the thickest rose colored goggles in history.

First off Kray is great....don't get me wrong. But it isn't as good as Vray. For almost 4 years we have heard of the new revolutionary Kray 3 coming out. But in the meantime there have been half a dozen new renders ahead of Kray...that develop at a much faster pace, so a revolution to Kray is still being 'almost' as good as other renderers such as Vray....where they could have only been leapfrogged by Kray if they had frozen development 3 years ago.

There is no way that I could see Newtek partnering with Kray unless he sold it and turned over the source code to Newtek, his development is just too slow. Running more as a hobby then a business.

I remember years ago hearing K3 core was ready.....(its been in beta since 2014), and just needed lightwave integration....which they said was a huge task.

Juan got a hold of octane and had it integrated in a matter of months (along with Arnold and renderman).....had Newtwk change the SDK when needed. Kray 3 core has been around for a few years now....and all it really is is a new photon mapping engine, same AA ect....and just now is getting some possible SDK changes. The constant theme on the forum is 'G is away' 'G is on vacation' and good for him, his company he should be able to take as much time off as needed. But in the times he has been on vacations, entire renderers from the competition have been re-written.

Remember....all we are seeing from k3 is a new photon mapping with no aa. A lot of computer graphics university grads write photon mapping renders for their final projects....
Albeit I am sure Krays will be much higher quality.

erikals
08-25-2016, 03:30 PM
agree, Kray blaming NT is a no-go. Kray3 should've been out years-and-years ago... Zzzz...

Norka
08-25-2016, 05:50 PM
LW is like a really homely wife, but with a smokin' body, that you do indeed love, but is not necessarily the kind of gal you find yourself compelled to shout your undying love to, from the rooftops, for all to hear... And while your eyes may occasionally stray some -- to prettier, sexier, nubile girls (Maya at the office, for instance) -- you remind yourself, sometimes often, that she keeps the house reasonably clean, makes a hell of a casserole, and is generally pretty fun to be around. In the end, she is a keeper, because it just feels right. Fits. For richer, poorer.. till death do us part, baby.

(I'm kinda kidding.. mostly.. couldn't help myself. In reality I tell pretty much anyone, who will listen, that LW rocks)

ideart
08-26-2016, 02:05 AM
Well comparing LW renderer to Arnold based on what exactly?
This is conjecture on top of conjecture.

I am a Kray customer, but Kray users have the thickest rose colored goggles in history.

First off Kray is great....don't get me wrong. But it isn't as good as Vray. For almost 4 years we have heard of the new revolutionary Kray 3 coming out. But in the meantime there have been half a dozen new renders ahead of Kray...that develop at a much faster pace, so a revolution to Kray is still being 'almost' as good as other renderers such as Vray....where they could have only been leapfrogged by Kray if they had frozen development 3 years ago.

There is no way that I could see Newtek partnering with Kray unless he sold it and turned over the source code to Newtek, his development is just too slow. Running more as a hobby then a business.

I remember years ago hearing K3 core was ready.....(its been in beta since 2014), and just needed lightwave integration....which they said was a huge task.

Juan got a hold of octane and had it integrated in a matter of months (along with Arnold and renderman).....had Newtwk change the SDK when needed. Kray 3 core has been around for a few years now....and all it really is is a new photon mapping engine, same AA ect....and just now is getting some possible SDK changes. The constant theme on the forum is 'G is away' 'G is on vacation' and good for him, his company he should be able to take as much time off as needed. But in the times he has been on vacations, entire renderers from the competition have been re-written.

Remember....all we are seeing from k3 is a new photon mapping with no aa. A lot of computer graphics university grads write photon mapping renders for their final projects....
Albeit I am sure Krays will be much higher quality.

You are breaching through open doors now.
Few posts back I mentioned the slow development of Kray and if you are reading the Kray forum you would have noticed my frequent complaints about the delays and the bugs that aren't fixed after all these years.
You are saying that Kray isn't Vray. Well it isn't and again a few posts back I am mentioning the fact that Kray is showing it's years comparing to the competition BUT there isn't also Vray for LW, neither Corona, neither any other arch-viz productive renderer that are available for almost the entire Lightwave's competition. So as a LW user that isn't comfortable leaving LW behind I am thankful that Kray is an option.
And on one hand you are right when complaining about kray's slow development but on the other hand Kray's gallery is far superior in quality (at least in arch-viz) and Kray is way faster than LW.
So no thick rose colored goggles here but neither being unfair.

Chernoby
08-26-2016, 08:37 AM
LW just hits the sweetspot for me in terms of getting the best looking animation and renders in a reasonable amount of time. For the majority of my own work (narrative animation and some commercial stuff).

I teach Maya, C4D, and Blender at a university because Maya owns the feature film market, C4D owns the broadcast/mograph market, and Blender is taking over the small studio game dev market (where there are a lot of jobs currently).

Maya's modeling is horrible.

C4D is absolutely mediocre on all fronts. Its physical renderer is as slow as pond water w lackluster results. It costs as much as Maya. Maxon may be the worst program ever to use with other programs except w AE. AE integration is good for mograph but as Nuke is gaining travtion more and more this feature is less impoetant for me. LW's AE export ends up being all I need as I don't end up infinitely updating within scenes as is possible with C4D/AE.

Blender. Modelling is my favorite now. UVing is my fav now. Has a problem with normals when going in between programs but this is a small problem imo. Free. Ridiculous support and huge community. But I do not like animated renders from it. Stills always look good but animated sequences using native or cycles is never adequate.

Surrealist.
08-26-2016, 09:45 AM
Agreed. The shaders are just not there yet. LightWave still has the edge I think here. Turn on GI brute force with MC and you have a very similar render scheme and frankly LightWave's shaders look better.

m.d.
08-26-2016, 09:45 AM
So no thick rose colored goggles here but neither being unfair.

A bit of a rant on my part I'll grant you that.
It was one of those days :)

Surrealist.
08-26-2016, 09:47 AM
I teach Maya, C4D, and Blender at a university because Maya owns the feature film market, C4D owns the broadcast/mograph market, and Blender is taking over the small studio game dev market (where there are a lot of jobs currently).


A very objective assessment of the market. Blender has definitely moved in to the lower end. Something I have experienced directly.

jeric_synergy
08-26-2016, 10:43 AM
A very objective assessment of the market. Blender has definitely moved in to the lower end. Something I have experienced directly.

No kidding: considering how people keep yapping about it in inappropriate threads (not this one), it must be making inroads.

Surrealist.
08-26-2016, 10:59 AM
lol one way to look at it. :D

ideart
08-26-2016, 11:12 AM
A bit of a rant on my part I'll grant you that.
It was one of those days :)

No worries.

raw-m
08-26-2016, 01:26 PM
C4D is absolutely mediocre on all fronts. Its physical renderer is as slow as pond water w lackluster results. It costs as much as Maya. Maxon may be the worst program ever to use with other programs except w AE. AE integration is good for mograph but as Nuke is gaining travtion more and more this feature is less impoetant for me. LW's AE export ends up being all I need as I don't end up infinitely updating within scenes as is possible with C4D/AE.

Thanks for adding this, it's confirmed what I've been thinking. Recently had to farm out a job to a C4d user and the render time was stupidly slow, without a lot was being animated. Really underwhelmed with the render quality at the end of it, too. Obviously, a lot of it could have been down to inexperience on the artist side, but even so, LW would have blown it's socks off!

Prince Charming
08-26-2016, 01:35 PM
Thanks for adding this, it's confirmed what I've been thinking. Recently had to farm out a job to a C4d user and the render time was stupidly slow, without a lot was being animated. Really underwhelmed with the render quality at the end of it, too. Obviously, a lot of it could have been down to inexperience on the artist side, but even so, LW would have blown it's socks off!
Why did you have to farm it out to c4d user? Why not a LW user?

raw-m
08-26-2016, 01:44 PM
Wasn't in my hands, sadly. It was at a place I was freelancing at. I'd done look and feel and storyboards etc but workload meant it going elsewhere, someone they'd used before.

Prince Charming
08-26-2016, 01:59 PM
Wasn't in my hands, sadly. It was at a place I was freelancing at. I'd done look and feel and storyboards etc but workload meant it going elsewhere, someone they'd used before.

Well, maybe next time they will go with LW instead of getting slow crappy renders ;)
I was just wondering if there was something that someone thought LW couldn't handle, and went with c4d for that reason.

raw-m
08-26-2016, 02:07 PM
There was a recruitment firm I did some work for. This is getting very OT but he told me he had some clients that would only use c4d artists so their clients could tell other people that their project was done in c4d. Very annoying and probably more common than we think, but let's not get in to that here!

50one
08-26-2016, 03:45 PM
All companies I have encountered in the past 6 months are C4D users, thanks to tight i tegration wit AE. Spoke to one guy yesterday(mid 50) only one who used Lightwave....back in Amiga days lol.

Julez4001
08-26-2016, 04:09 PM
LW is like a really homely wife, but with a smokin' body, that you do indeed love, but is not necessarily the kind of gal you find yourself compelled to shout your undying love to, from the rooftops, for all to hear... And while your eyes may occasionally stray some -- to prettier, sexier, nubile girls (Maya at the office, for instance) -- you remind yourself, sometimes often, that she keeps the house reasonably clean, makes a hell of a casserole, and is generally pretty fun to be around. In the end, she is a keeper, because it just feels right. Fits. For richer, poorer.. till death do us part, baby.

(I'm kinda kidding.. mostly.. couldn't help myself. In reality I tell pretty much anyone, who will listen, that LW rocks)

Norka
If this was Facebook, tons of likes here!

Norka
08-27-2016, 06:25 AM
Thanks I guess. It was all just silliness. Thought it was funny, at the time. It's not based on any kind of reality. My wife is a total cutie, and a horrible cook.

erikals
08-27-2016, 06:52 AM
Hah!  :)  i'd thought i'd comment on that, but then decieded i would do it anyway.

fun analogy!  :hey:

jwiede
08-27-2016, 01:54 PM
C4D is absolutely mediocre on all fronts. Its physical renderer is as slow as pond water w lackluster results. It costs as much as Maya. Maxon may be the worst program ever to use with other programs except w AE. AE integration is good for mograph but as Nuke is gaining travtion more and more this feature is less impoetant for me. LW's AE export ends up being all I need as I don't end up infinitely updating within scenes as is possible with C4D/AE.

When was the last C4D you used? Are you basing your opinion on C4DLite (included with AE)?

C4D has supported same level of compositor file generation support for Nuke, Motion, Shake, FCP (I'm on Mac so its showing Mac-centric compositors) as for AE, and has for many versions now. C4DLite offers rather tight back-and-forth integration with AE (because it's actually part of AE in a sense), but C4DLite is quite limited as a 3D pkg compared to "full" C4D, and thus C4DLite isn't a reasonable basis for judging C4D capabilities. C4D proper's support for Nuke and other compositors is equivalent to the support for AE, and quite full-featured, so your pointing to Nuke as contrast to AE doesn't make much sense.

As for your comment about "worst program to use with other programs", please provide some actual examples to support your claim? C4D's native OBJ and FBX support has been quite stable and rich for many versions now, with more current version support for FBX format, and supporting more FBX features. C4D has broader/deeper Alembic support than LW (f.e. ability to deal with dynamic point counts, and handle more modern versions of Alembic format). C4D's Collada support is also broader/deeper than LW's in terms of features supported, and is _much_ more stable for import/export (LW's is quite unstable in my experience). You haven't even demonstrated a basis for claiming C4D's interchange support is inferior to LW's, let alone that it is somehow "worst" among 3D packages.

As for the "Its physical renderer is as slow as pond water w lackluster results" comment, what was the last version of the Physical renderer you used? When MAXON integrated the Intel Embree code into the Physical renderer they already quite significantly improved Physical renderer performance. Was your experience with C4D Physical renderer pre-Embree or post-Embree?

In terms of render quality, I've found the new GGX and layered Reflectance surfacing make fairly-complex reflective (and, unexpectedly, cloth) surface scenarios quite easy to set up, providing a finesse control of reflectivity that would require using elaborate surfacing node networks (and their accompanying performance hit) in LW to achieve an equivalent appearance. Please give some specific examples of how you find the Physical renderer's results "lackluster" compared to, say, Lightwave's renderer?

Exclaim
08-27-2016, 03:38 PM
When was the last C4D you used? Are you basing your opinion on C4DLite (included with AE)?

C4D has supported same level of compositor file generation support for Nuke, Motion, Shake, FCP (I'm on Mac so its showing Mac-centric compositors) as for AE, and has for many versions now. C4DLite offers rather tight back-and-forth integration with AE (because it's actually part of AE in a sense), but C4DLite is quite limited as a 3D pkg compared to "full" C4D, and thus C4DLite isn't a reasonable basis for judging C4D capabilities. C4D proper's support for Nuke and other compositors is equivalent to the support for AE, and quite full-featured, so your pointing to Nuke as contrast to AE doesn't make much sense.

As for your comment about "worst program to use with other programs", please provide some actual examples to support your claim? C4D's native OBJ and FBX support has been quite stable and rich for many versions now, with more current version support for FBX format, and supporting more FBX features. C4D has broader/deeper Alembic support than LW (f.e. ability to deal with dynamic point counts, and handle more modern versions of Alembic format). C4D's Collada support is also broader/deeper than LW's in terms of features supported, and is _much_ more stable for import/export (LW's is quite unstable in my experience). You haven't even demonstrated a basis for claiming C4D's interchange support is inferior to LW's, let alone that it is somehow "worst" among 3D packages.

As for the "Its physical renderer is as slow as pond water w lackluster results" comment, what was the last version of the Physical renderer you used? When MAXON integrated the Intel Embree code into the Physical renderer they already quite significantly improved Physical renderer performance. Was your experience with C4D Physical renderer pre-Embree or post-Embree?

In terms of render quality, I've found the new GGX and layered Reflectance surfacing make fairly-complex reflective (and, unexpectedly, cloth) surface scenarios quite easy to set up, providing a finesse control of reflectivity that would require using elaborate surfacing node networks (and their accompanying performance hit) in LW to achieve an equivalent appearance. Please give some specific examples of how you find the Physical renderer's results "lackluster" compared to, say, Lightwave's renderer?
My understanding of C4D is one should just rent Autodesk products. Unless you have to do MoGraph. All in all, it cost too much for what it does.

Spinland
08-27-2016, 04:56 PM
There was a recruitment firm I did some work for. This is getting very OT but he told me he had some clients that would only use c4d artists so their clients could tell other people that their project was done in c4d. Very annoying and probably more common than we think, but let's not get in to that here!

To swing that experience back on topic, just got through the audition process with a tv production studio to be their primary VFX guy. When we first began talks they wanted C4D which I was willing to accomodate but first I wanted to know why. Turns out the general and production managers just didn't know all the options and C4D was about as generic as Xerox to them. I quickly convinced them how effective I would be using LW and that was that. Sometimes you can overcome that bias with a little edumacation. :D

hrgiger
08-27-2016, 06:26 PM
My understanding of C4D is one should just rent Autodesk products. Unless you have to do MoGraph. All in all, it cost too much for what it does.

To be fair I haven't taken C4D for a proper test and tried a demo or anything but when I've watched videos on it and considered the price, I've yet to see C4D stand out in way that has made me seriously consider it. Maybe I would feel differently if I did motion graphics but I don't get the big deal about it.

Prince Charming
08-27-2016, 07:19 PM
To be fair I haven't taken C4D for a proper test and tried a demo or anything but when I've watched videos on it and considered the price, I've yet to see C4D stand out in way that has made me seriously consider it. Maybe I would feel differently if I did motion graphics but I don't get the big deal about it.

When I see how our bullet works compared to how their bullet works... it is a little irritating. I really enjoy many things about LW, but the latest tools that have been added are not part of that list. I really hope for this release they have a huge emphasis on quality control and the actual usability of the features (new and old). When looking at stuff like flocking, bullet, fiber fx, uv tools, fracture, edge weights... I feel like the time spent developing them was a waste to some extent (Are we stuck with that crap forever now???). There are some good uses for those tools, but they are all so disconnected and limiting in nature that I rarely use them.

hrgiger
08-28-2016, 03:04 AM
Yeah Bryphi, the dynamics in C4D have looked decent from the tests I've seen but again, not doing motion graphics (unlike yourself), I only use dynamics occasionally so again, not a compelling reason for myself to consider C4D.

souzou
08-28-2016, 04:06 AM
We have to use C4D regularly as certain clients need to use projects/assets in-house. Certain aspects of it are great to work with, but I agree physical render is dog slow, particularly once you up the settings. Surfacing/lighting/previewing is also pretty slow (compared with using VPR) but my biggest bugbear with it is the viewport speed.

erikals
08-28-2016, 08:53 AM
NewTek is Re-coding huge parts of LightWave, so several new wanted features will have to wait.

Right now they are doing Layout ME,
*Next up is Modeler ME (subject to change)

this info is based on >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?149194-New-Blog-Post-The-Modifier-Stack&p=1460368&viewfull=1#post1460368

jeric_synergy
08-28-2016, 09:41 AM
Turns out the general and production managers just didn't know all the options and C4D was about as generic as Xerox to them.
This explains my vociferous reaction to pointless questions of "what do you use" from prospects-- what do they care? Usually they have no idea what they are asking, and just want to hear a buzzword.

jwiede
08-28-2016, 09:41 AM
NewTek is Re-coding huge parts of LightWave, so several new wanted features will have to wait.

Right now they are doing Layout ME,
*Next up is Modeler ME (subject to change)

this info is based on >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?149194-New-Blog-Post-The-Modifier-Stack&p=1460368&viewfull=1#post1460368


So Layout had the greater need with the lesser amount of work needed, and we tackled it first. Then with the experience gained, lots of new code in place, and the release clock reset, we can look at the modelling tools including the possibility of making them work in Layout.

Jarno's post does not explicitly or implicitly state or suggest any future work will be done to the Modeler mesh engine, nor that any modeling tool work would be done "next" -- the statement only indicated the modeling tool work would be subsequent, not next.

hrgiger
08-28-2016, 01:25 PM
Trying to implement a new mesh engine in Modeler would be a huge waste of time for LW3DG and us and I say that for a few reasons. One, Almost all of modelers tools are written to use the old system which means, save for maybe carrying over some of the algorithms associated with certain tools, they would all have to be rewritten for the new mesh engine so it would probably be more efficient for them to write modeler over from scratch with a better system.

Secondly, them putting any significant work into modeler with the intents of keeping it a separate application would pretty much signify to the 3D world at large and a lot of its current users that they're not serious about transforming LightWave into a modern application. I know for me, that would certainly tell me that and I would be leaving it behind.

jwiede
08-28-2016, 02:04 PM
Secondly, them putting any significant work into modeler with the intents of keeping it a separate application would pretty much signify to the 3D world at large and a lot of its current users that they're not serious about transforming LightWave into a modern application. I know for me, that would certainly tell me that and I would be leaving it behind.

QFA. Well put!

erikals
08-28-2016, 02:53 PM
whatever they choose to do, i trust LWG will make the smarter decision.

BigHache
08-28-2016, 08:01 PM
To succinctly answer the OP's question, for me it's price. As much as I would LOVE to say I make money with LightWave it's just not true.

I did bring LightWave into the last studio I worked at, but that was short-lived as management decided it was a better sell to say we were a Maya studio when talking to clients that essentially knew nothing about production. Today I work at a Max studio.

I do have 3D Coat and some other tools, but I can't personally do a monthly subscription to something like Max. Absolutely heck to the no. If LightWave went subscription it would kill me as a customer, plain and simple.

Surrealist.
08-29-2016, 12:17 AM
I would say anything outside of Modo or LightWave that does not have some more modeling-centric tools is on equal footing. I would not say Maya modeling tools suck. I can model equally as well there as in Blender for most things. I like XSI a little bit better. But then they ported some of that over to Maya as of 2015.5 so it is almost a mute point.

Blender has some advantages overall. LightWave has some unique tools.

Maya on the other hand has probably the best hand retopo tools. Probably Modo's are better, but I have not tried them yet. But they surpass Retopogun. So for me, if I am just doing modeling from scratch I will do it in Blender or Maya. Usually Blender, Mirror and other modifiers as well as a very intuitive and easy workflow. Then if I am going to do hand retopo. Hands down, Maya. That could change to Modo if I ever get a chance to play with it.

Just saying I would not categorically call Maya's modeling horrible. Maybe once that was true 3 years ago. But now it has equal control for just about anything. And even a few extra gadgets here and there.

But back to the topic. Modler does have some nice tools that are good to have in your kit when modeling. Multishift and a few other nice things I wish other apps had.

ianr
09-01-2016, 10:57 AM
It is What It is….

Leave all that sweat, tears, blood & treasure behind?

We never get to analyse in the LightWave market by comments, hobbyist or power

user camp? We never seem to chart the running costs inside the 3D marketplace prices.

I would say that plug-in buyers are again in two camps, the moaners ( That’s NOT in

LightWave!!!) & the project users ( the ones who get on & buy for that customer’s job).

Look around that what it will cost you in other apps , in financial terms, not mugged by

using luring, hobbled demos. Mark you, LW3DG have got the ‘reservation’ all stirred

up, and a ‘Hydra‘ pointer roadmap would do no harm like SideFx’s into the near future.


What I am working up to is that, we know that LW2016 NeXT will NOT be giving

Modeler much update. So the alternative I feel, is to update your Modeler yourself in the

form of buying plug-ins weighed against the costs/rental of other apps. They are not all

that wallet bashing really, so the solution is to update your Modeler to Turbo:

TURBO MODELER = LWBRUSH+LWCAD+3DPOWERS PACK.

See Graphic.

134255

Leave all that sweat, tears & treasure behind?

Take it further… leave 134 Million poly lws. with 2,643 objects with the courtesy

of Octane + Titan cards behind? This is what CAN BE ATTAINED in LIGHTWAVE

in Power User Mode, leave that behind?

See Graphic

134256

(Image courtsey of LW [email protected] Neotek Labs, see LW 11 gallery forums)

Houdini can be one big VFX plug-in sand-box for you, model in it and it will challenge

your sanity, you can’t model in Houdini on a MS Surface Pro on a long flight, it don’t

open. Blender & Modo agenda voices are always barking at one’s heels in these forums.

I tried to stir interest in the SideFx forums for a LW- H engine-13 votes was a bit sad,

as the Engine is opencode on GithHub. This community if it wanted enough could build

it,hey Unreal Forum have one now. Last year, SideFx Devs when in London said to me

that’ LW was the perfect front end fit for Houdini, one is very accessible straight away,

but not very deep, the other is not very accessible straight away, but very deep.’

We talk it (LW) down too much, the grass is always greener on the other side.

It is what it is, so help the community buy enhancing Third- Party tools, that’s what they

are there for, to give you a better experience. Feed your Head and not your ….

jeric_synergy
09-01-2016, 11:19 AM
Richard, just so you know, & I believe you'd want to know, it's "moot" point. :thumbsup:

"The grass is greener" syndrome certainly helps keep me around--- finding where each (and every) app is lacking is a prospect that fills me with dread and ennui.

Marander
09-01-2016, 11:31 AM
I would say anything outside of Modo or LightWave that does not have some more modeling-centric tools is on equal footing.

C4D's modeling tools are by far superior then LW including LWCAD in my opinion. (But I have no experience with modo, blender or max, so I can't compare). C4D is unbelievable stable, I never had a single crash or unexpected behaviour except couple hangs and crashes in Vray.

In C4D only few tools are required and they do their job much better than the plenty and redundant tools in LW. Spline tools are awesome and SubD modeling is very user friendly with the mesh checking hud, edge slide, spin edge and knife tool and also the polypen with its various operation modes. Most tasks (what is in LW move, axis translate, snap move, point normal move, multishift, smooth shift, knife, bevel, chamfer, rounder, extrude, extend, thicken, slide, slice and so on) can be done with a single tool. Snapping is working perfectly with all tools. And not to mention the non-destructive workflow for many situations using modifiers (for example shrink wrap) and parametric objects. There is a few functions like circlify or point relax which are missing but there are free and commercial plugins for that. UV mapping in C4D is horrible and complicated but I do this in 3DC and a rewrite for C4D is announced.

But as with any other software, just playing a little bit around with it or watching a couple of minutes tutorials doesn't give a fair idea of its potential.

I'm doing an intensive SubD modeling course for a while now and I cannot imagine to go back to LW for any modeling task. LWCAD is good for architectural objects like roofs, windows, doors and fences, but that's just about it for me. In LW and LWCAD I always have to remember which tool works for which geometry type and in which situation, it's just a mess in my opinion. By the way LWCAD is announced for Max and C4D.

jeric_synergy
09-01-2016, 11:40 AM
Marander, would you say C4DL has all these advantage too? (I've got it, might as well use it.)

Marander
09-01-2016, 12:01 PM
Marander, would you say C4DL has all these advantage too? (I've got it, might as well use it.)

Hi Jeric

No unfortunately C4D Lite has no modeling capabilities you can only use primitives.

I suggest you download and register the 42 days C4D Studio trial version, full featured (but wait for R18 to be out next week). It still works afterwards but no saving is allowed.

I bought C4D with the 30% sales for the 30th Maxon anniversary but I'm sure there will be a sales again (maybe black friday?)

Cheers

ActionBob
09-01-2016, 12:06 PM
I am currently learning Houdini to supplement my investment into lightwave and other tools - the best tool for the job. Ligtwave as a general arena and modeling app with help from 3D Coat and some plug-ins. Houdini will do the heavy VFX lifting with its amazing built in physics, particles, liquids and smoke effects.

Houdini has an amazing 200 dollar a year indie version which is full featured. Don't like the render limitation? Throw it into Octane and render how what size you like.

I too would love an all in one amazing tool to do everything. Houdini would be that tool if the interaction with modeling were improved. Making things procedurally has its strengths, but whipping up something quick is a task for Lightwave (and even faster with a little help from some plugs). Houdini has me excited about 3d stuff again. That includes my use of Lightwave. :-)

-Adrian

Rayek
09-01-2016, 12:10 PM
What I am working up to is that, we know that LW2016 NeXT will NOT be giving Modeler much update. So the alternative I feel, is to update your Modeler yourself in the form of buying plug-ins weighed against the costs/rental of other apps. They are not all

that wallet bashing really, so the solution is to update your Modeler to Turbo:

TURBO MODELER = LWBRUSH+LWCAD+3DPOWERS PACK.

See Graphic.

134255

Leave all that sweat, tears & treasure behind?

It is what it is, so help the community buy enhancing Third- Party tools, that’s what they are there for, to give you a better experience. Feed your Head and not your ….

So what you are saying is that we ought to invest $624 in plugins (3dPowers) AND also pay an additional $335 for LWCad for a grand total of $959 to patch up the aging Modeler?

And we'd be still missing out on a sculpt tool, a good knife tool, and other modeling tools, while a free copy of Blender includes all the 3dPowers functionality for free (excepting Meta Mesh), but does it better too :-/

LWCad is great, granted. But instead of spending that much money on 3dPowers plugins, I would install the "Blender plugin".

Of course, if you absolutely need to stick to Modeler only, free free to invest tons of money in plugins.

Marander
09-01-2016, 12:17 PM
Marander, would you say C4DL has all these advantage too? (I've got it, might as well use it.)

Jeric one more thing, with LW you're entitled for a cross-grade to C4D. You might also consider upgrading C4D Lite to Prime, it contains all the modeling tools and is affordable.

Update: By the way, C4D can open LWO and LWS files natively.

Marander
09-01-2016, 12:24 PM
So what you are saying is that we ought to invest $624 in plugins (3dPowers) AND also pay an additional $335 for LWCad for a grand total of $959 to patch up the aging Modeler?

And we'd be still missing out on a sculpt tool, a good knife tool, and other modeling tools, while a free copy of Blender includes all the 3dPowers functionality for free (excepting Meta Mesh), but does it better too :-/

Fully agree. And yes, Meta Mesh is indeed very nice and unique. However if you intend to have a clean subd topology it's not ideal.

ActionBob
09-01-2016, 12:32 PM
I got in on the promo deals and most of the plugins I bought were less expensive. Strike while the iron is hot.

Rayek
09-01-2016, 12:35 PM
Jeric one more thing, with LW you're entitled for a cross-grade to C4D. You might also consider upgrading C4D Lite to Prime, it contains all the modeling tools and is affordable.

Update: By the way, C4D can open LWO and LWS files natively.

In that case wouldn't it be advantageous to do a cross-grade to BodyPaint? All the modeling tools, AND sculpting/painting. I believe Maxon is working on a free BodyPaint update to be released later this year. Same price/cross-grade price (which is less than all those 3dpowers tools and LWCad combined).

Maxon generally doesn't advertise the fact that BOdyPaint is identical to Prime, but includes 3d painting and sculpting for the same price.

ActionBob
09-01-2016, 12:38 PM
Not sure how Body Paint rates these days, but when I used it in the past - had a client buy it for a project, I was not terribly impressed. Maybe it has gotten a lot better - I wouldn't know as I was turned off by it all those years ago.

Perhaps a youtube search is in the future for me.

-Adrian

jwiede
09-01-2016, 12:41 PM
C4D's modeling tools are by far superior then LW including LWCAD in my opinion. (But I have no experience with modo, blender or max, so I can't compare). C4D is unbelievable stable, I never had a single crash or unexpected behaviour except couple hangs and crashes in Vray.

In C4D only few tools are required and they do their job much better than the plenty and redundant tools in LW. Spline tools are awesome and SubD modeling is very user friendly with the mesh checking hud, edge slide, spin edge and knife tool and also the polypen with its various operation modes. Most tasks (what is in LW move, axis translate, snap move, point normal move, multishift, smooth shift, knife, bevel, chamfer, rounder, extrude, extend, thicken, slide, slice and so on) can be done with a single tool. Snapping is working perfectly with all tools. And not to mention the non-destructive workflow for many situations using modifiers (for example shrink wrap) and parametric objects. There is a few functions like circlify or point relax which are missing but there are free and commercial plugins for that. UV mapping in C4D is horrible and complicated but I do this in 3DC and a rewrite for C4D is announced.

But as with any other software, just playing a little bit around with it or watching a couple of minutes tutorials doesn't give a fair idea of its potential.

I'm doing an intensive SubD modeling course for a while now and I cannot imagine to go back to LW for any modeling task. LWCAD is good for architectural objects like roofs, windows, doors and fences, but that's just about it for me. In LW and LWCAD I always have to remember which tool works for which geometry type and in which situation, it's just a mess in my opinion. By the way LWCAD is announced for Max and C4D.

^QFA. And well put! I'm quite interested to see how Viktor approaches "LWCAD for C4D", as there's a lot of stuff he has to provide for LW LWCAD, which is already present native in C4D (extensive snapping, and support for (instanced) parametric primitives, to name a couple).

Rayek
09-01-2016, 12:43 PM
I got in on the promo deals and most of the plugins I bought were less expensive. Strike while the iron is hot.

Been there, done that. I learned the hard way that plugins are often only as useful as your current job requirements, and most of the plugins I invested in are dead in the water and no longer compatible/licensing issues with the 3d software I use(d).

The problem, in my experience, is that plugins are often abandoned, with the odd exception (such as LWCad). I'd rather have the base functionality part of the 3d app.

My reason for purchasing any plugin is based on whether I can speed up a project I am working on, and it pays back in terms of time. I stopped years ago being a "software collector", and I became very pragmatic in the tools I actually require for the job(s) at hand.

ActionBob
09-01-2016, 12:46 PM
Why would one get Body Paint when they have 3d Coat, the Substance Suite and Quixel suite? ;-)

These 3 things for less than the price of Body Paint 3d.. Gotta strike while the iron is hot... :-)

-Adrian

Rayek
09-01-2016, 12:51 PM
LWCAD is good for architectural objects like roofs, windows, doors and fences, but that's just about it for me. In LW and LWCAD I always have to remember which tool works for which geometry type and in which situation, it's just a mess in my opinion. By the way LWCAD is announced for Max and C4D.

In the meantime there's ArchiMesh:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxIoDvJHl3Q

Marander
09-01-2016, 12:53 PM
Maxon generally doesn't advertise the fact that BOdyPaint is identical to Prime, but includes 3d painting and sculpting for the same price.

Ah I didn't know that it includes modeling and sculpting. But Bodypaint itself is the worst part in C4D in my opinion. But yes, a free update is announced within the R18 cycle.

Rayek
09-01-2016, 12:55 PM
Why would one get Body Paint when they have 3d Coat, the Substance Suite and Quixel suite? ;-)

These 3 things for less than the price of Body Paint 3d.. Gotta strike while the iron is hot... :-)

-Adrian

Absolutely agree - I would take 3dCoat over BodyPaint any day. I was just saying that IF you would opt to get C4d Prime (which would be a replacement of sorts for Modeler), THEN getting BodyPaint is the better deal, since it is identical to Prime plus it includes the painting and sculpting for the identical price.

Marander
09-01-2016, 12:58 PM
In the meantime there's ArchiMesh

Wow never seen that before, impressive!

Also the Blender HardOps is a great plugin.

Blender is really improving alot.

AND...

In a couple of weeks Cycles will be available for C4D, even .blend files can be opened.

http://www.blendernation.com/2016/08/10/cycles-coming-cinema4d/

jwiede
09-01-2016, 01:07 PM
And yes, Meta Mesh is indeed very nice and unique.

Nice? Absolutely, and can be quite useful in certain modeling situations. Unique? Not really, Groboto had been around for ages when MetaMesh (and MeshFusion) were released, as in preceded them by around a decade, and CSG 3D booleans go back much, much further. That doesn't make MetaMesh any less useful, though, and there certainly isn't anything else like it for LW available.

Marander
09-01-2016, 01:15 PM
Nice? Absolutely, and can be quite useful in certain modeling situations. Unique? Not really, Groboto had been around for ages when MetaMesh (and MeshFusion) were released, as in preceded them by around a decade, and CSG 3D booleans go back much, much further.

Interesting!

John, you really have a vast knowledge of 3D applications.

May I ask if you use it for your work or as hobby? As far as I understood you work for Redmond (I work for the blue guys in Armonk, 3D is just my hobby).

jwiede
09-01-2016, 01:43 PM
Interesting!

John, you really have a vast knowledge of 3D applications.

May I ask if you use it for your work or as hobby? As far as I understood you work for Redmond (I work for the blue guys in Armonk, 3D is just my hobby).

Both. It kind of started as a hobby back in Amiga days, then I started doing more and more work involving 3D graphics (though my work has been more typically on the OS/gfx-stack/gfx-driver side of things). I do occasionally use 3D gfx pkgs for my work (Xbox division), typically as a means of generating models or animation to use in D3D (or OpenGL, back when I was at SGI) directly, or in game-type engines -- but in GPU/systems verification, not title publishing. My use as a hobbyist (and very occasionally as a freelancer) is much more varied.

Marander
09-01-2016, 02:13 PM
Both.

Thanks!

Ah SGI... I still have a couple of them standing around (from Indy to a 16 CPU Origin cluster) for nostalgic reasons :)

Sorry for being OT.

Norka
09-01-2016, 02:41 PM
Eeks! C4D R18 with all those fancy new toys. And even (the horrible, loathsome) Blender has curve drawing and other new doodads. This is getting truly depressing. And I am growing worried that LW will never be able to catch up with C4d et al, regardless of how wonderful, or even revolutionary, Next ends up being.

Rayek
09-01-2016, 02:50 PM
Both. It kind of started as a hobby back in Amiga days,

Still have my trusty old Amiga 1000 wrapped up in a box under my work desk!

Rayek
09-01-2016, 02:58 PM
Eeks! C4D R18 with all those fancy new toys. And even (the horrible, loathsome) Blender has curve drawing and other new doodads. This is getting truly depressing. And I am growing worried that LW will never be able to catch up with C4d et al, regardless of how wonderful, or even revolutionary, Next ends up being.

:devil: Perhaps Newtek ought to forego Modeler, focus on Layout henceforth, and create a bridge between Blender and Layout instead! :devil:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/2/2e/Jafar's_evil_laugh.png/revision/latest?cb=20131226210906
[insert Evil Laugh here]

Norka
09-01-2016, 03:03 PM
Are you crazy bro?.. Modeler kicks ***, and is 80% of the reason I'm still here. LW3DG should rather stop all render engine work and let Octane be official engine.. as I say in another thread. Octane will soon be supporting CPUs too.

tyrot
09-01-2016, 03:13 PM
norka you nailed it !...

+1000000000000000000

Norka
09-01-2016, 03:20 PM
Yes, I did. ;-) And let me say again, right here, that LW engine will never, ever, be able to compete with Octane, VRay et al. That would be a fools errand. Octane will soon be supporting every last need or desire of even the most staunch CPU-biased artist. And freeing up resources that would otherwise go to the engine, could allow LW3DG to take LW to crazy new heights, compete where it should be, and give it a real chance of taking back some market share.

MichaelT
09-01-2016, 05:26 PM
And yet, more and more companies are doing their own thing. I think I'll wait until I see the new engine, before I make any assumptions. It didn't take me long to make a scene more complex than V-Ray was able to work with, but that Modo could render just fine. Octane is fast, but it isn't as capable. And that is a good thing. You need to use the correct tool for the job :)

Julez4001
09-01-2016, 06:02 PM
I still love the 2 app system, I would like to have a few mod tools in Layout for matching projections and the sort but when I am modeling, I am focus on modeling.
I recently finished a job where I broke up Messiah:Studio for all the character work and it reminded me of why I use it in the first place. Buttery smooth actiona and that damn setup mode that's incomparable in any app. it again was a 2 app workflow..one focused on character anim and other for rendering.

jeric_synergy
09-01-2016, 06:36 PM
Jeric one more thing, with LW you're entitled for a cross-grade to C4D. You might also consider upgrading C4D Lite to Prime, it contains all the modeling tools and is affordable.

Update: By the way, C4D can open LWO and LWS files natively.
Thanks for the hedzup, I'm looking at it right now... http://www.maxonshop.com/us/gp/Qualified%20Sidegrades/1/ ---Still not cheap: $895. Until I see some actual 3D income, I'm caught in a chicken/egg situation.

re: Bodypaint: it looks like it's not included in the LW sidegrade offer, JFYI all.

ianr
09-02-2016, 08:45 AM
Rayek,
If my plugins save me productivity time, then in
accountancy terms they ammortize their cost over a project.
Viewed from the aspect of DCC Packages you have to pay for,
if they are helping to produce dollar then from that point of
view that is inferred in the beginning of my post it's a win.
If it gets faster out the door,I don't knock it.

Pity no-one commented at Rene's great power scene
of 167 million polys, I thought a such a positive to show.

Chernoby
09-02-2016, 11:33 AM
:devil: Perhaps Newtek ought to forego Modeler, focus on Layout henceforth, and create a bridge between Blender and Layout instead! :devil:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/2/2e/Jafar's_evil_laugh.png/revision/latest?cb=20131226210906
[insert Evil Laugh here]

I swear to the Goods I'VE HEARD WORSE IDEAS than this!

Chernoby
09-02-2016, 11:35 AM
In the meantime there's ArchiMesh:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxIoDvJHl3Q

Archimesh is pahretty sweet. Although sometimes it is easier to just model the room. Blender also has a dungeon generator, human generator, dungeon map generator, bolt factory, and a kitchen sink generator.

bobakabob
09-02-2016, 03:38 PM
Nice? Absolutely, and can be quite useful in certain modeling situations. Unique? Not really, Groboto had been around for ages when MetaMesh (and MeshFusion) were released, as in preceded them by around a decade, and CSG 3D booleans go back much, much further. That doesn't make MetaMesh any less useful, though, and there certainly isn't anything else like it for LW available.

Metamesh and Groboto are Boolean apps, but they are radically different.

I do think you underestimate the power and flexibility of Metamesh, (especially combined with the complementary LWBrush). In my HO it is unique. For organic modelling in sub d mode I really don't know of a comparable app that creates dynamic sub d booleans on the fly - not even Maya has this facility as far as I know and I use it regularly. Metamesh leaves Zbrush booleans standing regarding speed. As powerful as dyna mesh is, it requires massive poly counts which have to be refined and (ironically) lacks the speedy metaball like dynamic feature of the 3rd Powers toolset.

Groboto as wonderful as it is, has considerable limitations - it only allows booleans with specific primitives, doesn't allow import of meshes and lacks the capability of working in sub d mode. However, it's still a powerful creative tool but sadly it no longer exists independently as the tech was integrated into Modo.

Mesh Fusion is now more flexible allowing booleans with user created meshes. But reading the forum there seem to be a few teething problems with memory lag and graphics card issues. It's clearly capable of generating impressive results but under the right conditions.

hrgiger
09-02-2016, 04:21 PM
Metamesh leaves Zbrush booleans standing regarding speed. As powerful as dyna mesh is, it requires massive poly counts which have to be refined and (ironically) lacks the speedy metaball like dynamic feature of the 3rd Powers toolset.



I have to take issue as before with the comparison to Zbrush. Large polycounts are irrelevant in Zbrush just as much as topology is. I don't know about anyone else but throwing together meatball or Boolean object is a nice way to make a base object but I'm certainly not going to make a full character or most other things simply in that way alone. Not having to think about topology or polycount means I can pull out forms dig into forms or distort them in any way and the topology comes along with it. You don't think about topology until the end when you have the form you need. And you can do it manually for greatest control or near instantly create an even topology on the model with Zremesher. I mean, metamesh is nice and all but in no way compares to the power or flexibility you get in a sculpting app like Zbrush or 3DC.

bobakabob
09-02-2016, 04:53 PM
I have to take issue as before with the comparison to Zbrush. Large polycounts are irrelevant in Zbrush just as much as topology is. I don't know about anyone else but throwing together meatball or Boolean object is a nice way to make a base object but I'm certainly not going to make a full character or most other things simply in that way alone. Not having to think about topology or polycount means I can pull out forms dig into forms or distort them in any way and the topology comes along with it. You don't think about topology until the end when you have the form you need. And you can do it manually for greatest control or near instantly create an even topology on the model with Zremesher. I mean, metamesh is nice and all but in no way compares to the power or flexibility you get in a sculpting app like Zbrush or 3DC.

Yes, guess we'll have to agree to disagree, though all good points re sculpting in ZB. Have you tried the 3rd Powers dynamic Boolean tool? It's a powerful complement to Metamesh for hard surface modelling. Then there's LWCad... great we have such powerful tools for this kind of modelling. Booleans were always hit and miss in the early days of 3D - much more sophisticated now.

Much as I love ZB, my point is that with Boolean operations imo it's just nowhere near as quick and dynamic as Metamesh. ZB doesn't do booleans well at low res... I get your point about ZB and resolution and ofc Metamesh can't compete with its multiplicity of features. But in Modeler it's faster to have the capability of producing sophisticated booleans with basic (optional sub d) meshes. In ZB you have to go follow with Zremesher or decimate the mesh - quite a few more mousecliclicks required. Relative to MM it's time consuming and not quite as spontaneous.

For booleans I much prefer Modeler to Zbrush (which does I admit sound extraordinary, but ultimately the apps complement each other so well). I really recommend Metamesh and LW Brush in addition to ZBrush.

Just out of interest, how does 3D Coat compare with this kind of modelling?

Rayek
09-02-2016, 05:16 PM
Just out of interest, how does 3D Coat compare with this kind of modelling?

It's a tad different - in voxel mode, similar to Metamesh, shapes can be easily added and subtracted with <enter> and <ctrl> <enter> - it feels like working with clay.

The difference is that the shapes do not remain live (from what I can tell what is happening in Metamesh), and the final shape must be retopologized, of course.

In other ways it is far more lenient and forgiving to sculpt forms with compared to Metamesh - because 3dCoat does not need to worry about the underlying topology.

I agree with hrgiger in that the workflow is just quite different. At the beginning of my process I do not want to be bothered with worrying about mesh topology, and just concern myself with the creative side of things. And the advantage of dealing with topology later is that one can choose to go with different strategies depending on the type of usage of the objects.

I do have to mention here that I find it quite unforgivable that Modeler STILL does not offer a sculpt mode. Metamesh and similar tools have their uses, but sculpting is part of the tool set I (and many others) make use of almost every time I model, and it is a crying shame Newtek dropped the ball as much as they did in this regard.

For their sakes and the future of LW, I sincerely hope that Chronosculpt has been integrated into the next LW release.

bobakabob
09-02-2016, 05:20 PM
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/71/186044427_03d505bd09_b_d.jpgPS here's an example of organic booleans done in Modeler in minutes preserving the original low res meshes. You just can't do this in ZB without remeshing. Even then it would take a fair amount of time time to replicate an original poly count or topology.

hrgiger
09-02-2016, 05:50 PM
Yes but why would you want to do that? And what is so bad about remeshing? One click in Zbrush. I haven't modeled a character in LightWave since probably version 9. Its just so much easier with sculpting.

prometheus
09-02-2016, 06:33 PM
I do have to mention here that I find it quite unforgivable that Modeler STILL does not offer a sculpt mode. Metamesh and similar tools have their uses, but sculpting is part of the tool set I (and many others) make use of almost every time I model, and it is a crying shame Newtek dropped the ball as much as they did in this regard.

For their sakes and the future of LW, I sincerely hope that Chronosculpt has been integrated into the next LW release.

+1
agree on the sculpting part.
I personally have skipped the newer lw 2015 features of using drag texture falloffs in my modeling sessions, I see no use of it when it performs quite badly..that is to say it has no normal displacement..wo any scale you do or move or dragnet or magnet will not be as good as if I simply use drag dot or anchored with blender sculpt tools.

Then again we got 3rd powers tools ..lw brush.

prometheus
09-02-2016, 06:36 PM
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/71/186044427_03d505bd09_b_d.jpgPS here's an example of organic booleans done in Modeler in minutes preserving the original low res meshes. You just can't do this in ZB without remeshing. Even then it would take a fair amount of time time to replicate an original poly count or topology.


I guess some difference is, zbrush doesnīt deal at all with subpatches, only various mesh levels, and I donīt think zbrush keeps main topology when merging and remeshing..I believe you would have to remesh all and with that fixing a new topology, which metamesh does while merging..without a need to retopo at all..right?

Surrealist.
09-03-2016, 01:17 AM
I find that when you work with these tools day by day, it starts to show what they are best used for and where they break down. The example that Robert gave is a great example of something you would not want to attempt with dynamesh,/Zremesher. First of all to get and keep the incredible detail of those anatomy parts in Dynamesh means a ton of polygons. Of course, yes, in Zbrush this, performance wise, is not an issue. The issue is the time you spend going up step by step in a linear fashion (destructively mind you) in resolution to get the mesh detail you want. This is the strength of Dynamesh and also its weakness. What you get in freedom you pay for in a linear destructive workflow. But the point is, once you get there and have 10 or more other meshes you now have to join at that resolution, go ahead, make my day. Hit the Dynamesh button and wait. And wait.... only to find out that the fingers started to fuse together in places. And any other close parts fuse. Useless. And if it works only to find out that now still you have to remesh. And to get it working head to toe with all body part types, not practical.

In the end, the technique I find most useful and that is you use each tool for its strengths and don't bother wasting time and resources pushing certain tools to their limits. You are better off modeling certain parts by hand and then bringing them into Zbrush. Dynamesh is best used for certain things, but can also bring limitations to character creation after a certain point. So it is a matter of creating your shape freeform and then converting over to meshing. But for characters, it can be very limiting. You will likely find yourself going out of Zbrush to retopo by hand and then bring it back to sculpt final details. You just can not control the polyfow in a specific way for an animation pipeline. The other option is to remesh at a very high poly count and then detail. But that still leaves a hand retopo down the road. Fingers, ears eyes and lips need too much specific attention to rely on Zremesher from my experience.

From what I have seen Metamesh and Mesh Fusion seem to be tools specifically designed for a particular workfow. And a Dynamesh/Zremesher workflow are best left for what they are good for, at least from my experience.

bobakabob
09-03-2016, 01:48 AM
@Prometheus, yes exactly, Metamesh works in sub patch mode in Modeler which has an advantage of preserving your original basic topology. Zbrush doesn't work like this and I prefer to avoid remeshing if possible as I tend to create stuff for animation.

@hrgiger, the illustration is just an extreme example of how you can combine organic models in a fast, dynamic way. The 3rd Powers video shows this much more effectively. There may be times you need to preserve your original topology as much as possible. Character animation / games are examples. I enjoy sculpting in ZBrush, it's just a different approach and depends on what you need. LWBrush is another approach, facilitating basic subD "sculpting" in Modeler. I couldn't do without 3rd Powers tools now.

@Rayek, Interesting reading about 3D Coat and it would be interesting to see examples of complex booleans. Yes, it's ultimately about personal preference and what you need. Personally I see Modeler + 3rd Powers + LWCad + ZBrush as extremely powerful complementary apps. There was no need for Lw3dg to emulate ZB imo.

@Surrealist, yes, good evaluation of the processes involved working in these apps :-) They all have strengths and weaknesses and it's all about personal preferences, pipelines, workflow.

erikals
09-03-2016, 04:13 AM
MetaMesh is fantastic, wanna buy it one of these days, for organic and mechanic modeling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctESAMUQYv8

like so many other tools, it's good for certain operations and situations. there's no ring to rule them all.

hrgiger
09-03-2016, 04:19 AM
Im not seeing a resulting mesh from metamesh that looks suitable for animation. Simply remaining a subpatch mesh doesnt mean its efficient for animation. The junctions at mesh intersections results in interuptions to previous polygon flow. It might be suitable for rendering, but not ideal for proper skeletal deformation.

Dynamesh is a concepting tool (I would argue that metamesh is as well because the resulting mesh isnt ideal) and its not intended to take to a final model. If youre getting the messh fusing in places, like between the fingers, then that means youre not working at a proper scale or resolution. Once you have your forms in place is when you can consider topology. Metamesh might be fine if youre making simple characters by essentially kit bashing the same parts together over and over but for a true free form explorative creative process, theres just no way to compare zbrush and modeler.

erikals
09-03-2016, 05:34 AM
Im not seeing a resulting mesh from metamesh that looks suitable for animation.
personally i wouldn't use it for animation as a first priority. though it wouldn't stop me from using it for animated models in some situations.

imo, both have their use. their place.


unrelated, but since we are talking 3rdPowers / Modo etc >
posted 1 year ago by Brent Alleyne...

worth some thoughts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3XA4dykW3g

Surrealist.
09-03-2016, 07:05 AM
Im not seeing a resulting mesh from metamesh that looks suitable for animation. Simply remaining a subpatch mesh doesnt mean its efficient for animation. The junctions at mesh intersections results in interuptions to previous polygon flow. It might be suitable for rendering, but not ideal for proper skeletal deformation.

Dynamesh is a concepting tool (I would argue that metamesh is as well because the resulting mesh isnt ideal) and its not intended to take to a final model. If youre getting the messh fusing in places, like between the fingers, then that means youre not working at a proper scale or resolution. Once you have your forms in place is when you can consider topology. Metamesh might be fine if youre making simple characters by essentially kit bashing the same parts together over and over but for a true free form explorative creative process, theres just no way to compare zbrush and modeler.

Yeah I think we are all just saying similar things in different ways.

Regarding the scale thing. This might help me. Though my understanding is that the larger the mesh the more resolution. It is kind of a weird thing with Dynamesh. But you gave me an idea there to try things at different scales (even though I have been using the supplied meshes as scale reference). So I am not sure what proper would be. But if changing the scale helps that will make my work easier, so I will look into that. Thanks for the tip. :)

SBowie
09-03-2016, 10:18 AM
Respectfully, the program sucks ****. Possibly **** too. Respectfully, there was nothing respectful about the tone of your original post. The forum moderation policy includes the following statement: "... the NewTek Discussion Forums are not a free speech zone, they are for professional and civil discourse regarding NewTek products by NewTek users." We appreciate that people will have various, even strong views about various matters, including both our products and those of our competitors. While the forums are provided principally for discussions related to the former, we make room for a certain amount of the latter too - but the same rules of etiquette apply in all cases.

To the degree possible, it is company policy to show respect to everyone - including competitors. Being unnecessarily offensive is not only a breach of professional standards, it's also impractical. It's not at all unusual in business to find common ground on some project or other with developers whose product lines somewhat overlap our own. In a similar vein, I occasionally hear from a member seeking favor with some firm or other that they have previously bad-mouthed in the forums, and who is now belatedly hoping I'll clean up their act for them (probably not going to happen, btw).

For these reasons and in the general interests of good taste and congeniality, I am removing the offending posts, with apologies to readers who quite rightly found them inappropriate. (To the OP, feel free to post the same general view again if you like, but using more temperate language.)

prometheus
09-03-2016, 10:20 AM
personally i wouldn't use it for animation as a first priority. though it wouldn't stop me from using it for animated models in some situations.

imo, both have their use. their place.


unrelated, but since we are talking 3rdPowers / Modo etc >
posted 1 year ago by Brent Alleyne...

worth some thoughts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3XA4dykW3g


as for animation mesh, well...as I understand it, metamesh only yields asymetrical and none ideal topoflow where the mesh is fused, but maintains the rest of the mesh unaltered, which may be way easier to adress, than zmesh wich I believe remeshes everything.

jeric_synergy
09-03-2016, 10:33 AM
..... I am removing the offending posts, with apologies to readers who quite rightly found them inappropriate. (To the OP, feel free to post the same general view again if you like, but using more temperate language.)
Tasteless and content free. Thanks for hosing them out.

jeric_synergy
09-03-2016, 10:36 AM
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/71/186044427_03d505bd09_b_d.jpgPS here's an example of organic booleans done in Modeler in minutes preserving the original low res meshes. You just can't do this in ZB without remeshing. Even then it would take a fair amount of time time to replicate an original poly count or topology.
A bit confused.... was this done with MetaMesh?


--lots of brand names floating around in this thread, hard to keep track.

prometheus
09-03-2016, 10:58 AM
A bit confused.... was this done with MetaMesh?


--lots of brand names floating around in this thread, hard to keep track.

Most certainly so..he said "S here's an example of organic booleans done in Modeler in minutes preserving the original low res meshes. You just can't do this in ZB without remeshing. Even then it would take a fair amount of time time to replicate an original poly count or topology. "

modeler is named and you can see it is most likely a screenshot of modeler...metamesh from third powers is for lightwave, and 3rd powers also got anothe boolean dynamic tool.

metamesh for lw modeler and suitable for organic fuse of subpatched object.
meshfusion is for modo, probably more suited for hard modeling.
zmesher is for zbrush
mesh mixer is free from autodesk and can mix parts, you can import lw obj to use as parts.
Blender 2.77-2.78 has a boolean plugin which is free and works in realtime (navive blender does not) and you can animate the booleans..how about that.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOEJ-mFBve4

hrgiger
09-03-2016, 11:04 AM
Yeah I think we are all just saying similar things in different ways.

Regarding the scale thing. This might help me. Though my understanding is that the larger the mesh the more resolution. It is kind of a weird thing with Dynamesh. But you gave me an idea there to try things at different scales (even though I have been using the supplied meshes as scale reference). So I am not sure what proper would be. But if changing the scale helps that will make my work easier, so I will look into that. Thanks for the tip. :)

Yeah Richard the way to think of dynamesh resolution in zbrush is a cage surrounding your object at a set resolution (that you can change in the dynamesh tab). That cage wraps your model from each side every time you update the dynamesh giving you the new topology. As your model is scaled up or down, the resolution goes up or down also even if your setting in the dynamesh tab is the same. There is a button called unify in the deformations panel which will scale your model to whatever the zbrush unit size is set at which will give you a reasonable resolution at smaller dynamesh settings. (If you find yourself setting the resolution to very large numbers and not getting enough resolution, you can try the unify function. Just be warned that after using unify, you will likely have to adjust your dynamesh resolution to a desirable level before remeshing to avoid loss of sculpted detail.)

Surrealist.
09-03-2016, 11:17 AM
OK cool. Thanks for the tips on that. Makes sense. I do seem to remember that unify function. So I will experiment with this.

prometheus
09-03-2016, 04:37 PM
may spin a bit of topic regarding the thread, but since we discussed various mesh fusion options, I noticed the metashape tools for blender,(requieres sensei format which I have no clue on what it is)

Resulting mesh is dense and needs retopo...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlVHs3Xq_OQ

Surrealist.
09-03-2016, 05:09 PM
as for animation mesh, well...as I understand it, metamesh only yields asymmetrical and none ideal topoflow where the mesh is fused, but maintains the rest of the mesh unaltered, which may be way easier to adress, than zmesh wich I believe remeshes everything.

Just to be perfectly clear. I know a lot of ideas have been kicked around here. And a lot of clarity gets lost trying to make more than one point.

So here it is in bullet form:

1) Animation pipeline.

Hand retopology is absolutely imperative in my opinion. There are many things specific to animation that need to be addressed. Particularly around the face.

This site, is more or less the bible in my opinion for articulation and mesh poly flow:

http://www.hippydrome.com/

This is completely aside from mesh density.

2) Fusing meshes together, Boolean etc.

This is another matter entirely in my book. And an argument for or against one software tool or another can only be answered on a case by case basis. Points where the mesh fuse together I would not find as a concern for animating characters because you would not usually be creating characters that way. Or not always animating those parts. For hard surface, you don't usually animate hard surface fused parts in an organic way. Usually. Not never of course. Or if you were putting together a wacky mesh like the one Robert gave as an example, and you find you were going to animate it, again you'd just have to evaluate on a case by case basis which method is going to save you the most time and give you the flexibility you need.

Not singling anyone out here. Just kind of vamping on Michael's quote to clarify meaning I intended to convey earlier but was probably not very clear.