PDA

View Full Version : (Spoof) Layout and Modeler finally merge in Lightwave 2017!



Snosrap
01-30-2017, 09:36 PM
Layout and Modeler finally merge in Lightwave 2017. No doubt this has to be the case for the lengthy delay in a release. Back on Oct. 3rd 2015 we were told by Rob "and a very important point that I must mention is that what I am discussing here is not some future plan or a “Smoke and Mirrors” act but these are things that we have already implemented in the next version and which have been in testing for quite some time." So at that time they had already been testing and now here we are 17 months later and still nothing. I know these things take time, but come on, surely they have to be adding to the feature set as to why this is taking so long to release a new version. A newsletter release today indicates we are still a ways off. I guess 2017 will come in 2018. :)

Surrealist.
01-30-2017, 11:06 PM
My opinion is that a merge would be too far of a leap. I think it is realistic, the time it is taking, just to do what has been actually stated. And I think if they were close to merging or if it was a part of the plan they would have announced that. I just think there is a lot of unrealistic expectation all the way around as far as what time it will take to even get the stated goal, thus far. Having it working internally and releasable are two separate things.

I would say merging is a couple of years off after the initial release.

samurai_x
01-30-2017, 11:30 PM
A newsletter release today indicates we are still a ways off.

I didn't see any mention of lightwave next so its anyone's guess if we're far or near unification.
I did notice Lino worked on that archiviz project in Bahrain. So just confirms my earlier thought that he's not full time working on Lightwave next if he is working on projects outside of Newtek. Newtek devs are part time devs across the globe.

djwaterman
01-30-2017, 11:53 PM
Seriously, is this where we're at? Couldn't you have simply put this view in many of the other speculative threads instead of creating a new thread with a misleading and fake title, at least you would put a question mark at the end instead of an exclamation mark. In any case, we know that LW will not be merged upon next release, it has been officially stated a number of times that it won't be.

Marander
01-31-2017, 12:18 AM
No news again from LW3DG again. Ah no wait, there's an add-a-seat promotion!

At a point the feature set for a release must be fixed in order to deliver a stable product. Adding features normally requires regression testing. And it seems it's in beta test since a while, so there should not be newly added features.

My guess is beta tests brought up some serious issues.

If the new release still has the ancient and cluttered ui, no proper undo, stability issues and not having some unique features after this long time then it will be an epic fail. But as RP promised it will have the most modern architecture in the industry, I'm really looking forward to that.

Every4thPixel
01-31-2017, 02:30 AM
We're all just so frustrated by not knowing what is going to happen to our beloved little lighwave....

I'm wondering why LW's road map it's such a secret? Why aren't they open about it? Don't they have the faith in it or what why ?

kopperdrake
01-31-2017, 02:58 AM
Well, if we're going to go guessing, here's my thoughts, and they're quite boring thoughts.

LW Next (or Post, or FollowUp, or TagAlong etc) was almost ready, they started using it on internal projects we've had a whiff of, like the new Star Trek series. During this process two things possibly happened, and have happened before:

1) The workflow threw up some interesting bugs with the new architecture (always happens)
2) The studio wanted new tools adding (has happened before - we get tools the big studios want)

So I surmise that it's a mixture of something being fixed, and something being added that we weren't expecting.

That's all - boring and most probably likely, because it is so boring. Crikey, even making myself yawn at the mundanity of the postt.

rustythe1
01-31-2017, 04:36 AM
Well, if we're going to go guessing, here's my thoughts, and they're quite boring thoughts.

LW Next (or Post, or FollowUp, or TagAlong etc) was almost ready, they started using it on internal projects we've had a whiff of, like the new Star Trek series. During this process two things possibly happened, and have happened before:

1) The workflow threw up some interesting bugs with the new architecture (always happens)
2) The studio wanted new tools adding (has happened before - we get tools the big studios want)

So I surmise that it's a mixture of something being fixed, and something being added that we weren't expecting.

That's all - boring and most probably likely, because it is so boring. Crikey, even making myself yawn at the mundanity of the postt.

well your no2 would make sense, as star trek became delayed and then VBD was added, would make sense that they would want smoke and fire on a scifi show, they may also be pumping in a lot of cash for the development so would most probably have a lot of requests

Every4thPixel
01-31-2017, 04:55 AM
Where did you guys get the news that the new LW is used in the Star Trek series?

Surrealist.
01-31-2017, 05:06 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?150915-LIGHTWAVE-ANIMATORS-%96-STAR-TREK-DISCOVERY-%96-CBS-Television-Prod-(Los-Angeles)

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?150917-CG-MODELLERS-%96-STAR-TREK-DISCOVERY-%96-CBS-Television-Prod-(Los-Angeles)

Every4thPixel
01-31-2017, 05:15 AM
Yes that LW being used but not the "NEW" LW, or am I missing something?

hrgiger
01-31-2017, 05:22 AM
All i can say is no, this will not be the case. Modeler and Layout will not be merged in the next version.

lardbros
01-31-2017, 05:54 AM
All i can say is no, this will not be the case. Modeler and Layout will not be merged in the next version.

I'm inclined to agree.

Not sure why you'd want to build your own hype and then set yourself up for disappointment.
It's like some kind of torture.

I personally think Newtek have a lot on their plate adding what they've added already... Modeller 'merge' will happen eventually, it's not like they don't know it needs doing.

Every4thPixel
01-31-2017, 06:11 AM
I'm sometimes wondering how much work it really is if you look at the speed Deep Rising FX integrated a fluid simulator.

MichaelT
01-31-2017, 06:14 AM
They've already said it won't be merged. They have said that they've changed the code so it is possible now. But the upcoming version will still be separated. Also, AFAIK the modeler will finally have VPR (unless I misunderstood that part) They said they can begin work on merging after the next release. 'Can' doesn't mean 'will' as well ;) But for me, the most important update is that it will be able to handle more massive scenes better. Now... if they only could begin talking about a release date?

The devs are part time only across the globe? This was news to me. Some might be, but I doubt *all* of them are. Also, if they use people across the globe, why not dip into the dev resources that are in these forums?

kopperdrake
01-31-2017, 07:34 AM
Yes that LW being used but not the "NEW" LW, or am I missing something?

Didn't an artist linked to the series post something on another forum with a screengrab of a beta version by accident? Or am I starting a rumour here?

lardbros
01-31-2017, 07:39 AM
I'm sometimes wondering how much work it really is if you look at the speed Deep Rising FX integrated a fluid simulator.

But that's using libraries that already exist, and is one specific area. The guys at newtek are working on every area, re-writing and integrating their new stuff into some old UI and codebases.
Yes, it's being worked on, and the old codebase will ultimately be replaced with a new one, but... until that time, I can see it's a huge amount of work.

They most likely have had to re-write the lights, materials, volume stuff, renderer, and hopefully bugfix stuff from 2015, along with all the new bugs that arise from integrating all the new stuff. I see this as a lot of work! The Deep Rising stuff is still cool, and impressive, not to take away from the feat at all, but it's most likely not as much work.

erikals
01-31-2017, 08:19 AM
Modeler has about 1000 tools, half of these tools have 5-10 functions.

ergo:
you won't see a fraction of the Modeler tools ported to Layout any time soon.

Signal to Noise
01-31-2017, 08:58 AM
Negative points to OP for click-bait thread title. :tsktsk:

Besides, I'm probably in the minority but I still like my M & L separate.

erikals
01-31-2017, 09:02 AM
i Love the M/L split, except for the times when i don't.

not sarcasm, true. Major pitfalls regarding lacking modeler tools in Layout however, are many.

especially for Motion Graphics.

Exclaim
01-31-2017, 09:15 AM
Negative points to OP for click-bait thread title. :tsktsk:

Besides, I'm probably in the minority but I still like my M & L separate.

I'm sure we are not the minority. M/L gets hated by people who want Lightwave to be like every other DCC package.

erikals
01-31-2017, 09:27 AM
dealing with > CA / morphs / Motion Graphics / Scenery / Edit-In-Camera-View is a problem when toggling between M / L

if you deal with Motion Graphics in LightWave, it's no fun. i'm 100% sure people defeating the M / L merge don't do Motion Graphics regularly.

it's also not without reason 2017 will have a Camera view in Modeler.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMPS6WxAwTo

Greenlaw
01-31-2017, 09:37 AM
Personally, I've been way too busy using 2015.3 to really think about 2017 yet. :)

rustythe1
01-31-2017, 09:37 AM
Didn't an artist linked to the series post something on another forum with a screengrab of a beta version by accident? Or am I starting a rumour here?

almost, they mentioned they were working on startrek and using 2017 in the same sentence, it was taken down shortly after.

rustythe1
01-31-2017, 09:40 AM
Didn't an artist linked to the series post something on another forum with a screengrab of a beta version by accident? Or am I starting a rumour here?

almost, they mentioned they were working on startrek and using 2017 in the same sentence, it was taken down shortly after.

erikals
01-31-2017, 09:45 AM
Personally, I've been way too busy using 2015.3 to really think about 2017 yet. :)

and soon LW Deep Rising...    http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/arteest.gif

Exclaim
01-31-2017, 09:45 AM
dealing with > CA / morphs / Motion Graphics / Scenery / Edit-In-Camera-View is a problem when toggling between M / L

if you deal with Motion Graphics in LightWave, it's no fun. i'm 100% sure people defeating the M / L merge don't do Motion Graphics regularly.

it's also not without reason 2017 will have a Camera view in Modeler.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMPS6WxAwTo

This is true. I think Visualization and Entertainment folks enjoy the M/L split. For Motion Graphics, I can imagine users would find it limiting.

lardbros
01-31-2017, 10:26 AM
i Love the M/L split, except for the times when i don't.

not sarcasm, true. Major pitfalls regarding lacking modeler tools in Layout however, are many.

especially for Motion Graphics.

I agree with this too.

I love the split sometimes, it keeps things neat and unmessy.

Unfortunately it also means we lose all the benefits of a single workspace too. I'm hoping that when they merge, they'll do it but maintain the LWO and LWS type system. But maybe have a new format which brings to two together. So, the LWS could be like a scene descriptor, that can also be referenced in a scene. Like x-refs in Maya or 3dsMax.

So, load LWO objects into a LWS, then load referenced scenes into the new format, or scene description. This way you can work in separate worlds like we do now, or with both together.

bazsa73
01-31-2017, 10:55 AM
Modeler has about 1000 tools, half of these tools have 5-10 functions.

ergo:
you won't see a fraction of the Modeler tools ported to Layout any time soon.

This would be a great time to get rid off of those duplicated, abandonware code snippets.

sadkkf
01-31-2017, 11:31 AM
I'd be happy with a real-time update of a model inside Layout without the "synchronize Layout button" and a hub that didn't always crash.

Marander
01-31-2017, 11:46 AM
I agree with this too.

I love the split sometimes, it keeps things neat and unmessy.

Unfortunately it also means we lose all the benefits of a single workspace too. I'm hoping that when they merge, they'll do it but maintain the LWO and LWS type system. But maybe have a new format which brings to two together. So, the LWS could be like a scene descriptor, that can also be referenced in a scene. Like x-refs in Maya or 3dsMax.

So, load LWO objects into a LWS, then load referenced scenes into the new format, or scene description. This way you can work in separate worlds like we do now, or with both together.

I find the split completely obsolete. Modelling is not different in a unified application, the opposite, LW lacks even of a Solo Mode (which works not only for objects but also components). Instead of clicking on one button which zooms into the selected component and blends out all others; I have to find parts in various layers that I have to name in a separate dialog and still can't see their name the interface and/or use hide / unhide (those tools are also available in other packages of course). Then in Layout I have to use the Scene Editor to do the same thing.

I think all major packages have X-Refs now, so you can build your object library and reference to them.

And those "new" modeling tools, so outdated. Imagine you want to modify your clones in the animation, real time animated booleans etc. this can be done in all other packages (including now modo) I guess.

I find it a good decision to concentrate on Layout but those modeling tools are time and effort wasted in my opinion.

Exclaim
01-31-2017, 11:49 AM
This would be a great time to get rid off of those duplicated, abandonware code snippets.

And risk disappointing the many Lightwave users who learned/rely on those tools?

Surrealist.
01-31-2017, 12:08 PM
Yes that LW being used but not the "NEW" LW, or am I missing something?

Sorry I completely misread your post. So actually I have no idea. So all you have is the floating rumors I guess. But again... logical isn't it?

hrgiger
01-31-2017, 12:12 PM
I cant think of a single reason why modeler and layout being seperate is a good thing. Nothing that you cant enjoy in a unified app.

Marander
01-31-2017, 12:12 PM
This would be a great time to get rid off of those duplicated, abandonware code snippets.

Absolutely, few powerful tools that just do the job instead of all those micro tools.

Exclaim
01-31-2017, 12:16 PM
I cant think of a single reason why modeler and layout being seperate is a good thing. Nothing that you cant enjoy in a unified app.

Simplicity, Familiarity, Organization, could be some reasons. But it depends on what you model, and animate/render. For Vfx, it is very nice to separate from modeling. Motion graphics suffers from the split a little bit though.

Greenlaw
01-31-2017, 12:17 PM
To start off, I'd be happy to get just a few basic modeling tools in Layout, and keep Modeler available for the 'heavy lifting'. No need to do it all right away.

Most of the time, my modeling requirements in Layout have to do with editing something that's already rigged and animated, or otherwise in context with what's happening in a scene. I don't usually need much more than point selection, transform and magnet tools for that stuff.

Marander
01-31-2017, 12:24 PM
For Vfx, it is very nice to separate from modeling. Motion graphics suffers from the split a little bit though.

No I find the opposite, for Vfx you might want to modify helper shapes (changing objects as emitters, splines etc.) or apply weight maps.

Marander
01-31-2017, 12:30 PM
To start off, I'd be happy to get just a few basic modeling tools in Layout, and keep Modeler available for the 'heavy lifting'. No need to do it all right away.

That's exactly my opinion. Basic modeling operations like bevel (one tool including extrude, multi-shift etc.), move / rotate / scale (with the same (improved) translation tools as in Layout for edges / points / polys). Maybe knife/subdivide. Then few non-destructive modifiers that can be applied (like cloner, bend, thicken, shrink wrap and cage deformer).

This would show what could be possible in upcoming versions to maybe replace Modeler.

bazsa73
01-31-2017, 01:36 PM
And risk disappointing the many Lightwave users who learned/rely on those tools?

There is no risk in giving up your bad habits.
C'mon, there are 2 cogwheel tools. Several primitive tools or rather a bunch. All kind of transform tools, some new some old some are plugin adaptations etc.
We have bandsaw v1 and v2. Who needs both? I mean seriously? You would be disappointed having only ONE Bandsaw tool? Knife and slice are almost the same.
Drag. Dragnet. What the heck? Drag should be able to behave as dragnet on demand.

hypersuperduper
01-31-2017, 01:53 PM
I do like having scratch layers so that you can have geometry associated with a project easily accessible, like on a separate layer, but not in the scene. Scene stays clean but you can be as messy as you want in modeler. It's a nice feature but it probably isn't really worth the limitations that come with the split architecture. If and when they drop modeler I will miss this.

bobakabob
01-31-2017, 02:18 PM
Seriously, is this where we're at? Couldn't you have simply put this view in many of the other speculative threads instead of creating a new thread with a misleading and fake title, at least you would put a question mark at the end instead of an exclamation mark. In any case, we know that LW will not be merged upon next release, it has been officially stated a number of times that it won't be.

Agree... BBC Radio Down the Line says it all... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYStNkTHCc

I use Zbrush and Maya. Modeler combined with third party LWCad and 3rd Powers tools more than holds its own against these apps and feels genuinely powerful (despite the neglect).

I'm all for change but only if our present LW modelling toolset can be ported to Layout without losing any functionality....

MichaelT
01-31-2017, 02:18 PM
I'd be happy with a real-time update of a model inside Layout without the "synchronize Layout button" and a hub that didn't always crash.

You don't have to use the hub though, you can run (at least on Windows) Modeler & Layout without hub by using the '-i' flag.

vncnt
01-31-2017, 02:29 PM
Negative points to OP for click-bait thread title. :tsktsk:

Is this:
a) fake news
b) alternative facts
c) amusement
d) a waste of time
e) gossip and backbiting
f) gonna be so great
g) pedantically
h) informative
i) a diversion
j) really interesting
k) constructive
l) inspirational
m) wishful thinking
n) the truth and nothing but
o) bullying
p) trolling
q) bla bla bla
r) Newtek first, Newtek first
s) fan boy bluff
t) fallacious
u) funny
v) the future
w) new school
x) networking 2.0
y) worth the effort
z) locked

Just curious.

Exclaim
01-31-2017, 02:36 PM
There is no risk in giving up your bad habits.
C'mon, there are 2 cogwheel tools. Several primitive tools or rather a bunch. All kind of transform tools, some new some old some are plugin adaptations etc.
We have bandsaw v1 and v2. Who needs both? I mean seriously? You would be disappointed having only ONE Bandsaw tool? Knife and slice are almost the same.
Drag. Dragnet. What the heck? Drag should be able to behave as dragnet on demand.
That's fine if you can't find a use for the tools, but I'd like to remain humble about it. Sure there is some redundancy, but the bandsaw and bandsaw pro tools function differently. Same with knife and cut. Extender and extender pro...etc. Depending on how intuitive it feels to the user, they could use both. I'm not saying it wouldn't be more efficient to have one streamlined tool, but almost all very good 3d packages have tool redundancy.

hrgiger
01-31-2017, 02:45 PM
Simplicity, Familiarity, Organization, could be some reasons. But it depends on what you model, and animate/render. For Vfx, it is very nice to separate from modeling. Motion graphics suffers from the split a little bit though.

Yep, I enjoy those in my unified apps also. All you need is workspaces. When I'm doing particles or animation or UVS, I don't see the modeling tools but they are a button push away if I need them. People think that 2 programs combined into one would be cluttered but they're not if its done right. In modo, a tabbed interface allows for only the tools I'm using to be shown. And I can ever close the tabs if I don't want to see those.

erikals
01-31-2017, 03:16 PM
not a finished list, but so far... >

Lightwave test, Obsolete - Dissolve Loop (almost) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMRJziAUQpY)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Spikey Tool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If-lwYIKItY)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Divide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wt8Rvyd7is)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Extender (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPa-lZDhlJI)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Extrude (almost) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mlxkeLXPOM)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Smooth Shift (almost) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxafeDmiCaA)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Smooth Scale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUZAJ4q9pyE)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Rotate To Object (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToV5i3Y9uqI)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Rotate Arbitraty Axis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krTt439RXaI)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Rotate About Normal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaW17zP_77w)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Rotate HPB (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CIrZWaZsns)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Rotate Any Axis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZysqiyK_w)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Center Stretch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uk4WpiDUq4)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Center Scale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLX0WtxbJto)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Smooth Scale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1try2XyJCY)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Split Polygons (almost) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcku7w5JuRU)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Move Plus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxU9yCWtAds)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Edge Bevel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAQoBgz7IVo)
Lightwave test, Obsolete - Rove Tool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBNO1rwzRQA)

bazsa73
01-31-2017, 03:33 PM
That's fine if you can't find a use for the tools, but I'd like to remain humble about it. Sure there is some redundancy, but the bandsaw and bandsaw pro tools function differently. Same with knife and cut. Extender and extender pro...etc. Depending on how intuitive it feels to the user, they could use both. I'm not saying it wouldn't be more efficient to have one streamlined tool, but almost all very good 3d packages have tool redundancy.

you are right and we are speculating over things that have not even happened

ncr100
01-31-2017, 03:36 PM
Please rename the thread title to:
"Hope: Layout and Modeler finally merge in Lightwave 2017!"

We see enough "Alternative Facts" recently and need no more.

Norka
01-31-2017, 04:06 PM
I work in Modeler all the time, sometimes for many hours on end, while doing final OctaneLW renders... Would I be able to do this if LW was unified?

jwiede
01-31-2017, 04:17 PM
I work in Modeler all the time, sometimes for many hours on end, while doing final OctaneLW renders... Would I be able to do this if LW was unified?

C4D (among other combined-env 3D apps') customers are able to keep working unimpacted while their renders are processing, so yes, obviously it is doable.

This thread's title is highly misleading, please edit it to indicate it is speculative.

gamedesign1
01-31-2017, 05:45 PM
i Love the M/L split, except for the times when i don't.

not sarcasm, true. Major pitfalls regarding lacking modeler tools in Layout however, are many.

especially for Motion Graphics.

I think merging Modeler and Layout is a good idea, but I do like having objects and scenes as seperate, or having a good way to import reference objects in scenes. Mainly so you can link an object to multiple scenes. modo can do this but its not perfect by a long shot the last time I checked.

jwiede
01-31-2017, 05:53 PM
modo can do this but its not perfect by a long shot the last time I checked.

Modo's referencing is still pretty new, but in TF's defense, it's also maturing fairly quickly. If you look at referencing in C4D or Maya or Max, all much more mature systems, they're also much more stable/reliable.

IMO, the bigger issue is that the longer it takes LW to add a proper x-ref system, the longer it will be before it reaches mature stability/reliability (as evidence by the lengths of time all the other x-ref systems took to reach maturity). Delaying such a system only pushes out the point where the relevant code's maturity clock can even _begin_ ticking.

Snosrap
01-31-2017, 08:39 PM
Seriously, is this where we're at? Couldn't you have simply put this view in many of the other speculative threads instead of creating a new thread with a misleading and fake title, at least you would put a question mark at the end instead of an exclamation mark. In any case, we know that LW will not be merged upon next release, it has been officially stated a number of times that it won't be.

Oh- but isn't this fun! :) Plus a very interesting discussion.

Verlon
01-31-2017, 09:23 PM
This would be a great time to get rid off of those duplicated, abandonware code snippets.


True. Consolidate duplicate tools. Get rid of abandoned tools. Streamline workflow.

BUT

I have heard from a source I consider reliable that they are not merged in the version people are testing. Of course, its just hearsay coming from me, since you don't know me (and I freely admit to not being in any current Newtek Beta programs). So, that statement and a $6 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Take it how you will.

pming
02-01-2017, 12:02 AM
Hiya!

Merged would be nice, but just having BOTH sides be 'aware' of each other would be nice (if I add an object to a new layer, my default settings could have a switch I could check off so that layout automatically gets 'updated' with the new object, for example). In all honesty, my biggest hurdle for becoming really comfortable with LW is from a Modeler standpoint. This hurdle I've had since day one several years ago (v9) is simple: LW modeler simply has too many ancient tools, with various iterations that get renamed to a new tool. I mean, honestly, Bevel, Chamfer, Extrude, Extend, Multishift...all basically are used for the same thing 90% of the time.

No, I'm not advocating 'merging' all these into one super-bevel. But I'd like to see LW come with pre-built "UI's". I know they have that now...'ish...with Menu Layout Presets, but I'd like to see more "task oriented" presets, not 'version' presets. I'm thinking something like "Organic Box Modeling", "Hard Surface Modeling", "Minimalist Modeling", "Modern Tools Modeling", "Kitchen Sink Modeling", etc., where each preset would have a select set of tools and tabs focused on various 'modern workflows'. So if I wanted to only see all the latest and greatest tools, I could use "Modern Tools". If I wanted to have access to everything (like it is now, basically), I could go with"Kitchen Sink". If I needed lots of edge looping, edge flow, beveling, extruding, bridge, and a handful of other things core to box modeling, I'd choose "Box Modeling".

I think having some 'task focused' type of layouts would cut waaaaaay down on the amount of Find-A-Word searches I do a lot of the time when using modeler (e.g., "I used Tool-X a month ago and I'd like to use it again...but, just what was it called, and where the hell did I find it? [insert, literally, 5 minutes of going through every single tab and drop down 'More...' menu]". I think this may also be why 'newbie' 3D folk look at LW after downloading the demo, play with it for 15 minutes...then throw up their hands and go back to an interface and tool choice program they have no problem moving around in or finding the tool they need, like Blen...Ble.. *HEHEHAAHAHAAA*...awww man, almost said that with a straight face! ;) But seriously, they'll just go back to Maya, MAX, C4D, or something 'modern' where there aren't 4 different choices for adding a beveled edge to the side of your coffee can lid you're modeling. They have "Bevel" and that's really all you need. Hell, an "Add Edge Loop" and a well designed 3d widget will get the job done in seconds. Once they get more experienced with their product of choice, *then* they can move on to using the "Bevel Edge Plus" tool (or whatever), that they have to put on a custom shelf/panel/tab. But the thing is, they know the program at that point, so it's not overwhelming. Nothing frustrates a newbie more than extruding a polygon one moment, then finding it doesn't work the same three minutes later... because they are actually using a VERY similar tool, but still different (e.g., Extrude, Extend, for example).

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Lightwaves interface is like a comfy pair of shoes to those that have been using it for 15+ years, where they know the difference between Bevel, Chamfer, Extrude, Extend, Extend Edge, Smoothshift, Multishift, and any number of other similar tools. But to someone 'new' to Lightwave? It's like a pair of splintery wooden clogs. It's just downright frustrating and painful! >:\

Surrealist.
02-01-2017, 12:41 AM
I really don't know that much about the development team. And I don't know the limitations of Modeler as far as code base etc. But I do imagine a certain number of enhancements to Modeler would only be possible by integration in Layout. And if I am voting, I am voting for the fastest route to bring some much-needed functionality to the modeling workflow in Modeler. Probably top of the list would be a full UV tool set. I have not used the new manipulator and transform orientations in Modeler yet so I don't know the limitations there. But anything that would bring better snapping and workplane workflow to Modeler would be the next on my list. LW CAD is great. But I really don't want to buy that just to get great snapping and so on in Modeler native. Just my opinion. So for me, because they are separate already, whatever route brings these two things to modeling in LightWave faster, now. And then in the long run port things over to Layout.

erikals
02-01-2017, 01:09 AM
e.g., "I used Tool-X a month ago and I'd like to use it again...but, just what was it called, and where the hell did I find it?
even though i find this frustrating in LightWave, i also found it frustrating in Maya.

LW has more clutter than the other 3D apps, but finding tools is tricky in any app, imo.

agree, workflow presets would be nice. if i get the time i'll make some of my own. using AHK to fast load keyboard/menu shortcuts.

----------

for LW2018, i'd like workplane workflow in Modeler and good point/edge/poly tweak tools in Layout.
+polygon islands in Modeler.

Surrealist.
02-01-2017, 01:18 AM
I do like the fact that you can easily create your own tabs and menus and even pop up menus and save them as configs you can easily load. So you can streamline the interface to your specific needs. Bring all of the favorite tools and plugs right to where you want them.

fishhead
02-01-2017, 03:15 AM
... or Max, all much more mature systems, they're also much more stable/reliable.
.....
Well in all honesty, leave out Max here - I can´t really say much about the others - but Max´s X-Ref system sucks big time and is by no means mature and fully predictable... We tried to use it in productions (along with otgher packages, including LW ofc) every once in a while for years now hoping it would have grown more. When it got only a tad more complex it proved itself as to be not really a reliable feature...

bazsa73
02-01-2017, 05:51 AM
True. Consolidate duplicate tools. Get rid of abandoned tools. Streamline workflow.

BUT

I have heard from a source I consider reliable that they are not merged in the version people are testing. Of course, its just hearsay coming from me, since you don't know me (and I freely admit to not being in any current Newtek Beta programs). So, that statement and a $6 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Take it how you will.
There's this café in the neighbourhood, I can have an espresso macchiato for about 1.50 US Dollars money cash.

bobakabob
02-01-2017, 06:12 AM
Modo's referencing is still pretty new, but in TF's defense, it's also maturing fairly quickly. If you look at referencing in C4D or Maya or Max, all much more mature systems, they're also much more stable/reliable.


Hmmm, well referencing wasn't working at all in Maya 2016 for a good while (I reported it along with others on the Autodesk forum and there were comments on CGTalk). Some scenes would not open and not using referencing as a workaround resulted in huge file sizes.
Thankfully fixed, but like any other app, plenty of bugs to contend with...

Andy Webb
02-01-2017, 06:30 AM
Personally I'm not expecting anything revolutionary in LW17, I expect it to look very much like LW15.3 but with a few new panels and buttons. The main changes will be under the hood, which while welcomed is getting a bit tired, the promise that this will mean good things in the future for LW, seems to mean the future is always just a bit out of reach.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I think too many people on here are expecting far too much.

Fingers and toes crossed that I'm wrong :thumbsup:

bobakabob
02-01-2017, 07:47 AM
Personally I'm not expecting anything revolutionary in LW17, I expect it to look very much like LW15.3 but with a few new panels and buttons. The main changes will be under the hood, which while welcomed is getting a bit tired, the promise that this will mean good things in the future for LW, seems to mean the future is always just a bit out of reach.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I think too many people on here are expecting far too much.

Fingers and toes crossed that I'm wrong :thumbsup:

I'll be glad just to have Lightwave around for independent freelance work. The new renderer is really exciting. Having to rely on Autodesk or Maxon and their inflated subscriptions would not be great. Modo's surfacing tree is a concern and its CA toolset is in its infancy. There is Yes, there is Blender but I just can't get on with the UI and workflow despite getting on fine with ZBrush, Max, Maya... One day it might be worth giving it another go.

Signal to Noise
02-01-2017, 09:09 AM
I'll be glad just to have Lightwave around for independent freelance work. The new renderer is really exciting. Having to rely on Autodesk or Maxon and their inflated subscriptions would not be great. Modo's surfacing tree is a concern and its CA toolset is in its infancy. There is Yes, there is Blender but I just can't get on with the UI and workflow despite getting on fine with ZBrush, Max, Maya... One day it might be worth giving it another go.

Have you given Houdini a try? I'm new to it myself but recently jumped in to give it a whirl due to the pending Houdini 16 release. I've heard/read that Houdini's modeler isn't the greatest but it's effects, volumetrics, water solutions are something to behold. And Houdini Indie is decently priced as far as subscriptions (which I normally despise/avoid) go. Worth a thought.

Exclaim
02-01-2017, 11:46 AM
Hiya!

Merged would be nice, but just having BOTH sides be 'aware' of each other would be nice (if I add an object to a new layer, my default settings could have a switch I could check off so that layout automatically gets 'updated' with the new object, for example). In all honesty, my biggest hurdle for becoming really comfortable with LW is from a Modeler standpoint. This hurdle I've had since day one several years ago (v9) is simple: LW modeler simply has too many ancient tools, with various iterations that get renamed to a new tool. I mean, honestly, Bevel, Chamfer, Extrude, Extend, Multishift...all basically are used for the same thing 90% of the time.

No, I'm not advocating 'merging' all these into one super-bevel. But I'd like to see LW come with pre-built "UI's". I know they have that now...'ish...with Menu Layout Presets, but I'd like to see more "task oriented" presets, not 'version' presets. I'm thinking something like "Organic Box Modeling", "Hard Surface Modeling", "Minimalist Modeling", "Modern Tools Modeling", "Kitchen Sink Modeling", etc., where each preset would have a select set of tools and tabs focused on various 'modern workflows'. So if I wanted to only see all the latest and greatest tools, I could use "Modern Tools". If I wanted to have access to everything (like it is now, basically), I could go with"Kitchen Sink". If I needed lots of edge looping, edge flow, beveling, extruding, bridge, and a handful of other things core to box modeling, I'd choose "Box Modeling".

I think having some 'task focused' type of layouts would cut waaaaaay down on the amount of Find-A-Word searches I do a lot of the time when using modeler (e.g., "I used Tool-X a month ago and I'd like to use it again...but, just what was it called, and where the hell did I find it? [insert, literally, 5 minutes of going through every single tab and drop down 'More...' menu]". I think this may also be why 'newbie' 3D folk look at LW after downloading the demo, play with it for 15 minutes...then throw up their hands and go back to an interface and tool choice program they have no problem moving around in or finding the tool they need, like Blen...Ble.. *HEHEHAAHAHAAA*...awww man, almost said that with a straight face! ;) But seriously, they'll just go back to Maya, MAX, C4D, or something 'modern' where there aren't 4 different choices for adding a beveled edge to the side of your coffee can lid you're modeling. They have "Bevel" and that's really all you need. Hell, an "Add Edge Loop" and a well designed 3d widget will get the job done in seconds. Once they get more experienced with their product of choice, *then* they can move on to using the "Bevel Edge Plus" tool (or whatever), that they have to put on a custom shelf/panel/tab. But the thing is, they know the program at that point, so it's not overwhelming. Nothing frustrates a newbie more than extruding a polygon one moment, then finding it doesn't work the same three minutes later... because they are actually using a VERY similar tool, but still different (e.g., Extrude, Extend, for example).

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Lightwaves interface is like a comfy pair of shoes to those that have been using it for 15+ years, where they know the difference between Bevel, Chamfer, Extrude, Extend, Extend Edge, Smoothshift, Multishift, and any number of other similar tools. But to someone 'new' to Lightwave? It's like a pair of splintery wooden clogs. It's just downright frustrating and painful! >:\
Can't agree with what you wrote about new to Lightwave. I'm new to Lightwave, and it wasn't hard to pick up. Now using other apps feels slow. I think it works for non procedural modelling. Procedural modelling can afford to be more streamlined.

Chris S. (Fez)
02-01-2017, 03:26 PM
I just hope that whenever Lightwave Next is at long last released that it will not be too little too late. In particular, it would be nice if the new renderer has hooks to ultimately become GPU-compatible. GPU does seem to be the future.

I was gonna wait for LW Next to see if it the new renderer sufficed but am thinking of investing in Octane.

pixelinfected
02-02-2017, 07:54 AM
And risk disappointing the many Lightwave users who learned/rely on those tools?

if some people are too lasy to learn a button where click to switch from modelling to animate/render environment, they can stay on actual lightwave, that mean they not need more... i use lw from 1991, and from first times i used on Amiga os i hoped a merging of to module. too times i found a pain to have two different software, and i'm locked in a lot's of owrk to optimize mesh with modeler in a place, and instancing and cloning items in other software... Anyone think that modelling on modeler today is good and optimized, he never tried to model in a more modern and confortable single environment

think to build a simple angine where you need to put 300 clone of a screw, after few minutes you need to replace all with a different version of screw? just to tell why is better a unique environment. With instancing (actually only in a layout) it's matter of seconds.


Simplicity, Familiarity, Organization, could be some reasons. But it depends on what you model, and animate/render. For Vfx, it is very nice to separate from modeling. Motion graphics suffers from the split a little bit though.

for you is simpler, but the lack of deformer, ability to change point position from layout (without tricks and more) is a real pain in a lots of situation. The lack of using dinamic to distribute element on a model during costruction is a very old old way to model.



That's exactly my opinion. Basic modeling operations like bevel (one tool including extrude, multi-shift etc.), move / rotate / scale (with the same (improved) translation tools as in Layout for edges / points / polys). Maybe knife/subdivide. Then few non-destructive modifiers that can be applied (like cloner, bend, thicken, shrink wrap and cage deformer).

This would show what could be possible in upcoming versions to maybe replace Modeler.

Most of tools like bevel can be a deformer, like in maya or better in c4d, where a bevel is a tool, but it's also a deformer to do it in not destructive way.

Layout now will can handle better millions of poly? well it's time to kill modeler and rebuild all in a layout environment, where we have more future oriented project and tools.
i hope this is the direction of Newtek, a more modern approach to 3D. They have many gems in lw, but with a lots of disorder...
some one told about 1000 tools in modeler? ok we can reduce to 80-100 to delete most of dab clone of many tools, how many bevel exist in lw? ok, build a single Bevel with option to work like all 10-12 bevel that work on point, edge, poly.... how many knife/bandsaw like tools exist? build a single knife with preview and option to work like all other tools
if you give less but better tools people like to learn it instead to learn a bit of 1000 tools...
clean and simple is the secret of a good revolution.

Exclaim
02-02-2017, 08:40 AM
if some people are too lasy to learn a button where click to switch from modelling to animate/render environment, they can stay on actual lightwave, that mean they not need more... i use lw from 1991, and from first times i used on Amiga os i hoped a merging of to module. too times i found a pain to have two different software, and i'm locked in a lot's of owrk to optimize mesh with modeler in a place, and instancing and cloning items in other software... Anyone think that modelling on modeler today is good and optimized, he never tried to model in a more modern and confortable single environment

think to build a simple angine where you need to put 300 clone of a screw, after few minutes you need to replace all with a different version of screw? just to tell why is better a unique environment. With instancing (actually only in a layout) it's matter of seconds.



for you is simpler, but the lack of deformer, ability to change point position from layout (without tricks and more) is a real pain in a lots of situation. The lack of using dinamic to distribute element on a model during costruction is a very old old way to model.




Most of tools like bevel can be a deformer, like in maya or better in c4d, where a bevel is a tool, but it's also a deformer to do it in not destructive way.

Layout now will can handle better millions of poly? well it's time to kill modeler and rebuild all in a layout environment, where we have more future oriented project and tools.
i hope this is the direction of Newtek, a more modern approach to 3D. They have many gems in lw, but with a lots of disorder...
some one told about 1000 tools in modeler? ok we can reduce to 80-100 to delete most of dab clone of many tools, how many bevel exist in lw? ok, build a single Bevel with option to work like all 10-12 bevel that work on point, edge, poly.... how many knife/bandsaw like tools exist? build a single knife with preview and option to work like all other tools
if you give less but better tools people like to learn it instead to learn a bit of 1000 tools...
clean and simple is the secret of a good revolution.
Well you have to understand, Lightwave can do motion graphics, but it made most of its impact in the entertainment industry. Specifically television. Therefore, the workflow is decent for setting up scenes for TV. Most of the complaints about the split I hear are coming from motion graphics artist who don't want to pay for C4d. Hence all the comparison to C4d. Most of the studios featured in the newsletters are not using Lightwave for motion graphics. BTW split programs are fairly modern in the entertainment industry.

pixelinfected
02-02-2017, 09:19 AM
Uhm... i can understand that you are used to work in this kind, but is not an industry standard...
one thing is to have a complex workflow, me too i have a workflow where i use different software like zbrush, mocha, pttrack, lightwave, c4d, digital fusion, resolve.

One thing is i use different software for different task, other thing is i have a software splitted from 25 years in two software and think that only be cause i can buy a modeler only software is a good solution.

modeler / layout workflow give only limits, a bunch of limits, and i not talk about motion graphics, i work in vfx and character animation stuff, and especially here you need to touch poly and instance in modeling / animation.

why every modern tool from houdini to maya, to cinema, max and more use a single enviroment where you can switch tool to tool, situation and more...
an example of CA modeler /layout single app needings? build correction morph during animation / rig session
an example of VFX ? a modeling a front projected environment where you do reflection env or you need to reproject scene, but you need camera, surfacing animation tool and more
an example of tv show needings? you need to roto and replace some elements in an environment, often you build some 3d tools, grab from background light, and test it during modelling the result.
on Lw i need to jump many times at minutes between application, not be cause i not have tools, only be cause i have them splitted in two app...
the reason that i need to add C4d to my software tools... i continue to use lw for many reasons, but for many works i can't spent too much work on two app instead of ones to model animate and render obj before post session.

please let me know the advantage to have splitted module in that modern entertainment industry, and what software to do what... i'm so curious to know in a era where speed of light is ever not enought how a splitted software allow you to work better and faster...

if you have unique enviroment you have the advantage, and not have disadvantage of two module, you switch and move from side to other, dual enviroment is one direction work.

THIBAULT
02-02-2017, 10:41 AM
I just hope that whenever Lightwave Next is at long last released that it will not be too little too late. In particular, it would be nice if the new renderer has hooks to ultimately become GPU-compatible. GPU does seem to be the future.

I was gonna wait for LW Next to see if it the new renderer sufficed but am thinking of investing in Octane.

Investing here in Octane and 6 X Titan X 12Gb - It's happiness !

Surrealist.
02-02-2017, 11:02 AM
The reason LightWave Layout and Modeler are separate apps has to do with other technical reasons that go back to the late 1980s and early 90s. In actual fact, initially Modeler was designed by one developer, and Layout by another. The decision to keep them separate rather than merge had nothing to do with any particular workflow strength outside of technical limitations of hardware and software of the time. That is all there is to it. As that changed, those same two developers decided to start again from scratch and develop both Modeling and Layout within one application. That is Modo today.

Many LightWave users remember that, know that. Some simply forget I suppose. Maybe I don't know. But the truth is this is how and why it happened and it has nothing to do with workflow.

The only reason they are still separate apps is the problem the developers have been faced with for 16 years. And they are just now getting to the point where fixing that is a possibility within the next few years. So that is the indication of how much work is involved and the complexity of balancing keeping LightWave usable all the while. It is not still separate apps by some kind of conscious decision to keep it that way, because it is better. It is because LightWave still works despite this, and the fact that it is just a gigantic project to fix.

So to use LightWave you live with how it works now. Or you like it because you learned it that way. It is familiar. Whatever. But this is the way it is and like it or not it won't change overnight.

But it will change. And once it does, and both apps are working as they should be, together, all this will be forgotten. The tide will turn. And those people who find it a nuisance to work in one app will now learn to live with it as one I suppose. But I don't see it happening all at once. It will be gradual. So people will have a chance to test the waters as they go. I think it will all work out.

erikals
02-02-2017, 12:07 PM
Investing here in Octane and 6 X Titan X 12Gb - It's happiness !

Cool... :king:
but you won't run all of those in 1 PC... will you ?

i know there are ways with PCIe extension cards or somethin'

MichaelT
02-02-2017, 06:50 PM
Cool... :king:
but you won't run all of those in 1 PC... will you ?

i know there are ways with PCIe extension cards or somethin'

There are cards with 4 slots. Actually, I saw (many years ago) a card with 5 slots, but today I've only seen 4 at most. Still.. Since he says 6x then I'll have to assume he means it is a rack mounted solution. Or something like this:

https://www.cubix.com/store/#buy-cubix-xpander-desktop
https://www.cubix.com/store/#buy-cubix-xpander-xf8

Speaking of... I hope he knows that the Titan X (pascal) doesn't have the double precision built into it, like the previous Titan X had.

THIBAULT
02-03-2017, 01:16 AM
I've 6 Titan X 12G Maxwell, not Pascal. Afraid with compatibility problems. 3 Titans on one station and 3 titans and second station. 2 Octane licenses for network rendering and i'm happy ! Very fast ! I'm going to change my 6 titans X when new VOLTA arrive !

jwiede
02-03-2017, 07:13 AM
The only reason they are still separate apps is the problem the developers have been faced with for 16 years. And they are just now getting to the point where fixing that is a possibility within the next few years.

Just a minor nit-pick: It's not really accurate to state that "they are just now getting to the point where fixing that is a possibility", because you cannot prove it wasn't previously possible. You can prove it didn't happen, but that doesn't prove it couldn't happen. You're really discussing "feasibility" not "possibility".

MichaelT
02-03-2017, 08:07 AM
I don't feel having them separate really isn't such a big issue though. The issue is mostly around that the modeler cannot show what materials will actually look like in the end. I would love to have it integrated, don't get me wrong. But for me, it is actually not as important, as (again) being able to see what a model will actually look like, while you are working on it. But that is just my opinion.

Kuzey
02-03-2017, 01:35 PM
Idk, I would rather have them work on modelling tools than integration for the next version of LW. None of this "under the hood thing" we have seen for the past decade...after that, they can go crazy merging the two.

Snosrap
02-03-2017, 07:49 PM
The issue is mostly around that the modeler cannot show what materials will actually look like in the end.
I can think of 100 other reasons to merge the two - it's a no brainer and I am glad it's on their radar to get it done.

Exclaim
02-04-2017, 12:32 AM
I can think of 100 other reasons to merge the two - it's a no brainer and I am glad it's on their radar to get it done.

Oh boy! Can't wait to see what you start making with a combined environment. Probably go after that mograph money?

Norka
02-04-2017, 07:31 AM
Once again, I am 1,000% for keeping them separate. Forever. Modeling is completely different than building scenes. If I hadn't just woke and sat down with me first cup-a-joe, I would elaborate some more. But then again, I am clearly in the tiny minority and it is futile. One thing I will add is that it is nice when Modeler or Layout does crash, but doesn't take out the other... for me, that's all the reason I need, though I have tons more...

Surrealist.
02-04-2017, 07:51 AM
Well it is going to happen. And when it does you won't even notice the difference anyway. Trust me on that one. ;)

The one thing you have in your favor is it is a long ways off, so I would not put to much worry into it now. It is just going to incite pointless debates that will get people mad at each other over nothing.

Julez4001
02-04-2017, 01:44 PM
Well, if we're going to go guessing, here's my thoughts, and they're quite boring thoughts.

LW Next (or Post, or FollowUp, or TagAlong etc) was almost ready, they started using it on internal projects we've had a whiff of, like the new Star Trek series. During this process two things possibly happened, and have happened before:

1) The workflow threw up some interesting bugs with the new architecture (always happens)
2) The studio wanted new tools adding (has happened before - we get tools the big studios want)

So I surmise that it's a mixture of something being fixed, and something being added that we weren't expecting.

That's all - boring and most probably likely, because it is so boring. Crikey, even making myself yawn at the mundanity of the postt.

Hit it on the head.

Julez4001
02-04-2017, 01:47 PM
I mean Modo is unified and its really no big innovation.

It's menu bars and system is becoming so massive and cumbersome than 101-301 days , that they need to separate Modo into 2 apps.
The hangups for Modeler, id taken care of would more than quiet the unification talks.

Exclaim
02-04-2017, 01:59 PM
Once again, I am 1,000% for keeping them separate. Forever. Modeling is completely different than building scenes. If I hadn't just woke and sat down with me first cup-a-joe, I would elaborate some more. But then again, I am clearly in the tiny minority and it is futile. One thing I will add is that it is nice when Modeler or Layout does crash, but doesn't take out the other... for me, that's all the reason I need, though I have tons more...
I don't think we are the minority. There's a lot of people who are not hampered by the split at all. People have been using Lightwave to make all sorts of content as it is. There are some folks who think merging the programs will help them make better art. I think merging the programs will make it less intuitive and buggy. It will probably make the viewport a slug race too. There is a lot of assumption that it will be implemented very easy, but these are the same people who complain about 3ds max UI, Blender UI, Maya's UI, etc. These people own C4d and other DCC packages yet they still use Lightwave. And we'll never know why.

hypersuperduper
02-04-2017, 02:33 PM
It will be interesting to see if they actually move towards fully merging of the two apps once the new mesh system is in place, Or just move part of the way there so as to address known shortcomings, (weight painting/corrective morphs etc.) I imagine it would be quite an effort to create a modeling toolset within layout that is even half as good as modeler. I mean people complain about modeler on this forum, but it's got a whole lot of tools and workflows that are really great.

bazsa73
02-04-2017, 03:00 PM
I don't think we are the minority. There's a lot of people who are not hampered by the split at all. People have been using Lightwave to make all sorts of content as it is. There are some folks who think merging the programs will help them make better art. I think merging the programs will make it less intuitive and buggy. It will probably make the viewport a slug race too. There is a lot of assumption that it will be implemented very easy, but these are the same people who complain about 3ds max UI, Blender UI, Maya's UI, etc. These people own C4d and other DCC packages yet they still use Lightwave. And we'll never know why.
UI cluttering is my main concern too but I also yearn for features we can't have at the moment due to separation.

MonroePoteet
02-04-2017, 03:12 PM
I'm usually a "no show" on these types of discussions, but IMO (repeat: In My Opinion), the only thing I'd really like in Modeler is the ability to set up textures with Layout-style lighting & ambience. Not sure that means a complete "merge" - basically it means (again, IMO), beefing up VPR to do *all* Layout "draft" rendering, and then allowing a "Modeler Scene Setup" in Layout which is exported to Modeler. I truly prefer getting my mind into "geometry mode" or "director mode" when switching between Modeler and Layout.

As always, I'm just a (rank) hobbyist, so my opinion is probably extraneous.

mTp

P.S. Did I mention it's just my opinion? :)
P.P.S. It also implies a lot of options on how Hub deals with modification (i.e. real-time vs. explicit update), and don't use the network to transfer between apps!

Snosrap
02-04-2017, 08:55 PM
I do a ton of things in Modeler where I need to guess what the results will be in Layout and it's a lot of back ad forth to get it right - extremely annoying! Things like weight painting and camera matched geometry. It looks like camera matched geometry creation will be somewhat improved in 2017 so at least they are aware of that issue.

tischbein3
02-05-2017, 01:44 AM
Ok, I take the bait


I think merging the programs will make it less intuitive and buggy.

What a weird argument... best thing to not _any_ feature to lw, so it keeps uncluttered ?
Blender is cluttered because of other reasons, there is a clear division between modeling and the rest
(with own shortcuts / buttons / menu entries)
And look at modo how they solved it with different tabs/layouts.
Sure Max and maya are quite cluttered. I would not take them as a good example how
to add that feature.

Merge modeler and layout is a non-brainer for various reasons here is
a short list of what instantly comes into my mind:

- In camera modeling (its not just about adding a camera view in modeler)
- Procedural modeling / Procedural objects
- mesh modifier (like a non destructive bevel based on weight maps)
- UV mapping / editing while texturing
- weight editing during deformations
- morph corrections
- Modeling in relation to other objects in the scene. (This is a big one)
- Modeling with instances
- removes waste of memory (currently when you edit a heavy poly mesh with lot of images
in layout and modeler you need to have the data twice in ram)
- waste of ressources: Although they do have shared libs between
modeler and layout they still have to make sure that overall global changes will work in both

And why do you actually think mograph people do not have a say in this ?

Don't get me wrong I know this is a _hudge_ task, especially looking at layouts architecture (from a SDK
pov) and I don't expect it even to happen before next+1 on a rudimetary level.
(Although having real geometry grass might be indicator that they are working on this.)

samurai_x
02-05-2017, 02:11 AM
There's no point discussing unification.
The people who want layout and modeler separate are in the minority.
There's no way the lw userbase will grow and attract more users(show me the MONEY!) from other software if it remains separate.

Surrealist.
02-05-2017, 02:29 AM
Don't get me wrong I know this is a _hudge_ task, especially looking at layouts architecture (from a SDK
pov) and I don't expect it even to happen before next+1 on a rudimetary level.
(Although having real geometry grass might be indicator that they are working on this.)

Of course they are. And it is a huge task. And yes. It is going to happen. Eventually.

I said it before and I will say it again. The only reason Layout and Modeler are separate has nothing to do at all with any advantages. The only advantages come from antiquated hardware limitations - on old out-of-date low end systems. One thing bugzilla had right. And that is it. Additionally originally Alan and Steward developed these apps individually separately.


In 1988, Allen Hastings created a rendering and animation program called VideoScape 3D, and his friend Stuart Ferguson created a complementary 3D modeling program called Modeler, both sold by Aegis Software. NewTek planned to incorporate VideoScape and Modeler into its video editing suite, Video Toaster. Originally intended to be called "NewTek 3D Animation System for the Amiga", Hastings later came up with the name "LightWave 3D", inspired by two contemporary high-end 3D packages: Intelligent Light and Wavefront.

Softimage Creative Environment was developed initially for High-end SGI systems and was integrated. ;)


1988

Virtual Reality artist Char Davies joins the company as Vice-President of Virtual Research.[10]
Introduction of Creative Environment 1.0 at SIGGRAPH. A first for the industry, the software would offer modeling, animation and rendering in a single integrated environment.
Release of Creative Environment v0.8, closely followed by the 1.0 release.


LightWave on the other hand had to work on a lower profile system, the Amiga and it even made sense once released to the first Pentium machines which were also limited compared to SGI.

But over time all of these disparities merged. Windows and Mac systems eventually caught up and the need to run this software on an SGI machine eventually stopped making sense. Softimage was developed for windows and Maya came on the scene.

It was along this same time that Alan and Stewart saw the light - no pun intended - and began developing LightWave as an integrated environment. It is absolutely no wonder why this happened.

And this is the legacy of LightWave. We all know the rest of the story. But 5-6 years after Stewart and Alan broke off with Modo, NewTek also eventually saw the inevitable and began developing its own integrated environment. That was first showcased in 2009. And it was the beginning of what we are seeing now. It is the same development process with a different tack. To first start infusing it into LightWave as it is now.

And that as I have outlined it here is the only factual reason that LightWave is still two applications.

There are no other reasons or advantages. And this is already widely known and accepted across the industry for good solid reasons that don't need to be explained or justified. So really, arguing these points in my opinion is a waste of time.

Surrealist.
02-05-2017, 02:36 AM
T
There's no way the lw userbase will grow and attract more users(show me the MONEY!) from other software if it remains separate.

I disagree on this point generally. The user base will grow drastically after the next release, integration or not. But not as a replacement or alternative to other integrated systems, although that will be weighed out by some users even still.

But to broadly replace unified systems or offer an alternative to that? Yes. I agree.

jwiede
02-05-2017, 04:14 AM
The user base will grow drastically after the next release, integration or not.

Time will tell. That claim's been made of every coming version release since LW10 (before, even), yet hasn't happened to date.

Personally, I don't believe LW.Next will significantly improve LW's revenue growth and market share situations.

hypersuperduper
02-05-2017, 04:27 AM
The origins of the split app structure are irrelevant. Clearly a good many lightwave users have developed workflows that, as far as they are concerned, benefit from the current setup. To claim that the split app setup is inferior in all cases indicates a disregard for how other people work. I think it is likely that eventually the two apps will likely be merged, however i think it is just as likely that they reach a point where all of the most glaring shortcomings of the current system are addressed through some new layout tools and a handful of modeler tools and they call it a day.

My opinion is that the unification of lightwave is largely a non issue. Either they will do it because they decide it is necessary, or they won't because it isn't. There is no value for customers in unification for the sake of unification.

erikals
02-05-2017, 04:31 AM
a rough mockup, but for the worried ones, there is no reason why Layout can't look something like this in Modeler mode.

Surrealist.
02-05-2017, 05:25 AM
The origins of the split app structure are irrelevant. Clearly a good many lightwave users have developed workflows that, as far as they are concerned, benefit from the current setup. To claim that the split app setup is inferior in all cases indicates a disregard for how other people work. I think it is likely that eventually the two apps will likely be merged, however i think it is just as likely that they reach a point where all of the most glaring shortcomings of the current system are addressed through some new layout tools and a handful of modeler tools and they call it a day.

My opinion is that the unification of lightwave is largely a non issue. Either they will do it because they decide it is necessary, or they won't because it isn't. There is no value for customers in unification for the sake of unification.

Well I disagree and agree. The fact of the matter is the history of why they are two apps is as I have described it. So it is completely relevant. It was not to solve workflow issues or create a better workflow.

I understand people are using it and consider it valid. No question.

But I think people also naturally adapt to anything. And familiar is intuitive not the other way around. So it is not to knock anyone's work flow or to start artist to artist debates. I don't think that is productive. But on the other hand it is not productive to defend a work flow that has been adapted out of how things are just for the sake of it.

Just because something has become familiar and intuitive over time does not make it better. And at the same time it is not productive to knock something that is better but has not yet become familiar and thus intuitive.

When you limit yourself to those things that are familiar and intuitive, you block yourself off from things that might be better.

Unification is better. 3D production is better in that environment for reasons that are not worth discussing anymore. So that is why it might come across as - for the sake of it.

I won't debate the particulars anymore. You want to read my thoughts and others thoughts on it search the forums.

There is a reason why every program out there that offers Modeling and Animation do it all under one app. No reason to re-invent the wheel, much less discuss it. Especially when LightWave was not invented to offer a better way to do it. It was not the best way then, and nothing has changed.

hypersuperduper
02-05-2017, 06:46 AM
I actually think it is worth defending workflows that are adapted out of how things are. I would argue that for a small product like lightwave it is imperative. Autodesk, Apple or Adobe can redesign their professional apps entirely and force people to adapt even if the new version completely breaks people's workflow because they don't have much of a choice.

LW3DG? notsomuch.

My argument has nothing to do with particulars. It is entirely pragmatic. By all means, LW3DG should towards integration so long as it improves the product for the majority of users, but they will undoubtedly hit a point of diminishing returns somewhere along the way where all the low hanging fruit has been plucked, and further integration will demand that users make tradeoffs between their own wonky workflows and workflows that someone has decided is better. will people make that tradeoff?

LW3DG should tread carefully, which I believe they are doing.

Surrealist.
02-05-2017, 07:03 AM
That is a valid point for those people. I agree. And I think you are right. But by necessity as well. It is going to be a long process. I am thinking like 3-5 years honestly. A lot can happen between then and it is going to be a very gradual process. In fact I think there will be a legacy Modeler for a long time. And when it comes down to it, I think the gavel will drop but it won't be very painful. I think it will be a non issue. That of course is speculation and my opinion.

Exclaim
02-05-2017, 09:36 AM
That is a valid point for those people. I agree. And I think you are right. But by necessity as well. It is going to be a long process. I am thinking like 3-5 years honestly. A lot can happen between then and it is going to be a very gradual process. In fact I think there will be a legacy Modeler for a long time. And when it comes down to it, I think the gavel will drop but it won't be very painful. I think it will be a non issue. That of course is speculation and my opinion.
Actually the future of 3d apps is to streamline. If you look at all the lite versions out there. Even Blender realized that they have break things down a bit. Intuitive is not familiar. Intuitive, as it relates to software, is easy to use and understand. If the split does this for most people, it should not be ignored. If it were possible, and I don't see why there isn't a way, they should continue working under the hood to add some things to Layout and some things to Modeler. Splitting the software might not have been ideal, but it is becoming more necessary.

Greenlaw
02-05-2017, 10:09 AM
I do a ton of things in Modeler where I need to guess what the results will be in Layout and it's a lot of back ad forth to get it right - extremely annoying! Things like weight painting and camera matched geometry. It looks like camera matched geometry creation will be somewhat improved in 2017 so at least they are aware of that issue.

I know what you mean.

But there is pretty good a workaround that I've used for a few years now, which still works in 2015.3 (used it fairly recently at work in fact.) If you 'Calculate' the mesh with SoftFX, with the deformation features disabled, you can then use EditFX to reshape the mesh in Layout using a brush tool. No need to scan the whole scene, just a few frames is enough. Then you can use Edittool to move points. In the EditFX panel, you'll also find options that let you set the falloff curve (Smooth, Linear and Hard) and the range (Edit Size). This tool works with ClothFX too but I find it easier to set this up with SoftFX.

This Layout mesh edit mode is useful not only for edting geometry for Camera Project Mapping but also for editing joint morphs. After reshaping the mesh, you can save the result using Save Transformed as a new object, or as a new embedded Endomorph using Save Endomorph.

Hope this helps.

Surrealist.
02-05-2017, 10:32 AM
Intuitive is not familiar. Intuitive, as it relates to software, is easy to use and understand. I would ask you, rather than argue with me about this point, to sit down and work it out on paper. Think about it. Think about it good and long. Graph it if you have to. And name one thing that is easy to use/do and understand that does not have elements that included first at some point in your past, where you had to work at it to a some degree, for it to become familiar first.

Think about it. Work it out.

erikals
02-05-2017, 11:11 AM
like Greenlaw mentioned, clunky, but works >


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyk6pV15nSI

Snosrap
02-05-2017, 11:48 AM
like Greenlaw mentioned, clunky, but works >

Yep -very. :)

hypersuperduper
02-05-2017, 11:53 AM
That is a valid point for those people. I agree. And I think you are right. But by necessity as well. It is going to be a long process. I am thinking like 3-5 years honestly. A lot can happen between then and it is going to be a very gradual process. In fact I think there will be a legacy Modeler for a long time. And when it comes down to it, I think the gavel will drop but it won't be very painful. I think it will be a non issue. That of course is speculation and my opinion.

I suspect that once the unified mesh engine and modifier stack are in place third parties will quickly swoop in and make whole suites of layout-based modeling tools while modeler remains the official modeling solution for at least the next several years. There is money to be made there. It will be chaotic and fun! Each tool will have its own undo history because that's the way we like it!

Surrealist.
02-05-2017, 12:16 PM
lol. Yeah a realistic scenario I think. Why not? I had not thought of that. But sure. I can see it happening.

gamedesign1
02-05-2017, 10:47 PM
I suspect that once the unified mesh engine and modifier stack are in place third parties will quickly swoop in and make whole suites of layout-based modeling tools while modeler remains the official modeling solution for at least the next several years. There is money to be made there. It will be chaotic and fun! Each tool will have its own undo history because that's the way we like it!

I am actually really looking forward to seeing what plugin developers make with the new SDK.

bazsa73
02-06-2017, 01:11 AM
I would ask you, rather than argue with me about this point, to sit down and work it out on paper. Think about it. Think about it good and long. Graph it if you have to. And name one thing that is easy to use/do and understand that does not have elements that included first at some point in your past, where you had to work at it to a some degree, for it to become familiar first.

Think about it. Work it out.
Kinda agree. I delved into Substance Painter a month ago. Everything which felt intuitive were familiar from zbrush and photoshop. Now that you mention.

Surrealist.
02-06-2017, 01:32 AM
Interesting yes. By the way I credit Jason Westmas for bringing this up years ago in a thread. So don't blame him... lol But credit where credit is due. When he said that, I thought it was dead on and have been processing this idea ever since. And I do think it holds true when you work it out.

But here is the real advantage and the real point. It is not to win arguments, make people wrong, or critique and second guess people's preferences or workflows. It is not to belittle people and make things they hold as true sound insignificant. Though I can see this is ground to tread carefully.

The main advantage of knowing and understanding this is complete freedom as an artist. If you understand and apply this, you will find with a little effort you can work on something that is hard or unfamiliar at first and then make it become easier, familiar and eventually second nature and thus intuitive. To me this is empowering. It is a positive not a negative. You can see then, that you can tackle anything. You can learn anything. You don't have to rely on things being already familiar and intuitive.You are just adding things to your bag of tricks. And that is the name of the game as far as growing as an artist. Try as we might, there are still some things we can not completely control on the fringes of our influence. Such as for example, feature requests. But we can empower ourselves to be able to learn anything under any circumstance and grow. That is the one certain thing we can control.

To me, this is the entire point.

jasonwestmas
02-06-2017, 07:05 AM
Ah the old "what is intuitive and what is not" argument. :D yes that was a fun one. hehe.