PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Lightwave unified or not?



Nicolas Jordan
12-16-2017, 08:57 PM
With all the recent forum activity and discussion I thought it might be good to get a sense of how important it still is to have modeler and layout unified. Hopefully these 3 poll options cover the possibilities.

AnimeJoex
12-16-2017, 09:04 PM
Makes no difference to me. I'd happily use either version. ;)

3D Kiwi
12-16-2017, 09:17 PM
Lightwave will never reach its full potential without unification.

samurai_x
12-16-2017, 09:18 PM
pipe dream

Wade
12-16-2017, 10:59 PM
Well -
Images still or animated in Adobe products -
working with simple 2D pixel or vector content is like what 12 or so programs and more added as things go along. - Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, add animation and premiere, on and on and on. Seems folks get along and create a lot of good content and the data is sooooo much more simple 2D rather than 3D yet that all gets broken out into a dozen different programs - in the "Creative Suite" and it more or less plays well within the suite each with the other.
No endless issue with the user base asking for all adobe products to be integrated. And they keep adding specialty apps and it works and it makes them money and I find it useful and new people can pick it up and learn a piece at a time as needed.

Don't know why Lightwave being two apps that do work well together ( could be better ) is such a major issue. YES layout does need modeling tools or all of modler readily accessible but good god having discreet work spaces makes a lot of sense for a lot of work.


Not sure what I am saying here other than Adobe has huge profits lots of programs that all work with 2D images and it makes for a workable solution.
I do like having two files - object and scene works well for me. Modeling in one and setting up in another makes sense it works - could be better. Hell it could be broken into more Apps as long as they work well together and don't limit.

sorry for the ramblings -
w.

wingzeta
12-16-2017, 11:07 PM
I haven't voted yet. I'd rather give my opinion on the matter. If LW were unified, AFAIK it would be in position to carve out a much larger market share, and compete directly with Maya, Houdini and C4D. The reason is, it needs the ability to be able to animate points, edges and polys to be able to challenge Maya in animation, to challenge C4D in motion graphics, and Houdini in flexibility, procedural modeling. Without that ability it can never quite get up to bat in those areas. That makes it nearly impossible to get into a lot of high end pipelines.

That does not mean it is not a great, very capable package, just that it can only get you so far in those areas. Two solid seperate apps, are better than a badly unified single app, but if they could have a modeler "workspace" within Layout, without loss of speed, it would be the best outcome.

That said, if we could get Modeler updated with better UV tools, better undo, sculpting and retopology tools etc. I could kick unification down the line a bit, because I'm not doing a lot of mograph, or CA. For VFX and achviz, it is still an excellent tool. If they can't unify any time soon, they would also be smart to cater to game asset creation, because it also doesn't require the benefits unification brings. They would just need to do what I just said above. Improve the UV, retopo, add smoothing groups and ideally sculpting to modeler. Those should be doable. Then at least you square off well with Max and Maya for games.

On the Layout side, they need to update the particle system unification or not. That brings up the question of whether or not the same issues that have blocked unification, have also blocked other such systems from being brought up to date. In that case the unification work may be necessary for next steps in other areas.

In any case, I want whatever the best LW I can get is. If that is two super solid tools that work well together, or one unified tool that can do it all, I just want it to keep getting better. Just don't stand still. The worry for me, is that NT kind of underestimates what they could have with LW if they invested more in it. They look at the sales of a tool that is outdated in many areas, and think that is indicative of what they could sell no matter how much they put into it. Not realizing, that a unified app that could be a more user friendly equivalent of Maya and Houdini, with perpetual license, and priced South of C4D could be huge and grab a big piece of the market. Think about it. They would address more or less the short comings of everyone in the market.

So unification would be logical, and should be the goal, but I won't be mad if they keep improving tools I use everyday, because it would be sad if all else was sacrificed on the alter of unification, when we could have had better tools in the meantime. Ideally a company has two teams, one working on the long term infrastructure, and the other making improvements to the current tool set. Some of the other companies do. That's where NT trying to be as lean as possible might be their own worst enemy. Falls into the "takes money to make money" thing. Can they see the value of scaling? Pre-Blender it should have been super clear. Now it is a little more muddy, but AD going subscription opened the door back up for LW. Can they step through it?

djwaterman
12-16-2017, 11:15 PM
Some third party developers might develop modelling tools for Layout in the future, but I don't imagine Newtek developing any.

raw-m
12-17-2017, 01:34 AM
Would love to see some kind of modelling environment in Layout. After using 3rd Powers Paint Weights, for instance, the ease of making changes and not having to jump back to Modeller is a joy!

hrgiger
12-17-2017, 01:54 AM
Its the only way Lightwave will survive but will never happen because now 3 times NT has gotten rid of or had the heads of development leave that intended to bring that eventuality. Lightwave is only appealing to long time Lightwave users who have somehow convinced themselves that separate environments is somehow an advantage when just the opposite is true. Its not going to be a draw from outside without it. Anyone who has used or seen the advantages of a unified app are largely not going to come to another app with so many inherent limitations.
Yes people use different apps in a pipeline because there are niche apps that focus on one specific thing or small set of things. But having such a split in a core DCC application is not an example of a niche application. You have modeling with no render previews, no stack based deformations or animation (proceduralism), no lighting or environment for real time asset visualization, no baking camera.... and you have an animation and layout environment with no modeling tools for creating corrective deforms, no weight painting or other vertex tools, no access to modeling components...

gar26lw
12-17-2017, 02:29 AM
you should add p.s. buy modo to the bottom of your sig.

just kidding! :-p

good points.

raw-m
12-17-2017, 04:49 AM
Ps, with Layout being an animation tool I’d like to see more focus on animation before unification. A reworked Graph Editor with ability to change temporal and spatial values would be high on my list in that regard - the GE is not a great experience at the moment. Sounds like a lot of nice workflow improvements have been added in LW2018 so remaining positive, for now! So yes to unification, but not imminently (fortunately :D).

safetyman
12-17-2017, 05:09 AM
The major problem with two apps that I can see is that Layout gets more and more attention, while modeler grows more and more stagnant. That's fine if the plan is to move everything to Layout eventually, but if the plan is to keep two environments then it's not a good thing; the original premise was to have a dedicated modeling environment and when you were ready to texture/render/animate you would move to the final "stage". Now there's growing confusion between the two since Layout is becoming something else. You might have to change the name "Layout" to "Stage 2-3-4" or something.

People complain about other apps "confusing" UI, but fail to see how confusing LW is becoming for new users, like hrgiger stated.

gar26lw
12-17-2017, 05:27 AM
i think layout is the part that neeeeeds the attention. more so than modeller. we can always use modo.

Asticles
12-17-2017, 05:28 AM
I would like to break a spear in favor of the separation between Layout and Modeler. When I work with multiple objects in a complex scene, especially when there are instances in between, in other programs is an incordium to edit them because it updates all the instances of the edited object, making the editing very slow. With lightwave is easier because until you jump back to the Layout there is no lag in the update of the instances.

Now, with the inclusion of the Material Preview Viewport, if it is also in Modeler, it would make the process of working with dense models much easier.

Anyway, before carrying out the unification, it would be necessary to decide the way forward:
1-Unification, therefore we stop improving Modeler and we include the modeling tools in Layout to gradually remove Modeler.
2-Separate programs, which would imply a modernization of the Modeler to be on par with the Layout and the rest of the market programs, before continue to developing Layout.

hypersuperduper
12-17-2017, 05:28 AM
It all depends on whether they can create and edit geometry directly in layout now, at least theoretically. If they have passed that bridge with 2018 I think they should continue along that path. Whether that means a full modeling toolset in layout or simply implement things that are by their very nature impossible in modeler (procedural geometry being the most obvious) while maintaining a separate modeling app is not really important at this stage.

If they aren’t there yet. And layout can’t yet create geometry... I would say just continue to bolt on tools to the existing setup that mitigate the issues (like the layout camera in modeler).

Whatever they do I want them to focus primarily on layout. Modeler is still well served by an excellent library of plugins that keep it current-ish, even if it is destructive, and it is also very easy to learn. Where-as Layout, while powerful, is a real mess and needs loads of consolidation and improvements. And of course a global undo.

gar26lw
12-17-2017, 05:32 AM
Ps, with Layout being an animation tool I’d like to see more focus on animation before unification. A reworked Graph Editor with ability to change temporal and spatial values would be high on my list in that regard - the GE is not a great experience at the moment. Sounds like a lot of nice workflow improvements have been added in LW2018 so remaining positive, for now! So yes to unification, but not imminently (fortunately :D).

+1 for what this dude said. ;)

gerry_g
12-17-2017, 05:39 AM
I want a dedicated asset generating program where I model, uv and texture and I want to do scene setup, animation and rendering somewhere else, I practically never use the bridge, I don't even use Go Z in either LW or Modo, all of these things are unreliably and problematic ant and a waist of time. Of note, many who swear their lives are totally ruined by this lack of unification are quite happy to render in octane or elsewhere without any apparent irony that they are back to using a two stage process

Asticles
12-17-2017, 06:00 AM
Lightwave should strengthen its identity, improving Modeler and Layout-Modeler communication and reliability.

I don't want another Modo. I want a better Lightwave.

samurai_x
12-17-2017, 07:31 AM
The nays outnumber the aye. Not surprising given the demographic.

I think people don't consider, outside of lightwave, people work with unified apps and they see lightwave's split as a hindrance, encumbrance, burden, handicap, nuisance, inconvenience; obstacle, impediment, disadvantage, weakness, weak link, shortcoming that would not make them BUY into lightwave no matter how cheap. So customer base will not grow, lightwave can't move forward faster(7 years after Core for this?) with such a small existing userbase and limited budget NT will throw at it.

hypersuperduper
12-17-2017, 07:58 AM
The nays outnumber the aye. Not surprising given the demographic.

I think people don't consider, outside of lightwave, people work with unified apps and they see lightwave's split as a hindrance, encumbrance, burden, handicap, nuisance, inconvenience; obstacle, impediment, disadvantage, weakness, weak link, shortcoming that would not make them BUY into lightwave no matter how cheap. So customer base will not grow, lightwave can't move forward faster(7 years after Core for this?) with such a small existing userbase and limited budget NT will throw at it.

according to the poll, pointless as it is with a sample size of less than 50, Most people want it but don't see it as a deal breaker. then the SMALLEST group prefer it the way it is.

What lightwave needs to attract new users is lots of examples of amazing work being done with it, and a PR push to show that stuff off. Right now the former sort of exists, but the latter definitely does not.

I'll bet the split is largely inconsequential from a marketing or new user perspective. I imagine most people outside of lightwave see the app split as a quirk at most if they even know about it, that has been my experience at least. You really have to use it to understand why it sucks... or is so great if one is the type of person that leans that way.

prometheus
12-17-2017, 08:33 AM
I am not in the poll, I wonīt be voting since it all depends on the manners it would be unified, and the options to vote for that is none.

fishhead
12-17-2017, 08:35 AM
What hypersuperduper said. (Edit:) and also what Prom just wrote...

I voted for "..unified but not a dealbreaker FOR ME" - because it asks what I think. The poll doesntīt ask what has the most appeal to the market...

For users coming from schools (which probably means: some else application) the split app approach might hardly be attractive, maybe just because they are used to unified apps... But for instance look at clarisseIFX - does also work for more than just a few... Even without any sort of real access to vertex or edge or polygon at all...
Whatever, I prefer a split as long as the foundation isnīt really there. Iīd rather have to rely on a "plugged-in" Modeler than to have accept a bloated code that needs to compromise too much by trying to incorporate everything under one hood like some "other" vendors seem to be doing...

ToMar
12-17-2017, 09:02 AM
I'm for keeping Modeller seperate for destructive and precise edits. Note that destructive edit means also starting a model from a single point.

OR

Unify and make LightWave a multi document application with the option to drag a document tab out into its own window. Like most web browser do. Remember that you can also open single files (LWO)(Images/Videos/Sounds) that are referenced in the HTML-Code (LWS).

Marander
12-17-2017, 09:24 AM
I'm for keeping Modeller seperate for destructive and precise edits. Note that destructive edit means also starting a model from a single

Note that parametric objects can provide access to points and polys, at least that's the case in c4d. They can also be converted to polys (and that dosn't mean only primitives) which seems not to be the case with the 2(!) we saw in 2018.

And polygonal objects are of course also possible in a unified application. For example the mesh can be edited (and animated down to a point level) while a dynamics simulation is playing in realtime in order to fine tune the collisions, emissions etc.

Also I would say that LW Modeler is the least precise modeler without LWCAD.

roboman
12-17-2017, 09:31 AM
Having some more Modeler tools on layout would be nice. other then that I don't care.

rustythe1
12-17-2017, 09:41 AM
The nays outnumber the aye. Not surprising given the demographic.

I think people don't consider, outside of lightwave, people work with unified apps and they see lightwave's split as a hindrance, encumbrance, burden, handicap, nuisance, inconvenience; obstacle, impediment, disadvantage, weakness, weak link, shortcoming that would not make them BUY into lightwave no matter how cheap. So customer base will not grow, lightwave can't move forward faster(7 years after Core for this?) with such a small existing userbase and limited budget NT will throw at it.

i don't think that's true in the slightest, all the big effects houses use a different software for each stage, model in one, animate in another, render in something else, in fact new software is now becoming dedicated in single areas, take Clarisse, you cant even model in it yet (and probably never) yet its becoming the fastest growing scene layout and render tool, but from what you say it should not even be needed? even smaller effects houses, would model in modo, animate in maya, then render in something like Arnold, so your using a 3 split system there. ive never had a problem with the link in lightwave screwing up (just remember its quirks and what causes it to crash, and don't do it that way)
i can see the point of view people have with animation of modelling, but there are ways around that currently, and the new geo engine could begin to change that even if its not a full modelling tool set/unification, you only need the elements of what people want it to do, such as animated text creation and dynamics, could easily be implemented as a dedicated tool or third party with the new engine,
so no, even in a studio environment i cant see the split as being a hindrance simply because that's not how the studio environment operates, it would only really affect the individual / freelance who may be involved from the start to finish

Marander
12-17-2017, 09:49 AM
The fact that the parametric objects cannot be converted to polys according to LW3DG makes unification in LW unlikely possible more than ever. What happened to the point/edge/poly awareness in LWNext?

hrgiger
12-17-2017, 09:56 AM
you should add p.s. buy modo to the bottom of your sig.

just kidding! :-p

good points.

I dont really care if people buy Modo or any other app, thats a personal decision and its against the rules of the forum to promote another product. I only mention Modo because that's what im currently doing a lot of my work in and so when people discuss limitations in Lightwave which separation really is, im confining my points to that. The best thing i have done for myself is explore other ways of working outside of LW. Only then do the obvious benefits of a unified app become clear.

hypersuperduper
12-17-2017, 10:09 AM
The fact that the parametric objects cannot be converted to polys according to LW3DG makes unification in LW unlikely possible more than ever. What happened to the point/edge/poly awareness in LWNext?

I would like a straight answer about this as well. The parametric primitives are neat but they aren’t geometry. Am I mistaken in beleiving that the new modeling engine meant geometry component awareness. That was promised in the first or second blog post correct?

hrgiger
12-17-2017, 10:12 AM
I want a dedicated asset generating program where I model, uv and texture and I want to do scene setup, animation and rendering somewhere else, I practically never use the bridge, I don't even use Go Z in either LW or Modo, all of these things are unreliably and problematic ant and a waist of time. Of note, many who swear their lives are totally ruined by this lack of unification are quite happy to render in octane or elsewhere without any apparent irony that they are back to using a two stage process

But thats what i was saying earlier. Its not a two stage process in Lightwave, its more like a 4 or 5 or 6 stage process and not a linear process either. Model a character, add weighting, make skelegons(or add bones in layout), now go to layout, set up a rig and animate. Oops your weights need adjusted, go back to modeler, adjust weights. Go back to layout, rest. If not right yet, rinse and repeat. How many times have i taken a models geo to layout to see how it will ultimately render? A lot. Back and forth.
I dont mind jumping from one app to another as part of a process... But back and forth, that is BS.

jboudreau
12-17-2017, 10:15 AM
I really think where the separate apps falls short is when you want to animate, points, edges, polygons etc. We are basically stuck to the old endo morph method and a few other ways. As for modeling I think they have resolved that issue with having the layout camera in modeler now with an advanced OpenGL surfacing.

I think if the Newtek team can give us full access to points, polygons, edges with fall offs, snapping etc and animation capability in layout there would be no need for a unified app.

I mean seriously do you think they are going to be able to put into layout everything you can do with modeler especially with the 1000's of scripts plugins etc that make modeler do things that it would never be able to do natively. Just take LWCAD for instance how would that even be able to go into layout.

Modeler and Layout are two different code base, so that would mean all these plugins that all the 3rd party developers created would probably have to be re-written or drastically changed.

let say they could do all of this (all of modeler into layout) I don't see it happening for a very long time 10+ years and then where do you think lightwave will be.

To be honest I don't think it's possible unless they do a complete re-write of the software based on how modeler was coded differently from layout.

Marander
12-17-2017, 10:37 AM
Just take LWCAD for instance how would that even be able to go into layout.

If the architecture and sdk provides the foundation it should easily be possible for Viktor if you see how much better LWCAD works outside LW.

rustythe1
12-17-2017, 10:43 AM
I really think where the separate apps falls short is when you want to animate, points, edges, polygons etc. We are basically stuck to the old endo morph method and a few other ways. As for modeling I think they have resolved that issue with having the layout camera in modeler now with an advanced OpenGL surfacing.

I think if the Newtek team can give us full access to points, polygons, edges with fall offs, snapping etc and animation capability in layout there would be no need for a unified app.

I mean seriously do you think they are going to be able to put into layout everything you can do with modeler especially with the 1000's of scripts plugins etc that make modeler do things that it would never be able to do natively. Just take LWCAD for instance how would that even be able to go into layout.

Modeler and Layout are two different code base, so that would mean all these plugins that all the 3rd party developers created would probably have to be re-written or drastically changed.

let say they could do all of this (all of modeler into layout) I don't see it happening for a very long time 10+ years and then where do you think lightwave will be.

To be honest I don't think it's possible unless they do a complete re-write of the software based on how modeler was coded differently from layout.

I think even rob said this, i think a lot of people misread what he said, and i think he did point that out at some point, i think what he was getting at was that he was going to make the "split" more unified, the camera was the first step in that, and then later modelling type tools in layout, but they never said that modeller would go, it would just be better integrated

samurai_x
12-17-2017, 10:45 AM
They dont need to put all of modeler in layout now or in the future. Just look at how modo has streamlined the tools.
Problem is there is no evidence that kind of work is being done.

And may plugins will not work since lightwave 2018 is 64bit only.
Goodbye tons of 32bit plugins.

rustythe1
12-17-2017, 10:53 AM
oh dear, you just made Prometheus run away sobbing :)

stiff paper
12-17-2017, 11:05 AM
What happened to the point/edge/poly awareness in LWNext?
Programmers happened to it.

samurai_x
12-17-2017, 11:09 AM
i don't think that's true in the slightest, all the big effects houses use a different software for each stage, model in one, animate in another, render in something else, in fact new software is now becoming dedicated in single areas, take Clarisse, you cant even model in it yet (and probably never) yet its becoming the fastest growing scene layout and render tool, but from what you say it should not even be needed? even smaller effects houses, would model in modo, animate in maya, then render in something like Arnold, so your using a 3 split system there. ive never had a problem with the link in lightwave screwing up (just remember its quirks and what causes it to crash, and don't do it that way)
i can see the point of view people have with animation of modelling, but there are ways around that currently, and the new geo engine could begin to change that even if its not a full modelling tool set/unification, you only need the elements of what people want it to do, such as animated text creation and dynamics, could easily be implemented as a dedicated tool or third party with the new engine,
so no, even in a studio environment i cant see the split as being a hindrance simply because that's not how the studio environment operates, it would only really affect the individual / freelance who may be involved from the start to finish


Clarisse is very much a niche product. Terrible analogy for lightwave. Unless you guys want lightwave to be a niche product among full featured 3d software.

Model in modo, animate in maya, render in arnold? That was the old way.
People are now preferring to model in modo, animate in modo, render in modo. People are looking for a complete solution which lightwave is marketing itself, too. A complete package that you can rely on. :D

Now from my experience, with recent additions to maya, modelling is just as easy as lw, modo, retopo tools are great, etc ,etc. I dropped modo recently because of that. Many people do actually model in maya even before. Or model in c4d, blender, max without the need to use modo, etc. So model in maya, animate in maya, render in maya.

The only exception is zbrush. Its a special product and totally in a different classification to lightwave, modo and others.

ActionBob
12-17-2017, 11:17 AM
I think this discussion isn't necessary. We have already been over this and all it does is pit users against each other in what they think is the better way to go.

Instead, I think it is pretty obvious what is happening (if Lightwave is able to continue). With all the development happening in Layout and the lack in Modeler (for various reasons, blah blah, heard it before), it seems to me that Layout will continue to advance (given all the supposed under the hood development) and gain modeling within it. Modeler will, in my opinion, continue to get meager updates as it is eventually phased out. Seems to make sense that IS what is happening or will happen. Layout will become Lightwave with all that cool, modern, modeling do-dads added in eventually.

We can all agree that modeler is very dated and without cool plug-ins seems ancient. Why would Newtek continue to concentrate on two apps when their focus on the past has been on one branch. It seems that the long, smart "road-map" would be to continue improvement and expansion of Layout until it IS Lightwave - all aspects.

It already seems like this is the course (by design or necessity as it seems it is quite hard for them to find a modeler programmer; given that the two apps are quite different, but look similar in design).

Have your debates, but it seems the path is pretty clear and they are already taking it. Some might not it... Too bad...

It seems pretty obvious what is happening. I think it is out of necessity at this point that one branch is being phased out.

Anyway, just my opinion and observation.

-Adrian

ps. I voted with the majority in that a non-unified app is not a deal breaker for me. I just want to see continued development and see what happens.

pbaroque20
12-17-2017, 11:45 AM
I think unification would be ideal, mainly because development of features would be more streamlined from a developer's point of view. I also don't understand why apps should be different if LW can be programmed to switch between Layout/Modeler mode in one window -- you're psychologically switching modes with the apps separate, makes no objective difference. Sounds kind of ridiculous to me to keep them separate...

prometheus
12-17-2017, 12:22 PM
I think unification would be ideal, mainly because development of features would be more streamlined from a developer's point of view. I also don't understand why apps should be different if LW can be programmed to switch between Layout/Modeler mode in one window -- you're psychologically switching modes with the apps separate, makes no objective difference. Sounds kind of ridiculous to me to keep them separate...

Thereīs a thing with two split app, itīs not just about switching a window from modeler to layout, you may want to have them both open with various items, as modeling on newer models or other models while maintaining the scene and itīs models as it is, and only when you feel you are ready to update, youīll do so, or save such new models out instead of employing it to the scene if not necessary.

If layout getīs great new modeling tools, just fine, I would still like to have an option to open a model interface only, so I am both for a unification, and not so to speak ..if it isnīt done in such manner that I would like.

bobakabob
12-17-2017, 02:26 PM
But thats what i was saying earlier. Its not a two stage process in Lightwave, its more like a 4 or 5 or 6 stage process and not a linear process either. Model a character, add weighting, make skelegons(or add bones in layout), now go to layout, set up a rig and animate. Oops your weights need adjusted, go back to modeler, adjust weights. Go back to layout, rest. If not right yet, rinse and repeat. How many times have i taken a models geo to layout to see how it will ultimately render? A lot. Back and forth.
I dont mind jumping from one app to another as part of a process... But back and forth, that is BS.

Want weight painting and editing deformations quickly and directly in Layout? See 3rd Powers (http://www.3rdpowers.com/index_store.html)tools. Not sure why Paint Weights feature isn't already integral (it really should) but the option is there for those who need it. As in Maya you can interactively assign specific values to individual points of a mesh.

I do think you're misrepresenting Lightwave regarding CA, and exaggerating the weights issue. I recently completed a freelance job to a tight deadline. Characters were modelled and surfaced in Zbrush, imported into Lightwave Modeler, rigged with Genoma with simple weights applied followed by animation and rendering in Layout.

Weights and deformations can take time and patience to adjust in any app, including "industry standard" Maya which I use at work - in Lightwave it really doesn't have to take any longer. In fact you can get away with minimal weights in many situations. I didn't need to resort to Paint weights or flip flop between apps. There really is no need to do this.

The whole process was extremely fast and the client was really happy. Believe me, I'd resort to other apps if it wasn't as immediate as this. Other than Zbrush there was no need for any other expensive software. Of course it ultimately depends on your specialism, what you want to achieve.

The unification thing is a red herring as serious users will resort to distinct specialist apps like Houdini, ZB or 3DCoat where they can. However, if LW users want modelling tools in Layout, Newtek should take a look at Maya's slick streamlined poly modelling toolkit. It's tiny but powerful. Then again, nowhere near as good as LWCad.

Newtek really need to focus on education and marketing to revive Lightwave as well as moving ahead with the new geometry engine and rendering tech. If the new renderer is as good as Arnold they really need to push it, it would be an absolute bargain for many small studios.

prometheus
12-17-2017, 03:46 PM
Want weight painting and editing deformations quickly and directly in Layout? See 3rd Powers (http://www.3rdpowers.com/index_store.html)tools. Not sure why Paint Weights feature isn't already integral (it really should) but the option is there for those who need it. As in Maya you can interactively assign specific values to individual points of a mesh.


I donīt understand it either ..weight paint natively in layout..
I have two issues with it, foremost you got to pay up for Ligthwave (already done) then you got to pay up additionally 129 usd, that is an insane amount of mony for a toolset that also have worse display than modeler or blender.

If I can I stick to blender for that kind of stuff nowadays, all for free, and much better display than 3rd powers in layout, and also connected to fluids and particle emission, though if you are in to character weight paint etc in Lightwave, you may be screwed or simply stand that pricing.

Shouldnīt it be called "weight pain" when it comes in Lighwave flavour?

Michael

Snosrap
12-17-2017, 07:00 PM
I voted for "Nice to have but not a deal breaker for me". But I still think it should be done. It's just more practical to have everything under one roof for both the users as well as the devs. I don't know why some are so scared of unification as you could easily with a click of a button have workspaces that setup the interface for modeling, animation, rendering or whatever. Just unify the damn thing and be done with it! But again if they don't it won't bother me one bit. :)

trang
12-17-2017, 07:50 PM
i am comfortable with modeler and layout being separate as whatever i change in modeler is instantly reflected i layout

Snosrap
12-17-2017, 08:09 PM
i am comfortable with modeler and layout being separate as whatever i change in modeler is instantly reflected i layout

Yeah but what if you wanted to animate a change you made in Modeler? I don't want to offend anyone, but comments like these really only show that your usage of LW is in a very simplistic manner. I also use LW in this way as well, but you must admit that there would be times when if you could just select a portion of your model and move it - how nice would that be?

hypersuperduper
12-17-2017, 11:58 PM
People tend to develop workflows around the tool not the other way around. If a person is used to lightwave they avoid those situations that it can’t handle well almost by instinct, and are perfectly happy.

Mastoy
12-18-2017, 01:46 AM
i am comfortable with modeler and layout being separate as whatever i change in modeler is instantly reflected i layout

Then you don't work with heavy models ...
With some projects, I make a change in modeler, hit F12, and have to wait like 20 SECONDS for the layout to be ready. Imagine if you have to make a LOT of tiny changes on a model, and check each time in Layout if it's correct. It's simply not possible. It's like losing an hour every day, waiting for Layout to refresh.
No offense, but I think the ones that don't want unification should try other software, and see all the things that simply cannot be done in Lightwave

hrgiger
12-18-2017, 01:58 AM
The reason so many for LW voted that they either don't want it or that its not a deal breaker is because most people who it was a deal breaker for have left already. LW user base is small fraction of what it once was and unification was one major reason for people leaving the application. But keep going with that separate thing, its working great.

gar26lw
12-18-2017, 02:49 AM
The reason so many for LW voted that they either don't want it or that its not a deal breaker is because most people who it was a deal breaker for have left already. LW user base is small fraction of what it once was and unification was one major reason for people leaving the application. But keep going with that separate thing, its working great.

good point

Asticles
12-18-2017, 02:54 AM
Have you guys seen the same poll on Facebook?

Does the same applies to Facebook users?

gar26lw
12-18-2017, 03:14 AM
Have you guys seen the same poll on Facebook?

Does the same applies to Facebook users?

hah, you bet me to it. yeah i see there seems to be a lot more votes on there. surprising results.

dsol
12-18-2017, 03:20 AM
I'm curious to know what some people think the *advantages* of separate modelling and layout apps are? I mean, you can create pretty much exactly the same workflow effectively by having an app that has well-designed support for workspaces. And then you're not doubling up memory usages (and having to reload assets every time you tweak the models).

Mastoy
12-18-2017, 03:24 AM
Have you guys seen the same poll on Facebook?

Does the same applies to Facebook users?

Yes I saw that ... and honestly it baffles me.
I'd really like to discuss with someone who doesn't want unification, as I don't see ANY reason not to want it.
For me, unification brings things, and doesn't remove any, so I simply don't understand.

EDIT : Dan you beat me to it :D

dsol
12-18-2017, 03:25 AM
I mean, I used to use Imagine (on the Amiga) back in the day - and that had something like 6 different apps to handle the different components of making a 3D scene. And it definitely wasn't better than Lightwave 3.5 - which just had 2 ;)

samurai_x
12-18-2017, 03:45 AM
Have you guys seen the same poll on Facebook?

Does the same applies to Facebook users?

Any link?

Again. Just saying. Unification, pipe dream now. Maybe the dream evaporated with the Core disaster but we were just in denial.
Lesser resource, lesser users, huge effort to unify for NT. That's not worth it for them now.

Asticles
12-18-2017, 03:52 AM
Sorry.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lightwiki/permalink/1284327375006592/

dsol
12-18-2017, 04:02 AM
Again. Just saying. Unification, pipe dream now. Maybe the dream evaporated with the Core disaster but we were just in denial.
Lesser resource, lesser users, huge effort to unify for NT. That's not worth it for them now.

It's certainly a lot of work. But the new mesh system is in place now, so rebuilding modelling tools in Layout may be less of a pipe dream now. I don't doubt it's years of work, but hey - we've waited this long already.

I do hope that there's a good chief architect in charge of future LW development though. Fixing fundamental problems in LW (like inter-object communication, data sharing and - of course - no unified Undo stack) is no small challenge. Dave Ikeda sounded like he had some good ideas on how to do that - but he couldn't say how long it would theoretically take.

I just hope in the meantime we see some more nice new features built on the new tech. Even if it's by third parties

samurai_x
12-18-2017, 04:17 AM
Sorry.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lightwiki/permalink/1284327375006592/

Thanks for the link.

I'm laughing with tears. More tears than laughter. :D

Sad....

Comparing the split of Maya and marvelous designer to Layout and Modeler being split!!!! Seriously?
Or the split of doing sims in realflow and modelling in modo?? Two totally different types of appz.

I guess deepfx and UP are just a total waste of time to integrate into lightwave. Include TFD. These things should not be integrated into lightwave and should have a stand alone app. :D

So houdini should not be improving its modelling and rigging toolset as they have been doing.
Or modo should not improve its animation toolset since maya is the king of animation. Wasted effort by TF.

Marander
12-18-2017, 04:19 AM
Here's some situations where the split app is not efficient or fun to use:

- Right now I'm tweaking Volumetrics, polygonal objects are filled with particles and rendered nicely with volumetric material, realtime preview in the Cycles4D IPR using 2 GPUs. Would be painful if I have to switch application to modify the cloud volume primitives and maybe they should change shape over time?
- Dynamics simulations where Collider or Emission objects (parametric or polygonal mesh) can be tweaked in real time while the simulation is playing
- Fracturing objects
- LOD, mesh reduction based on camera position
- Animated Booleans, Modeling or Mograph
- Light meshes, Volumetric meshes, Helper meshes
- Scene placeholders for composition
- Splines as Guides for animation, Effects, Plant Growth etc.
- On the fly Pose Morphs, corrections to Character mesh during the Simulation
- Weight Painting, Rigging, IK setup
- Setting up Object hierarchies, Parenting with Constraints etc.
- Modeling directly in the scene
- Texturing, UV Mapping
- Tweaking Cloth with Dynamics or correcting poke-through Cloth during animation
- Hair Grooming, Hair Guides and other Hair parameters

And last but not least to avoid redundant tools and double work.

erikals
12-18-2017, 04:53 AM
Amazing.

i know some leads at that forum are Pro split. could be part of the reason. Still.
Utterly Amazing.

maybe they all make spaceships.

https://i.imgur.com/rJdtv8p.png

a comfort >


Matt Gorner  Unified if done right,
I’ve tried unified apps and maybe it’s because I’m so used to clean environments of separation,
but I didn’t like the feel of them.
That said, my work never really cried out for unification, but I can certainly see the benefits.
Besides, if done right it should allow the separate feel as well as unified for those who want it.
Just my 2 cents.

Asticles
12-18-2017, 05:02 AM
The problem is, another three years to unificate to achieve a software that is similar to all that we have currently outside LW? or eight years?

Where will be Modo, Maya, Cinema and Blender then?

hypersuperduper
12-18-2017, 05:06 AM
The problem is, another three years to unificate to achieve a software that is similar to all that we have currently outside LW? or eight years?

Where will be Modo, Maya, Cinema and Blender then?
That about sums it up. Skating to where the puck was 15 years ago is not good business.

gar26lw
12-18-2017, 05:08 AM
i am guessing there can be a flag set in the startup shortcut that would have the app only have modelling stuff and another set that only has layout stuff? or maybe just a button top right, like now that just flicks between modeller and layout; you can rip the modeller section off and have as a pseudo separate app, even alt tab between the two windows? something like that. it can be under the 40+ yrs section in the preferences. ;)

erikals
12-18-2017, 05:09 AM
if Layout now with the new Mesh Engine is ready to handle this kind of stuff
(they did add Point/Edge/Poly features, so that Layout could have modeling functions)

if that all went well, we could have a gradual transition.
if not, well, then yes, it would certainly be a concern just how long it would take to code.

Asticles
12-18-2017, 05:17 AM
I think the interesting thing would be to develop the parametric shapes so that they could be used with booleans in the layout. Instead of unifying the Modeler.

safetyman
12-18-2017, 05:30 AM
A gradual move towards modeling in Layout with the goal being Layout by itself is fine. The problem is, Modeler RIGHT NOW is falling way behind other apps, so are you going to put the current modeling tools in Layout eventually? If Layout is getting modeling tools, wouldn't it make sense to update Modeler to the point where you WANT those tools in Layout? Merging modeling tools into Layout -- great, but if they aren't up to snuff then it won't matter. What I'm trying to say is, if you have updated modeling tools that you are putting into Layout then why leave Modeler in the dust?

samurai_x
12-18-2017, 05:33 AM
Amazing.

i know some leads at that forum are Pro split. could be part of the reason. Still.
Utterly Amazing.

maybe they all make spaceships.

https://i.imgur.com/rJdtv8p.png

a comfort >

Why is it a comfort?
I read it as going the opposite spectrum.

lardbros
12-18-2017, 05:36 AM
Has to be unified... no argument. :)

Yes, keep different working environments, but we have to be able to model/sketch, texture, rig and animate in the same place. As Matt said though, it really does have to be done right though!

Marander
12-18-2017, 05:54 AM
if Layout now with the new Mesh Engine is ready to handle this kind of stuff
(they did add Point/Edge/Poly features, so that Layout could have modeling functions)

if that all went well, we could have a gradual transition.
if not, well, then yes, it would certainly be a concern just how long it would take to code.

We don't know if they did add... they said it is aware of it but then why can the new parametric sphere and plane not be converted to polys? Weird.

What is even parametric in them (for a sphere I would for example expect different tesselation modes, amount of edges/subdivision, half sphere etc.). For a plane, well not much to be parametric except it can be used for sub poly displacement or other deformations without the need for fixed subdivisions.

Is there a mesh deformer available in 2018 that can be applied to parametric objects in order to gave access/edit to points/polys/edges? A cage deformer? Bevel deformer? If not then what's the use of it?

MichaelT
12-18-2017, 06:07 AM
We don't know if they did add... they said it is aware of it but then why can the new parametric sphere and plane not be converted to polys? Weird.

What is even parametric in them (for a sphere I would for example expect different tesselation modes, amount of edges/subdivision, half sphere etc.). For a plane, well not much to be parametric except it can be used for sub poly displacement or other deformations without the need for fixed subdivisions.

Is there a mesh deformer available in 2018 that can be applied to parametric objects in order to gave access/edit to points/polys/edges? A cage deformer? Bevel deformer? If not then what's the use of it?

They probably cannot be converted to polys because its not modeler. However, I'm guessing you can write a plugin to solve it. I doubt there is an actual technical limitation. They probably were more focused on getting the things under the hood in place, so they can work on the other things in upcoming releases. Because they have done lots of work under the hood, more so than any of us realizes. C4D is also changing its things under the hood, and they've been doing it for more than two years now. Just to put things into perspective. The difference I would say is that they stick to yearly releases regardless, something I think LWG should do too.

samurai_x
12-18-2017, 06:21 AM
Has to be unified... no argument. :)

Yes, keep different working environments, but we have to be able to model/sketch, texture, rig and animate in the same place. As Matt said though, it really does have to be done right though!

He said he doesn't like the feel of unified appz. Has tried it but not so much experience with unified appz because work never demanded it.
Sees the benefits but doesn't seem 100% convinced its the way to go.

That's the message I got. That's ok some people feel that way. I just don't think lightwave userbase will grow significantly with a split app even if they give lightwave for free.

hypersuperduper
12-18-2017, 06:24 AM
We don't know if they did add... they said it is aware of it but then why can the new parametric sphere and plane not be converted to polys? Weird.

What is even parametric in them (for a sphere I would for example expect different tesselation modes, amount of edges/subdivision, half sphere etc.). For a plane, well not much to be parametric except it can be used for sub poly displacement or other deformations without the need for fixed subdivisions.

Is there a mesh deformer available in 2018 that can be applied to parametric objects in order to gave access/edit to points/polys/edges? A cage deformer? Bevel deformer? If not then what's the use of it?

The primitives are apparently not geometry at all. there is a torus and a cone as well according to the devs.

MichaelT
12-18-2017, 06:27 AM
The primitives are apparently not geometry at all. there is a torus and a cone as well according to the devs.

I think the point is that they are geometry when being rendered. Not that it matters.. it's still possible to get a geometry out of them. But you probably need to write a plugin to do it. Although I do think this is something they could do themselves as well. In a future release at least. I can think of many reasons why I would like to have that geometry.

hypersuperduper
12-18-2017, 06:31 AM
I don’t think so. I asked specifically if they created geometry on the fly. The answer was no. They are something else.

Sure, theoretically you could get geometry out of them. But until I see an example of a first party layout tool that starts with nothing and can spit out geometry that another application can read I am skeptical that the new geometry engine can actually do that.

Marander
12-18-2017, 06:34 AM
The primitives are apparently not geometry at all. there is a torus and a cone as well according to the devs.

Thanks hypersuperduper. I wonder what they should be good for... Yes I know they're not geometry but they should be able to convert to. Maybe I'm missing the point there. A plane however makes sense for landscapes because until now it was difficult to do high resolution displacement with LW.

Text should have been number one parametric object, with proper kerning, beveling etc. in my opinion. Maybe it is there in 2018 but not yet shown.

Anyway, still nothing exciting to me. All I'm interested is fast and good looking volumetrics. Maybe for that the parametric shapes can be useful.

MichaelT
12-18-2017, 06:39 AM
I don’t think so. I asked specifically if they created geometry on the fly. The answer was no. They are something else.

Sure, theoretically you could get geometry out of them. But until I see an example of a first party layout tool that starts with nothing and can spit out geometry that another application can read I am skeptical that the new geometry engine can actually do that.

Well.. if that is going to be detected any other shaders etc.. then the positions of those voxels (or whatever it is) could be used to generate a mesh. Worth trying if nothing else :)

Kaptive
12-18-2017, 06:45 AM
Joe Alters comments on FB are interesting, I didn't know he still kept an eye on LW. He seems to think that unifying doesn't matter... I hope he doesn't mind me sharing his comment on here.


Joe Alter :-
lightwave doesn't have to be re-architected to unify it.
there are very real advantages to sculpting on top of an animated rig - see http://www.lbrush.com (click on features). We didn't have to re-architect maya to accomplish this - we just had to stuff all the tools into a node.

The same could be done for a modeler mode that acts on a rest pose, you could basically sandbox modeller by stuffing all its functionality into a node.

Personally, I'm not gunning for unifying, but at the same time I trust those with experience of other work flows that it'd have advantages. Mentally, the split makes some sense... (modeler) the model shop and (layout) the stage. But a stage tool kit for modeling continuation/tweaking during production would be useful. I've got to assume that this is more what Joe is talking about.
At the end of the day, I just make stuff, I'm no programmer or software designer. I have to trust in developers to have a solid idea of implementation and intended use/workflow that covers most (if not all) of my needs. It doesn't always pan out, but sometimes it does.

Marander
12-18-2017, 06:47 AM
They probably cannot be converted to polys because its not modeler. However, I'm guessing you can write a plugin to solve it. I doubt there is an actual technical limitation. They probably were more focused on getting the things under the hood in place, so they can work on the other things in upcoming releases. Because they have done lots of work under the hood, more so than any of us realizes. C4D is also changing its things under the hood, and they've been doing it for more than two years now. Just to put things into perspective. The difference I would say is that they stick to yearly releases regardless, something I think LWG should do too.

Yes that's what LW3DG have been saying (under-the-hood changes). I'm tired of this argument, 2018 needs to show the result of it, otherwise it's too late in my opinion. For example which new user that has worked in another 3D application would accept LW's 20 year old text tool? After another 3 year dev cycle? I really hope they made this parametric.

And yes, C4D has been implementing it's new core gradually (under the hood since R16 actually afaik). New tools (like Voronoi Fracture, Poly Reduction, LOD) already show its potential. I'm very excited what the new modeling core can offer in R20 (not that it needs any major modeling improvements currently). The R20 SDK has been provided to premium 3rd party devs since R18 and it seems to contain big changes. For the few parts that require improvements in C4D there are great plugins (for example for UV mapping there's a great small plugin that makes it work similar to 3D-Coat).

RPSchmidt
12-18-2017, 06:57 AM
I used to think this was a big deal, coming from Maya back about seven years ago. But now... when I consider how much commercial work is done outside of the primary 3D application, even if you are using an integrated package... it doesn't seem as important.

gar26lw
12-18-2017, 07:05 AM
I used to think this was a big deal, coming from Maya back about seven years ago. But now... when I consider how much commercial work is done outside of the primary 3D application, even if you are using an integrated package... it doesn't seem as important.

the amount of packages i’m bouncing across, file interchange and connectivity is far more important, imho.
if i could get a live link to other apps, awesome.
second would be perfect scene and file interchange.

Kaptive
12-18-2017, 07:08 AM
...For example which new user that has worked in another 3D application would accept LW's 20 year old text tool? After another 3 year dev cycle? I really hope they made this parametric.


From a "current situ, split app" point of view, Layout should have a text tool that is saved within a scene (and not treated as a model as such, but can be baked if required).

Creating a model of text seems a bit silly unless you want to deform it or use it as a tool. e.g. Clearly the current tools are fine (adequate) for making single lines of text/logos for stencilling on to a model etc, but when it comes to anything more, especially motion graphics and presentation animations etc, a text tool in Layout would be much more useful.. ideally not based upon geometry but vectors that share the same 3d space. I'm always limited by my knowledge of what is possible from a programming point of view.

Many would say use After Effects for this kind of thing, which is fine, but I'm totally lazy and would prefer to do this kind of stuff in LW than have to consider what I'm doing afterwards in AE or the edit to finish it. I consider time use in a more global fashion, and the more I can do in one place reduces the amount of planning time overall, getting me from A to B in far less steps. Different people play into different strengths though, which is also fine. As always, your tools define a proportion of your particular style.

p.s. I'm not wanting to go into a deep convo about this here, as I'm not looking to divert the thread from the topic. It just popped in my head while reading what Marander had said.

samurai_x
12-18-2017, 07:15 AM
I "think" rofl, any tool should be a stand alone app.
All this integration of fluids, tfd, clothsim, octane rendering should be done separately outside of layout. We can import the stuff we make there into layout then render them in Arnold, Octane standalone.
Lwcad as well should not be bogged down by legacy code from Modeler. Yup should be separate and we import lwcad models into layout.
My mind can only handle one routine at a time. :D

50one
12-18-2017, 07:44 AM
And here we F going again....
Unification even if needed won't happen.

Need to mark this thread to check again in 2025.

gar26lw
12-18-2017, 08:15 AM
maybe this will help?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y

:)

Ernest
12-18-2017, 10:17 AM
It's hard to interpret what these results mean, since "unified" can mean so many things and people could be voting on just one aspect of unification. And certainly unification done wrong is worse than no unification. But if you think that Layout being point/edge-aware is not important, I submit for your consideration Carm3D's cloth tearing tutorial:

https://vimeo.com/245469337

That's just an INSANE amount of work and an insane amount of time and an insane number of little imperfections that need to be covered (and an insane amount of ingenuity and creativity on the part of the author). All for something that the simulator could do all by itself for free if layout knew how to unweld points. At worst, it would be a matter of painting one single weight map in ten seconds, as opposed to spending hours creating thousands of groups and springs and rendering multiple times to create masks and ......

pbaroque20
12-18-2017, 10:40 AM
One thing is certain. Even though I would like unification, if we're going to keep it separate, weight maps should only really be painted in layout, not in modeler, since the end-result would always go to layout anyway. We could say the same with Genoma.


Thereīs a thing with two split app, itīs not just about switching a window from modeler to layout, you may want to have them both open with various items, as modeling on newer models or other models while maintaining the scene and itīs models as it is, and only when you feel you are ready to update, youīll do so, or save such new models out instead of employing it to the scene if not necessary.

If layout getīs great new modeling tools, just fine, I would still like to have an option to open a model interface only, so I am both for a unification, and not so to speak ..if it isnīt done in such manner that I would like.

Prototyping does seem like a benefit for the split-app direction. If we won't go for unification, at least have modeler do specific modeler things, and not have complementary tools like Genoma and weight paints that will eventually go to layout. This is really a pain to deal with, especially when you begin to tweak things here and there.

lardbros
12-18-2017, 10:48 AM
Joe Alters comments on FB are interesting, I didn't know he still kept an eye on LW. He seems to think that unifying doesn't matter... I hope he doesn't mind me sharing his comment on here.



Personally, I'm not gunning for unifying, but at the same time I trust those with experience of other work flows that it'd have advantages. Mentally, the split makes some sense... (modeler) the model shop and (layout) the stage. But a stage tool kit for modeling continuation/tweaking during production would be useful. I've got to assume that this is more what Joe is talking about.
At the end of the day, I just make stuff, I'm no programmer or software designer. I have to trust in developers to have a solid idea of implementation and intended use/workflow that covers most (if not all) of my needs. It doesn't always pan out, but sometimes it does.

Cool, thanks for sharing that.

After Joe being majorly burned by Autodesk, I reckon he still has the love for LightWave many of us do (otherwise, why are we still here? :) )
I doubt it would take too much of a nudge to get him to develop his tools for LW. Interesting to hear his thoughts on the matter though.

Ernest
12-18-2017, 10:56 AM
One thing is certain. Even though I would like unification, if we're going to keep it separate, weight maps should only really be painted in layout, not in modeler, since the end-result would always go to layout anyway.

Weight painting can be impossible in certain models if you don't have the ability to select and hide certain polys to expose the polys that are hidden underneath by folds, etc. Also, not being able to paint a selection of points or polys and grow it or shrink it with modeler's selection commands would be a huge loss.


And where would we put instances? In layout they're necessary for when an object needs to appear multiple times in a scene. But what about all the repeating details in a model? Now we have to model part of the model in modeler and model something that may be up to half of the modeling job in Layout because the model's details need to be instanced. And then you can't save the instances with the model. You have to keep part of your model in the lwo model file and half of your model (all the instanced details) in a separate scene file. Or should we have it in both, and then all the massive effort that was required to get instances in Layout now has to be duplicated to have it in modeler too?

pbaroque20
12-18-2017, 11:27 AM
Weight painting can be impossible in certain models if you don't have the ability to select and hide certain polys to expose the polys that are hidden underneath by folds, etc. Also, not being able to paint a selection of points or polys and grow it or shrink it with modeler's selection commands would be a huge loss.

That's why I think layout should have improved selection if it's going to be aware of polygon components.

hypersuperduper
12-18-2017, 01:44 PM
IF functions that traditionally have been in modeler are going to be implemented in layout (and I am skeptical) it should never be designed to replace the modeler tool. It should compliment the modeler tool and solve a clear problem.

Example, paint weights. It solves the inability of lightwave to tweak weights while viewing a bent joint. The problem is simply no more. Does it have proper selection? No. Can it show or hide polys? No. Regardless, In MOST cases weight painting in layout with paint weights is better. In some cases weightmap editing modeler is still better. However, there has never really been a case where I wanted a hybrid combination of the two with proper selection in layout or bone deformations in modeler. Plus they work fine together they both generate weight maps that the other can see. You don’t have to pick either/or.
This is a perfect example of a tool that targets a classic lightwave problem and just fixes it. It doesn’t change the paradigm.
There is of course redundancy and some clutter to this approach, but in the universe of obstacles an artist must face, clutter is minor.

wingzeta
12-18-2017, 03:11 PM
I just want to say, I think the poles are misleading. Very few are actually against unification. A lot are however, for fixing other issues, or adding other features first. For instance, if you told me LW could be unified in 3 years, I'd say that's great. Then if you told me it would be at that point that you could begin to work on all the features we've been living without, like good native UV tools, smoothing groups, animation layers, etc, so it will be more like 5 years before we get to actually use those features, I would say that is a little less great. On the other hand if you said, we can implement a bunch of the commonly requested features that we need everyday, right now, and then be unified in 6 years, I might say that would work for me as well. In fact it might be better for me, because I personally spend more time doing UVs than motion graphics or simulations. (I do those things too by the way, and do want unification)

In any case, I think that is where people are coming from. Wanting the everyday tools that would make their lives easier now, over the long term benefits of unification. Other companies seem to have teams working on both future and current needs simultaneously. NT tries to run a lean operation for better or worse.

So while the "give me tools now" crowd might seem short sighted, having those tools to actually use every day for the next 5 years vs waiting years for unification then getting those tools, does make some sense. Hopefully they are closer to getting modeling in layout with the work that has been done. Ultimately without Layout geo manipulation LW is stuck in a lot of ways. But since it has been stuck without lots of other tools too, that they might be able to do something about. Progress is perhaps more important than which progress they make. Long term they have to make that breakthrough. Short term they just have to keep making it better, and keep it alive.

mav3rick
12-18-2017, 03:21 PM
unification all the way... everything else is waste of development time on such small team like LW3DG is. its duplicating code work.. not to tell we need modeling tools with animable parameters.

hypersuperduper
12-18-2017, 03:43 PM
unification all the way EOD... everything else is waste of development time on such small team like LW3DG is. its duplicating code work.. not to tell we need modeling tools with animable parameters.
Duplucating modeler tools in layout would be LITERALLY duplicating code work. Your argument that complete unification is the most important use of resources for a small team is the same argument that some of us have of against a unification-Uber-alles approach. Resources are limited so give us what we need or we will be forced to find other options. We WANT unification and all the advantages we know it offers, but we NEED modern industry standard PBR materials and rendering, just to give an example. If lw 2018 had shipped with a first generation modeling/uv toolset in layout With a cleaner architecture but fewer tools than we have now together with an untouched old renderer how hot do you think it would be? My guess would be “not very”.

Also somehow there is this idea going around that just because lightwave is two apps everything needs to be done twice. I seriously doubt that is true. I am sure parts of SOME things needed to be done twice, but I seriously doubt it is as big a development cost as some people make it out to be.

erikals
12-18-2017, 04:25 PM
it was mentioned somewhere that new Modeler tools were going to be made in such a way so that they could more easily be transferred over to Layout.
(can't find that quote)

if that still goes... no idea.


Duplicating modeler tools in layout would be LITERALLY duplicating code work.
Absolutely. In the Beginning.

look 15 years ahead, LightWave is still a split app, with the all the limitations and duplicate codework that brings.

Nicolas Jordan
12-18-2017, 08:07 PM
My biggest concern with unifying Lightwave is that it needs to be done right and must carefully planned. If not done carefully it is something that could go terribly wrong. Someone definitely has to have a a grand vision to accomplish this great technical feat that has illuded Lightwave so far.

samurai_x
12-18-2017, 08:28 PM
And here we F going again....
Unification even if needed won't happen.

Need to mark this thread to check again in 2025.

This does feel like deja vu.
Happened after lw 10 was release
Happened somewhere between lw 11 to 2015.

Anyway people can dream even if it won't come true. Pipe dream especially if majority of lw users left and some developers themselves don't see it as priority.

See another poll in 2021.

gar26lw
12-18-2017, 10:39 PM
two independent polls and both point to unification as a longer term goal.

Asticles
12-19-2017, 12:27 AM
Yes, but in which direction? Node based modeling like Houdini, destructive, nurbs, polygons, parametric like catia?

gar26lw
12-19-2017, 03:10 AM
Yes, but in which direction? Node based modeling like Houdini, destructive, nurbs, polygons, parametric like catia?

well we have nodes. i’m sure they can be hooked up to drive inputs.
non destructive parametric would be good.

modos system, where you have non destructive and old skool immediate seems like a nice blend, for speed and flexibility.

Asticles
12-19-2017, 04:11 AM
If I had to try one, I would go to something like Blender's Animation Nodes.

Sverchok is too difficult for me. :P

Edit: This would add a whole universe of possibilities for making motion graphics in Lightwave.

hypersuperduper
12-19-2017, 07:21 AM
Yes, but in which direction? Node based modeling like Houdini, destructive, nurbs, polygons, parametric like catia?

nodes, nodes and more nodes.

prometheus
12-19-2017, 12:09 PM
Someone here in the post wrote something about not understanding why we would be afraid of unification and you could just as easy set up various vieports or themes to be modeler or layout kind of thing, I donīt think itīs that easy...what I could agree on would be to simply open two instances of a unified lightwave exefiles, where you can have one of them set to modeling environment and the other as layout environment, in such way it would be more close to keep it "seperated" but new unified anyway..and with an option to work with certain models in one instance and analyze a scene in the other instance, though it would still require a way of sending a model back and forth between the two instances...I you need to do that.

I simply donīt think itīs as easy two try and work out a theme in one single app that allows for similar environment, what we see today is options to change to modeler interface or a layout interface in blender and in modo for example..but no proper way as I see it to seperate the items within the application, meaning a model that isnīt in the scene, and a scene that isnīt affecting the model window, and a switch to choose when you want them to work together.

Itīs a bit hard to explain unfortunately.

Dexter2999
12-20-2017, 12:16 AM
i am guessing there can be a flag set in the startup shortcut that would have the app only have modelling stuff and another set that only has layout stuff?

For years, I have been suggesting the idea of a unified application with "workspaces", preset views that switch your toolset between modeling and layout. You can have a unified program without having to have a cluttered workspace.

No reason to radically change your workflow. A unified system would negate having to deal with the Hub, which has been known to flake out from time to time.

gar26lw
12-20-2017, 01:18 AM
I simply donīt think itīs as easy two try and work out a theme in one single app that allows for similar environment, what we see today is options to change to modeler interface or a layout interface in blender and in modo for example..but no proper way as I see it to seperate the items within the application, meaning a model that isnīt in the scene, and a scene that isnīt affecting the model window, and a switch to choose when you want them to work together.

Itīs a bit hard to explain unfortunately.

you mean like lightwave? :)

unreal might be an example, with its blueprints and model editor.

jeric_synergy
12-20-2017, 01:50 AM
I'd like a list of exactly what tasks are enhanced by having a "unified" app.

Certainly it would be good to be able to easily and usefully manipulate points/edges/polys/{sets of each} in Layout, mostly from a deformation aspect.

hypersuperduper
12-20-2017, 05:39 AM
Modifying transformed/deformed objects.... and that is basically it.

But everything else stems form there.

Weight painting a bent joint.
creating a correction morph while seeing it
Modifying parts of a mechanical object that is in a herarchy with different oriention for all the parts while seeing how the fit together.

There are workarounds for all this stuff, but in a unified environment you don’t need workarounds.


And that’s not even addressing the things that Lightwave can’t do anyways like procedural geometry and sculpting. Both of which should be in layout.

vncnt
12-20-2017, 08:13 AM
Already, I'm very glad with the new Layout View in Modeler.
Don't know if this (or a future) solution can show deformations from Layout but for me this would reduce the need for unification.

I prefer to see practical solutions for the most necessary bottlenecks before my retirement formally starts (536112000 seconds from now) instead of waiting for a shiny structural solution.

hypersuperduper
12-20-2017, 08:32 AM
Oh I agree completely. There are way more important things to address. And workaraounds if they are good enough are fine as far as I am concerned. But those are what I consider the primary benifits of unification.

Nicolas Jordan
12-20-2017, 09:05 AM
I'm no programmer but I personally think it might be easier to move Layouts functions into Modeler rather than the other way around. Modeler already has much of what it needs and can handle many of the same things Layout can. The reason I think this might be the way to go is that a program like Modo feels and functions much like modeler does and Modo also started out as a modeler with all other functions like animation, bones, rendering added later. I really don't think trying to move modeler functions into Layout is the way to go.

vncnt
12-20-2017, 11:04 AM
Merging two applications will be very difficult and time consuming.

Unification is presented by some as a solution for a lot of problems.
They forget it will create many other technical problems.

A problem solving approach seems more effective to me.
Let the programmers/investors decide how to create solutions.

prometheus
12-20-2017, 12:23 PM
you mean like lightwave? :)

unreal might be an example, with its blueprints and model editor.

Havent checked unreal or tested it, will have to.
But I donīt think I have seen a kind of workspace in houdini, blender and modo that would allow for working focused on a single model and having a scene seperate from eachother withint that two split theme workspaces, having it in a way that the scene doesnīt steal resources from working with the model workspace, and the and switching between workspaces need to remember exactly the viewport Point of view when upon recalling a model or scene session, it simply needs to work EXACTLY just as if you would switch between alt tab and swithc between modeler and layout...when it comes to how the viewport looks like when you switch workspaces, when you work on a certain model ..One would need a way to tell Lightwave that this model I am currently modeling on, will not affect or be in the scene, Unless I specificly send it to that workspace, and if you do send it to a layout workspace, you would of course like to rechange the model, and that with two options, one to either continue model in scene context with other items, like sculpting ground area around a tree or rock, or tell the model interface to Only switch to a model interface with the selected mesh you want to edit, and not any other items in the scene to interfere, I suppose that would require ways of better layering, vertex mesh and group handling and intelligent way to switch fast between those choices, and I do not think Ivé come across of such workspaces.

I do not have unreal or tested it, but Anyone that can present a good showcase of how to merge an app, in blender, modo or what have ya , and use workspaces in a way that it rivals a two split app is welcome to do so, I am quite sure they will miss something anyway that a two split app simple does more cleaner and more focused.

Personally I Suspect that the lightwave team will simply start and add layout tools from layout and up, maybe derived from the core tools and the newer tools, then filling in where tools are missing based on the various tabs in modeler, but still with a way of clicking modeler and a hub between these two, in order to acess all the legacy tools ..and by that process keeping it all..while introducing the new tools as it goes along and someday be able to replace it all...perhaps a dedicated switch to a new transformed modeler within a hub switch, so you eventually may have the choice to model everything in layout..or switch to a model interface, which has been rebuilt up based on the tools implemented in layout.

I am however Wildly speculating of course, and shooting from the hip as I am no programmer and what I say here about how it turns out ..really lacks quite a lot of credibility and accuracy, and true insight :) just felt like speculating as many others do :)

papou
12-20-2017, 12:23 PM
I like the way both app are separate.
I like the way scene file are separate from mesh file.
But i think it may be possible to unify modeler and Layout with preserving this feeling and file system.
Because what i don't like (Double Memory use, Hub swap lag and unstability) is fixeable only with an unified app.
And several more modern way to create too.
But i have voted "Lightwave is fine the way it is with Modeler and Layout" for the feeling and ... by reflex. hahaha

wingzeta
12-20-2017, 12:35 PM
I'm no programmer but I personally think it might be easier to move Layouts functions into Modeler rather than the other way around. Modeler already has much of what it needs and can handle many of the same things Layout can. The reason I think this might be the way to go is that a program like Modo feels and functions much like modeler does and Modo also started out as a modeler with all other functions like animation, bones, rendering added later. I really don't think trying to move modeler functions into Layout is the way to go.

No programmer here either, but from what I have gathered, Modeler is written in C, while Layout is written in C++. C++ is more advanced for a lot of things, and the standard for most 3D and Game software for a long time now. AFAIK Modo was them starting over in C++, when NT was not ready to start over.

prometheus
12-20-2017, 01:08 PM
itīs not that hard..I am no programmer, I managed to make Layout make text, by hacking the text tool in lightwave model with ls commander and edit the code a little bit :) (and then prom was snobby looking himself in the mirror) :) haha..what a stunning example:D


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


There are much better ones though for text in layout if you look up senseis trueartīs tools, or node3d.

Nicolas Jordan
12-20-2017, 01:49 PM
Merging two applications will be very difficult and time consuming.

Unification is presented by some as a solution for a lot of problems.
They forget it will create many other technical problems.

A problem solving approach seems more effective to me.
Let the programmers/investors decide how to create solutions.

Yes, as long as there are good solutions to current issues I think that would likely be good enough for most users to not care about unifying Lightwave. There may even be more benefits to having Modeler and Layout separate if designers and developers think outside the box a bit.

Marander
12-20-2017, 02:17 PM
I do not have unreal or tested it, but Anyone that can present a good showcase of how to merge an app, in blender, modo or what have ya , and use workspaces in a way that it rivals a two split app is welcome to do so, I am quite sure they will miss something anyway that a two split app simple does more cleaner and more focused.

...answering your lenghty text with another lenghty one ;-) probably gonna I miss some of your points...

This should be doable in c4d or another app with a flexible UI.

I use a custom Workspace for startup with most tools and tabs I need. When I activate (HB) Solo mode, it zooms into that object or mesh selection and all the rest disappears (with Shift pressed it applies Solo for all children too) . Even if a generator like SubD or Cloner was selected, I only see the mesh now. There you can modify and navigate around as you wish and deactivating Solo brings you back to the original position in the scene.

I guess you could easily add an automatic switch Workspace to it with a little script when entering the Solo mode. Or just use a shortcut. You can have additional independent viewports, toolbars, timelines etc. (on a different screen for example). Of course there is also Quad view or single ortho views as well as a Fullscreen mode like in LW.

You can also work with references, so the scene refers to the objects, similar to LWS to LWOs. You can have as many files with meshes or complete scenes open the same time. Copy & Paste between the files. This is also more resource friendly then having multiple Layouts and Modeler open. You can continue to work while you render if you like.

Then there is the powerful Layers, Takes and Token system that opens a whole new way of dealing with scene variations and alternate settings, something that just doesn't exist in LW (and probably never will). That's all part of the base architecture and neatly integrated in the whole system. And there are of course the usual Hide and Show setting for Viewport and Render on an object and mesh selection level.

You can have a modeling Workspace open on another screen or disable UI elements, change display modes, generators or deformers by pressing a shortcut.

However I like it simple and 95% of the time I use my customized startup Workspace that contains everything I need, packed with all major functions (using the HB Solo mode when I need it).

Then I configured 3 more Workspaces, one for Effects (with the TFD and XP simulation dialogs docked), one for Cycles IPR and one for Vray. Maybe I'll add one more for animation when I need it. For UV mapping I have small plugin that allows a workflow similar to 3D-Coat by opening an additional 2D UV view and automatically coloring UV islands when I add seams with automatic unwrapping, very easy to use.

You can even have a LW-like text only or completely empty workspace if you like. It's up to the artist how he wants to work in such an environment.

prometheus
12-22-2017, 07:57 AM
...answering your lenghty text with another lenghty one ;-) probably gonna I miss some of your points...

This should be doable in c4d or another app with a flexible UI.

I use a custom Workspace for startup with most tools and tabs I need. When I activate (HB) Solo mode, it zooms into that object or mesh selection and all the rest disappears (with Shift pressed it applies Solo for all children too) . Even if a generator like SubD or Cloner was selected, I only see the mesh now. There you can modify and navigate around as you wish and deactivating Solo brings you back to the original position in the scene.

I guess you could easily add an automatic switch Workspace to it with a little script when entering the Solo mode. Or just use a shortcut. You can have additional independent viewports, toolbars, timelines etc. (on a different screen for example). Of course there is also Quad view or single ortho views as well as a Fullscreen mode like in LW.

You can also work with references, so the scene refers to the objects, similar to LWS to LWOs. You can have as many files with meshes or complete scenes open the same time. Copy & Paste between the files. This is also more resource friendly then having multiple Layouts and Modeler open. You can continue to work while you render if you like.

Then there is the powerful Layers, Takes and Token system that opens a whole new way of dealing with scene variations and alternate settings, something that just doesn't exist in LW (and probably never will). That's all part of the base architecture and neatly integrated in the whole system. And there are of course the usual Hide and Show setting for Viewport and Render on an object and mesh selection level.

You can have a modeling Workspace open on another screen or disable UI elements, change display modes, generators or deformers by pressing a shortcut.

However I like it simple and 95% of the time I use my customized startup Workspace that contains everything I need, packed with all major functions (using the HB Solo mode when I need it).

Then I configured 3 more Workspaces, one for Effects (with the TFD and XP simulation dialogs docked), one for Cycles IPR and one for Vray. Maybe I'll add one more for animation when I need it. For UV mapping I have small plugin that allows a workflow similar to 3D-Coat by opening an additional 2D UV view and automatically coloring UV islands when I add seams with automatic unwrapping, very easy to use.

You can even have a LW-like text only or completely empty workspace if you like. It's up to the artist how he wants to work in such an environment.

Uhh..sorry for my bad behavior in writing sentences and lazyness to break the sentences and shorten them, To be honest, I do tend to get f..boring after a while, as beethoven :)

The thing is, youīd have to work a theme out yourself in blender, since there isnīt even a genuine model workspace theme as I know off, not by default..havenīt checked around what is available out there though, would be easier if I can get hold of a model workspace theme, and then perhaps adjust it to my needs.

hrgiger
12-22-2017, 08:24 AM
I'm no programmer but I personally think it might be easier to move Layouts functions into Modeler rather than the other way around. Modeler already has much of what it needs and can handle many of the same things Layout can. The reason I think this might be the way to go is that a program like Modo feels and functions much like modeler does and Modo also started out as a modeler with all other functions like animation, bones, rendering added later. I really don't think trying to move modeler functions into Layout is the way to go.

Well not true. Modo started out as a framework(Nexus), not simply a modeler. It already had the framework for animation and rendering and everything that has followed. Modeler on the other hand is a very rigid and unyielding architecture based on low memory limits at the time it was created. To add in things like animation or rendering would require a complete rewrite and then you might as well just rewrite LightWave from scratch at that point. This is why animation and rendering were added so quickly in Modo (in versions 201 and 301), they were just exposing those parts of the framework that were already in place.

Marander
12-22-2017, 10:37 AM
The thing is, youīd have to work a theme out yourself in blender, since there isnīt even a genuine model workspace theme as I know off, not by default..havenīt checked around what is available out there though, would be easier if I can get hold of a model workspace theme, and then perhaps adjust it to my needs.

The default C4D workspace presets suck big time too for me but I love customizing the applications to my needs.

Maybe you could have a look into Blender for Artists, it has a different UI.

prometheus
12-22-2017, 12:29 PM
The default C4D workspace presets suck big time too for me but I love customizing the applications to my needs.

Maybe you could have a look into Blender for Artists, it has a different UI.

I might, also senseis format (not the lw guy)
But I also have the blender fracture installation, I end up with four installations of blender ..since they are specially designed ..recoded to fit the bill, not just additionall addons or themes, which makes blender taking up to much hard disc space unfortunately.

Cinema4d I have tried some years ago..but itīs price tag has left me not even trying it anymore, and preferably switching between Lightwave, blender, houdini and modo.