PDA

View Full Version : LightWave 3D Modeler Survey



Chuck
03-13-2018, 01:18 PM
As part of our process of continual improvement we are evaluating our Modeler package with regards to improving its performance in the industry. Your responses will be used to help direct our efforts for the next phase of Modeler’s development, so please be forthright with your responses on your modeling needs and wishes.

Some things to note: that we plan to work on Modeler does not imply anything with regard to what we may do in future in Layout with respect to modeling capabilities, and most especially does not preclude future advances for modeling in Layout. Feedback from this survey will apply to Modeler, but also to any future modeling advances within the LightWave 3D product in either application.

Here is the link to the survey: LightWave 3D Modeler Survey (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdZL9y8HP74M7NshTPSUcTlCNQbZawlyCZbO1gLPMKm 7XVGig/viewform)

The survey announcement is also on LightWave 3D Blog (https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2018/03/lightwave-3d-modeler-survey/).

Oldcode
03-13-2018, 01:25 PM
I guess I'll start.

Update of the hair creation tools in Modeler. The tools in Lightwave now are far far out of date and when I need to create hair for my characters, I've gone over to Blender. It's tools are far superior in being able to create the hair style I want with minimum effort, and Blender is Free!

CaptainMarlowe
03-13-2018, 01:37 PM
Done !

Chuck
03-13-2018, 01:41 PM
I guess I'll start.

Update of the hair creation tools in Modeler. The tools in Lightwave now are far far out of date and when I need to create hair for my characters, I've gone over to Blender. It's tools are far superior in being able to create the hair style I want with minimum effort, and Blender is Free!

Just to be clear, the thread is not the survey. That's here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdZL9y8HP74M7NshTPSUcTlCNQbZawlyCZbO1gLPMKm 7XVGig/viewform

We're not locking the thread, but will limit it strictly to discussion of what LightWave users want in LightWave Modeler. Period.

Oldcode
03-13-2018, 02:04 PM
Just to be clear, the thread is not the survey. That's here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdZL9y8HP74M7NshTPSUcTlCNQbZawlyCZbO1gLPMKm 7XVGig/viewform

We're not locking the thread, but will limit it strictly to discussion of what LightWave users want in LightWave Modeler. Period.

That is what I want in modeler.

jwiede
03-13-2018, 02:12 PM
Chuck, something's off with the survey, when you hit "next" after completing the first page, the second page appears to be the exact same as the first.

Also, in the list of rating what other pkg does better (incl. things that'd cause consider switching back), "Official Communication" is listed twice.

MAUROCOR
03-13-2018, 02:24 PM
Chuck, something's off with the survey, when you hit "next" after completing the first page, the second page appears to be the exact same as the first.


It worked fine to me. No problem at all.

jwiede
03-13-2018, 02:28 PM
It worked fine to me. No problem at all.

Odd, here page 1/8 & 2/8 were the same questions. Did you put anything in the "gaming" section? I didn't, wonder if that has anything to do with it.

Lewis
03-13-2018, 02:33 PM
So we should write here what we want to be added/fixed in modeler or filled Survey is enough ?

JohnMarchant
03-13-2018, 05:55 PM
Done Chuck and greatful you are asking us. Come on everyone jump onboard, now is the time to let them know what we want, like, dislike, after all we have been moaning about it for ages.

Photogram
03-13-2018, 07:23 PM
So happy finally modeler get attention ;)

Done my survey!

Revanto
03-13-2018, 07:37 PM
Fix ... symmetry.

Revanto

PS: There are other things that I have listed in other threads that would speed up efficiency and proficiency. If you honestly want a list on this thread, I can give one.

OFF
03-13-2018, 08:01 PM
In LW Modeler 2018 the performance of OGL is significantly improved. But there were old brakes with regard to the speed of the reaction of the commands - be it just a selection or transform, deformation, etc.
I often have to deal with the large models that clients give me. When the number of polygons exceeds a million and if the model contains more than a hundred surfaces (which is typical for CAD files), the work on such models is very difficult for the modeller's response speed.
My own everyday pain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XDYwMh9Ztk&t=2s

Photogram
03-13-2018, 08:33 PM
I know what you are talking about, i had this nightmare in 2012 with older version of the modeler. Think was version 10. was architectural revit converted to Max and then in fbx and opened in Modeler.
It was also very slow through the LWHub when switching between Modeler and Layout. But in Layout the speed was better at that time than Max and even Maya!
At that time i was wondering Modeler unification because i was thinking that Modeler and Layout need about the same amount of memory, that means about twice the memory so the system have more data to move to the caches and swapping if only 24 gigs of memory. I had a friend who has 32 gigs and no problem with the same scene. Now with 64 Megabytes no problemo!

OFF
03-13-2018, 08:36 PM
I now have 64 gigabytes of memory, 6 gb graphic card. But even with Layout turned off, Modeler have lags on large objects.

pixym
03-13-2018, 09:01 PM
Done…

Photogram
03-13-2018, 10:16 PM
I've just rethink about the survey i have completed sooner and now i just remember an idea i got someday. I was wondering to have the control on the light source in the modeler and then ajust details on my model and see the result more naturally with for example the light placed on the side of the model. Another situation it can be interesting to see the model completely lit with a GI ambience!

Ztreem
03-14-2018, 01:58 AM
I've just rethink about the survey i have completed sooner and now i just remember an idea i got someday. I was wondering to have the control on the light source in the modeler and then ajust details on my model and see the result more naturally with for example the light placed on the side of the model. Another situation it can be interesting to see the model completely lit with a GI ambience!

That’s what you get with unification.

Asticles
03-14-2018, 03:34 AM
Done

Mastoy
03-14-2018, 03:54 AM
In LW Modeler 2018 the performance of OGL is significantly improved. But there were old brakes with regard to the speed of the reaction of the commands - be it just a selection or transform, deformation, etc.
I often have to deal with the large models that clients give me. When the number of polygons exceeds a million and if the model contains more than a hundred surfaces (which is typical for CAD files), the work on such models is very difficult for the modeller's response speed.
My own everyday pain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XDYwMh9Ztk&t=2s

I feel your pain ... I'm facing the same problem and before all the fancy tools like sculpting, hair guides ... I want Modeler to be FASTER. That's what I wrote in the survey.

kopperdrake
03-14-2018, 05:30 AM
Thanks Chuck - done!

And yes, a faster Modeler that can handle millions of polygons with ease is what I really want. Plus lots of other stuff of course ;)

hrgiger
03-14-2018, 06:27 AM
That’s what you get with unification.

Actually thats more of a headlight feature which any decent modeler should have.

PeteF
03-14-2018, 07:01 AM
Done.

I'm an engineer and use Solid Edge, Rhino for model creation, (both handle a lot of industry standard formats). I purchased Lightwave, back in 2004, only for it's layout/rending. I only use modeler to assemble/bone/morph map for Layout. It's a poly modeler and I'm into Nurbs. Not sure if I should ask the tool to be something it was never intended to be. I'm surprised that it's core has essentially remained the same ever since. This is the reason I've stuck with it for so long, (I don't need to learn another application if I can help it - but adding Nurbs and the ability to import multiple formats would mean I could drop Rhino).

Romizer
03-14-2018, 07:52 AM
Done.
Thanks Chuck!

Chuck
03-14-2018, 08:31 AM
So we should write here what we want to be added/fixed in modeler or filled Survey is enough ?

Filled survey is enough.

Chuck
03-14-2018, 08:35 AM
That is what I want in modeler.

Understood that, but your post did point the way to two potential problems so I clarified. And I hope you put those wants into your survey response.

Chuck
03-14-2018, 08:36 AM
Fix ... symmetry.

Revanto

PS: There are other things that I have listed in other threads that would speed up efficiency and proficiency. If you honestly want a list on this thread, I can give one.

We honestly want that list in your survey responses.

GandB
03-14-2018, 09:24 AM
Done. Thanks for listening to the game artists!

Ztreem
03-14-2018, 09:51 AM
Actually thats more of a headlight feature which any decent modeler should have.

Ambient GI lights feels more like a rendering thing. I just mean that with unification you can model, light and render at the same time. No need to add specific lights only to the model environment, you know this as you work in a such environment.

Edit: Sorry for off topic stuff.

Skittixch
03-14-2018, 10:28 AM
Just filled out the survey and wanted to tell you that I'm excited to see some community interaction and soul-searching. Keep up the good work!

Snosrap
03-14-2018, 11:59 AM
I think this is really good Chuck - but do you really have to ask? It seems we've been moaning about Modeler for years. :) It really is a testament to its fundamental greatness that it is still in use every day by us. I'd almost rather list the great things about it that I'd hate to see changed - it would be a shorter list - but it would be a very important one. At the very basic level, Modeler seems to be a 3D sketching tool where you can just jump in a start drawing stuff - a certain directness to it that I haven't found in other modelers. Certainly not 3D Studio Max and not even Modo which is the closest to it I've worked with. So please don't lose that directness! :) The thing that scares me is that the new tools introduced over the last few years have for the most part been crap. One - Thicken - is outstanding! Another - ABF Unwrap - really decent - and Place Mesh - pretty good. Others- almost a total failure. Hate to be harsh, but that's the reality with those tools and my work. I think if you use Modo as "guide" and not lose what makes Modeler Modeler, you'll have nice modeling system.

imshadi
03-14-2018, 03:00 PM
Filled the questionnaire but totally forgot. LW should have tools to set and break smoothing normals betwen polys. It can import the vertex normals from maya obj's but it can't modify them right there? I find myself resorting to all sorts of hacks to get that fixed and it is a basic thing for low poly modeling that I find myself having to take to Maya to correct because Maya has tools for smoothing and breaking edges.

I find LW to be near perfection, so the things that it lacks feel especially frustrating.

Being able to save a color processed image more easily would be a smart optimization.

Adding objects with parameters would be amazing, for ground geometry, tubes and extrudes at least would be a great start.

Thanks for listening.

Gungho3D
03-14-2018, 09:30 PM
Hey Chuck: done ...

But in asking what other packages people were using for modeling, maybe the inclusion of an "Other ..." option would help.

I.e. we are not constrained to the short list provided in the survey, for example a number of us are using Rhino 3D for the simple fact that (with respect to creating precision surface geometry) it does that with tools not currently present in Modeler. Yep, I know that one day Boolean NURBS will find its way into LWCAD, but for now Rhino is the go ...

... not touting Rhino as a be-all-end-all replacement for Modeler, just the simple fact that it is a contender

Revanto
03-15-2018, 01:02 AM
In one of my suggestions on the last page of the survey I said 'square edges' like in Modo. I actually meant to say 'square corners' for the bevel and multishift tools. Please make a note of this, if you can, Chuck.

Revanto

PS: Aw, crap, I forgot to mention mirrored UVs in my wishlist on the survey. I mean when your mesh is symmetrical but the UVs, after they are created, are not. so you can chose a tool to make them symmetrical even when the UV island is on a weird angle.

raymondtrace
03-15-2018, 08:00 AM
I think this is really good Chuck - but do you really have to ask? It seems we've been moaning about Modeler for years.

The point of a survey is to quantify what should float to the top of their attention. This survey is likely intended to get a more general idea about user needs, rather than a narrow view of individual feature requests, as they are submitted one-by-one in the reporting tool.

Treat the survey as a way to paint a broad picture and keep filling in the details with the feature request/bug report system.

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?73226-Bug-Report-and-Feature-Request-System-Instructions

ianr
03-15-2018, 10:19 AM
I think this is really good Chuck - but do you really have to ask? It seems we've been moaning about Modeler for years. :) It really is a testament to its fundamental greatness that it is still in use every day by us. I'd almost rather list the great things about it that I'd hate to see changed - it would be a shorter list - but it would be a very important one. At the very basic level, Modeler seems to be a 3D sketching tool where you can just jump in a start drawing stuff - a certain directness to it that I haven't found in other modelers. Certainly not 3D Studio Max and not even Modo which is the closest to it I've worked with. So please don't lose that directness! :) The thing that scares me is that the new tools introduced over the last few years have for the most part been crap. One - Thicken - is outstanding! Another - ABF Unwrap - really decent - and Place Mesh - pretty good. Others- almost a total failure. Hate to be harsh, but that's the reality with those tools and my work. I think if you use Modo as "guide" and not lose what makes Modeler Modeler, you'll have nice modeling system.


Very nicely put, may I add, that is why 3rd Powers Plug-ins fit comfortably in Modelers Creative World they are easy to use & seamless

LW3DG can gain traction by buying them in,( they sure put the wind up Modo who reacted with their own wrapper.)


Survey Filled: Chuck.thank you again for this.

SBowie
03-15-2018, 12:10 PM
I think this is really good Chuck - but do you really have to ask? It seems we've been moaning about Modeler for years.I know you wrote that tongue in cheek, but - even though I'm sure the devs have previously compiled some lists of feature requests from previous discussions - would it really be wise for them to have to go back over 'years of moaning' to try to ferret out the salient and constructive bits? Does it not make more sense for them to start with a clean slate right now today, and basically say 'OK, you who are here, what is important to you now?"

Chuck
03-15-2018, 02:09 PM
I know you wrote that tongue in cheek, but - even though I'm sure the devs have previously compiled some lists of feature requests from previous discussions - would it really be wise for them to have to go back over 'years of moaning' to try to ferret out the salient and constructive bits? Does it not make more sense for them to start with a clean slate right now today, and basically say 'OK, you who are here, what is important to you now?"

Adding my two cents: it is actually a really good idea to "take the temperature" afresh on a regular basis, even when the conversation has been steady over the term. In this case we have to acknowledge that it hasn't, our fault, and as part of our effort to rectify that, now is an especially good time to do such a "take-the-temperature" survey.

Chuck
03-15-2018, 02:11 PM
Survey Filled: Chuck.thank you again for this.

Thank you for responding, and I will pass your thanks along to the developers - they did this project, I just shared the news.

Bitboy
03-15-2018, 04:11 PM
Filled out the survey and just upgraded to LW 2018 as well. :)

pmwhite
03-15-2018, 05:38 PM
Thank's Chuck for giving us the opportunity to contribute/ communicate our wishes. I have filled out the survey. good luck with this task.

Revanto
03-15-2018, 07:38 PM
The point of a survey is to quantify what should float to the top of their attention. This survey is likely intended to get a more general idea about user needs, rather than a narrow view of individual feature requests, as they are submitted one-by-one in the reporting tool.


WIth all due respect, though, apart from some of the basic tools that need fixing, feature requests can be crucial in an effort for allowing users to speed up and have better control of the modeling process. I don't think feature requests are selfish or should be ignored. If changes are made that can make users happy and allow the promotion of Lightwave as a better modeling tool then that's not a bad thing.

I think the issue over the years is that Newtek kind of ignored fixing the things that were broken and that led to Lightwave slipping down the scale of modeling tools that users, artist or otherwise, could put their faith in over other programs, whose companies were more likely to be listening to their users and fixing necessary problems.

This survey is a good way of letting the users at least get the feeling that they are getting heard.

Revanto

raymondtrace
03-15-2018, 08:27 PM
WIth all due respect, though, apart from some of the basic tools that need fixing, feature requests can be crucial in an effort for allowing users to speed up and have better control of the modeling process. I don't think feature requests are selfish or should be ignored....

There may be misunderstanding. I was answering a question why there was a survey after years of user "moaning". The survey is just a more structured way of assessing that moaning. :)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that feature requests are selfish or should be ignored.

jeric_synergy
03-15-2018, 11:47 PM
Done!

I wonder if the old timers will recognize my comments, since it's anonymous.... ;)


Fix ... symmetry.
That's a CLASSIC "low hanging fruit"-- hard to believe it hasn't been attended to.

CaptainMarlowe
03-15-2018, 11:48 PM
Something I forgot to mention in the survey is that if Modeler becomes more game-friendly (or AR/VR) it may be useful to look into glTF I/O format that seems to grow in this area and retain all PBR informations.

Ztreem
03-16-2018, 03:31 AM
Survey filled. Thanks for asking us, the users.

Revanto
03-16-2018, 04:51 AM
I don't think anyone was suggesting that feature requests are selfish or should be ignored.

No, no, that one was just purely me. No accusation intended. Over the years I have seen posts where people reply to users making feature requests and thinking of them as selfish or sometimes even suggesting a workaround instead as if that was the best solution to the problem.

Rev. :p

MichaelT
03-16-2018, 05:14 AM
Survey: done! :)

Snosrap
03-16-2018, 07:15 AM
I know you wrote that tongue in cheek, but - even though I'm sure the devs have previously compiled some lists of feature requests from previous discussions - would it really be wise for them to have to go back over 'years of moaning' to try to ferret out the salient and constructive bits? Does it not make more sense for them to start with a clean slate right now today, and basically say 'OK, you who are here, what is important to you now?"

Yes, good point.

jeric_synergy
03-16-2018, 09:17 AM
Feature requests should be, IMO, broadly applicable, rather than some narrow, limited tool. I'm always disappointed at the requests that seem, to me, to essentially be along the lines of "Eagle_In_A_Barrel.p" in their applicability. :devil:

JamesCurtis
03-16-2018, 09:59 AM
Survey done yesterday. Really hope this helps.

SophiaRoboKitty
03-16-2018, 12:18 PM
Oh I forgot to mention in my survey:

1 the touch controls for LW with touch displays. A: there should be some kind of online help page for it, as it appears to be missing. B: the point move tool doesn't seem to ever work with any touch displays, regardless of tweaks to settings/recalibration. C: The perspective viewport in Layout (sorry to mention here) should work the same way as modeler, by swiping across.

2 I've always been bummed out that the Drag Net tool doesn't work in symmetry mode across slightly asymmetrical objects.

wyattharris
03-16-2018, 01:57 PM
Done, thanks for taking the temperature. This already feels better than the silent treatment of the last few years.

I don't want much. Just Modeler with a megapoly engine or ZModeler with CAD features. :D

Revanto
03-16-2018, 08:44 PM
Feature requests should be, IMO, broadly applicable, rather than some narrow, limited tool. I'm always disappointed at the requests that seem, to me, to essentially be along the lines of "Eagle_In_A_Barrel.p" in their applicability. :devil:

How dare they leave out the good ol' "Eagle in a Barrel" plugin?!

Man, I am so old.....

Rev. :p

Anonymous101
03-19-2018, 12:47 AM
survey done! Modeler works fine for me. Some times when the file is big some tools like multishift or transform works a bit slow, but when hiding u selected parts, it works.

jbrookes
03-19-2018, 10:48 AM
Done.

Thanks for asking.

To be clear though, I really do like LW Modeler. Just needs some refinements and additions (specified in survey).

jeric_synergy
03-19-2018, 02:01 PM
How dare they leave out the good ol' "Eagle in a Barrel" plugin?!
Man, I am so old.....
Rev. :p
Dude, I'm 60.

You can use iain_r's lscript that generates/duplicates ANY mesh, given enough time (it's a script), to replicate the functionality of "Eagle_in_a_barrel.p". :D

(It was intended to make small things easy to generate, along the lines of "quad spheres" and such, not arbitrary complex geometry. IOW, specific primitives.)

(..can't stop rambling...age....) I always figured that some, rather angry, programmer built a TOOL that allowed him/her to code up "Eagle_in_a_barrel.p" quickly, because how else would one approach it, sanely? That tool might be very much more interesting than "Eagle_in_a_barrel.p", but perhaps not as amusing. Anybody know for sure? Chuck? Deuce?

jwiede
03-19-2018, 10:09 PM
There are development tools that given an object in a "std format" (OBJ or DirectX, typically), will generate C data structures (using various types, etc.) that feed the object data into OpenGL or DirectX. Given one of those, it wouldn't be that difficult to modify the resulting C to instead create the geometry using Modeler mesh APIs. I suspect something like that was done to create "Eagle_in_a_Barrel" (using canned geometry from a model), but perhaps a more general LW-specific converter exists.

For a fancy commercial tool of the sort I'm describing see: https://www.okino.com/conv/exp_ogl.htm There are more limited free versions around too.

jwiede
03-19-2018, 10:51 PM
Chuck, given that many of us are taking the time to fill out the survey, it would be a show of good faith on Newtek's part if there was a commitment to provide customers with any conclusions Newtek reaches based on the results (and, ideally, some synopsis of the survey results). That way, if the majority of responses received indicate that Modeler is, indeed, "fine" as is, those of us who feel otherwise would at least know not to expect any significant changes in development priorities regarding Modeler improvements.

Rayek
03-20-2018, 02:19 AM
This was actually a good survey. I am surprised by LW's dev team - good show, guys.

Snosrap
03-20-2018, 07:48 AM
This was actually a good survey. I am surprised by LW's dev team - good show, guys.

Why's that? Most of them are LW users at heart and know the issues at hand with Modeler. IMO this is a marketing tactic to placate users and keep them from moving to perceived greener pastures. After all it's a lot easier and faster to create a survey than it is to code a new Modeler. I'm here for eternity but others maybe contemplating moving along so this might quell an exodus. :)

samurai_x
03-20-2018, 08:50 AM
I forgot. Did they ask about moving modelling tools in layout or a unified environment? Or was it all about quick fixes to modeler?

raymondtrace
03-20-2018, 09:02 AM
Why's that? ...

It was a good survey because it was asking about the user. There were more questions to profile the user than there were to seek requested features.

ianr
03-20-2018, 10:07 AM
Chuck may I slip an addition >>>this : Modeler: Solidworks2LW exchanger that KEEPS Textures & Part Names intact.

Brings LW new model banks & fresh opportunies in Cadworld.

Rayek
03-20-2018, 10:36 AM
Why's that? Most of them are LW users at heart and know the issues at hand with Modeler. IMO this is a marketing tactic to placate users and keep them from moving to perceived greener pastures. After all it's a lot easier and faster to create a survey than it is to code a new Modeler. I'm here for eternity but others maybe contemplating moving along so this might quell an exodus. :)

I do agree with you on these points, and this survey seems to indicate that the team has had no real roadmap for Modeler for years and years now (as a certain ex-employee seemed to point out). However, better late than never.

What I do find odd is that it is relatively straightforward to figure out what a good modeler app needs nowadays by checking out the developments at the competition. I suppose they won't have time to implement everything, and they need to focus on how the existing LW user base (what is left of it) primarily use Lightwave Modeler.

People here have been complaining a LOT about how Newtek wouldn't communicate with their users for years and years. I decide to view this survey as a potential baby step in the right direction. Too much negativity doesn't help. Even IF this is meant to placate existing users, it shows they may be committed to further development and keep their users.

wyattharris
03-20-2018, 11:03 AM
What I do find odd is that it is relatively straightforward to figure out what a good modeler app needs nowadays by checking out the developments at the competition.
May also be a good way to find out what people still like about Modeler. The things that are Modeler specific that are worth keeping.

Ztreem
03-20-2018, 11:38 AM
May also be a good way to find out what people still like about Modeler. The things that are Modeler specific that are worth keeping.

That’s a good question, what does actually modeler have that others don’t? I can’t really come up with much even when I think about it...

hrgiger
03-20-2018, 11:48 AM
That’s a good question, what does actually modeler have that others don’t? I can’t really come up with much even when I think about it...

I can tell you that most people would say Modeler's immediacy or directness to components(verts,edges,polys) since there is no item mode or other sorts of hierarchy or other layers of the full dcc app separating the user from those components. In my view that sort of immediacy is overrated when you look at the vast benefits we've lost in return in almost completely stalled modeling development these last two decades since the original LW team left.

I sure hope the answer isn't simply to add new tools. The whole of modeler needs thrown in the trash and reworked from the ground up whether in a new modeling application or in Layout.

kopperdrake
03-20-2018, 01:14 PM
that’s a good question, what does actually modeler have that others don’t? I can’t really come up with much even when i think about it...

lwcad

jbrookes
03-20-2018, 02:05 PM
That’s a good question, what does actually modeler have that others don’t? I can’t really come up with much even when I think about it...

Modeler is way faster and more direct for modeling machinery than Max or Maya (both of which have cludgy and overbuilt interfaces for that type of modeling).

Another plus with LW is that it uses actual text menus instead of cryptic hieroglyphics.

And I agree with the previous comment, "LW CAD". Definitely some great tools in there.

Ztreem
03-20-2018, 02:29 PM
I can tell you that most people would say Modeler's immediacy or directness to components(verts,edges,polys) since there is no item mode or other sorts of hierarchy or other layers of the full dcc app separating the user from those components. In my view that sort of immediacy is overrated when you look at the vast benefits we've lost in return in almost completely stalled modeling development these last two decades since the original LW team left.

I sure hope the answer isn't simply to add new tools. The whole of modeler needs thrown in the trash and reworked from the ground up whether in a new modeling application or in Layout.

Yes, I agree with you. It is direct if you only use modeler, but not that much compared to others. Then if you look at modeler as a stand alone app it lacks scene awareness, rendering etc. so if you do more than just modeling you loose the directness.

Ztreem
03-20-2018, 02:37 PM
Modeler is way faster and more direct for modeling machinery than Max or Maya (both of which have cludgy and overbuilt interfaces for that type of modeling).

Another plus with LW is that it uses actual text menus instead of cryptic hieroglyphics.

And I agree with the previous comment, "LW CAD". Definitely some great tools in there.

Can you give an example of what kind machinery that is optimal for modeler?

Lwcad? That’s not really modeler is it? It’s like saying that cinema4d is great at fluids because of realflow.

Ztreem
03-20-2018, 02:46 PM
I’m more thinking of what kind of features or workflows that makes modeler stand out. Is it the mouse action center? The layers? Copy paste geometry? No gizmo?

Marander
03-20-2018, 03:23 PM
Can you give an example of what kind machinery that is optimal for modeler?

Lwcad? That’s not really modeler is it? It’s like saying that cinema4d is great at fluids because of realflow.

Yes indeed. And LWCAD runs so much better in the other apps.

Farhad_azer
03-21-2018, 08:11 AM
Done. Good questions were asked and i am sure it will be very effective.
Thanks.

Photogram
03-22-2018, 10:53 AM
That’s what you get with unification.

Yes but i still appreciate to have the modeler non-unified for many reasons. I wonder to be able to edit models in layout but i'm not ready to sacrifice any layout space to modeler viewports or menus. I wish the modeling tools and viewport to be on another workspace and most important i don't want to model like in other software and dealing with the very annoying locators. I like modeler because the feeling of freedom. it's easy to navigate arround in and out of the geometry. And the layers systems very simple to use.

wyattharris
03-22-2018, 02:18 PM
I can tell you that most people would say Modeler's immediacy or directness to components(verts,edges,polys) since there is no item mode or other sorts of hierarchy or other layers of the full dcc app separating the user from those components. In my view that sort of immediacy is overrated when you look at the vast benefits we've lost in return in almost completely stalled modeling development these last two decades since the original LW team left.

I sure hope the answer isn't simply to add new tools. The whole of modeler needs thrown in the trash and reworked from the ground up whether in a new modeling application or in Layout.

I was one of those that would say that. Then I got more familiar with SoftImage and realized how much knowledge I was lacking about the other packages because the nature of modeling had changed so much while Modeler remained the same. Problem is I'm not able to give a valid answer. I can see how much different the packages are but I can't see what I'm missing from them other than overhead while working. And this is not me saying, "Modeler is great don't touch it!" I mostly use ZModeler now and that feature inside ZBrush also doesn't have all of the overhead of other apps like SoftImage. So I will have to rely on others with more experience. ZModeler is, as always, that odd duck that works like magic and doesn't care how everyone else does it.

Ztreem
03-22-2018, 03:50 PM
Yes but i still appreciate to have the modeler non-unified for many reasons. I wonder to be able to edit models in layout but i'm not ready to sacrifice any layout space to modeler viewports or menus. I wish the modeling tools and viewport to be on another workspace and most important i don't want to model like in other software and dealing with the very annoying locators. I like modeler because the feeling of freedom. it's easy to navigate arround in and out of the geometry. And the layers systems very simple to use.

I see and its absolutly lovely that we can’t paint textures in LW as well, think of all clutter in the interface. It’s nicer to do it in another app where you don’t even see the 3d model at the sane time so its easy to concentrate on only the texture without the model taking up space from the viewport... lol! What ever...

It’s too late and unification in LW is several years away and I’m not sure they even want to do it. It’s time to move on.

jeric_synergy
03-22-2018, 07:12 PM
And the layers systems very simple to use.
On this topic: while the LWM layers 'system' is indeed simple to use, it is also rather simple MINDED. There are many many enhancements that were obvious needs from the get-go that were only, TMK, patched by 3rd party users, mostly, bless them, for free with simple scripts.

The Layers Panel has MANY obvious low-hanging-fruit enhancements that I find hard to believe couldn't be coded up in a day or two. Why this neglect?

PeteF
03-23-2018, 07:02 AM
Why's that? Most of them are LW users at heart and know the issues at hand with Modeler. IMO this is a marketing tactic to placate users and keep them from moving to perceived greener pastures. After all it's a lot easier and faster to create a survey than it is to code a new Modeler. I'm here for eternity but others maybe contemplating moving along so this might quell an exodus. :)

There's two camps of thought: Tinkerers, whom always want to play with the latest, and protectionist, whom want a solid, unchanging system to meet deadlines.

The grass is not always greener on the other side. Most folks are along for the ride with whatever their employer/learning institution provides. Freelancers don't want to spend the money, nor have the time to learn a new piece of kit, unless the present one is broken and affecting their bottom line. We tend to run things into the ground, past their warrant to recoup if possible.

I would actually stick with much older versions LW for the awesome community plugins, but a dead hardware dongle and license servers has answered that call. There may be little choice in the near future. Newtek will have to reinvent LW as a compelling tool to overcome a learning curve that will drive others away. The days of expensive software are coming to a close. Andriod/Linux and mobile are hamming in the nails on the PC paradigm as we know it. Blender, a free tool supported by folks whose motivation is not money, is looking really good now.

Photogram
03-23-2018, 10:57 AM
For me a big modeler upgrade would be the ability to open two separate project with different content directory at the same time. I mean two Layouts connected to one modeler each. This is when i need to open another project and not closing the actual i work onto. And when i need to merge multiple projects. I got this challenge last night.. I had to close my current scene then load an old LW 9 project from another content directory just to access the modeler to do some cleanup and then merge some layers to the current project.
I know i can load objects from scenes but that can result in a mess. I prefer opening the project choose the objects in layout and go to modeler with the selected object.

Ztreem
03-23-2018, 12:25 PM
For me a big modeler upgrade would be the ability to open two separate project with different content directory at the same time. I mean two Layouts connected to one modeler each. This is when i need to open another project and not closing the actual i work onto. And when i need to merge multiple projects. I got this challenge last night.. I had to close my current scene then load an old LW 9 project from another content directory just to access the modeler to do some cleanup and then merge some layers to the current project.
I know i can load objects from scenes but that can result in a mess. I prefer opening the project choose the objects in layout and go to modeler with the selected object.

Sorry, but yet again this would be no issue with a unified app.

Chuck
03-29-2018, 09:39 AM
Just a quick note: Our thanks to everyone who has responded to the survey. We will be closing it out and compiling the results, and yes, the team will be including the additional comments from this thread into the results.

kopperdrake
03-29-2018, 09:47 AM
It's great to know that Modeler is in the team's sights Chuck - please thank them for the questionnaire :thumbsup:

jeric_synergy
03-29-2018, 04:57 PM
Sorry, but yet again this would be no issue with a unified app.

I was just thinking of how changes in the Layer Panel's utility could open up a can of worms: for instance BEFORE you send an item to Layout, IIRC you can Parent/Child them in the LP. But, once in Layout, you can Parent/Child them however you want-- how is/would that be handled?

I just tried it:


made a 2 layer item, with a cube and a ball, childed the ball to the cube, exported to Layout, and it's properly childed.

UNchilded it in Layout, saved the object, and as expected, LWM layer panel did not change to reflect this (as it should not: what if you made the Parent a light?)

Made a THIRD layer, a Cone, childed to the Ball, exported to Layout. This time, the parenting was not respected by Layout, and all layers were at the same 'level'.

So, a can of worms, and indeed a unified app would not have these issues. (It'd have OTHER issues, but not this one.)

Since LWM has NO representation of the Scene at all, this is always going to be an issue without some serious handwaving.

erikals
03-29-2018, 06:16 PM
we'll need to be able to >

- tweak endomorphs in both L/M
- have a workplane option in both L/M
- have true boolean operations in both L/M
- be able to weightpaint in both L/M  (natively)
- be able to tweak polygon rounding in both L/M
- be able to use Lattice in both L/M   (natively)
- be able to lock layers in both L/M
- have advanced Array functions in both L/M
- have advanced cloning functions in both L/M
- have instancing in both L/M
- have Polygon Islands functions in both L/M
- have groups in both L/M
- have sculpting features in both L/M
- texture paint in both L/M
.... ... ...

i could go on and on questioning the Modeler / Layout split, and why coding things twice with slightly different code is a very bad idea.
anyway.

Revanto
03-29-2018, 06:55 PM
I just realised one more thing I forgot to mention:

When you have two overlapping meshes (EG two intersecting spheres) and one of those spheres have points, polygons or edges selected, the drag and dragnet tools don't work on anything that is hidden within other meshes. I would like to be able to manipulate covered but SELECTED polygons as long as they are selected.
Also, it would be nice to have a roving point indicator just like in Zbrush so we can see what points are being targeted when we use some tools.

I honestly think that is all I have for now.

Hope my suggestions/requests go through.

Cheers,
Revanto :p

PS: Thanks for listening.

robertoortiz
03-29-2018, 08:31 PM
My needs...
I am a graphics Designer/ animator that uses the ADOBE TOOLS all day long (Illustrator, Photoshop, After Effects etc)
I use Lightwave for all my 3d work.
I would KILL for better FILE EXCHANGE.
I get tons of work that i have to covert an illustrator vector LOGO into a 3d mesh, and to do this in LIghtwave involves jumping thought hoops.
Give me tools to help me convert RASTER files into vector.
Allow me to RENDER as VECTOR.


and you know what would be really cool?

Illustrator like tools to sketch and draw on a plane lines/ polygons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbbQl2sU-ag
And please keep it simple ....

droosan
03-31-2018, 03:02 AM
I'm glad this survey was still active .. I only just noticed it.

Put in my 2Ē ..

As others have said: thanks very much for asking. :)

Morgan Nilsson
03-31-2018, 06:07 AM
I forgot to mention something that is easily overlooked.

Selection highlighting would be a great addition, because as of right now sometimes it is incredibly difficult to know which faces are selected and which are not, turning on normals display helps with that though, but it would be great if we could get filled selection highlights.

In addition to everything I mentioned regarding the modeler tools, a context sensitive right click menu would be cool, especially if it is in similar fashion to what Houdini does with their radial menus. (Like drop-downs for whether it is poly modeling, animation etc).

Titon
03-31-2018, 07:28 AM
My needs...
I am a graphics Designer/ animator that uses the ADOBE TOOLS all day long (Illustrator, Photoshop, After Effects etc)
I use Lightwave for all my 3d work.
I would KILL for better FILE EXCHANGE.
I get tons of work that i have to covert an illustrator vector LOGO into a 3d mesh, and to do this in LIghtwave involves jumping thought hoops.
Give me tools to help me convert RASTER files into vector.
Allow me to RENDER as VECTOR.


and you know what would be really cool?

Illustrator like tools to sketch and draw on a plane lines/ polygons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbbQl2sU-ag
And please keep it simple ....

THIS!! A thousand times over. For us that work with lightwave modeler to create products for 3d printing this is a must. Having the ability to use vector files to help create printable content faster and cleaner this would be my request as well. Also when pushing lightwave to a newer upgraded application please insure that the basic options in lightwave remain stable. Things like banglue, bandsaw and for my 2 cents mirror.

jeric_synergy
03-31-2018, 11:57 AM
The whole "import vector files" has been mysteriously overlooked-- it's a huge part of the market.

JUST LIKE TEXT HANDLING. --Seriously, WTF?

prometheus
04-02-2018, 05:48 AM
Skin modifier, mesh that skins polylines/ edges. (look at blender) fantastic feature to allow for interesting complex structures, as well as starting up a mesh skeleton for characters etc, and with that comes the option to maintain the skeleton polylines as an armature, or for lightwave, as skeleton or rig, already posed.

Better rounding tool.

Rounding tool Flat polygons and edges.. that works like truefillet, free plugin exists..but would be nice if it could operate on line and curves.

Unigon tool (free plugin exist..but itīs with some flaws)

Offset tool for drawn polylines... that can creating wall thickness, or frames around drawn windows.

Line, curve tool that can work on surfaces to cut surfaces.

Curve tool that can be adjusted with mesh thickness ( see blender)

SCULPTING!!! (both modeler and Layout, better editing of guides, points in layout)
Ambient occlusion opengl, especially important when sculpting.

Boosting performance initially is essential if ever sculpting is considered.

svg import format with option to edit ctrl handles (check blender) itīs good to take advantage of free software that uses svg nicely, such as incskape and being able to do vector shapes in there and import, even though illustrator may be considered industri standard, many people may not afford or choose more cost efficient solutions that fit their needs, Inkscape can help with that..and a workflow between Inkscape and blender is working nicely, you get vector paths either to fill, close, or opened paths..and you can even turn paths to mesh, but thatīs a blender feature....so something like that please.

Tweak tool extrusions and move with option to use multipolyfaces. (currently limited to one polyfaces, edge, point)
A curve fallof when either setting a procedural displacement in modeler or layout, with default setting to
a good flat edge smoothness.

Modeler needs a way of setting a default surface of your liking, and it also need a much better range of wire/sketch colors, we only got a few colors to choose from now..itīs not enough.


Better symmetry tools.

Texture painting.

Live realtime booleans.



If wrestling with text modeling, it is essential that we somehow could start with some kind of modifier stack, so
text can have the option to change font and scaling without having to rewrite it, or vice versa..change written word without having to select new fonts.


"Some of my request is part of lw cad in some cases" so from what is part of that...if it could be applyable to native lightwave without too much hazzle?...just do it.

samurai_x
04-02-2018, 07:56 AM
we'll need to be able to >

- tweak endomorphs in both L/M
- have a workplane option in both L/M
- have true boolean operations in both L/M
- be able to weightpaint in both L/M  (natively)
- be able to tweak polygon rounding in both L/M
- be able to use Lattice in both L/M   (natively)
- be able to lock layers in both L/M
- have advanced Array functions in both L/M
- have advanced cloning functions in both L/M
- have instancing in both L/M
- have Polygon Islands functions in both L/M
- have groups in both L/M
- have sculpting features in both L/M
- texture paint in both L/M
.... ... ...

i could go on and on questioning the Modeler / Layout split, and why coding things twice with slightly different code is a very bad idea.
anyway.

Do they have a modelling coder yet? That's the first question. :D

jameswillmott
04-02-2018, 09:16 AM
Hi everyone,

As part of our efforts to improve the Modeler package, we recently published a survey to get an informed sense of our demographics. The reason we chose a survey was it gives us more structure to the data, if we just ask for your thoughts on the forums, we would have to wade through hundreds of posts by hand. This way we've got most of what we need in easily compiled statistics.

The survey was carried out via Google Forms, and was mentioned on Facebook and here on the the official NewTek forums. The response was very encouraging, and we recorded far more results than we expected, which shows you are all passionate about improving LightWave.

This is a serious effort towards the structured gathering of data relevant to our demographic, and is currently being used to help focus our efforts for the next and future cycles, to identify growth areas and to fix shortcomings. This is valuable information, so on behalf of the LightWave3D team I want to thank everyone who participated, for taking your time filling out the survey, and giving us concise and honest answers.

Below you will find the relevant findings from the survey, and we have included a link to a summary report. We have only included the raw statistics for now, as we're still collating the written responses. Many of you have also commented in this thread with extra info you didn't think of at the time of the survey, and we will be integrating those comments from here as well. This will take some time, but when we have a measure of the written responses, we'll post those here too.

Key Findings

Architectural visualization, and TV VFX occupy most of the disciplines Modeler is used for.
Games were underrepresented.
UV Unwrapping and Exporting to games engines were the most important outcomes for most of the respondents.


140980

prometheus
04-02-2018, 10:20 AM
I think that feedback report may contain only a fraction of user feedback, I myself really didnīt notice the survey until today..and it was to late to add to the survey, what I did was writing some long standing rants on specific workflow and tools to enhance, which I have written about for years, and it is focused on the tools, not the demographic or specific target of use as the survey is build around.

Thereīs always erikals vids to check..if you havenīt seen them yet, you guys have work to do :)

prometheus
04-02-2018, 10:23 AM
Do they have a modelling coder yet? That's the first question. :D

Let them worry about that, they managed to get some modeling stuff in the 2018 release, and I doubt they would start a modeler survey about modeling enhancement ..if they were not serious about doing something about it.

Nicolas Jordan
04-02-2018, 10:28 AM
Hi everyone,

As part of our efforts to improve the Modeler package, we recently published a survey to get an informed sense of our demographics. The reason we chose a survey was it gives us more structure to the data, if we just ask for your thoughts on the forums, we would have to wade through hundreds of posts by hand. This way we've got most of what we need in easily compiled statistics.

The survey was carried out via Google Forms, and was mentioned on Facebook and here on the the official NewTek forums. The response was very encouraging, and we recorded far more results than we expected, which shows you are all passionate about improving LightWave.

This is a serious effort towards the structured gathering of data relevant to our demographic, and is currently being used to help focus our efforts for the next and future cycles, to identify growth areas and to fix shortcomings. This is valuable information, so on behalf of the LightWave3D team I want to thank everyone who participated, for taking your time filling out the survey, and giving us concise and honest answers.

Below you will find the relevant findings from the survey, and we have included a link to a summary report. We have only included the raw statistics for now, as we're still collating the written responses. Many of you have also commented in this thread with extra info you didn't think of at the time of the survey, and we will be integrating those comments from here as well. This will take some time, but when we have a measure of the written responses, we'll post those here too.

Key Findings

Architectural visualization, and TV VFX occupy most of the disciplines Modeler is used for.
Games were underrepresented.
UV Unwrapping and Exporting to games engines were the most important outcomes for most of the respondents.


140980

Architectural Visualization doesn't surprise me much. I think Lightwave along with LWCAD is a very natural choice for Arch Viz.

One thing I forgot to mention in the survey is that the layers functionality in Modeler should be improved to be able to ctrl or shift select layers.

Chuck
04-02-2018, 10:50 AM
Let them worry about that, they managed to get some modeling stuff in the 2018 release, and I doubt they would start a modeler survey about modeling enhancement ..if they were not serious about doing something about it.

Several members of the team have worked extensively in Modeler, even during times when we've nominally had a team member mostly dedicated to Modeler. They can cover any development desired.

prometheus
04-02-2018, 11:29 AM
I must say, I am a bit surprised, about the survey comment from newtek..where they say they were surprised about blender being so much used as a companion, and with that they didnīt get my vote in the survey that I also have it as companion more and more, from the survey....


"ZBrush is a clear favourite companion application alongside Modeler, but we were
surprised to see Blender is such a popular companion package for current Modeler users."

So I am a bit Baffled that it somehow have escaped Newtek how much blender now is used as "third party" :) to lightwave, and that they Actually are surprised8~
I do hope they didnīt sat chained with blindfolds aiming only at lightwave code without the option to check other software :)

I reckon some features such as sculpting, and skin modifier, and live booleans that really doesnīt exist natively may be what attracts, and svg support and curve editables with full extrude, bevel support is also a part of it.

Currently with free tools as inkscape and svg export, I can use that rather than binding up with Adobes new subscription...and get a cost effective tool for doing vector graphics in inkscape, sendng to blender, then back to lightwave again when I need too, though a full svg support would be great in lightwave.

MichaelT
04-02-2018, 12:55 PM
I'm happy Modeler is going to receive some love and attention :) And I for one, have never been worried about you guys being able to cover each others bases. While on the dev subject.. please consider adding a driver for another 3d scanning software for NevronMotion, or a SDK that can replace the Kinect driver. So that anyone can create a driver. Kinect is officially dead after all. Just bringing that issue to the table.

Morgan Nilsson
04-02-2018, 01:05 PM
I hope NT realizes the most used area is Arch-viz because LW at its current state simply isn't that great for game dev and it needs to be improved for that area.

tischbein3
04-02-2018, 02:28 PM
Agree Morgan, I also see this is a snapshot of modelers current strengths.
But great to see the results of the survey released. This is the right step to a good communicated development.

tischbein3
04-02-2018, 02:41 PM
I reckon some features such as sculpting, and skin modifier, and live booleans that really doesnīt exist natively may be what attracts, and svg support and curve editables with full extrude, bevel support is also a part of it.
For me its all about perspective modeling and the whole drafting table setup you can use it for, (and a weird design choice they did wich makes it my goto application for (semi-)organic modeling.. but I won't go into details on this). Curve based modeling: I'm not that big fan of blender, there is also this "this could be solved better" feeling, also as far as I know you can't use it as a spline cage like modeler does. Sure for cables etc its ok.

raw-m
04-02-2018, 03:10 PM
Interesting set of results. I’m wondering where this might leave me for motion graphics, or how much crossover that has with TV gfx. Motion graphics has never been LWs strong point, I know, but always liked it’s results! I guess more modelling functionality in Layout (I’m not saying full integration) is where the future lies in this regard. Bit of an eye opener for me, anyway.

robertoortiz
04-02-2018, 03:35 PM
I hope NT realizes the most used area is Arch-viz because LW at its current state simply isn't that great for game dev and it needs to be improved for that area.
..and GRAPHIC DESIGN

Chuck
04-02-2018, 04:42 PM
I hope NT realizes the most used area is Arch-viz because LW at its current state simply isn't that great for game dev and it needs to be improved for that area.

The pdf mentions that significant growth in games representation is our goal. The team is aware that development is required for that.

jameswillmott
04-02-2018, 05:04 PM
I must say, I am a bit surprised, about the survey comment from newtek..where they say they were surprised about blender being so much used as a companion, and with that they didnīt get my vote in the survey that I also have it as companion more and more, from the survey....

This is the first time we've gathered the data in a structured way, we're not surprised that Blender is used as a companion modeler, but that nearly a full quarter of people use it alongside Modeler for their work.



So I am a bit Baffled that it somehow have escaped Newtek how much blender now is used as "third party" to lightwave, and that they Actually are surprised
I do hope they didnīt sat chained with blindfolds aiming only at lightwave code without the option to check other software


Ah, it never escaped us and we're not wearing blindfolds, :) but what we have now that we didn't have before is actual numbers rather than just a 'feeling'

Snosrap
04-02-2018, 06:19 PM
Several members of the team have worked extensively in Modeler, even during times when we've nominally had a team member mostly dedicated to Modeler.

Doesn't feel that way Chuck. :) It drastically needs a rewrite from the ground up. And don't get me started on those Sequence tools added half arsed. Thicken is truly outstanding but the others range from average at best to dreadful. I'm sure there was a lot of hard work put into them and I don't mean to downplay anyone's effort and to be fair I'm sure they were added as more of a stop gap effort until Layout was properly refactored to use modeling tools. But it also seems pretty clear now - Modeler and Layout will forever be separate.

jameswillmott
04-02-2018, 06:38 PM
Doesn't feel that way Chuck. :) It drastically needs a rewrite from the ground up. And don't get me started on those Sequence tools added half arsed. Thicken is truly outstanding but the others range from average at best to dreadful. I'm sure there was a lot of hard work put into them and I don't mean to downplay anyone's effort and to be fair I'm sure they were added as more of a stop gap effort until Layout was properly refactored to use modeling tools. But it also seems pretty clear now - Modeler and Layout will forever be separate.

It sounds like you'd have some great ideas on how those tools could be improved, we're always open to feature requests and constructive suggestions!

AnimeJoex
04-02-2018, 08:05 PM
LightWave 2018.5 is going to be INSANE! ;)
I can't wait!

Snosrap
04-02-2018, 08:18 PM
It sounds like you'd have some great ideas on how those tools could be improved, we're always open to feature requests and constructive suggestions!

Well James it's really just simple stuff. Take the Transform tool - the handles are darn nigh impossible to grab. On a 1m cube it's usable. On a 1mm cube - forget it. Also the contrast in colors on a mouse over is not great enough it's hard to tell if you've moused over it(which BTW should be user controlled). Here is a video I did awhile back on its issues - which still applies to the latest version for the most part.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnelOD6EtVc

jameswillmott
04-02-2018, 09:21 PM
Well James it's really just simple stuff. Take the Transform tool - the handles are darn nigh impossible to grab. On a 1m cube it's usable. On a 1mm cube - forget it. Also the contrast in colors on a mouse over is not great enough it's hard to tell if you've moused over it(which BTW should be user controlled). Here is a video I did awhile back on its issues - which still applies to the latest version for the most part.


This sort of thing is perfect, we can't fix it if we don't know about it!

Is there a bug report on this issue?

jeric_synergy
04-03-2018, 12:37 AM
I hope NT realizes the most used area is Arch-viz because LW at its current state simply isn't that great for game dev and it needs to be improved for that area.

Well, that's a conundrum:

plump up the area where the software ISN'T being used, in the HOPE that it will acquire market share going head to head against established apps and workflows,

OR:
concentrate on the existing strengths.

Looking at the survey results is a bit puzzling: LWM is NOT being used for game work (statistically), but the biggest concern is UV export for gaming engines? Are the arch/cad people, who apparently are the bulk of users, so satisfied they didn't have a wish list???

jeric_synergy
04-03-2018, 12:44 AM
Well James it's really just simple stuff. Take the Transform tool - the handles are darn nigh impossible to grab. On a 1m cube it's usable. On a 1mm cube - forget it
Good response.

I think jweide could use the technical terms, but this is indicative to what I call an "inadequate test set". Someone in alpha testing probably never happened to move a VARIETY of different sizes. Another such is the several areas in which the LW/LWM UI falls apart when faced with slightly longer than usual FILE NAME, ---c'monnn.

I don't know if there's a specific body of objects, formats, etc that each tool MUST be checked against before passing QC, but it seems there should be. All the extreme cases should be there (NO polygons, 20K Surface names, all symbol file names, real crazy stuff).

MarcusM
04-03-2018, 01:31 AM
Few basic things should be created anew in the beginning:
- import FBX normals smoothing
- symmetry (in all axis)
- mirror tool (in angles)
- live booleans
- rounder
- snapping
- UV tools (at least good as PLG tools)
- pop up UV window with tools (i work on three monitors... it would help)
- better background image workflow
- default material in Modeler as principled BSDF not help in modeling (make default material possible to change in general options)
- option autoreload textures (now need by hand after every change in PS for example)

Then few extra things:
- normals based on vertices
- retopology tools
- mesh reduction
- keep newest FBX version every LW release
- Ambient Occlusion in perspective view
- etc...

And if you think about game dev please correct one thing with Surface Baking Camera in Layout. Antialiasing and UV Bordes cause white pixels on uv borders.

jameswillmott
04-03-2018, 01:49 AM
Well, that's a conundrum:

plump up the area where the software ISN'T being used, in the HOPE that it will acquire market share going head to head against established apps and workflows,

OR:
concentrate on the existing strengths.

Looking at the survey results is a bit puzzling: LWM is NOT being used for game work (statistically), but the biggest concern is UV export for gaming engines? Are the arch/cad people, who apparently are the bulk of users, so satisfied they didn't have a wish list???

One way to look at the results is that people WANT better export for game engines so they CAN use LW for gaming more.

Also, a lot of archviz is now done using game engines, it's quite a thriving niche according to the ChaosGroup's archviz survey (https://www.chaosgroup.com/arch-viz-survey), so maybe archviz people want better UV support for Unity/Unreal?

droosan
04-03-2018, 02:00 AM
Looking at the survey results is a bit puzzling: LWM is NOT being used for game work (statistically), but the biggest concern is UV export for gaming engines? Are the arch/cad people, who apparently are the bulk of users, so satisfied they didn't have a wish list???


I can only speak for myself ... but for two of the companies at which I've been employed during the past few years (in VFX & interactive media), CG models -- whether they are built in LW, Modo, 3DSmax, Maya, etc -- have to be able to cross between any of those platforms, and may also often wind-up being used within Unity or Unreal for VR/AR applications ... and/or sent to texture artists who will paint those models in Substance, or similar software.

Thus, UVs -- good, clean, and organized UVs -- are a must.

I often just port my LW models to Modo or 3DSmax, at that stage .. but it would be nice to at least have better tools for creating & editing UVs within Lightwave.

rustythe1
04-03-2018, 02:30 AM
One way to look at the results is that people WANT better export for game engines so they CAN use LW for gaming more.

Also, a lot of archviz is now done using game engines, it's quite a thriving niche according to the ChaosGroup's archviz survey (https://www.chaosgroup.com/arch-viz-survey), so maybe archviz people want better UV support for Unity/Unreal?

yes we do, (i use for archviz and VR) so many times you get the "Lightmap error overlapping by more than 50%"

Snosrap
04-03-2018, 08:02 AM
Good response.

I think jweide could use the technical terms, but this is indicative to what I call an "inadequate test set". Someone in alpha testing probably never happened to move a VARIETY of different sizes. Another such is the several areas in which the LW/LWM UI falls apart when faced with slightly longer than usual FILE NAME, ---c'monnn.

I don't know if there's a specific body of objects, formats, etc that each tool MUST be checked against before passing QC, but it seems there should be. All the extreme cases should be there (NO polygons, 20K Surface names, all symbol file names, real crazy stuff).

Exactly! I'm sure there is always something that gets missed but the Transformed tool has sucked now for 3 versions. :) How hard is it to just goof around with a tool and see if it holds up - not hard at all. I honestly think LW includes too many expert users as beta testers - granted you wouldn't want newbies testing but there is no need to just have the guys making the high profile stuff either.

jameswillmott
04-03-2018, 08:12 AM
granted you wouldn't want newbies testing

That is a sensible idea though. Newbies can have valid input too.

Snosrap
04-03-2018, 08:17 AM
This sort of thing is perfect, we can't fix it if we don't know about it!

Is there a bug report on this issue?

There was. I think collectively we just gave up because it appeared as if NT gave up on it as well. And in all honesty it was completely understandable - modeling tools are being added to layout why waste resources on Modeler. Now it looks like that is not the case. I do think that management needs to come out and say one way or the other if LW is ever going to be a unified system or not. Just make a decision and move forward with it.

Snosrap
04-03-2018, 08:22 AM
That is a sensible idea though. Newbies can have valid input too.

Yeah, but then you have to deal with user error issues. :) Which may not be a bad thing come to think of it. The more user (newbie) friendly the better. :)

Photogram
04-03-2018, 08:33 AM
This is an idea for the Modeler!
But we need snapping...

https://www.mindeskvr.com/

Chuck
04-03-2018, 08:34 AM
Doesn't feel that way Chuck. :) It drastically needs a rewrite from the ground up. And don't get me started on those Sequence tools added half arsed. Thicken is truly outstanding but the others range from average at best to dreadful. I'm sure there was a lot of hard work put into them and I don't mean to downplay anyone's effort and to be fair I'm sure they were added as more of a stop gap effort until Layout was properly refactored to use modeling tools. But it also seems pretty clear now - Modeler and Layout will forever be separate.

Noting that we have people on board experienced and capable in the code and the subject matter is one topic, and is, please rest assured, all I was addressing. Your feedback is appreciated; and I would again suggest that with respect to Layout and Modeler, either/or thinking may really not be necessary. Just speculatively.

tischbein3
04-03-2018, 10:53 AM
But we need snapping...
As for snapping and CAD it would be cool if we get something similar than SolidWorks Releations (? "Verknüpfung" in German)
in layout and modeler, but I don't have a fricking idea how this can be realised in a workflow friendly way.

Snosrap
04-03-2018, 11:47 AM
Noting that we have people on board experienced and capable in the code and the subject matter is one topic, and is, please rest assured, all I was addressing. Your feedback is appreciated; and I would again suggest that with respect to Layout and Modeler, either/or thinking may really not be necessary. Just speculatively.

Chuck can you explain the lack of advancements to Modeler over the last 15yrs? I always thought it was ""we are adding modeling tools to Layout and don't want to waste effort on Modeler."" So what's the low down? :)

Ztreem
04-03-2018, 01:57 PM
Chuck can you explain the lack of advancements to Modeler over the last 15yrs? I always thought it was ""we are adding modeling tools to Layout and don't want to waste effort on Modeler."" So what's the low down? :)

I always thought the same but I realised it may not be true or it takes much more time then I could ever imagine. Lw2015 will be my last version until LW is unified and has a working undo system. I still think it is good that they did the survey and try to modernize modeler, but its too late for me.

Morgan Nilsson
04-03-2018, 04:03 PM
The pdf mentions that significant growth in games representation is our goal. The team is aware that development is required for that.

Awesome! Can't wait to see what will happen in future releases! I really hope you guys won't be afraid to do really drastic changes just like you guys did for LW 2018.

Snosrap
04-03-2018, 05:58 PM
I always thought the same but I realised it may not be true or it takes much more time then I could ever imagine. Lw2015 will be my last version until LW is unified and has a working undo system. I still think it is good that they did the survey and try to modernize modeler, but its too late for me.

Well I by no means am going to leave as Modeler is still capable even after so many years of neglect. I mainly do arch-vis stuff and household items so with LWCad it works real well for that kind of thing. But it needs so much to catch up as it lacks in so many ways.

I admit I jumped to Modo out of the gate, but I just got sick of trying to keep it running so I finally ended that relationship at 601. I've heard it's gotten better, but the LW Layout advancements have been enough to keep me here - I'll still beeotch about Modeler, but only because I want it to get better. (More like Modo but actually stay running for more than 10 mins.) :)

samurai_x
04-03-2018, 08:14 PM
Chuck can you explain the lack of advancements to Modeler over the last 15yrs? I always thought it was ""we are adding modeling tools to Layout and don't want to waste effort on Modeler."" So what's the low down? :)

They are probably focusing more on layout because that's Lightwave's stronger part. And resources are also limited.

Lino even mentions on fb that even from now they(NT) should focus on Layout because there are already tons of other modelling applications out there. No need to develop modelling in Lightwave.

Of course that's completely the wrong direction imho. Also wrong to make dumb tools that are quick bandaids, fire up and done tools.

Ztreem
04-03-2018, 11:51 PM
Lino even mentions on fb that even from now they(NT) should focus on Layout because there are already tons of other modelling applications out there. No need to develop modelling in Lightwave.



That also apply to animation & rendering, so by thinking like that you can just stop developing the whole package. You can always do things better and I think most people like a complete package instead of using many specialized apps. I think they need to work on modeling but I rather see it done in Layout instead of modeler. Time will tell...

hrgiger
04-04-2018, 01:50 AM
I admit I jumped to Modo out of the gate, but I just got sick of trying to keep it running so I finally ended that relationship at 601. I've heard it's gotten better, but the LW Layout advancements have been enough to keep me here - I'll still beeotch about Modeler, but only because I want it to get better. (More like Modo but actually stay running for more than 10 mins.) :)

Modo today is night and and day from where it was at 601 and now its procedural as well. The renderer has also matured from that point and is beyond where LW is at even 2018.

I do agree with Lino that there isn't a lot of sense focusing on modeling, too much ground has been lost in the two decades that NT has ignored modeling and there are other applications that already have mature modeling toolsets. That said, NT surely can improve modeling to at least improve some existing game workflows (like smoothing and exports), and also maybe fix or address some areas that were of biggest concern to people according to their modeling survey.

jeric_synergy
04-04-2018, 01:55 AM
yes we do, (i use for archviz and VR) so many times you get the "Lightmap error overlapping by more than 50%"

OK, thanks for that info, I learned something. --Are you saying this is a specific LW export issue, or a general issue?

(I'm freekin' AMAZED at the stuff Unity can pump out in real time.)
+++++


How hard is it to just goof around with a tool and see if it holds up - not hard at all.
Well, I think it should be MUCH more systematic than "goofing around" implies: some evil genius should cook up a set of Objects and Scenes that stress the code, AND since nobody can think of everything the crazed user base makes up, incorporate new pathological Objects & Scenes as they show up in the bug reports.

For instance: it used to be possible to CRASH the app by submitting various 'poison files' (I had someone get all upset about that term, but dude, sack up: if your file kills the app, it's poison). Certainly no incoming file, be it Object, Scene, Surface, Motion, PFX, MSG, KGB or whatever should be able to crash the app. Incoming files should always be parsed for validity.

A suite of stress scenarios should be designed to preset the software with near-pathological situations. I'm sure there's industry buzzwords for all of this stuff, and I'm sure its laborious to apply, but that's what separates stable software from unstable.

++++

Marcus, I like your list, but I think "Snapping" should be moved to the top of the queue. It's universally helpful (Unlike, say, sculpting). I'd hope the dev team gives it top priority.

++++
"Modeling" in Layout: there are some features that are SOOOoooo close, in a way-- Instancing leaps to mind. One of the enviable tools of Blender is the (don't recall the terminology) easy replication/duplication of objects, in a way that certainly feels like modeling. If Layout had just a few tools more, it would qualify.

One area where both LW/LWM are light years behind is spline handling, heck, both spatial and temporal although I'm thinking spatial here as I'm discussing modeling. MUCH better spline handling AND UTILIZATION, especially dynamically, would be appreciated. A quick tour of c4d should give the dev team the basics. If one tenth of the C4d functionality were implemented, we'd be dancing in the streets.

Morgan Nilsson
04-04-2018, 02:00 AM
Guys, knock it off with the "there is no sense in focusing on modeling"

Seriously, how often don't we see new small individual modeler apps that has a lot going for them? There is no reason to think LW modeler is beyond repair or too late for anything.

If you personally think so, that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, but please, stop with the demoralizing shenanigans. It doesn't help the developers to feel inspired to do it, nor does it inspire people to think of what might eventually come to their tool of choice.

Asticles
04-04-2018, 02:11 AM
Guys, knock it off with the "there is no sense in focusing on modeling"

Seriously, how often don't we see new small individual modeler apps that has a lot going for them? There is no reason to think LW modeler is beyond repair or too late for anything.

If you personally think so, that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, but please, stop with the demoralizing shenanigans. It doesn't help the developers to feel inspired to do it, nor does it inspire people to think of what might eventually come to their tool of choice.

Agree.

samurai_x
04-04-2018, 03:30 AM
I do agree with Lino that there isn't a lot of sense focusing on modeling, too much ground has been lost in the two decades that NT has ignored modeling and there are other applications that already have mature modeling toolsets. That said, NT surely can improve modeling to at least improve some existing game workflows (like smoothing and exports), and also maybe fix or address some areas that were of biggest concern to people according to their modeling survey.

No way. They need to do it.
Core mesh tools in layout are the basis for more advance workflows that can't be done today because these two appz are separate.
Been discussed many times no need to list it again.

prometheus
04-04-2018, 04:24 AM
For me its all about perspective modeling and the whole drafting table setup you can use it for, (and a weird design choice they did wich makes it my goto application for (semi-)organic modeling.. but I won't go into details on this). Curve based modeling: I'm not that big fan of blender, there is also this "this could be solved better" feeling, also as far as I know you can't use it as a spline cage like modeler does. Sure for cables etc its ok.

everyone uses the tools differently, I havenīt had the use of perspective modeling yet, but I might.
As for curve "based" modeling?

Blender isnīt curve based modeling, itīs just curves with support for direct mesh creation, I think they are great, any vector art "svg" from inkscape can either be created as faces or as outline curves/edges with full support at any time to make the outline or curves a mesh, heck ..you can even draw a curve directly on a surface..and activate the mesh so you in fact directly can draw geometry on to a surface and see the mesh when you do it(still a curve mesh) and you need to convert apply it to make the mesh further editable and sculptable when you are done.

Itīs not just for cables, itīs for walls, roots, roads..in a way we just cant work with on landscapes.
Using curve patching you mean? ... that I still have to go more in to depth with in blender, but I suppose you simply use curve nurbs and lofting instead.
Of course, praising blender with some tools doesnīt mean it is superior in every way, and it most certainly lack approaches and tools that lightwave have, I actually lack the Lightwave artpshere spline bridge tool in blender.

Snosrap
04-04-2018, 08:32 PM
Guys, knock it off with the "there is no sense in focusing on modeling"

Seriously, how often don't we see new small individual modeler apps that has a lot going for them? There is no reason to think LW modeler is beyond repair or too late for anything.

If you personally think so, that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, but please, stop with the demoralizing shenanigans. It doesn't help the developers to feel inspired to do it, nor does it inspire people to think of what might eventually come to their tool of choice.

I do agree. It's a real testament to the original design that Modeler is still "decent" today. But time, technology and knowledge have advanced at it's time for Modeler to come out of the dark ages. I think there is a chance for revival but it can't take 3 years. Needs to happen much sooner.

samurai_x
04-05-2018, 09:25 AM
Meanwhile in modo land the conundrum is that there are no significant updates to the "layout side" of modo for many years.
Every focus is about modelling. Lol!
These two appz should just merge when HGC lets go of modo.

hrgiger
04-05-2018, 11:40 AM
Meanwhile in modo land the conundrum is that there are no significant updates to the "layout side" of modo for many years.
Every focus is about modelling. Lol!
These two appz should just merge when HGC lets go of modo.

Well except that rendering in Modo is well beyond what it is in lw 2018 and of course procedural modeling falls within both modeling and animation. And theres actually a few nice animation updates coming in 12.1 mid year.

Titon
04-06-2018, 06:33 AM
In my eyes the only way i am staying with lightwave modeler is because of the folks at 3RD Powers. There plugins combined into lightwave Modeler are a life saver. NT should seriously consider working with these people because without the 3rd Powers people i would have jumped to another modeling app.

If anything people should consider looking at there LWBrush plugin. Basic modeling plugins that we all take for granted with a fresh look and function that Newtek has ignored for years. Along with there Boolean tool it's a must.

kyleprometheus
04-06-2018, 08:05 AM
Me? I have used Studio Max. (Found it hard to learn.) Ray Dream Studio back in the day. (Hard to learn.) Played around with Cinema 4D. Didn't grab me. Used XSI. Didn't like it. Un-intuitive. Truespace I liked. But Lightwave 3D? I fell in love with. Easy to access. Elegant power. End to End.

I enthusiastically filled in the Lightwave 3D survey. Lightwave 3D's modelling tools were ahead of their time, reflected in the 'hall of fame' tv and film work are still relevant for quality work. Strong in Viz and FX.

They've just completed an amazing over haul to Lightwave's already legendary renderer. Ergo? The team want to make sure they pour all that energy to similarly revamp modeller in the right areas. Quality 'brute force' poly modelling. Gaming. UV. Export to Gaming engines. Play nice pipelines. (i.e. play nice with a few key industry players. SDK for plug ins to fill in minor gaps, no company can do it all, compatibility with Z-Brush, Unreal Engine and one or third party plug in renderers.) Sounds like a plan. Everybody will want Lightwave 3D as part of their pipeline. Especially with the cynical price and subs of the competition. This is a moment in time to take on the competition through quiet engineering. Moving the '3D' tanks, quietly, on the lawn of the opposition.

Exciting that Newtek Lightwave are engaging with the community with a renewed focus on Modeller. They shared the data with us to show they are listening and have analysed the results. Therefore, broad hints about what they are going to focus on regarding the data from their own users. After what they did with with Renderer, a fantastic revamp(!)...a potential 'blow the barn doors off' release of Modeller is on the cards. They have the power! They have the technology!! Games and VR are going to be 'big.' With Lightwave 3D being used for only '13%' (was it?) for games that is actually 'good news.' Why? Because if you put 85-90% of market share growth on the table, that is a lot of potential revenue growth. :D

Lightwave 3D is THEE end to end solution. That's a keystone strength. Does what it says on the tin. Decent modeller. Kick bottom Renderer completely revamped! What's not to like? If they only give Modeller half the 'BOOM' they gave Renderer, then a lot of Lightwavers are going to be very happy. AND? You get it for an insane price! No subscription!! $295 upgrade (a lot less in English pounds!!!) was a 'tear your arm off' kind of deal.

I just bought Z-Brush 4.x and got the free upgrade to 2018...after buying Lightwave 3D 2018 for a crazy affordable upgrade price (I have 6, 7, 8 and 9... ;) Lightwave 3D will be my main package supplemented with Z-Brush 2018 and Poser Pro 11. (So the nicer Lightwave works with these the better for me and others. Both very popular applications...)

Seeing as a lot of Z-Brush users apparently use a few 'key' clay brushes...there's no reason Lightwave 3D couldn't add some clay modelling features of Z-Brush Core's basic version to Lightwave 3D and current modelling tools can't be refined. They have the engineers to quietly re-forge modeller. With great growth potential in the gaming and vr market, they have every incentive! And in doing so, they'll strengthen their positions in Viz and FX...

Love the outreach to the Lightwave 3D community. Got the balance just right. Can't wait to see what they do to modeller!

Chuck
04-06-2018, 08:51 AM
Chuck can you explain the lack of advancements to Modeler over the last 15yrs? I always thought it was ""we are adding modeling tools to Layout and don't want to waste effort on Modeler."" So what's the low down? :)

A remark like that ignores all the work that went on under the hood over the years - no, it didn't add tools and it didn't change the GUI, but it is the reason that Modeler is still relevant today and can handle scales of work that go on these days.

As for "the lowdown" - nice try. :)

hrgiger
04-06-2018, 11:00 AM
What is the standard for considering modeler still relevant today? Edges and Catmull Clark subdivision that were added in version 9 are still broken. Next to no game tools. Everything about Modeler is destructive. The only reason modeler is at all relevant after all this time is because of 3rd party tools like LWCAD and third Powers or a host of other third party scripts making up for what has not been done by NT in years.
When are all these 'under the hood' improvement promises going to turn into actual benefits for the end user?

PetGerbil
04-06-2018, 12:00 PM
Dear 3rd Powers, we would like to work with you by taking your ideas,removing your revenue stream from your plugins and putting you out of business. Thanks!! signed "Your friends at Newtek"

Is that the general idea ?

jeric_synergy
04-06-2018, 02:18 PM
Dear 3rd Powers, we would like to work with you by taking your ideas,removing your revenue stream from your plugins and putting you out of business. Thanks!! signed "Your friends at Newtek"

Is that the general idea ?
Realistically, how big can that revenue stream be? If LWG offered a lump sum payment equaling or bettering it, that would make some bizness sense.

Qexit
04-06-2018, 02:19 PM
What is the standard for considering modeler still relevant today? Edges and Catmull Clark subdivision that were added in version 9 are still broken. Next to no game tools. Everything about Modeler is destructive. The only reason modeler is at all relevant after all this time is because of 3rd party tools like LWCAD and third Powers or a host of other third party scripts making up for what has not been done by NT in years.
When are all these 'under the hood' improvement promises going to turn into actual benefits for the end user?Presumably, the 'under the hood' improvements are what has allowed plugin writers like 3rd Powers to create such useful tools and allowed them to work so well within Modeler.

PetGerbil
04-06-2018, 02:43 PM
Realistically, how big can that revenue stream be? If LWG offered a lump sum payment equaling or bettering it, that would make some bizness sense.

But then LWG have got to maintain it. Or not... :)

jeric_synergy
04-06-2018, 04:28 PM
But then LWG have got to maintain it. Or not... :)

Contract.

MichaelT
04-06-2018, 05:25 PM
One thing I'd like to see is that vertices don't pass over each other while scaling down. For instance.. selecting a polygon, scaling it down.. only to have a corner flip around. Where the vertex would had been better off either clamped to the edge, or merged into the same occupying vertex. etc.. Or at the very least.. a toggle.. to limit it.

jeric_synergy
04-06-2018, 07:12 PM
I think all the cases would be very hard to describe programmatically. Hell, if they could, that would have fixed Bevel years ago.

jwiede
04-06-2018, 08:30 PM
Presumably, the 'under the hood' improvements are what has allowed plugin writers like 3rd Powers to create such useful tools and allowed them to work so well within Modeler.

Except that the SDKs in question really haven't changed that significantly (also why many of their tools work reasonably well in earlier versions). If the SDKs aren't changing that much, then QED, third-party devs aren't suddenly getting all sorts of new capabilities in Modeler due to "under-the-hood improvements", because the SDK's are generally _how_ third-party devs access Modeler capabilities. If there were lots of new, exposed capabilities, that'd necessarily require significant new SDK changes/augmentations, and in general that's not been the case.

samurai_x
04-06-2018, 11:45 PM
Presumably, the 'under the hood' improvements are what has allowed plugin writers like 3rd Powers to create such useful tools and allowed them to work so well within Modeler.

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?155921-What-s-next-for-Lightwave&p=1535694&viewfull=1#post1535694


IMHO the praising of the plugin developement side improvements is a bit exaggerated. At least the C SDK, I can't speak for the python API. A simple diff operation on the SDK header files between 2015 and 2018 gives you the raw truth of changes. The big bulk of changes are of course on nodes and rendering, since those systems got an overhaul, but otherwise changes are quite modest. Especially on the Modeler side.

In fact surface related functionality even took a step backwards in some areas in 2018, breaking functionality to the point where I couldn't make one of my plugins work fully. I had to resort to undocumented code gymnastics to make it work somewhat.

I found that quite disappointing. Here they introduced SDK changes (nodes/surfacing) that breaks 100% of existing plugins with node stuff. A huge opportunity to greatly improve that portion of the API, but instead it more or less ends up just like the old one with a few minor additions sprinkled in.


TL ; DR: yes it's nice there are some improvements here and there, I guess more so in Layout, but it isn't the second coming of .. the SDK or anything. As the germans say, let's leave the church in the village :)

hrgiger
04-07-2018, 12:52 AM
Yeah not exactly sure who is making any sweeping changes to modeler or its SDK. David Ikea was the primary person they had for working on modeler and he has now been gone for a few years and even he wasnt allowed to modify the SDK according to him.

Qexit
04-07-2018, 04:29 AM
Except that the SDKs in question really haven't changed that significantly (also why many of their tools work reasonably well in earlier versions). If the SDKs aren't changing that much, then QED, third-party devs aren't suddenly getting all sorts of new capabilities in Modeler due to "under-the-hood improvements", because the SDK's are generally _how_ third-party devs access Modeler capabilities. If there were lots of new, exposed capabilities, that'd necessarily require significant new SDK changes/augmentations, and in general that's not been the case.Fair enough :)

zapper1998
04-07-2018, 05:09 AM
Done....

MichaelT
04-07-2018, 09:13 AM
Dear 3rd Powers, we would like to work with you by taking your ideas,removing your revenue stream from your plugins and putting you out of business. Thanks!! signed "Your friends at Newtek"

Is that the general idea ?

What? Did you just say: X did this.. so Y can't? Because that is the very definition of a monopoly.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah not exactly sure who is making any sweeping changes to modeler or its SDK. David Ikea was the primary person they had for working on modeler and he has now been gone for a few years and even he wasnt allowed to modify the SDK according to him.

Anyone tasked to do it. Why automatically assume only one person is capable? Why think that way? In any case.. it should be quite clear by now that LWG today.. isn't LWG a few years ago.

PetGerbil
04-07-2018, 09:27 AM
[QUOTE=MichaelT;1542896]What? Did you just say: X did this.. so Y can't? Because that is the very definition of a monopoly.]

No.

MichaelT
04-07-2018, 09:56 AM
[QUOTE=MichaelT;1542896]What? Did you just say: X did this.. so Y can't? Because that is the very definition of a monopoly.]

No.

That reply can be interpreted in so many ways.

PetGerbil
04-07-2018, 10:47 AM
Ok then.
No. I did not say x did this so y can't.

Both x and y are free to do whatever they please.

Chuck
04-09-2018, 09:51 AM
What is the standard for considering modeler still relevant today? Edges and Catmull Clark subdivision that were added in version 9 are still broken. Next to no game tools. Everything about Modeler is destructive. The only reason modeler is at all relevant after all this time is because of 3rd party tools like LWCAD and third Powers or a host of other third party scripts making up for what has not been done by NT in years.
When are all these 'under the hood' improvement promises going to turn into actual benefits for the end user?

I quoted the post I was replying to, and you ignored that and the entire rest of the context set by this thread in order to set up your straw man putdown. Snosrap cited 15 yrs, and I cited, past tense, work that no one has any excuse not to be aware of during that time frame, specifically the replacement of several major subsystems in Modeler by David Ikeda when he was onboard. Yes, they were a while back now, but without them a lot of things people are doing in Modeler today would be much slower or not even possible, even with third party assistance.

And the standard for my use of the word "relevant" was simply that people still use it, as they've said so here and in plenty of other threads. Not an industry analysis and pronouncement, just a comment within the context of this thread.

hrgiger
04-09-2018, 12:09 PM
I quoted the post I was replying to, and you ignored that and the entire rest of the context set by this thread in order to set up your straw man putdown. Snosrap cited 15 yrs, and I cited, past tense, work that no one has any excuse not to be aware of during that time frame, specifically the replacement of several major subsystems in Modeler by David Ikeda when he was onboard. Yes, they were a while back now, but without them a lot of things people are doing in Modeler today would be much slower or not even possible, even with third party assistance.



Nothing straw man about it and not even intended as a putdown, just stating the reality of things. According to David I, he wasn't allowed to touch the SDK in his time at Newtek so not sure what major subsystems could have been put into Modeler by him. While I certainly appreciate any 'under the hood' work that goes into improving an application. none of the areas I cited have been improved and many other things have not changed since I started using Modeler back in 2000/2001 with LightWave 6.5 so from an outsiders point of view, besides the addition of a handful of tools over the years, its difficult to see that much effort has been put into improving Modeler or modeling in LightWave. I mean in all honesty, I would think there should be some kind of acknowledgement that Modeling has not been a priority for LW development since the original team left.

SBowie
04-09-2018, 12:16 PM
I mean in all honesty, I would think there should be some kind of acknowledgement that Modeling has not been a priority for LW development since the original team left.Setting aside the fact that the fact that Modeler hasn't been the primary focus seems to be abundantly evident, and I'm pretty sure different people (myself included) have acknowledged that in various posts along the way. If not, let me officially do so now, for those who have been comatose.

Seriously, this can't possibly come as a surprise to anyone here unless they arrived in the last day or two. I really can't see the point of this particular tangent, save as some way to worm in a dig. You evidently think you have a point though, so by all means let's abandon all hope just when there finally is some serious interest shown.

hrgiger
04-09-2018, 12:36 PM
Sigh. No point. If its not outright praise, it must be a dig, right?

SBowie
04-09-2018, 12:42 PM
No, in all fairness I don't think so; it's just that completely redundant picking away at something negative that practically everyone on the planet knows feels like a dig.

Chuck
04-09-2018, 02:01 PM
Nothing straw man about it and not even intended as a putdown, just stating the reality of things. According to David I, he wasn't allowed to touch the SDK in his time at Newtek so not sure what major subsystems could have been put into Modeler by him. While I certainly appreciate any 'under the hood' work that goes into improving an application. none of the areas I cited have been improved and many other things have not changed since I started using Modeler back in 2000/2001 with LightWave 6.5 so from an outsiders point of view, besides the addition of a handful of tools over the years, its difficult to see that much effort has been put into improving Modeler or modeling in LightWave. I mean in all honesty, I would think there should be some kind of acknowledgement that Modeling has not been a priority for LW development since the original team left.

As Steve noted, we've made acknowledgements that we haven't made the progress with Modeler that either we or many, many users would like. Yes, that's the case. We do however, reserve the right to make observations and comments from time to time about Modeler other than just that acknowledgement. Please understand that none of those should be taken to contradict that acknowledgement.

Notwithstanding the basic case acknowledged above, the fact is that David was with us for a good many years, and did a great deal of work, virtually all of it under the hood in Modeler. There are a lot more things under the hood than the SDK. As well, several others of the team put work into Modeler on occasion, on large subsystems. I'm talking about information that was published as each feature release came out, not something that we kept secret.

As an example, several aspects of the selection system and of mesh handling and operations were revised in ways that made them able to handle more capacity and faster, especially as the complexity of the object rose. Those were big piles of code and in several cases the subsystems were rewritten from the ground up, which also involved changing code across the board in order to allow for the subsystem being rewritten to be treated modularly. Lots of work. But yeah, also work that in many ways ends up being invisible for a lot of users, if not in fact most, even though it may be affecting a lot of what they do, especially when working at large scales.

You're quoting David. Do you think he'd really agree that you should take anything he says to mean that you can justify an assertion that he didn't accomplish anything at all in Modeler during his tenure? Because as the guy who supervised about six years of that work as a project manager, I can tell you that assertion is just not correct.

hrgiger
04-09-2018, 03:07 PM
I didn't say David didn't accomplish anything during his time with Newtek, now you're suggesting things I did not say at all. I like David a lot and talked much with him outside of LW development. I only said what he told to others about not being allowed to modify the Modeler SDK. But as far as what David did say, was that a lot of what he did was to merely maintain modeler, fix a lot of bugs as they were introduced by work going on elsewhere in the application. Beyond that, I'm not privy to what other work he did but you are right, a lot of that work certainly is invisible to the outside user.
But its interesting to hear that selection and mesh handling were things that were improved because even today, that's a lot of where people say Modeler needs the most work in a lot of ways. i recall tumbling speed was improved in version 9 but editing speed was largely unchanged and that's the bigger of those two problems.

Nicolas Jordan
04-09-2018, 05:55 PM
Another must have feature that should be in modeler for us arch viz folk is a rectangle selection tool rather than being limited to lasso select which can make selecting some things very tedious.

droosan
04-09-2018, 06:40 PM
@Nicholas Jordan: FWIW, the 'Volume' mode is rectangular only, when used with the left-mouse button.

You have to click the 'Volume' button (bottom menu row) to activate that mode; the spacebar isn't set to cycle to it, by default (I'm not sure why) .. which results in many users not being aware it exists.

Nicolas Jordan
04-09-2018, 06:51 PM
@Nicholas Jordan: FWIW, the 'Volume' mode is rectangular only, when used with the left-mouse button.

You have to click the 'Volume' button (bottom menu row) to activate that mode; the spacebar isn't set to cycle to it, by default (I'm not sure why) .. which results in many users not being aware it exists.

I have tried to use it but have always thought it was a bit strange the way it works since it doesn't show a polygon, points or edges selection when you use it. It's just plain weird and unintuitive compared to the way other 3D programs do a rectangular selection.

droosan
04-09-2018, 07:09 PM
Well, yeah ... with Volume selection you are literally selecting the volume itself; everything either within (or outside) the selection is affected by modify tools.

I apologize that it seems I misunderstood; I realize now you are asking for a rectangular lasso, for directly selecting points or polygons.


BTW, the number of points, polygons & edges both within & outside the volume selection is updated in realtime within the statistics panel .. but I concede your point that this is not intuitive, by comparison with other 3D applications (or even the more 'visual' representation of LW's poly/point/edge selection modes).

jameswillmott
04-09-2018, 08:03 PM
Another must have feature that should be in modeler for us arch viz folk is a rectangle selection tool rather than being limited to lasso select which can make selecting some things very tedious.

Can you forward a formal feature request for this so it goes into our feature database please? I think it's a good idea.

Snosrap
04-09-2018, 08:38 PM
To be fair there have been updates to each version of Modeler that were visible to the user - it's just that they are few and far between. :) If I look back here are some of my favorites:

1. Subpatch interpolation of UV's in version 8. Previous team said it couldn't be done.
2. Catmull-Clark subpatches in version 9. Also my least favorite improvement once I discovered you couldn't mirror a CC once edge weights were applied. Plus UV and other issues. :)
3. ABF unwrap in version 11.
4. Texture falloff and mouse wheel zoom in version 2015.
5. Right-clicking while rotating, sizing and stretching to give more granular control. (Not on move? :confused:) Layout view. And last but not least - Point removal at the end of open geometry when removing an edge!!!

Those are the highlights. ;)

Nicolas Jordan
04-09-2018, 08:44 PM
Can you forward a formal feature request for this so it goes into our feature database please? I think it's a good idea.

Done!

Chuck
04-10-2018, 02:14 PM
I didn't say David didn't accomplish anything during his time with Newtek, now you're suggesting things I did not say at all.

This is what I took as you expressing skepticism that David had done the major systems work I referred to:


According to David I, he wasn't allowed to touch the SDK in his time at Newtek so not sure what major subsystems could have been put into Modeler by him.

If I mistook your meaning, my apologies; and if so, it would help me to know what you were trying to express, I'm not having any luck sorting it out to another meaning.

adk
04-10-2018, 04:36 PM
Can you forward a formal feature request for this so it goes into our feature database please? I think it's a good idea.

+ 10 on that request and tool
I was battling the volume select the other day constantly thinking ... why is this so un-intuitive and difficult.

Over
04-10-2018, 05:00 PM
Did anyone asked for symmetry in all planes? Including custom symmetry where I can use an edge or poly as symmetry plane? Symmetry also working while merging points...

Or even better, the possibility to delete and create layers in big meshes, 300+ layers without waiting until the other day? Action centers anyone?

I did, just checking how many align with my needs. :)

jeric_synergy
04-10-2018, 08:05 PM
If you have specific requests, submit them yourself. Then you know for sure.

Why would you not??
++++++++++++++


I was battling the volume select the other day constantly thinking ... why is this so un-intuitive and difficult.

Volume Select used to be my go-to tool, but when they took it off the mode cycle I pretty much stopped using it.

What are your difficulties with using Volume Select??

adk
04-10-2018, 09:07 PM
If you have specific requests, submit them yourself. Then you know for sure.

Why would you not??

Yeah I have done that in the past and will do. Just need some spare time as I have quite a few bug reports and requests for various software at the moment and this (altho quite annoying) is not the highest priority atm.





Volume Select used to be my go-to tool, but when they took it off the mode cycle I pretty much stopped using it.

What are your difficulties with using Volume Select??

As far as I can tell you need to

1. drag out your selection
2. go into the stats panel
3. click on what you want to select in / out
4. then toggle to poly / point mode in order to see your selection

Which works totally differently to point / poly / edge selection. Why ?

In my view it should simply be another global selection method (like the standard LW lasso) for points, polys, edges.
... and we should be able to draw out a rectangle, or ANY polygonal shape like other packages.

Trying to select a thin strip of points / polys / edges in among other points/polys/edges in a mesh that's not aligned to an axis is a royal pita.

jeric_synergy
04-10-2018, 09:33 PM
2. go into the stats panel
3. click on what you want to select in / out
4. then toggle to poly / point mode in order to see your selection
RIGHT. I had forgotten that that was the "new" (many, many revisions ago) workflow.

Back in the day, when checkered balls ruled the Earth, it was different, IIRC: possibly you could make a volume selection in either Exclusive or Inclusive mode and then switching to Points/Polys they were automagically selected. Of course, only Polys qualified for Exclusive/Inclusive treatment. I'm vaguely remembering you might use one mode, then "Select Points from Polys" for some specific selection needs.

Or something. Any other codger remember? It was certainly easier than now. And I agree: a better workflow would be nice. But once we got Lasso select (I even lived before that), Volume Select dropped a lot in necessity.

If a bucky-key constrained Lasso to be rectangular, that would be 73% of the way there. AFAICT, the ctrl-key/RMB combination is available.

+++++++++++++++++++++
FReq made as follows, but feel free to add your own take. Multiple requests cannot hurt the chances of implementation-- to the contrary.



RECTANGULAR LASSO SELECTION CONSTRAINT

It would be nice if it were possible to constrain the Lasso Selection tool to a RECTANGULAR volume.

As far as I can tell, the "CTRL KEY+RMB" combination is unused at this time for Selection. This would be a fairly organic key combo.

SHIFT+RMB also seems to be available, and might be considered even more organic, as SHIFT+{whatev} is a common rectangular constraint interface.

++++
I see that this is not actually what people are looking for, more of a PShop "Polygonal Lasso". Still, CTRL+RMB is available for that also.

Nicolas Jordan
04-10-2018, 09:39 PM
In my view it should simply be another global selection method (like the standard LW lasso) for points, polys, edges.
... and we should be able to draw out a rectangle, or ANY polygonal shape like other packages.

Trying to select a thin strip of points / polys / edges in among other points/polys/edges in a mesh that's not aligned to an axis is a royal pita.

Amen to that!

Ztreem
04-11-2018, 12:38 AM
Trying to select a thin strip of points / polys / edges in among other points/polys/edges in a mesh that's not aligned to an axis is a royal pita.

I'm not saying that we don't need a proper box select, not at all.
I just want to remember you of the old lasso selection trick. That the first and the last point of the lasso if not drawn in a full circle will make a straight line, this can be used to select thin lines of points/polys/edges.

141146

adk
04-11-2018, 01:30 AM
I'm not saying that we don't need a proper box select, not at all.
I just want to remember you of the old lasso selection trick. That the first and the last point of the lasso if not drawn in a full circle will make a straight line, this can be used to select thin lines of points/polys/edges.

141146

Thanks Ztreem, yeah I use that trick all the time & your angled box of points would illustrate the point perfectly if you wanted to select an inner (let's say middle three) row of points, in a single go. Adding and subtracting like that works well but it's a needless two / multiple step process.

In a singular case you need to lasso, in a very straight yet diagonal line, at least once through all those myriad of points.
Sorry I should have been more specific and knocked up a gif like you to illustrate this more clearly. Thanks for taking the time.

I'd also like a left to right drag action = everything contained within your lasso / rectangle / polygon , right to left drag action = everything contained AND intersecting your lasso / rectangle / polygon.

Selection is such a fundamental aspect that it should be as quick and intuitive as NT can possibly make it.

adk
04-11-2018, 01:53 AM
I'm not saying that we don't need a proper box select, not at all.
I just want to remember you of the old lasso selection trick. That the first and the last point of the lasso if not drawn in a full circle will make a straight line, this can be used to select thin lines of points/polys/edges.

141146

Actually a much better test is simply trying to select an cross in the middle of that angled set of points.
This is where selection adding / subtracting simply falls down.

Ztreem
04-11-2018, 02:17 AM
Actually a much better test is simply trying to select an cross in the middle of that angled set of points.
This is where selection adding / subtracting simply falls down.

Yeah, that is quite hard in LW. A proper box selection that works in perspective mode would solve that.

This how I would do it in blender. Rotate the view and use box select.
141149

pauland
04-11-2018, 03:30 AM
Some parts of this thread I would expect from bickering 15-year-olds, not adults.

Snosrap
04-11-2018, 06:30 AM
That the first and the last point of the lasso if not drawn in a full circle will make a straight line, this can be used to select thin lines of points/polys/edges.

141146

Yeah - that "straight line" needs to represented to the user just like Modo. I'm not sure why we would need to feature request some of this stuff. It's logical just to do it. Open Modo and start copying stuff! :)

gerry_g
04-11-2018, 07:33 AM
I came from a program that used box select by default to LW and lasso select and have never ever missed it, in fact I find lasso more flexible, I also have Modo and see no advantage in how it set up there, would humbly suggest if you can't manage something so rudimentary as selection there is not much hope for you. Selection sets on the other hand as in point, poly and edge selections being clearly namable in list form, not drop down menu form that is something else

Ztreem
04-11-2018, 07:50 AM
I came from a program that used box select by default to LW and lasso select and have never ever missed it, in fact I find lasso more flexible, I also have Modo and see no advantage in how it set up there, would humbly suggest if you can't manage something so rudimentary as selection there is not much hope for you. Selection sets on the other hand as in point, poly and edge selections being clearly namable in list form, not drop down menu form that is something else

Nobody is saying that we should have box instead of lasso, we just want both methods. Modo and Blender (and surely many others) has the benefit of previewing the lasso selection including the straight line when selecting that is what Lw is missing. I wouldn't mind if you could have a polygonal lasso tool as in photoshop, I think that would be more useful than a lasso.

SBowie
04-11-2018, 08:00 AM
Setting aside subjective factors, I think it depends to a degree on the type of objects you typically work with. I can easily imagine that in archviz, for example, a rectangular marquee selection might often be quicker than a freehand lasso.

jeric_synergy
04-11-2018, 08:09 AM
I just want to remember you of the old lasso selection trick. That the first and the last point of the lasso if not drawn in a full circle will make a straight line, this can be used to select thin lines of points/polys/edges.
141146
Right. In fact, when I used to teach LW, I made a point of imparting that small technique to my students, since it makes some/lots of selections Pretty Durn Easy.

Still, a proper Polygonal Lasso, ala Photoshop, would be very welcome.

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

I'd also like a left to right drag action = everything contained within your lasso / rectangle / polygon , right to left drag action = everything contained AND intersecting your lasso / rectangle / polygon.

Selection is such a fundamental aspect that it should be as quick and intuitive as NT can possibly make it.
While I admire the cleverness of this, I feel it's a bit TOO subtle, a little TOO "clever-clever".

EDIT: OTOH, if such a UI has been successfully used in another product, I'd be interested.

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

I'm not sure why we would need to feature request some of this stuff. It's logical just to do it. Open Modo and start copying stuff! :)
EXPLICITLY requesting features puts them into the system. With so many FReqs flying about, they need to be on a list somewhere.

Why does common sense EVER need to be suggested? ---Because it's so uncommon.

gerry_g
04-11-2018, 09:18 AM
OK will recant slightly on my abrasive position, I'm a tablet user and with a tablet lasso is very easy tool to use, I can imagine if you are a mouse user it may be harder to control and box select easier, so I will resist further insult by suggesting you all go buy a tablet and concede that the option of both might be good idea

wyattharris
04-11-2018, 01:05 PM
OK will recant slightly on my abrasive position, I'm a tablet user and with a tablet lasso is very easy tool to use, I can imagine if you are a mouse user it may be harder to control and box select easier, so I will resist further insult by suggesting you all go buy a tablet and concede that the option of both might be good idea

I will agree that the lasso select is one of those original reasons I switched to LW back in version 4 and I still like it but there are certain situations were a marquee select would be so much easier.

hrgiger
04-11-2018, 03:27 PM
In Modo you have 4 choices of lasso style. Box, circle, ellipse, or lasso. Right clicking and dragging will select only the front faces/edges/points in solid shaded views. Middle mouse clicking and dragging will select the front facing and ray cast select the backface components in shaded views. Just the opposite of middle mouse and right clicking in wireframe views. I learned how to use Modelers volume selection when I first started using it years ago and haven't used it since.

samurai_x
04-12-2018, 02:56 AM
OK will recant slightly on my abrasive position, I'm a tablet user and with a tablet lasso is very easy tool to use, I can imagine if you are a mouse user it may be harder to control and box select easier, so I will resist further insult by suggesting you all go buy a tablet and concede that the option of both might be good idea

Tablets are slow for pure modelling work. I suggest you try a programmable mouse to speed up your workflow. :D

With rectangle selection, of course its useful especially for hard surface modelling, cad work. I use it in other 3d appz and miss it when using lw.

Nicolas Jordan
04-12-2018, 06:38 PM
Some of us don't have a choice and have to use a tablet and stylus because of the repetitive strain injury from using a mouse for many years. I would prefer to use a mouse for most tasks if I had a choice but it's way to painful for me and not worth it.

I think the dev team should continue to keep all of us tablet/stylus users in mind when designing and developing Lightwave.

Snosrap
04-12-2018, 09:29 PM
I think the dev team should continue to keep all of us tablet/stylus users in mind when designing and developing Lightwave.

100% agree!

samurai_x
04-13-2018, 05:02 AM
Some of us don't have a choice and have to use a tablet and stylus because of the repetitive strain injury from using a mouse for many years. I would prefer to use a mouse for most tasks if I had a choice but it's way to painful for me and not worth it.

I think the dev team should continue to keep all of us tablet/stylus users in mind when designing and developing Lightwave.

Not saying to remove tablet support.
I'm saying there's hope for gerry_g to speed up his workflow with a programmable mouse. :D

gerry_g
04-13-2018, 07:14 AM
if you think a mouse is faster than a pen your crazy, as in matter of fact not opinion, only thing a mouse is good for is loading your tablet drivers to get it going, watched a woman on Lynda.com once being forced to go through an Adobe tutorial with mouse once, she complained bitterly it was totally useless and likened it having to use a bar of soap to run a computer, I'd say it was worse than that, at least a bar of soap is something you can wash you hands with. :-)

wyattharris
04-13-2018, 03:19 PM
Maybe for sculpting or painting, but straight point/poly modeling? Mouse is much more accurate.
Unless you mean navigating the various UIs, but you should be using hotkeys for that. ;)

gerry_g
04-13-2018, 04:38 PM
well after fifteen years of using a tablet I now know where I am going wrong, thanks you for that...............I guess it boils down to temperament, I am and was historically trained as an artist, my motor skills are high, a tablet is natural for me as it replaces the pen, pencil or brush i once used, my skill and precision are excellent, people who don't draw find even a pencil difficult to control, for people like that the a mouse offers a steadying influence and a damper to the uncertain movement of there hand, so yes they find it more accurate, for me it's clumsy and slows me down. A tablet is way faster than a mouse but you have to practice to gain that speed, I was far less accurate with a tablet for around the first one to two months and I suspect this is why most people stick with their mouse because they have tried a tablet and gone holly crap this is useless, its your loss, I have no interest in preaching the virtue of a tablet to you, if you are happy with what you use it's fine by me

Qexit
04-13-2018, 04:58 PM
It's just 'horses for courses'. For some people using a mouse is the best option, for others using a tablet is the best option. There is no absolute answer here as both work best for different people. At the end of the day all anyone can really say is 'This works best for me, your experience may be different' ....and leave it at that :)

jeric_synergy
04-13-2018, 05:59 PM
The UI is why I'd probably never use the tablet. "Clicking" with a stylus is too dicey FOR ME.

tburbage
04-23-2018, 12:12 AM
Hi everyone,

As part of our efforts to improve the Modeler package, we recently published a survey to get an informed sense of our demographics. The reason we chose a survey was it gives us more structure to the data, if we just ask for your thoughts on the forums, we would have to wade through hundreds of posts by hand. This way we've got most of what we need in easily compiled statistics.

The survey was carried out via Google Forms, and was mentioned on Facebook and here on the the official NewTek forums. The response was very encouraging, and we recorded far more results than we expected, which shows you are all passionate about improving LightWave.

This is a serious effort towards the structured gathering of data relevant to our demographic, and is currently being used to help focus our efforts for the next and future cycles, to identify growth areas and to fix shortcomings. This is valuable information, so on behalf of the LightWave3D team I want to thank everyone who participated, for taking your time filling out the survey, and giving us concise and honest answers.

Below you will find the relevant findings from the survey, and we have included a link to a summary report. We have only included the raw statistics for now, as we're still collating the written responses. Many of you have also commented in this thread with extra info you didn't think of at the time of the survey, and we will be integrating those comments from here as well. This will take some time, but when we have a measure of the written responses, we'll post those here too.

Key Findings

Architectural visualization, and TV VFX occupy most of the disciplines Modeler is used for.
Games were underrepresented.
UV Unwrapping and Exporting to games engines were the most important outcomes for most of the respondents.


140980

Thanks for reporting the results of the survey.
Was it mentioned how large the survey sample set was? I'm just curious to know at least whether "hundreds" or "thousands" replied. Surveys are tricky of course, because the answers you get can only relate to the questions asked/choices provided, and they only tell you within that constraint what those who were actually motivated to respond think.

Had 3D-Coat been included in the modeling packages used, I think it would have registered pretty strongly. It is a good companion app to LW.

I suspect the "Hobbyist" category is under-reported, and the VFX category over-reported. Had an Other category with a write-in been provided, it would have given you a more nuanced view.

I felt like the survey missed the mark a bit by not trying to gauge how important advancement in Subdivision Surface tech is to folks (i.e. Catmull-Clark), including fuller edge support (edge selection sets) and interactive edge "crease" weighting. For VFX and other off-line render oriented work, SubD is still a major requirement. It also did not ask about key UX issues that are really important to me, like general UI/UX modernization, dockability of major panels, HiDPI support.

Hope you'll share with us what the game plan is once you get your plans in place.

JohnMarchant
04-23-2018, 02:30 AM
Thanks for reporting the results of the survey.
Was it mentioned how large the survey sample set was? I'm just curious to know at least whether "hundreds" or "thousands" replied. Surveys are tricky of course, because the answers you get can only relate to the questions asked/choices provided, and they only tell you within that constraint what those who were actually motivated to respond think.

Had 3D-Coat been included in the modeling packages used, I think it would have registered pretty strongly. It is a good companion app to LW.

I suspect the "Hobbyist" category is under-reported, and the VFX category over-reported. Had an Other category with a write-in been provided, it would have given you a more nuanced view.

I felt like the survey missed the mark a bit by not trying to gauge how important advancement in Subdivision Surface tech is to folks (i.e. Catmull-Clark), including fuller edge support (edge selection sets) and interactive edge "crease" weighting. For VFX and other off-line render oriented work, SubD is still a major requirement. It also did not ask about key UX issues that are really important to me, like general UI/UX modernization, dockability of major panels, HiDPI support.

Hope you'll share with us what the game plan is once you get your plans in place.

Agreed, and especially the Hobbyist v VFX and the UI.

robertoortiz
04-23-2018, 05:26 AM
Agreed, and especially the Hobbyist v VFX and the UI.

and I would add the Graphic Design/ Illustration Market. Hell the Graohic design Market is mutiple times BIGGER than the VFX market.

JohnMarchant
04-23-2018, 05:53 AM
Indeed Roberto

Gungho3D
04-23-2018, 08:57 PM
well after fifteen years of using a tablet I now know where I am going wrong, thanks you for that...............I guess it boils down to temperament, I am and was historically trained as an artist, my motor skills are high, a tablet is natural for me as it replaces the pen, pencil or brush i once used, my skill and precision are excellent, people who don't draw find even a pencil difficult to control, for people like that the a mouse offers a steadying influence and a damper to the uncertain movement of there hand, so yes they find it more accurate, for me it's clumsy and slows me down. A tablet is way faster than a mouse but you have to practice to gain that speed, I was far less accurate with a tablet for around the first one to two months and I suspect this is why most people stick with their mouse because they have tried a tablet and gone holly crap this is useless, its your loss, I have no interest in preaching the virtue of a tablet to you, if you are happy with what you use it's fine by me
Some of the best insights come from people who know because they "can do." That's the most informative thing I've read from anyone concerning where and how a tablet can shine ... not that I use one, but the first hand insight has value.

samurai_x
04-23-2018, 10:30 PM
well after fifteen years of using a tablet I now know where I am going wrong, thanks you for that...............I guess it boils down to temperament, I am and was historically trained as an artist, my motor skills are high, a tablet is natural for me as it replaces the pen, pencil or brush i once used, my skill and precision are excellent, people who don't draw find even a pencil difficult to control, for people like that the a mouse offers a steadying influence and a damper to the uncertain movement of there hand, so yes they find it more accurate, for me it's clumsy and slows me down. A tablet is way faster than a mouse but you have to practice to gain that speed, I was far less accurate with a tablet for around the first one to two months and I suspect this is why most people stick with their mouse because they have tried a tablet and gone holly crap this is useless, its your loss, I have no interest in preaching the virtue of a tablet to you, if you are happy with what you use it's fine by me

Aren't a lot of people here historically trained artists? I know I was studying fine arts and architecture as a double degree. Used traditional medium for painting and T square for drafting.
Waste of money imo when people who can't draw now can be just as good as artists.
I used a "tablet" for a very very long time up to now since zbrush 2.0. Longer than 15 years counting "traditional media". For lightwave its slow.

15 years of tablet use isn't going to beat pre-programmed mouse buttons that's nano seconds to execute than keyboard and tablet combo in lw. Right tool for the job. :D

hypersuperduper
04-24-2018, 12:34 AM
Horses for courses. I had a colleague who loved working in illustrator with his laptop touchpad, and he was really good at what he did. Me, if I didn’t get to use a tablet I would chew my fingers off. Out of curiosity, what can programmable mouse buttons do that programmable tablet/stylus buttons can’t? Is it just that there are usually more of them under your right hand?

wyattharris
04-24-2018, 02:50 PM
Aren't a lot of people here historically trained artists? I know I was studying fine arts and architecture as a double degree. Used traditional medium for painting and T square for drafting.
Waste of money imo when people who can't draw now can be just as good as artists.
I used a "tablet" for a very very long time up to now since zbrush 2.0. Longer than 15 years counting "traditional media". For lightwave its slow.

15 years of tablet use isn't going to beat pre-programmed mouse buttons that's nano seconds to execute than keyboard and tablet combo in lw. Right tool for the job. :D

To be fair to Gerry_g, I was just yanking his chain. I'm sure he's fantastic on a tablet.
As a career IT guy and a former pro fps gamer the accuracy of the mouse for clicking... anything whether its menu items or vertexes is hard to beat. I got my first Wacom in 1996 (ArtZ II) and I remember LW not handling it very well. Actually, it was kind of bonkers flying all over the place so I didn't bother after that. I'm sure its much better now. ;)

But then there's something far superior to the mouse and tablet, hotkeys!
(Only in regards to the interface of course. hehe)

That ArtZ II still works by the way, Wacom stopped updating the drivers so I had to move on.

lwaddict
05-10-2018, 04:01 PM
Period.

LOL

hrgiger
08-05-2018, 04:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbXtNElghy0&feature=em-comments

gar26lw
08-06-2018, 05:50 AM
excellent vid hrgiger. covered all the main sticking points. LWG - there you go.

Titon
08-06-2018, 07:05 AM
Yes awesome breakdown of just about everything that needs improvement in modeler. Excellent hrgiger.

ianr
08-06-2018, 09:28 AM
Top Bannana HR, hope they(LW3DG) don't slip uP!

rcallicotte
08-06-2018, 01:41 PM
Investment of money and time seems lost. What's the scoop, Newtek?

gar26lw
08-07-2018, 09:11 AM
you know, id love an lxo IO for lightwave

Titon
08-11-2018, 05:27 AM
you know, id love an lxo IO for lightwave

I second that!

pmwhite
08-16-2018, 04:08 PM
I agree with All you said in your video. In addition, I would like to see an option for all tools to only create quads, I.e. ensure subpatches don't break while using any tools on it. Id also like to see tools to make it easier to create any shape holes in subpatches, while maintaining an all quad mesh.

hrgiger
08-16-2018, 04:27 PM
I agree with All you said in your video. In addition, I would like to see an option for all tools to only create quads, I.e. ensure subpatches don't break while using any tools on it. Id also like to see tools to make it easier to create any shape holes in subpatches, while maintaining an all quad mesh.

Well as I said in the video, there's no reason for subdivision not to be able to handle ngons. The 3 or 4 point polygon limit for subpatches is a longstanding LW limitation and they should strive to make new subdivision algorithms without the limitations that the current 2 SubD routines have.

That said, it's really impractical for tools to only create quad meshes, as there are reasons to use both triangles and ngons in a lot of cases. Not only that, but the software would have to be incredibly smart to work in most situations without recreating areas of the mesh where the maintaining of quads would be impossible or incredibly difficult. As far as creating holes in subdivision meshes, a lot of the solutions out there for this type of thing are procedural and without any type of procedural system in Modeler, the best you can hope for is already available with Meta Mesh from 3rd powers. The problem there, which I also mentioned in the video is that once you commit to that Boolean operation, you're pretty much locked into it. This is why procedural is so important. Really the best methodology when using Modeler in these situations is to plan ahead and create the divisions needed to support the hole structure.

jeric_synergy
08-17-2018, 09:37 AM
pmwhite, making tools that would maintain all-quads would be incredibly difficult.

IF you need an all-quads mesh for SURFACING (not so much for deformation) you can Freeze a Catmull-Clark mesh at CC-Level 1 and it will be (AFAICT) always all-quads: it'll be heavy and the polyflow may not be great, but it will be all-quads.

Nomen140
09-21-2018, 06:54 AM
improve the point and edge selections.

jeric_synergy
09-21-2018, 11:09 AM
improve the point and edge selections.

In what way?

(Saying "push the magic "Make Better" button" isn't all that informative.)

Philbert
10-13-2018, 03:45 AM
I actually just noticed this survey and filled it out. A little late. I notice the list of "other programs you use" doesn't include 3D-Coat so I have to write it in.

jbrookes
10-13-2018, 06:29 PM
I suppose I should mention that a tool like Blender's Bend feature for cylinders would make the task of creating hand rails a lot easier (and more precise).