PDA

View Full Version : Why why why? Why most modeller tools are one and done?



Dennik
03-29-2018, 07:24 PM
I finally decided to buy the upgrade today, last few days of the reduced price.
Most of the additions in layout were awesome. I can't wait to play more with them. It trully feels like a brand new app to be honest.
Then I decided to check the very few additions in Modeler, starting with the lattice tool.
I already have the "other" lattice tool for layout so I was interested to see what this thing does.
And then I realized the ancient problematic feature that most modeler tools have.... They can only be applied once so you have to plan ahead for that 1 deformation and make sure it works out that 1 time you use it.
You can't revisit it and continue refining where you left it, once the tool is dropped.
I'm a 20 years LW user who mostly uses modeler so I shouldn't complain about something that I'm used to by now.
But it is Lattice modifier. It should act as a modifier taking example from other applications who had it first.
Why do you have to Lightwavefy everything darn it! :-D
Excuse the rant. I would have saved some info about the state of the modifier on some custom vertex layer if it was possible programmatically. That's all.
It is never too late to start adding some modeling tools states inside the lwo format.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-29-2018, 07:57 PM
Create a new morph map, add the lattice tool, then apply the endomorph in Layout. Not exactly the same but still non-destructive.

The 3rd Powers lattice is excellent and extremely powerful.

erikals
03-30-2018, 03:17 AM
regarding Lattice in Modeler, and duplicating Lattice functions from Layout,

the only way to solve these kind of obstacles over time, would be to use the same code for Modeler and Layout,
or use 1 app code, like Maya/Max/Blender/C4D/Modo/Houdini

the upcoming Modeler upgrade will repeat what NewTek did in 1995. (Duplicate Code / Incompatible Code)

if you can look past this, M/L should serve you fine.
for people annoyed by this answer, sorry, but the guy asked, thereby the reply.

i'm not saying that this makes LightWave redundant, not at all, but it is definitely The Achilles heel of LightWave.


------------

Chris provides a good alternative solution, i use this trick in similar cases

jaxtone
03-30-2018, 11:10 PM
Not to being abusive to the team at NEWTEK but these are one of the things I still feel like I am going to wait until Lightwave 2030 to update. Some parts of Lightwave that have been a reality in competitive softwares seems to stay in the ancient history of 3D.

I wonder what kind if thoughts among the developing team leaders that make things that could be useful for the users stand totally still for decades?

Could it be so easy that some parts of NEWTEK´s 3D-developers are stuck in the old days where it was more classy to write in digits to make things happen compared to the easy way where sliders made life easier for us #deadliners# :)



regarding Lattice in Modeler, and duplicating Lattice functions from Layout,

the only way to solve these kind of obstacles over time, would be to use the same code for Modeler and Layout,
or use 1 app code, like Maya/Max/Blender/C4D/Modo/Houdini

the upcoming Modeler upgrade will repeat what NewTek did in 1995. (Duplicate Code / Incompatible Code)

if you can look past this, M/L should serve you fine.
for people annoyed by this answer, sorry, but the guy asked, thereby the reply.

i'm not saying that this makes LightWave redundant, not at all, but it is definitely The Achilles heel of LightWave.


------------

Chris provides a good alternative solution, i use this trick in similar cases

jeric_synergy
03-31-2018, 12:32 AM
Chris's solution is perfectly viable: you just need to stop thinking of morphs as morphs, and think of them "sketches" or "possibilities". You can even mix, as in "percentage mix", various maps to achieve effects you couldn't otherwise.

I was always amazed at the functionality that Splinegod got out of morphs, but you must think in a different way, at a different slant (so to speak), to see all the potential that is admittedly hidden within the feature. Larry was a master of this: he was always thinking of crazy ways to use features that never occurred to anyone else.

And I would agree that somehow the devs are either handcuffed* to some seriously antique UI methods (dialog boxes need to DIE), or they actually don't see how obsolete these methods are.

*Frankly, I hope it's the API that's stopping them, because if they don't see how rubbish some of these approaches are, we're doomed.

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

I suspect, but maybe it's just me, that the majority of users don't know some of the core concepts underpinning morph maps, and how they could be used in their workflow. I will say that the term "morph maps" was a big handicap to me, when the actual functionality is more like "vertice location/delta list". Admittedly, that's not a viable term, but it's more accurate than "map".

erikals
03-31-2018, 05:02 AM
Not to being abusive to the team at NEWTEK but these are one of the things I still feel like I am going to wait until LightWave 2030 to update.
i think it depends on the cost and features you want.
for exterior rendering LightWave is pretty good. +NPR
with Octane exterior rendering is great, and interior rendering Alright.
CA is great using RHiggit and TAFA + MoCap
Modeler can be Ok, if you don't need advanced Sculpting / Rounding / Workplanes ++


I wonder what kind if thoughts among the developing team leaders that make things that could be useful for the users stand totally still for decades?
Core was a hard hit, +maintaining 2 sets of codes M/L is a huge drawback

if you don't dig the Blender system, then LightWave can certainly be a very good alternative

LightWave plugins you should consider >
3rdPowers, Advanced Placement, DPont, LWCAD, ODToolSet, RHiggit, Syflex, TAFA, Turbulence, UP/DeepRising/HoudiniFluids