PDA

View Full Version : What is LightWave when you really think about it?



gdkeast
05-27-2019, 01:44 AM
When I hear someone speaking negatively about LightWave, besides annoying me, it starts me thinking about what LightWave really is, and when I do I realize LW is not a single thing, but rather a base platform for adding many other tools that work or can work relatively well together. So, in the end, you end up with something much greater than what LW is by itself.

So when someone is speaking negatively about LW, it is not like they are criticizing a single thing, but many things at once, and so, at least for me, the argument becomes overgeneralized and begins to fall apart, especially when LW can be customized to be nearly anything you want it to be.

145080

erikals
05-27-2019, 01:56 AM
true,

MetaMesh, Rhiggit, IKB, LWCad is a Huge deal to me. They are a Must in My workflow.

so even though B is Fantastic, for the workflow i use LW is much better.

however, for others, i Absolutely understand that B can be of preference.


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

OlaHaldor
05-27-2019, 02:58 AM
LWCAD, TFD and Octane. Hands down the most interesting bits for me.

JohnMarchant
05-27-2019, 03:58 AM
Agreed, TFD, Octane, LWCad, 3DPowers, RHiggit, Bevel ++ are musts for me. The one thing that i really hate in Modeler is the destructive nature of Booleans, Bevels and Rounder, previous mentioned plugins cover some of those gaps, but i hope LWG3D will sort out modelers destructiveness.

gar26lw
05-27-2019, 04:23 AM
true,

MetaMesh, Rhiggit, IKB, LWCad is a Huge deal to me. They are a Must in My workflow.

so even though B is Fantastic, for the workflow i use LW is much better.

however, for others, i Absolutely understand that B can be of preference.


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

B? oh you mean Blender, the scottish app ;)

Kryslin
05-27-2019, 05:33 AM
Lightwave to me is a tool box of basic tools that can get many jobs done. It's kind of like my woodworking shop - I have all the basic tools, (Saw, Hammer, Drill, Screwdrivers, Wrenches, Chisels, Planes, Paintbrushes, Glue) and between them, you can get a project done, though it will be much harder. So, like the workshop, you add tools.

LWCAD and 3rdPowers for modeling, DPont for surfacing, RHiggit for rigging, ODTools for general usefulness, and like any workshop, all sorts of little shop made tools and jigs for specific uses that have come up (It's why I wrote all those freakin' lScripts that deal with FFX based things, and a few other experiments that produces some surprising results).

I often use other apps to supplement the toolbox - Rhino3D and 3DCoat, because they do things LW doesn't (or doesn't do well). I haven't gotten into fluid simulations yet, though that will probably happen at some point, at which point, I'll add Blender into the mix. These are like adding a table saw, lathe, router, and drill press to the wood shop, certain types of work become easier with the right tools.

Marander
05-27-2019, 07:46 AM
LW can be customized to be nearly anything you want it to be.
145080

Sorry but no.

It lacks a modern architecture, a fast geometry engine / viewport and flexible user interface and unification for that.

Compared to other 3d applications and plugins, LW including LWCAD, 3rd Powers, OD Tools, Rhiggit Pro, TFD and more (I have them all), is all outdated tech.

What LW is for me is a fun 3d tool for retro-computing, experimental stuff and a little bit of VFX (which I end up doing in other apps due to LW's limitations in most cases).

Sorry to be negative (and rain on your parade as S. Bowie will probably say) but I can't stand such false statements. There are 3D applications where it applies definitively but certainly that's not the case with LightWave.

JohnMarchant
05-27-2019, 08:20 AM
So the fact that Jaasha has ported TFD to a few platforms and that LWCad is ported to LW, Max and C4D means that they both wasted their time, better tell Viktor that. Whilst i agree LW Modeler really needs some love and less destruction it is still capable, its hardly rock bottom. Dave Ridden seems to make a healthy living out of using LW, even with its short comings which all software has.

Marander
05-27-2019, 09:21 AM
Agreed, TFD, Octane, LWCad, 3DPowers, RHiggit, Bevel ++ are musts for me. The one thing that i really hate in Modeler is the destructive nature of Booleans, Bevels and Rounder, previous mentioned plugins cover some of those gaps, but i hope LWG3D will sort out modelers destructiveness.

Yes the destructive workflow is one limitation using LightWave and I don't see how the mentioned addons can cover those gaps since they are also destructive (except the 3rd Power ones for Layout, which is the right way to go imho). Some of them offer a better viewport feedback like 3rd Powers Metamesh, Boolean+, LWCAD or the "new" 2018 Modeler tools but nevertheless they are still destructive tools, not parametric.

From Modeler, geometry need to be brought over to Layout with all it's limitations for splines, bones / rigs, points, selection sets, fracture, bevels etc.

LWCAD in other applications is parametric and works exactly how it should, all values can be modified anytime later. It also works together as parametric object with all other applications' functions or 3rd party plugins. That's just one example of LW's architecture that hasn't changed since last millennium (even if the previous LW3DG promised it would for LWNext).

TFD and LWCAD both work much better in the other app (more stable, more intuitive, parametric, additional features). I can directly compare as I have them for both applications. But even then, there are far better plugins for most of their functionality nowadays and both didn't get feature updates for a long time. 3rd Powers or OD Tools are simply not needed in other applications.

prometheus
05-27-2019, 09:49 AM
When I hear someone speaking negatively about LightWave, besides annoying me, it starts me thinking about what LightWave really is, and when I do I realize LW is not a single thing, but rather a base platform for adding many other tools that work or can work relatively well together. So, in the end, you end up with something much greater than what LW is by itself.

So when someone is speaking negatively about LW, it is not like they are criticizing a single thing, but many things at once, and so, at least for me, the argument becomes overgeneralized and begins to fall apart, especially when LW can be customized to be nearly anything you want it to be.

145080

Honestly from my perspective, that whole incitament places a picture in my mind of Lightwave being a dry bread..but you have butter to put on it to swallow it all, meaning Lightwave as the dry bread and all addons being the butter.
There are many other software out that there can do the same, many of them may be a bit more expensive..but also carry more out of the box tools.
when it comes to cheaps software with a decent toolset from scratch, maybe thereīs only one software that can match in prize..and even be NO1 in pricing model at that too....and it also has a lot of addons to build the software more complete.

Other software (the big guys) seem to have more out of the box tools and advanced tool, that comes at a price but may also bring those needed tool more tightly intergrated with development, release schedules and also syncronizing those tools with the main app much better than we may have with Lightwave third party tools(if we choose to see them as different as the main app that is)
One reference I would make here is TurbulenceFD...which I personally feel isnīt matching the Lightwave development very well...it should have been updated a few weeks after the very first 2018 release with a proper PBR volumetric shader.

The fact that you can add on what you want in many cases, doesnīt deminish the competition that can do the same, and it doesnīt overcome the shortcomings of Lightwaveīs structural problems as mentioned by others (modeling non destructive.

What is Lightwave?
is it a 3d software unlike no other? Probably yes..and with emphasis on that it doesnīt do things like other 3D general software mostly do by todays standard..and that is with reference to not so good ways of doing it in my eyes.
I sincerely hope it someday can go from negative "software unlike no other" to a neutral.."software like the other" and then finally back again to a "software like no other" but with positive attributes to it all...and that takes first catching up to the middle phase, and then push it beyond and being faster, more complete...or just being innovative like no other to be in there for the competition.

erikals
05-27-2019, 10:16 AM
but nevertheless they are still destructive tools, not parametric.
i don't need parametric. sure, it would be very nice to have, but to claim it is an Absolute Must is wrong.

it is not an Absolute for me, and some other users don't find it crucial for their workflow.

though sure, for some it is vital.



The fact that you can add on what you want in many cases, doesn't diminish the competition that can do the same, and it doesn't overcome the shortcomings of LightWave's structural problems as mentioned by others (modeling non destructive).
true, however, i am talking about Here and Now, not what other applications might/will add in the future.

so if App X doesn't have that feature Now, then i might as well through that App overboard if it doesn't apply to my workflow.

https://i.imgur.com/0xkRygo.gif

there are 20+ features i wish for LightWave to have, however, if the 10+ crucial features that i personally really need isn't present in B... so be it.

so, for some LW will be the best choice, for others B will be the best choice.

maybe i'll switch to another main app soon, but for my workflow/need, no other apps are better suited, as of now.

---------

if people want to argue that for many people, the situation is otherwise, sure be my guest.
but to claim that App X is better to use than LW no matter what, sorry, i just find that a bit ridiculous.

*this last reply is a general remark, not aimed at one specific person.

JohnMarchant
05-27-2019, 10:53 AM
TFD and LWCAD both work much better in the other app (more stable, more intuitive, parametric, additional features). I can directly compare as I have them for both applications. But even then, there are far better plugins for most of their functionality nowadays and both didn't get feature updates for a long time. 3rd Powers or OD Tools are simply not needed in other applications.[/QUOTE]

There have been updates in the last 6 months for Win and Mac TFD and Jaasha is working on TFD 2. Viktor has already said and posted a video on two updates for this year on LWCad 2018, which come with new features, before finishing and releasing LWCad 2020.

Yes we are all aware of modelers and LW shortcomings, which is why we all have other software in our arsenal as do most people whatever is their primary App. Maya, Max and many others have a plethora of plugins and even some that do what can be done natively in those Apps, why, to cover shortcomings or the way the native tool has it is implemented.

I do hope that one day LW will catch up and that modeler will get the love it needs, however i have other tools for nondestructive work, whilst i would love to do it all in LW, its just not possible in some circumstances, but thats the same for everyone. You can sculpt in Blender, and even in LW, but ZBrush is better. Nondestructive Booleans can be done in LW but frankly its a PITA, Blender is so much better for hard surface modeling. I hope one day LW will be better but i will wait and see and if not then cest la vie, im covered elsewhere.

Marander
05-27-2019, 10:57 AM
i don't need parametric. sure, it would be very nice to have, but to claim it is an Absolute Must is wrong.


Not saying it's a must and in same cases poly model operations can be just fine or a better approach.

But if you need it and it's there (along with poly modeling features of course) and offers a whole new range of possibilities and efficiency.

Unfortunately even basic poly tools in LW (Translation, Clone, Knife, Extrude, Rounder, BandSaw, Julienne etc) are all very limited and slow. And that is not just modeling, the same can even be said about most new 2019 features (OpenVDB or Metamorphic for example).

Beside all it's limitations, most disappointing is LW2019 viewport performance to me.

To me the the original posters' statement "LW can be customized to be nearly anything you want it to be" is completely wrong.

Other applications can be made to look and work like LW if that is required. LW is what it is, no matter how many hundred plugins are added to it.

Cageman
05-27-2019, 12:57 PM
I always try to use LW for what it is very good at, or, in my oppinion, where I think I can be very proficient with it and get very good results in as short time as possible.

That is LW for me, or any other app, if that matters.

erikals
05-27-2019, 02:12 PM
Marander, like i said,
there are 20+ features i wish for LightWave to have, however, if the 10+ crucial features that i personally Absolutely need isn't present in B... so be it.
with all the glorious features Application X has, it doesn't help me much if those features can't boost My Workflow and Needed Features the way LightWave does.

for me it would be like using a hammer and a saw, (AppX) when what i really need for the job is a screwdriver. (AppLW)

or like playing Eminem for my father when what he really wants to hear is La Cucaracha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0nQMgaJibc


Different artists, Different needs.

https://i.imgur.com/w7295Cw.gif

hrgiger
05-27-2019, 02:18 PM
I do I realize LW is not a single thing, but rather a base platform for adding many other tools that work or can work relatively well together. So, in the end, you end up with something much greater than what LW is by itself.


Isn't that every other app out there in existance? Everything is made better due to 3rd party contributions. On the customizable thing... well LW has to be the least customizable app out there.

Unfortunately, LW's 3rd party ecosystem has been shrinking and not growing. The people who do contribute do it because they're personally invested in LW itself, not because its a profitable venture. I see even Oliver (OD tools) has pretty much converted to Houdini. The thing about it is, LW NEEDS third party input to be viable while other apps aren't quite so heavily dependent on them. LWCAD today keeps people in modeler much like Worley's Fprime kept people rendering in LW 10 years ago.

erikals
05-27-2019, 02:31 PM
I see even Oliver (OD tools) has pretty much converted to Houdini.
this is generalizing. it might fit his workflow, i hardly think Oliver thinks everyone should drop the LightWave ball.


Unfortunately, LW's 3rd party ecosystem has been shrinking and not growing.
yes, and it might continue to do so, quite possibly.


i think the original thread starters point was > Hey, too much negativity around here, Let's Lighten Up a bit. https://i.imgur.com/uVY2fVj.gif

Cageman
05-27-2019, 02:59 PM
Isn't that every other app out there in existance? Everything is made better due to 3rd party contributions. On the customizable thing... well LW has to be the least customizable app out there.

Unfortunately, LW's 3rd party ecosystem has been shrinking and not growing. The people who do contribute do it because they're personally invested in LW itself, not because its a profitable venture. I see even Oliver (OD tools) has pretty much converted to Houdini. The thing about it is, LW NEEDS third party input to be viable while other apps aren't quite so heavily dependent on them. LWCAD today keeps people in modeler much like Worley's Fprime kept people rendering in LW 10 years ago.

You would be surprised at how many studios are using Houdini as a Plugin for LW and vice versa.

hrgiger
05-27-2019, 06:15 PM
I wouldn't be surprised at all, people use many apps these days. And Houdini isn't exactly the most direct when it comes to traditional modeling so I can understand someone might use modeler, it's cheap and fine for simple direct modeling. But really these days, the modeling options are many and Blender is really king of the inexpensive yet powerful modeling options (and to the point of this thread has a thriving third party ecosystem)
And Erik I didn't say anything about Oliver suggesting anyone should do anything different, he has always suggested people use what works for them, I was only saying that he himself has discovered just how elegant Houdini is and seems.to have converted. What that means for future OD tools I don't have a clue but I think it's concerning when you see people like Chris Jones and Massimo movie to Blender and Oliver going to Houdini. Biggest loss since William Vaughan.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-27-2019, 06:49 PM
Oliver going to Houdini. Biggest loss since William Vaughan.

Ouch. I have no idea if this is true or not but Oliver is still a member of this forum and still seemingly making and marketing OD Tools for LW. If true, I hope he will speak for himself. Perhaps he already has elsewhere.

hrgiger
05-27-2019, 09:44 PM
Ouch. I have no idea if this is true or not but Oliver is still a member of this forum and still seemingly making and marketing OD Tools for LW. If true, I hope he will speak for himself. Perhaps he already has elsewhere.

Again, I have no idea what it means for OD tools, could mean nothing. I can't imagine he'll stop supporting it either way. In my opinion, his OD toolset is probably the best thing to happen to LW in a long time, he has added a lot of much needed functionality into LW. If I had decided to upgrade to the last few versions of LW, it would have been for his additions.

prometheus
05-28-2019, 02:06 AM
I did in fact buy in to the latest 2019 release it because it still has value for me..but for me the value may be declining rapidly..and it may be one of the last upgrades I do for Lightwave.
Some of the new vdb tools made it enough interesting..though they need to work on the speed and implementation of some of it still.

For me the development and features and corrections of limitiations is still taking too long time before implementation is done, so thus the skepticism and that means I currently try to learn other stuff, but it still has some tuff I love to do...which actually
is hard to do in a fast way with other software.

Fundamental flaws and limits for me is the lack of new modeling tools..or correction of older ones such as bevel rounding, better text tools non destructively, The undo system(although they started a process on that) and the UI system, those are probably the fundamental stuff and
after that as second comes the slow CPU render VS what it could be if rendered with GPU, and the hair system is sort of a failure for me when it comes to renderspeed, probably need octane for a decent rendertime.

third..Lack of native fluids and good emitter connection options with weight paint is another important thing for me, and lack of sculpting(although they started a process with metasculpt implemented)

And with this I may have commented in a way that sounds negative, but I donīt focus on how that comes through when it in fact is pure facts that limits Lightwave to become more competitional, I rather see it as constructive criticism.

erikals
05-28-2019, 02:39 AM
read, FiberFX 2019 - much lower rendertime
https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?159995

https://vimeo.com/338575791

erikals
05-28-2019, 02:44 AM
for the once of you who are cough in the middle, do what i do... App1... App2...

https://i.imgur.com/ampRTnO.jpg


looks like this thread is turning into a clone... ?
David Ridlen - Marketing
https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?159804

gar26lw
05-28-2019, 03:33 AM
things are regressing to the silence period, prolly cos its gone quiet again.

JohnMarchant
05-28-2019, 04:25 AM
Ouch. I have no idea if this is true or not but Oliver is still a member of this forum and still seemingly making and marketing OD Tools for LW. If true, I hope he will speak for himself. Perhaps he already has elsewhere.

I don't think Oliver has gone to Houdini at all, he is just making practical business decisions and who can blame him. Viktor ports LWCad to Max and C4D does not mean he does not make it for LW as well.

If having another revenue stream means we still get updates for LW then good. Besides Olivers tools for Houdini are mostly about LW/Houdini integration.

raymondtrace
05-28-2019, 06:50 AM
...I see even Oliver (OD tools) has pretty much converted to Houdini...

I don't think you see. Chat with him on the discord channel. Learn something.

prometheus
05-28-2019, 07:07 AM
read, FiberFX 2019 - much lower rendertime
https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?159995

https://vimeo.com/338575791

Apart from that I do not have syflex, there is nothing in that thread that can help me get faster rendertimes, I already practice whatever was in there for lower rendertimes..but the crucial factor isnīt really final render,
but how much I can get as close to instant feedback as possible...that means fast VPR feedback and for me it is of crucial artistic freedom to get such feedback, OpenGL isnīt enough.

RPSchmidt
05-28-2019, 07:41 AM
I wouldn't be surprised at all, people use many apps these days. And Houdini isn't exactly the most direct when it comes to traditional modeling so I can understand someone might use modeler, it's cheap and fine for simple direct modeling. But really these days, the modeling options are many and Blender is really king of the inexpensive yet powerful modeling options (and to the point of this thread has a thriving third party ecosystem)
And Erik I didn't say anything about Oliver suggesting anyone should do anything different, he has always suggested people use what works for them, I was only saying that he himself has discovered just how elegant Houdini is and seems.to have converted. What that means for future OD tools I don't have a clue but I think it's concerning when you see people like Chris Jones and Massimo movie to Blender and Oliver going to Houdini. Biggest loss since William Vaughan.

I'm not sure what you mean by "simple, direct modeling".

It's like you are trying to reduce Modeler's capabilities to the level of an app you would find for a mobile phone or something.... when anyone who has used LW knows that is inaccurate; the evidence is in the work.

I would absolutely agree that Blender is the king in the most critical area you mention; it's hard to get more affordable than free.

prometheus
05-28-2019, 08:11 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "simple, direct modeling".

It's like you are trying to reduce Modeler's capabilities to the level of an app you would find for a mobile phone or something.... when anyone who has used LW knows that is inaccurate; the evidence is in the work.

I would absolutely agree that Blender is the king in the most critical area you mention; it's hard to get more affordable than free.

For me..Lightwave feels more easier and simpler to select things..in various modes by either spacebar switch to select polygons, vertices, edges..or simply click on the buttons which says exactly what it is, try that in Houdini..which has a completely different way of selecting things and it is buried much deeper to acess in my opinion, standard copy and paste in lightwave is simple but rules by the ctrl c and v, you do not even get that in blender modeling.

So the "direct approach" is there in my opinion, while other modelers make it a bit more awkward and not so direct..that is the positives, while it lacks in many many other areas in modeling.

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 08:17 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "simple, direct modeling".

It's like you are trying to reduce Modeler's capabilities to the level of an app you would find for a mobile phone or something.... when anyone who has used LW knows that is inaccurate; the evidence is in the work.

I.

I'm simply stating that Modeler has not really been a focus at all for LW development for the almost last two decades since the original team departed, with the exception of a few notable updates. And as far as anyone who uses LW would know, I used LW for a large part of that time so I'm well aware and aware of how far things have moved the goalpost elsewhere. Modeler's UV tools are outdated, it lacks any type of proceduralism and that includes 3rd party tools, many things are still not interactive, most functions are't animatable (which would also fall under lack of proceduralism) and does not deal with objects, only points, polys and edges ('mostly' on the edges part') so have fun translating a mesh with a few million polys around easily (translating, not talking about rotating the viewport which is largely meaningless in terms of performance). But then that's mostly why I call it simple is because you lose an entire world of functionality based on the fact that Modeler is only a component not obejct based application. Just take a look at Blenders object modifier system to see how powerful modeling can be(or any other app really). Modeler and Layout were made separately back when computer memory was scarce. Don't be fooled into think that is somehow an advantage today, no one wants to copy that.

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 08:38 AM
I don't think you see. Chat with him on the discord channel. Learn something.


He said he has pretty much converted to Houdini, just uses modeler now , maybe you should chat with him if you weren't aware. Learn something. And good for him. I'm sure it has opened up a lot of new opportunities for him that he doesn't have to spend all his time building a lot of tool functionality that Houdini already does by default.


For me..Lightwave feels more easier and simpler to select things..in various modes by either spacebar switch to select polygons, vertices, edges..or simply click on the buttons which says exactly what it is, try that in Houdini..which has a completely different way of selecting things and it is buried much deeper to acess in my opinion, standard copy and paste in lightwave is simple but rules by the ctrl c and v, you do not even get that in blender modeling.


Well you do, it just works differently. It works by separating the components and joining them with another object. So not as 'direct' as Modeler but for all intents and purposes, gives the same result and of course adds numerous benefits working in an object based system.

prometheus
05-28-2019, 08:59 AM
He said he has pretty much converted to Houdini, just uses modeler now , maybe you should chat with him if you weren't aware. Learn something. And good for him. I'm sure it has opened up a lot of new opportunities for him that he doesn't have to spend all his time building a lot of tool functionality that Houdini already does by default.



Well you do, it just works differently. It works by separating the components and joining them with another object. So not as 'direct' as Modeler but for all intents and purposes, gives the same result and of course adds numerous benefits working in an object based system.
what did you refer to?
blender or houdini.
but no..not as direct as lw modeler...direct was kind of the
keyword.

Well for blender ctrl copy is there, ctrl v for pasting needs another selection option to choose before committing.

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 09:39 AM
Blender. And yes not as direct as I mentioned. But again, tradeoffs for the added benefits.

prometheus
05-28-2019, 09:45 AM
Blender. And yes not as direct as I mentioned. But again, tradeoffs for the added benefits.

Absolutely, you have some other benefits in blender for sure, not sure if I could make a scripted shortcut or if it is available, would still like to have the plain ctrl-v for pasting without being interfered with other needed options before committing.

Note...several times I go ..why can I not do that like I do in Lightwave with blender, and Vice versa of course.

Developers of these two software should take notes of suggestions from users..and see if it makes sense, that means both ways..where lightwave could do it better in a blender fashion, it should, and where blender can do better in a good Lightwave way, it should, if it makes sense that is)
So describing why blender is so good at one thing..should serve as constructive criticism and a guideline to come up with something equal or better in Lightwave, not to be focused on as some form of clank down on Lightwave.

Nicolas Jordan
05-28-2019, 09:51 AM
I guess Houdini would work well for people that are doing very specific kinds of work but I have never seen Houdini as a complete or even close to complete 3D solution. I see it as being useful on very specific projects since there are many things that are still much faster and more easily done in Lightwave. I guess Houdini would appeal to those who like procedural workflows.

RPSchmidt
05-28-2019, 10:13 AM
I'm simply stating that Modeler has not really been a focus at all for LW development for the almost last two decades since the original team departed, with the exception of a few notable updates....

I'm not arguing what LW lacks; the only issue I have is when general statements are made that are only partially true.


it lacks any type of proceduralism

If I completely take it out of the context that Layout is the other half of Lightwave and that Modeler is what it is... a 3d modelling tool... then you have a point.

But luckily, Newtek doesn't sell half of Lightwave. They sell the whole thing.


Modeler's UV tools are outdated

Well, yes.

So are 3d Studio Maxs'. So are Mayas'. And Blenders' aren't so hot either.

Fairly certain that's why companies like Allegorithmic (Substance Painter), Rizom Lab (Rizom-UV), and Pilgway (3d Coat) exist. To fill that void across all of these applications that have really never given their UV tools the attention that they needed.

I have LW, 3d Studio Max, and Blender, but 3d Coat still got my money.


so have fun translating a mesh with a few million polys around easily

So far, I have had zero issues manipulating meshes with Modeler, and I have created some pretty dense meshes. Easily upwards of 2-3 million polys.

Now, Layout, on the other hand; that is where things get a wee bit slow with dense meshes.


Modeler and Layout were made separately back when computer memory was scarce

And that's really the root of your complaint, and has been for some time. The lack of unification of Lightwave into a single platform.

That's fine. I completely understand your viewpoint.

But don't try to apply your arguments to half of a software solution and validate them by excluding the other half.


Don't be fooled into think that is somehow an advantage today, no one wants to copy that.

But that's pretty much the environment we are working in now, and have been for years.

If given a choice that excluded cost, would the majority of 3d artists rely on the renderer that comes bundled with their software? Or would they choose a third-party solution?

If given a choice that excluded cost, would the majority of 3d artists rely on the UV tools that come bundled with their software? Or would they choose a third-party solution?

If given a choice that excluded cost, would the majority of 3d artists rely on the particle tools that come bundled with their software? Or would they choose a third-party solution?

So what you end up with is a 3d software with a third-party UV / material editor, a third-party particle generator, and a third-party rendering solution.

There simply isn't a single software solution in existence that fulfills every artists' requirements and it's unlikely there will ever be one.

Blender gets very close; but even there, even in spite of the constant work of many dedicated programmers, Blender users still find themselves seeking third party solutions.

erikals
05-28-2019, 10:47 AM
Apart from that I do not have syflex, there is nothing in that thread that can help me get faster rendertimes, I already practice whatever was in there for lower rendertimes..but the crucial factor isnīt really final render,
but how much I can get as close to instant feedback as possible...that means fast VPR feedback and for me it is of crucial artistic freedom to get such feedback, OpenGL isnīt enough.
to me it is the opposite, the final render is more important, but we have different needs.
i certainly can see both sides...

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 10:53 AM
I'm not arguing what LW lacks; the only issue I have is when general statements are made that are only partially true.




Of course LW are two apps. But we were talking about modeling were we not? There is nothing procedural about modeler. Everything it does and everything third parties do are completely destructive in modeler and 99% of everything modeler does is not able to be animated in Layout. I dont' see how LightWave also shipping with Layout changes that argument.
I haven't used Mayas or Max's UV tools but I've seen enough tutorials in them to know that the UV tools might not be the brightest thing out there, but they're still a far cry away from LW's UV set which lacks a lot of functionality(and pretty sure Maya uses Unfold 3D at least for packing directly in app which is great). And yes, of course third party tools like Rizom or 3DCoat are good for UVs because they can specialize(substance painter has no UV tools), but then the whole point is to rely on third parties when it becomes necessary. Modo has great UV tools and for the most part, it does most of what I need but Rizom fills in where it doesn't. But sometimes you just need a simple unwrap, relax and pack sending everything to rizom to have to relax and pack things would get annoying quick.

And this isn't about finding an uber app that does everything. That's not the point. Of course people use different apps. The whole point of this thread was to suggest that LW is a base for third party tools. I simply suggested that every app is that (which is exactly what you're suggesting here so that we are in agreement). However you objected to me defining Modeler as simple so not sure what any of this last part has anything to do with that. Modeler pushes points, polygons and edges. Period. Modeler has no idea what an 'object' is so it just lacks any complexity. Hence, simple. Its not intended to be a slight on LW, it just is what it is. Some people want or need more than that.

- - - Updated - - -


Absolutely, you have some other benefits in blender for sure, not sure if I could make a scripted shortcut or if it is available, would still like to have the plain ctrl-v for pasting without being interfered with other needed options before committing.



There is a copy/paste addon I'm pretty sure so for sure it could be scripted.

JohnMarchant
05-28-2019, 11:11 AM
I guess Houdini would work well for people that are doing very specific kinds of work but I have never seen Houdini as a complete or even close to complete 3D solution. I see it as being useful on very specific projects since there are many things that are still much faster and more easily done in Lightwave. I guess Houdini would appeal to those who like procedural workflows.

Agreed, I once tried to model in Houdini, not the nicest experience and I went straight back to LW to model. Now i would go to LW or indeed Blender to model. Some nice modeling tools in Blender and less destructive than LW Modeler. Really depends on what im modeling. Sculpting i would still do in ZBrush even though Blenders sculpting is no slouch and LW does have metamorphic. On the subject of MM, i find that it was more reliable as a plugin in 2015 than i do now integrated in 2019. Seem to get more crashes and freeze-ups in 2019 MM.

raymondtrace
05-28-2019, 12:13 PM
He said he has pretty much converted to Houdini, just uses modeler now...

I think you're having trouble with the word "converted". :)

Chris S. (Fez)
05-28-2019, 12:20 PM
I think you're having trouble with the word "converted". :)

If Oliver said he "pretty much converted to Houdini" in so many words, I'd like to hear it from Oliver himself.

erikals
05-28-2019, 12:36 PM
Houdini is nice, especially when you Love nodes. https://i.imgur.com/S2gQn0b.png

i don't    https://i.imgur.com/JsBiFVj.gif

it is no doubt a powerful addition though.

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 12:48 PM
I think you're having trouble with the word "converted". :)

Not at all, however I do use the term loosely however as he was using LW, Modo, Maya, among many other apps so there is no 'converted in that sense', its simply picking up another app. However, the bulk of what he was using LW for he is now doing in Houdini. Because... well, its Houdini.

And Chris, I just saw a quote posted from him where someone had asked him if he had entirely converted to Houdini since he wasn't around as much in the LW chat and his response was pretty much. That he just uses modeler for most stuff that he needs to model. From Discord. The LW Discord server is a public thing, you can join if you want and see and ask for yourself. I was asked to leave last year some time after Steph was drunk and in a mood and so I left. :)

raymondtrace
05-28-2019, 01:11 PM
If Oliver said he "pretty much converted to Houdini" in so many words, I'd like to hear it from Oliver himself.

Oliver did say he was a "convert" in the context of struggling with an interface and toolset for many years and finally getting it in recent months. He was discussing Houdini and others were discussing Blender at the time.

However, he is still on these forums (posting as recently as yesterday) and in the LW discord channel (posting as recently as yesterday). He's also keeping up with any reported issues with the OD toolset, often responding to input within 24 hours. He just posted an update this month with new tools.

So I am struggling with the idea of conversion. Oliver seems terrible at it. :)

This FUD sounds much like when people were saying Denis and NT were at odds. Then we discovered there were legitimate communication problems and then Denis came out with some awesome updates and new tools. It is true that LW 3rd parties are thinning but we don't need to usher them out the door with pointless negativity.

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 01:23 PM
Well talk to Oliver yourself, not my place to say what he's thinking or doing, I only said what I had seen him say in response to whether he had converted to Houdini from LW. His response was pretty much. Take it for what you will. Believe it, don't believe it doesn't matter.
As I already mentioned, I'm sure he will continue to support the tools he's made, he is very skilled with Python so I imagine its not hard for him to tweak the code when issues arrive. I just can't imagine he's spending a lot of time these days making new tools for LW, unless its to transfer information from Houdini to LW.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-28-2019, 01:27 PM
Thanks Steve.

raymondtrace
05-28-2019, 01:54 PM
...not my place to say what he's thinking or doing...

Then why are you?

People and software come and go. Let them do it on their own. You don't need to keep score.

erikals
05-28-2019, 01:57 PM
well, i guess the point is to say that less and less people are using LightWave, a thing already covered to a great extent in another thread.

[cough!] https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?159804

RPSchmidt
05-28-2019, 02:02 PM
Of course LW are two apps. But we were talking about modeling were we not?

In the context of what you believe LW lacks, it is facetious to omit Layout simply because it doesn't have the word "model" in it.

When you say that Modeler can't do procedurals, or everything is destructive in Modeler, you are making a true statement (although I would argue that straight modeling stack modifiers in other programs are simply "undo" with a selectable list)... but only insomuch as it pertains to Modeler, the part of Lightwave that wasn't designed to animate or procedurally generate anything, or make non-destructive modifications to a mesh.

That doesn't make Modeler simple. It is equally as complex and proficient at what is was designed to do as any other 3d application.


There is nothing procedural about modeler. Everything it does and everything third parties do are completely destructive in modeler and 99% of everything modeler does is not able to be animated in Layout. I dont' see how LightWave also shipping with Layout changes that argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "99% of everything modeler does is not able to be animated in Layout". Modeler is for creating mesh models; Layout is for animating those meshes. The two do not have the same tasks.

If you believe that simply because the creation of a mesh and its animation occurs in the same interface, that also means they are programmatically the same operation, you are mistaken.

The only difference between Lightwave and other 3d applications (not including actual tools LW doesn't have) is those things occur in physically separate programs.


I haven't used Mayas or Max's UV tools but I've seen enough tutorials in them to know that the UV tools might not be the brightest thing out there, but they're still a far cry away from LW's UV set which lacks a lot of functionality(and pretty sure Maya uses Unfold 3D at least for packing directly in app which is great).

They are honestly pretty much the same as LW. I've used them and I can tell you, no one is starting the UV revolution over at Autodesk. That's not to say they are bad; they're just not in the same category as the third-party solutions.

And the fact that Maya uses the Unfold 3d algorithm just reinforces my argument about third-party solutions.

Also, I know they don't include it now, but Lightwave 9 shipped with Unfold 3d as well. I still have it on my system.


And yes, of course third party tools like Rizom or 3DCoat are good for UVs because they can specialize(substance painter has no UV tools), but then the whole point is to rely on third parties when it becomes necessary. Modo has great UV tools and for the most part, it does most of what I need but Rizom fills in where it doesn't. But sometimes you just need a simple unwrap, relax and pack sending everything to rizom to have to relax and pack things would get annoying quick.

Probably 35% of the UV work I do is in LW, straight up. ABF Unwrap lays things out pretty quickly; and if I need finer control, I can part out the UV in planar. That takes a bit longer, but is still very workable.

I turn to 3d Coat when it absolutely positively has to be spot on; in my work, that's normally when I am compositing my 3d with video and the object is the subject. That's about 40% of the time.

The other 30% of the time I am using straight PBR materials, with or without procedural textures, no UV required.

So the amount of UV work I do natively in LW isn't honestly that much less than the amount I do in 3d Coat.


And this isn't about finding an uber app that does everything. That's not the point. Of course people use different apps. The whole point of this thread was to suggest that LW is a base for third party tools. I simply suggested that every app is that (which is exactly what you're suggesting here so that we are in agreement). However you objected to me defining Modeler as simple so not sure what any of this last part has anything to do with that. Modeler pushes points, polygons and edges. Period.

My problem with your definition of Modeler as "simple" is that in your list of complaints illustrating how simple Modeler is, nearly every point is something that Modeler wasn't actually designed to do; it is something Layout was designed to do.

That has nothing to do with its level of simplicity in relation to other 3d applications, or even its level of simplicity in general. It only pertains to the lack of direct integration of Modeler and Layout.

hrgiger
05-28-2019, 02:32 PM
Sigh. I'm not omitting Layout, I'm just saying they are completely separated. Not just that they're in 'different' UI's as you suggest, just that the tools in modeler exist to do one function, whatever that task is, and once you drop that tool, that function is gone forever. And suggesting that stacks in other applications are simply undos in a list, just tells me you're not seeing the complexity for what it is and don't understand the implications of procedural modeling. Those lists can be reordered to completely change the behavior of a set of modeling tasks. And they also can work in a multi-layered fashion so that a new mesh operation not only doesn't undo a previous operation, but can also have an additive effect to gain the benefits of both(or more) tools, and being able to edit that behavior anywhere along the way. Just using Blender for instance, I can have a bevel modifier, a solidify modifier(thicken essentially) and a procedural Boolean all operating on the same mesh at once. I can at any point adjust the shape of my Boolean cutter, change the thickness of the mesh shell and change the width, shape or round level of my bevel (or even the edges it affects either all or by angle or edge weighting) and all of those operations are working together and not destroying any previous modifier or work beneath it. This is why modeler is simple for one example.
And Again, this has nothing to do with simply being in the same interface. This is the fact that modeler was designed to work on points, polys and edges. And that's it. That is all it does and it is the only app out there with that limit on modeling. There is no procedural modeling in Layout so not even sure why you keep bringing Layout up.
Unfold is integrated with Maya, it simply didn't ship with Maya as a promotional offer.
You keep saying that Modeler isn't simple, yet in the same breath you say that Modeler wasn't designed to do what every other app now does which is have a non-destructive workflow in modeling practices. Why is that not simple? The programmers of LW never had to worry about working with animation envelopes, or stack based workflows. At its heart, all modeler had to do was move vertices around in a multitude of ways. One destructive operation at a time. You don't think that's simpler?

SBowie
05-28-2019, 03:30 PM
Do we really have to do this? Really? Is anyone's view changed by it? Is it any more 'informative' or 'constructive' than the previous 50 or so nearly identical threads propagated by nearly the same people? Show of hands, how many are just dying to hear it again.

erikals
05-28-2019, 03:53 PM
well, at least this thread started on a positive note.

https://i.imgur.com/aS9u5JU.png

Tim Parsons
05-28-2019, 09:17 PM
Yeah okay Modeler has some (a lot :)) issues and layout has a slow renderer, but it makes me a living and the renders look amazing. :)

Gungho3D
05-28-2019, 11:01 PM
Yeah okay Modeler has some (a lot :)) issues and layout has a slow renderer, but it makes me a living and the renders look amazing. :)

+1 Yep, it has been the mainstay of income for many years for me

hrgiger
05-29-2019, 12:04 AM
Yeah okay Modeler has some (a lot :)) issues and layout has a slow renderer, but it makes me a living and the renders look amazing. :)

That's all that matters Tim. If it works for you, awesome.

RPSchmidt
05-29-2019, 09:37 AM
Sigh. I'm not omitting Layout, I'm just saying they are completely separated. Not just that they're in 'different' UI's as you suggest, just that the tools in modeler exist to do one function, whatever that task is, and once you drop that tool, that function is gone forever. And suggesting that stacks in other applications are simply undos in a list, just tells me you're not seeing the complexity for what it is and don't understand the implications of procedural modeling. Those lists can be reordered to completely change the behavior of a set of modeling tasks. And they also can work in a multi-layered fashion so that a new mesh operation not only doesn't undo a previous operation, but can also have an additive effect to gain the benefits of both(or more) tools, and being able to edit that behavior anywhere along the way. Just using Blender for instance, I can have a bevel modifier, a solidify modifier(thicken essentially) and a procedural Boolean all operating on the same mesh at once. I can at any point adjust the shape of my Boolean cutter, change the thickness of the mesh shell and change the width, shape or round level of my bevel (or even the edges it affects either all or by angle or edge weighting) and all of those operations are working together and not destroying any previous modifier or work beneath it. This is why modeler is simple for one example.
And Again, this has nothing to do with simply being in the same interface. This is the fact that modeler was designed to work on points, polys and edges. And that's it. That is all it does and it is the only app out there with that limit on modeling. There is no procedural modeling in Layout so not even sure why you keep bringing Layout up.
Unfold is integrated with Maya, it simply didn't ship with Maya as a promotional offer.
You keep saying that Modeler isn't simple, yet in the same breath you say that Modeler wasn't designed to do what every other app now does which is have a non-destructive workflow in modeling practices. Why is that not simple? The programmers of LW never had to worry about working with animation envelopes, or stack based workflows. At its heart, all modeler had to do was move vertices around in a multitude of ways. One destructive operation at a time. You don't think that's simpler?

In the end, maybe it really just boils down to different approaches to modeling.

I use 3ds Max sparingly nowadays, but even when it was my primary software, I rarely made direct changes to the modifier stack.

Possibly because most of what I model is based on real-world objects and people; once I used a tool, I either liked it or didn't like it. If I didn't, I would CTRL+Z and do it again. If I needed to go further back, autosave had a file waiting and ready to load.

The majority of my time in Max was spent pushing points. I think that's the majority of what most of us do.

Just to confirm that I wasn't having an aneurysm or a memory lapse, I asked the other four 3d artists on my team who have gone back to Max how often they actually used the modifier stack (as opposed to simply undoing / redoing).

They just shook their heads no; the consensus was, they rarely used the modifier stack as opposed to just undo and do it again.

When I was moved to Lightwave due to employer budget constraints, I honestly thought I was downgrading.

I can say today that it wasn't a downgrade; and even though now I have 3ds Max back, I didn't rush back to it like a long-lost friend. In fact, when I go back to it for anything, it feels clunky and slow. And the modifier stack wasn't even on my radar of things that I thought I missed about it.

But I definitely can't agree that not having a modifier stack makes Modeler simple. Boiling down the range of tools in Modeler to simple because of the lack of this one feature is, in my opinion, more than a little exaggeration.

I started on Ray Dream Designer. If you want to see simple, that software epitomized it.

I mention Layout because currently, that's where the object modifier stack is. It actually has most of the object modifiers I care about, especially when I am animating. Even then, I rarely use them except for displacements, which I use often.

So there it is. Maybe on that subject, it really just boils down to the user.


Do we really have to do this? Really? Is anyone's view changed by it? Is it any more 'informative' or 'constructive' than the previous 50 or so nearly identical threads propagated by nearly the same people? Show of hands, how many are just dying to hear it again.

Sorry Steve and more importantly, sorry OP for being part of the derailment.

On the original subject; I think LW is definitely a platform for the expanded capabilities that third-party developers provide, and it's a solid one.

I think that its continued relevance in that area is completely dependent on VizRT and the LW3DG; how much do they want to pursue? What can be done in-house?

How much are they willing to invest (in time and money) in expanding their capabilities through cooperation and licensing with third party application developers to make the experience of using those applications more seamless?

The base is solid. Where it will go from here has a lot of dependencies.

TheLexx
05-29-2019, 10:16 AM
I am totally not a coder, but I suspect learning Python might help. I do have Ryan's course (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZyYwjXYG14) in the queue somewhere.....and I do love his still at 0:44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZyYwjXYG14#t=44s). :)

erikals
05-29-2019, 11:28 AM
I use 3ds Max sparingly nowadays, but even when it was my primary software, I rarely made direct changes to the modifier stack.

Possibly because most of what I model is based on real-world objects and people; once I used a tool, I either liked it or didn't like it. If I didn't, I would CTRL+Z and do it again. If I needed to go further back, autosave had a file waiting and ready to load.

The majority of my time in Max was spent pushing points. I think that's the majority of what most of us do.

Just to confirm that I wasn't having an aneurysm or a memory lapse, I asked the other four 3d artists on my team who have gone back to Max how often they actually used the modifier stack (as opposed to simply undoing / redoing).

same here,

for a few operations it is gold to have, but quite far away from all. that said, it is a Must for some tasks, and should be added to LW.

hrgiger
05-29-2019, 12:35 PM
RPSchmidt, if all you got out of everything I said boils down to me saying Modeler is simple just because it doesn't have a modifier stack, then I don't know what else to do to explain it. A modifier stack is only one part of it. And you may have used Max as your primary app at one point, but you sure weren't making the most of it if you only saw the modifier stack as a 'undo list'. You were essentially using it like someone would use modeler now. Relying on saved versions or limited undos. Because those are your only two options in Modeler. Yet you have so many other possibilities outside of Modeler. The modifier stack in Layout has zero, nada, nothing to do with modeling or anything modeler does so I don't know why you're even mentioning it.

Modeler is simple because it only pushes around points, polys and edges. That is IT. You cannot get any simpler than that. It doesn't know what an object is, it doesn't know what a animation channel is and every single tool in modeler has no idea that another tool in modeler exists because everything is linear. One step after another. There is no cross talk of operations, no combining of operations to achieve more complex results, there is only perform step A on vertices, perform step B on vertices, perform step C on vertices, then maybe repeat.
Every other app allows you do combine steps A, B, C, add step D which then takes into account what steps A, B, and C did and makes a cumulative effect, then you can change step B to be last so that it achieves an entirely different result as an operation in a list. Other apps allow you to use instancing in a modeling fashion.
You're taking the term simple to be an insult, when its really just the very nature/definition of what Modeler is. This is why people always like to say it's 'fast' which is really just another way of saying, I don't have to worry about all this other stuff like objects, stacks, channels, references, etc.... Of course, its all the 'other stuff' that really takes modeling to an entirely different level.

cresshead
05-29-2019, 02:27 PM
RPSchmidt, if all you got out of everything I said boils down to me saying Modeler is simple just because it doesn't have a modifier stack, then I don't know what else to do to explain it. A modifier stack is only one part of it. And you may have used Max as your primary app at one point, but you sure weren't making the most of it if you only saw the modifier stack as a 'undo list'.



I bought 3ds Max 2.5 in 1999, one of it's main selling points to me is the modifier stack.
It's not just an undo list.
To say that is to be fundamentally mistaken of how 3ds max was constructed to be used.

Feel free to use lightwave, it is a destructive workflow - "drop the tool" way of working.
If that works for you then great.

raymondtrace
05-29-2019, 03:01 PM
Comparing LW to other polygonal modelers (even those with more advanced modifier capability) is still a relatively lame comparison in the wider spectrum of what's available to a 3D designer. Those that find fault or limits with polygonal modelers should be looking at a full CAD application for greater design control. And yes, there are even free/GPL options if you want to wade into that realm without expense. All this "hard ops" and "modifier" buzzword lingo is just a bunch of CAD envy.

A lot of my work in LW originates from CAD applications so I'm not too concerned about modifiers or variable parts missing from LW (even though it would still be a welcome addition).

Chris S. (Fez)
05-29-2019, 03:22 PM
Been using Max alongside Lightwave practically seamlessly since the release of OD Tools. For procedural geometry the Max modifier stack is amazing (definitely keep a copy of the non-collapsed file for future edits), but it always ends up in Lightwave Modeler for finesse and cleanup.

Lightwave's polygons-like-pixels and Layer system and everything is selected when nothing is selected workflow is faster and more elegant than Max for most modeling projects IMO. Granted, this would not be the case without 3rd Powers, LW Cad and TrueArt. Lightwave would still be more intuitive but not nearly as fast without those 3rd Party tools. LW Group needs to keep that in mind and consider why those tools are so much faster. I think this video makes it obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMhSFBCuQok

There have been nice updates to LW Brush since then but it could be so much better.

The LW Team is aware they have work to do in Modeler. We all know it has fallen behind. Yet, the foundations of the workflow are fine imo. The foundations of the code, in terms of viewport performance and supporting procedural non-destructive modeling, are much less clear in terms of viability. But the LW Team explicitly mentioned non-destructive modeling in their "Modeler Development" questionnaire last year. So at least they are aware of the advantages.

EditPoly in Max is a particularly powerful modifier and unique to Max. But many use Lightwave's layer system in a similar manner to quickly archive and create geometry before pasting back into the main model. It may not be truly non-destructive but it is much like Adobe Illustrator's "endless" artboard in that it allows designers to refine in a safe space before committing.

cresshead
05-29-2019, 03:34 PM
Been using Max alongside Lightwave practically seamlessly since the release of OD Tools. For procedural geometry the Max modifier stack is amazing (definitely keep a copy of the non-collapsed file for future edits), but it always ends up in Lightwave Modeler for finesse and cleanup.
.

EditPoly in Max is a particularly powerful modifier and unique to Max.

indeed, i havn't found a 3d app that has a "edit poly modifier" in any other app for example Cinema4d, modo, blender or lightwave etc.
houdini is a different kettle of fish of course!

Chris S. (Fez)
05-29-2019, 04:00 PM
Houdini is the only "fullpackage" 3d app I have not investigated in any depth, so I have no idea. But I think an EditPoly modifier would be a great fit for Lightwave, especially since EndoMorphs already provide similar functionality that could be expanded in terms of non-destructive selections and such that can survive dramatic geometry edits.

erikals
05-29-2019, 05:44 PM
This is why people always like to say it's 'fast' which is really just another way of saying, I don't have to worry about all this other stuff like objects, stacks, channels, references, etc.... Of course, its all the 'other stuff' that really takes modeling to an entirely different level.
yes / no

if a Modeler has very little need for those features, stacks, channels, references, then LightWave will be fast for their workflow.

for the once who heavily really on those features (there are many onboard that ship) LightWave Modeler will be quite slow.

https://i.imgur.com/2ZNtD2O.png



https://i.imgur.com/uynlt1d.gif
NewTek is working on it...


personally it works quite alright for me, (Different Artists, Different Needs)
but i really feel the need of "Smart Boolean" operations.

Marander
05-29-2019, 06:18 PM
indeed, i havn't found a 3d app that has a "edit poly modifier" in any other app for example Cinema4d, modo, blender or lightwave etc.
houdini is a different kettle of fish of course!

There is the Correction Deformer in Cinema that works in a similar way - access to modify points/edges/polys of parametric objects without the need to make them editable, ability to apply other Deformers, Falloffs or Selection Sets to parts of the parametric object's geometry.

Marander
05-29-2019, 06:31 PM
Pure procedural modeling can be tedious for many tasks.

Best is hybrid modeling using simple but powerful polygonal and spline tools in combination with procedural features - at least for me.

That would be possible in LightWave - but only in Layout in my opinion.

Layout is geometry aware now - isn't it?

OpenVDB modeling is another modeling realm that can be very easy and powerful to use. OpenVDB in Layout 2019 is still limited, slow and only applicable for simple operations - good for effects but not for modeling - but it's a start.

Implement polygonal (both parametric and polygonal) primitives with Translate, Bevel and Extrude operations, maybe simple Brushes as well as common Selection tools on a Poly/Edge/Point level in Layout combined with an easy-to-use OpenVDB Volume modeling stack (it should accept Primitives, Geometry, Instances, parametric Text, Boolean CSG Operations, Splines, Filters, Falloffs, Noises, maybe Particles). If done right it could boost the LightWave functionality a lot and it would be non-destructive. From there more goodies and advanced modeling tools can be implemented with time. In the meantime there is still Modeler.

Using procedural modeling tools can be very easy - for example Symmetry, Sweeps, Lathes, Lofts, Cage Deformers, Displacement, ShrinkWrap, Smoothing, Bevel/Extrude, Bend/Twist/Taper/Bulge/Shear/Squash/Stretch/Melt, Cloners, Booleans, Subdivision, Poly Reduction, LOD, Fracture, Text, Volumes, Sculpt Layers - in combination with Polygons, Splines, Fields/Falloffs, Particles, Brushes, Bones, VertexMaps, Effectors and Generators.

Correcting diameters of tubes, thickness of objects, edge bevels, polygon detail level, topology, text, repeating details like screws or holes, symmetrical details, booleans or splines curves is incredible tedious and inefficient or even impossible in a pure polygonal modeling workflow. In addition to that, a unified app allows the use of dynamics, animation, object interaction (collision deformation for example) or bones for modeling operations.

I hope to see simple but user friendly modeling tools (and finally Weight / Vertex Map painting) in the next version of LightWave Layout.

erikals
05-29-2019, 06:38 PM
Layout is geometry aware now - isn't it?
yes, it is uncertain though how efficient the code is, what possibilities it opens.
we'll have to wait and see.

prometheus
05-30-2019, 02:54 AM
Two things of procedural nature I like in blender that I wish I had in Lightwave, that is realtime fracture(blender fracture build set to autoexecute) I can turn it on and off at anytime,
change fracture types and amount of chards at any type, add subdiv simple or catmull clark for either very smooth stone shards or sharp edges.

For anything near in Lightwave you would need to have multiple objects or layers that you can fracture as you please and object replace them in layout.
And I love the skin modifier and subdiv modifiers when setting up a rough skinned figure from simple lines, this is impossible to do in lightwave since it hasnīt
got any skin technique at all in layout as a modifier to be turned on and off.

Then of course the Undo system, I can undo pretty much everything in blender if I by mistake change color or nodes that didnīt look good, I just canīt do that in Lightwave, they have started a process to
make it more undoable, but the question is if it can only get so far.

erikals
05-30-2019, 03:46 AM
they have started a process to make it more undoable, but the question is if it can only get so far.
it can go as far as they want it to, the challenge is the time it takes to code.
you can somewhat hack it by writing scripts, but that is an "ugly" hack.
we will see a more non-destructive workflow in the future, but coding takes time, heck, even my super-simple autohotkey scripts take forever to write...

 https://i.imgur.com/5iDKqDX.gif

gar26lw
05-30-2019, 04:16 AM
Layout is geometry aware now - isn't it?



i dont think so. afaict its same as it always was right back to 6 series and beyond.

erikals
05-30-2019, 05:03 AM
no, Chuck confirmed that it was added.

that said, the proof is in the... https://i.imgur.com/sSi0Gry.png

hopefully LW2020 will show some directions.

hrgiger
05-30-2019, 10:12 AM
no, Chuck confirmed that it was added.

that said, the proof is in the... https://i.imgur.com/sSi0Gry.png
.


145117

05-30-2019, 10:25 AM
I love that. How true.
So few DO LightWave any more; many TALK about it, though, a whole bunch.

Many are so upset at the WORDS not spoken by the LW3D group that, though they used to MAKE things for LW they now spew words of ill at it.

I am privileged to DO and TALK LW daily. There are a lot of new, artful tools out there. Scupltors and bricklayers still get jobs because a set of skills are that -- a set of skills.

When I think about it, LightWave is my little world. I can do there what I please and NO ONE, and I mean -NO ONE! - can tell me what to do there. It's an amazing peace of mind.

I wish for you all a peace of mind with what ever artful tool you use.

erikals
05-30-2019, 01:31 PM
my reply is...

https://i.imgur.com/F6SHOgO.jpg