PDA

View Full Version : 3D World Review of LW8



Neil_Campbell
05-25-2004, 11:51 AM
Just in case any non-subscribers aren't aware, there's a review of LW8 in the latest issue of 3D World (July).

TyVole
05-25-2004, 12:00 PM
Well?

Thumbs up or thumbs down?

cresshead
05-25-2004, 12:03 PM
what's the review like?

detailed?..or just a skimpy overview...?

and how did it fair against maya 6.0, xsi 4.0 and max 6.0?...mind you most reviews are in isolation so are a totally useless read by anyone who's looking for a 3d pro app...still if it's an "informed" review by someone who actually uses 3d app and simply not a chap/chappess who can write a bit then we have hope!

...gee i'm so cynical!...

well just about had my fill of poo 3d magazines with 6 week old news and so called tutorials with a huge amount of steps missing so my student's can't complete them...

i did try to offer video tutorials to digit and 3d world but they prefer ripping off users/reader with lack lustre efforts like digit and 3d world though i hear that splingod's excellent free videos were on a mag a while back so that was worth the £6.

...slinking off into a corner!

Neil_Campbell
05-25-2004, 12:43 PM
It's a 2 page review, so not hugely in depth. It's been produced by Benjamin Smith, and I think it's pretty balanced and fair - it's not a fanboy post, nor is he slagging off NewTek / LightWave.

Overall the review's pretty mixed. There's some positives around bones / rigging, dynamics, dope sheet, scene editor, cloth / editFX and online help. There's also a few less positive comments, primarily around the lack of Modeller / Layout integration, the fact that a lot of the new functionality is in the form of plugins which have been "piled on top of the existing architecture", lack of renderer enhancements, etc.

No real mention of the competition, certainly nothing in detail, other than the usual price point pressures with Maya 6 and XSI and the statement that NewTek is going to have to do more, faster, if it's going to stay the course.

Really it's mirroring much of what's already been said publicly on forums - certainly there were no surprises in what was said in the review.

I don't want to post too much here - there's a thing called copyright ;) Go support the broader 3D community and buy the magazine :)

blabberlicious
05-25-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Neil_Campbell
and the statement that NewTek is going to have to do more, faster, if it's going to stay the course.
)

So, basically the review is saying:
'Has Elvis left the building?"

Anyone seen him recently?

What's the chance of a comeback gig?

:-)

Neil_Campbell
05-25-2004, 02:41 PM
I guess that's one way of reading it, sure. But then every product is facing competition these days, and everyone is having to do more for less, and do it faster, and position their products accordingly.

wacom
05-25-2004, 06:11 PM
I need to read the review, but I can say for myself that the "piled on plug" thing is a little over stated, depending on which part of LW you're looking at.

For me the plug-in put into Layout are well intergrated, and ones that were piled on before are actully starting to work, and work together. There is hope here.

IK boost, for a brand new tool set, is really slick and will only get better with time. For some they may need to use it with the traditional IK, but I find I can do most things just with it- and it seems to preview faster than the old IK.

In modeler however it's a mixed bag. They are more than just slapped on, but one has to think that the extra functionality would have been in the plug-ins had the orgional developers had a better, more open SDK to work with. NewTek just used it's inside knowedge/development to do what they couldn't due to the SDK restrictions. To me the whole idea of plugins being bad is a stupid idea. How well the plug-ins intergrate is the main area of importance. Just because it's made by the first party doesn't mean it isn't a plug-in (C4D).

I also don't know what to think of the intergration idea...but it needs to be addressed. On one had if they keep them seperate they may be able to develope them "faster" in some ways. On the other hand...well we know the answer to that one. I wish that the guts of LW were in the hub, and that modeler and layout were consoles that could either appear together or appart, and be launched independently from on another by the HUB. Not like how it is now, I mean almost ALL of the guts in the hub for true intergation. OpenGL, basic mesh engine, etc. Then we could have the best of both worlds.

In the end I'm half happy, half sad and depressed about it. If the new team is more like the developments to Layout, then the future is bright, if it's like modeler got addressed...well...

omeone
05-26-2004, 02:20 AM
Sounds like a recycling of their 7.0 review then, with a list of the new features thrown in. Cresshead, Im with you, all too often they publish speculations and gossip as authoritive statements. The tutorials ha! jeez, call them tutorials??? (actually there was some great material put in there by the Worms of Art, though the publishers managed to screw that up too).

And as for the bit about your tutorials... that sounds like typical behaviour on their part... anyone remember the 3DPalace video tutorials from Larky? could you even watch more than 30 secs?

And trust me, the Splinegod tutorials literally fell in their lap, they dont deserve any credit for that, that was just Larry being Larry.

Vincent Brumbac
05-26-2004, 09:37 PM
Isn't everything in Max a plugin? Plugins are cool as features can be improved easier without having to rewrite the entire software. Why do people think this is a negative?

Vincent D. Brumback

Hervé
05-26-2004, 11:37 PM
Basically, they dont say anything we dont know yet.... lw8 is no big deal, .... working in my new LW8 environ. did not change anything from working in 7.5... so at least there is a nice content that we can at least use for some pro stuff... so NT You better hurry repairing the big holes you have in your socks....:D

Hervé
05-26-2004, 11:41 PM
BTW, I stopped buying 3D world a long time ago, coz I've found it to be just gossip stuff....:rolleyes:

cresshead
05-27-2004, 02:27 AM
so far in w 8 i seem to get on better by switching it back to lw7.5 "tab style" as nearly everything has moved from where i know it should be..though i will persist in the new u.i layout as i try and re learn where things are...re changes with lw 8..if your into character animation then lw8 is a real boost up from lw7.5 with the rig files and new bone tools plus bone dynamics and ik booster as well as the soft body dynamic etc..and modeller is a bit of a boost with some of it's new stuff as well..overall lightwave 8 is not a huge leap from lightwave 7.5..but as it's a 0.5 upgrade i wasn't expecting huge leaps esp seeing as the dev team is totally new...it's more of a consolidation and new begining release which promises that the new dev team can deliver good solid tools and are inovating as well.

when we get f prime inside all the hooks to lightwave 8.0 then i'll guess that lightwave 8.1 will be a much more bigger deal for most people as they will be doing all their rendering and previews in f prime which will change their day to day work in the program no matter what the 3d scenes are for.

i'm also keen to get the printed manual as i bet most lw 8 users are like me and are missing huge chunks of info on new stuff in lw 8 currently.

steve g

Hervé
05-27-2004, 02:42 AM
100 right Cresshead, I just dicovered the backdrop booster.....

I think like you ...... only way to save our bott is a nice integration of King F_prime & lw;)

theo
05-27-2004, 08:05 AM
I am not responding specifically to anyone in this thread because I pretty much know where most of you guys stand- I am just adding my opinion-

In spite of all the reservations and misgivings we all have about this latest upgrade the one thing that MUST be kept in perspective and one that I will fight for is the new dynamics approach. I will repeat this as much as I have to.

I use dynamics and PFX all the time and the new way of doing it NOW is a HUGE time saver- integrating the entire process within the Objects panel is nothing short of brilliant. I have shaved hours off of jobs already just with the efficiency of this approach.

This ALONE- in spite of a few hassles and letdowns- is worth a couple of hundred bucks of the upgrade price, TO ME anyways, which leaves DFX+ for the remainder, WHICH means (who gives a crap about some freak reviewer) that if you don't use dynamics or PFX much that you have done much better than you realize at this stage.

Soooo... our intermediate-grade architectural people (is there anyone who CANNOT model buildings and houses for crying out loud- this is the easiest thing to do in a "3D" program for goodness sake) may be left feeling a bit cold but we sapiens using the more ADVANCED sections are pretty darn happy.

Trust me I have had so many crashes with LW8 I am just sick and tired of it- but when I am in a complicated scene working with dynamic objects and PFX this becomes a Balm of Gilead of sorts.

omeone
05-27-2004, 08:26 AM
Ben Smith is one of LW's very foremost users & effects animators.

Neil_Campbell
05-27-2004, 08:35 AM
Soooo... our intermediate-grade architectural people (is there anyone who CANNOT model buildings and houses for crying out loud- this is the easiest thing to do in a "3D" program for goodness sake)


I was trying to think of a suitable insult to respond with, but thought better of it, since we're all professionals here. Aren't we?

theo
05-27-2004, 09:03 AM
Neil---- You don't have to come up with an insult because my comment wasn't meant as one.

Besides since when has professionalism been a harbinger of anything good? Look at the world around you Campbell- some of the largest "professional" corporations in the world are getting their CEO's and on down jerked up by the SEC.

I have done architectural work and still do on occasion and this type of modelling and animation work, in more cases than not, is SIMPLE compared to the rigors of true organic modelling and special effects animation, which I also do.

The average architectural user will, most likely, rarely use LW's advanced toolset- this category of 3D frankly doesn't NEED it for most projects. This from a guy who's been there done that. Why do you think the market is flooding with architectural modellers? Because most guys lean logical and can very quickly pick up modelling advanced boxes like house and such. But ORGANIC modelling tends to separate the logicals from the true creatives.

And one more caveat here Campbell- if you are one of the few architectural people out there that is using the more capable layers of LW's toolset and you are a professional then I do apologize for offending you. But if you will at least look at my comment with an open mind I believe you will agree with me at least to some extent.

Omeone---- I didn't realize the reviewer was Ben Smith.

ben_smith
05-27-2004, 09:06 AM
> Ben Smith is one of LW's very foremost users & effects
> animators.

blimey.

thanks.

BeeVee
05-27-2004, 09:12 AM
And he's won a BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Theatre Arts) for his effects work - go on Ben! Bask! :)

B

omeone
05-27-2004, 09:18 AM
oops erm, forgot to say, a certain magazine used to be a lot better :)
nah its just the format that ruins the tutorials :o

@ben_smith, well - a spade's a spade, I'd love to be as 'sapien' as you

theo
05-27-2004, 09:20 AM
A spade?

omeone
05-27-2004, 09:22 AM
just an expression that means 'Im calling it like it is", not any kind of personal comment, though I now see it could be taken that way (wrongly)

theo
05-27-2004, 09:29 AM
Oneone---
I don't think your comment could have been taken out of context from the way you meant it... it just looked funnily peculiar.

Bones_3DFC
05-27-2004, 10:20 AM
3D World magazine is expensive.

art
05-27-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Hervé
100 right Cresshead, I just dicovered the backdrop booster.....


I've heard about it, but I have not discovered it yet. Where is it and what do I use it for?

theo
05-27-2004, 10:28 AM
Software demos are as exciting as a plastic cherry pie. This always motivated me to buy magazines.

Neil_Campbell
05-27-2004, 10:59 AM
You don't have to come up with an insult because my comment wasn't meant as one.
Likewise - no hard feelings


I have done architectural work and still do on occasion and this type of modelling and animation work, in more cases than not, is SIMPLE compared to the rigors of true organic modelling and special effects animation, which I also do.
It depends on your perspective. Sure some archivis work may look relatively simple from a modelling point of view, but it can be very complex - architecture (at least good architecture) is about more than just boxes - too imply otherwise is a little simplistic. And I agree that archivis work doesn't touch most of LW's animation toolset. Instead, we tend to spend a lot more time focussed on materials and lighting. But it doesn't make us any less professional, or less deserving of advanced 3D software - we just use different parts of the same tools.


Because most guys lean logical and can very quickly pick up modelling advanced boxes like house and such. But ORGANIC modelling tends to separate the logicals from the true creatives.
I think that's another gross generalisation, and insulting as well, even if it's not intended that way. If you think there's no such thing as creativity in architecture then you've been doing it wrong ;)

JML
05-27-2004, 11:17 AM
I work for a architectural company and theo , our models are not
just a few boxes put together in 5 minutes !

there is a huge difference in modelling a cool 2 000polys house
and a 3 000 000 polys building.

it's 2 different use of LW, organic and architectural

I mostly do (a lot of) organic stuff at home, both are just different.

you might not use dynamics and fancy animation stuff
in a architectural render but there is other stuff you need to work
on or worry about.

what is your architectural experience theo ?
show us some image of your "simple" architectural work

Hervé
05-27-2004, 11:18 AM
hello Art, Backdrop booster is the windows menu, just under backdrop..... kinda neat stuff, basically good for Radiosity backdrop, ... before that booster, 100% white was not enough... now you can go as much as you want....;)

theo
05-27-2004, 12:27 PM
Whooo... My ears are getting singed here guys. The point about Archies being intermedates ain't worth fighting for seeing as I'll probably get the crap beat out of me. I wish though that brass knuckles weren't allowed as I might have a slim chance.

But, I think it is safe to say, if you can for one second quit being so defensive, that you guys DON'T fit into the section of my comments where I say "average" user. AVERAGE....aVERage. There's a whole lot of'em out there and the CG galleries of the internet are full of'em.

So I gather from the pummelling that is being foisted upon my unfortunate neck and shoulders that you guys "sound" like you are above average which means.... sigh.....that.....ahem- YOU ARE ABOVE THE INTERMEDIARIES and in the class of the architectural gods. There.... that should win some points.

I grabbed a couple of close-by shots-

art
05-27-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Hervé
hello Art, Backdrop booster is the windows menu, just under backdrop..... kinda neat stuff, basically good for Radiosity backdrop, ... before that booster, 100% white was not enough... now you can go as much as you want....;)

I feel so stupid that I missed it... It was right there on the menu.
On the other hand I did not spend as much time as I wanted in LW yet, maybe that's why.

Thanks Herve!

JML
05-27-2004, 12:38 PM
like i said theo,
there is a huge difference in modelling/rendering a 2 000polys house with 2 spotlight , and a 3 000 000 polys building (or more) with raytrace stuff like radiosity at high resolutions.

Hervé
05-27-2004, 01:01 PM
could you show us an example , I am curious to see rendering..:)

theo
05-27-2004, 01:18 PM
Oh good grief newtek, if you want something with 3,000,000 polys I can dig something up pretty easily but I don't want to.

Just the simple building with the chairs I enclosed totalled, for the entire inside-out fly-through, over a million polys. And sure its simple, that's my point and I have done more involved that is simple as well.

And what do you have to do for radiosity anways?... push a button and wait two days. I mean let's get real here since you pushed the ball again to keep it rolling. The problems with radiosity is there are none- it just takes forever to render it. Ok, ok... a few lighting issues have to be worked through, so what.

I have built characters that are only five feet tall not 300 and only 2 feet wide not 400 that are over a million polys easy, not that this is advisable but we are playing who has the most polys, right.

All I am saying is that unless you are actually DESIGNING the building the process of modelling architectural work is demanding but not necessarily creative and does not require the level of intensity that character modelling requires. This is a plain fact. I mean if you are doing surreal-like environments sure this is cool and you have stepped into another direction. But the average corporate structure can be easily modelled and textured. Maybe ten years ago this was a specialty but not nowadays.

The thing is I am an artist like most guys in these forums and I will stick to my guns by saying that architectural modelling is mostly right angle stuff that is just not creative. Sure the final product takes an artists eye to reach completion but to get there is less emotional and more logical.

I don't want to knock the architectural industry but I don't think Lightwave is going to anytime soon make them central to their marketing plan. Because the same stuff practically can be produced in a huge range of other software products, why spend time trying to compete with stuff like this when Lightwave can offer a whole bunch of other cool features.

ddho1981
05-27-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by theo
Because most guys lean logical and can very quickly pick up modelling advanced boxes like house and such. But ORGANIC modelling tends to separate the logicals from the true creatives.


wow....advanced boxes--that really stings, and i realize you didn't intend it to. keep in mind there are designers/architects/students here that use lightwave for more than just visualization, but for actual design. and it's not just the modeling of complex details (as seen in the works of say, helmut jahn, or renzo piano) that become painfully tedious to create, but the lighting of interior spaces. other things that are rather arduous to work with is editing complex curtain wall systems--especially if they are curved or angled in some of our even more "advanced boxes."


And one more caveat here Campbell- if you are one of the few architectural people out there that is using the more capable layers of LW's toolset and you are a professional then I do apologize for offending you. But if you will at least look at my comment with an open mind I believe you will agree with me at least to some extent.


and while, personally, I do agree with you to some extent that organic modeling is more difficult (more so i think because of the animation considerations that you have to take in for the meshes). I think there is a bit of a fudge-factor that organic modeling allows that is much more leniant than in the precision architecture.

and one other thing just because there's a ton of arch-viz out there, DOESN'T mean that it is THAT easy to do.... i'd say there's just as many folks doing organic modeling/animation out there (well, more so), but that doesn't make me think it is easy.... that's simply what that WANT to do.... just like i do architecture because that's what i WANT to do--not because it is easy (which, by the way, it isn't). no harm intended by this post--just wanted to throw in my perspective.

ddho1981
05-27-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by theo
I don't want to knock the architectural industry but I don't think Lightwave is going to anytime soon make them central to their marketing plan. Because the same stuff practically can be produced in a huge range of other software products, why spend time trying to compete with stuff like this when Lightwave can offer a whole bunch of other cool features.

i've always disliked this logic.... first of all, newtek acknowledges visualization as one of lightwave's uses so it should in fact address the needs of that user-base. you say why spend time competing with the other 3d architecture visualization products? the exact same thing could be said about 3d animation and organic modeling. that argument simply doesn't make any sense. personally, i don't care if arch-viz is "Central" to their marketing plan, but it shouldn't be discounted just because other software does the same thing.

theo
05-27-2004, 01:56 PM
Well stated ddho....With the following caveat...

There is a huge influx to 3D right now, for one, because there is a certain level in 3D that is "easier" to achieve than other levels in 3D as well as easier than other skills required even in a paint program like Painter or in a creative apps like Photoshop or Illustrator.

I don't think for one second that one starts out learning his/her modelling program by developing a mesh of their girl/boyfriend, ususally it is a house or a structure with right angles.

I mean come on- A person with no artistic skill at all, perfectly incapable of painting or drawing or developing in a creative software app, can pretty much open a 3D app like Lightwave and afer a couple of quick lessons be rendering out a reasonably decent structure. That's my point.

ANYONE can follow Dan Ablan's house structure tutorial and with a proper render put something in a gallery somehwere that looks reasonably well done to the "average" eye.

I think there is an understandable amount of defensiveness over this issue because everyone wants to believe that their skills are special, which they are of course in a nice sense, but it is the software that has a tendency to equalize the situation. NOT the skillsets of the average user.

I have seen unbelievably accurate representations of let's say, for example, a camera. Fine. But so what. You just put the boxes and booleans together but the software is what does most of the work. Apply some radiosity which you just push a button to get and you have a photorealistic representation of something on your desk.

BUT, ddho if have read this far--------------------------------
IF the artist is a "designer" of said piece and is reasonably sklled he has my complete respect. Because he is translating a MENTAL image into another dimension. One HE/SHE has created and the software is his creative slave then rather than the other way around.

ddho1981
05-27-2004, 02:27 PM
well, i suppose based on a lot of the visualization out there, it might seem that "just check radiosity" does the trick--but i think that is grossly oversimplifying the lighting process. it would be like me saying animation is nothing more than setting keyframes and letting the software do the interpolation--it's just not that simple. it CAN be, i agree, but let's not over-generalize it. i think that is why arch-viz'ers would tend to get defensive.

in terms of the software being the slave, i agree 100%--that's WHY we are asking for certain features so that we can worry less about HOW to do something and more about CREATING.

i'm afraid we've gone WAY off topic, so perhaps we should continue this in another thread--i think it's an interesting discussion and its important for people to understand the process of others so that we don't underestimate the needs of one another.

art
05-27-2004, 02:30 PM
By similiar token (and I have NO significant human/humanoid/animal/creature/drawing skills whatsoever), I can take some spheres, beveled blobs, funky shapes, drag points around, do some deformations here and there, and create an (unrealistic, yes) creature. Then I can put some decent texture on it and some simple light setup (from Nicholas Boughen's book) and come up with an organic render that I put in an online gallery. I could even impress some people.

I think it is the imagination that plays importan role here. Some people can more easily imagine (and thus model) beautiful organic shapes, whether they represent living organisms, or anything else. Others (I guess that would include me too, although Im working on my organic skills) can invent great "industrial" style designs, whether they are buildings, complicated mechanism and other "man made" items.

This is my point of view. I can appreciate any good modeling job, no matter what the subject it. I like realistic humans and creatures just as I like cleverly designed/rendered mechanical "things", even if they were created with nothing more than booleaned boxes.

Just as we might get influx or arch-vis people, many of them being average skilled, so we can get just as great influx of average organic modelers, given the recent proliferation of 3d software. Everyone and their mothers is trying to do their version of "lord of the rings", so to speak. (who? me too? :) )

Neil_Campbell
05-27-2004, 02:38 PM
Thanks for making me a god Theo - no-one's ever done that before ;) Is it permanent?

Seriously though, different people use different tools to do different things. Personally, I'm far from a 3D god - there are stacks of people out there who are far more artistically oriented, and technically skilled than I am. They would run f***ing rings around me, I have no illusions about that. And neither of these have anything to do with the fact that half my work is architectural visualisation. People are simply wired differently from one another.

I do hear what you're saying re orginality of design, but I think you're glossing over the point a little. Many "designs" produced by architects are incomplete or inconsistent - and even when they are complete, often bits of them simply don't work - simply saying it's moving boxes around and booleaning is an unfortunate choice of words really. Architecture takes hard work, and if you want to produce decent results, artistic skill. The same is true of organic modelling and animation. I mean, there's a lot of highly skilled AND artistic people doing organic work based on detailed concept designs drawn by other people - like a lot of the crew at WETA or ILM. Are you saying they lack artistic skills simply because they're just pushing points around in a box to see how closely they can match the 3 isometric drawings in the background of their viewports?

paulrus
05-27-2004, 02:51 PM
I'm just glad you're not working for NewTek marketing Theo....

Lightwave: Only superior, creative character designers need apply. You dullard and half-wit arch-viz and CAD luddites crawl back into your caves.

We know you didn't mean to insult people.... you're just looking down your nose at them.

theo
05-27-2004, 03:06 PM
Yeah... I do want to be careful not to make the efforts of a real arch-vis guy seem easy because I know it is hard work but so is digging ditches- that isn't what I am talking about though. And I also have no intention of over-generalizing even though I am sure that is how it appears. I understand the radiosity stuff well enough but anyone who does work with it understands pretty quickly the aspects of its limitations.

Neil----I would say that the guys at ILM that produce 3D visualizations based on conceptual drawings do not require ARTISTIC skill rather they require the necessary modelling skills and they must be fast. Where would the artisitc skills enter in at pray tell? They are simply taking an original concept and putting it to a 3D form- this is technical not creative. The properly modelled object is fine but the conceptual artist is where the real creativity takes place. If they are involved in the concept side, fine they have crossed into my "Creative Playing Field".

And your point about taking the concept and expanding upon it and making it actually function seems to me the real essence of architectural visualization- NOT taking a massive CAD file and putting that to a better version of 3D or even taking a concept and rebuilding it- THAT IS TECHNICAL and most people can be trained to be a technician but most cannot be trained to envison a solution which is the creative aspect and one that is much more challenging.

And ooh- this is going to hurt, but tweening between keyframes in an animation sequence is work being performed by the software app not the animator.

The whole thing is what is the software doing to us? Are we maximizing IT or is the software maximizing US and actually creating a similar goo because it has a tendency to do this.

theo
05-27-2004, 03:13 PM
Paulrus- I also feel this way about my own projects that are arch-vis related. It is sometimes rather boring to be honest with you.

I am really not interested in offending the arch-vis guys at all.

And I am sure the ones that have been very strong with their opinion here are probably at the top of their class or are heading there and I respect them for that.

.....but maybe one day they'll move up in the world...
:D JUST KIDDING!!!

Neil_Campbell
05-27-2004, 03:21 PM
Okay Theo, if I understand you correctly you're saying that unless you're actually involved in developing a concept from nothing, you're not creative, but simply technical? I guess that's as good a definition of creativity as any.

But then wouldn't that be the case irrespective of whether you're doing architectural vis or organic work?

And how then do you draw the boundary around 'creativity' on other topics? For example, someone hands you a fully modelled and textured representation of an office complex, and you have the job of setting up the lighting and camera angle and doing the rendering and post work to make it look "impressive to potential customers". Are you saying there's no creativity in that? If so, that rules out photography as a creative art, doesn't it?

theo
05-27-2004, 03:54 PM
Neil... you are once again proving yourself very capable in bringing up excellent points.

But I will have to be honest with... I do have issues with a large portion of photography being "creative". There is creative photography defintely but here again if your grandmother snaps a great shot of your child maybe giddily swinging on a tire hung by a rope from an old oak tree on a midsummer's evening is she creative (outside of the fact that she may actually be a creative)? I think not.

The shot may be creative but the question of the level of her personal creativity cannot be determined by this photograph alone. In my opinion now.

To your point about the "creative boundary" that I have to admit you are definitely getting into creative territories. But at this stage the lighting is an organic relationship. See Neil, I believe that the lighting even though represented in some form in the arch drawing still has no visible boundaries that the objects in the drawing possess. So to take a light in Lightwave and maneuver it to create the form and shape is on the edges of my "Creative Playing Field".

Compositing at some stages is creative and at other stages is strictly technical. The creative level is where you are completely in charge of developing and employing the filters and tools within the app to impart the look and feel of the project and this is where you, in my opinion, step completely into the "Creative Playing Field".

If a client said, "Neil I need a building to look a certain way and be certain color but I need you to develop the concept in 3D as you see it according to my verbalized specs" in my opinon you have crossed completely into the "Creative Playing Field".

In my opinion creativity is creating something from nothing or creating something from dissimilar parts that otherwise would not represent the creation.

This probably sounds much more orthodox than how I mean it.

Yog
05-27-2004, 04:01 PM
Theo.
I'm pretty sure the reason you are getting such robust replies is that intentionally or unintensionally your remarks seem to be demeaning what a lot of us do for a living, and not many people would take that lightly.

The boards are full of architectural renders you say ? The most likely reason is that there are a lot more paying jobs for people doing architectural visualisation than there are jobs for character animators. Not so glamourous to be sure, but it pays the bills. And if there are a lot more jobs for arch-vis, wouldn't that be an indication where Newtek should be aiming their resources ?

When you bring up the difference between "artistic" work and "technical" work, (hinting strongly that technical work is far less worthy), I'd say that is a red herring in a thread about what direction Newtek should be heading in. The real question is where are most of the paying 3D jobs ?

You also ask why Newtek should try and compete in the "basic" modelling market, when they could be spending their time on cool new features ?
An alternative way of looking at it is, why are Newtek falling so far behind on the basic functions, but instead spend their time developing "gimmicks" (IK-Booster) ?
Seven years ago I talked my company into buying 7 seats of Lightwave for architectural visualisation. It was cheeper than the alternatives and did the basics just as well as the others. Next week I am being called in to make recommendations on overhauling the 3D department, as well as replacing the original 7 licences we will be looking at anouther 3 seats. Unfortunately, with no siginificant price difference, and most of the other packages doing the "basics" better than LW (i agree with you on that) , I cannot in all consciousness recommend LW to be the adopted software.

Bones_3DFC
05-27-2004, 04:13 PM
I bet none of you guys can speed-model a twenty-minute toilet as well as I can.

theo
05-27-2004, 04:30 PM
That's a pile of crap Bones_3DFC...:D


Yog-------
Weeeeellll.......... I am scratching my head as to where cash ever once entered into the previous pucture.

Not to be disrespectful friend but DUH!!... of course in MOST cases the technician will get paid far more than the creative. But this was never an issue I brought up and have no intention of discussing it now because we all can agree on this aspect. And because this IS the case I am mystified as to why my remarks are being taken as so demeaning.

So please let's not use "cash" and "creative" in the same sentence as they don't normally go hand in hand...sadly.

But I will have to relent on the "basic" modelling aspect of your post. You are correct there. That is an area that would actually be useful to ALL. And I think I will allow myself to stand corrected on this one after much self deliberation.

omeone
05-27-2004, 04:30 PM
:D @ Bones,

I dunno, I can't read all those posts - I do arch-vis for a living and from a modelling point of view, I find it a much bigger challenge in Lw than organic stuff, I think that's because the toolset is oriented that way.

I could get an Arch-vis model out 3-4 times faster in Microstation, with more detail and it would still be parametric. But I wouldn't have the surfacing control or animation tools LW gives me.

and theo, sorry but you are not coming accross very well, and as much as you protest I think you've isolated yourself from half the community here, but obviously the half that you're too good for, so you dont mind, ;) :D :D

theo
05-27-2004, 04:55 PM
Listen, if communicating ones ideas leads to an action of isolation then so be it. Heck even if I stepped out of bounds so what? Who doesn't in an open debate. I just happened to obviously it sore spot here I didn't know existed.

I haven't attacked anyone personally, I feel I have been very friendly and to top it off I HAVE made concessions.

And I have had to endure YOUR opinions...which not once have I felt isolated in doing so nor would I take any action to promote that- this is an open society obviously moderated as most governmental bodies large and small are and as long as the ideas are expressed in a respectful and thoughtful manner a person should feel free to his express thoughts.

So.... now back to leveling archi's..... JUST TEASING.... I love you guys even though you do seem to be a bit on the sensitive side.....;)

Bones_3DFC
05-27-2004, 05:16 PM
I love you guys, man.

http://www.3dfightclub.com/~bones/uploads/20_min_toilet.jpg

cresshead
05-27-2004, 05:23 PM
it's a big world..plenty room for everyone!

re lightwave

for arch viz artist would be nice to have better lighting tools such as ies light types

would be nice to have light bounce surface properties like we have in lightscape 3.2 brought into lightwave 8.xx and have templates too.

would also be nice to have a "camera" in modeler if only to line up a background image in a 3d view similar to perspective view but a real camera view....

would be nice in modeler to have a mini stack or history for lathed lines so we can tweek a line and the lathe updates similar to what we have in 3dsmax with reference or instanced geometry...

and more///..... lightwave needs instancing in modeler and a history/stack soon.

theo
05-27-2004, 06:02 PM
Geesh Bones that oughta get the archi's to love ya back!:D

omeone
05-27-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by cresshead

for arch viz artist would be nice to have better lighting tools such as ies light types

would be nice to have light bounce surface properties like we have in lightscape 3.2 brought into lightwave 8.xx and have templates too.

would also be nice to have a "camera" in modeler if only to line up a background image in a 3d view similar to perspective view but a real camera view....

would be nice in modeler to have a mini stack or history for lathed lines so we can tweek a line and the lathe updates similar to what we have in 3dsmax with reference or instanced geometry...

and more///..... lightwave needs instancing in modeler and a history/stack soon.

and dynamic snaps

and dynamic construction planes with compass (well, just copy accudraw and infosnap from Microstation)

re IES lights, I have no clue about programming, but I'd say we'd have a better chance of Steve Worley supporting them in FPrime sooner than Lightwave natively at the moment, that's where Ive been directing that suggestion lately anyway...

Bones that's a crappy pice of work, Im goin to have to come over there and flush the nonsense out of ya!

JML
05-27-2004, 08:16 PM
theo, here is an example ,

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20487&highlight=interface+multimedia

this scene was under 1 million If I remember right.
some of our other scenes are a lot heavier but this one is the only one posted here.
some of our other scenes are interiors.

*** From theo:
And what do you have to do for radiosity anways?... push a button and wait two days. I mean let's get real here since you pushed the ball again to keep it rolling. The problems with radiosity is there are none- it just takes forever to render it. Ok, ok... a few lighting issues have to be worked through, so what. ***


to answer to your question theo,
the thing with radiosity (especially raytrace radiosity)
is to find the RIGHT parameters for it does NOT take 2 days
to render and having a noise-free render !

I have deadline to respect so I can't just put the radiosity
rays to 10*32 and wait 5 days!

that's also why I only use raytrace radiosity on exteriors views,
it takes too much time for interiors to remove the noise.
so we use area lights and sometimes interpolated rad which
sometimes require more setup work to get a clean render.

did you ever use radiosity or area lights in a render ?!?!
or just on a small object as a test?

Hervé
05-27-2004, 11:22 PM
I am sorry to jump in, but Where do you live Theo...? on Mars ? Jeeez I think today Cash and Creative are friends.... or ennemies, but they are..... together... you see Theo, The Catholic Church has no more money to give to artists to paint Cathedrals ceilings.... no offense... push the radiosity button... sure Theo....

.... and Otacon, .... I am talking to Otacon... easy push button...? Com'on Theo, 3D character dont impress anyone these days... they all look basically the same.... allez ! Fantasia !:D ;)

theo
05-28-2004, 06:18 AM
JM obviously beautiful work...... but it is also just as obvious to me that no one is actually "reading" what I am saying here. As is the case in most situations people draw an assumption or an assesment based on a glance not on looking or "reading" the details.

And the fact that everybody seems to miss the point where I have mentioned that the basis of my posts have been a comment on my "general" feeling of an overall group, in this case archi-visus- not a complete far-reaching assesment of the "entire" group.

As I mentioned to Neil, which I am sure was not read by anyone,
that the architectural level of your rendering there JM is purely technical if you took the concept strictly from an existing architectural rendering but the creative level of ability is the next step of lighting and shading that literally makes it quite nice and moves the work into a higher plane. But I think that extra level of dedication to detail is what separates the intermediates from the professionals.

But obviously you were to caught up in your own negative assumptions relating to my comments to rightfully assume that your talents were not the ones I was sharing my strong opinions about.

And HERVE... it isn't just about 3D character modelling but the creatively inspired approach to 3D in general, of which I do admit, I am biased toward the character side but also the focus on breaking new ground with the medium.

And I guess in some respects you are right... cash and creative can be used in the same sentence but that is strictly hinged on your interpretation of "cash". In most cases clients have their own definition of "cash" that can easily be used in their sentence with creative but not mine.

I will tell you something- once we get true displacement mapping out of ZBrush into Lightwave in a real fluid fashion character modelling will just as easily fall into what I have been critical of the archi's about.

sailor
05-28-2004, 08:34 AM
Hi Theo,

first of all please prove how creative you are and change that horrible avatar of yours that ruins my eyes everytime i open a forum....thanx :) u certainly have a very creative way of mixing colors but it still is ugly as hell (but creative) i really think that trying to define creativity is absolutely pointless...the absolute need of putting tags on who is creative and who is not gives a clear idea of who you are...i dont do any archi viz but i DO believe that it is creative (and very creative) and personally i find architecture in general to be one of the most beautiful form of art ....
the same goes for industrial design and any mechanical design...i find beauty also in the magic of engineering because it is at the same time an abstract art and something that surrounds us everyday...it is beautiful and it is alive....it is not only a passive beauty but it lives we live with it , its functional etc....

well i dont want to bother you longer because you have some work to do ....go and make a nicer avatar please!!! and if you really can't then at least show your good taste and grab somewhere a nice photography....i do think that even the choice and use of existing art is a proove of creativity and taste

:)

theo
05-28-2004, 09:01 AM
Sailor--- the avatar shall stay though your opinions are, of course,
respected though most certainly not agreed with.

And I will reiterate once again and agree once again though I think honestly this is just a purely intellectual argument and one that is being perceived as emotional by many, which it is not emotional at all.

Architecture IS beautiful, ALL design is beautiful, even design that may be deemed distasteful to some is beautiful to others. And, yes, mechanical design has a certain beauty to it as well. But beauty doesn't mean creative it just means CREATIVELY INSPIRED. Just because you see a beautiful woman doesn't mean she is creative, same with architecture or whatever. The beauty is the visual reality of creative inspiration that was once in a gene (in the case of the beautiful girl) or in a mind somewhere (in the case of architecture for example).

But, I'll say it again another way, the molding shop that fabricates your creatively inspired mechanical prototype or the contractor that builds your creatively inspired home is not necessarily creative. They are technicians of a sort not creatives. Same with the modeller that fabricated a mesh based on a concept drawing, another technician at work, unless (again) he/she offered valuable input into the mesh work that improved the creative value.

The end result, sure, may be a thing of beauty which has stemmed from creative inspiration but the middle guy that is instructed to reproduce that which was born of creativity is no more creative due to this process than the man on the moon, UNLESS he offered valuable input that was taken and applied to said creation.

omeone
05-31-2004, 12:49 PM
Apolgies for bringing this thread slighly back on topic ;)

Ive just read the review, and I'd have to say it's one of the most honest (almost unknown these days) sw reviews Ive read in a long time and I think is a fair representation of the vast majority of LW users.

It scored high (something like 8 out of 10, but I reckon that's cos LW is a great piece of software anyway, release 8 or not)